Consolidated EPA Region III Response to the
Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
on the Clean Water Act
Regulatory Definition of "Waters of the United States"
-------
u
-------
Consolidated EPA Region III Response to the
Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
on the Clean Water Act
Regulatory Definition of "Waters of the United States"
Introduction:
The enclosed report represents the Region III response to the advanced notice of proposed
rulemaking (hereinafter: ANPRM) on the Clean Water Act regulatory definition of "waters of the
United States." This report represents the collective efforts of regional staff from the Office of
Regional Counsel, Water Division, Environmental Services Division (including the professional
staff of the Wheeling, WV lab), and agency and contract support staff from the Geographic
Information System (GIS) unit.
The following outline describes how this report is organized and the primary features of
each part:
I. Executive Summary: A synopsis of the regional response with comments and
recommendations based on the finding in the report.
II. Highlights of GIS Analysis
III. Response to the Questions Posed in the ANPRM
A. Response with regard to issues concerning wetland ecology
B. Response with regard to issues concerning stream ecology
C. Response with regard to legal issues
IV. Case Studies: Field observations of ecological relations between headwater
streams and headwater and isolated wetlands
V. Appendices
A.
GIS Analysis (Methods, Tables, and Stream Report)
B.
Detailed Photo Interpretation of Selected Field Sites
C.
Field Data from Wetland Sites in PA/DE/MD/VA (available upon request)
D.
Wetland Ecology Literature Review
E.
Stream Ecology Literature Review
F.
Legal Analysis
G.
Christina River Basin TMDL Case Study
H.
Tygart River TMDL Case Study
I.
Threatened and Endangered Species
J.
Potential changes on the scope of Clean Water Act jurisdiction on the
NPDES and Safe Drinking Water programs
K.
State Programs in Region III
-------
Executive Summary
EPA Region III Comments on
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
on the Clean Water Act Regulatory Definition of "Waters of the United States"
The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Water (OW) and the Army Corps of
Engineers have proposed to initiate rule-making to "clarify" the scope of federal Clean Water Act
(CWA) jurisdiction'following the Supreme Court's decision in the Solid Waste Agency of
Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v US Army Corps of Engineers. In SWANCC, the Court
held that the Corps had exceeded its authority under the CWA by asserting jurisdiction over what
the Court characterized as isolated, intrastate ponds based solely on their use as a habitat for
migratory birds pursuant to the so-called "Migratory Bird Rule." EPA Region III has conducted
a comprehensive analysis in response to the January 15, 2003 Advanced Notice of Proposed
Rule-making (ANPRM) issued by the EPA Office of Water and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. This analysis evaluates the potential effects of changes in the current regulations on
wetland and stream resources in the Middle Atlantic States, with particular attention to the
functions of these resources and their value in protecting human health.
The ANPRM sets out two specific questions for which the EPA and the United States
Department of the Army Corps of Engineers ('"Corps") specifically solicit comment: whether the
regulations should define "isolated" waters, and what factors should be considered for
determining CWA jurisdiction over such waters. The ANPRM also solicits data regarding the
extent of resource impacts to isolated, intrastate, non-navigable water and information on the
functions and values of wetlands and other waters that may be affected by the issues discussed in
the ANPRM.
Current administration of the CWA rules and regulations has resulted in significant progress
toward restoration and maintenance of the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the
Nation's waters. The current CWA jurisdictional scope, including navigable waters and their
tributaries, is supported by the science which includes the hydrology and ecology of watersheds.
Definition of Isolated Waters
In specific response to the ANPRM's question regarding definition of so called "isolated" waters,
any definition of these waters should take into account the hydrologic cycle and the
inter-relationships among waterbodies (surface and groundwater). Any definition of "isolated"
waters should include only truly "isolated" waters, outside the hydrologic cycles of navigable
waters. If there is an attempt to define "isolated" waters, the role of groundwater in connecting
waterbodies must be considered. Groundwater is a major feature in watersheds and frequently
serves as a permanent hydrological connection between wetlands and surface water tributaries.
Although some waters and wetlands may not exhibit a perennial surface water connection, they
are closely integrated to the larger watershed network via groundwater and non-perennial surface
connections and, as such, are not isolated from the larger hydrologic cycle.
1
-------
If "isolated waters" are to be defined, Region III recommends the following:
Completely isolated: perched systems that are entirely self-contained and have no
hydrological (surface or groundwater) connection to other waters.
Under this definition, most intrastate, non-navigable waters are not, in fact, isolated.
An attempt to develop a generalized definition of'"isolated", waters predicated on physical
proximity, flow, or some other factor will create an arbitrary cut-off (not scientifically based) that
may fail to take into account the role of certain waters in the overall hydrologic cycles that
Congress clearly intended to regulate. Although the CWA refers to "navigable"' waters, the
Supreme Court in SWANCC affirmed that the jurisdiction of the CWA extends beyond those
waters that are deemed traditionally navigable-in-fact. Congress' declaration of goals and policy
in CWA Section 101(a) as protecting the physical, chemical and biological integrity of the waters
of the United States extends beyond the mere protection of navigation. The legislative hisxor
clearly states that Section 101(a) addresses the protection of the natural structure and function of
ecosystems. As currently administered, the CWA, by including a broader interpretation ot
"waters of the United States", has made significant progress in achieving the goals articulated by
Congress. Region Ill's suggestion for a definition of "isolated" waters should not be construed as
a suggestion that such waters are not within the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act.
In terms of implementing any regulatory program regarding "isolated" wetlands it should be
noted that generally there are no discrete, scientifically supportable boundaries or criteria along
the continuum of wetlands to separate them into meaningful ecological or hydrological
compartments. Applying any set of field methods (as yet undeveloped) would be problematic.
Jurisdictional Factors
To the extent a decision is made to change the current regulations regarding CWA jurisdiction,
including developing a definition for 'isolated" waters, it will be important to keep in mind the
purposes underlying the CWA. Controlling pollution at its source is paramount in order to
restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation's waters. The
relationship of all waters within the watershed must be recognized and their contribution not only
to water quality control but also pollution discharge must be acknowledged. Commerce of all
kinds: intrastate, interstate and international - will be severely affected if commercial, industrial
and municipal waters are adversely impacted by uncontrolled pollution in headwater areas.
Wetlands and small, headwater streams serve a multitude of water quality functions. As part of
an ecological/hydrological network, watersheds containing small perennial and intermittent
streams and wetland systems (surface and groundwater connected) have bearing on interstate or
foreign commerce. As such, the effects that small or non-navigable waterbodies have on the
downstream water quality should be considered as factors to provide a basis for jurisdiction
where such interstate commerce occurs. Region Ill's suggestion for a definition of "isolated"
waters should not be construed as a suggestion that such waters are not within the jurisdiction of
-------
the Clean Water Act.
Extent of Resource Impacts
Although the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in SWANCC did not directly address tributaries and
adjacent wetlands, most of the post-SWANCC case law has addressed these waters rather than
the isolated waters at issue in SWANCC. Because of the uncertainty regarding the scope of
''isolated" waters resulting from the post- SWANCC rulings and the use of the broad term "other
waters'' in the ANPRM, Region III has provided a fairly broad analysis of potential effect of new
rule making as it relates to "isolated intrastate non-navigable waters". We have examined a
range of scenarios, from narrow to broad, in responding to the ANPRM. A comprehensive
analysis drawing from the literature, geographic information systems (GIS) analyses, aerial photo
interpretation (API), field studies, and many years of professional experience is provided in the
attached response.
Although Region III has provided analysis of potential scenarios that may be realized as a result
of new rule-making, it should be made clear that we do not consider these waters to be "isolated"
in the hydrologic sense (see above). Many of these small headwater wetlands and streams
experience a range of hydrological connectivity with downstream waters which in turn depends
on a number of region-specific factors (precipitation, catchment area, topography, geology, etc.).
Because the nature of any proposed regulatory change is unknown, Region Ill's analysis
necessarily required some assumptions. In keeping with the limited scope of waters affected
under SWANCC. Region IH's-narrow interpretation of "isolated" wetlands includes wetland
areas that do not exhibit a perennial or intermittent surface water connection to traditional
"navigable waters". The broad interpretation includes smaller perennial streams and intermittent
or ephemeral "headwaters" and their adjacent wetlands as well as the wetlands analyzed in the
narrow interpretation described above.
A range of profound aquatic resource impacts are exhibited when analyzing the potential effects
of new rule-making on waters and wetlands described above. Using region-wide GIS data,
approximately 438,000 acres of wetlands, or roughly 12% of the'wetland resource in Region III,
could be adversely affected under the narrow interpretation. If one considers the broad
interpretation, that number increases to 1.3 million acres of wetlands, or roughly 36% of all
wetlands in the Region. Both figures represent a significant portion of wetlands within Region
III. Furthermore, these numbers may be conservative estimates considering that studies have
shown that the maps used to generate these figures may underestimate actual wetland acreage by
as much as 50%.
Regional GIS analysis shows that the majority of total stream miles in Region III are small,
headwater streams. Approximately 52% of the total stream resource (as measured in stream
-------
miles) in Region III are first order, headwater streams at the 1:10.0,000 mapping scale1.
Approximately 106.000 miles of headwater streams in Region III could be affected by changes
in CWA jurisdiction and could therefore be afforded no protection under CWA authorities. As
the beginning of a watershed, headwaters function in many ways that are critical to the
ecosystem (e.g., moderation of downstream flow, moderation of thermal regime, removal of
pollutants, influence on the storage, transportation and export of organic matter). These physical
and biological attributes are integral to healthy, self-sustaining watersheds.
Numerous studies have shown that both the stream and wetlands mapping available on a regional
or national basis underestimate the extent of both stream and wetland resources. Aerial
photography interpretation (API) was used as a tool by Region III to more accurately determine
the potential effects of the reduction in the scope of CWA jurisdiction. The API analysis
complemented the GIS analysis described above by developing and analyzing site-specific data
at four relatively small study areas in Region III. The API study showed a greater range of
potential wetland impact. The impact was shown to be greater in the study areas that were
located in headwater settings. Up to 100%-of localized areas within small first and second order
watersheds consist of isolated waters, smaller perennial streams and intermittent or ephemeral
streams and their adjacent wetlands.. Using API the potential impact of the reduction in the
scope of CWA jurisdiction on streams is also significant. The API has shown that between 88%-
92% of all stream resources consist of smaller perennial streams and intermittent or ephemeral
streams and their adjacent wetlands. Up to 100% of stream resources could also be affected in
small, localized watersheds. This analysis shows that the higher resolution the wetlands and
stream data, the greater the potential impact of reduction in the scope of CWA jurisdiction.
Any changes made to the federal regulatory definition of "waters of the United States" will also
affect progress achieved under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Region Ill's analysis
found that, when considering a reduction in CWA jurisdiction that excluded smaller perennial
streams and intermittent or ephemeral streams and their adjacent wetlands, significant
degradation to drinking water sources is likely to occur. Removal of the source water protection
measures afforded by the Clean Water Act increases risks to human health and may require
additional infrastructure expenditures by public utilities using surface water intakes. In EPA
Region III. between 148 and 526 surface drinking water intakes, serving populations ranging
from 535,000 to 3 million people, would potentially be affected if headwater streams were
'This coarse scale of mapping (1:100K) may underestimate the number and length of small
streams by a large amount. This problem appears to vary by watershed, with some underestimates
exceeding 150%. For example, in Pennsylvania, the total length of stream miles increased 50% when
moving from coarser scale mapping to one with more refined accuracy. Furthermore, we know from
case studies that this coarse scale coverage does not accurately map intermittent streams.
:The term "headwaters" is used to describe the dendritic pattern of small streams, swales and
wetlands that form the beginnings of most watersheds. Use of the term does not imply reference to the
regulator.' definition set forth at 33 C.F.R 330.2(d)
4
-------
removed from Clean Water Act jurisdiction. Without federal limits or controls on these
segments, point and non-point sources of contamination could likely increase. Public water
suppliers would need to increase treatment of source water to ensure that public safety
requirements were met. Contaminants such as Cryptosporidium and E. coli would likely
increase in streams where municipal discharges and treatment facilities handling animal waste
and animal by-products discharge into headwater streams.
Functional Analysis
Most of the headwater streams and wetlands potentially affected by changes in CWA jurisdiction
comprise networks that function in a manner analogous to the capillaries in a blood circulatory
system. Just as capillaries act as the interface between our organs and our circulatory system,
these systems act as the interface between the uplands and the surface water networks that
comprise the watersheds of our Nation. These small but numerous systems act both individually
and cumulatively, to provide the full range of important wetland functions (e.g., flood reduction,
water quality, nutrient retention/transformation, habitat, primary productivity) in a watershed.
Moreover, a large number of endangered or threatened plant and animal species utilize these
habitats which demonstrates their critical biodiversity function. These streams and wetlands
perform and deliver ecological functions that promote the biological, physical and chemical
integrity of receiving waters in a manner that is dependent on their unique place in the landscape.
Potential Ramifications to other CWA Programs
Reduction in the scope of jurisdictional waters could have profound and far reaching affects to
many CWA programs including section 303, 311, 401, 402, and 404 because many of the
sources of pollution may no longer be regulated under the CWA. Any changes made to the
CWA regulatory definition of "waters of the United States" will apply to all programs under the
Clean Water Act. Although some states may have authorities to regulate waters of their state,
their ability to regulate these areas effectively may be compromised as a result of the loss of
CWA authority.
Regarding water quality in general, it is well recognized that controlling pollution at its source is
the most effective way to achieve the goals of the Clean Water Act. In many watersheds, the
sources of pollution and the majority of the pollutant loadings are in small streams. If
ephemeral, intermittent or small perennial headwaters and, in some cases headwater wetlands,
were no longer jurisdictional under the CWA. and unpermitted discharges were allowed in these
waters, it could be very difficult to attain water quality standards or implement effective pollutant
loading limits, known as Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL), in downstream waters.
Considerable resources at both the Federal and State level have been expended on the
development of TMDLs for impaired streams. Recent gains in water quality resulting from the
TMDL program could be seriously jeopardized by any reduction in the scope of "waters cf the
United States".
D
-------
State Programs
Although in many cases, states have authorities to control pollution discharges to streams and
wetlands, state programs historically have relied upon CWA authorities as an important
"backstop" with respect to state water quality programs. This is especially true in the
development of water quality standards and related programs such as TMDL. Region III has
developed a number of TMDLs for states in various watersheds in the Region. Furthermore, the
District of Columbia has not sought authorization to implement certain water quality programs,
the NPDES program among them, and Pennsylvania is not authorized to administer the industrial
pretreatment program. The Oil Pollution Act (33 U.S.C. 1321-1322) does not provide for
delegation to the states. As a result, state laws often lack counterparts to the types of protections
required by the Federal Oil Pollution Act.
The effect of narrowing the jurisdictional scope of waters of the United States will also impact
the areas and activities subject to Clean Water Act Section 401 programs which require State
approval for federally permitted activities. Additional state programs could be required to
"'recapture'' isolated waters and wetland areas. While three of the five States in Region III
(Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia) have programs that provide some protection for
headwater streams and wetlands, Delaware and West Virginia do not have programs that
effectively regulate freshwater wetlands. Furthermore, the federal wetland program is an
important complement to state programs, often sharing the burden of assessment, permitting and
enforcement. The result of narrowing the CWA definition of "waters of the United States" will
shift more of the economic burden for regulating wetlands and headwater streams to states and
local governments.
Conclusion and Recommendations
Any definitions or factors used to assert CWA jurisdiction over "'waters of the United States"
should be interpreted comprehensively in order to maintain CWA protections currently in place.
From a science perspective, if a definition of "isolated" w^rs is to be promulgated, Region III
recommends it include only truly "isolated" waters outside ;he hydrologic cycles (surface and
groundwater) of navigable waters. With this definition, most intrastate, non-navigable waters in
Region III would not be considered isolated. The extent of aquatic resources in Region III
lacking anv hydrologic connection to surface or groundwater would be considered small.
However, if a reduced CWA jurisdictional scope is applied, Region Ill's wetland and stream
impact analysis indicates profound and far reaching impacts. This reduction in scope will have
serious effects on the progress made during the last 30 years to restore and maintain the
chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.
6
-------
-------
GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM (GIS) HIGHLIGHTS
The January 15, 2003 Advanced Notice for Proposed Rulemaking requests information on the
scope of "Waters of the United States" in response to the Supreme Court's SWANCC decision.
As part of our response, EPA Region 3 has performed several GIS and aerial photography
analyses to estimate the extent of wetlands and streams that could be affected by changes in the
scope of waters subject to jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act (CWA). This "highlights"
section includes examples of potentially affected wetlands, streams, and drinking water intakes.
Additional information can be found in the GIS and Aerial Photography Appendices.
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
Fig. 1. Surface Drinking Water Intake Map (Narrow Estimate)
Fig. 2. Surface Drinking Water Intake Map (Broad Estimate))
Fig. 3. Potentially Affected Wetlands by State (Narrow Interpretation), Bar Graph
Fig. 4. Potentially Affected Wetlands by State (Broad Interpretation), Bar Graph
Fig. 5. Potentially Affected Wetlands in the Vicinity of Salisbury, MD (Narrow
Interpretation)
Fig. 6 Potentially Affected Wetlands in the Vicinity of Salisbury, MD (Broad
Interpretation)
Fig. 7- Wetlands in the Vicinity of Millington, MD, Broad Interpretation
Fig. 8. Wetlands in the Vicinity of Church View, VA, Broad Interpretation)
Fig. 9. Stream Miles by Stream Order, Bar Graph
Fig. 10. First Order Streams in the Vicinity of Salisbury, MD
Fig. 11. Headwater Stream Network, West Virginia Case Study
Table 1. Region 3 Analysis of Surface Water Intakes by State
Table 2. Region 3 Potentially Affected Wetland Acreages by State
Table 3. Region 3 Stream Miles by State
PUBLIC HEALTH: SURFACE DRINKING WATER INTAKES
• Between 148 and 526 surface drinking water intakes, serving populations from
535,000 to three million people, are potentially affected.
Several GIS analyses were performed to identify EPA Region III drinking water intakes located
on small or unmapped streams. The first drinking water map shows 148 water intakes, serving
535,000 people, that could be affected under a narrow interpretation of the Advanced Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking. Under this interpretation, intakes located at least 500 feet from mapped
streams were identified. (See Fig. 1, Table 1.) It was the professional assessment of EPA staff
that the majority of these intakes are located on unmapped tributary streams. The second
drinking water map shows 526 water intakes, serving three million people, that could be affected
under a broad interpretation of the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. (See Fig. 2, Table
1.), Under this interpretation, intakes associated with unmapped streams and mapped 1st and 2nd
order streams were identified. First order streams are the smallest streams in a watershed. When
-------
two first order streams flow together, they form a 2nd order stream. When two 2nd order streams
flow together, they form a 3rd order stream, and so on.
POTENTIALLY AFFECTED WETLANDS
Between 12 and 36 percent of the wetlands in Region 3 are potentially affected.
In our wetlands analyses, we examined a range of scenarios, from narrow to broad. Under the
narrow interpretation, only National Wetland Inventory (NWI) wetlands located at least 100 feet
from any mapped streams or other waters were identified. We found that 438,000 acres of
wetlands, or 12 percent of the Region 3 wetland resource, met this criterion. Under the broad
interpretation, all NWI waters/wetlands not associated with streams, and all waters/wetlands
associated with 1st and 2rd order streams were identified. We found that 1.3 million acres of
wetlands, or 36 percent of the Region 3 wetland resource, met this criterion. (See Table 2.)
Bar Graph, Potentially Affected Wetlands. Narrow Interpretation
This graph shows the extent of potentially affected wetlands by state for each of the five states in
Region 3 using the narrow interpretation. The percentages range from a low of 10 percent for
Virginia to a high of 17 percent for Pennsylvania. The regional average is 12 percent.
(See Fig. 3.)
Bar Graph. Potentially Affected Wetlands, Broad Interpretation
This graph shows the extent of potentially affected wetlands by state for each of the five states in
Region 3 using the broad interpretation. The percentages range from a low of 27 percent for
West Virginia to a high of 45 percent for Delaware. The Regional average is 36 percent.
(See Fig. 4.)
Maps Showing Potentially Affected Wetlands in the Vicinity of Salisbury, Maryland
The area surrounding Salisbury MD was selected to illustrate typical landscape position and
extent of those Region III wetlands that could be affected by changes in Clean Water Act
jurisdiction. Salisbury is located on the Delmarva Peninsula, and is in the coastal plain
ecoregion. The coastal plain has a high concentration of wetland resources. At the same time,
many cities in the coastal plain (e.g., Dover, DE, Salisbury, MD, Virginia Beach, VA) are
experiencing rapid growth. We present two maps showing narrow and broad interpretations of
potentially affected wetlands in the vicinity of Salisbury.
-2-
-------
Narrow Interpretation: Under the narrow interpretation, we identified NWI waters/wetlands
located at least 100 feet from any mapped streams or other waters using the National
Hydrography Dataset (NHD). Under this interpretation, 18 percent of the mapped NWI wetlands
are potentially affected. (See Fig. 5.)
Broad Interpretation. Under our broad interpretation, all NWI waters/wetlands not associated
with streams plus all waters/wetlands associated with 1st and 2nd order mapped streams are
considered vulnerable. Under this interpretation, 43 percent of the mapped NWI wetlands/waters
could be affected. As shown on the map, large areas of riparian (stream side) wetlands become
vulnerable under this scenario. The large red area in the upper right portion of the map is the
State of Delaware's largest wetland area, the Great Cypress Swamp. (See Fig. 6.)
Air Photo Analysis. Broad Interpretation, Millington. MP
Aerial photography can be used to provide more accurate information than can be derived from
National Wetland Inventory or National Hydrography Dataset maps. We analyzed aerial
photography to estimate potential wetland impacts in a 30 square mile area near Millington,
Maryland. This area features a high concentration of regionally rare Delmarva Bay wetlands.
Red areas on the map are wetlands potentially affected by a narrow interpretation of proposed
changes in jurisdictional waters. In this example, 3793 acres, or 94 percent of all the wetlands
identified, are potentially affected. (See Fig. 7.)
Air Photo Analysis. Broad Interpretation, Church View. VA
We analyzed aerial photography to estimate potential wetland impacts in a 30 square mile area
near Church View, Virginia. This area includes a significant concentration of wetlands along a
4th order stream (Dragon Run), which are not likely to be affected by changes in CWA
jurisdiction. Red areas on the map are wetlands potentially affected by a narrow interpretation of
proposed changes in jurisdictional waters. In this example, 1110 acres or 50 percent of all the
wetlands identified, are potentially affected. (See Fig. 8.)
POTENTIALLY AFFECTED STREAMS
52 percent of the streams in Region 3 are potentially affected.
Region 3 Stream Order Graph
This graph depicts the number of Region 3 stream miles broken down by stream order. The left-
hand (tallest) bar shows the number of miles of first order streams. Region 3 has approximately
106,000 miles of first order streams, or 52 percent of the total stream resource in the Region.
(See Fig. 9, Table 3.)
-j-
-------
Map of First Order Streams in the Vicinity of Salisbury, MP
The Salisbury area is used to illustrate potential impacts to first order streams. In this example,
first order streams (highlighted in red) account for 63 percent of all the stream miles within 20
miles of Salisbury, Maryland. (See Fig. 10.)
Map of Headwater Stream Networks, West Virginia Case Study
We conducted a detailed computer modeling case study (with field verification) of stream
networks in Logan County, West Virginia. Our computer model used National Elevation Data
(NED) to generate perennial and intermittent stream segments, using United States Geological
Survey determined points of intermittent and perennial flow origin for headwater streams in the
same region.
We found that the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) greatly underestimates total stream
miles in this region. The NHD shows 6, 240 miles of streams in the region. In contrast, pur
study showed a total of 10,638 miles of perennial streams (a 70 percent increase). Yellow lines
on Fig. 11 show the added perennial stream segments. When intermittent streams were added,
our model showed a total of 16,094 miles of streams (a 158 percent increase). Red lines on Fig.
11 show the intermittent stream segments. (See GIS Appendix for additional details).
-4-
-------
Fig. 1. 148 SURFACE DRINKING WATER INTAKES, SERVING A
POPULATION OF 535,000, COULD BE AFFECTED BY CWA
JURISDICTIONAL CHANGES (NARROW ESTIMATE)
West Virginia
Delaware
Virginia
Several GIS analyses were performed to identify EPA
Region III drinking water intakes located on small or
unmapped streams. This map shows 148 water intakes,
serving a population of 535,446, that could be affected
under a narrow interpretation of the Advanced Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking. Under this interpretation, intakes
located at least 500 feet from a mapped stream were
identified. It was the professional assessment of EPA
staff that the majority of these intakes are located on
unmapped tributary streams.
Surface Drinking Water Intakes
> 500 Feet From Mapped Streams
Data Sources:
U.S. liPA: Surface Drinking Water Intakes
U.S. Geological Survey: National Hydrography Datasct
1 Miles
Kilometers
EPA R3 GISTcam SIG1217 M Frank Map# 1967 3/26/2003
~
Pennsylvania
~
m. ~
' aaa A
-------
Fig. 2. 526 SURFACE DRINKING WATER INTAKES, SERVING A /Q\
POPULATION OF 3 MILLION, COULD BE AFFECTED BY
CWA JURISDICTIONAL CHANGES (BROAD ESTIMATE)
Delawar
Several GIS analyses were performed to identify EPA
Region III drinking water intakes located on small or
unmapped streams. This map shows 526 water intakes,
serving a population of 3,016,316 that could be affected
under a broad interpretation of the Advanced Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking. Under this interpretation, intakes
associated with unmapped streams and mapped 1st
and 2nd order streams were identified.
Surface Drinking Water Intakes
> 500 Feet From Mapped Streams
Surface Drinking Water Intakes within
500 Feet of 1st & 2nd Order Streams
Data Sources:
U.S. EPA: Surface Drinking Water Intakes
U.S. Geological Survey: National Hydrography Dataset
0 25 50 100
I I Miles
I I I I Kilometers
KPA R3 GISTeam SIG1217 M Frank Map# 1968 3/26/2003
• • * • ta • l
• .
Pennsylvania
. *v ••' * * *
T- • .vL*
* * / «•*
: *• . r •. 4 *
West Virginia •
Distri
e
Virginia
-------
Fig. 3. Potentially Affected Wetlands by State
(Narrow Interpretation)
100
Region
-------
Fig. 4. Potentially Affected Wetlands by State
(Broad Interpretation)
90 -|-
80
70
60
50 --
VA
WV
—i—
DE
MD
Region
State
-------
Fig. 5. POTENTIALLY AFFECTED WETLANDS IN THE VICINITY OF SALISBURY, MD
(NARROW INTERPRETATION)
3 Miles
0 12 4 t> 8
'-i • 1 v.- y:->. -.4-<- \
>Ct.v / ;i. t . • •'h ~ . * a , r**\
yA r-y r v- * J: - 1 "t— ' • . /
Ate \ ¦
' i* -V - '-*tv
S'JSl#;' L ': *"»»? > v-:-' ¦¦ -a<
v«-'*4pV A/IADVT AKTn * ' J
J Kilometers
M
m
¦¦' r- - , v
».• .. >j.»-
MARYLAND
• V
J*V
"M , , - "^T i"* ' ?«, -
' t&" *vi v. ~- # • Salist?ury 2: v- -
S***'.rW ir v •;.> » '.V" "vJ
ytt: -k
?r-J . - ¦ /4"»L ' • , >?• f, " W^V^' A »• . ^
-A** * v-v-; ••'
it-3? ' j >•- V?\>. '4
* J .«'*> A
Data Sources:
U.S. Fish and WildlifeService: National Wetland!, Inventory
U.S. Geological Survey: National Hydrography Dalaset
MARYLAND
Baltimore
v. in
*Wilmingion
Dover
DEIAWARE
~
Salisbury
i
jf'C'r;
mv\ «&
'«< ontf^
Potentially Affected
Wetlands
'Ar > #T*' • • , -
l-v #v ' 4*mk
"; «** ( K-i-.' "
i ¦*£;» J?
w £ £v>^i 8t
Total Wetland Acreage: 187,000
Isolated Wetland Acreage: 34,000
Percent Isolated Wetlandsi 18%
Narrow Interpretation: Under the narrow interpretation
of the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, NWI
waters/wetlands located at least 100 feet from any
mapped streams or other waters were identified. Under
this interpretation, 18 percent of the mapped NWI
wetlands in the vicinity of Salisbury, MD, are considered
potentially affected.
All NWI Wetlands
o 20 Mile Radius
,,-iX
Hydrography
EPA R3GIS Team SIG1217M Frank Map#196l 3/5/2003
-------
Fig. 6 POTENTIALLY AFFECTED WETLANDS IN THE VICINITY OF SALISBURY, MD
(BROAD INTERPRETATION)
Kilometers
DELAWARE
—i
MARYLAND
I
kvV «
A m V ^ f" *N Salisb'ur^
'4 f } x AT-
v., ^ VU^L X A.- V\ s . ;
M&&SA ;xX
,>A J yi-r^yjL.v- ••
%¦ - -
^Ci '
; *
\
# Dover
DELAWARE
1 "
T»
a
~
Salisbury/'
Total Wetland Acreage: 187,000
Headwater & Isolated Wetland Acreage: 81,000
Percent Headwater & Isolated Wetlands: 43%
Broad Interpretation: Under the broad interpretation
of the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
all NWI waters/wetlands not associated with streams
plus all waters/wetlands assocated with 1st and 2nd
order streams were identified. Under this interpretation,
43 percent of the mapped NWI wetlands in the vicinity
of Salisbury, MD, are considered potentially affected.
o
1st & 2nd Order
Streams (NHD)
Potentially Affected
Wetlands
All NWI Wetlar
20 Mile Radius
Hydrography
EPA R3GIS Team SIG12I7M Frank Map#1963 3/5/2003
-------
Pig. 7.
Wetlands in the Vicinty of MMMnyton, MD
(Broad Interpretation using Aerial Photo interpreted
Wetlands and Drainage)
* \ i •
V£>~*
. T +
r-
r -^L'
Ja
'.A* v.
4 *< *
6 KsJom<#tacs
Source Oats
8&W NAPPAena! P'h.oto$iaf;h.
4-1?-OP
USGS Hydfog»sip?»v-
Wetland invenltuv NWS
Map Prepaid by i'atwr StoKesy
EPA Region 3 '03-648 4292
Study Area
0 Field Sttea
Photo Interpreted Drainage Order
/\/ Ftr8t
/\J S«cortd
A/Third
Jgjj| Pi Broad Interpretation *» 37"93 Acras J 94% of Tolai
' j] Photo lr>t*rpf «t«d Watiand* <* 4056 Acr«*
B/uatj it-it«rp{0t«tior> of ANPRM Pi mapped watUnds
locsifttf over 100 feet from PI mapped drainage plus
*!i wetlands aesooeted >ifh first and second order streams
-------
f ig, a
Wetlands in the Vicinity of Church View, VA
(Broad Interpretation using
Aerial Photo Interpreted Wetlands and Drainage)
i.
Erf
X
ft' Kilometer*
ff:- m.h V-ow, VA
S*uf.*-e Dalai
CUP NAPP Aermt Pho*ogra,3d») •»• 1I 95
USG 3 H y d ro g r*f? hy D at*
National W»tf«md !nveniofy (WW))
Map Prepared by Peter SIsM*
FiPA Ragitiji 3 703 648 4/9,'
CI Study Arw * 19.174 Acre*
@ F««io sit*»
Photo int^rprotoo Drainage Ord«r
First
/\/ Second s
'** *tthm
Vfourth
| | Pi Broad int*»-pr«t»tion » 111 o Acres SOS. of Total
Photo ir>t#i?>r«t*
-------
Fig. 9.
USEPA Region 3
Stream Miles by Stream Order
Source: National Hydrology Dataset
120000
100000 -
First order streams make up 52% of the
total stream miles in the Region
80000
50000
•S, 40000
20000
4 5 6
Stream Order
-------
^g^JDEL|AWARE
MARYLAND
Salisbury.
f*—~ First order streams
Other streams
Waterbodies
o 20 mile radius
Fig. 10. FIRST ORDER STREAMS IN THE VICINITY OF SALISBURY, MD
MARYLAND
Baltimore
^Vilmington
•Oovcr
DELAWARE
~
Salisbury
Total Stream Miles: 509
1st Order Stream Miles: 323
Percent 1st Order Streams; 63%
Data Sources:
U.S. Geological Survey: National Hydrography, Dataset
A)
PROlt0
Kilometers
EPA R3 GISTeam SIG1217 M Frank Map# 1986 3/27/2003
-------
//
h s. v «t
I
^ A^unoo ue6oi uf sons Aeyuns Pl«ki pue sa|.i0MjaN umaJJS r^AW©a"C1BN V{ -fcWM
-------
Table 1. Region 3 Analysis of Surface Water Intakes by State
State
Narrow Interpretation
People
# of Intakes Served
Intermediate Interpretation
People
# of Intakes Served
Broad Interpretation
People
# of Intakes Served
PA
115 367,034
317 1,519,694
391 2,244,486
VA
7 66,308
34 185,142
56 452,634
WV
23 39,871
47 101,182
58 129,690
DE
0 0
0 0
0 0
MD
3 62,233
18 184,108
21 189,506
Region 3
Totals:
148 535,446
416 1,990,126
526 3,016,316
Notes:
Narrow Interpretation
Intakes located at least 500 feet from a mapped stream (i.e. located on small unmapped streams) were identified .
Intermediate Interpretation
Intakes associated with unmapped streams and mapped 1st order streams were identified.
Broad Interpretation
Intakes associated with unmapped streams and mapped 1st and 2nd order streams were identified.
Data Sources:
U.S. EPA Region 3 SDWIS Database: Surface Water Intakes
U.S. Geological Survey: National Hydrography Dataset
-------
Table 2. Region 3 Potentially Affected Wetland Acreages By State
(Narrow, Intermediate, & Broad Interpretations)
Narrow Interpretation
Under the narrow interpretation of the Advanced Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, NWI waters/wetlands located at least 100
feet from any mapped streams or other waters were identified.
State
Isolated
Wetlands
(Acres)
Total Wetlands
(Acres)
Percent
of Total
PA
123,732
744,632
16.62
VA
167,654
1,760,704
9.52
WV
17,190
167,851
10.24
DE
33,419
241,435
13.84
MD
96,094
798,611
12.03
Region
438,089
3,713,234
11.80
Intermediate Interpretation
Under the intermediate interpretation of the Advanced Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, all NWI waters/wetlands not associated
with streams plus all waters/wetlands associated with 1st order
streams were identified.
State
Isolated
Wetlands-Total Wetlands Percent
(Acres) (Acres) of Total
PA
232,082
744,632
31.17
VA
524,416
1,760,704
29.78
WV
33,000
167,851
19.66
DE
90,799
241,435
37.61
MD
195,372
798,611
24.46
Region
1,075,669
3,713,234
28.97
Broad Interpretation
Under the broad interpretation ot the Advanced Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, all NWI waters/wetlands not associated
with streams plus all waters/wetlands assocated with 1st and 2nd
order streams were identified.
Isolated
Wetlands Total Wetlands Percent
State (Acres) (Acres) of Total
PA
288,030
744,632
38.68
VA
644,196
1,760,704
36.59
WV
44,979
167,851
26.80
DE
108,008
241,435
44.74
MD
236,444
798,611
29.61
Region
1,321,6571 3,713,234
35.59
Data Sources:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: National Wetlands Inventory
U.S. Geological Survey: National Hydrography Dataset
-------
Table 3. Region 3 Stream Miles By State Using The National Hydrography Dataset (1:100K)
Stream Order
Total 1st Order As
Stream Percent Of Total
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
Miles
Stream Miles
PA
35,597
11,323
7,131
5,431
3,511
991
1,365
150
65,498
54.3
VA
37,923
11,913
8,804
7,617
8,327
1,280
1,685
189
77,737
48.8
WV
21,264
6,008
4,069
2,717
1,891
742
333
202
37,226
57.1
DE
1,950
552
392
295
58
3,246
60.1
MO
9,507
2,976
2,159
2,143
1,172
204
189
64
18,414
51.6
Region 3
106,241
32,772
22,555
18,203
14,959
3,217
3,572
604
202,121
52.6
Data Sources:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: National Wetlands Inventory
U.S. Geological Survey: National Hydrography Dataset
-------
-------
US EPA Region III Response to
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
on the Clean Water Act Regulatory Definition of "Waters of the United States"
The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Water (OW) and the Army Corps of
Engineers have proposed to initiate rulemaking to "clarify" the scope of federal Clean Water Act
(CWA) jurisdiction following the Supreme Court's decision in the Solid Waste Agency of
Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v US Army Corps of Engineers. In SWANCC, the Court
held that the Corps had exceeded its authority under the CWA by asserting jurisdiction over what
the Court characterized as isolated, intrastate ponds (actually abandoned sand and gravel pits)
based solely on their use as a habitat for migratory birds pursuant to the so-called "Migratory
Bird Rule."
In order to clarify and implement the SWANCC decision across CWA programs, an Advanced
Notice for Proposed Rule Making (ANPRM) was issued on January 15, 2003. The ANPRM
outlined the background of the Supreme Court Decision and solicited public comment on the
definition of isolated waters and issues associated with the scope of waters that are the subject to
the CWA in light of the SWANCC decision. The ANPRM posed several questions relating to
the definition of isolated waters and the potential impacts of the decision.
The ANPRM sets out two specific questions for which EPA and the Corps of Engineers
(collectively, the "Agencies") specifically solicit comment. However, the text appears to invite
comment on a number of other issues. Region III has provided views on all issues for which the
ANPRM appears to solicit comment. Any revision to the current regulations would affect the
definition of waters for all programs in the Clean Water Act including point source discharge
permits as well as wetland fill permits. Programs under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
may also be affected.
Region III has provided an analysis of potential effects from a wetland and stream resource
perspective with a focus on impacts to human health and the environment. Finally, an analysis
of legal implications has been included. The analyses draw from current literature and case
studies along with the information and data collected in the field.
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS POSED BY THE ANPRM
Whether the regulations should define "isolated waters," and if so, what factors should be
considered in determining whether a water is or is not isolated for jurisdictional purposes?
Summary of Region III Recommendations for "Isolated" Waters Definition
• If a definition of "isolated" waters is to be considered, Region III recommends the
following - "Completely isolated: perched systems that are entirely self-contained and
never have a hydrological (surface or groundwater) connection to other waters".
1
-------
Any definition of isolated waters should take into account the hydrologic cycle and the
inter-relationships among water bodies.
• If the Agencies attempt to define "isolated" waters, the role of subsurface or interstitial
flow in connecting waterbodies should be considered.
Region Ill's suggestions for a definition of "isolated" waters should not be construed as a
suggestion that such waters are outside the jurisdictional scope of the Clean Water Act.
To the contrary, as set forth below, Region III believes it is appropriate and consistent
with SWANCC to consider interstate commerce factors in determining whether a
particular water is subject to jurisdiction under the CWA.
Defining "Isolated Wetlands"
Any definition of "isolated" waters should take into account the hydrologic cycle and the
inter-relationships among waterbodies (surface and groundwater). Any definition of "isolated"
waters should include only truly "isolated" waters, outside the hydrologic cycles of navigable
waters. If there is an attempt to define "isolated" waters, the role of groundwater in connecting
waterbodies should be considered. Groundwater is a major feature in watersheds and frequently
serves as a permanent hydrological connection between wetlands and surface water tributaries.
Although some waters and wetlands do not exhibit a perennial surface water connection, they are
closely integrated with the larger watershed network via groundwater and non-perennial surface
connections and, as such, are not isolated from the larger hydrologic cycle. Additionally,
wetlands may be temporarily isolated (e.g., during episodic dry seasons - some of which are
seasonal, others, longer term) but perform significant additional functions during seasonal or
episodic high water events.
If "isolated" waters are to be defined, Region III recommends the following:
Completely isolated: perched systems that are entirely self-contained and never have a
hydrological (surface or groundwater) connection to other waters.
Under this definition most intrastate, non-navigable waters in Region III are not, in fact, isolated.
All references herein to "isolated" waters refer to this definition.
An attempt to develop a generalized definition of "isolated" waters predicated on physical
proximity, flow, or some other factor will create an arbitrary cut-off (not scientifically based) that
may fail to take into account the role of certain waters in the overall hydrologic cycles that
Congress clearly intended to regulate. Although the CWA refers to "navigable" waters,
Congress' declaration of goals and policy in the CWA Section 101(a) as protecting the physical,
chemical and biological integrity of the waters of the United States extends beyond the mere
protection of navigation. The legislative history clearly states that Section 101(a) addresses the
protection of the natural structure and function of ecosystems. As currently administered, the
CWA, by including a broader interpretation of "waters of the United States", has made
significant progress in achieving the goals articulated by Congress.
2
-------
With regard to discussions concerning "intrastate, isolated, non-navigable waters", the question
continually arises as to what definition is appropriate for these waterbodies. As a starting point,
if isolated implies a lack of a perennial surface water connection to traditional "navigable waters"
(e.g., relevant to the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Act and subsequent supporting case law), then
large, regionally significant classes of wetlands fall into the "isolated" category. These classes
include pocosins, prairie potholes, peat bogs, vernal pools (both classic Mediterranean climate
pools of California and the forested vernal pools of the eastern U.S.), playas, wetlands of the
Nebraska Sandhills, and Carolina/Delmarva Bays (and comparable coastal plain depressions). In
addition, a significant number of montane wetlands, forested floodplain wetlands, fens, coastal
plain fiats and slope wetlands may also be considered "isolated". Moreover, in developed areas
where significant streambed down cutting, levee construction and impoundment has occurred,
formerly connected wetlands may now be disconnected from adjacent waterbodies. Despite the
lack of obvious perennial surface connection, these wetland types, as significant features in the
landscape, are connected to the larger hydrologic network and, as such, Region III does not
believe that these wetlands are truly isolated.
In terms of implementing any regulatory program regarding "isolated" wetlands it should be
noted that generally there are no discrete, supportable boundaries or criteria along the continuum
of wetlands lacking surface water connection and headwater streams to separate them into
meaningful ecological or hydrological compartments. Applying any set of field methods (as yet
undeveloped) would, by definition, be arbitrary. A confounding factor is that field conditions
would change dramatically over the year and the confidence in a single site assessment would be
extremely limited.
Defining "Other Waters"
In addition to wetlands, the ANPRM referred generally to "other waters" without defining that
term. Region III has interpreted the term-"other waters": to include small perennial streams and
intermittent or ephemeral headwater streams. We based this interpretation on accompanying
materials USEPA HQ distributed to the regions.
We have used the term "headwaters" throughout our analysis to represent small headwater
perennial, intermittent and ephemeral waters. Although the term "headwaters" has a regulatory
meaning (33 C.F.R. Section 330.2(d)), use of the term in this response does not refer to the
regulatory definition, but rather to the concept of headwaters as the dendritic system of wetlands,
swales and small streams that make up the beginnings of most watersheds.
Although Region III has provided analysis of the extent of resource impact on headwater areas, it
should be made clear that we do not consider these areas to be "isolated" in the hydrologic sense.
Many of these small headwater streams experience a range of hydrological connectivity with
downstream waters which depend on a number of region-specific factors (precipitation,
catchment area, topography, geology, etc.). The location or point at which a stream is perennial,
intermittent or ephemeral also varies both temporally and spatially, as local ground water tables
-------
vary. These terms (i.e., perennial, intermittent or ephemeral) generally are not useful in either a
technical or legal sense, because they do not provide a good indication of connectivity to
downstream waters or potential for aquatic life use. Legally, there is no uniform regulatory
definition of these terms, as various state and federal government programs define these terms
differently, some using biological indicators, others referencing flow or watershed area.1.
Furthermore, regulation of these areas based on flow duration would be problematic for several
reasons. Duration of surface flow is not a good indicator of actual hydrological connectivity to
downstream waters. Intermittent streams are difficult to classify because they include such a
wide gradient of surface flow permanence, and many local abiotic factors are important for
determining aquatic life habitat potential. Additionally, permanence of water is not a good
indicator of the aquatic habitat potential of headwater streams. It is instructive to note that
streams which lack perennial surface flow still support a variety of aquatic invertebrates and
vertebrates. The following analysis of stream function provides more information on this issue.
Due to the confusion with "intermittent" definitions and the wide gradient of flow permanence
this term represents, many state and academic biologists suggest that environmental protection
laws and rules not be based solely on hydrology terms such as perennial, intermittent, ephemeral,
summer-dry, etc. Many biologists believe that water protection rules and laws should be based
on the native resident biota, in combination with other factors (e.g., hydrological and thermal).
Some states (e.g., Ohio EPA, PA DEP and WV DEP) use biological factors to help define or
classify headwater streams since the biology is the long-term indicator of hydrological conditions
in a stream. Region III recommends that the jurisdictional status of headwaters be tied in part to
the biology of streams, especially where the programs are protecting aquatic life use potential.
Furthermore, Region III has limestone or karst regions where segments of streams and rivers
disappear into underground channels for some length before they emerge as a surface stream
some distance downstream. One of the best examples of this is the Lost River in West Virginia.
The Lost River is a tributary to the Cacapon River, which flows to the Potomac River and
eventually into the Chesapeake Bay. At the Route 55 bridge west of Wardensville, West
Virginia, the robust Lost River appears to suddenly dry up. The Lost River, however, does not
cease flowing at this point. The water actually flows underground into cracks and solution
channels in the underlying limestone. For much of the year, the river appears dry for about 2.5
miles, while its flow is subsurface. When the river flow returns to the surface and "reappears"
'For purposes of response, Region III defines the terms "perennial," "intermittent," and
"ephemeral" as follows. Perennial headwater streams are always longitudinally connected to
downstream waters of the United States either through surface flow or contiguous subsurface
flow. Intermittent streams are clearly connected to downstream waters of the United States for at
least part of the year, through surface flow or subsurface flow. Ephemeral streams are connected
to downstream waters of the United States for a shorter part of the year, by definition, only
through surface flow.
4
-------
just north of Wardensville, it is called the Cacapon River. Clearly these types of streams are
connected to downstream surface waters via the subsurface and groundwater flow and it would
be inappropriate to consider them isolated from the downstream surface waters.
Whether, and, if so, under what circumstances, the factors listed in 33 CFR
328.3(a)(3)(i)-(iii) (i.e., use of the water by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or
other purposes, the presence of fish or shellfish that could be taken and sold in interstate
commerce, the use of the water for industrial purposes by industries in interstate
commerce) or any other factors provide a basis for determining CWA jurisdiction over
isolated, intrastate, non-navigable waters?
Summary of Recommended CWA Jurisdiction "Factors"
All factors listed in 33 CFR 328.3(a)(3) should be retained and used for asserting CWA
jurisdiction over isolated, intrastate, non-navigable waters.
• We specifically recommend the following factors; water quality, flood storage, presence
of downstream drinking water intakes, and biological integrity.
• Consideration of interstate commerce factors is consistent with SWANCC.
With respect to the factors listed in Section 328.3(a)(3), many of these have a sufficient nexus to
inter-state commerce (e.g., recreational boating, recreational and commercial fishing) that CWA
jurisdiction could be asserted over such waters consistent with SWANCC. Any connection to
interstate commerce, including recreation, fishing, hunting, trapping, hiking, camping, drinking
water, commercial uses, and industrial uses of the waterbody should be considered.
Legal Factors
Consideration of interstate commerce factors is consistent with the stated goal of the CWA and
the concept of navigable waters as traditionally defined. In addition, consideration of interstate
commerce factors set forth in Section 328.3(a)(3) is not inconsistent with SWANCC.
Congress' declaration of goals and policy in Section 101(a) as protecting the physical, chemical
and biological integrity of the waters of the United States extends beyond the mere protection of
navigation. The legislative history clearly states that Section 101(a) addresses the protection of
the natural structure and function of ecosystems. H.R. Rep. No. 92-911, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. 76
(1972) (quoted in Riverside Bayview Homes, 474 U.S. at 132-33. See also id. H.R. Rep. No.
911, 92d Cong., 2d Sess. 131 (1972)). The legislative history is replete with references to the
notion of water moving in hydrologic cycles and the need to control the discharge of pollutants at
the source. See, e.g., S. Rep. No. 92-414, p. 77 (1972), U.S.C.C.A.N. 1972, pp. 3668, 3742
(quoted in Riverside Bayview Homes, 474 U.S. at 133); 2 Legislative History of the Water
Quality Act of 1987, at 1495.
Moreover, the Supreme Court, in discussing the term "navigable", has repeatedly referred to the
5
-------
inextricable connection between navigation and interstate commerce. See, e.g., The Daniel Ball
v. United States, 77 U.S. (10 Wall.) 557, 563, 19 L.Ed. 999 (1871);Leovy v. United States, 177
U.S. 621, 633, 20 S.Ct. 797, 801,44 L.Ed. 914 (1900). Regulation of navigable waters as
channels of interstate commerce is one of three broad categories of activities regulated under the
commerce clause. Even after SWANNC, at least one court has used the other broad categories of
interstate commerce analysis, including the potential impact to interstate commerce, to determine
that jurisdiction over a small non-navigable tributary is appropriate. United States v. Buday, 138
F.Supp. 2d 1282, 1292-93 (D. Mont. 2001). Accordingly, use of factors related to interstate
commerce appears consistent with the CWA and traditional concepts of navigation.
In addition, the Court's discussion in SWANCC clearly was limited to the "application" of
Section 328.3(a)(3) as embodied in the Migratory Bird Rule. See 531 U.S. at 173 ("an
administrative interpretation of a statute [that] invokes the outer limits of Congress' power," and
"[there] are significant constitutional questions raised by respondents application of their
regulations"). 531 U.S. at 173. The Court, however, did not directly address Section 328.3(a)(3)
on its face or hold that the regulation on its face or consideration of interstate commerce factors
was beyond the scope of the CWA.
Although the CWA refers to "navigable waters," the Court in SWANCC confirmed that CWA
jurisdiction extends beyond traditionally navigable waters. Consideration of interstate commerce
factors is consistent with the goals of the CWA, and the concept of navigation as historically
understood. Consideration of interstate commerce factors is consistent with SWANCC.
Water Quality Factors
To the extent a decision is made to develop a rule for asserting CWA jurisdiction, including
developing a definition for isolated waters, it will be important to keep in mind the purposes
underlying the CWA. As set forth in Section 101(a), "The objective of [the Clean Water Act] is
to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation's waters."
33 U.S.C. § 1251(a). Controlling pollution at the source is paramount in order to achieve clean
waters for the Nation. The relationship of all waters within the watershed must be recognized
and their contribution not only to water quality control but also pollution discharge must be
acknowledged. Commerce of all kinds - intrastate, interstate and international - will be severely
affected if commercial, industrial and municipal waters are impacted by uncontrolled pollution.
As the ANPRM makes clear, there is some uncertainty as to what are "isolated, intra-state,
non-navigable waters." As set forth above, Region III recommends that "isolated" waters be
defined as perched systems lacking any hydrologic connection (either by surface water or
groundwater) to any other waters. Region III recognizes, however, that a more narrow
interpretation of CWA jurisdiction, which does not extend to other waters, such as small streams
located at the beginnings of watersheds (referred to throughout as "headwater streams") and their
adjacent wetlands, has been suggested. Region III respectfully disagrees with any such
suggestion as not based in science. As noted below and in the attached literature review, these
6
-------
areas, headwaters and adjacent and spatially discrete wetlands, are significant features in
watersheds and serve a multitude of water quality functions. As such, the effects that small or
non-navigable waterbodies have on the downstream water quality should be considered as factors
to provide a basis for jurisdiction, in addition to'the impact on interstate commerce.
In addition, in considering the scope of CWA jurisdiction, Region III believes the use of the
resource as a drinking water source should also be considered, particularly as the CWA should
complement the Safe Drinking Water Act to ensure a supply of safe drinking water. In the case
of water supply, some water authorities have attempted to acquire, or otherwise control, the
watersheds that supply their water. By controlling the quality of the water at its source (source
water protection), water supply authorities avoid expensive treatment costs and ensure that
drinking water MCLs (i.e., maximum contaminate levels) are attained to meet human health
standards for the users.
Two classic examples of watershed control are the Quabbin Reservoir watershed that supplies
drinking water to Boston and the Catskill watersheds that serve New York City. In both cases,
headwater and non-navigable waters and wetlands form a substantial part of the watershed area.
Smaller water authorities often seek comparable control, or at least monitor upstream conditions
(e.g., Newport News, VA and the upper Chickahominy River basin). In cases of the many direct
withdrawals of water from streams, there is the lack of the buffering effect of the water volumes
held in a reservoir thereby making such intakes vulnerable to more immediate quality and
quantity impacts.
Many businesses that engage in interstate commerce could not do so without a source of clean
drinking water. Clean and reliable sources of drinking water require source water protection as
described above. It is proving more effective and less expensive to protect drinking water at its
source rather than treating contaminated raw water to make it potable. Without federal limits or
controls on headwater streams and adjacent wetlands, point and non-point sources of
contamination could likely increase, not only in those waters but in downstream waters as well.
Public water suppliers could be required to do more testing and treatment of source water to
ensure that public safety requirements were met. Contaminants such as Cryptosporidium and E.
coli could likely increase in streams where municipal discharges and treatment facilities handling
animal waste and animal by-products discharge into headwater streams.
Region Ill's GIS analysis shows that many drinking water intakes are located in headwater
streams. Between 148 and 526 surface drinking water intakes, serving populations ranging from
535,000 to 3 million people, are potentially affected by the changes in the jurisdictional status of
"waters of the United States". Removal of the source water protection measures afforded by the
Clean Water Act may increase risks to human health and will likely require additional
infrastructure expenditures by public utilities using surface water intakes.
One recent and poignant example of how waterborne disease outbreaks can be caused by
untreated or partially treated municipal sewage entering the source water occurred in the Town of
7
-------
Battleford, Saskatchewan, Canada where hundreds of persons were hospitalized and over 1,000
persons became ill in March and April 2001 from crpytosporidiosis. The investigation
determined that the raw water contained Crpvtosporidium oocysts, the source of which was a
sewage treatment plant upstream (City of North Battleford) of the drinking water treatment plant.
The drinking water plant was not operating properly and this resulted in the waterborne disease
outbreak. But, even if the plant was operating properly, most epidemiologists and scientists
would agree that Cryptosporidium could have been passing through the treatment process and
into the distribution system where low levels of the disease could have been occurring and not
have been picked up as an outbreak. The official government investigation resulted in
recommendations that the City of North Battleford construct a new sewage treatment plant
downstream of the Town of Battleford's drinking water intake. The lawsuit settlements could
reach between $700,000 and $1,000,000.
Although the Battleford water supply is not on a headwater stream, it does give us hard evidence
that waterborne disease outbreaks can be caused by untreated or partially treated municipal
sewage entering into the source water. For pathogens such as Cryptosporidium, the likelihood of
them surviving a long trip down a stream is very high since they are extremely small (3-5
microns) and won't settle easily out in the stream bed. Cryptosporidium is very hardy and can
live in straight household bleach for 90 days and still remain infectious. Regardless if the
discharge is one mile upstream on a main stem or is 10 miles upstream on a first or second order
stream (as is the case with many sewage treatment plants in Region III) these pathogens are
routinely found in human sewage and can show up in finished tap water as a result.
With regard to flood control, cumulative wetland losses in watershed headwaters, and in the
natural floodplain, can exacerbate flooding events and result in concomitant commercial losses
and displacements. Navigable waterways are directly affected by disruption of commercial
waterborne traffic while other commercial activities are discontinued or otherwise diminished by
flooding impacts. Furthermore, sediment inputs from headwaters and smaller streams affect the
navigability of downstream waters. Loss or lack of regulation in these important filtering areas
may result in the need for more extensive and recurrent dredging.
In terms of recreational fishing, certain types of angling only take place in small headwater
streams. The native brook trout fisheries in Region III are often confined to smaller headwater
streams or to spring fed larger streams and rivers. Headwater streams are a critical habitat of our
native trout fishery. Naturally reproducing trout fisheries are so important to state governments,
that states commonly have specific "designated uses"' and more stringent chemical water quality
criteria in their standards to protect them. These waters are usually designated separately from
trout stocked waters. For example, in Pennsylvania, the protected use "Cold Water Fishes"
(CWF) protects the maintenance and/or propagation, of fish species including the family
Salmonidae and additional flora and fauna which are indigenous to a cold water habitat. The
protected use "Trout Stocking Fishes" (TSF) only protects for the maintenance of stocked trout
from late winter to early summer, and for warm water adapted flora and fauna the rest of the
year. The numeric criteria for dissolved oxygen and temperature are more stringent in waters
8
-------
designated as CWF. High quality waters are therefore essential to the native trout fishing
industry which serves not only in-state users but out-of-state anglers as well.
Biological Integrity Factors
With regard to the ecosystem functions of biodiversity, nutrient transformation and primary
production, headwater and non-navigable waters and wetlands, by virtue of their unique position
in the landscape, provide support functions to biota that is of local, regional or global
significance. Some of the species supported currently provide commercial value (e.g., hunting,
recreational photography, fishing) while others have unrealized potential (e.g., genetic stock,
pharmaceuticals).
The task of ascribing an interstate or foreign commercial nexus to any individual wetland is very
difficult. In many cases it is the cumulative impacts of continuing use, degradation or
destruction that result in the disruption of commerce. Frequently, undetected cumulative losses
of wetland function have to exceed a threshold before negative impacts to commercial interests
are appreciated. At that point rehabilitation may prove costly, particularly when compared to
less expensive impact avoidance or minimization measures that could have been applied prior to
the system reaching a critical condition. A regulatory system is essential to monitor such trends
in function and is an important mechanism for keeping all interested parties informed.
To date, some quantitative studies and anecdotal data provide early estimates of potential
resource implications of the SWANCC decision. One of the purposes of the ANPRM is to
solicit additional information, data, or studies addressing the extent of resource impacts to
isolated, intrastate, non-navigable waters.
Summary of Wetland Resource Impacts
Under a narrow interpretation, approximately 438,000 acres of wetlands or roughly 12%
of all wetlands in the Region could be affected by the SWANCC ruling.
• Under the broad interpretation, that number increases to 1.3 million acres or roughly 36%
of the wetland resource in Region III.
These numbers may under-estimate the actual amount of wetland impacts because studies
have shown that NWI underestimates actual wetland acreage by as much as 50%. Small,
headwater wetlands are the type most frequently missed by NWI and are the wetlands at
issue in the ANPRM.
Depending on the outcome of certain regulatory options, the ecological ramifications to
large categories of wetlands, including vernal pools, peat bogs and prairie potholes, could
be wide ranging and profound.
9
-------
Summary of Stream Resource Impacts
First order streams make up over 50% of the total resource in Region III Middle Atlantic
States based on 1:100,000 scale National Hydrography Datasets.
A case study in southern West Virginia (study area, 4,527 mi2) indicates intermittent
streams make up 5,456 miles (33.9% of the total) and 1st order perennial streams make
up 5,049 miles (31.4% of the total).
The Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control has
estimated over 24.3% of the stream length in the state of Delaware is represented by
streams that are considered intermittent (based on 1:24K scale).
• Ohio EPA has estimated over 50% of the stream length in the state of Ohio is represented
by streams that might be ephemeral or summer-dry.
• Many of these streams support abundant and diverse aquatic life and are connected to
downstream waters through surface or subsurface flow for some portion of the year.
• If headwater streams were removed from jurisdiction, the majority of the aquatic life
habitat in streams could be removed. Protection of the aquatic life in downstream waters
could be severely compromised if such a large portion of the upstream resource were not
protected. Attainment of water quality standards would likely become more difficult.
Summary of Human Health Impacts
• Between 148 and 526 surface drinking water intakes, serving populations ranging from
535,000 to 3 million people, are potentially affected by the potential changes in CWA
jurisdiction.
• Removal of the source water protection measures afforded by the Clean Water Act is
likely to increase risks to human health and require additional infrastructure expenditures
by public utilities using surface water intakes.
Wetland Impacts
Because the nature of any proposed regulatory change is unknown, Region Ill's analysis
necessarily required some assumptions. In keeping with the limited scope of waters affected
under SWANCC, Region IH's-narrow interpretation of "isolated" wetlands includes wetland
areas that do not exhibit a perennial or intermittent surface water connection to traditional
'"navigable waters". The broad interpretation includes smaller perennial streams and intermittent
or ephemeral "headwaters" and their adjacent wetlands as well as the wetlands analyzed in the
narrow interpretation described above.
A range of profound aquatic resource impacts are exhibited when the potential effects of new
rule-making on waters and wetlands described above is analyzed. Using region-wide GIS data,
approximately 438,000 acres of wetlands, or roughly 12% of the wetland resource in Region III,
could be adversely affected under the narrow interpretation. If one considers the broad
interpretation, that number increases to 1.3 million acres of wetlands, or roughly 36% of all
10
-------
wetlands in the Region. Both figures represent a significant portion of wetlands within Region
III. Furthermore, these numbers may be conservative estimates considering that studies have
shown that the maps used to generate these figures may underestimate actual wetland acreage by
as much as 50%.
Numerous studies have shown that both the wetlands and stream mapping available on a regional
or national basis underestimate the extent of both stream and wetland resources. Aerial
photography interpretation (API) was used as a tool by Region III to more accurately determine
the potential effects of the reduction in the scope of CWA jurisdiction (see Appendix B). The
API analysis complemented the GIS analysis described above by developing and analyzing site-
specific data at four relatively small study areas in Region III. The four study areas, established
around wetland field sites investigated by Region III, had an average size of approximately 30
square miles (19,200 acres). The API study demonstrated a greater range of potential wetland
impact. The impact was shown to be greater in the study areas that were located in headwater
settings. Using the broad interpretation potential impact to wetlands, ranging up to 100%; can be
expected in localized areas within small first and second order watersheds.
The extent to which a change in the regulation may impact of adverse resource impacts to
wetlands is highly dependent on the definition of the terms "isolated, intrastate, non-navigable".
In some parts of the nation the majority of the wetland systems consist of wetlands that are
discrete communities on the landscape (e.g., prairie potholes, playa, pocosins, bogs,
Carolina/Delmarva Bays), thereby falling into the "narrow" interpretation described above.
A wide ranging variety of significant wetland types (e.g., coastal plain interfluvial flats, wooded
wetlands in glaciated landscapes, slope and montane wetlands) may be characterized as wetlands
with non-traditional linkages. For the sake of brevity, the term "non-traditional linkages" refers
to wetlands that are hydrologically connected to other waters by non-perennial surface and/or
groundwater flows. Wetlands with non-traditional linkages do not exhibit a perennial surface
water connection yet they are closely integrated to the larger watershed network via groundwater
and non-perennial surface connections. Thus, most wetlands that do not exhibit a perennial
surface connection are not truly "isolated" in the ecological and hydrological sense.
Selected examples from the scientific literature are included below. These studies exemplify the
long-term forces that formed these wetlands and the widespread nature of their distribution. It
logically follows that the ecological ramifications of certain regulatory changes to such wetland
categories are potentially wide ranging and profound (see Appendix D for more detail).
In the glaciated northeast, the geomorphological processes that promoted prairie pothole and
pocosin formation created a wide diversity of wetland settings that do not exhibit surface water
connections. Certain landforms that were created during the close of the last glacial epoch
10,000 years ago promoted the formation of wetland communities as widely divergent as prairie
potholes and bog communities. Creation of moraines (e.g., ground, washboard, thrust, dead ice
and terminal) and meltwater (e.g., glacial outwash plain, collapsed glacial outwash, glacial lake
11
-------
plains) landforms promoted the formation of potholes (Kantrud et al. 1989) throughout the
Dakotas and other parts of the upper Midwest and Canada. Comparable glacial phenomena,
combined with the topographic heterogeneity of the northeast promoted the formation of
northeastern bog communities.
For example Kantrud et al. (1989) cited studies that indicated that in the 1960's and 1970's 2.3
million temporary, seasonal and semipermanent wetland basins were found in the Prairie Pothole
region of the Dakotas. Approximate basin numbers and areas by water regime were: 698,000
temporary (113,000 hectares), 1,474,000 seasonal (583,000 hectares), and 127,000
semipermanent (345,000 hectares). These basins were estimated to compose 84.8% of the area
and 89.3% of the number of natural basins in the region. They also note that subsequent
drainage and filling has further reduced the number of wetlands.
Pocosin communities began to develop after the Wisconsin Ice age, about 15,000 years ago and
are now found in flat areas associated with blocked stream drainage on the lower terraces, areas
of ridge and swale topography between relict beaches and dune ridges and at springs and
springheads of the upper Coastal Plain. In the pocosin region, Richardson et al., (1981) cites
historic studies that estimated that pocosin ecosystems once covered more than 3 million acres.
In 1962 nearly 70% of all the existing pocosins (2,243,500 acres) occurred in North Carolina.
They were rapidly developed and by 1979 only 31% of this ecosystem remained in its natural
state. Nevertheless they still comprise more that 50% of North Carolina's wetlands.
In another example in Region III, Tiner and Burke (1995) indicate that of the 598,388 acres of
wetlands inventoried in Maryland (1981-1982 data), palustrine wetlands composed 342,626
(57%) of the total wetland resource. Furthermore, of the palustrine wetlands, the three water
regimes toward the dry end of the hydrological spectrum (temporarily flooded, saturated,
intermittently flooded) comprised 189,410 acres—55% of the palustrine total.
It may be generally assumed that southeastern bottomland hardwood swamps are tightly linked
to their river systems, thereby forming "classic" navigable systems. However, some floodplains
in the southeast exhibit significant post glacial landscape features (Wharton et al. 1982). Many
modern floodplains are "underfitted" as the forces that produced them ceased thousands of years
ago (Dury 1977). Such modern floodplains, embedded in ancient floodplains, promote broader
spatial separation of landforms. Step like terraces are also remnants of prehistoric surfaces and
separate communities from direct spatial linkages to modern streams. On a smaller scale,
features such as scour channels, oxbows, hummocks, ridge and swale topography and
mini-basins are all potential sites for wetlands exhibiting non-perennial surface connections or
groundwater water connections.
Given the wide diversity of ecological and hydrological relationships described above, most
seemingly "isolated" wetlands are not truly isolated from the ecological and hydrological
networks of waters of the United States. See Appendix D for more information on ecology of
these systems.
12
-------
Stream Impacts
As noted above, in addition to truly isolated wetlands, Region III has analyzed "other waters",
incJuding-smalJer perennial streams and intermittent or ephemeral "headwaters". Although
Region IU included these areas for the purposes of this analysis, these waters are not
hydro logically isolated. To the contrary, small perennial streams and intermittent or ephemeral
headwaters are hydro logic ally connected to downstream waters for at least part of the year.
The GIS analysis of potential impacts to streams shows that the majority of total stream miles in
Region III are small, headwater streams. Approximately 52% of the total stream resource (as
measured in stream miles) in Region III are first order streams at the 1:100,000 mapping scale.
Approximately ] 06,000 miles of headwater streams in Region III could be affected by changes in
CWA jurisdiction and could therefore be afforded no protection under CWA authorities. This
coarse scale of mapping (1:100K) may underestimate the number and length of small streams by
a large amount. This problem appears to vary by watershed, with some underestimates
exceeding 150%. For example, in Pennsylvania, the total length of stream miles increased 50%
when moving from coarse scale mapping to one with more refined accuracy. Furthermore, we
know from case studies that this coarse scale coverage does not accurately map intermittent
streams. Although we know that many small streams are not included in these regional and
national maps, these estimates are supported by other studies, which have been conducted at finer
scales in various states and regions (e.g., Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, North Carolina, etc.
See Appendix E for more detail).
It is very difficult to quantify the extent of ephemeral, intermittent and perennial streams on a
regional or national basis. In ordeT to make more accurate estimates of ephemeral, intermittent
and perennial headwater streams, Region III looked at smaller regions to develop defensible case
studies. A GIS case study (Childers and Passmore 2003) was developed in the southern West
Virginia coalfields in the area of mountain top coal mining to determine the extent of ephemeral
and intermittent streams that could be affected if they were removed from jurisdiction. The study
area encompasses 4,527 mi*. USGS modeling coupled with field survey work in this region was
used to generate stream networks on GIS maps based on watershed size2 (see Appendix E for
detail on methods). The results of this exercise indicate that a total of 16,094 miles of streams
exist in the mountaintop mining coal region of West Virginia. Intermittent streams make up
5,456 miles (33.9% of the total) and first order perennial streams make up 5,049 miles (31.4% of
the total). Ephemeral stream miles could not estimated from the available data with any known
accuracy.
2USGS studies indicate that the ephemeral/intermittent boundary occurs at a point where
the median drainage area upstream of the boundary is 14.5 acres and that the
intermittent/perennial boundary occurs at a point where the median drainage area upstream of the
boundary is 40.8 acres.
13
-------
Using aerial photography interpretation (API), as described above (see Appendix B), the
potential impact of the reduction in the scope of CWA jurisdiction on streams is also significant.
At four of our study sites the API has demonstrated that between 88%-92% of all stream
resources were potentially impacted using the broad interpretation. Up to 100% of stream
resources could also be affected in small, localized watersheds. This analysis shows that the
higher resolution of the wetlands and stream data, the greater will be the observed potential
impact of reduction in the scope of CWA jurisdiction.
Ohio EPA has tried to classify and estimate the extent of headwater streams. They found that
traditional hydrological definitions of perennial, intermittent and ephemeral were not adequate to
describe the hydrological, longitudinal connectivity in a stream and did not reflect the actual or
potential use of the stream by aquatic life. Ohio EPA defined headwater streams as those which
have a defined bed and bank and a watershed less than 1 mi2 .and maximum water depth of 40
cm or less. Based on their estimates, over 50% of the stream length in Ohio is represented by
streams that might be ephemeral or summer-dry. Many of these streams support abundant and
diverse aquatic life and are connected to downstream waters through surface or subsurface flow
for some portion of the year (see the attached literature review for more detail and other
examples).
As the beginning of a watershed, headwaters function in many ways that are critical to the
ecosystem (e.g., moderation of downstream flow, moderation of thermal regime, removal of
pollutants, influence on the storage, transportation and export of organic matter). These physical
and biological attributes are integral to healthy, self-sustaining watersheds. See Appendix E for
more on the ecology of these systems.
The ANPRM seeks information regarding the functions and values of wetlands and other
waters that may be affected by the issues discussed in this ANPRM.
Summary of Wetland Functions
The wetlands at issue in the ANPRM perform and deliver ecological functions to waters
of the United States that promote the chemical, physical and biological integrity of these
waters in a manner that is dependent on their unique place in the landscape.
The full range of important wetland functions (e.g,. flood reduction, nutrient
retention/transformation, habitat, primary productivity) is usually demonstrated by
headwater wetlands and wetlands with non-traditional linkages3, both individually and in
combination with other aquatic and terrestrial features in a watershed.
Water quality improvement functions are performed individually and cumulatively by
headwater wetlands and wetlands with non-traditional linkages via the treatment of
3For the sake of brevity, the term non-traditional linkages will hereinafter refer to
wetlands hydrologically connected by non-perennial surface and/or groundwater flows.
14
-------
pollutant-laden water and sediments arising from diffuse surface and groundwater
inflows.
• Studies have demonstrated a link between cumulative losses of headwater wetlands and
wetlands with non-traditional linkages and increases in downstream flooding.
• A high percentage of endangered or threatened plant and animal species utilize wetlands
with non-traditional linkages, which demonstrates their critical biodiversity function.
Groundwater seeps are frequently where wetlands begin and where streams originate.
Both communities are part of a continuum in which upstream riparian and wetland
communities support and protect the biological, chemical and physical features that are
critical to the well being of downstream waters.
By virtue of the unique landscape position and ecological processes of headwater
wetlands and wetlands with non-traditional linkages, a wide variety of faunal
communities (e.g., amphibians, wading birds, waterfowl) are dependent on them for their
survival.
Summary of Headwater Stream Functions
Headwater streams provide maximum interface with the terrestrial environment with
large inputs of organic matter from the surrounding landscape.
Headwater streams serve as storage and retention sites for nutrients, organic matter and
sediments
Headwater streams are sites for transformation of nutrients and organic matter to fine
particulate and dissolved organic matter.
• Headwater streams are the main conduit for export of water, nutrients, and organic matter
to downstream areas.
Headwater streams tend to moderate the hydrograph, or flow rate, downstream.
• Headwater streams provide a moderate thermal regime compared to downstream waters -
cooler in summer and warmer in winter.
• Biota in headwater streams influence the storage, transportation and export of organic
matter.
• Biota in headwater streams enhance nutrient uptake and transformation.
• Headwater streams provide habitat for numerous aquatic species, including fish,
amphibians and invertebrates.
• Based on the experience of Region III scientists, under many circumstances, headwater
streams represent the highest quality waters in the region.
Wetland Function
Most of the headwater streams and wetlands with non-traditional linkages comprise networks
that function in a manner analogous to the capillaries in a blood circulatory system. Just as
capillaries act as the interface between our organs and our circulatory system, these systems act
as the interface between the uplands and the surface water networks that comprise the watersheds
of our Nation. These small but numerous systems act both individually and cumulatively, to
15
-------
provide the full range of important wetland functions (e.g., flood reduction, water quality,
nutrient retention/transformation, habitat, primary productivity) in a watershed. Moreover, a
large number of endangered or threatened plant and animal species utilize these habitats which
demonstrates their critical biodiversity function. These streams and wetlands perform and
deliver ecological functions that promote the chemical, physical and biological integrity of
receiving waters in a manner that is dependent on their unique place in the landscape.
Regarding wetland functions and values, many studies focus on the wetlands in a hydrological
unit (e.g., watershed, physiographic province, basin) and do not arbitrarily distinguish between
surface connected systems and other hydrologic relationships. In such cases it is difficult to tease
out the level of ecological function directly attributable to only headwater wetlands and those
wetlands with non-traditional linkages, as opposed to wetlands with more traditional surface
hydrologic linkages.
In cases where the research is focused on a wetland class that has predominantly wetlands with
non-traditional linkages (e.g., prairie potholes, pocosins), the full range of important wetland
functions is usually demonstrated (e.g., flood reduction, nutrient retention/transformation habitat,
primary productivity), both individually and in combination with other aquatic and terrestrial
features in a watershed. Although these wetlands may not appear to provide significant services
when evaluated individually, cumulatively they are often important components of the larger
watershed ecosystem.
In other parts of the nation, where there is a more balanced mix of "connected" wetlands and
wetlands with non-traditional linkages, many studies have demonstrated the important range and
level of ecological function that is delivered to the environment by wetlands. For example,
community profiles of red maple swamps in the glaciated northeast (Golet et al. 1993) and
southeastern bottomland hardwoods (Wharton et al. 1982) discuss the wide range of important
ecological functions provided by these respective community types. In the discussions of the
geological and climatological factors that created these wetland systems, forces that created
spatially discrete wetland conditions are substantial in their areal extent. Given that a substantial
proportion of the resource in many of these studies lack perennial surface water connections, it is
apparent that these types of wetlands provide a significant portion of the functions that are
performed and delivered.
Miller and Nudds (1996) studied twelve watersheds near the U. S. - Canadian mid-West border
and concluded that landscape alteration (in a region with a high density of Prairie Pothole
wetlands) was the cause of increased river flows in 4 of 5 American and 0 of 7 Canadian
watersheds. The Canadian watersheds had significantly less alteration than the four American
watersheds with higher flows.
With regard to flood attenuation, studies have demonstrated a link between cumulative losses of
headwater wetlands and wetlands with non-traditional linkages and increases in downstream
flooding (e.g., Gilliam and Skaggs 1981, Miller and Nudds 1996). Studies have also
16
-------
demonstrated that water quality improvement functions are performed individually and
cumulatively by these wetlands via the treatment of pollutant-laden water and sediments arising
from diffuse surface and groundwater inflows (e.g., Daniel 1981).
In both functional categories mentioned above, the positioning of many headwater wetlands and
wetlands with non-traditional linkages (i.e., dispersed throughout the landscape and oriented
toward the upper parts of watersheds) enhance the "pre-treatment" of non-point source pollution
prior to discharge to receiving water bodies (e.g., Brinson 1993).
Ecosystem support functions, such as nutrient transformation, habitat, and primary productivity
are similarly enhanced by the physical and hydrologic location of these wetlands. Studies have
demonstrated that the spatial dispersion and wide range of size, surface and groundwater
hydrology promote floral and faunal communities that have evolved with them. Critical animal
groups or guilds (e.g., waterfowl, wading birds, amphibians) are highly dependent on these
wetland characteristics to promote local, regional or continental populations. The proportionally
high percentage of all endangered or threatened plant and animal species in such wetlands also
demonstrates their critical biodiversity function (e.g., Sharitz and Gibbons 1982, Laderman 1989,
Murdock 1994, Colburn 2001). The reproductive and migratory requirements of waterfowl are
well documented and dependent on a diversity of wetland sizes and water regimes at critical
continental-scale locations (e.g., Smith and Higgins 1990, Patterson 1996). Amphibian
biodiversity is critically dependent the distribution of headwater wetlands and those wetlands
with non-traditional linkages (e.g., Murdock 1994, Semlitsch 2000). In Florida, wetlands
without surface water connections serve vital ecological roles for animal species as widely
divergent as alligators and wading birds, as well as a wide range of rare and endangered plant
species (Hart and Newman 1995).
In a discussion of the river continuum concept, Vannote et al. (1980) remarked that from
headwaters to downstream extent, the physical variables within a stream system'present a
continuous gradient of conditions including width, depth, velocity, flow volume, temperature,
etc. Many headwater streams are strongly influenced by riparian vegetation and receive large
amounts of organic material from outside the streams such as leaves and other coarse particulate
organic matter. These headwaters represent the maximum interface with the landscape and are
therefore accumulators, processors, and transporters of materials from the terrestrial system. As
the stream size increases the reduced importance of terrestrial input coincides with in-stream
production and organic transport from upstream.
Looking upstream from the headwaters, Pielou (1998) notes that the majority of rivers begin at
an indeterminate point in a slight depression in the ground where groundwater is discharged as a
seep or spring. Such a depression also serves as a collector of overland flow. Eventually
seepage in the bottom of the depression, augmented by the surface flow accumulates sufficiently
to erode a self-sustaining, permanent channel through which the water drains away—the origin
of a stream. When a stream originates, groundwater seepage is usually far more important than
overland flow in bringing it into being. In general only one-fifth of the water that reaches the
17
-------
ground surface as rain collects in streams and rivers.
This mosaic of water pathways includes a mix of communities, all of which serve to support the
headwaters. Moreover, the same landscape features that promote the water quality improvement
function also enhance the function of these wetlands in transforming pollutants to other forms
that are more beneficial to receiving waters downstream (Brinson 1993, Peteijohn and Correll
1984, and others). This is particularly important given the unique interplay of hydrology and
biota found in the headwater wetland communities. It is comparable to many transformations
performed in headwater streams. These two systems, operating in tandem, promote ecosystem
support locally and farther downstream (see Appendices D and E for details).
Stream Function
Headwater streams provide many ecosystem functions that affect downstream waters as well as
providing critical habitats for many types of aquatic life. As the beginning of a watershed,
headwaters function in many ways that are critical to the ecosystem. In a Symposium on Aquatic
Ecosystem Enhancement at Mountain Top Mining Sites, Wallace (2000) described headwater
stream aspects:
• Have maximum interface with the terrestrial environment with large inputs of organic
matter from the surrounding landscape;
• Serve as storage and retention sites for nutrients, organic matter and sediments;
Are sites for transformation of nutrients and organic matter to fine particulate and
dissolved organic matter;
• Are the main conduit for export of water, nutrients, and organic matter to downstream
areas.
The major functions of headwater streams can be summarized into two categories, physical and
biological (Wallace 2000). The physical functions of headwater streams include:
• Moderation of the hydrograph, or flow rate, downstream;
• Major areas of nutrient transformation and retention;
• Moderation of thermal regime compared to downstream waters - cooler in summer and
warmer in winter; and
• Physical retention of organic material as observed by the short "spiraling length".
The functions performed by biota in streams include:
Influence on the storage, transportation and export of organic matter;
Conversion of organic matter to fine particulate and dissolved organic matter;
Enhancement of downstream transport of organic matter;
Influence on the accumulation of large arid woody organic matter in headwater streams:
Enhancement of sediment transport downstream by breaking down the leaf material; and
18
-------
• Enhancement of nutrient uptake and transformation.
As noted earlier, headwater streams represent the majority of the stream resource in the region in
terms of length. They provide critical habitat for a variety of aquatic invertebrates and
vertebrates. Appendix E provides detail on aquatic life use of very small headwater streams.
The literature clearly establishes that many very small streams, even those which do not have
continuous surface flow, support diverse and abundant aquatic life.
The Ohio EPA provides an excellent example of a state program that has recognized the aquatic
life value of headwater streams. Ohio EPA defines primary headwater habitat as those streams
having watersheds less than lmi2 and maximum water depth of 40 cm or less and having defined
bed and banks. They have developed a classification of headwater streams based on the
hydrology, the thermal regime, and the invertebrate and vertebrate assemblages that inhabit these
streams. Ohio EPA has estimated that 69% of the total streams in their state would have aquatic
life uses classified as primary headwater habitat (PHWH). Ohio EPA has estimated that a large
proportion of the total streams in the state are ephemeral (22%) or might become summer-dry at
the surface (31%). If these streams were removed from jurisdiction, the majority of the aquatic
life habitat in the state could be removed. Protection of the aquatic life in downstream waters
could be severely compromised if such a large portion of the upstream resource were not
protected and attainment of water quality standards could be problematic.
Additionally we invite your views as to whether any other revisions are needed to the
existing regulations on which waters are jurisdictional under the CWA.
This is an extremely broad statement, and therefore it is difficult to provide a response. Water
moves in hydrological cycles unconstrained by definitions. Although the Supreme Court in
SWANCC instructed that the term "navigable" not be read out of the CWA, the terms "waters of
the United States" and "restore and maintain the physical, chemical and biological integrity of
the Nation's waters" are of equal, if not greater, importance. In this regard, the goals and
objectives of the CWA as set forth in Section 101(a) can be achieved only through recognizing
the connectivity of the nation's waters and the importance of all waters in a watershed. Any
revisions that would reduce the jurisdictional scope of waters of the United States could seriously
weaken the CWA and our ability to provide safe and clean water for all Americans. Region III is
willing to provide additional data or response in connection with any specific proposals.
The Agencies are also soliciting data and information on the availability and effectiveness
of other Federal or State programs for the protection of aquatic resources, and on the
functions and values of wetlands and other waters that may be affected by the issues
discussed in this ANPRM.
Summary of State Programs
Two thirds of the states in the Nation currently lack regulatory programs that
19
-------
comprehensively address wetlands and wetlands at issue in SWANCC in particular.
• In Region III, Delaware and West Virginia do not have regulatory programs sufficient to
protect wetlands should the scope of federal jurisdiction for section 404 of the CWA
program be revised to exclude wetlands lacking surface water connection and wetlands
adjacent to non-navigable streams.
• Removing waters from CWA jurisdiction will undermine the federal government's role as
a backstop for the states.
• The Courts could construe the geographic jurisdictional scope of state water quality and
wetland programs as coextensive with federal authority.
• It cannot be presumed that where there is a gap in federal regulation, the states can or will
fill that gap.
• The Oil Pollution Act (33 U.S.C. 1321-1322) statute does not provide for delegation, and
there is no delegated, authorized or otherwise approved program in any state.
According to the Association of State Wetland Managers, two thirds of the United States
currently lack regulatory programs that comprehensively address wetlands and particularly
isolated wetlands or wetlands with non-traditional linkages. The Middle Atlantic States (EPA
Region III) paint a similar picture. Currently three states out of five in Region III have some
type of wetlands protection program that provides regulation for non-tidal wetlands lacking
surface water connections (see Appendix K for specifics regarding state wetland and water
quality programs). Those states are Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia. Both Delaware and
West Virginia lack comprehensive wetland programs. Delaware and West Virginia do not
provide any sort of state regulation should the scope of federal jurisdiction for section 404 of the
CWA program be revised to exclude these types of wetlands and wetlands adjacent to
non-navigable streams. Virginia may not be able to provide state regulation of certain waters, as
the geographic jurisdiction of its program has been held by one court to be coextensive with
federal jurisdiction. United States v. Newdunn, 195 F. Supp. 2d 751, 768-69 (E.D. Va. 2002).
Furthermore, the federal wetland program has provided an important complement to state
programs, often sharing the burden of assessment, permitting and enforcement. The result of
narrowing the CWA definition of "waters of the United States" will shift more of the economic
burden for regulating wetlands and headwater streams to states and local governments. No
Region III state has been authorized, pursuant to Section 33 U.S.C. 1344(g), to assume the
Section 404 program.
The effect of narrowing the jurisdictional scope of waters of the United States will also impact
the areas and activities subject to Clean Water Act Section 401 programs which require State
approval for federally permitted activities. These changes will also limit the areas and activities
addressed by State Programmatic General Permits. These changes will be felt most acutely in
Delaware and West Virginia which rely on their 401 certification program to ensure that water
quality standards are met for wetlands. Moreover, reliance on the 401 water quality program to
protect wetland resources is further complicated by the fact that none of the states in Region III
have specific water quality standards for wetlands. Additional state programs could be required
20
-------
to "recapture" these waters and wetland areas in Delaware and West Virginia.
With respect to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, most, but not all states, are
authorized to implement the NPDES program pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 1342(b). In Region III,
the District of Columbia has not sought authorization to implement the NPDES program. In
Pennsylvania, the State is authorized to implement all aspects of the NPDES program except the
industrial pretreatment program pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 1317. With respect to the industrial
pretreatment program, EPA remains the sole regulatory authority in Pennsylvania. With respect
to the Oil Pollution Act (33 U.S.C. 1321-1322), the statute does not provide for delegation, and
there is no delegated, authorized or otherwise approved state program.
Even where a state purports to fill a regulatory gap, there is no guarantee that the state has or will
successfully do so. Many state programs are "triggered" by federal requirements. To the extent
a state's NPDES authority is authorized pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 1342(b), a court may well read the
jurisdictional scope of the state program as coextensive with the federal government's. This also
may occur in the area of wetlands. For example, Pennsylvania and Maryland both have State
Programmatic General Permits ("SPGPs") authorized by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and
EPA pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 1344(e). These SPGPs are federal permits administered by the
States; thus, it seems a court could construe the geographic jurisdictional scope of such permits
and the underlying state wetlands programs as coextensive with federal authority.
Even in the absence of a federally authorized program, a court could limit a state program's
geographic jurisdiction. For example, Virginia enacted a non-tidal wetlands program governing
the excavation and/or filling of non-tidal wetlands in Virginia. Va. Code 62.1-44 et seq. In the
Newdunn case, the court held that Virginia's authority was coextensive with the federal
government's authority (i.e., Virginia's program did not authorize the state to regulate wetlands
that could not be regulated by the federal government). Newdunn, 195 F. Supp. 2d at 768-69.
Finally, the CWA assigns the federal government an important role as a "backstop" for the states.
For example, unlike certain other programs, Section 402(b) provides for federal government
"authorization" of, not "delegation" to, state NPDES programs. The distinction is important. In
a truly "delegated" program, such as that described in the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act, the federal agency retains little, if any oversight authority, and the program
becomes a truly "state" program. See. e.g., Bragg v. West Virginia Coal Ass'n, 248 F.3d 275
(4th Cir. 2001). Under the CWA, however, particularly with respect to the NPDES program,
EPA retains oversight authority over both the permitting and enforcement processes, as well as
the ability to issue permits under certain circumstances and to bring enforcement actions, even in
states authorized to implement the NPDES program. With respect to enforcement, it is not
unusual for the states to request that EPA take an enforcement lead. Removing waters from
CWA jurisdiction will undermine the federal government's role as a backstop for the states.
The Agencies are also interested in data and comments from state and local agencies on the
effect of no longer asserting jurisdiction over some of the waters (and discharges to those
21
-------
waters) in a watershed on the implementation of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)
and attainment of water quality standards.
Summary of Implications forTMDL Program
In many watersheds, the sources of pollution and the majority of the loadings are in small
streams.
Controlling direct discharges (from both point sources and nonpoint sources) to a large
water often will not achieve sufficient pollution reduction in the absence of controls on
pollutant loadings upstream.
Because of the interrelationship of tributaries with the mainstem, the Agency needs to
consider sources of pollutants and tributaries on a watershed basis, including intermittent
and ephemeral streams sources.
• If ephemeral, intermittent or small perennial headwaters and, in some cases headwater
wetlands, were no longer jurisdictional under the CWA, and unpermitted discharges were
allowed in these waters, it could be very difficult to attain water quality standards or
implement effective TMDLs in downstream waters.
EPA acts as an important "backstop" with respect to water quality standards. Section 303(c) of
the CWA specifically requires states to submit new or revised water quality standards for
navigable waters to EPA. 33 U.S.C. 1313(c). If EPA determines that such new or revised
standards are not consistent with the CWA, EPA must disapprove the standard, and, if the state
fails to satisfy EPA's concerns, EPA must develop and publish a water quality standard for the
state. 33 U.S.C. § 1313(c)(4). EPA also must develop and publish water quality standards for
States in which EPA believes it is necessary for the State water quality program to comply with
the goals of the CWA. Id. EPA Region III has published anti-degradation procedures for the
state of Pennsylvania. In addition, there are currently pending approximately five outstanding
water quality standards submittals from the states and one outstanding disapproved state water
quality standard in Region III. EPA's ability to disapprove water quality standards and to
promulgate its own water quality standards for the state generally has provided incentives to
ensure that the standards submitted by the states will comply with the CWA.
A failure to assert jurisdiction over some waters could leave open to question the applicability of
water quality standards for some waters. To the extent a water quality standard is submitted by a
state and approved by EPA, the question of federal jurisdiction likely would not arise because
most state water quality standards apply to "waters of the state." However, where EPA has
published a water quality standard for the state, it is not clear whether such standards would
apply to all waters. To the extent water quality standards to not apply to headwaters and
upstream tributaries, EPA's ability to act as a backstop and to ensure that state water quality
standards will achieve the goals of the CWA could be undermined.
TMDLs provide perhaps the most dramatic example of how a decision to exclude some waters
from jurisdiction can impact an entire watershed. Region III has developed a number of TMDLs
22
-------
for various watersheds in the Region. In the course of developing TMDLs for large,
navigable-in-fact waters, Region III has discovered that the best approach to achieving water
quality standards in the mainstem of a large river is through a combination of allocations to
direct (point and nonpoint source) discharges and allocations to tributaries. Therefore, if smaller
tributaries such as ephemeral, intermittent or small perennial headwaters were no longer
jurisdictional under the CWA, and unpermitted discharges were allowed in these waters, it could
be very difficult to attain water quality standards or implement effective TMDLs in downstream
waters. In many watersheds, the sources of pollution and the majority of the loadings are in the
small streams. If smaller upstream tributaries are excluded from the concept of "navigable
waters," an argument could be made that states need not list them on their list of impaired waters
pursuant to Section 303(d) and that TMDLs need not be established. As demonstrated in the
TMDL case studies below, exclusion of smaller upstream tributaries could result in an inability
to control water quality in large mainstem waters.
TMDL Case Studies
Tygart River Watershed - From 1995 to 1999, WVDEP assessed 136 streams, representing
approximately 700 miles of stream length in the Tygart River Valley watershed. Of the 682
miles assessed for support of the aquatic life, 35% of the streams fully supported the aquatic life
use, 30% were supporting but threatened, 19% were partially supporting, and 17% did not
support the aquatic life use. The principle causes of the impairment were siltation, habitat
alteration, metals, and pH. The principle sources of the pollution were abandoned mine drainage,
acid mine drainage and unknown sources (WVDEP 2000).
The mainstem Tygart Valley River, Buckhannon River, Ten Mile Creek and Middle Fork River,
together with 54 smaller water bodies within the watershed were placed on the West Virginia
1996 303(d) list because of iron, manganese, aluminum, and/or pH violations caused by
abandoned coal mine discharges.
WTien the Tygart River TMDL was developed, impaired headwaters were first analyzed, because
their impact frequently had a "profound" effect on downstream water quality" (bold emphasis
added). The modeling effort indicated that load reductions in both impaired and non-impaired
headwaters streams were necessary to attain water quality standards in downstream waters. In
other words, load allocation reductions in the downstream reaches alone were not enough to
attain water quality standards in downstream waters.
The TMDL for the Tygart was developed without load allocations for specific future
development scenarios. The document for the Tygart River watershed makes clear that in order
for additional new point sources to be located in headwater reaches, and still attain water quality
standards downstream, they may have to attain water quality standards at the end of the effluent
pipes. The report states, "A new facility could be permitted anywhere in the watershed, provided
that the effluent limitations are based upon the achievement of water quality standards
end-of-pipe for the pollutants of concern in the TMDL". Clearly, if headwater streams were no
23
-------
longer regulated, any new mining activity in these areas could discharge to small headwater
streams without a permit, and without meeting water quality standards end-of-pipe. The TMDL
for and the water quality of the whole Tygart Watershed would be affected. See Appendix H for
more detail.
Christina River Watershed - Another example is the TMDL for nutrients and dissolved oxygen
developed for the Christina River Basin. This TMDL was prepared by Region III in January
2001 (revised October 2002). Waters from streams and tributaries in three states «
Pennsylvania, Maryland and Delaware ~ eventually flow to the Christina River. Thus, for
example, discharges that occur in small tributaries in Pennsylvania may flow to the Christina
River in Delaware. The TMDL narrative noted:
As indicated in the data assessment... the nutrient concentrations of the tidal
Christina River are heavily influenced by tributary loads from the Brandywine
Creek, Red and White Clay Creeks and nontidal Christina River In any case,
the nutrient and biomass loading from inland tributaries contribute to the DO and
WQS violations within the tidal Christina River. This further justifies the need to
consider sources of pollutants and tributaries on a watershed basis, regardless of
whether that waterbody is explicitly listed on a state's 303(d) list.
Modeling conducted in the course of developing the Christina River TMDL demonstrated the
interrelationship of tributaries with the mainstem. In order to ensure achievement of water
quality standards throughout the Christina River Basin, it was necessary to develop load and
waste load allocations for sources on the Brandywine Creek main stem, Brandywine Creek East
Branch, Brandywine Creek West Branch, Buck Run, the Christina River West Branch, Little
Mill Creek, Burroughs Run, Red Clay Creek West Branch, Red Clay Creek main stem, White
Clay Creek Middle Branch, White Clay Creek East Branch, White Clay Creek main stem.
Muddy Run, Pike Creek, and Mill Creek, as well as for the main stem of the Christina River.
The modeling analysis for protection of the dissolved oxygen standards, for the mainstem
Christina River (see Appendix G pages 41-47) showed that treatment reductions in upstream
. areas, in second order removed tributaries, was necessary to attain standards. The Level 2
allocation analysis (see Appendix G baseline figures 13 and 14) initially showed an area in the
lower mainstem Christina not protected for daily average dissolved oxygen (see Appendix G
Figure 13). The Level 2 allocation analysis proceeded with additional treatment assessments
which added to the treatment recommendations for three facilities and included four other
facilities for treatment reductions (see Appendix G Table 11, p. 47). All of these facilities are
located on tributary segments (East/West Branches Brandywine Creek and West Branch Red
Clay Creek) of tributaries to the Christina River (Brandywine and Red Clay Creeks). These
reductions in upstream areas were needed to ensure full protection of the daily average dissolved
oxygen for the Christina River.
Mining Region Of West Virginia - Mountaintop mining in the coal regions of southern West
24
-------
Virginia provides an excellent example of what impacts may occur to water quality if headwater
streams are no longer regulated as waters of the United States. During mountaintop coal mining,
several thin layers of coal are successively mined via surface removal. The overburden is often
deposited in adjacent valleys, which are called valley fills. The valley fills are placed in
ephemeral, intermittent and perennial reaches of headwater streams, effectively destroying these
streams. This fill requires a CWA Section 404 permit. The water exiting the toe of the fills often
enters a sedimentation pond. The discharge from the pond becomes the origin of the stream.
These sedimentation ponds and the effluent exiting the pond require a CWA Section 402 NPDES
permit.
A study completed by Region III for the Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fill Programmatic EIS
found that the waters downstream of some of the fills were impaired and that the impaired
biological condition was strongly correlated to the degraded water emerging from the base of the
fills. The discharge from the base of the Valley Fill represents the entire stream flow at that
point. These streams become effectively "effluent dominated". West Virginia has determined,
based on biological thresholds, that downstream segments of some of the Valley Fills are
impaired. These waters have been listed on the state's 303(d) list, and will require a TMDL.
Under current regulation, the filled stream segments are considered waters of the United States
and both 404 permits for the discharge of fill and NPDES permits for the effluent at the base of
the fills are required. Even with this regulation, some of the waterbodies downstream of the fills
are experiencing impairment. Clearly, if these streams (ephemeral or intermittent streams) were
not jurisdictional (i.e., considered non-navigable, isolated, intra-state waters), 404 permits would
not required for the Valley Fill and NPDES permits might no longer be needed for the discharges
at the toes of fills. This could result in even far worse water quality downstream of the Valley
Fills.
Furthermore, variances from the Approximate Original Contour (AOC) of the Surface Mine
Control and Reclamation Act's (SMCRA) requirements are often granted to promote industrial
post-mining land use at these sites. Removing these potential dischargers from regulatory
oversight could have dramatic water quality and public health ramifications.
Effect of reducing the scope of regulatory jurisdiction and the ramifications to other CWA
programs.
As discussed at length above, it is well recognized that controlling pollution at its source is the
most effective way to achieve the goals of the Clean Water Act. In many watersheds, the sources
of pollution and the majority of the pollutant loadings are in small streams. If ephemeral,
intermittent or small perennial headwaters and, in some cases headwater wetlands and wetlands
with non-traditional linkages, were no longer jurisdictional under the CWA, and unpermitted
discharges were allowed in these waters, it could be very difficult to attain water quality standards
or implement effective pollutant loading limits known as Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL)
in downstream waters. This could have profound and far reaching affects to many CWA
programs including section 303, 311, 401. 402, and 404 because many of the sources of pollution
25
-------
may no longer be regulated under the CWA. Although some states may have these authorities, it
has been discussed above that the states' ability to effectively regulate these areas may be
compromised as a result of the loss of CWA authority.
Although in many cases, states have authorities to control pollution discharges to streams,
historically they have relied upon federal CWA authorities as an important "backstop" with
respect to state water quality programs. This is especially true in the development of water
quality standards and related programs such as TMDLs. Region III has, in fact, developed a
number of TMDLs for states in various watersheds in the Region. By contrast, in Region III, the
District of Columbia has not sought authorization to implement certain water quality programs,
the NPDES program among them. With respect to the Oil Pollution Act (33 U.S.C. 1321-1322),
this statute does not provide for delegation to the states, so CWA authorities remain the only
source of protection for "waters of the United States" potentially impacted by oil spills.
The relationship between the geographic scope of jurisdiction under the CWA and water quality
standards also raises questions regarding the implementation of Section 401 of the CWA, 33
U.S.C. 1344, and fairness among states. EPA's role as a "backstop" in the water quality standards
area provides a "floor," ensuring that all states achieve minimal water quality standards. Because
water by its nature does not recognize state boundaries, Section 401 provides a vehicle for
downstream states to ensure that water flowing from upstream states achieves a minimum water
quality. Section 401 requires that applicants for federal permits (under any program — not just the
CWA) that are likely to result in a discharge to "navigable waters" obtain a certification from
affected states that the discharge will not cause a violation of the affected states' water quality
standards. If upstream tributaries or other upstream waters are not deemed "navigable waters",
discharges could be authorized by upstream states that could adversely impact the water quality in
downstream states. There is a question in that circumstance whether the downstream states would
have recourse pursuant to Section 401 or Section 402 (NPDES permits).
Source water protection is a program designed to protect drinking water by reducing the risks of
contamination. This program provides a further "measure of protection" in addition to drinking
water treatment. Each state is required to complete an assessment of every drinking water system
to determine the susceptibility of public drinking water sources to possible contamination. This is
done by first determining the land area that is contributing water to the drinking water source,
conducting an inventory of potential sources of contamination in the delineated area, and
determining the susceptibility of drinking water systems to those potential contaminant sources.
This information is used to develop source water protection programs. Stakeholders are
encouraged to participate in the development of each local protection plan. The contribution areas
to public drinking water supplies should always be treated as unusually sensitive areas in applying
other environmental laws and regulations.
Under a broad interpretation of the ANPRM. significant impacts to drinking water sources can
also be expected. If regulation of pollutant discharges is compromised by changes in the
regulatory definition of "waters of the United States" source water protection programs will likely
26
-------
be affected. Protection of the rivers, streams and lakes that are the sources of our drinking water
can prevent contamination at a fraction of the costs of treatment. The Safe Drinking Water Act
provides a provision for conducting Source Water Assessments, acquiring land or easements to
protect drinking water sources, and provide assistance to small communities.
Under the federal environmental regulatory programs, protecting sources of drinking water is
done by first designating surface waters for use as drinking water so that the authority of the
Clean Water Act can be used to protect this activity. This designation also allows protection via
other environmental laws such as Safe Drinking Water Act (Wellhead Protection, Sole Source
Aquifer Protection, Underground Injection Control Programs), RCRA. CERCLA, and FIFRA.
These programs provide authorities, financial support and technical assistance to protect sources
of drinking water.
Removal of the source water protection measures afforded by the Clean Water Act will likely
increase risks to human health and require additional infrastructure expenditures by public utilities
using surface water intakes. In EPA Region III, between 148 and 526 surface drinking water
intakes, serving populations ranging from 535,000 to 3 million people are potentially affected
should first and second order streams be removed from Clean Water Act jurisdiction. Without
federal limits or controls on these segments, point and non-point sources of contamination could
likely increase. Public water suppliers could be required to do more treatment of source water to
ensure public safety requirements were met. Contaminants such as Cryptosporidium and E. coli
could likely increase in streams where municipal discharges and treatment facilities handling
animal waste and animal by-products discharge into headwater streams.
27
-------
-------
Field Case Studies in Support of the US EPA Region III Response to the
Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule making (ANPRM) on the Clean Water Act
Regulatory Definition of "Waters of the United States"
Summary:
A total of 37 sites were evaluated in the field in order to provide some current field data to
complement other aspects of the regional response to the ANPRM.
The primary findings were the following:
1. There is a wide diversity of wetlands that lack surface water connections or are .
headwater systems in Region III.
2. The interrelationship between headwater wetlands and wetlands with non-
traditional linkages' and nearby terrestrial and aquatic systems is very diverse.
3. Groundwater is a major component of the hydrological interaction between
wetlands, terrestrial and aquatic systems in the upper part of the watershed. Fully
73% of the assessed sites had groundwater pathways connecting them to
downstream water bodies.
4. Many observed interrelationships between headwater wetlands or wetlands with
non-traditional linkages and their surroundings require on-site interpretations.
Soils data and landscape interpretation in particular were important in
understanding hydrological relationships. Furthermore, it was found that the
dynamics of the systems vary over time.
5. Many headwater wetlands or wetlands with non-traditional linkages are not
displayed on widely used mapping and planning tools (e.g., 1:24,000 NWl or
USGS maps).
6. Established wetland assessment methodologies identify a range of important
ecological functions that are performed in wetlands (e.g., surface water detention
and storage, water quality maintenance and/or improvement, ecosystem support).
All 37 sites were found to perform the full range of ecological function on a
qualitative basis.
7. The information gathered in the field confirms other aspects of the regional
response to the ANPRM.
'For the sake of brevity, the term non-traditional linkages will hereinafter refer to
wetlands hydrologically connected by non-perennial surface and/or groundwater flows.
I
-------
Introduction:
In preparing for the ANPRM the wetland and stream staff of EPA Region III decided that a field
component was necessary to support other aspects of the regional response. However, given the
time and resource constraints it was decided to limit the field sites to those that met the following
criteria:
1. Sites with existing data or sites that were known to the team members.
2. Sites that were readily accessible (e.g., public land or subject to ongoing studies).
3. Sites in headwater areas with wetlands that are located in landscape positions that
are relevant to the issues in question.
Although the immediate question regarding the definition of "Waters of the United States"
concerned ''isolated" wetlands (i.e., isolated, intrastate, non-navigable waters), it was the opinion
of the group that issues concerning headwaters were also relevant.
Preliminary field trials were conducted on 6 January 2003, at French Creek State Park (Berks
County) in headwater areas of the Piedmont region of southeastern Pennsylvania. A draft
protocol and accompanying forms were reviewed and modified during the field trials. The forms
and protocol were put in final form (see attached) and three teams were organized to conduct
field case studies in three areas:
1. French Creek and White Clay Creek in the Piedmont region of Pennsylvania and
Delaware (PA/DE Team).
2. Several sites distributed throughout the Piedmont and Coastal Plain region of
Delaware and Maryland (DE/MD Team).
3. Several sites in the Inner Coastal Plain region of Southeastern Virginia (VA
Team).
The location of the field sites are illustrated on the attached map (Overview of Field Site
Locations). Participants in the field included professionals from federal and state agencies as
well as academic institutions. A total of 48 person days of effort was devoted to the field studies.
Although these selected sites do not represent the entire range of geographic diversity in the
region, it is the opinion of the group that the wetlands and streams studied exemplify the
characteristic ecological and hydrological relationships of wetlands and streams in isolated
and/or headwater situations in EPA Region III.
Results:
A total of 37 sites were evaluated in the field. Appendix C contains the data sheets and
functional evaluations and is available on request (Note: Forms A and B for all sites and the
-------
accompanying site maps comprise approximately 120 pages; the entire data set is approximately
300 pages long).
Table . 1 summarizes the geographic locations of the 37 field sites. With regard to physiographic
province, the sites are distributed as follows:
Physiographic Province
Number of field sites
Piedmont
10
Piedmont/Inner Coastal Plain
1
Inner Coastal Plain
11
Outer Coastal Plain
15
With regard to wetland "type" (see Field Protocol Figure 1), the sites are distributed as follows:
Wetland Type (Field Protocol
Figure 1)
Number of field sites
Toe of Slope
2
Toe of Slope/Adjacent to Stream
2
Headwaters
7
Adjacent to Stream
6
Immediately Adjacent to Stream
12
Depression in Upland
4
Depression in Wetland
1
Depression in Floodplain
1
Flats
1
Table 2 displays the hydrological relationships between the wetlands and nearby systems (e.g.,
terrestrial and aquatic systems). With regard to the source of water for the wetlands, 31 of 37
(84%) are dependent on a mix of surface and groundwater sources. In five other cases
groundwater is the sole water source and only one site (a perched Maryland headwater site)
received all of its water from surface sources. Observations noted in the field indicated that the
relative importance of the two water sources varies throughout the year, and on some occasions.
3
-------
over longer time periods. The significance of groundwater at these sites exemplifies the
importance of this hydrological component as a source of water for headwater wetlands or
wetlands with non-traditional linkages.
The observed hydrologic connection between the headwater wetlands or wetlands with non-
traditional linkages and nearby stream systems is more complex. A wide range of hydrologic
pathways and the timing of their interaction were found at the field sites. In six cases (16%) all
three of the hydrologic relationships evaluated (surface water, groundwater, overbank flooding)
were found.
Fully 73% (27 of 37) of the sites studied had groundwater pathways connecting them to
downstream water bodies. As was noted in the hydrological sources, groundwater varied in its
importance over the year and frequently was one of several components linking downstream
waters (groundwater was the exclusive connection at only three sites). In six (16%) cases the
wetlands were totally isolated from downstream systems (five depressions, one flat and one
perched headwater). Downstream connections via only surface channels or overbank flooding
were found at only four (11%) sites.
On-site inspection was found to be important. On-site interpretation of the soils and the
landscape were critical in understanding the hydrological relationships of the subject wetlands
and their surroundings.
Table 3 displays the relationship of the 37 field sites with mapped wetland or streams. During
the field inspections the longitude and latitude of the sites were determined with the use of the
Global Positioning System (GPS). The GPS coordinates were cross referenced with 1:24.000
maps based on the National Wetland Inventory (NW1) and U. S. Geological Service (USGS)
topographic maps to determine the proportion of the 37 headwater wetlands or wetlands with
non-traditional linkages that had been identified on readily available maps. In both cases 19 of
37 (51%) were not found within mapped NWI polygons or adjacent to mapped streams. Given
the scale of the maps and the potential lack of precision in cross referencing data points at the
1:24,000 scale, this information may hav& some error. Nevertheless, the fact that as many as half
of the wetlands and streams in the headwaters may not be displayed on current maps is cause for
concern, and highlights the need for on-site inspections, (see Appendix B for a more detailed
analysis of this subject).
With regard to the qualitative functional assessment of the sites, all were found to perform the
range of ecological function (e.g.. surface water detention and storage, water quality maintenance
and/or improvement, ecosystem support) that are identified in current wetland functional models
to some degree. This was to be expected as the assessment was qualitative and none of the sites
were highly degraded. It should be noted that a significant range ecological function is
acknowledged for wetlands in this upper part of the landscape (see Appendices D, E and H for
more detail).
4
-------
Overview of Field Site Locations
rlsburg
French Creek
Gunpowder Falls
White Clay Creek
Blackbird
Mmington
N.C. Wilder
shlngton
Killen Pond
Blackwater
Dragon Run
Willy s
Taskinas Creek
Chambrel
140 Miles
-------
Table 1. Geographic Locations of Field Case Studies in Response to the ANPRM
j ' ¦ Phvsiojjraphte | Wetland Type
fe Name State > County j Province 1 (Field Protocol Figure 1)
I ; Da\sCove |
MD j Baltimore Inner Coastal Plain
Depression in upland
2 ' White Marsh !
MD | Baltimore : Piedmont
Toe of slope
3 Gunpowder SE !
MD | Baltimore j Piedmont
Headwater
4 j Gunpowder NE i MD j Baltimore | Loner Coastal
! | Plain/Piedmont
Immediately adjacent to stream
5 ! Gunpowder W ! MD ! Baltimore
Piedmont
Adjacent to stream
6 j Blackwater SE I MD
Dorchester
Outer Coastal Plain
Broad mineral flat i
7 | Black-water SW ! MD
Dorchester
Outer Coastal Plain
Immediately ad|acent to stream
8 ! Blackwater NW
MD
Dorchester
Outer Coastal Plain
Depression in upland
9 | Blackwaler
MD
Dorchester
Outer Coastal Plain
Depression in floodplain
10 j Blackwater
MD
Dorchester
Outer Coastal Flam
Adjacent to stream
11 I Kilien Pond N
DE
Kent
Outer Coastal Plain
Immediately adjacent to stream
12
Kilien Pond S
DE
Kent
Outer Coastal Plain
Headwater
13
NC Wilder NE-1
DE
Kent
Outer Coastal Plain
Depression in wetland
14 i N.C Wilder NF.-2
DE
Kent
Outer Coastal Plain
Adj a cent to stream
15 | N.C Wilder NW
DE
Kent
Outer Coastal Plain
Immediately adjacent to stream
16 | N.C Wilder SW
DE
Kent
Outer Coastal Plain
Mineral flat
17 | Miliington SC
MD
Kent
Inner Coastal Plain
Depression in upland (Delmarva Bay)
18 j Millington SE-1
MD
Kent
Outer Coastal Plain
Immediately adjacent to stream
19 Millington SE-2
MD
Kent
Outer Coastal Plain
Adjacent to stream
20
Millinglon SW
MD
Kent
Outer Coastal Plain
Toe of slope
21
Millington N-l
MD
Kent
Outer Coastal Plain
Headwater
22
Millinpton N-2
MD
Kent
Inner Coastal Plain
Depression in upland (Delmarva Bay)
73j
Blackbird
DE
New Castle
Inner Coastal Plain
Headwater
zT1
White Clav Creek-1
DE
New Castle
Piedmont
Immediately adjacent to stream
25
White Clav Creek-2
DE
New Castle
Piedmont
Immediately adjacent to stream (ditch)
26
White Clav Creek-3
DE
New Castle
Piedmont
Adjacent to stream/Toe of Slope
! 27
White Clav Creek-4
DE
New Castle
Piedmont
Adjacent to stream
' 28 French Creek-Six Pennv-1
PA
Berks
Piedmont
Adjacent to stream/Toe of Slope
| 29
French Creek-Six Pennv-2
PA
Berks
Piedmont
Immediately adjacent to stream
! 30
French Creek-Pine Swamp
PA
Berks
Piedmont
HeadwateT
i 31
WlLIv's Site
VA
Gloucester
Inner Coastal Plain
Immediately adjacent to stream
32
Drapon Run-1
VA
King and Queen
Inner Coastal Plain
Immediately adjacent to stream
33
Draaon Run-2
VA
Kin ft and Queen
Inner Coastal Plain
Adjacent to stream
34
Draeon Run-3
VA
King and Queen
Inner Coastal Plain
Headwater
i 35
Draeon Run-4
VA
King and Queen
Inner Coastal Plain
Headwater
36 ' Chambrel
VA
Williamsburs
Inner Coastal Plain
Immediately adjacent to stream
i 37 ' raskinas Creek
VA
James Citv j Inner Coastal Plain
Immediately adjacent to stream .
-------
Table 2. Size and Hydrologic Relationships of Field Case Studies in Response to the ANTRM
'e Name 1 Wetland Type • I Wetland
! (Field Protocol j Size
' Figure 1) | Class*
Stream I
Order
Hydrology
Source**
Hvdrologic
Connection*** 1
1 Days Cove ¦ Depression in upland i < 5
1 i S/GMix
G
2 ¦ White Marsh ' Toe of slope
.5 - 1
___
S/GMix
G, OVB |
3 : Gunpowder SE : Headwater
>2
...
S
Perched |
i ,
4 | Gunpowder NE
Immediately adjacent
lo stream
.5 - 1
2
S/GMix
G, OVB !
I
5
Gunpowder W
Adjacent to stream
>2
2
S/GMix
OVB (Less Freq. Than j
Annual),
Gunpowder Creek
(> 10 ft.)
6
Blackwater SE
Broad mineral flat
—
2
S/GMix
OVB
! 7
Blackwater SW
Immediately adjacent
to stream
>2
S/GMix
G, OVB, (Less Freq. Than
Annual), Unnamed
Stream (5-10 ft)
i 8
Blackwater NW
Depression in upland
>2
—
S/G Mix
None
9
Black water
Depression in
floodplam
5 - 1
2
S/GMix
G, OVB, (Less Freq. Than
Annual), Unnamed
Stream (5-10 ft.)
i 10
Blackwater
Adjacent to stream
>2
2
S/G Mix
S (Perennial, 5-10 ft.), G,
OVB (Annual),
Chicone Creek
(5-10 ft)
1
|
11
Killen Pond N
Immediately adjacent
to stTeam
>2
1-2
S/G Mix
G, OVB (Annual), Unnamed
Tributary to Murdekill
Creek (5-10 ft.)
i 12
Killen Pond S
Headwater
1 - 2
—
S/G Mix
S (Intermittent, 5-10 ft ), G
i
1
1 13
NC WilderNE-1
Depression m
wetland
>2
2
S/G Mix
None
' 14
NC WilderNE-2
Adjacent to stream
>2
1
S/G Mix
S (Intermittent, 5-10 ft ),
Unnamed Tax Ditch
15
i
N C. Wilder NW
Immediately adjacent
to stream
>2
S/G Mix
S (Intermittent, 5-10 ft ),
Unnamed Tax Ditch, G
: 16 : NC. Wilder SW
Mineral flat
>2 j
S/G Mix
None
1
: 1
17 1 Millinpton SC
Depression in upland
(Delmarva Bav)
5 - 1
S/GMix
None
i
j
18 ¦ Mdlineton SE-1
Immediately adjacent
to stream
1
I
1
5 - 1 j 3 or 4
S/G Mix
S (Perennial, > 10 ft ), G,
OVB (Annual), Unnamed
Stream (> 10ft)
1 1 1
1 !
19 | Millinpinn SF-7 j Adjacent lo stream
¦ i
I
1
j >2 | 3 or 4
S/GMix
G, OVB (Once Every 2
Years),
Unnamed Stream (> 10 ft )
-------
Table 2. Size and Hvdrologic Relationships of Field Case Studies in Response to the AINPRM
e Name . Wetland T*pe I Wetland J Stream ' Hydrology j Hydrologic
' (Field Protocol ! Size ! Order 1 Source** ! Connection***
1 ! Figure 1) j Class* I j j .
j j. i I ! S ("Intermittent, < 5 ft ), G. ¦
: ; j j OVB (Multiple Events :
: ; ! J ; Annually), Cypress j
20 i Millington SW j Tex; of slope
>2
3 ; S/G Mix
Branch (> 10 ft )
Millineton N-1 | Headwater
1 - 2
1 | S/G Mix
S (< 5 ft.), G
1
22 j MiLlington N-2
Depression in upland
(Delmarva Bay)
1 - 2
S/G Mix
. None
23
Blackbird
Headwater
>2
1
S/G Mix
S (Intermittent, 5-10 ft ), G
24
White Clay Creek-1
Immediately adjacent
to stream
< 5
S/G Mix
S (Intermittent, < 5 ft.), G,
OVB (Annual), Unnamed
Tributary to White
Clay Creek (5-10 ft.)
25
White Clav Creek-2
Immediately adjacent
to stream (ditch)
< 5
Ditch
S/G Mix
S (Intermittent, < 5 ft ), G
26
White Clav Creek-3
Adjacent to
stream/Toe of Slope
1 - 2
S/G Mix
S (Intermittent and
Ephemeral < 5 ft.),
Unnamed Tributary to
White Clay Creek
(5-10 ft ), G
27 ! White Clav Creek-4
Adjacent to stream
1 - 2
Ditch
S/G Mix
S (Unknown. < 5 ft ), G
1 French Creek-Six
28 ! Penny-1
Adjacent to
stream/Toe of Slope
< 5
1
S/G Mix
1
S (Intermittent, < 5 ft ), G
29
French Creek-Six
Pennv-2
Immediately adjacent
to stream
>2
1
S/G Mix
G
30
French Creek-Pine
Swamp
Headwater
1
>2 j 1
S/G Mix
S (Intermittent, 5-10 ft ),
Unnamed Tributary to Scots
Run (5-10 ft ),G
1
31
WiLiv s Site
Immediately adjacent
to stream
1
>2 | 1
G
G
! i
!
'2 , Dragon Run-1
Immediately adjacent
to stream
I
i
I
/
1
i
>2 i 2
S/G Mix
S (Perennial, < 5 ft ), G,
OVB (Annual). Unnamed
Tributary to Dragon
Run (5-10 ft )
I
33 I Dragon Run-2
Adjacent to stream
i
1 - 2 i 1
G
S (Intermittent 5-10 ft ),
Unnamed Tributary
to Dragon Run, G
i i
l
|
34 | Dragon Run-3
Headwater
i
J
5-. i;
G
S (Ephemeral, < 5 ft ),
Unnamed Tributary to
Dragon Run (5-10 ft ), G
1 i 1 Headwater
i !
i ! j
15 | Dragon Run-4 |
i
i
5 . 1 !
G
S (Intermittent, 5-10 ft),
Unnamed Tributary to
Dragon Run (5-10 ft), G
-------
Table 2. Size and Hydrologic Relationships of Field Case Studies in Response to the ANPRM
tc Name : Wetland T>pe Wetland : Stream ! Hydrology ! Hydrologic
• (Field Protocol ¦ Size ! Order ' Source** J Connection***
. i I Figure 1) I Class* i ' |
I
G, OVrB (Annual),
Unnamed Tributary to
.16
Chambrel
immediately adjacent
lo stream
>2
.
G
College Creek
(5-10 ft)
1
1
!
! 37
. 2
2
S/GMix
S (Intermittent, < 5 ft ), G,
OVB (Annual). Unnamed
Tributary to Taskinas
Creek (5-10 ft.)
**Hydrology Source: S-Surface; G-Groundwater
***Hydrologic Connection: S-Surface-Indicates Visible Channel Connection; OVB-Indications of Overbank Flooding;
G-Groundwater-Indications of Groundwater Discharge Through the Wetland and into the Stream; Distances are Widths
between Bank Tops of Associated Streams .
| Table 3. Mapped Wetlands and Streams* in Relation to Field Case Study Sites in Response to the
I ANPRM
^ 'i¥Ma WJotl'inrl Tvna MAX/1 Ctralm QHa Noma Watlinil Tvna \JW/T 1 C4
' Site
1
Name
Wetland Type
(Field Protocol
Figure 1)
NWI
Stream
Site
Name
Wetland Type
(Field Protocol
Figure 1)
NWI j Stream |
1 1
| 1
Days Cove
Depression in
upland
N
Y
20
Millington SW
Toe of slope
i |
Y | N 1
! i
| 2 j White Marsh
Toe of slope
N
N j 21
Millington N-l
Headwater
N ; N
1 1
i
1
i 1
3 ; Gunpowder SE
Headwater
N
Y
22
Millington N-2
Depression in
upland
(Delmarva Bay)
N
N
' 4
Gunpowder NE
Immediately
adjacent to stream
N
Y
23
Blackbird
Headwater
Y
N
1
Y
5 ; Gunpowder W
Adjacent to stream
N
Y
24
White Clay
Creek-1
Immediately
adjacent to
stream
N
i
Y
i
i
6 ! Blacksater SE
Broad mineral flat
1
Y j N
25
White Clay
Creek-2
Immediately
adiacent to
stream (ditch)
Y
N' |
i
1 ! Blackwater SW
Immediately
adjacent to stream
Y j -Y j
! ! 26
White Clay
Creek-3
Adjacent to
stream/T oe of
Slope
Y
N
i
i 8 1 Blackwater NW
Depression in
upland
N
i
\r i
i 27
White Clay
Creek-4
Adjacent to
stream
N
N
i i
! 9 | Blackwater
Depression in
floodplain
Y
Y i
i 28
French Creek-
Six Pennv-1
Adjacent to
stream/Toe of
Slope
N ! Y
1
: j
'0 j Blackwater
Adjacent to stream,
i i ¦
Y ! Y 1
1 | 29
French Creek-
Sl\ Pennv-2
Immediately
adjacent to
stream
j
N i Y
'
-------
Table 3. Mapped Wetlands and Streams* in Relation to Field Case Study Sites in Response to the
NPRM
.rfe >ame
t Wetland Type
(Field Protocol
! WVI 1 Stream Site ! Name
I Wetland Tvpe
! (Field Protocol
\WI Stream
; Immediately
11 1 KjIIco Pond N ' adjacent to ^rream
v, i .. | j FrenchCreek-
1 I 1 30 | Pine Swamp
- • - " — 1 -r • • —— —
Headwater 1^1 ^
¦ i
j !
12 I Kjllen Pond S | Headwater
N
N
31
Wilh-'s Site
Immediately | ;
adjacent to 1 Y j Y i
stream i |
13
|
N .C Wilder j Depression in
NE-1 ! wetland
N
N
32
Dragon Run-1
Immediately
adjacent to
stream
| i
Y Y 1
14
NC Wilder I
NE-2 j Adjacent to stream
N
N
33
Dragon Run-2
Adjacent to
stream
Y j Y
I '
15
NC Wilder
NTW
Immediately
adjacent to stream
N
N
34
Dragon Run-3
Headwater
Y j Y
16 ! N C Wilder SW
Mineral flat
Y
N
35
Dragon Ran-4
Headwater
Y
Y
:
17
Millington SC
Depression in
upland (Delmarva
Bav)
Y
N
36
Chambrel
Immediately
adjacent to
stream
N
N
;
VLllinglon SE-1
Immediately
adjacent to stream
Y
N
37
T as kin as Creek
Immediately
adjacent to
stream
Y
Y
19
Millinplon SF.-2
Adjacent to stream
Y
Y
Field Case Study Sites Associated with Mapped Wetlands and Streams on National Wetland
ventory (iVWI) and USGS Topographic Maps at the 1:24,000 ScaJe
-------
VULNERABLE STREAM AND WETLAND STUDY
FIELD PROTOCOL GUIDANCE
In accordance with the objectives of the study the field effort is designed to develop case
studies which will exemplify the issues at hand concerning intrastate isolated and headwater
wetlands. The guidance below is designed to ensure that the field work and forms are used in as
consistent a manner as feasible throughout EPA Region III. Please note on the forms your
rationales for decision making. In cases where you determine that interpretations or additions
are called for, please note them in sufficient detail that other reviewers can determine your .
thought process.
Form A is self explanatory as it is designed to identify the site location and general
characteristics as well as identify remote sensing and on-site graphic tools that you used.
Form B may require several copies per site depending on the number of discrete wetlands
(or wetland classes) that you identify on-site. Of course, some information (e.g. main stem
stream characteristics) may be redundant and may require only one entry of such data.
Documentation of rationales for decision making is important as best professional judgement of
the group may be critical in some circumstances.
By "wetland classes" we mean groups of wetlands that are determined to have the same
relative location (see Figure 1), hydrologic relationships (internally, externally and with respect
to the stream). For example you may find five wetlands of which one is immediately adjacent,
one is adjacent and three are headwaters. In this case you have three classes and though you
would identify each separately you are acknowledging that the three headwater wetland have
common environmental features.. Please also note that the terms used (e.g. adjacent, headwater)
are for descriptive purposes only and to not refer to their use in Clean Water Act regulations.
With regard to the soil characteristics, attention should be given to the evidence
interpreted by the soil scientist as it relates to the wetland-stream relationship, on-site hydrology,
and the ecological function of the wetland.
Form C is in two versions:
(1) RVP (Ridge and Valley/Piedmont) is based on the HGM (Hydrogeomorphic
Approach to the Functional Assessment of Wetlands) models developed at the Penn State
Cooperative Wetland Center focusing on the Upper Juniata Watershed and other areas in PA.
(2) CP (Coastal Plain) which is based on comparable HGM work in the Nanticoke
Watershed of DE and MD by DNREC. MD DNR and the Smithsonian Environmental Research
Center.
-------
The form is designed to qualitatively determine whether or not particular functions are
being performed by the wetlands studied. Each function has listed the primary factors which
make up the individual models. Although the variables are designed for quantitative measures
and calculations, this case study is limited to a qualitative assessment only.
A "Yes" determination indicates that the team has determined that the function is being
performed at some level. By checking that all or most of the variables associated with a model
are in evidence, the team determines that the function is scored a qualitative "Yes".
A "No" determination indicates that the team does not believe that the function is being
performed and that all or most of the relevant variables are not observed in any measurable
quantity.
An ''Unknown" determination indicates that these is insufficient information to make a
determination or that wide differences of opinion are found within the team (if so, please
document).
A supplemental Form (Site Inspection Map) was discarded from the original form mix
but may be useful in documenting photos of the site and wetlands.
-------
Figure 1: Graphic Illustration of Wetland/Stream Relationship in Kirst and Second Order Streams
Toe of Slope
Vfettand
bnrecfetely
A^aoert
Visible
ChameS
Correct
-------
HEADWATER/TSOLATED WETLAND FIELD PROTOCOL
MAP /GEOGRAPHY INVENTORY (FORM A1
GENERAL LOCATION:
STATE: DE MD PA VA WV
COUNTY:
PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCE:
COASTAL PLAIN Outer/Lower Atlantic Inner/Upper Atlantic L. Erie
PIEDMONT
RIDGE. AND VALLEY
APPALACHIAN PLATEAU
BLUE RIDGE
OTHER
LATITUDE/LONGITUDE (GPS)
N * ¦VPS:
USGS TOPO QUAD Name:
NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY Name:
USDA SOIL SURVEY Publication Date:
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS: DATE (S) SCALE
BLACK AND WHITE
COLOR
FALSE COLOR IR
OTHER MEDIA (DESCRIBE):
-------
HEADWATER/ISOLATED WETLAND FIELD PROTOCOL
SITE INSPECTION/EVALUATION (FORM 29 Jan 03
Environmental Setting :
Stream: (Avg. Width between bank tops: <5 ft. 5-10 ft. >10 ft.)
Named Stream: Ditched? Y N
Unnamed Tributary to Named Stream: Ditched? Y N
Unnamed Stream Ditched? Y N
Stream Order: First Second Other Comments:
Wetland Size: <.5 acre .5-1 acre 1-2 acres >2 acres
Wetland Type: PFO PSS PEM
Other Cowardin Cover Type (Specify)
Wetland Location (see Figure 1):
Immediately adjacent to stream (i.e. stream and wetland with no intervening community).
Adjacent to stream (i.e. natural levee or other intervening community).
Outer part of floodplain (e.g. toe of slope)
Depression in uplands (e.g. sloughs, vernal pools embedded in riparian or terrestrial habitat).
Headwater wetland to stream (e.g. located at the top of the watershed or subwatershed and discharges to
'he stream). Or: Other (e.g. depressions in the floodplain) describe:
Rationale:
Hvdrologv-Wetland/Stream Connection (Check all that apply):
Y N Visible channel connection (Avg. Width between bank tops: <5 ft. 5-10 ft. >10 ft.)
Channel hydrology: Perennial Intermittent Ephemeral Unknown?
Rationale:
Y N Overbank flooding from stream-evidence and estimated frequency of occurrence:
Annual Less Frequent Rationale:
Y N Groundwater discharge through wetland into stream? Rationale:
Hydrology-Predominant wetland source: Surface Water Groundwater
Surface/Groundwater Mix Rationale:
Hydrology-Wetland Characteristics: Braided Channel Network
One or Several Discemable Channels Significant Pit and Mound Microtopographv
-------
Soil Characteristics-Wetland:
Mapped Hydric Soil Soil w Hvdric Inclusions Floodplain Soil Other
Field Indicator
Landscape Position
Taxonomic Classification
Soil Series (if applicable)
Surface O horizon(s): Thickness
Surface A horizon(s): Thickness
Particle size class:
Permeability:
Does soil have platy structure at or near the surfacedue to compaction? Yes No
Notes (may include brief description):
Color
Color
Based on the soils information found on site what can a soil scientist conclude about the wetland and stream
hydrodynamics. In other words, where is the water coming from, how does it interact with other environmental
features on site and how does the water leave the wetland/stream complex? What are the critical soil
characteristics that help you in reaching these conclusions (e.g. textures, critical soil factors at certain depths in
the profile, etc.)? In your opinion what are the most informative field indicators of hydric soils found at this
site?
-------
HEADWATER/ISOLATED WETLAND FIELD PROTOCOL
SITE INSPECTION/EVALUATION (FORM C) RVP
HINCTION
Y
N
UNK
FACTORS (Reference: Attached I1GM Models and Variable Descriptions)
1 1 1 ueigy Dissipation/Short- I'crm Surface
W.itei Delcnlion
V n^,, = Characteristic hydrology of floodplain
V unnMlnic = affected by higher densities of roads, urban development and hydrologic
modifications within a 1 km radius of the site (i.e. less of these adds to function)
' V |(1nu Il-iiii Suilaic Wilier
Si oi .i u.c
V - Characteristic hydrology of floodplain
V - affected by higher densities of roads, urban development and hydrologic
modifications within a 1 km radius of the site
VmKlll = Macrotopographic relief or areas greater that the depression left by a large tree
windfall or about 10m2)
V lctk)1 = Presence of redoxymorphic features in the upper soil profile based on matrix and
mottle chromas, etc.
1 s IUiihiv.iI of Imported Inorganic Nitrogen
V ltiut = Presence of redoxymorphic features in the upper soil profile based on matrix and
mottle chromas, etc.
V b>oniM1 = Combination of % cover of trees, shrubs, and herbs, to indicate vegetative biomass
at the site as well as an indicator of vegetative cover in the roughness variable
V = % organic content in the top S cm of soil below the organic layer
1 (> Solute Adsoiption Capacity
(eg toxicant retention/removal)
V = Characteristic hydrology of floodplain
V unohl(UC = affected by higher densities of roads, urban development and hydrologic
modifications within a 1 km radius of the site (i e. less of these adds to function)
V foU|(h = Manning's coefficient: an aggregate of density of standing wood, basal area of
standing wood, shrub cover, percent herb cover, coarse woody debris and microlopography
V ird()< - Presence of redoxymorphic features in the upper soil profile based on matrix ami
motile chromas. etc
Vml(I(, = Macrotopographic-relief or areas greater thai the depression left by a large tree
windfall or about 10m')
V ,„Kn„ ' % organic content in the lop 5 cm of soil below the organic layer'
V Soil ic.xlurc determined by feel
-------
2
l-HINCI'ION
Y
N
UNK
FACTORS (Reference: Attached IICM Models and Variable Descriptions)
1 7 Ri lviilion ot Inorganic icvil:ilos
(c ii sLilinn.-iil retention)
V ni s/ - Presence of coarse woody debris in ihree size classes
V , - Presence of dead standing trees in four size classes
V l)i
-------
9/4/02
S.aimary of HGM Functional Assessment Models
F1 - Energy Dissipation/Short term Surface Water Detention
FloodpLains (Headwater and Mainsiem):
= C^P-OCD? - (1<--V"jNOBsm:c)) * C^grad "" VrqL'GH)^
Slopes:
= O^slope) * (Vgrad r Vrouch)/2
F2 - Long-term Surface Water Storage
FloodpLains.
- (Vfloodp ~ (1-Vunobstr.uc)) * (Vmacro + Vredox)^
F3 - Maintain Characterise Hydrology (non-riverine subclasses)
=VhyDROCHAR - VHYDROSTR£SS
F4-Blank
F5 - Removal of Imported Inorganic Nitrogen
All subclasses:
= (Vredox + Vbiomass + vorgm.O/3
F6 - Solute Adsorption Capacity
Floodplai-ns:
58 ("Vfloodp - (1-Vunobstruc)) " [(Trough + vr£dox+ Vmacro V3 + (Yorcm + 1- Vtex)/2]/2
Slopes:
= (Aslope) * [CVROUGH +Vrsdox"1" VMACRo)/3 * (V0R0M +
Riparian Depressions:
= (^hydrostress) * [(Vrough + Vredox V2 ¦+¦ (Vorom +1- Vtex)/2]/2
F7 - Retention of Inorganic Particulates
FloodpLains:
= (VFLOODP - (1-Vunobstruc)) * (VROUGH "" VmaCRO + Vqrad) /3
Slopes:
- (VsloPe) * (V ROUGH + VmaCRO) ^
By definition depressions receive a score of 1.
FSa - Export of Organic Particulates
Floodplains:
= (yFLOODP - (l-VUNOBSTRUc)) ' [(Vqrgm + Vfwq/2) + (VcWD-BA + VCWWZ + VstWBsfi)]1!
E6UE99PI0 00:?I Z 202/30/T0
-------
Slopes:
= VSLC?: * [C^ORGM ~ V?wd/2) - (VCmo-3A~ ^c^sz" VSmags/3)]/2
FSb - Export of Dissolved Organic Carbon
Floodpiains:
= cc? ~ ( •-^'•-¦noostri.c)) " .(^macto ~ - (V0R(iM •* Vc^-p)/! * (VCWMa+ Vcv/^jz4" VsvAat)^]^
Slopes:
= (Vsloph) * [(Vmacro ~ vR£Dox)/2 -1- (Vorgm + vfwd)/2 f (Vc-wd.ba+ VcwD-SZ^ VSMaGS)/3]/3
Riparian Depressions:
= F3 * [(Vb^oox + (Vorom + VfwdV2 *• (Vcwd-ba* Vcwr^r1" vsnags)/3]/3
F9 - Maintain Characteristic Native Plant Community Composition (and Structure)
All Subclasses:
= [(Vsppcomp * 0.66 + Vreoen * 0-33) + Vexotic]^
F10- Maintain Characteristic Detrital Biomass
All Subclasses:
= [(V CWD-eA + VcWD-SIZE^^) +Vfwd + VSNaCS + VorgMa]/4
Fll — Vertebrate Community Structure and Composition • all subclasses
Used HSI scores
F12 - Maintain Landscape Scale Biodiversity
All subclasses
- (VaQCON + VUNDEVHL + Vsoi+ vmps)/4
CRT/ro^oTS} nn:t>T fan^/es/rg
-------
9'4.'02
Summary of variables used in HGM ftxctiocaJ assessment models
v*o<-o\ - Degree of aquatic connectivity in a 1 km radius circle surrounding site. Made
up of a combination of three indices: presence in 100 year floodpiain, stream density
index, and distance to nearest NWI wetland.
VjHovuss/ Comb nation of % cover of trees, shrubs, and herbs, to indicate vegetative
biomass a: the site as well as an indicator of vegetative cover in the roughness variable.
Vovn-RA - Estimate of coverage of coarse woody debris aJong a transect.
Vrwn^T7K - Presence of coarse woody debris in three size classes.
Vexottc - Average % cover of invasive species in 1 m2 plots
Yfioodp - Presently used as a placeholder for floodpiain wetlands, should represent
characteristic hydrology of floodpiain
Vjwd- Visual estimate of depth of liner layer from HSI models
Vr.RAn - Elevational gradient of the floodpiain based on topographic maps
VHYTiBorHtu - Presently used as a placeholder for depression wetlands, should represent
characterise hydrology of groundwater supported wetlands
Vhydrostress- Indicators of hydro logic modifications from stressor checklist
Y macro-Macro topographic relief identified along a transect
Vmps - Mean forested patch size within a 1 km radius circle
Vorc.m a - % organic content in the top 5 cm of soil below organic layer
Vrkdox - Presence of redoximorphic features in the upper soil profile based on mottle
and matrix chromas.
Vbf-cen - Evidence of regeneration of dominant canopy species in each stratum
Vrough - Based on Manning's roughness coefficient, using a composite weighting score
based on flow resistance at the site (C WD, microtopography, and vegetation).
Vsni - Natural log of the Shannon diversity index of eight landscape categories in the a 1
km radius circle around the site
VST,opt - Percent slope of wetland surface
Vsnaks - Presence of dead standing trees in four size classes
Ysppcomp - Adjusted FQAI scores for sites
Vtex - Soil texture determined by feel
Vundevtl - Landscape variable made up of the average of two sub-variables:
Vrdden ~ density of roads in 1km radius circle
Vurb - % of 1 km radius circle in urban development
Yunobstruc - Used for floodpiain wetlands to represent characteristics that would cause
a deviation from reference standard in the functioning of the floodpiain. Made up of the
average of three subvaiiables:
Vrdoens ~ density of roads in a 1 km radius oircle surrounding site
Yurb - % of 1 km radius circle in urban developedent
Vhydrostress - indicators of hydrologic modifications from stressor
checklist
39?d
E6UE98H8 00 :»I
-------
HEADWATER/ISOLATED WETLAND FIELD PROTOCOL
S8TE INSPECTION/EVALUATION (FORM! C) CP
1 IINC HON
Y
N
UNK
FACTORS (Reference: Attached IIGM Models and Variable Descriptions)
M.mil.mi (Ii.iriidcnslic Hydrology
V = Stream condition outside the Assessment Area (AA)(Bes(: No channelization, dams or road
crossings within 500in upstream or downstream of the AA; Worsl: Major channelization of stream within
500m of AA, levees on one or both sides of channel, further reducing ovcrbank flow.
V = Floodplain Condition |Besl: No alterations of the floudplam (i e. ditches, mechanical
alterations to substrate, fill, and/or excavations wilhin the AA, Worsl: >75% of the floodplain within the AA
has been altered (i.e ditches that provide effective drainage, impoundment of water, excavation of substrale
arnl/or deposition of fill) and restoration is possiblc|.
_ V - Si ream condition inside the AA (Best: No channelization, dams or road crossings in Ihc
AA; Worst: Major channelization of stream within 500m of AA, levees on one or both sides of channel,
further reducing overbank flooding, restoration possible)
M.iimI.iiii ( li.ii.iclL'ristic
MiogciiLlicmislry
V |,1A = Rasal area of trees (Best: Tree basal area > 35.6 mVha in the AA, Worst: Tree basal area -- 3 56
m'/ha and restoration possible)
V = Stream condition outside the Assessment Area (Best: No channeli/.ation, dains or road
crossings wilhin 500m upstream or downstream of the AA, Worsl: Major channelization of stream within
500m of AA, levees on one or both sides of channel, further reducing overbank flow.
V iwjpi... = Floodplain Condition (Best: No alterations of the floodplain (i e ditches, mechanical
alterations to substrate, fill, and/or excavations wilhin the AA; Worsl: >75% of the floodplain within the AA
has been altered (i e. ditches that provide effective drainage, impoundment of water, excavation of substrate
and/or deposition of fill) and restoration is possible).
V lliw,,n = Stream condition inside the AA (Best: No channelization, dams or.road crossings in the AA,
Worsl: Major channelization of stream within 500m of AA; levees on one or both sides of channel, further
reducing overbank flooding, restoration possible)
-------
2
V hci„ - Herbaceous veget.ition composition (Best: Mttchella rcpens present in >20% of plots sampled
and none of the following genera present; Andropogon, Dicanlhcttum. Rhynchospora, Sahdugu and /'ann um.
Worst Dominant plants are agricultural species but restoration is possible)
V ucr - Tree species composition (Best: C'hamaecyparis thyoides. Tatodtum distichum, or Nyssa sytvaUca
are present as canopy species in the AA and there are no facultative upland tree species present. Worst: No
trees present; AA is dominated by herbaceous vegetation and/or saplings, and restoration is possible)
V , = Sapling species composition (Best: C'hamaecyparis thyoides. Taxodium distichum, or Nyssa
sylvatica are present as saplings in the AA and there are no facultative upland tree species present as saplings;
Worst: No saplings present; AA is dominated by herbaceous vegetation and restoration is possible)
V vine = Vine and vine-like species (Rubus spp. occur in <25% of the plots sampled in the AA; Worst
Rubus spp. occur in all of the plots sampled in the A A)
V = Invasive species (Best: no invasive species except Lomcerajapnntca which has a mean cover
of <5% in the sampled area. Worst: Mean invasive species cover for the A A is >90%, and the forested
floodplain has been converted to another land use, though restoration is possible {i.e. agriculture)!
-------
PROPOSED FUNCTIONS AND FORMULA FOR RIVERINE SUBCLASS
NANTICOKE RIVER ASSESSMENT STUDY
Maintain Characteristic Hydrology
Logic: Hydrology is perhaps the most imponani functions to consider on any assessment of
riverine wetlands. Three variables (stream condition in the assessment area, floodplain condition
in the assessment area, and stream condition outside the assessment area) each differ between
Reference and Reference Standard sites. The a-team considered Vstreamin to the most important
variable and suggested using it as a multiplier to determine the FCI score. They also considered
that the conditions of the floodplain within the Assessment Area should be given higher loading
in the equation than VSTR£AjM0UT or VFLOODPLArN. Accordingly, the value for VFLoodplajn is
given twice the weight as Vstr£aMout
FCIhydrology = ((Vstreamolt+ 2(VFUx>dpl.ain)'/3)*vstreamin) *
Maintain Characteristic Biogeochemistrv
Logic: Nutrient cycling is an important ecological function in riverine wetlands. The A-team
determined that there were not any measurements in the Reference System data set to directly
assess this function. They considered using an indirect approach by assessing the structure of the
forest, as measured by tree basal area, and incorporating the FCEhydrology score into the
equation. The approach was chosen because of the importance of the hydrologic functions in
regulating nutrient cycling processes in riverine wetlands.
FCIbiogeocheviistry-((Vtba+FCIhvdrolocvV2)
Maintain Characteristic Habitat
Logic: All of the reference sites were forested and differences between them were mostly in
characteristics of the forest such as tree basal area and density and shrub density. The habitat
function is mostly a measure of the physical features of the forest. Density of standing snags is
including in the formula but may be removed after testing of the model due to lack of sensitivity
as a variable.
~••NEED TO ADD THE HYDROLOGY FL^CITON IN HERE*****
FCIhabitat = (2*f(VTBA + Vtden)/2 + VSHrlb) + VsnagV3
-------
Maintain Characteristic Plant Community
Logic: The species composition of a forested wetland is an important indicator of its stage of
succession or whether or not it has been disturbed. In the Nanticoke watershed, two species
(Chamaecyparis thyoides and Taxodium distichum) are characteristic of riverine wetlands in
reference standard condition. Chamaecyparis thyoides is not as widely distributed in the
watershed as it once was and sites in which it occurs should be considered to be important.
Taxodium distichum stands occur only in the southeastern portion of the watershed. Nvssa
sylvatica was the only tree species-which occurred in ail Reference standard sites and which was
not present in many of the other reference sites. Other plant community related variables that
differed between reference standard sites were vines, saplings, and herbs (still to be scaled).
FCIcommunity = (2*((Vherb + vtree * vsapi_ing)'3) * ((Vvfne + Vinvasive)^))*
Maintain characteristic landscape interspersion and connectivity
Logic: Land-use patterns in the watershed and land-uses adjacent to riverine wetlands play a key
role in the movement of organisms, nutrients, and sediments. The physical conditions of the
stream corridor outside of the Assessment Area also piay an important role in the movement of
organisms, particularly aquatic organisms, and the invasion of alien plant species. Land-use
patterns adjacent to riverine wetlands associated with first and second order streams are probably
more important than those of third order and greater because the smaller size of the floodplain
itself to buffer against outside landuse. Accordingly, the FCI score for this function is
determined by different equations, depending on stream order.
FCI landscape = (-*Vnearbuffer + arbi ffer Vstr£amoutV3)
[f stream order is greater than 2 then:
FCIlandscape - (Vnearbuffer + Vfarblffer ~ vstreamoltV3)
-------
Nanticoke Watershed Studv - Ri\erine Subclass
rb
Vegeiauon Disturbance
The vegetation in most wetlands ot ihe riverine subclass have been directly or indirectly impacted bv
anthropogenic activities The timing of the disturbance and the type of disturbance varied from site 10
iiie. Th is variable is designed to assess the timing and intensity of anthropogenic disturbances The
more recent the disturbance and the more intense it was (e g . clear cutting of the forest), the lower the
variable score Scaling of the variable is based on analysis and interpretation of historical and'or
ongoing disturbances in Reference Standard sites compared to the other sites within the Reference
System
The Assessment Team rating of the confidence of the variable scores is medium - high
Protocol for scaling variable.
Examine Site Information data sheet (Vegetation Disturbance Box) to determine which
Variable Score to apply using the following table.
Variable scaling:
Var. Score
Description
1
No evidence of human caused vegetation disturbance within past 50 years.
0.75
Evidence of human caused vegetation disturbance within past 15-50 years.
0.5
Evidence of human caused vegetation alteration within past 15 years.
0.25
< 50% of Assessment area disturbed within past 2 years i.e.
clearcut or a maintained levee from ditch
0.1
Vegetation clear-cut within past 2 years
Or
> 50% of Assessment are disturbed within past 2 years i e.
clearcut or maintained levee of ditch
0
Assessment Area had been mapped as wetland on NWT/MD^DE but
Site converted to land-use which makes restoration success highly unlikely
(e g.. urban, suburban, industrial land-uses)
Variable:
Variable name
Description
Confidence-
Riverine Variable Scoring 11/00
-------
Nanticoke Watershed Study - Riverine Subclass
Variable. Vcwai.rr=a
Variable name Vegetation Buffer Within 20-100 meters of Floodplam
Description of Variable Buffers provide corridors for movement both upstream and laterally through stream corridors
Buffers also intercept sediments and nutrients in runoff and buffer wetlands from invasions
of exotic plant species. Buffers are especially important along first and second order streams
that have very narcow floodplains.
Confidence The Assessment Team rating of the confidence of the variable scores is high.
Protocol for scaling variable:
1. Examine the buffer within 20-100 meters of the floodplain on both sides of the stream using protocols
described in the field data sheets.
2. Use procedures in the Buffer Condition field data sheet to determine the Total Far Buffer Score.
3. Use the score determined in step 2 to assign a Variable Score based on the following table.
Variable Scaling
Var. Score
Description
1
Total Far BufFer Score is = 64
If Var. Score is not equal to 1 or 0 than the Variable Scores is calculated as the Total Far
Buffer Score/ divided by 64
0.1
Total Far Buffer Score is < 6 and restoration is possible.
0
No forested land-uses between 20-100 meters of floodplain on both sides of the stream and
buffer has been convened to land-use which makes restoration success highly unlikely (i.e.
urban, suburban, industrial land-uses).
Rjverine Variable Scoring 11'00
-------
Nanticoke Watershed Study - Riverine Subclass
Variable
Variable name: Floodplam Condition
Description of Variable: The condition of the floodplam is one of the primary determinants of wetland function
Within the Reference Domain, floodplains are altered indirectly through modifications of the
associated stream and directly through ditching, tilling, or excavations on the floodplam
surface This variable considers only direct impacts to the floodplam uuhin the Assessment
Area and does not consider the impact resultant from modification of the stream channel
which is covered in VSTR£JiM[N and VS'TR£AM(XT
Confidence: The Assessment Team rating of the confidence of the variable scores is low-medium due to the
difficulty in assessing hvdrologic conditions in riverine wetlands direct evidence of drainage or
impoundment.
Protocol for scaling variable
1. Examine the Floodplam Condition Box on the Site Information data sheet.
2 Use information compiled in the field data sheet to assign a Variable Score using the following table
Variable scaling
Var. Score
Description
I
No alterations of the floodplam (i e . ditches, mechanical alterations to substrate, fill
excavations) within the Assessment .Area
0 75
Ditches are present on the floodplam surface within the Assessment Area, but the\ are no
longer effective and do not have the ability to drain water (i.e., ditches have become filled
with debris and are not maintained) from the floodplain.
OR
< 10% of the floodplam within the Assessment Area has been altered (i.e.. ditches,
impoundment of water, excavation of substrate, deposition of fill)
0.25
> 10% and < 75% of the floodplam within the Assessment Area has been altered (i e .
ditches that provide effective drainage, impoundment of water, excavation of substrate,
deposition of fill)
0 1
> 75% of the floodplam within the Assessment Area has been altered (i.e.. ditches that
provide effective drainage, impoundment of water, excavation of substrate, deposition of
fill) and restoration is possible
00
Assessment Area had been mapped as wetland on NWT/MD/DE but site convened to land-
use which makes restoration success highly unlikely (i.e, urban, suburban, industrial land-
uses)
Riverine Variable Scoring 11/00
-------
Nanticoke Watershed Study - Riverine Subclass
Variable VrN^si\E
V amble name Invasive species
Description of Variable: Many riverine wetlands are degraded by invasive species. Invasive species typically occur
ivhere hydrologic conditions have been altered (i e . sues become wener or drier), where there has been
disturbance to the canopy resulting in higher light conditions in gaps or in areas larger than tree saps, and
where buffer conditions have been altered. The number of invasive species differed between Reference
Standard sites and other Reference sites within the Reference Domain.
Confidence: The Assessment Team rating of the confidence of the variable scores is medium because of a medium
degree of variability in the occurrence of invasive species at the reference study sites.
Protocol for scaling variable.
1 Examine the Herbaceous and Invasive Species Vegetation field data sheets to determine the average
percent cover for all invasive species present in the 12 herb plots.
2. Calcuate the average percent cover for all invasive species by summing all of their midpoint values from
all 12 subplots then dividing by twelve.
3. Use information compiled in step I to assign a Variable Score using the following table
Variable scaling
Var. Score
Description
1
No invasive species except Lonicera japomca which has a mean cover of < 5% in the
sampled area.
Variable Index scores between 0.1 and I will be treated as continuous numbers. If
^invasive does not equal 0 1 or 1. then.
Vinvasive = 1- mean cover of all listed invasive species in 12 l-m2 herb plots.
0.1
Mean invasive species cover for the Assessment Area is > 90%; and the forested floodplain
has been convened to another land-use. though restoration is possible (i.e. agriculture).
0.0
Assessment Area had been mapped as wetland on NWI/MD/DE but site convened to land-
use which makes restoration success highly unlikely (i.e. urban, suburban, industrial land-
uses)
Riverine Variable Scoring 11/00
-------
Nanticoke Watershed Study - Riverine Subclass
Variable V
Vanabie name Vegetation Buffer Within 0-20 meters of Floodplain
Description o: Variable Buffers provide corridors fo*r movement both upstream and laterally through stream
corridors Buffers also intercept sediments and nutrients in runoff and buffer wetlands tiom invasions
of erotic plant species Buffers are especially important along first and second order streams that
have very narrow floodplains.
Confidence. The Assessment Team rating of the confidence of the variable scores is high.
Protocol for scaling variable:
1. Examine the buffer within 0-20 meters of the floodplain on both sides of the stream using protocols
described in the field datasheets.
2. Use procedures in the Buffer Conditions field data sheet to determine the Total Near Buffer Score.
j Use the score determined in step 2 to assign a Variable Score based on the following table.
Variable scaling:
Var Score
Description
1
If 1" or 2"" order stream, Total Near Buffer Score = 320.
If > 3r" order stream. Total Near Buffer Score = 192.
If Variable Score does not equal 1 or 0 then the Variable Score is calculated from the field
data sheet by dividing the Total Near Buffer Score by:
320 for l" or 2nd order stream OR
192 for > 3rd order stream
0.1
Total score is < 19 for I" or 2"" order stream OR < 32 for 3™ order stream and restoration
is possible.
0
No forested land-uses between 0-20 meters of floodplain on both sides of the stream and
buffer has been convened to land-use which makes restoration success highly unlikely (i.e.
urban, suburban, industrial land-uses)
Riverine Variable Scoring I l-'OO
-------
Variable
Nanticoke Watershed Study - Riverine Subclass
Variable name Sapling species composition
Description ot Variable Riverine v\etlands in the Nanticoke watershed are almost all forested. This variable attempts
to assess the species composition ot the sapling stratum that will contain the next generation
of trees Most tree species occur widely as saplings and appear in most wetlands sampled.
Data analysis indicated that any one of three species listed below needs to be present to
indicate Reference Standard conditions The presence of facultative upland tree species is
indicative of conditions other than Reference Standard. Two species (Chamaecvparis
ihyoides. and Taxodium distichum) are indicative of wetlands that are Reference Standard.
Ilex opaca is excluded from this variable due to its presence in both reference and reference
standard sites.
Confidence- The Assessment Team rating of the confidence of the variable scores is medium because of a medium
degree of variability in the species present as saplings in the Reference System.
Protocol for scaling variable:
1. Examine the Sapling Box of the Trees and Shrubs field data sheets to determine which sapling species are
present in each of the three tree plots sampled within the Assessment Area.
2. Use information compiled in step I to assign a Variable Score using the following table
Variable scaling:
Var. Score
Description
1 0
Chamaecypans thyotdes. Taxodium distichum, or Nyssa sylvatica are present as saplings in
the Assessment Area and there are no facultative upland tree species present as saplings.
0.9
A variable index score ot' 1 0 and there is 1 facultative upland species present in the
sapling layer
0.75
A variable index score of 1 0 and there are 2 facultative upland tree species present as
saplings
OR
Chamaecypans ihyoides. Taxodium distichum, or Nyssa sylvatica are not present as
saplings and there are <1 facultative upland tree species present as saplings.
0.5
A variable index score of 1 0 and there are 3 facultative upland tree species present as
saplings
OR
Chamaecypans thyoides. Taxodium distichum, or Nyssa sylvatica are not present as
saplings and there are 2 facultative upland tree species present as saplings.
0 25
A variable index score of t 0 and there are 4 or more facultative upland tree species
present as saplings
OR
Chamaecypans thyoides. Taxodium distichum, or Nyssa sylvatica are not present as
saplings and there are 3 or more facultative upland tree species present as saplings.
0 1
No saplings present. Assesment Area dominated by herbaceous vegetation and restoration
possible
00
Assessment Area had been mapped as wetland on NWT/MD/DE but site converted to land-
use which makes restoration success highly unlikely (i.e. urban, suburban, industrial land-
uses)
Riverine Variable Scoring 11/00
-------
Nanticoke Watershed Study - Riverine Subclass
^ JrIabIe ^skrl3
Variable name Shrub density
Description of Variable Shrubs are common in riverine wetlands They provide habitat for animals, reduce the flow
of surface water through the site, and play a significant role in nutrient cycling. Shrub density was an indicator
that varied between Reference Standard sites and other Reference sites within the Reference System.
Confidence The Assessment Team rating of the confidence of the variable scores is medium because of a medium
degree of variability in shrub density at the reference study sites.
Protocol for scaling variable:
I Examine the Shrub Species Box on the Trees and Shrubs field data sheets to determine the average density
of shrubs in the three shrub plots sampled in the Assessment Area. The average density is calculated by
summing the number of stems for all shrub species in all plots then dividing by three.
2. Calculate shrub density per hectare by multiplying the average density by 628.8
3 Use information compiled in step I to assign a Variable Score using the following table
Variable scaling.
Var. Score
Description
1 0
Shrub Density is > 10.000 stems/ha in the Assessment Area
Variable Scores between 1 and 0 1 will be treated as continuous numbers. If shrub density
< 10.000 stems/ha. the Variable Score is calculated as the average density for the three
shrub plots divided by 10.000
0 1
Shrubs density < 1000 stems, ha restoration possible
0 0
Assessment Area had been mapped as wetland on NWT/MD/DE but site convened to land-
use which makes restoration success highly unlikely (i.e. urban, suburban, industrial land-
uses)
Riverine Variable Scoring 11/00
-------
Nanticoke Watershed Study - Riverine Subclass
Variable.
Variable name Stream condition inside the Assessment Area
Description ot Variable Alterations of streams within the Assessment Area were the primary activity that
influenced ecological functioning of riverine systems. There were clear differences
in the frequency of steam alterations between Reference Standard sites and the other
Reference sites. This variable considers physical alterations to the stream channel,
alterations in the water level are measured in the floodplain variable ^VFL00mMS)
Confidence: The Assessment Team rating of the confidence of the variable scores is -medium-high.
Protocol for scaling variable.
3. Examine the stream condition within the Assessment Area and complete the Hydrology field data
sheet
4. Use information compiled in the field data sheet to assign a Variable Score using the following table.
Variable scaling
Var. Score
Description
I
No channelization, dams or road crossings in the Assessment Area.
0 75
In first and second order streams, prior channelization(s) of the stream have not been
maintained resulting in minimal alterations to hydrologic conditions
0.5
For all stream orders, no channelization is present with Assessment Area. Fill (i e. road
crossing) is present within the Assessment Area.
0.25
Stream channelized, no levees present or levee only on one side of stream
0 1
Channelization of stream in Assessment Area. Levees on one or both sides of channel,
further reducing overbank flooding, restoration possible.
0
Assessment Area had been mapped as wetland on NW1/MD/DE but site convened to land-
use which makes restoration success highly unlikely (i.e. urban, suburban, industrial land-
uses)
Riverme Variable Scoring 11/00
-------
Nanticoke Watershed Stud\ - Riverine Subclass
Vanafcie
Variabie name Stream condition outside the Assessment Area
Description of V ariable Alteration of streams upstream or downstream of the Assessment Area result in hvdrologtc
impacts ^ uhin ihe Assessment Area Specifically, channelization ofupstream areas results in changes m
h>droloiic panemi in Assessment Area, particularly an overall decrease of overbank flooding and higher
stream flow during Hood events. Higher peak floods may also result in greater discharge to downsrream areas
that are not channelized. Undersized road crossings also lead to reductions in peak (lows downstream and
impoundment of water upstream.
Confidence The Assessment Team rating of the confidence of the variable scores is -medium-high.
Protocol for scaling variable:
I Examine the stream condition in the Outside Assessment Area (Upstream and Downsrream) Boxes on
the Hyrdology field data sheet.
2. Use information compiled in the field data sheet to assign a Variable Score using the following table.
Variable scaling'
Var. Score
Description
1
No channelization, dams or road crossings within 500 m upstream or downstream of the
Assessment Area.
0 75
In first and second order streams, prior channelization(s) of the stream have not been
maintained resulting in minimal alterations of hydrologic conditions within the Assessment
Area and no fill present.
0.5
Minimal channelization within 500 m upstream or downstream of Assessment Area, either
isolated section or greater than 100m from assessment area
OR
Fill (i.e., road crossing or dam) present within 500 m of Assessment Area
0 1
Major channelization of stream within 500 m of Assessment Area. Levees on one or both
sides of channel, further reducing overbank flow.
0
Assessment Area had been mapped as wetland on NWI/MD/DE but site converted to land-
use which makes restoration success highly unlikely (i.e. urban, suburban, industrial land-
uses)
Riverine Variable Scoring 1 I'00
-------
Nanticoke Watershed Study - Riverine Subclass
Variable V:3^
Variable name Basal area of trees
Description of Variable. Basal area of canopy-sized trees is an indicator of the structure (i.e , habitat quahr>) of the
forest and an indication of its successional stage Tree basal area (TBA) is a measurement of tree size and is
expressed as "he cross-sectional area of trees per unit of area sampled. Tree basal area was an indicator :hat
differed between Reference Standard sites and other Reference sites within the Reference Domain
Confidence: The Assessment Team rating of the confidence of the variable scores is high.
Protocol for scaling variable'
1 Calculate the basal area (cm:) of each tree listed in Box I.A. Trees.on the Trees and Shrubs field data
sheets. Basal area is calculated by
A. Determining the radius of each tree (divide the diameter by 2),
B Squaring the radius,
C Multiplying the radius squared by 3 1415.
2. Sum the BA values for each rree listed in Box I.A to determine the total basal area for the plot.
3 Convert the total basal area in cm2 to basal area in m: by multiplying the value in step 2 by 0.0001
4. Calculate the average basal area for the site by summing the total basal area for each plot and dividing the
sum by 3
5. Calculate the average basal area in m: per hectare by multiplying the average by 50.
6. Use the following table to assign a Variable Score using the value calculated in step 5.
Variable scaling:
Var. Score
Description
1
Tree Basal Area > 35 6 m' ha in the Assessment Area
Variable Scores between 1 and 0 will be treated as continuous numbers. If BA < 35.6
mVha then- VTBa = Average BA for the tree plots/35.6
0 1
Tree Basal Area < 3.56 m"'ha and restoration possible
0
Assessment Area had been mapped as wetland on NW1/MD/DE but site convened to land-
use which makes restoration success highly unlikely (i.e. urban. Suburban, industrial land-
uses)
Riverine Variable Scoring 11/00
-------
Nanucoke Watershed Study - Rivenne Subclass
^ afiable. ^ rDEv.
Variable name Tree density
Description or Variable Density of canopy-sized trees (> 15 cm DBH) is an indicator of the structure u e.
habitat quality) of the forest and an indication of its successiona! stage Tree
density was an indicator that differed between Reference Standard sites and other
Reference sites within the Reference Domain.
Confidence: The Assessment Team rating of the confidence of the variable scores is high.
Protocol for scaling variable1
1. Calculate the density of trees listed in Box I. A. on the Trees and Shrubs field dam sheets. Density is
calculated by summing the number of all trees for which there are diameter measurements then
dividing by 3
2 Convert the average density for the site into tree density per hectare by multiplying the average by 50
3. Use the following table to assign a Variable Score using the value calculated in step 3
Variable scaling:
Var. Score
Description
1
Tree Density (15cm DBH) is > -175 trees/ha in the Assessment Area
Variable tndex scores between I and 0 will be treated as continuous numbers. If tree
density < 475 and >118 trees. Tia then:
Vtden = Average Tree Density in tree plots/475
0 1
Tree density <118 trees* ha and restoration possible
0
Assessment Area had been mapped as wetland on NWI/MD/DE but site converted to land-
use which makes restoration success highly unlikely (i.e. urban, suburban, industrial land-
uses)
Rivenne Variable Scoring 11/00
-------
Variable V-^ee
Nanticoke Watershed Study - Riverine Subclass
^ ar;able name' Tree species composition
Description ot Variable Riverine wetlands in the Nanticoke watershed are almost all forested. This variable anempts
to assess the species composition of the Assessment Area by examination of the species
composition of the canopy trees Most tree species occur widely and appear in most
wetlands included in the Reference System. Analysis of data indicated that there is one
species (.Vysja sylvatica) which needs to be present in the canopy to indicate Reference
Standard conditions. Two species (Chamaecyparis thyoides and Taxodtum distichum) are
not as widely distributed as Nyssa sylvatica but the A-team considered their presence to be
indicative of Reference Standard conditions. Ilex opaca. a FACU species, is excluded from
this variable because it was found in both reference and reference standard sites.
Confidence. The Assessment Team rating of the confidence of the variable scores is medium because of the
relatively small number of species that could be used for purposes of scaling.
Protocol for scaling variable.
1. Examine Box I. A. Trees on the Trees and Shrubs field data sheets that lists the tree species
present in each of the three sampled tree plots.
2. Use the list of species present to assign a Variable Score using the following table.
5 Ilex opaca is not used to score this variable, since it was found in both reference and
reference standard sites, it is not used to score the variable higher or lower.
Variable scaling:
Var. Score
Description
1 0
Chamaecyparis thyoides. Taxodtum distichum, or Nyssa sylvatica are present as canopy
species in the Assessment Area and there are no facultative upland tree species present.
09
A Variable Index score of 1.0 and 1 facultative upland tree species present in the canopy.
0 75
A Variable Index score of 1 0. and 2 facultative upland tree species present in the canopy
OR
Chamaecyparis thyoides. Taxodtum distichum, and Nyssa sylvatica are not present as
canopy species and < 1 facultative upland tree species present in the canopy.
05
A Variable Index score of 1.0. and 3 facultative upland tree species present in the canopy
OR
Chamaecyparis thyoides, Taxodtum distichum. and Nyssa sylvatica are not present in the
canopy and 2 facultative upland tree species are present in the canopy.
0 25
A Variable Index score of 1.0. and 4 or more facultative upland tree species present in the
canopy
OR
Chamaecyparis thyoides. Taxodium distichum, and Nyssa sylvatica are not present in the
' canopy and 3 or more facultative upland tree species are present in the canopy.
0.1
No trees present, dominated by herbaceous and/or saplings and restoration possible
00
Assessment Area had been mapped as wetland on NW1/MD/DE but site converted to land-
use which makes restoration success highly unlikely (i.e. urban, suburban, industrial land-
uses)
* Hex opaca is not used to score this variable
Riverine Variable Scoring 11/00
-------
Nanticoke Watershed Study - Ri>erine Subclass
Variable V.\e
Variable name V ine and ine-like species
Description ot \< ariabie. V ines and vine-like species such as Rosa multiflora and Rubus spp . provide valuable
wildlife food, but an abundance ot'vines, especially invasive species, influence succession, and
degrade forest ecosystems. Species of Rubus are typically indicative of disturbed conditions, and
indicated changes in the plant community that represent significant changes from Reference Standard
conditions. This variable assesses the number of sampled plots in the Assessment area that contain
species of Rubus. Scaling of the variable is based on analysis and interpretation of the presence of
Rubus in Reference Standard sites compared to the other sites within the Reference System
Confidence The Assessment Team rating of the confidence of the variable scores is high.
Protocol for scaling variable:
1 Examine the Blackberry Box on the Trees and Shrubs field data sheets that indicates the.presence
of Rubus Spp. in each shrub plot.
2. Count the number of plots that contain species of Rubus.
3 Use the following table to assign a Variable Score.
Variable scaling.
Var. Score
Description
1
Blackberry (Rubus spp ) occur in 1 of the plots sampled in the Assessment Area
0 5
Blackberry (Rubus spp ) occur in 2 of the plots sampled in the Assessment Area
0 1
Blackberry (Rubus spp ) occur in all of the plots sampled in the Assessment Area
00
Assessment Area had been mapped as wetland on NW1/MD/DE but site converted to land-
use which makes restoration success highly unlikely (i.e. urban, suburban, industrial land-
uses)
Riverine Variable Scoring 11/00
-------
A
-------
Appendix A
Geographic Information Sciences
Supporting Documentation for ANPRM Project
The January 15, 20003 Advanced Notice for Proposed Rulemaking requests information on the scope of
"Waters of the United States" in response to the Supreme Court's decision in the Solid Waste Agency of
Northern Cook Count)' (SWANCC) v US Army Corps of Engineers. An analysis of aquatic resource
impacts was performed using geographic information system (GIS) technology to estimate the extent of
wetlands and streams that could be affected by changes in the scope of waters subject to jurisdiction
under the Clean Water Act. Key results from our analyses can be found in the "GIS Highlights" section
of this report.
The data used for the wetland analyses relied on the National Wetland Inventory (NWI), developed and
maintained by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. An analysis of total stream miles affected by
potential changes in Clean'Water Act jurisdiction was performed by State, using the National
Hydrography Data Set (NHD), broken out by stream order. Both data sets are discussed below. They
represent the best available data that could be acquired and applied for a regional GIS analysis of "extent
of resource impacts."
This appendix includes background information on the methods, GIS data sources, compilation scales,
data descriptions, limitations, and caveats, used in our report. Table D1 provides estimates of Region 3
intermittent and perennial stream miles by state. Also included is a separate report by Region 3 staff on
"Using GIS Hydrologic Modeling Tools and Field Survey Data to Estimate the Lengths of Intermittent
and Perennial Headwater Streams in the Mountaintop Mining Region of Southern West Virginia."
A. GIS Shape Files/Coverages/Themes used;
1. National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)
2. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)
3. Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) Drinking Water Intakes
4. State Boundaries
B. Compilation Scales:
The concept of scale in GIS generally refers to how many measured units on a map equal how
many of those same units on the ground. The most common written form of scale appears as
what's called a "representative fraction," or "RF." An example of an RF is 1:24,000 This is read
as ''one unit on the map = 24,000 units on the ground." The units can be anything (inches, feet,
meters, miles, etc.) but must be the same.
The United States Geological Survey (USGS) has several standard map scales it uses in the
majority of its products. These are 1:24,000, 1:100,000, 1:250,000 and 1:2,000,000. There are a
few others, but based on their experience, the USGS has concluded that these scales provide the
greatest flexibility, utility and level of detail for the vast majority of analyses and applications for
which their products are used.
M?ps and data sets can be broadly classified as "small scale" and "large scale." Small scale
maps generally show larger areas with lesser detail. The smaller the scale, the larger the "units on
the ground'' value in the RF. For example, a 1:2,000.000 scale map or data set is a much smaller
scale than one at a 1:250.000 scale. Conversely, larger scale maps show smaller areas bui at
-------
greater detail. The concept is more easily conveyed if one imagines an observer in a hot-air
balloon. While the balloon is resting on the ground, an observer in the gondola can see a small
area but in great detail. Features such as automobiles, individual trees, telephone poles, etc. are
clearly visible and discemable. As the balloon rises, more and more of the surrounding area -
becomes visible while smaller features begin to disappear. At extreme altitudes the observef
may be able to see several states or even entire continents at once, yet houses, smaller roads,
small streams, etc. are no longer visible. The same concept can be applied to maps. If one were
trying to locate and draw small streams, ponds and other wetlands, smaller scale maps would
miss many of the details.
The analyses in this project rely heavily on the National Hydrographic Dataset (NHD) at a scale
of 1:100,000 and the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) at a scale of 1:24,000. Caution must
be taken when drawing conclusions from analyses conducted on data sets compiled at different
scales. The GIS Team was very cognizant of this issue during preparation of maps and tables
used in this project.
C. Descriptions/disclaimers/caveats of datasets used:
1. National Hydrography Dataset ("NHD1
The version of the NHD used in this project is the circa 2000 issue. This version predates
completion of the attribute tables and final reformatting to the "Geodatabase" (Oracle/SDE)
environment, which is the version currently available. We selected this version because we
needed to access the only attribute available which would identify stream orders, a value critical
to the calculations and resulting analyses. That attribute, called the "Strahler Value" was
originally contained in the NHD predecessor, the Reach File 3, or "RF3," a product which dates
back to the early 1990's. As there were no attributes in common between RF3 and NHD that^
would provide a direct connection or "'table join" between the two files, an alternative methoG^-
was adopted. By using the spatial analysis tools available in the Arc View 3.2 software, the
Strahler values were transferred from the RF3 files to N.D. based on feature proximity.
The vast majority of the lifework within the 2000 N.D. is copied directly from RF3. RF3,
however, was inconsistent.in several factors depending upon the geographic area. In some cases
stream center lines in wide streams are missing or incomplete. In other cases center lines exist
but there are no shorelines. There are also no descriptive attributes to indicate the type of
waterbed. Also, because both RF3 and N.D. were compiled at a 1:100,000 scale, both
underestimate actual stream miles and generally exclude intermittent and ephemeral streams.
Despite these issues, the necessity to gain access to the stream order attribute outweighed the
other potential shortcomings. For this reason, the 2000 N.D. was determined to be the best
available Dataset at the time to perform the required analyses.
2. National Wetlands Inventory fNWT)
NWI data is provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and arrives as individual 1:24,000
blocks. Each block is of a different vintage and some adjacent quads can be of quite different
age. The quads are appended together and the neatlines (rectangular borders) removed. In some
instances wetlands on one quad do not appear on the adjacent one. This is usually a function of
the age differences. Manual editing of areas between adjacent quads is sometimes required ta
-2-
-------
address discrepancies. In most cases NWI maps have not been ground-truthed. Based on field
research and computer modeling, it has also been determined that NWI can underestimate actual
wetland acreage by as much as 50%.
3. Safe Drinking Water Information Svstem CSDW1S)
Safe Drinking Water data are extracted from the SDWIS on a regular basis. The data set used in
this analysis is a ''subset" of the larger file, that being just the surface drinking water intakes.
Besides the general uncertainties associated with intake locations provided by states, only one
other obvious discrepancy was identified. The lat/lon of an intake supposedly in Virginia was
showing up ouiside the regional boundary. This point was discarded from the analysis. No other
attempt at data quality was made.
One of the major issues with SDWIS is the mixing of intake-level and facility/system-level data
in the same attribute table. For example, one of the data items is "population served." This is a
facility/system-level attribute. However, this number is duplicated for all intakes that are part of
that facility/system. If a facility/system serves one million people and has five intakes, that same
one million would appear in the data table 5 times, making it seem like there were really five
million people served. Once this problem was identified, only one record per facility/system was
selected for those calculations were "population served" was used.
Another issue was the same lat/lon used for multiple intakes. This problem was corrected by
selecting only unique lat/lons in maps and tables were distances to streams were analyzed.
4. State Boundaries
The state boundaries used in this project are from the USGS. These have been in use since they
were first created back in the 1980's (digital form). The GIS Team is not in a position to dispute
any of the linework.
-3-
-------
D. Additional Data on Perennial and Intermittent Streams:
Table D1: Stream Mile Totals by State and Feature Codes of STREAM/RIVERS:
National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)
Feature Code 46000 = STREAM/RIVER; No Attributes
Feature Code 46001 = STREAM/RIVER; Type: Intermittent; Positional Accuracy: Definite
Feature Code 46004 = STREAM/RIVER; Type: Perennial; Positional Accuracy: Definite
X
46000
46001
46004
mi.
%*
mi.
%* •
mi.
%*
TOTALS
Delaware
0.1
<0.1
316.2
12.3
2,250.3
87.7
2,566.7
DC
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
34.9
100.0
34.9
Maryland
3.0
<0.1
1,818.2
13.4
11,782.6
86.6
13,603.8
Pennsylvania
3.2
<0.1
15,993.7
26.8
43,720.9
73.2
59,717.7
Virginia
7.2
0.1
17,731.1
25.7
51,184.6
74.2
68,923.0
West
Virginia
4.0
0.1
10,955.9
31.3
24,015.5
68.6
34,975.4
TOTALS
17.4
<0.1
46,815.1
26.1
132,988.9
73.9
179,821.4
At a regional level, approximately 74 percent of the mapped streams in Region 3 are perennial, whil/
percent are intermittent. There is some variability from state to state, as shown in the table. It shoii
be noted that many intermittent and ephemeral streams are not detected at the 1:100,000 mapping scale.
As a result, the intermittent stream estimate of 26 percent is probably conservative.
Values in this table do not include linear features labeled as "Artificial Paths," "Connector,"
"Canal/Ditches" or "Pipelines." These features were ignored in an attempt to quantify only "natural
surface conditions." The discarded features represent approximately 13% of the total linear features.
"Artificial Paths" are typically center lines of wide rivers and bays where shore line features exist. As
their name implies, they are not "natural" and serve mainly as network connections for computer routing
algorithms or for approximate visual representation of the submerged channel. In Region 3, "Artificial
Paths" represent approximately 25,000 miles or roughly 12% of the total linear features, mostly in the
coastal areas where wide rivers empty into larger bays and the Atlantic Ocean.
The GIS Team was unable to determine the definition of "Connectors" as they apply to this data set. In
Region 3, "Connectors" account for approximately 25 miles or less than .01% of the total linear features.
"Canal/Ditches" are generally manmade water-direction structures used to divert surface water away
from its natural flow path. In Region 3, "Canal/Ditches" account for approximately 1,600 miles or
0.77% or the total linear features.
"Pipelines" are manmade structures used primarily to carry water over or under other natural or
-4-
-------
manmade obstacles. Aqueducts are one example of a "pipeline." In Region 3, "pipelines" represent
approximately 97 miles or less than .04% of the total linear features.
Each individual state NHD shape file is loaded into Arcview 3.2, then queried three times, once for each
of the Feature Codes. The METERS field is then summed, then converted from meters to miles by
dividing the total by 0.000621371.
* Percentages are calculated using state totals
-5-
-------
Using GIS Hydrologic Modeling Tools and Field Survey Data to
Estimate the Lengths of Intermittent and
Perennial Headwater Streams in the Mountaintop Mining Region
of Southern West Virginia.
February 2003
Hope Childers
Veridian Corporation IT Services Division at USEPA Wheeling
1060 Chapline Street, Wheeling, WV 26003; (304) 234-0245
and
Margaret Passmore
USEPA
1060 Chapline Street, Wheeling, WV 26003; 304-234-0245
Introduction:
Although field mapping is acknowledged as the most accurate way to determine the extent and
hydrologic character of stream channel networks, it is often impractical, especially for large watersheds
or regions. The readily available 1:100,000 scale regional and national spatial stream networks
underestimate total stream lengths and are not attributed according to intermittent or perennial character.
Therefore, in order to accurately estimate the length and proportions of intermittent or perennial stream
channels, additional modeling efforts are required.
The increasing availability of digital elevation data (USGS 2003a), increasing computation power
available in personal computers, and the underestimates of stream networks relying on blue-line
symbols on USGS 1:100,000 or 1.24,000 topographic maps (Paybins 2003 and Stout et al. 2002) have
contributed to an increased use of analysis based on digital elevation models in hydrology. The
objective of this case study is to provide an example of how a combination of field data and digital
elevation data can be used to estimate the extent of intermittent and perennial water resources in a
southern region of West Virginia.
Study area:
The study area (Figure 1) encompasses 11,726 km2 (2,897,521 acres) within the Appalachian Coalfield
Region in a portion of West Virginia. It is the same area of West Virginia used in the Landscape Scale
Cumulative Impact Study completed for the Interagency Mountaintop Mining Environmental Impact
Statement (USEPA 2002). The dominant land cover is forest and nearly all of the study area is within
the Cumberland Mountains Level IV Ecoregion (Woods et al. 1996). Although there is some spatial
variability, areas within the same ecoregion generally have similar climate patterns, geology, soils, and
vegetation.
Stream Definitions:
The USGS' determined point of intermittent and perennial flow origin and drainage characteristics fo
-6-
-------
headwater streams in the same region of West Virginia (Paybins 2003). We used these points to set
flow accumulation thresholds for the creation of two National Elevation Data (NED)-defived stream
networks. In one of the NED-derived stream networks, the streams in the model originate at the median
point of intermittent flow origin (14.5 acre), while the streams in the second network originate at the
.median point of perennial flow origin (40.8 acres). USGS defined the intermittent point, the boundary
between ephemeral and intermittent flow, as the point where base flow begins in the late winter or early-
spring. The boundary between intermittent and perennial flow, the perennial point, was defined by the
lowest water table elevation, where base flow begins in the late summer and early August. This analysis
provides a model of the extent of intermittent and perennial streams in the study area, but does not
attempt to model the extent of ephemeral streams.
Field observations from a previous and independent USEPA field survey utilizing both a flow and
biological definition (Green and Passmore 1999) were used to evaluate the results from the NED-
derived streams. The USEPA Field survey defined two types of perennial streams. Type 1 perennial
streams were those with continuous surface flow during a September 1998 field visit. Type 2 perennial
streams had intermittent surface flow at the time the site was visited, but supported aquatic life whose
life history requires residence in flowing waters for at least six months.
GIS Methods:
The National Elevation Dataset (NED), projected as NAD83 UTM Zone 17, was clipped to the study
area. Arc View Spatial Analyst and Hydrologic Modeling vl. 1 extensions were used to fill the sinks in
the clipped NED grid. "Filling the sinks" removes depressions in the elevation grid by increasing the
elevations within the depressions to their lowest outflow point. Arclnfo Workstation Grid module was
used to create a flow direction grid from the filled elevation grid. In this step, Arclnfo assigns the flow
from each grid cell to one of its eight neighbors in the direction with the steepest downward slope. The
flow direction grid was then used to create a flow accumulation grid.
In the flow accumulation grid, each pixel has a value equal to the number of pixels that flow into it. In
other words, pixels near the ridge-tops have smaller values than the pixels in the valleys. The Arclnfo
Grid CON function was used to threshold the accumulation according to the minimum contributing
drainage areas chosen for the analysis. In this case, the area of contributing cells required to designate
the stream origin from the flow accumulation model, was 14.5 aces (65 pixels) for the intermittent
stream network and 40.8 acres (183 pixels) for the perennial stream network. This produced a raster for
each threshold scenario where the modeled stream pixels have a value of "1" and the other pixels that
are not part of the stream network have a value of "NODATA". The STREAMLINE function with a
weed tolerance of 20 was then used on the thresholded stream network grids to create vector coverages
from which the cumulative stream lengths could be calculated (Table 1). In addition, the
STREAMORDER function, using the Strahler method, was performed on the 40.8 perennial threshold
grid so that the first-order lengths in the perennial stream model could be selected and their cumulative
lengths calculated (Table 2). The ArcView Projector! Extension was used to create shapefiles in
decimal degrees from the vector coverages projected as UTM NAD83 Zone 17 in order to display the
NED generated stream networks along with other spatial data such as the USGs Digital Raster Graphics
(DRGs), the National Hydrology Dataset (NHD), and field data collected by USEPA freshwater
biologists (Figure 2).
-7-
-------
Results:
Table 1. Total Stream Lengths within the Study Area for Each Steam Network.
Stream Network
Total Stream Length
km
miles
Stream Origin at Intermittent Threshold of 14.5 acres*
25900
16094
Stream Origin at Perennial Threshold of 40.8 acres
17120
10638
National Hydrology Dataset (NHD)
10043
6240
Table 2. Cumulative Lengths within the Study Area Potentially at Risk if Headwater
Streams were Considered Non-jurjsdictional.
Stream Segment Type
km
miles
Segment Length/Total *
Intermittent Streams
8780
5456
0.3390
1st Order Perennial
8126
5049
0.3137
Intermittent and 151 Order Perennial
16906
10505
0.6527
* total stream length of the intermittent stream network in Table 1 is the denominator used to
calculate the
proportions of the total in Table 2.
Table 1. provides the total length of all of the stream segments within the study area for three differem-
stream models. The first two models listed, where the stream origin is at the intermittent and perennial
thresholds of 14.5 and 40.8 acres, are the results for the two networks generated for this case study
using the NED and GIS hydrologic modeling tools. The National Hydrology Dataset (NHD) is based
upon the content of USGS Digital Line Graph (DLG) hydrography data integrated with reach-related
information from the EPA Reach File Version 3 (RF3). The NHD incorporated DLG and RF3 rather
than replace them. The NHD is initially based on 1:100,000-scale data, but it has been designed so that
it can incorporate higher resolution data (USGS 2003b). As shown in Table 1 and Figure 2, the detail of
the NED-derived stream network greatly exceeds that of the NHD. The NED-derived perennial
network's total stream length is 70% longer than the NHD and the NED-derived intermittent network's
total stream length is 158% longer than the NHD. The detail of the NED-derived streams not only
exceeds that of the NHD, but also that of the USGS 1:24,000 topographic maps. Figure 2 is a graphic
example of the NED-derived stream networks displayed along with the NHD and a USGS Digital Raster
Graphic (DRG) of a topographic quad.
In Table 2, the cumulative length of the intermittent stream segments, 8780 km (5456 miles), is the total
of the stream lengths in the study area from the intermittent origin at the 14.5 acre threshold to the
perennial origin at the 40.8 acre threshold. The cumulative length of the 1st order perennial stream
segments, 8126 km (5049 miles) is the total length of all of the first order segments in the NED-derived,
40.8 acre threshold, stream network. If the waters upstream of the median intermittent-perennial point
were nonjurisdictional under the Clean Water Act then this hydrologic model estimates that roughly (
one-third of the stream resources in the study area would be potentially at risk. If first order perennial
-8-
-------
streams and the intermittent reaches upstream were considered non-jurisdictional then this model
estimates that nearly two-thirds of the water resources would be potentially at risk.
Comparison with the USEPA September 1998 Field Survey :
The NED generated stream networks were then compared to the observations in a USEPA field survey
report for four tributaries of Spruce Fork in Logan County West Virginia. The four tributaries are White
Oak Branch, Oldhouse Branch, Pigeonroost Branch, and Seng Camp Creek. The field work was done to
determine the length of perennial streams that would be adversely affected by the proposed valley fills
of a mountaintop coal mining permit. Green and Passmore (1999) used two definitions to determine
perennial streams. Type 1 perennial streams were those with continuous surface flow during a
September 1998 field visit. Type 2 perennial streams had intermittent surface flow at the time the site
was visited, but supported aquatic life whose life history requires residence in flowing waters for at least
six months. The Type 2 definition is consistent with West Virginia's definition of intermittent and
perennial streams in their water quality standards. Comparing the field designations to the NED
generated stream network, 11 of the 12 sites were designated as perennial by both methods. One site
was determined to be a perennial Type 1 stream in the field in September 1998 (had continuous surface
flow at low flow) but was designated as intermittent by the NED generated stream network. The
independent field data generally support the NED generated stream network (92% agreement).
Discussion:
Catchment area, precipitation, and geology are typically the most important characteristics when
estimating streamflow. Stream networks generated from an elevation model using a constant threshold
area method have found widespread application (Garbrecht and Martz 2000) and can provide a useful
surrogate to field mapping. However, there are some limitations. First of all, the NED's horizontal
and vertical resolution are adequate to represent elevation differences in regions with mountainous
terrain, but may not lend itself well to an accurate representation of drainage slopes, channels, and
ridges in a low-relief landscape. Secondly, when the resolution of the delineated network is controlled
by a support area threshold, the threshold may impose an arbitrary and spatially constant drainage
density (Tarboton and Ames 2001). Topographic texture and drainage density may vary spatially. For
the mountaintop coal mining region in southern West Virginia, a change in drainage area is not readily
apparent in traditional stream coverages such as the NHD, but the USGS field investigation suggests
that the topographic texture of the northeast portion of the study area may vary slightly from the
southwest portion. Methods have been introduced in the literature that respect this variability
(Tarboton and Ames 2001, Garbrecht and Martz 2000).
Although there are some methodological issues related to the automated extraction of drainage features,
stream networks derived from the elevation models and thresholds based on field data can provide a
detailed representation of headwater stream networks. Regardless of the intricate hydrologic modeling
details, the take-home message is still the same. Intermittent and first-order perennial streams are a
large percentage of the water resources in the mountaintop coal mining region of southern West
Virginia.
-9-
-------
Acknowledgments:
The authors thank Jim Green of USEPA for contributing field survey results and for reviewing the case
study analysis; [Catherine Paybins and USGS colleagues for sharing the results of their field work: a""'
Tom Mastrorocco of OSM for discussions-regarding the methodology and for sharing spatial data.
References:
Green. J. and M. Passmore. 1999. An Estimate of Perennial Stream Miles in the Area of
the 1997 Proposed Hobet Mining Spruce No. 1 Mine. USEPA Field Survey Report.
USEPA. Wheeling, WV.
Paybins, K. S. 2003. Flow Origin, Drainage Area, and Hydrologic Characteristics for
Headwater Streams in the Mountaintop Coal-Mining Region of Southern West
Virginia, 2000-01. Water-Resources Investigations Report 02-4300.
Stout, Wallace and Kirchner?? 2002 ?. A Survey of Eight Major Aquatic Insect Orders
Associated with Small Headwater Streams Subject to Valley Fills from Mountaintop
Mining, (not sure how to cite yet)
Tarboton, D. G. and D. P. Ames. 2001. "Advances in the mapping of flow networks from
digital elevation data" paper submitted for presentation at the World Water and
Environmental Resources Congress. May 20-24, 2001. Orlando, Florida.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2002. Draft Landscape Scale Cumulative Impact
Study for the Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fill Environmental Impact Statement.
USGS. 2003a. National Elevation Dataset. http://gisdata.usgs.net/NED/
UGSG. 2003b. National Hydrology Dataset. http://nhd.usgs.gov/
Woods, A.J., J.M. Omernik, D.D. Brown, and C.W. Kiilsgaard. 1996.. Level III and IV
Ecoregions of Pennsylvania and the Blue Ridge Mountains, the Ridge and Valley, and
the Central Appalachians of Virginia, West Virginia, and Maryland: Corvallis,
Oregon, United States Environmental Protection Agency, National Health and
Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, EPA
-10-
-------
-------
Appendix B
Detailed Aerial Photography Interpretation and GIS
Analysis of Selected Field Sites in EPA Region 3
Peter Stokely
Environmental Protection Agency
Region 3
Philadelphia, PA
April 2003
-------
Table of Contents
Page
Background 3
Purpose 4
The Study Areas 4
Conclusions 5
Discussion 6
Study Area Impacts 6
The Three Interpretations 7
Potential Impacts to First and Second Order Streams 8
Regional Data Sets Compared to Aerial Photography Data Sets 8
Methods 11
Data Used 14
Table of Results 16
List of Figures:
Figure 1. French Creek State Park Broad Interpretation 100K Data
Figure 2. French Creek State Park Broad Interpretation API Data
Figure 3. Millington MD Broad Interpretation 100K Data
Figure 4. Millington MD Broad Interpretation API Data
Figure 5. Church View VA Narrow Interpretation API Data
Figure 6. Church View VA Broad Interpretation API Data
Figure 7. French Creek State Park Streams Potentially Impacted
-------
Background:
In response to Congressional direction, The Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) Office of Water (OW) and the Army Corps of Engineers
(COE) have agreed to initiate rulemaking to "clarify" the scope of federal
Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction following the Supreme Court's
decision in the Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County
(SWANCC) v US Army Corps of Engineers. This decision found that the
CWA does not protect certain "isolated" wetlands under certain
conditions. Isolated wetlands have often been interpreted to be those
wetlands with no surface water hydrological connection to local streams (a
basin with no outlet).
In order to clarify and implement the SWANCC decision across CWA
programs, an Advanced Notice for Proposed Rule Making (ANPRM) was
issued on January 15, 2003. The ANPRM outlined the background of the
Supreme Court Decision and solicited public comment on the definition of
isolated wetlands and issues associated with the scope of waters that are
the subject to the CWA in light of the SWANCC decision. The ANPRM
posed several questions relating to the definition of isolated wetlands and
the potential impacts of the decision.
EPA Region III provided a review and comment on the ANPRM. This
review included interpretation of the SWANCC decision and its
implications for all of the CWA programs, including the NPDES permit
program. (§ 402), the water quality standards and continuing planning
process (§ 303), the TMDL program (§ 303 (d)), the water quality
certification provision (§ 401), the oil spill liability provision (§311), and
others.
The language in the SWANCC decision and the ANPRM left room for
interpretation regarding the eventual final rule that would define isolated
wetlands and therefore the effect on the geographic scope of jurisdiction of
the CWA if isolated wetlands are no longer regulated under the CWA.
EPA Region III, therefore, provided comment on three interpretations of
the ANPRM, a narrow interpretation, an intermediate interpretation and a
broad interpretation. These interpretations, defined below, were
developed so that they could be used to guide a Geographic System
Analysis (GIS) analysis of the potential impacts of the proposed
rulemaking using region wide spatial data sets.
-3-
-------
The three interpretations of the ANPRM definition of an isolated wetland:
1) Narrow interpretation: all wetlands located over 100 feet
from a stream of any order.
2) Intermediate interpretation: all wetlands located within 100
feet of a first order stream plus the wetlands selected in 1 (narrow
interpretation). The merged data set represents all wetlands in first
order stream watersheds and those over 100 feet from a stream of
any order.
3) Broad interpretation: all wetlands located within 100 feet of
first and second order streams plus the wetlands selected in 1
(narrow interpretation). The merged data set represents all
wetlands in first and second order stream watersheds and those
over 100 feet from a stream of any order.
GIS analysis was used by Region III (and others) to evaluate the potential
spatial impact of the proposed rulemaking. Two region wide spatial data
sets were used in the Region III analysis, National Hydrography Data
(NHD) and National Wetland Inventory (NWI) data. NHD is digital
stream reach data (digital stream and river maps) available across the
nation. The scale of the data set is 1:100,000 and was used as the region
wide stream data. Digital NWI maps were used as the region wide
wetland data. The scale of the NWI digital maps is 1:24,000. These two
data sets represent the aquatic resources potentially impacted by the
proposed rulemaking.
Purpose:
The analysis presented in this report is intended to complement the Region
III GIS Team study by developing and analyzing site-specific data at four
relatively small study areas in Region III. The analysis utilized both GIS
and aerial photography interpretation (API).
The purpose of this analysis is two fold:
1) To compare the data used by the Region III GIS Team in its region
wide analysis with wetlands and streams interpreted from aerial
photography.
2) To evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed rulemaking on the
-4-
-------
four study areas in Region III.
2) To evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed rulemaking on the
four study areas in Region III using both region wide data sets (NWI and
NHD) used by the Region GIS Team and data interpretable from aerial
photography.
Numerous studies have shown that both the stream and wetlands mapping
available on a regional or national basis underestimate the extent of both
stream and wetland resources. Aerial photography interpretation (API)
was used as a tool in this analysis to more accurately determine the
potential effects of the proposed rulemaking.
The methodology used in this analysis is located in the methods section of
this report.
The Study Areas:
Four study areas were established around wetland field sites investigated
by Region III. Each study area was based on the stereo viewing area of the
acquired aerial photography. The average size of the study areas is 30
square miles (19,200 acres), the total area analyzed was 123 square miles
(78,720 acres). The study areas are: French Creek State Park and vicinity
in Chester County, PA, the middle reaches of White Clay Creek in New
Castle County, DE, an area around Millington, MD and an area around
Church View, VA. Two of the study areas are in the eastern piedmont
physiographic province and two are on the eastern coastal plain
physiographic province.
The French Creek State Park study area is a hilly headwater setting in the
Pennsylvania piedmont, the White Clay Creek Study area includes a fourth
order stream in the Delaware piedmont. The Millington, MD study area is
a headwater coastal plain setting that includes many hydrologically
isolated wetlands known as Delmarva Bays. The Church View study area
is centered around a section of a fourth order coastal plain stream.
Conclusions:
By using aerial photography interpretation, the potential impact of
changes in jurisdiction was greater than shown by the regional GIS
analysis. The regional analysis indicated that between 12% and 36% of
wetlands could be impacted by changes in jurisdiction. However, when
-5-
-------
the region wide data was applied to the field sites, between 3.478 - 5.704
acres (51% - 84%) of total NWT wetlands would be affected depending on
the interpretation of the ANPRM. Total NWI wetlands in the four study
areas is 6,744 acres. The API data set indicated that between 2,579-6,074
acres (34% - 80%) of API wetlands would be affected depending on the
interpretation of the ANPRM. Total API wetlands in the four study areas
is 7.638 acres.
The potential impact of the proposed rulemaking on streams is also
significant. Between 70%- 77% of all stream resources in the study areas
were potentially impacted under the intermediate interpretation and up to
88%-92% of all stream resources were potentially impacted by the broad
interpretation. Up to 100% of stream resources could be impacted in
small, localized watersheds.
The potential impact of the intermediate and broad interpretations of
the ANPRM on wetlands and all interpretations on streams will likely
be greater in the field than was shown by this study. Because both the
regional data set and the API data set underestimate stream and wetland
resources, additional acres of wetlands and miles of streams that actually
exist in the field were not covered by this study.
In this study, no study area showed less than a 33% potential wetland
impact with the intermediate interpretation and up to 100% potential
impact was seen with the broad interpretation.
The impact was greater in the study areas that were located in headwater settings. Up
to 100%) potential impact to wetlands can be expected in small first and second order
watersheds using the intermediate and broad interpretations.
The API data set reduced the wetland impacts under the narrow interpretation as
compared to the regional data set (2579 acres compared to 3478 acres). This suggests
the higher resolution of the stream data, the lower the potential impact would be to wetlands
under the narrow interpretation.
The higher the resolution of the wetlands data, the greater will be the potential impact
of the proposed rulemaking. The total acreage of wetlands potentially impacted by the
intermediate and broad interpretations is greater using the API data set as compared to the
region wide data set (5219- 6074 acres compared to 5134-5705 acres). The percentage of
wetlands potentially impacted by intermediate and broad interpretations the ANPRM using
the API data set was less than that of the regional data set (34%-80% compared to 51%-
84%). However, the greater potential overall acreage impact to wetlands usi™ the API data
-6-
-------
set indicates the higher the resolution of the wetlands data, the greater will be the potential
impact of changes in jurisdiction.
The higher the resolution of the stream data, the greater the potential impacts to stream
miles under the intermediate and broad interpretations. The API data set, with its large
number of first and second order streams, increased the potential impact of the proposed
rulemaking on stream resources relative to the regional data set.
The regional data set underestimated stream and wetland resources as compared to the
API data set.
Discussion:
Using the spatial analysis tools of the Arc View GIS, the three interpretations of the ANPRM
were applied to both the regional stream and wetland data sets and to the results of stream and
wetland mapping derived from the interpretation of aerial photography at the four study areas
identified above. This was done to compare the results of the aerial photography interpretation to
the region wide data sets and to determine the geographic extent of the three interpretations on
the four study areas using both data sets.
Selected maps that graphically depict some of the results of this analysis are attached to this
report. Not every conclusion discussed in this report is reflected in a graphic figure. However, all
of the data that supports the conclusions can be found in the results table at the end of the report.
Study Area Impacts:
In this study, the potential impact of the proposed rulemaking was greater than shown by the
region wide GIS analysis. This is due to the small size of the study areas, which results in study
area specific variations in the spatial distribution of wetlands and streams.
For example, the French Creek Study area was 38 square miles and contained a predominance of
first and second order streams. This analysis of the study area showed that 763 acres of NWI
wetlands (98% of total NWI) using the regional data set and 980 acres of API wetlands (89% of
total API wetlands) using the API data set would potentially be impacted as the result of the
broad interpretation of the ANPRM. (See Figures 1 and 2) The regional analysis indicated that
38.7% of wetlands in Pennsylvania would be potentially impacted by the broad interpretation of
the ANPRM.
A more dramatic potential impact of the proposed rulemaking was found at the 30 square mile
Millington, MD study area. (Figures 3 and 4) This is the area of the regionally rare Delmarva
Bay wetlands. Due to the relative lack of streams in this area, the broad interpretation resulted in
-7-
-------
3933 acres of impact to NWI wetlands (100% of total NWI) and 3793 acres of impact to API
wetlands (94% of total API wetlands). The region wide GIS analysis indicated that 29.6% of
wetlands in Maryland would be potentially impacted by the broad interpretation of the ANPRM.
In the Millington study area, the smallest potential impact of the proposed rulemaking was 2073
acres of API wetlands (51%). The region wide GIS analysis indicated that under the narrow
interpretation 12% of Maryland's wetlands would be potentially impacted by the proposed
rulemaking?
Contrasting to the above example, the 30 square mile, Church View, VA study area showed less
potential impact; 124 -1110 acres (6%-50% of total) depending on the data set and interpretation
of the ANPRM. (See Figures 5 and 6) This is due to the large wetland area associated with
Dragon Run, a fourth order stream. The wetlands associated with Dragon Run represented a
significant proportion of the wetlands in the study area. These wetlands were not included in the
analysis of the potential impact of the proposed rulemaking, lowering the overall impact. In this
study area the impact was closer to the region wide GIS analysis, which indicated that between
9.5% and 36.6% of wetlands in Virginia would potentially be impacted by the proposed
rulemaking depending on the interpretation.
Total NWI wetlands in the four study areas is 6771 acres; of this between 3478 and 5705 could
potentially be affected by the proposed rulemaking, depending on the interpretation.
The total API wetlands in the four study areas is 7638 acres; of this between 2579 and 6074 acres
could be affected by the proposed rulemaking, depending on the interpretation.
The three interpretations:
Figures 8-10 show the impact of the three interpretations on the Millington, MD study area.
Narrow Interpretation:
The average potential impact on wetlands resources of the narrow interpretation of the ANPRM
in the four study areas is between 2579 acres (34% API data set) and 3478 acres (51% regional
data set). The lowest potential study area impact was 124 acres (6% API data set) of all wetlands
in the Church View study area. The highest potential impact of the proposed rulemaking was
3069 acres (78% regional data set) in the Millington, MD study area. The API data lowered the
overall impact of the narrow interpretation.
Intermediate Interpretation:
The potential impacts of the proposed rulemaking jumped significantly with the intermediate
interpretation (47% increase over the narrow interpretation with the regional data set and a 102%
increase with the API data set). This is the result of numerous first order streams in both data
sets. First order streams are the data layer used to select wetland resources potentially impacted
by the proposed rulemaking . The average potential impact on wetland resources of the
-8-
-------
intermediate interpretation of the ANPRM is between 5219 acres (68 % API data set) and 5134
acres (76% regional data set). The lowest potential study area impact was 731 acres (33% aerial
photography data set) of all wetlands in the Church View study area, the highest potential impact
of the proposed rulemaking was 3665 acres (93% regional data set) in the Millington, MD study
area.
Broad Interpretation:
The potential impacts of the proposed rulemaking increased less significantly with the broad
interpretation (11% increase over the intermediate interpretation with the regional data set and a
16% increase with the API data set). This is due to the relatively fewer second order streams in
both data sets as compared to the number of first order streams. The average potential impact on
wetland resources of the broad interpretation of the ANPRM is between 6074 acres (80% aerial
photography data set) and 5705 acres (85% regional data set). The lowest potential study area
impact was 1110 acres (50% aerial photography data set) of all wetlands in the Church View
study area, the highest potential impact of the proposed rulemaking was 3933 acres (100%
regional data set) in the Millington, MD study area.
Potential Impacts to first and second order streams:
If the intermediate and broad interpretations of the ANPRM include first and second order
streams to be at risk from loss of jurisdiction under the CWA, the potential impacts are
significant. According to the region wide data applied to the field sites, 133.4 miles of streams
are located in the four study areas. Of that, 92.3 miles (69%) are first order streams and 24.6
(18%) miles are second order streams. A total of 117.9 miles of first and second order streams
(88% of total) are potentially impacted by the proposed rulemaking using the regional data set.
Looking at the API data set, a total of 343.2 miles of streams were mapped in the four study
areas. Of this 265.5 miles (77%) are first order streams and 49.3 miles (14%) are second order
streams. A total of 314.8 miles of first and second order streams (92% of total) are potentially
impacted by the proposed rulemaking using the API data set.
Figure 7 illustrates the potential impact to first and second order streams in the vicinity of French
Creek State Park.
Regional Data Sets Compared to Aerial Photography Data Sets:
A comparison of the data sets used in the region wide analysis to that derived from API showed
that the NHD stream maps underestimated the stream network in the study areas from 118% to
286%. The average underestimation was 157% which indicates that on average, over two and
one half times more stream length is visible on aerial photography as compared to the 1:100,000
scale NHD data. The NWI data underestimated (as compared to API) the acreage of wetlands in
the study areas from 3% to 41%. The average was a 13% underestimation of the area of wetlands
-9-
-------
as compared to that interpretable from aerial photography.
Notwithstanding the differences outlined above, the trends in the potential impact of the
proposed rulemaking on wetland resources using the two data sets were similar. Averaging the
four study areas, the region wide data indicated that between 51% and 84% (51% narrow, 76%
intermediate, 84% broad) of wetlands could be affected depending on the interpretation of the
ANPRM. The API data set indicated that on average between 34% and 80% (34% narrow, 68%
intermediate, 80% broad) of wetlands could be affected depending on the interpretation of the
ANPRM.
The narrow interpretation resulted in the least amount of impact and the broad interpretation
resulted in the greatest impact in both data sets.
The range of data at all four sites was also similar between the two data sets, 8% to 100%
potential impact using the regional data set and 6% to 94% with the API data set.
The narrow interpretation showed the greatest difference in results between the two data sets
with 51% of all wetlands potentially impacted using the regional data set and only 34% using the
API data set. The smaller potential of impact when using the API data set is a result of the larger
number of streams in the API data set as compared to the regional data set. This resulted in less
wetland acreage located greater than 100 feet from a stream. Since the narrow interpretation
considers the wetlands located greater than 100 feet from any stream to be potentially impacted
by the proposed rulemaking, the overall impact of the narrow interpretation was less when using
the API data sets.
Two observations are relevant to the differences between the data sets for the intermediate and
broad interpretations. First, a narrowing of the percentage differences between the two data sets
was observed for these interpretations relative to the narrow interpretation. This is explained by
the fact that the study area watershed boundaries are the same for each data set and that both the
intermediate and broad interpretations select all the wetlands in the first and second order
watersheds regardless of the number of first or second order streams or wetlands in the data set.
This tended to narrow the percentage differences between the data sets. However, as reported in
the conclusions the acreage of potential impact of the intermediate and broad interpretations was
greater for the API data set than the regional data set.
Secondly, the difference in the percentage of potential impact that does exist between the two
data sets is due to differences in stream order in the data sets. The intermediate and broad
interpretations did show a small reduction of potential impact on a percentage basis using the
API data set as compared to the regional data set. With the intermediate interpretation, 76% of
wetlands were potentially impacted using the regional data set compared to 68% for the API data
set. The difference in the percentage of potential impact in the API data set is the result of some
of the first order streams in the regional data set being classified as second order streams in the
-10-
-------
API data set. The intermediate interpretation selec.ts only wetlands associated with first order
streams as a potential impact, not those associated with second order streams, so the
reclassification of some first order streams to second order streams resulted in fewer wetlands
being considered a potential impact of the intermediate interpretation using the API data set.
With the broad interpretation, 84% of wetlands were potentially impacted using the regional data
set as compared 80% using the API data set. The broad interpretation selects wetlands associated
with first and second order streams as a potential impact, not those associated with third order
streams, so the reclassification of some second order streams to third order streams resulted in
fewer wetlands being considered a potential impact of the intermediate interpretation using the
API data" set.
As described above, the difference in the potential impact of the proposed rulemaking that is
apparent between the data sets under the intermediate and broad interpretations is the result of a
larger stream orders in the API data set as compared to the region wide data sets. A discussion of
the stream ordering process can be found in the methods section
An example of the effect of stream ordering on the results of the GIS analysis can be found in the
Millington, MD study area. Due the presence of only first and second order streams in this study
area in the regional data set, the broad interpretation using the regional data set resulted in 100%'
of all wetlands potentially impacted by the proposed rulemaking. However due to the increased
resolution of the API data, a second order stream segment contained in the region wide data was
considered to be a third order stream in the API data set. The wetlands along this third order
stream were not selected as a potential impact of the proposed rulemaking, thus the overall
impact was slightly less with the API data set than the region wide data set. The aerial
photography data set resulted in 94% of all wetlands potentially impacted by the proposed
rulemaking. The relatively small percentage difference is the result of the stream ordering
process.
However, the potential impacts to wetlands of the proposed rulemaking are significant even
when using the higher resolution data interpreted from the aerial photography. Using the API
data set, the results of this GIS analysis showed the potential impacts of the proposed changes
was a 34%-80% reduction of wetlands under CWA jurisdiction, depending on the interpretation.
This amounted to between 2579 and 6074 acres of a total of 7638 acres of wetlands potentially
impacted by the proposed rulemaking. Moreover, although the percentage of the total wetlands
in the API data set was less that that of the regional data set, because of the greater overall
acreage of wetlands in the API data set, the acreage of wetland potentially impacted by the
intermediate and broad interpretations is actually greater using the API data set.
Disclaimer:
All of the results described above must be qualified considering the inherent issues associated
with wetland identification and stream mapping from small scale region wide data bases and the
-11-
-------
interpretation of aerial photography (time of year, scale, film type). This study and other studies
have shown that the region wide data underestimate stream and wetland resources. Although API
can improve the region wide mapping, API cannot locate and map all wetland areas and stream
segments visible in the field. In addition, false positive identifications exist. The API was not
ground truthed over the vast majority of the study areas.
The results of the API can be considered a step closer to actual field conditions when compared
to the regional data, but without ground truth , it should not be considered as representing actual
field conditions. If the three interpretations of the ANPRM were applied on a case-by-case basis
in the field, the results would differ from this study
Methods
Photo Interpretation:
Stereo pairs of vertical aerial photography were obtained and examined through the use of a
standard light table and stereoscope. This process enables three-dimensional viewing of the
study area. Three-dimensional viewing enhances the identification of objects, drainage patterns,
topography, landform and landscape position.
The analysis of the aerial photography was performed under various magnifications allowing the
interpreter to zoom in on an area and examine the area from a distance. This technique facilitates
a thorough analysis of conditions and features appearing on the aerial photography.
Wetlands are a landscape feature that can be identified from aerial photography based on their
shape, size, texture, landscape position, vegetative cover, and evidence of water or high soil
moisture. The combination of landscape position (depressions, low gradient drainage areas, flood
plains, adjacency to lakes, estuaries or other water features), with characteristic vegetation cover
(emergent, shrub or forested vegetation) and indications of water (standing water, wetland
drainage patterns, persistent ground moisture conditions and dark photographic tones) form an
identifiable "signature" of a wetland area on aerial photography.
Drainage patterns are observable on aerial photography as curvilinear features that form
branching patterns on the landscape. Individual reaches are identified by characteristic curving or
straight lines, associated vegetation patterns, photographic tones, landscape position and in some
cases visible water. Drainage pattern mapping is aided with stereoscopic viewing.
The aerial photography was interpreted for two main purposes:
To map streams interpretable from aerial photography and to
compare these the streams mapped by the US Geological Survey
(USGS) 100,000 scale hydrology data. The USGS 100,000 scale
-------
(100K) stream data was a major input in the regional GIS analysis
of the effects of the proposed rulemaking.
Additional drainage paths visible on the aerial photography were
added to the USGS 1:24,000 stream maps (the 1:24,000 scale data
was chosen because it more closely resembled the drainage
patterns observable on the aerial photography as compared to the
1:100,000 scale stream data). Other edits to the 1:24,000 stream
maps (better fit to visible streams) were made and saved as photo
interpreted drainage layer.
The drainage interpreted from the aerial photography does not
include every possible ephemeral channel visible. Instead an
attempt was made to map only distinct drainage paths with
watershed areas greater that 15-20 acres.
2] To create a map of wetlands interpretable from aerial
photography and to compare these to that of the National Wetland
Inventory (NW1). NWI is available region wide and was used a
major input in the regional wide analysis of the effects of the
proposed rulemaking.
From the interpretation of the aerial photography additional
wetland areas were added to NWI where visible, and other edits to
NWI wetland shape and size were made and saved as the photo
interpreted wetlands layer.
The wetlands interpreted from the aerial photography are potential
wetlands. They have not been field verified except at the Region 3
field sites. The wetlands interpreted from aerial photography do
not represent a complete inventory. It is likely that numerous
small seeps that form the headwaters of many drainages, small toe
of slope wetlands, and other small wetlands scattered across the
study areas were missed. In addition, false positives may exist.
The wetland data should be qualified considering the above and the
inherent issues associated with wetland identification from the
interpretation of aerial photography (time of year, scale, film type).
GIS Analysis:
ArcView GIS software spatial analysis tools were used to perform the
same GIS analysis as was done on the region wide data sets. This GIS
-13-
-------
effort included both the wetland and stream data derived from the regional
data sets and the data derived from aerial photography interpretation. The
GIS analysis evaluation has several purposes. First, to compare the region
wide data with that of a more focused site-specific analysis. This was done
to compare the regional data on wetland acreage and stream length with
that obtained from aerial photography interpretation. Second, using
regional data sets and the same protocols. GIS analyses were run on the
four small study areas to provide a site specific base line to compare the
results of the aerial photography interpretation. Then, the more detailed
results from the aerial photography interpretation (more detailed drainage
pattern and wetland mapping) were used as inputs for the same GIS
analysis to get a more realistic, site specific evaluation of the potential
effects of the proposed rulemaking.
The following analysis was run on both the regional data sets (NWI and
NHD 100K Data) and photo interpreted wetlands and streams.
1) Narrow interpretation of the ANPRM: Activate the wetland
theme, use the select by theme tool to select all wetlands located
within 100 feet from the stream theme (stream order is not used as
a selection criteria). Open the wetland theme attribute table and
switch selection to select all the wetlands located over 100 feet
from a stream of any order. Save the selected wetlands as shape
file, narrow interpretation theme.
2) Intermediate interpretation: Activate the stream theme that is
attributed with stream order. Using the query function select the set
of streams that equal first order. Save as a shape file, first order
streams. Activate the wetland theme and use the select by theme
tool to select all wetlands located within 100 feet of the first order
stream theme. Save the selected wetlands as a shape file (temp
directory). Merge this theme with the narrow interpretation theme.
Save the merged data as the intermediate interpretation theme. The
merged data set represents all wetlands in first order stream
watersheds and those over 100 feet from a stream of any order.
3) Broad interpretation: Activate the stream theme that is
attributed with stream order. Using the query function select the set
of streams that equal first and second order. Save as a shape file,
first and second order streams. Activate the wetland theme and use
the select by theme tool to select all wetlands located within 100
feet of the first and second order stream theme. Save the selected
-14-
-------
wetlands as a shape file (temp directory). Merge this theme with
the narrow interpretation theme. Save the merged data as the broad
interpretation theme. The merged data set represents all wetlands in
first and second order stream watersheds and those over 100 feet
from a stream of any order.
The GIS analysis steps selected all wetlands meeting the above criteria. In
some instances with the intermediate and broad interpretations, the GIS
selected wetlands adjacent to third and fourth order streams due of the
presence of first or second order streams intersecting the larger stream
order. This is inconsistent with the premise of the interpretations, that only
wetlands associated with first and second order streams would be affected
by the proposed rulemaking. Therefore wetlands clearly associated with
third and fourth order streams were manually deselected from the GIS
selected data set before saving the selected data set as either the
intermediate or broad interpretation theme.
Data Used:
Aerial Photography
USGS National Aerial Photography
Program (NAPP)
Scale: 1:40,000
11378:18-20
Date: 4-13-99
B&W
11380:226-228
Date: 4-13-99
CIR
9:18-20,115-117
Date: 4-17-88
CIR
7684:27,28
Date: 3-12-94
CIR
7686:70,71
Date: 3:17-94
CIR
7691:12-14,26-28
Date: 3-11-95
CIR
5512: 42-44
Date: 4-6-92
B&W
Digital Data
Digital Ortho Quads (DOQ):
Elverson, PA, Millington MD, Newark West DE and Church View VA:
Projection UTM NAD 83
Hydrography Data:
100,000 Scale National Hydrography data (NHD) from USGS Site:
Projection, Digital Degree NAD 83
24,000 Scale Hydrography data from GIS Data Depot: Projection, UTM
NAD 27
24,000 Scale Hypsography data from GIS Data Depot: projection, UTM
NAD 83
-15-
-------
National Wetland Inventory' fNWI):
National Wetland Inventory Data from NWT Site: Projection UTM NAD 27
Soils Data:
SSURGO County Soil Survey Data from NRCS for King and Queen and
Middlesex Counties, VA: Projection. Digital Degree NAD 83
Field Site Location:
GPS data from Region 3: Projection Digital Degree NAD 83
Data Handling:
DOQ's:
The DOQ's are directly viewable in ArcView and formed the map base for
each study area. ArcView projection utility was used to convert all shapefiles
to UTM Zone 18N NAD 83 so they could be overlayed on the DOQ map base.
NHD:
The 100.000 HHD Data was downloaded from the USGS site. The Digital
Degree (DD) data was readable by ArcView but had to be converted to the
ArcView shape file format for further processing. The NHD DD shape files
were converted to NAD 83 using the ArcView projection utility.
1:24,000 data:
The 24,000 scale Hydrography and Hypsography data (SDTS Format) were
downloaded from the GIS Data Depot site and converted to AutoCad Drawing
format using a SDTS DOS utility.The AutoCad drawing is viewable in
ArcView. The AutoCad drawing was converted to the ArcView shape file
format for further processing (datum conversion). The 24K hydrology and
hypsography data was then converted to NAD 83 using the ArcView
projection utility. The hypsography data was used to enhance the on screen
digitizing of API streams.
All data was clipped to the study area boundary for ease in processing.
Clipped 24 K hydrography data was "cleaned"; (deleted ponds, deleted double
lines, deleted quadrangle border). The purpose of the data cleaning was to get
a more accurate estimate of the linear feet of drainage within the study area.
Ponds and the quadrangle outline were deleted because they are not streams
yet had a linear outline which would contribute erroneously to the total linear
footage of streams. Double lines along both sides of large streams were
eliminated to create one single line representing the stream
-16-
-------
The cleaned 24K hydrography data and the NWI data were converted to new
shapefiles, which formed the base data to be modified by photo interpretation.
The cleaned 24 K hydrography was not further processed and the NWI was
not processed after clipping.
Stream Ordering:
The 100,000 scale NHD data and the aerial photography interpreted drainage
were manually attributed with stream order classifiers so that the intermediate
and broad interpretations of the ANPRM could be applied in a GIS
environment. When ordering the streams in the API data set the stream orders
interpretable from the 1:24,000 scale stream data set and the 1:100,000 scale
stream data set was factored in the process in order to be as consistent as
possible with the stream orders interpretable from these data sets. For
example, second order streams were not created at every intersection of two
small and likely intermittent first order streams. Instead, the location of first
and second order streams observable in the 1:24,000 and 1:100,000 stream
data set was used as a guide when assigning stream order to the API data set.
Even so, due the higher number and greater density of streams in the API data
as compared to the 1:24,000 and 1:100,000 scale data, the stream ordering of
the API data assigned higher orders to some stream segments.
The API tended to move the larger order streams higher in the watersheds than
the regional data set because more stream segments and stream intersections
were visible. The stream ordering process looks at streams segments and
intersections and when two first order streams combine the stream segment
below is classified as a second order stream. Two second order streams
combining create a third order stream and so on. Since more stream segments
are visible in the API data set the formation of second order streams tended to
somewhat higher in the watershed as compared to the regional data.
NWI:
The NWI Data was downloaded from the NWI site as Arclnfo files and
imported to ArcView using the ArcView Import function. The NWI data was
converted to NAD 83 using the ArcView projection utility.
Field Data:
Field Sites location GPS data was in shape file format. The field site data was
converted to NAD 83 using the ArcView projection utility
Results Table: the following table summarizes the data obtained from the API
and GIS analysis.
-17-
-------
Results Table: the following table summarizes the data obtained from the API and GIS
analysis.
Study Area
French
Creek
Church
View
Millington
White Cla
Creek
y
T°tal
Average
Size sq/mi
38
30
30
25
123
30
Total 100K stream miles
First order
Second order
Third order
Fourth Order
33.9m
24.5m
8.5m
0.9m
46 9m
31 8m
6.0m
9 2m
20.0m
15.2m
4 8m
32.6m
20.8m
5.3m
0.9m
5.6m
133.4m
92.3m/69%
24 6m/18%
11.0m/8%
5.6m/4%
33.35
23m
6.1m
2.75m
1 4m
24 k stream miles
52.0m
76.0m
41 4m
47.6m
217m
54.25
Delta 24K/100K
53%
62%
107%
46%
63%
Total API stream miles
First order
Second order
Third Order
Fourth Order
86.2m
64.7 m
18.0m
3.6m
108.6m
78.2m
16.9m
4.6m
8 9m
77.3m
64.8m
7.5m
5.0m
71.1m
57.8m
6.9m
0.9m
5.6m
343 2m '
265.5m/77%
49.3m/14%
14.1m/4%
14.5m/4%
85.8m
66.4m
12.3m
3 5m
3.6m
Delta API/24k
66%
43%
87%
49%
58%
Delta API/100k
154%
132%
286%
118%
157%
100K Narrow/% of Total
193a/25%
153a/8%
3069a/78%
63a/29%
3478a/52%
869a
100K Intermediate/% of Total
662a/85%
687a/38%
3665a/93%
120a/56%
5134a/76%
1284a
100 K Broad/% of Total
763a/98%
856 a/47%
3933a/100%
153a/71 %
5705a/85%
1426a
NWI Acres
780a
1817a
3933a
214a
6744a
1686a
NWI acres/sq mi
20a
61a
131a
8.6a
55a
API Wetland Acres
1097a
2221a
4056a
264a
7638a
1910a
Delta API/NWI
41%
22%
3%
23%
13%
API wet acres/sq mi
29a
74a
135a
11a
62a
API Narrow/% of Total
341a/31%
124 a/6%
2073a/51%
41 a/15%
2579a/34%
675a
PI lntermediate/% of Total
737 a/ 67%
731a/33%
3589 a/ 88%
162a/61%
5219a/68%
1305a
PI Broad/% of Total
980a /89%
1110a/50%
3793 a/ 94%
191 a/72%
6074a/80%
1519a
-18-
-------
Wetlands in the Vicinity of French Creek State Park, Elverson, PA
(Broad Interpretation using 100K Hydrology Data and NWI)
4*
\
French Creek State Bark
*
1
s
%
K
0
2
3
~ »
4
6 Kilometer:
f 1 Study Area * 24,625 Acres
0 Field Sites
100k Drainage Order
A ' First
A/Second
&
W "
vf Third
100 K Broad interpretation = 7S3 Acres/98% of Total
NWi Wetlands = 780 Acres
Broad Interpretation of ANPRM:
Source Data NWI wetlands located over
USGS National Hydrography Data 100 feet from the
National Wetland Inventory (NWI) 100 K USGS Hydrology Data
Map Prepared by Peter Stokely plus all NWI wetlands associated
EPA Region 3 703-648-4292 with first arid second order streams Figure 1
tench Creek
St ate Park
-------
Wetlands in the vicinity of French Creek State Park. Elverson, PA
(Broad Interpretation using Aerial Photo Interpreted Wetlands and Drainage)
a
\
French Creek State Eark^
J ^-r >'
V. -
6 Kilometers
mm
Study Area = 24,625 Acres
[french Creek ® Field Sites
Photo Interpreted Drainage Order
/ \ / First
/V/Second
\/Third
PI Broad Interpretation = 980 Acres / 89% ot Tota
{ 1 Photo Interpreted Wetlands = 1097 Acres
Source Data: Broad Interpretation of ANPRM:
B&W NAPP Aerial Photography 4-13-99 API mapped wetlands located over
USGS Hydrography 100 feet from API mapped driariage
NWI plus all wetlands associated
Map Prepared by Peter Stokely with with first arid
EPA Region 3 703-648-4292 second order streams
Figure 2
-------
Wetlands In the Vicinity of JVHllington, MD
(Broad Interpretation using 100K Hydrology Data and NWl)
•?*» . .. *.ry<
vjij.'Ar *.,«,<
->>*!i vvTav x^---w^,v
r¥»^;-$?*•t?"' '•
K&&.-• :>? :W Ms ^
r*v
!»~ •
«(
\ «H
«
kV
A •
Jk_
Study Area
@ Field Sites
100K Drianage Order
A / First
Oifo-
6 Kilometers
W
Source Data
USG3 National Hydrography Data
National Wetland Inventory (NWl)
Map Prepared by Peter Slokely
EPA Region 3 703-648-4292
Second s
100 K Broad Interpretation = 3933 Acres 1100% of Total
~1 NWl Wetlands3 3933 Acres
Broad Interpretation ot' ANPRM: all NWl wetlands located
ovet 100 feet from the 100 K USGS Hydrology Data plus all NWl
wetlands associated with first and second order streams
Figure 3
-------
Wetlands in the Vicinty of Miilington, IVID
(Broad Interpretation using Aerial Photo Interpreted
Wetlands and Drainage)
¦j
I
6 Kilometers
¦* 2*
Study Area
@ Field Sites
Photo Interpreted Drainage Order
A/ First
V^VSecond
W Third
Source Data
ES-.W MAPP Aerial Photography
4-17-88
USGS Hydrography
National W'etiand Inventory NWI
Map Prepared by Peter Stokely
EPA Re.ction 70" 648-429'.-.'
ti:
mm
PI Broad Interpretation 38 3793 Acres I 94% of Total
[~~] Photo interpreted Wetlands = 4056 Acres
Broad Interpretation of ANPRM: PI mapped wetlands
locst9d over ICO feet from PI mapped drainage plus
all wetlands associated with first and - scond orcer streams
Figure 4
-------
Wetlands in the Vicinity of Church View, VA
(Narrow Interpretation using
Aerial Photo Interpreted Wetlands and Drainage)
i
6 Kilometers
Study Area = 19,174 Acres
® Field Sites
Photo Interpreted Drainage Order
. . First
View, VA /V Second
A/Third
/\/ Fourth
111 PI Narrow Interpretation = 124 Acres / 6% of Tot*
Photo Interpreted Wetlands = 2221 Acres
Source D ata
CIR NAPP Aerial Photography 3 11-95
USGS Hydrography Data
National Wetland Inventory (NWI)
Map Prepared by Peter Stokely
EPA Region 3 703-648-4292
Narrow Interpretation of ANPRM PI mapped wetlands
located over 100 feet from PI mapped drtanage
Figure 5
i urc It
-------
r
Wetlands in the Vicinity of Church View, VA
(Broad Interpretation using
Aerial Photo Interpreted Wetlands and Drainage)
rr~
\
6 Kilometers
W
urch View, VA
Study Area = 19,174 Acres
® Field Sites
Photo interpreted Drainage Order
.• First
/\/Second
Third
J\£ Fourth
PI Broad Interpretations 1110 Acres/50% of Total
Photo Interpreted Wetlands = 2221 Acres
Source Data
C!R NAPP Aerial Photography 3-11-95
USGS Hydrography Data
National Wetland Inventory (NWI)
Map Prepared by Peter Stoketv
EPA Region 3 703-648 4292
Broad Interpretation of AMPRM. PI mapped
wetlands located over 100 feet from
PI mapped driariage plus all wetlands
associated with with first and second order stream watershds
Figure 6
-------
Streams in the Vicinity of French Creek State Park
Potentially Impacted by the ANPRM
Source D ata
B&.W MAF'P Aerial Photography 4-13 99
USGS Hydrography
NW'I
Map Prepared by Pete;r Stokely
EPA Region 3 703-648-4292
6 Kilometers
I j Study Area « 24,625 Acres
@ Field Sites w ""
Streams Potentially impacted by the ANPRM
First
Second
Photo Interpreted Drainage Order
. . First
/^/Second
/V* Third
Figure 7
-------
\Netlands In the Vicinty of ft/liilington, MID
(Narrow interpretation using Aerial Photo
Interpreted Wetlands and Drainage)
S\ «
%
* t\ ' *\ \
"'^1'
•v v* V * v'K
¦*- Sm4;. v-
3
% Hyf*
-»£ ®*e
*.
6 Kilometers
Study Area
@ Field Sites
Photo Interpreted Drainage Order \
f\/ First
'/\Y Second
>v/Third
|§£| PI Narrow Interpretation * 2073 Acres / 51% of Total
~ i Photo Interpreted Wetlands - 4056 Acres
Source Data.
B 4.W NAPP Aerial Photography 4-17-83
uses Hydrography Narrow interpretation of ANPRM: PI mapped wetlands
National Wetland ir.vsntory {Nwir located over 100 feet from PI mapped drainage
Map prepared by Peter Stokely iwv itoi.v.ii viuiingc
EPA Reaion 3 703-648-4292 llCHilS O
-------
Wetlands in the Vicinty of Millington, MD
(Intermediate Interpretation
¦j
I
- »'.A ^ ^
vS" * ' i ^ * V">
Y j"t-, [ Nla* fnt * L ~
& "iii
1
6 Kilometers
] Stu dy Ar ea
® Field Sites
Photo Interpreted Drain age Ordei
/\ /First
yV/Second
y^fThird
M5&] PI Intermediate Interpretation = 35II9 Acres / 88% ofTotai
j Photo Interpreted Wetlands = 4056 Acres
BSW MAPP Aerial Photography 4 I7-8S
usgs Hydrugrdphy ostd Intermediate Interpretation of ANPRM: PI mapped wetlands
National Wetlands Inventory (HWI) , ; rr
Map made by peter stokeiy located over 100 feet from PI mapped drainage
epaRegion 3703-648-4232 plus all wetlands associated with first order streams
Source Data.
Figure 9
-------
Wetlands in the Vicinty of Miliington, IVJD
(Broad Interpretation using Aerial Photo Interpreted
Wetlands and Drainage)
I
5 Kilometers
Study Area
® Field Sites
Photo Interpreted Drainage Order
/V^/Second
v/Third
Soutce Data:
B&.W NAPP Aerial Photography
4-17-88
USGS Hydrography
National Wetland Inventory NVVI
Map Prepared by Peter Stokefy
EPA Reaion 3 703-648-4292
PI Broad Interpretation = 3793 Acres / 94% of Total
| [ Photo Interpreted Wetlands = 4056 Acres
Broad Interpretation ofANPRM Pi mapped wetlands
located over 100 feet 1'tom PI mapped drainage plus
all wetlands associated with first and second order streams
Figure 10
-------
©
-------
Appendix C
Available Upon Request
-------
-------
APPENDIX D
Literature Review
Character and Function of
"Isolated" Wetlands
USEPA, PHILADELPHIA, PA
Charles A. Rhodes Jr.
1. Definition and discussion of "isolated" wetlands in the literature
In a review of the scientific literature concerning wetlands, the term "isolated wetland" is
used in a variety of circumstances. Frequently the term refers to the space and time
relationship of the subject wetland to other wetland or aquatic systems. The term
connotes a physical or hydrological (often surficial) separation, indicating that the
wetlands are discrete units in the landscape. Usually, however, there is the
acknowledgment that the separation may be temporary or that the wetland is integrated
within a larger network via other pathways (e.g., groundwater, intermittent or ephemeral
connections, movement of fauna, etc.).. In the scientific literature the term "isolated'1 is a
descriptive term, limited in scope and commonly has no bearing in a regulatory context.
A wide ranging variety of significant wetland types (e.g., coastal plain interfluvial flats,
wooded wetlands in glaciated landscapes, slope and montane wetlands) may be
characterized as wetlands with non-traditional linkages. For the sake of brevity, the term
"'non-traditional linkages" refers to wetlands that are hydrologically connected to other
waters by non-perennial surface and/or groundwater flows. Wetlands with non-
traditional linkages do not exhibit a perennial surface water connection yet they are
closely integrated to the larger watershed network via groundwater and non-perennial
surface connections. Thus, most wetlands that do not exhibit a perennial surface
connection are not truly "isolated" in the ecological and hydrological sense.
There are many categories of wetlands that by their nature are primarily unconnected by
surface waters. A partial list would include a number of continentally or regionally
significant categories of wetlands such as:
Peat Wetlands of the Glaciated Region
Slope Wetlands
Bogs
Pocosins
Carolina Bays (Delmarva Bays)
Potholes
Playas
Wetlands of the Nebraska Sandhill Region
1
-------
Cypress Domes
Vernal pools of the Mediterranean climates of the Pacific Coast
Vernal pools of the temperate eastern United States
In descriptions of the general characteristics of several of these wetland categories, the
authors clearly point out the aspects of the wetland ecology, which relate to their
existence as separate, distinct units.
One of the most extreme examples of such wetlands is the vernal pool community type.
Keeley and Zedler (1998) describe vernal pools as seasonal wetlands that form in shallow
basins and alternate on an annual basis between a stage of standing water and extreme
drying conditions. Although this definition is applicable to the vernal pools characteristic
of California (that actually range in distribution from eastern Washington to the northern
Baja Peninsula) it is recognized that other locations subject to a Mediterranean climate
(Chile, South Africa, Australia, the Mediterranean basin) may have similar communities.
They recognize that vernal pools in other locations exhibit comparable conditions (e.g.,
continental climate granite outcrops and tropical alpine seasonal pools). They also
contrast other seasonal pools as not exhibiting classic vernal pool characteristics. Such
communities would include desert playas, Great Plains buffalo wallows or prairie playas,
and potholes.
Colbum (2001) notes that temporary ponds occur worldwide and vary widely in character
but share common strategies for dealing with seasonal drying. In eastern North America
the term "vernal pool" has gained wider acceptance and is currently used generically to
refer to shallow, Ashless water bodies that dry periodically and are dominated by species
intolerant of fish predation.
A significant number of wetland community types with non-traditional linkages were
formed by climatic and geologic phenomena that date to the last glacial period. Systems,
such as prairie potholes, bogs of the glaciated region, Atlantic white cedar swamps and
bogs, and pocosins are spatially distinct landscape features because of the forces that
formed them.
For example pocosin [Algonquin: meaning "swamp-on-a-hill" (Richardson et al. 1981,
Williams and Askew 1988)] communities began to develop after the Wisconsin Ice Age
and pollen data supports the assumption that pocosin wetlands developed between 10,000
and 12,000 years ago (Otte 1981). Sharitz and Gibbons (1982) define pocosins as
freshwater wetland ecosystems characterized by broadleaved evergreen shrubs, or low
trees commonly including pond pine (Pinus seiotina), and commonly growing on highly
organic soils that have developed in areas of poor drainage. Williams and Askew (1988)
describe them as flat, poorly drained sites located along the center of broad, interstream
divides. Their present range of occurrence is the Atlantic Coastal Plain from southern
Virginia to northern Florida.
->
-------
Sharitz and Gibbons (1982) categorize four different types of geologic situations that are
considered to support pocosin communities in the southeastern Coastal Plain:
1. Flat areas associated with blocked stream drainage on the lower terraces.
2. Carolina bays.
3. Areas of ridge and swale topography between relict beaches and dune
ridges (Woodwell 1956).
4. Springs and springheads of the upper Coastal Plain (Christensen et al.
1981).
Sharitz and Gibbons (1982) define Carolina bay ecosystems as elliptical depressions of
the southeastern Coastal Plain which are consistently oriented in a northwest-southeast
direction and many of which contain shrub bog communities. They occur abundantly in
a broad geographic band that closely parallels that of pocosins. They characteristically
have no tributary systems, are not spring-fed and rely on direct precipitation and run-off
to maintain water volume.
Carolina bays are restricted to the southeastern Coastal Plain and lower Piedmont, and
occur predominantly in the coastal areas of South Carolina and in southeastern North
Carolina. A recent report by Bliley and Pettry (1979) identified more that 150 bays on
the Eastern Shore of Virginia and Melton (1938) stated that examples could be found in
Maryland and Delaware. About 400,000, or 80% of the total number estimated by
Prouty (1952) are found in the Carolinas.
Scientists or laymen universally accept no single theory concerning the origin of Carolina
bay depressions. The range of cited theories includes solution pits, wind and/or wave
action, or an ancient meteor shower. Wind and wave theories rely on analogous
formations in Alaska, Chile and Texas (Kaczorowski 1977). Their estimated time of
formation also ranges widely from 10,000 to 100,000 years ago.
Ecosystems similar to Carolina bays include the pine barrens of New Jersey
(characterized by stunted pine canopy overtopping a low shrub community) and bay
forests of Florida (dominated by evergreen tree and shrub species).
Certain landforms that were created during the close of the last glacial epoch 10,000
years ago promoted the formation of wetland communities as widely divergent as prairie
potholes and bog communities. Pielou (1998) remarks that wetlands are particularly
abundant in regions having an immature drainage system, that is, where the drainage
system is incompletely developed. This is true of the land that was covered by thick ice
sheets during the last ice age. Since the ice melted (c. 10,000 years ago) there has not
been enough time for streams and rivers to erode a continuous linked system of channels
draining all the once-glaciated ground to the seas.
Creation of moraines (e.g. ground, washboard, thrust, dead ice and terminal) and
meltwater (e.g., glacial outwash plain, collapsed glacial outwash, glacial lake plains)
-------
landforms promoted the formation of potholes (Kantrud et al. 1989). Comparable glacial
phenomena, combined with the topographic heterogeneity of the northeast promoted the
formation of northeastern bog communities. Damman and French (1987) define bogs as
nutrient poor, acid peatlands with vegetation in which peat mosses ("Sphagnum spp.),
ericaceous shrubs, and sedges (Cyperaceae) play a prominent role, although conifers are
often present. Bogs include both ombrotrophic (nutrients derived from rainwater) and
minerotrophic (nutrients derived from surface or groundwater) wetlands.
Wetlands with non-traditional linkages are an important and integral part of stream/river
networks. Several authors propose consideration of the terrestrial-aquatic systems as a
single continuum. As wetlands are interposed between these systems they serve as
critical zones in this transition. Pielou (1998) notes that the majority of rivers begin at an
indeterminate point in a slight depression in the ground where groundwater is discharged
as a seep or spring. She also notes that slow seeps are more common than vigorous
springs and are usually unnoticed. In other situations groups of seeps may be aligned
along a contour across sloping ground forming a spring-line. Such a depression (or
network of depressions) also serves as a collector of overland flow although when a
stream originates, groundwater seepage is usually far more important than overland flow
in bringing it into being. In general Pielou notes that only one-fifth of the water that
reaches the surface as rain collects in streams and rivers.
Overland flow begins as sheet flow, but irregularities in the ground surface soon split it
into rills (i.e. miniature gullies formed by a single rainfall event). Eventually seepage in
the bonom of the depression, augmented by the water entering in rills, accumulates to
erode a self-sustaining, permanent channel through which the water drains away—the
origin of a stream.
Vannote et al. (1980), in the development of the river continuum concept, note that from
headwaters to mouth, the physical variables with a river system present a continuous
gradient of physical conditions. This gradient shouli stimulate a series of responses
within the constituent populations that result in a continuum of biotic adjustments and
consistent patterns of loading, transport, utilization, and storage of organic matter along
the length of a river. Moreover from the headwaters to the downstream extent, the
physical variables within a stream system present a continuous gradient of conditions
including width, depth, velocity, flow volume, temperature, and entropy gain.
Many headwater streams are influenced strongly by the riparian vegetation that reduces
autotrophic production by shading and contributes large amounts of allochthonous
detritus. As stream size increases, the reduced importance of terrestrial organic input
coincides with enhanced significance of autochthonous primary production and organic
transport from upstream. This transition from headwaters, dependent on terrestrial
inputs, to medium-sized rivers, relying on algal or rooted vascular plant production, is
thought to be generally reflected by a change in the ratio of gross primary productivity to
community respiration (P/R).
4
-------
Headwater streams, riparian zones and the wetlands associated with them represent the
maximum interface with the landscape and are therefore predominantly accumulators,
processors, and transporters of materials from the terrestrial system. Among these inputs
are heterogeneous assemblages of labile and refractory dissolved compounds, comprised
of short- and long-chain organics. Heterotrophic use and physical absorption of labile
organic compounds is rapid, leaving the more refractory and relatively high molecular
weight compounds for export downstream. The relative importance of large particle
detritus to energy flow in the system is expected to follow a curve similar to that of the
diversity of soluble organic compounds; however its importance may extend farther
downstream.
On an evolutionary time scale, the spatial shift has two vectors: a downstream one
involving most of the aquatic insects and an upstream one involving most of the aquatic
mollusks and crustaceans. The insects are believed to have evolved terrestrially and to be
secondarily aquatic. Since the maximum tenestrial-aquatic interface occurs in the
headwaters, it is likely that the transition from land to water first occurred here with the
aquatic forms then moving progressively downstream. The mollusks and crayfish are
thought to have developed in a marine environment and to have moved through estuaries
into rivers and thence upstream. The convergence of the two vectors may explain why
maximum species diversity occurs in the midreaches of rivers.
Despite the continua described above, it has been generally assumed that southeastern
bottomland hardwood swamps are tightly linked to their river systems, thereby forming
"classic" navigable systems. However, some floodplains in the southeast apparently
were also affected by the climatic changes associated with continental glaciation
(Wharton et al. 1982).
One striking feature reflecting these past climatic regimes is the dramatic discrepancy
between the size of the floodplain and the size of the present day river. Today many
streams are too small (in terms of discharge volume and meander dimensions) to have
produced such wide floodplains. Such streams are described as "underfitted" (Dury
1977). Dury calculated from ratios of former to present channel bed-widths and meander
wavelengths, that discharge 12,000 years ago was 18 times greater that at present and the
sediment delivery rates were 3 times those of today.
The term floodbasin specifically applies to vast underfitted floodplains where channel
meanders may occupy only a portion or belt of the floodplain width. Along southeastern
rivers that are not markedly underfitted. the floodplain between the natural levees and
high valley wall is generally called ambiguously a "backswamp" or more succinctly a
"flat" where elevational relief is limited to shallow depression basins and almost
imperceptible rises. The term backswamp may also be applied specifically to peat-
forming environments occupying relict channels along the outer rim of the floodplain.
(Note: Here again, adjacency issues and what is or is not "isolated" may be relevant
questions.)
5
-------
Aeolian dunes form when strong winds blow exposed sand'from point bars or other
sources onto the floodplain. Aeolian dunes and those associated with the relict braided
stream channels were probably formed by gale-force Pleistocene winds blowing across
the unvegetated part of the floodplain from the southwest. (Note: The resultant ridge and
swale topography may also complicate adjacency issues—particularly with wetlands that
are adjacent to already "adjacent" wetlands.)
Scour channels, hummocks and mini-basins are additional southeastern bottomland
microtopographic features that produce only slight elevational and drainage changes.
However their effect on plant species distribution and ecological communities is often
marked.
Climatic changes, coupled with the more subtle influences of change in gradient brought
about by lowered sea levels or tectonic rebound of the land, formed another characteristic
of southeastern floodplains—the floodplain terrace. Increased flow volume or, in some
cases, an increased gradient, changed the hydrologic regime and created a new floodplain
surface, often lower than the old one. Step like terraces resulted, many of them that are
remnants of prehistoric surfaces.
The origin of Atlantic white cedar (Chamaecvparis thvoides) wetlands is also closely
related to the advance and wasting of the glaciers, which greatly influenced the
topography of the land both under the glaciers and over the entire continent's coastal
area, due to factors such as direct glacial action (e.g., migration to southern refugia and
reestablishment during glacial retreat), and major variations in sea level.
Laderman (1989) noted that Atlantic white cedar (and associated species) are
geographically restricted to freshwater wetlands in a narrow band along the eastern coast
of the United States ranging from Maine to Mississippi. Distinctive biotic assemblages
dominated by Atlantic white cedar grow under conditions too extreme for the majority of
temperate dwelling organisms. The character and distribution of the community varies
geographically. Cedar dominated wetlands in the glaciated northeast, New Jersey Pine
Barrens, the Delmarva Peninsula, the Dismal Swamp, Carolinas and juniper swamps of
the southeast all have distinct community "'types". Cedar swamps are generally situated
shoreward of lakes, river or stream channels, or estuaries; on river floodplains; in isolated
catchments; or on slopes.
Slightly elevated hummocks dominated by cedar are often interspersed with water filled
hollows in a repeating pattern that forms a readily identified functionally interrelated
landscape. This phenomenon of dominant trees established on hummocks amidst a
matrix of water filled depressions is also typical of Eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis)
swamp forests of the northeast (e.g. Pocono region) and upper Midwest, as well as
southeastern bottomland hardwoods (Wharton et al. 1982) and red maple swamps of the
glaciated northeast (Golet et al. 1993).
6
-------
Additionally significant portions of wetland communities in geographic regions exhibit
spatial separation by virtue of their topographic location. Wetlands associated with
mountainous terrain are excellent examples. Windell et al. (1986) described the two
major settings for Rocky wetlands as mountain valleys and intermountain basins.
Mountain valleys are relatively young topographical forms shaped by the erosional forces
of running water and. at higher elevations, by glacial movements. Mountain wetlands are
located in a wide range of sites from cliff faces to gentle slopes to flat valley floors. A
high water table is maintained by accumulation from melting snow and frequent summer
storms which interacts with variable depth of bedrock and permeable materials such as
moraines and other glacial till, that contain either surface or subsurface water.
Intermountain basins were formed by ancient tectonic and volcanic events contemporary
with the mountain building process. Erosion of neighboring mountain ranges has
contributed deep strata of alluvial material that are gradually filling large topographic
depressions. Rivers have inscribed channels across the flat "parks" and have changed
course or been impounded by tectonic or volcanic alterations in basin geomorphology.
Wetlands also are associated with river meander patterns, impounded waters, and high
water tables maintained by underlying aquifers, annual flooding, or impermeable
substrates.
Diehl and Behling (1982) in discussing the origins of wetlands in the unglaciated sections
of West Virginia recognized three primary natural geologic phenomena (as opposed to
artificial, human induced wetlands) that promote wetland formation in that region:
1. In maturely developed stream valleys that are blanketed by a veneer of
poorly permeable alluvial material. The stream gradient is generally very
low and meanders are often present.
2. The majority of wetlands in their study are situated atop dipping strata
ranging from gentle folds to those of larger amplitude. Associated with
these fold belts are dipping strata that intersect streambeds at an acute
angle. When a resistant stratum crops out in a streambed, a
knickpoint occurs which generally gives rise to an increase in gradient
downstream from that point. A wetland forms above the knickpoint due
to ponding, the settling out of sediments and the diversion of stream
energy from channel deepening to lateral erosion.
3. In cases where flat or nearly flat-lying resistant strata cap a highland area
that has been dissected by major streams. While headward erosion is
continually encroaching upstream towards the heads of the small
tributaries on which the wetlands occur, the resistance of the cap rock will
determine the rate of weathering.
Stone and Stone (1994) recognized an even wider range of geologic formative processes
(e.g. faults, fractures, shallow bedrock or glacial till), which enable wetlands (many of
which are spatially separated) to be expressed on the landscape via expressions of
groundwater on the surface. They continue by noting that groundwater is a major
7
-------
component in both the creation of wetlands and their integration into a much larger and
complex hydrologic unit.
Discussions of broad categories of wetlands such as northeastern red maple swamps
(Golet et al. 1993) or bottomland hardwoods (Wharton et al. 1982) also acknowledge that
a significant number of sites within the respective communities are formed as discrete,
separate locations, particularly in headwaters associated with first or second order
streams.
In summary, a large portion of the national wetland resource is represented by wetlands
that are spatially discrete landforms. That however does not ignore the fact that these
wetlands are linked biologically, chemically and physically into a much larger
hydrological network. The phenomena that form these linkages may be perennial,
intermittent, ephemeral or episodic but are ecologically significant nevertheless.
2. Extent of "isolated" wetlands
The difficulty in determining the extent of "isolated" wetlands is that this term is not
generally used in the wetland inventory nomenclature. The most prevalent wetland
classification nomenclature currently in use is that of Cowardin et al. (1979) which is
based on a hierarchical format that integrates plant community structure, water regime
and landscape position. The fact that wetlands may or may not be separated physically is
not relevant to the classification system. One may develop a crude estimate by focusing
on those parts of a wetland inventory that may contain a significant portion of "isolated"
wetlands in them.
For example, Tiner and Burke (1995) indicate that of the 598,388 acres of wetlands
inventoried in Maryland [1981-1982 National Wetland Inventory (NWI) data], palustrine
wetlands composed 342,626 (57%) of the total wetland resource. Furthermore, of the
palustrine wetlands, the three water regimes toward the dry end of the hydrological
spectrum (temporarily flooded, saturated, intermittently flooded) comprised 189,410
acres—55% of the palustrine total. Comparable areal relationships are found in other
northeastern states (Tiner 1985, 1989).
One of the difficulties in using inventory data is that the limits of the remote sensing
technology tend to underestimate the extent of wetlands. This is particularly problematic
in headwater areas of watersheds and in physiographic provinces landward of the coastal
plain. For example field inspections in the ridge and valley region of central
Pennsylvania demonstrate that National Wetland Inventory maps generally underestimate
the extent of wetlands (Table 1).
Table 1. Comparison of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Coverage with Additional
Wetland Inventory Methods during the Upper Juniata Watershed Wetland Condition
Assessment (Wardrop, D. H., personal communication)
Wetland Type | Avg. NWI j Additional |% Of Total in | Number (
8
-------
(ha)*
Inventory (ha)*
NWI
of Points
Riparian Depression
<0.01
0.17
4%
15
Ridge side slope
0.05
0.07
43%
J
Headwater area
0.32
0.88
26%
20
Mainstem floodplain
0.70
1.70
31%
74
* Wetland acreage found in randomly selected sample rectangles in locations with a "high
probability" of wetland occurrence based on hydrogeomorphic selection criteria.
Stolt and Baker (1975) acknowledge that NWI maps are not designed to identify
jurisdictional wetlands. Unfortunately they are frequently the only widely available
wetland inventory data set. They found that in two study areas in the Blue Ridge
Highlands, 91.8 and 109.3 hectares of jurisdictional wetlands were found in the field
while the NWI maps indicated only 2.5 and 17.4 hectares of wetlands respectively. Their
conclusion is that because of the small scale that photointerpreters must work with and
the number of wetlands located in dense woodlands; the NWI maps may not adequately
inventory wetlands in the Blue Ridge. (Note: This is precisely the geographic location
where many "isolated" wetlands or wetlands with non-traditional linkages are situated.
They go on to note that ground-truths based on extensive field reconnaissance efforts are
the only means to verify the interpretations and estimations made from remotely sensed
data.
For wetland communities that are predominantly discrete landforms (e.g., prairie
potholes, pocosins, playas) the majority of the wetland inventory would most likely be of
the type with non-traditional linkages. For example it is estimated that pocosin
ecosystems once covered more than 3 million acres. In 1962 nearly 70% of all the
existing pocosins (2,243,500 acres) occurred in North Carolina. They were rapidly
developed and by 1979 only 31% of this ecosystem remained in its natural state
(Richardson, 1982). Nevertheless they still comprise more that 50% of North Carolina's
wetlands (Richardson et al. 1981).
The Southwest Florida Water Management District inventoried wetlands within several
areas of its jurisdiction. Of the total wetland acreage sampled, 68.6% consisted of
isolated wetlands. Additionally 79% of the total wetland acreage sampled consisted of
wetland of 2 hectares or less in area (Hart and Newman 1995).
Underestimation of wetland area in headwaters compounds a problem of natural resource
management as headwater systems provide the most extensive and intimate interaction
with adjacent terrestrial systems. Headwater hydrology is predominantly via riparian
transport (i.e., movement of water from the upland to the floodplain by nonchannelized
overland flow and by shallow groundwater), which tends to be episodic rather than
perennial, at least on the surface. Moreover the "wetted edge" where initial ecological
function is performed is most profound at the headwaters. Brinson (1993) demonstrates
this by comparing the range of stream order and remarking that although the floodplain
9
-------
surface area approximately doubles from higher order to lower order streams, the total
length increases by orders of magnitude (Table 2).
Table 2. Relationship between stream order and other dimensions of stream configuration.
First four columns are from Leopold et al. (1964) (from Brinson 1993)
Stream
Number
Average
Total Length
Estimated
Floodplain
Order
Length
(km)
Floodplain
Surface Area
(km)
Width (m)
(km2)
1
1.570.000
1.6
2.526.130
3
7.578
2
350,000
3.7
1,295.245
6
7.771
->
80,000
8.5
682,216
12
8.187
4
18.000
19.3
347.544
24
8,341
5
4.200
45.1
189.218
48
9.082
6
950
103.0
97,827
96
9.391
7
200
236.5
47,305
192
9.082
8
41
543.8
22.298
384
8,562
9
8
1,250.2
10,002
768
7.681
10
1
2,896.2
2.896
1,536
4,449
3. Ecosystem Functions
Earlier debates concerning wetland regulation concerned the notion that wetland function
and value was linked to, and correlated with, the water regime. In other words it was
frequently the contention that "wetter was better." As the science of wetland ecology has
demonstrated over the past two decades that contention is not true (Roelle et al. 1984.
Environmental Defense Fund and World Wildlife Fund 1992). Although the literature is
extensive with regard to the ecological function of a wide variety of wetlands,
discussions of specifically identified "isolated" wetlands is more limited.
a. Flood water storage
In a literature review of the wetland floodwater storage/desynchronization function
Adamus et al. (1991) acknowledge that although the literature is mixed, some studies
have supported the importance of wetlands (or wetlands plus lakes) for altering flood
flows. Some of these studies have indicated that the consequences of wetland loss are
most severe if wetland filling occurs where other wetlands/lakes comprise less than about
10 percent of the watershed areas above the point of flooding. In most instances,
wetlands are more effective that developed environments for flood storage and
desynchronization (Novitzki 1979). Comparisons of watersheds before and after wetland
drainage (Brun et al. 1981) and region-wide studies of multiple watersheds with drained
versus undrained wetland acreage (Moore and Larson 1979) both strongly suggest the
importance of wetlands for desynchronization of peak flows.
10
-------
The problem still remains with regard to distinguishing the function of "isolated" or
headwater wetlands (where many "isolated" wetlands and wetlands with non-traditional
linkages are located) from that of other wetland communities.
If wetlands located "high" in the watershed have been drained, detention of floodwaters
by wetlands along the mainstem "low" in the watershed might, at least theoretically,
aggravate flooding by helping synchronize local run-off with surface flows arriving from
higher in the watershed. A cited simulation of a hypothetical 10-square mile watershed
indicated that detention basin networks are more effective if located in the upper 40-80%
of a watershed than in areas farther downstream (Flores et al. 1981).
However wetlands along streams low in the watershed (fifth-order streams) were found
by Ogawa and Male's (1983) simulation studies to reduce flooding over a greater
downstream area (exceeding 8 miles) than wetlands associated with first- through third-
order streams, which reduced downstream flooding only significantly over an
approximately 2-mile reach. Further, wetlands low in the watershed were important
regardless of the total amount of other storage available in the watershed, while
individual wetlands high in the watershed (stream order 1 and 2) ceased to play a major
role in floodflow attenuation as soon as the acreage of other wetlands above them
exceeded 7 percent of the total (Ogawa and Male 1983).
The diminished flood retention function of one, or several wetlands may be difficult to
quantify, but the cumulative impacts of diminished flood retention function may have
very significant regional impacts. Miller and Nudds (1996) studied prairie landscape
change over several decades and the flooding in the Mississippi River Valley and
determined that the cumulative losses of wetlands had a significant impact on flooding
events. While flood magnitudes along the Mississippi River have increased (e.g.,
summer of 1993, spring of 1995) at least three major hypotheses, (which are not mutually
exclusive) have been proposed to explain trends in flood magnitude:
1. Belt (1975) attributed increased flood stages in the middle Mississippi
River to greater channel confinement.
2. Knox (1988) concluded that climate change, specifically variation in
winter snowfall and early summer rainfall, was largely responsible for
trends in flood magnitudes in the upper Mississippi Valley, primarily
Wisconsin.
3. Widespread landscape change, including wetland drainage and
removal of native vegetation has been implicated in recent flooding in
the Mississippi River Valley.
Although wetland loss has occurred throughout the prairie-parkland region, average
wetland density is nonetheless 3.1 times greater in Canadian areas (16.3 wetlands/km2)
than in the U.S. portions of the survey region (5.2 wetlands/km2). Furthermore, although
agricultural expansion into marginally productive soils in prairie Canada has reduced
11
-------
native upland vegetation since at least the 1940s, that process appears to be significantly
more advanced in the U.S. Moreover, in Canada, precipitation currently determines the
population sizes of breeding waterfowl through its effects on the numbers of wetlands of
all types whereas in the U.S. more ephemeral wetlands have been drained, such that duck
numbers are now largely constrained by residual, more permanent wetlands, regardless of
how much precipitation falls.
The hypothesis of the study was that precipitation that once filled wetland basins in the
U.S. prairies, or was otherwise retained in organic soils and by native vegetation, now
increasingly drains at faster rates into nearby rivers, creating the potential for greater
floods downstream. This hypothesis predicts that, while controlling for temporal
variation in precipitation, annual flow rates of unregulated rivers should have increased
over time more in the U.S. than in Canada (where habitat alteration has been less
extensive). Alternatively, the climate change hypothesis predicts similar trends in both
precipitation and annual river flows in each country. By restricting the study to
unregulated rivers the confounding influence of channel confinement was removed.
The study selected five unregulated rivers with watersheds located entirely in the U.S.
that flow to the Gulf of Mexico and seven unregulated rivers with watersheds located
entirely in Canada that flow to Hudson Bay. The results demonstrated that river flows
had increased significantly in more U.S. rivers (4 of 5) than Canadian rivers (0 of 7).. The
results are consistent with the hypothesis that landscape alteration, rather than change in
precipitation, has produced greater runoff into rivers that drain the Mississippi River
Valley. Because only unregulated and predominantly undyked rivers were studied,
artificial channel confinement cannot be the cause of the increased annual flow rates
although channel confinement may augment flow rates in very large rivers (Belt 1975).
The conclusion is that although the Canadian prairies have been altered by agriculture,
the number of wetlands and extent of untilled vegetation appears to be sufficient yet to
maintain flow rates of Canadian rivers at historic levels. Interestingly, the one U.S. river
for which no change in flow rates was detected was the Little Missouri River. These
headwaters are near Devil's Tower National Monument in Wyoming and flow through
the Badlands of North Dakota. These areas are not noted for extensive crop production.
Miller and Nudds (1996) noted that flood control efforts typically have involved the
construction of expensive dams and levees, yet as witnessed by the 1993 and 1995
floods, these structures can and do fail to contain high river flows. Such large floods can
cause widespread property damage, pollution and loss of life. All the while wetland
drainage and other landscape changes continue upriver, creating the potential for even
greater flooding in the future. As precipitation runoff is lower in meadows than either
cropland, or all but the most thoroughly contoured and terraced rangeland, and both
native vegetation and wetlands are believed to provide natural flood control, wetland
conservation and restoration could prove less expensive and more reliable in the long
term than conventional flood control methods while at the same time benefiting
waterfowl and other wetland and riverine species.
12
-------
Gilliam and Skaggs (1981) noted that at that time the latest period of increased
development activity in the pocosin region of North Carolina began about 1973, a time
period that coincided with the large algal bloom problems in the Chowan River. To
study the effects of drainage and agricultural development upon drainage waters they
used three pairs of sites (developed and undeveloped land) to span the different soils that
are likely to be developed in the Blackland area of North Carolina. They found that peak
runoff rates occurred earlier (on occasion 24 hours earlier) and were three to four times
higher from developed sites than from similar undeveloped sites. From a cumulative
environmental impact standpoint such effects, translated downstream to estuarine waters,
were identified as having potentially significant negative impacts to downstream
estuarine communities including shrimp, shellfish, commercial and recreational fisheries
(Copeland et al. 1983, 1984).
b. Nutrient Dynamics
As noted by Brinson (1993) and others, wetland and riparian communities generally are
the first natural contact between cultural sources of nutrients and receiving water bodies.
Peteijohn and Correll (1984) studied the role of a Maryland riparian forest in
transforming the nutrients received from an agricultural watershed. Nutrient (C, N and
P) concentration changes were measured in surface runoff and shallow groundwater as
they moved through the watershed. Some of the results are as follows:
From March 1981- March 1982 dramatic changes in waterborne nutrient loads occurred
in the riparian forest of the watershed. From surface waters that had transited
approximately 50 m of riparian forest an estimated 4.1 Mg of particulates, 11 kg of
particulate organic-N, .83 kg of ammonium-N. 2.7 kg of nitrate-N and 3.0 kg of total
particulate-P per hectare of riparian forest were removed during the study year. In
addition an estimated removal of 45 kg ha"1 yr'1 of nitrate-N occurred in subsurface flow
as it moved through the riparian zone.
Although mean annual particulate concentrations of P, C and organic-N in surface runoff
decreased after moving through the riparian zone, the concentrations of these nutrients
per unit of sediment increased. These results indicated that the particulates leaving the
forest were more organic in composition and had a greater exchange capacity.
Of the estimated total nitrogen exports from cropland 64% was in harvested crop, 9.2%
in surface runoff and 26% in groundwater flow. Groundwater appears to be the dominant
pathway of total nitrogen flux between the cropland and riparian forest. Nitrogen
retention for the cropland was found to be low (8%) which is consistent with ideas about
disturbed ecosystems.
For the riparian forest, 17% of the estimated total-N inputs came in bulk precipitation,
61% in groundwater, and 22% in surface runoff. Of the estimated total-N losses from the
riparian forest, 75% was lost in groundwater flow. Thus it appears that the major
pathway of nitrogen loss from the riparian forest was in subsurface flow. The calculated
-------
nitrogen retention by the riparian forest was 89%—much higher than the retention in the
cropland (8%).
Of the estimated total phosphorus exports from the cropland. 84% was in the harvested
crop, 16% in surface runoff and <1% in groundwater flow. Surface runoff is thus the
dominant pathway of phosphorus flux between cropland and riparian forest. The
calculated phosphorus retention was 41% for the cropland and 80% for the riparian
forest. For the riparian forest 3.8% of the estimated total phosphorus input was from
bulk precipitation, 94% in surface runoff, and 2.5 in groundwater flow. Phosphorus
export was nearly evenly divided between surface runoff (59%) and groundwater flow
(41%).
Losses of groundwater nitrate concentrations are probably due to two possibilities:
uptake by vegetation or denitrification. As only 33% of the removal is attributable to
incremental growth it seem that considerable denitrification is plausible.
Reductions in sediment toads and their associated nutrients in surface runoff should be a
fairly universal effect of riparian forests because of the physical nature of the processes
involved. A few studies present evidence that riparian zones reduce sediment and
phosphorus loads in adjacent streams (McColl 1978, Schlosser and Karr 1981a, 1981b).
Similar results were found in a similar study in Georgia (Lowrance et al. 1984a, 1984b).
Nutrient losses from diffuse sources are generally understood as a threat to most bodies
of water. Therefore the removal of particulates, nitrogen, and phosphorus is potentially
an extremely important ecological function.
Puckett et al. (1993) found that large quantities of sediment and associated trace metals
were retained in the wetlands of the upper Chickahominy River basin—the upper reaches
of which drain approximately 155 knr of dense commercial, industrial and urban
development in and around Richmond. Virginia. As the Chickahominy River currently
supplies 46% of the raw water of Newport News (and other nearby communities)
disturbance of these wetlands could be problematic.
c. Habitat
Colburn (2001) discussed the ecological role of vernal pools in the glaciated Northeast as
tremendous reservoirs of biodiversity, important for the survival of a variety of species of
frogs, salamanders and crustaceans. These pools are located in woodlands and dry at
least occasionally. Sometimes a mere 30 feet across, they can be easily overlooked.
Generally vernal pools are largest and deepest in the spring, attaining maximum depths
of about 1 meter. Their most defining quality is their impermanence. Their periodic
dryness prevents fish from surviving and limits the distribution of other vertebrate and
invertebrate predators. This is a requirement for species such as wood frogs, mole
salamanders (genus Ambvstoma including marbled, spotted, blue-spotted, Jefferson's,
small-mouthed, and tiger salamanders). fair> shrimp, clam shrimp, and certain flatworms.
caddisflies and water beetles.
14
-------
Although all pools dry out at some point, as a group vernal pools span a wide
hydrological continuum, ranging from short-lived waters that flood in spring and dry by
early summer, through basins that fill in late fall and retain water until late summer, to
semipermanent ponds that remain flooded for several years at a time. Colbura (2001)
cites one study in Massachusetts' Cape Cod that followed 14 vernal pools monthly for
two years and used the results and pre-existing groundwater monitoring data to model the
history of the pools' hydrology. From 1982-1997, the pools fluctuated in size and depth
with some pools drying up in most years and others drying only occasionally.
For wildlife that live in vernal pools, the ability to .complete their life cycles in an
ephemeral environment varies, which means that the presence of most species is tied to
the flooding regime. For example, species such as wood frogs, which breed in short-
duration ponds, must complete development in on the 2-3 months. Wood frogs deposit
their eggs in early spring; the eggs hatch within three weeks and the tadpoles grow
quickly into young frogs before the pool dries out. Wood frogs do well in pools that dry
too rapidly for salamanders, which take longer to complete their embryonic and larval
phases, and require pools that remain flooded longer.
Both the duration of flooding and the length of the dry period winnow down the number
and type of species that are able to survive in an individual pool. Depending where each
falls along the hydrologic continuum, vernal pools support different communities of
aquatic organisms. Because relatively few animals can grow rapidly and also tolerate
extended desiccation, short-duration pools have fewer species—and different ones—that
pools that remain flooded longer. Some species are restricted to annually drying pools
because of their intolerance of predators living in semi-permanent pools. Drought
intolerant aquatic animals such as bullfrogs, green frogs, predaceous water bugs, and
large dragonflies found in semi-permanent wetlands may prey on or compete with vernal
pool-dependent amphibian and invertebrates. Pool hydrology therefore affects animals'
distributions directly, through their ability to develop during the flooded period and
survive the dry period, and indirectly through their interactions with other species.
The biological community also varies within a given pool from year to year, as the pool's
hydrology changes with annual fluctuations in precipitation and temperature. For
instance, small semi-permanent ponds commonly support spotted salamanders and fairy
shrimp, but fairy shrimp often appear only when the ponds refill after a drying episode.
The presence of vernal pool species in some permanent and semi-permanent ponds may
indicate that these ponds were once annually drying ponds that have been altered by
dredging or impoundment.
During their life cycles, many vernal pool-dependent species use a complex of uplands
and wetlands, of which vernal pools are critical—but not the sole—components. For
example, feeding in vernal pools is important for some populations of spotted and
Blanding's turtles. They spend the winter in vernal pools in other wetlands, and use
uplands for aestivation (summer dormancy) and nesting. Some water beetles and water
15
-------
bugs breed in vernal pools but overwinter in permanent water-bodies. Amphibians,
whose populations depend on vernal pools, spend most of their lives in uplands woods,
and some travel far from the pool from which they hatched or will return to breed. For
example, mole salamanders often travel 100-300 meters from the pools, and wood frogs
typically travel 400-800 meters. About 10-20% of wood frogs disperse to new pools
when they are first ready to breed, traveling an average of 1,000 meters from their natal
ponds. Because of these animals' large ranges, the use of vernal pools by breeding
amphibians is highly correlated with contiguous woodland and the proximity of other
pools.
Northeastern vernal pools, onlike temporary pools in prairies or the desert southwest, are
located in woodlands. These woodlands maintain pool hydrology, temperature, and
water chemistry and they contribute leaves and other detritus to the pond food web. The
forest context structures the vernal pool food web, which in turn affects pool wildlife.
The contributions by forest trees of an abundant supply of leaves and other dead plant
material, coupled with the cyclical drying regime, contributes to high food quality in
vernal pools. Colburn cites Barlocher et al. (1978) who noted that the air-dependent
fungi and bacteria that break down this detritus during the dry cycle contribute more
nutrients and protein than decomposers that are active in water.
Semlitsch (2000) discussed why small wetlands are extremely valuable for maintaining
the biodiversity of a number of plant and animal species. He noted additionally that
healthy populations of many species depend on not just a single wetland but also a
landscape densely covered by a variety of wetlands.
Ecologists describe the value of small isolated wetlands by their aggregate role in
protecting small wetland-dependent species through source-sink dynamics. More
variable than larger wetlands, each small wetland in an area may fluctuate in the number
of individuals of a species it contains; at times a wetland may act as a sink when the
population of a species dies out locally from that wetland or it may be a source that
produces surplus individuals, which can colonize a nearby sink wetland. Such
populations of a species that are spread over a number of locations are referred as
metapopulations and this source-sink dynamic is crucial to the regional survival of a
species. A metapopulation of a wetland-dependent species depends on the abundance and
proximity of wetlands, rather than a critical size threshold.
The loss of critical wetlands from an area could result in the loss of ecological
connections and potentially collapse the metapopulations of wetland-dependent species,
thereby causing local extinctions. This is particularly detrimental to species groups such
as amphibians, many of which are suffering dramatic global population declines. For
example, Semlitsch (2000)cites a study of 371 Carolina bays in the southeastern Atlantic
Coastal Plain of South Carolina, where it was found that the wetlands were close together
and generally small. They were distributed at a density of .476/km2 and ranged in size
from .2 to 78.2 hectares. In that population of wetands. 46.4% of all of the bays were 1.2
hectares or smaller and 87.3% were 4.0 hectares or smaller.
16
-------
Another 16-year monitoring study of a half-hectare area called Rainbow Bay documented
the presence of 27 species of frogs, toads, and salamanders—one of the highest species
diversities known for amphibians in that region.
The suggestion is that as the distance between wetlands increases the potential for
migration and recolonization by amphibians decreases and consequently the chance of
recolonization by source populations from nearby wetlands also decreases. Furthermore
many pond-breeding salamanders, and possibly many frogs and toads, are faithful to the
ponds from which they are hatched and do not emigrate long distances. For example the
maximum dispersal distance for wood frogs, measured by gene flow over multiple
generations is approximately 1,126 meters (Berven and Grudzien 1990). Because of the
limited dispersal ability of these animals, any increase in distances between wetlands
through wetland destruction impedes their colonization. In Carolina bays, if all wetlands
smaller that 1.2 hectares were removed the nearest- wetland distance would increase
from 471 to 666 meters. Removal of all wetlands 4.0 hectares or smaller would increase
the distance to 1,633 meters (beyond the maximum dispersal distance of wood frogs). In
this case the direct loss of habitat is compounded by the indirect effect of reduced
recolonization opportunities. The biodiversity value of such wetlands is therefore
intimately linked to its position in the landscape with respect to other wetlands.
Moler and Franz (1987) note that isolated wetlands are of unique biological importance
and many species are totally dependent on them, in large part because of their isolation.
Isolated wetlands, by virtue of their separation from larger wetland systems, contribute to
local landscape diversity. Because they are scattered widely across the landscape, they
provide an important local source of drinking water to many forms of terrestrial life.
They further note that at least 29 native species of anurans occur in the southeastern
Coastal Plain. Ten of these species breed primarily or exclusively in small, isolated,
often ephemeral wetlands and at least 10 others utilize such habitats opportunistically.
The bullfrog group (major competitors and predators) typically spends their first year as
aquatic larvae and are, thus, unsuited for reproduction in ephemeral, wetlands. In
addition to anurans, 5 species of southeastern salamanders breed more or less exclusively
in small, isolated wetland habitats free of predatory fish and at least 7 other species use
these habitats as well as more permanent sites.
Extensive, permanent, freshwater marshes are widespread in the lower Coastal Plain, yet
only 4 species of anurans breed in numbers in such habitats and one other breeds along
the margins. Often, those species which are able to reproduce in larger, permanent
wetland habitats are characterized by unpalatable or toxic eggs or tadpoles, have eggs
which are physically more resistant to predation or display behavioral or phenotypic
patters which reduce vulnerability to predation. As stated elsewhere, it is important to
recognize that, for many species of anurans, the use of small isolated wetlands is
obligative. Their eggs and larvae are simply not adapted to withstand the levels of
predation encountered in more permanent wetlands. They cite Wilbur (1980) who
pointed out that: ".... the limit on the permanent end of the continuum is probably set by
the species' susceptibility to predation. The more nearly permanent a pond is, the greater
17
-------
the range of predators it supports and the greater the likelihood that it contains fish. The
flush of primary productivity following flooding permits rapid growth and high
population densities. The drying of the pond eliminates Fish and other large predators so
that when the pond fills tadpoles have an initial size advantage over invertebrate
predators."
Amphibians serve as a cornerstone of the vertebrate food chain. In addition to the
importance of larvae and aquatic forms as prey for wading birds, many terrestrial
predators feed to varying degrees on amphibians. Wassersug (1975) commented. "The
amphibious life cycle of anurans constitutes one of the few biotic mechanisms for
transport of excessive nutrients out of eutrophic bodies of water and back into terrestrial
ecosystems."
A variety of snakes feed heavily on frogs. Moreover, because small wetlands tend to be
scattered widely over the landscape, they are an important source of prey for these and
other predators; the loss of such wetlands can impact wildlife populations to a
considerable distance from the pond. Using a 2 km dispersal distance away from a pond,
then the production would be scattered over a distance of some 1300 ha (actual dispersal
distances will vary with species).
Moler and Franz (1987) cite the work of Burton and Likens (1975) and Gosz et al. (1978)
in New Hampshire who suggest an important role for amphibians in energy cycling.
Burton and Likens (1975) found that the biomass of salamanders was about double that
of birds during the peak birding season and about equal to the biomass of small
mammals. Gosz et al. (1978) found that salamanders and shrews were the most
important vertebrates preying on the invertebrates of the forest floor. They estimated that
birds consumed 6.5 times and shrews 4.7 times the amount of food energy consumed by
the salamander community. However, because the warm-blooded birds and shrews
expended 98% of their energy intake on maintenance compared to only 40% for the
salamanders, salamanders contribute 4.6 (shrews) and 6.3 (birds) times as much biomass
to the available prey base.
Murdock (1994) notes that at least one third of the threatened and endangered species of
the United States live in wetlands. Southern Appalachian bogs and fens, in particular
support a wealth of rare and unique life forms, many of which are found in no other
habitat type. In North Carolina alone, nonalluvial mountain wetlands provide habitat for
nearly 90 species of plants and animals that are considered rare, threatened or
endangered. These species include the bog turtle (Clemmvs muhlenbergiH. the
Baltimore butterfly ("Euphvdrvas phaeton), mountain sweet pitcher plant CSarracenia
rubra ssp. jonesii), green pitcher plant (Sarracenia oreophilal. swamp pink (Helonias
bullata), bunched arrowhead (Sagittaria fasciculate), and Gray's lily (Lilium grayi).
Remaining bog turtle habitats are becoming increasingly isolated as more wetlands are
destroyed. Although this turtle is capable of moving along streams and other wetland
corridors in search of suitable habitat, threats to it increase as the distance between
wetlands increases.
18
-------
Mountain wetlands are one of the most important habitats for rare species in the
southeast. Until recently they have received little attention because of their usual small
size (<10 acres) and difficulty in mapping. Almost one-fifth of the 722 rare plant species
monitored by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program occur in nonalluvial
mountain wetlands, and most of them are limited to these habitat types (Murdock 1994).
Floodplain pools in the mountains are an extremely important wetland habitat and are
even more rare than bogs. A higher percentage of this habitat type has probably been lost
that other mountain wetland. Floodplain pools are the primary breeding habitat for a
number of amphibians including the four-toed salamander (Hemidactvlium scutatum)
and the mole salamander (Ambvstoma talpoideumV Other amphibians that are rare or
declining in the mountains and use floodplain pools include the mountain chorus frog
(Pseudacris brachvphonal. the seepage salamander (Desmoenathus aeneus). the longtail
salamander (Eurvcea longicauda). and the mud salamander fPseudotriton montanus)
(Murdock 1994).
The greatest threats to the rare species of mountain wetlands are habitat destruction and
degradation. Channelization of adjacent streams can result in destruction of hydrological
integrity even if the bog itself is not directly targeted. The deepening and widening of
the stream channel often causes a lowering of the local water table, which results in
drying of the bog habitat and acceleration of shrub succession. In view of the fact that
some of the bogs are thousands of years old, the question arises as to why many of them
are now succumbing relatively quickly to encroachment by woody species. There are
few unaltered mountain wetlands left and relatively minor alterations such as clearing the
surrounding uplands or channelizing an adjacent stream can substantially dry these
habitats. Once shrubs and trees are established they consume a tremendous amount of
water, further drying the habitat and accelerating the process of succession. Restoration
of mountain wetlands has met with very limited success—often once drastically altered
they are almost impossible to repair (Murdock 1994).
Hart and Newman (1995) discussed the importance of isolated wetlands to fish and
wildlife in Florida. Identified isolated wetland communities included (all or part):
freshwater marshes, wet prairies, flatwoods ponds, stonewort (Chara spp.) ponds,
sinkhole ponds, hammock ponds, pitcher plant bogs, cutthroat seeps, cypress swamps,
cypress domes, scrub cypress communities, bayheads, shrub bogs, and mixed evergreen
and deciduous hardwood swamps.
They noted that amphibians that must breed and spend their larval stages in temporary
waters represent the most obligate users of isolated wetlands (Moler and Franz 1987).
However there are other obligate requirements of a species population for isolated
wetlands under certain circumstances. This need is illustrated by wading birds that
require a threshold concentration of prey in order to forage and by snail kites
19
-------
(Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus) whose sole food source is the apple snail (Pomacea
paludosa).
The authors list 25 species of amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals that are obligate
users of isolated wetlands in Florida as well as 117species of amphibians, reptiles, fish,
birds and mammals that are facultative users of isolated wetlands in Florida. For at least
12 federally and state listed endangered or threatened species or species of special
concern (amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals) isolated wetlands are obligate habitats for
certain periods of their life cycle. An additional 6 listed species (reptiles, birds,
mammals) are facultative users of isolated wetlands and 62 additional listed plant species
occur in isolated wetlands.
Hart and Newman (1995) noted that in 1986, excessive rains in Florida (during a season
when waters are usually receding) resulted in a dramatically reduced concentration of
wading birds. They cited biologists who believed that the birds scattered throughout the
region seeking small isolated wetlands that had the desired concentrations of food items.
Takekawa and Beissinger (1989) demonstrated how regional isolated wetlands with
standing water were critical to the snail kite during droughts that dried the marshes where
they normally forage on apple snails.
Cycles of periodic drying and reflooding of isolated wetlands favor rapid nutrient
recycling and high rates of primary and secondary production (Kahl 1964). Predation
increases in drying wetlands, and fish kills result from low oxygen levels and desiccation.
Crowding under conditions of low oxygen can cause higher mortality than predation
during drydowns. Kushlan (1976) observed that fish mortality was 99.4% in a drying
pond where birds were not present to forage. In contrast, fish subject to predation by
wading birds under similar conditions has only 77% mortality, and survivors represented
all of the fish species that were in the pond before drydown.
Hatchling alligators are more likely to escape predation in isolated wetlands near the nest
site than in lakes that contain cannibalistic adult alligators and other potential predators.
After the first few months, however they begin to use larger and deeper water areas to
escape heat, disease and restricted food supply (Woodward et al. 1987). In south Florida,
alligators lengthen the hydroperiod of the wetlands they inhabit by digging alligator holes
to collect the water remaining during the dry season (Kushlan and Hunt 1979).
In discussions of Atlantic white cedar wetlands Laderman (1989) provides an interim list
of 89 cedar-associated plant species and sub-taxa that are considered regionally rare,
threatened or endangered.
The ecology of waterfowl species are widely acknowledged as being closely linked with
wetland ecological conditions. Behavioral spacing of breeding pairs and the availability
of energy resources have been proposed as major factors that regulate duck populations.
Patterson (1976) studied a heterogeneous system of beaver ponds west of Ottawa,
Ontario in order to compare the relative importance and interaction of the two
20
-------
mechanisms. The number of breeding pairs of ducks was found to be dependent only on
the amount of surface water available, indicating that the major population regulatory
mechanism was behavioral spacing. Fledged ducks on the other hand, selected fertile
wetlands regardless of pond size, indicating that populations were regulated by the
availability of energy resources. Habitat requirements of broods were intermediate,
because behavioral escape cover and food availability were both important. It was
hypothesized that the different environmental requirements of the three life history stages
are an evolutionary adaptation to a temporarily unpredictable environment. The
adaptations allow duck populations to maintain equilibrium in a temporarily
unpredictable environment and to attain high population size in a spatially heterogeneous
environment.
The population of prairie pothole wetlands, with a wide diversity of sizes, hydrology and
spatial relationships (that vary over annual and long term cycles), also present such an
evolutionary challenge to waterfowl (Drewien and Springer 1969, Dzubin 1969, Stoudt
1969). Such adapted species face difficulties when the wetland mosaic is altered
significantly.
In addition to the critical reproductive habitat dynamics describe above, ''isolated"
wetlands are critical for other aspects of waterfowl life history. For example, the
remaining wetlands of the rainwater basin area in south-central Nebraska are particularly
important as a spring staging area for millions of waterfowl. However, since the mid-
1970's thousands of waterfowl have died in the area from avian cholera. Smith and
Higgins (1990) studied the temporal changes in wetland numbers and densities in
Nebraska's Rainwater Basin area and related the data to outbreaks of avian cholera
(Pasteurella multocida).
Naturally occurring palustrine wetlands of temporary, seasonal or temporary water
regimes (Cowardin et al. 1979) were surveyed with 1981 data and compared with data
from 1965. Because water regimes are determined at the deepest portion of the wetland
basins, a large portion of the semipermanently flooded wetlands basin may actually
function as a seasonally flooded wetland. In order to be consistent with the 1965 data set.
wetlands that had been created by excavation or impoundment were not included. While
many surveyed wetlands contained drainage ditches (that may have reduced the original
size of the wetland area, as well as altered the original classification) a wetland was only
considered lost if it was totally altered and dewatered.
A total of 445 palustrine wetlands occupying 11,436 ha were found on 1981 National
Wetland Inventory maps. Of this total. 117 (26%) were of the temporary water regime,
202 (46%) were seasonal, and 126 (28%) were semipermanent. Drainage ditches
affected 362 (81%) of the 445 wetlands, leaving only 83 (19%) in a natural condition
occupying 1,926 ha. Wetland basins known to commonly experience avian cholera
epizootics had significantly fewer semipermanent wetlands within 3.2 km (the limit of P.
multocida movement via surface water flowage) that did semipermanent wetland basins
21
-------
not experiencing epizootics. Thus avian cholera epizootics were inversely related to
semipermanent wetland basin densities.
Drainage of Nebraska's wetland habitat possibly contributes to the incidence of avian
cholera epizootics by decreasing the density of available waterfowl staging areas.
Apparently, where semipermanent wetland densities are high, waterfowl are less
concentrated on individual wetlands. Conversely, lower wetland density may force birds
together in higher concentrations. Friend (1981) was cited who suggested that the high
concentration of birds might cause more stress, lessen water quality, and increase disease
susceptibility.
Although wetland drainage in Nebraska's rainwater basin area has resulted in drastic
reductions of wetland habitat, this drainage is the direct cause of avian cholera, as the
origin, retention, and transfer mechanism of avian cholera are not yet known.
22
-------
RESPONSE TO ANPRM: WETLAND LITERATURE REFERENCES
Adamus, P. R., L. T„ Stockwell, E. J. Clairain, Jr.. M. E. Morrow, L. P. Rozas,
and R. D. Smith. 1991. Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET); Volume I:
Literature Review and Evaluation Rationale. Tech. Rpt. WRP-DE-2. US Army
Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC. 297 pp.
Ash, A. N., C. B. McDonald, E. S. Kane, and C. A. Pories. 1983. Natural and
modified pocosins: literature synthesis and management options. US Fish Wildl.
Serv., Washington, DC. FWS/OBS-83/04. 156 pp.
Babbitt, K. J. and G. W. Tanner. 2000. Use of temporary wetlands by anurans in
a hydrologically modified landscape. Wetlands 20(2): 313-322.
Barlocher, R. J., R. J. MacKay, and G. B. Wiggins. 1978. Detritus processing in
a temporary vernal pool in southern Ontario. Archiv. Hydrobiology 81. 269-295.
Bayley, S. E., R. S. Behr, and C. A. Kelly. 1986. Retention and release of S from
a freshwater wetland. Water, air and soil Pollution 31: 104-114.
Bedford, B. L. 1996. The need to define hydrologic equivalence at the landscape
scale for freshwater wetland mitigation. Ecol. Applications 6(1): 57-68.
Bellrose, F. C. and N. M. Trudeau. 1988. Wetlands and their relationship to
migrating and wintering populations of waterfowl. Pages 183-194. In D. D.
Hook, W. H. McKee, Jr., H. K. Smith, J. Gregory, V. G. Burrell, Jr., M. R.
DeVoe, R. E. Sojka, S. Gilbert, R. Banks. L. H. Stolzy, C. Brooks, T. D.
Matthews, and T. H. Shear (eds.). The ecology and management of wetlands.
Volume 1: Ecology of wetlands. Timber Press, Portland, OR. 592 pp.
Belt, C. B., Jr. 1975. The 1973 flood and man's constriction of the Mississippi
River. Science 189: 681-684.
Bennett, D. H. 1972. Notes on the terrestrial wintering of mud turtles
(Kinosternon subrubrumV Herpetologica 28: 245-247.
Bennett, D. H., J. W. Gibbons, and J. C. Franson. 1970. Terrestrial activity in
aquatic turtles. Ecology 51: 738-740.
Bennett, S. H., J. W. Gibbons, and J. Glanville. 1979. Terrestrial activity,
abundance and diversity of amphibians in differently managed forest types. Am.
Midi. Nat. 103:412-416.
-------
Berven, K. A. and T. A. Grudzien. 1990. Dispersal in the wood frog (Rana
svlvatica): implications for genetic population structure. Evolution 44(8): 2047-
2056.
Beschta, R. L. and W. S. Platts. 1986. Morphological features of small streams:
significance and function. Water Res. Bull. 22(3): 369-379.
Bliley. D. J. and D. E. Pettry. 1979. Carolina bays on the eastern shore of
Virginia. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 43: 558-564.
Burton, T. M. and G. E. Likens. 1975. Salamander populations and biomass in
the Hubbard Brook Experimental; Forest, New Hampshire. Copeia 1975: 541-
546.
Brinson, M. M. 1977. Decomposition and nutrient exchange of litter in an
alluvial swamp forest. Ecology 58 (3): 602-609.
Brinson, M. M. 1988. Strategies for assessing the cumulative effects of wetland
alteration on water quality. Environ. Manage. 12:655-662.
Brinson, M. M. 1991. Landscape properties of pocosins and associated wetlands.
Wetlands 11, Special Issue: 441-466.
Brinson, M. M. 1993. Changes in the functioning of wetlands along
environmental gradients. Wetlands 13(2), Special Issue: 65-74.
Brown, K. W. 1980. An analysis of herpetofaunal species diversity along a
temporal gradient of loblolly pine stands in South Carolina. Master's Thesis.
Texas Christian University. Fort Worth, TX.
Brown, M. T. and M. F. Sullivan. 1988. The value of wetlands in low relief
landscapes. Pages 133-145. In D. D. Hook, W. H. McK.ee, Jr., H. K. Smith, J.
Gregory, V. G. Burrell, Jr., M. R. DeVoe, R. E. Sojka, S. Gilbert, R. Banks, L. H.
Stolzy, C. Brooks, T. D. Matthews, and T. H. Shear (eds.). The ecology and
management of wetlands. Volume 1: Ecology of wetlands. Timber Press,
Portland, OR. 592 pp.
Brown, R. G. 1985. Effects of wetlands on quality of runoff entering lakes in the
twin cities metropolitan area. Minnesota Water Resources Investig. Rept. 85-
4170. US Geological Survey. Reston, VA 32 pp.
Brown, R. G. 1988a. Effects of precipitation and land use on storm runoff.
Water Resour. Bull. 24: 421-426.
24
-------
Brown, R. G. 1988b. Effects of wetland channelization on runoff and loading.
Wetlands 8: 123-133.
Brown. R. G., J. R. Stark, and G. L. Patterson. 1988. Ground-water and surface-
water interactions in Minnesota and Wisconsin wetlands. Pages 176-180. In D.
D: Hook, W. H. McKee, Jr., H. K. Smith, J. Gregory, V. G. Burrell, Jr., M. R.
DeVoe, R. E. Sojka, S. Gilbert, R. Banks. L. H. Stolzy, C. Brooks, T. D.
Matthews, and T. H. Shear (eds.). The ecology and management of wetlands.
Volume 1: Ecology of wetlands. Timber Press, Portland, OR. 592 pp.
Brown, S. 1984. The role of wetlands in the Green Swamp. Pages 405-415 In K.
C. Ewel and H. T. Odum (eds.), cypress Swamps. University Presses of Florida,
Gainesville, FL.
Brun, L. J., J. L. Richardson, J. W. Enz, and J. K. Larsen. 1981. Stream flow
changes in the southern Red River Valley of North Dakota. North Dakota Farm
Res. 38(5): 11-14.
Burke, V. J. and J. W. Gibbons. 1995. Terrestrial buffer zones and wetland
conservation: A case study of freshwater turtles in a Carolina bay. Conservation
Biology 9(6): 1365-1369.
Carter, V. and R. P. Novitzki. 1988. Some comments on the relation between
ground water and wetlands. Pages 68-86. In D. D. Hook, W. H. McKee, Jr., H.
K. Smith, J. Gregory, V. G. Burrell, Jr., M. R. DeVoe, R. E. Sojka, S. Gilbert, R.
Banks, L. H. Stolzy, C. Brooks, T. D. Matthews, and T. H. Shear (eds.). The
ecology and management of wetlands. Volume 1: Ecology of wetlands. Timber
Press, Portland, OR. 592 pp.
Christensen, N. L., R. B. Burchell, A. Liggett, and E. L. Simms. 1981. The
structure and development of pocosin vegetation. Pages 43-61 In C. J.
Richardson, (ed.) Pocosin wetlands: an integrated analysis of coastal plain bogs in
North Carolina. Hutchinson Ross Publishing Co., Stroudsburg, PA. 364 pp.
Colbum, B. A. 2001. Small pools close up: examining vernal pools of the
northeast. National Wetlands Newsletter 23(1): 7-8, 17-18.
Cooper, D. J. 1990. Ecology of wetlands in Big Meadows, Rocky Mountain
National Park, Colorado. US Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 90(15). Washington,
DC. 45 pp.
Cooper, J. R. and J. W. Gilliam. 1987. Phosphorus redistribution for cultivated
field into riparian areas. Soil Sci. Am. J. 51: 1600-1604.
25
-------
Cooper, J. R., J. W. Gilliam. R. B. Daniels, and W. P Robarge. 1987. Riparian
areas as filters for agricultural sediment. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 51: 416-420.
Cooper, J. R.. J. W. Gilliam, and T. C. Jacobs. 1986. Riparian areas as a control
of nonpoint pollutants. Pages 166-192 in D. L. Correll (ed.) Watershed Research
Perspectives. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.
Copeland, B. J., R. G. Hodson, and S. R. Riggs. 1984. The ecology of the
Pamlico River, North Carolina: an estuarine profile. US Fish Wildl. Serv.
Washington, DC. FWS/OBS-82/06. 83 pp.
Copeland, B. J., R. G. Hodson, S. R. Riggs, and J. E. Easley, Jr. 1983. The
ecology of Albemarle Sound. North Carolina: an estuarine profile. US Fish
Wildl. Serv. Washington, DC. FWS/OBS-83/01. 68 pp.
CoWardin, L. M., V. Carter, F, C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification
of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U. S. Fish Wildl. Serv.
Office of biological Services, Washington, DC. FWS/OBS-79-31. 131pp.
Craft, C. B. and W. P. Casey. 2000. Sediment and nutrient accumulation in
floodplain and depressional freshwater wetlands of Georgia, USA. Wetlands
20(2): 323-332.
Crisp, D. T. 1966. Input and output of minerals for an area of Pennine moorland:
The importance of precipitation, drainage, peat erosion and animals. J. of
Applied Ecology 3: 327-348.
Damman, A. W. H. and T. W. French. 1987. The ecology of peat bogs of the
glaciated Northeastern United States: a community profile. US Fish Wildl. Serv.
Biol. Rep. 85(7.16). 100 pp.
Daniel, C. C., III. 1981. Hydrology, geology and soils of pocosins: a comparison
of natural and altered systems. Pages 69-108. In C. J. Richardson, (ed.) Pocosin
wetlands: an integrated analysis of coastal plain bogs in North Carolina.
Hutchinson Ross Publishing Co., Stroudsburg, PA. 364 pp.
Davis, C. B., J.L. Baker. A. G. van der Valk, and C. E. Beer. 1981. Prairie
pothole marshes as traps for nitrogen and phosphorus in agricultural runoff.
Pages 153-163 In B. Richardson (ed.). Selected proceedings of the Midwest
conference on wetland values and management, June 17-19, 1981. St. Paul, MN.
The Freshwater Society. St. Paul, MN. 660 pp.
Day, F. P., Jr. and J. P. Megonigal. 1993. The relationship between variable
hydroperiod. production allocation, and belowground organic turnover in forested
wetlands. Wetlands 13(2). Special Issue: 115-121.
26
-------
Demissie, M. and A. Khan. 1993. Influence of wetlands on streamflow in
Illinois. Contract Rept. 561 prepared for the Illinois Dept. of Conservation.
Illinois Dept. of Energy and Natural Resources. Champaign. IL. 47 pp.
Diamond. J. 1975. The island dilemma: Lessons of modem biogeographical
studies for design of natural preserves. Biol. Conservation 7: 129-146.
Diamond, J. M. 1976. Island biogeography and conservation: strategy and
limitations. Science 193: 1027-1029.
Diehl, J. W. and R. E. Behling. 1982. Geologic factors affecting formation and
presence of wetlands in the North Central section of the Appalachian Plateaus
province of West Virginia. Pages 3-9 In B. R. MacDonald (ed.). Proceedings of
the symposium on wetlands of the unglaciated Appalachian Region. West
Virginia University, Morgantown, WV. 253 pp.
Dodd, C. K., Jr. 1995. Reptiles and amphibians in the endangered longleaf pine
ecosystem. In: LaRoe, E. T., G. T. Ferris, C.E. Pucket, P. Doran, (Eds.) Our
Living Resources: A report to the nation on the distribution, abundance, and
health of plants, animals and ecosystems. National Biological Service,
Washington, DC.
Dodd, C. K. and B. G. Charest. 1988. The herpetofaunal community of
temporary ponds in north Florida sandhills: species composition, temporal use.
and management implications. Pages 87-97 In Szaro, R. C., K. R. Severson, and
D. R. Patton (eds.). Management of Amphibians, Reptiles, and Small Mammals
in North America. US DA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Report RM-166. Ft.
Collins, CO. 458 pp.
Drewien, R. C. and P. F. Springer. 1969. Ecological relationships of breeding
blue-winged teal to prairie potholes. Pages 102-115. In: Saskatoon wetlands
seminar. Can. Wildl. Serv. Rep. Series No. 6. The Queen's Printer, Ottawa,
Ontario. 262 pp.
Dury, G. H. 1977. Underfit streams: retrospect, perspect, and prospect. Pages
281-293. In K. J. Gregory (ed.). River channel changes. John Wiley and Sons,
New York, NY. 448 pp.
Dzubin, A. 1969. Comments on carrying capacity of small ponds for ducks and
possible effects of density on mallard production. Pages 138-160. In: Saskatoon
wetlands seminar. Can. Wildl. Serv. Rep. Series No. 6. The Queen's Printer,
Ottawa, Ontario. 262 pp.
Elder, J. 1985. Nitrogen and phosphorus speciation and flux in a large Florida
river wetland ecosystem. Water Res. Res. 21: 724-732.
27
-------
Environmental Defense Fund and World Wildlife Fund. 1992. How Wet is a
Wetland? New York, NY. 175 pp.
Euliss, N. H., Jr.. and D. M. Mushet. 1996. Water-level fluctuation in wetlands s
a function of landscape condition in the prairie pothole region. Wetlands 16(4):
587-593.
Fetter, C. W., Jr.. W. E. Sloey, and F. L. Spangler. 1978. Use of a natural marsh
for wastewater polishing. J. Water Pollut. Cont. Fed. 50: 290-307.
Flores, A. C., P. B. Bedient, and L. W. Mays. 1981. Method for optimizing size
and locations of urban detention storage. Pages 357-365 in Proc. of the
International symposium on Urban Hydrology, Hydraulics and Sediment control.
ASCE, New York, NY.
Friend, M. 1981. Waterfowl management and waterfowl disease: independent or
cause and effect relationship? Trans. N. Am. Wildl. Nat. Res. Conf. 46: 94-103.
Fritzell, E. K. 1988. Mammals and wetlands. Pages 213-226. In D. D. Hook,
W. H. McKee, Jr., H. K. Smith, J. Gregory, V. G. Burrell, Jr., M. R. DeVoe, R. E.
Sojka, S. Gilbert, R. Banks, L. H. Stolzy, C. Brooks, T. D. Matthews, and T. H.
Shear (eds.). The ecology and management of wetlands. Volume 1: Ecology of
wetlands. Timber Press, Portland, OR. 592 pp.
Gallagher, J. L. and H. V. Kibby. 1980. Marsh plants as vectors in trace metal
transport in Oregon tidal marshes. Am. J. Bot. 67: 1069-1074.
Gibbs; J. P. 1993. Importance of small wetlands for the persistence of local
populations of wetland-associated animals. Wetlands 13(1): 25-31.
Gilliam, J. W. 1991. Wet soils in the North Carolina coastal plain. Wetlands 11.
Special Issue: 391-399.
Gilliam, J. W. and R. W. Skaggs. 1981. Drainage and agricultural development:
effects on drainage waters. Pages 109-124 In C. J. Richardson, (ed.) Pocosin
wetlands: an integrated analysis of coastal plain bogs in North Carolina.
Hutchinson Ross Publishing Co.. Stroudsburg, PA. 364 pp.
Gillion, R. J. 1985. Pesticides in rivers of the United States. Pages 85-92 in
Water Supply Paper 2275. US Geological Survey, Reston, VA.
Golet, F. C., A. J. K. Calhoun. W. RE. DeRagon, D. J. Lowry, and A. J. Gold.
1993. Ecology of red maple swamps in the glaciated northeast: a community
profile. US Fish Wildl. Serv.. Biol. Rep. 12. Washington, DC. 151 pp.
28
-------
Gosz, J. R.. R. T. Holmes, G. E. Likens, and F. H. Bormann. 1978. The flow of
energy in a forest ecosystem. Sci. Amer. 238(3): 100-111.
Greenwood, R. J., A. B. Sargeant, D. H. Johnson, L. M. Cowardin, and T. L.
Shaffer. 1995. Factors associated with duck nest success in the prairie pothole
region of Canada. Wildl. Monographs 128. 54 pp.
Guenzi, W. D. and W. E. Beard. 1968. Anaerobic conversion of DDT to DDD
and aerobic stability of DDT in soil. Proc. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. 32: 5220524.
Guenzi, W. D., W. E. Beard, and F. G. Viets, Jr. 1971. Influence of soil
treatment on persistence of six chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides in the field.
Proc. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. 35: 910-913.
Gwin, S. E., M. E. Kentula, and P. W. Shaffer. 1999. Evaluating the effects of
wetland regulation through hydrogeomorphic classification and landscape
profiles. Wetlands 19(3): 477-489.
Hanski, I. and O. Ovaskainen. 2000. The metapopulation capacity of a
fragmented landscape. Nature 404: 755-758.
Harden, J. W., E. T. Sundquist, R. F. Stallard, and R. K. Mark. 1992. Dynamics
of soil carbon during deglaciation of the Laurentide Ice Sheet. Science 258:
1921-1924.
Hart, R., and J. R. Newman. 1995. The importance of isolated wetlands to fish
and wildlife in Florida. Fla. Game and Fresh Water Fish Comm. Nongame Wildl.
Program Project Rep., Tallahassee, FL. 145 pp.
Hecnar, S. J. and R.T. M'Closkey. 1996. Regional dynamics and the status of
amphibians. Ecology 77(7): 2091-2097.
Hershner, C., K. Havens, D. Schatt. and T. Rudnicky. 2000. Headwater and
floodplain wetlands in Virginia. Virginia Inst, of Marine Science Special Report
No. 00-2.8 pp.
Hey, D. L. and N. s. Philippi. 1995. Flood reduction through wetland restoration:
the upper Mississippi River basin as a case history. Restoration Ecology 3(1): 4-
17.
Hickok, E. A., M. C. Hannaman, and N. C. Wenck. 1977. Urban runoff
treatment methods: Vol. I. Nonstructural wetlands treatment. EPA-600/1-77-217.
US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 131 pp.
29
-------
Hill. A. R. and K. J. Devito. 199-7. Hydrological-chemical interactions in
headwater forested wetlands. 1997. Pages 213-230 In C. C. Trettin, M. F.
Jurgensen. D. F. Grigal, M. R. Gale, and J K. Jeglum (eds.) Northern Forested
Wetlands: Ecology and Management. Lewis Publ., Boca Raton, FL. 486 pp.
Hindall, S. M. 1975. Measurement and prediction of sediment yields in
Wisconsin streams. Water Resour. Invest. 54-75. US Geological Survey, Reston.
VA. 27 pp.
Hossner, L. R. and W. H. Baker. 1988. Phosphorus in flooded soils. Pages 293-
306. In D. D. Hook, W. H. McK.ee, Jr., H. K. Smith, J. Gregory, V. G. Burrell,
Jr., M. R. DeVoe, R. E. Sojka, S. Gilbert. R. Banks, L. H. Stolzy, C. Brooks, T. D.
Matthews, and T. H. Shear (eds.). The ecology and management of wetlands.
Volume 1: Ecology of wetlands. Timber Press, Portland, OR. 592 pp.
Hubbard, D. E. 1988. Glaciated prairie wetland functions and values: a synthesis
of the literature. U. S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 88(43). Ft. Collins, CO. 50
pp.
Hubbard, D. E. and R. L. Linder. 1986. Spring runoff retention in prairie
pothole wetlands. J. Soil and Water Conservation 41: 122-125.
Hupp, C. R. and A. Simon. 1991. Bank accretion and the development of
vegetated depositional surfaces along modified alluvial channels.
Geomorphology 4: 111-124.
Hupp, C. R., M. D. Woodside. and T. M. Yanosky. 1993. Sediment and tract
element trapping in a forested wetland, Chickahominy River, Virginia. Wetlands
13(2), Special Issue: 95-104.
Ingram, H. A. P. 1967. Problems of hydrology and plant distribution in mires. J.
of Ecology 55: 711-724.
Jacobs, T. C. and J. W. Gilliam. 1983. Nitrate loss from agricultural drainage
waters: Implications for non-point source control. Report No. 209. Water
Resources Institute of the Univ. of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC.
Johnston, C. A. 1994. Cumulative impacts to wetlands. Wetlands 14(1): 49-55.
Kaczorowski, R. T. 1976. Origin of the Carolina bays. Pages II. 16-11.36. In
M.O. Hayes et al. Terrigenous clastic depositioinal environments. Univ. south
Carolina Coastal Res. Div. Tech. Rept. No. 11.
Kahl, P. M., Jr. 1964. Food ecology of the wood stork (Mvcteria americana) in
Florida. Ecol. Monographs 34( 1): 97-117.
30
-------
Kantrud, H. A., G. L. Krapu, and G. A. Swanson. 1989. Prairie basin wetlands of
the Dakotas: a community profile. US Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 85(7.28).
Washington, DC. Ill pp.
Karickhoff, W. W., D. S. Brown, and T. A. Scott. 1979. Sorption of hydrophobic
pollutants on natural sediments. Water Res. 13:241-248.
Keeley, J. E. and P. H. Zedler. 1998. Characterization and global distribution of
vemal pools. Pages 1-14 In C. W. Witham, E. T. Bauder, D. Belk, W. R. Ferren
Jr., and R. Ornduff (eds.) Ecology, Conservation and Management of Vernal Pool
Ecosystems—Proceedings from a 1996 Conference. California Native Plant
Society, Sacramento, CA. 285 pp.
Kirkman, L. K., M. B. Drew, L. T. West, and E. R. Blood. 1998. Ecotone
characterization between upland longleaf pine/wiregrass stands and seasonally-
ponded isolated wetlands. Wetlands 18(3): 346-364.
Kirkman, L. K., S. W. Golladay, L. Laclaire, and R. Sutter. 1999. Biodiversity in
southeastern, seasonally ponded, isolated wetlands: management and policy
perspectives for research and conservation. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 18(4): 553-
562.
Kirkman, L. K., R. F. Lide, G. Wein, and R. R. Sharitz. 1996. Vegetation
changes and land-use legacies of depression wetlands of the western coastal plain
of South Carolina: 1951-1992. Wetlands 16(4): 564-576.
Kirkman, L. K., P. C. Goebel, L. West, M. B. Drew, and B. J. Palik. 2000.
Depressional wetland vegetation types: a question of plant community
development. Wetlands 20(2): 373-385.
Kittelson, J. M. 1988. Analysis of flood peak moderation by depressional
wetland sites. Pages 98-111. In D. D. Hook, W. H. McKee, Jr., H. K. Smith, J.
Gregory, V. G. Burrell, Jr.. M. R. DeVoe, R. E. Sojka, S. Gilbert, R. Banks, L. H.
Stolzy, C. Brooks, T. D. Matthews, and T. H. Shear (eds.). The ecology and
management of wetlands. Volume 1: Ecology of wetlands. Timber Press,
Portland, OR. 592 pp.
Knight, R. L., J. S. Bays, and F. R. Richardson. 1989. Floral composition, soil
relations, and hydrology of a Carolina bay in South Carolina. Pages 219-234 in
R. R. Sharitz and J. W. Gibbons (eds.). Freshwater Wetlands and Wildlife. March
24-27, 1986. Charleston. SC. US Office of Health and Environ. Research, Off.
Sci. and Tech. Information. Washington, DC. 1265 pp.
31
-------
Knox. J. C. 1988. Climatic influence on Upper Mississippi Valley floods. Pages
279-300. In V. R. Baker, R. C. Kochel. and P. C. Patton (eds.). Flood
geomorphology. John Wiley and Sons. New York, NY.
•Ko, W. H., and J. L. Lockwood. 1968. Conversion of DDT to DDD in soil and
the effect of these compounds on soil organisms. Can. J. Microbiol. 14: 1069-
1073.
Kudray, G. M. and M. R. Gale. 1997. Relationships between groundwater
characteristics, vegetation, and peatland type in the Hiawatha National Forest,
Michigan. Pages 89-96 In C. C. Trettin, M. F. Jurgensen, D. F. Grigal, M. R.
Gale, and J K. Jeglum (eds.) Northern Forested Wetlands: Ecology and
Management. Lewis Publ., Boca Raton, FL. 486 pp.
Kushlan, J. A. 1976. Wading bird predation in a seasonally fluctuating pond.
The Auk 93(3): 464-476.
Kushlan, J. A. and B. P. Hunt. 1979. Limnology of an alligator pond in south
Florida. Florida Scientist 42: 65-84.
LaBaugh, J.W., T. C. Winter, and D. O. Rosenberry. 1998. Hydrologic functions
of prairie wetlands. Great Plains Research 8: 17-37.
Laderman, A. D. 1989. The ecology of the Atlantic white cedar wetlands: a
community profile. US Fish Wild. Serv. Biol. Rep. 85(7.21). 114 pp.
Laney, R. W. 1988. The elimination of isolated and limited-flow wetlands in
North Carolina. Pages 243-253 In W. L. Lyke and T. J. Hoban (eds.) Proc. of the
Symposium on Coastal Water Resources. Am. Water Resources Assoc.,
Bethesda, MD.
Laxen, D. P. H., and R. M. Harrison. 1977. The highway as a source of water
pollution: an appraisal with the heavy metal lead. Water Res. 11: 1-11.
Leopold, L. B., M. G. Wolman, and J. P. Miller. 1964. Fluvial Processes in
Geomorphology. W. H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco, CA.
Lehtinen, R. M., S. M., Galatowitsch. and J. R. Turner. 1999. Consequences of
habitat loss and fragmentation for wetland amphibian assemblages. Wetlands
19(1): 1-12.
Lide, R. F. and V. G. Meentemeyer. 1995. Hydrology of a Carolina bay located
on the upper coastal plain of western South Carolina. Wetlands 15(1): 47-57.
32
-------
Lowrance, R. R., R. L. Todd, and L. E. Asmussen. 1984a. Nutrient cycling in an
agricultural watershed: Phreatic movement. J. Environm. Qual. 13: 22-27.
Lowrance, R. R., R. L. Todd, J. Flail, O. Hendrickson, R. Leonard, and L. E.
Asmussen. 1984b. Riparian forests as nutrient filters in agricultural watersheds.
Bioscience 34: 374-377.
Lowrance, R., L. S. Altier, J. Denis Newbold, R. S. Schnabel, P. M. Groffman, J.
M. Denver, D. L. Correll, J. W. Gilliam, J. L. Robinson, R. B. Brinsfield, K. W.
Staver, W. Lucas, and A. H. Todd. 1997. Water quality functions of riparian
forest buffers in Chesapeake Bay watersheds. Environmental Management 21(5):
687-712.
Ludden, A. P., D. L. Frink, and D. H. Johnson. 1983. Water storage capacity of
natural wetland depressions in the Devils Lake basin of North Dakota. J. Soil and
Water Conservation 38: 45-48.
Maser, C. and J. R. Sedell. 1994. From the Forest to the Sea: The ecology of
wood in streams, rivers, estuaries and oceans. St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, FL.
200 pp.
McColl, R. H. S. 1978. Chemical runoff from pastures: the influence of fertilizer
and riparian zones. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 12:
371-380.
Melton, F. A. 1938. Possible late Cretaceous origin of the Carolina "bays."
Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 49: 1954.
Mitsch, W. J. and J. G. Gosselink. 1986. Wetlands. Van Nostrand Reinhold,
New York, NY. 539 pp.
Miller, M. W., and T. D. Nudds. i 996. Prairie landscape change and flooding in
the Mississippi River valley. Conservation Biology 10(3): 847-853.
Moler, P. E. and R. Franz. 1987. Wildlife values of small, isolated wetlands in
the southeastern coastal plain. Pages 234-241 In: Proceedings of the Third
southeastern Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Symposium, August 8-10, 1987,
Athens GA.
Molinas, A., G. T. Auble, C. A. Segelquist, and L. S. Ischinger (eds.). 1988.
Assessment of the role of bottomland hardwoods in sediment and erosion control.
NERC-88/11. US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Ecology Research Center,
Ft. Collins, CO. 116 pp.
j j
-------
Moore. I. D. and D. L. Larson. 1979. Effects of drainage projects on surface
runoff from small depressional watersheds in the north-central region. Univ.
Minn. Water Resources Res. Center Bull. 99. 225 pp.
Moorhead, K. K. 1992. Wetland resources of coastal North Carolina. Wetlands
12(3): 184-191.
Mortellare, S., S. fCrupa, L. Fink, and J. VanArman. 1995. Literature review on
the effects of groundwater drawdowns on isolated wetlands. South Florida Water
Management District Technical Publication 96-01. West Palm Beach, FL. 44 pp.
Mulholland, P. J. 1992. Regulation of nutrient concentrations in a temperate
forest stream: Roles of upland, riparian and instream processes. Limnol.
Oceanog. 37: 1512-1526.
Mulholland, P. J., L. A. Yarbro. R. P. Sniffen, and E. J. Kuenzler. 1981. Effects
of floods on nutrient and metal concentrations in a coastal plain stream. Water
Res. Res. 17: 758-764. 1992.
Mulholland, P. J. and E. J. Kuenzler. 1979. Organic carbon export from upland
and forested wetland watersheds. Limnol. Oceanog. 24: 960-966.
Murdock. N. A. 1994. Rare and endangered plants and animals of southern
Appalachian wetlands. Water. Air and Soil Pollution 77: 385-405.
Nichols, D. S. 1983. Capacity of natural wetlands to remove nutrients from
wastewater. J. Water Pol], Cont. Fed. 55: 495-505.
Niering, W. A. 1988. Endangered, threatened and rare wetland plants and
animals of the continental United States. Pages 227-238. In D. D. Hook, W. H.
McKee, Jr., H. K. Smith. J. Gregory. V. G. Burrell, Jr., M. R. DeVoe, R. E. Sojka.
S. Gilbert, R. Banks, L. H. Stolzy. C. Brooks, T. D. Matthews, and T. H. Shear
(eds.). The ecology and management of wetlands. Volume 1: Ecology of
wetlands. Timber Press. Portland. OR. 592 pp.
Novitzki, R. P. 1978. Hydrology of the Nevin wetland near Madison, Wisconsin.
US Geol. Surv. Water Resour Invest. 78-43. 25 pp.
Novitzki, R. P. 1979. The hydrological characteristics of Wisconsin wetlands and
their influence on floods, streamflow. and sediment. Pages 377-388 in P. E.
Greeson. J. R. Clark, and J. E. Clark (eds.), Wetland functions and values: the
state of our understanding. Am Water Resources Assoc. Minneapolis, MN. 674
pp.
34
-------
Oberts, G. L. 1981. Impacts of wetlands on watershed water quality. Pages 213-
227 in B. Richardson (ed.). Selected proceedings of the Midwest conference on
wetland values and management. Freshwater Soc., Navarre, MN.
Odum W. E., and J. E. Drifmeyer. 1978. Sorption of pollutants by plant detritus:
a review. Environ. Health Perspect. 27: 133-37.
Ogawa, H., and J. W. Male. 1983. The flood mitigation potential of inland
wetlands. Univ. Ma. Water Resources Research Center, Amherst, MA. 164 pp.
Otte, L. J. 1981. Origin, development and maintenance of pocosin wetlands of
Northe Carolina. Unpublished report to the North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program. North Carolina Dept. of Natural Resources and Community
Development. Raleigh, NC. 51pp.
Parr, J. F., and S. Smith. 1976. Degradation of toxaphene in selected anaerobic
soil environments. Soil Sci. 121:52-57.
Patrick, W. J., Jr. and R. A. Khalid. 1974. Phosphate release and sorption by soil
and sediments: Effect of aerobic and anaerobic conditions. Science 186: 53-55.
Patterson, J. H. 1976. The role of environmental heterogeneity in the regulation
of duck populations. J. Wildl. Manage. 40(1): 22-32.
Pearson, S. M. 1994. Landscape-level processes and wetland conservation in the
southern Appalachian Mountains. Water, Air and Soil Pollution 77: 321-332.
Peterjohn, W. T. and D. L. Correll. 1984. Nutrient dynamics in an agricultural
watershed: Observations on the role of a riparian forest. Ecology 65(5): 1466-
1475.
Phillips, P. J. and R. J. Shedlock. 1993. Hydrology and chemistry of
groundwater and seasonal ponds in the Atlantic Coastal Plain in Delaware, USA.
J. Hydrology 141: 157-178.
Phillips, P. J., J. M. Denver. R. J. Shedlock, and P. A. Hamilton. 1993. Effect of
forested wetlands on nitrate concentrations in ground water and surface water on
the Delmarva Peninsula. Wetlands 13(2), Special Issue: 75-83.
Pielou, E. C. 1998. Fresh water. Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. 275 pp.
Pionke, H. B. and G. Chesters. 1973. Pesticide-sediment-water interactions. J.
Environ. Qual. 2: 29-45.
35
-------
Porcher. R. D. 1981. The vascular flora of the Francis Beidler forest in four
Holes Swamp, Berkeley and Dorchester Counties, South Carolina. Castanea 46:
248-280.
Postel, S.L. 1981. The economic benefits of pocosin preservation. Pages 283-
302. In C. J. Richardson, (ed.) Pocosin wetlands: an integrated analysis of coastal
plain bogs in North Carolina. Hutchinson Ross Publishing Co., Stroudsburg, PA.
364 pp.
Prouty, W. F. 1952. Carolina bays and their origin. Bull. Geol. Soc. Am. 63:
167-224.
Puckett, L. J., M. D. Woodside, B. Libby, and M. R. Schening. 1993. Sinks for
trace metals, nutrients, and sediments in wetlands of the Chickahominy River
near Richmond, Virginia. Wetlands 13(2), Special Issue: 105-114.
Rannie, W. F. 1980. The Red River flood control system and recent flood
events. Water Res. Bull. 16: 207-214.
Reddy, K. R. and D. A. Graetz. 1988. Carbon and nitrogen dynamics in wetland
soils. Pages 307-318. In D. D. Hook, W. H. McK.ee, Jr., H. K. Smith, J. Gregory,
V. G. Burrell, Jr., M. R. DeVoe, R. E. Sojka, S. Gilbert, R. Banks, L. H. Stolzy.
C. Brooks, T. D. Matthews, and T. H. Shear (eds.). The ecology and management
of wetlands. Volume 1: Ecology of wetlands. Timber Press, Portland, OR. 592
pp.
Rheinhardt, R. D., M. C. Rheinhardt, M. M. Brinson, and K. Faser. 1998.
Forested wetlands of low order streams in the inner coastal plain of North
Carolina, USA. Wetlands 18(3): 365-378.
Richardson, C. J. 1981. Pocosins: ecosystem processes and the influence of Man
on system response. Pages 135-151. In C. J. Richardson, (ed.) Pocosin wetlands:
an integrated analysis of coastal plain bogs in North Carolina. Hutchinson Ross
Publishing Co., Stroudsburg, PA. 364 pp.
Richardson, C. J. 1991. Pocosins: an ecological perspective. Wetlands 11,
Special Issue: 335-354.
Richardson, C. J., R. Evans, and D Carr. 1981. Pocosins: an ecosystem in
transition. Pages 3-19. In C. J. Richardson, (ed.) Pocosin wetlands: an integrated
analysis of coastal plain bogs in North Carolina. Hutchinson Ross Publishing
Co., Stroudsburg, PA. 364 pp.
36
-------
Richardson. E. M. and E. Epstein. 1971. Retention of three insecticides on
different size soil particles suspended in water. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 35: 884-
887..
Richardson, J. L. and J.'L. Amdt. 1989. What use prairie potholes? J. Soil and
Water Conservation 44: 196-198.
Richter, K. 0. and A. L. Azous. 1995. Amphibian occurrence and wetland
characteristics in the Puget Sound basin. Wetlands 15(3): 305-312.
Roelle, J. E., G. T. Auble, D. B. Hamilton, R. L. Johnson, and C. A. Segelquist,
eds. 1987. Results of a workshop concerning ecological zonation in bottomland
hardwoods. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., National Ecology Center, Ft. Collins, CO.
NEC-87/14. 141pp.
Roulet, N. T. 1990. Hydrology of a headwater basin wetland: Groundwater
discharge and wetland maintenance. Hydrological Processes 4: 387-400.
Russell. K. R. and H. G. Hanlin. 1999. Aspects of the ecology of worm snakes
fCarphoohis amoenus) associated with small isolated wetlands in South Carolina
J. Herpetology 33(2): 339-344.
Schafale, M. P. 1999. Nonriverine wet hardwood forests in North Carolina
Status and Trends. North Carolina Heritage Program. 12 pp.
Semlitsch, R. D. 2000. Size does matter: the value of small isolated wetlands.
National Wetlands Newsletter 22(1): 5-6, 13.
Semlitsch, R. D. and J. R. Bodie. 1998. Are small, isolated wetlands
expendable? Conservation Biology 12(5): 1129-1133.
Shaffer, P. W., M. E. Kentula, and S. E. Gwin. 1999. Characterization of
wetland hydrology using hydrogeomorphic classification. Wetlands 19(3): 490-
504.
Sharitz, R. R. and J. W. Gibbons. 1982. The ecology of southeastern shrub bogs
(pocosins) and Carolina bays: a community profile. US Fish Wildl. Serv.,
Washington, DC. FWS/OBS-82/04. 93 pp.
Sharom, M. S., J. R. W. Miles, C. R. Harsis, and F. L. McEwen. 1980. Behavior
of 12 insecticides in soil and aqueous suspensions of soil and sediment. Water
Res. 14(8): 1095-1100.
Skaggs, R. W., J. W. Gilliam, and R. O. Evans. 1991. A computer simulation
study of pocosin hydrology. Wetlands 11, Special Issue: 399-416.
37
-------
Smith. A. G. 1969. Waterfowl-habitat relationships on the Lousana, Alberta
Waterfowl Study Area.. Pages 116-122. In: Saskatoon wetlands seminar. Can.
Wildl. Serv. Rep. Series No. 6. The Queen's Printer. Ottawa. Ontario. 262 pp.
Smith. B. J. and K.. F. Higgins. 1990. Avian cholera and temporal changes in
wetland numbers and densities in Nebraska's Rainwater Basin area. Wetlands
10(1): 1-5.
Snodgrass, J. W., A L. Bryan, Jr.. R. F. Lide, and G. M. smith. 1996. Factors
affecting the occurrence and structure of fish assemblages in isolated wetlands of
the upper coastal plain, U.S.A. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 53: 443-454.
Spencer, W. F., M. M. Cliath, W. J. Farmer, and R. A. Shepard. 1974. Volatility
of DDT residues in soil as affected by flooding and organic matter applications.
J. Environ. Qual. 3:126-129.
Stolt, M. H. and J. C. Baker. 1995. Evaluation of National Wetland Inventory
maps to inventory wetlands in the southern Blue Ridge of Virginia. Wetlands
15(4): 346-353. '
Stolt. M. H. and M. C. Rabenhorst. 1987. Carolina Bays on the eastern shore of
Maryland: I. Soil characterization and classification. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 51:
394-405.
Stone, A. W., and A. J. L. Stone. 1994. Wetlands and groundwater in the United
States. Amer. Ground Water Trust. Dublin, OH. 100 pp.
Stoudt. J. H. 1969. Relationships between waterfowl and water area on the
Redvers Waterfowl Study Area. Pages 123-131. In: Saskatoon wetlands seminar.
Can. Wildl. Serv. Rep. Series No. 6. The Queen's Printer, Ottawa, Ontario. 262
pp.
Striegel, R. G. 1987. Suspended sediment and metals removal from urban runoff
by a small lake. Water Resour. Bull. 23(6): 985-996.
Takekawa, J. E. and S. R. Beissinger. 1989. Cyclic drought, dispersal, and the
conservation of the snail kite in Florida: lessons in critical habitat. J. Range
Manage. 3: 254-258.
Tang, Z. C. and T. T. Kozlowski. 1984. Ethylene production and morphological
adaptation of woody plants to folding. Can. J. Botany 62: 1659-1664.
Thomas. D. M., and M. A. Benson. 1970. Generalization of streamflow
characteristics from drainage basin characteristics. Water-Supply Paper 1975.
US Geological Survey, Washington. DC.
38
-------
Tiner, R. W. 1984. Wetlands of the United States: Current Status and Recent
Trends. U. S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Newton Corner, MA. 59 pp.
Tiner, R. W. 1985. Wetlands of New Jersey. U. S. Fish Wildl. Serv., National
Wetland Inventory, Newton Comer, MA. 117 pp.
Tiner, R. W. 1987. Mid-Atlantic Wetlands: A Disappearing Natural Treasure.
U. S. Fish Wildl. Serv., National Wetland Inventory, Newton Corner, MA and U.
S. Environmental Protection Agency, Philadelphia, PA. Cooperative Publication.
28 pp.
Tiner, R. W. 1989. Wetlands of Rhode Island. U. S. Fish Wildl. Serv., National
Wetland Inventory, Newton Comer, MA. 71 pp.
Tiner, R. W. and D. G. Burke. 1995. Wetlands of Maryland. U. S. Fish Wildl.
Serv., Ecological Services, Hadley MA and Maryland Dept. of Natural
Resources, Annapolis, MD. Cooperative Publication. 193 pp.
Tiner, R. W., H. C. Bergquist, G. P. DeAlessio, and M J. Starr. 2002.
Geographically Isolated Wetlands: A Preliminary Assessment of their
Characteristics and Status in Selected Areas of the United States. U.S. Dept.
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Hadley, MA.
Tompkins, T. M., W. W. Whipps, L. J. Manor, M. J. Wiley, C. W. Radcliffe, and
D. M. Majewski. 1997. Wetland effects on hydrological and water quality
characteristics of a mid-Michigan river system. Pages 273-285 In C. C. Trettin,
M. F. Jurgensen, D. F. Grigal, M. R. Gale, and J K. Jeglum (eds.) Northern
Forested Wetlands: Ecology and Management. Lewis Publ., Boca Raton, FL.
486 pp.
Van Hassel, J. H., J. J. Ney, and D. L. Garling, Jr. 1980. Heavy metals in a
stream ecosystem at sites near highways. Trans. Am. Fisheries Soc. 109: 636-
643.
Vannote, R. L., G. W. Minshall. K. W. Cummins, J. R. Sedell, and C. E. Cushing..
1980. The river continuum concept. Can. J. Fish. Aquatic Sci. 37: 130-137.
Verry, E. S., and D. H. Bolter. 1979. Peatland Hydrology. Pages 389-402 in P.
E. Greeson, J. R. Clark, and J. E. Clark (eds.), Wetland functions and values: the
state of our understanding. Am. Water Resources Assoc. Minneapolis, MN. 674
pp.
39
-------
Vince. S. W., S. R. Humphrey, and R. W. Simons. 1989. The ecology of hvdric
hammocks: a community profile. US Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 85(7.26). 81
pp.
Walbridge, M. R., and C. J. Richardson. 1991. Water quality of pocosins and
associated wetlands of the Carolina coastal plain. Wetlands 11, Special Issue:
417-440.
Wassersug, R. J. 1975. The adaptive significance of the tadpole stage with
comments on the maintenance of complex life cycles inanurans. Am. Zool. 15:
405-417.
Weakley, A. S., and M. P. Schafale. 1991. Classification of Pocosins of the
Carolina coastal plain. Wetlands 11, Special Issue: 355-376.
Wharton, C. H., W. M. Kitchens, E. C. Pendleton, and T. W. Sipe. 1982. The
ecology of bottomland hardwood swamps of the southeast: a community profile.
US Fish Wildl. Serv. Washington, DC. FWS/OBS-81/37. 133 pp.
Whigham, D., R. F. C. Chitterling, and B. Palmer. 1988. Impacts of freshwater
wetlands on water quality: A landscape perspective. Environ. Management 12:
663-671.
Wieder, R. K. and G. E. Lang. 1982. Modification of acid mine drainage in a
freshwater wetland. Pages 43-53 In B. R. MacDonald (ed.). Proceedings of the
symposium on wetlands of the unglaciated Appalachian Region. West Virginia
University, Morgantown, WV. 253 pp.
Wilbur, H. M. 1980. Complex life cycles. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 11: 67-93.
Williams, G. P. and M. G. Wo.lman. 1984. Downstream effects of dams on
alluvial rivers. U. S. Geological Survey Prof. Paper 1286. U. S. Govt. Printing
Office, Washington, DC.
Williams, T. M. and G. R. Askew. 1988. Impact of drainage and site conversion
of pocosin lands on water quality Pages 213-218. In D. D. Hook, W. H. McKee,
Jr., H. K. Smith, J. Gregory. V. G. Burrell. Jr., M. R. DeVoe, R. E. Sojka, S.
Gilbert. R. Banks, L. H. Stolzy. C. Brooks, T. D. Matthews, and T. H. Shear
(eds.). The ecology and management of wetlands. Volume 2: Management, use
and value of wetlands. Timber Press. Portland, OR. 394 pp.
Williams, T. M. and G. R. Askew. 1990. Man-caused and natural variations in
Pocosin water quality. Pages 79-87 In R. R. Sharitz and J. W. Gibbons (eds.)
Freshwater wetlands and wildlife. U S. Dept. of Energy, Office of Scientific and
Technical Information, Oak Ridge. TN. 1265 pp.
40
-------
Windell, J. T., B. E. Willard. D. J. Cooper. S. Q. Goster, C. F. Knud-Hansen. L.
P. Rink, and G. N. Kiladis. 1986. An ecological characterization of Rocky
Mountain montane and subalpine wetlands. US Fish Wild. Serv. Biol. Rep.
86(11). Washington, DC. 298 pp.
Winter, T. C. 1988. A conceptual framework for assessing cumulative impacts
on the hydrology of nontidal wetlands. Environ. Management 12: 605-620.
Winter, T. C. and D. O. Rosenbercy. 1995. The interaction of ground water with
prairie pothole wetlands in the Cottonwood Lake area, east-central North Dakota,
1979-1990. Wetlands 15(3): 193-211.
Woodward, A. R., T. C. Hines, C. L. Abercrombie, and J. D. Nichols. 1987.
Survival of young American alligators on a Florida lake. J. Wildlife Manage. 51:
931-931.
Woodwell, G. M. 1956. Phytosociology of coastal plain wetlands in the
Carolinas. M. S. Thesis. Duke University, Durham, NC. 50 pp.
Wycoff, R. L., and D. G. Pyne. 1975. Urban water management and coastal
wetland protection in Collier County, Florida. Water Res. Bull. 2: 455-469.
Zampella, R. A. and R. G. Lathrop. 1997. Landscape changes in Atlantic white
cedar (Chamaecvparis thvoides") wetlands of the New Jersey Pinelands.
Landscape Ecology 12: 397-408.
41
-------
-------
Appendix E
Literature Review
Extent and Function of Headwater Streams
USEPA. WHEELING, WV
February 2003
M.Passmore
L.Reynolds
F. Borsuk
1. Definitions of Perennial, Intermittent and Ephemeral Headwater Streams
The hydrologic definitions of perennial, intermittent and ephemeral stream types depend on
normal flow durations which are difficult to measure and verify. "Flow duration and the points of
origin of ephemeral, intermittent or perennial flow in streams vary temporally as the local water
tables vary. There is a lot of confusion within regulatory agencies and in the peer reviewed
literature concerning definitions of perennial, intermittent and ephemeral streams. At first
glance, it would seem that perennial and ephemeral channels are more easily and more clearly
defined than are intermittent streams, based on hydrology alone. Perennial channels have
contiguous surface flow all year. Ephemeral channels have surface flow only following intense
rainfall or snowmelt.
Intermittent streams are often generally described as streams which are below the local water
table for at least some part of the year, and obtain their flow from both surface and ground water
sources. The term ''intermittent" has been used to describe streams with a wide gradient of flow
permanence. This term has been used to describe streams with only a few months of contiguous
surface flow a year as well as streams that have contiguous surface flow for all but a few days or
weeks a year. Many streams have perennial, spring-fed reaches in the headwaters, with
intermittent reaches further downstream, where the flow hits the alluvial deposits of the valley
floor and becomes subsurface flow. Even further downstream the streams are once again
perennial. In these cases, the intermittent reach is positioned between two perennial reaches.
Some seemingly intermittent streams that do not have continuous surface flow maintain
contiguous longitudinal hydrological connections through interstitial or subsurface flow. So, the
term intermittent has traditionally been used to describe a wide gradient of hydrological
conditions, and it is a poor term for classify ing streams according to their ability to support
aquatic life or their habitat functions. As one researcher put it, "No single hydrological or
climatological parameter will suffice to classify the intermittency, at least to the satisfaction of
biologists" (Clifford 1966).
1
-------
Many states and agencies have attempted to classify or further define headwater streams. For
example, the Ohio EPA developed a headwater stream assessment method and they are
conducting studies in order to document the biological and physical features associated with
various types of headwater habitats in Ohio (Ohio EPA 2002). Ohio EPA defined primary
headwater habitat streams (PHWH) as surface drainage ways that have a defined stream bed and
bank and a watershed area less than 1 mi2 and maximum depth of water of 40 cm or less. Ohio
EPA proposed a classification system which describes 3 classes of headwater streams. Class III-
PHWH headwater streams have the potential to support cool or cold-water adapted vertebrate
(headwater fish populations and/or amphibians) and benthic macroinvertebrate communities. The
water flow in these streams is continuous at the surface or in the subsurface. The second type of
headwater stream habitat provides an environment which can support a warm water adapted
community of aquatic benthic macroinvertebrate, fish and amphibians (Class II-PHWH). The
Class II streams may or may not become intermittent or summer dry. Ohio EPA describes a
third type of headwater habitat as streams which do not provide a significant aquatic life
function, but which do have important water quality functions (Class I - PHWH). These streams
are essentially ephemeral streams. In other words, Ohio EPA found that presence or absence of
continuous perennial surface flow was not a good predictor of aquatic life potential in headwater
streams.
Ohio EPA also struggled with the hydrological definitions and classifications of headwater
streams, to the point where they suggested new terms to fully describe the different hydrological
regimes. They summarized two major hydrologic regimes of headwater streams as those with
continuous (perennial) flow and those with periodical flow. They further subcategorized two
types of perennial flowing streams, and two types with periodical flow. Ohio EPA defined
continuous flow streams as those that have 1) suprafacial flow, or flow always visible in the
stream channel - this is a new term coined by Ohio EPA, or 2) interstitial flow, or flow that is
seasonally interrupted on the surface of the channel by dry sections with isolated pools in
between. An important characteristic of interstitial flow is that flowing groundwater connects the
isolated pools. Periodical flow includes streams that have 1) intermittent flow, or flow that is
seasonally interrupted with dry sections and isolated pools without groundwater flow connecting
the pools, or 2) ephemeral flow, or flow that only occurs during or immediately after
precipitation events.
In some Region 3 state water quality standards, intermittent streams are also defined by the
presence or types of aquatic life inhabiting the streams, although these definitions are much more
general than Ohio EPA's classification system. For example, West Virginia defines intermittent
streams in its water quality standards as streams which have no flow during sustained periods of
no precipitation and which do not support aquatic life whose life history requires residence in
flowing waters for a continuous period of at least six months. In Pennsylvania, perennial streams
are defined as "a body of water flowing in a channel or bed composed of substrates associated
with flowing waters and is capable, in the absence of pollution or other manmade stream
disturbances, of supporting a benthic macroinvertebrate community which is composed of-2 or
more recognizable taxonomic groups of organisms which are large enough to be seen by the
-------
unaided eye and can be retained by a United States Standard No. 30 sieve, and live at least pan of
their life cycles within or upon available substrates in a body of water of water transport system".
In other words, if a stream supports two aquatic macroinvertebrate taxa, it is defined as a
perennial stream in Pennsylvania - continuous surface flow is not required.
After reviewing the literature, it is clear that an attempt to classify headwater stream types
(perennial, intermittent or ephemeral) needs to be based on the biological assemblages that
inhabit these streams. Since the biota live in the stream, they are the best integrators of all the
localized abiotic conditions as well as the hydrologic conditions year round. Regulatory agencies
should not try to characterize or classify headwater streams by general hydrological parameters
or surface flow duration. Normal surface flow duration is difficult to measure or verify since it
varies in time and space. Furthermore, perennial streams should be defined as having continuous
surface or subsurface flow. Regulatory agencies should use the biota that inhabit the stream as a
more reliable measure of hydrological character and flow duration.
2. Extent of Ephemeral, Intermittent and Perennial Headwater Streams
It is well known that the number and length of streams is inversely related to their order or
position in the watershed - the length and number of headwater or first-order streams is far
greater than the length or number of larger streams and rivers (Gordon et al 1992). For example,
based on estimates from the 1:100,000 scale National Hydrology Dataset (NHD), there are over
200,000 miles of streams in USEPA Region 3. We know this to be an underestimate of the
length of the resource, due to the coarse scale of the mapping. However, the estimate can be
used to illustrate the importance of headwaters streams as a proportion of the total resource.
Based on the NHD estimates, first-order streams make up over 50% of the total resource.
Unfortunately, although regional and national stream coverages are sometimes attributed as to
the perennial or intermittent nature of streams, the accuracy and bias of these attributes are not
known, so it is difficult to accurately estimate the regional extent of the resource by flow
characteristics. However, we know from our years of field experience that many of the first
order streams could have intermittent periods during dry years, or even in a normal water year,
given certain topography and geomorphology. In some areas of the country, the length of
summer-dry streams may well exceed the length of permanent streams and the intermittent
stream resource provides critical habitat to aquatic life and other wildlife (Clifford 1966, Zale et
al 1989).
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) addressed the scale issue
when they updated their stream spatial coverage . Based on 1:100,000 scale topographic maps,
PADEP estimated they had approximately 54,000 miles of streams statewide. Using 1:24,000
scale USGS topographic maps as the base, they estimated they had approximately 83,160 miles
of streams statewide - an increase of 54%. USGS is now working to adjust the estimate of
stream miles using a more intensive mapping exercise and PADEP estimates the total stream
miles will increase by another 30% (personal communication with R. Kime, PADEP). The
PADEP estimates that 56% of the total stream miles based on the 1:24,000 scale maps are first
3
-------
order streams. Pennsylvania has not tried to estimate the extent of perennial, intermittent or
ephemeral streams.
Ohio EPA provides estimates of the total length of streams in Ohio, including headwater streams.
A summary of estimates of the length of these waterbody types is given in Table 1. Clearly, the
headwater habitats make up a large proportion of the stream resource in Ohio. According to
Ohio EPA's headwater classification, the Class II-PHWH streams may or may not become
intermittent or summer dry (30.7% of the total resource). The Class I-PHWH streams are
ephemeral (21.8% of the total resource).
Table 1. Summary of estimated miles of flowing waters in Ohio (Ohio EPA 2002)
Waterbody Type
Length in Miles
Proportion of Total
Named Streams
(ODNR. USGS Blue Lines)
21,048
12.61%
Unnamed Streams *
Class I - PHWH
Class II - PHWH
Class III - PHWH
36,405
51.250
27.551
21.80%
30.69%
16.51%
Unnamed Waterways
Nonstream waterways **
30,708
18.39%
Total of all types (mean)
166.962
100% (rounded)
95% Upper Confidence Interval of Mean
250.636
* A random site selection statistical approach was used to estimate the total length of
"unnamed stream" miles. This value would include intermittent blue lines on USGS
topographic 7.5 minute map series.
** Nonstream waterways do not have a well defined bed-bank, thus they do not meet Ohio
EPA's concept of a "primary headwater stream", however, they do meet the definitions of
"waters of the state" in Ohio Revised Code. Section 6111.
Hansen (2001) explored the scale issue and tried to categorize stream types when he surveyed
streams within the Chattanooga River watershed in the Blue Ridge Mountains of Georgia. South
Carolina and North Carolina. Streams indicated on a 1:100,000 scale map identified about 650
km of "blue line" streams in the 728 km2 watershed, while the 1:24,000 scale map indicated 970
km of "blue line" streams, or a 49% increase (similar to what PADEP found). "Blue line"
streams are considered perennial streams on USGS topographic maps. A computer based
4
-------
mapping exercise that used contour crenulations with field verification estimated 1300 km of
perennial streams. Of the 1300 km identified, the topographic maps indicated only 50-75 % of
the total perennial length, depending on scale. Approximately 59% of the total stream length
was made up of first-order streams. Hansen defined the stream lengths as perennial, intermittent
or ephemeral based on a combination of physical and biological indicators (see table 2). Of the
total 4666 km of total streams identified, only 28% were considered perennial based on the
presence of a defined channel and certain indicator macroinvertebrate taxa. The remainder of the
stream length was intermittent (17%) or ephemeral (55%).
Table 2. Field criteria used for determining stream type in the Chattanooga River
watershed (Hansen, 2001)
Criteria
Stream Type
Perennial
Intermittent
Ephemeral*
Channel
Defined
Defined
Not defined
Flow Duration
(estimated)
Almost always
Extended, but
interrupted
Stormflow only
Bed water level
Above channel
Near channel surface
Below channel
Aquatic Insects
Present
Few if any
None
Material movement
Present
Present, less obvious
Lacking or limited
Channel materials
Scoured, flow sorted
No organic buildup
Scoured or flow
sorted
lacks organic buildup
Mostly soil materials
Organic buildup
Proportion of total
stream network
28%
17%
55%
* Healed gully channels were classed as ephemerals when there were no recent signs of flow
or scour. When forested, there is evidence of organic accumulations and decomposition.
Childers and Passmore (2003) estimated the extent of intermittent and perennial stream lengths
in the primary region of mountaintop/valley fill coal mining in southern West Virginia using GIS
techniques to generate a stream network and compared the designations and results to field
surveys. The USGS documented the flow origin, drainage areas and hydrologic characteristics of
perennial and intermittent streams in this region in 2000 and 2001 (Paybins 2003). Results
indicated that the median drainage area upstream of the origin of intermittent flow was 14.5
acres. The median drainage area upstream of the origin of perennial flow was 40.8 acres.
Childers used these median drainage areas to delineate the watersheds and used a flow
5
-------
accumulation model to estimate the stream lengths associated with intermittent flow and
perennial flow in this region. The results of this study are shown in table 3. Thirty-four percent
(34%) of the total stream resource was designated as intermittent by the GIS modeling. Thirty-
one percent (31%) of the total stream resource was designated as 1st order perennial. The results
of the computer modeling were compared to independent field data which were collected to
verify perennial and intermittent stream lengths for a proposed mining permit. The intermittent
and perennial definitions used in the field effort was based on a combination of hydrological and
biological characteristics (Green and Passmore 1999b). The field survey indicated 12 headwater
sites were perennial streams. The GIS modeling indicated 11 of these 12 sites were perennial (an
agreement of 92%).
Table 3. Estimates of perennial and intermittent stream lengths in the mountaintop
valley All coal mining region of southern West Virginia (Childers 2003)
Stream Type
Length in
km
Length in
Miles
Proportion
of Total
Intermittent
8780
5456
34%
1 st order perennial
8126
5049
31%
Intermittent + 1st order perennial
16906
10505
65%
Note that the total stream length is 25,900 km (16.094 miles) and was based on an upstream
watershed acre cutoff of 14.5 acres. This threshold is the median watershed acreage upstream
of the origin of intermittent flow (Pavbins 2003).
Headwater streams make up the majority of our stream resource. Although it is difficult to get
reliable estimates of perennial, intermittent and ephemeral stream lengths, the case studies that
are available indicate the proportion of the total stream length that could be intermittent, even in
more humid regions, is significant (a range of 17 to 34%). The extent of ephemeral headwater
streams is even larger (a range of 22 to 55%). We should be very wary of any attempt to
downgrade the value or importance of headwater streams, especially as they relate to the aquatic
life use in these streams and the role these headwater streams play in the overall stream network.
Doing so would put the majority of our freshwater aquatic stream resource at risk, as well as
severely limiting our ability to protect'downstream waters.
3. Ecosystem Functions and Headwater Streams
Headwater streams are where the watershed begins. As a beginning of a watershed, headwaters
function in many ways that are critical to the ecosystem. In a Symposium on Aquatic Ecosystem
Enhancement at Mountain Top Mining Sites. Wallace (2000) describes headwater steam aspects:
6
-------
• Have maximum interface with the terrestrial environment with large inputs of organic
matter from the surrounding landscape
• Serve as storage and retention sites for nutrients, organic matter and sediments
• Are sites for transformation of nutrients and organic matter to fine particulate and
dissolved organic matter
• Are the main conduit for export of water, nutrients, and organic matter to downstream
areas.
The major functions of headwater streams can be summarized into two categories, physical and
biological (Wallace 2000):
Physical Functions
• Headwater streams tend to moderate the hydrograph, or flow rate, downstream
• They serve as a major area of nutrient transformation and retention
• They provide a moderate thermal regime compared to downstream waters- cooler in
summer and warmer in winter
• They provide for physical retention of organic material as observed by the short
"spiraling length"
Biological Functions
• Biota in headwater streams influence the storage, transportation and export of organic
matter
• Biota convert organic matter to fine particulate and dissolved organic matter
• They enhance downstream transport of organic matter
They promote less accumulation of large and woody organic matter in headwater streams
They enhance sediment transport downstream by breaking down the leaf material
They also enhance nutrient uptake and transformation
The River Continuum Concept, developed by Vannote and others (1980) describes a river system
in terms of energy patterns and biotic responses along a continuum from the headwaters to the
mouth. Headwaters are areas where energy is derived from terrestrial inputs, also termed
allochthonous sources, in the form of leaf litter and other organic matter. It is generally
recognized, though, that in some ecosystem headwater streams (eg., desert regions) primary
production by autotrophs, or autochthonous production, are important sources of energy
(Minshall et. al. 1985). The biology of headwaters have evolved to take advantage of these
energy sources and, in general, are characterized by shredding and collecting macroinvertebrates.
Energy is thereby transferred and transported downstream.
The headwater stream is the origin for energy processing within the river ecosystem. Headwater
streams in the Appalachian highlands are generally located in forested areas and are
characterized by a heavy leaf canopy and low photosynthetic production. Sources .of energy for
7
-------
headwater streams are allochthonous in origin or derived from the terrestrial environment. The
vast majority of this allochthonous material arrives in the streams in the form of Coarse
Particulate Organic Matter or CPOM (> 1 mm in size). Smaller amounts of other allochthonous
material that is transported to the stream includes Fine Particulate Organic Matter (FPOM, 50 um
- 1 mm in size) and Dissolved Organic Matter (DOM) traveling from surface and groundwater
flow. Microbes and specialized macroinvertebrates living in headwater streams, called
shredders, feed on the DOM and CPOM, converting it into FPOM and DOM. The FPOM and
DOM are carried downstream to mid-sized streams.
Riparian zones, terrestrial areas adjacent to the stream, interact and influence headwaters a great
deal (Vannote et. al, 1981) and Can be defined as "'three dimensional zones of direct interaction
between the aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems" (Gregory et. al, 1991). Interactions include
microclimate, nutrient and organic matter inputs, and retention of these inputs. Given this
intricate link between the aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem, headwater channels cannot be
considered apart from their associated riparian zones.
Valley landform. or geomorphology, plays a major role in determining the function of streams in
general (Frissell et. al, 1986). Ecosystem functions such as riparian inputs and detrital storage
are greatly influenced by geomorphic features (Minshall et. al, 1985). For example, high
gradient headwater streams with steep valleys will store less detrital material than low gradient
braided headwaters. The ecosystem functions of headwater streams are defined within a context
of physical geomorphology.
Nutrients are generally thought of as cycling but in stream ecosystems nutrients are also
transported downstream and are more appropriately described as spiraling (Allan 1995). This
concept of nutrient spiraling is important when considering headwaters because nutrient spiraling
length is the sum of the distance an atom of a particular nutrient travels in the inorganic state and
the distance traveled as a part of the biota. Headwaters do not merely move nutrients
downstream like a pipe, but use them and process them as they move. Meyer and Wallace
(2001) note that headwater streams play an important role in carbon mineralization, phosphorous
and nitrogen uptake, and soluble reactive phosphorous removal. It has been demonstrated that '
frequently more than 50% of inorganic nitrogen inputs to headwater streams are retained and
transformed (Peterson et. al, 2001).
Clearly, headwaters play an important and crucial role in ecosystem function. Despite this
importance, headwaters are increasingly vulnerable to anthropogenic disturbance and elimination
due to agriculture, mining, and urbanization (Meyer and Wallace, 2001). Meyer and Wallace
(2001) hypothesize the consequences of alterations to ecosystem function due to headwater
stream loss (Table 4, Meyer and Wallace, 2001).
8
-------
Table 4. Ecological consequences of the alterations caused by loss of headwater streams
(Table 14.1 in Meyer and Wallace, 2001).
Alteration
Consequence
Loss of hydrologic retention capacity
Increased frequency and intensity of flooding
downstream and lower base flows
Increased downstream channel erosion
Increased sediment transport and reduced
habitat quality
Reduced retention of sediments
Excess sediments downstream
Reduced retention and transformation of
nutrients and contaminants
Increased nutrient and contaminant loading to
downstream ecosystems
Reduced retention and mineralization of
organic matter
Increased loading downstream
Reduced processing of allochthonous inputs
Reduced supply of fine particulate organic
matter to downstream food webs
Reduced secondary production in headwaters
Less drift supplied to food webs downstream
and less emergence production subsidizing
riparian food webs.
Loss of unique habitats
Increased extinction vulnerability of aquatic
species (invertebrates, amphibians, fishes)
Altered thermal regimes
Altered growth and reproduction in aquatic
insects and fishes
Loss of thermal refuges and nursery areas
Increased mortality of fishes
4. Aquatic Ecological Value of Headwater and Intermittent Streams
4.1 Macroinvertebrate Assemblages in Headwater and Intermittent Streams
The peer-reviewed and grey literature clearly support the idea that headwater streams in general,
and intermittent streams in particular, can support diverse and abundant macroinvertebrate
assemblages. This review is limited to more mesic climates in the United States, because we
believe these citations to be more representative of Region 3 headwater streams. Literature from
arid climates was not reviewed.
9
-------
The peer reviewed literature indicates a significant overlap of taxa between intermittent and
perennial streams. Generally, fewer taxa are found to be unique to either perennial or
intermittent streams. Several factors may explain the lack of difference in invertebrate
community structure between intermittent and perennial streams. Generalized adaptations of
stream invertebrates, including spring emergence as winged adults, the ability to recolonize
through flight or drift, drought-resistant eggs (as reviewed in Williams 1996), asynchronous
development that spreads life stages over time (Dieterich and Anderson, 1995), short univoltine
life cycles (Delucchi and Peckarsky 1989) and the ability of some taxa to take refuge in the
hyporheic zone (Clifford 1966) help explain why many taxa are found at both perennial and
intermittent sites. Few taxa seem to have specialized adaptations to surviving drought. In
addition, it is often difficult to determine whether the "intermittent" streams studied in the peer
reviewed literature are truly intermittent (residual pools are not connected by surface or.
subsurface flow) or if they might have continuous flow connected in the subsurface. Clearly,
streams that have subsurface flow should provide habitat more similar to the traditional perennial
streams (those with continuous surface flow).
Although the literature generally indicates large faunal overlap between intermittent and
perennial streams, many researchers have found that intermittent streams, springbrooks and
seepage areas contain some unique aquatic species. Dieterich and Anderson (2000) found 202
aquatic and semi-aquatic invertebrate species, including at least 13 previously undescribed taxa.
Morse et al (1997) have reported that many rare invertebrate species in the southeast are known
from only one of a few locations with pea-sized gravel or in springbrooks and seepage areas.
Kirchner (F. Kirchner pers. comm. 2000 and Kirchner and Kondratieff 2000) reports 60 species
of stoneflies from eastern North America are found only in first and second order streams,
including seeps and springs. 50% of these species have been described as new to science in last
25-30 years. So, although many studies have found significant faunal overlap, we should not
ignore the fact that they also contain some unique species.
Resistance during the drying phase, and the ability of assemblages to recover (resiliency)
depends on many abiotic variables. These include whether the stream goes completely dry. the
length of the dry period, the distance to nearby refugia (e.g. residual pools) both upstream and
downstream, the area of refugia habitat, whether there is high predation in the refugia (e.g. fish),
the existence of interstitial spaces and a wet hyporheic zone, the existence of contiguous
subsurface flow, and the presence of cover over the stream bed. Refugia can include residual
pools; moist microhabitat beneath stones, stumps, mats of dried algae or leaf matter, and in
roning wood; the hyporheos and crayfish burrows (Boulton 1989, Williams and Hynes 1977,
Williams 1987).
Streams that are shaded by a riparian canopy should have a more prolonged drying phase and
more moisture retention than streams with no canopy cover (Dietrich and Anderson 2000).
Streams with canopy cover should also maintain cooler stream bed temperatures. Streams with
have larger substrates, which promote numerous and relatively large interstitial spaces and which
have wet hyporheic zones should provide better refugia for invertebrates during dry periods
10
-------
(Clifford 1966 and Delucchi 1987). The distance to perennial reaches both upstream and
downstream is important as these refugia are sources of invertebrates for recolonization. Many
streams have perennial segments upstream from intermittent reaches due to the presence of
springs and seeps. These upstream perennial reaches provide colonization through drift once
flow resumes (Fritz and Dodd, unpublished). Interstitial flow between residual pools can
increase the area of refugia and the connectivity between residual pools, resulting in better
habitat and greater invertebrate diversity (Ohio EPA 2002).
4.1.1 Reference Annotations
Williams (1996) identified and described those factors which are common to the majority of
temporary fresh waters and which most strongly influence their insect faunas. This review
included all types of temporary fresh waters, and was not limited to streams. Aquatic insects
counter intermittent dry periods by physiological tolerance, migration and life history
modification. Adaptations allow them to avoid or survive the dry periods. For example, mayflies
survive drought as eggs, beetles survive as adults, and stoneflies survive as diapausing early
instars. Some insects emerge as winged adults before the dry period in summer.
Williams found that there is evidence that temporary water communities are somewhat less
diverse that those of permanent water bodies and the physiochemical environment is more harsh.
However, he concluded that virtually all of the aquatic insect orders contain at jeast some
species capable of living in temporary waters and that a wide variety of adaptations across a
broad phylogenetic background has resulted in over two-thirds of these orders being well
represented in temporary waters. This researcher stated that "perhaps the concept of temporary
waters constraining their faunas is based more on human perception than on fact".
Zane et al (1989) reviewed the literature on intermittent streams to understand their importance
for Great Plains ecosystems. Their review included summaries of physiochemical
characteristics, community production and respiration, plants, invertebrates, fish, and wildlife
associated with intermittent streams. They concluded that a wide diversity of invertebrates reside
in intermittent streams, and that diversity, species richness, and density of invertebrates tends to
increase with increases in habitat complexity, stream size and permanence of flow. They found
that species with life cycles of 2 years or more, or species that require a growth period in summer
followed by emergence in fall were generally absent. They found several taxa that were absent
from perennial waters were present in intermittent streams.
Dietrich and Anderson (2000) studied seven streams in western Oregon. The seven streams
varied in flow permanence and cover. Temporary streams were defined as streams which have
continuous flow for at least 4 months. They found that taxa richness of invertebrates (>125
species) in temporary forest streams actually exceeded that in a permanent headwater stream
(100 species). Species richness was intermediate in seep areas and a temporary meadow stream.
Species richness was lowest at the ephemeral sites. Dietrich and Anderson found that only 8%
1.1
-------
of the species in ihe total collection were only found in the permanent headwater. 25% were
restricted to the summer-dry streams and 67% were in both permanent and summer-dry streams.
The authors found that both flow duration and exposure (meadow vs. forest) were decisive
factors in shaping the macroinvertebrate communities. These researchers concluded that the
poteniial of summer-dry streams with respect to habitat function is still widely underestimated.
Delucchi (1988) studied four streams in the same watershed in New York to determine whether
benthic invertebrate structure varied among streams with different temporal flow regimes. The
author described the riffle sites as permanent (flows all year), intermittent (flows for > 9 months),
or dry (flows for less than 9 months). The riffle sites were categorized as large, medium, small
or very small using discharge. The large riffle sites were categorized as having June discharge
greater than 0.01 nvVs or 0.27 cfs. Kick samples were taken from 13 riffles and 4 pools once a
month from June to November 1982. This study found that differences between adjacent pools
and riffles were greater than that between temporary and permanent riffles. Stream size, seasonal
changes in taxa, how recently the riffle had dried, and the length of the dry period contributed to
differences in community structure among riffles. Although invertebrate community structure
differed immediately following the period of drying and rewetting, all stream invertebrate
communities were similar just before the dry season in June (after streams have been flowing for
a maximum amount of time). The author concluded that "differences in community structure
between permanent and temporary riffles are minimized by generalized adaptations of stream
benthos, such as high rates of migration, drought-resistant eggs, and the tendency to take refuge
in the hyporheic zone".
Delucchi and Peckarsky (1989) studied an intermittent and perennial stream in New York to
determine whether life history patterns of intermittent stream species allowed them to avoid
drought, while the life history patterns of permanent stream species were more variable. They
found that although intermittent specialist species had life history patterns allowing them lo
survive the drought (e.g. drought-resistant eggs), these patterns were not unique to the
intermittent stream fauna. The intermittent stream did not have a unique fauna and seven of the
eight species studied occurred in both the perennial and intermittent stream. Drought specialist
species in the intermittent stream that emerged earlier were more abundant than species that
emerged later.
Feminella (1996) studied several northern Alabama streams of varying flow permanence,
including two streams that were normally intermittent (riffles ceased flowing in normal rain
years) in summer, one that was rarely intermittent, and three streams that were occasionally
intermittent (riffles ceased flowing during dry years). He found only slight differences in the
invertebrate assemblages. Presence-absence data revealed that 75% of the taxa (171 total taxa,
predominantly aquatic insects), were ubiquitous across the 6 streams or displayed no pattern with
respect to permanence and 7% of the species were found exclusively in the normally intermittent
streams. The benthic invertebrate assemblages showed subtle relationships with stream
permanence. The previous year's hydrology (e.g. a wet year that followed a dry year) was
associated with riffle permanence arid seemed to affect the structure of the assemblages.
12
-------
Pond and McMurrav (2002) developed a Macroinvertebrate Bioassessment Index (MBl) for
headwater streams in the Southwestern Appalachians, Central Appalachians, and the Western
Allegheny Plateau ecoregions of eastern Kentucky. The authors described headwater streams as
those draining less than 5 square miles. The index was based on sites ranging in size from 0.18
to 3.1 square miles. Macroinvertebrates were collected with both semi-quantitative and multi-
habitat qualitative techniques; approximately 30.000 specimens representing over 320 taxa from
75 families were collected from all sites combined. Clearly, these small headwater streams
support a rich and diverse assemblage of aquatic macroinvertebrates. Most of the organisms
were sensitive Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies), and Trichoptera(caddisflies),
indicating healthy ecological conditions. The authors found rich and diverse assemblages in
streams that were known to be intermittent, despite the fact that the region endured one of the
worst droughts on record in 1999.
Pond (2000) found similar results in an earlier survey of two first order intermittent streams in
Letcher County, Kentucky. The two streams had watershed areas of 0.21 and 0.32 square miles
and the author stated the streams may have periods of intermittency in late summer and early fall
of dry years, but may remain perennial during wet summers. A total of 118 macroinvertebrate
taxa representing 14 orders and 45 families was collected in both streams combined during 4
seasonal sampling events. The invertebrate fauna in both streams consisted mainly of insect
larvae typically associated with clean, high gradient streams in that region.
Ohio EPA (Ohio EPA 2002a) sampled 247 primary habitat streams from 1999 to 2000. Ohio
EPA defined primary headwater habitat streams (PHWH) as surface drainage ways that have a
defined stream bed and bank and a watershed area less than 1 mi2 and maximum depth of water
of 40 cm or less.. Macroinvertebrate voucher samples from selected streams were identified to
the lowest practical taxonomic level. Ohio EPA identified 384 macroinvertebrate taxa from
streams with a drainage area less than or equal to 1 mi2 in Ohio. Macroinvertebrates were
collected in all streams with standing or flowing water. In general, three types of assemblages
were identified in primary streams in Ohio: 1) a surface water community with reproducing
populations of three or more native coolwater adapted taxa (Class III-PHWH), 2) a surface water
community with native populations dominated by warmwater adapted taxa with less than three
taxa of coolwater adapted taxa (Class II-PHWH), and 3) a surface water community with
reproducing populations of native short-lived primarily springtime macroinvertebrate
assemblages (Class I - PHWH). A defining characteristic of Class III streams was that they were
associated with cool groundwater with continuous flow (either "suprafacial", defined as
continuous flow on the surface, or interstitial flow) all year round. Class II streams ranged from
permanent flow to intermittent flow (without interstitial flow to connect pools) and were derived
from overland flow and shallow subsurface flow rather than deeper groundwater. Class I streams
were normally dry and only flowed during or after precipitation events (ephemeral).
Rosario and Resh (2000) sampled two streams in Marin County, in coastal California, to
compare the invertebrate fauna of an intermittent and perennial stream. The intermittent stream
dried completely during the summer. They examined if the stream surface and/or hyporheic
13
-------
assemblages in the 2 streams differed in terms of taxon densities, richness, and diversity. 20.701
individuals representing 60 taxa, including 35 insect families and 8 noninsect invertebrate taxa
were collected from the 46 surface samples. The intermittent and perennial streams had similar
faunal composition, consistent with the several other studies that have found large faunal overlap
in perennial and intermittent streams. The intermittent stream had lower total densities, taxon
richness, and diversity than the perennial stream.
Clifford (1966) studied an intermittent stream in south-central Indiana. This stream regularly
dried every summer, and was contiguous with a downstream perennial stream for only 46 days
during the year's study period. For most of the study period , the stream was a series of widely
scattered shallow pools, but water still persisted below the stream bed. The stream was
dominated by two crustaceans throughout the year. The other aquatic animals in the stream were
characterized as a late summer/early autumn group, consisting mainly of short lived species and
adult beetles, and a late spring group including mayflies, stoneflies and caddisflies. The spring
fauna had one generation per year (univoltine), exhibited little growth in the summer, and
completed their life cycles in one year. Clifford discussed temporal flow characteristics (the
length of the dry phase) but also emphasized the importance of local features such as the nature
of the substrate, local water table characteristics, the existence and quality of the hyporheic zone,
and canopy cover to the survival of the aquatic fauna. Clifford also emphasized that the fauna of
a stream are a better indicator of the intermittent nature of a stream than are a few described
parameters relating to its flowing or non-flowing period.
Rabeni and Wallace (1998) studied 15 sites in a single drainage basin in southwestern Missouri
over a two year period to relate stream flow to community structure and to evaluate the
possibility of biomonitoring low flow streams. Streams were classified as perennial,
intermediate and intermittent based on late summer mean discharge and water depth in riffles.
Details on this classification were not given. They found that each stream class had a
characteristic community structure, although the differences among classes were more in relative
abundance than in presence or absence of taxa. Indices of community structure indicated that
total richness and richness in sensitive orders were positively related to flow permanence.. The
intermittent and intermediate fauna were a subset of the perennial stream fauna and were more
tolerant, based on an index that measured overall pollution tolerance.
Fritz and Dodds (unpublished) studied 7 sites of varying flow permanence within the Kings
Creek watershed in the Konza Prairie Biological Station in eastern Kansas. The 4 intermittent
sites in the study were considered to belong to the harsh intermittent stream type, with the
average number of zero discharge days varying from 190 days to 340 days. The authors
evaluated the relationship between a "harshness"' index and annual macroinvertebrate
characteristics over two years. They found that total macroinvertebrate abundance was
significantly related to harshness values in both years, whereas taxonomic richness and species
diversity were significantly related to harshness index values only for the year with lower flood
frequency. Evenness was not related to harshness. In general, there was high taxonomic overlap
among the streams, such that 77% of the taxa were collected from intermittent and perennial
14
-------
sites. This study indicates that a moderately diverse invertebrate assemblage can be maintained
even in stream habitats that appear quite harsh.
US EPA Region 3 conducted field surveys to confirm the extent of perennial and intermittent
stream reaches that would be buried by mountaintop mining valley fills proposed in specific
permits. This field work indicated that the 1:24,000 USGS topographic maps underestimate both
the perennial and intermittent stream resources (Green and Passmore 1999a, Green and
Passmore, 1999b). These field surveys indicated that all of the sites that were classified as
intermittent based on flow supported aquatic life very similar to the sites classified as perennial
based on flow. These surveys indicated that lack of permanent surface flow is a poor indicator of
the abundance and diversity of invertebrate life supported by a stream.
USEPA Region 3 also described stream conditions in southern West Virginia for the
Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fill Environmental Impact Statement (E1S). This study found that
intermittent streams supported diverse, healthy and balanced invertebrate populations preceding
and following a severe drought in the summer of 1999 (Green et al 2000). During the summer
and fait 1999 index periods, many of the reference streams in this study were flow limited, with
only trickles of water in their channels, and some of these streams went completely dry. In the
spring 1999 index period, preceding the drought, and in the winter 2000 index period, following
the drought, all of the intermittent streams could be sampled, and all of the intermittent reference
streams were in good or very good condition with diverse and balanced benthic invertebrate
assemblages. Clearly these streams, though lacking perennial surface flow, supported diverse
and balanced aquatic life.
Other field work done in support of the Mountaintop Mining/V alley Fill EIS assessed the
potential limits of viable aquatic communities in small headwater streams in southern West
Virginia (Kirchner et al 2000). Similar to our field work, this effort found that most of the small
streams sampled were not indicated on existing 1:24,000 scale USGS topographic maps.
Furthermore, the study found that a number of taxa that were found in the extreme headwaters
had multi-year life cycles suggesting that sufficient water s present for long-lived taxa to
complete their juvenile development prior to reaching the aerial adult stage. Although only
contiguous flow areas were considered for this study, the field work took place in the winter and
based on our field experience, it is probable these extreme headwaters are subject to annual
drying.
4.2 Amphibian Assemblages in Headwater Streams
Stream salamanders are the top predators in Ashless first-order streams. These headwater
streams provide environments for nesting, larval development, foraging, and refuge for many
species of aquatic salamanders (Pauley et al. 2000). Stream salamanders prey on a variety of
winged and non-winged insects and, conversely, provide a high percentage of protein to
terrestrial predators such as reptiles, birds and mammals. Salamanders are excellent
bioindicators of subtle as well as obvious alterations in stream habitats because they are sensitive
15
-------
to changes in water temperature and water chemistry (such as pH). This sensitivity is a result of
the permeable skin, gilled larvae, and gelatinous eggs of salamanders (Dunson et al. 1992).
Changes of salamander populations in headwater streams could alter trophic levels throughout a
forest. Therefore, amphibians are an appropriate vertebrate biological indicator for small
headwater streams that cannot support fish.
Amphibians are ectothermic and are sensitive to changes in temperature that result from habitat
alterations such as clearcutting and overgrazing. In addition, they have glandular skins which
makes them sensitive to habitat perturbations that result in loss of soil moisture, loss of aquatic
habitats, low pH of soil and water, and toxic substances. Their sensitivity to changes in
temperature and moisture make them good indicators of changes in the environment. Dunson et
al. (1992) suggested that amphibians are excellent indicators of environmental changes because
(1) some species have complex life cycles with aquatic and terrestrial stages which expose them
to pollutants in both environments; (2) some species show keen competition for vital resources
which can quickly show how different species react to pollutants; (3) they have permeable skin,
gills, and eggs that are susceptible to pollutants in the environment; (4) ectothermy makes them
vulnerable to environmental fluctuations; (5) many species hibernate or estivate in soils that may
expose them to toxic conditions; and (6) they are important in terrestrial and aquatic food webs.
Amphibians are among the first animals to emerge in the spring and, as a result, provide food for
predators when food sources are less available. Predatory salamander larvae are important in
determining abundance of zooplankton and aquatic insects (Dodson, 1970; Dodson and Dodson,
1971). and tadpoles are important in determining types and amounts of phytoplankton,
magnitude of nutrient cycling, and levels of primary production (Seale, 1980).
Reptiles have epidermal scales and are somewhat less sensitive to moisture loss and toxic
materials in the substrate than amphibians but their metabolism remains dependent on ambient
temperatures. In eastern North America, riparian zones support more species of amphibians and
reptiles than any other single ecosystem. The rich diversity of species in riparian habitats is due
to environmental conditions such as microclimate conditions conducive to ectothermic species,
and presence of breeding habitats, cover habitats, and foraging sites. Riparian habitats such as
pools and streams allow different life history stages of amphibians to exist in a small area.
Amphibians and reptiles in these systems are major players in food web dynamics and energy
flow.
Terrestrial ecosystems and the aquatic ecosystems they border are intricately interconnected by
physical, chemical, and biological processes. Terrestrial systems influence aquatic systems with
nutrients and energy, and aquatic systems can influence terrestrial systems in the riparian zone
because soils frequently are saturated and inundated. Interactions between terrestrial and aquatic
components influence the biotic character of riparian areas and the waterways draining them
(Bilby 1988). Temperature of water entering a forest stream system will be similar to the subsoil
temperatures of the watershed (Beschta et al. 1987). Headwater stream amphibians are therefore
sensitive to perturbations of the riparian zone as well as the stream.
16
-------
State programs in and around EPA Region 3 are using salamanders as part of a monitoring
program for headwater streams. Dr. Tom Pauley of Marshall University in West Virginia is
working in first order streams of the state to examine the impacts of various land uses and water
quality on salamander populations (T. Pauley, personal communication). There are 11 species of
salamanders in West Virginia that inhabit headwater streams (first and second order streams) as
larvae, subadults and adults (Green and Pauley 1987).
The Ohio EPA has developed a primary headwater habitat assessment manual and has conducted
studies in order to document the biological and physical features associated with various types of
headwater habitats in Ohio (OhioEPA 2002b). Ohio EPA has identified three different
salamander assemblages that are found in three classes of primary headwater habitat (PHWH)
streams (Ohio EPA 2002b). The class III-PHWH assemblage is represented by obligate aquatic
species that have a larval stage requiring annual flow. These salamanders are all classified
within the Tribe Hemidactyliini, Subfamily Plethodontinae, of the Family Plethodontidae. This
type of salamander assemblage is also associated with coldwater macroinvertebrate assemblages
in Ohio (Ohio EPA 2002b). Class II-PHWH assemblages are composed of species that do not
require flowing water on an annual basis. The third type of assemblage, Class I - PHWH, do not
have an aquatic larval stage and are adapted to the terrestrial environment. Ohio's program is
unique in that it recognizes different types of headwater streams and the salamander assemblages
associated with them.
Plethodontid salamanders were also used as headwater stream indicators in Pennsylvania (Rocco
and Brooks 2000). Stream plethodontids responded to gradients of environmental variables
(landscape, physical, and chemical) in streams. The salamander response variables included
abundance, lifestage, biomass, species composition, and assemblage attributes. Metrics were
proposed that may be used to develop an index of biotic integrity for headwater streams using
salamanders.
4.3 Fish Assemblages in Headwater Streams
Headwaters is a generic term which includes a great variety of stream habitats. From the
headwaters to the mouth of the stream, energy flow and the biological communities that inhabit
them change from one dependant on terrestrial inputs to one based on autochthonous production
(Vannote et al. 1980). Stream fish assemblages exhibit longitudinal patterns from headwaters to
lower reaches suggesting adaptation of particular assemblages to zones within drainage basins.
(Schlosser 1991). These zones can be described as: the erosional zone, intermediate zone, and a
depositional zone (Moyle and Cech 1996). Headwaters are included in the erosional zone in
temperate forest ecosystems and are dominated by trout (Moyle and Cech 1996). However, in
lower gradient warm water systems, more species rich assemblages can occur in headwaters (eg.,
Paller 1994).
Factors that influence fish assemblages in headwater streams include factors such as energy flow
at the aquatic terrestrial boundary or ecotone, landscape-scale habitat patchiness, and the
17
-------
existence and distribution of refugia from the harsh conditions.that exist seasonally (Schlosser
1992). Fish inhabit headwaters as permanent residents or as seasonal transients (Pezold et al..
1997). and can provide thermal refugia for fishes in both winter and summer (eg. Power et al.
1999, Curry et al. 1997). Intermittency can trigger the movement of fish adapted to this type of
stream environment (eg. Nocomis leptocephalus. Albanese, 2001). Intermittency should not be
used to determine if a stream should be jurisdictional because intermittency can be a natural and
important condition that fishes have adapted to and evolved with.
Nationwide, headwaters are important habitats for fish. The Arkansas darter (Etheostoma
cragini), a federally threatened species, can be found in headwater tributaries of the Arkansas
River (Labbe and Fausch 2000)'. Ohio EPA found nineteen different species of fish in 67
headwater streams (Ohio EPA 2002b). Ten of those nineteen species preferred headwater stream
habitat and were used as primary headwater habitat indicators. A total of twenty-six species of
fish are imperiled in the springs and headwaters of the Southeastern United States (Etnier 1997).
Headwaters of the Southeastern United States are also an important component of regional
biodiversity (Paller 1994). Preservation of headwater habitats is necessary to preserve the
species that depend upon them.
Headwater stream fish assemblages in high elevation streams can include sculpins, dace, brown
trout and brook trout (DiLauro and Bennet, 2001). Brook trout, in particular, are important
residents in headwater streams in Appalachia and have been designated as Heritage Trout in
Pennsylvania (Epifano and Fosburgh 1998). Headwater stream habitats are already imperiled by
acid precipitation (eg., Carline et al., 1992) and multiple anthropogenic stressors can affect brook
trout populations (Marschall and Crowder 1996). Brown trout and rainbow trout present in
lower stream reaches can competitively exclude brook trout (Fausch and White 1981, Dewald
and Wilzbach 1992) making headwaters an essential, unique habitat for the preservation of
brook trout.
The stock concept is a tool that fisheries scientists have developed to manage salmonid
populations based on genetic composition (Ricker 1972). Headwaters by their nature isolate
populations through physical (eg., dams, waterfalls, temperature) or ecological (eg., competitive
exclusion) barriers. This isolation may promote the establishment of genetically distinct stocks
(eg., Mitchell et al. 2002). Headwater stream assemblages thereby increase the genetic diversity
of watersheds and ecoregions and are important sources for recolonization or for artificial
propagation of endangered or imperiled stocks.
18
-------
References:
Definitions and Extent of Perennial, Intermittent and Ephemeral Streams References
Childers. H. and M. Passmore. 2003. Using GIS Hydrologic Modeling Tools and Field Survey
Data to Estimate the Lengths of Intermittent and Perennial Headwater Streams in the
Mountaintop Mining Region of Southern West Virginia. Veridian Corporation and USEPA,
Wheeling, WV.
Clifford, H.M. 1966. The ecology of invertebrates in an intermittent stream. 1966. Invest.
Indiana Lakes and Streams. Vol. VII, No. 2:57-98.
Hansen, W.F. 2001. Identifying stream types and management implications. Forest Ecology
and Management. 143:39-46.
Gordon, N.D., T.A. McMahon and B.L. Finlayson. 1992. Stream Hydrology: An Introduction
for Ecologists. John Wiley and Sons, Ltd. West Sussex, England.
Green, J. and M. Passmore. 1999b. Field Survey Report: An Estimate of Perennial Stream
Miles in the Area of the 1997 Proposed Hobet Mining Spruce No. 1. Mine (West Virginia
Surface Mine Application #5013-97). July 1999. USEPA, Wheeling, WV.
Paybins. K..S. 2003. Flow origin, drainage area, and hydrologic characteristics for headwater
streams in the mountaintop coal-mining region of southern West Virginia. Water Resources
Investigation Report 02-4300. USGS, Charleston, WV.
Ohio EPA. 2002. Field evaluation manual for Ohio's primary headwater habitat streams. Final
version 1.0. Division of Surface Water, Columbus, Ohio.
Zale, A.V., D.M. Leslie, W.L.Fisher, and S.G. Merrifield. 1989. The Physiochemistry, Flora.'
and Fauna of Intermittent Prairie Streams. A Review of the Literarure. USFWS Biological
Report 89(5).
Ecosystem Function References
Allan. J.D. 1996. Stream Ecology Structure and Function of Running Waters. Chapman and
Hall. New York. 388pp.
Frissell, C.A., W.J. Liss, C.E. Warren, and M.D. Hurley. 1986. A hierarchical framework for
stream habitat classification, viewing streams in a watershed context. Environ. Manag. 10(2):
199-214.
Gregory, S. V., F.J. Swanson, W.A. McKee, and K.W. Cummins. 1991. An ecosystem
19
-------
perspective of riparian zones. Bioscience 41(8): 540-550.
Meyer. J.L. and J.B. Wallace. Lost linkages and lotic ecology: rediscovering small streams. Pp.
295-317 in Press. M.C., J.J. Huntly, and S. Levin, eds. Ecology: Achievement and Challenge
The 41 'st Symposium of the British Ecological Society. Blackwell Science. Oxford.
Minshall, G.W., K.W. Cummins, R.C. Petersen, C.E. Cushing, D.A. Bruns. J.R. Sedell, and R.L.
Vannote. 1985. Developments in stream ecosystem theory. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 42:1045-
1055.
Peterson, B.J., and 14 coauthors. 2001. Control of nitrogen export from watersheds by
headwater streams. Science 292:86-90.
Vannote, R.L., G.W. Minshall, K.W. Cummins, J.R. Sedell, and C.E. Cushing. 1980. The river
continuum concept. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 37: 130-137.
Wallace. J.B. 2000. Symposium on Aquatic Ecosystem Enhancement at Mountain Top Mining
Sites.
Macroinvertebrate References
Boulton, A.J. 1989. Over-summering refugees of aquatic macroinvertebrates in two intermittent
streams in Central Victoria. Trans. R. Soc. S. Aust. 1 13:23-34.
Clifford, H.M. 1966. The ecology of invertebrates in an intermittent stream. 1966. Invest.
Indiana Lakes and Streams. Vol. VII, No. 2:57-98.
Delucchi, C.M. 1988. Comparison of community structure among streams with different
temporal flow regimes. Can. J. Zool. Vol. 66:779-586.
Delucchi. C.M. and Peckarsky, B.L. 1989. Life history patterns of insects in an intermittent and
a permanent stream. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 8(4):308-321.
Dieterich, M. and N.H. Anderson. 1995. Life cycles and food habits of mayflies and stoneflies
from temporary streams in western Oregon. Freshwater Biology. 34:47-60.
Dieterich, M. and N.H. Anderson. 2000. The invertebrate fauna of summer-dry streams in
western Oregon. Arch. Hydrobiologie. 147:273-295.
Feminella. J.W. 1996. Comparison of benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages in small streams
along a gradient of permanence. J. N. Amer. Benthol. Soc. 15(4):651-669.
Fritz. K.M. and W. K. Dodds. (Unpublished 2003). Harshness: characterization of intermittent
20
-------
stream habitat over time and space. USEPA, Cincinnati, OH and Division of Biology. Kansas
State University. KS.
Green, J.* M. Passmore, and H. Childers. 2000. A Survey of the Condition of Streams in the
Primary Region of Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fill Coal Mining (in final draft). USEPA.
Wheeling, WV.
Green, J. and M. Passmore. 1999a. Field Survey Report: An Estimate of Perennial Stream
Miles in the Area of the Proposed Independence Mining Company, Constitution Mine. February
1999. USEPA, Wheeling, WV.
Green, J. and M. Passmore. 1999b. Field Survey Report: An Estimate of Perennial Stream
Miles in the Area of the 1997 Proposed Hobet Mining Spruce No. 1. Mine (West Virginia
Surface Mine Application #5013-97). July 1999. USEPA, Wheeling, WV.
Kirchner, R.F. US Army Corps of Engineers, Apple Grove, WV. Personal Communication on
10/19/2000 via telephone and on 10/ 30/2000 via email.
Kirchner, R.F. and B.C. Kondratieff. 2000. Plecoptera of Eastern North America Found Only in
First and Second Order Streams, Including Seeps and Springs. US Army Corps of Engineers,
Apple Gove, WV. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.
Kirchner, R.F., B. Stout and B. Wallace. 2000. A Survey of Eight Major Aquatic Insect Orders
Associated with Small Headwater Streams Subject to Valley Fills from Mountaintop Mining (in
draft). US Army Corps of Engineers. Apple Gove, WV. Jesuit University, Wheeling, WV
University of Georgia, Athens, GA.
Morse. J.C., B.P. Stark, W.P. McCaffertv and K.J. Tennessen. 1997. Southern Appalachia and
other southeastern streams at risk: implications for mayflies, dragonflies, stoneflies and
caddisflies. Pp 17-42, in: G.W. Benz and D.E. Collins (eds.) Aquatic Fauna in Peril: The
Southeastern Perspective. Special Publication 1, Southeastern Aquatic Research Institute. Lenz
Design and Communications, Decatur. GA. 554 p.
Ohio EPA. 2002. Field evaluation manual for Ohio's primary headwater habitat streams. Final
version 1.0. Division of Surface Water. Columbus, Ohio.
Ohio EPA. 2002a. Technical Report: Ohio's Primary Headwater Streams - Macroinvertebrate
Assemblages. September 2002. Division of Surface Water, Columbus, Ohio.
Pond, G.J.. S.E. McMurray. 2002 A Macroinvertebrate Bioassessment Index for Headwater
Streams of the Eastern Coalfield Region. Kentucky. Kentucky Department of Environmental
Protection, Division of Water. Frankfort. KY.
21
-------
Pond. G.J. 2000. Comparison of macroinvertebrate communities of two intermittent streams
with different disturbance histories in Letcher County. K.Y. J. Ky. Acad. Sci. 61(l).i0-22.
Rabeni, C.F. and G.S. Wallace. 1998. The influence of flow variation on the ability to evaluate
the biological health of headwater streams. In Hydrology, Water Resources and Ecology in
Headwaters (Proceedings of the Headwater '98 Conference held at MeranMerano Italy, April
1998). IAHS Publ. No. 248: 411-417.
Williams, D.D. 1996. Environmental constraints in temporary fresh waters and their
consequences for the insect fauna. J.N. Amer. Benthol. Soc. 15(4):634-650.
Williams, D.D. 1987. The Ecology of Temporary Waters. The Blackburn Press, Caldwell, New
Jersey.
Williams. D.D. and H.B. Hynes. 1977. The ecology of temporary streams: II.General remarks
on temporary streams. Int. Revue ges. Hydrobiol. 62(1 ):53-61.
Zale, A.V., D.M. Leslie, W.L.Fisher, and S.G. Merrifield. 1989. The Physiochemistry, Flora,
and Fauna of Intermittent Prairie Streams: A Review of the Literature. USFWS Biological
Report 89(5).
Amphibian References
Beschta, R. L., R. E. Bilby, G. W. Brown, L. B. Holtby, and T. D. Hofstra. 1987. Stream
temperature and aquatic habitat: fisheries and forestry interactions. Pages 191-232 in E. O. Salo
and T. W. Cundy, editors. Streamside management: forestry and fishery interactions.
Contribution No. 57. College of Forest Resources, University of Washington, Seattle.
Bilby, R. E. 1988. Interactions between aquatic and terrestrial systems. Pages 13-29 in K. J.
Raedeke, editor. Streamside management: riparian wildlife and forestry interactions. College of
Forest Resources, University of Washington.
Dodson, S.I. 1970. Complementary feeding niches sustained by size-selective predation.
Limnology and Oceanography 15:131-137.
Dodson. S.I. and V.E. Dodson. 1971. The diet of Ambystoma tigrinum larvae from western
Colorado. Copeia 1971:641-624.
Dunson. W.A., R.L. Wyman, and E.S. Corbett. 1992. A symposium on amphibian declines and
habitat acidification. Journal of Herpetology 26:349-352.
Ohio EPA. 2002. Field evaluation manual for Ohio's primary headwater habitat streams. Final
version 1.0. Division of Surface Water. Columbus, Ohio.
22
-------
Ohio EPA. 2002b. Technical Report. Ohio's Primary Headwater Habitat Streams. Fish and
Amphibian Assemblages. September 2002. Division of Surface Water, Columbus, Ohio.
Green, N.B. and T.K. Pauley. 1987. Amphibians and Reptiles in West Virginia. University of
Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, PA.
Pauley. T. K., J.C. Mitchell, R.R. Buech, and J.J. Moriarty. 2000. Ecology
and management of riparian habitats for amphibians and reptiles (Chapter 10, pages 169-192).
In. Riparian Management in Forests of the Continental Eastern United States. E.S. Verry, J.W.
Hombeck, and C.A. Dolloff, editors. CRC Press (Lewis Publishers).
Rocco, G.L. and R.P. Brooks. 2000. Abundance and Distribution of Stream Plethodeontid
Salamander Assemblages in 14 Ecologically Dissimilar Watersheds in the Pennsylvania Central
Appalachians. Report No. 2000-4. Penn State Cooperative Wetlands Center, Pennsylvania State
University, University Park, PA.
Seale, D.B. 1980. Influence of amphibian larvae on primary production, nutrient flux, and
competition in a pond ecosystem. Ecology 61:1531-1550.
Fish References
Albanese, Brett. 2001. Movement of fishes in a network of streams and implications for
persistence. Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Blacksburg, Virginia.
Carline, R.F., W.E. Sharpe, and C.J. Gagen. 1992. Changes in fish communities and trout
management in response to acidification of streams in Pennsylvania. Fisheries 17(1) 33-38.
Curry, R.A., C. Brady, D.L.G. Noakes, and R.G. Danzmann. 1997. Use of small streams by
young brook trout spawned in a lake. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 126: 77-83.
DeWald. L, and M.A. Wilzbach. 1992. Interactions between native brook trout and hatchery
brown trout: effects on habitat use, feeding, and growth. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 121:287-296.
DiLauro. M.N., and R.M. Bennett. 2001. Fish species composition in two second-order
headwater streams in the North Central Appalachians ecoregion. J. Freshwat. Ecol. 16(1)35-43.
Etnier, D.A. 1997. Jeopardized southeastern freshwater fishes: a search for causes, pp. 87-104.
In: Aquatic Fauna in Peril: The Southeastern Perspective. Benz, G.W., and D.E. Collins, eds.
Special Publication 1, Southeastern Aquatic Research Institute. Lenz Design and
Communications, Decatur, Georgia.
Epifanio, J., and W. Fosburgh. 1998. A status report of coldwater fishery management in the
-------
U.S. - An overview of state programs. Trout Unlimited Technical Report.
Fausch. K.. D., and R. J. White. 1981. Competition between brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis )
and brown trout (Salmo trutta ) for positions in a Michigan stream. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci.
38(10): 1220-1227.
Labbe. T.R.. and K.D. Fausch. 2000. Dynamics of intermittent stream habitat regulate
persistence of a threatened fish at multiple scales. Ecol. App. 10(6): 1774-1791.
Marschall. E. A. and L. B. Crowder. 1996. Assessing population responses to multiple
anthropogenic effects: A case study with brook trout. Ecol.App. 6(1): 152-167.
Mitchell, R. M., R.L. Johnson, and G.L. Harp. 2002. Population Structure of an Endemic
Species of Yellowcheek Darter, Etheostoma moorei (Raney and Suttkus), of the Upper Little Red
River, Arkansas. Am. Midi. Nat. 148(1)129-137.
Moyle, P.B., and J.J. Cech Jr. 1996. Fishes: an introduction to ichthyology. Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Simon and Schuster. Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Paller, M.H. 1994. Relationships between fish assemblage structure and stream order in South
Carolina coastal plain streams. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 123:150-161.
Pezold, F.A.. B. Crump, and W. Flaherty. 1997. Seasonal patterns of fish abundance in two
mountain creeks of the Little Missouri River drainage, Arkansas. J. Fresh. Ecol. 12: 51-60.
Power, G., R.S. Brown, and J.G. Imhof. 1999. Groundwater and fish - insights from northern
North America. Hydrol. Processes 13 : 401-422.
Ricker, W. E. 1972. Hereditary and environmental factors affecting certain salmonid
populations. In R. C. Simon and P. A. Larkin (eds.), The Stock Concept in Pacific
Salmon, p. 27-160. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B. C.
Schlosser, I.J., 1991. Stream fish ecology, a landscape perspective. Bioscience 41(10)704-712.
Schlosser, I.J. 1995. Critical landscape attributes that influence fish population dynamics in
headwater streams. Hydrobiologia 303:71-81.
Vannote. R.L., G.W. Minshall, K..W. Cummins. J.R. Sedell, and C.E. Cushing. 1980. The river
continuum concept. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 37: 130-137.
24
-------
F
-------
-------
Appendix G
Total Maximum Daily Loads
of Nutrients and Dissolved Oxygen
Under Low-Flow Conditions
in the Christina River Basin
Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland
-------
^eDSr^ Total Maximum Daily Loads
X) of Nutrients and Dissolved Oxygen
? \ Under Low-Flow Conditions
in the Christina River Basin,
\L PRO-^N Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region III
in cooperation with the
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Maryland Department of the Environment
and
Delaware River Basin Commission
January 19, 2001
(revised October 2002)
Approved by
/0- f ¦
Cafcacasa,'Acting Director
WViter Protection Division
Date
-------
Executive Summary
Total Maximum Daily Loads of Nutrients and Dissolved Oxygen
Under Low-Flow Conditions in tbe Christina River Basin,
Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland
Introduction
The Environmental Protection Agency Region HI (EPA) establishes these Total
Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for nutnents and other oxygen demanding pollutants in order to
attain and maintain the applicable Water Quality Standards (WQS) for dissolved oxygen (DO) in
the Christina River Basin under low-flow conditions (equivalent to the minimum seven-day low
flow expected to occur every 10 years - conditions used to establish National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits). EPA has established these TMDLs in cooperation with
the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), Delaware Department of
Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC), Maryland Department of the
Environment (MDE) and the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC). As part of these
TMDLs, EPA has allocated specific amounts of nutrients and other oxygen demanding pollutants
to certain point and nonpoint sources necessary to restore and maintain the applicable WQS. ¦
These TMDLs recommend that eight facilities, seven in Pennsylvania and one in Maryland, have
their NPDES permits modified when next reissued to reduce the amounts of pollutants that may
be discharged.
During permit reviews for several of the facilities covered by January 19, 2001 TMDLs, it
was discovered that flow rates used in the original TMDL calculations were in error. As a result,
model runs using updated flow figures for these facilities were performed and revisions to the
TMDL recommendations for the Brandywine Creek portion of the Christina River Basin were
made.
A related, but separate, effort is underway to establish TMDLs for nutrients, DO and
other pollutants causing water quality problems under high-flow conditions. EPA expects these
high-flow TMDLs to be completed by December 2004.
Summary of TMDL Development and Public Participation
In 1991, at the request of DNREC and DEP, DRBC agreed to coordinate water
management issues in the "interstate" Christina River Basin. The issues included monitoring,
modeling, and pollution controls; balancing the conflicting demands for potable water while
maintaining necessary minimum requirements to sustain aquatic life; protection of vulnerable,
high quality scenic and recreational areas; restoration of wetlands and other critical habitats; and
implementation of Delaware's Exceptional Recreational or Ecological Significance (ERES)
objectives. DRBC facilitated a series of meetings with DNREC, DEP, EPA, Chester County
Water Resources Authority (CCWA) and the United States Geological Survey (USGS). The two
-i-
-------
states, DRBC, EPA and other government agencies reached agreement in late 1993 to initiate a
cooperative and coordinated monitoring and modeling approach to develop and establish TMDLs
to address water quality problems occuning at low-flow conditions by late 1999.
Both Pennsylvania and Delaware have identified multiple segments and pollutants in the
Christina River Basin on their respective lists of impaired waters still requiring the development
of a TMDL. Based on available information, Pennsylvania identified 24 stream segments on its
1998 303(d) lists while Delaware identified 15 stream segments on its 1998 303(d) list as not
meeting WQS for nutrients and low DO within the Christina River Basin.
Concurrent with the water quality improvement activities string place within the
Christina River Basin, EPA settled two civil lawsuits regarding EPA's oversight of the TMDL
programs of Pennsylvania and Delaware. Both suits alleged violations of the Clean Water Act
(CWA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The
settlement of the Pennsylvania matter, American Littoral Society and the Public Interest Research
Group v. EPA. Civil No. 96-489 (E.D. Pa), was entered on April 9,1997. The Pennsylvania
TMDL settlement requires certain numbers of TMDLs by certain dates but gives discretion to
Pennsylvania and EPA as to which TMDLs must be completed. The settlement of the Delaware
lawsuit, American Littoral Society and Sierra Club v. EPA Civil Action No. 96-591 (SLR)
(D.De), was entered on August 9,1997. The Delaware TMDL settlement sets forth specific
deadlines for EPA relating to specific waters and TMDLs in the Christina River Basin. Under
the schedule set forth the settlement, Delaware was to establish low-flow TMDLs for all water
quality limited segments (except for those impaired by bacteria), including Brandywine Creek,
Christina River, Red Clay Creek and White Clay Creek, by December 31,1999. The Delaware
settlement also expects Delaware to establish the high-flow TMDL by December 31, 2004.
Pursuant to the Delaware agreement, EPA is required to establish TMDLs within one year should
Delaware fail to do so.
Despite best efforts by DRBC, EPA, Delaware and other participants, including the use of
expert contractors from Tetra Tech and Widener University, the low-flow TMDLs for the
Christina River Basin woe not completed by December 1999. EPA thereafter assumed the lead
to establish these TMDLs.
EPA held two public information meetings on preliminary draft Christina River Basin
TMDLs on July 18-19, 2000 in West Chester, PA and Wilmington, DE respectively. After
making appropriate changes, EPA opened the formal public comment period on the proposed
TMDLs with two public hearings on August 29-30, 2000, again in West Chester, PA and
Wilmington, DE respectively. As advertised in local papers, EPA held the comment period for
the draft TMDLs open through October 15, 2000. EPA received numerous comments from both
the public hearings and during the public comment period. EPA reviewed and considered those
comments in making its final decision for these TMDLs. EPA has prepared a public comment
responsiveness summary which accompanies the final TMDL Decision Rationale document.
-u-
-------
For the revised TMDLs, EPA issued a public notice of the proposed revisions on March
1, 2002 for a 30-day public comment period. The notice was published in the Chester County
Community Newspaper Group and the Wilmington News-Journal. Copies of the notice were
also mailed to each affected point source discharger in the Christina River Basin. One set of
comments were received and EPA has prepared a response to those comments which
accompanies this revised TMDL Decision Rationale document. Because of the limited changes
being made to the TMDLs and the few comments received, EPA determined that the proposed
TMDL revisions could proceed without the need for a public hearing.
Applicable Water Quality Standards for TMDLs
The CWA requires States to adopt WQS to define the water goals for a waterbody by
designating the use or uses to be made of the water, by setting criteria necessary to protect the
uses and by protecting water quality through antidegradation provisions. These WQS serve dual
purposes: they establish water quality goals for a specific waterbody, and they serve as the
regulatory basis for establishing water quality-based controls and strategies beyond the
technology-based levels of treatment required by sections 301(b) and 306 of the CWA.
Within the Christina River Basin, there are four regulatory agencies which have adopted
applicable WQS. DEP, DNREC and MDE each have WQS which apply to the stream segments
of the Christina River Basin in the respective state. DRBC is an interstate agency which has the
authority to establish WQS and regulate pollution activities within the Delaware River Basin
including the Christina River Basin, one of the Delaware River's tributary basins.
Once EPA identifies the applicable use designation and water quality criteria, EPA
determines the numeric water quality target or goal for the TMDL. These targets represent a
number where the applicable water quality is achieved and maintained. In these TMDLs, the
target is to attain and maintain the applicable DO water quality criteria at low-flow conditions.
EPA has set forth specific targets for DO in the Tables and Figures provided in the TMDL
Decision Rationale applicable to each segment. The table below identifies the general numeric
water quality targets or endpoints for the Christina River Basin TMDLs.
-m-
-------
Summary ofTMDL Endpoints*
Dailjr£rcaj
M35aam»BO~
>^=T *'
5.0 mg/L
5.5 mg/L
15.0 mg/L
14.0 mg/L
Pennsylvania Water Quality Standards
Delaware Water Quality Standards
Maryland Water Quality Standards
Pennsylvania and Delaware Water
Quality Standards
* - the state of Maryland adopted the EPA water quality criteria for ammonia nitrogen in January
2001 (effective April 2001 - Title 26 Maryland Department of the Environment Subtitle 08
Water Pollution Chapter 02 Water Quality). This was approved by EPA in June 2001.
In addition to the TMDL DO endpoints summarized in the above table, there are higher
DO WQS for certain Christina River Basin segments during the critical conditions time periods
considered in these low-flow TMDLs. Generally, these segments were either not listed on 303(d)
lists for point source impacts or found not to be impacted by point source discharges in the
TMDL evaluations. The results of the TMDL model runs, incorporating the proposed TMDL
reductions, indicate that these higher DO WQS will also be protected.
These TMDLs have also identified the pollutants and sources of pollutants that cause or
contribute to the impairment of the DO criteria and allocate appropriate loadings to the various
sources. Given our scientific knowledge regarding the interrelationship of nutrients, Biochemical
Oxygen Demand (BOD), Sediment Oxygen Demand (SOD) and their impact on DO, EPA
determined it necessary and appropriate to establish numeric targets for total nitrogen and total
phosphorus based on applicable state narrative criteria (or numeric criteria in the case of
Maryland) to support the attainment-of the numeric DO criterion. Likewise, to maintain
adequate instream levels of DO at low-flow conditions, EPA found it necessary and appropriate
to develop as pan of these TMDLs waste load allocations for total phosphorus, total nitrogen,
ammonia-nitrogen, Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand (CBOD) and IX) for point
sources. Establishing numeric water quality endpoints or goals also provides the ability to
measure the progress toward attainment of the WQS and to identify the amount or degree of
deviation from the allowable pollutant load.
Christina River Basin Water Quality and TftfDL Development
As noted above, Pennsylvania identified 24 stream segments on its 1998 303(d) list while
Delaware identified 15 stream segments on its 1998 303(d) list as not meeting WQS for nutrients
and low DO within the Christina River Basin. The listed stream segments identified various
causes of impairment including excessive nutrients, organic enrichment and low DO. Data
appendices prepared for and considered in this report describe in detail the existing water quality
during low-flow. These appendices can be viewed at the EPA Region EI Christina River. Basin
TMDL web site (www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/christina).
-iv-
-------
These TMDLs also address loadings of pollutants from waterbodies or segments which
have not been listed as impaired on the states' 303(d) lists. The CWA requires for interstate
waters that the water from the upstTeam state meet the WQS of the downstream state at or before
the state line. In this case, these interstate TMDLs not only address the segments listed
respectively by Pennsylvania (the upstream state) and Delaware (the downstream state), but also
address other water quality problems associated with discharges from non-listed waters necessary
to protect the water quality of downstream waters of Delaware during low-flow conditions. In a
few cases, including certain segments of the East Branch of the Brandywine River, the TMDL
modeling also revealed problems in previously unlisted waters where none had been identified
before. In some cases where a segment may not have been previously identified as impaired,
these TMDLs allocate pollutant loads that are causing or contributing to the impairment of that
water and/or downstream waters. EPA established such waste load allocations in order to attain
and maintain the applicable WQS of both upstream and downstream waters consistent with our
authority to establish these TMDLs.
As indicated in the data assessment (appendices found at the web site), the nutrient
concentrations of the tidal Christina River are heavily influenced by tributary loads from the
Brandywine Creek, Red and White Clay Creeks and nontidal Christina River. The data analysis
also indicates that DO concentrations within the tidal Christina River violate both the minimum
and daily average WQS during low-flow critical conditions. In addition to the influential
nutrients loads from tributaries, spatial data analysis indicates that high levels of plant biomass
are likely the result of transport from inland tributaries. In any case, the nutrient and biomass
loadings from inland tributaries potentially contribute to the DO WQS violations within the tidal
Christina River. This further justifies the need to consider sources of pollutants and tributaries
on a watershed basis, regardless of whether that waterbody is explicitly listed on the states'
303(d) lists.
TMDL Model
In establishing these TMDLs, EPA utilized the EFDC water quality model, a public
domain surface water modeling system incorporating fully integrated hydrodynamic, water .
quality and sediment-contaminant simulation capabilities, to evaluate the linkage between the
applicable water quality criteria and the identified sources and to establish the cause-and-effect
relationships. The EFDC model has been applied in similar studies including the Peconic
Estuary, the Indian River Lagoon/Turkey Creek, and the Chesapeake Bay system and has been
used to develop TMDLs in Oklahoma and Georgia.
-v-
-------
Summary of TMDL Allocations
The TMDL waste load and load allocations for specific segments are provided in tables at
the end of this Executive Summary. The Level 1 allocations result from the evaluation of each
individual discharger. For Level 2, the resultant Level 1 allocations were added one at a time in a
cumulative assessment of WLA impacts. The Level 2 allocations are the proposed WLAs for the
affected dischargers. Tables are also provided that display the total discharge load reductions
proposed by the TMDLs to ensure that the DO WQS are met under low-flow conditions in the
Christina Basin.
Federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.44{dXl)(vii)(B) require that, for an NPDES permit for
an individual point source, the effluent limitations must be consistent with the assumptions and
requirements of any available WLA for the discharger prepared by the state and approved by
EPA or established directly by EPA. To ensure consistency with these TMDLs, as NPDES.
permits are issued for the point sources that discharge the pollutants of concern to the Christina
Basin, any deviation from the WLAs described herein for the particular point source must be
documented in the pennit Fact Sheet and made available for public review along with the
proposed draft permit and the Notice of Tentative Decision. The documentation should: (I)
demonstrate that the loading change is consistent with the goals of these TMDLs and will
implement the applicable WQS, (2) demonstrate that the changes embrace the assumptions and
methodology of these TMDLs, and (3) describe that portion of the total allowable loading
determined in the TMDL report that remains for other point sources (and future growth where
included in the original TMDL) not yet issued a pennit under the TMDL.
Discussion of Regulatory Conditions
Federal regulations at 40 CFR Section 130 require that TMDLs must meet the following
eight regulatory conditions:
1) The TMDLs are designed to implement applicable water quality standards.
2) The TMDLs include a total allowable load as well as individual waste load
allocations and load allocations.
3) The TMDLs consider the impacts of background pollutant contributions.
4) The TMDLs consider critical environmental conditions.
5) The TMDLs consider seasonal environmental variations.
6) The TMDLs include a margin of safety.
7) The TMDLs have been subject to public participation.
8) There is reasonable assurance that the TMDLs can be met.
The TMDL Decision Rationale document discusses how these TMDLs satisfy each of
these regulatory conditions in Section VH. The Christina River Basin TMDLs for nutrients and
DO under low-flow conditions have fulfilled the 40 CFR Section 130 regulatory conditions.
-vi
-------
Total Maximum Daily Load of Nutrients and Dissolved Oxygen
Under Low-Flow Conditions in the Christina River Basin,
Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland
TMDL Summary by Subwatershed for the Christina River Basin
Sum of Individual Waste Loai
AlJocations
So&wstmhed.
Sail
p"
mgSJ
t- n»m itm.'.
79.72
16.82
43.04
9.00
26.74
Smxxywme GreefcEastBrmcb
1.022.79
157.30
3,562.99
118.76
523.97
600.16
124.15
1,218.68
69.48
257.01
7.55
0.79
1.91
0.61
1.53
Brandywme Creek Watershed
1,710.22
299.06
4426.62
19745
809.25
3msooiJSvci.WesfBz*niS-
75.57
13.57
125.33
6.26
37.56
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3B5*m»JBleinuzMeiiBS=
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Christina River Watershed
75.57
13.57
123.33
6J6
3746
iirrrr»ipf«Kjin
0.04
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.03
162.32
19.44
46.94
12.83
71.36
!
1
108.96
4.81
11.61
75.52
112.11
Red Gay Creek Watershed
271J2
24.26
5W7
8846
18340
anSfm Jgg
53.83
10.52
25.46
4.51
11.27
88.78
8.69
149.67
11.23
16.17
ttu&rKuD
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Hke&DOe
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Vf3EGfid£
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
WM^diyrGifniamclans
0 75
0.03
0.06
0.03
1.25
White Clay Creek Watershed
143J6
19.24
175.19
15.77
28.69
Total Waste Load Allocation for Point
Sources in Christina River Basin
2400.47
356.13
5,185.71
3Q&24
1,059.00
-Vll-
-------
TMDL Summary by Subwatershed for the Christina River Basin
Sum of Load Allocations
gulwiwwhed
CBGD5
NH3-N
L .M8«
W
' 4M
SHttt
l» BfC
irmdy^«ncQrtlviiaiii-»aaar | 5201
1 78
137.30
1.50
497 95
iraudymeQpecfc EastBaacfa
162.33
3.85
248.01
3 35
1.333 95
rriwiljiiini ""ml —Iiwrnianili
99.18
3.08
262.94
2.77
958.41
)MESun
34.72
0.96
92.45
0 94
338.75
Brandywxne Creek Watershed
348.24
9.67
740.69
8.55
3,129.05
ShmtiMRiv^Wq^BtanA,,
1.17
0.02
0.82
0.02
5.94
f&flrfGIl Creek
36.27
0.52
25.38
0.51
186.02
34.99
1.65
26.85
0.86
163.08
Christina River Watershed
72.43
2.19
53.05
1.38
355.05
4.60
0.10
9.10
0.21
33.65
HafrfflaVij" Ciiwlr Ww«gUanrh
-------
Total Maximum Daily Load of Nutrients and Dissolved Oxygen
Under Low-Flow Conditions in the Christina River Basin,
Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland
Level 1 Baseline Allocations
NBDESTadUty
Flow
(mfcd)
J , ; ££j.™ . rlMSSSJ i h iifMMBwTwlfMWW
CBODS
(ug/if?
East Branch Brandywine Cre«k
EA0Q2fi5Tl
7.134 | 10
2.0
2.0
8.9
1.78
1.78 | 11%
11%
11%
West Branch Brandywine Creek
3.85 | 15
2.0
2.0
12.3
2.0
1.64 | 18%
0%
18V.
West Branch Red Clay Creek
EUM240S8
1.1 | 25
3.0
7.5*
17.5
2.1
1.35 | 30%
30%
82%
West Branch Christina River
MD0Q22641
0.7 22*"
6.45*
1.0 | 22**
2.0
1.0 | 0%
69%
0%
Note: WLAi/ permit limits for critical condition] period; applicable to seasonal permit periods (e.g., May 1 •October 31 •
DEP)
* no permit limits, values shown are based on monitoring data.
** value shown is BODS. MDE permits list BODS instead of CBODS; equivalent CBOD5 value is 12.22 mg/1.
PA0026531 - Downingtown Area Reg. Auth. PA0026859 - PA American Water Co.***
PA0024058 - Kennett Square MD0022641- Meadowview Utilities, Inc.
*** - formerly Coatesville City Authority
-ix-
-------
Total Maximum Daily Load of Nutrients and Dissolved Oxygen
Under Low-Flow Conditions in the Christina River Basin,
Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland
Level 2 Allocations
NPDES Facility
Flow
(mgd)
Existing Permit Limits
Level 2 Allocation Limits
Level 1 and 2 Percent
Reduction
CBOD5
(mg/L)
NH3-N
(mg/L)
TP
(mg/L)
CBOD5
(mg/L)
NH3-N
(mg/L)
TP
(mg/L)
CBOD5
NH3-N
TP
East Branch Brandvwme Creek
PA0043982
04
25-
2.0*
2.0
22.95
2.00
1.88
8%
0%
6%
PAOO12815
1 028
34
6.0
1.0
24.41
4.31
0.72
28%
28%
IJ
OO
PA0026531
7 134
10
2.0
2.0
6.38
1.28
1.28
36%
36%
36%
West Branch Brandvwine Creek
PA0026859
3 85
15
2.0
2.0
11.07
2.00
1.48
28%
0%
28%
PA0044776
06
15
3.0
2.0
13 50
2.70
1.80
10%
10%
10%
West Branch Red Clay Creek
PA0024058
1 1
25
3.0
7 5*
16.63
2.00
1.28
34%
34%
83%
PA0057720-001
0 05
10
2.0
2.0'
9.50
1.90
1.90
5%
5%
5%
West Branch Christina River
MD002264I •"
0 7
6.45*
1.0
22***
2.0
1.0
0%
69%
0%
Note: WLAs/permit limits for critical conditions period: applicable to seasonal permit periods (e.g:. May I • October 31 -
DEP)
* no permit limits, values shown are based on typical characteristics or monitoring data.
"allocation did not change from Level 1 allocation.
•••value shown is BODS. MDE permits list BOD5 instead of CBOD5. equivalent CBOD5 value is 12.22 mg/1.
PA0026531 - Downingtown Area Reg. Auth.
PA0024058 - Kennett Square
PA0043982 - Broad Run Sew. Co.
PA0057720-001 - Sunny Dell Foods, Inc.
•*•* - formerly Coatesville City Authority
PA0026859 - PA American Water Co.'****
MD0022641- Meadowview Utilities, Inc.
PAOO12815 - Sonoco Products
PA0044776 - NW Chester Co. Mun. Auth.
-x-
-------
Total Maximum Daily Load of Nutrients and Dissolved Oxygen
Under Low-Flow Conditions in the Christina River Basin,
Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland
I. Introduction
The Environmental Protection Agency Region HI (EPA) establishes these Total
Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for nutrients and other oxygen demanding pollutants in order to
attain and maintain the applicable Water Quality Standards (WQS) for dissolved oxygen (DO) in
the Christina River Basin under low-flow conditions (equivalent to the minimum seven-day low
flow expected to occur every 10 years - conditions used to establish National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits). EPA has established these TMDLs in cooperation with
the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), Delaware Department of
Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC), Maryland Department of the
Environment (MDE) and the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC). As part of these
TMDLs, EPA has allocated specific amounts of nutrients and other oxygen demanding pollutants
to certain point and nonpoint sources necessary to restore and maintain the applicable WQS.
These TMDLs recommend that eight facilities, seven in Pennsylvania and one in Maryland, have
their NPDES permits modified when next reissued to reduce the amounts of pollutants that may
be discharged.
During permit reviews for several of the facilities covered by the January 19, 2001
TMDLs, it was found that some flow rates used in the original TMDL calculations were in error.
As a result, model runs using updated flows were performed and revisions to the TMDL
recommendations for the Brandywine Creek portion of the Christina River Basin were made.
A related, but separate, effort is underway to establish TMDLs for nutrients, DO and
other pollutants causing water quality problems under high-flow conditions. EPA expects these
high-flow TMDLs to be completed by December 2004.
II. Historical Perspective
In 1991, at the request of DNREC and DEP, DRBC agreed to mediate water management
issues in the "interstate" Christina River Basin. The issues included interstate and intrastate
coordination of monitoring, modeling, and pollution controls; balancing the conflicting demands
for potable water while maintaining necessary minimum pass-by requirements to sustain aquatic
life; protection of vulnerable, high quality scenic and recreational areas; restoration of wetlands
and other critical habitats; and implementation of Delaware's Exceptional Recreational or
Ecological Significance (ERES) objectives. A comprehensive basin approach was needed.
The DRBC facilitated a series of meetings with DNREC, DEP, EPA, Chester County
Water Resources Authority (CCWA) and the United States Geological Survey (USGS). EPA
funded a study by Scientific Applications International Corporation (SAIC) for completion of an
Page -1-
-------
initial data assessment and problem identification study for the non-tidal portion of Brandywme
Creek. The findings of this study, Preliminary Study of the Brandywine Creek Sub-basin, Final
Report. September 30, 1993, provided a framework for use in a multi-step TMDL study for the
entire Christina River Basin. The two states, DRBC and EPA reached agreement in late 1993 to
initiate a cooperative and coordinated monitoring and modeling approach to produce Christina
River Basin TMDLs for low-flow conditions by late 1999.
Even as the parties reached agreement on how best to address the impacts of pollutants
during low-flow conditions, they recognized that additional efforts would be necessary to address
the distinct water quality problems resulting from primarily nonpoint sources of pollutants during
high-flow conditions. In 1993, EPA recommended that DRBC expand the effort to consider
high-flow conditions. As a result, the Christina Basin Water Quality Management Committee
(CBWQMC) was created with the purpose of addressing the applicable water quality problems
and management policies on a watershed scale. The CBWQMC represents a variety of
stakeholders and interested parties including the Brandywine Valley Association/Red Clay
Valley Association (BVA/RCVA), Chester County Conservation District (CCCD), Chester
County Health Department (CCHD), Chester County Planning Commission (CCPC), CCWA,
DNREC, Delaware Nature Society (DNS), DRBC, New Castle County Conservation District
(NCCD), DEP, EPA Region ID, USGS, United States Natural Resources Conservation Service
(USDA-NRCS) and the Water Resources Agency for New Castle County (WRANCC).
The CBWQMC developed a unified, multi-phased, 5-year Water Quality Management
Strategy (WQMS) that firsts, addresses the water quality problems through voluntary
watershed/water quality planning and management activities and second, establishes appropriate
TMDLs. The reason for separating the development of TMDLs to address water quality
problems between low-flow and high-flow TMDLs is that each scenario has different and distinct
pollutants and problems at different flow regimes.
Since 1995, the CBWQMC has been conducting activities set forth in the WQMS
designed to implement programs aimed at protecting and improving water quality. These
activities include Geographic Information System (GIS) watershed inventory, water quality
assessment, watershed pollutant potential and prioritization, stormwater monitoring, Best
Management Practices (BMP) Implementation projects and public education/outreach. A
summary of these activities can be found in Phase I and U Report, Christina River Basin Water
Quality Management Strategy, May 1998 and Phase III Report, Christina Basin Water Quality
Management Strategy, August 5, J 999. These reports describe ongoing efforts to provide
pollution control and restore water quality within the Christina River Basin.
Both Pennsylvania and Delaware have identified multiple segments and pollutants in the
Christina River Basin on their respective lists of impaired waters still requiring the development
of a TMDL. Based on available information, Pennsylvania identified 24 stream segments on its
1998 303(d) list while Delaware identified 15 stream segments on its 1998 303(d) list as not
meeting WQS for nutrients and low DO within the Christina River Basin. The Clean Water Act
Page -2-
-------
(CWA) requires that upstream waters must meet the applicable WQS of the downstream state at
or before the state line. In other words, any TMDL to achieve the WQS in the Christina River
Basin in Delaware requires Pennsylvania waters to meet WQS at the Delaware state line.
Concurrent with the water quality improvement activitiesitaking place within the
Christina River Basin, EPA settled two civil lawsuits regarding EPA's oversight of the TMDL
programs of Pennsylvania and Delaware. Both suits alleged violations of the CWA, the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The settlement of
the Pennsylvania matter, American Littoral Society and the Public Interest Research Group v.
EPA. Civil No. 96-489 (E.D. Pa), was entered on April 9, 1997. The Pennsylvania TMDL
settlement requires certain numbers of TMDLs by certain dates but gives discretion.to
Pennsylvania and EPA as to which TMDLs must be completed. The settlement of the Delaware
lawsuit, American Littoral Society and Sierra Club v. EPA Civil Action No. 96-591 (SLR)
(D.De), was entered on August 9,1997. The Delaware TMDL settlement sets forth specific
deadlines for EPA relating to specific waters and TMDLs in the Christina Rivem Basin. Under
the schedule set forth the settlement, Delaware was to establish low-flow TMDLs for all water
quality limited segments (except for those impaired by bacteria), including Brandywine Creek,
Christina River, Red Clay Creek and White Clay Creek, by December 31,1999. The Delaware
settlement also expects Delaware to establish high-flow TMDLs by December 31, 2004.
Pursuant to the Delaware agreement, EPA is required to establish TMDLs within one year should
Delaware fail to do so.
In response to the requirement to establish TMDLs, Delaware, in cooperation with the
CBWQMC, identified the need for a scientific modeling tool to investigate water quality
impairments related to the development of TMDLs in the Christina River Basin. Tetra Tech,
already under contract to EPA (Contract No. 68-C7-0018), was asked to provide regional TMDL
watershed analysis and support within the Christina River Basin. The original work plan was
approved August 28, 1997 to provide a calibrated water quality model for nutrients and DO for
the Christina River Basin to be used by DNREC and DEP in establishing TMDLs. The model
would be calibrated for critical, low-flow summer period, use all available information and
include both point and nonpoint sources. The WASPS' model was originally envisioned as the
analytical tool, however, EPA ultimately decided to use the EFDC2 model after considering the
complexity of the Christina River Basin and the need to link this model with the HSPF3 model
Ambrose, R.B., T.A. Wool, and J.L. Martin. 1993. The water quality analysis and simulation program,
WASPS version 5.10. Part A: Model documentation. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development, Environmental Research Laboratory, Athens, GA.
2 Hamnck, J.M. 1992. A three-dimensional environmental fluid dynamics computer code: theoretical and
computational aspects. SRAMSOE #317, The College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, VA.
3 Bicknell, B.R., J.C. Imhoff. J.L. Kittle, A.S. Donigan, and R.C. Johanson. 1993. Hydrological Simulation
Program-FORTRAN (HSPF): User's manual for release 10.0. EPA 600/3-84-066. Environmental Research
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, GA.
Page -3-
-------
being developed by the USGS to characterize high-flow conditions. The work plan was further
expanded on April 20, 1999 to include additional reaches in Delaware and allow for further
validation of the model.
Following DNREC's request for scientific modeling support, a model/technical group
was formed to develop the scientific modeling tool within the Christina River Basin. Members
who participated in this effort include representatives from DNREC, DEP, EPA, DRBC, USGS
and Tetra Tech. Although the Cecil County, Maryland Department of Public Works and MDE
were not originally included, once it was discovered that these TMDLs would impact point
sources in Maryland, these organizations were contacted and have participated in the
development of the TMDLs since May 2000.
After Tetra Tech began providing TMDL watershed analysis and support in 1998, the
model/technical group met on a consistent basis in order to develop the modeling tool in support
of the requirement to establish TMDLs for low-flow conditions by December 31, 1999. In
September 1998, when it became apparent that the model development was behind schedule, and
at the request of DNREC and DEP, DRBC agreed, by resolution, to hire Widener University to
further assist in the development of TMDLs once the model was completed. Despite best efforts
by DRBC, EPA, the states and other participants on the CBWQMC, the low- flow TMDLs for
the Christina were not completed by December 1999, EPA thereafter assumed the lead to
establish these TMDLs.
III. Christina River Basin Water Quality Perspectives
In addition to the legal, statutory and regulatory requirements of identifying water quality
limited segments and establishing TMDLs, there are several compelling reasons why establishing
these TMDLs is good public policy to address the water quality of the Christina River Basin: (1)
protect water quality uses, (2) protect sources of drinking water, and (3) promote appropriate
growth. One goal of the CWA, and other similar legislation, is to restore and maintain the
chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation's waters. These critical, but often
delicate natural resources, can be easily degraded by anthropogenic and other sources of
pollution. Polluted waters can affect the quality of life, health and vitality of citizens in the
Christina River Basin. Consistent with the goals of the CWA, it is in the public interest to
sustain the diverse human, ecological, aesthetic and recreational resources of the watershed.
While it is often difficult to attach a precise economic value to natural resources such as
the Nation's waters, the CWA recognizes the benefits gained by restoring and maintaining the
Nation's waters. Actions such as these become even more critical where the waterbody serves as
the primary source of drinking water for 75% of the residents in New Castle County, Delaware.
Many of the water supply withdrawals in Chester County, Pennsylvania originate in waters from
the Christina River Basin. Development will continue to occur in the Christina River Basin
along with the consequential impacts on water quality. Establishing protective and appropriate
water quality targets will allow progress while ensuring water quality integrity.
Page-4-
-------
EPA characterizes the past and current condition of water quality in the Christina River
Basin, and assesses available data, as part of the basis for these TMDLs. Data appendices
prepared for this report describe in detail the existing water quality during low flow. The data
assessment developed by Dr. John Davis of Widener University, in draft form for the DRBC
TMDL determination, has been included verbatim from the "Preliminary Draft TMDL Document
5/27/9T provided to DRBC on June 7, 1999. EPA used this data in developing these TMDLs.
These appendices can be viewed at the EPA Region ID Christina River Basin TMDL web site
(www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/christina).
IV. Basin Summary and Source Assessment
The Christina River Basin (Hydrologic Unit Code 02040205) covers an area of 564.06
square miles and is located in Chester County, Pennsylvania, New Castle County, Delaware and
Cecil County, Maryland (Figure 1). Major streams include the Christina River (tidal and
nontidal), Brandywine Creek (tidal and nontidal), Red Clay Creek and White Clay Creek (tidal
and nontidal). These streams are used as habitat for aquatic life, for municipal and industrial
water supplies and for recreational purposes. The Christina River Basin drains to the tidal
Delaware River at Wilmington, Delaware. The portions included in the model appear as thick or
outlined segments of the streams in Figure 1.
The Christina River Basin is composed of diverse land uses including urban, rural and
agricultural areas. Urban areas in the watershed include greater Wilmington and Newark,
Delaware, and the Pennsylvania towns of West Chester, Downingtown, Kennett Square,
Coatesville, Parkesburg, Honey Brook, Avondale and West Grove. The land use distribution
within the basin is summarized in Table 1 below.
Table 1. Land Use Summary (square miles)
Land Uar
- - ¦—WT
87
108
195
34
*Agncaiian!
18
160
178
31
Open Space at
Pmtecte4tanf&
21
5
26
5
-Wooded
37
123
160
28
Wain/other
3
3
6
2
Total 1
166
399
565
100
Source: Ptw 1/11 Report Cbrlstlaa River EUtia Water Quality Miaiftmeat Strategy (CBWQMC - May 1998)
There are 122 NPDES dischargers included in the Christina River Basin TMDL analysis
(see Table 2 and Figure 2). The discharges range from single resident discharges (about 500
gallons per day (gpd)) to large industrial and municipal wastewater treatment plants with effluent
Page -5-
-------
Figure 1. Christina River Basin Study Area
Page -6-
-------
Table 2. Locations of NPDES point source discharges included in the model.
RI VER
HI LE
CELL
1. J
KPDES
NUHBEH
FLOMI.I M
HGD
CODE
OWNEH
STREAM
TVPE
PESCRJPTION
Brandywine CieeK
{ nidin atemj
78 610
54. 15
PE005096 2
0
0000
SWH
AKTRAX
TB Biandywine Creek
1nduaiiial
St oi mwat ei
83. 554
54. 27
DE0021768
0.
0250
STP
Hinterthui Huseum
Clenney Run
Hunici pal
Smell STP
68.644
54. 37
PM053082
0
0206
STP
Meiidenhall Inn
TB brandywine Creek
Commercial
Small STP
89. 917
54. 38
PA0O5266 3
0.
0900
STP
Knight's Bridge Co/Villages at Painters
Harvey Run
Coirane rcia)
Snt.ll STP
89 917
54. 38
PM055476
0.
0400
STP
Birmingham TSA/Ridings at Chadds Ford
TB Harvey Creek
Munj ci pal
Small STP
89 917
54. 38
PA0O55O85
0.
0005
SRC
Nmslow Nancy Ma.
TB Brandywine Creek
Huiu ci pal
Si rxjl e Reai deuce
STP
89. 917
54. 30
PM0S5484
0
0005
SRD
Keating Herbert 6 Elizabeth
TB Brandywine Creek
Hunt ci pal
Si ngle Residence
STP
89 917
54. 38
PA0O47252
0.
0700
STP
Pantos Corp/Painters Crossing
Harvey Run
90. SS3
S4. 39
PM0 30848
0.
006 3
STP
Unionville - Chadda Ford E1«a School
Ring Run
Hum ci pal
Small STP
93. 096
54. 42
PM056120
0.
0005
SRD
Schtndler
Pocopeon Creek
Humei pal
Single Re9idence
STP
92 462
54. 43
PA0O3IO97
0.
Q170
STP
Radley Ran C. C.
Radley Run
Hunici pal
Snal 1 STP
92 462
54, 43
PN3053449
0.
1500
STP
Birmingham Twp. STP
Radley Run
Hum ci pdl
Smal1 STP
93 7)5
54. 43
PM057011
0.
077)
STP
Thornbury Twp /Bridlewood Farms STP
Radley Run
92 462
54. 44
PA0O362OO
0.
0320
STP
Radley Run News
PIuft Run
Hum ci pal
Small STP
94 171
S4. 44
PA0O561 71
0.
OOOS
SRD
McClaughlin Jeffrey
Plum Run
Mum ci pal
Single Residence
STP
94. 171
54. 44
PNJ050005
0.
1400
CMC
Sun Cooyany
TB Brandywine Creek
CWCl eanup
New permit 0 1/^7/90
94 371
54. 44
PA0O5I497
0
0300
HCM
Lenape Forge
Brandywine Creek
1ndust rial
Cooling Hater
Brandywine Creek
East Branch
98 647
54. 52
PM026018
1.
8000
NUN
Nest Chester Borough MUA/Taylor Run
Taylor Run
Hunicipal
Large STP
98 647
54. 52
PM054747
0.
0000
SWR
Trans-Materials. Inc
Taylor Run
Indust rial
Stormwater
98. 647
54. 52
PAD057282
0
0005
SRD
Jonathan 6 Susan Pope
TB Valley Creek
Hunici pal
Single Residenre
STP
99 276
54. S3
PM)051 365
0.
3690
WFP
Nest Chester Area Hun. Auth.
EB Brandywine Creek
Hunicipal
Ingranr a Hill UackwaU
100 5 35
54. 55
PAOOS3937
0
OOOS
SRD
Johnson Ralph 6 Gayla
Broad Creek
Hum ci pal
Single Residence
STP
100 535
54. 55
PA0056324
0
0440
CMC
Mobil SSN16GPB
TB-MB Valley Run
Coranercft al
DP
100 535
54. 55
PA0O566I8
0.
OOOS
SRD
C Cornwe11 David 4 Jeanette
Broad Run
Hunici pal
Single Residence
STP
100 535
54. 55
PM)054 30S
0
0000
I HD
Sun Co. Inc (R&N)
TB Valley Creek
I ndustrial
100 535
54. 55
PA0O53561
0
0360
CMC
Johnson Nat they
Valley Creek
GNCI eanup
Permitted 03/12/96
101 794
S4. 57
P *3043982
0.
4000
ATP 2
Broad Run Sew Co.
CB Brandywine Creek
Mum ci pal
Large STP
103. 682
54, 60
PM01281S
1.
0280
1 ND
Sunoco Products
EB Brandywi ne Creek
Industrial
Papei Company - Mill Race
103 682
54, 60
PM>026531
7.
1)40
ATP2
Down!ngtown Area Regional Authority
KB Brandywine Creek
Municipal
Large STP
104. 3)2
54.61
PM051918
0.
1440
NCtf
Pepperidge Farm
Parke Run Creek
Industrial
Cooli ng Hater
103 682
54,61
PA005SS31
0.
0007
STP
Khalife Paul
TB Valley Run
Commercial
Scull STP
104 312
54. 61
PM057126
0.
0000
IND
Hess Oil - SS 838291
valley Run
Commercial
DP
104 312
54. 6i
PM030228
0.
0225
STP
Down!ngtown IIA School
Beaver Creek
Mum ci pal
No flow since Feb 1944
104 312
54, 61
PM3053678
0.
0000
IND
UNwrt Earl R.
SB Brandywine Creek
Industrial
DP
104. 312
54. 61
PM3053660
0.
0000
IND
Mobil Oil Company 8016
SB Brandywine Creek
Commercial
Air stripper at Service S
106.830
54.65
PM054917
0.
47S0
STP
Uwchlan Twp. Municipal Authority
Shamona Creek
Municipal
Eagle view CC STP
107. 459
54, 66
PM057045
0.
0000
9 MR
Shyrock Brothers. Inc.
BB Brandywine Creek
Commercial
Stormwater
108.088
54, 67
PM027987
0.
0500
STP
Pennsylvania Tpk. /Caruiel Service Plaza
Marsh Creek
Coanerclal
Soal 1 STP
108.088
51. 67
PA0036374
0.
0150
SIT
Baglepolnt Dev. Assoc.
TB Marsh Creek
Municipal
Smal 1 STP
108.088
54. 67
PM3052949
0.
0000
IND
Phi la. Suburban Nater Co-
Marsh Creek
Industrial
Uwchlan DP
108.088
54. 67
PJUOS7274
0.
OOOS
SRD
Michael ft AntloneLte Hughes
TB Marsh Creek
Municipal
Single Residence
STP
109. 977
54. 70
PM>050458
0.
0531
STP
Little Hash!ftgton Drainage Co
Culbertson Run
Municipal
Small STP
112. 495
54. 74
PA0050229
0.
OOOS
SRD
unknown
Indian Run
Municipal
Single Residence
STP
112.495
54. 74
PJ0OSO547
0.
0)75
STP
Indian Run Village NKP
Indian Run
Municipal
Small STP
112 495
54. 74
PD0055492
.0.
0005
SRD
Topp John 6 Jane
Indian Run
Hunici pal
Single Residence
STP
11) 7S)
54. 76
PM0S4691
0.
OOOS
SRD
Stoltsfua Ben Z.
TB Brandywine Creek
Hunicipal
Single Residence
STP
-------
Table 2. Locations of NPDES point source discharges Included In the model (continued).
RIVER CELL NPDES FLOWL1M
KILE I. J NUMBER HGD CODE OWNER STREAM TYPE DESCRIPTION
Brand/vine Cteek West Branch
97 976 46. 79 PM056561
40. 79
J9, 79
29. 79
101 708
102 330
107. 306
107. 306
110.416
111 030
111 036
111.038
111 038
112. 202
112. 282
112- 282
113 S26
114 770
120. 368
120. 368
120 368
Buck Run
117. 041
117 041
117 041
, 79
, 79
, 79
, 79
, 79
. 79
20. 79
20. 79
20. 79
18. 79
16. 79
06. 79
06. 79
06. 79
33. 61
33. 61
33. 61
PM029912
PM053996
PA0O53228
PA0053236
P *>036897
PM026859
PA0O11568 - 001
PM)011568 - 016
PA0053821
PM01 2416
PA0052990
PA0O56O7 3
PA0O52728
PA0O55697
PM)036412
PA0044776
PA0O57 339
PA0O2447)
PA0O36161
PM)OS7231
Christina Rlvet (tidal)
82 274 45.13 DG0000400-001
83 561 43,09 OGO0S10O4
Christina River Heat Branch
99. 587
16. 09
MB065145
100 209
14.
09
MD0022641
Red Clay
Creek
89. 828
43.
26
DG0000221
89. 828
43.
26
DG000022I
91. 746
43.
29
DG00002 30
95. 583
43.
35
DC0021709
96 861
43.
37
PA0055425
98. 780
43.
40
DG0050067
90 780
43.
40
DG0000451
101 337
4),
44
PA0O551O7
101
4 1.
4 1
PA0O54755
• *sd < :
< 101
k I
west Branch
> 1 i 1
n
43
PA0O53554
10 1 950
10.
43
P #0024058
104 260
29.
43
PA0O5O679
104 579
28.
43
PA0OS772O
104. 579
28.
43
PM057720
White Clay Creek
93.090 32.18
102 824 15. 18
108-696 06.10
DG0000191•001
PM053783
PM024066
0.0000 SWR Richard H Armstrong Co
0.1000 STP Embreeville Hospital
0 0005 SRD Redound Michael
0.0005 SRD Gram JefCery
0.0005 SRD Woodward Raymond Sr STP
0 3900 ATP1 South Coatesville Borough
3 8500 ATPI Coateavllle City Authority
0.5000 IKD Lukena Steel Co
0.5000 1HD Lukena Steel Co
0.0000 SMI Cheater County Aviation Inc.
0. 1400 WPP Coateavllle Mater Plant
0.0005 SRD Mitchell Rodney
0.0005 SRD Vreeland Rueaell Dr
0.0004 SIT Farad and Industries Inc /Turkey Hill
0 0490 STP Spring Run Batates
0 0550 STP Tel Hal Retirement Coovnunity
0 6000 STP NM Cheater Co Municipal Authority
0 0005 SRD Brian fc Cheryl Davidaon
0 7000 STP Parkereburg Borough Authority WWTP
0 0360 STP Lincoln Creat IMP STP
0.0005 SRD Archie 6 Cloria Shearer
0.0000 NCW Clba-'Gelgy Corp.
0.0000 SMR Boeing
0.0500 STP Highlanda WWTP
0.4500 STP Meadowvlew Utilities.
I nc
0 0060 NCW HAVBG/AKTEK (eliminated July 1996)
0.0040 NCW HAVBG/AMTEK 1 eliminated July 1996)
0 3500 NCW Hercules Inc.
0.0150 STP Greenville Country Club
0.0005 SRD D Ambro Anthony Jr -Lot 822
0.0015 STP Center for Creative Arte
2. 1700 NCW MVP Vorklyn
0 1500 STP Beat Marlborough Township STP
0.0000 SMS Trans-Materials Inc.
0.0000 SW Barthgro Inc.
1. 1000 STP Kennett Square Bora Wtrrp
0. 2S00 NCW National Vulcanised Fiber (MVP)
0 0500 SIT Sunny Dell Foods. Inc
0.0900 NCW Sunny Dell Pooda. Inc
0. 0300 NCW FNC Corp
0.0200 STP Avon Grove School Diet
0.2500 STP Meat Grove Borough Authority STP
Broad Run
WB Brandywine Creek
TB -WB Brandywine Creek
WB Brandywine Creek
WB Brandywine Creek
WB Brandywine Creek
WB Brandywine Creek
Sucker Run
Sucker Run
Sucker Run
Rock Run
Rock Run
TB Rock Run
WB Brandywine Creek
WB Brandywine Creek
TB-WB Brandywine Creek
WB Brandywine Creek
TB-WB Brandywine Creek
TB-Buck Run
Buck Run
TB*Buck Run
Chriatina River
Nonesuch Creek
WB Chi latin* River
WB Christina Ri ver
Red Clay Creek
Red Clay Creek
Red Clay Creek
TB-Red Clay Creek
TB-KB Red Clay Creek
TB-Red Clay Creek
Red Clay Creek
TB KB Red Clay Creek
BB Red Clay Creek
WB Red Clay Creek
MB Red Clay Creek
TB-WB Red Clay Creek
MB-Red Clay Creek
WB-Red Clay Creek
Cool Run
TB- WB White Clay Creek
IB White Clay Creek
Cofimetciai Stotniwaiei
Municipal Uiyc STP
Municipal Single Residence STP
Municipal Single Residence STP
Municipal Single Residence STP
Municipal Large STP
Municipal Large STP
Industrial Laige STP
Industrial Large STP
Commercial Stormwater
Industrial Water F» It cation Backwash
Municipal Single Residence STP
Municipal Single Residence STP
Industrial Small STP
Coomerclal Small STP
Municipal Soul 1 STP
Municipal Large STP
Municipal Single Residence STP
Municipal Small STP eliminated 06/1
Municipal Small STP
Municipal Single Residence STP
Industrial Cooling Water
Industrial Stormwater
Munici pal
Municipal
Small STP
Sua 11 STP
Industrial Cooling Water
Industrial Cooling Water
Industrial Cooling Water
Municipal Small STP
Municipal Single Residence STP
Municipal Small STP
Industrial Stormwater/Cooling Water
Municipal Large STP
Industrial StoroMacer
Industrial StoroMater
Municipal Large STP
Industrial Cooling Mater
Industrial Mushroom Can/Process Hate
Industrial Mushroom Can/Cooling Hate
Industrial Stormwater/Cooling Hater
Cocranercial Small STP
toimcipa) L^rge STP
/ 9 7
-------
-o
p
00
O
i
SO
•
Table 2. Locations of NPOES point source discharges Included in the model (continued).
HI VER
CELL
NPDES
FLOWLIH
Mi LC
I. J
NUMBER
MCD
CODE
OHNER
STREAM
TYPE
DESCK1 I'TI UN
White Clay Cieek
East Branch
102
750
19. 24
PA00524S1
0
0012
STP
Frances I. Hamilton Oates STP
EB White
Clay Cieek
Humeipdl
Siiwll STP
104
020
19. 26
PM>057029
0
1440
CMC
Hewlett Packard Co
Egypt Run
CMC)eanup
Gr o
indwater
CIeanup
106
560
19. )0
PA0O25400
0
3000
ATP2
Avondate Borough Sewer Authority
Indian Run
Nun i cipd I
Let i
Sun Company I nc
EB White
Clay Creek
CWC1 eaiiup
Ci oundwat er
Cleanup
107
0)0
19. 32
PA0O29)4)
0
0270
STP
Chatham Acres
TB-EB White Clay Creek
Nunici pal
Small STP
107
0)0
19. )2
PA00404 36
0
0090
STP
Chadds Ford Investment Co /Red Fox GC
TB- EB White Clay Creek
Nunici pal
Small STP
107
0)0
19. 32
PM040665
0.
0100
STP
Stone Barn Reetuai antarid Apt Cplx
EB White
Clay Creek
Commercial
Situ I 1 STP
tiitle Mi 1k Creek
82
441
41. 55
DE000052)- 001
0.
0000
SWH
General Motors Assembly
Liltle Mi 11 Creek
Indust rial
Stor mwatec
01
)7 I
)0. 55
DE0000566
0.
0000
SWR
DuPont Chestnut Run
Li 111 e Mi 1 Creek
1rtdustrial
Stormwater/Cooliny waiei
Uelawdre
Rj ver
61
0)9
57. 04
DE0021S55 001
0
5500
NUN
Delaware City STP
Del aware
Ri ver
Nunicipal
65
272
57. 05
DE0000256 601
1).
0000
1 ND
Star Enterprises
Del aware
SU ver
1ndust rial
65
272
57. 05
DE0000612 001
0.
0000
1 ND
Formosa Plastics Corp
Del aware
Rj ver
Indusrila)
65
2>2
57. 05
OE002000I 001
0
6000
NUN
Standard Chlorine
Delaware
Ri ver
Nunicipa)
6S
272
57. 05
080050911 001
0
3000
NUN .
Occidental Chemical Corp
Del aware
Ri ver
Muni ci pal
75
2)7
57, 15
DL0020120-001
1 )4
0000
NUN
City of Wilmington
Del aware
Ki ver
Nunici pal
7
162
57 17
DE0000051 001
5-
2000
1 ND
Duponl ¦ Edgemoor
Delaware
Ri ver
Industrial
11
162
57. 1 7
UE0000051 002
)
0000
1 ND
Dupont - Edgemoor
Del aware
Ri ver
Indust rial
77
162
St. 17
DKOOOOOSl•00 i
6
oooo
I ND
Dupont - Edge moot
Del aware
Rr ver
Industilal
01
)07
57. 20
DE0000655 00k
33
3000
1 ND
General Chemical Corporation
Del aware
Ri ver
Industrial
0)
907
57. 22
PM>0126)7- 002
52
3500
1 ND
Bayway Manufacturing
Delaware
Ri ver
Indust ria)
SEE
NOTE 1
0)
907
57. 22
PM012637- 101
69.
0000
1 ND
Bayway Manufacturing
Del aware
Ri ver
Indust rial
SEE
NOTE 1
01
907
57. 22
PM01 26 )7 - 201
3400
1 ND
Bayway Manufacturing
Delaware
River
Indust i lal
SEE
NOTE 1
05
199
57. 2)
PA0O2710 ) * 001
44.
0000
NUN
Del cor a
Del aware
Ri ver
Nunici pal
02
6)9
50. 21
NJ000504 5•001
1
2700
1 ND
Solutia (formerly Monsanto)
Delaware
Ri ver
Indust rial
SEE
NOTE 2
6)
039
59. 04
NJOO24056-001
1.
4450
KUN
City of Salea
Del aware
Ki ver
Nunici pal
SEE
NOTE 1
69
5)4
59. 09
NJOO21590 001
2.
4650
NUN
Pennsvllle Sewage Authority
Del aware
Ri ver
Municipal
SEE
NOTE 1
73
))9
59. 12
NJ0005100-661
22.
9000
1 ND
Dupont-Chambers Works
Del aware
Ri ver
Industilal
SEE
NCTIE 1
75
2)7
59. 15
KJ0021601- 001
1
7290
NUN
Carney* Pt. Sewage Authority
Delaware
Ri ver
Municipal
SEE
NOTE 1
76
045
59. 16
NJ002402)- 001
0
9500
NUN
Penns Grove Sewage Authority
Del aware
Ri ver
Nuni ci pal
SEE
NOTE 1
77. 162
59. 17
KJ00246)5-001
0
0)66
MUN
Fort Difc/Pedricktown Facility
Delaware
Ri ver
Mum ci pal
SEE
NOTE 1
79
919
59. 19
KJOOO4206 *001
2
1000
I ND
Geon
Delaware
Ri ver
1ndust rial
02
6)9
S9. 21
NJ0027545-001
0.
9060
KUN
Logan Townshi p MUA
Delaware
Ri ver
Nunici pal
SEE
NOTE 1
NOTES.
I 1) No flow llouc available in PCS data base; flow limit shown ie nuximum reported flow during 01/01/95 to 12/11/90
(2) No flow limit or reported flow available in PCS data base, flow llnlt 1* baaed on value uaed to calculate CBODS load in permit
-------
-*..440*4
C^esQPeake
Figure 2. Locations of NPDES discharges in the Christina River Basin
Page -10-
-------
flow rates in the range of I to 7 million gallons per day (mgd). The largest NPDES facilities in
the Christina River Basin are Downingtown (permitted flow of 7.134 mgd), Sonoco (1.028 mgd),
West Chester Taylor Run (1.50 mgd), Lukens Steel (1.00 mgd), PA American Water Co.
(formerly Coatesville - 3.85 mgd), South Coatesvilie (0.39 mgd), Kennett Square (1.10 mgd) and
Avondale (0.30 mgd). There are seven NPDES facilities with flows above 10 mgd that discharge
to the tidal Delaware River portion of the model, the largest being the City of Wilmington (now
rated at 134 mgd).
V. Problem Identification and Understanding
In response to the requirements of Section 303(d) of the CWA, DEP and DNREC listed
multiple Christina River Basin waterbodies on their 1996 and 1998 303(d) lists of impaired
waterbodies based on available information. As noted earlier, Pennsylvania identified 24 stream
segments on its 1998 303(d) list (Table 3) while Delaware identified 15 stream segments on its
1998 303(d) list (Table 4) as not meeting WQS for nutrients and low DO within the Christina
River Basin. Pursuant to the TMDL Consent Decree in Delaware, those 15 stream segments
were given high priority. Likewise, Pennsylvania identified 23 of the 24 listed segments as high
priority. A number of monitoring stations are located throughout the Christina River Basin
within the listed waters (Figures 3 and 4). Data from these stations were used to determine the
impairment and inclusion on the 303(d) lists based on the number of values exceeding WQS for
DO. Excessive nutrients, organic enrichment and low DO are specified as the causes of
impairment in the various listed stream segments. The pollutant sources are varied and include
industrial and municipal point sources, agriculture, Superfund sites and hydromodification. As
noted above, this extensive data assessment is provided in the appendices at the web site
(www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/christina).
These TMDLs also address loadings of pollutants from waterbodies or segments which
have not been listed as impaired on the states' 303(d) lists. The CWA requires for interstate
waters that the water from the upstream state meet the WQS of the down stream state at or before
the state line. In this case, these interstate TMDLs not only address the segments listed
respectively by Pennsylvania (the upstream state) and Delaware (the downstream state), but also
address other water quality problems associated with discharges from non-listed waters necessary
to protect the water quality of downstream waters of Delaware during low-flow conditions. In a
few cases, including certain segments of the East Branch of the Brandywine River, the TMDL
modeling also revealed problems in previously unlisted waters where none had been identified
before. In some cases where a segment may not have been previously identified as impaired,'
these TMDLs allocate pollutant loads that are causing or contributing to the impairment of that
water and/or downstream waters. EPA established such wasteload allocations in order to attain
and maintain the applicable WQS of both upstream and downstream waters consistent with our
authority to establish these TMDLs.
Page -11-
-------
Table 3. Christina River Basin Stream Reaches on the PA 1998 303
970930-1437-GLW
6.78
00004
nutrients
municipal point
source
nutrients, low DO
Rnrtr^m
00202
00085
00434
00413
00432
00440
00475
00462
Red.uty.
agriculture
autnents
970618-1118-GLW
970618-1340-GLW
970619-1222-GLW
970619-1345-GLW
2.98
3.57
5.51
3.99
agriculture
nutrients
971209-1445-
ACW
4.10
hydromodificatioo.
agriculture
organic enrichment, low
DO,
nutrients
971023-1050-MRB
971204-1400-
ACW
6.53
5.09
agriculture
organic enrichment, low
DO
970409-1130-MRB
970506-1320-MRB
970508- 1430-ACE
971113-1335-GLW
971119-1116-GLW
971120-1331-GLW
6.07
8.61
2.44
3.10
1.21
8.12
agriculture
nutrients
nutrients
organic enrichment low
DO
organic enrichment, low
DO
nutrients
nutrients
970508-1245-ACE
3.66
agriculture
organic enrichment, low
DO
115
1.09
agriculture,
municipal point
source
nutrients
115
17.33
agriculture,
municipal point
source
numents
00374
971203-1400-
ACW
0.76
agriculture
organic enrichment, low
DO
00402
970506- 1425-MRB
2.74
agriculture
numents
00435
971209-1445-
ACW
1.39
agriculture,
hydromodification
organic enrichment, low
DO,
nutrients
00391
971023-1145-MRB
4.58
agriculture
organic enrichment, low
DO
00373
971216-1230-GL.W
1.13
agriculture
nutrients
Source: Exctrpt PADEP Final 199S SecUoa 303
-------
Table 4. Christina River Basin Stream Reaches on the DE 1998 303(d) List
g-p jX?
SNudb.
m
JDEMQ4ti
Brandywue
Creek
Lower Brandywuie
3.8
nutnents
PS, NPS, SF
DE04f0Q2
Brandywuie
Creek
Upper Brandywuie
9.3
nutnents
PS, MPS, SF
Red Clay Creek
Mam Stem
12.8
nutrients
PS, MPS, SF
DEZS«QQ2;
Red Clay Creek
Burroughs Run
4.5
nutnents
MPS
DE32QrQQI
White Clay Creek
Mam Stem
18.2
nutrients
PS,.NPS
DB283fflL
White Clay Creek
Mill Creek
16.6
nutrients
NPS
DE32Q-OOSi
White Clay Creek
Pike Creek
9.4
nutrients
NPS
DE32CHXM
White Clay Creek
Muddy Run
5.8
nutrients
NPS
DBBftOOl
Christina Rjver
Lower Christina
1.5
nutnents, DO
NPS. SF
31BEWfQC8j
Chnstma River
Middle Chnstma
River
7.5
nutrients
NPS, SF
SffinCBMO!
Christina River
Upper Chnsnna
River
6.3
nutnents
NPS, SF
;DEm-QCB~
OS
Chnstma River
Lower Christina
Creek
8.4
nutnents
NPS
jDBUffiQQS*
QI*
Chnstma River
West Branch
5.3
nutnents
NPS
DB120=006^
Chnstma River
Upper Christina
Creek
8.3
nutnents
NPS
-Dejio^ojs
•j)k
Christina River
Little Mill Creek
12.8
nutrients, DO
NPS, SF
PS* point source; NPS 3 nonpotrt source: SF=superfun
-------
^ r-O^o-ore
r-eso^eo*e *
Figure 3 Locations of water quality monitoring stations in the Christina River Basin
Page -14-
-------
mesooe°ue
Oe'0*ore
Co"a'
Figure 4 Locations of USGS stream gages in the Christina River Basin
Page -15-
-------
EPA developed these TMDLs using the underlying principles of the Watershed
Protection Approach. EPA's Watershed Protection Approach is governed by the principle that
many water quality and ecosystem problems are best solved at the larger watershed levels rather
than on the smaller, individual waterbody or discharger level. The Watershed Protection
Approach increases the ability to identify and target priority problems, promotes broader
stakeholder involvement, integrates solutions which use all available expertise and provides a
better measure of success through the use of data and monitoring. Managing water resources on
a watershed basis makes sense environmentally, financially and socially.
As indicated in the data assessment found in the appendices at the Christina TMDL web
site, the nutrient concentrations of the tidal Christina River are heavily influenced by tributary
loads from the Brandywine Creek, Red and White Clay Creeks and nontidal Christina River.
The data analysis also indicates that DO concentrations within the tidal Christina River violate
both the minimum and daily average WQS during critical conditions. In addition to the
influential nutrients loads from tributaries, spatial data analysis indicates that high levels of
phytoplankton biomass are likely the result of transport from inland tributaries. In any case, the
nutrient and biomass loadings from inland tributaries contribute to the DO WQS violations
within the tidal Christina River. This further justifies the need to consider sources of pollutants
and tributaries on a watershed basis, regardless of whether that waterbody is explicitly listed on a
state's 303(d) list.
Excess nutrients in a waterbody can have many detrimental effects on designated or
existing uses, including drinking water supply, recreational use, aquatic life use and fishery use4
Eutrophication, a term usually associated with the natural aging process experienced by lakes,
describes the excessive nutrient enrichment of streams and rivers which can experience an
undesirable abundance of plant growth, particularly phytoplankton (photosynthetic microscopic
organisms (algae)), periphyton (attached benthic algae) and macrophytes (large vascular rooted
plants). Photosynthesis and respiration of these plants as well as the microbial breakdown of
dead plant matter contribute to wide fluctuations in the DO levels in streams. The impact of low
DO concentrations or of anaerobic conditions is reflected in an unbalanced ecosystem, fish
mortality, odors and other aesthetic nuisances1. These types of impairments interfere with the
designated uses of waterbodies by disrupting the aesthetics of the river, causing harm to
inhabited aquatic communities and causing violations of applicable water quality criteria.
Figure 5 below shows the interrelationship of the major processes which affect DO.
4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. Protocol for Developing Nutnent TMDLs. Pg 2-1. EPA
841-B-99-007. Office of Water (4503F). U.S. EPA, Washington D.C. 135pp.
5 Thomann, R.V., J.A. Mueller. 1987 Principles of Surface Water Quality Modeling. HarperCollins
Publishers, Inc. Section 6.1.
Page -16-
-------
Atmospheric
Oxygen
Reaeration
Organic N
Bacterial
1
Decomposition
t
Ammonia-N
NH3-N
i
Nitrification
f
Nitrite-N
N02-N
\
, Nitrification
Nitrate-N
N03-N
Carbonaceous
Deoxygenation
Sediment
Oxygen
Demand
CBOD
Settling
-
Organic P
Mineralization
T^FT
Dissolved P
Photosynthesis
Nutrient Uptake
Respiration
Nutrient Uptake
Chlorophyil-a
T^TF ^
Algal Death
Setting / Deposition
to Benthic Sediment
Sediment Nutnent Release
Algal Death
Settling
(benthic sediment)
Figure 5. Interrelationship of major kinetic processes for BOD, DO, and nutrients as
represented by water quality models (adapted from EPA 823-B-97-002).
Page -17-
-------
The presence of aquatic plants in a waterbody can have a profound effect on the DO
resources and the variability of the DO throughout a day or from day to day6. Growing plants
provide a net addition of DO to the stream on an average daily basis through photosynthesis, yet
respuation can cause low DO levels at night that can affect the survival of less tolerant fish and
aquatic life species. This is due to the photosynthetic and respiration processes of aquatic plants
which can cause Large diurnal variations in DO that are harmful to fish and aquatic life.
Photosynthesis is the process by which plants utilize solar energy to convert simple inorganic
nutrients into more complex organic molecules7. Due to the need for solar energy,
photosynthesis only occurs during daylight hours and is represented by the following simplified
equation (proceeds from left to right):
6C02 + 6H20 < > . CsHjjOj + 602
(Carbon Dioude) (Water) (Sugir) (Oxygen)
In this reaction, photosynthesis is the conversion of carbon dioxide and water into sugar
and oxygen such that there is a net gain of DO in the waterbody. Conversely, respiration and
decomposition operate the process in reverse and convert sugar and oxygen into carbon dioxide
and water resulting in a net loss of DO in the waterbody. Respiration and decomposition occur at
all times and are not dependent on solar energy. Also, if environmental conditions cause a die-
off of either microscopic or macroscopic plants, the decay of biomass can cause severe oxygen
depressions. Waterbodies exhibiting typical diumal variations of DO experience the daily
maximum in mid-afternoon during which photosynthesis is the dominant mechanism and the
daily minimum in the predawn hours during which respiration and decomposition have the
greatest effect on DO and photosynthesis is not occurring. Therefore, excessive plant growth, as
a result of excessive nutrients, can affect a streams ability to meet both average daily and
instantaneous DO standards'.
Sediment oxygen demand (SOD) is due to the oxidation of organic matter in bottom
sediments9. The organic matter originates from various sources including wastewater treatment
facilities, leaf liner, organic-rich soil or photosynthetically produced plant matter which settles
and accumulates. In some instances, SOD can be significant portion of total oxygen demand,
particularly in small streams where the effects may be more pronounced during low-flow or high
6 Supra, footnote 5. (Thomann, Mueller) Section 6.3.3.
7 Chapra, S C. 1997. Surface Water-Quality Modeling. WCB/McGraw-Hill. Section 19.1.
8 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1997. Technical Guidance Manual for Developing Total
Maximum Daily Load* Book 2: Streams and Rivers, Part 1: Biochemical Oxygen Demand/Dissolved Oxygen and
Nutnents/Eutrophicaoon. Office of Water<4305). EPA 823-B-97-Q02. Section 4.2.1.2.
^ Supra, footnote 7. (Chapra) Section 25
Page -18-
-------
temperature conditions10.
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) is a measure of the amount of oxygen required to
stabilize organic matter in wastewater". It is typically determined from a standardized test
measuring the amount of oxygen available after incubation of the sample at 20°C for a specific
length of time, usually five days. Conceptually, BOD requires a distinction between the oxygen
demand of the carbonaceous material in waste effluents and the nitrogenous oxygen demanding
component of an effluent12. Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD) involves the
breakdown of organic carbon compounds while nitrogenous biochemical oxygen demand
(NBOD) involves the oxidation of ammonia to nitrate, referred to as the nitrification process13.
VI. Christina River Basin Water Quality Model
Thomann and Mueller14 define a model as "a theoretical construct, together with
assignment of numerical values to model parameters, incorporating some prior observations
drawn from field and laboratory data, and relating external inputs or forcing functions to system
variable responses." In order to evaluate the linkage between the applicable water quality criteria
numbers (endpoints) and the identified sources and establish the cause-and-effect relationships,
EPA is utilizing the EFDC water quality model. EFDC is a public domain surface water
modeling system incorporating fully integrated hydrodynamic, water quality and sediment-
contaminant simulation capabilities.
EFDC is extremely versatile and can be applied in 1,2, or 3 dimensional simulation of
rivers, lakes and estuaries with coupled salinity and temperature transport Further capabilities of
the model include a directly coupled water quality-eutrophication and toxic contaminated
sediment transport and fate models, integrated near-field mixing zone model, as well as pre- and
post-processing for input file creation, analysis and visualization. The eutrophication component
of EFDC can simulate the transport and transformation of 22 state variables including
cyanobacteria, diatom algae, green algae, refractory particulate organic carbon, labile particulate
organic carbon, dissolved carbon, refractory particulate organic phosphorus, labile particulate
organic phosphorus, dissolved organic phosphorus, total phosphate, refractory particulate organic
nitrogen, labile particulate organic nitrogen, dissolved organic nitrogen, ammonia nitrogen,
nitrate nitrogen, particulate biogenic silica, dissolved available silica, chemical oxygen demand,
dissolved oxygen, total active metal, fecal coliform bacteria and macro algae. The EFDC model
10 Supra, footnote 8. (EPA Guidance Manual for Developing TMDLs) Section 2.3.4.4.
11 Supra, footnote 8. (EPA Guidance Manual for Developing TMDLa) Section 2.3.4.
12 Supra, footnote 5. (Thomann, Mueller) Section 6.3.1.
13 Supra, footnote 7. (Chapra) Section 19.4.
14 Supra, footnote 5. (Thomann, Mueller) Secnon 1.2.1.
Page -19-
-------
has been used in similar water quality studies including the Peconic Estuary, the Indian River
Lagoon/Turkey Creek and the Chesapeake Bay system and the EFDC model was used to develop
TMDLs for waterbodies in Oklahoma and Georgia, including Wister Lake, OK (2000), and the
St. Mary's and Suwanee Watersheds, GA (2000).
In order to ensure that the EFDC model is adequately representing the hydrodynamic and
water quality processes of the Christina River Basin, separate calibration and validation of the
model was performed to establish model robustness15. Calibration involves adjusting kinetic
parameters within the model to achieve a specified level of performance in comparison to actual
observed hydrodynamic and water quality data from a basin. Data from a site-specific field study
(Davis 1998) were used to establish certain kinetic parameters, e.g., the phosphorus half-
saturation constant for periphyton. The model calibration was executed over a period of 143
days from May 1 to September 21, 1997. EPA also validated the Christina River Basin model to
confirm and provide additional confidence that the model can be used as an effective prediction
tool for a range of conditions other than those in the original calibration. During validation, the
kinetic parameters which were adjusted during calibration remain fixed to evaluate the model
accuracy in representing the Christina River Basin. The model validation was executed over a
period of 143 days from May 1 to September 21,1995. Point source loads during calibration and
validation are representative of actual discharged loads as listed on Discharge Monitoring
Reports (DMRs) during the calibration or validation periods. Nonpoint source loads are based
on STORET data, USGS water quality data, baseflow sampling, and data from interstate
monitoring efforts during the calibration or validation periods. These loads represent
contributions from nonpoint sources and form the basis of the load allocations.
EPA also provides an assessment of the calibration and validation quality. There are two
general approaches for assessing the quality of a calibration: subjective and objective16. The
subjective assessment typically involves visual comparison of the simulation with the data, as in
time series plots for state variables, while the objective assessment utilizes quantitative measures
of quality such as statistical measures of error. EPA included both types of assessment and
compared the Christina River Basin model error statistics with those from other similar studies.
The Christina River Basin model compares very favorably as discussed in Section 11 of the
Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Model of Christina River Basin Final Report, May 31, 2000.
A complete and more-detailed technical discussion of the EFDC model is available in this report.
The calibrated and validated.water quality model was used to confirm that the model was
able to simulate the locations of the impaired stream segments on the 303(d) lists. The model
results from the 1997 calibration run were plotted on a map view of the Christina River Basin
and those model grid cells not meeting the daily average and minimum DO water quality criteria
were highlighted (see Figures 6 and 7). The 1997 calibration results indicate that the daily
average DO criteria were not met in portions of the tidal Christina River, tidal Brandywine
15 Supra, footnote 7. (Chapra) Section 18.1.5.
16 Supra, footnote 7. (Chapra) Section 18.3
Page-20-
-------
Water Quality Standard for
Figure 6 Modeled stream segments violating daily average dissolved oxygen water quality criteria
based on the EFDC model using 1997 calibration data.
Page -21-
-------
Watar Quality Standard tor
Minimum Diaaotvad Oxygen
( I Protected
B Not Protactad
- NPOES Oiacharga
Figure 7 Modeled stream segments violating minimum dissolved oxygen water quality criteria
based on the EFDC model using 1997 calibration data.
Page -22-
-------
Creek, tidal White Clay-Creek, West Branch Red Clay Creek and Little Mill Creek (Figure 6).
The 1997 results also indicate that the minimum DO criteria were not protected in portions of the
West Branch Red Clay Creek, Little Mill Creek and tidal Brandywine Creek (Figure 7).
A separate analysis was performed to investigate potential WQS violations during critical
conditions. During this scenario, the NPDES point source discharges were set to their maximum
permitted flows and concentrations and the model was run under 7Q10 (minimum 7-day flow
expected to occur every 10 years) stream flow conditions. Nonpoint source pollutant loads, as
computed by multiple data sets, were developed to represent expected conditions and pollutant
contributions during critical periods. The use of actual site-specific data to characterize nonpoint
sources is appropriate and would essentially act to integrate past pollutant loading events. While
the process of calibrating and validating the water quality model was dynamic, the critical
condition analysis is representative of steady-state conditions. Tidal elevations at the north and
south boundaries on the Delaware River were set using tidal harmonic constants derived from
NOAA subordinate tide stations at Chester, Pennsylvania, and Reedy Point, Delaware. Map-
view graphics were created to highlight problem areas (see Figures 8 and 9).
The model results for the period August 1 through August 31 when critical stream flows
are most likely to occur (while August was used, it is possible for the critical conditions to occur
at other times) indicate that the daily average DO criteria will not be satisfied in portions of the
West Branch Brandywine Creek, West Branch Red Clay Creek, West Branch Christina River and
tidal Christina River (Figure 8). The model results also indicate that the minimum DO criteria
will not be achieved in portions of the West Branch Brandywine Creek, East Branch
Brandywine Creek below Downingtown and West Branch Red Clay Creek (Figure 9).
The tidal estuary portion of the EFDC model is used to characterize the Delaware River
Estuary and consider potential impacts to water quality within the Christina River Basin from
pollutant loads to the estuary. Of the 122 NPDES dischargers evaluated in this TMDL
assessment, 23 are point sources discharging to the Delaware River which were considered in the
linkage analysis. In considering which dischargers to include, the spatial range was limited to
about 10 miles above and below the confluence of the Christina River and the Delaware River
due to the tidal excursion, which is approximately eight miles.
While this TMDL analysis and subsequent allocation scenarios are designed to address
low-flow conditions and the contributions from the primary sources (point sources), the analysis
includes land-based nonpoint sources. As discussed further below, because at low-flow
conditions there are no significant nonpoint source contributions, the nonpoint source allocation
is included as part of the background loading. Addressing this critical condition establishes the
baseline condition which point sources within the Christina River Basin must comply with in
order to achieve WQS (for example, DEP uses the 7Q10 analysis as the basis for assuring that
WQS will be met 99% of the time).
Page -23-
-------
Water Quality Standard for
Daily Av*rag« Dissolved Oxygan
i | Protected
H Not Protactad
- NPOES Discharge
Figure 8 Modeled stream segments violating daily average dissolved oxygen water quality criteria
based on the EFDC model during critical conditions.
Page -24-
-------
Watar Quality Standard for
Minimum DiMOived Oxygon
I I Protactad
H NotProtactad
- NPOES Otscharga
Figure 9 Modeled stream segments violating minimum dissolved oxygen water quality criteria
based on the EFDC model during critical conditions.
Page -25-
-------
The stream reaches identified by the model as not meeting DO criteria are in general
agreement with those on the 303(d) lists. EPA believes that the Christina River Basin model is
an appropriate tool for understanding the current water quality problems in the Christina River
Basin, evaluating the linkage between cause-and-effect and allocating pollutant loads to
identified sources.
VII. Discussion of Regulatory Conditions
Federal regulations at 40 CFR Section 130 require that TMDLs must meet the following
eight regulatory conditions:
1) The TMDLs are designed to implement applicable water quality standards.
2) The TMDLs include a total allowable load as well as individual waste load
allocations and load allocations.
3) The TMDLs consider the impacts of background pollutant contributions.
4) The TMDLs consider critical environmental conditions.
5) The TMDLs consider seasonal environmental variations.
6) The TMDLs include a margin of safety.
7) The TMDLs have been subject to public participation.
8) There is reasonable assurance that the TMDLs can be met.
EPA provides the following information to demonstrate how the Christina River Basin TMDLs
meet these eight regulatory requirements.
1) The TMDLs are designed to implement applicable water quality standards.
Target Analysis
The CWA requires states to adopt WQS to define the water goals for a waterbody by
designating the use or uses to be made of the water, by setting criteria necessary to protect the
uses and by protecting water quality through antidegradation provisions. These standards serve
dual purposes: they establish water quality goals for a specific waterbody, and they serve as the
regulatory basis for establishing water quality-based controls and strategies beyond the
technology-based levels of treatment required by sections 301(b) and 306 of the CWA17.
Within the Christina River Basin, there are four regulatory agencies which have
applicable WQS. The DEP, DNREC, and MDE have WQS which apply to those stream
segments of the Christina River Basin located in the respective state. The DRBC18 is an
17 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1994. Water Quality Standards Handbook: Second Edition.
Office of Water(4305). EPA 823-B-94-005a. Section 2.1.
18 The DRBC was created by compact among Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Delaware and the
federal government in 1961.
Page -26-
-------
interstate agency which has the authority to establish WQS and regulate pollution activities
within the Delaware River Basin including the Christina River Basin, one of the Delaware
River's tributary basins. Tables 5 and 6 below summarizes the applicable WQS relating to DO
and nutrients.
Table 5. Summary of Applicable Use Designations and DO Criteria
Warm water fish (WWF)
Cold water fish (CWF)
Trout stocking fishery (TSF)
Feb 15-Jul 31
Aug 01 • Feb 14
High Quality CWF
High Quality TSF
Exceptional value
Special Protection Waters
Special Protection Waten
Special Protection Waters
Fresh waten
'Average for June-September
period shall not be less than 5.5
mg/L
Cold water fish
Marine waters
Seasonal
Salinity greater than 5.0 ppt
Exceptional recreation or
ecological significance
Existing or natural water
quality
Fresh waters
Use I waters, DO must not be less
than 5.0 mg/L at any time
Resident game oah
Trout
During spawning season
6.5 mg/L seasonal average
during Apr 01 - Jun 15 and
Sep 16 - Dec 31
Tidal: resident or
anadromous fish
Page -27-
-------
Table 6. Summary of Nutrient Criteria
Tarmnpc |
Agency [ Comments
Ammonia-Nitrogen*
DEP
1-day and 30-day average ambient criteria are a function of pH and
temperature for toxicity; Implementation Guidance document for Ammonia
allocations for NBOD and Toxicity.
DNRET
No specific numeric criteria; Narranve statement for prevention of toxicity.
DRBC
NPDES effluents limited to a 30-day average of 20 mg/L as N.
Nitrate-Nitrogen
DEP
Ambient cntena is maximum of 10 mg/L as N applied at the point of water
supply intake, not at the pomt of an effluent discharge. For the case of an
interstate stream, the state line shall be considered a point of wateT supply
intake.
DN&Saf-
Amhiwit nitrate cntena it maximum of Ifl mg/1 at N- prnvumii fnr cif*.
specific nutrient controls. The DNREC 303(d) rationale document cites
3.0 mg/L total nitrogen as guidance for determining impairment
DKBC
No specific numeric criteria.
Phosphorus
No specific numeric cntena are specified in the Pennsylvania Code, Title
25. Chapter 93 (Water Quality Standards). According to Chapter 95
(Wastewater Treatment Requirements), phosphorus effluent limits are set to
a maximum of 2 mg/L whenever the Department determines that mstream
phosphorus alone or in combination with other pollutants contnbutes to
impairment of designated stream uses.
DNREC
No specific numenc cntena; provision for site specific controls. Hie
303(d) rationale document cites 0.1 mg/L total phosphorus as guidance for
use impairment
DRBC
No specific numencal cntena.
* • the state of Maryland adopted the EPA water quality criteria for ammonia nitrogen in January 2001
(effective April 2001 - Title 26 Maryland Department of the Environment Subtitle 08 Water Pollution
Chapter 02 Water Quality). This was approved by EPA in June 2001.
Once EPA identifies the applicable use designation and water quality criteria, EPA
determines the numeric water quality target or goal for the TMDL. These targets represent a
number where the applicable water quality is achieved and maintained. In these TMDLs, the
target is to attain and maintain the applicable DO water quality criteria at low-flow conditions,
Figure 10 below shows the applicable use designations for stream segments included in the
Christina River Basin TMDL. Using Tables 5 and 6 and Figure 10, the numeric water quality
targets for DO can be identified for each segment. Table 7 below identifies the general water
quality targets or endpoints for the Christina River Basin TMDLs.
Page -28-
-------
X
High Quality.
Trout Stodang Pith
m Trout Stocking Fl*h
11 CaM Water F«fi
warm watar F»n
I I Warn Wacar R*h (tttai)
Figure 10 Applicable use designations for stream segments in the Christina River Basin
Page -29-
-------
Table 7. Summary of TMDL Endpoints
fxnmetcr
TuseOJritf
Daffy AVenge-DO, -fixihw*ter,Pcnn*y tvama
5.0 mg/L
Pennsylvania Water Quality Standards
Daily-Average DO,.firaliw*ter;Dekw*ic
5.5 mg/L
Delaware Water Quality Standards
Dafly Avenge DO, tidal witeo, Delaware
5.5 mg/L
Delaware Water Quality Standards
DGarany -time; ireibmtex^Muy&D
-------
to maintain the water quality criteria for DO, the WQS for nitrate-nitrogen and ammonia-nitrogen
of Pennsylvania and Maryland were also evaluated. The ammonia-nitrogen standard is met
throughout the Pennsylvania portion of the Christina River Basin. The only instances where the
10 mg/1 nitrate nitrogen value is exceeded are small distances on the East Branch Brandywine
Creek and West Branch Brandywine Creek. As there are no drinking water withdrawals at these
locations, the standard is not applicable and additional reduction is not necessary. The ammonia-
nitrogen WQS in Maryland was not met during the initial point source evaluation and required
treatment reductions at one facility in the West Branch Christina River.
Delaware WQS also set a numeric water quality criteria of 10 mg/1 for nitrate-nitrogen.
The WQS for nitrate-nitrogen of Delaware are met throughout the Delaware portion of the
Christina River Basin. Delaware does not have numeric water quality criteria for ammonia-
nitrogen, however, the analysis indicates that ammonia-nitrogen levels throughout the Delaware
portion of the Christina River Basin are consistent with the recommended EPA water quality
criterion from Section 304(a) of the CWA.
Achieving these in-stream numeric water quality targets will ensure that the designated
uses (aquatic life and human health uses) of waters in Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland are
supported during critical conditions.
2) The TMDLs include a total allowable load as well as individual waste load allocations and
load allocations.
Total Allowable Load
The total allowable load for each portion of the Christina River Basin, as determined by
the EFDC model, was calculated based on the segmentation of the model in order to better
correspond with the 303(d) listing, ensure the integrity of each stream segment and to allow
pollution trading alternatives (for this low-flow TMDL, trading options may be limited to
alternate WLA scenarios among affected point source dischargers. See the discussion under
Allocation Scenarios on Pages 48-49.) Table 8 below identifies the total allowable load as well
as the WLAs, load allocations and margin of safety (MOS) for each of the 16 stream segments of
the model.
Page -31-
-------
Table 8
TMDL Summary by Subwatershed for the Christina River Basin
Sum of Individual Waste Load
Allocations 1
Subvntsibad
TSSSt
* -^JSJSQ
- Vjiiy :?Q^9
a.
3raadywtne Creek main stem
79.72
16.82
43.04
9.00
26.74
liandywiae Creek East Bnadt
1,022.79
157.30
3,562.99
118.76
523.97
3nmdywiae Creek West Branch
600.16
124.15
1.218.68
69 48
.257.01
tack-Run
7.55
0.79
1.91
0.61
1.53
Brandywine Creek Watershed
1,710.22
299.06
4,826.62
197AS | 809.25
Zhristina River West Branch
75.57
13.57
125.33
6.26
37.56
'iWteMijlPpHr
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
nnuii'in Bhmmwni ttmm
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Christina River Watershed
75.57
13.57
125J3
6.26
37.56
lanoagh*:Rmfc-
0.04
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.03
led Oay Creek West Branch
162.32
19.44
46.94
12.83
71.36
led Clay Creek main stem
108.96
4.81
11.61
75.52
112.11
Red Clay Creek Watershed
27132
24.26
S8J7
88.36
183 JO
WfcxteClay &.'Middle£nacir*-
53.83
10.52
25.46
4.51
11.27
White Oay Cr7 East
88.78
8.69
149.67
11.23
16.17
feddyRun
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
>touCrcek-
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
•nfflTQreek . ?9SP?ii]S3
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
STuteQayCr^nain stem.
0.75
0.03
0.06
0.03
1.25
White Clay Creek Watenhec
143J6
19.24
175.19
15.77
28.69
Total Waste Load Allocation for Point
Sources in Christina River Basin
W 00.47
356.13
5,185.71
308.24
1,059.00
Page -32-
-------
Table 8 (continued)
TMDL Summary by Subwatershed for the Christina River Basin
Sum of Load Allocations 1
- .^s .
. i.
~'s* ' '
-r- 4i . ' .*
m
szntfywmerOedc rmmstem T -L it vSW*
52.01
1.78
137.30
1.50
497.95
•162.33
3.85
248.01
3.35
1.333.95
iXSO
99.18
3.08
262.94
2.77
958.41
SodsJbm
34.72
0.96
92.45
0.94
338.75
Brandywtne Creek Watershed
348J4
9.67
740.69
8.55
3,129.05
1.17
0.02
0.82
0.02
5.94
Kg5a*jaftwif-~ Y''--r
36.27
0.52
25.38
0.51
186.02
34.99
1.65
26.85
0.86
163.08
Christina Rrver Watershed
72.43
2.19
53.05
U8
355.05
4 60
0.10
9.10
0.21
33.65
20.05
0.42
39.68
0.90
146.87
40.10
0.91
79.24
1.83
292.00
Red Clay Creek Watershed
64.75
1.43
12*02
—^
472.52
20.80
0.67
58.11
0.66
237.96
BSE&i^c£SBttli35SSSBB^E3E^S
23.44
0.77
65.42
0.74
267.66
4SBpZoir~ X.MHPHHi
3.23
0.11
9.00
0.10
36.80
' ; -T-t^SSSJUB-
5.57
0.19
15.52
0.18
63.40
aoFcfiar T^^sgpBPi LhIiw
7.64
0.26
21.31
0.24
87.06
WnteQay €r mam «Soj^MBBS???!^l3B3
17.96
0.68
49.76
0.59
201.98
White Clay Creek Watershed
78.64
2.68
219.12
2.51
894.86
Total for LA Christina River Bads
564.06
15.97
1,140.88
15.38
| 4351.48
Margin of Safety
Implicit through conservative assumptions |
1 1
TMDL for Christina River Basin
2.764.53
372.10
6J26.59
323.62
5.910.471
Note: Totals subject to rounding variations.
Page -33-
-------
Deposition from atmospheric sources is also considered in the Christina River Basin
water quality model. While atmospheric deposition may not be as important in the narrow
stream channels, it could become more important in the open estuary waterbodies in the lower
Christina and Delaware rivers. Atmospheric loads are typically divided into wet and dry
deposition. Wet deposition is associated with dissolved substances in rainfall. The settling of
particulates during non-rainfall events contributes to dry deposition. Observations of
concentrations in rainwater are frequently available and dry deposition is usually estimated as a
fraction of the wet deposition. The atmospheric deposition rates reported in the Long Island
Sound Study (HydroQual 1991) and the Chesapeake Bay Model Study (Cerco and Cole 1994) as
well as information provided by DNREC for Lewes, Delaware, were used to develop both dry
and wet deposition loads for the EFDC model of the Christina River Basin. Atmospheric
deposition loads are included in Tables 12-28 as well as in the summary watershed calculations
provided in Table 8.
Size-Based Equal Marginal Percent Removal Allocation Strategy
The general theory of WLAs, and more specifically the size-based equal marginal percent
removal (EMPR) allocation strategy that is used for these TMDLs, is discussed in this section.
While a complete and detailed understanding of the concepts discussed below is not essential to
using the Christina River Basin water quality model, a general appreciation of underlying
principles will aid the user in applying the model and interpreting the results. The strategy
presented in this section is based largely upon the document Implementation Guidance for the
Water Quality Analysis Model 6.3 (Pennsylvania DEP 1986). While EPA has many ways of
allocating pollutant loads, based on this discussion EPA determined the EMPR strategy to be
sound, fair and consistent with the goals of the CWA.
The term "waste load allocation" refers to a specific set of circumstances in which two or
more point source discharges are in sufficiently close proximity to one another to influence the
level of treatment each must provide to comply with WQS. This definition is technically correct
since without discharge interaction there is no need to share (i.e., to allocate) the assimilation
capacity of the receiving water body. In a single discharge situation, all that needs to be done is
to determine the level of treatment that must be provided to comply with WQS. The size-based
EMPR analysis does this as a first step: (1) to determine if a WLA situation exists; and if it does,
(2) to assign WLAs to each of the discharges that is contributing to the water quality violation. A
WLA should have three major objectives: (1) to assure compliance with the applicable WQS; (2)
to minimize, within institutional arid legal constraints, the overall cost of compliance; and (3) to
provide maximum equity (or fairness) among competing discharges.
The first objective, is fundamental to water quality and public health protection. It is an
ethical statement that assumes the social, economic and environmental benefits of water
pollution control outweigh the associated costs. This is consistent with the goals and
requirements of the CWA.
Page-34-
-------
The second objective is a statement of the desirability of economic efficiency. Resources
devoted to one purpose are not available for another use. This holds true whether the resources
are of a public or a private nature. It therefore behooves a water quality management program to
achieve water quality management goals with maximum economic efficiency (i.e., at least cost).
It can be shown that maximum efficiency is achieved when the marginal cost of pollution
abatement is the same for all participants. The marginal cost of wastewater treatment is related
to the marginal rate of removal. If it is assumed that the marginal cost per unit of removal is the
same for all discharges, then maximum economic efficiency is achieved when the marginal rate
of removal for all discharges is the same. Institutional and legal constraints may prevent water
quality programs from achieving optimal economic efficiency. Nevertheless, maximum
efficiency within existing institutional and legal constraints should be pursued.
The third objective is a social statement that goes hand in hand with the second objective.
Maximizing economic efficiency would by definition, provide for maximum equity. The
desirability of equity, especially in a regulatory program, among individual (and potentially
competing) members of society is a reasonably well accepted concept. The specific definition of
when (or how) equity is to be achieved is, however, open to debate and interpretation. The WLA
strategy employed in this TMDL is that of EMPR. It is based on the premise that all dischargers,
whether or not they are part of a WLA scenario, should provide sufficient treatment to comply
with WQS, and that some dischargers, because they are part of an allocation scenario, must
provide additional treatment, due to the cumulative impact that they and nearby dischargers have
on the receiving stream.
The strategy is similar in most respects to more traditional uniform treatment approaches,
where all dischargers provide the same degree of treatment. The major difference is in the
selection of the baseline condition for the WLA process. In most traditional uniform treatment
approaches all dischargers that are believed to be part of the WLA start at the same treatment
level. The traditional approach introduces economic inefficiencies and inequities into the WLA
process because it fails to consider the individual impact that each discharger has on the
receiving stream. This individual impact is a function of the discharge size and location. The
practical result of failing to take these factors into consideration is to impose unnecessarily
stringent treatment requirements on smaller dischargers, solely because they happen to be in the
vicinity of a larger discharger. This imposes higher than necessary costs on these smaller
dischargers, and in effect, causes them to subsidize dischargers that have a greater impact on
water quality. At the same time, uniform treatment does not significantly improve overall water
quality.
In the size-based EMPR strategy, the baseline condition for each discharger is the level of
treatment the discharge must provide if it is the only discharger to the receiving stream. This
level of treatment is water quality based for this TMDL. It is a function of the discharge size and
location. In selecting this baseline condition, there are no assumptions made as to whether a
discharger is or ;s not part of an allocation scenario.
Page -35-
-------
Once the baseline condition for each discharger is established, a determination is made of
whether additional treatment is needed because of the cumulative impact of multiple discharges.
The dischargers are added back into the model one at a time, based, on the size of their load (i.e.,
kg/day of CBOD). The model is then run again. If additional treatment is necessary, then all
dischargers contributing to the WQS violations are reduced by equal percentages, starting from
their individual levels of treatment at the end of the previous model run. Thus, the marginal rate
of removal for all affected dischargers is the same in any given model run, while the overall rate
of removal for each may be different.
Another difference between the traditional uniform treatment approach and the size-based
EMPR strategy is in the determination of which dischargers are part of the WLA scenario. In the
uniform treatment approach, it is commonly assumed that the WLA segment starts at the first
discharger that adversely affects in-stream conditions, and extends downstream to the point
where the stream returns to background conditions. It is not entirely clear whether this
assumption is absolutely required, or is merely a matter of convenience. In either case, the
specification of a return to background stream quality tends to extend the allocation segment to
include dischargers that may not be part of the allocation at all. This further Increases the
economic inefficiency and inequity of uniform treatment solutions.
The size-based EMPR WLA does not require any assumptions with regard to a return to
background stream conditions. The strategy determines the downstream limit of the allocation
problem based on compliance with WQS. These features, combined with the different baseline
condition, makes size-based EMPR a more cost-efficient and equitable WLA strategy than the
traditional methods.
Christina River Basin Allocation Process
The first consideration is to determine what time period to use for the allocation
scenarios. Only the results from the model period August 1-31 were analyzed to determine the
daily average DO and minimum DO for comparison to WQS and to direct the allocation
scenarios. This time period was selected as most representative of when critical conditions are
expected to occur within the system. The model was run for a sufficient period to allow for (1)
the nutrient loads to transport their way through system; (2) the predictive sediment diagenesis
model to attain dynamic equilibrium; and (3) the algae to react to the availability of nutrients.
The size-based EMPR allocation process relies on three levels of analysis for the
Christina River Basin. Level 1 involves analyzing each NPDES point source individually to
determine the baseline levels of treatment necessary to achieve WQS for daily average and
minimum DO. Thd point sources not being considered individually and the tributaries are set to
the baseline conditions listed in Table 9 below. This allows the in-stream flow to remain at
7Q10 levels and provides no net impact on water quality from the point sources not being
considered individually. Level 2 involves multiple model runs in which the NPDES dischargers
are added to the model one at a time based on the size of their CBOD load to determine the
WLAs necessary to achieve WQS. If necessary, Level 3 involves analyzing the NPDES
Page -36-
-------
dischargers outside the Christina Basin (i.e., those discharging to the tidal Delaware River) in
order to meet WQS in the tidal Christina River.
The ultimate endpoints of these low-flow TMDLs are the daily average and the minimum
DO criteria for the various stream segments in the study area. DO concentrations vary
throughout the course of a 24-hour day and tend to follow a general sinusoidal pattern with the
lowest point occurring just before sunrise and the highest value occurring in the afternoon. In
general, controlling CBOD has a greater impact on the daily average DO than on the diel (24-
hour period) DO range. Depending on whether a system is nitrogen or phosphorus limited, the
available nitrogen or phosphorus influences the diel DO range due to the impact on algae and
periphyton growth kinetics. The model calibration and validation indicated that phosphorus is
the limiting nutrient in the freshwater streams in the Christina River Basin (Hydrodynamic and
Water Quality Model of Christina River Basin Final Report, May 31, 2000). In Section 9.6 of
the Model Report, it is noted that there was an abundance of nitrogen available and that
phosphorous is the more limiting of the two nutrients based on data at five locations. The five
locations were in West Branch Brandywine Creek, East Branch Brandywine Creek, Brandywine
Creek (at Chadds Ford), Christina River and West Branch Red Clay Creek. Time-series plots at
each location are found in Figures 9-12 through 9-16 in the Model Report.
The allocation process proceeds by reducing the CBOD, nitrogen, and phosphorus loads
from the NPDES point sources in equal percentages until the daily average DO criteria are
satisfied. After this is accomplished, if the minimum DO criteria have not been met, then the
phosphorus loads will be further controlled until the diel DO range is reduced sufficiently to
satisfy the minimum DO criteria.
Since these TMDLs deals with low-flow conditions only, by definition very little
nonpoint source load from land-based sources will be entering the system during drought
conditions. The nonpoint source flows from peripheral tributaries and groundwater sources are
considered to be at baseline (i.e., background) conditions. The baseline concentrations for the
various water quality parameters were determined from all data in the STORET database for the
period 1988 to 1998. The 10th percentile concentration values were assumed to be indicative of
the nonpoint source contributions during the 7Q10 low-flow period The concentrations were
within the range of expected values for watersheds in the eastern United States according to
Omemik (1977). The baseline concentrations for total nitrogen and total phosphorus are
presented in Table 9.
Page -37-
-------
Table 9. Baseline Concentrations of Nitrogen and Phosphorus for Christina Basin TMPL
TaiinQtn|n(aj^9^
Sobvateafaad.
BmcHim
(WW
pnCautiiJ
r- -is
jJFjte-.-s- - r
Main gfm tt»H E8StBt*OCh
Bmdywme Creek
1.56
0.33-6.64
0.01
0.008-0.251
Wrtt BmnJi Bnndywine Creek
2.44
0.33-6.64
0.03
0.008 -0.251
Red-day Creek
2.65
0.33-6.64
0.05
0.008 -0.251
WtefcQay Creeic
2.31
0.33-6.64
0.02
0.008 -0.251
Chrisaxm River
1.08
0.33 - 6.64
0.02
0.008 -0.251
Source: STORET dau 1988-1 md Noapotaa Smut* Strom Natrteat L«v«l RjUttMtUp* (OtaarnUk, l*T7)
Level 1 Allocation Results - Baseline Allocations
The first level of the size-based EMPR allocation involved considering each NPDES.
discharger individually to determine if WQS for DO were met Those dischargers not considered
individually were set to the baseline conditions in Table 9. This allowed the in-stream flow to
remain at 7Q10 levels and created no net impact on water quality from the point sources not
being considered individually. If WQS were not met, then CBOD, nitrogen and phosphorus for
the individual point source were reduced in 5% increments until standards were achieved. Of the
99 NPDES point sources located in the Christina River Basin, 87 of them are small, with flow
rates of 0.25 mgd or less. In order to avoid making 87 individual model runs to determine
whether a Level 1 allocation was needed, all the small NPDES discharges were grouped into a
single model run. The model results for this run indicated that the WQS for daily average DO
and minimum DO were protected at all locations in the Christina River Basin. Thus, if as a
group there were no violations of the DO standard for the small dischargers, then individually
there would be no violations.
Next, the remaining 12 large NPDES dischargers were analyzed individually. Of these
12, only three indicated violations of the DO standards: (1) PA0026531 (Downingtown) on the
East Branch Brandywine Creek (minimum DO standard only), (2) PA0026859 (PA American
Water Co. - formerly CoatesviHe City) on the West Branch Brandywine Creek (daily average and
minimum DO standards), and (3) PA0024058 (Kennett Square) on West Branch Red Clay Creek
(daily average and minimum DO standards). These violations are shown on Figures 11 and 12.
Analysis for a fourth facility, MD0022641 - Meadowview Utilities on West Branch Christina
River, indicated the EPA water quality criteria for ammonia nitrogen (US EPA 1998;
subsequently adopted by the state of Maryland) was not being protected and was, therefore, also
included in the Level I allocations. The Level 1 load reductions necessary to achieve compliance
with the WQS for these facilities are shown in Table 10.
Page -38-
-------
Figure 11 Modeled stream segments which violate daily average dissolved oxygen water quality
criteria based oo the Level 1 allocation analysis.
Page -39-
-------
Watar Quality Standard tor
Minimum Diaadvad Oxygan
~ Protmaaa
nn nwcwQ
- NPOES Diacfcarga
Figure 12 Modeled stream segments which violate minimum dissolved oxygen water quality
criteria based on Level I allocation analysis.
Page -40-
-------
Table 10. Level 1 Baseline Allocations
NPDES"Ficflfly I .Flow
j UnfdJ
Ifrrfrrtng PermtfLimits
Leve£l Allocation limit*
|
!,
CBOD5
gaqLf
NH3-N
(mf/L)
TP
(mf/L)
CBOD5
(mg/L)
TO3-W
(mg/L)
TP
(mg/L):
CBOD?
34H34T
TP
East Branch Brandywine Creek
PA0026531
7.134 J 10 2.0
2.0
8.9
1.78
1.78
11%
11%
11%
West Branch Brandywine Creek
PAQQ26S59
3 85 | 15
2.0
2.0
12.3
2.0
1.64 | 18%
0%
18%
West Branch Red Clay Creek
MQ024O5&
1.1
25
30
7.5* | 17.5
2.1
1.35 | 30%
30%
82%
West Branch Christina River
MD002264I
0.7
22"
6.45*
1.0
22"
2.0
1.0
0%
69%
0%
Note- WLAs/permit limits for critical conditions period, applicable to seasonal permit periods (e.g., May 1 -October 31 - DEP)
* no permit limits, values shown are based on monitoring data.
** value shown is BOOS MDE permits list BODS instead of CBOOS; equivalent CBODS value is 12.22 mg/l.
PA0026531 - Downingtown Area Reg. Auth. PA0026859 - PA American Water Co.***
PA0024058 - Kennett Square MD0022641- Meadowview Utilities, Inc.
*** formerly Coatesville City Authority
Level 2 Allocation Results
The second level of the size-based EMPR allocation strategy involved adding the
dischargers one at a time based on the size of Level 1 baseline CBOD allocations (kg/day) and
performing waste load allocations to those stream segments indicating violations of the DO
WQS. The daily average and minimum DO results of the initial Level 2 run are shown in
Figures 13 and 14. It is apparent that the DO WQS are hot being met in the East Branch
Brandywine Creek, West Branch Brandywine Creek, West Branch Red Clay Creek and the tidal
portion of the Christina River with the two largest dischargers added to each of these stream
reaches. The allocation proceeded by running the water quality model in an iterative fashion by
reducing CBOD, NH3-N, and TP in 5% intervals for all NPDES dischargers upstream of the
farthest downstream model grid cell indicating a DO violation. Once WQS were achieved at the
5% increment level, the allocations were fine tuned in 1% increments. After the allocations were
fine tuned, the next largest discharger was added to the stream reach and the process was
repeated until all dischargers were included in the analysis.
Page -41-
-------
Watar Quality Standard for
Oatty Avaraga Oisaoivad Oxygan
I I Protactad
H Not Protactad
- NPOES Oiacharga
Figure 13 Modeled stream segments which violate daily average dissolved oxygen water quality
criteria based on Level 2 allocation analysis.
Page -42-
-------
Watar Quality Standard for
Minimum Dlaaoivad Ox^en
I I Protactad
H Not Protactad
- NPOES Diacharga
Figure 14 Modeled stream segments which violate minimum dissolved oxygen water quality
criteria based on Level 2 allocation analysis.
Page -43-
-------
No allocations were made to point sources on the main stem Brandywine Creek until the
stream segments on the East and West Branches were first in compliance with WQS. The small
residence dischargers (0.0005 mgd), groundwater cleanup dischargers, and water filtration plant
backwash facilities were not included in the allocation analysis since, as noted before, a model
run covering all small dischargers indicated that the WQS for daily average DO and minimum
DO were protected at all locations in the Christina River Basin. Furthermore, filtration backwash
facilities only discharge as needed and not on a continual basis. The Level 2 allocation results
are presented in Table 11 and are shown in Figures 15 and 16 (the Level 2 allocation limits will
be applicable to seasonal periods (e.g., May 1 to October 31 in Pennsylvania) covering the design
critical conditions time used in the TMDL evaluations). It can be seen that there are no
violations of the daily average DO or minimum DO criteria at any point inside the Christina
River Basin. Thus, a Level 3 allocation will not be necessary for the tidal Christina River.
Page-44-
-------
Figure 15 FirtaJ Level 2 allocation analysis results which indicate no violations of daily average
dissolved oxygen water quality criteria in modeled stream segments.
Page -45-
-------
w
N
4"
l\
Water Quality Standard for
Minimum Dlsaoived Oxygen
! 1 Protected
H Not Protected
- NPOES Discharge
— A
MO"
i|a
Figure 16 Final Level 2 allocation analysis results which indicate no violations of minimum
dissolved oxygen water quality criteria in modeled stream segments.
Page -46-
-------
Table 11. Level 2 Allocations
NTDBSSEKflfl&«
- r. ¦ -n
- TT™
9HB\Ss
ffrfartwg "Permit Timhm.
1
-------
Waste Load Allocanons CWLAs)
Federal regulations at 40 CFR 130.7 require TMDLs to include individual WLAs for each
point source. Tables 12-27 outline the individual WLAs for those dischargers in the Christina
River Basin. Of the 122 NPDES facilities considered, only those eight dischargers considered
during the Level 1 and Level 2 EMPR analysis require reductions to their NPDES permit limits
for those pollutants listed above.
Load Allocations
According to Federal regulation at 40 CFR 130.2(g), load allocations are best estimates of
the nonpoint or background loading. These allocations may range from reasonably accurate
estimates to gross allotments, depending on the availability of data and appropriate techniques
for predicting the loading. Wherever possible, natural and nonpoint source loads should be
distinguished.
Nonpoint source loads within the Christina River Basin model are based on monitoring
data from STORET, USGS water quality data, baseflow samples taken in 1997, and interstate
monitoring data collection efforts. The loads represent expected low-flow contributions from
subwatersheds according to the delineation of the 39 subwatersheds in the HSPF model currently
being developed by USGS. This will allow the HSPF model to be directly linked to the EFDC
model to investigate seasonality and address high flow situations. Those data sets were used to
develop characteristic loads of parameters of concern (carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, DO and
algae) for each of the 39 subwatershed as delineated by the HSPF model. Load allocations were
based on actual site-specific data and are broken down by subwatershed in Tables 12-27 below.
Allocations Scenarios
EPA realizes that its determination of the total loads below for carbonaceous biochemical
oxygen demand (5-day), ammonia nitrogen, total nitrogen, total phosphorus and DO to the point
sources and nonpoint sources is one allocation scenario. As implementation of the established
TMDLs proceed, the states and DRBC may find that other combinations of point and nonpoint
source allocations are more feasible and/or cost effective. However, any subsequent changes in
the TMDLs must conform to gross WLAs and load allocations for each segment and must ensure
that the biological, chemical, and physical integrity of the waterbody is preserved.
Federal regulations at 40 Cf'k 122.44{d)(l)(viiXB) require that, for an NPDES permit for
an individual point source, the effluent limitations must be consistent with the assumptions and
requirements of any available WLA for the discharger prepared by the state and approved by
EPA or established directly by EPA. EPA has authority to object to the issuance of an NPDES
permit that is inconsistent with WLAs established for that point source. To ensure consistency
with these TMDLs, as NPDES permits are issued for the point sources that discharge the
pollutants of concern to the Christina Basin, any deviation from the WLAs described herein for
Page -48-
-------
the particular point source must be documented in the permit Fact Sheet and made available for
public review along with the proposed draft permit and the Notice of Tentative Decision. The
documentation should: (I) demonstrate that the loading change is consistent with the goals of
these TMDLs and will implement the applicable WQS, (2) demonstrate that the changes embrace
the assumptions and methodology of these TMDLs, and (3) describe that portion of the total
allowable loading determined in the TMDL report that remains for other point sources (and
future growth where included in the original TMDL) not yet issued a permit undeT the TMDL.
It is also expected that the states will provide this Fact Sheet, for review and comment, to
each point source included in the TMDL analysis as well as any local and state agency with
jurisdiction over land uses for which load allocation changes may be impacted. EPA believes
that this gives flexibility to the state agencies to address point source trading within the NPDES
permitting process. However, should these trading activities result in changes to the total loading
by basin or subwatershed segment, then EPA would expect that TMDL revisions would be
necessary and the states or DRBC would need to follow the formal TMDL review and approval
process.
In addition, EPA regulations and program guidance provide for effluent trading. Federal
regulations at 40 CFR 130.2 (i) state: "If Best Management Practices (BMPs) or other nonpoint
source pollution controls make more stringent load allocations practicable, then WLAs may be
made less stringent. Thus, the TMDL process provides for nonpoint source control tradeoffs."
The states may trade between point sources and nonpoint sources identified in these TMDLs as
long as three general conditions are met: (1) the total allowable load to the waterbody is not
exceeded, (2) the trading of loads from one source to another continues to properly implement
the applicable WQS and embraces the assumptions and methodology of these TMDLs, and (3)
the trading results in enforceable controls for each source. Final control plans and loads should
be identified in a publicly available planning document, such as the state's water quality
management plan (see 40 CFR 130.6 and 130.7(d)(2)). These final plans must be consistent with
the goals of the approved TMDLs. While the design conditions of the low-flow TMDL restrict
trading between point and nonpoint sources at the present time, EPA expects that this option will
be available when the Christina River Basin high-flow TMDLs are developed.
Page -49-
-------
Table 12
TMDL Summary for Buck Run
Waste Load Allocations
~W
mg/L
VPDBS
'A0036I6I
PA0057231
Subwttefohcd
DOS
Flo^
0.0360
0.0005
CB0P5
tnft/l
25.00
1000
iNH3-N
mg/L
2 60
1.50
tea/L
6 29
3 63
2 00
2.00
Load lAUocat toft
DO
xag/l
5.00
6.00
WVU5
lb/dly
7.512
0.042
;p ¦ ¦«1
-to*•<. : * v
<¦, n
I .L- 'Im
0.0000
15.00
ISO
3 63
2.00
500
0.000
0.000
0000
0.000
0.000
0 0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1000
25.00
20.00
48.40
2.00
3.00
20.866
16.693
40.396
1.669
2.504
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
o.ooos
10.00
ISO
3.63
2.00
6.00
0.042
0.006
0.015
0.008
0.025
0.0%
00%
0.0%
0.0005
10.00
1.50
3 63
2.00
6.00
0.042
0.006
0.015
0 008
0.025
0.0%
0.0%
0 0°/,
0.0005
10.00
1.50
3.63
2.00
6.00
0 042
0.006
0.015
0.008
0.025
0.0%
0.0%
0.0°/,
0.3900
25.00
7.00
30.00
2.00
2.00
81.377
22.785
97.652
6.510
6.510
00%
0.0%
-0.0%
3.8300
11.07
2.00
30.00
1.48
5.00
355.716
64.267
964.001
47.557
160.667
26.2%
0.0%
26.2%
0.6400
5 00
0.50
5.30
0.30
5.00
26.708
2.671
28.311
1.602
26.708
0.0%
0.0%
00%
0 5045
5.00
0.50
12.00
0.30
500
21 054
2.105
50.529
1.263
21 054
0.0%
00%
0.0%
0 0000
15 00
1.50
3 63
2 00
500
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
00%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0005
1000
1.50
3.63
2.00
600
0 042
0.006
0.015
0 008
0 025
0 0%
0.0%
0.0%
Page -50-
-------
•A00124J6
0 1400
10.00
0 10
0.24
0 10
5.00
II 685
0.117
0.280
0 117
5.842
0.0%
0 0%
0 0%
JAQ0jJ2990
0.0005
10.00
1,50
363
2.00
6.00
0 042
0.006
0.015
0.008
0.025
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
JA00^?7W.
0.0004
2500
1 50
3.63
2 00
2 00
0083
0.005
0.012
0 007
0007
0 0%
0 0%
0.0%
0.0490
2500
1.50
363
200
3.00
10.224
0.613
1 485
0818
1.227
00%
00%
00%
•Atm&lilljs,
0 0550
10 00
2 90
7.02
1 90
5.00
4.590
1.331
3.223
0.872
2.295
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
'A®W47tdWaifre
0.6000
13 50
2.70
653
1.80
6.00
67.605
13.521
32.701
9.014
30.047
10 0%
100%
10 0°/
>AOO^ti0lT#i
0 0005
1000
1 50
363
200
600
0042
0.006
0.015
0 008
0 025
0 0%
00%
0 0%
£rv"/i
'^r^arrr^
Load Allocations
0.020
2494$
66 521
244 133
i5
0.020
36.6S9
0.978
97.758
0.978
358.771
0 0%
0.020
20059
0.020
0.535
53.489
0.535
196 306
0.0%
0.020
II 817
31.511
03 5
115 644
0.0%
0 020
0.119
868
0.119
43.554
0.020
0.467
0 159
Aim. Deposition
i l£LV,uv7i, it t^vj M3GZ1 ieiiEi3
Pa»"?--51 -
/ N
-------
NPDES
PA0Q5tfl7l
A00260TT
Table 14
TMDL Summary for Brandywine Creek East Branch
IP
4$.. ;1
Waste Load Allocations
IHiF31WBilglBl! eitaH
0.0005
10.00
1.50
3 63
2.00
6.00
0 042
35
0.006
0.015
0.008
0 025
0.0%
0.0%
1.5000
25.00
2.50
605
2.00
5.00
312.987
31.299
75.743
25.039
62.597
0.0%
0.0%
PAd054747
0.0000
15.00
1.50
363
2 00
5.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.0%
0.0%
PA0O57282
JA005ljfi5
0.0005
10.00
1.50
3.63
2.00
6.00
0.042
0.006
0.015
0008
0.025
00%
00%
03690
2.00
0.10
0.24
0,10
5.00
6.160
0.308
0.739
0308
15.399
0.0%
0.0%
PA0QS393T.
0.0005
10.00
I.so
3.63
2.00
600
0.042
0.006
0.015
0008
0.025
0.0%
0 0%
PA005(j3Z4
PA00$#&1*
0.0440
2.00
0.04
2.10
0.11
5.00
0.734
0015
0.771
0040
1.836
0.0%
0.0%
0.0005
10.00
1.50
3.63
2.00
6.00
0.042
0.006
0.015
0008
0.025
0.0%
0.0%
PAQ05430S
PAtiOHKl
0.0000
30.00
0.50
4.65
0.30
5.00
0 000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.0%
0.0%
JA0M398a
0.0360
2.00
0.04
2.10
0.11
5.00
0 601
0 012
0.631
0.033
1.502
0.0%
0.0%
PA0D12A00549l7
0.0007
25.00
1.50
3.63
2.00
3.00
0.146
0.009
0.021
0.012
0.018
00%
0 0%
00000
30.00
0.50
4.65
0.30
5.00
0 000
0.000
0000
0 000
0 000
0.0%
0.0%
PAo5i7oJF
0.4750
5.89
0.78
1.89
0.78
6.00
23.351
3092
7.493
3.092
23.787
0.0%
0.0%
0.0000
15.00
1.50
3.63
2.00
5.00
0.000
0.000
0 000
0000
0.000
0 0%
0.0%
0.0150
10.00
0.50
1.21
0 50
5.00
1.252
0.063
0.151
0.063
0.626
0.0%
00%
v.'., !;'.
ZV JlJL1; ''.i
0.0000
30.00
0.50
4.65
0.30
5.00
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.0%
0.0%
0.0005
10.00
1.50
3.63
2.00
6.00
0.042
0.006
0.015
0.008
0.025
0.0%
0.0%
0.0531
10.00
3.00
726
1.00
6.00
4.432
1.330
3.218
0 443
2.659
0.0%
0.0%
0.0005
10.00
1.50
3 63
2.00
6.00
0042
0.006
0 015
0.0375
10.00
3.00
7.26
1.00
5.00
3.130
0939
2.272
C
0.0005
0.0005
10.00
10 00
I 50
1.50
363
3.63
2 00
2.00
6.00
6.00
0.042
0.042
0 006
0 006
0.015
0.015
0.008
0.025
0 0%
0 0%
0.313
I 565
0 0%
0.0%
0.008
0.008
0.025
0.025
00%
00%
0.0%
0.0%
Page -52
-------
Load Allocations |
5ub«fetersbed
Flow
*(a
CBOD5
n*/L
WW
m
MP
4 wL
ts
iSwK
ll&l!
w
tX^ t&fDt Percent Rodbotiaul
Qrttay
308
12.43
0.89
0.020
1.36
0018
7.34
59.686
1.341
91.205
1 207
492 241
0.0%
00%
0 0%
309
3 02
0 89
0.020
1.36
0.018
7 34
14.504
0.326
22.163
0 293
119 616
0 0%
0 0%
0.0%
310
3 99
0.89
0020
1.36
0.018
7.34
19.172
0.431
29.297
0.388
158.117
0 0%
00%
0 0°/.
811
5 62
089
0020
1.36
0.018
734
27 003
0607
41.263
0 546
222.696
0.0%
0 0%
0.0°/.
9)2
509
0 89
0.020
1.36
0.018
7.34
24.448
0 549
37 359
0.494
201.628
0.0%
00%
00°/.
ill
3 53
089
0020
1 36
0.018
7.34
16.933
0.381
25.875
0 342
139 650
0.0%
00%
0.0%
Aim Deposition
0.589
0.220
0.843
0075
pijnpv- r "• Vi ¦ p
PS-fiF-
Table 15
TMDL Summary for Brandywine Creek Maio Stem
i
N^DM
bEoM^fciAcTI
SII
i'f !»'/.'
i.rV "i:,':1,1 .
Waste Load Allocations
ffeJ : .'. ¦; irt, d •:; t y.mSB:
[
0.0000
15.00
1.50
3.63
2.001
5.00
0.0001
0 000
0.000
0.0001
0.000
0.0%
0 0%
0.0%
0.0250
15.00
1.50
3.63
2.00
5.00
3.130
0313
0.757
0.417
1.043
00%
0 0%
0 0°/.
0.0206
10.00
3.00
7.26
2.00
5.00
1.719
0.516
1 248
0.344
0.860
0.0%
0.0%
0 0°/.
0.0900
10.00
1.00
2.42
2.00
5.00
7.512
0.751
1.818
1.502
3.756
0.0%
0.0%
0.0°A
0.0400
10.00
3.00
726
2.00
300
3.339
1.002
2 424
0668
1.002
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0700
25,00
3.00
7.26
2.00
300
14.606
1.753
4.242
1.168
1.753
0.0%
00%
0.0%
0.0005
10.00
1.50
3.63
2.00
6.00
0.042
0.006
0.015
0.008
0025
0.0%
00%
0.0%
0.0005
10.00
1.50
3.63
2.00
6.00
0.042
0.006
0.015
0.008
0.025
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0063
2500
1.50
3.63
2.00
3.00
1.315
0 079
0.191
0.105
0.158
0.0%
0.0%
00%
0.0005
10.00
1.50
3.63
2.00
6.00
0.042
0.006
0.015
0.008
0.025
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0170
25.00
20.00
48.40
2.00
5.00
3.547
2838
6.867
0.284
0.709
00%
0.0%
00%
0.1500
15.00
1.50
3.63
2.00
500
18.779
1.878
4.545
2.504
6.260
00%
0 0%
0.0°/<
0.0773
25.00
3 50
847
2.00
5.00
16 129
2.258
5.465
1.290
3 226
00%
0.0%
0.0°/,
0.0320
25.00
20.00
4840
2.00
300
6.677
5.342
12.927
0.534
0801
0.0%
0.0%
00°/,
0 1400
200
0.04
2.10
0.11
500
2.337
0047
2.454
0.129
5.842
00%
0.0%
0 0%
0.0300
200
0.10
0 24
5.00
0.501
0025
0.060
0025
^L£52
0.0%
00%
0.0%
HUH
HHH
HHH
¦MB
HHH
HHH
BBg
HHHl
mm
HH
HHH
Page -53-
-------
I Luad Allocations 1
^watershed .
Flow
tfCft
CBOD5
N113-N
ma/i
TN
sntfL
sTF
nwi
4
CBOQJ
VlWdiv
JWdw
V*
tttolV
TP
lb/day
IWdiV
HkCL Percent Induction (
mm
NH3*N
T1
314
292
075
0 020
2.00
0.020
7.34
11.817
0.315
31 511
0.315
115 644
0 0%
0 0%
0 0°/,
J15
4.70
0.75
0 020
2.00
0020
7.34
19.010
0.507
50.693
0.507
186 044
0 0%
00%
0 0°/.
316
3.86
0.75
0.020
2.00
0.020
7.34
15.603
0.416
41.609
0 416
152.705
0 0%
0 0%
o.w
117
1.10
0.75
0.020
2.00
0020
7.34
4.450
0.119
11.868
0.119
43.554
0.0%
0.0%
0.0°/
Atm Deposition
1.131
0.422
1.620
0.144
1
mma ir xm mm mm riseh
Page -54-
-------
Table 16
TMDL Summary for Burroughs Run
mfc/l
Waste Load Allocations
NPDBS
PA005S425
flow
00005
M?
10 00
1 50
.1:
I
TP
3 63 | 2 00
jfc*t
600
mm
0042
WH3-N
0.006
TN
tW*>
0015
~~51
Ma
0 008
DO
lb/d»y
0 025
§bl'fero3>IJd tuctfdi
OPS|" Ifflbl
0.0%
gi i ibekh p?gxffi bmuti mei j iee*!
0.0%
0.0"/,
Load Allocations
IrsMBKraKiHSij
Sub wi tented
J*v
9 078
0 206
33 652
0 0% 0.0°/,
0.013
0 005
0018
Atm Deposition
r-T:MirV m
Table 17
TMPL Summary for Red Clay Creek West Branch
Waste Load Allocations
MPDBS
Tsmmm
2Emfi£: w
Atm. Deposition
00000
I 1000
02500
00500
00900
•<5*
aLi!
ptil «<•••;[ . .s[s>;-«T *ttf|'9UURUB92H&ani
vd -ii< ¦;¦ v-i- imyVikbaiiirasBi&tisHPia
15.00
16 63
2.00
9.50
2.00
1.50
2 00
0.10
1.90
0 10
3.63
483
0.24
4.60
0.24
2.00 5 00
1.28
0 10
1.90
6.00
5.00
500
0.000 0.000 0 000 0.000 0.000
152.679
4.173
3.965
"i *r>pr.-j!j;
0 10 5 00 1502
1
Load Allocations
18 362
0 209
0.793
0.075
44 344
0.501
1.920
0.180
11.752
0.209
0793
0.075
55086
10.433
2.087
3 756
00%
33 5%
0 0%
5.0%
0.0%
. 1 " l'-
•
-------
Table 18
TMDL Summary for Red Clay Creek Mainstem and East Branch
¦JE*
DG0000230
0.3500
gobs
m
7.00
0.10
1
024
Waste Load Allocations
IF
LPqtn
0 10
500
20.449
0.292
0.701
0.292
14.606
0.0%
0.0%
00°/,
JB0O2rt<#
0 0150
20.00
1.50
3 63
2.00
5.00
2.504
0 188
0.454
0.250
0.626
0.0%
00%
0.0%
PE005P067
0.0015
30.00
I 50
3.63
2.00
5.00
0.376
0.019
0045
0.025
0.063
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
PEQOQPteiS
2.1700
3.00
0.10
0.24
4.00
5.00
54.335
1.811
4.347
72.446
90.558
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1500
25.00
2.00
4.84
2.00
5.00
31.299
2.504
6059
2.504
6.260
0.0%
0.0%
0 0%
0.0000
15.00
1.50
363
2.00
5.00
0 000
0.000
0000
0000
0.000
0.0%
0.0%
0 0%
•* *»V> II
r.; "Ti¦
warn
Load Allocations
RediKHwp
!
1.98
R05
1.37
3.62
1.00
1.00
0020
0.020
1.98
1.98
0.045
0.045
0.045
7.34
7.34
7.34
7.500
7.387
19530
0 150
0.148
0.391
14.851
14.626
38669
0.338
0 332
0879
35 052
54.221
143 349
0.0%
0 0%
0 0%
0.0%
0 0%
0.0%
0 0%
00%
0 0%
uobwas'-.!^
1.00
.00
0.020
1.98
0.045
7.30
5.394
0.108
10 681
0.243
39 379
00%
0.0%
0 0%
Arm. Deposition
0.291
0.109
0.417
0037
Page-56-
-------
Table 19
TMDL Summary for the White Clay Creek Middle Branch
NPDES
>A0053783
PA0024066
Subwatorabeft
W01
Waste Load Allocations
00200
0.2500
tt
1000
25.00
3.00
4 80
;*yur.
jsb/L
7.26
11.62
t?
a&L
2.00
2 00
Lo>d AUocation ^
PQ
mg/t
5 00
5.00
x I?- li'i
CPQDJ
fcljtoy
I 669
52.165
53S34
0.501
10 016
I 212
24 246
0334
4 173
.4:507
po
Lh/diy
0 835
10.433
.,11.268
TMDL
CBODi
0 0%
0 0%
Nf&N
0 0%
0.0%
2 35
0.64
0.02
i
BE
1.79
0.02
Load Allocations
ns
7 34
8.114
0.254
pifl*
22.694
.TP
lb/day
0.254
fef.DO
/day
93.059
TMDL Pttwal j(di
,CBODS|
0 0%
0 0%
0 0°/.
0.0%
0.0%
W02
366
0.64
0.02
1.79
0.02
7.34
12.634
0.395
35.337
0.395
144.901
00%
0.0%
0.0%
Atm. Deposition
0 054
0 020
0.078
0 007
i.T!l
r
Table 20
TMDL Summary for the White Clay Creek East Branch
1
•Vj,'".I1'-.;
LUiimmH
mtmm
IE23H85
J323HES
2S1HKS
rTIlHRil
Waste Load Allocations
v I ,. \:> <
I • . .
r i
20.00
0.04
2.00
600
3.50
0.50
3.00
3.00
300
48.40
2.10
50.00
14.52
32.55
4.65
7.26
7.26
7 26
2.00
0.11
4 00
200
0.30
0.30
2.00
2.00
200
2.00
5.00
2.00
6.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
500
5.00
• '0*'ij •.' ¦ ;;r
0.250
2.404
62.597
I 565
13.563
0.726
4.507
I 502
1.669
0.200
0.048
5.008
0.376
1.899
0.012
0.676
0225
0250
0.485
2.524
125.195
0.909
17.659
0.113
1.636
0545
0606
0.020
0.132
10.016
0.125
0163
0007
0.451
0150
0.167
0.020
6.009
S.008
0.376
2.713
0.121
1.127
0.376
0.417
00%
00%
00%
00%
00%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
00%
0.0%
0.0%
0 0%
0 0%
0 0%
00%
0.0%
0 0%
0.0%
Load Allocations
00°/,
0 0%
0.0°/,
00%
0 0%
00%
0 0%
0 0%
00%
i.ji-i r
. ¦ ,1 •
; '• 1
i
1 .»
.i i
. .i. • _>.i
•'t 'i1 •' ..1
0.64 1 0.0201 1.79 1 0.020 1 7.341 14.913 1 0.4661 41.710 1 0 4661 171 0331 0.0%l 0 0%l 0 0"/J
Page V7
-------
W04
2 44
0.64
0.0201 1.79
0.020
7.34
8.425
0.263
23.564
0263
96 627
00%
0 0%
0 0°/
Atni Deposition
I
0099
0.037
0 141
0013
Tota
Logd Allocation
23.457
0,766
M.41J
0.742
2G7.660
Table 21
TMDL Summary of Muddy Run
Load Allocations |
Subwatenbed
W
TN
jmg/L
.TP
wg/L
DO
vn/l
CB005
IWday
m
TN
lb/day
IT
lb/day
DO
Jh/day
TMDL Perce&l Reduction |
CBOD5
,.NH3»N
Tf
W0 7
0.93
0.64
0.02
1.79
002
734
3 208
0.100
8.973
0.100
36.795
0 0%
0.0%
0 0°/c
Attn. Deposition
0017
0.006
0.024
0.002
'mm
3125
K&SES&UEaiZISEa
Table 22
TMDL Summary of Pike Creek
Load Allocations
IS
TMDL Percent Reduction
CB0D5
)UbwitCT&|xx]
iagd
NH3rN
5.528
0.173
5.462 0. 73
63.403
0 0%
0.0%
Attn. Deposition
0.039
0.015
0.005
IBH1
¦ '¦ ¦!
Table 23
TMDL Summary of Mill Creek
Load Allocations
21.232
0.237
0.073
0.007
Attn. Deposition
jss&s
assis
rivi'.'r^*
\r*i \
87.065
0.0%
0.0%
0.0°/.
i iW
Page -58-
-------
Table 24
TMPL Summary of White Clay Creek Mainstem
Waste Load Allocations
i.
r
Ik'-
B9EBHSE3I
0.0300
0.101 0.241 ° '° °025' 0060
Load Allocations
0.025
4MDL Poctft jtDd&ftfcL
252
n w&mmv ®?i
00%j 00%j 00°/,
v _i.tl. Ji.-si?
M 11 'IM.IIWI1 I
^08 />U.ViU I 172
mm
ft-ir ¦ y,i
2.17
1.21
Aim. Deposition!
0.64
0.64
0.64
0.02
0.02
0.02
1.79
1.79
1.79
0.02
002
0.02
7.34
7.34
7.34
5.938
7495
4.177
0.348
0.186
0234
0.131
0.13
16.609
20.964
11.684
0.499
0.186
0.234
0.131
0.044
68.107
85964
47.910
0.0%
0.0%
0 0%
¦:=v?rT:',y
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Pape^.59-
/
-------
Table 25
TMDL Summary for the Christina River West Branch
| Waste Load Allocations |
WDES
plow
mgd
CBOD5
n^L
fjHi-N
•MIWl
•m
Wl
TP
mg/L
DO
mg/L
CBOD3
lb/day
¦ m*
IWtJay
Vlb/dtV
TP
IWday
DO
Ih/day
tMDL Percent Redue'Bon I
CBOD5
NH3rN
tl
ViD0022641*
0.7000
1222
2,00
20 00
1.00
600
71.395
II 685
117.0
5.842
35 055
0.0%
69.0%
0 0 "A
V1D0065145*
0 0500
10.00
4.52
2000
1.00
6.00
4.173
1.886
8.33
0.417
2.504
0 0%
00%
00%
ipTotaj
toad Abortion
7SJ68
-------
Table 27
TMDL Summary of the Christina River Main Stem
3g»»
3BM51W
Wasle Load Allocations
5.00 0 000
0.0000
0.000
0.000
5.00 1 0.000
0.000
0000
0.0000
0.000
0 000
[1 '•*?': :'T.: r tiA\
Load Allocations
m
• I
0.60
065
0.48
0 80
1.59
Atm Deposition!
143
1.43
I 43
I 43
I 43
y,rr^
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
1.00
100
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.02
0.02
002
002
0.02
7.34
7.34
7.34
7.34
7 34
4.625
S.0I6
3.700
6.165
12.263
3 222
0.06S
0.070
0.0S2
0086
0 172
1.207
3 234
3.508
2.588
4 311
8 577
4 630
0.065
0.070
0.052
0.086
0.172
0412
M E5S MM
SB HdIIbK HEjSu
23.741
25 748
18.994
31 644
62 956
0.0%
0.0%
00%
00%
0.0%
0.0%
00%
00%
0 0%
0 0%
Page -61-
-------
Table 28
Point and Nonpoint Source Contributions to the Delaware River Estuary
| Waste Load Allocations |
WDES
Flow
mad
CBQD5
a&l
4E
T?
Pfcfl
;gP0
QBPDS
lb/day
* *TN
lb/day
7T
lb/day
PQ
lb/da?
TMDL P¢ Mdilcilda 1
GBOD5
TP
3E0021555-001
0 5500
1200
1 50
3.63
2.00
5 00
53.09
689
16.66
9.18
22.95
0.0%
0.0%
o.ou/.
3E0000256-601
13 0000
2500
1200
50 00
0.30
5.00
2712.53
1302.02
5425.07
32 55
542.51
0.0%
0.0%
0.0°/.
DE0000612-001
0.8000
18 00
0.50
465
030
5.00
120.19
3.34
31 05
2.00
33.39
0 0%
0 0%
00%
3E0020001^001
0.6800
1400
1 50
3.63
200
500
79.46
8.51
20 60
11.35
28.38
0 0%
00%
0.0%
DE0050911-001
0.3000
13.21
1.50
3 63
2.00
5 00
33.08
3.76
9.09
5.01
12 52
0.0%
0.0%
0.0°/
OE0020320-001
134.0000
17.00
1.50
3 63
2.00
5.00
19012.77
1677.60
4059.79
223680
5591 99
0.0%
0.0%
0 0°/,
!>E0000051-0I4D
L
1.7290
30.00
1.50
363
2.00
500
432.92
21.65
52 38
28 86
72 15
00%
0 0%
0 0%
MJ0024023-00
r
0.9500
40.00
1.50
3.63
2 00
5.00
317.16
II 89
28.78
15.86
39 64
0.0%
0 0%
00%
slJ0024< $5^)0
r
0.0366
1500
1 50
3.63
2.00
500
4.58
0.46
111
0.61
1.53
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
W06042&00
r~
2.1000
30.00
0.50
4.65
0.30
5.00
525.81
8.76
81.50
526
87 64
0.0%
0.0%
0.0°/«
.J0027iS"
\n
0 9860
30 00
1.50
3.63
2.00
5.00
246.88
12 34
29.87
1646
41.15
0 0%
0.0%
0.0%
afWBMWBM
DBH
• '• l-h.'
irj-'i
Page -62-
-------
Load Allocations
SuKwrtertMd
XTtK
Flow
E6
CBOD5
rtWL
TN
na/L
TP
JSKL
IT
IWdai
(Wd
1QD3
Sfl
Atm. Deposition
117.83
total UtAdAllooooa
Hlm
44.01
168.84
15.01
mWSEritS
Page -63-
-------
3) The TMDLs consider the impacts of background pollutant contributions.
Background pollutant contributions are the result of non-anthropogenic sources such as
from stream erosion, wild animal wastes, leaf fall, and other natural or background processes"
During low-flow, summer conditions basefiow contributions to the river are considered most
influential and are representative of background contributions.
In terms of the low flow TMDL analysis, EPA used monitoring data from STORET,
USGS water-quality data from monitoring stations, baseflow samples collected in 1997 (Senior,
.1999), and data from a field study conducted by Dr. John Davis of Widener University (Davis,
1998). Furthermore, atmospheric loads from both dry and wet deposition are considered. EPA
believes that use of actual instream monitoring data and atmospheric data will effectively account
for background pollutant contributions.
As previously mentioned, the Christina River Basin drains to the Delaware River Estuary,
which is affected by tidal influences. Furthermore, the Christina River, Brandywine Creek and
White Clay Creek also experience similar tidal effects. The tides are the movement of water
above and below a datum plane, usually sea level, which causes tidal currents". Tides are the
result of the gravitational forces of the sun and moon on the earth.
Of particular importance when considering tidal influences is the net estuarine flow
which is the flow that flushes material out of the estuary over some period of time. Estuaries
typically have complicated flow patterns from tidal motion impacts resulting in vertical
stratification where freshwater inflow rides over saline ocean water. In essence then, any
discharge of pollutants to the Delaware River above and below the confluence of the Christina
River and the Delaware River, within a certain distance, could potentially impact water quality
within the tidally influenced portions of the Christina River Basin.
It is important to recognize that these pollutant loads are discharged outside the Christina
River Basin. However, increased pollutant loads from these sources could negatively impact
water quality within the tidally influenced segments of the Christina River Basin causing
violations of WQS. Therefore, EPA included the point source loads for those dischargers on the
Delaware River in Table 28 above and EPA considers them as background conditions for the
estuary. While sensitivity analyses to determine the exact nature and magnitude of impacts to
water quality in the tidal portions of the Christina River Basin from increased or decreased
pollutant loads from the Delaware Estuary have not been performed, any changes to pollutant
loads from these sources should strive to be consistent with the existing pollutant loads in the
estuary.
" Supra, footnote 4. (EPA 1999 Protocol for Developing Nutrient TMDLs) Pg 5-5.
10 Supra, footnote 5. (Thomann, Mueller) Section 3.
Page -64-
-------
4) The TMDLs consider critical environmental conditions.
Federal regulations at 40 CFR 130.7(c)( 1) require TMDLs to take into account critical
conditions for streamflow, loading and water quality parameters. The intent of this requirement
is to ensure that the water quality of all waterbodies of the Christina River Basin are protected
during times when it most vulnerable.
Critical conditions are important because they describe the factors that combine to cause a
violation of WQS and will help in identifying the actions that may have to be undertaken to meet
WQS.21 Critical conditions are the combination of environmental factors (e.g., flow,
temperature, etc.) that result in attaining and maintaining the water quality criterion and have an
acceptably low frequency of occurrence. In specifying critical conditions in the waterbody, an
attempt is made to use a reasonable "worst-case" scenario condition. For example, stream
analysis often uses a low flow (7Q10) design condition as critical because the ability of the
waterbody to assimilate pollutants without exhibiting adverse impacts is at a minimum.
Additionally, the Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control (EPA
505-2-90-00J) recommends the 1Q10 flow (minimum 1-day flow expected to occur every 10
years ) or 7Q10 as the critical design periods when performing water quality modeling analysis.
Historically, these so-called "design" flows were selected for the purposes of WLA analyses that
focused on instream DO concentrations and protection of aquatic life22. Pennsylvania, Delaware
and Maryland specify 7Q10 as the design or critical conditions for the application of water
quality criteria in their WQS.
The Christina River Basin TMDLs adequately addresses critical conditions for flow
through the use of 7Q10 flows during the model period from August 1 td August 31. The 7Q10
values are based on data from 17 USGS stream gages in the Christina River Basin. Table 29
below presents flow statistics from USGS gages in the basin.
21 EPA Memorandum regarding EPA Actions to Support High Quality TMDLs from Robert H. Wayiaud
III, Director, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds to the Regional Water Management Division Directors,
August 9, 1999.
n Supra, footnote 17. (EPA 1994 Water Quality Standards Handbook) Section 5.2.
Page -65-
-------
Table 29. Summary
of Flow Statistics from USGS Gages in the Christina River Basin
USGS
GafeJD
Drainiiffe
Anient*).
TeutoT
Record
Average
Flow
UlODMUe
Mean.
301a
Hwr.
01478000*
20.5
1944-94
28.21
8.31
1.53
0.54
3.79
1.83
01478500
66.7
1952-79
85.91
47.10
11.00
10.15
24.05
22.38
01478650
1994
38.66
01479000
89.1
1932-94
114.65
62.19
15.60
14.04
31.23
28 45
0147982(7
1989-96
24.69
artaoooo-
47.0
1944-94
63.39
36.51
10.25
8.91
18.38
16.37
01480015
1990-94
41.08
01480300
18.7
1961-96
26.25
12.83
3.40
3.01
6.62
6.19
01480500
45.8
1944-96
66.33
34.64
8.24
7.34
15.41
14.21
0148060
55.0
1970-96
91.31
52.79
19.02
15.54
24.84
21.63
414806250*
6.2
1967-68
6.00
3.51
01480665
33.4
1967-68
36.36
23.45
01480700
60.6
1966-96
93.46
50.53
13.86
12.17
21.84
19.87
01480800
81.6
1959-68
86.63
44.81
12.56
11.86
20.57
18.81
01480870
89.9
1972-96
153.43
87.17
28.44
23.62
37.66
34.63
01481000
287.0
1912-96
395.13
234.13
70.63
65.04
117.01
107.14
01481500
314.0
1947-94
477.01
266.73
78.13
71.96
123.45
113.32
Source: USGS
In terms of pollutant loading, the critical conditions for point source loads occur during
times when maximum flow and concentrations are being discharged. The maximum flows and
loads are based on the NPDES permits for each facility. These conditions for point sources are
used in the critical condition analysis and allocation scenarios.
Nonpoint source loads were based on monitoring data from STORET as well as data
collected by USGS, baseflow samples collected in 1997 and data collected by DEP and DNREC
and are representative of background contributions as well as expected land-based, nonpoint
sources during low-flow conditions. During these conditions, land-based nonpoint sources are
expected to contribute very little pollutant loadings to the waterbody. Furthermore, the ability of
the waterbody to assimilate pollutant loads dunng these low-flow conditions is at a minimum.
Consideration of nonpoint source loads would simply remove assimilative capacity and cause
further reductions to point sources in order to achieve WQS. As can be seen from Table 8, in
most watersheds point sources are the dominant contributors of pollutant loadings in low-flow
Page-66-
-------
conditions. The data sets were used to develop characteristic loads of parameters of concern
(carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, DO and algae) for each of the 39 subwatersheds as delineated by
the HSPF model.
Use of these loads in the model provides the ability to integrate past pollutant loading
events. It is recognized that delayed impacts on DO levels from wet-weather events during
critical summertime periods may occur. However, Thomann and Mueller observed that "for
some rivers and estuaries, the deposition of solids proceeds only during the low flow summer and
fall months when velocities are low. High spring flows the following year may scour the bottom
clean and reduce the problem until velocities decrease again. Intermediate cases are common
where high flows may scour only a portion of the deposit, oxidize a portion, and then redeposit
the material in another location."23 It is likely that the use of site-specific data to characterize
nonpoint source loads during critical conditions would consider those sporadic summertime
loading events. In addition, both wet and dry deposition of atmospheric loads are included in the
EFDC model.
The water quality parameters of concern are DO and nutrients throughout the system.
However, as previously discussed, DO can be affected by BOD, SOD, algae and reaeration.
These parameters, in addition to nitrogen and phosphorus, are addressed within the linkage
analysis to ensure that the pollutant allocation scenario will ensure that WQS are met and
maintained throughout the system.
5) The TMDLs consider seasonal environmental variations.
Addressing seasonal variation, similar to critical conditions, is necessary to ensure that
WQS are met during all seasons of the year. Seasonal variations involve changes in streamflow
as a result of hydrologic and climatological pan ems. In the continental United States, seasonal
high flow normally occurs during the colder period of winter and in early spring from snowmelt
and spring rain, while seasonal low flow typically occurs during the wanner summer and early
fall drought periods24. Other seasonal variations include reduced assimilative capacity from
changes in flow and temperature as well as sensitive periods for aquatic biota. Seasonal
fluctuations in both point and nonpoint source loads must also be considered.
In terms of the point source loads, the values used in the model art representative of those
loads expected during the summer season based on DMRs, NPDES permit limits or
characteristic concentrations. Likewise, the use of data from STORET, USGS and baseflow
sampling to characterize expected nonpoint source loads during the summer will effectively
consider seasonality.
23 Supra, footnote 5. (Thomann, Mueller) Section 6.3.4.
24 Supra, footnote 8. (EPA 1997 Technical Guidance for Developing TMDLs) Section 2.3.3.
Page -67-
-------
EPA expects that seasonal variations will continue to be addressed through the
development of the HSPF model in conjunction with the TMDLs for high-flow conditions. Once
this model is linked with EFDC, this will provide EPA with a powerful tool to investigate
seasonality, critical conditions and alternate allocation strategies on a larger temporal and spatial
scale. However, use of the EFDC model to represent critical low-flow summer conditions prior
to development of the HSPF model in no way downgrades the scientific validity or defensibility
of the current TMDL analysis and allocation scenario. Regardless, use of the fully integrated and
linked model would still require consideration of critical conditions and seasonality. It is
reasonable to expect that the allocation scenario from this integrated analysis would reflect the
same critical condition and seasonality components in the current low-low analysis and result in
similar pollutant loading allocations.
6) The TMDLs include a margin of safety.
This requirement is intended to add a level of safety to the modeling process to account
for any uncertainty or lack of knowledge. MOSs may be implicit, built into the modeling
process, or explicit, taken as a percentage of the WLA, load allocation, or TMDL.
In consideration of the sheer quality and quantity of data, and the development of the
HSPF watershed loading model which will be linked to this EFDC model, EPA is utilizing an
implicit MOS through the use of conservative assumptions within the model application. An
example of a conservative assumption used in this model is the discharge of point sources
located on tributaries directly into the model without consideration of attenuation in the tributary
water. The effect is conservative in terms of the main stem river segment since modeling directly
to the main stem will not consider potential attenuation between the point of discharge into the
tributary and confluence with the downstream main stem segment. This could potentially affect
the pollutant allocation scenario. The exact nature of the effect is not known and could be
positive or negative. The reverse, however, is not conservative when considering the tributary
since negative water quality impacts could be occurring. The ability to model these water quality
effects is extremely limited due to lack of resources, time and data and use of this conservative
assumption is valid.
Additional factors in the MOS for the TMDLs for the Christina River Basin include:
All point sources were 5et to their maximum permitted loads for the TMDL allocations.
Streamflows were set to critical 7Q10 conditions for the TMDL allocations.
* No shading of the stream due to vegetation canopy was incorporated into the model,
therefore, full sunlight conditions reach the stream during daylight hours resulting in
maximum photosynthetic activity. Also, no cloud cover was incorporated into the model
TMDL allocation runs resulting in maximum solar radiation reaching the stream.
Page -68-
-------
• Stream water temperatures were set to critical high values based on historical data at
USGS monitoring stations.
Finally, all of the above items occur simultaneously resulting in very conservative
conditions for the TMDL allocations.
It should be pointed out that this modeling effort relies on data which could be easily
characterized as extensive and high-quality. The number of USGS stations and water quality
stations, period of record, multiple sources of data, site-specific studies, and comprehensive
review and analysis of the model application and techniques all contribute to the confidence EPA
has in this TMDL analysis.
7) The TMDLs have been subject to public participation.
Public participation is a requirement of the TMDL process and is vital to its success. At a
minimum, the public must be allowed at least 30 days to review and comment prior to
establishing a TMDL. In addition, EPA must provide a summary of all public comments and the
response to those comments to indicate how the comments were considered in the final decision.
For several years, the CBWQMC and the CBWQMC Policy Committee have served as
valuable forums to discuss Christina River Basin issues including the low-flow TMDL study.
During the past two years as the work on the TMDLs has accelerated and reached completion,
updates on the status of the TMDLs have been presented at the following meetings. These
meetings, while not explicitly inviting the general public, were nonetheless open to the public:
• CBWQMC Meetings: March 12,1999, April 22,1999, August 5, 1999, January
28, 2000, March 30,2000 and October 12, 2000.
• CBWQMC Policy Committee Meetings: October 29,1999,
May 31,2000, July 7,2000, November 3,2000 and November 30, 2000.
In addition to the above meetings, a Public Outreach Task Force of the CBWQMC, led by
Bob Struble of the Brandywine Valley/Red Clay Creek Valley Association, has held regular
meetings to discuss Christina River Basin issues, including these TMDLs.
A special meeting of Public Outreach Task Force was held on May 24, 2000. Invitations
to the major dischargers in the Christina River Basin were distributed for this meeting and
representatives from Northwestern Chester Municipal Authority, Downingtown Area Regional
Authority, City of Coatesville Authority, Bethlehem Steel Corporation, West Chester/Taylor Run
STP and the Cecil County, MD Department of Public Works were in attendance. Also attending
were representatives of Delaware and Maryland and engineers representing facilities in the
Christina River Basin. During this meeting, the draft modeling results and allocations from the
Christina River Basin TMDL model were presented and discussed. The model results and
Page -69-
-------
allocations were also discussed at a May 31, 2000 Public Outreach Task Force meeting and the
May 31, 2000 Policy Committee meeting as well. Additional discharger representatives from
Sonoco, Inc. and Kennett Square were present at the May 31 meetings. During the December 1,
2000 Public Outreach Task Force meeting, EPA provided a status report on the Christina River
Basin TMDLs.
The CBWQMC has published annual reports summarizing activities and ongoing work
for the past several years. The Phase ID report, which included a summary of the work
completed to date on the Christina River Basin TMDLs and planned future work, was published
on August 5, 1999.
A public meeting sponsored by the Delaware Nature Society on the Christina River Basin
was held at the Ashland Nature Center in Delaware on June 17, 1999. A presentation on the
Christina River Basin TMDLs was included on the agenda.
The proposed Christina River Basin low-flow TMDLs were the subject of two public
information meetings on July 18-19, 2000 in West Chester, PA and Wilmington, DE. As result
of information received at these meetings, changes were made to the proposed TMDLs and
revised draft TMDLs were presented at two formal public hearings on August 29-30, 2000 in
West Chester, PA and Wilmington, DE. The public meetings and hearings were the subject of a
July 12, 2000 EPA press release and the meetings were advertized in the Wilmington News-
Joumal, West Chester Local News and the Chester County Papers consortium. EPA held the
comment period for the draft TMDLs open through October 15, 2000. As a result of comments
received at the public hearings, and during the public comment period, additional changes were
made to the Christina River Basin low-flow TMDLs. Comments submitted at the public
hearings and prior to the close of the public comment period were reviewed and a public
comment responsiveness summary prepared which accompanied the January 19, 2001 TMDL
Decision Rationale document.
For the revised TMDLs, EPA issued a public notice of the proposed revisions on March
1, 2002 for a 30-day public comment period. The notice was published in the Chester County
Community Newspaper Group and the Wilmington News-Journal. Copies of the notice were
also mailed to each affected point source discharger in the Christina River Basin. One set of
comments were received and EPA has prepared a response to those comments which
accompanies this revised TMDL Decision Rationale document. Because of the limited changes
being made to the TMDLs and the few comments received, EPA determined that the proposed
TMDL revisions could proceed without the need for a public hearing.
As noted before, EPA Region III established a web site for the Christina River Basin
TMDLs to serve as an information clearinghouse for these TMDls. Information related to the
proposed TMDLS was posted on this site and included meeting announcements, summaries of
presentations and draft TMDL documents. The web site also provided a means for the public to
submit comments on the proposed TMDLs
Page -70-
-------
8) There is reasonable assurance that the TMDLs can be met.
There is a high degree of reasonable assurance that each WLA and load allocation for
these TMDLs will be implemented. EPA expects the states to implement these TMDLs by
ensuring that NPDES permit limits are consistent with the WLAs described herein. The
treatment recommendations made by these TMDLs are achievable. According to 40 CFR
122.44(d)(l )(vii)(B), the effluent limitations for an NPDES permit must be consistent with the
assumptions and requirements of any available WLA for the discharge prepared by the state and
approved by EPA. Furthermore, EPA has authority to object to issuance of an NPDES permit
that is inconsistent with WLAs established for that point source. Additionally, according to 40
CFR 130.7(d)(2), approved TMDL loadings shall be incorporated into the states' current water
quality management plans. These plans are used to direct implementation and draw upon the
water quality assessments to identify priority point and nonpoint water quality problems, consider
alternative solutions and recommend control measures. This provides further assurance that the
pollutant allocations of the TMDLs will be implemented.
In terms of the nonpoint sources, the load allocations are representative of expected
pollutant loads during critical conditions from baseflow, atmospheric, and traditional land-based
sources. Reasonable assurance that the current load allocations will be met is based on the
extensive data set used to characterize the current nonpoint source pollutant loadings. These
loadings are not expected to vary significantly. Therefore, reductions from the current load
allocations are unnecessary to meet WQS under low-flow conditions.
Page -71-
-------
vm. References
Davis, Dr. John 1998. Measurement of Community Photosynthetic and Respiration Rates for
Selected Reaches of the Christina Watershed. Report for the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental
Control. March 1998
Omemik, J.M. 1977. Nonpoint Source Stream Nutrient Level Relationships: A Nationwide
Study. Corvallis ERL, ORD, US EPA, Corvaliis, OR. 151 pp. EPA-600/3-77-105.
Senior, L. A. 1999. Background concentrations for Christina River Model. U.S. Geological
Survey, Malvern, PA. Memorandum to M.R. Morton, Tetra Tech, Inc., dated August 6,1999.
PA DEP. 1986. Implementation Guidance for the Water Quality Analysis Model 6.3.
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Document ID 391-2000-007. June 1986.
U.S. EPA. 1985a. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia-1984. EPA 440/5-85-001. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington D.C.
U.S. EPA. 1985b. Rates, Constants, and Kinetics Formulations in Surface Water Quality
Modeling (Second Edition). EPA 600/3-85-040. Office of Research and Development, Athens,
GA.
U.S. EPA. 1986 Quality Criteria for Water. EPA 440/015-86-001. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA. 1991. Guidance for Water Quality-based Decisions: The TMDL Process. EPA 440/4-
91-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA. 1998. 1998 Update of Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia. EPA 822-R-98-
006. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
Page-72-
-------
Total Maximum Daily Load of Nutrients and Dissolved Oxygen
Under Low-Flow Conditions in the Christina River Basin,
Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland
Appendix A1
Presented in this appendix are longitudinal transect graphs showing the daily average and
minimum dissolved oxygen for each of the following 12 stream reaches:
1. Brandywine Creek main stem
2. Brandywine Creek East Branch
3. Brandywine Creek West Branch
4. Buck Run
5. Christina River (tidal reach downstream of Smalleys Pond)
6. Christina River (non-tidal reach upstream of Smalleys Pond)
7. Christina River West Branch
8. Red Clay Creek main stem and East Branch
9. Red Clay Creek West Branch
10. White Clay Creek main stem and Middle Branch
11. White Clay Creek East Branch
12. Delaware River (from Reedy Point, DE to Chester, PA)
Each longitudinal graph shows the following:
• DO average or minimum Water Quality Standard (i.e., TMDL endpoint)
• Model results for NPDES discharges at their existing permit loads
• Model results for NPDES discharges at their final TMDL allocation loads
• Stream flow is in the downstream direction, i.e., from higher to lower river mile
Page A1 -1
-------
(This page intentionally blank)
Page A1 -2
-------
CHRISTINA RIVER 3ASIN TMOL ALLOCATION RESULTS
83
RIVER MILE
BRANOVMINE CREEK
EXISTING PERMIT TMOL ALLOCATION 00 AVG ENOPOINT
Figure A-l. Brandywine Creek main-stem, daily average DO.
CHRISTINA RIVER BASIN TMOL ALLOCATION RESULTS
75 80 83 90 95
RIVER MILE
BRanDYHINE CREEK
EXISTING PERMIT TMDL ALLOCATION DO MIN ENOPOINT j
Figure A-2. Brandywme Creek main stem, minimum DO.
Page A1-3
-------
Christina river basin tmdl allocation results
100 103
RIVER MILE
BRANOYWINE CREEK EAST BRANCH
110
1 13
EXISTING PERMIT TMOL ALLOCATION 00 AVG EICPOINT
Figure A-3. Brandywine Creek East Branch, daily average DO.
CHRISTINA RIVER BASIN TMOL ALLOCATION RESULTS
100 105
RIVER MILE
BRANOYWINE CREEK EAST BRANCH
EXISTING permit
TMOL ALLOCATION 00 MIN ENDPOINT
Figure A-4. Brandywine Creek East Branch, minimum DO.
Page Al-4
-------
0 1 1 1 1 l
95 100 105 HO 115 120 125
RIVER NILE
BRANOYWINE CREEK WEST BRANCH
EXISTING PERMIT TMOL ALLOCATION 00 AVG ENOPOINT
Figure A-5. Brandywine Creek West Branch, daily average DO.
CHRISTINA RIVER BASIN TMOL ALLOCATION RESULTS
95 100 105 110 115 120 125
RIVER MILE
BRANDYWINE CREEK WEST BRANCH
EXISTING PERMIT
TmOL ALLOCATION DO MIN ENDPOINT
Figure A-6. Brandywine Creek West Branch, minimum DO.
Page Al-5
-------
CHRISTINA RIVES BASIN TMDL ALLOCATION RESULTS
10 i i
106
108
1 10
112
RIVER MILE
BUCK RUN
114
116
118
EXISTING PERMIT TMDL ALLOCATION 00 AVG ENOPOINT
Figure A-7. Buck Run, daily average DO.
CHRISTINA RIVER BASIN TMDL ALLOCATION RESULTS
106
108
1 10
112
RIVER MILE
BUCK RUN
114
116
1 18
EXISTING PERMIT
-•TMDL ALLOCATION 00 MIN ENDPOINT
Figure A-8. Buck Run, minimum DO.
Page A1-6
-------
Christina river basin tmdl allocation results
75
80
90
RIVER mile
Christina river tidal
—existing permit —tmdl allocation —oo avg enopoint
Figure A-9. Christina River (tidal), daily average DO.
CHRISTINA RIVER BASIN TMOL ALLOCATION RESULTS
0
8
6
4
2
0
85
90
80
75
RIVER MILE
CHRISTINA RIVER TIDAL
EXISTING PERMIT TMDL ALLOCATION DO MIN ENOPOINT
Figure A-10. Christina River (tidal), minimum DO.
Page A1-7
-------
CHRISTINA RIVER BASIN TMOL ALLOCATION RESULTS
94 96 98
RIVER MILE
CHRISTINA RIVER NONTIDAL
100
102
10*
EXISTING PERMIT TMDL ALLOCATION 00 AVG ENOPOINT
Figure A-ll. Christina River (non-tidal), daily average DO.
CHRISTINA RIVER 0ASIN TMOL ALLOCATION RESULTS
94 96 9B
RIVER MILE
CHRISTINA RIVER NONTIDAL
104
EXISTING PERMIT
TMDL ALLOCATION 00 MlN ENDPOINT
Figure A-12. Christina River (non-tidal), minimum DO.
Page A1-8
-------
98 0
L_
98 5
I
99 0
_l_
_l
100 0
99 5
RIVER MILE
CHRISTINA RIVER WEST BRANCH
100 5
101
: EXISTING PERMIT - - - -TMDL ALLOCATION DO AVG EfCPOINT
Figure A-13. Christina River West Branch, daily average DO.
CHRISTINA RIVER BASIN TMDL ALLOCATION RESULTS
6
z
Id
o
>
X
o
z
z
z
98 0
98 5.
99 0 99 5 100 0
RIVER MILE
Christina river west branch
too 5
101
-EXISTING PERMIT TMDL ALLOCATION 00 MlN ENOPOINT
Figure A-14. Christina River West Branch, minimum DO.
Page Al-9
-------
Christina river basin tmdl allocation results
Oi
E
>-
X
o
o
>
<
<
o
95
RIVER MILE
RED CLAY CREEK & EAST BRANCH
100
105
-EXISTING PERMIT
•-TM0C ALLOCATION 00 AVG ENOPOINT
z
ut
o
x
o
X
z
X
Figure A-15. Red Clay Creek main stem and East Branch, daily average DO.
CHRISTINA RIVER BASIN TMDL ALLOCATION RESULTS
95
RIVER MILE
REO CLAY CREEK & EAST BRANCH
103
-EXISTING PERMIT TMDL ALLOCATION 00 WIN ENOPOINT
Figure A-16. Red Clay Creek main stem and East Branch, minimum DO.
Page Al-10
-------
_1_
100
101
I
10*
102 103
RIVER MILE
RED CLAY CREEK WEST BRANCH
105
106
EXISTING PERMIT TMDL ALLOCATION 00 AVG ENDPOINT
Figure A-17. Red Qay Creek West Branch, daily average DO.
CHRISTINA RIVER BASIN TMDL ALLOCATION RESULTS
OI
E
Z
w
o
>
X
5
X
z
X
100
101
102
104
103
RIVER MILE
RED CLAY CREEK WEST BRANCH
105
106
¦EXISTING PERMIT
•TMDL ALLOCATION DO MIN ENDPOINT
Figure A-18. Red Clay Creek West Branch, minimum DO.
Page Al-11
-------
Christtha rives basin thdl allocation results
93 100
RIVES MILE
WHITE CLAY CREEK I MIDDLE BRANCH
105
1 10
-EXISTING PERMIT TMDL ALLOCATION X AVG ENDPOINT
Figure A-19. White Clay Creek main stem and Middle Branch, daily average DO.
10
CHRISTINA RIVER BASIN TmDL ALLOCATION RESULTS
E
Z
U
o
>
X
o
§
X
z
X
1 1 J J
-
I \
/ \
*
L
L .L.._
85
90 91 100
RIVER NILE
WHITE CLAY CREEK & MIDDLE BRANCH
105
1 10
EXISTING PERMIT TMDL ALLOCATION DO MlN ENQPOINT
Figure A-2G. White Clay Creek main stem and Middle Branch, minimum DO.
Page A1-12
-------
_l_
_l_
100 101 102 103 104 103 106 107 108 109 110
RIVER MILE
WHITE CLAY CREEK EAST BRANCH
-EXISTING PERMIT TMDL ALLOCATION 00 AVC ENOPOINT
Figure A-21. White Clay Creek East Branch, daily average DO.
CHRISTINA RIVER BASIN TMDL ALLOCATION RESULTS
Oi
E
Z
UJ
o
X
O
I
z
z
100 101
102 l03
107
104 105 106
RIVER hilE
WHITE CLAY CREEK EAST BRANCH
108 109
110
"EXISTING PERMIT TMDL ALLOCATION 00 MIN ENDPOINT
Figure A-22. White Clay Creek East Branch, minimum DO.
Page Al-13
-------
Christina river basin tmol allocation results
t 1 1 i r-
e r-
60
63
70 73
RIVER MILE
DELAWARE RIVER
80
90
¦EXISTING PERMIT TMOL ALLOCATION 00 AVG ENOPOlNT
Figure A-23. Delaware River (Reedy Point to Chester), daily average DO.
CHRISTINA RIVER BASIN TMOL ALLOCATION RESULTS
0 1 1 i- 1 1
60 63 70 75 80 83 90
RIVER MILE
DELAWARE RIVER
EXISTING PERMIT TMOL ALLOCATION CX3 MIN ENOPOlNT
Figure A-24. Delaware River (Reedy Point to Chester), minimum DO".
Page Al-14
-------
Response to Comments - Proposed Christina Low-Flow TMDLs Revision
On March 1. 2002, EPA Region III issued a public notice for a proposed revision of the
Christina River Basin Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) under Low-Flow Conditions. The
proposed revisions to the TMDLs established by EPA on January 19, 2001 were announced in
newspapers in Wilmington, DE and Chester County, PA. Copies of the proposed revisions were
mailed to affected wastewater treatment dischargers in the Christina River Basin.
In the public notice. EPA stated that a decision on whether to hold a public hearing on the
proposed TMDL revisions would be based on comments submitted on the revisions. Comments
by letter dated March 28,2002 were received from just a single party. Hall & Associates,
representing the Downingtown Area Regional Authority. EPA has reviewed these comments
and 1) prepared the attached response, and 2) made a determination that the comments do not
constitute a need to schedule a public hearing on the proposed revisions. EPA's response to
comments follows the order in which the comments were made.
-------
Response to Hall & Associates March 28,2002 Comments - Proposed Christina Low-Flow
TMDLs Revision (March 1, 2002)
A. Periphvton Model Fundamentally Flawed
The comments in this section raise issues on periphyton growth projections and how they
were used in the Christina River Basin TMDL water quality model in assessing minimum
dissolved oxygen values in the watershed, notably the East Branch of Brandvwine Creek.
In response to these comments. EPA's contractor for the development of the Christina
River Basin TMDL Environmental Fluid Dynamics Code water quality model provided a
detailed review of the issues raised. EPA provides this review as its response to these comments
as an attachment to this document.
B. Modeling Assumptions Do Not Reflect Relevant Conditions
The comments in this section include three points: 1) assumptions used in the revised
TMDLs will occur less frequently than one percent of the time and PADEP regulations (25 PA
Code 96.3) set a compliance goal of 99 percent to achieve WQS; 2) the revised flow figure of
7.134 mgd used for the Downingtown facility incorporates wet weather flows and would not be
appropriate for the conditions used to set the revised TMDLs and 3) the design conditions,
particularly the permitted limits for each parameter, used as the basis for the TMDL are
inappropriate for the critical conditions analysis used to develop the revised TMDLs.
EPA Response:
Several of these points and related issues were made in comments submitted on the
Christina River Basin Low-Flow TMDL issued by EPA on January 19, 2001. In the
Responsiveness Summary prepared for the public hearing and open comment period, comments
(and responses) 01-A-03. 02-B-02. 07-G-02 and 10-J-05 are pertinent to some of the issues
raised by these comments and are hereby incorporated here by reference.
On the question of the PADEP 99% compliance goal, PADEP interprets this goal in the
context of setting NPDES effluent limitations as equivalent to a 7Q10 (7-day average flow
occuring once in 10 years) low-flow analysis. Limits set on this basis are considered to ensure
that WQS are maintained 99% of the time. As EPA used a 7Q10 analysis in calculating the
TMDLs. the recommended limits do not impose a greater WQS compliance requirement than
employed in PADEP regulations.
The revised flow figure for the Downingtown Area Regional Authority of 7.134 mgd
(one of the flow figures that was found in error in the original TMDL calculation - 7.0 mgd was
previouslv used) is the permitted flow value used in establishing NPDES permit limits for the
Downingtown facility. EPA used maximum permitted flow values in calculating the TMDLs.
As was explained in comments on the original Christina TMDL. this is standard EPA practice
and is a consideration in establishing a reasonable Margin of Safety in the TMDL calculations.
-------
Regardless of how the flow would be comprised. Downingtown is permitted to discharge 7.134
mgd and this figure must be used in the TMDL calculations.
The design conditions and critical conditions analysis used in the TMDL calculations are
standard EPA practice. The use of the 7Q10 flow condition has been previously discussed
above. The maximum permitted flow figures are appropriate when used in steady-state
conditions as employed in the Christina River Basin TMDL calculations The combination of
these factors is designed to produce a "worst-case" but possible scenario to ensure that WQS will
be met and helps provide a reasonable Margin of Safety as noted above
C. EPA's Approach is More Restrictive Than Neceasarv to Achieve Standards
The comments in this section suggest that the revised TMDLs should only be used to set
permit limitations during the month of August when critical flow and temperature conditions are
expected to occur simultaneously.
EPA Response:
Both TMDL calculation procedures and NPDES permitting processes employed a critical
conditions analysis to determine appropriate limitations. While low flow information and model
calibrations may be limited to a period as short as one month (e.g, August) or less, comparable
low flow conditions can occur at other times during the year. PADEP procedures for seasonal
applications of NPDES permit limits employ a May 1 to October 31 period. The revised
Christina Rjver Basin low-flow TMDL and the specific TMDL reductions have been clarified in
the revised TMDL document to indicate that the TMDL Waste load allocations are applicable
during the May 1 to October 31 period used in PADEP permitting decisions. EPA believes this
is an appropriate seasonal approach to ensure adequate protection of WQS and provide a
reasonable Margin of Safety.
-------
/
TETRATECH, MC.
10306 Eaton Place. Sum 340
FarlaiVA 22030
Telephone (703)38^6000
FAX (703) 3W-6007
Emsd MonofcW1eimecfrJh.com
SUBJECT*. Response to DARA Comments on Revised Christina River TMDL
Attached are my responses to the issues raised by Hall & Associates (March 28,2002 letter to EPA Region
III) regarding the Revised Christina River Basin TMDL and the impacts on the Downingtown Area Regional
Authority (DARA) wastewater treatment plant.
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
June 28.2002
Tom Henry and Larry Memll, U.S. EPA Region III
Mike Morton. Tetra Tech. Inc.
-------
Response to DARA comments on Revised Christina River TMDL
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region III
June 7, 2002
It appears the primary point of contention revolves around the water quality model's ability to
simulate penphyton biomass and the associated daily range of dissolved oxygen (DO) due to
photosynthesis and respiration. More specifically, the comments from Gallagher and KnorT focused
primarily on the phosphorus half-saturation constant (KHPm) used in the model. It appears that neither
Gallagher or Knorr was aware of the 1997 field study (Davis 1998) in which a laboratory algal assay
determined a value for KHPm of 0.132 mg/L. This site-specific phosphorus half-saturation constant was
used as the basis for formulating the penphyton kinetics in the water quality model. A literature search
indicates that the algal phosphorus half-saturation constant can range from 0.001 to 1.320 mg/L (see
Table 1 below).
Table 1. Literature values for phosphorus half-saturation constant.
Algal Species
Half-saturation
Constant (mg/L)
Reference
Asterionella formosa
0.002.
Holm& Armstrong, 1981
Asterionella japonica
0.014
Thomas & Dodson, 1968
Biddulphia sinensis
0.016
Quasimet al.t 1973
Ceratualma bergonii
0.003
Finenko & Krupatkina, 1974
Chaetoceros curvisetus
0.074-0.105
Finenko & Krupatkina^ 1974
Chaeioceros socialis
0.001
Finenko & Krupatkina, 1974
Chlorella pyrenoidosa
0.380-0.475
Jeanjean, 1969
Cvclotella nana
0.055
Fuhset al., 1972
Cvclotella nana
0.001
Fogg, 1973
Dinobryon cyhndncum
. 0.076
Lehman (unpublished)
Dtnobryon sociale
0.047
Lehman (unpublished)
Euglena gracilis.
1.520
Dlum, 1966
Microcystis aeruginosa
0.006
Holm & Armstrong, 1981
Nitzschia actinastreoides
0.095
Von Muller, 1972
Pediastrum duplex
0 105
Lehman (unpublished)
Ptthophora oedogonia
0.980
Spenser & Lembi, 1981
Scenedesmus obhquus
0.002
Fogg, 1973
Scenedesmus sp.
0.002 - 0.050
Rhee, 1973
Thalossiosira Jluviatihs
0.163
Fogg, 1973
-------
EPA Response to DARA ¦ 06/0? '2002
Page 2 of 6
As a part of his review. Knorr performed a statistical analysis of the model penphyton biomass
data presented in Table 9-5 of the model report and concluded that the biomass projected by the modei
was significantly different from the biomass measured m 198 5 Unfortunately, the model penphyton
bromass values reported in Title 9-5 were from an early draft calibration report, not the final calioration
The ranges of model penphyton biomass from the final model calibration (during the period 8/l'199"f -
8 3! '199?) are presented in the corrected table below:
Sjre
ID
River
Mite
J985 Pcnphyion Biomais
(ug chlorophyll-*) • enr)
EFDC
Gna Cell
Model Penphyton
(ug chlorophytj-u ll
Water
Depth
Model Penphyton Biomass
(ugchlarupiiyll-t/ cm-)
1
109 J
6.2 ¦ 30.2
S4&9
74- 97
0.J0
I.6-2.C
NA
8 0- 16.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
1
10t2
S.S ¦ 130
54.64
59 - "I
0.33
1.3 - 1 7
4
103 ¦»
9 0-170
5-i.JS
Ji i ¦ »i
0.3<
8.2- 140
J
101 2
11-5 - 21 0
54.56
396-662
0.37
9 1-15 2
6
96.1
SO - 14.)
54.50
93- 169
0 JS
3 6-6.5
The purpose of citing the Knotr and Fairchiid penphyton biomass was to demonstrate that the modei
predictions were in the ballpark with historical information. One cannot reasonably expect that the
model, which was developed using 199"? conditions, lo exactly agree with field measurements made 12
years earlier in 1985. lr is also important!© understand a statement from the IOioit and Fairchiid (1987)
paper:
"High current velocities. however, may have caused erosion of accumulated algal cells,
reducing standing crop betow levels otherwise sustainable by ambient tight and nutnem supply
Storm events on 16 and 27 July, and on I August during the 21 day incubation period, monitored
by fluctuating discharge at USGS gaging station 014808 70 located ol site 5. provide additional
evidence of probable scouring of the pots during the study."
This statement implies that the penphyton biomass measured in 1985 may have been substantially
lowered by three storm events. This confounds attempts to directly compare the 1997 model penphyton
predictions with the 1985 observations. The time to establish maximum penphyton biomass following a
scouring siorni event typically ranges from 20 to 120 days (Biggs 2000). ICnorr's use of the Crystal Ball
Monte Cacto analysis *as interesting, however, the exercise was moot due to the different hydraulic and
nutnent loading conditions in 1985 and ] 997.
Our responses to individual comments are presented befow.
Comments
A. Penphyton Model Fundamentally Flawed
The model developed by EPA to evaluate compliance with dissolved oxygen standards m the
Christina River Basin predicts penphyton growth as the primary factor affecting mtntmum DO
levels in the receiving ncier This projection of minimum DO •vas used to mandate more
restrictive TP. CBOD, and ammonia limits DaR.4 has already notified the Agency thai
periphvicn protections wade rv compare ike TXfDL hading other allocation scenarios are
fundamentally flav.-ed for the following reasons
-------
EPA Response to DARA • 06/07/2002
Page i of 6
• No penphyton measurements were made to calibrate the model or to venfy calibration of the
periphyton growth subroutine, thus the model results are sheer guesswork.
Response: Direct uistream measurements of periphyton biomass were not made during the recent
(1995-1997) field studies in the Christina River Basin. However, as part of the August 1997
field study (Davis 1998), a laboratory algal assay analysts was conducted which estimated
penphyton biomass productivity at eight locations in the Christina River Basin, including two
stations on East Branch Brandywine Creek. This algal assay analysis indicated an algal biomass
of 12 ug/L (dry weight) at the station upstream of DARA and 187 ug/L (dry weight) downstream
of DARA. In addition, diel DO measurements from August 1997 show the diel DO swing
downstream of DARA is about 6 to 7 mg/L. and the diel DO swing upstream of DARA is about
2 mg/L. The water quality model projects these diel DO swings very well (see Figure 9-17 in the
model report). This is clear evidence based on field observations that increased nutrients from
the DARA discharge are stimulating periphyton growth and the diel DO swing. The fact that the
model projects this diel DO swing indicates that the penphyton kinetics formulated is the model
are scientifically credible.
• Siie-speci/ic periphyton data for the East Branch of Brandywine Creek from Knorr and
Fairchild (1987). cited in the model documentation as the basis for periphyton biomass
projections, demonstrate that the model does not accurately represent periphyton growth in the
East Branch of Brandywine Creek. The model greatly under-predicts penphyton biomass
upstream of the DARA outfall and over-predicts periphyton biomass downstream of the outfall.
Response: The model documentation does not claim that the Knorr and Fairchild (1987) study
was used as the basis for penphyton biomass projections. The Knorr and Fairchild penphyton
biomass, measured in 1985, represented the only ui-situ measurements available for comparison
to the model penphyton biomass predictions. The Knorr and Fairchild data were not used to
develop any coefficients in the model. The purpose of citing the Kjkmt and Fairchild penphyton
biomass was to show that the model predictions were in the ballpark with historical information.
One cannot reasonably expect that the model which was developed using 1997 conditions, to
exactly agree with field measurements made 12 yean earlier in 1985.
• A vailable data do not indicate that periphyton data will change significantly due to higher
loadings from DARA. In fact, the projected TP levels under permitted loadings are lower than
the conditions observed by Knorr and Fairchild, which confirmed periphyton levels did not
increase significantly below DARA.
Response: The field study conducted by Davis (1998) indicates that periphyton growth in the
East Branch Brandywine Creek in the vicinity of DARA is phosphorus limited. The model
kinetics were developed fcased on the Davis (1998) study which confirmed that periphyton levels
do, indeed, increase downstream of DARA. As pan of the August 1997 field study (Davis 1998),
a laboratory algal assay analysis was conducted which estimated penphyton biomass at eight
locations in the Christina River Basin, including two stations on East Branch Brandywine Creek.
This algal assay analysis indicated an algal biomass of 12 mg/L (dry weight) at the station
upstream of DARA and 187 ug/L (dry weight) downstream of DARA.
• Knorr and Fairchild, the only penphyton data cued in the final report, concluded that
phosphorus did not limit growth of penphyton in the East Branch of Brandywine Creek at
ambient concentrations significantly less than the TMDL level. Consequently, increases in
phosphorus concentration above the TMDL level would have little, if any, effect on penphyton
biomass. contrary to the model s prediction
-------
EPA Response to DaR.4 • 06.0" 2002
Page 4 of 6
Response: As part of the Davis (1998) field study, a laboratory algal productivity analysis was
conducted by PA DEP. The study concluded that the limiting nutrient for penphyton growth in
all reaches was phosphorus. Also, the Davis study concluded that contributions of phosphorus
from wastewater dischargers in the study reaches had a significant impact on downstream
phosphorus concentrations and penphyton biomass. The water quality model was formulated
based on jhe Davis (1998) study and supports the conclusions of that study.
1. Findings of Thomas W. Gallagher
(a) Literature and field studies indicate that limiting nutrient levels for periphyton growth due to
phosphorus range from 5 to 50 ug/L. far lower than ambient TP levels found during various
studies used to develop the TMDL.
Response. No reference was provided for this statement. Site-specific field studies in the
Christina Rjver Basin (Davis 1998) indicate that limiting phosphorus levels for penphyton
growth are greater than 0 100 mg^L.
(b) The periphyton predictions in the model are not credible Given the level of phosphorus in the
TMDL and alternative scenarios, there should be no significant effect on periphvton biomass
under low flows or increased loadings.
Response: Given the fact that the site-specific phosphorus half-saturation constant was estimated
as 0 132 mg/L. the increased phosphorus loadings from DARA cause a predictable increase in
penphyton biomass and diel DO range downstream of DARA.
(c) The predicted changes in DO associated with phosphorus loading for the TMDL and ahernati ve
scenarios are unrealistic, inconsistent with the literature, and inconsistent with site-specific
analysis of the East Branch Brandywme Creek
Response: Site-specific diel DO measurements were made during the 1997 field study (Davis
1998) These DO measurements are shown in Figure 9-17 in the model report. The measured
DO swing downstream of DARA is about 6 to 7 mg/L. and the diel DO swing upstream of
DARA is about 2 mg/L. As one can see from Figure 9-17, the water quality model provides a
reasonable projection of these die! DO swings. The site-specific data collected in 1997 provides
evidence that increased nutnents from the DARA discharge are stimulating periphyton growth
and the diel DO swing. The fact that the model projects this diel DO swing indicates that the
penphyton kinetics formulated in the model are realistic.
(d) The model used a phosphorus Michaehs constant for pertphvton of 132 ug/L. over 100 times
greater than that for suspended algae (without any scientifically defensible justification), and
compensated for this by modifying ihe carbon chlorophyll ratio to match the diurnal variation
during the calibration period The same data pi could have been obtained using more realistic
model coefficients and would not have had unrealistic periphyton growth projections
Response The Michaelis constant (i.e.. phosphorus half-saturation constant) of 0.132 ug/L was
derived from a field study conducted dunng August 1997 (Davis 1998). The commentormay not
understand the use of the carbon-to-chlorophyll ratio in the water quality model. Algal biomass
is computed in the model in units of carbon The carbon-to-chlorophyll ratio has absolutely no
beanng on any internal computations of algal growth or dissolved oxygen levels. The purpose of
the carbon-to-chlorophvll ratio is to convert the algal biomass in carbon units to chlorophyll units
for model output
-------
EPA Response to DARA • 06/07/2002
Page 5 of 6
(e) The model was developed without sufficient data to link nutrients, periphyton. and dissolved
oxygen..
Response: The model was developed based on a field data collected primarily from 1995 to
1998. In addition, a special field study conducted in 1997 (Davis 1998) to measure community
photosynthetic and respiration rates in selected reaches of East Branch Brandywine Creek. West
Branch Brandywine Creek. West Branch Red Clay Creek, and White Clay Creek. As part of the
Davis (1998) field study, a laboratory algal productivity analysis was conducted by PA DEP.
The study concluded that the limiting nutrient for periphyton growth in all reaches was
phosphorus. Also, the study concluded that contributions of phosphorus from wastewater
dischargers tn the study reaches had a significant impact on downstream phosphorus
concentrations and photosynthesis rates. The study recommended that pollution control
strategies directed toward maintaining dissolved oxygen concentrations in these stream reaches
should address the impact of phosphorus loads from wastewater discharges on the photosynthesis
and respiration processes of instream periphyton.
2. Findings of Don Kjiorr
(a| EPA s use of the information contained in Knorr and Fairchitd (1987) is biased and incorrect.
Response: The algal biomass from the 1985 field study by Kjioit and Fairchild (1987) was
included in Table 9-5 of the Christina Model Report to show that the predicted model periphyton
was in the ball park of historical measurements.
(b) The TMDL model predictions tn the calibration report are significantly different than the data
contained tn Knorr and Fairchild (1987) and demonstrate that the model is inadequate for
predicting periphyton biomass.
Response: The information contained in Knorr and Fairchild (1987) was not used for calibrating
the model. The information was presented as a simple side-by-side comparison of the predicted
model periphyton biomass and biomass measured in the field to demonstrate that the model was
computing biomass in a ballpark range consistent with historical field observations. In fact, the
conditions during the 1985 field survey and the 1997 calibration penods were significantly
different, so one would not expect the model biomass to exactly replicate the measurements
made in 1985.
(c) Knorr and Fairchild determined that phosphorus was not limiting to periphyton growth. This
finding contradicts the TMDL model, which assumed that phosphorus was limiting periphyton at
all sites.
Response: The more recent field study conducted in August 1997 (Davis 1998) concluded that
phosphorus was the limiting nutnent. Information from the 1997 field survey was used as the
basis for developing periphyton kinetics in the water quality model.
(d) The calculation error is likely due to the use of an invalid phosphorus half-saturation constant
for periphyton growth. The study results suggest a half-saturation constant of 1.5 ug/L. The
value used in the model is 132 ug/L. nearly 100 times higher.
Response. The phosphorus half-saturation constant of 0.132 mg/L was derived from a site-
specific laboratory algal assay study conducted in August 1997 (Davis 1998).
-------
EPA Response to DAR.1 - 06*0' '2002
Page 6 of 6
References
Biggs, B.J F. 2000. New Zealand Periphyton Guideline: Detecting, Monitoring, and Managing
Enrichment of Streams. Prepared for the Ministry for the Environment. 122 p June 2000.
Davis. J F 1998. Measurement of Community Photosynthetic and Respiration Rates for Selected
Reaches of the Christina Watershed. Prepared for Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. March 1998.
ICnoir. D F. and G.W. Fairchild. 1987 Penphyton. benthic invertebrates and fishes as biological
indicators of water quality in the East Branch Brandywine Creek. Proceedings of the Pennsylvania
Academy of Science, 61(l):61-66.
-------
-------
Appendix H
CWA Jurisdictional Waters ANPRM
Tygart River Case Study
Water Quality Standards and TMDLs
M. Passmore
USEPA Wheeling, WV
February 2003
The Tygart River is located in northeastern West Virginia and covers an area of approximately
1362 square miles. The Tygart River joins the West Fork River in Fairmont to form the
Monongahela River. The Tygart River watershed is an excellent example of how sources of
pollution in small headwater streams can cumulatively impact the ability to attain water quality
standards in downstream waters of the United States.
From 1995 to 1999, WVDEP assessed 136 streams, representing approximately 700 miles of
stream length in the Tygart River Valley watershed. Of the 682 miles assessed for support of the
aquatic life, 35% of the streams fully supported the aquatic life use, 30% were supporting but
threatened, 19% were partially supporting, and 17% did not support the aquatic life use. The
principle causes of the impairment were siltation, habitat alteration, metals, and pH. The
principle sources of the pollution were abandoned mine drainage, acid mine drainage and
unknown sources (WVDEP 2000).
The mainstem Tygart Valley River, Buckhannon River, Ten Mile Creek and Middle Fork River,
together with 54 smaller water bodies within the watershed were placed on the West Virginia
1996 303(d) list because of iron, manganese, aluminum, and/or pH violations caused by
abandoned coal mine discharges.
In 2001, the EPA developed a TMDL for the Tygart River watershed for pH and metals (USEPA
2001). Two of the major tributary streams had TMDLs developed for them separately.
(Buckhannon and Ten Mile Creek). The supporting documentation for the TMDL clearly
indicates the impact that the small headwater stream loadings have on the condition of the
downstream waters. The report states, "A top down methodology was followed to develop the
TMDLs and to allocate loads to sources. Impaired headwaters were first analyzed, because their
impact frequently had a profound effect on downstream water quality" (bold emphasis added).
The modeling effort indicated that load reductions in both impaired and not impaired headwaters
streams were necessary to attain water quality standards in downstream waters. In other words,
load allocation reductions in the downstream reaches alone were not enough to attain water
quality standards in downstream waters.
The TMDL was developed without allocations for future growth. The TMDL document makes
clear that in order for additional new point sources to be located in headwaters reaches, and still
attain water quality standards downstream, they would have to attain water quality standards at
-------
the end of the effluent pipes. The report states: " A new facility could be permitted anywhere in
the watershed, provided that the effluent limitations are based upon the achievement of water
quality standards end-of-pipe for the pollutants of concern in the TMDL". Clearly, if new
mining activity were to discharge to small headwater streams without a permit, and without
meeting water quality standards end-of-pipe, the TMDL for the whole watershed would be
affected.
References
USEPA. 2001. Metal and pH TMDLs for the Tygart Valley River Watershed, West Virginia.
USEPA, Region 3, Philadelphia, PA.
WVDEP. 2000. West Virginia Water Quality Status Assessment 2000 305(b) Report. West
Virginia Department of Environmental Protection.
-------
-------
Appendix I
Threatened and Endangered Species
Headwater streams and headwater and isolated wetlands provide crucial habitat for a diverse
array of animal and plant species, including migratory birds, mammals, amphibians, reptiles,
invertebrates, and many threatened and endangered species. Region III has many different types
of habitats that could potentially be considered isolated waters. These include bogs, fens,
Delmarva Bays, eastern vernal pools, and pocosins.
Threatened and endangered species face many challenges, including habitat loss, pollution, and
other factors. Many of these species have very specific life requirements, where wetlands and
headwater streams play a major role. By protecting these habitats some of these species may be
able to recover and eventually be removed from the federal endangered species list, while other
species that are on the verge of being listed may also recover.
The following are threatened and endangered species that are found in Region III and could be
impacted by any change in regulations regarding isolated waters. There are many other species
that are not yet listed as threatened or endangered that could also be impacted that are not
discussed here. Many amphibian species are dependant on headwater and wetland environments
for at least part of their life cycle. Amphibian populations have been declining in recent years.
Bop Turtle (Clemmvs muhlenbereii). Threatened
The bog turtle has a discontinuous range, living in
widely separated habitats from western Connecticut,
eastern New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and
South Carolina.
Bog Turtles live in damp, grassy fields and meadows
with slow-moving streams and boggy areas fed by
springs. The bog turtle needs a mosaic of
microhabitats for foraging, nesting, basking,
hibernating, and shelter (USFWS 1997).
Presently many wetlands occupied by bog turtles are in agricultural areas that are subject
to livestock grazing, which meets the open canopy habitat that bog turtles seem to
require. The discovery of bog turtles in calcareous fen habitats is important to their
conservation in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Fens are primarily shrub and herb
communities formed in low lying areas where groundwater percolates over limestone
bedrock. The alkaline seepage water most likely retard the growth of canopy closing
trees. (USFWS, 1997)
Habitat loss is a major factor fo the past and present decline of bog turtles throughout
much of their range. Wetland habitats have been drained and filled for development,
-------
agriculture, road construction, and impoundments. These activities have also severely
fragmented the remaining habitat and have created physical barriers to movement; thus
isolating existing bog turtle populations from other such sites. Development and
agriculture continue to cause indirect hydrological alterations of adjacent wetland habitats
by changing the surface water flow into or out of occupied wetland habitats.
Development and agriculture adjacent to bog turtle habitat can result in soil disturbance
and increases in sediment and nutrient load, thus allowing invasion of exotic species.
Untimely mowing, burning and the use of herbicides and pesticides on adjacent
agricultural fields also degrade bog turtle habitat. While light grazing impedes plant
succession, heavy grazing destroys vegetation that is necessary for nesting, basking ,
foraging, and cover. (USFWS 1997)
Eastern Massasauga (Sistrurus catenatus catenatus). Federal Candidate. PA State
Endangered
This snake is known as the swamp rattler, and ranges from western Pennsylvania and
southern Ontario west through Ohio, Michigan, and several Midwest states. (Fergus,
2000). Massasaugas live in sphagnum bogs, fens, swamps, marshes, shrub-dominated
peatlands, wet meadows, and floodplains to
dry woodland. They prefer seasonal
wetlands with a mixture of open
grass-sedge areas and short closed canopy
(edge situations). (Nature serve, 2003)
Loss of wetlands and associated grassland
habitats put massasauga populations at
risk. (Ohio CNR, 2003)
Canbv's Dropwort (Oxvpolis canbyi). Endangered
This plant is found in the Coastal Plain province of Delaware
(extirpated), Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, and
Georgia. Habitat includes cypress ponds, grass-sedge dominated
Carolina bays, wet pine savannahs, shallow pineland ponds, and
cypress-pine swamps. (Nature serve, 2003)
The most significant threat to this species is the direct loss or
alternation of its wetland habitats. Ditching and draining of
lowland areas, primarily for agricultural purposes has altered the
groundwater table and changed the vegetative composition in many
areas of the mid-Atlantic coastal plain where this species has
historically occurred. In addition to changing soil moisture levels,
Eastern Massasauga PADCNR
Canby's Dropwort FWS
-------
lowering of the water table enables other plants to become established, modifies vegetative
succession, and makes sites less conducive overall to the plat's growth and reproduction.
(USFWS, 2003)
Virginia Sneezeweed (Helenium virsinicum). Federally Threatened, Virginia Endangered
Virginia Sneezeweed is a wetland plant restricted to shallow,
seasonally inundated ponds, in or near sinkholes. The ponds
are located in Virginia and usually flooded from January to
July. In general, the ponds supporting Virginia Sneezeweed
are poorly drained, acidic, and silty loam soils. (Nature
serve, 2003)
Virginia Sneezeweed has adapted to survive the water level
fluctuations of the seasonal ponds, giving it a competitive
advantage in this habitat. From year to year, Virginia
Sneezeweed populations may greatly vary. (VADCR, 2003)
Habitat modification from residential development,
incompatible agricultural practices, filling and ditching of
wetland habitats, groundwater withdrawal, and other disruptions of hydrology are the principal
threats to the species.(Federal Register, 1998)
Eastern Prairie White-Fringed Orchid (Platanthera leucophaea). Threatened
This species is found in mesic to wet prairies and wet sedge meadows. This species occupies
calcareous wetlands, including open portions of fens, sedge meadows, marshes, and bogs.
Peripheral habitat includes sedge-sphagnum bog mats around kettle lakes and fallow fields. It is
also found in wet ditches and railroad right of ways. It is found in New York, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin. (Federal Register, 1988).
This species is extirpated in much of its historic range and is very rare throughout its current
range. Most of its habitat has been destroyed due to drainage or conversion to agriculture, fire
suppression, and intensive mowing. The mostly small populations that remain are only
infrequently visited by appropriate pollinators. (Nature serve, 2003)
Northeastern Bulrush (Scirpus ancistrochaetus). Endangered
This species is found in the Appalachians in Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New
York, Maryland West Virginia, and Virginia, with most occurrences in Pennsylvania.
Throughout its range, Northeastern bulrush is found in open, tall-herb dominated wetlands,
where it often grows at the waters edge. At the southern end of its range, it is often found in
sinkhole ponds, where water levels vary seasonally. It the northern end of its range, beaver
influenced wetlands provide suitable habitat. (Federal Register, 1990). It is usually found in
wetlands of one acre or less, where the water level is high in the spring and drops through the
Virginia Sneezeweed
-------
summer. Threats to this species include drainage, development, agricultural runoff and
developments that alter local hydrology.(PADCNR, 3/11/2003)
Harperella (PtUimnium nodosumK Endangered
This species typically occurs in either rocky or gravelly shoals of clear swift-flowing streams or
at the edges of pineland ponds or low, wet savannah meadows on the Coastal Plain. It has also
been found in a granite outcrop seep.(USFWS, 2003). It is found in Alabama, Arkansas,
Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, and West Virginia. Since it is dependant on
narrow hydrologic conditions, this species is vulnerable to upstream development and water
change (nature serve, 2003).
Knieskern's Beaked-Rush (Rltvnchospora knieskernii). Threatened
This species is an obligate wetland plant that occurs in groundwater-influenced, constantly
fluctuating, successional habitats. This species is intolerant of competition. Recent records
indicate that this species occurs in early successional wet habitats created by human disturbances.
(USFWS, 2003).
Small Anthcred-Bittercress (Cardamine micranthera), Threatened
This species is found in Virginia and North Carolina. The 1991 FWS Recovery Plan indicates
that this species is found in seepages, wet rock crevices, and wet woods along small streams.
(USFWS, 1991). This species is threatened by continued conversion of habitat, encroachment of
exotic species, runoff, and livestock-related erosion and trampling. In several of the surviving
populations, the original seep habitats no longer exist and the plants are found only in
streambeds, where they are highly vulnerable to periodic floods. (Nature serve, 2003)
(Virginia Spiraea Spiraea virginiana). Threatened
This species is found in West Virginia, Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, Kentucky, and
Georgia. Virginia Spirea occurs along rocky, flood scoured stream and riverbanks in gorges or
canyons. One population in West Virginia was found
in a disturbed wetland near a road. (USFWS, 03)
Virginia Spirea
Carolina, and Virginia. The species seems
Sensitive Joint-Vetch (Aeschvnomene virginica).
Threatened
This species is found in Maryland, New Jersey, North
-------
to prefer marsh edges near the upper limit of tidal fluctuation. It is frequently found in the
estuarine meander zone of tidal rivers where sediments transported from upriver settle out and
extensive marshes are formed.
This species has been impacted by habitat destruction, sedimentation, competition from exotic
plant species, recreational activities, agriculture, mining, commercial and residential
development, impoundments, water withdrawal projects, and introduced insect pests. (USFWS,
2003)
Swamp Pink (Hielonias bullata). Threatened
This species is found in New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia,
North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. Swamp Pink occurs
in a variety of wetland habitats. These include Atlantic white cedar
swamps, Blue Ridge swamps, swampy forested wetlands which
border small streams, meadows, and spring seepage areas. This
species requires a saturated habitat, but not flooded.(Nature serve,
2003)
Loss of wetlands to urban and agricultural development and
timbering operations resulted in this species status. (USFWS,
2003)
Hay's Spring Amphipod (Stvgobromus havi). Endangered
This species is only known to inhabit five springs along Rock Creek in the District of Columbia.
It is believed that the amphipod may spend its life in a shallow groundwater zone, moving in
water that percolates among sand grains and gravel unless large volumes of water flush it up and
out of and exit as a spring. These species are difficult to monitor since they appear seasonally
and sporadically in seeps and springs. (Pavek, 2002)
Eastern Mud Salamander (Pseudotriton nwntanus montanus). PA Endangered
Swamp Pink
Mud salamanders burrow into the muck and mud around spring seeps and along the
banks of streams. The species range from New Jersey
southward to the Coastal Plain and Piedmont regions.
(Fergus, 2000)
Eastern Mud Salamander
-------
Literature References
Canby's Dropwort, 3/10/2003. www.natureserve.oru
Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake, www.natureserver.oru
Eastern Prarie White -Fringed Orchid, 3/10/2003 www.natureservc.oru
Federal Register/ Vol. 53, No. 196 /Tuesday, October 11, 1988/ Proposed Rule, Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposal to Determine Platanthera leucophaea (Eastern Prarie
Fringed Orchid) to be Threatened Species
Federal Register/Vol. 55, No. 217/Thursday, November 8, 1990/ Proposed Rules, Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants Proposed Endangered Status for Northeastern Bulrush.
Federal Register/Vol 63, No. 212/ Tuesday, November 3, 1998/ Rules and Regulations,
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Threatened Status for Virginia
Sneezeweed (Helenium virginicum).
Fergus Charles. Wildlife of Pennsylvania and the Northeast. Mechanicsburg: Stackpole Books,
2000.
Harperella, 3/11/2003, http://endanuered.rws.gOv/i/q/saq58.html
Harperella, 3/10/2003, www.natureserve.oru
Knieskern's Beaked Rush, 3/11/2003, http://endanuered.fws.gOv/i/q/saq6q.htm
Ohio Division of Wildlife Life History Notes Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake, 2/26/2003.
vvww.dnr.state.oli.us/wildlifc/resources/wildnotes/pub3 74. htm
PA CNR, WRCF Northeastern Bulrush 3/10/2003, http://wvw.dcnr.state.pa.us/wrcf/bulrush.htm
Pavek, Diane Endangered Species Bulletin, January/February 2002, Volume XXVII NO. 1,
Endemic Amphipods in Our Nation's Capitol.
Sensitive Joint-Vetch, 3/11/2003, http://endanuered.fws.uov/i/q/saq95.html
Sensitive Joint-vetch, www.natureserve.oru
Shaffer, Larry L. Pennsylvania Amphibians and Reptiles. Harrisburg: PFBC, 1995.
Small Anthered Bittercress, www.naturcserve.oru
-------
Swamp Pink, 3/12/2003, l-iUp://endangeied.rws.gov/i/q/saq54.html
Swamp Pink, 3/10/2003, www.naturescrve.ortz
USFWS, Cabby's Drop wort, 3/12/2003. http://endaimered.fws. uov/i/q/saq3a. html
USFWS, Cabby's Dropwort in North Carolina, http://nc-es/fws.gov/plant/canbvdrop.html
USFWS, Small Anthered Bittercress Recovery Plan, July 10, 1991.
USFWS, 50CFR Part 17 RIN 1018-AD05, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants;
Proposed Rule to List the Northern Population of the Bog Turtle as Threatened and the Southern
Population as Threatened Due to Similarity of Appearance , 1997
Virginia Natural Heritage Program Sneezeweed Fact Sheet, 3/11/2003.
http://www.dcr.state.va.us/dnh/helenium.htm
Virginia Natural Heritage Program Swamp Pink Fact Sheet, 3/12/2003
http://www.dcr.state.va.us/dnh/whelon.htm
Virginia Sneezeweed, 3/10/2003. www.naturcserve.oru
Virginia Spirea, 3/11/2003, http://endangered.fvvs.gov/i7Q/saq64.html
Virginia Spirea, www.natureserve.org
7
-------
,0
-------
Appendix J
NPDES Permit Program Overview
Water pollution degrades surface waters making them unsafe for drinking, fishing, swimming,
and other activities. As authorized by the Clean Water Act, the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit program controls water pollution by regulating point
sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States. Point sources are discrete
conveyances such as pipes or man-made ditches. Concentrated animal feeding operations
(CAFOs) are also defined by the CWA as point sources.
The NPDES permit program is delegated to all Region 3 states with the exception of the District
of Columbia. Total NPDES permits issued in Region 3 as of December 2002: 744 majors and
13,389 minors (including facilities covered by General Permits). Major facilities include
publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) discharging at least 1.0 million gallons per day of
wastewater and industrial facilities that meet a certain ranking based on several factors including
type of discharge and receiving water.
Considering the number of point source dischargers in Region 3, there would be currently
regulated dischargers that would no longer be regulated under the NPDES program if the
receiving stream no longer is considered a water of the US. In those cases, we would be relying
on State laws, such as Pennsylvania's Clean Streams Law, to regulate those discharges and EPA
would have no enforcement jurisdiction. For our delegated states, State regulations are
established to implement the federal NPDES program requirements. Amendments to these state
regulations would be required in order to permit facilities that are no longer regulated under
NPDES.
Table 1 shows selected current NPDES permits in Pennsylvania that could potentially be
eliminated from the NPDES program if the receiving streams are removed from the definition of
waters of the US. Wastewater from these facilities discharge to streams having a low flow of
less than 1.0 cfs. NPDES permits are written to provide water quality protection during low
stream flow conditions. These facilities were chosen as examples because Pennsylvania applies
the designated use of water supply to all surface waters and NPDES permits developed by
Pennsylvania take into consideration potential drinking water use. As shown in Table 1, the
NPDES permit for Lansdale limits the amount of Nitrite/Nitrate, a major concern for drinking
water supply. The receiving stream of this discharge is within a 303(d) listed watershed.
Eliminating this discharge from permit obligations could result in not meeting the stream's
designated use of water supply and could affect the waste load allocations (WLAs) that a TMDL
would establish for this impaired watershed.
Program Emphasis
The NPDES permitting program has recently been placing emphasis on CAFOs. combined'sewer
overflows (CSOs), sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs), and storm water. New programs/rules such
as the CAFO rule, signed on December 15. 2002. could be affected by a change in the definition
-------
of waters of the US. For example, the requirement of a regulated facility to have a 100 ft setback
from a surface water body for land application of manure would not apply to those farms located
near ditches, intermittent streams, etc. if these waters are removed from the definition. A major
concern of land applying manure is the potential release of excess nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus) that could run off the land and impact surface waters. Table 1 also shows a
potentially affected CAFO NPDES permit. Note that this CAFO is also located in a 303(d) listed
watershed.
Permit holders, regulatory authorities and communities are actively using a watershed approach
to develop innovative and flexible methods to improve environmental quality. Protection of
headwaters / 1st order streams is a concern for many watershed organizations and in the
development of TMDLs. The NPDES program is a key element of a TMDL by implementing in
NPDES permits the WLAs of TMDLs. How do you assign WLAs to facilities discharging to
streams that are not waters of the US?
-------
TABLE 1 - Sample of Current NPDES Permits on Small Streams
NPDES
Permit No.
Facility Name
Discharge
Flow (cfs)
Receiving Water
Streamflow
Qt-IO (Cfs)
Examples of Current
Permit Limitations
(Ave Monthly)
PA0045021
PreFinish Metals
0.05
Unnamed Tributary to
Biles Creek
0.07
Total Dissolved Solids
698 lbs/day
Cyanide, Total
0.076 lbs/day
PA0080I95
Supply Sales
(Cirinncll Corp)
0.23
Unnamed Tributary to
Shawnee Run
0.13
Total Suspended Solids
31 mg/l
Total Cadmium
0.004 mg/l
PA0026182
Boro of l.ansdale
6.96
Unnamed Tributary to
West Branch
Neshaminy Creek
(WB Neshaminy Creek
listed on PA's 1998
303d list due to
Nutrients from
Municipal Point
Sources)
0.11
NO,-N / NOj-N
356 lbs/day
Total Suspended Solids
1,126 lbs/day
-------
TABLE 1 - Sample of Current NPDES Permits on Small Streams
PA0088285
Kreider Dairy Farm
(CAFO)
CAFOs
receive a no
discharge
permit
Unnamed Tributary to
Chickies Creek
(Chickies Creek
watershed listed on
PA's 1998 303d list due
to Agriculture)
0.41
Maintain proper
freeboard in manure
storage impoundment
100ft setback from
stream for land
application of manure
-------
-------
Appendix K
Analysis of State Programs
According to the Association of State Wetland Managers, two thirds of the United States
currently lack regulatory programs that comprehensively address wetlands and isolated wetlands
in particular. The Middle Atlantic States (EPA Region III) paint a similar picture. Currently
three states out of five in Region III have some type of wetlands protection program that provides
regulation for isolated, non-tidal wetlands. Those states are Pennsylvania, Maryland and
Virginia. Both Delaware and West Virginia lack comprehensive wetland programs. Delaware
and West Virginia would not be able to provide any sort of state regulation should the scope of
federal jurisdiction for section 404 of the CWA program be revised to exclude isolated wetlands
and wetlands adjacent to non-navigable streams. Virginia may not be able to provide state
regulation of certain waters, as the geographic jurisdiction of its program has been held by one
court to be coextensive with federal jurisdiction. United States v. Newdunn, 195 F. Supp. 2d
751, 768-69 (E.D.Va. 2002).
Furthermore, the federal wetland program has provided an important complement to state
programs, often sharing the burden of assessment, permitting and enforcement. The result of
narrowing the CWA definition of "waters of the United States" will shift more of the economic
burden for regulating wetlands and headwater streams to states and local governments. No
Region III state has been authorized, pursuant to Section 33 U.S.C. 1344(g), to assume the
Section 404 program.
The effect of narrowing the jurisdictional scope of waters of the United States will also impact
the areas and activities subject to Clean Water Act Section 401 programs which require State
approval for federally permitted activities. These changes will also limit the areas and activities
addressed by State Programmatic General Permits. These changes will be felt most acutely in
Delaware and West Virginia which rely on their 401 certification program to ensure that water
quality standards are met for wetlands. Moreover, reliance on the 401 water quality program to
protect wetland resources is further complicated by the fact that most of the states in Region III
do not have specific water quality standards for wetlands. Additional state programs could be
required to "recapture" isolated waters and wetland areas in Delaware and West Virginia.
The following tables identify states in Region III and the programs available within each state to
regulate wetlands and other waters of those states.
-------
ANPRM Issues
Delaware
Provide protection for waters affected by
SWANCC
No, state program protects tidal
wetlands only.(Tidal Wetlands Act).
If so, what is the state mechanism
N/A
Wetlands specifically defined as waters of the state
Yes
Definition
See #1 below
Unique WQS for wetlands
No
Other laws or authorities to control point source
discharges
Delaware's Subaqueous Lands Act(7
Del. C. Chapter 72), see #2
Delaware's Environmental Protection
Act(7 Del. C. Chapter 60), see # 3
Clause in any laws that limits state ability to have
stricter regulation that the federal laws or
regulations
No
1. Definition of state waters, Delaware - All surface waters of the State including but not limited to:(a) Waters which
are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, including but not limited to estuaries, bays, and the Atlantic Ocean; (b)
All interstate waters, including interstate wetlands; (c) All other waters of the State, such as lakes, rivers, streams
(including intermittent and ephemeral streams), drainage ditches, tax ditches, creeks, mudflats, sandflats, wetlands,
sloughs, or natural or impounded ponds; (d) All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the State
under this definition; (e) Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands) identified in
(a)-(d); (2) Waste and stormwater treatment systems, including but not limited to treatment ponds or lagoons
designed to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act (other than cooling ponds which otherwise meet the
requirements of subsection (1) of this definition) are not waters of the State.
2. Delaware's Subaqueous Lands Act(7 Del. C. Chapter 72) covers submerged lands which are defined as, "lands
lying below the plane of the ordinary high water mark of non-tidal rivers, streams lakes, ponds, bays and inlets
within the boundaries of the State as established by law". These waterways do not have to be "navigable". DE does
not regulate ephemeral streams.
3. Delaware's Environmental Protection Act(7 Del. C. Chapter 60) requires a permit for an activity that, "may cause
or contribute to discharge of a pollutant into any surface or groundwater." A "pollutant" is defined as, "dredged
spoil, solid waste, incinerator residue, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, chemical wastes, biological
materials, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt, hydrocarbons, oil and product chemicals,
and industrial, municipal and agricultural wastes discharged into water."
Pending Regulations under this statute would add "fill material" to this definition. A state discharge permit would be
needed for those waters that would fall out of 402 requirements as a result of new rulemaking.
-------
ANPRM Issues
Virginia
Provide protection for waters affected by
SWANCC
Yes
If so, what is the state mechanism
VA Water Protection Permit see #1
Wetlands specifically defined as waters of the state
Yes
Definition
"All water, on the surface and under the
ground, wholly or partially within or
bordering the Commonwealth or within
its jurisdiction, including wetlands"
Unique WQS for wetlands
No
Other laws or authorities to control point source
discharges
Virginia State Water Control Law Title
62.1 Chapter 3.1 of the Code of
Virginia, see #2
Clause in any laws that limits state ability to have
stricter regulation that the federal laws or
regulations
General Assembly has to approve, see
#3
1. Since 1992, the Virginia Water Protection Permit Program has served as the Commonwealth's Section 401
Certification process for both tidal and nontidal impacts permitted under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. In
2000, the General Assembly removed the dependence of the State nontidal wetlands program on the issuance of a
Federal permit, thus enabling DEQ to use the Virginia Water Protection Permit Program to regulate activities in
wetlands. Such activities as certain types of excavation in wetlands and fill in isolated wetlands (which may not be
under Federal jurisdiction) were added to the activities already regulated through the Section 401 Certification
process. DEQ can provide Section 401 Certification through issuing a Virginia Water Protection individual or
general permit or by certifying U.S. Army Corps of Engineers nationwide or regional permits. Some U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers permit Certifications contain conditions which must be met in order for the Certification to
apply. Some U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permits are not §401-Certified at all, and thus, impacts under these U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers permits will also require a Virginia Water Protection permit to ensure State natural
resources are protected.
2. Virginia State Water Control Law Title 62.1 Chapter 3.1 of the Code of Virginia provides that the
Commonwealth shall prohibit waste discharges or other quality alterations of state waters except as authorized by
permit (see Section 62.1-44.5 of the Code of Virginia) It is also part of the powers and duties of the State Water
Control Board to set water quality standards, issue VWP, VPDES and VPA permits
3. Under Section 62.1 -44.15 of the Code of Virginia, Power and Duties of the Board, it says "To adopt such
regulations as it deems necessary to enforce the general water quality management program of the Board in all or
part of the Commonwealth, except that a description of provisions of any proposed regulation which are more
restrictive than applicable federal requirements, together with the reason why the more restrictive provisions are
needed, shall be provided to the standing committee of each house of the General Assembly to which matters
relating to the content of the regulation are most properly referable."
-------
ANPRM Issues
Pennsylvania
Provide protection for waters affected by
SWANCC
Yes
If so, what is the state mechanism
Dam Safety and Encroachments Act of
1978, see# 1
Wetlands specifically defined as waters of the state
Yes. Chapter 93.1 and Chapter 105.1
Definition
Rivers, streams, creeks, rivulets,
impoundments, ditches, watercourses,
storm sewers, lakes, dammed water,
wetlands, ponds, springs and other
bodies or channels of conveyance of
surface and underground water, or parts
thereof, whether natural or artificial,
within or on the boundaries of this
Commonwealth, see #2.
Unique WQS for wetlands
Yes. Narrative criteria and designated
uses are found at 105.1 and 105.17
respectively.
Other laws or authorities to control point source
discharges
Clean Streams Law, see #3.
302 of the Flood Plain Management Act
Clause in any laws that limits state ability to have
stricter regulation that the federal laws or
regulations
No
1 .Regulations promulgated under the Act are found at Title 25 Chapter 105 and are entitled Dam Safety
and Waterway Management last amended 10/26/91. Water obstructions and encroachments into
wetlands and watercourses require a permit. The evaluation of permit applications includes the review of
an environmental assessment that details the quality and quantity of wetlands and streams impacted and
of the wetlands and streams located around the impact area. A permit review also includes analysis of
mitigation and an aquatic resource compensation plan.
2. Also includes surface waters—Perennial and intermittent streams, rivers, lakes, reservoirs, ponds,
wetlands, springs, natural seeps and estuaries, excluding water at facilities approved for wastewater
treatment such as wastewater treatment impoundments, cooling water ponds and constructed wetlands
used as part of a wastewater treatment process.
3. Clean Streams Law § 691- The discharge of sewage or industrial waste or any substance into the
waters of this Commonwealth, which causes or contributes to pollution as herein defined or creates a
danger of such pollution is hereby declared not to be a reasonable or natural use of such waters, to be
against public policy and to be a public nuisance.
-------
ANPRM Issues
West Virginia
Provide protection for waters affected by
SWANCC
Only CWA Section 401
If so, what is the state mechanism
Water Resources [West Virginia code
(22-11-3)]
Wetlands specifically defined as waters of the state
Unclear (see #1)
Definition
See# 1
Unique WQS for wetlands
No
Other laws or authorities to control point source
discharges
State Water Pollution Control Act
(22-11), Groundwater Protection Act
(22-12), State Water Quality Standards
(46csrl) and Rules For Individual State
Certification of Activities Requiring a
Federal Permit (47csr5A) - CWA 401
Clause in any laws that limits state ability to have
stricter regulation that the federal laws or
regulations
Water Quality programs appear to be
tied to the federal CWA. (See # 2)
1. §47-5A-l - Defines Aquatic resources include but are not limited to wildlife, fish, recreational
uses, critical habitats, wetlands, and other natural resources under the Secretary's jurisdiction.
2. 46csrl - These rules establish requirements governing the discharge or deposit of sewage,
industrial wastes and other wastes into the waters of the state and establish water quality
standards for the waters of the State standing or flowing over the surface of the State. These
rules establish general Water Use Categories and Water Quality Standards for the waters of the
State. Unless otherwise designated by these rules, at a minimum all waters of the State are
designated for the Propagation and Maintenance of Fish and Other Aquatic Life (Category B)
and for Water Contact Recreation (Category C) consistent with Federal Act goals.
-------
ANPRM Issues
Maryland
Provide protection for waters affected by
SWANCC
Yes
If so, what is the state mechanism
i
Nontidal Wetlands and Waterways
Permits.(See #1)
Wetlands specifically defined as waters of the state
Yes
Definition
See # 2
Unique WQS for wetlands
No
Other laws or authorities to control point source
discharges
See #3
Clause in any laws that limits state ability to have
stricter regulation that the federal laws or
regulations
Unless there is another state law that
regulates discharges, it appears that the
state law is tied to the federal NPDES
Program..
1. COMAR 26.23. - A permit is required for any activity that alters a nontidal wetland or its
25-foot buffer.
2. Waters of this State" includes: Both surface and underground waters within the boundaries of
this State subject to its jurisdiction, including that part of the Atlantic Ocean within the
boundaries of this State, the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries, and all ponds, lake, rivers,
streams, tidal and nontidal wetlands, public ditches, tax ditches, and public drainage systems
within this State, other those designed and used to collect, convey, or dispose of sanitary sewage.
3. COMAR 26.08.01 through 26.08.04 and COMAR 26.08.08 - The surface water discharge
permit is a combined state and federal permit under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES). This permit is issued for discharge to State surface waters. The permit is
designed to meet federal effluent guidelines when applicable and also ensure the discharge
satisfies State water quality standards.
------- |