REPORT ON THE
RESULTS OF FIELD TESTING
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S INTERIM
FINAL WETLAND IDENTIFICATION AND DELINEATION
MANUAL DURING 1987
by
William S. Sipple
Office of Wetlands Protection
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
April, 1988
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Library, Room 2404 PM-211-A
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460

-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Wetland Identification
and Delineation Manual was field tested in a number of states during 1987.
The field testing is considered to have been successful in that it has
(1) pointed out the procedural changes needed in the 1987 version of EPA's
Manual, (2) demonstrated the overall soundness of its conceptual foundation
and technical criteria, and (3) resulted in the substantially improved
1988 version of the Manual. This report presents the results of that
testing and explains the principal changes that have been incorporated
into EPA's revised interim final Manual. The 1988 version is considered
more comprehensive and yet easier to understand and use.

-------
INTRODUCTION
Over the past few years, The Corps of Engineers (Corps) Waterways
Experiment Station and the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office
of Wetlands Protection have been independently developing wetland delinea-
tion manuals. In 1985, both agencies agreed to try to merge their draft
documents into one joint federal 404 jurisdictional manual. Although this
joint document has not been developed to date, both agencies have progressed
substantially on their manuals since 1985, and in early 1987 agreed to
field test the manuals for a one-year period to provide data that would
be useful for consolidating the manuals into a unified procedure. The
field test periods for EPA and the Corps ended on January 31, 1988 and
February 29, 1988, respectively. Now that their reviews are complete,
both agencies plan to meet, consider the comments received, and attempt to r
merge the two documents into one 404 wetland jurisdictional methodology
for use by both agencies. The primary purpose of this report is to present
the principal results of EPA's field testing effort and explain the modifi-
cations that have been incorporated into EPA's revised interim final Wetland
Identification and Delineation Manual (Sipple, 1988) based upon the 1987
field testing, EPA Regional comments, and peer review comments.
During 1987, the author received comments on the interim final manual
from EPA Regions I, V, YI and VII, as well as four peer reviewers {Cathy Garra,
Gene McColligan, Charley Roman, and Blake Parker). Their corrments were very
useful in revising the manual. In addition, five EPA Regional Offices
(Regions I, III, VI, VII, and X), along with a number of other agency and
non-agency personnel (Bob Barber, Susan Bitter, John Bruza, Steve Caicco,
Tom Davidson, Alex Dolgas, Ronnie Duke, Woody Francis, M1ke Hoi1 ins, Bill
Jenkins, Gene Keepper, Mark Kern, Kathy Kunz, Bob Mosley, Tom Nystrom,
Jeanene Peckham, Charlie Rhodes, Matt Schweisberg, Norm Sears, Eric See,
Rod Schwarm, Ellaine Somers, Mlchele Stevens, Rusty Swafford, Ralph Tiner
and Gary Voerman) aided the author in field testing the manual in a number
of states during 1987. My field testing could not have been accomplished
if it were not for the thoughtful help of these people. And I'm sure both

-------
-2-
they and I will never forget the interesting experiences we shared, such
as the literally impenetrable Spiraea douglasii thicket in a Washington
bog, the enervating heat in Iowa, where we had to steal from our soil
water bottle to quench our thirst, my sudden disappearance in a Louisiana
tidal marsh, and the dense Smilax rotundifolia in Maryland that tore into
our skin while dripping sweat was smearing the ink on our photographic
overlays. But it was fun.

-------
-3-
APPROACH
I. Selection of Geographic Areas and Habitat Types
I Early in 1987, all of EPA Regional Offices were contacted about the
possibility of field testing EPA's Wetlands Identification and Delineation
¦anual in their Regions. Although all Regional offices expressed an
Interest in jointly field testing the Manual with EPA Headquarters, a
limited number of sites were chosen due to time and travel constraints,
¦he areas of the country eventually chosen to test the Manual were, for
Khe most part, a reflection of EPA's desire to test the method in a
lumber of representative geographic areas and habitat types. Once the
geographic areas and habitat types were chosen, EPA Regional representatives
iind/or other agency personnel se\ected a number of specific test sites
1/1th the general concurrence of EPA Headquarters. EPA Regional personnel
111 so generally did most of the preliminary data gathering and scoping
[prior to visiting the sites.
fe. Field Procedures
I Each site was visited in the field in conjunction with EPA Regional
personnel, other agency personnel and/or other individuals. The primary
goal was to test the Manual's conceptual foundation (including the rationale
and various assumptions), Its technical criteria, and Its various procedural
aspects (e.g., the Manual's sequence of steps and its effectiveness in terms
|of time and effort). A secondary goal was to make comparisons, where appro-
priate, with the Corps' wetland delineation manual. The following steps were
generally followed.
1.	The materials assembled from the preliminary data gathering and
scoping effort were reviewed.
2.	The sites utilized were selected from a series of potential sites.
This sometimes involved a brief visit to each potential site.

-------
-4-
3.	A decision was made whether to apply the simple or detailed approach
at each site.
4.	The jurisdictional approach was applied. For the first two field
test states (Maryland and Iowa), this involved running through the
sequence of steps working directly from the Manual. By then, the
steps were essentially memorized and the Manual was referred to in
the remaining states only as needed. At each site, the appropriate
data sheets were filled out.
5.	Subsequent to the site visit, the data sheets were re-wr1tten, a site
summary sheet was prepared, and a site specific evaluation form
was filled out. After each field test, the Manual was reviewed
for consistency with the field experience, and annotations were
made directly on the Manual. These annotations were very helpful
in subsequently revising the Manual.

-------
-5-
RESULTS
The EPA Manual was tested in Idaho (riparian forests, shrub swamps,
montane wet meadows, and bogs), Iowa (forested swamps and marshes),
Louisiana (fresh, brackish and saline tidal marshes), Maryland (forested
swamps and fresh tidal marshes), Massachusetts (wet meadows, bogs and
forested swamps), Texas (bottomland hardwoods) and Washington (forested
wetlands, wet meadows and bogs). Completed site specific data sheets
and site specific evaluation forms are available from the author upon
requests.
Early in the field testing effort it became evident that a number of
procedural changes (e.g., new steps, modified steps, and revised data forms>
would substantially improve the F.ield Methodology (Volume II). In fact,
as the field testing progressed, adjustments where continually made as
appropriate and further tested. Most of the procedural changes were
implemented by the time the first two field tests (Maryland and Iowa)
were completed. On the other hand, the conceptual foundation (including
the rationale and various assumptions) and the technical criteria were
found, for the most part, to be sound. It also became evident that a
new section on atypical situations and normally variable environmental
conditions was needed. The principal changes to EPA's Manual are listed
in outline form in the next section of this report, with a cross reference
to the pertinent parts of the new version of EPA's Manual (Sipple, 1988).

-------
-6-
PRINCIPAL CHANGES INCORPORATED INTO
EPA's MANUAL BASED UPON FIELD
TESTING RESULTS AND COMMENTS
A.	General
Most of the changes to EPA's Manual are procedural in nature; some
relate to certain assumptions and technical criteria. The following-
represents a brief listing of the major changes in Volume I and II of
the Manual. The exact wording of the changes and how they fit into the
overall Manual can perhaps be better understood by reviewing the revised
interim final Manual (Sipple, 1988).
B.	Changes in Volume I
1.	Section IIIA1 (Characteristics of Hydrophytic Vegetation)
a. The need to consider normal seasonal, annual and, where
appropriate, long-term cyclic environmental conditions is
discussed in relation to wetland versus aquatic habitats.
2.	Section IIIA4 (Indicators of Hydrophytic Vegetation)
a.	The consistency between the 1988 national, regional and state
lists of plants that occur in wetlands is clarified in relation
to indicator status.
b.	The conditions under which facultative species should be
considered hydrophytic vegetation are further clarified.
3.	Section IIIB4 (Indicators of Hydric Soils)
a. Various cautions to keep in mind while using the hydric soils
list are presented.

-------
-7-
b.	For mineral soils, it is clarified that gleyed soils, mottled
soils with a matrix chroma < 2, and unmottled soils with a
matrix chroma £ 1, are all hydric soils.
c.	It is clarified that soils with an aquic moisture regime are
usually hydric.
d.	The presence of oxidized root-rhizome channels associated with
living roots and rhizomes was added as a field indicator of
hydric soils.
e.	The presence of an organic pan was eliminated as an indicator
of hydric soil conditions in sandy soils. Such pans are,
however, sometimes found in association with dark vertical
streaking in subsurface horizons, and such streaking is an
indicator of hydric soil conditions in sandy soils.
4. Section IIIC1 (Characteristics of Wetland Hydrology)
a.	It is pointed out that it is not necessary to directly demons-
trate inundation at a site. It is only necessary to show through
recorded data that the soil surface is at least periodically inun-
dated during a significant part of the growing season. Ponding
for long or very long duration and frequent flooding for long or
very long duration are considered significant. The terms "long
duration", "very long duration", and "frequently flooded" are
defined 1n Appendix A of Volume I. These definitions are
identical to those used by the Soil Conservation Service (1987)
In Hydric Soils of the United States.
b.	Similarly to "a" above for inundation, 1t is indicated that it
is not necessary to directly demonstrate soil saturation at a
site. It is only necessary to show that the soil is at least
periodically saturated during a significant part of the growing

-------
-8-
season (i.e., usually a week or more). This Idea Is elaborated
using a seasonally flooded forested site as an example. How to
deal with the hydrology parameter in ditched sites is also dis-
cussed. This definition of significant saturaton is identical
to that used by the Soil Conservation Service (1987) in Hydric
Soils of the United States.
c. A number of new field indicators of hydrology are listed (water
marks, water-stained leaves, bare areas and moss lines). These
and the other indicators listed should be used, however, only
within the context that they are presented.
5. Section IV (Overview of Jurisdictional Approaches)
4
a.	A third approach (for atypical situations and for situations
involving normal seasonal, annual or long-term cyclic variations
in environmental conditions) has been incorporated into Volume II.
Information relating to these situations/conditions was not
centrally located in the 1987 version of EPA's Manual.
b.	The four basic steps for both the simple and detailed approaches
have been changed to five.
c.	It is clarified that under the sampling procedures and concept of
dominance used, one or more species always dominates each stratum
in a vegetation unit.
d.	Additional guidance on using the lists of plants that occur in
wetlands is given.
e.	A number of additional terms have been defined in the glossary
(duff, gleying, litter, pedon, polypedon, taxadjunct, and variant).

-------
-9-
C. Changes In Volume II
1.	Section 118 (Steps for Preliminary Data Gathering and Scoping)
a. Step 7 on gathering together necessary equipment and data
sheets has been added.
2.	Section 111B (Steps for Implementing the Simple Jurisdictional
Approach)
a.	Under Step 2, some alternatives to collecting data on vegetation
units as a whole are presented. This allows for more sampling
flexibility in situations where examining an entire vegetation
unit may not be practicable or necessary.
b.	In Step 3, it is Indicated that bryophytes are treated separately
from other understory species.
c.	In Step 4, guidance is given on how to deal with seasonal die-back
and high density, leafless plants. Additional guidance is also
given on ranking species within the various strata. An alternative
option to estimating relative basal area for tree species is given,
which Involves using the procedure presented in Step 9q of the
detailed approach.
d.	In Step 11, various cautions to keep in mind while using the
hydric soils list are presented. It is also clarified that,
wherever possible, soil pits should be dug at least 16 inches
deep, and with bedrock or extremely rocky terrain, they should
be dug to at least the depth of the major portion of the root
zone.
e.	In Step 12, it is clarified for mineral soils that gleyed soils,
mottled soils with a matrix chroma < 2, and unmottled soils with
a matrix chroma < 1 are all hydric soils. It is also clarified

-------
-10-
that soils with an aquic moisture regime are usually hydric. The
presence of oxidized root-rhizome channels associated with living
roots and rhizomes was added as a field indicator of hydric soils;
the presence of an organic pan in and of itself was deleted as an
indicator of hydric conditions in sandy soils.
f.	In Step 13, a number of additional Indicators of hydrology are
listed (water marks, water-stained leaves, bare areas and moss
lines). It is clarified that these, as well as the other
hydrology Indicators listed, should be used only within the
context that they are used 1n Volume I. It Is also pointed
out that It is not necessary to directly demonstrate that
wetland hydrology Is present. It is only necessary to show
that the soil or Its surface Is a least periodically saturated
or inundated, respectively, during a significant part of the
growing season (i.e., soil saturation for usually a week or
more, ponding for a long or very long duration, and frequent
flooding for long or very long duration). The latter terms,
which are also used by the Soil Conservation Service (1987)
in Hydric Soils of the United States, are defined in Appendix
A of Volume I.
g.	Step 15, which was called Step 14 in the 1987 version, has been
substantially expanded to elaborate on the three options for
Indicating the extent of wetlands at a site (i.e., written
reports, aerial photographs/topographic maps, and ground
delineations). How to conduct a ground delineation is
presented 1n detail.
3. After the sequence of steps in the simple approach, there is a
note Indicating that a permanent file should be set up; recommen-
dations on what should be included in it are given.

-------
-11-
4. Section IVB (Steps for Implementing the Detailed Jurisdictional
Approach)
a.	In Step 7, modifications in the shape or size of the standard
sample plot are allowed where appropriate.
b.	A graph for the species area curve mentioned in Step 9b has been
added to the back of Data Form D-l.
c.	In Step 9, bryophytes are treated separately from other understory
species. Additional guidance Is also given on ranking species
within the various strata and on determining basal area using
the point sampling system. A simple way to quickly check on the
accuracy of the sampling 1n Step 9 1s also presented.
4
d.	In relation to soils In Step 16, changes have been made that
are similar to the changes described for Step 11 of the simple
approach (see comment C2d above).
e.	In relation to soils 1n Step 17, changes have been made that
are similar to the changes described 1n Step 12 of the simple
approach (see comment C2e above).
f.	In relation to hydrology in Step 18, changes have been made
that are similar to the changes described for Step 13 of the
simple approach (see comment C2f above).
g.	The procedures in Step 22 of the 1987 version (now Step 21)
have been substantially refined (refer to Step 21 of the 1988
version for an elaboration).
h.	The procedures for synthesizing the sample data for all transects
in Step 25 of the 1987 version (now Step 24) have been substan-
tially refined (refer to Step 24 of the 1988 version for an
elaboration).

-------
-12-
5.	After the sequence of steps in the detailed approach, there is a
note indicating that a permanent file should be set up; recommen-
dations on what should be included in it are given.
6.	A new section (Section V) has been included to address atypical
situations and normally variable environmental conditions. Infor-
mation relating to these situations/conditions was not centrally
located in the 1987 version of EPA's Manual.
7.	Appendix A has been shortened (i.e., the part on non-dominant
species is unnecessary and therefore has been deleted).
8.	Appendix B has been shortened (I.e., the part on non-dominant
species Is unnecessary and therefore has been deleted).
9.	The data forms in Appendices C and D have been substantially
revised to improve their overall format and technical content.
Additional guidance 1n the way of footnotes will improve their
utilization in the field. To some extent, these data sheets should
be thought of as short versions of the jurisdictional approaches
involved. A graph for the species area curve mentioned in Step 9b
has been added to the back of Data Form D-l.
10. Appendix F has been added. It 1s a diagram of the sample plot for
the detailed approach.

-------
-13-
CONCLU SION S
The field testing during 1987 proved very useful for revising EPA's
wetland jurisdictional Manual, particularly the various procedural steps.
Actually, the many procedural changes were not necessarily unanticipated
given that this was the first time the various steps were presented in "cook
book" fashion. Despite the need for procedural changes, the jurisdictional
approaches were very effective 1n the field, perhaps because the conceptual
foundation and technical criteria proved sound throughout a range of regions
and various habitat types. This was not a surprise either, at least 1n
terms of the technical criteria, since many of them have been tested and
refined over the years by the Corps in the development of their jurisdic-
tional manual. Consequently, EPA's field testing 1s considered to have
been successful in that 1t has (1) pointed out the procedural changes needed
in the 1987 version of EPA's Manaal, (2) demonstrated the overall soundness
of its conceptual foundation and technical criteria, and (3) resulted in the
substantially improved 1988 version of the Manual, which is more comprehensive
and yet easier to understand and use.

-------
-14-
LITERATURE CITED
Sipple, W.S. 1987. Wetland identification and delineation manual. YOL. I.
Rationale, technical criteria and overview of jurisdictional approaches.
Vol. II. Field methodology. Interim Final. Office of Wetlands
Protection, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C.
Sipple, W.S. 1988. Wetland identification and delineation manual. VOL. I.
Rationale, technical criteria and overview of jurisdictional approaches.
Vol. II. Field methodology. Revised Interim-Final. Office of Wetlands
Protection, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C.
Soil Conservation Service. 1987. Hydrlc soils of the United States. In
cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils.

-------