ptW&
# trm
\ SB/
% 1 S?
%£ pR01^
>
ri^is
W ¦ --'
r-\± ~'**£L
j it" ^
,: ~ 75-.
* / Tl^v
Report of the
Regoonal Science
Workshop
on Headwaters
and Associated
Wetlands on the
Mod-Atlantic
Highlands Regaons
June 20-21, 2006
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
REGION
DEVELOPMENT
-------
Report of the
Regional Science Workshop on
Headwaters and Associated Wetlands in
the Mid-Atlantic Highlands Regions
June 20-21, 2006
Philadelphia, PA
-------
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 1
Workshop Report 2
Introduction 2
Overview Presentations 3
Panel Presentations 4
Regulatory and Non-Regulatory Challenges and Approaches for the Protection and
Restoration of Headwater Streams and Isolated Wetlands 4
Headwaters and Isolated Wetlands at Risk: A Science Perspective 5
EPA Management Perspectives 7
A Review of the State-of-the-Science 7
ORD Research on Headwater Streams and Isolated Wetlands:
A Framework and Overview 9
Breakout Sessions 9
Breakout Session I: Response to Scientific Issues Raised in Supreme Court Decision 10
Breakout Session II: Crafting a Broader Message on the Value of Headwater Streams
and Isolated Wetlands for the Public, Land Use Decisionmakers, Developers,
Planners, and Others 12
References 14
Beneficial Outcomes of the Workshop 15
Appendices 17
Agenda 19
Poster Titles 23
Participants List 24
Meeting Evaluation Summary 30
-------
Executive Summary
Headwater streams and isolated wetlands are valuable resources. They function to support a wide range
of ecosystem services in watersheds, such as nutrient control, flood conveyance and water purification.
They also supply important habitat for fish and wildlife resources. The significance of headwater
streams and isolated wetlands, however, often is not recognized and appreciated by the general
population, planners and others responsible for land and water development..
A wide range of activities has been undertaken by the U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
better identify, protect and restore headwater streams and isolated wetlands. Amidst that work, research
has been initiated to help build the scientific tools needed to support these activities.
The "Regional Science Workshop on Headwaters and Associated Wetlands in the Mid-Atlantic
Highlands Regions" was conducted on June 20-21, 2006, at the EPA Region 3 office. The gathering
brought together scientists from EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD), technical staff
from EPA Regions 3 and 4 and their partnering state agencies. The shared goal for the workshop was
to describe the state-of-the-science on headwater streams and isolated wetlands. They also worked to
explore opportunities to fill science gaps in a way that will support the educational, policy and
regulatory activities needed to protect these resources.
The original intent of the workshop was to cover a broad range of activities that impact headwater
streams and isolated wetlands, including urban development, forestry, agricultural practices and mining
issues. The scope of the workshop was narrowed by the workshop planning team because of the
regions' special interest on the highly visible topic of mountaintop mining/valley fill (MTM/VF).
Planning for a parallel western workshop series has been initiated. The scope of those workshops will
be broadened to cover the wide range of stressors and provide more coverage of the isolated wetlands
issues. The workshop series is tentatively planned to begin in the fall of 2007.
The workshop attendance intentionally was limited to a relatively small number (approximately 70) of
people to maximize the opportunity for interaction and small group discussion. The agenda supported
the ORD research planning process and associated efforts to identify science needs. The workshop was
designed to maximize opportunity for sharing ideas and approaches and to address these needs. ORD
used the workshop as a vehicle to explore the direction of a recently developed research framework for
headwater streams and isolated wetlands. It is anticipated that subsequent research planning will be
based on the workshop discussion of the framework.
OSP Regional Science Workshop on Headwaters and Associated Wetlands in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands Regions Report 1
-------
Workshop Report
Tuesday, June 20, 2006: Overview of Ecosystems as Risk
Introduction
On June 19, 2006, the day before the workshop began, the Supreme Court issued a ruling on two
federal Clean Water Act (CWA) cases (Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, collectively referred to as "Rapanos") centered on defining "waters of the United States".
The decision voided previous lower court rulings against Keith Carabell and John Rapanos. Carabell
had proposed filling in wetlands on family property near a lake in Michigan to enable the development
of condominiums about 1 mile from the lake. Rapanos planned to build a shopping mall on his
property, which is approximately 20 miles from the lake. Rapanos previously had been found guilty of
filling and draining 54 acres of wetlands at three sites, without appropriate state or federal permit,
whereas Carabell's permit to clear and drain approximately 16 acres of forested wetland had been
denied.
The Supreme Court ruled that regulators had exceeded the limits of the federal CWA, when they denied
the two Michigan property owners the right to fill, drain, and build on the wetlands. The 4-1-4 plurality
decision was based on the debate regarding the degree to which federal and state governments can
extend jurisdiction over wetlands, especially if they are miles away from a waterway. Four justices led
by Scalia rejected all or some of the government's arguments, whereas four Justices led by Stevens
would have accepted those arguments. Essentially, the Scalia group argued (based on a 1954 dictionary
definition) that rivers, lakes, oceans, and streams and the tributaries to such bodies of water only are
covered by the law if there is a continuous surface connection and/or flow of water to connect to a
navigable waterway (National Public Radio, 2006; Murphy, 2006). Justice Kennedy cast the deciding
vote, stating that the CWA was promulgated to restore and maintain the integrity of the nation's waters,
which could not be achieved under Justice Scalia's terms.
Although Kennedy sided with the Scalia group and ordered a remand to the lower courts for further
adjudication, he agreed with the Stevens group for the most part concerning the role that many
nontraditional waters (i.e., not navigable in the classic sense) have "to restore and maintain the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nations waters. Such a demonstration of a
significant nexus would be sufficient, in his opinion, to exert a federal interest and jurisdictional reach
(Thomas, 2006). In retrospect, the operative term from the controlling Kennedy perspective is
significant nexus on a demonstrated case-by-case basis or by the demonstration of such a relationship
within a class of waters (Note: cumulative relationships conceivably can apply) (Murphy, 2006).
The controversial Supreme Court decision was disappointing for a large number of the workshop
attendees from a number of perspectives. The opening talks of the workshop already had planned to
discuss the pending court decision, but the announcement the previous morning led to a greater
emphasis on the need to further develop the science on significant nexus and flow permanence/
connection criteria between headwater streams/isolated wetlands and navigable waters, as needed to
protect and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of waters of the United States. The
discussions highlighted the need for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to be more specific in
presenting the value of these resources to a functioning ecosystem and better define the hydrologic
connectivity and significance of these wetlands in the function of navigable waters. The challenge to
the group was to use the workshop to identify the science needed to address these issues.
2 OSP Regional Science Workshop on Headwaters and Associated Wetlands in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands Regions Report
-------
Overview Presentations
A presentation on hydrologic issues by Mr. Hugh Bevans, a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) scientist,
opened the workshop with a definition of ephemeral versus intermittent versus perennial streams.
Ephemeral streams are supplied solely by rain, intermittent streams have at least a temporary
groundwater connection, and perennial streams possess a permanent connection with subsurface water.
Evidence was presented to support the contention that intermittent and ephemeral headwater streams
largely are responsible for maintaining water quality and quantity in larger systems, especially with
regard to sediment and nutrient control.
The next presentation by Dr. Scott
Liebowitz of EPA focused on landscape
connectivity of isolated wetlands. The
presentation highlighted several relevant
regulations, such as the CWA, the
Migratory Bird Rule, and the Supreme
Court Solid Waste Agency of Northern
Cook County (SWANCC) ruling, which
discusses the significance of a
'"connection" and a "significant nexus" to
navigable waters in the interpretation of
relevant authorities in protecting these
resources. Isolated wetlands were
defined, and the need to consider
"isolation" not as a discrete, generic
property but rather as a spatial and
temporal continuum was emphasized.
Connectivity (hydrological and biological) and the dependence of community function on the landscape
were presented as key factors in understanding these wetlands.
Mr. David Rider of EPA addressed MTM/VF, the focus of the workshop. The Surface Mining and
Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) was intended to balance the energy needs of the nation with
the goals of protecting our national resources. SMCRA supports surface coal mining and mountaintop
mining, which is defined as mining coal from the surface of mountaintops, ridges, and other steep
slopes (by definition, those of 20 degrees or more) and involving a range of mining methods (e.g.,
contour, area, and auger). Typically the methods involve placing excess rock and soil or "overburden"
in the valleys adjacent to the mine and result in well-documented losses of headwater streams and
associated habitat.
Courtesy of Scott Leibowitz
The MTIVl/VF in Appalachia Final
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
2005) demonstrated that greater than 1,200
miles of headwater streams had been impacted
directly by MTM/VF in the Appalachian study
area. In addition to the direct habitat
destruction in the valley fill areas, significant
elevations in selenium, total suspended solids,
and connectivity were observed downstream,
also posing a threat to aquatic biota. Key
concerns that arose from the EIS include:
Courtesy of David Rider
OSP Regional Science Workshop on Headwaters and Associated Wetlands in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands Regions Report 3
-------
-<>- The need to determine the ecosystem value of the lost headwater streams.
-<>- The development of protocols for compensatory mitigation, the impacts of forest fragmentation,
and social and environmental heritage loss.
¦v* The cumulative impacts of MTM/VF mining practices.
Panel Presentations
Regulatory and Non-Regulatory Challenges and Approaches for the Protection and Restoration of
Headwater Streams and Isolated Wetlands
Three federal agencies (the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Office of Surface Mining, and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service) and three state agencies (the Kentucky Department of Environmental
Protection, the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, and the West
Virginia Department of Environmental Protection) identified key technical needs, including:
-<>- Methods to assess the function of headwater streams and isolated wetlands.
-<>- Methods to assess the success of headwater stream compensatory mitigation projects (qualitative
and quantitative). For example, do hollow fill surface and side groin drainage ditches reestablish
functioning systems onsite and downstream of MTM/VF activities?
-0- Assess the full extent of impacts of valley fills downstream.
-<>- Long-term mitigation monitoring, because the typical 5-year assessments only capture physical
habitat and structural restoration components without a complete evaluation to determine if
functional recovery has occurred.
-<>- Assess impacts on riparian buffer zones and broader wildlife habitat and usage.
-0- Thresholds (acute and chronic) for total dissolved solids/specific conductance and tools to predict
when impacts will lead to threshold exceedances.
-0- Assessment of impacts across the landscape and watershed. Which has less impact, numerous
small valley fills or fewer large fills? Baseline pre- and postconstruction data are needed.
-<>- Classification and rating of impacts to determine which ones would have the greatest environmental
and socioeconomic impact to assist environmental managers in balancing the need for coal versus
loss of valuable resources.
-<>- Improved maps to identify the extent and permanence of headwater streams and isolated wetlands.
-<>- Validate assumptions regarding watershed sizes supporting ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial
streams.
-<>- Surrogate indicators of headwater stream and isolated wetland functions being lost to enable
monitoring for restoration of function.
4 OSP Regional Science Workshop on Headwaters and Associated Wetlands in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands Regions Report
-------
Headwaters and Isolated Wetlands at Risk: A Science Perspective
Presentations were provided on some of the specific science issues associated with headwater streams
and valley fill mining practices in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands. Mr. Gregory Pond of EPA presented an
extensive set of photographs to demonstrate how stream hydrology often is restored without the return
of a functioning riparian buffer. Cases were presented where companies were willing to accept water
quality penalties rather than remediate a stressor such as excessive sedimentation. Biotic assessment
methods used to document and score the impairment caused by valley fills included: West Virginia's
Stream Quality Index, Kentucky's Macroinvertebrate Bioassessment Index, and the River Invertebrate
Prediction and Classification-Type O/E (observed:expected ratio) Predictive Model. The following
conclusions were presented:
<>- Surface mining with headwater fills routinely causes impairment to downstream aquatic life.
<> Although radically altered invertebrate taxonomic composition is important, more work needs to be
done on evaluating functional losses.
<> Elevated conductivity is the strongest correlate to biometrics, especially in mayflies.
-0- The wholesale loss of mayflies from headwater streams is a major concern and determination of the
mechanism should be a priority.
Organism condition below valley fills
IHydrcipsyclud c:irldUlIy (Hydroxy che
seated in irtMi arid manganese
|irecipjlJintK.
Fs deposils J|
on inlegufcent
- Mn deposfls
ort gilts
_ -v tiflj
IPliiUijmlainul euddisJlv (Chzmarfvi
I ifbv cur a) with liin^LliacIcriiil mfcillalioii. I
Courtesy of Gregory Pond
Cumulative impact assessment was the topic of the next presentation by Dr. Denis Newbold of the
Stroud Environmental Resource Center, with a focus on the impact of first and second order stream loss
on production, downstream transport, and utilization of biodegradable dissolved organic carbon. A key
factor is the distance dissolved carbon travels from first entry into a system to where it is actually
metabolized, based on the rate of input and uptake/utilization at different points in the system. A
modeling effort from the Twenty-Mile Creek Watershed in West Virginia was used to illustrate that
carbon formed in first and second order streams may play a role in carbon utilization in the larger
stream segments.
OSP Regional Science Workshop on Headwaters and Associated Wetlands in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands Regions Report 5
-------
Legend
WV STARsheds
Cluster Names
Canyon Lands
High Wet Mountains
Clay Hills Plateau
Floodplains
Fertile Plains
Moderate Mountains
Steep Dry Mountains
Courtesy of Bronson Griscom
Factors that might impact the
success of stream restoration were
described by Dr. Art Parola of the
University of Louisville based on
experiences in Eastern Kentucky. Examples were provided that demonstrate how the final construction
geometry of hollow fills can change substantially from the initial permitted design. Factors that must
be considered in stream restoration include:
The next presentation by Dr.
Bronson Griscom of the Canaan
Valley Institute focused on the
importance of assessing the
vulnerability of headwaters in Mid-
Atlantic Highland watersheds
during the mine permitting process.
Vulnerability can be determined
based on ecological resistance, the
likelihood of human impacts, and
the occurrence of rare species.
-<>- Fill often is composed of porous material impacting groundwater and surface water interaction.
-0- Nearby hillslope processes, such as landslides, can contribute to slope failure, debris in channels,
and displacement from the original planned locations.
-<>- Variations in fill settlement can result in unpredictable modifications in channel slope in locations
other than along fill sides.
-<>- Downstream channel instability may propagate into fill channels or restored pond reaches,
impacting the success of restoration.
The final presentation of this session by Dr. J. Todd Petty of West Virginia University discussed
headwater stream restoration in mined watersheds of the Mid-Atlantic Highlands in West Virginia.
Entire watersheds already have been lost as a result of acid mine drainage, and now additional
environmental insult is occurring through MTM/VF practices. A watershed-scale approach needs to be
taken that integrates restoration decisions and new mining effort permitting decisions. The following
key questions were proposed:
-v- Are there watershed-scale consequences that emerge from extensive mining-related impacts (i.e.,
"neighborhood" effects), including downstream eutrophication as a result of reduced nutrient
uptake capacity in mine-impacted headwater streams?
-0- Is there a decrease in fish diversity as a result of dependence on watershed-scale connectivity of
stream reaches?
-<>- To what extent can restoration be used to recover reach and watershed-scale conditions?
-<>- What modeling, assessment, and administrative frameworks are needed to manage for watershed-
scale conditions (i.e., a "neighborhood planning" approach)?
6 OSP Regional Science Workshop on Headwaters and Associated Wetlands in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands Regions Report
-------
EPA Management Perspectives
EPA Region 3's Director of the Environmental Assessment and Innovation Division, Randy Pomponio,
and the Director of the Water Management Division, Jon Capacasa, discussed Region 3's involvement
with the MTM/VF issue and the development of the environmental impact statement. They restated the
challenge discussed in the opening session of workshop, urging participants to help develop the
response to the technical issues raised in the recent Supreme Court decision. The need to identify the
location of these resources, the key functions they perform, and their contributions to the overall health
of watersheds was emphasized.
The status of headwater streams and isolated wetlands was compared to that of tidal wetlands 30 years
ago, when the value of these resources was unrecognized by many decisionmakers and the public, and a
story had to be crafted to support the range of efforts undertaken to preserve and restore these
resources, especially with the current demands for energy needs and other national priorities. The
speakers emphasized the need for a variety of resources (e.g., funding for the development of better
assessment tools, databases to track locations and loss of headwaters and isolated wetlands, and
personnel to address the issues associated with protecting these resources). Antidegradation rules were
identified as a regulatory tool that should be considered in the decisionmaking process.
Wednesday, June 21, 2006: Meeting Policy and Program Needs with Science
Panel Presentations
A Review of the State-of-the-Science
Dr. Mark Rains of the University of South Florida described an American Water Resources Association
(AWRA) Special Session on Headwater Streams conducted at the 41st Annual AWRA Conference,
which was held November 2005 in Seattle, Washington. A workgroup was tasked with addressing the
following "Guiding Questions":
-<>- To what degree are headwater streams and downstream waters hydrologically connected?
-<>- What roles do headwater streams play in maintaining the physical, chemical, and biological
integrity of downstream waters and the larger stream networks?
-<>- Over what spatial and temporal scales are processes relevant?
-<>- What are some of the possible consequences of eliminating or otherwise impacting headwater
stream resources?
The responses of the workgroup will be published in a special collection in the Journal of the American
Water Resources Association, expected to be released in February 2007.
Mr. Leibowitz's presentation focused on the "Special Edition on Isolated Wetlands" published by the
Society of Wetlands Scientists (Wetlands Volume 3, Issue 3, published September 2003). The issue
was one component of the post-SWANCC Supreme Court debate and associated regulatory
uncertainties that highlighted the need for a review of the state-of-the-science and our scientific
understanding of the function of isolated wetlands and their importance in watershed and ecosystem
processes. The special edition covered legal issues, functions of isolated wetlands, hydrologic
considerations, and descriptions of the varied isolated wetlands in the United States.
OSP Regional Science Workshop on Headwaters and Associated Wetlands in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands Regions Report 7
-------
These presentations were followed by an open discussion on "Identification of Priority Science Issues
Associated with Headwater Streams in the Highlands Region." Table 1 summarizes the discussion.
Table 1. Research, Technical, and Science Policy Needs
1. Engage diverse stakeholders of multiple disciplines in telling stories.
2. Determine if meaningful compensation is achieved from headwater stream restoration projects.
3. Determine the extent of aquatic values for ephemeral and intermittent streams.
4. Devise methods to link losses of headwater streams and isolated wetlands to declines in
amphibians, invertebrates, and other biota.
5. Determine the cumulative hydrologic impacts to headwater streams in response to human
activities.
6. Estimate the total water storage capacity for headwater streams.
7. Determine the amount of headwater stream loss that can be tolerated before water quality
impairment to a watershed is irreversible.
8. Develop improved models to predict downstream peak flow that results in significant degradation to
water quality and broader ecosystem impacts.
9. Determine the definition of specific mechanisms that result in significant biological impairment
downstream from MTM/VF projects.
10. Quantify the amounts of atmospheric deposition to headwaters and isolated wetlands and the
potential impact on downstream water quality.
11. Improve understanding of land use practices and their impacts on headwater streams and isolated
wetlands in terms of impairment and reduced aquatic/ecosystem functions.
12. Obtain guidance on best management practices to reduce impacts and functional losses as a
result of till practices associated with MTM/VF activities.
13. Assess the economic values of highly functioning headwater streams and isolated wetlands with a
functioning ecosystem.
14. Develop "compelling stories" of "defensible" values associated with headwater streams and
isolated wetlands.
15. Compose a clear, scientifically defensible response to the technical issues raised in the Supreme
Court Rapanos Decision of June 19, 2006.
16. Facilitate improved data sharing among federal, state, and other partners to support improved tools
(e.g., GIS) required to assess and protect the resources impacted by MTM/VF practices.
17. Develop novel practical tools to rapidly translate headwater stream and isolated wetland impacts to
ecosystem functions and services.
18. Determine the linkages between headwater streams and isolated wetlands in low-relief
environments.
19. Identify the physical and chemical mechanisms that result in high aquatic selenium values and
document the ecosystem impacts of these elevated levels.
20. Determine points of inflection (threshold values) between stressors and specific points of impact.
21. Understand the impacts of total dissolved solids and mitigation practices that could minimize the
adverse impacts.
8 OSP Regional Science Workshop on Headwaters and Associated Wetlands in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands Regions Report
-------
ORD Research on Headwater Streams and Isolated Wetlands: A Framework and Overview
This session provided an opportunity for scientists from EPA's ORD to provide overviews of ongoing
research projects and how these projects fit into the ORD Research Framework that guides the Agency
research program on headwater streams and isolated wetlands (Figure 1).
Figure 1. ORD Framework for Headwater Streams/Isolated Wetlands Research Tasks: A Process for
Developing Science Tools That Will Answer Policy Questions
Breakout Sessions
The Breakout Sessions after the ORD presentations originally were scheduled to focus on the ORD
Framework. Based on the Supreme Court ruling that set the stage for the workshop and its discussion
OSP Regional Science Workshop on Headwaters and Associated Wetlands in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands Regions Report 9
-------
points, however, the organizers of the workshop proposed to the participants that the time be utilized to
form two workgroups, one of which would craft a message in response to the science issues brought
forth in the Rapanos Supreme Court case, and the other would craft a message to the much broader
public audience. The workshop participants agreed.
The workgroups spent approximately 90 minutes discussing an approach for crafting these messages.
Because the workgroups could not complete these statements in the time allotted, the goal was to sketch
out the issues and develop a plan for moving forward. The results of the breakout sessions are
described below.
Breakout Session I: Response to Scientific Issues Raised in Supreme Court Decision
Kennedy "Issues. " For the most part Kennedy agreed with the arguments put forward by the Stevens
group of four Justices but considered his "significant nexus" language to demonstrate a limited
ecological perspective:
1. Two-dimensional thinking (e.g., decision does not appreciate subsurface connections, flow, etc.).
2. "In-the-now" timeframe (i.e., decision does not appreciate time lags).
3. Lack of full appreciation for regional differences (although decision did cite the Los Angeles
Aqueduct and the Gulf of Mexico "Dead Zone").
4. Determination of "Significant Nexus." Decision requires regulators to identify some (as yet
unknown) criteria to identify those... "categories of tributaries... likely in the majority of cases... to
perform important functions for an aquatic system incorporating navigable waters..."
Immediate Mission of EPA Professional Staff
1. Establish a dialogue with regional counsel and share perspectives.
2. Shepherd collective, logically consistent message/interpretation to EPA headquarters and other
regions.
3. Scientists, in reaction to lawyers' interpretation, should develop an outline of "The Story."
4. Reach out to other relevant entities (e.g., USGS, states, etc.).
"The Story "
1. Case studies will reflect regional differences (e.g., arid southwest).
2. In any particular region all systems perform functions, but the rates of performance vary widely.
Perhaps the key functions of major systems should be provided.
3. The story needs to be told with an appreciation for both space and time. Kennedy already
appreciates the relationship of impacts to "waters" to the Gulf Dead Zone. Starting with the Gulf,
Chesapeake Bay, or Delaware Inland Bays, tell the story in space and time about how decisions
made throughout the watershed (at various scales and different time frames and lags) ultimately
result in major interstate commerce ramifications.
10 OSP Regional Science Workshop on Headwaters and Associated Wetlands in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands Regions Report
-------
4. The story must be informative with regard to the pulsed aspect of watershed ecology and the
ramifications of segmenting the watershed, thereby ignoring space and time linkages.
5. The story could include the economic ramifications of eliminating relevant waters from CWA
jurisdiction:
a. For example, sediment released from the unregulated development of certain waters potentially
can result in addition navigational dredging costs to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (e.g.,
Miller and Nudds, 1996).
b. Flooding impacts of improper development of the upper watershed and the uneconomical
subsidies of disaster relief and the National Flood Insurance Program. For example, why are
"100-year floods" occurring on much more frequent intervals? The 2003 flooding of the Upper
Mississippi Valley is a classic example.
6. The story should explain the interdependency of wetlands, streams, and adjacent terrestrial habitat.
a. Herptiles (reptiles, amphibians).
b. Interdependency of many species on different ecosystems for different aspects of their life
cycle (waterfowl, American eel, anadromous fish, other game fish, commercially important
species, and threatened and endangered species). Discuss Leibigs' Law of the Minimum
(Odum, 1971) and explain its relevance to the regulation of headwater streams and isolated
wetlands.
c. Classic large-scale case studies:
(1) The whole continental waterfowl story:
(a) Winter in Central America, southern United States.
(b) Migratory stepping stones required for northern migration.
(c) "Short-stopping" at suitable breeding habitat along the way northward. Waterfowl
pairs "test" site suitability as they move northward.
(d) Inter- and intraspecific competition results in the dispersal of breeding pairs into
seasonal and ephemeral wetland complexes.
(e) Explain the significant fact that much waterfowl nesting and breeding occurs in
adjacent uplands and not directly in the wetlandswide dispersal aids in predator
avoidance.
(f) As ponds and shallow wetlands dry up, growing duckling broods migrate to (and
converge on) larger wetlands.
(g) Molting flightless stage performed in deep wetlands/ponds for loafing and escape
cover prior to migration.
(h) All waterfowl (especially the young-of-the-year) maximize feeding on invertebrates
and other protein-rich food sources to build up reserves for the flight south.
OSP Regional Science Workshop on Headwaters and Associated Wetlands in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands Regions Report 11
-------
(i) The southern flyway migration requires a series of stopover wetlands for rest. To
avoid epidemics of avian cholera and other diseases, the wetlands have to be
dispersed widely.
(j) And then the cycle begins again....
(2) Dependency of Mississippi Valley fisheries on pulsed flooding in the upper bottomland
hardwood (BLH) zones.
(a) In years when inner (upper) BLH zones are flooded, spawning fish utilize the
extended habitat and food resources accumulated over a number of years to produce
the "bumper crops" that offset the lean years during drought when fishery stocks are
more depleted.
(b) Major episodic transfer of energy from the terrestrial/riparian ecosystem to support
the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem (especially fisheries).
The Immediate Region III Mission
1. Evidently the approaches of the regional report for the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking
were not persuasive (nor were the amicus briefs).
2. Given that set of circumstances, regional staff should focus on whole-watershed (i.e., "top to
bottom") arguments based on hard data.
3. Candidate watersheds with hard data in Region 3 include:
a. Nanticoke River, Delaware and Maryland.
b. Upper Juniata, Pennsylvania.
c. Delaware Inland Bays.
d. MTM/VF watersheds linked to the Ohio, Potomac, James, or Roanoke River drainages.
Breakout Session II: Crafting a Broader Message on the Value of Headwater Streams and Isolated
Wetlands for the Public. Land Use Decisionmakers. Developers. Planners, and Others
¦v* Business as usual is not working.
-<>- We need an innovative way to approach MTM/VF mining to address associated impacts and protect
downstream uses.
-<>- Impacts (direct/indirect) to headwater streams should be regulated because these systems are
important.
Describe values of headwater streams.
Local.
Downstream.
12 OSP Regional Science Workshop on Headwaters and Associated Wetlands in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands Regions Report
-------
¦v* MTM/VF mining has impacts.
Describe impacts.
¦ Local.
¦ Downstream.
Regulatory Environment (legal issues).
¦ Identify problems with the current regulatory process and implementation.
¦ Impacts.
¦ Time.
¦ Funding.
-v- Decisionmaking tools within a watershed to minimize impacts.
-0- Avoid-Minimize-Compensate within a watershed: HOW THIS CAN BE A WIN-WIN.
Information Sources
Impact/Values
Special collection (AWRA).
EIS.
303(d) listings.
Mining data: baseline, age, design, geology as built.
Go through storyline and come back to initial statement.
Regional Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program.
Audience and Message
WHO IS THE AUDIENCE?
WHAT IS THE MESSAGE?
WHO
General Public
Regulators
Policymakers
Politicians
Mine Companies
DS Landowners
Watershed Groups
WHAT
Why business as usual is not good enough (MTM/VF
sustainability).
Ephemeral and intermittent streams are too valuable to lose.
Specific types/amounts of problems of government
decisionmakers to be addressed.
How do you live with MTM/VF activity?
Identify a compromisewhat to save/sacrifice.
OSP Regional Science Workshop on Headwaters and Associated Wetlands in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands Regions Report 13
-------
References
Miller MW, Nudds TD. Prairie landscape change and flooding in the Mississippi River Valley.
Conservation Biology 1996;10(3):847-853.
Murphy J. Rapanos v. United States: Wading Through Murky Waters. National Wetlands Newsletter
2006;28(5): 1,16-19.
Odum EP. Fundamentals of Ecology. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company, 1971, 574 pp.
Thomas, E. A. Rapanos v. United States: A Call for Partnership. National Wetlands Newsletter
2006;28(5):8-9,15.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 3, October 2005, EPA-9-03-R-05002.
14 OSP Regional Science Workshop on Headwaters and Associated Wetlands in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands Regions Report
-------
Beneficial Outcomes of the Workshop
Two collaborative research activities are in progress as a result of the breakout sessions of the workshop.
One of the sessions focused on developing a science-based response to the recent U.S. Supreme Court
ruling on the Rapanos and Carabell cases. EPA ORD scientists now are preparing a technical manuscript
on this topic, in cooperation with EPA's Office of Water Wetlands Division and other academic partners.
It is tentatively titled, "The Effects of Headwater Streams and Adjacent Wetlands on Navigable Waters:
Information Needs Following the U.S. Supreme Court's Rapanos and Carabell Decisions." The authors
will evaluate the feasibility of using ecologically based classification systems to categorize headwater
streams and adjacent wetlands so as to distinguish between those that meet jurisdictional legal tests and
those that do not.
Discussion in the second session focused on how science can be better used to reconcile the
environmental issues associated with MTM/VF mining in Appalachia. Session participants agreed that a
"science story" needs to be crafted that will help Agency staff and the mining industry envision a path
toward adoption of environmentally sustainable mining practices. EPA ORD and regional staff currently
are working on a draft project prospectus that captures many of the innovative ideas expressed by the
workshop participants. The draft document is entitled, "An Alternative Futures Approach to the
Assessment and Management of Valley Fill Mining." The described goal of the alternative futures
approach is to build a public-private partnership that expands environmental decisionmaking from the
site/project scale to the broader watershed scale. The jump in scale allows government and industry to
view a broader range of conventional and conservation-based management actions for the coal mining
regions. Those alternatives can be evaluated based on an analysis of the comparative vulnerability of
watersheds to impacts and their respective opportunities for natural resource preservation, restoration, and
recovery.
OSP Regional Science Workshop on Headwaters and Associated Wetlands in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands Regions Report 15
-------
Appendices
-------
Regional Science Workshop on Headwaters and Associated Wetlands
in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands Region
EPA Region 3
4th Floor Conference Center, Shenandoah Room
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
June 20-21, 2006
Agenda
June 20, 2006 Overview of Ecosystems as Risk
8:30 a.m. - 9:00 a.m. Welcome Jon Capacasa, Director, Water Management Division, EPA
Region 3
Randy Pomponio, Director, Environmental Assessment and Innovation
Division, EPA Region 3
Logistics Ron Landy, Regional Scientist, EPA Region 3
Facilitator Rich Pepino, EPA Region 3
9:00 a.m. - 9:30 a.m. Hydrogeologic Issues in Mountaintop Mining Regions
Hugh Bevans, Director, U.S. Geological Survey, West Virginia Water
Science Center
9:30 a.m. - 10:00 a.m. Landscape Connectivity of Geographically Isolated Wetlands
Scott Leibowitz, Western Ecology Division-Corvallis, Office of Research and
Development, EPA
10:00 a.m. - 10:20 a.m. Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in AppalachiaAn Overview of EPA
Concerns
Dave Rider, EPA Region 3
10:20 a.m. - 10:40 a.m. Break
10:40 a.m. - 12:00 noon PANEL Regulatory and Non-Regulatory Challenges and Approaches
for the Protection and Restoration of Headwater Streams and Isolated
Wetlands
Panel Chair John Forren, EPA Region 3
(5-minute overviews followed by discussion)
Representative Jennifer Walker, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Representative Jenni Garland, Kentucky Department of Environmental
Protection
Representative John Dorney, North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Representative Russ Hunter, West Virginia Department of Environmental
Protection
Representative Dave Hartos, Office of Surface Mining, U.S. Department
of the Interior
Representative Christy Johnson-Hughes, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
OSP Regional Science Workshop on Headwaters and Associated Wetlands in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands Regions Report 19
-------
12:00 noon - 1:30 p.m. Lunch (on your own)
1:30 p.m. - 3:30 p.m. PANEL Headwaters and Isolated Wetlands at Risk: A Science
Perspective
Panel Chair Stephanie Fulton, Water Management Division, EPA
Region 4
(15-minute presentations and 30 minutes of panel discussion)
Site Impact Assessment of Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fill and Impacts on
Biological Communities in Highlands Region
Greg Pond, EPA Region 3
Cumulative Impacts Assessment
Denis Newbold, Stroud Environmental Resource Center
A Classification of Mid-Atlantic Highland Watersheds To Identify High
Vulnerability Headwater Systems and Valuable Isolated Wetlands
Bronson Griscom, Canaan Valley Institute
Mitigation and Restoration Practices for Kentucky Headwaters
Art Parola, University of Louisville
Headwaters Restoration in Mining Areas of West Virginia
J. Todd Petty, West Virginia University
3:30 p.m. - 3:45 p.m. Break
3:45 p.m. - 4:30 p.m. PANEL EPA Management Perspectives
Panel Chair Rich Sumner, Western Ecology Division, Office of
Research and Development, EPA
Dave Evans, Director, Wetlands Division, Office of Water, Headquarters,
EPA
Jon Capacasa, Director, Water Management Division, EPA Region 3
Randy Pomponio, Director, Environmental Assessment and Innovation
Division, EPA Region 3
4:30 p.m. - 5:15 p.m. Facilitated Discussion Identification of Science Needs on Mountaintop
Mining, as Related to Headwaters and Isolated Wetlands
5:15 p.m. Adjourn
5:30 p.m. - 7:00 p.m. Poster Session and Social
(Sheraton Hotel, 17th and Race Streets, 215-448-2000, two blocks from the
Region 3 Office)
The Monitoring, Assessment, and Evaluation of Headwaters and
Isolated Wetlands
(Posters on completed, ongoing, or planned research efforts associated with
these topics.)
20 OSP Regional Science Workshop on Headwaters and Associated Wetlands in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands Regions Report
-------
June 21,2006
Meeting Policy and Program Needs With Science
9:00 a.m. - 10:30 a.m. PANEL A Review of the State-of-the-Science
Panel Chair George Constantz, Canaan Valley Institute
American Water Resources Association Special Session on Headwater
Streams and Synthesis Document
Mark Rains, University of South Florida, Department of Geology
Journal of the Society of Wetlands Scientists, Special Edition on Isolated
Wetlands
Scott Leibowitz, Office of Research and Development-Corvallis, EPA
Discussion Session: Identification of Priority Science Issues Associated
With Headwater Streams in the Highlands Region
George Constantz, Canaan Valley Institute
10:30 a.m. - 10:45 a.m. Break
10:45 a.m. - 12:00 noon PANEL ORD Research Group Panel
Panel Chair Jim Wigington
"ORD Research and Headwater Streams and Isolated Wetlands"
Framework and Overview of Ongoing ORD Research Randy Bruins
Questions and Discussion Panel Members
Randy Bruins, Ken Fritz, Brent Johnson, and Chuck lane
National Exposure Research laboratory, Ecological Exposure Research
Division, Cincinnati
Rick McKinney
National Health and Environmental Effects Research laboratory, Atlantic
Ecology Region, Narragansett
Scott leibowitz and Jim Wigington
National Health and Environmental Effects Research laboratory, Western
Ecology Division, Corvallis
Roger Burke
National Exposure Research laboratory, Ecological Research Division,
Athens
Allison Roy
National Risk Management Research laboratory, Sustainable Technology
Division, Cincinnati
Chris Nietch
National Risk Management Research laboratory, Water Supply and Water
Resources Division, Cincinnati
OSP Regional Science Workshop on Headwaters and Associated Wetlands in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands Regions Report 21
-------
12:00 noon - 1:15 p.m.
Lunch {on your own)
1:15 p.m. - 3:30 p.m. Breakout Groups: Key Science Needs Identified From Previous Day
{Shenandoah, Appalachian #402, and Chesapeake #103 Rooms)
Facilitated Discussions: How Well Does the ORD Research Framework
Reflect Regional/State Program Needs?
(We will provide a specific "charge " to the groups. Each group will be co-
chaired by an ORD and Regional representative.)
3:30 p.m. - 4:30 p.m. Group Reports How Well Will the Framework Address Priority
Needs and Recommendations To Amend the Framework
4:30 p.m. Adjourn
22 OSP Regional Science Workshop on Headwaters and Associated Wetlands in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands Regions Report
-------
Poster Titles
The Role of Headwater Streams in Water Quality Assessment and Management
K.M. Fritz, B.R. Johnson, R.A. Burke, B.H. Hill, C.T. Nietch, P.J. Wigington, and RJ.F. Bruins
Spatial and Functional Characterization of Isolated Wetlands
C.R. Lane, R.A. McKinney, R.A. Lopez, and RJ.F. Bruins
Extent of Headwater Perennial and Intermittent Streams
H.M. Childers, M.E. Passmore, and L.J. Reynolds
Revisiting the Analysis of the Condition of Streams in the Primary Region of Mountaintop
Mining/Valley Fill Coal Mining
G. Pond and M.E. Passmore
A Survey of the Condition of Streams in the Primary Region of Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fill
Coal Mining
J.H. Green, M.E. Passmore, and H.M. Childers
Ionic Stress in Appalachian Headwater Steams. Are Total Dissolved Solids Toxic?
G.J. Pond, M.E. Passmore, and T. Norberg-King
Coho Salmon Dependence on Intermittent Streams
P.J. Wiginton, J.L. Ebersole, and M.D. Colvin
Factors Controlling the Hydrologic Permanence of Headwater Streams
K. Fritz, B. Johnson, and D. Walters
Biodivesity Values of Isolated Wetlands of the Mid-Atlantic Highlands
D. Grossman
Overview of Recent, Current, and Proposed Projects of the West Virginia Water Science Center
T. Messinger and H. Bevans
Nutrient Concentrations in Flowing Waters of the South Fork Broad River, Georgia Watershed
R.A. Burke, J. Molinero, D.L. Spidle, and L. Prieto
Effects of Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fill (MTM/VF) on Functional Indicators in Appalachian
Headwater Streams
R.A. Burke, S. Fulton, K. Fritz, B. Johnson, and C. Barton
Biodiversity Values of Geographically Isolated Wetland in the United States
K. Goodin and P. Comer
Stream Salamanders as Indicators of Stream Quality in Maryland
M. Southerland, D. Baxter, G. Mercurio, J. Vols tad. R. Jung, and I. Chellman
Collaborative Hydrological Research in the Clarksburg, Maryland Special Protection Area
S.T. Jarnagin and D.B. Jennings
OSP Regional Science Workshop on Headwaters and Associated Wetlands in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands Regions Report 23
-------
Regional Science Workshop on Headwaters and Associated Wetlands
in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands Region
EPA Region 3
4th Floor Conference Center, Shenandoah Room
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
June 20-21, 2006
Participants List
Charles App
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 3
Environmental Assessment and Innovation
Division (3EA00)
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 814-2757
E-mail: app.charles@epa.gov
Thomas Baugh
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 4
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
Telephone: (404) 562-8275
E-mail: baugh.thomasl@epa.gov
Bruce Beach
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 3
Federal Facilities Branch (3HS11)
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
Telephone: (215) 814-3364
E-mail: beach.bruce@epa.gov
Hugh Bevans
U.S. Geological Survey
West Virginia Water Science Center
11 Dunbar Street
Charleston, WV 25301
Telephone: (304)347-5130
E-mail: hbevans@usgs.gov
Randy Bruins
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
National Exposure Research Laboratory
Ecological Exposure Research Division (MS-642)
26 W Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Telephone: (513) 569-7581
E-mail: bruins.randy@epa.gov
Roger Burke
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
National Exposure Research Laboratory
Ecological Research Division
960 College Station Road
Athens, GA 30605
Telephone: (706) 355-8134
E-mail: burke.roger@epa.gov
Jon Capacasa
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 3
Water Management Division (3WP00)
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
Telephone: (215) 814-5422
E-mail: capacasa.jon@epa.gov
Tony Cario
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Office of Wetlands and Water Protection
629 E Main Street
PO Box 10009
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: (804) 698-4231
E-mail: ajcario@deq.virginia.gov
24 OSP Regional Science Workshop on Headwaters and Associated Wetlands in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands Regions Report
-------
George Constantz
Canaan Valley Institute
Research and Development Section
PO Box 673
Davis, WV 26260
Telephone: (304) 463-4739
E-mail: george.constantz@canaanvi.org
Dave Davis
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Office of Wetlands and Water Protection
629 E Main Street, 9th Floor
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: (804) 698-4105
E-mail: dldavis@deq.virginia.gov
Tom DeMoss
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 3
Environmental Science Center (3EA00)
701 Mapes Road
Fort Meade, MD 20755
Telephone: (410) 295-1356
E-mail: demoss.tom@epa.gov
Andrew Dinsmore
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 3
Water Protection Division (3WP42)
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
Telephone: (215) 814-2788
E-mail: dinsmore.andrew@epa.gov
John Dorney
North Carolina Department of Environmental and
Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Wetlands Program Development Unit
2321 Crabtree Boulevard
Raleigh, NC 27604
Telephone: (919) 733-9646
E-mail: john.dorney@ncmail.net
Daniel Evans
U.S. Geological Survey
Kentucky Water Science Center
9818 Bluegrass Parkway
Louisville, KY 40299
Telephone: (502) 493-1930
E-mail: dwevans@usgs.gov
John Forren
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 3
Environmental Assessment and Innovation
Division (3EA30)
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
Telephone: (215) 814-2705
E-mail: forren.john@epa.gov
Ken Fritz
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
National Exposure Research Laboratory
Ecological Exposure Research Division (MS-642)
26 W Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Telephone: (513) 569-7902
E-mail: fritz.ken@epa.gov
Stephanie Fulton
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 4
Wetlands Regulatory Section
61 Forsyth Street, SW, 15th Floor
Atlanta, GA 30303
Telephone: (404) 562-9413
E-mail: fulton.stephanie@epa.gov
Jennifer Garland
Kentucky Department for Environmental
Protection
Division of Water
14 Reilly Road
Frankfort, KY 40601
Telephone: (502) 564-3410
E-mail: jenni.garland@ky.gov
Bronson Griscom
Canaan Valley Institute
Research and Development
PO Box 673
Davis, WV 26260
Telephone: (304) 463-4739
E-mail: bronson.griscom@canaanvi.org
David Hartos
U.S. Department of the Interior
Office of Surface Mining
3 Parkway Center
Pittsburgh, PA 15220
Telephone: (412) 937-2909
E-mail: dhartos@osmre.gov
OSP Regional Science Workshop on Headwaters and Associated Wetlands in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands Regions Report 25
-------
Joel Hennessy
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 3
Waste and Chemicals Management Division
(3WC11)
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 814-3390
E-mail: hennessy.joel@epa.gov
Bill Hoffman
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 3
Environmental Assessment and Innovation
Division
Environmental Programs Branch (3EA30)
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 814-2995
E-mail: hoffman.william@epa.gov
Russ Hunter
West Virginia Department of Environmental
Protection
601 57th Street, SE
Charleston, WV 25304
Telephone: (304) 926-0499
E-mail: rhunter@wvdep.org
Brent Johnson
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
National Exposure Research Laboratory
Ecological Exposure Research Division (MS-642)
26 W Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Telephone: (513) 569-7335
E-mail: johnson.brent@epa.gov
Kathy Kirkland
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 3
Environmental Assessment and Innovation
Division (3EA30)
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19013
Telephone: (215)814-5176
E-mail: kirkland.kathleen@epa.gov
Kuo-Liang Lai
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 3
Water Protection Division (3WP30)
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 814-5473
E-mail: lai.kuo-liang@epa.gov
Ronald Landy
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 3
Office of Research and Development
701 Mapes Road
Fort Meade, MD 20755
Telephone: (410) 305-2757
E-mail: landy.ronald@epa.gov
Charles Lane
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
National Exposure Research Laboratory
Ecological Exposure Research Division (MS-642)
26 W Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Telephone: (513) 569-7854
E-mail: lane.charles@epa.gov
Jeff Lapp
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 3
Environmental Assessment and Innovation
Division (3EA30)
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 814-2717
E-mail: lapp.jeffrey@epa.gov
Scott Leibowitz
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
National Health and Environmental Effects
Research Laboratory
Western Ecology Division
200 SW 35th Street
Corvallis, OR 97333
Telephone: (541) 754-4508
E-mail: leibowitz.scott@epa.gov
26 OSP Regional Science Workshop on Headwaters and Associated Wetlands in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands Regions Report
-------
Todd Lutte
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 3
Wetlands Enforcement (3EA30)
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 814-2099
E-mail: lutte.todd@epa.gov
Christine Mazzarella
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 3
Environmental Assessment and Innovation
Division (3EA10)
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 814-5756
E-mail: mazzarella.christine@epa.gov
Richard McKinney
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
National Health and Environmental Effects
Research Laboratory
Atlantic Ecology Division
27 Tarzwell Drive
Narragansett, RI 02882
Telephone: (401) 782-3133
E-mail: mckinney.rick@epa.gov
Denis Newbold
Stroud Water Research Center
970 Spencer Road
Avondale, PA 19311
Telephone: (610) 268-2153
E-mail: newbold@stroudcenter.org
Christopher Nietch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Water Supply and Water Resources Division
(MS-690)
26 W Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Telephone: (513) 569-7460
E-mail: nietch.christopher@epa.gov
Charles Noss
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Office of Information Analysis and Access
109 T.W. Alexander Drive
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Telephone: (919) 541-1322
E-mail: noss.charles@epa.gov
Arthur Parola
University of Louisville
Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering
101 W.S. Speed Hall
Louisville, KY 40292-0001
Telephone: (502) 852-4599
E-mail: a.parola@insightbb.com
Maggie Passmore
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 3
Environmental Assessment and Innovation
Division (3EA20)
1060 Chapline Street, Suite 303
Wheeling, PA 26003
Telephone: (304) 234-0245
E-mail: passmore.margaret@epa.gov
Rich Pepin o
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 3
Office of Watersheds (3WP10)
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19026
Telephone: (215) 814-2703
E-mail: pepino.richard@epa.gov
Carol Petrow
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 3
Environmental Assessment and Innovation
Division (3EA30)
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 814-2789
E-mail: petrow.carol@epa.gov
OSP Regional Science Workshop on Headwaters and Associated Wetlands in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands Regions Report 27
-------
Todd Petty
West Virginia University
Division of Forestry and Natural Resources
PO Box 6125
Morgantown, WV 26506
Telephone: (304) 293-2941
E-mail: jtpetty@mail.wvu.edu
Bruce Pluta
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 3
Hazardous Site Cleanup Division (3HS41)
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 814-2380
E-mail: pluta.bruce@epa.gov
Randy Pomponio
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 3
Environmental Assessment and Innovation
Division (3EA00)
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 814-2702
E-mail: pomponio.john@epa.gov
Greg Pond
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 3
Environmental Assessment and Innovation
Division (3EA20)
1060 Chapline Street
Wheeling, WV 26003
Telephone: (304) 234-0243
E-mail: pond.greg@epa.gov
Mark Rains
University of South Florida
Department of Geology
4202 E Fowler Avenue, SCA 528
Tampa, FL 33620
Telephone: (813)974-3310
E-mail: mrains@cas.usf.edu
Charles Rhodes
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 3
Environmental Assessment and Innovation
Division (3EA30)
Environmental Programs Branch
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
Telephone: (215) 814-2743
E-mail: rhodes.charles@epa.gov
David Rider
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Assessment and Innovation
Division (3EA30)
Environmental Programs Branch
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029
Telephone: (215) 814-2787
E-mail: rider.david@epa.gov
Denise Rigney
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 3
Water Protection Division (3WP10)
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 814-2726
E-mail: rigney.denise@epa.gov
Nina Rivera
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Regional Counsel (3RC20)
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 814-2667
E-mail: rivera.nina@epa.gov
Allison Roy
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Sustainable Technology Division (MS-498)
26 W Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Telephone: (513) 569-7366
E-mail: roy.allison@epa.gov
28 OSP Regional Science Workshop on Headwaters and Associated Wetlands in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands Regions Report
-------
Barbara Rudnick
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 3
Environmental Assessment and Innovation
Division (3EA30)
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 814-3322
E-mail: rudnick.barbara@epa.gov
Tom Slenkamp
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 3
Environmental Assessment and Innovation
Division (3EA30)
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 814-2750
E-mail: slenkamp.tom@epa.gov
Mark Southerland
Versar, Inc.
Ecological Sciences
9200 Rumsey Road
Columbia, MD 21045-1934
Telephone: (410) 740-6074
E-mail: southerlandmar@versar.com
Susan Spielberger
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 3
Environmental Assessment and Innovation
Division (3EA10)
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 814-5356
E-mail: spielberger.susan@epa.gov
Richard Sumner
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
National Health and Environmental Effects
Research Laboratory
Western Ecology Division
National Wetlands Program
200 SW 35th Street
Corvallis, OR 97333
Telephone: (541) 754-4444
E-mail: sumner.richard@epa.gov
Daniel Sweeney
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 3
Water Protection Division (3WP10)
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 814-5731
E-mail: sweeney.dan@epa.gov
Mark Taylor
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Huntington
District
Regulatory Branch
502 8th Street
Huntington, WV 25701
Telephone: (304) 399-5710
E-mail: mark.a.taylor@lrh01.usace.army.mil
David Toth
Green Valleys Association
Water Resources
417 St. Ann's Circle
Phoenixville, PA 19460
Telephone: (610) 935-1253
E-mail: dltengr@verizon.net
Rickie White
NatureServe
1101 Wilson Boulevard, 15th Floor
Arlington, VA 22209
Telephone: (703) 908-1880
E-mail: rwhite@natureserve.org
Jim Wigington
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
National Health and Environmental Effects
Research Laboratory
Western Ecology Division
200 SW 35th Street
Corvallis, OR 97333
Telephone: (541) 754-4341
E-mail: wigington.jim@epa.gov
Erik Winchester
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Office of Science Policy
Ariel Rios Building (8104R)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
Telephone: (202) 564-4560
E-mail: winchester.erik@epa.gov
OSP Regional Science Workshop on Headwaters and Associated Wetlands in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands Regions Report 29
-------
Regional Science Workshop on Headwaters and Associated Wetlands
in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands Region
EPA Region 3
4th Floor Conference Center, Shenandoah Room
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
June 20-21, 2006
Meeting Evaluation Summary
An evaluation of the workshop was conducted to elicit information from attendees regarding the
organization and logistics for the workshop, the information presented, and potential improvements in
future workshops. Five questions were developed for the evaluation form. Of the five questions, four
were statements that attendees were asked to rate on a scale of 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest). Attendees also
could provide additional comments regarding each of these questions. One open-ended question allowed
attendees the opportunity to provide any other comments or suggestions for future workshops. A
summary of the evaluation findings is provided below.
Summary of Findings
1. Of the 61 meeting participants, 19 completed the evaluation questionnaire, for an overall response
rate of 31 percent.
2. The attendees indicated that the meeting was informative. Of the 19 respondents, 11 provided a
rating of 5 (58.0%), 6 provided a rating of 4 (32.0%), and 2 provided a rating of 3 (10.0%) for an
average rating of 4.5.
3. The attendees indicated that the format of the meeting was appropriate. Of the 19 respondents, 11
provided a rating of 5 (58.0%), 6 provided a rating of 4 (32.0%), and 2 provided a rating of 3 (10.0%)
for an average rating of 4.5.
4. The attendees indicated that the general discussions were useful. Of the 19 respondents, 10 provided
a rating of 5 (53.0%), 8 provided a rating of 4 (42.0%), and 1 provided a rating of 3 (5.0%) for an
average rating of 4.5.
5. The attendees indicated that the meeting facility was appropriate. Of the 19 respondents, 12 provided
a rating of 5 (63.0%) and 7 provided a rating of 4 (37.0%) for an average rating of 4.6.
6. Of the 19 respondents, a total of 13 (68%) provided recommendations for improving future meetings.
30 OSP Regional Science Workshop on Headwaters and Associated Wetlands in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands Regions Report
-------
Question 1: The meeting was informative.
Rating: Number of Responses: 19
Highest Rating: 5
Lowest Rating: 3
Average Rating: 4.5
Question 2: The format of the meeting was appropriate.
Rating: Number of Responses: 19
Highest Rating: 5
Lowest Rating: 3
Average Rating: 4.5
Question 3: The general discussions were useful.
Rating: Number of Responses: 19
Highest Rating: 5
Lowest Rating: 3
Average Rating: 4.5
Question 4: The meeting facility was appropriate.
Rating: Number of Responses: 19
Highest Rating: 5
Lowest Rating: 4
Average Rating: 4.6
Recommendations for Improving Future Meetings
More diverse audience (e.g., other agencies, universities, and divisions within EPA such as
enforcement).
Expand the dialog.
Appropriate flexibility in revising the agenda on the fly.
Improve your management of the few who talk too much.
As usual, not enough time in discussion (just whining. No action needed).
Invite (and provide money if needed) more Corps of Engineers folks to these meetings. There are
at least three state folks (including me) but only one Corps person (as far as I can tell). Because
the Corps and states implement this work, they must be aware of the science (developing and
completed).
The use of an actual master of ceremonies (like someone from the Environmental Law Institute)
to keep us on topic and schedule could be useful (but an expense).
Great to have states/regions/ORD. Very important.
OSP Regional Science Workshop on Headwaters and Associated Wetlands in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands Regions Report 31
-------
Excellent opportunity for sharing of information.
Panel discussions were a wonderful way to bring the audience/participants information and to
open discussion of issues and concerns.
Well organized and great diversity of researchers and others represented.
Better organization for poster session: getting more people to come and socialize.
Have poster session immediately after talks and provide optional alcoholic beverage or announce
as BYOB.
Bring other disciplines to the discussion: planners, lawyers, economists.
Beer at the poster session or at least let us know it is BY OB ahead of time.
Needed environmental lawyer(s) to attend.
Better focus on common outcomes that are mutually needed to achieve goals (IW Headquarters).
Air conditioner noise, microphone issues.
I thought that the individual and panel presentations were very informative along with the
question and answer discussions. More time could have been allocated to the panel members on
some of the presentations (more than the 5 minutes).
I did not feel that the exercise to develop a message outline was all that useful and could have
been better spent discussing the science.
A bit more information/focus on wetlands would have balanced the meeting. It was very heavy
on stream discussions (that's okay, but I was expecting a balance).
A professional facilitator would have helped the open discussions.
Inclusion of more non-EPA folks in the meeting to diversify opinions.
32 OSP Regional Science Workshop on Headwaters and Associated Wetlands in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands Regions Report
------- |