CHARLOTTE  H.  HAYNES
                RESEARCH FELLOW
              NEW  YORK,  AUGUST 1988

      National Network for Environmental Management Studies
The National Network for Environmental Management Studies (NNEMS)
program was initiated during FY'88.   NNEMS is designed to produce
environmental management and policy studies on EPA's priority
concerns through a national network of graduate students in
university programs in environmental fields.  NNEMS matches the
Agency's concerns with university students in search of such
research while they complete their degree requirements.

Every year, EPA Region II develops new topics for study and
provides them to EPA Headquarters for inclusion in the national
topic catalogue.  Students submit proposals for those topics
which are of interest to them.  EPA then selects a student to
complete the study.  A limited number studies are funded with
internships or fellowships which provide the student with up to

The reports are sponsored by the EPA and while EPA provides
guidance to student, the opinions, findings and conclusions
expressed are those of the author and not necessarily of the EPA.
For more information on either the report or on the NNEMS
program, please contact the Policy and Program Integration
Branch, Office of Policy & Management, EPA-Region II, 26 Federal
Plaza, New York, New York, 10278, telephone: (212) 264-4296.

                        TABLE OF  CONTENTS
 SECTION                                               PAGE
          Executive Summary                              iii
          Acronyms                                       v
          Foreword                                       vi
          Acknowledgements                               vii
   I.     Introduction                                   1
  II.     Synopsis of the Superfund Remedial Process     3
 III.     Documentation of Pertinent Laws                11
  IV.     Coordination Between EPA Offices               22
   V.     Coordination with Federal Agencies/States      26
  VI.     Mitigation                                     42
 VII.     Bioassessment                                  47
VIII.     National Survey of Regional Practices          50
  IX.     Work in Progress                               56
   X.     Conclusion and Recommendations                 60
  XI.     Bibliography                                   62
          List of Appendices                             64

                         EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
     Wetland protection at Superfund remedial sites is becoming
an increasingly important concern, particularly on the East
Coast of the united states where wetlands are frequently
associated with Superfund sites.  The results of the National
Poll that is a part of this study conclude that in the four
Regions of EPA that encompass the East Coast, approximately
74% of Superfund Remedial sites have wetlands associated with
them, either directly or indirectly.  Regions V, VI, and X
also have high Superfund-wetland interface.
     The Environmental Protection Agency as a whole has been expand-
ing its traditional focus on issues of human health protection to
include a more stringent consideration of the environment.  The
Superfund program is becoming aware of this shift and is becoming
involved in the process of more fully considering impacts to the
environment on Superfund sites.  This is a difficult shift for
Superfund.  The primary concern is and always will be, of necessity,
public health.  This fact coupled with the vastly differing statutory
missions of other agencies and the inherent constraints and complexity
of the Superfund process itself combine to make the issue of wetland
protection a challenging one.  EPA has experienced a high turnover
rate among Regional Project Managers; the turnover rate has made
it difficult for EPA to retain its "institutional memory."
The entire process of wetland assessment, mitigation and
trustee responsibilities is continually rehashed with RPMs
and attorneys.
     This study scrutinizes the existing legal complexities of the
issue, the interactions of all major agencies involved, the role
of Bioassessment Work Groups, subtleties of mitigation and the
the opinions of personnel from the Environmental Protection
Agency, Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,

and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Recommendations include the following:
1)  A single Policy Statement that definitively outlines existing
    legal requirements and concerns for the protection of wetlands
    and the environment on Superfund sites.  This policy should be
    reflected in Guidances for Regional Project Managers.
2)  The goals of mitigation in all of its forms need to be identified
3)  Available scientific information needs to be utilized to
    aid in the evaluation of the effectiveness of mitigation
    practices.  New studies need to be initiated and coordinated
    with existing work in this field to fill data gaps.
4)  Uniform interpretation of existing Laws, and ARARs must
    be realized and applied.
5)  Increased cooperation, communication and coordination
    between State and Federal agencies and within the Environ-
    mental Protection Agency is essential to the protection of
    wetlands.  Mechanisms for these activities should be
    reflected in Policies and Guidance.
6)  Bioassessment Work Groups should be mandatory in all Regions
    and have one or two individuals staffed full-time to coord-
    inate activities for the group.

                        LIST OF ACRONYMS
ARAR     Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement
BA       Biological Assessment
CEQ      Council on Environmental Quality
CERCLA   Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
         Liability Act of 1980
CFR      Code of Federal Regulations
COE      U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
CRC      Coastal Resources Coordinator
CWA      Clean Water Act
CZMA     Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972
DEIS     Draft Environmental Impact Statement
DOC      Department of Commerce
DOI      Department of Interior
BA       Environmental Assessment
EEZ      Exclusive Economic Zone
EIB      Environmental Impact Branch
EIS      Environmental Impact Statement
EPA      Environmental Protection Agency
ERRD     Emergency and Remedial Response Division
FWCA     Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958
FWS      Fish and Wildlife Service
HAZMAT   Hazardous Materials
HRS      Hazard Ranking System
MOA      Memorandum of  Agreement
MOU      Memorandum of Understanding
NCP      National Contingency Plan
NEPA     National Environmental Policy Act
NMFS     National Marine Fisheries Service
NOAA     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPL      National Priorities List
NPS      National Park Service
NRDA     Natural Resource Damage Assessment
NWI      National Wetlands Inventory
OEA      Office of External Affairs
OEPR     office of Environmental Project Review
OFA      Office of Federal Activities
0PM      office of Policy and Management
OSWER    Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
OWP      office of Wetland Protection
PA       Preliminary Assessment
PNRS     Preliminary Natural Resource Survey
RD/RA    Remedial Design/Remedial Action
RI/FS    Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
ROD      Record of Decision
RPM      Remedial Project Manager
SARA     Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
USDA     U.S. Department of Agriculture

     The purpose of this study is to:  1) Outline the existing
legal requirements surrounding the protection of wetland eco-
systems at Superfund remedial sites; 2) Portray the role of the
Natural Resources Trustees and Bioassessment Work Groups as primary
implementors of wetland protection; 3) Identify constraints in
the area of Superfund-wetland protection as voiced by major agencies
with jurisdiction in this area; 4) Develop an awareness of where
Superfund personnel stand on this issue via a national survey of
regional practices; and 5) Foster an understanding and appreciation
for this relatively new and escalating area of concern through the
provision of pertinent information and recommendations for further



     I would like to acknowledge and thank the following people:
Doug Newman of the Office of Policy, Planning & Evaluation at EPA
Headquarters for undertaking the task of coordinating the National
Network of Environmental Policy Studies Program.  The experience
has been invaluable and was largely made possible by Mr. Newman.
Thanks to Erhard Joeres, Barbara Borns and Beverly Helms of the
Institute for Environmental Studies at the University of Wisconsin-
Madison for their support at the onset of the project; Vince Pitruzzello
and Peter Moss of EPA Region II's Emergency and Remedial Response
Division for resources, administrative and editorial support
throughout the study period; Bob Hargrove and Lorraine Graves of
EPA's Environmental Impacts Branch in Region II for their direction,
resources and technical expertise.

     Many thanks also to those who provided support in the form of
verbal comments and documents, including:
Alyce Fritz                                Diane Niedzialkowski
Bob Pavia                                  Mary Kentula
Dan Sparks                                 Arthur Sherman
Ken Carr                                   Mel Kollander
Thor Cutler                                William Ives
Libby Herland                              Karen Schneller-McDonald
Dave Dumond                                Dan Montella
William Sipple                             Libby Herland

And finally, thanks to those who took time to contribute to the
National survey that is a component of this study:
Jane Downing                               Dan Coughlin
Ron Borsellino                             Mel Hauptman
George Pavlou                              Thomas Voltaggio
Alyce Fritz                                Karen Wolper
Lisa Davis                                 Wendy Carney
Stan Hitt                                  Mike Kosakowski
John Haggard                               Greg Baker
Lou Consigliari

                          I. INTRODUCTION

     Wetland protection issues at Superfund Remedial sites
are surfacing across the country.  As the Environmental
Protection Agency expands its traditional focus on issues of
human health protection to include a more stringent consideration
of risks to the environment, wetlands are becoming the object
of increasing attention.  The creation of the Office of
Wetlands Protection (OWP) in 1986 and subsequently the position
of Superfund liason within the OWP is evidence that wetland
ecoystems are rapidly becoming a more salient variable in the
Superfund process.
     The frequency of occurrence of wetlands associated,
either directly or indirectly, with Superfund sites, is high
(see results of National Poll,sec.8).  Historically, wetlands
have been regarded as valueless land, and hence have become
receptors for garbage dumps, sanitary landfills and chemical
wastes.  The topographically depressed nature of wetlands and
frequent occurrence of a naturally impervious layer such as
a clay deposit, in addition to the fact that wetlands are not
suitable sites for construction, have in the past made wetlands
a "good choice" for such activities.
     The Superfund Program is necessarily action oriented.
The primary mandate, to provide protection of the public
health, is essential and recognized by all, as such.  However,
an increasing awareness of the Superfund remedial process by
agencies with jurisdiction over natural resources on Superfund
sites coupled with continually growing knowledge of the
functions and values of wetlands have combined to produce a
forum for the protection of wetland ecosystems.
     Environmental protection issues at Superfund sites are
becoming focused components of the Superfund process, intro-
ducing a fair degree of complexity and confusion.  The following
sections will attempt to identify and mitigate the confusion.




     Optimally, it is in the scoping phase of the Remedial Invest-
igation/Feasibility Study that wetlands are identified and integrated
into the planning process.  Frequently though, impacted wetlands
are not identified on Superfund sites until much later.  This
complicates the process.  After identification of a wetland, it
must be delineated and assessed to determine impacts and extent
of damage.  Finally, mitigative alternatives are discussed and one
is chosen.  Wetlands identified late in the process can:  1) potent-
ially slow the process if properly protected under existing ARARs
or 2) add to the group of wetlands damaged  without compensation.
     This section is intended to give a brief outline of the Super-
fund Remedial Process and to document all portions of the EPA
Guidances on Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies that
either directly or indirectly have a bearing on wetland ecosystems.
It is valuable to understand the perspective of the Regional
Project Manager and the Agency through "in-house" primary re-
     Figure 1 depicts the structure of the Superfund Remedial

    Hazardous waste sites are either discovered, or notification
is given of their existence.  As soon as a potential site is
identified, a Preliminary Assessment (PA) is done.  A PA is a
quick, low cost review of available information, undertaken to
determine if the site merits further action, no action or
emergency response.  A PA includes site visits, but no sample
    Site Inspection (SI) The SI defines and characterizes the
problem at the site and determines the need for further
action.  The SI always involves a site visit and sample collection.
    Hazard Ranking System (HRS) The HRS is designed to
evaluate facilities on the basis of potential risks to public

Figure 1
                     Site Discovery or Notification
   PHASE 1
Preliminary Assessment (PA)
Site Inspection (SI)
Hazard Ranking System (HRS)
Listing on National Priority List (NPL)
   PHASE 2
Scoping of Remedial Investigation/
   Feasibility Study
Remedial Investigation (RI)
Feasibility Study (FS)
Record of Decision  (ROD)
    PHASE  3
Remedial Design  (RD)
Remedial Action  (RA)
Operation & Maintence  (O&M)
Post Closure Monitoring
Cost Recovery  (CR)
   Who  is  involved  in the  remedial process?
      Other Federal  Agencies
           Responsible  Parties

health and the environment caused by the release of hazardous
substances relative to other facilities.  A HRS score of
28.50 is the cut off for including sites on the National
Priority List.  Note: CERCLA/SARA Sec 125 provides:
         (a) Revision of the Hazard Ranking System.  The
President shall revise the HRS in effect under the National
Contingency Plan with respect to such facilities in a manner
which assures appropiate consideration of each of the following
site-specific characteristics of such facilities:
         (1) The quality, toxicity and concentrations of
hazardous constituents which are present in such waste and
a comparison thereof with other wastes.
         (2) The extent of/ and potential for, release of
such hazardous consituents into the environment.
         (3) The degree of risk to human health and the
environment posed by such constituents.
The National Priority'List(NPL) lists the Nation's highest
priority sites for remedial action and is updated annually.
The Remedial investigation'(RJ) emphasizes data collection
and site characterization.  It is conducted concurrently with
the Feasibili ty Study {FS) and is the data collection mechanism
for the FS effort.

                Remedial Investigation Guidance
     Several sections of the Guidance'oni Remedial investigations
under CERCLA (EPA/546/6-85/662 June'J985) request the collection
of pertinent environmental data or are in other ways peripheral
to the wetlands issue.  The following sections are taken from
this Guidance. Receptors
     Data on human and environmental receptors in the area
surrounding the site should be compiled in this section.  Any

threatened, endangered or rare species  in the area  as  well as
sensitive environmental areas should be identified.

   6.7.2 Department of Interior
     DOI may provide assistance in performing remedial investigations
through its various services and offices.  The Fish &  Wildlife
Service may be consulted for information on endangered species,
critical habitats, and wetlands in the  vicinity of  the site.
Under EPA/DOI Memo of Understanding (September 2,  1983),  the
Office of Environmental Project Review  is responsible  for
performing preliminary surveys of damages to natural resources
when notified of the need for such a survey by EPA's Office
of Waste  Program Enforcement.

   7.2.2 Data to be Collected
     (a) Environmental concentrations:  Data collected should
allow an assessment of hazards posed by the site to the
surrounding environment.
     (b) Potential Impact on Receptors: Data describing the human
population and environmental systems that are susceptible to
contaminant exposures can be assessed.   Data on observed
effects to ecosystems may also be obtained. Biological/Ecological Investigations
     Biological and ecological information is collected for use
in the endangerment and environmental assessments.   The
assessment should follow the guidelines of  NEPA.
The information should include identification of the site's
fauna and flora, critical habitats, land use, water use and
the distribution of water wells.   See Figure 2. Environmental Assessment
     An Environmental Assessment is conducted during the Feasibility
Study.  The Remedial Investigation must provide data to

                            Supportive Information  for Environmental  Assessment
                        Analytical Steps ol Remedial Investigation
Supportive information thai
can be collected to enhance
the environmental assessment


• 1
on the
J  \    Studies    /
                      '    Risk     \
                      . Assessment |

conduct an evaluation of the effects on the environment at
or near a hazardous waste site.  The Environmental Assessment
should answer four questions:
    -What chemicals have been or might be released to the
    -What are the concentrations and exposure levels of these
    -How does the environmental exposure occur?
    -What is the significance? (EPA, 1985)
(See Figure 3)

                    Feasibility Study Guidance

     The following are sections of the Guidance on Feasibility
Studies under CERCLA'(EPA/540/G-85/663 June 1985) which have
a bearing on the protection of wetland ecosystems.

    2.5.1 Environmental and Public Health Screening
The user should identify adverse impacts on the environment
or on public health and welfare that may preclude the use of
each assembled alternative.  Alternatives that may have
significant adverse impacts or not adequately protect the
environment and public health should be eliminated.

    4.1 Overview of Institutional Requirements
It is EPA policy that, in selecting remedial actions, primary
consideration be given to remedies that attain applicable or
relevant Federal environmental and public health standards.
ARAR's listed in Feasibility Study Guidance, pertinent to
wetlands follow:
Office of External Affairs:  Guidelines for Specification
of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material Sec. 404 (b)(l)
guidelines. (40 CFR PART 230)

                                      SUMMARY  OF IMPORTANT  ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION
                                                                       Appropriate  Collection  Methods
     Information Needed
Fauna and Flora
Critical Habitats
Land Use Characteristics
Water Use Characteristics
Biocont aminat ion
  Purpose or Rationale

Determine potentially
affected ecosystems;
determine presence of
endangered species
Determine areas on or
near site to be protected
during remediation

Determine if terrestrial
environment  could result
in human utilization,
e.g., presence of game
animals, agricultural land

Determine if aquatic
environment could result
in human utilization of
water, e.g., presence of
game, fish, recreational

Determine observable
impact of contaminants on

Public records of area
plants and animals
survey, survey of plants
and animals on or near
site, survey of site/
area photographs

Public records of site

Remote sensing, ground  survey
                                                                                      Ground  survey
Agricultural and devel-   Remote sensing,  ground  and
opnent maps, site survey  aerial survey
Water resource agency
reports, site survey
                          Sampling and analysis,
                          remote sensing
*May be appropriate  if detailed  information  is required.

Other Federal Regulations:
    -Executive Orders related to Floodplains (11988) and
Wetland Protection (11990)
    -Coastal Zone Management Act

Federal Requirements, Advisories and Procedures:
    -Advisories issued by FWS and NMFS under the Fish & Wildlife
Coordination Act.
    -National Environmental Policy Act

State Requirements
     Chapter 6 of the Feasibility Study Guidance continues with
information on the evaluation of environmental impacts.  In
developing and evaluating alternatives, a major concern is
adequate remediation and protection of the environment.

    6.1 Environmental Assessment
Perform an Environmental Assessment (EA) for each alternative.
The EPA should focus on the site problems and pathways of
contaminants actually addressed by each alternative.  The EA
for each alternative will include, at minimum, an evaluation
of beneficial effects of the response, adverse effects of the
response and an analysis of measures to mitigate adverse
effects.  The no action alternative will be fully evaluated
to describe the current site situation and anticipated
environmental conditions if no actions are taken. Improvement in Biological Environment
User should describe the remedial alternatives and likely
improvements to the biological environment.  The user should
note the benefits of the alternative with regard to wetlands.

A wetlands assessment must be conducted as part of the
feasibility study.  EPA is preparing a formal policy for
conducting wetlands assessments at Superfund sites. Expected Effects of Remedial Alternatives
The user should identify and evaluate any expected adverse
effects of remedial construction and operations.  In identifying
these effects, the user should especially consider sensitive
environmental areas and resources people use. Mitigative Measures
If any alternative appears to have significant inevitable or
irreversible effects, the user should state the mitigative
measures to be taken in conjunction with the alternatives.
The statement should discuss the technology to be employed
and its expected mitigating effects, (i.e., percentage
reduction in adverse effects.)  (EPA, 1985)

    Components of the Superfund Remedial Process which
follow the Feasibility Study are described below.

    Record of Decision (ROD);  The ROD is the offical EPA re-
medial action decision document.  It should include a summary
of EPA's activities to ensure that impacts to wetlands/water
resources are properly addressed and mitigated.
    Remedial Design (RD);  Detailed plans and specifications
for conducting the selected remedy are developed in the RD.
    Remedial Action (RA);  Phase in which the technical activity
of the selected alternative is conducted.  Unavoidable impacts
to wetlands/water resources must be mitigated during the
implementation phase of the CERCLA/SARA remedial action.
    Operation and Maintence (Q & M);  State assumes responsibility for
operation and maintance of the remedy once remedy is operational

and functional.  EPA shares in the costs to ensure the state
remedy is operational and functional for a period not to
exceed one year.
    Post Closure Monitoring;  The State continues monitoring to
ensure protectiveness of the remedy and EPA ceases all further
site involvement and deletes the site from the NPL.

     There is mention in the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study Guidances of sensitive ecosystems and the wetlands
assessment requirement (Part  However, Federal Nat-
ural Resource Trustees have expressed concern that environ-
mental protection requirements outlined in the RI/FS Guidances
are not well defined and lack detail.  CERCLA requirements
of Trustee notification and mandatory coordination are not
reflected in the Guidance.  The brief provision for wetland
assessments in the FS Guidance offers no direction to aid
RPM's in actually performing assessments.

     This section provides a definitive legal basis for under-
standing what must be done in terms of wetland protection at
Superfund sites.  There are seven major documents from which
legal jurisdiction in this area is derived, the primary one
being CERCLA/SARA.  Throughout the process of this study,
considerable ambiguity was identified surrounding the issue
of wetlands on Superfund sites.  This was traced directly back
to differing interpretations or lack of familiarity of the
subtleties of CERCLA/SARA, Executive Orders and Policy Statements
that follow.  This section  provides a concise reference.

                          DOCUMENT 1

is a synopsis of sections, taken from the combined document
entitled, as above:  CERCLA of 1980 AS AMENDED BY SARA of 1986,
with direct or peripheral bearing on wetlands.

   The president shall promptly notify the appropriate Federal
   and State natural resource trustees of potential damages to
   natural resources resulting from releases under investiga-
   tion pursuant to this section and shall seek to coordinate
   the assessment, investigations, and planning under this sec-
   tion with such Federal and State Trustees."

   (1) Authority - The President is authorized to aquire, by

purchase, lease, condemnation, donation, or otherwise, any
real property or any interest in real property that the
President in his discretion determines is needed to conduct
a remedial action under this Act.  There shall be no cause
of action to compel the President to acquire any interest
in real property under this act.
(2) State Assurance - The President may use the authority
of paragraph (1) for a remedial action only if, before an
interest in real estate is acquired under this subsection,
the State in which the interest to be acquired is located
assures the President, through a contract or cooperative
agreement or otherwise, that the State will accept transfer
of the interest following completion of the remedial action."

SEC. 105(a) The national hazardous substance response plan
will establish procedures and standards for responding to
releases of hazardous substances, pollutants and contaminants,
which shall include:
(8)(a) Criteria for determining priorities among releases
or threatened releases throughout the United States for the
purpose of taking remedial action and, to the extent practi-
cable taking into account the potential urgency of such action,
for the purpose of taking removal action.  Criteria and
priorities under this paragraph shall be based upon relative risk
or danger to public health or welfare or the environment, in
the judgement of the President, taking into account to the
extent possible the population at risk, the hazard potential
of the hazardous substances at such facilities, the potential
for contamination of drinking water supplies, the potential
for direct human contact, the potential for destruction of
sensitive ecosystems, the damage to natural resources which
may affect the human food chain and which is associated with
any release or threatened release, and other appropriate factors."

SEC. 107.(a)  Notwithstanding any other provision or rule of
law, and subject only to the defenses set forth in subsection
(b) of this section:
(1) the owner and operator of a vessel or a facility,
(2) any person who at the time of disposal of any hazardous
substance owned or operated any facility at which such
hazardous substances were disposed of,
(3) any person who by contract, agreement, or otherwise
arranged for disposal or treatment, or arranged with a
transporter for transport for disposal or treatment, of
hazardous substances owned or possessed by such person,
by any other party or entity, at any facility or vessel
owned or operated by another party or entity and cont-
aining such hazardous substances, and
(4) any person who accepts or accepted any hazardous substances
for transport to disposal or treatment facilities, vessels
or sites selected by such person, from which there is a
release, or a threatened release, or a threatened release
which causes the incurrence of response costs, of a
hazardous substance, shall be liable for:
(c) damages for injury to, destruction of, or loss of na-
tural resources, including the reasonable costs of assessing
such injury, destruction, or loss resulting from such a

In the case of an injury to, destruction of, or loss of
natural resources under subparagraph (c) of subsection (a)
liability shall be to the United States Government and to
any State for natural resources within the State or
belonging to, managed by, controlled by, or appertaining
to such State:   provided, however that no liability to
the United States or State shall be imposed under sub-

paragraph (c) of subsection (a) where the party sought
to be charged has demonstrated that the damages to natural
resources complained of were specifically identified as an
irreversible and irretrievable commitment of natural
resources, in an environmental impact statement/ or
other comparable environmental analysis, and the
decision to grant a permit or license authorizes
such commitment of natural resources and the facility
was otherwise operating within the terms of its permit or
license. Sums recovered by the US Government or a State
as trustee under this subsection shall be retained by
the trustee, without further appropriation/ for use only
to restore/ replace/ or acquire the equivalent of such
natural resources.  The measure of damages in any action
under subparagraph (c) of subsection (a) shall not be limi-
ted by the Sums which can be used to restore or replace
such resources.  There shall be no double recovery under
this Act for natural resource damages/ including the costs
of damage assessment or restoration/ rehabilitation/ or
acquisition for the same release and natural resource."

(A) Federal - The President shall designate in the National
Contingency Plan published under section 105 of this Act
the Federal officials who shall act on behalf of the public
as trustees for national resources under this Act and section
311 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.  Such officials
shall assess damages for injury to/ destruction of/ or loss
of natural resources for purposes of this Act and such Section
311 for those resources under their trusteeship and may/ upon
request of and reimbursement from a State and at the Federal
official's discretion/ assess damages for those natural resour-
ces under the State's trusteeship.
(B) State - The Governor of each State shall designate state

officials who may act on behalf of the public as trustees for
natural resources and shall notify the President of such desig-
nations.  Such State officials shall assess damages to
natural resources for the purposes of this Act and such Sec-
tion 311 for those natural resources under their trusteeship."

FUND. (C) claims for injury to, or destruction or loss of
natural resources.... described in Section 111 (c)."

"Sec.Ill (C) uses of the fund under subsection (a) of this
section include -
(1) The costs of assessing both short-term and long-term
injury to, destruction of, or loss of any natural resources
resulting from a release of a hazardous substance.
(2) The costs of Federal or State or Indian Tribe efforts in
the restoration, rehabilitation, or replacement or acquiring
the equivalent of any natural resources injured, destroyed,
or lost as a result of a release of a hazardous substance."

"Title V - Amendments of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
Part I - Superfund and Its Revenue Sources.
SECTION 514(B) REPEAL OF TRUST FUND - Section 232 of the
Hazardous Substance Response Revenue Act of 1980 is hereby

(B) Expenditures From Post-Closure Liability Trust Fund. -
Amounts on the Post-Closure Liability Trust Fund shall be
available only for the purposes described in Sections 107(k)
and lll(j) of this Act."

"Sec.lll(j) The President shall use the money in the Post-
Closure Liability Fund for any of the purposes specified
in subsection (a) of this section with respect to a hazar-
dous waste disposal facility for which liability has trans-
ferred to such fund under section 107(k) of this act, and,
in addition/ for payment of any claim or appropriate request
for costs of response/ damages/ or other compensation for
injury or loss under Section 107 of this Act or any other
State or Federal law/ resulting from a release of a hazardous
substance from such a facility."
         SEE PREVIOUS NOTATION OF SEC. 107(a)(4)(c).

"Sec. 122 Settlements
(j) Natural Resources
     (1) Notification of Trustees—Where a release or threatened
release of any hazardous substance that is the subject of
negotiations under this section may have resulted in damages
to natural resources under the trusteeship of the United States/
the President shall notify the Federal natural resource trustee
of the negotiations and shall encourage the participation of
such trustee in the negotiations.
     (2) Covenant not to Sue—An agreement under this Section may
contain a covenant not to sue under section 107(a)(4)(c) for
damages to natural resources under the trusteeship of the United
States resulting from the release or threatened release of
hazardous substances that is the subject of the agreement/ but
only if Federal natural resource trustees have agreed in writing
to such covenant.  The Federal natural resource trustee may
agree to such covenant if the potentially responsible party
agrees to undertake appropriate actions necessary to protect
and restore the natural resources damaged by such release or
threatened release of hazardous substances." (CERCLA/SARA/ 1986)

                         DOCUMENT #2


   This document states that it shall be the Agency's policy,
   "a) to give particular cognizance and consideration to any proposal
   that has the potential to damage wetlands, to recognize the irre-
   placable value and man's dependence on them to maintain an environ-
   ment acceptable to society, and to preserve and protect them from
   damaging misuses,  b) to minimize alterations in the quantity and
   quality of the natural flow of water that nourishes wetlands and
   to protect wetlands from adverse dredging or filling practices,
   solid waste management practices, siltation or the addition of
   pesticides, salts or toxic materials arising from non-point source
   wastes and through construction activities, and to prevent viola-
   tion of applicable water quality standards from such environmental

                         DOCUMENT #3
      ACTIONS  AUGUST 5, 1985

     Under this policy Superfund actions must meet the substantive
requirements of the Floodplain Management Executive Order
(E.o. 11988) and the Protection of Wetlands Executive Order (E.O.
11990).  This memo discusses situations that require preparation
of a floodplains or wetlands assessment, and the factors which
should be considered in preparing an assessment, for remedial
actions undertaken pusuant to section 104 or 106 of CERCLA.
     The Policy For Remedial Actions follows:
     A floodplain/wetlands assessment must be incorporated into the

analysis conducted during the planning of remedial actions.  During
the scoping of remedial actions, the Remedial Project Manager (RPM)
or the lead Agency in conjunction with Regional 404 staff, should
identify any floodplain or wetlands located within the site area
or that could be affected by the response action.  (404 staff
refers to EPA personnel who work with wetland permitting under
section 404 of the Clean Water Act).  If there are no flood-
plains/wetlands located within the site area or that could be
affected by a response action, the Feasibility Study should so
state, and the response action may proceed without further consi-
deration of the procedures set forth below.  However, if the site
is located within a floodplain/wetland, the RPM or the lead agency
must conduct a floodplain/wetland assessment which will be integra-
ted into the Feasibility Study.  Floodplain/wetland assessment
shall consist of a description of the alternatives considered and
their effects on the floodpla ins and wetlands, and measures to
minimize potential harm to the floodplain/wetland if there is no
practicable alternative to locating in or affecting the floodplain/
   Wetland Assessment of Alternatives
   "In assessing the alternatives and their effects on wetlands, the
   RPM or lead agency in conjunction with the Regional 404 staff,
   should consider such factors as environmental effects, community
   welfare, cost and technology.  All possible alternatives must be
   considered, including the no action alternative.  If one or more
   of the alternatives will be located in a wetland, those alterna-
   tives may not be selected unless a determination is made that no
   practicable alternative exists outside the wetlands.
   If no practicable alternative exists outside the wetlands, and
   the RPM or lead agency has determined or proposes to allow a re-
   medial action to be located in a wetlands, then the RPM or lead
   agency shall act to minimize potential harm or to avoid adverse
   effects to the wetlands.  This includes action to allow restora-
   tion and preservation of the natural and beneficial values of

   the wetlands.  All impacts caused by an action occuring in a
   wetland must be evaluated and mitigated according to the EPA
   mitigation policy (under the authority of the Clean Water Act
   section 404)."  (EPA, 1985)
                         DOCUMENT #4


     Executive Order 11990 requires Federal agencies in
carrying out their repsponsibilities "to take action to minimize
the destruction, loss or degradation of wetlands, and to
preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of
wetlands.  The order emphasizes the importance of avoiding
undertaking new construction located in wetlands unless there is
no practicable alternative to that construction, minimizing the
harm to wetlands if the only practicable alternative requires
construction in the wetland, and providing early and adequate
opportunities for public review of plans and proposals involving
new construction in wetlands."  (Carter, 1977)
                         DOCUMENT #5


     This guidance was developed in response to EPA's position
that CERCLA actions need not obtain permits under Section '404
of the Clean Water Act or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors
Act.  The letter directs appropriate COE personnel not to
require permit applications for actions proposed under the
authority of CERCLA.


                         DOCUMENT # 6


     Briefly,"the FWCA recognizes the vital contribution
of our wildlife resources to the Nation,  the increasing
public interest and significance of fish  and wildlife to
expansion of our national economy and other factors.  Also
the FWCA provides that wildlife conservation shall receive  equal
consideration in coordination with other features of "water-
resource development programs", interpreted broadly to
cover any Federal project or permit affecting waters and
wetlands."  If the project will impact water resources under
FWCA, the agency must consult with appropriate State and
Federal wildlife agencies to determine necessary mitigative

                         DOCUMENT #7

404  (b)(l) Guidelines For Specification Of Disposal Sites For
Dredged Or Fill Material (40 C.F.R. Part 230)

     The 404 (b)(l) Guidelines establish substantive envir-
onmental criteria for 404 activities and set forth the
"water-dependency" and "practicable alternatives"
tests that are designated to steer development away from
wetlands, in particular, and "other waters" in general.  The
guidelines establish, among others, the following rules:
   "a) No permit will be issued if there is a practicable
   alternative to the proposed discharge that would have less
   adverse impacts on the aquatic ecosystem (40 CFR Sec. 230.10
   b) To be practicable an alternative must be both available

or reasonably obtained and feasible for the overall project
purpose. (40 CFR Sec. 230.10 (a)(2));
c) For non-water dependent activities in special aquatic
sites(i.e. wetlands) the guidelines assume that practicable
alternatives exist and that the alternatives will have
less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem (40 CFR Sec.
230.10 (a)(3)). 404 permits aren't required for Superfund
Remedial Program actions, however, the Superfund process must
emulate the 404 (b)(l) Guidelines, substantively."(EPA, 1972)

      Major intra-agency coordination activities  in the  area  of
 wetland  protection  on Superfund  sites involve  the  Offices  of
 Water, and of  Policy, Planning and  Evaluation.   The type and
 extent of  coordination is  highly variable  in regions  across  the
 nation.  To a  large degree,  cooperation  and coordination efforts
 are  voluntary.  The following description  is based  on experiences
 in EPA's Region II.

 A. Office  of Water  - Wetland Protection  Branch
   The office of Water assists the Office  of Emergency  &
   Remedial Response primarily in two ways:
  1)  Document review and comment.
  2)  Provision of in-house expertise  and resources  for  a number
      of  substantive  areas such as ground water,  water quality and
      Superfund documents are routed  through the  Office  of
 Water for  review and  comment.  Depending on the  specific nature
 and  severity of problems at  individual sites, documents may  be
 reviewed by any combination  of the following branches:  Ground
Water Protection, Marine & Wetland Protection, Drinking Water,
 Surface Water and Water Quality.  When necessary, a lead contact
 person is  assigned  to  a site, providing advice and expertise to
 the Regional Project Manager.  The Marine and Wetland Protection
Branch reviews Superfund documents and provides comments from a
 "protective" standpoint on various cleanup alternatives and
mitigation  practices.  Other that these document reviews that
routinely done, coordination between ERRD and the Wetland-
Protection  Branch is done largely on an "as needed" basis.
The Wetlands staff is  available if Regional Project Managers
need assistance in identifying, delineating or evaluating
wetland ecosystems on their sites.  Resources  such as county

soil surveys, to aid in defining wetland boundaries, and
the National Wetland Inventory maps, to aid in determining
types of wetlands present, are available through the
Wetland Protection Branch.
     In each EPA Region, one staff person has been hired as a
Superfund liaison.  This person works in the Wetlands Protection
Branch and is responsible for reviewing all Superfund sites
that have wetlands associated with them.
Additional coordinating functions may include:
1) Wetland training sessions administered by Wetlands staff
   for Regional Project Managers.
2) Superfund site visitation by Wetland staff person.
3) Wetlands staff may aid in the negotiation of meetings
   with Potentially Responsible Parties.
4) Wetlands staff are frequently participants in Biological
   Assessment Work Group meetings, if they exist in the Region.

     In speaking with Superfund liaisons in the Office of
Water, the following concerns were raised;
1) Standardized criteria are needed for Biological Assessment.
2) Resources of Wetland Protection Branch are not fully
   utilized by Superfund personnel.
3) Contractors and often Regional Project Managers, are not
   conversant with wetland principles and terminology.
4) Wetland training sessions for RPM's were suggested to aid
   in transfer of wetland identification and delineation
5) Increased coordination and cooperation between Superfund
   and the Office of Wetland Protection is essential to the
   protection of wetlands on Superfund sites.

B. Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation - Environmental
   Impacts Branch/NEPA Compliance
     Coordination between the Environmental Impacts Branch and
Superfund revolves around the issue of compliance with the Nat-
ional Environmental Policy Act.  NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321) requires
that all agencies of the Federal Government to the fullest extent
possible carry out the provisions of NEPA by building into agency
decision making appropriate and careful consideration of the
environmental effects of proposed actions, and avoiding or mini-
mizing the adverse effects of these actions.  The environmental
impact statement (EIS) requirement under section 102(2)(c) serves
as the most significant mechanism for implementing NEPA. Superfund
activities (e.g. the  RI/FS) and many other EPA activities (e.g.
RCRA permits) have been exempted from EIS applicability by
Congress and the courts.  This exemption, known as "functional
equivalency," applies to regulatory actions where the Agency's
work product constitutes the functional equivalent of a NEPA
review.  Two criteria must be met:
1) The agency's authorizing Statute must provide "substantive and
   procedural standards that ensure full and adequate consid-
   eration of environmental issues."
2) The agency must afford an opportunity for public participation
   in the evaluation of environmental factors prior to arriving
   at a final decision. (Environmental Review Manual, 1987)
The Environmental Impacts Branch reviews Superfund documents to
determine if environmental assessments are adequate and in fact
"functionally equivalent" to NEPA requirements, and to the
requirements of other environmental statutes.
Theoretically, Superfund remedial actions seem to satisfy the
first criterion in light of section 104(a)(l) of CERCLA which
directs that remedial actions be "necessary to protect public
health or welfare and the environment."  Concerning the second
criterion, Section 117 of CERCLA/SARA establishes a mechanism for
public participation whereby, before adoption of any plan for

remedial action, four procedures for notification of the public
must be implemented.
In practice, however, the "functional equivalency" determination
is contingent upon the adequate structuring of remedial actions
to satisfy the requirements for environmental assessment and
public participation.  It is necessary for the Environmental
Impacts Branch to review all Superfund documents thoroughly for
compliance in these areas.  (See Appendix H for procedural
details of EIB/ERRD coordination)

     A.  Natural  Resources Trusteeship
     When  natural resources  are  lost  or damaged as a  result
 of a discharge  of oil  or  as  a release of hazardous substances,
 officials  are designated  to  act  as Federal Trustees pursuant
 to section lll(h)(l) of CERCLA and Section 311  (f)(5) of the
 Clean Water Act for purposes of  sections lll(h ) (1),lll(b),
 and 107  (f) of  CERCLA  and section 311 (f)(s) of the Clean
 Water Act.
    Federal Natural Resources Trustees include: Department
 of Commerce/ Department of Interior/ U.S. Department  of
 Agriculture/ U.S.  Department of  Defense (on site only)/ U.S.
 Department  of Energy (on  site only)/ or the head of any other
 single entity designated  by  it to act as trustee for specific
 resources.  States may only act  as trustee for natural resources
 within the  boundary of a  State or belonging to/ managed by,
 controlled  by,  or  appertaining to such State as provided by

     Natural Resources Trusteeship is a critical component
 in the Superfund-wetlands area,  definitely the most important
 when incorporated  into a  Bioassessment Work Group forum,  (See
section VII)  Trustees provide a variety of functions on
 Superfund sites in accordance with their responsibilities to
 protect various resources.  Trustees often initiate studies of
 impacts on wetlands/ provide expertise throughout the study
period and make recommendations  for raitigative measures and
 compensation for wetland  losses.

    Section 300.74 of the National Contingency Plan (July 1986)
describes the responsibilities  of trustees:
    (a) The Federal Trustees  for natural  resources  shall be

 responsible for assessing damages  to the  resources  in  accordance
 with regulations promulgated  under section 301(c) of CERCLA,
 seeking  recovery for the  costs  of  assessment  and  for the
 losses  from the person responsible or from the  Post Closure
 Liability  Trust Fund, and for designing and carrying out  a
 plan for restoration, rehabilitation or replacement or
 acquisition of  equivalent natural  resources pursuant to CERCLA.
 Note, however,  that  the Superfund  Revenue  Act of  1986  prohibits
 use  of Superfund funds to pay for  natural  resource  damages.

     (b)  The trustee  may,  upon notification, take  the following
 actions  as  appropriate:
         (1)  request  that  the  lead  agency  issue  an administrative
 order or pursue judicial  relief  against parties responsible for
 the  release, as authorized by CERCLA Section  106?
         (2)  request  that  the  lead  agency remove or  arrange
 for  the  removal  or provide for  remedial action with respect
 to any hazardous  substance from  a  contaminated medium, as
 authorized  by CERCLA section  104;
         (3)  initiate actions  against responsible parties under
 CERCLA section  107 (a); or
         (4)  pursue a claim against  the Hazardous Substance
 Superfund for injury Destruction, or  loss  of natural resources
 as authorized by  CERCLA section  111  (when  this option  is
 selected, a  plan  for  restoration, rehabilitation, or replace-
ment or acquisition  of equivalent natural  resources must be
 adopted pursuant  to  section 111  (i) of CERCLA.  (NCP,   1986)

     (c)  Where there  are multiple trustees, because of co-
existing or contiguous natural resources or concurrent
jurisdictions,  they  shall coordinate and cooperate  in carrying
out the  responsibilities.

     Natural resources are broadly defined  in CERCLA sec.

  101(16)  to include:... "land, fish, wildlife, biota, air,  water,
  groundwater,  drinking water supplies,  and other such resources
  belonging  to,  managed by, held in trust by,  appertaining  to or
  otherwise  controlled  by the United States (including the
  resources  of  fishery  conservation zones established by  the
  Fishery  Conservation  and  Management Act of  1976),  any State
  or local government,  any  foreign  government,  any Indian tribe,
  r' if such resources are subject to a  trust  restriction on
  alienation, any member  of an  Indian tribe."   The biota or
  iological resources  are  further  defined  as  fish and  wildlife,
  including marine and  freshwater aquatic and terrestial species,
  game, non-game, and commercial species; and threatened and
 endangered and state  sensitive species.

      The following CERCLA/SARA provisions affect EPA and trustees:
      A)  EPA is required to promptly notify Federal  and State
  atural  resources trustees of potential damages to  natural
 resources at Superfund sites and to seek to coordinate
 assessments,  investigatons and planning with the trustees.
 (Section  104  (b)(2)).   This requirement applies to  both  removal
 a°d remedial  actions,  and  to enforcement,  fund lead and  state
 iead sites.
     B) EPA is  required to notify  Federal  Natural Resource
 Trustees  of negotiations with potentially responsible parties,
 If the release  of hazardous substances may have resulted in
 Damages to  natural resources  under the  trusteeship  of  the
 United States;  and to  encourage  the participation of the
 trusteeship in  the negotiations.   (Section 122 (j)(D).
     C) The Federal Trusteeship may agree  to a covenant not  to
 Sue (a release  from damage claims)  only  if the  Potentially  .
 Responsible Party agrees to undertake appropriate actions
 necessary to protect and restore the natural resources damaged
bV the hazardous materials released.  (Section  122  (j)(2)).

     1. Department Of Commerce
     The Department of Commerce (DOC) designated the National
Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration(NOAA) to implement Natural
Resources Trusteeships.  In each EPA Region with coastal
resources, a NOAA Coastal Resources Coordinator has been
appointed and is funded through Superfund.  This person
coordinates all Superfund - Department of Commerce activities
in the Region.
     The objective of this coordination is to protect coastal
resources and ecosystems and to help EPA address human health
risks asociated with the bioaccumulation and transfer of
toxicants through the marine food chain.

     NOAA will assist EPA by identifying, evaluating and mitigating
the adverse affects of hazardous substances on coastal resources
and supporting ecoystems from all sources including hazardous
waste sites.  NOAA will help on a continuing basis in developing
information on risks to natural resources from hazardous
waste sites and on effective mitigative strategies during all
stages: site investigation/ removal and remedial planning/
implementation or remedies.  It is the aim of NOAA to provide
scientific support for remedial and removal operations at
hazardous waste sites, specifically:
     1) Develop environmental sampling strategies.
     2) Help in designing and implementing analytical techniques
        (i.e. bioassays).
     3) Calculate fate and transport of contaminants in the
     4) Define methods of risk assessment.
     5) Identify target levels protective of the environment.
     6) Recommend mitigation strategies that address environmental
     7) Determine technical adequacy of investigations; and  the
        extent of contamination with respect to environmental

     8) Evaluate the potential for unfavorable  effects on natural
     9) Identify remedial alternatives  that  include  actions  to
        protect and restore natural resources.
     The NOAA Coastal Resources Coordinator(CRC)  has  support  from
the NOAA Hazardous  Materials (HAZMAT) staff  which consists of:

     1) Air and surface water trajectory modelling group.
     2) Environmental sampling and biological analyses group.
     3) Chemistry and field instrumentation  group.
     4) Site weather monitoring group.

     The NOAA trusteeship includes NOAA and  non-NOAA managed
     1) Living and non-living resources for  which it has
management or protective responsibility under various
resource statutes.   This covers primary trusteeship for:
     A) Coastal environments (salt marshes,  tidal flats/
estuaries) and all fishery resources of the  exclusive
economic zone(EEZ) and continental shelf.  (The Magnuson  Fishery
Conservation and Manangement Act, 16 U.S.C.  1801-1882;  16
U.S.C.  leOHbHD).
     B) Rivers or tributaries  to rivers that support anadromous
species (and catadromous fish) throughout their range.   (The
Atlantic Tuna Convention Act,  16 U.S.C. 971a-i; the Pacific
Salmon  Treaty Act, 16 U.S.C. 3631-44; the Atlantic Striped
Bass Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 1851).
     C) Endangered and threatened species, including critical
habitat and marine mammals whose responsibilities are assigned
to NOAA.   (The Marine Mammals  Protection Act,  16 U.S.C.
1361-1407; the Whaling Convention Act,  16 U.S.C. 91-1961, and
the Fur Seal Act of  1966, as ammended,  16 U.S.C. 1151-1187.)
     D) Tidal wetlands and other habitat for fishery and

marine resources (Sec. 404 (c) of the Clean Water Act/(33
U.S.C. 1344(c)); the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act,(16
U.S.C. 661-666); Title 2 of the National Ocean Pollution
planning Act (U.S.C 1701-1709).  Also resources for which  other
agencies (including tter Army Corps of Engineers and EPA) have
management authority.  This covers wetlands and estuaries.
     E) Resources protected by marine sanctuaries (Research
and Sanctuaries Act,(33 U.S.C. 1441-1445)
      F) Commercial or recreational marine fishery resources
(16 U.S.C. 1801-1882).

Co-trusteeship with Department of Interior
      G) Certain endangered species  (Endangered Species Act
(16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).

ro-trusteeship with States
      H) Fishery resources and endangered species in state
      I) Resources  in estuarine research reserves.  (Sec.  315
Coastal Zone Management Act(16 U.S.C. 1461).
     2. Department of the Interior (DOI)
     The DOI has duties as one of several natural resources
trustees authorized by Superfund, and designated in Executive
Order 12580 and the National Contingency Plan.

     Resource  concerns of the Department of the Interior fall
under the following services:
        A) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
           1.  Migratory birds
           2.  Anadromous fish
           3.  Endangered plants and animals

           4. Critical habitats
           5. National Wildlife Refuges

        B) National Park Service
           1. National Parks
           2. National Seashores
           3. National Recreation Areas
           4. National Historical Sites
           5. National Battlefields

     The Office of Environmental Project Review (OEPR) is assigned
the principal responsibilities of the DOI under CERLCA.  OEPR
has oversight, coordination/ and guidance responsibilities.
The activities of OEPR include representing the DOI on the
National and Regional Response Teams, coordinating response
managenment in the field and necessary preparedness and
planning activities.  In addition, OEPR provides a Department
wide reporting capicity for overall budget and policy
determinations.  At headquarters, the office works especially
closely with the Solicitor's Office, the Budget office, and
staff throughout the Department having jurisdiction and/or
expertise relevant to Superfund responsibilities.
The office is allocated 54 positions, all of which are involved
in one way or another with the Superfund program.  About 31
full time equivalents are devoted to this activity.

     DOI responsibilities under Superfund fall into two
categories (1) response and (2) trusteeship for natural re-
sources.  Each of these categories is subdivided into two* main
kinds of activities.
     (1) Response,  a) The Department provides response assist-
ance along with other Federal agencies at spill incidents or sites
as members of the National and Regional Response Teams, as spelled

out in the National Contingency Plan.  The focus of these act-
ivities is natural resources, and DOI provides technical expertise
in water resources issues/ fish and wildlife habitat/ etc. b)   The
DOI responds to spill incidents or uncontrolled hazardous waste
sites on its own lands/ in compliance with Superfund provisions
for Federal facilities.
     (2) Trustee for Natural Resources.  Federal Trust Respon-
sibilities under CERCLA are narrowly drawn to encompass
only those natural resources which the Federal government
manages or protects under specific authorization.

        a) Trustee responsibilities begin once DOI discovers or
is notified pursuant to the NCP that there is a potential for
natural resources injury as a result of a spill or release of
hazardous substance.  The trustee activities may be those leading
to a natural resources damage assessment/ whereby DOI would
develop a claim for damages to be brought in court; or the trustee
activities may include participating in negotiations with PRP's/
along with EPA/ the Department of Justice and any other natural
resource trustees/ for natural resources rehabilitation measures
or other compensation for agreed upon injuries/ to be under-
taken at the same time as remedial action or following thereafter.
        b)  Interior also has the duty under Superfund
section 301(c) to study and promulgate regulations for the
assessment of damages for injury to/ destruction of/ or
loss of natural resources resulting from a release of oil or
a hazardous substance.  CERCLA 301(c)(2) requires that such
regulations specify:  1) standard procedures for simplified
assessments requiring minimal field observation/ including
establishing measures of damages based on units of discharge
and   2) alternative protocols for conducting assessments in
individual cases to determine the type and extent of short
and long-term injury/ destruction or loss.  Such regulations
shall identify the best available procedures to determine

such damages, including both direct and indirect injury and
destruction or loss, and shall take into consideration
factors including/ but not limited to, replacement value/
use value and ability of the ecosystem or resource to recover.
These regulations must be used if the trustees presenting
damage claims in court wish their claim to have the force and
effect of a rebuttable presumption.  Trustees may elect to
conduct damage assessments without using the DOI's damage
assessments rules/ but if they do so/ they will not be entitled
to the rebuttable presumption (See sub-section 3 on Natural Re-
source Damage Assessment.)  The responsibilities of the Department
of Interior/ whether (1) response or  (2)trustee activities/
have some degree of overlap—the need for fish and wildlife
biological expertise or groundwater expertise may apply to
all activities mentioned.

     The three subsections following describe additional trustee
responsibilities of the Department of the Interior and the
Department of Commerce.  The fundamental objective of these
activities is to aid in the identification/ protection and
and compensation of natural resources.

Sub-section 1

preliminary Natural Resource Surveys  (PNRS)
     The PNRS procedure was developed by the Department of
interior in 1983.   It was deemed valuable to develop a regular
procedure whereby DOI would be notified in a timely manner
of EPA plans for negotiations with Potentially Responsible
parties/ so that DOI could/ in turn/ provide EPA with a response
as to whether or not site information warranted the DOI to be
willing to grant a  release.  A memorandum was signed in
September of 1983.  It  initiated the  PNRS procedure.  The
surveys done under  this MOU are specifically oriented to

support EPA's negotiations with responsible parties by reviewing
available information on a site to determine if there are
resources which DOI manages or protects in the area and if
there are logical pathways or other information to indicate
that these resources might have been injured by releases at
that site.  The MOU was updated in December of 1987 to conform
it to SARA.  The MOU covering PNRS procedures has a narrow
purpose.  It is to effect a quick screen by Interior,
usually with no special study or sampling, on sites selected
by EPA, to make a determination about possible Interior concern
for the site.  If there is no evidence of potential injury
to natural resources protected by DOI, EPA is so informed
and EPA can then proceed without DOI to negotiate a settle-
ment representing the Federal interest.  DOI does not act-
ually release until they've had the opportunity to review the
consent decree.  The end of the survey process is a letter
to EPA indicating the position of DOI with respect to a release
from damage claims.
     In February of 1988, Proceedures for Using Generic
Interagency Agreements Detween DOI and EPA and NOAA and EPA
were drafted.  The agreement outlines a process whereby
funding is provided to DOI/NOAA for projected annual needs
of Preliminary Natural Resource Surveys.  The scope of work
is repetitive and is usually for a small dollar value  (less
than $6000.00 per site)
     Preliminary Natural Resource Surveys are most often
initiated by EPA, but can also be initiated by the Depart-
ment of Commerce and the Department of the Interior.  The
Trustees may have a responsibility for natural resources
affected by any site, therefore DOI/DOC initiated
     are performed in addition to those requested by EPA.
    basic question becomes whether or not to conduct a damage
assessment, rather than whether or not to release the PRP from
claims.  The report of a DOI/DOC intiated PNRS is in the
form of a memorandum to Department files.

Sub-section 2

Releases From Natural Resource Claims
     When EPA's case against a Potentially Responsible Party
is ready for settlement or court action/ the Department of
Justice requests a release from natural resource damage
claims, by letter to the Solicitor of the Department of
Interior or the Department of Commerce.  At that time, DOI and/or
DOC staff review their records and examine any new information
available on the site including the draft consent decree and
supporting documentation.  If the PNRS letter to EPA deemed
that the trustee was willing to grant a release and no new
information is found to change that position, the Solicitor
sends a letter to Justice, which empowers Justice to act on
the Departments' behalf in the settlement or court action.  If
the trustee has remaining concerns, an alteration of the
basic letter of release may confine release to the specific
terms of the consent order and any documents i.e. the ROD or
Remedial Action Plan, where the mechanics or the standard of
the cleanup are a condition of the release.  If a partial
release cannot be given, the remaining option is to decline
the release altogether, which will begin the damage assessment
Sub-section 3

Natural Resource Damage Assessment
     CCRCLA provides for the recovery of damages for injuries
to natural resources resulting from a discharge of oil or
release of hazardous substances,  (section 107(a)(c).
pursuant to CERCLA section 301(c) and Executive Order 12316,
the Department of Interior published final Natural Resource
Damage Assessment Regulations on  August 1, 1986 and on March

20, 1987.  The regulations are for the use of Federal and
State Trustees for natural resources.  These procedures can
be used in court actions or administrative proceedings when
seeking compensation from the responsible party for injuries
to natural resources for which the trustee has responsibility.
The regualtions provide guidance for choosing between type A
and B assessments.  The type B procedures are relatively
general and they provide for flexibility needed to meet the
diversity of resources, ecosystems, oils and hazardous
substances likely to be encountered.  They do not provide
specific procedures for selecting and implementing assessment
methodologies, although they do provide objectives and criteria.
     The type A procedures use a computer model called the
"Natural Resource Damage Assessment Model for Coastal
Marine Environments".  In this model, natural resources injury
is determined through the physical fates and biological
effects submodels.  Damages are determined through the use of
an economic damages submodel.
     In order for a trustee to conduct a NRDA, they must
have access to all pertinent information related to contamination
and the site and the proposed remedial actions.  The  trustee
may not make a claim for damages until a remedial action has been
selected.  The Trustees are constrained by CERCLA/SARA and may not
grant a release unless the Potentially Repsonsible Party agrees to
undertake appropriate actions necessary to protect and restore
the natural resources damaged.   (Section 122  (j)(2)).  (Envir-
onmental Review Manual, 1987) See appendix for synopsis of NRDA
trustee involvement process.
State Trusteeship

     CERCLA Section 107  (f)(2)(B) discusses state  trusteeship.
The Governor of each state shall designate State officials who

may act on behalf of the public as trustee for natural
resources under this Act and section 311 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, and shall notify the President of such
designations.  Such State officials shall assess damages to
natural resources for the purpose of this Act and such section
311 for those natural resources under this trusteeship.
Section 300.73 of the NCP provides that states may act as
trustee for natural resources within the boundary of the State
or belonging to/ managed by, controlled by, or appertaining
to such State as provided by CERCLA.
     In some States officals haven't been designated as
trustees for natural resources and, overall, there has not
been consistent involvement of States as natural resource
trustees.  More involvement is anticipated as the Superfund
301 (c) natural resource damage assessment regulations are
used.  At sites where damage assessments are done, DOI and/or
DOC may be joint trustees with the State.  A Memorandum of
Understanding would be drafted site by site, to include all
trustee agencies and including all resources at stake from that
     Following are comments and concerns raised by personnel
of the Department of the Interior, the Fish and Wildlife
Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
     In speaking with DOI personnel, the following issues
        1) The average Regional Project Manager's career is
two years.  This coupled with high turnovers in Superfund
Management positions leaves Superfund with little or no
institutional memory.  The entire process is continually
rehashed with RPM's and attorneys.
        2) The Department of Interior is developing a department-

wide guidance concerning Superfund remedial action notification
and response procedures.  It will be geared toward individual
RPM's and will insure that EPA has a better understanding of
the responsibilities and concerns of DOI...hopefully fostering
understanding and coordination.  The document is due out in
draft in the Fall of 1988.
        3)DOI is very concerned that greater recognition be
given in EPA documents/guidance to the requirements of the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act.
        4) Expertise from FWS should be "in house" at EPA,
along with NOAA.
        5) FWS Contaminant Specialists should be attending
RI/FS training courses.
     The following comments of Donald Hodel, Secretary of
the Interior are from correspondence to the Honorable Gerry
Studds, Chairman, Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife and
the Environment.  (January 29, 1988)

     Donald Hodel comments on Natural Resource Damage
Assessments:  "The lack of damage assessments or referrals
should not be taken as lack of success.  The significant
value of the formal damage assessment process is to
provide a very disciplined approach to situations where
resources are injured.  The procedures provide an orderly
way to arrive at timely decisions about the steps to be
taken in spill situations or at Superfund sites, without
necessarily going all the way to preparing and presenting •
claims in court.  The availability of the damage assessment
procedures makes it clear to Potentially Responsible Parties
that in many cases a cooperative negotiated effort will be
worth the alternative of a long court claims procedure.  For
the natural resource trustees, negotiated arrangements can

mean more timely action, coordinated with the overall cleanup
activities."  (Hodel, 1988) An example of this kind of
arrangement is the MOTCO Site in Texas, where an agreement
was negotiated for acquisition and rehabilitation of a wetland
area comparable to that affected by releases from the site.
EPA, DOI, FWS and NOAA were involved, and the actions agreed
to formed an appendix to the consent decree.  (Hodel, 1988)
     Conversations with Fish and Wildlife Personnel resulted
in identification of the following major concerns:
        1)  FWS needs early notification and coordination by Super-
fund.  Notification should happen during the RI/FS scoping
phase and coordination should continue throughout the Super-
fund process.
        2) Regional Project Managers are not fully aware of
the role of Natural Resource Trustees.  The high turnover of
RPM's makes continuity difficult.
        3) Bioassessment work groups are perceived to be
extremely valuable...they can be a forum for early identification
and subsequent early rectification of issues of concern.
        4) Guidance is needed in the areas of Bioassessment
and sediment quality criteria.
        5) It would be valuable to have a FWS staff person
working on Superfund coordination, in house at EPA.
        6) While the Department of Interior gets funding from
Superfund, relatively small amounts reach the field offices of
FWS.  The FWS has enough resources to be primarily "reactive",
lacking money and manpower.
        7) Congress's prohibition of the use of Federal funds
for natural resources damages or assessment of injuries, has
resulted in a situation where Natural Resources Damages
Assessments are never done because there is no money for
them.  Out of necessity, settlements are negotiated in more
cost and time effective ways.

     Conversations with NOAA Coastal Resources Coordinators
revealed the following major concerns:
     1)  More quantitative direction is needed from the
Office of Wetlands Protection.  It is not clear how high
contamination to the environment would have to be in order
for EPA to respond.  Standards have been set for drinking
water, primarily.  Sediment quality criteria are essential
for managing wetland ecosystems and are non-existent.
     2)  The effects of mixtures of toxic materials are virtually
unstudied. There is a need to move toward the study of conta-
minants, away from single pollutants, about which there is more
information available.
     3)  NOAA, as trustee for natural resources, needs early
notification and proper coordination from Superfund.  Involve-
ment and coordination with NOAA should begin at the work plan
stage.  All subsequent Superfund documents should be sent as
they become available.  Once information is provided, the
trustees should decide if they have jurisdiction.
     4)  Regional Project Managers need guidelines on eco-risk
     5)  Bioassessment Work Groups reduce coordination burdens.
     6)  Regional Project Managers need to be sensitized to the
issues and concerns of trustees.

                        VI.  MITIGATION

     The complexities inherent in the concept of wetland mitigation
are many.  "Superfund wetlands" (wetlands either directly or in-
directly associated with Superfund sites) compound the complexity.
This section will identify constraints, discuss EPA's present
stance on mitigation via the Clean Water Act's 404 Program,  and
offer recommendations.

The definition of mitigation as given in the National Environmen-
tal Policy Act regulations (40 CFR Part 1508.20 a-e) follows:
Mitigation can be: a) avoiding the impact altogether by not taking
a certain action or parts of an action; b) minimizing impacts by
limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implemen-
tation; c) rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating or
restoring the affected environment; d) reducing or eliminating
the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations
during the life of the action; and e) compensating for the impact
by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments.
(NEPA, 1969)  Mitigative measures are those that seek to avoid or
minimize impacts through project modification or compensate for
impacts that are unavoidable.
     The basic approaches for mitigating wetland losses follow:
1) avoid wetland altogether; 2) apply various measures for reducing
damage or destruction; 3) restore the damaged wetland or attempt to
recreate it elsewhere; 4) acquire a wetland at some other location
to compensate for damages or destruction  (does not directly reduce
or compensate for loss)  (Kusler, 1986)
     Constraints in applying mitigation  approaches range in severity
and include: a) high degree of confusion  in basic terminology  (i.e.
restoration, creation, compensation); b)  limited information is
available to help evaluate the effectiveness of various mitigation
proposals and their impacts on wetland functions; c)  if original
wetland  functions and characteristics  (pre-impact) are  not  known,

it is difficult to define to what extent mitigation needs  to  be
done; d) how can it be determined how much impact/damage to wet-
land ecosystems on Superfund sites is "acceptable"  given the  fact
that public health is necessarily the primary concern? e)  should
compensation be "value for value" whereby every attempt is made
to duplicate the original wetland? Or, should compensation be
"acre for acre" or both?
     John Kusler, director of the Association of State Wetland Managers
feels that part of the problem is due to the fact that available
Knowledge concerning impact reduction and restoration/creation
has been only partially translated into formal regulatory policies
or guidelines due in part to lack of consensus on scientific  isues
and lack of awareness by regulators of the status of scientific
Knowledge. (Kusler, 1986)
     Section 404 of the Clean Water Act is the primary Federal program
that regulates activities affecting wetlands, hence providing for
their protection.  The Army Corps of Engineers is the Federal
permitting Agency for discharges of dredged and fill material.
These discharges are the primary mandate of Section 404.  Discharges
into "waters of the United States" (includes most wetlands) must
tje Federally permitted.  The EPA has promulgated environmental
guidelines known as the 404(b)(l) guidelines.  The Corps must follow
these guidelines in its decision making process for permitting.
The 404(b)(l) guidelines have more regulatory "clout" over Superfund
wetlands than any other single guidance.  They require various steps
to be taken in the 404 process in order to protect existing wetland
resources and compensate for losses which are unavoidable.  These steps
include avoidance, minimization and compensation and should be followed
sequentially  (Heagher, 1986)
There are two major loopholes that directly affect the utility of
gection 404 in dealing with Superfund wetlands.  1) CERCLA
gection 121(e) exempts any response action conducted entirely on-site
Łrom having to obtain a Federal, State or local permit, where the
Action  is carried out in compliance with Section 121.   In general,

on-site actions need to comply only with the corresponding administra-
tive requirements (i.e. CWA 404 permits).  Off-site actions must comply
with all legally applicable requirements, both substantive and adminis-
trative.  The fact that on-site Superfund actions are exempt from CWA
permit requirements weakens the protection of Superfund wetlands.  In
light of the vast array of concerns at Superfund sites, the primary
one being public health, coupled with the lack of a "binding" permit
requirement for on-site actions, leaves decision making, to determine
if the substantive aspects of the 404 (b)(l) guidelines are being met,
largely subjective.
2) The second factor that weakens the application of Section 404 to
Superfund wetlands revolves around 404's regulatory mandate: the
discharge of dredge or fill material into the waters of the United
States.  The 404(b)(l) guidelines define "fill material" as all
pollutants which have the effect of fill, that is, which replace part
of the waters of the United States with dryland or which change
the bottom of a water body for any purpose.  The guidelines define
"pollutants" as, among other things, dredged spoil, solid waste and
chemical wastes.  While it can be assumed that many Superfund actions
would involve dredge and fill operations, there are a multitude of
other ways Superfund wetlands can be impacted.  These  include migration
of hazardous wastes through groundwater and surface water pathways
and other processes that are not under the "dredge and fill" category.
It is then assumed via review of the law and interpretations from
404 personnel that Superfund wetlands that aren't  impacted by dredge
and fill activities have limited protection under  Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act.
     In summary, mitigation of wetlands  on Superfund sites is in its
earliest stages. This  is evidenced by the lack of  definitive
understanding of wetland functions and characteristics, particularly
when compounded by contamination; the untested nature  of mitigation
practices themselves and the differences  in  interpretation of
existing laws, guidances and other ARARs.  At present, when
potentially Responsible Parties and Superfund Regional Project

Managers inquire about the circumstances under which mitigation
is an appropriate response to legal requirements, the answer is in
many senses, ill defined, subject to a high degree of site specifi-
city and differing interpretations of laws. While Section 121 of
SARA requires compliance with ARARs, the uniformity issue is comp-
lex due to the fact that each state has its own set of ARARs.
When the question, "If mitigation is appropriate, how much
and what kind should be provided?" is asked, the answer is
far from definitive. Again reliance is placed on site specifi-
city, which is necessary to some extent, and on case-by-case
interpretations within the existing ARAR structure, which can
result in compliance with the laws of each State.

Recommendations include:
1)  The goals of mitigation, in all of its forms, need to be defined.
2)  Available scientific information needs to be utilized to aid in
the evaluation of the effectiveness of mitigation practices.  New
studies need to be initiated and carried out to fill data gaps.
3)  Uniform interpretations of existing laws and ARARs must be
applied, in compliance with the laws of each State.
4)  Consistency and cooperation among agencies and within agencies
on the issue of mitigation is necessary for enhanced communication
and effectiveness.
5)  A regulatory policy for mitigation that will include specific
provisions for dealing with wetlands that are either directly or
indirectly associated with Superfund sites.

The Superfund Wetlands Protection Process can be summarized by the
diagram on the following page.

      Superfund Wetland Protection Process (Simplified)

     The initial question to determine is the source of
impact/damage to the wetland ecosystem.  On Superfund sites
impact/damage may be a result of past contamination by chemical
wastes inherent in the site or from the construction phase of
the Superfund Remedial Action.

                 A. PAST CONTAMINATION
              	DESTROY WETLANDS 	
           I                                     I




                      VII.  BIOASSESSMENT
     This section will discuss the potential role of bioassessment
in the Superfund remedial process and the Bioassessment Work Group
concept as an implementing entity.  Bioassessment procedures use
well defined tests with biological organisms to determine the
biological sensitivities to contaminated soil or water samples from
hazardous waste sites. (Porcella, 1983)  The assessment of environ-
mental effects resulting from hazardous waste sites requires both
chemical and biological analysis to estimate potential exposure
and biological effects.  While an important first step in the
characterization of hazardous waste sites/ chemical analyses by
themselves often yield minimal information on impacts or potential
impacts to natural resources.  (Long and Chapman, 1985; Thomas
et al.1986; Wall and Hanmer, 1987).  Many biologically active com-
pounds are not measured or detected in the standard chemical
analysis conducted at waste sites.  Remedial Project Managers may
find that bioassessment, coupled  with chemical analysis, will
enhance site characterization, providing a more definitive picture
of risks to the environment in addition to risk to human health.
Bioassessment may be particularly useful in detecting the presence
of toxic materials for which there are no standard chemical analyses,
predicting the interactive toxic effect of complex mixtures of
chemicals, and intergrating the effects of the environmental varia-
bles and -contaminants present at a site on natural resources.
Bioassessment technique categories include: bioassays, community
level effects, effects on individual organisms and bioaccumulation.
(Christopherson et al., 1987)

     Bioassessment Work Groups can provide a forum for implement-
ing decisions involving bioassessment on Superfund remedial sites.
The concept evolved in January of 1986 after being founded  in EPA
Region III and has become established in EPA Region II as well.

Other Regions are expressing considerable interest but none have
made formal commitments.
Bioassessment Work Groups are interagency peer review groups formed
to provide technical recommendations to Superfund remedial project
managers concerning bioassessment and natural resource concerns.
Recommendations to EPA RPMs will assist in the process of fully
defining the nature and extent of on-site and off-site contamination
and the potential biological and ecological impact of a site's con-
     Work groups generally meet monthly to discuss sites that all
participants are familiar with.  Work group chairmen provide all
relevant portions of Superfund documents for review in advance.
Site reviews include: 1) Defining site situation clearly and
identifying ecological concerns 2) Listing data needs to deter-
mine the extent of contamination 3) Giving specific recommen-
dations from natural resources perspective 4) Deciding on
timely, appropriate recommendations that will address concerns
5) Identifying bioassessment techniques.
     It is not mandatory for Regional Project Managers to partici-
pate in this process and the recommendations are no more than strong
suggestions.  To date, participation and implementation of sugges-
tions have not been a major point of contention.
     The work groups consists of representatives from the U.S. EPA
Environmental Response Team, Environmental Services Division and
Water Management Division; from the Department of Interior/U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Services and the Office of Environmental Project
Review; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; and
technical representatives of State Natural Resource Agencies.
     Alyce Fritz, the NOAA Coastal Resources Coordinator for EPA
Region III and active member of the Bioassessment Group there, says
the work group evolved due to the mutual environmental concerns for
protection of natural resources and the need for combined technical
input to the Superfund program for a more efficient and cost-effec-
tive process.  Objectives of the Region III Group follow:
1. to provide the EPA project manager with a set of comprehensive

   technical recommendations for sampling at hazardous  waste sites
   in order to assess environmental effects  and to ensure technical
   adequacy of the Remedial Investigation;
2. to provide a technical transfer forum for hazardous  waste site
   project managers in new and existing methods of environmental
   assessment, biological monitoring and trajectory modelling;
3. to ensure that other Federal agency concerns, that is, specific
   species or habitats are addressed at hazardous waste
   sites ;
4. to enhance coordination among various Federal and state agencies
   (as required by the NCP) and to avoid duplication of work and
5. to incorporate environmental concerns  in the remedial actions;
6. to address questions of protection and restoration of natural
   resources (as required by NCP and SARA) in development of the
   remedy.   (Fritz, 1987)

The aim with regard to wetlands is to review Superfund documents
3nd identify wetlands for wetland delineation and environmental
assessment very early in the process  (draft work plan stage), pro-
viding continous review thru the RI/FS stage into Remedial Design.


     This survey addresses the issue of wetland protection at
Superfund remedial sites.   The survey was directed to Superfund
branch chiefs in all regions of EPA.  In several cases an
individual who had a particular familiarity with the area was
appointed to speak for the region.  The first three questions,
and responses are tabulated by region and illustrate relative
degrees of Superfund site/wetland interface.  For six of the
ten regions, a substantial degree of interface was documented.
The interpretation of results follows, portraying levels of
interface, familiarity across the nation, and methods employed.
The interpretation will not be region-specific.  The substantive
nature of replies was deemed to be more valuable than
documentation of the issue in terms of geographical trends,
at this time.  Each survey question is stated below, but
the answers are composite in nature.
Results of Questions 1,2 and 3:
            Question 1
           # Superfund
           NPL remedial
           sites at
   Question 2
% of these sites
with wetlands dir-
ectly or indirectly
  Question 3
of these sites,
how many have
or will include
It should
sites with
56, Texas
be noted that
wetlands and
only 40
Regions 7, 8, and 9 have
thus the answers showing
wetland assessment
30% or less of
the number of

Regions familiar with wetlands is biased since at least two of
the Regions have little need to be familiar with this issue.
This "bias" carries through for responses to all questions.

Question 3.  Of the sites with wetlands, how many have or
will include a wetland assessment?  Six regions were not
readily familiar with the wetland assessment concept. Section of the Guidance on Feasibility Studies under CERCLA
states that a wetlands assessment must be considered as part
of a feasibility study. The Policy on Floodplains and Wetland
Assessment for CERCLA Actions states how and when to incorpo-
rate a wetlands assessment into the remedial process and
describes what the content of a wetland assessment should be.
The regions that were more familiar with the concept stated
that if you have a wetland, a wetland assessment must be
done.  The complexity of the assessment will vary depending
on the type and severity of impacts to the site.

Question 4.  In the Superfund remedial process, do RPMs seek
data and information that will aid them in determining if a
wetland assessment is necessary or are they provided with
this information?  Five of the regions stated that RPMs were
provided with this information and were responsible for seeking
out additional information.
Question 4a. When does notification of potential impacts to
natural resources on a site take place?
    Four Regions stated that notification of Natural Resource
Trustees and relevant Divisions happened as early as possible
in the process, usually in the Workplan, RI scoping phase, or
as soon as potential impacts to wetlands are identified.
These regions were those with active or pending Biological
Assessment Work Groups.  The remaining six regions had no
formal notification network and four of these had little or
no familiarity with section 104  (b)(2) which requires prompt
notification of the appropriate Federal and State natural
resource trustees of potential damages to natural resources.

Question 5.  In how many cases have the results of a wetlands
assessment precipitated a decision to mitigate for wetland
losses?  The general consensus here was that Superfund
remediations themselves are wholly "mitigative" in nature.  In
many cases source control and contaminant practices prove to
mitigate impacts to wetlands.  With regard to extensive mitigation
as in wetland restoration and creation, only a handfull of cases
were identified around the county, with the Motco site in Texas
being the most well-known.

Question 6. What, specifically, are decisions based on whether or
not to mitigate/restore wetlands?  This question was
posed to get an idea of the degree of familiarity with ARAR's
in this area.  Five regions had a working knowledge of
pertinent ARARs.  One region stated that all decisions on
whether or not to mitigate wetlands were determined on site
specific data alone. States have ARARs and standards of widely
varying stringency, and the States' involvement also varies
widely. Among the Regions most familiar with the subtleties
of the ARARs there was a general consensus expressed that the
ARARs are not specific enough or well-defined with regards to
wetland mitigation.  The lack of definitive criteria for  con-
taminated soils/sediments is seen as  an  impediment to the
protection of wetlands.  The remaining regions had considerably
less awareness of the ARARs.

Question 7. Are there remedial action sites in your region
where wetland mitigation is being or  has been undertaken  ?
Sixteen sites around the country have been  identified as
being in the process of mitigating particularly for wetland
losses. Mitigative measures on these  sites  will include  a
wide range of practices  including: enhancement, restoration,
revegetation, replacement and creation.

Question 8. Briefly outline the  interagency interactions that
take place when a wetland  is  identified  as  impacted by  a

Superfund remedial action.  This question was developed for
the purpose of 1) determining/ again, the degree of familarity
with the interagency coordination process; and 2) to identify
effective methods and constraints in interagency cooperation
and communication.
     Four regions had substantial familiarity with interagency
interactions concerning wetlands.  These happened to be the
same regions that have or are on the verge of establishing
Bioassessment Work Groups.  This interagency group, comprised
of personnel from EPA, NOAA and DOI technical experts and
trustee representatives, reviews draft work plans and identifies
wetlands for wetland delineation and environmental assessment
beginning very early in the process and continuing through the
Remedial Design phase.  The Bioassessment Work Group appears
to be the single most effecetive method for incorporating
Trustee involvement into the Superfund remedial process.
Coordination and communication are both more cost-effective
and time-effective using this forum.  Of the six regions
remaining, five were not fully aware of section 104(b)(2)
and 107(f)(2) of CERCLA which require notification of and
coordination with Natural Resources Trustees.  Three regions
were of the opinion that trustee coordination has the effect
of slowing the Superfund process substantially.  Trustees are
perceived as having a single purpose, where Superfund has
many responsibilites and constraints.  It is felt that in
some instances trustees don't consider/understand the
complexities inherent in Superfund.

Question 9. Does the "lead status"  (remedial or enforcement)
affect decisions of whether or not  to mitigate for wetland.
losses ?  Five regions stated that  the lead status has no
bearing on these decisions.  The other five stated that while
decisions on whether or not to mitigate probably would not be
affected, the extent and type of mitigation could be determined

as a function of the project lead status.   Three regions felt
that PRP-lead sites would incorporate more extensive,  protective
and thus, more costly mitigative measures  than if the  sites were
fund lead.  However it was also recognized that often  mitigation
of wetlands is the first thing to drop out of PRP negotiations.
The remanining two regions felt that the extent of mitigation
would differ, but were not sure how.

Question 10. Are Wetland training sessions for Superfund
perceived to be a potentially valuable part of the process ?
Nine regions responded to this question with an emphatic "yes".
Three of these regions have had Superfund wetlands training
offered by either Wetlands Protection or NEPA compliance
personnel, and have found it to be valuable.

Question 11. Do you see wetland mitigation banking as a viable
alternative for compensation of impacted wetlands associated
with Superfund sites ?   [Mitigation banking is an innovative
way of mitigation in which off-site wetlands are created or
preserved to compensate for on-site losses.] Four regions
said they would prefer not to have mitigation banking on
their list of viable alternatives.  Reasons included: possi-
bility of loss of higher value wetlands on habitats where
wetlands are vital, regional loss of wetlands, legality of
the concept under CERCLA and the potential for loss of diver-
sity.  Three regions stated that banking is a potentially
viable alternative if no on-site alternative exists and
extreme care is taken and value of wetlands is maintained  in
the bank.  The remaining four regions felt that while miti-
gation banking is an interesting concept, not enough is known
about it to determine its viability in terms of Superfund  .
wetlands, or otherwise.

Question Bl) Do you feel that threats to wetland ecosystems
&t Superfund remedial action sites have been/are being
adequately identified ?  Seven regions stated that they did

not feel that threats to wetlands were being adequately
identified.  The two regions with operating Bioassessment
Work Groups stated that threats to wetlands were being
identified adequately.

Question B2. Will you comment on the shift in agency thinking
from a stance of human health protection to include a more
stringent consideration of risks to the environment ?  Nine
regions stated that a shift has been evolving that has
increased focus on the environment as its driving force.

Question B3.  Will you identify administrative constraints
concerning the implementation of wetland mitigation ?  Major
constraints identified follow: 1) vague policies, guidance and
lack of an institutionalized framework for dealing with wetlands
on Superfund sites; 2) difficulty getting Natural Resources
Trustees to respond with valid concerns; 3) lack of mechanism
for early and continuous cooperation and communication with
other agencies; 4) lack of monetary resources for costly
environmental expenditures, public health has priority; 5)
complexity of Superfund's mandate is a constraint, in that
often those involved from different agencies aren't familiar
enough with it; 6) wetlands can be difficult concept to sell
to resposible parties, and thus difficult to negotiate.

Question B4. What are your candid views on the relative
necessity of wetland mitigation on Superfund remedial action
sites ?  Comments on this question ranged from..."Funds are
needed for the protection of public health, we can't sacrifice
them for environmental protection", to "wetlands are just one
piece to juggle", to "wetlands are the most sensitive ecosystems
we have.  The earth revolves around wetlands."

                    IX.  Work In Progress
     This section will briefly describe projects presently
being undertaken that are substantively related to the issues
of wetland mitigation and wetland protection on Superfund

   A.  The Environmental Research Laboratory (ERL) in Corvallis,
Oregon is in the midst of preparing a "Mitigation Handbook"
to assist EPA 404 personnel in evaluating mitigation projects.
The project is being carried out by the Wetlands Research
Team and is organized into three general tasks: 1) synthesize
the knowledge on wetland creation and restoration; 2) compile
404 permit information on wetland creation and restoration;
3) compare created and "naturally occurring" wetlands.  It is
estimated that this effort will be completed in October, 1989.
   B.  Dr. Jon Kusler, Association of State Wetland Managers/
along with the EPA Wetlands Research Team, is  involved in
compiling information on wetland creation and restoration
which will develop into a Provisional Guidance Document
for personnel involved in 404 permitting.  The document
will be peer reviewed and is expected in Fall of  1988.
   C.  A third study being undertaken by the Corvallis Wetlands
pesearch Team will attempt to answer the question, How "clean"
ghould a wetland be?  The research effort will aid the Office
of Wetlands Protection in setting criteria for water quality
in wetlands.  The study is in the planning phase  at present; a
research effort based on the plan will be implemented in FY
   D.  A Wetland Creation-Restoration Bibliographic Data Base
js being developed by the Inland Freshwater Ecology Section,
Rational Ecology Center, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,  in
port Collins, CO.  Karen Schneller-McDonald is the primary

contact person for this project.  The effort is being initiated
as a result of the considerable controversy concerning the
most appropriate and efficient techniques to employ.  The
data base will also serve as a literature resource for the
National Ecology Center to support ongoing and planned research
and development projects concerned with the creation and
restoration of the ecologic functions and values of wetlands.
The data base information will be available for purchase,
upon its completion.
   E.  Mr. William Ives of the Office of Water at EPA
headquarters is involved in a project to gather definitive
information concerning the extent to which Superfund National
Priority List Sites are in or directly impact wetlands.
   F.  Andrea McLaughlin of the ICF Corporation in Vienna,
Virginia has been contracted by the EPA's Office of Policy,
Planning and Evaluation to identify potential or observed
ecological impacts from Superfund sites.  The study is being
conducted region by region, utilizing information from
personnel of EPA, NOAA and FWS; and includes substantial document
   G.  Craig Zamuda of EPA's Office of Policy Planning and
Evaluation is involved in an Eco-Risk program.  The main
objectives of this effort are to 1) determine the extent of
ecorisks posed by environmental problems under CERCLA and
RCRA; 2} determine the availibility and applicability of
current ecorisk assessment methods; and 3) identify both the
basis for past ecorisk management decisions and critical
unresolved management issues (i.e., defining acceptable risk,
weighing eco vs. human health concerns).  This OPPE effort
will complement several other Agency initiatives, including
the Ecotoxicity Guidance Document and the Superfund Environmental
Evaluation Manual.
   H.  John Bascietto of the Office of Waste Programs
Enforcement (HQ) and Pat Mundy of the Office of Emergency and

Remedial Response (HQ) are preparing an Environmental Evaluation
Manual for Superfund Sites.  The purpose of the manual is to
provide gudiance for an approach useful to EPA regional
personnel for conducting the environmental effects portions
of Superfund studies.  The bioassessment work group model,
exemplified and pioneered by EPA Region III, is the basis for
the Guidance, which proposes the use of bioassessment protocols
as a first step in determining which sites require detailed
biological investigations.
   I.  Risk Tools is a microcomputer software system being
developed by the Hampshire Research Institute in Alexandria/
Virginia.  The system is designed to help state and EPA
personnel assess RCRA and Superfund facilities.  One of the
major analytical tools of this system allows use of the data
base information to estimate the probable risks posed by
the environmental distribution of chemicals.  An environ-
mental partitioning model enables the user to determine
the environmental media in which a chemical may accumulate.
Other tools include: exposure assessment and risk characterization.
   J.  Diane Niedzialkowski of the Office of Policy Planning
and Evaluation (HQ) is chairing a Superfund Mitigation
Workgroup.  The goal of this group in a broad sense  is to define
what is needed for better mitigation of
environmental values at Superfund sites via  identification  of
points within the RI/FS process were natural resource and
ecological data should be gathered to facilitate better
mitigation at settlement.  At the last meeting this workgroup
had (summer 88) it was determined that not enough case studies
existed in this area  to pursue under the origianl goal.   The
group has changed direction and will now focus on compilation of
case studies relevant to  the topic.
   K.  Bob Hargrove of the Office of Policy  and Management
in EPA Region II has  initiated a manual entitled the  CERCLA/SARA
Environemtal Review Manual.  It is intended  to assist  EPA

remedial project managers in ensuring that CERCLA/SARA remedial
actions are functionally equivalent with the National
Environmental Policy Act and comply with the reqirements of
other environmental statues.  Training is offered on the
contents of this manual.
   L.  Lyndon Lee of the Office of Wetland Protection (HQ) and
the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory is offering training on
Superfund Wetlands: "Best Management Practices for Contaminants
in Saturated Media".  This course is one week long and is
expected to be offered in Spring of 1989.

    The issue of wetland protection on Superfund remedial
sites is becoming increasingly salient, as wetlands are being
identified in high numbers in these areas.  The present legal
structure does have the capacity to protect Superfund wetlands,
though only through strict interpretation of existing laws,
guidances and policy statements. The problem is not entirely
a function of the existing legislation; but also of the "newness"
of the issue, the conflicting statutory missions of the Agencies
involved and the fact that contractors and often Regional Project
Managers, are not conversant with wetland principals and term-
inology.  EPA has experienced a high turnover rate among
Regional Project Manager; the turnover rate has made it diffi-
cult for EPA to retain  its "institutional memory."  The entire
process of wetland assessment, mitigation and the role of
natural resource trustees is continually  rehashed with RPMs  and
attorneys.  Concerning  mitigation technologies, we are in  a  mode
of heightening  awareness, without enough  scientific knowledge
to proceed with surety.

Recommendations  include the  following:
I)  A  single Policy Statement that  definitively collects and
    outlines existing  legal  requirements  and  concerns  for  the
    protection  of wetlands,  and  the environment as a whole on
    Superfund sites.   This Policy  should  be  reflected  in
    Guidances for Regional Project  Managers.   A uniform
     interpretation  of  existing  ARARs is  not  being  achieved'
    under  the present  framework.
2)  The goals of mitigation  in  all  of  its forms need  to  be
3)  Available  scientific information needs to be  compiled

    and utilized to aid in the evaluation of the effective-
    ness of mitigation practices.   New studies need to be
    initiated and coordinated with existing work in this
    field to fill data gaps.
4)  Increased cooperation, communication and coordination
    between agencies and within the Environmental Protection
    Agency are essential to the protection of wetlands.
    Mechanisms for these activities should be reflected in
    Policies and Guidance.
5)  Bioassessment Work Groups should be mandatory in all
    Regions and have one or two individuals funded full-
    time to coordinate for the Group.  This Group can
    provide effective communication and data collection
    early in the Remedial Process which will result in
    better mitigation for ecological impacts.

    Many questions remain....Is EPA meeting ARARs and
carrying out appropriate mitigation on Superfund sites?
Why has compensation for injury of wetlands been made  a
feature in so few Records of Decision?  How clean is
clean for the environment?  Less that 2% of the more than
65,000 chemicals in commerce have been adequately tested
for their effects on human health and the environment....

    This many faceted issue will not be placated by a  new
comprehensive Policy Statement alone.  It will  take
combinations of tactics, ideas and a long-lasting commit-
ment by all Agencies and individuals involved to ensure
the protection of wetlands on Superfund Remedial Sites.


                       XI.  BIBLIOGRAPHY
Carter, Jimmy, 1977.  Executive Order 11990:   Protection
     of Wetlands.  Federal Register, Vol.42,  No.  101.
     Washington, DC.

Christopherson, Sharon, L. Jay Field and Robert N.  Dexter,
     1987.  Guidelines and Recommendations for Using Bio-
     assessment in the Superfund Remedial Process.   Seattle,

Fritz, Alyce, 1987.  "Bioassessment Work Group Outline."
     unpublished.  Philadelphia, PA.

Kusler, Jon A., 1986.  "Major Issues:  Mitigation of Impacts
     and Losses."  from Proceedings:  National Wetland
     Symposium.  New Orleans, Louisiana,  pp 37-39.

Long, E.R. and P.M. Chapman, 1985.  "A Sediment Quality Trial:
     Measures of Sediment Contamination, Toxicity and Infaunal
     Community Composition in Puget Sound". March  Pollution
     Bulletin 16:  405-415.

fleagher, John W, 1986.  "Federal Mitigation Regulations" from
     Proceedings: National Wetland Symposium.  New Orleans,
     Louis iana.

porcella, D.B., 1983.  "Protocol for Bioassessment of Hazardous
     Waste Sites.  EPA 600/2-83-054.  U.S. Environmental
     Protection Agency.  Corvallis, OR.

public Laws  95-510 and 99-499:  The Comprehensive Environmental
     Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (Superfund)
     as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
     Act of  1986.  Washington, DC.

Thomas, J.M.,J.R. Skalski, J.F. Cline,M.C. McShane and J.C.
     Simpson,  1986.   "Characterization of Chemical Waste
     Site Contamination and Determination of  its extent
     Using'Bioassays".  Environ. Tox. Chem. 5;  487-501.

U.S. Department of the Interior, 1988.  Mail  correspondence
     from Donald Hodel, Secretary of the  Interior, to the
     Honorable Gerry E. Studds, Chairman, Subcommittee on
     Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and  the Environment.
     January  29, 1988.  Washington, DC.


U.S. EPA, 1973.  Administrator's Decision Statement No.4:
     EPA Policy to Protect the Nation's Wetlands.  Office
     of the Administrator.  Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA, 1987.  CERCLA/SARA Environmental Review Manual.
     Office of Policy and Management. Region 2. New York,  NY.

U.S. EPA, 1985.  Guidance on Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA.
     EPA 540/G-85/003.  OSWER Directive 9355.0-0.5c.  Washington,

U.S. EPA, 1985.  Guidance on Remedial  Investigations Under CERCLA.
     EPA 540/G-85/002.Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA, 1980.  Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites
     for Dredged or Fill Material.  40 CFR Part 230.  Vol. 45,
     No. 249.  Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA, 1979. Implementation of Procedures on the National
     Environmental Policy Act. EPA GAD/8-79-01.  Grants
     Administration Division.  Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA, 1986.  National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
     Contingency Plan.  40 CFR Parts 190 to 399.   Revised as of
     July 1,  1986.Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA, 1985.  Policy on Floodplains and Wetland Assessments
     for CERCLA Actions.  Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
     Response.  Washington, DC.

Wall* T.M. and R.W. Hanmer.   1987.   "Biological Testing to
     Control  Toxic Water  Pollutants".  J. Water  Pollution
     Control  Federation.  59:  7-12.

                       LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix                                          Page
   A  List of Contacts                             A-l
   B  A Wetland Assessment Procedure for Super-
      fund Sites                                   B-l
   C  EIB/ERRD Coordination Procedure              C-l
   D  Notification Form for Federal Natural
      Resource Trustees                            D-l
   E  Synopsis of Natural Resource Damage Assess-
      ment Regulations                             E-l
   F  The Role of Bioassessment in the Remedial
      Process                                      F-l


                              List  of Contacts

^*  EPA Emergency  &  Remedial  Response Division—Superfund personnel

B-  EPA Headquarters - Office of Wetland Protection, Office of
    Policy, Planning & Evaluation

c.  Department of  Interior, Fish & Wildlife Service

D-  National Oceanic and Atmospheric  Administration

E«  Office of Water—Wetlands Protection Branch

p<  Office of Policy & Management—Environmental Impacts Branch

G«  Biological Assessment Groups

H«  Wetland Restoration/Creation Research Facilities

*•  Additional Contacts








Dan Coughlin
Jane Downing
                       EPA Superfund Personnel
Section Chief-NH Superfund Section
Regional Project Manager-MA
      George Pavlou     NY/Caribbean  Remedial  Action  Branch
      Ronald Borsellino Northern  NJ Remedial Action Section
      Mel Hauptman      NY/Caribbean  Compliane Section
      Vince Pitruzzello Program Support  Branch
Thomas Voltaggio
Karen Wolper
Alyce Fritz

Lisa Davis

Wendy Carney

Stan Hitt

Mike Kosakowski

John Haggard

Greg Baker

Lew Consigliari
Superfund Branch
Superfund Enforcement Branch
NOAA Coastal Resources Coordinator

Technical Coordinator-Superfund Branch

Regional Project Manager

Superfund Program Branch

Deputy Branch Chief-Superfund

Regional Project Manager

Superfund Section Chief








NOAA Coastal Resources Coordinator  (206)442-










                 EPA Headquarters - OWP/OPPE
Diane Niedzialkowski
Dorthy Wellington
Mel Hollander
Lyndon Lee
William Ives
William Sipple
Gregory Peck
Craig Zamuda
John Bascieto
Pat Mundy
       Statistical Policy Group
       Statistical Policy Group
       Guidance & Oversight Branc
       Toxics Integration Branch
Department of the Interior
Cesil Hoffman  Senior Environmental Protection Specialist   343-3811
Ray Churan                                                  474-3565
Glen Sekavec                                                474-3565

                      Fish & Wildlife Service
Brian Cain
Ken Carr
Richard Stroud
Robyn Burr/Dan Sparks
Kate Benard
Don Shultz
Ann Secord
Tom Sperry
Pete Escherich

Mary Watzin
       New England
       New England
       New Jersey
       South East
       Long Island, NY
       Division of Environmental
         Washington/ DC
       National Wetlands Research
         Sidell, Louisiana

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
  Region 1
  Region 2
  Region 3
  Region 4
  Region 6
  Region 10
  Bob Pavia
        Ken Finklestein
        Thor Cutler
        Alyce Fritz
        John Lindsey
        Sharon Christopherson
        Lew Consigliari
(Seattle)     392-6829
 Hazardous Materials Response Branch
            Office of Water - Wetlands Protection Branch

  E. Superfund Liasons
  Region 1  Matt Schweisburg
         2  Terry Rodriguez
         3  Pete Stokley
         4  Haynes Johnson
         5  Wayne Gorski
         6  Gene Keepper
         7  Glen Yager
         8  Gene Reetz
         9  Cheryl Beem
        10  Bill Riley

        HQ  John Meagher

            Dan Montella    Region 2


  F.   Office of Policy & Management - Environmental Impacts Branch
            Bob Hargrove                                 264-6723
            Lorraine Graves                              264-6722

            Biological Assessment Groups
          2  Mark Springer, Ronald Hemmett               340-6687
          3  Elise Fritz  (215)597-3636  Ron Preston{304)233-2315
          4  John Lindsey  257-3931       Waynon Johnson 257-3931
          9  Greg Baker                                  454-8533
         10  Pat Cerone   Environmental Services Division

H.       Wetland Restoration/Creation Research Facilities

EPA Environmental Research Lab
Corvallis, Oregon 97333
Mary Kentula 420-6221 ext. 340
Arthur Sherman (503)757-4666

Society for Ecological Restoration & Management
University of Wisconsin - Arboretum
Madison, Wisconsin 53711
William Jordon  (608)263-7888

Environmental Concern/ Inc.
St. Michaels, Maryland 21663
Ed Garbish (301)745-9620
Dave Hardin(301)745-9620

Department of Interior/Fish & Wildlife Service
National Ecology Center
Ft. Collins, Colorado 80526-2899
Karen Schneller-McDonald  323-5407

Tiburon Center for Environmental Studies
Tiburon, California 94920

National Wetlands Research Center
Slidell, Louisiana 70458
Mary Watzin  680-7305
Jimmy Johnston 680-7305
I.              Additional Contacts

Alliance Technologies/ Inc
Bedford, Ma
Anne Sergeant  (617)275-9000

USEPA Emergency Response Team
Edison/ NJ
Dave Charters  340-6825

Association of State Wetland Managers,  Inc.
Berne, NY
John Kusler (518)872-1804

Environmental  Laboratory/ Wetlands Research Program
Department of  the Army
Waterways Experiment Station/ Corps of  Engineers
Vicksburg, Mississippi

Society of Wetland  Scientists
Wilmington/ NC
Dave DuMond    (919) 799-0363

               A  Wetland Assessment Procedure for Superfund Sites
                                                      Anne Sergeant
                                          Alliance Technologies Corporation
                                                Bedford, Massachusetts
   Wetland assessments must be performed at Superfund sites where
 remedial activities are ejected to alter the ecosystems. The purpose
 of these studies is to Determine the functional values fe.g.. wild-
 life habhat. groundwater recharge and discharge, Jlo&d storage and
 critical habitat for endangered species) of impacted  wetlands.
   Superfund sites present unique challenges in wetland assessment •
 because in many cases their natural ecosystems have been dra-
 matically altered by disposal of hazardous waste. Adjacent wet-
 lands also may have played an important  role in pollution
 Attenuation, protecting nearby ecosystems from the effects of con-
 tamination. in addition, the impacts of proposed remedial activities
 juch as landfill capping or removal of contaminated materials must
 be determined, and it may be necessary to implement mitigative
 measures such as replacement of wetlands that have been disturbed
 bydisposal or remedial actions.
 x^rhb wetland assessment procedure examines ecosystem, wild-
 life habitat, hydrologic, water quality and sodoeconomk functions.
 It also determines the extent and current impacts of contamina-
 tion, evaluates the potential impacts of remedial alternatives and,
       necessary, develops appropriate mitifiative measures. This
"information is critical for preparation of Endangerment Assess- 1
 inents and Feasibility Studies conducted under Superfund for any
 site that contains a wetland.                              — *
   For a 70-acre Superfund site in Massachusetts that generates an
 estimated 33 million gallons of leachate per year, this procedure
 was used to determine the functional values of, and impacts to,
 1 4 surrounding wetlands as  well as the pollution  attenuation
 capacity of a large cattail marsh. These data were used 10 develop
 initigative measures that minimized the adverse impacts of the
 proposed remedial action (capping with a synthetic membrane) on
 adjacent wetlands while reducing the volume of leachate generated
 by 99%.

   Because wetlands traditionally were regarded as useless land, they)
 became the preferred location for garbage dumps and, eventually,
 sanitary landfills. Until recently, there has been little concern for
 die eventual fate of the materials disposed there. At one time certain
 wetlands, if they were formed by a naturally impervious layer such
 as a clay deposit, were considered relatively good disposal areas
 because they would restrict the migration of wastes. However, if
 wetlands with complex regional or local hydrologic connections
 are used for waste  disposal, contamination in one wetland can
 spread to other wetland areas and aquifers.                  ,
   The U.S. EPA is  charged with protection of public health and
 welfare and the environment  but historically has directed much
 of its resources toward public health concerns. Recently, however,
 there  has been a greater focus on protection of the environment
 on ecological grounds. Consequently, investigations at Superfund
                           Table 1
                  Steps ID • Wetland Assessment

            Working Map of Wetland*
            Background Materials

            Verify Wetland Boundaries
            Collect Meld Data
                 Wildlife Habitat
                 Water Quality
            Record Observed lapacti

            Evaluate/Rank Wetland Functional Value*
                 Wildlife Habitat
                 Water Quality

            Che*lcal Impact*
            Physical lapacte

            Effect an Wetland Functional Taluea
            Develop Mltliatlve  Meaiurca
 sites may require a wetland assessment to determine the impact
 of contamination on the environment.
   A wetland assessment is generally one step in the RI/FS process.
 Although it  includes information germane to RIs,  FSs and
 Endangerment Assessments (EAs) (Fig. I), it usually is prepared
 as a separate document. A wetland assessment mav also be per-
 formed to evaluate the impacts of remedial measures already tafcen
  ^a site/Tn any case, its purpose is to appraise wetlands at a site
  i terms of their functional values, to determine the environmental
I impacts of contamination and remediatioiymd to develop recom-
Imendations to avoid or minimize these impacts.
   The procedure begins with a review of existing data for the site
 to determine the location of the wetlands. Maps from the National
 Wetlands Inventory (NWI). the USGS, Soil Conservation Service
 (SCS) and local government are the most useful sources. Older
 editions of maps can be helpful if they show features  that have
 since changed, such as an area that has been mined for gravel or
                                                                  WATERWAYS AND WETLANDS RECLAMATION    43 ]



                                    RECORD OF
                     Figure 1
         Wetland Assessment! and Superfund.
  A that is now filled in. Aerial photos, if available, are
 .valuable because they can provide historical data for com-
  oarticulaf'y in cases where filling or other physical alter-
"*'  . occurred. Data gathered as pan of an Rl can be helpful,

   •te has not been surveyed, USGS maps can provide a base
C   which wetland boundaries from the corresponding NWI
i*1**   Overlain. Wetland soil types shown on local SCS maps
^   A to refine the study area and to determine boundaries
 *i^itnap is not available, hi some areas, local zoning maps
^  tland boundaries, although these maps are of variable
f * . accuracy. Finally, aerial photos can help pinpoint areas
 ?l concern. Once evaluated  and  summarized, these data
 ;     prepare a map of the area for use in the field and to
 & tential investigation or sampling points.
    •c maps and hydrologic data are also reviewed to select
         " observation points. For example, geologic features
      v areas.
  *  MffAiaxy work includes tabulation of plant and animal
   Preted to occur in the vicinity of the site based on data
           federal agendes, organizations such as universi-
 ^^-jervation groups, and desk references. Data regarding
 5 cOrtr>ecies, including designated critical habitat areas, can
 ?*T  d i from the U.S.  F&WS  and state Natural Heritage
   *16 ITiese lists are used in the field as checklists that may
     '           and evaluated later.
 '        wetland boundaries that have been plotted on the
    r  I   w
 yt ^e!iand nap are verified and modified as necessary. The
 >g *^ef,nes wetlands by three criteria:

 '      inance of obligate or facultative wetland plant species
 red°Sed W lhe U'S' F&WS))
 ^ 1»*5  MJ (those formed under wet conditions, including his-
     *°eanic soils) and soils in aquic suborders)
  All three of these conditions should be met for the U.S. EPA
to classify an area as a wetland.
  In many cases, the presence of wetland plant species provides
sufficient information to determine the wetland boundaries. Docu-
ments such as Cowardin, et al.z are also helpful in determining
wetland types. However, if there is any doubt as to whether a par-
ticular location is within a wetland, at least one soil pit is dug to
verify the boundary by the presence or absence of hydric soil such
as muck, peat'br marl. The soil also is examined for evidence of
wetland hydrologic regime such as mottling (patches of red oxidized
and grey reduced iron) or gleying (grey color from reduced iron).
If needed, silt-specific hydrologic data are also used to verify wet-
land  boundaries.                                   •
   If the Wetland Assessment is being conducted as pan of an RI,   -
the boundaries may be flagged and incorporated inio the site map
by the survey team. If the mapping has been completed, the loca-
tions of wetland boundaries are noted in the field and later added
to the site map.                               ...
   The vegetation at each observation point is quantitatively evalu-
ated  in  terms offo cover in each stratum (tree, shrub, herb and
emergent) and overallftage of wetland species; productivity, spe-
cies composition and diversity and suitability for wildlife habitat
(food,  cover and  breeding  area) are ranked on a qualitative
high/mcdium/low or good/fair/poor scale. Observed plant and
animal species are recorded.
   Depending upon the site, it may be desirable to survey open water
 areas for benthic macro-invertebrate population density and diver-
 sity. In addition, water temperature, dissolved oxygen and pH may
 be measured. If it becomes apparent that other areas are worth
 investigating (for example, a peripheral area or one too small to
 be shown on available maps), these observation points are added
 in the field.
   Each observation point is qualitatively assessed in terms of hydro-  '
 logic functional values including: groundwater recharge and dis-
 charge; water purification and  filtration;  flood  storage and
 retardation and shoreline protection. Any sign of recreational or
 sodoeconomic use, such as hunting or fishing, also is noted.
    Finally, the area is examined  for evidence of environmental  '
 impacts. These impacts can include: leachate seeps; areas of stressed
 or dead vegetation; drainage alterations; severe erosion or sedimen-
 tation; and the presence of opportunistic plant or animal species.
 Monocultures of certain plants such as the reed Phragmiies may
 indicate ecosystem  stress. If possible,  the origin of disturbance
 (physical or chemical) is determined.

    The data collected in the field are first summarized and examined
  for trends. The locations of wetland boundaries are transferred
  onto the site map if this has not been done by the survey team.
  Summary tables of plant and animal species noted in the field are
  prepared. Observation points are then evaluated in terms of wet-
  land functional values1 which are grouped into five categories:

   ; Ecosystem Functions—Primary production,  decomposition,
   ""nutrient  expon and nutrient transfer
   • Wildlife Habitat Functions—Density and number of vegetative
     strata, floral diversity,  "edge" (the transition between two
     plant communities) and food production           •
   • Hydrologic* Functions—Groundwater recharge and discharge,
     flood storage and retardation and shoreline protection
   • Water Quality  Functions—Sediment trapping, oxygen pro-
     duction, nutrient storage and removal and contaminant storage
     and removal                        :
   • Sodoeconomic Functions—Aesthetic, recreational, educational,
     scientific, historic and economic values

     Each observation point or wetland area is ranked  in terms of
   relative  functional  value using   a  high/medium/low or
   good/fair/poor hierarchy.  It is  inappropriate to use numeric


  nkings because this process invites comparison of unrelated
 2 lues, such as flood storage and wildlife habitat.


 " Evaluation of current impact  is a feature unique to wetland
 ,««scssments at Superfund sites. However, it is often difficult to
         \e whether observed impacts are due to physical changes
       as  filling. Graining and  regradingl or chemical contamina-
      Generallv. physical irnpac'? ary mnrr yatily f>Kyp/x4  g<-«m>
 ;Tjfi"as sedimentation, are quite obvious while others, like drainage
alterations,  are more subtle because their effects may manifest
themselves very slowly. Many times the vegetation at a site provides
little indication of change.  For example. Atlantic white cedar
iChamaecyparis thyoides) is extremely sensitive to alterations in
i. vdrologie regime and even small changes in drainage may be fatal,
although  other species  in the same area are unaffected.
   Chemical contamination is more difficult to discern, because its
  /•felTare oiten"similar to those induced by other plant stresses.
  oTexample. stressed vegetation near a highway that runs past a
  •ic  may  be suffering from  exposure to ozone, road  salt  or
? azardous substances. In addition, some plants show little sensi-
tivity to contamination: cattails (Typha spp.), a common wetland
    cies, arc quite tolerant of pollutants, including heavy metals,4-
I;*  and can even grow  in leachate seeps.

   Wetland assessment at a Superfund site usually calls for evalu-
  tjon of remedial alternatives. Such alternatives may range from
a  ping the contaminated area,  with only  minimal  impact to
c jjacent  wetlands, to removal  of all contaminated  material,
Deluding the wetlands.  Another possible alternative is a pump-
  nd-treat  facility that removes contaminated  groundwater, treats
* and returns it to a groundwater or  surface water system.
   The recommended alternative should  be consistent with U.S.
EpA policy as promulgated in its 404(b)(l) guidelines and Execu-_
  •ye  Order 11990.  Normally,  avoidance of impacts is preferable
 11  mitigation. Bin in the case of Superfund sites, damage usually
  as  already  occurred, and virtually any mitigation will be an
  mprovement over current conditions. However, it is still possible
  '  evaluate  alternatives  in terms of their potential alterations of
  Letland functional values.
    frj^remedial alternatives  will have both positive and negative
  ffectsofl_wŁUand-JunaiQai_ For example, a pump-and-treat
  ^nityrnayim prove water quality and at the same time drain a
   ctland,  or construction of a sedimentation  basin may eliminate
                             Figure 2
            Superfund Site, Landfill and Associated Wetlands
nutrient and sediment loading to receiving waters while reducing
wildlife habitat. Clearly, some losses will likely be associated with
cleanup, but the recommended remedial alternative should avoid
impacts to the extent practicable and provide compensation for
lost wetlands on a one-for-one basis.

  Fourteen wetlands were located within the study area for a
70-acre Superfund site in Massachusetts (Fig. 2). This site began
as a burning dump in the 1920s and ultimately became a municipal
landfill that accepted chemical waste. Off-site migration of vola-
tile organic compounds and metals contaminated and forced the
closure of bedrock wells at a nearby condominium  complex. In
addition, contaminated groundwaters and surface waters, landfill
runoff and leachate seeps contaminated two streams and several
nearby wetlands.
  As of 1985, the landfill contained about 4 million yd3 of material
and was estimated to generate over 33 million gal of leachate/year.
Wetlands 1, 3, 5, 6, Al and A2 (Fig. 2) exhibited obvious signs
of contamination (e.g., dark leachate or stains, oil films amd chemi-
cal odors), although plant stress was  observed only in Wetland 6.
Although dead vegetation was observed in Wetlands 1. 2 and G,
there was no evidence of contamination; the plants probably died
as a result of hydrologic changes. Sedimentation, a strictly physical
impact, had occurred in Wetlands 2,  5 and G. Wetlands C, D and
F showed no sign of contamination or other impacts associated
with the landfill, and it appeared that contamination reached Wet-
lands 4 and E only occasionally, if  at all.
   Although all 14 wetlands were evaluated in the assessment con-
ducted for this site, only Wetland 4, a 2-acre wet meadow just south
of the landfill, will be examined in  detail for this case study.

Field Investigation
   Wetland 4 contains no open water and drains via a culvert under
the road, which surfaces in a depression in a cow pasture and dis-
charges into Dunstable Brook. It receives landfill runoff, bui only
after it has passed through and been filtered by Wetlands 2  and
3. No signs of contamination or vegetative stress were observed.
Thus, it does not appear to be directly impacted by the landfill.
The eastern portion of the meadow, which receives  surface water
 now from Wetland 2, is vegetated  with sensitive fern (Onoclea
sensibilts), meadowsweet (Spirea latifotia), steeplebush (S. tomen-
 tosa), asters (Aster spp.), Sphagnum moss and several species of
 goldenrod (So lido go spp.), grass and sedge.
   A soil pit revealed Scarboro muck with • 4-in. layer of decom-
 posed black organic  matter underlain by about 12 in. of dark
 greyish-brown, mucky sandy loam. There were lenses of coarse
 sand and gravel, indicating past deposition during flooding. Below
 this was an abrupt transition into  mottled (containing area: of
 orange oxidized iron and grey reduced iron) yellowish silt. The soil
 was quite saturated considering the time of year (October): in 2
 to 3 min, 4 or 5 in. of water seeped  into  the hole and the sides
 rapidly collapsed.
   The wetland's long axis is inhabited by grasses and sedges. The
 western portion of the meadow, into which Wetland 3 flows, con-
 sists of hummocks and is very densely vegetated with purple looses-
 trife  (Lyrhrum  salicoria),  climbing  nightshade  (Solanum
 dulcamara), and several goldenrod and sedge species. This part
 of the wetland is considerably wetter underfdbt than  other sections.

 Interpretation of Field Dm
 Ecosystem Functions
   This wetland is ranked high for primary production because it
 provides abundant food for wildlife, particularly birds. Organic
 matter is broken down and made available at a moderate rate, so
 decomposition is ranked medium. However, because flow through
 the meadow is slow, most nutrients do not leave the area via surface
 water; thus it is ranked low for nutrient export. On the other hand,
 nutrients incorporated into plant materials are available to herbi-
                                                                     WATERWAYS AND WETLANDS RECLAMATION     433

-vcle through terrestrial and aquatic food webs. Because
21 food produced here is consumed by mobile species
 tricm transfer is high. Overall. Wetland 4 is ranked
 r ecosystem functions, primarily because it does not
 rients or support aquatic organisms.

tabiiat Functions
  Is a wet meadow, unlike nearby wetlands. While only
fnd herb/emergent strata are occupied, they are quite
 •de variety of plants provides food, cover and repro-
 ources for a similarly wide variety of animals. "Edge,"
•on between vegetative communities (in this case, from
 et meadow) is an especially valuable zone to wildlife.
'f auite diverse and provides abundant food and cover.
racteristics (i.e., mottling) show that the meadow exhibits
"national phase, a seasonal fluctuation between saturated
'rated conditions, so it provides additional habitat for
 t require wet conditions for only part of the year. The
niunity produces a variety of seeds, fruits and browse
   ort a reasonably-sized consumer population, which
  support predators. Wetland 4 receives high rankings
 and number of vegetative strata, flora! diversity, "edge"
production, and overall wildlife habitat functions.

;e Functions
14 is primarily a discharge area where groundwater moves
 A/or laterally into surface water. It receives precipitation,
   . antj groundwater flow from the landfill and vicinity.
 i< relatively wide and has a constriction at its outlet,
 rate to high capacity for flood storage and retardation.
   open water associated with this wetland, thus it has
•or shoreline protection. Its overall ranking for overall
.functions is low-to-moderatc.

,ality Functions
   no clear channels here and the vegetation is dense,
 locity of surface water is reduced when it enters Wet-
f  use water's  ability to carry sediment decreases with
his area acts as an effective sediment trap. The meadow
 H $un for most of. the day. providing ample opportunity
       is- Thus, its plant community is capable of high
  ration and microorganisms, through their metabolic
*C\so effectively remove and store nutrients such as nitro-
 * jphorus, which reduces the possibility of algal blooms,
.ophyton production, and associated cutrophic processes
'r waters. Removal of particulates and nutrients also
"•ochemical oxygen  demand (BOD) and  downstream
'However, much of the water Wetland  4 receives  is
 ..^re-filtered" by Wetlands 2 and 3, so its ranking  is
   medium. Although it has a high capacity for water
°  rovement, its relatively small size reduces its overall
0Pmedium-to-high.   ,

   mic Functions
A  A  is somewhat secluded and surrounded by forest.  It
   umber of flowering species and attracts a variety of
*  It is ranked high for aesthetic value. Because of its
*°  /particularly "edge") and proximity to several other
    /forest, pasture), this wetland makes an excellent area
   _nd other wildlife observation but is not of interest for
if  Vcreational activities and so receives a medium ranking

u°Cthe meadow is not a unique ecosystem, it is easily
*    d  may be of some value for ecological study. No
' *7onomic values are known for the area. Overall, it is
* Sium for socioeconomic values.

   of Current Impact
»° .  w does not appear to hive been impacted by disposal
^Contamination associated with the landfill. As discussed

above, runoff from the landfill musi pass through Wetland 2 or
Wetland 3 before it reaches Wetland 4. Apparently, these wetlands
have adequate filtration, flood storage and sediment-trapping
capacity to protect the meadow, as no signs of contamination or
stress were observed. These two wetlands may also serve to filter
groundwater before it enters Wetland 4.

Evaluation of Remedial Alternatives
  The U.S. EPA selected a source control remedial alternative con-
sisting of a full synthetic membrane cap with leachate collection,
gas collection and venting, surface water collection and diversion,
and regrading as needed to stabilize slopes. The selected remedy
would control runoff and erosion and was predicted to reduce
leachate production by 99V».                        *
  As originally planned, installation of the perimeter drain and
associated regrading  would have obliterated Wetlands 1 and G
through Tilling and drainage. The plans also called  for portions
of Wetlands 2,  3  and B to be dredged for drainage purposes. In
addition, most of Wetlands 3 and 4 would have been altered either
by channelization or by installation of a sedimentation basin. Chan-
nelization would also have reduced Wetland 4's ecosystem, wild-
life habitat, pollution attenuation and hydrologic functions.
   Based on evaluations of wetland functional values and the recom-
mended remedial alternative, measures were developed to avoid
impacts, minimize unavoidable impacts or compensate for lost wet-
lands. It was recommended  that relocation of the sedimentation
 basin be considered in order to avoid direct impacts to Wetlands
3 and 4.
   Because relocation of the perimeter drain was  not  feasible,
 expansion of Wetland 2 and creation of additional wetlands was
 proposed. The sedimentation basin was considered a likely candi-
 date for replication once the landfill cap had been stabilized with
 vegetation. (Replication, the creation of a wetland similar to one
 that has  been destroyed, would have consisted of dredging the
 sedimentation basin to a depth sufficient to support wetland vege-
 tation and planting emergent species such as cattails.) Also recom-
 mended was the use of existing wetlands for storm water retention.
 Erosion and sedimentation controls were suggested to augment
 those already planned for the construction process.
   Finally, the assessment proposed a monitoring program designed
 to observe changes in wetland ecosystems and leachate generation.
 This monitoring is critical not only to evaluate the changes in altered
 wetlands and the success of replication efforts at the site, but also
 to gather data that can be applied to other sites where wetland resto-
 ration, alteration or replication is proposed.
   The information and proposed mitigative measures  presented
 in the wetland assessment enabled the U.S. EPA  to develop its
 recommendations for design changes to the  selected remedy,
 including relocation of the sedimentation basin.
                                                             This wetland assessment procedure examines ecosystem, wild-
                                                           life habitat, hydrologic, water quality and socioeconomic functions.
                                                           Unlike other similar procedures, it also determines current impacts
                                                           and evaluates the impacts of proposed remedial actions. Based on "
                                                           this information, the U.S. EPA can modify proposed remedial •
                                                           actions in order to avoid or minimize adverse impacts..In situa-
                                                           tions where impacts have already occurred or  are un% voidable.
                                                           appropriate mitigative measures, such as wetland replication or
                                                           restoration, can be developed.        ;
                                                           1. Reed, Jr., P. B. "1986 Wetland Plant Ust—Northeast Region." National
                                                              Wetlands   Inventory/U.S.   Fish   and   Wildlife   Service.
                                                              WELUT46/W13.01, May 1986.
                                                           2. Cowardin. L. M.. Carter. V.. Ootef. F.C. and LaRoe. E.T.. "Class!-

fusion of WetUnd, and Deep W,ter H.bu.u of the Uniied Sate*."          Aiseiiment. Volumej 1 and 2. Center for Natural Areas. Gardiner,
n s. F*»h tnd Wildllfe SCTVICt>  F*S/OBSA79/31' >979-                    ME." Federal Hiihway Administration Repon No*. FHWA-tP-82-23
     nus. P.R.. ind Stockwell. L.T. "A Method for Wetland Functional          and FHWA-IP-8244. March 1983.
      Chan, C.i ?•*•  lurtitanaky, K. lUntticht, and T.J.  Lltvln.  Tht Vat of
          for Vattr  Pollution Control,  freptrtd for U.S.ErA Offiea of
          and DavtlOBBant  WA-tOO/J-82-036.  Stptrabtr  1*02.
 *""si«p«cn. K.L..  K.C. Cood, fc. Valktr. and 1. Frtteo. Tha rolt of
 **«.»«art Rivar fraihvattr tidal wttlandt In tht rttantion of nutritntt and
 *'	.».!..  Journal of CnvirenMBtal Quality, IHDitl-AS.  1903.
                      A.A. Crowdtr.  Vptakt and aecumlation of haavy Mtalt
                        vttland of tht tudbury, Ontario region.  Canadian
                 y.  41113-73.  1M1.
~  thwart Kiv«r irvpnwviv
*'-vy Bttala.  Journal o
™"  t«vlor,  C.J. and A.
* * TSEti '«t"ci'« tn •
   t»r»»al of kotany, 41i43
                  * S
                                                                       WATERWAYS AND WETLANDS RECLAMATION    435

         CERCLA Environmental Issues  and Requirements

               EIB/ERRD Coordination  Pi endure
I.  Applicability

    This procedure is intended to establish general guidelines
    for coordination between the Emergency and  Remedial Response
    Division (ERRD) and the Environmental  Impacts Branch  (EIB)
    on environmental issues relating  to CERCLA  remedial actions.
    Removal activities are not a subject of these procedures.
    Moreover,  the purpose of this coordination will be to
    determine  some of the federal environmental  requirements
    applicable to particular CERCLA projects.  These  requirements
    can be specifically mandated, such as those  contained
    in the National Historic Preservation Act, Coastal Zone
    Management Act, Wild and Scenic Rivers Act,  Endangered
    Species Act, and Executive Orders on Wetlands and
    Floodplains; or they can be generic requirements  under
    the National Environmental Policy Act, relating to
    hydrology, geology, noise, biology, socioeconomics,
    land use,  and energy.
    Specific federal environmental standards or  criteria
    such as those relating to water quality, air quality,
    drinking water, and permissible chemical exposure
    levels will not be a subject of this coordination.
    Information on environmental standards should be  obtained
    by the CERCLA project officer from the appropriate
    program area within EPA or an appropriate federal

II.  Early Scoping of Environmental Issues

     Fund - Financed Remedial Actions

     EPA project managers will provide EIB with a copy  of  the
     clearinghouse letter to the 5tate_Agency designated as
     intergovernmental liaison pursuant to Executive  Order
     12372.  This letter contains general project information**
     including site location, description and history;
     therefore, it should provide an adequate basis for a
     preliminary determination of potential environmental
     concerns.  For State-lead projects, a copy of this
     letter should be secured for EIB through the project
     manager's counterpart in the State.  Turnaround  time
     for review and comments s 30 days.

    Responsible Party Remedial Actions

    EPA project managers will provide BIB with a copy of
    the Administrative Order issued to the potentially responsible
    party(s)  for  a particular remedial action.  The Order
    will  normally contain enough detailed information on
    site  characteristics for EIB to make a preliminary
    determination of potential environmental concerns.
    Turnaround time for review and comments: 30 days.

    The purpose of early scoping of environmental issues is to
    provide EIB with sufficient information in order to
    identify potential conflicts with federal environ-
    mental regulatory requirements  (as outlined under
    •Applicability*) and potential negative impacts to the
    environment as  a  result of the  remedial process,
    whether it is carried  out by contractors to EPA, a
    State* or a potentially responsible party.  Identification
    of these issues in the above manner will allow time
     for appropriate adjustments  in  the final project workplan
   •  (An EIB contact should be designated to whom  the above
    materials can be sent.)

XII.  Coordination During  Remedial Investigation

     CERCLA project  managers will coordinate with  EIB on an
     as-needed basis during the performance of  the remedial
     investigation on significant environmental issues  identified
     during the scoping process.  Also,  project managers will
     alert EIB to any new developments which may have  adverse
     environmental consequences  in  order  to properly assess  the
     development and take whatever  action that the project manager,
     in consultation with BIB*  believes is appropriate.

     The purpose of  this coordination during  the remedial
     investigation is to ensure that any data-gathering need**
     relating to significant environmental issues art properly
     attended to.

IV.  Coordination During Feasibility Study

     CERCLA project managers will coordinate with EIB on an a-s^
     needed basis-during the initial screening of alternatives,
     followed by the detailed analysis of alternatives conducted
     in the feasibility study.  Coordination should usually
     focus en. environmental issues that have surfaced during
     earlier project stages.  The project manager nay request
     EIB participation in the review of the environmental
     assessment performed during the detailed analysis of alter-
     natives if he feels that there are environmental issues
     involved e.g. .floodplains or wetlands assessments, which
     require the benefit of EIB*s experience and expertise.

     The purpose of this coordination during the feasibility
     study is to ensure that the project manager properly
     assesses the environmental impacts of remedial alternatives,
     develops appropriate mitigation measures to offset
     environmental impacts associated with the selected
     alternative, and fulfills federal environmental regu-
     latory requirements specific to the project.
Referencess  Coordination between Regional Superfund and OFA
             Regional Counterparts, on CERCLA Actions (Memo from
             Hedeman/Birsch dated 10/29/84)j Applicability of
             Section 102(2)(c) of NEPA to Response Actions Under
             Section 104 of CERCLA (Memo from OGC to Lavelle
             dated 9/1/62)i Appendix to revised National
             Contigency Plan  (Memo from L. Thomas to R.A.s)}
             Draft Guidance Document for Feasibililty Studies
             Under CERCLAj Implementation of Procedures on the .
             National Environmental Policy Act  (11/6/79 regulations).


f                                     REGION II
                                26 FEDERAL PLAZA
                           NEW YORK. NEW  YORK 10278
                  Notification of Federal Natural Resource Trustees
        Site  	City	
        County	 ;  State.Cw.Terr.
        Operable Unit Name.	
        TTV.   Ml-Regional Environmental Off leer  (by iKatiw.chfctc O)

              D    Anita Millar. Mid-Atlantic Renlon    (NJ)  (FTS-597-5378)
                   200 Chestnut Street, Room 502
                   Philadelphia, Pa 19106
              D    Bill Patterson. Northeast Region     (NY)   (FTS-835-6856*
                   Boston Federal Office Building
                   10 Causeway Street Room 1022
                   Boston, Mass. 02222

              D    Jim Lee. Southeast Reaien        (P P. V.I) lFTS-242-4524)
                   Pussel Federal Puildmg. Suite 1320
                   75 Spring Street S.W.'
                   Atlanta, Georgia 30303

             DOC - NOAA  Coastal Resource Coordinator
                   Thor Cutler, EPA Region ?                (FTS-264-6325)
                    26 Federal Plaza. Room 734
                    New York City, New York 10278

          FPOft Project ManagAr-	.	Phone:
                Chief:	Section:	.Phone-
          1)  In accordance with Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, §104 (6X2)
              and S122(j), the EPA provides notification of the following-    letted: 0* D)

           D  Potential damages to natural resources may result from releases  under investigation at the
              subject site, as determined from ongoing assessments or investigations. (S104(bX2) SA,RA)

           0  You are encouraged to participate in the upcoming negotiations as you deem appropriate EPA
              intends to initiate negotiations with potentially responsible parties about the subject site, such
              that they may conduct or finance a                         '	at the
              site .(S122IJ) SARA)                      (rtmecul process)

           D  A request for preliminary decisions on a covenant not to sue for natural resources, or an
              all claims release.


                                   REGION II
                              26 FEDERAL PLAZA

                         NEW YORK. NEW YORK 10278
       2)STAOE OF ACTION-   Ddratt or Dfinal

       D Preliminary assessment/ D site Investigation or D ESI (extended site investigation)
       D immediate Removal D Expedited Response Action
       D Work Plan
       D Remedial investigation
       0 Endanger ment Assessment
       D Feasibility Study
       SEPARATE OPERABLE UNITS? (nme * description)
       3)RESPONSE CATEGORY;   D  fund  D enforcement  PRP:
          LEAD:  D Federal      D State       0 Fed Facility

       4) D DXUMENTS ATTACHED: (three copies to DOI. three copies to DOC) List names of
       5) If the following information is not contained in the attached documents, please provide

          LOCATION USOS quad map w/location of site and directions to site
          (quad name)-	
          SITE EXPOSURE POTENTIAL*copy exec, summary .EPlC.or relevant doc.)
          CHEMICAL HAZARDS and history of releases:(copy appropriate table?.lists)

            Natural Resource Damage Assessments Regulation!
                      Department of the Interior

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA) provides for the recovery of damages for injuries
to natural resources resulting from a discharge of oil or a release of
a hazardous substance.  Section 107(f)(2)(C)  states  that any
determination or assessment of damages made by a Federal or State    •  .
trustee in accordance with regulations promulgated under
Section 301(c) shall have the force of and effect of a rebuttable
presumption of correctness on behalf of the trustee  in any
administrative proceeding under XJERCLA or Section 311 of the Clean
Water Act.  Thus, pursuant to Section 301(c), and Executive Order
12316, the Department of the Interior published  final Natural Resource
Damage Assessment Regulations on August 1,  1986  (51  FR 27674),  and  on
March 20, 1987 (52  FR 9042).  The 1986 regulations  included procedures
for the overall natural resource damage assessment  process and
specific procedures for conducting  "type  B" assessments  in individual
cases. . The 1987 regulations contained simplified  procedures  for
conducting "type A" assessments  in  coastal  and marine environments.
These regulations have been codified  at 43  C.F.R.  Part II.

The regulations are for the use  of  authorized Federal and  State
-officials referred  to  in CERCLA  as  trustees  for  natural  resources.
These procedures can be used in  court  actions or administrative
proceedings when seeking compensation from the  responsible party for
injuries to natural resources  for which  the trustee has
responsibility.  Natural resource damage  assessments are not  the same
as response or remedial actions.  Moreover,  assessments  are  not
intended to replace response actions  but  are  intended to supplement
them by providing  a process  for  determining proper compensation to the
public for  injury  to natural resources.   When injuries  occur to
natural resources,  trustees may seek damages  for those injuries from
the responsible  party,  including the reasonablt costs of conducting
the assessment.  Natural  resource  damages cannot be  collected for an
incidence  or  site  for which no responsible party can be identified
(i.e., where  Superfund will totally pay for cleanup).

The regulations  provide guidance for choosing between a type A and a
type B assessment.   The type B procedures are relatively general, and
they provide  the flexibility needed to meet  the diversity of
resources,  ecosystems, and oils and hazardous substances likely to be
encountered,  as  well as allowing the use of  evolving scientific and
economic  methodologies.  They do not provide specific procedures for
selecting  and implementing assessment methodologies, although they do
provide  objectives and criteria.  The type B regulations also provide  .
specific  definitions of natural resource injuries and describe        "
acceptable assessment methodologies.  The type A procedures use a .'

computer model referred to as the "Natural Resources Damage Assessment
Model for Coastal and Marine Environments"  Specific data inputs, such
as location, volume of spill, tides, winds, etc., are required to run
the Model.  In this Model, natural resource injury is determined
through the interaction of the physical fates and biological effects
submodels.  Damages are determined through the use of an economic
damages submodel.                                          . '

The regulations provide a planned approach to natural resource damage •
assessment and allow active  involvement of both  the public and
potentially responsible parties  in the process.  The procedural steps
to be taken in an assessment  (type A and  type B) are shown in
Attachment 1.  The various phases and steps in an assessment are
described briefly below.

A.  Preassessment Phase

    1.  Apply criteria  in regulations to  determine whether
        there is a reasonable  probability of making a
        successful claim before  funds and efforts are
        expended in carrying out an assessment.  This  is
        called a Preassessment Screen and must be documented
        in a report.

B.  Assessment Phase

    1.  Cooperate with  other agencies.
    2.  Notify responsible  party of  intent  to  perform  an
    3,  Prepare Assessment  Plan.
    4.  Allow for public  comment.
    5.  Conduct  the  plan.

        a.   Determine  whether an injury has occurred.
        b.   Quantify the  injury.
        c.   Determine  damages (lesser of restoration costs or
             Ion  of  use/value).

C.  Post  Assessment  Phase

    1.  Prepare  Assessment  Report.
    2.  Present  report with demand for payment to responsible
    3.   Settle  or sue.
    4.   Prepare  a Restoration Plan.
    5.   Implement the plan.

Certain.changes in the final regulations are necessitated  by  the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of  1986.   Consequently,
the Department recently issued a proposed  rule on April 17,  1987,  to
modify the final regulations to conform with these changes
(52 FR 12886).
Prepared by:   Dr.  James  D.  Brown
               FWS,  Atlanta, Georgia
               October  7, 1987

                       Notification/Detection |
 [ Emergencyj     Yes
                      -j Preassesarent Screen  |
                         Assessment Plan

                   Contents and Development
                   Deciding between
                    lypeB                Type A
  Not confirmed
 of Exposure
              (Subpart E)
                    (Subpart D)

injury [Injury
pathways | Determination
sampling rNo
Cervices End -
Baseline J Quantification


.. use value Damage
_ restoration Determination

I Fates 1
I effects '
1 Economic 1
| damages I
Post Assesanent
Restoration Plan

                                                             - use values

                BIO ASSESSMENT
    Sh&xon Chnstophcnon
    L. Jay Held

    Ocean Assessments Divisioo
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    7600 Sand Point Way NE
    Seattle, WA 98115

    Robot N. Dexter

    E.V.S. Consultants
    Seattle, WA 98102
    Seattle, Wtshii
    December 23,15

                          .     •        T-2

BtoasMssmwrt in th« Suptrfund Rmwdlil PIDCMS                                 12/23/87
                                                            .   •           .    '  ..      .//


The selection of the appropriate bioassessment procedure(s) is dependent on the objectives of the
particular stage in the remedial process. The amount of iirfomation required to make necessary
decisions regarding further activities at the site tends to increase as die overall assessment of a site
proceeds from the preliminary screening to the crdangerment assessment and selection of
remedial action.  Regardless of the stage in the remed^ process, u is erf prinmry import
appropate sampng strategy an statstca  esgn.  propery panne,  ata coecte  at ea
stage can be used to guide me development of work plans for subsequent stages. The early
incorporation of an overall sampling design that adequately addresses Ac potential risks to natural
resources reduces the possibility mat additional sampling will be required later mat might delay or
hinder the remedial process. The role of bioassessment approaches during the different stages of
a site remediation is discussed in more detail below.
Preliminary Assessment: Bioassessment as a tool in site screening

The data needs for the preliminary Bfitfirsmgnt are usually ^'"pcted toward broad»scale screening
for the presence or absence of ttnddty. Bioassessment procedures, particularly bioassays, can
play an important role in site screening. Combined with information on the site history, visual
observations of site characteristics and chemical analyses, bioassays can provide qualitative
information on the distribution of toxic substances and the relative toxicity of the site.  Bioassays
bioassays couldjbe employed to broaden the range of toxic substances which can be detected.
This is especially important at sites with complex mixtures of contaminants or where the rite
history indicates die possible presence of substances not normally analyzed (e.g., pharmaceutical
or dye manufacturing). At sites where the presence of substances known to be especially toxic to
a specific organism or type of organism is suspected, additional bioassays for mose substances
should be included. For example, since fish are particularly sensitive to the pesticides
enrtmnlfan. rotenone and toxapbene, inclusion of an appropriate laboratory fish bioassay would
be recommended if the presence of one or more of these substance was suspected.
                                          rt*ty flfiffiiiiiBiit din frf- ufpd to help guided
	» —	_—- WTW.H>wion phase of die study. The chemical analy*
shoujdprovide information on die types of substances presett and die possible ranges of their
concentrations, tiring harie osesnsrancgs. Trismrortamksimatic^wrjerehUneces
limit the number of difierem tests run on each sample in order to increase the total number of
samples mat can be tested. For example, acute Crustacea bioassays may akoe ben adequate
HoaMessment option in situations where trace nietaU are uw primary concern, siiiceQiistacea
used in common bioassays are reasonably sensitive to toxicity from most metals. This would
allow an increase in die spatial or temporal mvmge
                                 ora mvmge « ^mpng wff iMt^    1**,
that the toxic substances present were being detected. Where chemical information during the

BioMMMmmt (ntiwSupmfundRwMdialProoM*                                  12/23/87	

preliminary assessment indicates the presence of a complex mixture of contaminants, two or
more different bioassays should be run on each sample to increase the likelihood that toxicity
from the different toxic materials would be ^"T^ni
                                                                   • •.    •
During the remedial investigation phase, bfoasscssmem procedures provide a direct evaluation of
issociated with the distribution of one or more toxic substances. In the simplest case, the
bioassessment acts as an adjunct to the chemical analyses. The chemical measurements provide
die link between the spatial areas and the sources) or contamination, while the bioassessment
measurements determine the Tones where ttift.ehemiea1 «fmt»rmnatinii l« mffirfcnt tn h» tmric. In
other situations, toxkary detected in the bioassessment may not vary spatially in the same manner
as the majority of the chemicals measured because the biological test is responding to substances
that are not detected in the standard chemical tests. In both cases, synoptic surveys of
bioassessment and chemical measurements should be made. (Note that the spatial heterogeneity
at hazardous waste sites is often very high, both horizontally and vertically. Asaresult,the
bioassessment and chemical samples must, if at all possible, be taken as auquots from me same.
homogenized sample.)
                                           the extent of con ttmi nutrfto §tt tft^ Rodcy
Mountain Arsenal waste site in Colorado (Thomas etaL 1986). Using the results from t lettuce
seed soil bioassay and a statistical mapping technique called kriring, the extern of contamination
at the site was determined solely by mapping the levels of 1   '
la summary, the selection of the numbers of samples and the types of tests to perform must be
considered on t case-by-case basis, weighing the trade-off between collecting greater numbers of
samples to improve spatial coverage and conducting more tests at each station to broaden the
types of toraaty that will be detected In general,  a nrinimum of two bioassays should be
performed.  Additional bioassay tests should be included if the available data indicate the possible
presence of organism-specific toxins or complex suites of substances. As resources allow, in
situ bioassessments (e.g., benthic community assessments, incidence of disease,
bioflmirmilnrinp) may be included in the site characterization. Although these types of tests tend
to be less precise in their ability to define die spatial extent of problem areas, they ire important in
demonstrating impact to natural legonreet man fuppofifag tf^ results of the bioflSiayi.
                                              fifag tf^ results of the biofl

Feasibility Study: Bioassessment as A tool in establishing site cleanup target levels.
        Mteaod of rite mnedM aeriviriaa <« tn i>Kmki«t» .ny m»tfrf^t thlrf iff ffHr fr"m
exposure to biological organisms. Binasscsstnent procedures have obvious uses in meeting
goal by providing site-specific information on u^ attribution of toxkareu and dw levels d
related contaminants that ate toxic. Bioassessments can be used in two ways to assist in
determining target levels for cleanup.
The most frequently applied approach to using Wousessmem procedures in establ
cleanup levels involves determining the toxicity of a range of concentrations of the
substances that are of concern at a site. The range of concentrationitobetestedcanbe
prepared by diluting a single sample of contaminated media from the site in the laboratory
wim clean media or by eollecring a n^tmfoy ^f y«tnp[ff ^f fft^mptn^^ «^fin from
different spatial areas tliat are hwwn to have differemcnem                        '
samples representing the range of chemical coo*mritioiis()btaii^ by dth» approach is
      imng nnf or mnm hin«c
toxic, and which are not Th
the designated biological endpoint) is determined to be the target level for cleanup.

 BbasMssmwrt In th* Sup»rfund R»m*dial PIDOMS
One example of this approach is the apparent effects threshold (AET), which uses field
chemistry data (concentrations of toxic substances in sediments) and at least one biological
indicator of injury (sediment bioassays, altered benthic inf^mul abundance, • '..\  •
bioaccumulation, histopathology, etc.) to determine the concentration of a given
contaminant above which statistically significant biological effects would be expected (Tetra
Tcchl986a). The AET approach was developed in Puget Sound to establish chemical
criteria for disposal of dredged material, and is being considered by U.S. EPA Region 10
for use in establishing cleanup target levels in that area. As currently developed, the AET
                                              can require extensive dm collection.
                                                 te bioass
         . by carefully selecting one or a few
ipiupiiate bioassessment procedures, the
     if similar data are collected at
 approach can be cost-effective a: many sites,
 different sites within a region mat have similar habitat characteristics, the data may be
 suitable to combine into a regional asttys, even msini, are njeisutesrf the pretence of toxicity and
 hence indicate possible effects, but only direct assessment of resident organisms can establish
 and quantify those effects. (Note, however, that th». ^in^umy ««4 rhnniral dati that it obtained
 for other purposes may be invaluable in denxwstratingthjtt any measured in situ effects are
 related tt> the contamination, and are not a result of natural fluctuations.) The characteristics of
 the habitats and populations mat may he affected «r» m«jnr /Vt*»rm{n«nty fa fAWimg
 bioassessment procedures for impact evaluatioiLTte procedure iele«ed must take mto


BoauMsmwit in th« Suptrfund RMrwdial PIDOM*                                   12/23/87

consideration whether sufficient individuals arejpresent at the sampling locations to obtain the
statistical precision capable of allowing toxic effects to be resolved from natural variability. For
example, sr"aH streams may have too limited a fish population to make creditable population or
disease measurements possible.                                        ."

The scope of work ffr- impact flssessrems fo dqf"V«t«?" d^ balance that must be achieved
between the resources available and the quantitative precision of the assessment Both the
Section of multiple assessment procedures and the number of samples collected directly affect
me costs of the overall assessment  The selection task at most sites is generally simpler than
implied above, however, because in most situations: (a) the populations suitable for assessment
are in fact limited; (b) the area over which the exposure is expected is also usually limited,
particularly with respect to the ranges of many organisms that would be tested; and (c) at least the
minimum number* nf mmpTcs required to tfttain statistically meaningful data can usually be
readily determined.

Remedial  Design/Remedial Action:  Bioassessment as a tool in the evaluation of me
success of remedial i
In the same way that bioassessment procedures can be used to establish and inap the toxkity of
media associated with a site, they can also be used after remediation to confirm that toxicity has
been eliminated. Bioassessment may also be used as a tool for monitoring any ongoing activities
mat are part of the remedy, such as discharges of treated groundwater. Bioassays are commonly
used by EPA and other regulatory agencies in monitoring effluents for National Pollutant
~"  "     —  * ation System (NPDES) permits and for testing dredged sedimrans for open

 Where me remedy has involved die treatnient cr isolation of oontaniinatfd soilsAcdimrms,
              	> measure of the success of such remedial activities in
 those areas where the remedy has resulted in substantial disruption (Le., from construction or
 dredging) of the natural system. In any case, the most logical bioassessment procedures to use
 for defrm"n{"g «**" Wanli'nf^f " f«f ^»> dt«» *rr> dig nrtfs. emplnyeH in cVtermine Ac tmdcity of the
 site prior to cleanup. This should be especially clear mine situations where t particular test was
 used in the selection of the target cleanup tevi
 the determination of the extent of contamination (Prdiminary Assessment and Remedial
 Investigation sections). Tne level of effort will depend on the resources that are available and the
 level of confidence in the result that is needed


 As noted at the beginning of mis document, chemkal analyses ire a key component of the
 environmental assessment oft site. Accunue and pcecisedieniical data provide the Hnk .
 between a rite and contamination and bioeffects seen In me enviioument This section on
 chemical protocols has been included to provide a brief introduction to the typei of
                              pfffftB'mfid flf ^l*™^nBt Wtftf- tJtfti