ANALYSIS OF THE DEFINITION
•OF ECOLOGICALLY-VITAL GROUND WATER
UNDER THE PROPOSED GROUND-WATER
CLASSIFICATION GUIDELINES
Prepared for
The Office of Ground-Water Protection
and
The Office of Policy Analysis
April 1986
ICF INCORPORATED International Squ^e
1850 K Street, Northwest, Washington, D. C. 20006
-------
ANALYSIS OF THE DEFINITION
OF ECOLOGICALLY-VITAL GROUND WATER
UNDER THE PROPOSED GROUND-WATER
CLASSIFICATION GUIDELINES
Prepared for
The Office of Ground-Water Protection
and
The Office of Policy Analysis
April 1986
-------
ANALYSIS OF THE DEFINITION
OF ECOLOGICALLY-VITAL GROUND WATER
UNDER THE PROPOSED GROUND-WATER
CLASSIFICATION GUIDELINES
OVERVIEW
Over the past year, EPA's Office of Ground-Water Protection has been
developing the Agency's Ground Water Classification Guidelines. The
Classification Guidelines propose three classes of ground water based on their
value to society, use, and vulnerability to contamination. Class I ground
waters deserving "special" protection have received much study recently. One
of the key definitions for designating Class I ground water is
"ecologically-vital" ground water where a ground-water discharge within a
sensitive ecological system supports a unique habitat. The term "ground-water
discharge" means an area of land beneath which there is a net annual transfer
of water from the saturated zone to a surface water body, land surface, or
root zone. A "sensitive ecological system" is defined as an aquatic, wetland,
or terrestrial ecosystem located in a ground-water discharge area. A "unique
habitat" is primarily defined as a habitat for an endangered or threatened
species. (These and other terms are defined in Attachment A.)
During January 1986, the Office of Ground-Water Protection (OGWP) and the
Office of Policy Analysis (OPA) were assisted by ICF Incorporated and
supported by Geraghty & Miller Inc. in analyzing the practical effects of
defining ground water as Class I ecologically-vital.
A work group of interagency officials and public interest group
representatives was convened on January 15 and again on January 29 to provide
expert peer review of the proposed Guidelines definitions, to review case
studies for testing the definitions, and to determine the extent to which
-------
-2-
classifying ecologically-vital ground waters would result in Class I
determinations. (A list of the work group members is presented in
Attachment B.)
ANALYTICAL TASKS
Several analytical tasks were carried out during this study. These helped
shape recommendations offered by the work group for classifying and
determining the extent of ecologically-vital ground waters. These tasks are
briefly described below.
Case Studies
Four case studies were developed for the work group to apply and test the
currently proposed definitions of ecologically-vital ground water. The case
studies represented a broad selection of unique habitats and hydrogeologic
settings. Federal and state agencies were consulted to determine whether the
unique habitats cited in each case were within a hypothetical classification
review area (CRA). In addition, each case study illustrated a situation where
a federal endangered or threatened species was known to have a habitat near or
within the CRA. Available hydrogeologic information was used to determine the
location of ground-water discharge areas (i.e., sensitive ecological systems)
within the CRA. The proposed definitions were then applied to each case to
determine whether the ground water was Class I ecologically-vital. (Each of
these case studies is presented in Attachment C.)
The case studies were prepared for illustrative purposes only. They
should not be interpreted as the actual classification of an area. The case
studies illustrate various situations that may be encountered when classifying
-------
-3-
ground waters on a site-specific basis. They illustrate the procedures for
determining whether or not ecologically-vital ground waters are present.
Simply because a unique habitat is located in a classification review area,
ground water is not automatically designated ecologically-vital. A sensitive
ecological system (as defined in Attachment A) must be present within the
unique habitat and a determination must also be made that the ground water is
highly vulnerable to contamination. (Vulnerability is determined by applying
EPA's DRASTIC index: a score of 150 or greater indicates highly vulnerable
ground waters generally in the eastern U.S. and a score of 120 or greater
indicates highly vulnerable ground waters generally in the western U.S. A
complete description of how to determine a DRASTIC score is presented in the
Guidelines.)
In the first case study, the CRA directly intersects the critical habitat
of a small endangered fish, the Maryland darter. After determining that a
sensitive ecological system is present within this species' habitat and
analyzing the vulnerability of the ground waters by applying DRASTIC (a score
greater than 150 was assumed), the ground water underlying the CRA is
determined to be Class I ecologically-vital.
In the second case study, prevailing karst terrain requires that the
classification review area be expanded to include nearby discharge areas.
When the CRA is expanded, it includes two potential unique habitats: the
Mammouth Cave National Park and the critical habitat of the Kentucky cave
shrimp. Consultation with the Mammouth Cave National Park supervisor
indicates that this park is designated and managed for the protection of its
ecological values and therefore it should be considered a unique habitat for
the purposes of classifying ground waters. This consultation is important
-------
-4-
because some national parks are managed as historic sites (e.g., Clara Barton
house in Glen Echo, Maryland). Ground water located in national parks that
are managed for values other than ecological protection (e.g., historic or
recreation values), would not be eligible for Class I "ecologically-vital"
designation. They would be protected under Class II. The presence of a
critical habitat of a listed, federal endangered species within the extended
CRA is another indication that a unique habitat is present. Thus, two
different types of unique habitats are present. Individually, they each
contribute to the definition of Class I ecologically-vital ground water along
with the presence of a sensitive ecological system and highly vulnerable
ground water.
In the third case study, four alternative scenarios are analyzed to
illustrate how the presence of potential unique habitats contributes to the
determination of Class I ground waters. One scenario discusses the situation
where a CRA intersects National Forest land yet no unique habitat is present
because the forest lands are managed for multiple uses, not just the
ecological values associated with them. Therefore, the ground waters would be
classified as Class II which provides adequate protection of ground water
supporting the multiple uses for which federal forest lands are managed.
Class I determinations result in other scenarios where the CRA intersects a
wilderness area or the habitat of a listed, federal threatened species.
In the fourth case study, a CRA overlaps a historical habitat of the
bunched arrowhead, which is a listed, federal endangered plant. Consultation
with the state's Heritage Program officer confirms that the species is not
present in its historical habitat but does exist within its current habitat
-------
-5-
locations outside the CRA. The ground waters in this case are then classified
as Class II, and not Class I ecologically-vital.
These case studies show how potential ecologically-vital ground waters
would be designated under the currently proposed Guidelines for Ground-Water
Classification. More importantly, they illustrate the consultative,
case-by-case process for determining when and where ecologically-vital ground
waters should be classified. This process includes consultation with U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and State Heritage Program representatives. In
situations where a unique habitat, a sensitive ecological system, and highly
vulnerable ground water co-exist, ground waters will be classified as Class I
ecologically-vital. In cases where the status of a unique habitat is
uncertain, further consultation with appropriate federal (and state) agency
officials (e.g., U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, National Park
Service, etc.) will be required. For all federal actions, Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act1 establishes a formal consultative mechanism which
can be used by federal agencies for determining the scope of ground-water
impacts on endangered or threatened species' habitats. Similar consultative
or reporting mechanisms have also been established in the Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) Guidance of Superfund and Phase I
Location Guidance of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
Co-Location Maps
Four state maps were prepared to illustrate the co-location of CRAs and
potential unique habitats. An analysis was conducted to determine the
1 As used in this report, this act refers to the Endangered Species Act
as amended by Public Law 97-304 (The Endangered Species Act Amendments of
1982).
-------
-6-
practical effects of including different types of federal (and state) lands as
potential unique habitats in the classification guidelines. State lands were
included in this task for analytical purposes only. EPA's proposed
Ground-Water Classification Guidelines focus on the classification of ground
waters underlying facilities and sites subject to EPA regulations and
administrative authorities. For state ground-water protection programs,
states may adopt the definitions given in the Guidelines. They may in turn
expand the definitions to include other land uses that could be defined as
potential unique habitats (e.g., private lands managed for ecological
values). In this analytical task, potential unique habitats on state lands
were assumed to be similar in nature to the types of federal lands that are
typically managed for their ecological values such as parks, wildlife refuges,
wilderness areas, and habitats for endangered and threatened species.
Four states were selected for this exercise: Delaware, Maryland,
Louisiana, and California. Each state was analyzed to estimate the frequency
of CRA overlap with potential unique habitats. For this exercise, CRAs (i.e.,
circles with 2-mile radii) were drawn around the approximate location of all
RCRA treatment, storage, and disposal facilities; CERCLA NPL sites; and UIC
Class I underground injection wells that could be located on a map.2
2 References:
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Hazardous Waste
Data Management System, February 1985.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) National Priority List (NPL) sites: National Priority List: 786
Current and Proposed Sites in Order of Ranking and by State, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, October 1984.
Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program Class I Underground Injection
Wells (regulated under The Safe Drinking Water Act): Report to Congress on
Injection of Hazardous Waste, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, May 1985.
-------
-7-
Examples of unique habitats representing federal lands included the National
Parks, National Forests, National Wilderness Areas, and National Wildlife
Refuges. Unique habitats representing state land included state parks,
forests and refuges. Also included as unique habitats were the designated
critical habitats for listed federal endangered and threatened plants and
animals.3 These definitions were employed in order to examine the largest
possible extent to which unique habitats could be included in the Class I
ecologically-vital definition. Realistically, however, these analyses produce
a higher number of Class I ecologically-vital than may actually exist.
Frequency Tables of CRAs Overlapping Potential Unique Habitats
The results of the co-location mapping task are displayed in Tables 1, 2
and 3. Each table presents an estimated frequency of the number of times a
classification review area overlaps a potential federal unique habitat (i.e.,
critical habitat, national park, or "other federal land" such as federal
forests, wildlife refuges, etc.).'* The scale of each state map and the CRAs
were such that the overlap of a CRA with a potential unique habitat could be
estimated. The results of this analysis provide a first order approximation
of the frequency that the CRA of an EPA regulated activity would likely
intersect a potential unique habitat and therefore require a Class I
ecologically-vital review.
3 Reference: 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants, Subpart B - Lists.
* Similar frequencies for potential state unique habitats have been
estimated using the proposed guidelines for determining federal unique
habitats. These estimates are presented for illustrative purposes only. The
States will be responsible for determining which state lands will be
considered for unique habitat designation.
-------
-8-
For this exercise, it was not possible to determine with certainty the
number of CRAs having Class I ecologically-vital ground water. Only a
detailed site-specific analysis can determine this. Nevertheless, an attempt
was made to estimate, in gross terms, a likely number of CRAs that could
receive a Class I ecologically-vital designation. Based on the information
available from Tables 1, 2 and 3 (i.e., CRAs that overlap potential federal
unique habitats) and information from the co-location maps (i.e., proximity of
CRAs to rivers, streams, wetlands, etc.), it was possible to assign "best
professional judgment" probabilities that broadly represented the likelihood
of a CRA (or group of CRAs) which could receive a Class I ecologically-vital
designation. Table 4 presents these probabilities and the estimated number of.
CRAs that would likely have a Class I ecologically-vital ground water.
In Table 1, only 2 of the 115 (about 2%) CRAs in Delaware and Maryland
were estimated to likely overlap a critical habitat for a listed, federal
endangered species. No CRA appeared to overlap a national park. Eleven of
the 115 (10%) CRAs in Delaware and Maryland were estimated to likely intersect
"other federal land." In Table 4, the two CRAs which likely overlap critical
habitats were assigned a "best professional judgment" probability of 1.0 (or
100%) for having a Class I ecologically-vital ground water. Both CRAs
appeared to be located along streams and therefore would likely have a
sensitive ecological system and highly vulnerable ground water. Similarly in
Table 4, 6 of the 11 (about 50%) CRAs that appear to overlap "other federal
land" would also likely have a sensitive ecological system and highly
vulnerable ground water using the same rationale as for critical habitat
location near discharge points. Based on these findings, approximately 7%
-------
Table 1
DELAWARE and MARYLAND
Estimated Frequency of a Classification Review Area (CRA)
Overlapping a Potential Unique Habitat
CRA
RCRA treatment, storage
and disposal facilities1
CERCLA NPL sites 2
UIC Class I wells 3
Total
Potential
Critical National
Habitat Park
2 0
0 0
0 0
2 0
Unique Habitats
Other
Federal Land4
9
2
0
11
State Estimated
Land Frequency
30 41/109
3 5/6
0
33 46/115
vO
I
'There are 109 RCRA facilities in the study area as of February 1985.
2There are 11 NPL sites (excluding proposed sites) in the study area as of October 1984. Five of the eleven sites could not be mapped.
3There are no Class I Underground Injection Wells in the study area as of May 1985.
4>5These areas (federal/state forests, wildlife refuges, etc.) are assumed to be unique habitats for this exercise.
-------
-10-
(i.e., 8 of 115) of the total number of CRAs in Delaware and Maryland would
likely receive a Class I ecologically-vital ground water designation.
In Table 2, there is no known critical habitat in Louisiana and no CRA
appears to overlap a national park. Five of 157 (3%) CRAs were estimated to
likely intersect "other federal land." Louisiana has 68 UIC Class I injection
wells of which only two (included in the 5 above) appear to overlap potential
unique habitats. In Table 4, 4 of 5 (80%) CRAs likely are located in a
sensitive ecological system and have highly vulnerable ground water (based on
"best professional judgment" using the state co-location map). As a result,
approximately 4 of 157 (3%) CRAs would likely receive a Class I
ecologically-vital ground-water designation.
Table 3 presents the results for California. This western state was
selected because of the high number of federally regulated facilities (i.e.,
RCRA facilities, CERCLA NPL sites and UIC Class I wells) and high density of
federal, potential unique habitats located within the state. A total of 26
out of 325 (8%) CRAs was estimated to likely intersect critical habitats. An
additional 30 out of 325 (9%) CRAs likely would overlap a national park or
"other federal land." In Table 4, approximately 16 of 26 (60%) CRAs
intersecting critical habitats would likely have both a sensitive ecological
system and highly vulnerable ground water (based on "best professional
judgment" using the state co-location map). Of the remaining CRAs overlapping
potential unique habitats, approximately 15 of 30 (50%) would likely have both
a sensitive ecological system and highly vulnerable ground water. These
preliminary findings suggest that approximately 31 of 325 (10%) of the total
number of CRAs would likely receive a Class I ecologically-vital designation.
-------
Table 2
LOUISIANA
Estimated Frequency of a Classification Review Area (CRA)
Overlapping a Potential Unique Habitat
Potential Unique Habitats
Critical National Other
CRA Habitat Park Federal Land4
RCRA treatment, storage
and disposal facilities '003
CERCLA NPL sites2 000
U1C Class I wells3 002
Total 005
State g Estimated
Land Frequency
9 12/84
0 0/5
5 7/68
14 19/157
'There are 86 RCRA facilities in the study area as of February 1985. Two facilities could not be mapped.
2 There are 5 NPL sites (excluding proposed sites) in the study area as of October 1984.
3 There are 68 Class 1 Underground Injection Wells in the study area as of May 1985.
"•5These areas (federal/state forests, wildlife refuges, etc.) are assumed to be unique habitats for this exercise.
-------
Table 3
CALIFORNIA
Estimated Frequency of a Classification Review Area (CRA)
Overlapping a Potential Unique Habitat
Potential Unique Habitats
CRA
RCRA treatment, storage
and disposal facilities '
CERCLA NPL sites2
U1C Class I wells3
Total
Critical National Other
Habitat4 Park Federal Land
24 1 28
2 0 1
000
26 1 29
State e
Land
3
0
0
3
Estimated
Frequency
56/304
3/19
0/2
59/325
K>
I
There are 324 RCRA facilities in the study area as of February 1985. Twenty facilities could not be mapped.
There are 19 NPL sites (excluding proposed sites) in the study area as of October 1984.
3There are 2 Class 1 Underground Injection Wells in the study area as of May 1985.
4 Critical habitat for the California Condor was not mapped. The critical habitat for the condor is generally confined
to areas with elevations greater than 3000 feet. None of the mapped CRAs is located at elevations of 3000 feet or higher.
These areas are assumed to be unique habitats for this exercise.
Includes only state parks. Boundaries of state forest and wildlife refuges were not readily available for this exercise.
5,6
-------
Table 4
ESTIMATED NUMBER OF POSSIBLE CLASS I
ECOLOGICALLY-VITAL GROUND WATERS
State
Delaware and Maryland
Louisiana
California
CRA/Critical Probability
Habitat 1 Assumption 2
2 1.0
0.5
0
26 0.6
0.5
CRA/National Probability
Park 1 Assumption
0
0
1 0.5
0.5
CRA/Other Probability
Federal Land 1 Assumption
11 0.5
0.5
5 0.8
0.5
29 0.5
0.5
Total3
8/115 (7%)
7/115 (6%)
4/157 (3%)
3/157 (2%)
31/325 (10%^
29/325 (9%)
Number of CRAs that likely overlap critical habitats, national parks, and other federal lands, respectively.
2 To be read as "probability of a CRA likely to overlap a potential unique habitat, and likely to have both a sensitive ecological
system and highly vulnerable ground water." The first row represents "best professional judgement" probabilities. The
second row simply assumes a 50% probability.
3 Totals are rounded up.
-------
-14-
The preliminary findings presented in Table 4 indicate that the range of
Class I ecologically-vital determinations is between 3 and 10 percent when
"best professional judgment" is applied. If, on the other hand, it is simply
assumed that CRAs overlapping potential unique habitats uniformly meet the
remaining conditions for Class I ecologically-vital ground water 50% of the
time, then the range is slightly lower: 2 to 9 percent versus 3 to 10 percent.
Land Area Matrix of Potential Unique Habitats
The matrix in Table 5 presents the approximate land acreage of potential
federal (and state) unique habitats in the contiguous 48 states. Federal land
includes the National Park System (National Park lands such as recreational
parks and historical sites are not included); National Refuges, Wilderness and
Natural Areas; and National Forests (some lands such as national grasslands
and timber production areas are excluded). Also listed are approximate land
acreages for the habitats (including critical habitats) of listed, federal
endangered and threatened species. Other land areas noted are those managed
for scientific research, and lands recognized by environmental conservation
groups.
The matrix indicates that approximately 6.3% of the total land area of the
48 contiguous states could be considered as potential unique habitats for
Class I ecologically-vital classification. This figure would increase to
about 12% of the total U.S. land area if all potential unique habitats in
Alaska (and Hawaii) are included. These figures represent the upper range of
those lands (not ground waters) that could possibly be considered Class I
ecologically-vital because, after going through the consultative review
process with the appropriate agencies, land areas for truely unique habitats
-------
Table 5
Land Area1 Matrix of Potential Unique Habitats
UNIQUE HABITAT
SENSITIVE
ECOLOGICAL
SYSTEM
APPROX. ACREAGE!
% TOTAL U.S. LAND
Endangered!
Threatened
Species w.
Critical Habitat
YES
92 Federal
listed species
YES
if located in a
CRA discharge
area
1,000's to
10,000's/
<.003%
Endangered/
Threatened
Species wlo
Critical Habitat
Consult with
FWS, Slate
295 Federal
listed species
YES
if located in a
CRA discharge
area
100,000's to
millions (?)/
<0.3%
National
Park
System 2
YES/NO
YES/NO
15 million/
0.8%
National
Refuges,
Wilderness
and Natural
Areas 3
YES/NO
YES/NO
46 million/
2.4%6
Other
Federal
Lands'
YES/NO
YES/NO
49 million/
2.5%
State
Parks/
Forests
YES/NO
YES/NO
5 million/
0.3%
Other
State Land
YES/NO
YES/NO
7
County/Local
Land
YES/NO
YES/NO
?
Other "
YES/NO
YES/NO
?
CRA: classification review area
E/T: endangered and threatened
FS: Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
FWS: Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior
NFS: National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior
YES/NO: Consult with appropriate officials.
1 Contiguous 48 stales
2 Maintained by the National Park Service. Examples include the National Parks, National Preserves, National Seashores, National Lakeshores, and National Rivers.'
3 Maintained by the Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and other federal agencies.
4 Area includes the National Forest System (excluding areas managed for limber production, national grasslands and wilderness areas) maintained by the Forest Service.
3 Other may include land designated for scientific research, land owned by The Nature Conservancy, The Audubon Society, etc.
6 1JO million/6% if Alaska is included.
-------
-16-
will indeed be less. If one then considers (1) what proportion of the
remaining land area is overlapped by a classification review area, (2) the
likelihood of ground water discharging into the unique habitat within the CRA,
and (3) the likelihood of the ground water being highly vulnerable to
contamination, it becomes evident that the area for Class I ecologically-vital
ground water is relatively limited. If one were to assume that all of these
conditions were met 50% of the time, less than 3% of the land area of the
contiguous 48 states could potentially be classified Class I
ecologically-vital.
IDENTIFYING UNIQUE HABITATS - THE CONSULTATIVE PROCESS
Currently, the proposed definition of a unique habitat is defined as
habitats for endangered or threatened species (pursuant to the Endangered
Species Act) and certain federal land areas which have been designated for the
purpose of ecological protection (regardless of the presence of endangered or
threatened species). Such federal land may be included in the National Park
System, the National Forest System, and the National Refuge System. Whereas
the critical habitats of federal endangered and threatened species have been
defined to be unique habitats, all other land areas overlying potential
"ecologically-vital ground waters" must be reviewed in consultation with
appropriate federal or state officials to determine their unique habitat
status.
To identify federal lands of ecological importance, one can refer to a
U.S. Geological Survey topographic map and identify those federal or state
lands that are potential unique habitats. The next step is to consult with
the appropriate federal agency responsible for managing and maintaining the
-------
-17-
land to determine whether a unique habitat is present. This consultation
process is also important when considering federal lands that are managed for
multiple uses. Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act provides a
consultative process for considering any action authorized, funded, or carried
out by a federal agency that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or
adverse modification of the species' habitat. (Similar consultation may be
warranted at the state level for state endangered and threatened species.)
The consultative process was used repeatedly while preparing the case
studies. For example, to determine which federal lands should be considered
as unique habitats, telephone calls were placed to the regional office of the
appropriate federal agency (this process is documented in each case study).
The regional office would normally refer the inquiry to the district or field
office. After consulting with the appropriate official, it could then be
determined whether the land in question comprised a unique habitat. (For each
case study, it required about half a day to locate, contact, and eventually
consult with the responsible agency official.)
To identify the habitat5 of endangered and threatened species in the
CRA, a telephone call was placed to the regional office of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. (Attachment D presents a list of these offices.) Again,
the inquiry was generally referred to the field office which was more familiar
with the habitat of the species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has
published site maps for most of the 92 critical habitats (50 CFR Part 17B)
5 As of January 15, 1986, 92 of the 387 listed, federal endangered and
threatened species have a designated "critical habitat." The habitats of the
remaining 295 species are equally protected under the Endangered Species Act
although these areas can be more geographically widespread.
-------
-18-
that have been defined in the regulations. Habitat locations for all species
can be identified by consulting with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, State
Natural Heritage Program Offices, and other conservation organizations.
State Natural Heritage Programs are staffed by authorities on species'
habitats and natural land areas. (Attachment E presents a list of the State
Heritage Offices.) Forty-one states currently maintain a Heritage Program.
The State Heritage office provides information about the status and
distribution of endangered and threatened species, natural communities, and
other ecological features within a state. Their map and computer files make
the information readily accessible.
For each case study, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recommended that
the State Heritage Office also be consulted for site information related to
ecological significance. The State Heritage Office provided general
information over the phone (e.g., habitats for species and natural land areas
likely to be found in the general CRA) but required that specific site
inquiries be submitted in writing. Based on telephone calls to several state
offices, a complete ecological inventory review for one site takes on the
average from two to three weeks (although the Maryland State Heritage Office
reportedly has a backlog of several months). A field survey is sometimes
required to confirm the presence of a species' habitat. This survey can take
days and for some unusual cases, may not be scheduled until the species can be
readily identified in the field (e.g., a rare tiny plant that flowers only in
the spring. )
-------
-19-
DEFINITION CHANGES RECOMMENDED BY THE WORK GROUP
• Definition of "sensitive ecological system"
The work group recommends that the definition of "sensitive ecological
system" be expanded to include wetland ecosystems. This expanded definition
better represents ecosystems that fall between terrestrial ecosystems and
aquatic ecosystems.
• Definition of "unique habitat"
The work group recommends that the definition of unique habitat as it
applies to listed, federal endangered or threatened species (presently 387) be
expanded to include species that are currently proposed for federal listing
(approximately 60). Although this recommended expansion would increase the
initial list of species from 387 to approximately 447, only about 57 (13%) of
these species would likely have a habitat naturally occurring within a
sensitive ecological system (i.e., an aquatic, wetland or terrestrial
ecosystem located in a ground-water discharge area).6
The work group also recommends that more areas of ecological importance be
considered as unique habitats in addition to parks, forests and wildlife
refuges. Natural research areas, and lands where conservation easements have
been granted are other possibilities. The designation of these lands and
state land areas as unique habitats will be the responsibility of appropriate
state and local agencies, where authority for managing these land uses resides.
6 Personal communication with Larry Thomas, Wildlife Biologist,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., January 29, 1986.
-------
-20-
COST ESTIMATES FOR CLASSIFYING CLASS I ECOLOGICALLY-VITAL
GROUND WATER
The cost of classifying ecologically-vital ground water can vary,
depending on the availability of information which is needed to make a
determination. In many cases, reviewing available information and consulting
with one or two agencies will suffice. For a relatively simple case like the
Maryland darter in the first case study, the cost may be less than $1,000
(direct labor, administration, travel, etc.) if information can be readily
accessed and analyzed from maps, telephone calls, and one or two consultative
meetings.
There can be other costs. For cases where much of the hydrogeologic
information is not readily available or does not exist, it may be necessary to
conduct literature searches ($l,000's and up) or field surveys ($10,000's and
up). Other costs may be associated with obtaining ecological information
about a site. The State Heritage Office can provide a complete ecological
inventory review upon written request. The service charge for this is
typically $50 although it varies from state to state. In addition, a field
survey is sometimes required to confirm the presence of a species' habitat in
a study area. A field survey costs about $150/day per field person plus
expenses. This cost is generally incurred by the party making the inquiry.
-------
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A
Attachment B
Attachment C
Attachment D
Attachment E
Attachment F
Key Terms and Concepts
List of Work Group Members
Case Studies
Case Study No. 1: Maryland darter
Case Study No. 2: Kentucky cave shrimp
Case Study No. 3: California Paiute cutthroat trout
Case Study No. 4: Bunched arrowhead in North Carolina
List of Offices of Endangered Species,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
List of State Natural Heritage Program Offices
List of Additional References
-------
ATTACHMENT A
KEY TERMS AND CONCEPTS
The draft Guidelines for Ground-Water Classification (February 1986)
define Class I ecologically-vital ground water as follows:
• "ecologically-vital" ground water is defined as supplying a
sensitive ecological system supporting a unique habitat,
where:
a "sensitive ecological system" is defined as an aquatic,
wetland, or terrestrial ecosystem located in a ground-water
discharge area;
a "unique habitat" is primarily defined as a habitat for an
endangered or threatened species (pursuant to the Endangered
Species Act as amended) that is listed or proposed. Certain
federal land areas, congressionally designated for the
purpose of ecological protection, regardless of the presence
of rare and endangered species (e.g., wildlife refuges,
wilderness areas, natural areas used for research, etc.) may
also be included; and,
a "discharge area" is defined as an area of land beneath
which there is a net annual transfer of water from the
saturated zone to a surface water body, the land surface, or
root zone. Net discharges are "manifested by an increase of
hydraulic heads with depth" (upward ground-water flow).
Zones may be associated with natural areas of discharge
(e.g., springs, geysers, wetlands, bays, and playas).
• The ground water must also be highly vulnerable to
contaminat ion,
where:
a highly vulnerable ground water has a relatively high
potential for contaminants to enter or to be transported
within the ground-water flow system. This term encompasses
the leaching potential of the soil and the ability of the
saturated flow system to move contaminants over a large
geographic area (not just beneath any given facility or
action).
The EPA recommends the use of DRASTIC (a rating index) to
determine vulnerability. The method is referred to as DRASTIC.
A "DRASTIC" score of 150 indicates high vulnerability in areas
A-l
-------
generally east of the Mississippi River; a score of 120 is being
proposed as the indicator of high vulnerability for areas
generally west of the Mississippi River.
The definition of critical habitat is also presented here as it is
defined in The Endangered Species Act as amended by Public Law 97-304 (The
Endangered Species Act Amendments of 1982).
SEC. 3. For the purposes of this Act --
(5)(A) The term "critical habitat" for a threatened or
endangered species means --
(i) the specific areas within the geographical area
occupied by the species, at the time it is listed in
accordance with the provisions of section 4 of this Act, on
which are found those physical or biological factors (I)
essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which
may require special management: considerations or protection;
and
(ii) specific areas outside the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time it is listed in
accordance with the provisions of section 4 of this Act, upon
a determination by the Secretary that such areas are
essential for the conservation of the species.
(B) Critical habitat may be established for those species now
listed as threatened or endangered species for which no critical
habitat has heretofore been established as set forth in
subparagraph (A) of this paragraph.
(C) Except in those circumstances determined by the
Secretary, critical habitat shall not include the entire
geographical area which can be occupied by the threatened or
endangered species.
A-2
-------
ATTACHMENT B
LIST OF WORK GROUP MEMBERS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Marian Mlay
Office of Ground-Water Protection
Ron Hoffer
Office of Ground-Water Protection
Bob Raucher
Office of Policy Analysis
Sam Napolitano
Office of Policy Analysis
Brendan Doyle
Office of Policy Analysis
Margaret Schneider
Office of Federal Activities
Carol Hudson Jones
Compliance Policy and Planning Branch
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring
Others
Larry Thomas
Wildlife Biologist
Office of Endangered Species
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1000 North Glebe Road
Suite 500
Arlington, Virginia 22201
Phil Metzger
Conservation Foundation
1255 23rd Street
Suite 200
Washington, D.C. 20037
B-l
-------
Larry E. Morse
Director of National Scientific Databases
The Nature Conservancy
Natural Heritage Programs
1800 North Kent Street
Arlington, Virginia 22209
Arnold Norden
Maryland Natural Heritage and Environmental Review
Department of Natural Resources
Land Planning Services
Tawes Building
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
Contractor Support
Paul Bailey, Ron Scullin
ICF Incorporated
1850 K Street, N.W.
Suite 950
Washington, D.C. 20006
William Doucette, Caroline Hoover
Geraghty & Miller, Inc.
844 West Street
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
B-2
-------
ATTACHMENT C
\
CASE STUDY NO. 1
Introduction
Case Study No. 1 illustrates a situation where a unique
habitat and a sensitive ecological system are partially located
in the classification review area (CRA). The classification of
the ground water beneath the CRA is Class I ecologically-vital.
Preliminary Information with Respect to
the Classification Review Area
General
The ground water underlying a facility alongside the lower
reach of Deer Creek in Maryland (Figure 1) is being
classified. The CRA is located upgradient of the creek. There
is a State Park on the opposite side of the creek. Also, 1.5
miles of the creek are designated as a critical habitat for the
Maryland darter, which is listed as a federal endangered fish.
Geology/Hydrogeology
Locally, the geology of the Wissahickon Formation consists
of highly deformed schists and metagabbro bedrock overlain by
variably thick saprolitic material (Figure 2). Ground water
flow within the schists and bedrock is controlled principally
by the fracture permeability. The saprolite may exhibit
C-l
-------
CASE STUDY NO. 1: MARYLAND DARTER
Figure 1
BASE MAP OF CLASSIFICATION REVIEW AREA
Stat* Park
Figure 2
TYPICAL HYDROGEOLOGIC PROFILE OF DEER CREEK
WISSAHICKON FORMATION
C-2
-------
bedding plane fractures that serve as the major pathway for
ground-water movement. Because of the secondary permeability
within the saprolite, precipitation/recharge to the
consolidated bedrock aquifer can be quick and significant.
Ground water can also flow along the saprolite-bedrock
interface to surface streams which have ephemeral springs and
seeps.
Consultative Process
The regional office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Newton Corner, Massachusetts, is consulted to identify listed
and proposed federal endangered or threatened species' habitats
within the CRA. The inquiry is directed to the field office in
Annapolis, Maryland. After conferring with this office, it is
determined that a critical habitat for the Maryland darter has
been defined for a reach of Deer Creek that extends 1.5 miles
upstream from the junction of the Susquehanna River. A segment
of this critical habitat is located within the CRA. Also, Deer
Creek is a likely discharge area for ground water. Therefore,
the CRA overlaps a unique habitat (i.e., critical habitat)
which has a sensitive ecological system. This CRA has the
potential of having ecologically-vital ground water.
Vulnerability
A vulnerability analysis is the next step in the
ground-water classification process because it has been
C-3
-------
determined that a potential ecologically-vital ground water is
present. The vulnerability analysis establishes whether the
area is highly vulnerable to ground-water contamination.
A DRASTIC score of greater than 150 points is assumed for
this example. Therefore, this area constitutes a highly
vulnerable hydrogeologic setting.
Classification of Ground Water
Referring to the Classification Guide for Candidate Class I
Ground Water, the following questions are addressed for Class I
ecologically-vital ground water.
Step
Question/Direction
Re sponse/Comment
Yes
Establish Classification
Review Area and collect
preliminary information.
Does the CRA overlap a
potential ecologically-
vital ground water?
• Yes, go to next step
• No
Perform vulnerability
analysis (DRASTIC). Is
the CRA a highly vulner-
able hydrogeologic set-
ting?
• Yes, then the ground
water is CLASS I
ECOLOGICALLY-VITAL
FINAL CLASS DETERMINATION: CLASS I ECOLOGICALLY-VITAL
Yes, the DRASTIC rating
exceeds 150 points.
C-4
-------
CASE STUDY NO. 2
Introduction
Case Study No. 2 is located in a karst terrain which
requires the classification review area (CRA) to be enlarged to
include the terminal discharge area for this hydrogeologic
setting. It illustrates a situation where a unique habitat and
a sensitive ecological system are located downgradient of a
proposed facility. The classification of the ground water
beneath the CRA is Class I ecologically-vital.
Preliminary Information with Respect to
the Classification Review Area
General
The ground water underlying a facility in northwest
Kentucky (Figure 1) is being classified. This area is near the
Mammoth Cave National Park which includes a critical habitat
for the Kentucky cave shrimp, a listed federal endangered
crustacean.
Geology/Hydrogeology
The area is located within the Central Kentucky karst
terrain characterized by sinkholes, infrequent streams, and an
integrated system of subsurface drainage conduits and caves
within carbonate bedrock. As a "mixture" karst setting,
integrated conduit flow of ground water predominates over
C-5
-------
diffuse flow thereby allowing rapid infiltration of surface
fluids to the ground-water regime and rapid transport in the
subsurface.
Surface fluids enter sinkholes with little filtering by the
soils. This process allows rapid introduction of contaminants
to the ground water and transport over long distances during
short time periods. The ground water and any associated
contaminants will move through the conduit/cave system to
single or multiple springs along the Green River.
Ground water within the subsurface conduit system may
travel various paths depending upon the intensity of the
precipitation/recharge event (Figure 2). Within "mature" karst
settings, a high degree of interconnection between subparallel
conduit/cave systems exists, which during periods of intense
recharge allows ground water to migrate perpendicular to the
base-flow direction and enter separate conduit/cave systems.
The result of this hydraulic process is that ground water and
contaminated fluids introduced into a single ground-water basin
may potentially migrate to several ground-water basins or
subbasins and areally affect the quality of numerous trunk
conduits and springs serving as habitats for cave shrimp.
Because the CRA is located in a karst system, the CRA
boundary extends beyond the two mile radius and out to the
Green River which is the discharge area for this hydrogeologic
setting.
C-6
-------
CASE STUDY NO. 2: KENTUCKY CAVE SHRIMP
Figure 1
BASE MAP OF CLASSIFICATION REVIEW AREA
Extend boundary
of CRA due to
karat terrain
CRITICAL '
HABITAT >/
V
MAMMOTH CAVE
NATIONAL PARK
\ r-
\J
(general ground-water
flow)
3A3IN A
Figure 2
TYPICAL HYDRAULIC CONNECTION OF BASINS
3ASIN 9
BASIN C
SASIN A
BASIN a
FLOW DIRECTIONS
SASIN C
BASE FLOW CONDITION
HIGH INTENSITY FLOW CONDITION
C-7
-------
Consultative Process
The regional office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Atlanta, Georgia, is consulted to identify listed and proposed
federal endangered and threatened species' habitats within the
CRA. The inquiry is directed to the field office in Asheville,
North Carolina, and the Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission in
Frankfort, Kentucky. After conferring with both offices, it is
determined that the Kentucky cave shrimp has a critical habitat
which is located inside the Mammoth Cave National Park. A
phone call to the regional office of the National Park Service
in Atlanta, Georgia, indicates that this National Park should
also be considered as a unique habitat because it compromises
land that has been designated for the protection of its
ecological value. Because of the karst terrain, the unique
habitat of the Park has intermittent ground-water discharge
areas (e.g., the critical habitat of the cave shrimp). It can
therefore be demonstrated that a sensitive ecological system is
present within the unique habitat. As a result, the CRA has
the potential of having ecologically-vital ground water.
Vulnerability
A DRASTIC score of greater than 150 points is assumed for
this example. Therefore, this area constitutes a highly
vulnerable hydrogeologic setting.
C-8
-------
Classification of Ground Water
The following questions are addressed for Class I
ecologically-vital ground water.
Step
Question/Direction
Response/Comment
Yes
Establish Classification
Review Area and collect
preliminary information.
Does the CRA overlap a
potential ecologically-
vital ground water?
• Yes, go to next step
• No
Perform vulnerability
analysis (DRASTIC). Is
the CRA a highly vulner-
able hydrogeologic set-
ting?
• Yes, then the ground
water is CLASS I
ECOLOGICALLY-VITAL
FINAL CLASS DETERMINATION: CLASS I ECOLOGICALLY-VITAL
Yes, the DRASTIC rating
exceeds 150 points.
C-9
-------
CASE STUDY NO. 3
Introduction
Case Study No. 3 illustrates four scenarios of unique
habitats and sensitive ecological systems within a
classification review area (CRA). The classification of the
ground water beneath the CRA is determined to be Class I
ecologically-vital in two scenarios and Class II in two other
scenarios depending on the potential unique habitat under
consideration.
Preliminary Information with Respect to
the Classification Review Area
General
The ground water underlying a facility located on private
land within the Toiyabe National Forest (Figure 1) is being
classified. The CRA is located upgradient of the Silver King
Creek. Possible unique habitats in the watershed are the
Toiyabe National Forest, the Carson-Iceberg Wilderness Area
(which is within the Toiyabe National Forest), and selected
stream reaches of Silver King Creek which are current habitat
for the California Paiute cutthroat trout, a listed federal
threatened fish.
C-10
-------
CASE STUDY NO.3: PAIUTE CUTTHROAT TROUT
Figure 1
BASE MAP OF CLASSIFICATION REVIEW AREA
Scenario A
Scenario C
Silver King
Cr««k
PAIUTE CUTTHROAT
TROUT HABITAT
Wild*rn«i«
Ar.i
Boun
TOIYABE
NATIONAL
FOREST
PAIUTE CUTTHROAT
TROUT HABITAT
Scenario B
Scenario D
TOIYABE
NATIONAL
FOREST
PAIUTE CUTTHROAT
TROUT HABITAT
ground-water
discharge
area
PAIUTE CUTTHROAT
TROUT HABITAT
C-ll
-------
Figure 2
TYPICAL HYDROGEOLOGIC PROFILE OF SILVER KING CANYON
SILVER KING
CANYON
Granitic
Complex
generalized flow path lor ground water, tpring or seep.
C-12
-------
Geology/Hydrogeology
Silver King Canyon is characterized by an extensive flat
valley floor with steep canyon walls. The valley floor
consists of reworked gravels of granite and metavolcanic
origin. Ground water flows through the rock fractures and
within geologic unconformities (Figure 2). Both ephemeral and
perennial springs exist in the area which establish the base
flow for Silver King Creek. The origin of stream water is from
direct precipitation, recharge derived from springs and seeps,
and deep hydrothermal springs from the basement paleozoic
metavolcanic complex.
Consultative Process
The regional office of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
the California National Diversity Database office, both in
Sacramento, California, are consulted to identify listed and
proposed federal endangered and threatened species' habitats
within the CRA. -After conferring with these offices, it is
determined that the habitat of the Paiute cutthroat trout is
located in selected reaches of the Silver King Creek. (No
"critical habitat" has been determined for this species.)
Also, the regional U.S. Forest Service office in San Francisco,
California, is consulted to determine whether the National
Forest or the Wilderness Area (which is within the National
Forest) or both should be considered as unique habitat. For
this case study, the Wilderness Area is selected to be a unique
C-13
-------
habitat. Four scenarios (lettered A through D) are presented
below to demonstrate the ground-water classification process:
A. The CRA overlaps a part of the Carson-Iceberg
Wilderness Area. Available hydrogeologic data
suggest that there is no ground-water discharge
into the Wilderness Area and therefore there is no
sensitive ecological system present within the
unique habitat. The CRA is determined not to have
a potential ecologically-vital ground water.
B. The CRA overlaps a part of the Carson-Iceberg
Wilderness Area. There is also a ground-water
discharge into the Wilderness Area which
establishes the presence of a sensitive ecological
system within the unique habitat. The CRA is
determined to have a potential ecologically-vital
ground water.
C. The CRA overlaps a part of Toiyabe National Forest
that includes an upper reach of a Silver King
Creek tributary. Hydrogeologic data suggest that
there is ground-water discharge directly into this
reach of the tributary. Because neither the
National Forest nor the tributary upstream of the
cutthroat trout habitat is a unique habitat, the
CRA is determined not to have potential
ecologically-vital ground water.
D. The CRA overlaps a part of Toiyabe National Forest
that includes a reach of Silver King Creek that is
current habitat for the California Paiute
cutthroat trout. Hydrogeologic data suggest that
ground water discharges directly into the trout
habitat. Because ground water discharges into
this unique habitat, a sensitive ecological system
is present. Therefore, the CRA is determined to
have a potential ecologically-vital ground water.
Vulnerability
A DRASTIC score of greater than 120 points is assumed for
this example. Therefore, this area constitutes a highly
vulnerable hydrogeologic setting.
C-14
-------
Classification of Ground Water
The following questions are addressed for Class I
ecologically-vital ground water.
Step
Question/Direction
Response/Comment
Scenario A No
Scenario B Yes
Scenario C No
Scenario D Yes
Establish Classification
Review Area and collect
preliminary information.
Does the CRA overlap a
potential ecologically-
vital ground water?
• Yes, go to next step
• No
Perform vulnerability
analysis (DRASTIC). Is
the CRA a highly vulner-
able hydrogeologic set-
ting?
• Yes, the ground water
is CLASS I ECOLOGI-
CALLY-VITAL
• No
FINAL CLASS DETERMINATION:
Scenario A: CLASS II
Scenario B: CLASS I ECOLOGICALLY-VITAL
Scenario C: CLASS II
Scenario D: CLASS I ECOLOGICALLY-VITAL
Scenario B Yes, the
DRASTIC rating
exceeds 120 points.
Scenario D Yes, the
DRASTIC rating
exceeds 120 points.
C-15
-------
CASE STUDY NO. 4
Introduction
Case Study No. 4 illustrates a situation where a potential
unique habitat and a sensitive ecological system are located
inside the the classification review area (CRA). The
classification of the ground water beneath the CRA is Class II.
Preliminary Information with Respect to
the Classification Review Area
General
The ground water underlying a facility in North Carolina is
being classified. The area is generally undeveloped and is
characterized by scattered bogs and seeps (Figure 1). The CRA
is near a current habitat of the bunched arrowhead, a listed
federal endangered plant. (No "critical habitat" has been
determined for this species.) The CRA also overlaps an area
where a historical siting of this species has occurred.
Geology/Hydrogeology
The area is located within the Piedmont Blue Ridge region.
The area is underlain with unconsolidated material derived from
weathering of the bedrock. Underlying the floodplains in
larger stream valleys are thin, alluvial stream deposits. The
bedrock consists of fractured igneous and sedimentary rock
(Figure 2).
C-16
-------
CASE STUDY NO. 4: BUNCHED ARROWHEAD
Figure 1
BASE MAP OF STUDY AREA
vStream
CURRENT
HABITAT OF
. BUNCHED
ARROWHEAD
(general ground-
water flow)
HISTORICAL /'
HABITAT
Figure 2
TYPICAL HYDROGEOLOGIC PROFILE OF STREAM
C-17
-------
Ground water is contained in the pores of the
unconsolidated material and alluvium whereas ground water in
the bedrock material flows in the fractures. The
unconsolidated material and alluvium serve as a reservoir which
slowly supplies water to the underlying bedrock fractures.
Ground water occurs as springs and seeps along the base of
the ridges. Recharge occurs in the floodplains and the
discharge base of the ridges.
Consultative Process
The regional office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Atlanta, Georgia, is consulted to identify listed and proposed
federal endangered and threatened species' habitats within the
CRA. The inquiry is directed to the field office in Asheville,
North Carolina, and the North Carolina Natural Heritage in
Raleigh, North Carolina. After conferring with both offices,
it is determined that there is a current habitat of the plant
located just outside of the CRA. Even though this unique
habitat is in a ground-water discharge area, it is upgradient
of the CRA and does not represent a sensitive ecological
system. The CRA also overlaps a historical habitat of the
plant but no sitings of the plant can be documented based on a
recent field survey. Therefore this historical habitat is not
considered to be a unique habitat. As a result, the CRA does
not overlay a potential ecologically-vital ground water.
C-18
-------
Classification of Ground Water
The following questions are addressed for Class I
ecologically-vital ground water.
Step Question/Direction Response/Comment
1 Establish Classification
Review Area and collect
preliminary information.
2 Does the C.RA overlap a No
potential ecologically-
vital ground water?
• Yes, go to next step
• No
FINAL CLASSIFICATION: CLASS II GROUND WATER
C-19
-------
ATTACHMENT D
LIST OF OFFICES OF ENDANGERED SPECIES
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICES
iMay 1985
The Fish and Wildlife Service, a unit of the U.S. Department of the
Interior, has been delegated the main responsibility for coordinating
national and international efforts on behalf of Endangered Species.
In the case of marine species, however, actions are taken in cooperation
with the Secretary of Commerce, through the Director of the National
Marine Fisheries Service (Liaison listed on page 8). Similarly, in the
area of import/export enforcement for Endangered plants, Interior coop-
erates with and is assisted by the Department of Agriculture through the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (Liaison listed on page 7).
PROGRAM MANAGER—ENDANGERED SPECIES—Mr. Ronald E. Lambertson
Associate Director-Federal Assistance
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Department of the Interior
Washington, D.C. 20240
Telephone: 202/343-4646
CATEGORY COORDINATOR—ENDANGERED SPECIES—Mr. Roman Koenings
Deputy Associate Director—Federal Assistance
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Department of the Interior
Washington, D.C. 20240
Telephone: 202/343-4646
Mr. John M. Murphy, Chief
Office of Program Development
and Administration
U.S. Pish and Wildlife Service
1000 North Glebe Road, Room 629
Arlington, Virginia
Telephone: 703/235-1726, 7, 8
Mr. John L. Spinlcs, Jr. Chief
Office of Endangered Species
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1000 North Glebe Road, Suite 500
Arlington, Virginia
Telephone: 703/235-2771, 2
Mailing Address for Office of Program
Development and Administration
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Washington, D.C. 20240
Mailing Address for Office of
Endangered Species
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Washington, D.C. 20240
Dr. Kenneth R. Russell, Chief, Branch of Biological Support
Telephone: 703/235-1975, 6, 7
Mr. Brian Cole, Chief, Branch of Management Operations
Telephone: 703/235-2760, 1, 2
D-l
-------
Chief
Federal Wildlife Permit Office
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1000 North Glebe Road, Suite 600
Arlington, Virginia
Telephone: 703/235-1937, 8, 9
Mr. Clark Bavin, Chief
Division of Law Enforcement
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1735 K Street, NW., 3rd Floor
Washington, D.C.
Telephone: 202/343-9242
Mailing Address for Federal
Wildlife Permit Office
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Washington, D.C. 20240
Mailing Address for Division
of Law Enforcement
P.O. Box 28006
Washington, D.C. 20005
Mr. Thomas Striegler, Special-Agent-in-Charge, Branch of Investigations
Telephone: 202/343-9242
Dr. Richard L. Jachowski, Chief
Office of the Scientific Authority
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1717 H Street, NW., Room 536
Washington, D.C.
Telephone: 202/653-5948, 49, 50
Mailing Address for Office of
the Scientific Authority
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Washington, D.C. 20240
Regional Endangered Species Coordinators;
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is comprised of seven Regional Offices.
(See map on inside back cover for geographic boundaries.) Each office has
a senior official who has been designated as a Regional Endangered Species
Coordinator. Additionally, each of the regions has several Field Offices.
Problems of a local nature should be referred to these offices.
Region 1 Regional Director (Attention: Mr. Sanford R. Wilbur
Endangered Species Specialist)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Sui-te 1692, Lloyd 500 Building
500 NE. Multnomah Street
Portland, Oregon 97232
Telephone: 503/231-6131 (FTS: 8/429-6131)
Field Offices
California
1230 "N" Street, 14th Floor
Sacramento, California 95814
Telephone: 916/440-2791 (FTS: 8/448-2791)
Idaho
4696 Overland Road, Room 566
Boise, Idaho 83705
Telephone: 208/334-1806 (FTS:
8/554-1806)
D-2
-------
Nevada
Great Basin Complex
4600 Kietzke Lane, Building C
Reno, Nevada 89502
Telephone: 702/784-5227 (FTS: 8/470-5227 or 5228)
Washington/Oregon
Building-3, 2625 Parkmont Lane
Olympia, Washington 98502
Telephone: 206/753-9444 (FTS: 8/434-9444)
Pacific Islands Administrator
300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 5302
P.O. Box 50167
Honolulu, Hawaii 96850
Telephone: 808/546-5608 (FTS: 8/546-5608)
Region 2 Regional Director (Attention: Mr. James Johnson
Endangered Species Specialist)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
500 Gold Avenue, SW.
P.O. Box 1306
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103
Telephone: 505/766-3972 (FTS: 8/474-3972)
Field Offices
Arizona
2934 West Fairmont Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85017
Telephone: 602/241-2493 (FTS: 8/261-2493)
New Mexico
P.O. Box 4487
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87196
Telephone: 505/766-3966 (FTS: 8/474-3966)
Oklahoma/Texas
222 South Houston, Suite A
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74127
Telephone: 918/581-7458 (FTS: 8/736-7458)
Texas
c/o CCSU, Box 338
6300 Ocean Drive
Corpus Christi, Texas 78411
Telephone: 512/888-3346 (FTS: 8/734-3346)
Fritz Lanham Building, Room 9A33
819 Taylor Street
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
Telephone: 817/334-2961 (FTS: 8/334-2961)
D-3
-------
Region 3 Regional Director (Attention: Mr. James M. Engel
Endangered Species Specialist)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Federal Building, Fort Snelling
Twin Cities, Minnesota 55111
Telephone: 612/725-3276 (FTS: 8/725-3276)
Region 4 Regional Director (Attention: Mr. Alex B. Montgomery
Endangered Species Specialist)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The Richard B. Russell Federal Building
75 Spring Street, SW.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Telephone: 404/221-3583 (FTS: 8/242-3583)
Field Offices
Alabama/Arkansas/Louisiana/Mississippi
Jackson Mall Office Center
300 Woodrow Wilson Avenue, Suite 3185
Jackson, Mississippi 39213
Telephone: 601/960-4900 (FTS: 8/490-4900)
Florida/Georgia
2747 Art Museum Drive
Jacksonville, Florida 32207
Telephone: 904/791-2580 (FTS: 8/946-2580)
Kentucky/North Carolina/South Carolina/Tennessee
Plateau Building, Room A-5
50 South French Broad Avenue
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
Telephone: 704/258-2850 ext. 382 (FTS: 8/672-0321)
Puerto Rico/Virgin Islands
P.O. Box 3005
Marina Station
Mayaguez, Puerto Rico 00709
Telephone: 809/833-5760 (FTS: 8/967-1221)
Region 5 Regional Director (Attention: Mr. Paul Nickerson
' Endangered Species Specialist)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Suite 700, One Gateway Center
Newton Corner, Massachusetts 02158
Telephone: 617/965-5100 ext. 316 (FTS: 8/829-9316, 7, 8)
D-4
-------
Field Offices
Connecticut/Maine/Vermont/Massachusetts
New Hampshire/Rhode Island
P.O. Box 1518
Concord, New Hampshire 03301
Telephone: 603/224-9558, 9 (FTS: 8/834-4726)
District of Columbia/Delaware/Maryland
Virginia/West Virginia
1825 Virginia Street
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
Telephone: 301/269-6324 (FTS: 8/922-4197)
New Jersey/Pennsylvania
112 West Foster Avenue
State College, Pennsylvania
Telephone: 814/234-4090
New York
100 Grange Place
Cortland, New York 13045
Telephone: 607/753-9334
16801
(FTS:
8/727-4621)
(FTS: 8/882-4246)
Region 6 Regional Director (Attention: Mr. Don Rodgers
Endangered Species Specialist)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
P.O. Box 25486, Denver Federal Center
Denver, Colorado 80225
Telephone: 303/234-2496 (FTS: 8/234-2496)
Field Offices
Colorado/Utah
Room 1406, Federal Building
125 S. State Street
Salt Lake City, Utah 84138
Telephone: 801/524-4430 (FTS: 8/588-4430)
Kansas/Nebraska/North Dakota/South Dakota
223 Federal Building
P.O. Box 250
Pierre, South Dakota 57501
Telephone: 605/224-8692
(FTS: 8/782-5226)
Montana/Wyoming
Federal Building, Room 3035
316 North 26th Street
Billings, Montana 59101
Telephone: 406/657-6059 or 6062
(FTS: 8/657-6059)
D-5
-------
Region 7 Regional Director (Attention: Mr. Dennis Money
Endangered Species Specialist)
1011 E. Tudor Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Telephone: 907/786-3435 (ETS: 8/907/786-3435)
D-6
-------
ATTACHMENT E
LIST OF STATE NATURAL HERITAGE
October 1985
Nongame Branch
ARIZONA HERITAGE PROGRAM
Arizona Game & Fish Department
2222 W. Greenway Rd.
Phoenix, AZ BS023
602/942-3000 x245
Branch Supervisor: Terry Johnson
Zoologist: Oick Todd
Zoologiat: Cecil Schwalbe
Zoologist: Jim Brooks
Data Manager: Rich Glinaki
Habitat Spec.: Bruce Palmer
Wildlife Rehab: Cindy Dorothy
ARKANSAS NATURAL HERITAGE INVENTORY
225 E. Merkham, Suite 200
Little Rock, AR 72201
501/371-1706
Coordinator/Zoologist: Ken Smith
Ecologist: Tom Foti
Botanist: Steve Orzell
Data Manager: Cindy Osborne
CALIFORNIA NATURAL DIVERSITY DATABASE
c/o CA Oept. of Fish & Game
1416 Sth Street
Secramento, CA 95B14
916/322-2493
Section Leader: Steve Nicola
Prog. Menager/Ecol: Deborah Jensen
Zoologist: Larry Eng
Res.Asst/Zool: Carrie Shaw
Aquatic Ecol: John Ellison
Ecologist: Bob Holland
Botanist: Jim Shevock
Asst.Botsnist: Cindy Roy
Data Handler: Sylvia Gude
Element Pres.Plan: Roxanne Bittman
End.Plants Coord: Susan Cochrane
SNAP Coordinator: Chris Unkel
COLORADO NATURAL HERITAGE INVENTORY
Oept. of Natural Resources
1313 Shermen St., Rm.718
Denver, CO 80203
303/866-3311
Botanist: Steve O'Kane
Ecol: Susan Gelatowitsch
303/S60-9142
CONNECTICUT NATURAL DIVERSITY DATABASE
Natural Resources Center
Dept. of Environmental Protection
State Office Building, Fta. 553
165 Capitol Avenue
Hartford, CT 06106
203/566-3540
Biologist/Data Man: Nancy Murray
Ecologist: Ken Metzler
Oeta Handler: Megen Rollins
FLORIDA NATURAL AREAS INVENTORY
254 E. 6th Avenue
Tallahassee, FL 32303
904/224-8207
Coordinator: Steve Gatewood
Zoologist: Dale Jeckson
Botanist: Dennis Hardin
Res.Spec/Data Manager: Jim Muller
Secretary: Judith Lyons
* HAWAII HERITAGE
1116 Smith St., »201
Honolulu, HI 96817
808/537-4508
Director: Audrey Newman
IDAHO NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM
4696 Overland Rd., Suite 51B
Boise, ID 83705
208/334-3402 or 3649
Coordinator/Zool: Craig Groves
Botanist/Ecologist: Steve Ceicco
Data Handler/Biol: Pan Peterson
INDIANA HERITAGE PROGRAM
Div. of Nature Preserves, IN ONR
612 State Office Bldg.
Indianapolis, IN 46204
317/232-4078
Coordinator/Bot: Jim Aldrich
Ecologist: Mike Homoya
Plant Ecologist: Tom Post
Zoologist: Brian Abrell
IOWA NATURAL AREAS INVENTORY
State Conservation Commission
Wallace State Office Bldg.
Oes Moinee, IA 50319
515/281-8524
Ecologist: John Peerson
Data Handler: John Fleckenstein
Zoologist: Oeryl Howell
Botanist: Mark Leoschka
KENTUCKY HERITAGE PROGRAM
KY Nature Preserves Commission
407 Broadway
Frankfort, KY 40601
502/564-2886
Director: Richard Hannan
Botanist: Marc Evans
Zoologist: Ronald Cicerello
Ornithol: Brainard Palmer-Ball
Aquatic Biol: Bill Fisher
Secretary: Julie Smither
LOUISIANA NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM
Department of Natural Resources
Coestal Management Division
P.O. Box 44124
Baton Rouge, LA 70604-4124
504/342-4602
Coordinator/Ecol: Nancy Jo Craig
Zoologist: Gary Lester
Botanist: Annette Parker
Data Manager: Alanee Williams
' MAINE NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM
Maine Chapter
122 Main Street
Topsham, ME 04086
207/729-5181
Coordinator: John Albright
Data Manager/Bot: Amy Oaterbrock
MARYLAND NATURAL HERITAGE &
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Oept. of Natural Resources
C-3, Tawes State Office'Bldg.
Annapolis, MD 21401
261-1402 x3656 O.C.OIHECT DIAL
301/269-3656
Coordinator/Bot: Dan Boone
Environmental Spec: Arnold Norden
Man. Area Spec: Derek Richerson
PROGRAM OFFICES
' MODEL NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM
The Nature Conservancy
1800 N. Kent St., Suite 800
Arlington, VA 22209
703/841-5307
Zoologist: David WUcova
Botanist: Mary Palmer
Ecologist: being hired
MASSACHUSETTS HERITAGE PROGRAM
Div. of Fisheries £ Wildlife
100 Cambridge St.
Boston, MA 02202
617/727-9194
Coordinetor/Ecol: Henry Woolsey
Botanist: Bruce Sorrie
Zoologist: Scott Melvin
Data Manager: Joanna Tribble
Hab.Prot.Spec: Annie Marlowe
MICHIGAN NATURAL FEATURES INVENTORY
Mason Building, Sth floor
Box 3002B
Lansing, MI 48909
517/373-1552
Coordinator/Sot: Sue Crispin
Ecologist: Kim Chapman
Zoologist: Leni Wilsmenn
Data Manager: Stu Ouwinga
MINNESOTA NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM
Department of Natural Resources
Box S
St. Paul, MN 551S5
612/296-4284
Coordinator: Barbara Coffin
Botanist: Welby Smith
Ecologist: Keitn Wendt
Zoologist: Lee Pfannmuller
Oats Manager: Carmen Converse
MISSISSIPPI NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM
111 N. Jefferson St.
Jackson, MS 39202
601/354-7226
Coord/Bot/WiId.Bio: Ken Gordon
Zoologist: Bob Jones
Ecologist: Jim Wiseman
MISSOURI NATURAL HERITAGE INVENTORY
Missouri Dept. of Conservation
P.O. Box 180
Jefferson City, MO 65102
314/751-4115
Coordinator: Hike Sweet
Biologist: Dennis Figg-X310
Secretary: Diana Huns tar-man
MONTANA NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM
State Library Building
1515 E. Sth Ave.
Helena, MT 59620
406/444-3009
Coordinator/Zool: David Genter
Botanist: Steve Shelly
Ecologist: Nancy Grulke
Data Tech/Sec: Lisa Shepperd
NAVAJO NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM
Box 2429
Window Rock, AZ 86515-2429
502/871-64S3 or 3449
Acting Coord/Botanist: Donna House
Data Manager: Virgil Link
Zoologist: vacant
(* = Proto-Heritage Programs)
E-l
-------
NEVADA NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM
Oept. of Conservation & Natural
Resources
c/o Div. of State Parks
Capitol Complex, Nye Bldg.
201 S. Fall St.
Carson City, NV 8971Q
702/835-4360
Coordinator/sci.: being hired
Research sci.: being hired
NEW HAMPSHIRE NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM
c/o Society Tor the Protection of N.H.
Forests
54 Portsmouth Street
Concord, NH 03301
603/224-9345
Coordinator/Bot: Frances Srackley
Data Manager: Edie Hentcy
NEW JERSEY NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM
Office of Natural Lands Management
109 W. State St.
Trenton, NJ 08625
609/9S4-1339 or 1170
Coordinator/Ecol: Thomas Breden
Botanist: Oavid Snyder
Zoologist: Jim Scaiscia
Data Manager: Jane Saks
Oata Handler: Elena Williams
NEW MEXICO NATURAL RESOURCES
SURVEY SECTION
Villagra Bldg.
Santa Fa, MM 87503
505/827-7862
Coordinator: Cathy Carruthers
Botanist: Paul Knight-7850
Botanist: Anne Cully
Oata Handler: Leslie Price
Mgmt. Analyst: Denise Gross
NEW YORK NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM
Wildlife Resources Center
Oelmar, NY 12054-9767
518/439-8014 x203
Coordinator/Zool: Pat Mehlhop
Ecologist: Carol Reschke
Botanist: Steve Clemants
Data Manager: Rachel Pleutnner
L.I. Botanist: Bob Zaremba
367-3225
NORTH CAROLINA NATURAL HERITAGE
Oept. of Netural £ Economic Res.
Oiv. of State Parks
Sox 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
919/733-7795
Coordinator: Charles E. Roe
Botanist: Laura Msnaberg
Ecologist: Alan Waakley
Protection Spec: Julie H. Moore
Wetlands Inv.Res.Spec: Steven Leonard
Zoologist: Harry LeGrand, Jr.
Inv. Info. Spec: Mike Scnafale
NORTH DAKOTA NATURAL HERITAGE INVENTORY
N.O. Game & Fish Department
100 N. Bismarck Expressway
Bismarck, NO 5S501
701/221-6310
Coordinator/Zcol: Randy Kreil
Botanist: Alexis Ouxbury
Plant Ecologist: Bonnie Heidel
Data Manager: Patsy Crooke
OHIO NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM
OH ONR, Oiv. of Nat. Areas & Pres.
Fountain Square* Bldg. F
Columbus, OH 43224
614/265-6453
Coordinator: Bob McCance
Botanist: Allison Cusick
Botanist: Jim Burns
Zoologist: Dan Rice
Plant Ecologist: Dennis Anderson
Oata Supervisor: Pat Jones
Oata Specialist: MaryAnn Silagy
Oata Specialist: Lauren McEleney
OKLAHOMA NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM
Oklahoma Tourism & Recreation Oept.
500 Will Rogers Bldg.
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
405/521-2973
Coord/Scat-Analyst: Lela Broun
OREGON NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM
Oregon Field Office
1234 NW 25th Avenue
Portland, OR 97S10
503/228-9550
Coord/Ecologist: Jimmy Kagan
Botanist: Sue Yamemoto
Zoologist: Connie Levesque
PENNSYLVANIA NATURAL DIVERSITY
INVENTORY
Bureeu of Forestry
Department of Environmental Resources
34 Ai rport Road
Middletown, PA 17057
717/783-1712
Coordinator/Ecologist: Tom Smith
Zoologist: Anthony Wilkinson
PROGRAMA PRO-PATRIMONIO NATURAL
Apsrtado 5887
Puerta de Tierra, Puerto Rico 0090S
809/724-0960
Coord/Zoologist: Peter Ortiz
Bot/Oata Man: Vicente Quevedo
Secretary: Myrta Hernendez
RHODE ISLAND HERITAGE PROGRAM
Dept. of Environmental Mgmt.
Oiv. of Planning & Development
22 Hayes St.
Providence, RI 02903
401/277-2776
Coordinator/Bot: Rick Enser
Zoologist: Chris Raithel
SOUTH CAROLINA HERITAGE TRUST
S.C. WUdl.& Marine Resources Dept.
P.O. Box 167
Co tumble, SC 29202
803/758-0014
Coord/Zool: Steve Bennett
Fisn & Wildl.Bio: John Cely
Envir.Planner: Stu Greeter
Botanist: Doug Rayner
Ecologist: John Nelson
FSW Bio/Preserve Mgr: Jim Sorrow
Secretary: Kaye Dial Daniels
SOUTH DAKOTA NATURAL HERITAGE
S.D. Oept. of Game, Pish & Parks
Oiv. of Parks a Recreation
Sigurd Anderson Bldg., 3-114
Pierre, SO 57501
605/773-4226
Botanist: David Ode
Oata Spec: George Vandel
(TENNESSEE HERITAGE PROGRAM)
ECOLOGICAL SERVICES DIVISION
TN Department of Conservation
701 Broadway
Nashville, TN 37203
615/748-6545
Director: Den Eager
Zoologist: Peul Kernel
Plant Ecol/Prot.Plan: Larry Smith
Botanist: Paul Somers
Wildlife Ecol: Daryl Durban
Oata Base Menager: Oeve Shupe
Aq.Bio/Pro.Rev,Coor: Roberta Hylton
TEXAS NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM
General Lend Office
Stephen F. Austin Bldg.
Austin, TX 78701
512/475-0660, 0661, 0621, 0800
Asst.Deputy Commissioner/
Land Mgmt.Div: Ben Brown
512/47S-1539
Coordinator: Tina Bondy
Zoologist: Rex Wehl
Ecologist: Oavid Diamond
Botanist: Jackie Pools
Data Manager: Robert Murphy
Secretary: Jackie Soliz
TVA REGIONAL HERITAGE
Office of Netural Resources
Norris, TN 37828
615/494-9600
Coordinator: William H. Redmond-X2613
Project Menager: J. Ralph Jordan
Botanist: Joseph L. Collins
Net.Areas Coord: Judith 8. Powers
Zoologist: Charles P. Ni^hoUor.
•VERMONT NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM
Vermont Field Office
138 Main Street
Montpalier, VT 05602
802/229-4425
Coordinator: Marc OesMeules
Ecologist/Data Man: Liz Thompson
WASHINGTON NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM
Department of Netural Resources
Mai I Stop EX-13
Olympia, WA 98504
206/753-2448
Coordinator/Sot: Mark Sheehen
Ecologist: Linda Kunze
Plant Ecologist: Reid Schuller
Secretary: Charlotte Nelson
Habitat Preserv.Spec: Betty Roderick
WEST VIRGINIA WILDLIFE/HERITAGE
DATABASE
Wildlife Resources Division
ONR Operations Center
P.O. Box 67
Elkins, WV 26241
304/636-1767
Asst. Director: Pete Zurbuch
Coord1netor/Ecol: Brian McDonald
Data Handler: Sandra Mehringer
Botanist: Garris Rouse
E-2
-------
WISCONSIN NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM
Endangered Resources/4
Oept. of Natural Resources
101 S. Webstar St., Sox 7921
Madison, WI 53707
608/266-0924
Zoologist: 81II Smith
Ecologiet: Eric Epstein
Botanist: June Oobberpuhl
Data Manager: Kathy Bleser
WYOMING NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM
1603 Capitol Avenue* Rm.323
Cheyenne( WY 82001
303/860-9142
Coord/Botanist: vacant
NATIONAL OFFICE HERITAGE TASK FOHCE
Bob Jenkins. Vice President, Science 341-5320
Hardy Wieting, Director, Heritage 841-5325
Shelley Rodman, Assistant Director, HFA 841-5367
Sob Chipley, Director, PSSD 841-5322
Jung Ja An, Budget Specialist 841-5368
Jack White, National Ecologiet 217/367-8770
Dorothy AUard, Classification Ecol. 217/367-8770
Larry Morse, Director, Nat'I Database 841-5361
Mary Brosnan, Net'I Databases Associate 841-5360
Margaret Ormes, Nationel Info.Man. 841-5360
Oave Mehlman, Microcomputer Anelyst 841-5355
Bernadette Schadewald, Microcomputer
Specialist 341-5355
Ken Wright, Senior Programmer/Anal. 841-5356
Carol Hodge, Administrative Asst., HFA 841-5354
Brandy Clymire, part-time Secretary,HFA 841-5354
Ursula McGhee, Exec. Secretary, Science 841-5321
REGIONAL:
EASTERN HERITAGE TASK FORCE
The Nature Conservancy
394 Washington St.
Boston, MA 02108
617/542-1908
Coordinator/Zool: Larry Master
Ecologist: Tom Rawlnski
Reg.Info.Mgr.: Jan Cassin
Zoologist: Dale Schweitzer
Data Handler: Marianne SiIberman
MIDWEST HERITAGE TASK FORCE
Midwest Regional Office
The Nature Conservancy
1313 Fifth St., SE
Minneapolis, MN 55414
612/379-2207
Coordinator: Steve Chaplin
Ecologist: being hired
Reg.Info.Mgr.: being hired
ROCKY MOUNTAIN HERITAGE TASK FORCE
The Nature Conservancy
1370 Pennsylvania St., Suite 190
Denver, CO 80203
303/860-9142
Coordinatar/Bot: J. Scott Peterson
Ecologiet: Patrick Bourgeron
Zoologiet: Blair Cauti (415/777-0541)
Reg.Info.Mgr.: Robin Votgt
Data Hand/Sec: Lisa Vastel
E-3
-------
ATTACHMENT F
LIST OF ADDITIONAL REFERENCES
50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants, January
1, 1986.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Contaminant Issues of Concern - National
Wildlife Refuges, January 1986.
Guidance on Ground Water Classification: Approach to Completing Follow-up
Research, January 1985, prepared by GCA Corporation for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency - Land Disposal Branch, Washington, B.C.,
Contract No. 68-01-6871.
40 CFR 270.3(c), EPA Administered Permit Programs: The Hazardous Waste Permit
Program.
Guidance on Remedial Investigations Under CERCLA, Chapter 9, EPA/540/G-85/002,
June 1985.
Guidance on Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA, Chapter 6, EPA/540/G-85/003,
June 1985.
F-l
------- |