National Management 

Measures to Protect and 

Restore Wetlands and 

Riparian Areas for the 

Abatement of Nonpoint 

Source Pollution
United States Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Water

Washington, DC 20460

(4503F)

EPA-841-B-05-003

July 2005
National Management Measures

to Protect and Restore Wetlands

and Riparian Areas for the

Abatement of Nonpoint Source

Pollution

Nonpoint Source Control Branch

Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Water

July 2005

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 i

Disclaimer

This document provides guidance to States, Territories, authorized Tribes, and the

public regarding management measures that may be used to reduce nonpoint

source pollution through the protection and restoration of wetlands and riparian

areas. At times, this document refers to statutory and regulatory provisions,

which contain legally binding requirements. This document does not substitute for

those provisions or regulations, nor is it a regulation itself. Thus, it does not

impose legally-binding requirements on EPA, States, Territories, authorized

Tribes, or the public and may not apply to a particular situation based upon the

circumstances. EPA, State, Territory, and authorized Tribe decision makers retain

the discretion to adopt approaches to control nonpoint source pollution by protecting and restoring wetlands and riparian activities on a case-by-case basis that

differ from this guidance where appropriate. EPA may change this guidance in

the future.
ii EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005
Contents

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 iii

Contents

Chapter 1 Introduction .....................................................................................................................................1

1.1 What Are the Purpose and Scope of This Guidance? ............................................................... 2

1.2 What Is in This Document? ....................................................................................................... 3

1.3 What Is Nonpoint Source Pollution? .......................................................................................... 5

1.4 What National Efforts Are Under Way to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution? ....................... 6

Chapter 2 Overview of Wetlands, Riparian Areas, and Vegetated Treatment Systems ..................... 11

2.1 Wetlands and Riparian Areas ................................................................................................... 11

2.2 Vegetated Treatment Systems.................................................................................................. 14

Chapter 3 Management Measures ............................................................................................................. 17

3.1 How Management Measures Work to Prevent Nonpoint Source Pollution ............................ 17

3.2 Management Practices ............................................................................................................ 18

Chapter 4 Management Measure for Protection of Wetlands and Riparian Areas ............................ 19

4.1 Management Practices for Protecting Wetlands and Riparian Areas ..................................... 24

4.2 Cost and Benefits of Practices ................................................................................................ 38

Chapter 5 Management Measure for Restoration of Wetlands and Riparian Areas .......................... 43

5.1 Management Practices for Restoration of Wetlands and Riparian Areas............................... 51

5.2 Cost and Benefits of Practices ................................................................................................ 56

5.3 Mitigation Banking.................................................................................................................... 58

Chapter 6 Management Measure for Vegetated Treatment Systems .................................................. 61

6.1 Management Practices for Vegetated Treatment Systems ..................................................... 66

6.2 Costs and Benefits of Practices............................................................................................... 78

Resources ................................................................................................................................................. 81

Glossary ................................................................................................................................................. 85

References ................................................................................................................................................. 87

Appendices

A Examples of Federal, State, Nonprofit, and Private Financial and Technical Assistance

Programs ................................................................................................................................A-1

B U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Contacts.................................................................. B-1

C U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Contacts ................................................................ C-1

D U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Wetland Contacts ...................................................D-1

E U.S. State and Territory Agency Wetland Contacts.............................................................. E-1

F Index of Case Studies Organized by State, Territory, and Tribe ............................................ F-1
Contents

iv EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

Tables

Table 1-1 Example of Map Boxes Throughout Document Referencing Case Studies (Appendix F) .............. 5

Table 4-1 Effectiveness of Natural Wetlands and Riparian Areas for NPS Pollutant Removal ..................... 20

Table 4-2 Federal Programs and Acts That Affect Wetlands in the United States ........................................ 23

Table 4-3 Potential of Wetland and Riparian Areas for NPS Pollution Control .............................................. 25

Table 4-4 Descriptions of Specific Wetland Types .......................................................................................... 26

Table 4-5 Assessment of Functions and Values for Protection of Wetlands or Riparian Areas..................... 31

Table 4-6 Programmatic Approaches to Protecting Wetlands and Riparian Areas. ....................................... 33

Table 4-7 Examples of State Guides for Wetland Protection and Management ............................................. 34

Table 4-8 Costs and Economic Benefits Associated with Protecting Wetlands ............................................. 39

Table 4-9 Planning and Outreach Costs and Benefits..................................................................................... 40

Table 5-1 Examples of Projects to Restore Wetlands and Riparian Areas ..................................................... 53

Table 5-2 Examples of Wetland and Riparian Area Plant Information Resources ......................................... 55

Table 5-3 Costs and Economic Benefits Associated with Restoring Wetlands and Riparian Areas .............. 57

Table 6-1 Effectiveness of Vegetated Filter Strips for NPS Pollutant Removal ............................................. 63

Table 6-2 Effectiveness of Constructed Wetlands for NPS Pollutant Removal ............................................. 67

Table 6-3 Nitrate-N Concentration Reduced by Forested Riparian Areas and VFS ...................................... 69

Table 6-4 Costs and Economic Benefits Associated with Vegetative Treatment Systems............................. 78

Figures

Figure 2-1 Relationship Between Wetlands, Uplands, Riparian Areas, and the Stream Channel .................... 12

Figure 6-1 Example of Vegetated Filter Strip .................................................................................................... 62

Figure 6-2 Example of Constructed Wetland .................................................................................................... 64
EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 1

1 Introduction

The nation’s aquatic resources are among its most valuable assets. Although

environmental protection programs in the United States have successfully

improved water quality during the past 30 years, many challenges remain.

Significant strides have been made in reducing the impacts of discrete pollutant

sources, but aquatic ecosystems remain impaired, primarily because of complex

pollution problems caused by nonpoint source (NPS) pollution.

The most recent national water quality inventory (2000) shows that nearly 39

percent of assessed rivers and streams, 45 percent of lakes, reservoirs, and

ponds, and 51 percent of estuaries in the United States remain too polluted for

fishing, swimming, and other uses (USEPA, 2002). Habitat alterations, such as

hydromodification, dredging, streambank destabilization, and the loss or degradation of wetlands, contribute to the impacts on quality. Many pollutants are delivered to these surface waters and to ground water from diffuse sources, such as

urban runoff, agricultural runoff, and atmospheric deposition of contaminants.The

leading causes of impairment are nutrients, pathogens, siltation, oxygen-depleting

substances, metals, and suspended solids (USEPA, 2000a).

Wetlands and riparian areas play a significant role in protecting water quality and

reducing adverse water quality impacts associated with NPS pollution, and they

help decrease the need for costly stormwater and flood protection facilities.

Thus, wetlands and riparian areas are an important component of a combination

of management practices that can be used to reduce NPS pollution. In addition,

in their natural condition they provide habitat for feeding, nesting, cover, and

breeding to many species of birds, fishes, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals.

Although wetlands have long been recognized for their water quality improvement functions, unrestricted use of natural wetlands as receptacles for point and

nonpoint source pollution, such as urban stormwater and other sources of runoff,

could have an adverse effect on wetlands and wetland biota. As stated by Robb

(1992):

Wetlands have an important role in the landscape through

their ability to improve water quality by filtering, transforming, and accumulating pollutants and thereby protecting

adjacent rivers, lakes, and streams. This “buffering” function, however, also encourages overuse, and this overuse

can compromise these and other wetland functions, such as

wildlife habitat and aesthetic and recreational values.

According to Fields (1992), wetlands should be preserved for their pollutant

abatement abilities while maintaining overall wetland health.

Foremost, wetlands should be protected because of the many

values and functions they provide. But, in addition, protection and restoration of wetlands are also acceptable management measures for preventing the impacts to water

Wetlands and riparian

areas play a significant

role in managing the

adverse water quality

impacts associated with

NPS pollution.
Chapter 1: Introduction

2 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

quality that result when wetlands are destroyed or degraded... The benefit of improved water quality will be

realized if wetlands and riparian areas are maintained (or

restored) in the landscape to perform their natural functions.

When this approach is used, additional BMPs [best management practices], such as buffer zones, must be utilized to

ensure that there is no adverse impact to wildlife using the

wetlands and that the integrity of the wetlands will be

maintained over time.

1.1 What Are The Purpose and Scope of This

Guidance?

This guidance document describes practices to reduce NPS pollution of surface

waters and ground water through the protection and restoration of wetlands and

riparian areas, as well as the implementation of vegetated treatment systems.

The guidance provides background information about NPS pollution, including

where it comes from and how it enters the nation’s waters; discusses the broad

concept of assessing and addressing water quality problems on a watershed

level; and presents recent technical information about how certain types of NPS

pollution can be reduced effectively through the implementation of these management measures. This document is not intended to be used as a design guide for

restoring or constructing wetlands, nor should it replace input from experts during

the planning or implementation phases of wetland or riparian area creation or

restoration.

Although the scope of this guidance is broad and includes many diverse wetland

and riparian area NPS topics, a number of issues are not covered. Such issues

include treatment wetlands for abandoned mine drainage and wastewater

treatment wetlands. Application of constructed wetlands as an alternative to

conventional engineering methods for the treatment of mine drainage and wastewater is gaining recognition as a reliable and economical method for improving

water quality. Information on this technology is growing at exponential rates.

Readers interested in these topics are referred to USEPA (1999), USEPA

(2000d), Kadlec and Knight (1996), Moshiri (1993), or a local Natural Resources

Conservation Service (NRCS) office for information on the planning, design,

construction, and operation of treatment wetlands for water quality improvement.

This document provides guidance to states, territories, authorized tribes, and the

public regarding management measures that may be used to protect and restore

the NPS pollution abatement functions of wetlands and riparian areas. This

document refers in some instances to statutory and regulatory provisions that

contain legally binding requirements. This document does not substitute for those

provisions or regulations, nor is it a regulation itself. Thus, it does not impose

legally binding requirements on the United States Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA), states, territories, authorized tribes, or the public and might not

apply to a particular situation based upon the circumstances. The decision

makers of EPA, states, territories, and authorized tribes retain the discretion to

adopt approaches on a case-by-case basis that differ from this guidance where

appropriate. EPA may change this guidance in the future.

This guidance is designed

to provide current

information to state

program managers on

controlling NPS pollution

to wetlands, riparian

areas, and vegetated

treatment systems.
Chapter 1: Introduction

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 3

This guidance is consistent with the Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Source Pollution in Coastal Waters (USEPA,

1993c), published under section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization

Amendments of 1990 (CZARA). The management measures are the same, but

this document modifies, expands, and supplements the technical information

contained in the coastal management measures guidance to ensure that it reflects

particular circumstances relevant to differing inland conditions and provides upto-date technical information.

This guidance contrasts with the CZARA management measures guidance,

which requires that state coastal nonpoint pollution control programs are in

conformity with CZARA management measures. The guidance provided in this

document, on the other hand, is intended merely to provide technical assistance to

state program managers and others with general knowledge of wetland ecosystems who are seeking updated information on practices to address NPS pollution.

This guidance accomplishes that objective by expanding and enhancing the

descriptions and examples first presented in the CZARA guidance. This document does not set new or additional standards for either CZARA section 6217

Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs or Clean Water Act section 319

Nonpoint Source Management Programs.

1.2 What Is in This Document?

This document contains six chapters and six appendices, which are described

below.

Chapter 1: Introduction

Chapter 1 provides a brief introduction to NPS pollution and the national effort to

control it. It also provides background information on the 1993 Guidance

Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Source

Pollution in Coastal Waters, a predecessor to this document.

Chapter 2: Overview

Chapter 2 introduces wetlands, riparian areas, and vegetated treatment systems.

It explains what they are, how they function, and what their importance is in

terms of NPS pollution.

Chapter 3: Management Measures

Chapter 3 briefly defines what management measures are and how they work to

prevent NPS pollution. It also describes management practices.

Chapter 4: Protection of Wetlands and Riparian Areas

Chapter 4 contains information on the management measure for the protection of

wetlands and riparian areas and its four practices. It also has a list of resources

for further information.

This guidance does not

replace the 1993 Guidance

Specifying Management

Measures for Sources of

Nonpoint Pollution in

Coastal Waters.
Chapter 1: Introduction

4 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

Chapter 5: Restoration of Wetlands and Riparian Areas

Chapter 5 explains what restoration is and discusses the management measure

for restoration of wetlands and riparian areas. Three practices to implement the

management measure are discussed.

Chapter 6: Vegetated Treatment Systems

Chapter 6 describes the management measure and three practices related to

vegetated treatment systems.

Resources

A list of resources for further information on topics discussed in this document is

provided.

Glossary

The glossary defines important terminology used throughout this document.

References

The references used in this document are provided in one combined section.

Appendix A: Examples of Federal, Nonprofit, and Private Financial

and Technical Assistance Programs

Appendix A contains information on federal incentive programs to protect and

restore wetlands. It also contains information on incentive programs from nonprofit and private organizations. For each agency and organization, contacts are

provided for further information.

Appendix B: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Contacts

Appendix B provides wetland contacts, NPS regional contacts, and Clean Water

State Revolving Fund contacts.

Appendix C: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Contacts

Appendix C provides information on Division Regulatory Offices and District

Regulatory Offices for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Appendix D: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Wetland

Contacts

Appendix D lists regional wetland contacts.

Appendix E: U.S. State and Territory Agency Wetland Contacts

Appendix E provides wetland contact names for each state and trust territory.

Appendix F: Case Studies Organized by State, Territory, and Tribe

Appendix F is directly related to the tables provided in the chapters. It provides

more detailed information on implementation activities, case studies, and resource

documents. In Chapters 4 through 6, appropriate implementation practices are

described for each management measure. Within the discussion of each implementation practice is a table entitled “Map Box.” The map box contains a list of

appropriate activities that can be used to implement that practice. Each imple-
Chapter 1: Introduction

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 5

mentation activity is followed by a list of titles and locations, e.g., “Local Wetland

Management Plans (AK).” (See Table 1-1.) These titles indicate a specific case

study representative of that implementation activity. By using the location indicator, in this case AK for Alaska, the reader knows to turn to Appendix F, find the

section on Alaska, and look for the case study entitled “Local Wetland Management Plans.” It is there that the reader can find more information about the case

study, including the source of information. At the top of each map box, an outline

of the United States indicates that there are case studies for this practice from

those states that are shaded.

1.3 What Is Nonpoint Source Pollution?

NPS water pollution comes from diffuse or scattered sources in the environment,

rather than from a defined outlet such as a pipe. Generally, NPS pollution results

from precipitation, atmospheric deposition, land runoff, infiltration, drainage,

seepage, or hydrologic modification. As runoff from rainfall or snowmelt moves,

it picks up and transports natural pollutants and pollutants resulting from human

activity, ultimately depositing them into rivers, lakes, wetlands, and coastal waters

or, through percolation, into the ground water. In a legal sense, the term nonpoint

source is defined to mean any source of water pollution that does not meet the

legal definition of point source in section 502(14) of the Clean Water Act, as

amended by the Water Quality Act of 1987.

The term point source means any discernible, confined, and

discrete conveyance, including but not limited to any pipe,

ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding operation,

or vessel or other floating craft from which pollutants are or

may be discharged. This term does not include agricultural

stormwater discharges and return flows from irrigated

agriculture.

Practice: Consider wetlands and riparian areas

and their NPS control potential on a watershed

or landscape scale.

This table provides some examples from different

locations in the United States of the kinds of

activities that can help implement this practice.

For more information about the examples, refer to

Appendix F at the back of the document.

Table 1-1. Example of Map Boxes throughout Document Referencing Case Studies

(Appendix F)

Implementation Activities Example Projects 

Use a landscape approach to evaluate wetland water 

quality functions. 

Local Wetland Management Plans (AK), Wetland 

Protection (FL) 

Use watershed analysis as a tool to ensure functional 

performance. 

Synoptic Assessment Approach (WA) 
Chapter 1: Introduction

6 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

Although diffuse runoff is usually treated as NPS pollution, runoff that enters and

is discharged from conveyances such as those described above, as well as runoff

from construction activities, is treated as a point source discharge and therefore

is subject to the permit requirements of the Clean Water Act. In contrast,

nonpoint sources are not subject to federal permit requirements. Point sources

typically enter receiving surface water bodies at some identifiable site(s) and

carry pollutants whose generation is controlled by some internal process or

activity, rather than by the weather. Point source discharges such as municipal

and industrial wastewaters, runoff or leachate from solid waste disposal sites and

concentrated animal feeding operations, storm sewer outfalls from large urban

centers, and Phase I and Phase II construction stormwater runoff are regulated

and permitted under the Clean Water Act.

Although it is imperative that water program managers understand and manage in

accordance with legal definitions and requirements, the nonlegal community often

characterizes nonpoint sources in the following ways:

• NPS discharges enter surface waters or ground water in a diffuse

manner at intermittent intervals related mostly to meteorological events.

• Pollutant generation arises over an extensive land area, and pollutants

move overland before they reach surface waters or infiltrate into the

ground water.

• The extent of NPS pollution is related to uncontrollable climatic events

and to geographic and geologic conditions, and it varies greatly from

place to place and from year to year.

• Nonpoint sources are often more difficult or expensive to monitor, as

compared to point sources.

• Abatement of NPS pollution is focused on land and runoff management

practices, rather than on effluent treatment.

Hydrologic modification, an additional form of nonpoint source pollution, can

cause adverse effects on the biological and physical integrity of surface waters

and ground water. This can include increases in NPS pollutants, such as suspended solids, toxic substances, organic matter, heat, excess salts, and pathogens.

1.4 What National Efforts Are Under Way to

Control Nonpoint Source Pollution?

1.4.1 Nonpoint Source Program (Clean Water Act Section 319)

During the first 15 years of the national program to abate and control water

pollution (1972-1987), EPA and its partners focused most of their water pollution

control activities on traditional point sources like discharges through pipes from

sewage treatment plants and industrial facilities. These point sources have been

regulated by EPA and the states through the National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (NPDES) permit program established by section 402 of the

1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act).

As a result of the activities mentioned previously, the nation has greatly reduced

pollutant loads from point source discharges and has made considerable progress

Section 319 requires

states to assess NPS

pollution and implement

management programs.
Chapter 1: Introduction

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 7

in restoring and maintaining water quality. However, the gains in controlling point

sources have not solved all of the nation’s water quality problems. Recent studies

and surveys conducted by EPA and by state and tribal water quality agencies

indicate that the majority of the remaining water quality impairments in our

nation’s rivers, streams, lakes, estuaries, coastal waters, and wetlands result from

NPS pollution and other nontraditional sources, such as urban stormwater

discharges and combined sewer overflows.

In 1987, in view of the progress achieved in controlling point sources and the

growing national awareness of the increasingly dominant influence of NPS

pollution on water quality, Congress amended the Clean Water Act to focus

greater national efforts on nonpoint sources. Under this amended version,

referred to as the Water Quality Act of 1987, Congress revised section 101,

Declaration of Goals and Policy, to add the following fundamental principle:

It is the national policy that programs for the control of NPS

pollution be developed and implemented in an expeditious

manner so as to enable the goals of this Act to be met

through the control of both point and nonpoint sources of

pollution.

More importantly, Congress enacted section 319 of the Clean Water Act, which

established a national program to control nonpoint sources of water pollution.

Under section 319, states and tribes assess NPS pollution problems and causes

within the state and implement management programs to control the NPS

pollution. Section 319 authorizes EPA to issue grants to states to assist them in

implementing management programs or portions of management programs that

have been approved by EPA. Other federal water management agencies such as

the U.S. Departments of Agriculture and Interior, the Bureau of Reclamation and

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) are also involved in nonpoint

source pollution control activities; therefore, federal agencies may need to

coordinate with state and tribal programs to the extent that agency mission

activities intersect with these programs.

1.4.2 Section 404 Discharge of Dredged and Fill Material

Under section 404 of the Clean Water Act, persons planning to discharge

dredged or fill material to wetlands or other waters of the United States must

obtain authorization for the discharge from the USACE, or a state approved to

administer the section 404 program. Such authorization can be through issuance

of an individual permit, or may be subject to a general permit, which apply to

certain categories of activities having minimal adverse environmental effects.

Implementation of section 404 is shared between the USACE and EPA. The

USACE is responsible for reviewing permit applications and deciding whether to

issue or deny permits. EPA, in consultation with the USACE, develops the

section 404(b)(1) guidelines, which are the environmental criteria that the

USACE applies when deciding whether to issue permits, and EPA also has

authority under section 404(c) to “veto” USACE issuance of a permit in certain

cases. EPA also has responsibility for determining what is a “water of the United

States” protected by Clean Water Act programs, including Section 404. More

Section 319 authorizes

EPA to provide grants to

assist state and tribal

NPS pollution control

programs.
Chapter 1: Introduction

8 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

information about the 404 program is provided at <http://www.epa.gov/owow/

wetlands>.

1.4.3 National Estuary Program

EPA also administers the National Estuary Program under section 320 of the

Clean Water Act. This program focuses on both point and nonpoint sources of

pollution in designated geographically targeted, high-priority estuarine waters.

Through this program, EPA assists state, regional, and local governments in

developing comprehensive conservation and management plans that recommend

priority corrective actions to restore estuarine water quality, fish populations, and

other designated uses of the waters.

1.4.4 Pesticides Program

Another program administered by EPA that controls some forms of NPS pollution

is the pesticides program under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Among its provisions, the program authorizes EPA to control

pesticides that might threaten ground water and surface waters. FIFRA provides

for the registration of pesticides and enforceable label requirements, which may

include maximum rates of application, restrictions on use practices, and classification of pesticides as “restricted use” pesticides (which restricts use to certified

applicators trained to handle toxic chemicals).

1.4.5 Farm Bill Conservation Provisions

Technical and financial assistance for landowners seeking to preserve soil and

other natural resources is authorized by the federal government under provisions

of the Food Security Act (Farm Bill). Appendix A lists several USDA programs

with provisions included in the 1996 and 2002 Farm Bills that relate directly to

installation and maintenance of BMPs. Some of these programs include:

• Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)

• Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP)

• Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)

• Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP)

• Conservation of Private Grazing Land

• Swampbuster Program

• Conservation of Highly Erodible Lands

• Forest Land Enhancement Program (FLEP)

• Grassland Reserve Program (GRP)

• Resource Conservation and Development Program (RC&D)

1.4.6 Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program

In November 1990 Congress enacted the CZARA. These amendments were

intended to address the impact of NPS pollution on coastal waters.

Congress enacted section 6217 of CZARA, providing that each state with an

approved Coastal Zone Management Program must develop and submit to EPA

and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for approval

Many Farm Bill programs

provide funds for land

treatment. Please contact

your state or local U.S.

Department of Agriculture

(USDA) office for details.
Chapter 1: Introduction

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 9

a Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program. The purpose of the program is “to

develop and implement management measures for NPS pollution to restore and

protect coastal waters, working in close conjunction with other state and local

authorities.”

The intent of the legislation was for state coastal zone and water quality agencies

to have balanced roles, analogous to the sharing of responsibility between NOAA

and EPA at the federal level.

Section 6217(g) of CZARA required EPA to publish, in consultation with NOAA,

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and other federal agencies, “guidance for specifying management measures for sources of nonpoint pollution in

coastal waters.” Management measures are defined in section 6217(g)(5) as:

Economically achievable measures for the control of the

addition of pollutants from existing and new categories and

classes of nonpoint sources of pollution, which reflect the

greatest degree of pollutant reduction achievable through

the application of the best available nonpoint source control

practices, technologies, processes, siting criteria, operating

methods, or other alternatives.

In 1993 EPA published Guidance Specifying Management Measures for

Sources of Nonpoint Source Pollution in Coastal Waters (USEPA, 1993c). In

the 1993 document, management measures for urban areas; agricultural sources;

forestry; marinas and recreational boating; hydromodification (channelization and

channel modification, dams, and streambank and shoreline erosion); and wetlands, riparian areas, and vegetated treatment systems were defined and described. The management measures included in this document for controlling

NPS pollution in wetlands, riparian areas, and vegetated treated systems are

based on those outlined in the 1993 CZARA guidance.
Chapter 1: Introduction

10 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005
EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 11

2 Overview of Wetlands, Riparian Areas,

and Vegetated Treatment Systems

Understanding the role of wetlands, riparian areas, and vegetated treatment

systems in abating NPS pollution requires an understanding of several terms.

Because federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, and policy documents define

these terms in a number of different ways, this chapter provides an overview of

how the terms might be interpreted and defines the terms as they are used in this

document.

2.1 Wetlands and Riparian Areas

For purposes of this guidance, wetlands are defined as

those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water

or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to

support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a

prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps,

marshes, bogs, and similar areas.

As waters of the United States, wetlands are afforded protection under the

Clean Water Act. Although the focus of this document is on the function of

wetlands in reducing NPS pollution, it is important to keep in mind that wetlands

are ecological systems that perform a range of functions (e.g., hydrologic, flood

control, and aquatic habitat functions) in addition to pollutant removal. Therefore,

adverse impacts on existing wetlands should be avoided to the maximum extent

possible.

Definitions of wetlands are also contained in federal, state, and local laws,

ordinances, and policy documents. Because those definitions do not always use

scientific concepts, they might differ between states or even between localities

within a state.

For purposes of this guidance, riparian areas are defined as

A vegetated ecosystem along a water body through which

energy, materials, and water pass. Riparian areas characteristically have a high water table and are subject to periodic

flooding and influence from the adjacent water body. These

systems encompass wetlands, uplands, or some combination

of these two landforms. They will not in all cases have all the

characteristics necessary for them to be also classified as

wetlands.

Like the definitions for wetlands, the definitions for riparian areas can vary. For

example, a definition of riparian areas might be based on geographic region (arid

or humid climates) or on distance from a stream channel rather than on site

characteristics.

Wetlands are defined as

those areas that are

inundated or saturated by

surface water or

groundwater at a

frequency and duration

sufficient to support a

prevalence of vegetation

typically adapted for life in

saturated soil conditions.

Riparian areas are defined

as vegetated ecosystems

along a water body

through which energy,

materials, and water pass.
Chapter 2: Overview of Wetlands, Riparian Areas, and Vegetated Treatment Systems

12 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

Figure 2-1 illustrates the general relationship between wetlands, uplands, riparian

areas, and a stream channel. Identifying the exact boundaries of wetlands or

riparian areas is less critical than identifying ecological systems of concern. For

instance, even those riparian areas that fall outside wetland boundaries provide

many of the same important water quality functions that wetlands provide. In

many cases, the area of concern might include an upland buffer adjacent to

sensitive wetlands or riparian areas that protects them from excessive NPS

impacts or pretreats inflowing surface waters.

The functions of wetlands and riparian areas include water quality improvement;

stream shading; flood attenuation; shoreline stabilization; ground water exchange;

and habitat for aquatic, semiaquatic, terrestrial, migratory, and rare species.

Wetlands and riparian areas typically occur as natural buffers between uplands

and adjacent water bodies. Loss of these systems allows for a more direct

contribution of NPS pollutants to receiving waters. The pollutant removal functions associated with wetlands and riparian area vegetation and soils combine the

physical process of filtering and the biological processes of nutrient uptake and

denitrification (Lowrance et al., 1983; Peterjohn and Correll, 1984). Riparian

forests, for example, have been found to contribute to the quality of aquatic

habitat by providing cover, bank stability, and a source of organic carbon for

microbial processes like denitrification (James et al., 1990; Pinay and Decamps,

1988). Riparian systems, particularly in western regions, have been shown to

stabilize the recharge of shallow aquifers in a manner that supports streamflows

of longer natural duration (Platts and Jenson, 1990). Riparian forests have also

been found to be effective at reducing in-stream pollution during flood flows

(Karr and Gorman, 1975; Kleiss et al., 1989).

Wetlands and riparian areas can play a critical role in reducing NPS pollution by

intercepting surface runoff, subsurface flow, and certain ground water flows.

Figure 2-1. Relationship Between Wetlands, Uplands, Riparian Areas, and the Stream Channel
Chapter 2: Overview of Wetlands, Riparian Areas, and Vegetated Treatment Systems

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 13

Their role in water quality improvement includes processing, removing, transforming, and storing such pollutants as sediment, nitrogen, phosphorus, and

certain heavy metals (Washington State Department of Ecology, 1996). Research

also shows that riparian areas function to control the release of herbicides into

surface waters. Thus, wetlands and riparian areas buffer receiving waters from

the effects of pollutants or they prevent the entry of pollutants into receiving

waters. It is important to consider that degradation of wetlands and riparian areas

can inhibit their ability to treat NPS pollution. Degraded wetlands and riparian

areas can also become sources of NPS pollution.

In highly developed urban areas, wetlands and riparian areas can be virtually

destroyed by construction, filling, channelization, or other significant alterations. In

agricultural areas, wetlands and riparian areas can be affected by overuse of the

area for grazing or removal of native vegetation and replacement with annual crops

or perennial cover. In addition, significant hydrologic alterations might have occurred to expedite drainage of farmland. Other significant impacts might occur as a

result of various activities such as highway construction, surface mining, deposition

of dredged material, and excavation of ports and marinas. All these activities have

the potential to degrade or destroy the water quality improvement functions of

wetlands and riparian areas and might exacerbate NPS pollution problems.

A wetland’s position in the landscape affects its water quality functions. Some

cases have been studied sufficiently to predict how an individual wetland will

affect water quality on a landscape scale (Whigham et al., 1988). For example,

relationships have been demonstrated between the extent of individual wetlands

and lowered suspended solids, fecal coliform, and nutrients in streams

(Detenbeck et al., 1993; Johnson et al., 1990). Also, wetlands that border firstorder streams were found by Whigham and others (1988) to be efficient at

removing nitrate from ground water and sediment from surface waters. When

located downstream from first-order streams, wetlands and riparian areas were

found to be less effective than those located upstream at removing sediment and

nutrient from the stream itself because of a smaller percentage of stream water

coming into contact with the wetlands (Whigham et al., 1988). It has also been

estimated that the portion of a wetland or riparian area immediately below the

source of NPS pollution might be the most efficient at removing pollutants

(Cooper et al., 1987; Lowrance et al., 1983; Phillips, 1989).

Although wetlands and riparian areas reduce NPS pollution, they do so within a

definite range of operational conditions and cannot be viewed as a treatment

mechanism for unlimited amounts of NPS pollution. When hydrologic changes or

NPS pollutants exceed the natural assimilative capacity of wetlands and riparian

areas, these systems become stressed and can be degraded or destroyed. A

degraded wetland has less ability to remove NPS pollutants and to attenuate

stormwater peak flows (Bedford and Preston, 1988; Richardson and Davis, 1987;

Richardson, 1988). In addition, a degraded wetland can deliver increased

amounts of sediment, nutrients, and other pollutants to the adjoining water body,

thereby acting as a source of NPS pollution instead of a treatment (Brinson,

1988; Richardson, 1988). Therefore, wetlands and riparian areas should be

protected to the maximum extent possible from changes that would degrade their

existing pollution abatement functions. This protection can be accomplished by

The role of wetlands and

riparian areas in water

quality improvement

includes processing,

removing, transforming,

and storing such

pollutants as sediment,

nitrogen, phosphorus, and

certain heavy metals.
Chapter 2: Overview of Wetlands, Riparian Areas, and Vegetated Treatment Systems

14 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

applying NPS management measures appropriate to the source of pollutants

(e.g., activities associated with agriculture, urban development, forestry,

hydromodification, and marinas and recreational boating). Finally, degraded

wetlands and riparian areas should be restored, where possible, to serve an NPS

pollution abatement function.

2.2 Vegetated Treatment Systems

For purposes of this guidance, vegetated treatment systems are defined to

include vegetated filter strips or constructed wetlands. Vegetated treatment

systems can also be a combination of vegetated filter strips and constructed

wetlands. Both of these systems have been defined in scientific literature and

have been studied individually to determine their effectiveness in NPS pollutant

removal.

In this guidance, vegetated filter strips (VFS) are defined as (Dillaha et al.,

1989a and USEPA, 1996a)

created areas of vegetation designed to remove sediment and

other pollutants from surface water runoff by filtration,

deposition, infiltration, adsorption, absorption, decomposition, and volatilization. Vegetated filter strips are densely

vegetated sections of land designed to convey runoff in the

form of sheet flow across grassed or forested surfaces. A

vegetated filter strip is an area that maintains soil aeration

as opposed to a wetland, which at times exhibits anaerobic

soil conditions.

In this guidance, constructed wetlands are defined as (USEPA, 1998a)

wetlands that use natural processes involving wetland

vegetation, soils, and their associated microbial assemblages

to assist, at least partially, in treating an effluent or other

source water. These systems are engineered and constructed

in uplands, outside ‘waters of the United States,’ unless the

water source can serve a significant restoration function to

a degraded system.

In areas where naturally occurring wetlands or riparian areas do not exist or

cannot be restored to original sites, vegetated treatment systems can be designed

and constructed to perform some of the same functions. When such engineered

systems are installed for a specific NPS pollution abatement purpose, however,

they might not offer the same range of functions that naturally occurring wetlands or riparian areas offer. Vegetated treatment systems have been installed in

a wide range of settings, including cropland, pastureland, forests, cities, and

urbanizing areas, where the systems can perform a complementary function of

sediment control and surface water runoff management. Vegetated treatment

systems should be considered to have wide-ranging applicability to various NPS

categories.

When properly installed and maintained, VFS have been shown to effectively

prevent the entry of sediment, sediment-bound pollutants, and nutrients into water

Vegetated filter strips are

defined as created areas

of vegetation designed to

remove sediment and

other pollutants from

surface water runoff by

filtration, deposition,

infiltration, adsorption,

absorption,

decomposition,

and volatilization.
Chapter 2: Overview of Wetlands, Riparian Areas, and Vegetated Treatment Systems

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 15

bodies. VFS reduce NPS pollutants primarily by filtering water passing over or

through the strips. Properly designed and maintained VFS can substantially

reduce the delivery of sediment and some nutrients to waters from nonpoint

sources. With proper planning and maintenance, VFS can be a beneficial part of

a network of NPS pollution control measures for a particular site. Efficiencies of

VFS and riparian areas in removing sediments and nutrients from water passing

over and through the systems are discussed later in this document. VFS are often

coupled with practices that reduce nutrient inputs, minimize soil erosion, or collect

runoff. Where wildlife needs are factored into the design, VFS or buffers in

urban areas can add to the species diversity of the urban environment by providing wildlife nesting and feeding sites, in addition to serving as a pollution control

measure. However, VFS might require maintenance such as grass mowing or

removal of accumulated sediment. These and other maintenance activities might

preclude some of their value for wildlife, for example, by disturbing or destroying

nesting sites.

Constructed wetlands are designed to mimic the pollutant-removal functions of

natural wetlands and might lack aquatic habitat functions and species diversity. It

is important to note that aquatic plants and benthic organisms used in constructed

wetlands serve primarily to remove pollutants. Constructed wetlands may or may

not be designed to provide flood storage, ground water exchange, or other

functions associated with natural wetlands. In fact, if there is a potential for

exposing wildlife to contamination or other detrimental impacts, constructed

wetlands should be designed to discourage use by wildlife. If constructed wetlands are planned and designed correctly, however, they can be designed to

provide significant wildlife habitat, water reuse, and public use opportunities.

Pollutant removal in constructed wetlands is accomplished by several mechanisms, including sediment trapping, plant uptake, bacterial decomposition, and

adsorption. Properly designed and constructed wetlands filter and settle suspended solids. Wetland vegetation used in constructed wetlands converts some

pollutants (nitrogen, phosphorus, and metals) into plant biomass (Watson et al.,

1988). Nitrification, denitrification, and organic decomposition are bacterial

processes that occur in constructed wetlands. Some pollutants, such as phosphorus and most metals, physically attach or adsorb to soil and sediment particles;

therefore, constructed wetlands, used as a management practice, could be an

important component in managing NPS pollution from a variety of sources. They

are not intended to replace or destroy natural wetland areas, but rather to remove

NPS pollution before it enters a stream, natural wetland, or other water body.

The term vegetated buffer is currently used in many contexts, and there is no

agreement on any single concept of what constitutes a buffer, what activities are

acceptable in a buffer zone, or what is an appropriate buffer width. In one usage,

the term vegetated buffer refers to natural riparian areas that are set aside or

restored to filter pollutants from runoff and to maintain the ecological integrity of

the water body and the land adjacent to it (Nieswand et al., 1989). In another

usage, the term refers to constructed strips of vegetation used in various settings

to remove pollutants in runoff from a developed site (Nieswand et al., 1989).

USEPA (1996a) referred to vegetated buffers as barriers of natural or established perennial vegetation managed to reduce the impact of development or

Constructed wetlands are

defined as wetlands that

use natural processes

involving wetland

vegetation, soils, and their

associated microbial

assemblages to assist, at

least partially, in treating

an effluent or other source

water.

Vegetated buffers are

defined as strips of

vegetation separating a

water body from a land

use that could act as a

NPS pollution source.
Chapter 2: Overview of Wetlands, Riparian Areas, and Vegetated Treatment Systems

16 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

pollution on the water quality of adjacent areas. Vegetated buffers reduce the

velocity of surface runoff and provide an area for infiltration of runoff into the

soil. Finally, the term vegetated buffer can be used to describe a transition zone

between an urbanized area and a naturally occurring riparian forest (Faber et al.,

1989). In all these contexts, buffers can provide value to wildlife, as well as

aesthetic value.

A vegetated buffer usually has a rough surface and typically contains a heterogeneous mix of ground cover, including herbaceous and woody species of vegetation (Stewardship Incentive Program, 1991; Swift, 1986). This mix of vegetation

allows the buffer to function like a filter for pollutants. A VFS can also be

constructed to remove pollutants in runoff from a developed site, but a filter strip

differs from a vegetated buffer in that a filter strip typically has a smooth surface

with a vegetated cover made up of a homogeneous species of vegetation (Dillaha

et al., 1989a).

To avoid confusion, this guidance focuses specifically on the use of VFS (not the

more general vegetated buffer) that are used as vegetated treatment systems in

abating NPS pollution.
EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 17

3 Management Measures

When discussing specific categories of NPS pollution, such as agriculture,

forestry, urban areas, marinas and recreational boating, and hydromodification,

“management measures” represent effective systems of practices available to

prevent or reduce NPS pollution. Implementing the management measures in this

document will help to reduce pollution coming from a broad variety of nonpoint

sources by promoting the protection and restoration of wetlands and riparian

areas and the use of vegetated treatment systems. The following management

measures have been developed to protect the multiple functions wetland and

riparian ecosystems provide and to ensure their continued capacity for NPS

pollution abatement. They are described in greater detail in chapters 4, 5, and 6.

It is important to note, however, that while wetlands have the potential to prevent

or reduce NPS pollution, unrestricted use of wetlands as receptacles for NPS

pollution could have an adverse effect on the wetlands and wetland biota.

• Management Measure for Protection of Wetlands and Riparian

Areas: Protect from adverse effects wetlands and riparian areas that are

serving a significant NPS abatement function and maintain this function

while protecting the other existing functions of these wetlands and

riparian areas as measured by characteristics such as vegetative composition and cover, hydrology of surface water and ground water, geochemistry of the substrate, and species composition.

• Management Measure for Restoration of Wetlands and Riparian

Areas: Promote the restoration of the preexisting functions in damaged

and destroyed wetlands and riparian systems, especially in areas where

the systems will serve a significant NPS pollution abatement function.

• Management Measure for Vegetated Treatment Systems: Promote the

use of engineered vegetated treatment systems such as constructed

wetlands or vegetated filter strips where these systems will serve a

significant NPS pollution abatement function.

3.1 How Management Measures Work to Prevent

Nonpoint Source Pollution

Implementation of the management measures will help to control the delivery of

NPS pollutants to receiving water resources by

• Minimizing pollutants available (source reduction);

• Reducing the flow rate of runoff to allow for deposition of the pollutant

or infiltration of runoff; or

• Remediating or intercepting the pollutant through chemical or biological

transformation.

Management measures generally focus on the control of a particular type of

pollutant or pollutant category from specific land uses. The intent of the three

management measures is to ensure that the NPS benefits of protecting and

Management measures

have been developed for

the control of NPS

pollution through the

protection and restoration

of wetlands and riparian

areas and the use of

vegetated treatment

systems.
Chapter 3: Management Measures

18 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

restoring wetlands and riparian areas, and of constructing vegetated treatment

systems, will be considered in all water pollution control activities in a watershed.

These management measures form an essential element of any state NPS

pollution program.

Implementation of the first management measure is intended to protect the full

range of functions for wetlands and riparian areas that serve an NPS abatement

function. This protection will preserve their value as an NPS pollution control and

help to ensure that they do not become a significant nonpoint pollutant source as

a result of degradation.

The second management measure promotes the comprehensive restoration of

degraded wetlands and riparian systems with NPS pollution control potential for

reasons similar to those for the first measure—the increase in pollutant loadings

that can result from degradation of wetlands and riparian areas and the substantial evidence in the literature on the effectiveness of wetlands and riparian areas

for NPS pollution abatement. In addition, restoration might benefit wildlife and

aquatic organisms. This measure recommends evaluation of degraded wetlands

and riparian systems, as well as restoration if the systems will serve an NPS

pollution abatement function (e.g., by cost-effectively treating NPS pollution or

by attenuating peak flows).

The third management measure promotes the use of vegetated treatment systems because of their wide-scale ability to treat a variety of NPS pollutants. This

measure will also apply, as appropriate, to the other sources of NPS pollution

addressed in the CZARA Guidance (USEPA, 1993c).

3.2 Management Practices

In addition to specifying management measures, chapters 4 through 6 also list

and describe management practices. EPA has found the practices listed in this

document to be representative of the types of practices that can be applied

successfully to achieve the management measures. EPA recognizes that there is

often site-specific, regional, and national variability in the selection of appropriate

practices, as well as in the design constraints and pollution control effectiveness

of practices. The practices presented for each management measure are not allinclusive. State, tribal, or local agencies may wish to apply other technically and

environmentally sound practices to achieve the goals of the management

measures.
EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 19

4 Management Measure for Protection

of Wetlands and Riparian Areas

This chapter presents supporting information, including management practices,

specific implementation examples, and costs and benefits, for the following

management measure:

Management Measure

Protect from adverse effects wetlands and riparian areas

that are serving a significant NPS abatement function and

maintain this function while protecting the other existing

functions of these wetlands and riparian areas as measured by characteristics such as vegetative composition

and cover, hydrology of surface water and ground water,

geochemistry of the substrate, and species composition.

The purpose of this management measure is to maintain the water quality

benefits of wetlands and riparian areas and to ensure that such areas do not

become a source of NPS pollution as a result of degradation. The term NPS

abatement function refers to the ability of a wetland or riparian area to remove

NPS pollutants from runoff passing through the wetland or riparian area. Two

examples of NPS pollution abatement functions performed by wetlands and

riparian areas are (1) acting as a sink for phosphorus and (2) converting nitrate to

nitrogen gas through denitrification. Wetlands and riparian areas have been

shown to have useful functions for removing other NPS pollutants, including total

suspended solids (TSS), sulfates, calcium, magnesium, and sediments. Table 4-1

shows results of several studies of the NPS pollution abatement functions of

wetlands and riparian areas. The ability of wetlands and riparian areas to perform

pollution filtration functions is determined by species composition, geochemistry,

and hydrogeomorphic characteristics. Any changes to these characteristics can

affect filtering capacities. Evaluation of these data can give an indication of the

range of pollutant removals expected; however, ranges vary due to variations in

sampling techniques, parameters measured, and the nature of the sampling event

(storm event versus long-term monitoring.)

Reduction of NPS Pollutants in Coastal Plain Wetlands and Riparian Areas

A study performed in the southeastern United States coastal plain dramatically

illustrates the role that wetlands and riparian areas play in abating NPS pollutants. It

examined the water quality role played by mixed hardwood forests along stream

channels adjacent to agricultural lands. These streamside forests were shown to be

effective in retaining nitrogen, phosphorus, calcium, and magnesium. The study

authors projected that total conversion of the riparian forest to a mix of crops

typically grown on uplands would result in a 20-fold increase in nitrate-nitrogen

loadings to the streams. This projected increase resulted from use of fertilizers (e.g.,

nitrates) to promote crop development and from the loss of nitrate removal functions

previously performed by the riparian forest.

Source: Lowrance et al., 1983.

The NPS pollution

abatement functions

performed by wetlands

and riparian areas are

most effective as parts of

an integrated land

management system that

combines nutrient,

sediment, and soil erosion

control.
Chapter 4: Management Measure for Protection of Wetlands and Riparian Areas

20 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

Measurements taken throughout the United States show

the NPS pollutant abatement functions of wetlands and

riparian areas. Results of studies in various states (see

map at left) are shown in the table below. The

effectiveness of natural wetlands and riparian areas for

removing NPS pollutants depends on many factors,

which are discussed in this chapter. Natural wetlands and

riparian areas should be routinely monitored to measure

their environmental health and protect all of the physical,

chemical, and biological functions they provide. See

section 4.1.2 for more details. Additional information

about each study cited in the table is provided in

Appendix F at the back of the document.

Table 4-1. Effectiveness of Natural Wetlands and Riparian Areas for NPS Pollutant Removal

Study Solids NO3 N P SO4 Ca Mg Example Projects

Pollutant reduction by floodplain deposition in

bottomland hardwood forest 50%1 80% 50% Cache River (AR)

Nitrate retention in a third-order stream 14% Little Lost Man Creek (CA)

Nutrient removal in a mixed hardwood, riparian

forest 67% 25% 42% 22% Tifton (GA)

Sediment and phosphorus retention in a riparian

wetland 3% 0.4% Heron Pond (IL)

Nitrate and sulphate reduction in a riparian

forested wetland 86% 25% Rhode River 1 (MD)

Removal of nutrients in a riparian deciduous

hardwood forest >80% >80% Rhode River 2 (MD)

Phosphorus and nitrate export and removal in a

forested riparian area 79% 80% Rhode River Subwatershed(MD)

Retention of sediment and nutrient loads from

storm water runoff by an urban wetland

97%2

76%3 47% 48% Fish Lake (MN)

Nitrate reduction by a forested riparian buffer

strip 93% Beaver Dam Creek Watershed(NC)

Removal of phosphate in a riparian forest 50% Cypress Creek 1 (NC)

Sediment trapping efficiency in riparian areas 84-90%4 Cypress Creek 2 (NC)

Nitrate removal by wetland and riparian areas in

watershed headwaters 99% Lake Tahoe (NV)

Seasonal groundwater nitrate removal by

wetlands 80% Kingston 1 (RI)

Nitrate retention by riparian forest with upland

wetland transition zones and red maple

wetlands

59%

Kingston 2 (RI)

Note: NO3, nitrates; N, organic nitrogen; P, phosphorus; SO4, sulfate; Ca, calcium; Mg, magnesium.

1 Total suspended solids.

2 Nonvolatile solids.

3 Volatile solids.

4 Sediment.
Chapter 4: Management Measure for Protection of Wetlands and Riparian Areas

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 21

Factors Affecting Removal Efficiencies

The properties of a particular wetland or riparian area and of the surrounding

watershed play a significant role in the ability of the wetland or riparian area to

retain its existing wetland functions (such as food and habitat for animals, flood

storage, and ground water recharge) and serve an NPS pollution abatement

function. Several factors determine the pollutant-removal efficiency of a specific

wetland or riparian area, including the following:

• Frequency and duration of flooding

• Types of soil

• Slope of landscape

• Types of vegetation

• Balance of nitrogen and carbon

• Ratio of edge to area for the wetland or riparian area

The composition of water and characteristics of the surrounding watershed

affect the balance of wetland or riparian function and pollutant removal efficiency. Some of these characteristics are the land use practices in the watershed,

the number and types of surrounding wetlands and riparian areas, and the

climatic conditions in the area.

Multiple Benefits

EPA is encouraging the preservation and protection of wetlands and riparian

areas because these natural systems have been shown to provide many other

benefits in addition to NPS pollution reduction. The basis of protection involves

avoiding and minimizing impacts on wetlands and riparian areas that control NPS

pollution by maintaining the existing functions of these areas, including vegetative

composition and cover, flow characteristics of surface water and ground water,

hydrology and geochemical characteristics of substrate, and species composition

(Azous, 1991; Hammer, 1992; Mitsch and Gosselink, 1986; Reinelt and Horner,

1990; Richter et al., 1991; Stockdale, 1991).

Wetlands and riparian areas also perform important functions such as providing a

source of food, nesting material, habitat, and nursery areas for a variety of

terrestrial and aquatic wildlife (Atcheson et al., 1979). Many animals whose

development histories include an aquatic phase (amphibians, some reptiles, and

invertebrates) need habitat provided by wetlands (Mitsch and Gosselink, 1993).

Other important functions of wetlands and riparian areas include floodwater

storage, erosion control, ground water recharge, and maintenance of biological

diversity. Protection of wetlands and riparian areas should allow for both NPS

control and other corollary benefits of these natural aquatic systems.

Degradation Increases Pollution

Wetlands perform many water quality functions; however, when severely degraded, they can be a source of NPS pollution (Brinson 1988; Richardson, 1988).

For example, the drainage of tidal wetlands underlain by a layer of organic peat

can cause the soil to rapidly decompose and release sulfuric acid, which can

significantly reduce pH (increase acidity) in surrounding waters. Removal of

wetland or riparian area vegetation along the shorelines of streams, bays, or

The preservation and

protection of wetlands and

riparian areas is

encouraged because

these natural systems

provide many benefits, in

addition to providing the

potential for NPS pollution

reduction.
Chapter 4: Management Measure for Protection of Wetlands and Riparian Areas

22 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

estuaries makes these areas more vulnerable to erosion because of increased

water level fluctuation associated with storm events, concentrated runoff, and

wave action. Activities such as channelization, which modify the hydrology of

floodplain wetlands, can alter the ability of these areas to retain sediment when

they are flooded and result instead in erosion and a net export of sediment from

the wetland (Reinelt and Horner, 1990).

Permits to Protect Wetlands

A permit program administered by the USACE, EPA, and approved states under

section 404 of the Clean Water Act regulates the discharge of dredged or fill

material into waters of the United States, including wetlands. The management

measure and section 404 program complement each other, but the two differ in

focus.

The management measure focuses on protecting wetlands that help to abate

NPS problems, as well as on maintaining the functions of these wetlands. This

protection can include preventing impacts resulting from upland development and

upstream channel modifications that erode wetlands, change salinity, kill existing

vegetation, and upset sediment and nutrient balances. The section 404 program

focuses on protecting wetlands from physical destruction and other pollutant

problems that could result from discharges of dredged or fill material. Table 4-2

shows many of the federal programs that affect wetlands in the United States.

In Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. Army Corps of Engineers, no. 99-1178 (January 9, 2001) (“SWANCC”), the United State Supreme

Court in a 5-4 decision, limited the ability of the USACE and EPA to assert Clean

Water Act jurisdiction over isolated intrastate non-navigable waters. The Supreme Court held that USACE exceeded its statutory authority by asserting

Clean Water Act jurisdiction over such waters based soley on the fact they are

or could be used as habitat for migratory birds or endangered species (“Migratory bird rule”). Under this ruling, isolated wetlands and other waters may remain

protected under the Act, but only if other bases for jurisdiciton are identified. In

additon, isolated waters or wetlands may still be subject to regulation by state

agencies.

Although the SWANCC decision limits federal Clean Water Act jurisdiction over

isolated, intrastate, non-navigable waters and wetlands, the Federal government

remains committed to protecting all of the nation’s waters. EPA and the USACE

will continue to monitor implementation of the Clean Water Act Section 404

regulatory program to ensure its effectiveness. As of December 2003, the

Federal government was implementing 30 programs to protect and restore

millions of acres of our Nation’s wetlands. These include programs such as the

Food Security Act’s “Swampbuster” requirements and the Wetlands Reserve

Program, both under the authority of USDA. EPA programs include its “FiveStar Restoration” grant program, the EPA wetlands grants programs and the

National Estuary Program. Other federal programs include: the Fish and Wildlife

Service’s “Partners in Wildlife” program, the National Marine Fisheries Service’s

Coastal Wetlands Restoration Program and the Migratory Bird Conservation

Commission, composed of the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture, the Administrator of EPA, and Members of Congress (USEPA, 2003).
Chapter 4: Management Measure for Protection of Wetlands and Riparian Areas

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 23

Table 4-2. Federal Programs and Acts That Affect Wetlands in the United States

Program or Act Agency Effect of Program 

Clean Water Act EPA, Corps, 

FWS, NOAA 

Section 404 establishes permit program for discharge of dredged or fill material 

into all waters of the US, including wetlands. Section 402 similarly requires 

permits for discharges of other pollutants. 

Coastal Barriers Resources Act 

(P.L. 96-348) (1982) 

NOAA Designates various undeveloped coastal barrier islands for inclusion in the 

Coastal Barrier Resources System. Designated areas are ineligible for federal 

financial assistance that may aid development. 

Coastal Wetland Planning, Protection, and 

Restoration Act 

(P.L. 101-646) (1990) 

USACE, FWS, 

EPA, NMFS, 

NRCS 

Provides for interagency wetlands restoration and conservation planning and 

acquisition in Louisiana, other coastal states, and the trust territories. 

Coastal Zone Management Act 

(P.L. 92-583) (1972) 

NOAA Provides federal funding for wetlands programs in most coastal states, including 

the preparation of Coastal Zone Management Plans. 

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 

(P.L. 99-645) 

FWS Pays debts incurred by FWS for wetlands acquisition and provides additional 

revenue sources. 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-205) FWS Provides for the designation and protection of wildlife, fish, and plant species 

that are in danger of extinction. 

Estuary Protection Act 

(P.L. 90-454) (1968) 

DOI Authorized the study and inventory of estuaries and the Great Lakes, and 

provided for management of designated estuaries between DOI and the states. 

Estuary Restoration Act of 2000 

(P.L. 106-457) (2000) 

USEAP, NOAA, 

USACE, FWS, 

USDA 

Promotes the restoration of estuary habitat, develops a national estuary habitat 

restoration strategy, provides federal assistance and promotes efficient 

financing of such projects, and enhances monitoring and research capabilities. 

E.O. 11990, Protection of Wetlands (1977) AFA Requires federal agencies to minimize impacts of federal activities on wetlands. 

E.O. 11988, Protection of Floodplains (1977) AFA Requires federal agencies to minimize impacts of federal activities on 

floodplains. 

Federal Aid in Wildlife Coordination Act of 1956 DOI Authorizes the development and distribution of fish and wildlife information and 

the development of policies and procedures relating to fish and wildlife. 

Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 

1990 (P.L. 101-624) 

NRCS Water Resources Development Act of Wetland Reserve Program purchases 

perpetual nondevelopment easements on farmed wetlands. Subsidizes 

restoration of croplands to wetlands. 

Food Security Act of 1985 (Swampbuster) 

(P.L. 99-198) 

FSA, FWS “Swampbuster” program suspends agricultural subsidies for farmers who 

convert wetlands to agriculture. Conservation Easements program allows 

FmHA FSA to eliminate some farm debts in exchange for long-term easements 

that protect wetlands and other areas. 

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamps 

(1934) (Ch. 71, 48 Stat. 452) 

FWS Acquires wetland easements using revenues from fees paid by hunters for duck 

stamps. 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(P.L. 91-190) 

AFA Requires the preparation of an environmental impact statement for all major 

federal actions significantly affecting the environment. 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan 

(1986) 

FWS Establishes a plan for managing waterfowl resources by various methods, such 

as acquiring wetlands. 

North American Wetlands Conservation Act 

(1989) (P.L. 101-233) 

FWS Encourages public/private partnerships by providing matching grants to 

organizations for protecting, restoring, or enhancing wetlands. 

Rivers and Harbors Act of 1938 (52 Stat. 802) USACE Provides that “due regard” be given to wildlife conservation in planning federal 

water projects. 

U.S. Tax Code Tax Reform Act of 1986 

(P.L. 99-514) 

IRS Provides deductions for donors of wetlands and to some nonprofit organizations. 

Water Bank Act (1970) (P.L. 91-559) FSA Leases wetlands and adjacent uplands from farmers for waterfowl habitat for 

10-year periods. 

Water Resources Development Act of 2000 

(P.L. 106-541) 

USACE States that future mitigation plans for federal water projects should include “in 

kind” mitigation for bottomland hardwood forests. 

Wetlands Loan Act (1961) (P.L. 87-383 FWS Provides interest-free loans for wetland acquisition and easements. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (P.L. 90-542) (1968) DOI, USDA Protects designated river segments from alterations without a permit.

Note: AFA, all federal agencies; ASCS, Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service; DOI, Department of the Interior; EPA, Environmental Protection Agency; FSA, 

Farm Service Agency; FmHA, Farmer's Home Administration; FWS, Fish and Wildlife Service; IRS, Internal Revenue Service; NMFS, National Marine Fisheries Service; 

NOAA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; USACE, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; USDA, U.S. Department of Agriculture; P.L., Public Law; E.O., Executive 

Order.
Chapter 4: Management Measure for Protection of Wetlands and Riparian Areas

24 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

4.1 Management Practices for Protecting Wetlands

and Riparian Areas

The management measure for protecting wetlands and riparian areas generally will

be implemented by applying one or more practices appropriate to a specific source,

location, and climate. Wetland evaluation, assessment of functions and values,

programmatic approaches to wetland protection, and preliminary treatment

practices can be applied to implement the management measure for protecting

wetlands and riparian areas. The following pages and Table 4-3 provide details

about each practice.

4.1.1 Wetland Evaluation

Evaluate and document the NPS control potential of wetlands

and riparian areas on a watershed or landscape scale.

Wetlands and riparian areas should be considered part of a continuum of filters

along rivers, streams, lakes, and coastal waters that together serve an important

NPS abatement function. Examples of evaluating wetlands and riparian areas on

a watershed or landscape scale were outlined by Whigham and others (1988).

They found that a landscape approach can be used to make reasonable decisions

about how any particular wetland might affect water quality parameters. Wetlands in the upper parts of the drainage systems tend to have a greater impact on

water quality than those in lower reaches.

Wetlands and riparian areas are particularly sensitive to landscape disturbance,

including fragmentation and changes in land cover. Wetlands and riparian areas

covering large areas provide for more sustainable NPS control within a watershed (Mitsch, 1992). Hanson and others (1990) used a model to determine the

effect of riparian forest fragmentation on forest dynamics. They concluded that

increased fragmentation would lead to lower species diversity and an increased

prevalence of species that are adapted to isolated conditions. Naiman and others

(1988) discussed the importance of wetlands and riparian areas as boundary

ecosystems, providing a boundary between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.

EPA BASINS (Better Assessment Science Integrating Point and Nonpoint

Sources) software may also be useful for wetlands evaluations by providing

integrated databases and assessment tools to analyze environmental information,

and provide a framework for examining management alternatives.

Geographic Differences

The characteristics of wetlands and riparian areas are largely controlled by

climate, landscape characteristics, vegetation, and soils. Regional variations in

these controls can greatly affect how a wetland or riparian area functions within

a watershed. Therefore, it is important to consider geographic variations when

evaluating the potential NPS pollution control functions of wetlands and riparian

areas. For instance, wetlands in arid or semiarid areas are typically associated

Wetlands and riparian

areas should be

considered as part of a

continuum of filters along

rivers, streams, and

coastal waters that

together serve an

important NPS abatement

function.

Practice
Chapter 4: Management Measure for Protection of Wetlands and Riparian Areas

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 25

with perennial springs and headwaters streams; that is, they are able to exist

because they are near enough to the headwaters that the probability of erosive

scour from flood flows is minimal. The upstream pumping of ground water can

disrupt the hydrology of cienagas and playas, two of the more common arid/semiarid wetland types, where water is not abundant. These types of wetlands play

an important role in NPS pollution control because of their location within the

watershed or landscape. In addition, the characteristics of a watershed wield a

strong influence on rivers, flooding patterns, and riparian wetlands. Western and

eastern riparian wetlands in small watersheds tend to flood for a few months

during spring thaw, whereas eastern bottomland forests (such as those along the

Mississippi River) flood for several months. During these flood periods the

wetlands capture and filter the NPS pollutants carried in the floodwaters.

Changes in the volume and flood period can affect the NPS pollution control

potential of these wetlands. For additional geographic differences in wetlands,

refer to Table 4-4.

Practice: Evaluate and document the NPS

pollution control potential of wetlands and

riparian areas on a watershed or landscape

scale.

This table provides some examples from different

locations in the United States of the kinds of

activities that can help implement this practice. For

more information about the examples, refer to

Appendix F at the back of the document.

Table 4-3. Potential of Wetlands and Riparian Areas for NPS Pollution Control.

Implementation Activities Example Projects 

Use a landscape approach to evaluate wetland water quality 

functions. 

Local Wetland Management Plans (AK), Wetland Protection (FL), Wetland 

Assessment (IL), Grand Traverse Bay Watershed Initiative (MI), Wetland 

Protection (RI), Rivers and Wetlands Program (TN), Synoptic Assessment 

Approach (WA) 

Use watershed analysis as a tool to ensure functional performance. Wetland Protection (FL), Synoptic Assessment Approach (WA) 

Use tools such as the synoptic approach to construct broad scale 

assessments. 

Wetland Assessment (IL), Pearl River Basin (MS), Synoptic Assessment 

Approach (WA) 

Recognize geographic differences when considering wetland or 

riparian area functions within a watershed. 

Reference Reach Monitoring Program (KY), Wetland Conservation Plan (MN), 

Wetland Conservation Plan (TX), Synoptic Assessment Approach (WA) 

Develop wetland conservation plans that consider wetlands and 

riparian areas on a watershed or landscape scale. 

Wetland Conservation Plan (ME), Grand Traverse Bay Watershed Initiative (MI), 

Watershed Initiative Program (MI), Wetland Protection (NY), Wetland 

Conservation Plans (OR), Rivers and Wetlands Program (TN), Wetland 

Conservation Plan (TX), Synoptic Assessment Approach (WA), Wetlands 

Conservation Plan/Outreach (Bad River Band), Watershed Demonstration Project 

(Flathead Reservation), Watershed Protection (Umatilla), Wetland Conservation 

Program (Nez Perce), Wetlands Conservation Project (Hopi) 

Consider water quality functions of wetlands and riparian areas 

during the planning process. 

Wetland Protection (MA), Wetland Conservation Plans (OR) 
Chapter 4: Management Measure for Protection of Wetlands and Riparian Areas

26 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

Table 4-4. Descriptions of Specific Wetland Types
Chapter 4: Management Measure for Protection of Wetlands and Riparian Areas

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 27

Ecosystem Management

Several federal agencies, states, tribes, and many local communities are beginning to outline the role of wetlands and riparian areas in terms of ecosystem

management. The underlying tenet of this management strategy is that

biodiversity and ecological processes form the core of functioning landscapes

(Henjum et al., 1994). If examples of each type of representative ecosystem in a

region can be maintained, including wetlands and riparian areas, the species that

live in these ecosystems will also be afforded an opportunity to persist (Noss and

Cooperrider, 1994). To achieve this, areas of relatively intact, functioning ecosystems that represent biological diversity should be given serious consideration as

sites where wetlands and riparian area protection and restoration efforts are

focused (Doppelt et al., 1993).

Watershed Analysis

Planning for NPS pollution control in an ecosystem context will require use of

new approaches in environmental assessment. Watershed analysis is one such

tool that can be used to ensure the functional performance of wetlands and

riparian area protection and conservation practices and to evaluate the success

of such practices. Watershed analysis is structured around a series of questions

whose answers provide a model of ecosystem processes, disturbance history, and

risk (Montgomery et al., 1995). The analysis can be conducted at various spatial

scales, and used to evaluate the relative contribution of wetlands and riparian

areas to maintaining regional or basinwide water quality conditions.

Watershed Approach in Arkansas

The Arkansas Wetland Strategy does not replace other natural resource plans; it

recognizes them and puts wetlands in context with other resource plans, such as NPS

pollution management, floodplain management, habitat protection, ground water

protection, and other water quality programs, for decision making at the watershed

level. It also provides an ecosystem context by linking with regional wetland plans

and priorities. Stakeholders (including wetland scientists, policy makers, landowners,

and regulators) concluded that case-by-case wetland permitting does not result in a

balanced conservation strategy. Case-by-case permitting tends to be inconsistent

and confusing to landowners and usually does not result in “no net loss.” The

Arkansas Wetland Strategy promotes voluntary, incentive-based, locally lead

conservation planning through the implementation of the strategy objectives.

Source: Multi-Agency Wetland Planning Team, 2001.

Synoptic Approach

A similar method for conducting broad-scale assessment is the Synoptic Approach developed by EPA (Leibowitz et al., 1992). The approach involves

compiling, organizing, and depicting environmental information in a manner that

ranks watersheds according to the relative significance and risks associated with

wetlands (or other ecosystems). States can use the synoptic approach and

related assessment methodologies to refine water quality protection strategies

(e.g., geographic prioritization), including plans for NPS control (Daggett, 1994).

In Louisiana and Washington State, EPA has conducted studies that use the

synoptic approach to assess wetland water quality functions on a landscape scale

(Abbruzzese et al., 1990a, 1990b). The synoptic approach considers the environ-
Chapter 4: Management Measure for Protection of Wetlands and Riparian Areas

28 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

Watershed Approach

A watershed is an area of land that drains to a single stream or other water resources. Watersheds are defined solely by

drainage areas and may include multiple landowners or cross political boundaries. The watershed approach is a coordinating framework for environmental management that focuses public and private sector efforts to address the highest

priority problems within hydrologically defined geographic areas (e.g., watersheds), taking into consideration both

ground and surface water flow.

EPA supports watershed approaches that aim to prevent pollution, achieve and sustain environmental improvements, and

meet other goals important to the community. Although watershed approaches may vary in terms of specific objectives,

priorities, elements, timing, and resources, all should be based on the following guiding principles:

• Partnerships. Those people most affected by management decisions are involved throughout and shape key

decisions. This ensures that environmental objectives are well integrated with those for economic stability and

other social and cultural goals. Partnerships also ensure that the people who depend on the natural resources

within the watersheds are well informed and participate in planning and implementation activities.

• Geographic focus. Activities are directed within specific geographic areas, typically the areas that drain to

surface water bodies or that recharge or overlay ground waters or a combination of both. Cooperation between

multiple landowners and political jurisdictions is essential.

• Sound management techniques based on strong science and data. Collectively, watershed stakeholders

employ sound scientific data, tools, and techniques in an interactive decision-making process. This process

should include:

– Assessment and characterization of the natural resources and the communities that depend on them.

– Goal setting and identification of environmental objectives based on the condition or vulnerability of

resources and the needs of the aquatic ecosystem and the people in the community.

– Identification of priority problems.

– Development of specific management options and action plans.

– Implementation.

– Evaluation of effectiveness and revision of plans, as needed.

When stakeholders work together, actions are based on shared information and a common understanding of the roles,

priorities, and responsibilities of all involved parties. The nature of the watershed approach encourages partners to set

goals and targets and to make maximum progress based on available information, while continuing analysis and verification

in areas where information is incomplete.

Watershed projects should have a strong monitoring and evaluation component. Monitoring is essential to determining

the effectiveness of management options chosen by stakeholders. Because many watershed protection activities require

long-term commitments from stakeholders, they need to know whether their efforts are achieving real improvements in

wetland or riparian area functions.

Operating and coordinating programs on a watershed basis makes good sense for environmental, financial, social, and

administrative reasons. For example, by jointly reviewing the results of assessment efforts for NPS pollution control, fish

and wildlife habitat protection, and other resource protection programs, managers can better understand the cumulative

impacts of various human activities and determine the most critical problems in each watershed. Using this information to

set priorities for action allows public and private managers from all levels to allocate limited financial and human resources

to address the most critical needs.

The final result of the watershed approach is a plan that is a clear description of resource problems, goals to be obtained,

monitoring to be conducted, and identification of sources for technical, educational and funding assistance. The successful

plan provides a basis for seeking support and for maximizing the benefits of that support.

Source: USEPA, 1996b.
Chapter 4: Management Measure for Protection of Wetlands and Riparian Areas

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 29

mental effects of cumulative wetland losses. In addition, this approach involves

assembling a framework that ranks watersheds according to the relative importance of wetland functions and losses. States are also encouraged to refine their

water quality standards applicable to wetlands by assigning wetland-specific

designated uses to classes of wetlands (USEPA, 1990).

A number of factors in a watershed should be considered in the development of a

wetland conservation plan. Factors such as position in the landscape, present or

past land use, and existing modification of the natural hydrology help to define the

goals and objectives of a conservation plan and identify problems and opportunities for protection and management.

4.1.2 Assessment of Functions and Values

Identify existing functions of those wetlands and riparian areas

with significant NPS control potential when implementing NPS

management practices. Do not alter wetlands or riparian areas

to improve their water quality function at the expense of their

other functions.

Although wetlands are recognized for their flood control and water quality

improvement functions, use of natural wetlands to reduce pollutants in

stormwater and other forms of runoff can have dramatically adverse effects on

wetland systems. EPA’s Office of Wetlands has several Fact Sheets available

(for example, Wetland Monitoring and Assessment: A Technical Framework,

USEPA, 2002 and Wetland Monitoring and Assessment, USEPA, 2001) that

provide information on protecting and monitoring wetlands. See the EPA Office

of Wetlands’ website, http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/facts/contents.html for

a complete list of wetlands fact sheets and other technical information. Several

states have laws that restrict direct conveyance of stormwater into natural

wetlands. For example, the Washington State Department of Ecology established

regulations restricting the placement of stormwater management ponds in

wetlands. Stormwater discharges to wetlands must be treated and controlled to

meet state water quality and ground water quality standards. The hydroperiod

and flows of existing site conditions must also be maintained to protect characteristic uses of the wetland (Washington State Department of Ecology, 1992).

In general, the following practices should be avoided:

• Location of surface water runoff ponds or sediment retention basins in

wetland systems.

• Extensive dredging and plant harvesting as part of nutrient or metals

management in natural wetlands.

Some harvesting within wetlands might be necessary to control the invasion of

exotic plants. Extensive harvesting of plants in a wetland for surface water

runoff or nutrient management, however, could be very disruptive to the existing

plant and animal communities.

Practice
Chapter 4: Management Measure for Protection of Wetlands and Riparian Areas

30 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

A study conducted on two similar wetlands in New Jersey demonstrated an

increase in erosion associated with the harvesting of vegetation. Vegetation was

cut in one of the wetlands and left undisturbed in the other. Banks eroded more

than 6 feet in the harvested wetlands while the uncut site exhibited minimal

erosion (USEPA, 1995b).

Assessment

The assessment of wetland and riparian areas can provide data needed to

identify degradation of functions within the systems and potential sources of the

degradation. Several states assess wetlands that are relatively free from impacts

to define baseline conditions and establish standards to protect wetlands.

Several assessment approaches can be applied to characterize existing functions

of wetlands and riparian areas. The Hydrogeomorphic Approach to the Functional Assessment of Wetlands (HGM) was developed by the USACE Waterways Experiment Station (USACE Waterways Experiment Station, 1995). HGM

establishes procedures for classifying regional wetland types and developing

models for assessing the functions of each. HGM is based on the recognition of

common hydrologic and geomorphic characteristics of different types of wetland

ecosystems and the use of reference systems as the basis of scaling functional

attributes of wetlands. With the establishment of reference wetlands, in which

functions have already been evaluated, a site being evaluated can be compared

to the reference group of the same class. The HGM method represents a rapid

assessment approach that can be used to characterize existing functions in

wetlands, potential impacts to wetland functions as the result of an activity, and

changes in wetland function over time.

Examples of the use of functional assessment tools for various wetland or

riparian area applications are provided in Table 4-5 and Appendix F.

Monitoring

Water quality and biological monitoring may be necessary to characterize general

conditions and to document changes over time. Monitoring of conditions in

wetland or riparian areas, particularly where such areas are providing NPS

pollution reduction functions, is important to ensure that healthy habitat conditions

are maintained. Water quality monitoring is useful for determining the physical

characteristics and chemical composition of a water body at a particular time. A

sustained record of water quality sampling makes it possible to determine trends

in pollutant loadings. BMPs to protect habitat functions can be implemented

where adverse impacts are identified.

One of the most direct and effective ways of evaluating the ecological health or

integrity of a wetland is to directly measure the condition of the wetland’s

biological community. Bioassessment methods can be used to directly measure

the long-term biological integrity of wetlands and quickly screen them for signs of

impairment. Several states, including Florida, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts,

Minnesota, Montanan, North Dakota, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, are developing

biological assessment methods to evaluate the health of their wetlands. Wetland

bioassessments can be useful in defining management approaches to maintain

A state may need to

address any one or a

combination of factors in

particular circumstances

to meet the mandates of

the Clean Water Act

articulated in section

101(a): “to restore and

maintain the chemical,

physical, and biological

integrity of the nation’s

waters.”
Chapter 4: Management Measure for Protection of Wetlands and Riparian Areas

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 31

and restore wetland condition and in evaluating the performance of protection

and restoration activities.

The involvement of volunteers in wetland assessment and monitoring programs is

a realistic, cost-effective and beneficial way to obtain important information that

might otherwise be unavailable because of a lack of resources at government

agencies. Initiatives like Riverwatch, Adopt a Stream, and the Izaak Walton

League’s Save Our Streams program have been highly successful in maintaining

groups of interested volunteers and yielding data useful to scientists, planners,

and concerned citizens. A growing number of organizations are training citizens

to monitor wetlands.

In addition to providing useful information, these programs have the benefit of

educating citizens about wetland functions and empowering citizens to become

more active stewards of wetland resources in their communities. Informed

Table 4-5. Assessment of Functions and Values for Protection of Wetlands or Riparian Areas

Practice: Identify existing functions of those

wetlands and riparian areas with significant NPS

pollution control potential when implementing NPS

pollution management practices. Do not alter

wetlands or riparian areas to improve their water

quality function at the expense of their other

functions.

This table provides some examples from different

locations in the United States of the kinds of

activities that can help implement this practice. For

more information about the examples, refer to

Appendix F at the back of the document.
Chapter 4: Management Measure for Protection of Wetlands and Riparian Areas

32 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

citizens can play a key role in encouraging land and water stewardship in all

sectors of society, from industry to private homeowners and from housing

developers to municipal sewage treatment managers and local planning boards.

4.1.3 Programmatic Approaches

Use permitting, licensing, certification, and nonregulatory

approaches to protect wetland functions.

There are many possible programs, both regulatory and nonregulatory, to protect

wetland functions (Table 4-6). Appendix A and Appendix F also provide information on federal, state, nonprofit, and private programs involved in the protection

and restoration of wetlands and riparian areas on private lands. From a regulatory standpoint, many states have already implemented requirements for increases in flow rates into wetlands and restricted the placement of detention/

retention and other basins in high ground water areas. The use of permitting,

licensing, and certification is a practice that is constantly being used, modified,

and updated.

Acquisition

Obtain easements or full fee acquisition rights for wetlands and riparian areas

along streams, bays, and estuaries. Numerous federal programs, such as the

USDA WRP, the EPA Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF), and the Fish

and Wildlife Service North American Waterfowl Management Plan can provide

assistance for acquiring easements or full title. Acquisition of water rights to

ensure maintenance of minimum in-stream flows is another means to protect

wetlands or riparian areas. Water rights acquisition can be a critical issue in the

arid West. See Table 4-6 and Appendix F for examples of acquisition and easement programs.

Several states have developed landowner guides for wetland protection and

management. Table 4-7 provides examples of states that have developed guides.

Additional information on protection and management guides is provided in

Appendix F.

Zoning and Protective Ordinances

Restrict activities that have a negative impact on wetlands and riparian areas

through implementation of special area zoning and transferable development

rights. Identify impediments to wetland protection such as excessive street

standards and setback requirements that limit site-planning options and sometimes force development into wetlands.

Provide a mechanism for

private landowners and

agencies in mixedownership watersheds to

develop, by consensus,

goals, management plans,

and appropriate practices

and to obtain assistance

from federal and state

agencies.

Practice
Chapter 4: Management Measure for Protection of Wetlands and Riparian Areas

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 33

Practice: Conduct permitting, licensing,

certification, and nonregulatory NPS pollultion

abatement activities in a manner that protects

wetland functions.

This table provides some examples from different

locations in the United States of the kinds of

activities that can help implement this practice. For

more information about the examples, refer to

Appendix F at the back of the document.

Table 4-6. Programmatic Approaches to Protecting Wetlands and Riparian Areas
Chapter 4: Management Measure for Protection of Wetlands and Riparian Areas

34 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

Winona Wetlands Purchase

The city of Port Townsend, Washington, was able to meet both stormwater management objectives and a wetlands preservation goal by obtaining funding from

Washington’s SRF to purchase an area known as the Winona Wetlands. This wetland

acts as a critical stormwater basin for the area and provides valuable wildlife habitat.

Potential development of the area not only threatened the wetlands but also would

result in stormwater management problems. By purchasing the wetlands, the city was

able to protect a natural stormwater management system as well as a wildlife refuge.

The city purchased 6.5 acres in Phase I and is currently planning to borrow additional

SRF funds for a Phase II purchase of 9 acres. This $400,000 project is part of the

National Estuary Program (Clean Water Act section 320) for the Puget Sound Estuary.

A portion of the city’s stormwater utility fee paid by households is being used to

repay the Washington SRF.

Source: USEPA. 1998c.

Chesapeake Bay Program

The Chesapeake Bay Program has developed a compilation of tools to assist local

governments in the protection of wetlands, including planning, zoning, and tax

incentive approaches that have been useful for protecting wetlands in the Chesapeake Bay region.

Source: USEPA, 1997b.

Table 4-7. Examples of State Guides for Wetland Protection and Management
Chapter 4: Management Measure for Protection of Wetlands and Riparian Areas

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 35

Water Quality Standards

Several states and tribes have realized the importance of developing and implementing water quality standards that protect the full range of wetland functions.

A significant percentage of wetlands are waters of the United States, as defined

in the Clean Water Act. Consider natural water quality functions when specifying

designated uses for wetlands, and include biological and hydrologic narrative

criteria to protect the full range of wetland functions. Table 4-6 and Appendix F

provide examples of cases where water quality standards that specifically

address wetland functions have been, or are being, developed. Also refer to

EPA’s Water Quality Standards for Wetlands: National Guidance for more

information (USEPA, 1990).

Regulation and Enforcement

Establish, maintain, and strengthen regulatory and enforcement programs. Where

allowed by law, include conditions in permits and licenses issued under Clean

Water Act sections 401, 402, and 404; state regulations; or other regulations to

protect wetlands.

As an example of a linkage to protect NPS pollutant abatement and other

benefits of wetlands, a state could determine under Clean Water Act section 401

that a proposed discharge or other activity in a wetland is inconsistent with state

water quality standards. A state might need to address any one of a combination

of factors in particular circumstances to meet the mandates of the Clean Water

Act articulated in section 101(a) “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical,

and biological integrity of the nation’s waters.” Protection of water quality

includes protection of multiple elements that together make up aquatic systems,

including the aquatic life, wildlife, wetlands and other aquatic habitat, vegetation,

and hydrology required to maintain the aquatic system. An activity within a

wetland could be determined to be consistent with water quality standards if

existing use requirements are met and if the activity does not cause or contribute

to significant degradation of the aquatic environment as defined in the guidelines

developed under section 404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act (USEPA, 1991).

Restoration

Programs such as USDA’s CRP and WRP provide opportunities to set aside and

restore wetlands and riparian areas. Also, incentives that encourage private

restoration of fish and wildlife productivity are often more cost-effective than

federal, state or local acquisition.

Education and Training

Education and outreach are essential tools for promoting an understanding of the

importance of wetland and riparian areas in maintaining water quality and in

developing support for the protection of these habitats and the valuable functions

that they perform.

• Educate farmers, urban dwellers, and federal agencies on the role of

wetlands and riparian areas in protecting water quality and on BMPs

for restoring stream edges.

For more information on

State Revolving Funds,

contact your Clean Water

State Revolving Fund

Program or contact:

The Clean Water State

Revolving Fund Branch

U.S. EPA

1200 Pennsylvania Ave.,

NW

(Mailcode 4204)

Washington, DC 20460

(202) 260-7359

http://www.epa.gov/OWM
Chapter 4: Management Measure for Protection of Wetlands and Riparian Areas

36 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

• Teach courses in simple restoration techniques for landowners.

• Use local and regional wetlands guides. Many states have developed

wetlands guides to assist landowners in protecting wetland and riparian

areas according to their different needs (see Table 4-7). Appendix A

and Appendix F provide additional examples of federal, state, tribal,

nonprofit, and private programs that provide financial and technical

assistance to landowners for wetland or riparian area protection or

restoration.

• Provide a mechanism for private landowners and agencies in mixedownership watersheds to develop, by consensus, goals, management

plans, and appropriate practices and to obtain assistance from federal

and state agencies. EPA’s National Estuary Program and the USFWS

Bay/Estuary Program are excellent examples of approaches that

establish a framework for multiagency program linkage and present

opportunities to link implementation efforts aimed at protection or

restoration of wetlands and riparian areas.

A number of state and federal agencies carry out programs with compatible NPS

pollution reduction goals. For example, Maryland’s Nontidal Wetlands Protection

Act encourages development of comprehensive watershed plans for addressing

wetland protection, mitigation, and restoration issues in conjunction with water

supply issues. In addition, the USACE and EPA administer the Clean Water Act

section 404 program; USDA implements the Swampbuster, CRP, and WRP;

EPA, USACE, and states work together to perform advanced identification of

wetlands for special consideration (Clean Water Act section 404); and states

administer both the Coastal Zone Management (CZM) program, which provides

opportunity or consistency determinations, and the Clean Water Act section 401

certification program, which allows for consideration of wetland protection and

water quality objectives.

4.1.4 Preliminary Treatment Practices

Use appropriate preliminary treatment practices such as

vegetated treatment systems or detention or retention basins

to prevent adverse impacts on wetland functions that affect

NPS pollution abatement.

Land Uses

Land use directly affects the characteristics of runoff. For example, the constituents of runoff from farmland are likely to be different from those in urban runoff.

Agricultural runoff tends to be high in nitrogen, phosphorus, bacteria, and suspended sediments; typical pollutants found in urban runoff include sediment,

oxygen-demanding substances, nutrients, heavy metals, pesticides, hydrocarbons,

increased temperature, and trash and debris (USEPA, 1996a).

Where wetlands are the

final discharge point for

runoff, BMPs can be used

to control the runoff before

it reaches the wetland and

to ensure the maintenance

of existing pollution

abatement functions.

Practice

The characteristics of

runoff are directly affected

by land use. Agricultural

runoff tends to be high in

nitrogen, phosphorus,

bacteria, and suspended

sediments. Typical

pollutants found in urban

runoff include sediment,

oxygen-demanding

substances, nutrients,

heavy metals, pesticides,

hydrocarbons, increased

temperature, and trash

and debris.
Chapter 4: Management Measure for Protection of Wetlands and Riparian Areas

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 37

Different wetland types vary in their ability to handle changes caused by

stormwater flows and pollutant levels. Where runoff is directly channeled to

wetlands, treatment practices, or BMPs, should be implemented to maintain the

natural functions of the wetland. This may require the use of BMPs designed for

water quality improvement, maintenance of natural hydrologic conditions, or both,

that consider site-specific conditions, including regional variations in geography

and climate. The principal consideration in the design of a BMP is whether it will

provide the level of protection necessary to ensure that the wetland will retain its

natural health and functions. BMPs should be selected after carefully considering

the combination of variables that influence a wetland and the characteristics of

the runoff entering the wetland, as well as the capabilities and applicability of the

BMPs being considered (USEPA, 1996a). Several states, including Delaware

and Florida, have or are currently developing programs and guidelines for protecting wetlands through the use of BMPs.

Design of Pretreatment Practices

Properly designed and placed BMPs can effectively protect the functions of

natural wetlands from NPS pollution. Natural wetlands, because of their position

in the landscape, often directly receive stormwater runoff. Large flow volumes,

high velocities, increased sedimentation, and long-term pollutant loads delivered in

runoff can alter or destroy stable wetland ecosystems and their ability to perform

NPS pollution abatement functions. Both structural and nonstructural BMPs can

be used to provide preliminary treatment of runoff that might impact a receiving

wetland.

Often, designing a combination of BMPs is the best approach to protecting

existing wetland resources. BMPs in series (sometimes referred to as a “treatment train”) incorporate several stormwater treatment mechanisms in sequence

to enhance the treatment of runoff. By combining BMPs in series rather than

using a single method of treatment for runoff, the efficiency and reliability of

pollutant removal can be improved. Examples of serial BMPs that can be used to

provide preliminary treatment of runoff headed for wetlands include (1) multiple

pond systems, (2) grassed swales combined with detention ponds, and

(3) grassed swales leading to vegetated filter strips, followed by infiltration

trenches.

It is important in the design of BMPs in series to consider the hydrologic characteristics of the existing wetland. The series of BMPs should be designed to

ensure that the amount of runoff to the wetland is not decreased or otherwise

changed to a degree that negatively affects the function of the wetland. For

example, where properly designed BMPs are not used, wetlands can be impacted

by the accumulation of sediments resulting from decreased flow velocities as

runoff enters the wetland. Increased stormwater volumes and velocities associated with development in a watershed may also result in the scouring of wetland

substrates if BMPs are not in place to slow and reduce flows. In addition to the

hydrologic characteristics of the wetland, the characteristics of the NPS runoff,

as well as individual BMP capabilities, design requirements, and cost, are important variables when considering the use of serial BMPs.

The principal

consideration in the

design of a BMP is

whether it will provide the

level of protection

necessary to ensure that

the wetland will retain its

natural health and

functions.
Chapter 4: Management Measure for Protection of Wetlands and Riparian Areas

38 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

Many states and territories have developed manuals that provide information on

the proper design of BMPs for stormwater and erosion and sediment control

(ESC). Protecting Natural Wetlands: A Guide to Stormwater Best Management Practices (USEPA, 1996a) provides insight into the application of BMPs to

protect wetlands from the adverse effects of NPS runoff and provides sources

for additional information. Additional information on the application of BMPs for

wetland protection can also be found in the Management Measure for Vegetated

Treatment Systems.

Programmatic Approaches

Programmatic BMPs can also be used to help ensure that preliminary treatment

of runoff is conducted before the runoff enters wetlands. Requiring implementation of ESC practices at construction sites is an example of a good programmatic

approach for reducing sediment and other pollutant loads to wetlands. ESC

programs should provide a good source of design guidelines and make sure that

effective sediment control practices are being implemented, based on good

design criteria, monitoring of completed installations, good maintenance procedures, and monitoring follow-up to ensure that maintenance is being performed.

Examples of states and territories that have developed ESC programs are

Virginia, Delaware, North Carolina, and Guam.

For more information on the technical implementation and effectiveness of

treatment systems, refer to the Management Measure for Vegetated Treatment

Systems and Appendix F.

The Fish and Wildlife Service has a long history of wetlands acquisition, protection,

and enhancement. The first national wildlife refuge, Pelican Island, was established in

1903 and was created for its namesake, the brown pelican, a wetland-dependent

species. The passage of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act in 1918 and the Migratory

Bird Conservation Act of 1929 greatly expanded the Service’s role in protecting

wetlands and species and their habitats. In 1996 the Service managed 472 national

wildlife refuges covering approximately 90 million acres. It is estimated that wetlands

constitute more than 35 percent of this total refuge area. Proceeds from the sale of the

Federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp, popularly known as the

Duck Stamp, have provided more than $250 million for the acquisition of wetlands

habitats for inclusion into the refuge system.

Source: USGS, 1996.

4.2 Cost and Benefits of Practices

Costs to implement this management measure, as well as economic benefits

derived from implementing this management measure, are associated with

planning, mapping, geographic information systems (GIS), protection programs,

and pretreatment. This section describes the economic benefits of protecting

wetlands and riparian areas that serve NPS abatement functions. This information is intended to demonstrate the cost savings accrued by implementing the

management measure as compared to the costs of not implementing it. Because

of the wide diversity of regions throughout the United States, no single cost or

economic benefit can be used across the board. Instead, the information below

and in Table 4-8 provides examples of such costs and benefits in specific areas

of the country. The majority of the costs of protecting wetlands and riparian

Additional information on

BMPs for use with

wetlands can be found in

Protecting Natural

Wetlands: A Guide to

Stormwater Best

Management Practices

(USEPA, 1996a).
Chapter 4: Management Measure for Protection of Wetlands and Riparian Areas

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 39

Study 

Cost of Conventional 

Project 

Cost of 

Wetland Estimated Benefit of Wetlands Example Projects 

Dredging costs presumed due to wetland 

loss 

$2.8 million in dredging 

costs (1999) 

 Reduced sedimentation in shipping 

channel 

Redwood City (CA) 

Kissimmee Prairie, Florida, Basin $33,837,767 

(1998) 

The acquisition of Kissimmee Prairie 

State Preserve provided tax 

incentives to the landowner and has 

provided an excellent public/private 

partnership for watershed protection 

Kissimmee Prairie 

Watershed (FL) 

Valuation of estuarine wetlands for 

wastewater treatment 

$368 to $2,204/acre for 

wastewater treatment 

(1994) 

 $82/acre to $157/acre; $4,626/acre 

(industrial wastewater) (1994) 

Barataria-Terrebonne 

Estuary (LA) 

Valuation of coastal wetlands (fisheries, 

recreation, trapping, storm protection) 

 $2,429/acre to $8,977/acre (1989) Coastal Wetlands (LA) 

Construction of a dam versus preserving 

wetlands 

$100 million (dam 

construction) (1984) 

$10 million 

(wetland 

purchases) 

(1984) 

$90 million (one-time structural costs 

avoided) and $3.2 million in reduced 

flood damage in 1987 

Natural Storage in the 

Charles River Valley 

(MA) 

Cost to replace water storage capability of 

a wetland 

$300/acre-foot $1.5 million/year for the estimated 

5,000 acres of wetlands lost each 

year 

Minnesota Department 

of Natural Resources 

(MN) 

Savings of constructed wetlands vs. 

conventional method 

$50 million (ongoing 

since 1960’s) 

 Staten Island Bluebelt 

Project (NY) 

Wastewater costs due to wetland loss $1.5 million (no date) $1.5 million sewer system 

installation 

East Goshen (PA) 

Replacement of swamp with a water 

treatment facility for pollution prevention 

$5 million $5 million for installation of water 

treatment facility 

Congaree Swamp (SC) 

areas shown in Table 4-8 are the result of the purchase of wetlands or cost

avoidance (e.g., cost of retaining wetlands rather than constructing water or

waste treatment facilities).

In addition to direct costs (e.g., planning, mapping, protection progress, and

pretreatment) associated with protecting natural wetlands that serve NPS pollution

abatement functions, there are other planning and outreach costs with corresponding benefits. These planning and outreach costs are associated with activities such

as modeling studies for stormwater flow and water quality protection, educational

Examples from throughout the United States show

the expected cost of many types of wetland and

riparian protection projects, as well as their value to

the respective communities. For many of these

projects, the cost to install structural or conventional

technologies to replace the functions of wetlands

have been shown to be much greater than the cost

of the protection measure. When available, the dates

for project/wetland costs are provided. Results of

studies in various states (see map at left) are shown

in the table below. Additional information about each

study cited in the table is provided in Appendix F.

Table 4-8. Costs and Economic Benefits Associated with Protecting Wetlands
Chapter 4: Management Measure for Protection of Wetlands and Riparian Areas

40 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

Additional costs are associated with the planning

of wetlands protection, as well as with public

outreach and education. Some examples of such

costs are identified below. When available, the

dates for project costs are provided. More

information on these examples is provided in

Appendix F.

Table 4-9. Planning and Outreach Costs and Benefits

programs for stakeholders, and development of comprehensive land use plans

that include NPS pollutant controls and wetlands protection. Table 4-9 provides

specific examples of planning and outreach costs and associated benefits.

Estimating the costs to control NPS pollution nationwide is a difficult task.

Critical information, such as identification of waters contaminated with NPS

pollution and the contribution of each of those sources, is not readily available at

the local level, much less at a national level. Reported in a 1999 publication, EPA

estimated the annual costs of controlling three major sources (agriculture, silviculture, and animal feeding operations) of NPS pollution to be $9.4 billion, an amount

that represents one of the few systematic attempts at estimating such costs

nationwide (GAO, 1999). Part of this cost is attributed to protecting and restoring

wetlands and riparian areas.
Chapter 4: Management Measure for Protection of Wetlands and Riparian Areas

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 41

There are a number of federal and state programs available to help both public

and private groups preserve and protect wetlands and riparian areas. Some of

these programs are summarized in Appendix F.

The benefits of preserving wetlands and riparian areas in terms of reducing NPS

pollution are well recognized. Representative studies of the kind that document

benefits are summarized in Table 4-1. Wetlands have important filtering capabilities for intercepting surface-water runoff from higher dry land before the runoff

reaches open water. In performing this filtering function, wetlands save communities a great deal of money. For example, a 1990 study showed that without the

Congaree Bottomland Hardwood Swamp in South Carolina, the area would need

a $5 million wastewater treatment plant (USEPA, 1996b). The value of a wetland

to a community can be estimated based on the wetland’s ability to abate NPS

pollution. For example, wetlands near cities have been estimated to be worth

about $98,000 per acre (1997) for their ability to clean water, recycle nutrients,

recharge aquifers, control floods, and support fish and wildlife (Abramovitz,

1997).

The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources places a value of $665 per

acre per year (in 1996 dollars) on the ability of wetlands to remove nutrients and

sediments from the environment. In an economic assessment of wetland mitigation in northwest Minnesota, Sip et al. (1998) used a value of $175 per acre per

year as a proxy for the value of water quality protection.

It is estimated that riparian forest buffers can remove 21 pounds of nitrogen per

acre each year for $0.30 per pound and about 4 pounds of phosphorus per acre

each year for $1.65 per pound. The Interstate Commission for the Potomac

River Basin estimates that urban retrofit of BMPs to remove 20 percent of

current nutrient runoff will cost approximately $200 per acre, or $643 million for

the entire Chesapeake Bay basin. In the same study, estimated costs of reducing

runoff from highly erodible agricultural land are $130 per acre, or $68 million for

the basin.

Many other economic benefits of wetlands have also been described by a

number of studies and reports. A wealth of natural products are harvested from

wetlands, including fish and shellfish, blueberries, cranberries, timber, and wild

rice, as well as medicines that are derived from wetland soils and plants. Many

of the nation’s fishing and shellfishing industries harvest wetland-dependent

species; the catch is valued at $15 billion per year. The coastal marshes of

Louisiana alone produced 1.2 billion pounds of commercial fish and shellfish in

1991, a harvest worth $244 million. Wetlands also have recreational, historical,

scientific, and cultural value. More than half of all U.S. adults (98 million) hunt,

fish, birdwatch or photograph wildlife. They spend a total of $59.5 billion annually

(USEPA, 1996b).

Current state and local requirements for ESC increase the cost of development.

BMPs for ESC cost between $1,500 and $1,700 per acre (year 2000 dollars),

based on averaging 1, 3, and 5 acre sites and assuming moderate slope (7 percent) and moderate soil erodibility. Administrative requirements associated with

ESC, which include notice of intent (NOI), municipal notification, stormwater
Chapter 4: Management Measure for Protection of Wetlands and Riparian Areas

42 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

pollution prevention plans (SWPPP), record retention, and notice of termination

(NOT), cost about $930 per site (year 2000 dollars) (SAIC, 1999). Forest

conservation and riparian buffers sharply reduce ESC costs. Forest conservation

would keep soil on-site, resulting in less time and labor regrading, stabilizing and

relandscaping the site.
EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 43

5 Management Measure for Restoration

of Wetlands and Riparian Areas

This chapter presents supporting information, including management practices,

specific implementation examples, and costs and benefits, for the following

management measure:

Promote the restoration of the preexisting functions in

damaged and destroyed wetlands and riparian systems,

especially in areas where the systems will serve a significant NPS pollution abatement function.

Healthy wetland and riparian areas can effectively reduce pollutants such as

sediment, nitrogen, and phosphorus in stormwater. Wetlands and riparian areas

also help to lessen flows from storm events and protect downstream areas from

impacts such as channel scour, streambank erosion, and fluctuations in temperature and chemical characteristics. When wetlands or riparian areas are degraded

or destroyed, the valuable functions they perform are lost. States and tribes can

apply this management measure to restore the full range of wetlands and riparian

functions in areas where the systems have been degraded or destroyed.

What Is Restoration?

Restoration is defined as the return of an ecosystem to a close approximation of

the conditions present prior to disturbance. In restoration, ecological damage to

the resource is repaired; both the structure and the functions of the ecosystem

are recreated. The goal of restoration is to emulate a natural, functioning, selfregulating system that is integrated with the ecological landscape in which it

occurs (USEPA, 1995a). Restored wetlands and riparian areas, like undisturbed

ones, remove NPS pollutants from waters that flow through them. Acting as a

sink for phosphorus and converting nitrate to nitrogen gas through denitrification

are two examples of the important NPS pollution abatement functions performed

by wetlands and riparian areas.

Restoration is an integral part of a broad, watershed-based approach for achieving federal, state, and local water resource goals (USEPA, 1995a). A restoration

management measure should be used in conjunction with other measures addressing the adjacent land use activities and, in some cases, water activities as

well. Restoration of wetlands and riparian areas is a holistic approach to water

quality that addresses NPS problems while meeting the goals of the Clean Water

Act to protect and restore the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the

nation’s waters.

The fundamental goal of wetland or riparian restoration is to return the ecosystem to a condition that resembles the natural predisturbance state as closely as

possible. The establishment and achievement of these goals involves considerManagement Measure
Chapter 5: Management Measure for Restoration of Wetlands and Riparian Areas

44 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

ation of the ecosystem’s structure and function on both the local scale and the

broader landscape or watershed scale. Proper planning is necessary to set

ecological and NPS pollution goals and to ensure that design, implementation, and

monitoring of the project are conducted in a timely and cost-efficient manner and

that the goals of restoration are met. Monitoring is critical to measure progress

toward achieving restoration goals and to verify that the restored site is performing as it should.

Full restoration of complex wetland and riparian functions may be difficult and

expensive, depending on site conditions, the complexity of the system to be

restored, the availability of native plants, and other factors. The Department of

Energy conducted a study examining the economics of wetland creation, restoration, and enhancement (USDOE, 1995). In the 1995 USDOE report, costs varied

widely, ranging from $5 per acre to more than $1.5 million per acre. Cost differences were attributed to target wetland type and to site-specific and projectspecific factors that affected the preconstruction, construction, and

postconstruction tasks necessary to meet the project goals. Specific practices for

restoration must be tailored to the specific ecosystem type, site conditions, and

economic parameters. In addition, wetlands restored to aid in reducing NPS

pollution to water bodies must be protected from being degraded by NPS pollution impacts.

Restoration projects vary in size, complexity, and cost based on wetland type,

sources of degradation, and local watershed conditions. Local experts knowledgeable about restoration and the local ecology should be involved in the planning process. While certain principles apply to all restoration projects, the design

and implementation of restoration projects must be tailored to meet the particular

circumstances of each project. For example, even though comprehensive

monitoring of a restoration project is desirable, for smaller restoration projects,

monitoring programs may need to be modified to address site-specific conditions

and scaled proportionally to match the project size.

The following steps and activities should be considered in the planning and

implementation of restoration projects.

Step 1. Conduct a Basic Site Characterization

Site characterization and data collection are important initial steps in any restoration effort. Data on the physical and chemical characteristics of the restoration

site and conditions in the surrounding watershed should be collected and analyzed. Both present and historical site conditions should be characterized. Historical data can provide valuable information useful for developing potentially

achievable project goals. It is important, at this stage, to compile available data on

stressors that could affect restoration efforts such as NPS pollutant loadings,

surrounding land use, and hydrologic alterations (hydromodification). Land

ownership and regulatory requirements should also be identified.

Information compiled during the site characterization, including both site-specific

and watershed-scale data, provides a baseline for developing the restoration

design and for evaluating the progress and success of the project.
Chapter 5: Management Measure for Restoration of Wetlands and Riparian Areas

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 45

• Characterize existing conditions. Basic site characterization and data

collection are important initial steps in planning restoration. Characterization should include information on soil types, watershed features (size,

slope, water availability, water quality), existing vegetative cover types,

adjacent land uses, projected future land uses, property boundaries, and

fish and wildlife habitat.

Take advantage of existing information about the site to be restored. Use

of available documentation can save time, energy, and money. At least

some background information is likely to be available. Examples of

readily available sources of information include national wetland inventory maps, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps, NRCS soil

surveys, state wetland maps, aerial photographs, and flood hazard

boundary maps. Long-term residents, university libraries, and local

private conservation organizations are also good sources of information.

Many areas have been previously studied as part of watershed management plans, resource inventories, environmental impact statements, and

the like.

• Conduct watershed-scale analysis. How a wetland or riparian area is

situated in a watershed influences its function. It is important to understand what lands drain to a wetland or riparian area and how the ecosystem fits into the watershed. Conditions throughout a watershed can

ultimately affect the success of restoration efforts.

• Identify nature of impairment. Initial identification of the causes of

damage to a degraded wetland or riparian area is necessary to ensure

that they are addressed and ameliorated during the restoration process.

A thorough analysis of the cause or causes of alterations or impairments

is fundamental to identifying management opportunities and constraints

and to defining realistic and attainable restoration objectives.

Step 2. Identify Goals for Restoration

Before identifying and selecting restoration techniques, identify specific goals for

restoration.

• Identify pollution abatement functions along with other ecological

benefits obtainable through restoration efforts. Identify the environmental benefits that may be realized as a result of restoring preexisting

wetland or riparian area functions. These benefits, such as NPS pollutant

abatement, should form the basis for developing restoration goals. Goals

are generalized statements about the expected outcome of the project. It

is important that the goals are appropriate and obtainable based on

project characteristics and constraints. Public involvement in the development of project goals is important. Involving the public not only improves

the validity of restoration goals, but also generates interest and support

and can be instrumental in finding necessary funding.

• Develop specific objectives for hydrology, soils, and biota appropriate to the wetland type being restored. Turn objectives into measurable target criteria that can be monitored to determine the progress of the

project.

Restoration projects

provide excellent

opportunities to educate

the public on the roles of

wetlands and riparian

areas in protecting water

quality.
Chapter 5: Management Measure for Restoration of Wetlands and Riparian Areas

46 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

• Begin partnership involvement and refine objectives. Partners can

include anyone who has an interest in the watershed. It is important to

include all the key interest groups so that you can tap strengths, increase

credibility, reduce duplication of efforts, and make optimal use of limited

funds. Early consideration of restoration goals, objectives, and scope can

assist participants in determining whose interests are affected. Active

participants should include all parties necessary to develop and implement

solutions to the problems being addressed, as well as those who could

impede restoration efforts.

• Plan to secure necessary permits. Restoration conducted in, or in

contact with, wetlands and other water bodies may be subject to federal,

state, and local regulatory programs and requirements. Permit requirements should be determined at an early stage of the restoration process.

Based on project goals and the proposed site, requirements established

under federal, state, and local regulations may apply. Federal regulations

that may apply include the National Environmental Policy Act; sections

401, 402, and 404 of the Clean Water Act; section 6 and 10 of the

Endangered Species Act; and section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act

of 1899. State water laws and permit requirements are important

considerations for any restoration project.

Step 3. Identify and Select Restoration Techniques

Although addressing on-site conditions is critical to the chemical, physical, and

biological restoration of a wetland or riparian area, the focus of management

options should include stressors that originate outside the area as well. Management options considered should include techniques applied on-site and in the

surrounding watershed that reduce pollutant loadings and allow the restored

wetland or riparian area to reach a state of equilibrium in the landscape.

• Identify methods that allow nature to do the work (passive versus

active restoration). Consider the use of natural or bioengineering

methods over typical structural engineering methods.

• Identify viable BMPs applicable to obtaining restoration goals.

Properly designed and placed BMPs should be implemented to reduce

potential impacts to restoration efforts associated with activities or

conditions existing within or outside of the restoration site. See the

Management Measures for the Protection of Wetlands and Riparian

Areas and for Vegetated Treatment Systems for information on the

technical implementation and effectiveness of BMPs. Also, identify

BMPs to protect adjacent wetlands from impacts during the construction

of the restoration project.

• Evaluate costs and benefits. Selecting and evaluating restoration efforts

must take into account the costs of implementation, operation, and

maintenance. A selected technique should be cost-effective and result in

environmental benefits.

• Consider available financial and technical assistance. Identify

programs to help achieve the implementation of restoration efforts.

Nonregulatory or regulatory programs, technical assistance, financial
Chapter 5: Management Measure for Restoration of Wetlands and Riparian Areas

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 47

assistance, education, training, technology transfer, and demonstrated

projects should be considered. More recently, nonprofit groups have

emerged as sources of technical and financial assistance. See Appendix

A for examples of programs and sources of technical assistance.

• Select best combination of restoration options. Once restoration options

have been identified, select the ones that best meet the project goals,

benefit the environment, and are within financial means. If more than one

restoration strategy seems feasible, consider each alternative carefully

before making a final selection. In particular, make sure the benefits and

costs are understood fully when choosing an active restoration strategy. In

many instances a passive or bioengineered approach might be preferable to

or less expensive than an active or structural technique.

• Assign priorities to restoration efforts. Limitations of funding and

human resources are often an issue for restoration projects. It is important to establish priorities so that time-sensitive projects and efforts

providing the greatest returns can be implemented first.

• Plan for monitoring. In any restoration effort, monitoring is needed to

evaluate progress toward achieving goals. Monitoring should be planned

to track the progress of the project and identify potential problems to

ensure that progress initially gained is not lost at a later time. Planning for

monitoring should begin before the project is implemented and the site’s

characteristics are modified. The monitoring plan should include all three

phases—design, installation, and evaluation.

• Establish schedule. Schedule for success. Seasonal variations and

upstream BMP implementation schedules should be taken into account

when scheduling restoration.

• Finalize restoration design plan. Develop a restoration design plan

based on information collected and evaluated in the previous steps. The

design plan will be used as the blueprint for implementation of the

restoration project. Enough flexibility should be included in the plan to

allow for modifications or corrections where needed.

• Secure necessary permits.

• Consider using volunteers.

Step 4. Implement Restoration

Before implementing restoration, the project designer, contractors, and other

stakeholders should meet and agree on scheduling, the order of operation, and

responsibilities. The potential for delays caused by bad weather or unforeseen

construction obstacles should be considered when developing the project schedule. Allowing extra time to address unforeseen problems should improve the

potential for successful restoration.
Chapter 5: Management Measure for Restoration of Wetlands and Riparian Areas

48 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

Riparian Restoration in Arid Lands

Riparian revegetation, which involves planting trees, shrubs, forbs, or grasses to

replace species that have been lost, is one of several recovery strategies that have

been used to address the decline of riparian ecosystems in the western United States.

Other strategies include improving livestock management, installing streambank

stabilization structures, and performing upland treatments. Legislation designed to

protect riparian areas by establishing requirements to maintain in-stream flows has

also been introduced as a means of restoring these arid region ecosystems.

Source: Briggs, 1996b.

• Continue public participation. Stakeholder involvement should begin

early in the restoration process and should continue throughout. An effective and inclusive communication strategy ensures that all potential participants have an opportunity to become aware of the progress of restoration.

As the process evolves, the goals and objectives may change. Changes in

goals and objectives should be articulated to stakeholders.

• Develop community support through publicity and the use of volunteers.

• Protect local resources from construction impacts. Inspect the site

during implementation. Have a coordinator on site to ensure plans are

followed, to ensure BMPs are working, and to direct volunteers.

• Be flexible. Restoration projects are most successful where flexibility

allows changes to be made or corrective measures to be implemented if

the original design provides inadequate or site conditions change.

Step 5. Monitor for Success

Ensure that monitoring is designed so that progress is ongoing. All restoration

projects should include post-project monitoring that evaluates the effectiveness of

the restoration effort, and the evaluation technique should be based on the

specific project goals and target criteria. Monitoring the results of the restoration

effort allows recovery methods to be adjusted for greater effectiveness. In

addition, lessons learned from successes and failures can be applied to future

efforts.

• Design data collection plan. Typical monitoring activities include:

– Water quality sampling (including upstream and downstream of project)

– Measurement of water depths

– Measurement of flow rates and flow patterns

– Substrate characterization

– Sediment flux

– Vegetation characterization and success rates

– Habitat evaluation

– Development of a photographic record

• Collect and evaluate data. Progress can be measured in many ways

and communicated through meetings, brochures, Internet sites, annual

reports, news releases, and other ways. It is important to make sure that

the appropriate measures of progress are selected and that information
Chapter 5: Management Measure for Restoration of Wetlands and Riparian Areas

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 49

Izaak Walton League of America’s Save our Streams Program

Through workshops, publications, the Internet, and a toll-free hotline, the Izaak

Walton League’s Save Our Streams (SOS) program provides technical assistance on

stream and wetland restoration and volunteer monitoring techniques to local watershed groups. Through its Watershed Literacy Assistance Center, SOS refers individual

and groups to projects across the nation where similar issues have been tackled and

solved. For more information, contact Save Our Streams at 1-(800) BUG-IWLA (284-

4952) or http://www.iwla.org. Ask for a copy of SOS’s excellent summary of watershed restoration resources.

on these indicators is shared with relevant stakeholders. Measurements

of progress should be associated with achieving goals set for the restoration effort.

• Set schedule for continued routine monitoring. Continued monitoring

should be conducted at set intervals that will enable potential problems to

be identified early enough so that corrective measures can be successfully implemented. Routine monitoring should be performed at an appropriate time of year and should be repeated at appropriate intervals to

determine whether the project is on track and objectives are being met.

Inappropriate timing of monitoring visits can result in a high variability in

data. Conduct routine assessment for several years following initial

restoration.

Step 6. Long-Term Management

Restoration projects are most successful where long-term management and

monitoring are provided. Restoration features or techniques that are consistent

with natural forces often tend to require less active management. Where this is

not possible, provisions for long term management might be expected. Continued

monitoring typically differs from the initial monitoring program, which had the

burden of proving that restoration techniques were working in the given setting.

Monitoring and assessment should continue for several years and should include

water levels throughout the year, establishment of wetland vegetation, patterns of

plant succession, development of wetland soil profiles, and use by animal species.

Monitoring and assessment should also include conditions in the upstream watershed. Changes in upstream hydrologic conditions resulting from hydromodification

or land use changes could adversely affect the success of the restoration project.

Identification of changes in the upstream watershed and assessment of their

impacts on achieving restoration goals makes it possible to identify and implement

design or management changes necessary to ensure the continued success of

restoration. Long-term routine monitoring following the completion of initial

restoration is designed to identify maintenance needs and to ensure progress

toward project goals.

Volunteer monitoring should be considered for tracking the long-term success of

the restoration. Volunteers benefit from learning about the characteristics and

functions of wetlands and riparian areas. Also, using volunteers that are adequately trained with appropriate organization and support can represent a substantial reduction in the often high cost of long-term monitoring.

Minimal maintenance activities are often required to ensure success. Typical

maintenance activities include maintaining buffer zones, preventing soil erosion
Chapter 5: Management Measure for Restoration of Wetlands and Riparian Areas

50 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

Key Resources for Promoting Successful Restoration

A Citizen’s Guide to Wetland Restoration: Approaches to Restoring Vegetation Communities and Wildlife Habitat Structure in

Freshwater Wetland Systems. 1994. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Pacific Northwest.

A Manual for Assessing Restored and Natural Coastal Wetlands with Examples from Southern California. 1990. Pacific Estuarine

Research Laboratory, LaJolla, CA. California Sea Grant Report Number T-CSGCP-021.

An Approach to Decision Making in Wetland Restoration and Creation. 1993. Kentula, Brooks, Gwin, Holland, Sherman, Sifneos.

CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality. 1995. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington,

DC. EPA 841-F-95-007.

Goal Setting and Success Criteria for Coastal Habitat Restoration (compilation of papers and abstracts). 1998. U.S. Department of

Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Habitat Conservation,

Silver Spring, MD.

Guide to Bottomland Hardwood Restoration. 1999. J.A. Allen, B.D. Keeland, A. Clewell, and H. Kennedy. U.S. Geological Survey.

Guidelines for the Conservation and Restoration of Seasgrasses in the US and Adjacent Waters. 1999. Fonseca, Kenworthy, and

Thayer.

Illinois Wetland Restoration and Creation Guide. 1997. A.N. Admiraal, J.M. Morris, T.C. Brooks, J.W. Olson, and M.V. Miller.

Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign, Illinois. Special Publication 19.

The Keystone National Policy Dialogue on Ecosystem Management. 1996, The Keystone Center, Keystone, CO. Report No. 6.

Living With Michigan’s Wetlands: A Landowner’s Guide. 1996. W. Cwikiel. Tipp of the Mitt Watershed Council, Conway, MI.

Living With Michigan’s Wetlands: A Landowner’s Guide. 1996-1997. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

Managing Your Restored Wetland. 1996. Pennsylvania State University College of Agricultural Sciences, Cooperative Extension.

Minnesota Wetland Restoration Guide: Minneapolis, Minn. 1992. T. A. Wenzel. Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources.

National Review of Corps Environmental Restoration Projects. 1995. CORPS. Evaluation of Environmental Investments Research

Program. IWR Report 95-R-12.

Northern Prairie Science Center and the Midcontinent Ecological Science Center. <http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/

wetresto/wetresto.htm> A searchable wetland restoration bibliography with more than 3,000 entries, developed by the Northern

Prairie Science Center and the Midcontinent Ecological Science Center.

Our National Wetland Heritage: A Protection Guide. 1996. M.K. Briggs. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Planning Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Monitoring Programs. 1996. Institute for Water Resources, USACE, Waterways Experiment

Station, Vicksburg, MS. IWR Report 96-R-23.

Planning and Evaluating Restoration of Aquatic Habitats from an Ecological Perspective. 1996. D. Yozzo, J. Titre, and J. Sexton.

Institute for Water Resources, USACE, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. IWR Report 96-EL-4.

Principles for the Ecological Restoration of Aquatic Resources. 2000. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water,

Washington, DC. EPA 841-F-00-003.

Protecting Coastal and Wetlands Resources. 1992. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA

842-R-92-002.

Riparian Ecosystem Recovery in Arid Lands: Strategies and References. 1996. M.K. Briggs. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems - Science, Technology, and Public Policy. 1992. National Research Council Committee on Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

Restoring and Creating Wetlands: a Planning Guide for the Central States Region: Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska. 1992.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, Kansas City, KS.

Restoring Prairie Wetlands: An Ecological Approach. 1994. S. M. Galatowitsch and A.G. van der Valk. Iowa State University Press,

Ames, IA.

Riparian Area Management: A User Guide to Assessing Proper Functioning Condition and the Supporting Science for Lotic Areas.

1998. Technical Reference 1737-15. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Denver, CO.

Riparian Area Management: A User Guide to Assessing Proper Functioning Condition and the Supporting Science for Lentic Areas.

1999. Technical Reference 1737-16. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Denver, CO.

Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles, Processes, and Practices. 1998. Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA 841-R-98-900.

Top Ten Watershed Lessons Learned. 1998. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA 840-F97-001.
Chapter 5: Management Measure for Restoration of Wetlands and Riparian Areas

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 51

and sedimentation, inspecting and nurturing plantings and controlling exotic

species.

Volunteer Monitoring

Across the country, private citizens are learning about water quality issues and

helping protect our nation’s water resources by becoming volunteer monitors.

Volunteers benefit from learning more about their local water resources, identifying

what conditions or activities might be contributing to pollution problems, and

working with clubs, environmental groups, and state or local governments to address

problem areas. Volunteer monitoring can also be a valuable tool for tracking the

success of restoration projects and an effective way of reducing overall costs. EPA’s

Office of Water maintains an Internet site on the activities of volunteer groups in

monitoring surface waters and selected natural resources.

Source: USEPA, 2000b.

5.1 Management Practices for Restoration of

Wetlands and Riparian Areas

The management measure generally will be implemented by applying one or

more management practices appropriate to the source, location, and climate. The

three management practices described can be applied successfully to implement

the management measure for restoring wetlands and riparian areas.

5.1.1 Restoration Project Location

Plan restoration adjacent to or as part of naturally occurring

aquatic ecosystems.

Factor in ecological principles when selecting sites and designing restoration.

Restoration goals for a particular project site should be based on an assessment

of the condition of the surrounding landscape. The assessment will produce

information that can be used to prioritize where specific management practices

can achieve desired performance. The information can also be used to establish

environmental benchmarks applicable to performance evaluations.

Planning to restore wetlands includes the following:

• Conduct synoptic assessment (Leibowitz et al., 1992) and/or watershed

analysis (Montgomery et al., 1995) to establish restoration goals for a

geographic area. For example, the opportunity for gaining NPS benefits

from a wetland or riparian restoration project may tend to be greater in

one area than in another.

• Consider the role of site restoration within a broader context, such as on

a landscape scale.

• Characterize reference sites within priority watersheds to establish

environmental benchmarks. The benchmarks are used to evaluate the

performance of management practices.

Practice
Chapter 5: Management Measure for Restoration of Wetlands and Riparian Areas

52 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

Watershed Restoration at Pike Run in Pennsylvania

A restoration project in Pennsylvania demonstrates the effectiveness of including

habitat restoration techniques in a watershed treatment program. Restoring riparian

areas and wetlands benefits landowners by providing direct economic gain through

increased land values, and by providing excellent habitat for a variety of wildlife.

Almost 22 miles of riparian restoration has been completed, a total of 40 wetland

acres have been restored by fencing cattle out of degraded wetlands, and approximately 1,000 acres of native warm season grasses have been planted. The project

included broad-based partnerships among the USFWS, EPA, NRCS, Ducks Unlimited,

Pennsylvania Game Commission, Audubon Society, and many other public and

private partnerships under the Partners For Wildlife and Clean Water Act section 319

NPS programs.

Source: USEPA and USDA, 1998.

• Depict a set of generally applicable practices for a specific geographic

area watershed analysis. The practices are used to promote the development and understanding of a community-based strategy for controlling

NPS pollution. For example, look for opportunities to include habitat

restoration techniques such as maximizing connectedness, providing

refuge for wildlife, and offering recreational amenities to the community.

Set goals for the restoration project based on location and type of NPS

pollution problem.

• Restoration sites near or connected to similar habitat have the best

chance of succeeding. At these sites, it is easier to restore hydrology,

soils might already have wetland characteristics, and native wetland

species do not have far to travel to reach the site.

• Establish a citizen-based monitoring program that involves the community

in NPS pollution control. Information gathered from the monitoring can

be used to refine the future application of management practices.

American Rivers 1997 Urban Hometown River Award:

Earth Conservation Corps—Eagle and Salmon Corps

The Earth Conservation Corps works with disadvantaged young men and women to

restore riparian habitats damaged by overuse, degradation, and pollution. In the

process, members gain life and job skills that enable them to enter the workforce in

the conservation field. Eagle Corps volunteers were chosen from local public housing

communities in Washington, DC, in cooperation with the DC Housing Authority.

Volunteers work to enhance the water quality of the Anacostia River and create viable

bald eagle habitat by restoring natural areas along the river and sponsoring river

cleanups to remove solid waste from tributaries. Salmon Corps members are predominantly from five Native American tribes in the Columbia and Snake river regions of

the Pacific Northwest. Corps volunteers have enhanced salmon habitats in the five

tribal areas by planting riparian vegetation, restoring stream channels, and building

in-stream structures. They have erected pole fences to restrict livestock access to

salmon habitat and removed trash and debris from spawning beds. For more information contact:

Earth Conservation Corps

Phone: (202) 554-1960, Fax: (202) 554-5060

<http://www.earthconcorps.org>

Source: American Rivers, 1998.

Restoration goals for a

particular project site

should be based on an

assessment of the

condition of the

surrounding landscape.
Chapter 5: Management Measure for Restoration of Wetlands and Riparian Areas

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 53

Examples of wetland and riparian area restoration are presented in Table 5-1 and

Appendix F. Appendix A and Appendix F include examples of federal, state, and

local programs to promote and implement restoration activities.

5.1.2 Hydrogeomorphic Regime

Provide a hydrogeomorphic regime similar to that of the type of

wetland or riparian area being restored.

Hydrologic and geomorphic conditions are responsible for maintaining many of

the functional aspects of wetland ecosystems. These controls are important for

such functions as the chemical characteristics of water, habitat maintenance, and

water storage and transport. To ensure that restoration goals are achieved,

preexisting, existing, and future hydrogeomorphic conditions must be fully understood, thoroughly considered, and carefully incorporated into a design plan for a

wetland or riparian area restoration project. For restoration, local ground water

interaction is a critical element to insure measures are consistent with the original

supporting hydrologic conditions. An intact water table is also an important

component for restoring lentic wetland areas, which are associated with still

water systems.

The following are suggestions for implementing this practice:

• Site history. Know the past and projected uses of the site, including past

wetland or riparian area functions.

Table 5-1. Examples of Projects to Restore Wetlands and Riparian Areas

Examples of wetland and riparian area

protection projects located throughout the

United States.

Restoration of hydrology

is a critical factor to gain

NPS pollution abatement

benefits and to increase

the probability of

successful restoration.

Practice
Chapter 5: Management Measure for Restoration of Wetlands and Riparian Areas

54 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

• Topography. Map the surface topography, including slope and relief of

the existing land surface.

• Tide. Determine the mean and maximum tidal range, if applicable.

• Existing water control structures. Identify the location of culverts, flow

control structures, pumps, and outlets.

• Hydrology. Investigate the hydrologic conditions affecting the site: wave

climate, currents, overland flows, ground water dynamics, average

precipitation, and flood events. Review both minimum (drought) and

maximum (extreme storms) in water budget evaluations.

• Sediment budgets. Understand the rates and paths of sediment inflow,

outflow, and retention.

• Soil. Describe the existing soils, including their suitability for supporting

wetland plants.

• Plants. Identify the existing and, if different, native vegetation.

• Salinity. Measure the existing or determine the planned salinity levels at

the site, if applicable.

Table 4-4 provides examples of differences in hydrogeomorphic characteristics of

several wetland types typically found in the United States. An understanding of

these differences is essential in the development of a restoration plan. It is

important to note that based on the current state-of-the-science, many of the

wetland types described in Table 4-4 should be considered difficult to restore to a

fully functional condition. Although it is important to protect all wetlands, emphasis

should be placed on protecting those wetland types or wetlands located in areas

that are known to be difficult to restore or have a low success rate for restoration.

5.1.3 Restoration of Soils and Plants

Restore native plant species and soil substrate through either

natural succession or the introduction of plant and soil materials.

When consistent with preexisting conditions, plant a diversity of plant types or

manage natural succession of diverse plant types rather than planting monocultures. Deeply rooted plants may work better than certain grasses for transforming

nitrogen because the roots will reach the water moving below the surface of the

soil. Vegetation has been recognized as a major tool to use in soil and water

conservation to address water quality problems. For forested systems, a simple

approach to successional restoration would be to plant one native tree species,

one shrub species, and one ground-cover species and then allow natural succession to add a diversity of native species over time, where appropriate and warranted by target community composition and anticipated successional development. Table 5-2 contains information resources for wetland and riparian area

plants.

In drier climates, depth to water table is a critical factor when planning the

restoration of riparian areas. For many projects, use of an irrigation system for

one or more growing seasons might be required to get the roots of plant material

down to the water table (Carothers and Mills, 1990).

Information on native plant

species is available from

federal agencies (NRCS,

USFWS, etc.), or various

state or local agencies,

such as the local

Cooperative Extension

Service office or state

departments of agriculture

or natural resources.

Practice
Chapter 5: Management Measure for Restoration of Wetlands and Riparian Areas

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 55

Table 5-2. Examples of Wetland and Riparian Area Plant Information Resources

Location Reference Guide 

CA Mason, H.L. 1957. A Flora of the Marshes of California. University of California Press, Berkeley. 

FL • Dressler, R.L., D.W. Hall, K.D. Perkins, N.H. Williams. 1987. Identification Manual for Wetland Plant Species of Florida. 

University of Florida. 

• Tarver D.P., J.A. Rodgers, M.J. Mahler, and R.L. Lazor 1986. Aquatic and Wetland Plants of Florida. Florida DNR. 

IL Winterringer, G.S., and A.C. Lopinot. 1966. Aquatic Plants of Illinois. Illinois State Museum Popular Science Series Vol. VI. 

IA Beal, E.O., and P.H. Monson. 1954. Marsh and Aquatic Angiosperms of Iowa. Monocotyledons. Dicotyledons. State University of

Iowa. Studies in Natural History Vol. 19(5), No. 429. 

KY Beal, E.O., and J.W. Thieret. 1986. Aquatic and Wetland Plants of Kentucky. Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission, Frankfort. 

Scientific and Technical Series No. 5. 

LA Chabreck, R.H., and R.E. Condrey. 1979. Common Vascular Plants of the Louisiana Marsh. Louisiana State University, Center for 

Wetland Resources. 

MO Whitley, J.R., B. Bassett, J.G. Dillard, and R.A. Haefner. 1990. Water Plants for Missouri Ponds. Missouri Department of 

Conservation. 

MN Fink, D.F. 1994. A Guide to Aquatic Plants: Identification and Management. Ecological Services Section, Minnesota DNR. 

NJ Fairbrothers, D.E., and E.T. Moul. 1965. Aquatic Vegetation of New Jersey. Extension Service, College of Agriculture, Rutgers 

University. 

NC Beal, E.O. 1977. A Manual of Marsh and Aquatic Vascular Plants of North Carolina with Habitat Data. NCSU Agricultural 

Experiment Station. 

SC Aulbach-Smith, C.A., S.J. de Kozlowski and L.A. Dyck. 1990. Aquatic and Wetland Plants of South Carolina. South Carolina 

Water Resources Commission. 

AS, GU, HI, CNMI Stemmermann, L. 1981. A Guide to Pacific Wetland Plants. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Honolulu District. 

MN and WI Eggers, S.D., and D. M. Reed. 1997. Wetland Plants and Communities of Minnesota and Wisconsin. Published by USACE. 

<http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/1998/mnplant/mnplant.htm>. 

OR, WA Guard, B.J. 1995. Wetland Plants of Oregon & Washington. Lone Pine Publishing, Redmond, WA. 

TX, CO, KS, NM, OK Haukos, D.A., and L.M. Smith. 1997. Common Flora of the Playa Lakes. Texas Tech University Press, Lubbock. 800/832-4042. 

Atlantic Coast • Eleuterius, L.N. 1990. Tidal Marsh Plants. Pelican Publishing Co., Gretna, LA. 

• Silberhorn, G. 1982. Common Plants of the Mid-Atlantic Coast: A Field Guide. Johns Hopkins University Press. 

Eastern U.S. Pierce, R.J. 1977. Wetland Plants of the Eastern United States. Army Corps of Engineers, North Atlantic Division, New York. 

Midwestern U.S. USDA. No date. Midwestern Wetland Flora: Field Office Guide to Plant Species. Soil Conservation Service, Midwest National 

Technical Center, Lincoln, NE. Home page of Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND. 

<http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/othrdata/plntguid/plntguid.htm>. 

Northern Great Plains Larson, G.E. 1993. Aquatic and Wetland Vascular Plants of the Northern Great Plains. General Technical Report RM-238, Fort 

Collins, CO. USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 

Northeastern U.S. • Hellquist, C.B., and G.E. Crow. 1980. Aquatic Vascular Plants of New England. University of New Hampshire Agricultural 

Experiment Station. 

• Magee, D.W. 1981. Freshwater Wetlands: A Guide to Common Indicator Plants of the Northeast. University of Massachusetts 

Press. 

• Tiner, R.W. 1987. A Field Guide to Coastal Wetland Plants of the Northeastern United States. University of Massachusetts 

Press. 

Northwestern U.S. • Steward, A.N., L.J. Dennis, and H.M. Gilkey. 1963. Aquatic Plants of the Pacific Northwest with Vegetative Keys. Oregon State 

University. 

• Weinmann, F., M. Boule, K. Brunner, J. Malek, and V. Yoshino. 1984. Wetland Plants of the Pacific Northwest. USACE, Seattle 

District. 

Southern U.S. USDA. No date. Southern Wetland Flora: Field Office Guide to Plant Species. USDA. South National Technical Center, TX. 

Southeastern U.S. • Eyles, D.E., and J.L. Robertson. 1944. A Guide and Key to the Aquatic Plants of the Southeastern United States. Reprint 1963. 

U.S. Public Health Service, Washington, DC. 

• Godfrey, R.K., and J.W. Wooten. 1981. Aquatic and Wetland Plants of Southeastern United States. Dicotyledons. 1979.

Aquatic and Wetland Plants of Southeastern United States. Monocotyledons. University of Georgia Press, Athens. 

• Tiner, R.W. 1993. Field Guide to Coastal Wetland Plants of the Southeastern United States. University of Massachusetts Press, 

Amherst. 

Southwestern U.S. Correll, D.S., and H.B. Correll. 1975. Aquatic and Wetland Plants of Southwestern United States. Stanford University Press, 

California. Vols. 1 and 2. 

Western U.S. USDA. No date. Western Wetland Flora: Field Office Guide to Plant Species. Soil Conservation Service, West National Technical 

Center, Portland, Oregon. Home page of Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND. 

<http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/othrdata/westflor/westflor.htm>. 

General Coverage • Fassett, N.C. 1940. A Manual of Aquatic Plants. Reprint 1972. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison. 

• Hotchkiss, N. 1972. Common Marsh, Underwater and Floating-leaved Plants of the United States and Canada. Dover 

Publications, NY. 

• Muenscher, W.C. 1944. Aquatic Plants of the United States. Comstock Publishing Associates, Cornell University Press, NY. 

• Tiner, R.W. 1988. Field Guide to Nontidal Wetland Identification. Maryland Department of Natural Resources and USFWS. 

• University of Florida. 1998. Aquatic Plant Information Retrieval System. Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants, University of 

Florida, Gainesville. <http://aquat1.ifas.ufl.edu/welcome.html>. 
Chapter 5: Management Measure for Restoration of Wetlands and Riparian Areas

56 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

The amount of soil organic matter in wetland soils plays a critical role in the

function of a wetland, as well as its potential for restoration. In particular, the

amount of soil organic matter in wetland soils plays a critical role in nutrient

cycling and pollutant detoxification, provides substrate for essential microbes, and

influences the development of wetland vegetation. Careful consideration should

be given to whether the amount of organic matter at a project site can be increased through properly timed soil amendments and nutrient applications.

The Five Star Restoration Program is a wetlands restoration program established by

the EPA. The agency created the program in an ongoing commitment to work with its

partners to educate the public through community-based wetlands restoration

projects in watersheds across the United States. The National Association of

Counties, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and the Wildlife Habitat Council

partner with EPA in this effort.

Each year the Five Star Program receives hundreds of applications. The applications

are reviewed by a panel of experts from the partnering organizations and ranked

according to the environmental benefit to be derived, the educational and training for

at-risk youth, and socioeconomic merits. EPA’s Office of Wetlands, Oceans and

Watersheds of the Office of Water provides major funding for these projects. The

NOAA Fisheries’ Community-based Restoration Program provides major funding for

select grants of similar nature in the coastal areas. The average grant award is

$10,000, with actual award amounts ranging from $5,000 to $20,000. Each project

generally includes at least five participants; hence five star, from local governments,

corporations and businesses, and representatives of federal and state government

agencies.

The program brings together students, conservation corps, other youth organizations, citizen groups, corporations, landowners and government agencies to provide

environmental education through projects that restore stream banks and wetlands.

The program provides challenge grants, technical support, and opportunities for

information exchange to enable community-based restoration projects.

Corporations such as Lockheed Martin, Ford Motor Company, Phillips Petroleum,

and several private foundations have become project sponsors. Organizations

become project sponsors by contributing as little as $5,000. On average, each dollar

of sponsor funds is matched by four additional dollars in contributions provided by

the local restoration partners in the form of funding, labor materials, equipment, or inkind services.

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. Five Star Restoration

Program. http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/restore/5star/02factsheet.html.

Accessed on January 22, 2003.

5.2 Cost and Benefits of Practices

This section describes the economic benefits of restoring wetlands and riparian

areas that serve NPS functions. This information is intended to demonstrate the

cost savings accrued by implementing the management measure as compared to

the costs of not implementing it. Across the continental United States, the costs

Recent studies indicate

that it might take

decades for soil organic

matter to accumulate in

projects to levels

comparable with those in

similar, naturally

occurring wetlands

(USEPA, 1994c).
Chapter 5: Management Measure for Restoration of Wetlands and Riparian Areas

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 57

Study 

Cost of 

Conventional 

Project 

Cost of 

Restoration Estimated Benefit to Community Example Project 

Habitat restoration and enhancement $475,000 (spent 

from a total of 

$828,000 budgeted 

for restoration) 

(1999) 

There is an increase in community 

awareness and appreciation of the 

environmental and economic benefits of 

coastal environment restoration 

Emerson Point Park (FL) 

Evaluation of wetland creation in 

former wetland habitat areas 

 $18,793 per acre 

(1996) 

$3,714 per year per acre (recreational 

benefits) 

East St. Louis (IL) 

Storm water control projects that 

would have been implemented 

instead of the streamside greenways 

or other storm water controls 

$120 million 

(1999) 

$600,000 

(1999) 

Over $119 million in stormwater controls 

that will not have to be installed. 

Johnson County Streamway 

Park System (KS) 

Demonstration project to assist 

municipalities with planning issues at 

a watershed level 

 $10,450 

(1999) 

Fish and wildlife habitat has been 

restored, wetland habitat have been 

enhanced, and community awareness 

and involvement has increased. 

Buffalo River and Cazenovia 

Creek Model (NY) 

Riparian restoration to reduce 

dredging and water treatment costs 

$1.6 million 

(1996) 

$660,000 

(1996) 

$1 million per year Tulatin River (OR) 

Partnership to acquire and manage 

wetlands 

 Functions and values of the wetland 

system in the Willamette Valley will be 

restored and will benefit the larger 

ecological community. 

West Eugene Wetlands 

Project (OR) 

of wetland creation and restoration projects vary from $5 per acre to $1.5 million

per acre. For those projects not involving the conversion of agricultural land, the

average project costs reported in 1995 range from $20,000 to more than $75,000

per acre (U.S. DOE, 1995). Because of the wide diversity of regions throughout

the United States, no single cost or economic benefit can be used across the

board. Instead, the information provided below and in Table 5-3 reflects examples of such costs and benefits in specific areas of the country.

• In response to concerns from citizen groups about degrading streams,

state and local governments in Maryland spent $20,000 to $50,000 per

housing lot in some areas to repair damaged streams and restore riparian

forests. This project was funded by the two counties in the Rock Creek

watershed—Montgomery and Prince George’s—and by the Maryland

Examples of projects from the United States that

show the expected cost of many types of wetland and

riparian protection projects, as well as their value to

the respective communities. For many of these

projects, the cost to install structural or conventional

methods to replace the functions of wetlands have

been shown to be much greater than the actual cost

of the wetland or riparian protection measure. When

available, the dates for project/restoration costs are

provided. Results of studies in various states (see

map at left) are shown in the table below. Additional

information and references about each study cited in

the table as provided in Appendix F at the back of

the document.

Table 5-3. Costs and Economic Benefits Associated with Restoring Wetlands and Riparian Areas
Chapter 5: Management Measure for Restoration of Wetlands and Riparian Areas

58 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

Department of the Environment. Total project costs were $2.2 million

(NRDC, 1999).

• Vegetative seedings are a common way to stabilize or enhance shoreline.

Prairie Restorations, Inc. (2000) estimates vegetative plantings cost from

$2,600 to $9,150 per acre. Using a minimal mix of plant varieties, site

preparation, materials, seeding, and first year maintenance cost an

average of $2,950 per acre.

Federal wetland policies during the past decade have increasingly emphasized

restoration of wetland areas. Much of this restoration occurs as part of efforts to

mitigate the loss of wetlands at other sites.

Wetland Reconstruction

The City of Des Moines, Washington, is using SRF funds to purchase and reconstruct a badly degraded wetland area and to construct a sediment trap/pond facility.

This project is allowing the city to meet two goals it constantly struggles to achieve:

flood protection and wetland preservation and enhancement. Area stormwater will enter

one of two sediment traps by way of the surrounding reconstructed wetlands. The

wetlands serve the dual purpose of (1) providing flood protection by collecting

stormwater runoff and (2) acting as a preliminary filter by removing suspended solids.

The majority of sediment removal and any heavy metal removal will occur while the

water is in the sediment traps. The water will then leave the traps through artificial inlets

that lead to Barnes Creek, which eventually enters Puget Sound. This $222,500 project

is part of the National Estuary Program (Clean Water Act section 320).

Source: USEPA, 1998c.

5.3 Mitigation Banking

Mitigation banking increasingly is recognized as a means of achieving environmentally and economically sound mitigation for unavoidable and minimized

impacts.

Mitigation banking is defined as:

Wetland restoration, creation, enhancement, and, in exceptional circumstances, preservation undertaken expressly for

the purpose of compensating for unavoidable wetland losses

in advance of development actions, when such compensation

cannot be achieved at the development site or would not be

as environmentally beneficial. (60FR.58605, Nov. 28, 1995).

Mitigation of proposed actions that would adversely affect wetlands has been a

cornerstone of the Clean Water Act section 404 program in recent years. A 1990

memorandum of agreement signed by all the agencies with regulatory responsibilities (EPA and USACE) outlines a sequence of three steps that must be

considered when evaluating an application for a section 404 permit. First, adverse

impacts on wetlands should be avoided when possible; second, when they can not

be avoided, impacts should be minimized; and third, where impacts still occur,

compensatory mitigation is required. This “sequencing process” is designed to

ensure that there is no net loss of wetland functions.
Chapter 5: Management Measure for Restoration of Wetlands and Riparian Areas

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 59

In light of the sequencing and compensatory mitigation requirements under the

Clean Water Act section 404 permit program, the use of mitigation banking is

gaining popularity.

Mitigation banking occurs in the context of the wetlands programs established

under Clean Water Act section 404, the Rivers and Harbors Act section 10, and

the Swampbuster Program under the Food Security Act. Consequently, mitigation banking is to provide for the replacement of the physical, chemical, and

biological functions of wetlands that are lost as a result of authorized impacts.

The federal mitigation banking policy and its implementation are described in the

Federal Guidance for the Establishment, Use and Operation of Mitigation

Banks (60 FR 58605, Nov. 28, 1995). The federal guidance lists several advantages of mitigation banking over individual mitigation projects, including the

following (Federal Register, Vol. 60, No. 228. November 28, 1995):

• It may be more advantageous for maintaining the integrity of the aquatic

ecosystem to consolidate compensatory mitigation into a single large

parcel or contiguous parcels when ecologically appropriate.

• A mitigation bank can bring together financial resources, planning, and

scientific expertise not practicable to many project-specific compensatory mitigation proposals.

• Use of mitigation banks may reduce permit processing times and provide

more cost-effective compensatory mitigation opportunities.

• Compensatory mitigation is typically implemented and functioning in

advance of project impacts, thereby reducing temporal losses of wetland

function and uncertainty over whether mitigation will be successful in

offsetting wetland losses.

• Consolidation of compensatory mitigation within a mitigation bank

increased the efficiency of limited agency resources in the review and

compliance monitoring of mitigation projects, and thus improves the

reliability of efforts to restore, create or enhance wetlands for mitigation

purposes.

• The existence of mitigation banks can contribute toward attainment of

the goal for no overall net loss of the nation’s wetlands by providing

opportunities to compensate for authorized impacts when mitigation might

not otherwise be appropriate or practicable.

In December 2002, the USACE in consultation with the EPA, the USDA, the

United States Department of Interior (DOI), Federal Highway Administration

(FWHA), and NOAA reevaluated wetlands mitigation guidance and reissued a

Regulatory Guidance Letter (RGL 02-2): Compensatory Mitigation Projects

for Aquatic Resource Impacts Under the Corps Regulatory Program Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and

Harbors Act of 1899 (USCAE, 2002a). This guidance applies to all new

compensatory mitigation proposals (which may be required to replace aquatic

resource functions, including wetlands that are unavoidable lost or adversely

affected by authorized activities) associated with USACE-issued permits. The

guidance instructs the USACE Districts to use watershed and ecosystem approaches when determining compensatory mitigation approaches, consider the
Chapter 5: Management Measure for Restoration of Wetlands and Riparian Areas

60 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

resource needs of the impacted watersheds, and consider the resource needs of

neighboring watersheds. For more details see RGL 02-2 (USACE, 2002a) and

the National Wetlands Mitigation Action Plan (USACE, 2002b).

Other issues to consider with mitigation banking include the following: (1) the

hydrogeomorphic and ecological landscape and climate, (2) current and future

watershed hydrology and wetland location, (3) restore or develop naturally

variable hydrological conditions, (4) whenever possible, choose wetland restoration over creation, (5) avoid over-engineered structures in the wetland’s design,

(6) pay particular attention to appropriate planting elevation, depth, soil type, and

seasonal timing, (7) provide appropriately heterogeneous topography, (8) pay

attention to subsurface conditions, including soil and sediment geochemistry and

physics, ground water quantity and quality, and in faunal communities, (9) consider complications associated with creation or restoration in seriously degraded

or disturbed sites, and (10) conduct early monitoring as part of adaptive management (USACE, 2002a).
EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 61

6 Management Measure for Vegetated

Treatment Systems

This chapter presents supporting information, including management practices,

specific implementation examples, and costs and benefits, for the following

management measure:

Promote the use of engineered vegetated treatment systems such as constructed wetlands or vegetated filter

strips where these systems will serve a significant NPS

pollution abatement function.

This management measure is intended to be applied in cases where engineered

systems of wetlands or vegetated treatment systems can treat NPS pollution.

Vegetated treatment systems are located in upland regions and protect wetlands

and aquatic resources from NPS pollution.

Vegetated treatment systems, by definition in this guidance, include vegetated

filter strips (VFS) and constructed wetlands. Although these systems are distinctly different, both are designed to reduce NPS pollution. They need to be

properly designed, correctly installed, and diligently maintained to function

properly. The two types of vegetated treatment systems are discussed in more

detail in separate sections below.

Whether constructed wetlands and VFS should be used individually or in series

depends on several factors, including the quantity and quality of the inflowing

runoff, the characteristics of the existing hydrology, and the physical limitations of

the area surrounding the wetland or riparian area to be protected.

Vegetated Filter Strips

The purpose of VFS is to remove sediment and other pollutants from runoff and

wastewater by filtration, deposition, infiltration, absorption, adsorption, decomposition, and volatilization, thereby reducing the amount of pollution entering surface

waters (USDA, 1988). VFS are appropriate for use in areas adjacent to surface

water systems that may receive runoff containing sediment, suspended solids,

and/or nutrients. VFS can improve water quality by removing nutrients, sediment,

suspended solids, and pesticides; however, they are most effective in removal of

sediment and other suspended solids.

VFS are designed to be used under conditions in which runoff passes over the

vegetation in a uniform sheet flow. Sheet flow is critical to the success of the

filter strip. If runoff is allowed to concentrate or channelize, the VFS is easily

inundated and will not function as designed.

VFS can improve water

quality by removing

nutrients, sediment,

suspended solids, and

pesticides.

Management Measure
Chapter 6: Management Measure for Vegetated Treatment Systems

62 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

VFS need the following elements to work properly (Schueler, 1987; see

Figure 6-1):

• A device such as a level spreader that ensures that runoff reaches the

VFS as sheet flow. (Berms can be used for this purpose if they are

placed at a perpendicular angle to the VFS area to prevent concentrated

flows.)

• A dense vegetative cover of erosion-resistant plant species.

• A gentle slope of no more than 5 percent.

• A length at least as long as the adjacent contributing area.

If these requirements are met, VFS have been shown to remove a high percentage of particulate pollutants. The effectiveness of VFS at removing soluble

pollutants is highly variable (Schueler et al., 1992).

Several studies of VFS (Table 6-1) show that they improve water quality and can

be an effective management practice for the control of NPS pollution from

silvicultural, urban, construction, and agricultural sources of sediment, phosphorus, and bacterial contaminants. The research results reported in Table 6-1 show

that VFS are most effective at sediment removal, with rates generally greater

than 70 percent. The published results on the effectiveness of VFS in nutrient

removal are more variable, but nitrogen and phosphorus removal rates are

typically greater than 50 percent. It is important to note, however, that removal

rates can be measured on an event basis and on a long-term basis. Comparisons

of data may be complicated by variations in the type of event sampled, sampling

techniques, and parameters measured.

Figure 6-1. Example of Vegetated Filter Strip

Source: Schueler, 1987

In addition to serving as a

pollution control measure,

VFS can add positive

improvements to the urban

environment by increasing

wildlife habitat and adding

beauty to an area.
EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 63

The following are nonpoint pollution sources for which VFS might provide some

nutrient-removal capability:

• Cropland. The primary function of VFS is to filter sediment from soil

erosion and sediment-borne nutrients. However, VFS should not be relied

on as the sole or primary means of preventing nutrient movement from

cropland (Lanier, 1990).

• Urban development. VFS filter and remove sediment, organic material,

and trace metals. According to the Metropolitan Washington Council of

Governments, VFS have a low to moderate ability to remove dissolved

Measurements taken throughout the United States

show NPS pollutant removal capabilities of VFS. The

studies show variabilities in NPS pollutant removal

capabilities for various VFS lengths and vegetative

cover types. The effectiveness of VFS for removing

pollutants depends on several design factors, which

are described in this section. Proper operation and

maintenance are also important for ensuring that

the VFS continues to perform at its designed

capacity. See section 6.1.1 for information about the

design, operation, and maintenance of VFS. Results

of studies in various states (see map at left) are

shown in the table below. Additional information

about each study cited in the table is provided in

Appendix F.

Table 6-1. Effectiveness of Vegetated Filter Strips for NPS Pollutant Removal
Chapter 6: Management Measure for Vegetated Treatment Systems

64 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

pollutants in urban runoff and have higher efficiency for removal of

particulate pollutants than for removal of soluble pollutants (Schueler,

1987).

With proper planning and maintenance, VFS can be a beneficial part of a network of NPS pollution control measures for a particular site. They can help to

reduce the polluting effects of agricultural runoff when coupled with either

(1) farming practices that reduce nutrient inputs or minimize soil erosion or

(2) detention ponds that collect runoff as it leaves a VFS. Properly planned VFS

can add to urban settings by framing small streams, ponds, or lakes, or by delineating impervious areas.

Constructed Wetlands

Constructed wetlands are typically engineered systems that use natural processes involving wetland vegetation, soils, and their associated microbial assemblages to assist, at least partially, in treating an effluent or other source of water

(Figure 6-2). These systems should be engineered and constructed in uplands,

outside “waters of the United States,” unless the water source can serve a

significant restoration function for a degraded system. For example, agricultural

runoff could potentially be directed toward a wetland that has been degraded due

to water withdrawal in order to both treat the runoff and restore the hydrology of

the wetland. In such cases, it is important that the runoff not contain contaminants that could pose a threat to people or wildlife. Properly designed and

implemented constructed wetlands can be effective tools for improving water

quality, while also providing a range of other benefits, such as wildlife habitat.

Figure 6-2. Example of Constructed Wetland

Source: Schueler, 1992
Chapter 6: Management Measure for Vegetated Treatment Systems

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 65

According to Hammer and others (1989), constructed wetlands typically have

four principal components that can assist in pollutant removal:

• Substrates with various rates of hydraulic conductivity

• Plants adapted to water-saturated anaerobic substrate

• A water column (water flowing through or above the substrate)

• Aerobic and anaerobic microbial populations

Moshiri (1993), Kent (1994), Kadlec and Knight (1996), the Washington State

Department of Ecology (1992), and USEPA (1996a) present design and maintenance criteria for constructed wetlands. Davis (1996) has developed a series of

handbooks addressing general considerations for wetland construction and

Key Resources for Vegetated Treatment Systems

A Handbook of Constructed Wetlands. 1996. L. Davis. Volumes 1-5. Prepared for the USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service and USEPA Region 3, in cooperation with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources.

Available from Government Printing Office.

Buffer Zones: Their Processes and Potential in Water Protection. Proceedings of the International Conference on Buffer

Zones, September 1996. N.E. Haycock, T.P. Burt, K.W.T. Goulding, and G. Pinay. Quest Environmental, Harpenden, Herts,

UK.

Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. 2001. National Research Council. NRC, National

Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC.

Constructed Wetlands for Water Quality Improvement. 1993. G.A. Moshiri, CRC Press, Inc. Boca Raton, FL.

Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment and Wildlife Habitat. 1993. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Office of Wastewater Management, Washington, DC. EPA832-R-93-005.

Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment: Municipal, Industrial, and Agricultural. 1988. D.A. Hammer, ed.

Proceedings from the First International Conference on Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment, Chattanooga,

Tennessee, June 13-17, 1988. Lewis Publishers, Inc., Chelsea, MI.

Created and Natural Wetlands for Controlling Nonpoint Source Pollution. 1993. CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, FL.

Creating Freshwater Wetlands. 1992. D. Hammer. Lewis Publishers, Inc. Chelsea, MI.

Design of Stormwater Wetland Systems: Guidelines for Creating Diverse and Effective Stormwater Wetlands in the MidAtlantic Region. 1992. T.R. Schueler, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington, DC.

Evaluation and Management of Highway Runoff Water Quality. 1995. G. K. Young, S. Stein, P. Cole, T. Kammer,

F. Graziano, and F. Bank. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Publication No. FHWAPD-96-032.

Natural Systems for Waste Management and Treatment, 2nd ed. 1995. S.C. Reed, R.W. Crites, and E.J. Middlebrooks.

McGraw-Hill, Inc. New York, NY.

Relative Nutrient Requirements of Plants Suitable for Riparian Vegetated Buffer Strips. 1996. R.C. Steiner, Interstate

Commission on the Potomac River.

Treatment Wetlands. 1996. R.H. Kadlec, and R.L. Knight. CRC Press, Inc. Boca Raton, FL.

Vegetated Stream Riparian Zones: Their Effects on Stream Nutrients, Sediments, and Toxic Substances. 1997. An

annotated and indexed bibliography. D. Correll. Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Edgewater, MD.

Wetlands. 1993. W.J. Mitsch and J.G. Gosselink. 2nd ed. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY.

Wetlands-Characteristics and Boundaries. 1995. National Research Council, Committee on Characterization of Wetlands, Washington, DC.
Chapter 6: Management Measure for Vegetated Treatment Systems

66 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

criteria for constructing wetlands for various treatment scenarios, including

stormwater management.

Constructed wetlands have been considered for use in urban and agricultural

settings where some sort of engineered system is suitable for NPS pollution

reduction. A few studies have also been conducted to evaluate the effectiveness

of artificial wetlands that were designed and constructed specifically to remove

pollutants from surface water runoff (Table 6-2).

Table 6-2 summarizes the pollutant-removal effectiveness of constructed wetland

systems built for treatment of surface water runoff. In general, constructed

wetland systems designed for treatment of NPS pollution in surface water runoff

were effective at removing suspended solids and pollutants that attach to solids

and soil particles. The constructed wetland systems were not as effective at

removing dissolved pollutants and those pollutants that dissolve under the conditions found in a wetland.

Like VFS, constructed wetlands offer an alternative to other structural NPS

pollution control systems. In some cases, constructed wetland systems can

provide limited ecological benefits in addition to their NPS control functions. In

other cases, constructed wetlands offer few, if any, additional ecological benefits

because of the type of vegetation planted in the constructed wetland or because

of the quantity and type of pollutants received in runoff. Constructed wetlands

that receive water containing large amounts of metals or pesticides should be

fenced or otherwise designed to discourage use by wildlife. However, wildlife

control requires vigilance. Fencing may not be practical for some species, or may

be too expensive and not feasible for certain projects. Methods, such as owl

decoys, noise makers, and other scare tactics may work for a while, but wildlife

can become accustomed to these types of exclusion devices and eventually

ignore them.

6.1 Management Practices for Vegetated

Treatment Systems

The management measure generally will be implemented by applying one or

more management practices appropriate to the source, location, and climate.

VFS and constructed wetlands can be applied successfully to implement the

management measure for vegetated treatment systems. The following pages

provide details about each practice.

6.1.1 Vegetated Filter Strips Factors to Consider

Construct VFS in upland areas adjacent to water bodies that

may be subject to suspended solids and/or nutrient runoff.

A survey of the literature on the design, performance, and effectiveness of VFS

shows that many factors must be considered on a site-specific basis before

designing and constructing a VFS. The effectiveness of VFS varies with topography, drainage size, vegetative cover, implementation, and use with other manPractice
Chapter 6: Management Measure for Vegetated Treatment Systems

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 67

Measurements taken at several locations in the

United States show the NPS pollutant removal

capabilities of constructed wetland systems. The

effectiveness of constructed wetlands for removing

pollutants depends on several design factors, which

are described in this section. Proper operation and

maintenance are also important for ensuring that the

constructed wetland continues to perform at its

designed capacity. See section 6.1.2 for information

about the design, operation, and maintenance of

constructed wetlands. Results of studies in various

states (see map at left) are shown in the table below.

Additional information about each study cited in the

table is provided in Appendix F.

Table 6-2. Effectiveness of Constructed Wetlands for NPS Pollutant Removal
Chapter 6: Management Measure for Vegetated Treatment Systems

68 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

agement practices. In addition, different VFS characteristics such as size and

type of vegetation can result in different pollutant loading characteristics, as well

as loading reductions. Table 6-1 and Table 6-3 give some removal rates for

specific NPS pollutants based on VFS size and vegetation.

VFS have been successfully used in a variety of situations where some sort of

BMP was needed to treat surface water runoff. Typical locations of VFS have

included the following:

• Below cropland or other fields

• Above conservation practices such as terraces or diversions

• Between fields

• Alternating between wider bands of row crops

• Adjacent to wetlands, streams, ponds, or lakes

• Along roadways, parking lots, or other impervious areas

• In areas requiring filter strips as part of a waste management system

• On forested land

VFS function properly only in situations where they can accept overland sheet

flow of runoff and should be designed accordingly. Contact time between runoff

and the vegetation is a critical variable influencing VFS effectiveness. If existing

site conditions include concentrated flows, BMPs other than VFS should be used.

Pollutant-removal effectiveness increases as the ratio of VFS area to contributing

area increases.

Schueler (1992), the Washington State Department of Ecology (1992), and

USEPA (1996a) present design and maintenance criteria for VFS. Forested

riparian buffer strips are a variation of standard VFS designs. A forested riparian

buffer strip consists of an area of trees and/or shrubs located adjacent to and

upslope from water bodies (USDA, 1995). When appropriately designed and

managed, these buffer strips can contribute significantly to the maintenance of

aquatic and riparian habitat. Additional discussion and design criteria for forested

buffer strips are presented in USDA (1995) and Belt et al. (1992).

Several key local elements should be considered in the design of VFS: type of

pollutant, slope, length, climate, plant species, detention time, monitoring, and

maintenance.

Type of Pollutant

Sediment, nitrogen, phosphorus, and toxic substances are efficiently removed by

VFS although removal rates are much lower for soluble nutrients and toxics (see

Table 6-3). Monitoring should be conducted to determine the effectiveness of VFS

in pollutant reduction and to determine if the VFS are meeting performance

standards (water quality standards or prescribed VFS removal efficiency criteria).

Slope

VFS function best on slopes of less than 5 percent; slopes greater than 15

percent render them ineffective because surface runoff flow will not be sheetlike and uniform. In areas with steep slopes, terraces can be used to reduce the
Chapter 6: Management Measure for Vegetated Treatment Systems

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 69

length and slope of overland flow. The effectiveness of VFS is strongly sitedependent. They are ineffective on hilly plots or in terrain that allows concentrated flows.

Length

The length of VFS is an important variable influencing their effectiveness because the contact time between runoff and vegetation in the VFS increases with

increasing VFS length. Some sources recommend a minimum length of about 50

feet (Dillaha et al., 1989a; Nieswand et al., 1989; Schueler, 1987). USDA (1988)

has prepared design criteria for VFS that take into consideration the nature of the

source area for the runoff and the slope of the terrain. Another suggested design

criterion in the literature is for the VFS to be at least as long as the runoffcontributing area. Unfortunately, there are no clear guidelines available in the

literature for calculating VFS lengths for specific site conditions. Accordingly, this

guidance does not prescribe a numeric value for the minimum length for an

effective filter strip or a standard method to be used in the design criteria for

computing the length of a VFS. Table 6-3 provides examples of nitrate-N reduction in surface waters and ground water by VFS of various lengths at several

locations in the United States and Europe.

Table 6-3. Nitrate-N Concentration Reduced by Forested Riparian Areas

and VFS

Location

Length

(m)

GroundwaterSurface

Water

Author, Year

(as cited in Martin, 1996)

Forested Sites

Lake Tahoe 2851 99%2 Rhodes et al., 1985

Maryland 197 95% Jordan et al., 1993

Georgia 180 83% Lowrance et al., 1984

Maryland 164 90% 60% Peterjohn and Correll, 1984

Rhode Island 82-197 >80% Simmons et al., 1992

North Carolina 154 >99% Jacobs and Gilliam, 1985b

Iowa 66 83%3 Schultz et al., 1995

Great Britain 66 99% Haycock and Pinay, 1993

Iowa 66 96% Licht and Schnoor, 1991

Maryland 62 93% 79% Peterjohn and Correll, 1984

North Carolina 53 >99% Jacobs and Gilliam, 1985b

North Carolina 49 96% Hubbard and Sheridan, 1989

North Carolina 33 99% Xu et al., 1992

New Zealand 16 98% Schipper et al., 1989

Maryland 12 95%4 Doyle et al., 1977

VFS (Grass) Sites

Great Britain 53 84% Haycock and Pinay, 1993

Virginia 30 73%4 Dillaha et al., 1989

Virginia 15 54%4 Dillaha et al., 1989

Maryland 13 68%4 Doyle et al., 1977

1 Estimated based on given area.

2 Measured using mass balance.

3 Measured in soil water.

4 Total nitrogen reduction.
Chapter 6: Management Measure for Vegetated Treatment Systems

70 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

VFSMOD

VFSMOD is a field-scale, storm-based model designed to calculate the outflow,

infiltration, and sediment-trapping efficiency of VFS. The model uses time-dependent

hyetographs, space-distributed filter parameters (vegetation roughness or density,

slope, and infiltration characteristics), and sediment characteristics to calculate VFS

efficiency.

Source: Munoz-Carpena and Parsons, 1997.

Climate

Several regional differences are important to note when considering the use of

VFS. Climate plays an important role in the effectiveness of these systems. The

amount and duration of rainfall, the seasonal differences in precipitation patterns,

and the type of vegetation suitable for local climatic conditions are examples of

regional variables that can affect the performance of VFS. VFS should not be

used in regions that have permafrost because infiltration is extremely limited,

which greatly decreases the effectiveness of the BMP (USEPA, 1997b). Soil

type and land use practices also vary with region and will affect characteristics

of surface water runoff and thus of VFS performance. The sites where published

research has been conducted on VFS effectiveness for pollutant removal are

overwhelmingly located in the eastern United States. There is a demonstrated

need for more studies located in different geographic areas in order to better

categorize the effects of regional differences on the effectiveness of VFS.

Native Plants

The best vegetative species for VFS are those which will produce dense growths

of grasses and legumes resistant to overland flow. Use native plants to avoid

negatively affecting adjacent natural areas.

Detention

In the design process for a VFS, some consideration should be given to increasing the detention time of runoff as it passes over the VFS. One possibility is to

design the VFS to include small rills that run parallel to the leading edge of the

filter strip. These rills would trap water as runoff passes through the VFS.

Another possibility is to plant crops upslope of the VFS in rows running parallel to

the leading edge. Data from a study by Young and others (1980), in which corn

was planted in rows parallel to the leading edge of the filter strip, show an

increase in sediment trapping and nutrient removal.

Monitoring

The design, placement, and maintenance of VFS are all critical to their effectiveness, and concentrated flows should be prevented. Although intentional planting

and naturalization of the vegetation will enhance the effectiveness of a larger

filter strip, the strip should be inspected periodically to determine whether concentrated flows are bypassing or overwhelming the VFS, particularly around the

perimeter. Regular inspection should be performed to determine whether sediment is accumulating within the VFS in quantities that would reduce its effectiveness (Magette et al., 1989). Monitoring should be conducted to determine the

efficiency of VFS in pollutant reduction and to determine whether they are

meeting performance standards.
Chapter 6: Management Measure for Vegetated Treatment Systems

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 71

Maintenance

For VFS that are relatively short in length, natural vegetative succession is not

intended. It should be mowed two or three times a year, fertilized, and weeded in

an attempt to achieve dense, hearty vegetation. The goal is to increase the

density of the vegetation to obtain maximum filtration. For wooded filter strips,

maintenance is minimal, and gradual succession from grass to meadow to

second-growth forest will enhance, rather than detract from, the performance of

longer filter strips. This process can be enhanced by intentional landscape

planting to facilitate vegetative succession. Corrective action is still necessary

around the edge of the strip, and trees might help to prevent concentrated flows

from forming (USDOT, 1996). In cold regions where deicers are used regularly

during winter months, requirements specific to the region are usually necessary.

Use of salt-tolerant plant species could be necessary where parking lot or

roadway runoff is directed to the VFS. Maintenance activities following spring

snowmelt should include maintenance and replacement of any salt-damaged

vegetation. In addition, mulching might be required in the spring to restore soil

structure and moisture capacity because deicing salts can damage soil structure

and reduce the organic content of the soil (USEPA, 1997b). Consider including

one or more of the following items in a VFS maintenance program to make the

performance of any VFS more efficient:

• Adding a stone trench to spread water effectively across the surface of

the filter.

• Designing flow spreaders to pass debris and/or to facilitate maintenance

access.

• Keeping the VFS carefully shaped to ensure sheet flow.

• Inspecting for damage following major storm events.

• Removing any accumulated sediment.

• Accounting for sediment and stream bed load for open wetland treatment

systems.

All filter strips should be inspected on an annual basis and examined for gully

erosion, vegetative density and health, concentrated flows, and damage from foot

or vehicle traffic. Additional inspections should be conducted after high-volume

runoff events. The flow spreader should be inspected to ensure that trash and

debris have not collected in the spreader. Accumulated sediments should be

removed to maintain sheet flow and preserve the original grade. Maintaining soil

permeability is also crucial to ensure proper functioning of VFS. This might

require periodic removal of thatch or mechanical aeration. Grass filter strips

should be reseeded in dead or damaged areas where necessary, and dead

vegetation in wooded filter strips should be removed (USDOT, 1996).

6.1.2 Constructed Wetlands

Construct properly engineered systems of wetlands for NPS

pollution control. Manage these systems to avoid negative

impacts on surrounding ecosystems or ground water.

Constructed wetlands

must be managed to avoid

any negative impacts on

wildlife and surrounding

areas.

Practice
Chapter 6: Management Measure for Vegetated Treatment Systems

72 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

Siting Constructed Wetlands

The Interagency Workgroup on Constructed Wetlands has issued a guidance

document entitled Guiding Principles for Constructed Treatment Wetlands:

Providing Water Quality and Wildlife Habitat (USEPA, 2000a). The

workgroup consists of representatives from the Environmental Protection

Agency, USACE, USFWS, NRCS, National Marine Fisheries Service, and

Bureau of Reclamation. The workgroup suggests the following considerations for

siting constructed wetlands.

1. Waters of the United States and Floodplains. Constructed wetlands

should generally be constructed in upland areas and away from floodplains.

2. Opportunities for Restoration of Degraded or Former Wetlands.

Constructed wetlands should be built in existing or former wetlands only

if the water entering the project meets water quality standards; the

project will have a net environmental benefit; and the project will help

restore the historical condition of the wetland.

3. Watershed Considerations. Consider the role of the constructed

wetland in the watershed. Some issues to evaluate are water quality

impacts, surrounding and upstream land uses, location relative to flyways

or wildlife corridors, and public acceptance and perceptions.

4. Water-Depleted and Effluent-Dependent Ecosystems. Constructed

wetlands may provide valuable ecological benefits in regions where

water resources are limited because of climatic conditions (for example

arid areas) and human-induced impacts (for example urban areas).

5. Other Site Selection Factors. Numerous factors can affect whether a

particular site is appropriate for the development of a constructed

wetland. These factors include:

• Substrate or soils

• Hydrology/geomorphology

• Vegetation

• Presence of endangered species

• Socioeconomic impacts/issues

• Zoning considerations

• Health and safety issues

The most important variable in constructed wetland design is hydrology. If proper

hydrologic conditions are developed, the chemical and biological conditions will, to

a degree, respond accordingly (Mitsch and Gosselink, 1993). The underlying soils

in a wetland are key to establishing the proper hydrology. Soils vary in their ability

to support vegetation, to prevent percolation of surface water into the ground

water, and to provide active exchange sites for adsorption of constituents like

phosphorus and metals.

Design Considerations

The planning and design of a constructed wetland must include considerations for

the quality of the influent, the types of pretreatment are necessary, and the shape
Chapter 6: Management Measure for Vegetated Treatment Systems

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 73

and size necessary to accomplish the desired treatment. The Interagency

Workgroup on Constructed Wetlands (2000) recommends that the following

guidelines be considered in the design of constructed wetland systems.

1. Minimal Impact. Adverse impacts on waters of the United States should

be avoided. Examples of impacts to be avoided include changes in

hydrology, disruption of the composition and diversity of plant and animal

communities, and degradation of water quality. Assessment and pretreatment for sediment removal and management should also be addressed.

2. Natural Structure. Whenever possible, use soft structures, sinuous lines,

and bioengineering practices in constructed wetlands design. Natural

landscape formations, native vegetation, and gravity should be used to

their best advantage.

3. Buffer Zones. Constructed wetlands should be surrounded by buffers or

transition zones. These areas can also be used in the design as open

space or wildlife corridors.

4. Vector Control. Facilities should be designed to minimize stagnant water

as a precaution against mosquito problems. Healthy, functioning wetlands

potentially decrease mosquito populations by providing habitat for natural

enemies of mosquitoes, and by preventing and reducing flooding in areas

that are not normally wet and would, therefore, support mosquitoes, but

not their predators.

Surveillance programs track diseases in bird populations, vector-borne

pathogens in mosquitoes, mosquito populations, larval habitats, mosquito

traps, biting counts, and reports by the public (Rose, 2001). Control

activities are initiated when threshold populations are exceeded. Predictions are made from seasonal records and weather data.

Reducing mosquito populations entails eliminating or altering larval

habitats. This can be achieved through public education campaigns, with

outreach to both children and adults. Additionally, state and local mosquito control agencies can alter the hydrology of open water and marshy

areas to reduce or prevent the proliferation of mosquito larvae. Rose

(2001) suggests techniques in which mosquito-producing areas in

marshes are connected by shallow ditches to deep water habitats to

allow drainage or fish access; and minimally flooding the marsh during

the summer but flap-gating impounded areas to reintegrate them to the

estuary for the rest of the year.

Open Marsh Water Management (OMWM) was developed to control

mosquitoes by introducing their natural predators to areas where mosquitoes breed. USFWS in partnership with Massachusetts modified extensive

grid-ditching systems installed during the Depression, to allow small fish

that eat mosquito larvae to move into ponds where mosquitoes breed. With

a system of pools connected by radial ditches, fish feed on mosquitoes

during high tide, then retreat to reservoirs at low tide (Scheirer, 1994).

Restored pools in the saltmarshes also provide feeding and resting areas for

migratory birds.
Chapter 6: Management Measure for Vegetated Treatment Systems

74 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

Biological control can be achieved by using various predators such as

dragonfly nymphs and predacious mosquitoes (Rose, 2001). Mosquito

fish (Gambusia affinis and Gambusia holbrooki) are the most commonly used agents for biological control because they are easily reared,

although they also feed on nontarget species. Other types of organisms

that might be used for mosquito control include several fish types other

than Gambusia (Check with local fish and wildlife agencies for potential

species), birds, bats, fungi, protozoans, nematodes, and predacious

copepods.

It is essential that stormwater managers and public works crews who

maintain stormwater practices be educated in integrated pest management. They should be trained to identify design flaws or maintenance

needs that might create mosquito-breeding habitat and be clear on the

procedures for reporting and remedying the problem. Pesticide handlers

should have the required training under FIFRA, and all chemicals should

be applied at rates as recommended on the packaging. Treated areas

should be monitored after application to determine the efficacy of the

applications and identify where pesticide resistance might be occurring.

Livingston (no date) recommends the following design considerations to

minimize mosquitoes in Florida stormwater management systems:

— Designs must be based on site characteristics to assure that the most

appropriate type of stormwater practice is selected. Vegetated dry

retention systems should be designed as off-line systems. They

should be used only where the soil and water table conditions will

assure that the system goes dry within 24 to 36 hours and where the

seasonal high water table is at least two feet below the bottom of the

system. If on-line retention areas are used, they should be designed

to be dry within three days of a 25-year, 24-hour design storm.

— Dry retention systems need to be carefully constructed to avoid

compacting the soil and reducing its infiltration rate. They also need

to have flat bottoms to avoid having areas of standing water.

— To minimize decaying organic matter, the grass or other vegetation in

dry retention areas should be regularly mowed with the clippings

removed and properly composted.

— The littoral zone of wet detention areas should be planted with

aquatic macrophytes such as Sagittaria latifolia (duck potato),

Sagittaria lancifolia (lance-leaf arrowhead), Juncus effuses (soft

rush), Pontedaria lancifolia (pickerelweed), Juncus roemerianus

(needle rush), Scirpus californicus (giant bulrush), and Scirpus

validus (soft stem bulrush). Cattails (Typha spp.) should never be

planted in or allowed to remain in stormwater systems as they grow

very profusely, creating a large quantity of decaying matter.

— Wet detention systems should be stocked with native Gambusia spp.

Minnows (mosquito fish) to foster biological predation of mosquito

larvae. If needed because of site conditions, a “minnow sump”

should be excavated in the deepest part of the pond to assure

permanent habitat and survival during droughts.
Chapter 6: Management Measure for Vegetated Treatment Systems

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 75

— Sustained-release larvicides should be used whenever necessary

with systems known to be mosquito productive treated before the

onset of the mosquito life cycle.

— Regular inspection and maintenance of stormwater systems is

essential.

Regular monitoring for mosquito adults and larvae, retrofitting and

maintenance of practices to reduce the likelihood for breeding, and

pesticide application where needed are the three key actions for eliminating mosquito breeding in stormwater facilities. The Centers Disease

Control and Prevention (CDC) discussed the role of pesticides that kill

adult mosquitoes (adulticides) in mosquito management and recommended that their use be incorporated into an integrated pest management program that includes surveillance, source reduction, chemical

control (larvicide and adulticide), biological control, and public relations

and education.

5. Hazing and Exclusion Devices. In constructed wetlands where the

water quality could present a significant threat to the health of wildlife,

hazing or wildlife exclusion devices should be used, maintained, and

regularly evaluated for their effectiveness. Examples include fencing,

netting, and noise-makers.

6. Dedicated Water Source. A dedicated water supply should be available

for the life of the constructed wetland and preferably longer. The water

supply should be sufficient to maintain the wetland in times of drought. It

is important that the water supply for adjacent waterways not be negatively impacted as well.

7. Biological Diversity and Physical Heterogeneity. If possible, constructed wetlands should be designed to maximize species diversity

native species. There are several guides for the selection of wetland

plants; see Table 5-2 for a list of resources. To achieve this goal of

diversity, it might be necessary to provide for physical heterogeneity in

the facility design. Some examples of physical heterogeneity include

having both surface and subsurface flow as well as some open areas of

water, and designing islands for waterfowl nesting as well as buffer or

upland areas for other bird species.

The types of vegetation used in constructed wetlands depend on region

and climate (Mitsch, 1977). For example, emergent wetlands are usually

characterized by herbaceous vegetation, while eastern riparian wetlands

are generally forested wetlands. When possible, use native plant species

to avoid negative impacts on nearby natural wetland areas. Plants should

be selected based on their ability to withstand fluctuating water levels.

Select appropriate vegetation based on the water supply. If the water

table will fluctuate over time, select plants that can withstand these

changes. Hydrophytic plant species are the most suitable wetland plant.

In coastal areas, the plants should be adapted to fluctuating salinity

levels. There are several guides for the selection of wetland plants such

as Aquatic and Wetland Vascular Plans of the Northern Great Plains

(USDA, 1993), many resources listed in Table 5-2, or the U.S. Fish and
Chapter 6: Management Measure for Vegetated Treatment Systems

76 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

Wildlife Service’s National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands (http://www.nwi.fws.gov/bha).

8. Seasonality and Capacity Exceedances. Planners should consider

extreme meteorological events and how exceedances of storage and

treatment capacity will affect the facility.

9. Forebays. Constructed wetlands should contain sediment collection/

settling forebays to trap sediment before runoff enters the vegetated area

of the constructed wetland. Baffles and diversions should be strategically

placed to prevent trapped sediment from becoming resuspended during

subsequent storm events prior to cleanout. These components should be

designed for ease of maintenance and removal of sediments. Appropriate

upland disposal sites that meet applicable regulatory requirements should

also be identified.

10. Multiple Cells. The benefits of using multiple treatment cells should be

considered. Multiple cells can allow for greater flexibility in the operation

and maintenance of constructed facilities, as well as potentially providing

better treatment than single-cell systems.

11. Maintenance Access. Safe and easy access to the facility for personnel

and vehicles is important for proper operation and maintenance with a

minimum of disturbance.

12. Public Acceptance. Planners should take into consideration how the

public perceives the facility. Mosquitoes, odors, and safety issues are

common questions raised by the public. Engaging the community early in

the project development process can help in gaining support and approval.

13. Public Use. Public access to constructed wetlands might or might not be

appropriate depending on the intended purpose of the facility. If safety

and health concerns are not an issue, designers may wish to develop

educational displays for the facility to encourage better understanding of

constructed wetlands and their many benefits.

14. Pilot Projects and Design Criteria. Pilot projects might be necessary

to assist in designing full-scale projects. When pilot projects are not used,

the design considerations should be fully described and documented for

future reference.

PREWet

A screening level PC-based mathematical model (PREWet) is available for making

pollutant removal estimates for wetlands. PREWet assumes steady-state conditions

and either fully mixed or one-dimensional longitudinally varying concentrations to

allow rapid model implementation with minimal input data requirements. Given basic

wetland characteristics and the pollutants of concern, PREWet estimates the amount

of pollutant treatment provided by the wetland.

Source: USACE, 1997.

Constructing and Maintaining Constructed Wetlands

The following guidelines should be considered during the active construction and

operation phases of a constructed wetland.
Chapter 6: Management Measure for Vegetated Treatment Systems

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 77

1. Construction Practices/Specification/Drawings. The construction site

should be properly evaluated prior to construction to ensure its suitability;

site survey elevations should be established; proper engineering drawings

should be used to clearly convey the design specification; and damage to

surrounding land should be minimized by limiting excavation and surface

runoff from the site. It is also important to note that a Clean Water Act

section 402 permit may be required depending on the size of the project.

2. Soils. Soils used in the wetland should be carefully evaluated to match

their permeability and other physical properties to the objectives of the

project. The use of soils that may contain the seeds of unwanted plant

species or unwanted contaminants should be avoided. Given time and

water, native soils can take on wetland soil properties.

3. Vegetation Selection. Plant species should be chosen for their abilities to

adapt to the water, soil, and light conditions of the constructed wetland. A

variety of native species is preferable; the use of weedy or invasive

species should be avoided. There are several guides for the selection of

wetland plants; see Table 5-2 for a list of resources.

4. Management Plan. Develop a long-term plan for the maintenance,

operation, funding, and monitoring of the constructed wetland. This plan

should outline the routine maintenance activities required for proper

operation and specify the person or group responsible for caring for the

wetland.

5. Regular Inspections and Maintenance Activities. Operators should

inspect the constructed wetland as necessary depending on the site and

design. The inspection criteria and frequency should be described in the

maintenance plan. The effectiveness of the constructed wetland for

removing pollutants will depend on how well it is maintained. The operation and maintenance plan should consider the monitoring and data needs

that are required to determine how well the constructed wetland is

performing relative to its design criteria. Maintenance activities that

affect the pollutant removal performance of the constructed wetland

(e.g., sediment removal, plant harvesting, and other vegetation maintenance activities) should be done when the monitoring data indicate a

decline in performance under designed operating conditions. This will

ensure that the constructed wetland is achieving its pollutant removal

effectiveness over time. Examples of maintenance activities include

checking weir settings and inlet and outlet structures, cleaning surfaces

that have solids or floatables accumulating on them, removing nuisance

species, maintaining vegetation, and removing sediment from forebays.

6. Operator Training. Operators should be trained in the proper maintenance and operation of the wetland. State regulatory agencies, as well as

some public or private training centers, may be able to assist with this

training.

7. Contingency Plan. A contingency plan should address problems that

may develop during the lifetime of the wetland due to construction or

operation errors and unpredictable events. The plan might also include

instructions for dealing with potential nuisance conditions.

There are many challenges

as well as benefits for

farmers installing and

maintaining vegetative

buffers, as described in the

February 1999 NRCS

publication, The National

Conservation Buffer

Initiative: A Qualitative

Evaluation. <http://

www.nrcs.usda.gov/

feature/buffers/pdf/

BuffQual.pdf>
Chapter 6: Management Measure for Vegetated Treatment Systems

78 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

6.2 Costs and Benefits of Practices

This section describes the economic costs and benefits of creating vegetated

treatment systems to control nonpoint sources of pollution. This information is

intended to demonstrate the cost savings accrued by implementing the management measure as compared to the costs of not implementing it. Because of

regional diversity, no single cost or economic benefit can be applicable across the

United States. Instead, the information provided below and in Table 6-4 are

examples of such costs and benefits in specific areas of the country.

Examples from throughout the United States show the

expected cost of many types of vegetated treatment

systems as well as their value to the respective

communities. For some of these projects, the value of

the vegetated treatment systems is based on the dollar

value saved from not using the structural or

conventional approach. The cost to install structural or

conventional technologies to replace the functions of

constructed wetlands, buffers, and vegetated filter strips

are shown to be much greater than the actual cost of

the vegetated treatment systems. When available, the

dates for project costs are provided. Results from

studies in various states (see map at left) are shown in

the table below. Additional information and references

about each study is provided in Appendix F.

Table 6-4. Costs and Economic Benefits Associated with Vegetative Treatment Systems
Chapter 6: Management Measure for Vegetated Treatment Systems

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 79

The use of appropriate practices for pretreatment of runoff and prevention of

adverse impacts on wetlands and other waterbodies involves the design and

installation of vegetated treatment systems such as VFS or constructed wetlands,

or the use of structures such as detention or retention basins. These types of

systems are discussed individually elsewhere in this guidance document. The

purpose of VFS and constructed wetlands is to remove, to the extent practicable,

excessive levels of NPS pollutants and to minimize the impacts of hydrologic

changes. Both VFS and constructed wetlands can function to reduce levels of

pollutants in runoff or attenuate runoff volume before the runoff enters a natural

wetland or riparian area or another water body.

One of the largest programs promoting the use of vegetated buffers is the

National Conservation Buffer Initiative, which is funded through the USDA

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). In April 1997, USDA initiated

the National Conservation Buffer Initiative with the goal to help landowners

install 2 million miles of conservation buffers by the year 2002. As of January

2003, the National Conservation Buffer initiative contributed to the installation of

over 1.3 million miles of buffers on almost 5 million acres of land (BufferNotes,

2003). The National Conservation Buffer Initiative encourages agricultural

producers and other landowners to install buffers that can improve soil, air, and

water quality; enhance wildlife habitat; restore biodiversity; and create scenic

landscapes. The initiative is led by the NRCS in cooperation with the Agricultural Research Service, Farm Service Agency; Forest Service; Cooperative State

Research, Education, and Extension Service; state conservation agencies;

conservation districts; and numerous other public and private partners (USDA,

2000).

Most of the buffer development is focused on farmland. There are many challenges associated with the buffer program. For example, coordinators find it

difficult to get buffers installed on rented land. Landlords are reluctant to forego

the rent on that land, yet tenants have no guarantee that they will benefit from

proposed buffers. Farmers have also voiced concerns about the program’s low

rental rates and about the restrictions it places on the use (haying, grazing) of

buffers. The NRCS is addressing these issues along with educating the public on

the benefits of buffers.

The costs for establishing of multispecies riparian buffer strip systems have been

estimated at $358 to $396 per acre, and annual maintenance costs are estimated

at $20 per acre. The establishment and maintenance costs do not include any

existing governmental cost-share or other subsidy. Currently, there are several

cost-share programs available that will cover up to 75 percent of the expenses

(USEPA, 1996a).

Constructed wetlands are finding increasing uses in residential areas because

they cost less than conventional wastewater treatment plants. They can be

readily accommodated in areas that have the land such systems require. However, urban areas are also expressing a growing interest.

The town of Jerome, Arizona, recently chose to construct a wetland rather than

build a mechanical treatment plant to treat its wastewater. Maintenance of the

mechanical treatment plant was to cost about $1,000 per month (in 1997), whereas
Chapter 6: Management Measure for Vegetated Treatment Systems

80 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

maintaining the wetland was expected to cost “little or nothing.” The city of Sierra

Vista, Arizona, has partnered with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation on a constructed wetland project that is expected to demonstrate the technology’s environmental benefits. Such benefits would derive from using treated wastewater for

aquifer recharge and for release directly to the river (University of Arizona, 1997).

The city of Des Moines, Washington, is using SRF funds to purchase and reconstruct a badly degraded wetland area and to construct a sediment trap/pond

facility. The wetlands serve the dual purpose of providing flood protection by

collecting stormwater runoff and acting as a preliminary filter by removing

suspended solids. This $222,500 project is part of the National Estuary Program.

Five communities in South Dakota have received SRF loans for wetlands projects.

The communities of Clear Lake, Huron, Lake Cochrane, Pickerel Lake, and

Richmond Lake have used SRF loans to construct wetlands as part of improvements to their publicly owned treatment works (POTW). Constructed wetlands are

a complex of saturated substrates, emergent and submergent vegetation, animal

life, and water that simulates natural wetlands for various benefits. In these cases,

the wetlands follow a lagoon treatment system to further reduce pollutant levels in

the wastewater prior to discharge. User charges are being used to repay the loans,

which total about $7.5 million for all five communities.

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)

The CRP is based on the premise that financial incentives make conservation buffers

economically attractive. Annual rental payments are based on the relative productivity of the soil type being offered and the average dryland cash rental rate for comparable land in the county. A 20 percent incentive is added to the annual rental rate for

field windbreaks, grassed waterways, filter strips, and riparian buffers. A 10 percent

incentive is added to the annual rental rate for land within designated wellhead

protection areas.

Cost-sharing payments up to 50 percent of the cost of establishing a permanent

cover are provided. Some of the measures eligible for cost sharing are site preparation, temporary cover until permanent cover is established, grading or shaping,

seeds, trees or shrubs, plastic mulch, and supplemental irrigation or fencing.

Contracts under the continuous CRP sign-up are 10 to 15 years in length, depending

on the approved practice. Annual rental payments are made after October 1 each year

and cost-share payments are made when the approved practices are completed.

Source: NRCS, 2000a.
EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 81

Resources

Documents

EPA Wetlands Fact Sheets. 1995. EPA Office of

Water. EPA 843-F-95-001.

http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/facts/

contents.html

Created and Natural Wetlands for Controlling

Nonpoint Source Pollution. 1993. CRC Press, Inc.

Boca Raton, Florida.

Natural Wetlands and Urban Stormwater: Potential Impacts and Management. 1993. EPA Office of

Water. EPA 843-R-001.

http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/pdf/

stormwat.pdf

Protecting Natural Wetlands: A Guide to

Stormwater Best Management Practices. 1996.

EPA Office of Water. EPA 843-B-96-001.

Top Ten Watershed Lessons Learned. 1997. EPA

Office of Water. EPA 840-F-97-001.

http://www.epa.gov/owow/lessons

Clean Water Action Plan: Restoring and Protecting

America’s Waters. 1998. EPA and USDA. EPA 840-

R-98-001.

http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/cwa/03.htm

Guidance Specifying Management Measures for

Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters.

1993. EPA Office of Water. EPA 840-B-92-002.

http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/MMGI/

National Guidance: Water Quality Standards for

Wetlands. 1990. EPA Office of Water. EPA 440-S90-011.

http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/wetlands/regs/

quality.html

Wetlands Assistance Guide for Landowners. 1995.

Texas Parks and Wildlife. State Wetlands Conservation Plan, Austin, TX.

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/wetlands/programs/

landowner/

National Water Summary of Wetland Resources.

1996. USGS. Water Supply Paper 2425.

http://water.usgs.gov/public/nwsum/WSP2425/

index.html

Wetlands. 1993. W. Mitsch and J. Gosselink.

Protecting America’s Wetlands: An Action Agenda -

The Final Report of the National Wetlands Forum.

1989. The Conservation Foundation. Washington, D.C.

Statewide Wetlands Strategies: A Guide to Protecting and Managing the Resource. 1992. World

Wildlife Fund. Island Press. Washington, D.C.

Our National Wetland Heritage: A Protection

Guide. 1996. Environmental Law Institute, Washington, DC.

The Impact of Federal Programs on Wetlands.

1994. USDOI. Report to Congress by the Secretary

of the Interior. http://www.doi.gov/oepc/wetlands2/

An Introduction to Wetland Restoration, Creation,

and Enhancement. 2001. Review Draft. Interagency

Workgroup on Wetland Restoration.

http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/restore/

finalinfo.html

For information on receiving EPA publications:

U.S. EPA

National Center for Environmental Publications and

Information (NCEPI)

P.O. Box 42419

Cincinnati, OH 45242

1-800 490-9198

FAX (513) 489-8695

http://www.epa.gov/ncepihom/orderpub.html

EPA Wetlands Protection Hotline – toll-free telephone

service and e-mail correspondent, answering requests

for information about wetland regulation, legislation,

and policy pursuant to section 404 of the Clean Water

Act; wetland values and functions; and wetland

agricultural issues. For a listing of the available publications, see http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/

wetline.html

M-F 9 am to 5:30 pm EST.

1-800-832-7828

wetlands-hotline@epamail.epa.gov
Resources

82 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

Riparian Area Management: A User Guide to

Assessing Proper Functioning Condition and the

Supporting Science for Lotic Areas. 1998. Technical Reference 1737-15. U.S. Department of the

Interior, Bureau of Land Management, National

Applied Resources Sciences Center, Boulder, CO.

Riparian Area Management: A User Guide to

Assessing Proper Functioning Condition and the

Supporting Science for Lentic Areas. 1999. Technical Reference 1737-16. U.S. Department of the

Interior, Bureau of Land Management, National

Applied Resources Sciences Center, Boulder, CO.

Technical Guidance

A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands.

1993. Mark M. Brinson. USACE. Wetlands Research

Program Technical Report WRP-DE-4. Currently

being developed and updated.

Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET II). 1987. Paul

R. Adamus. USACE, Waterways Experiment Station.

Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP). 1980.

USFWS, Division of Ecological Services.

Journals

Journal of the Society of Wetland Scientists.

(785) 843-1221

http://www.sws.org

Wetland Journal. Environmental Concern Inc.

(410) 745-9620

http://www.wetland.org

Association of State Wetland Managers Newsletter.

(518) 872-1804.

http://aswm.org/index.htm

National Wetlands Newsletter. Environmental Law

Institute. 1-800-433-5120.

http://www.elistore.org/nwn.asp

Land and Water: The Magazine of Natural Resource Management and Restoration.

(515) 576-3191. http://www.landandwater.com

Nonpoint Source News-Notes. Terrene Institute.

fax: (202) 260-1517 or (202) 296-4071.

http://www.epa.gov/owow/info/NewsNotes/

Funding Information

Catalog of Federal Funding Sources for Watershed Protection. 1997. EPA Office of Water. EPA

841-B-97-008.

http://cfpub.epa.gov/fedfund/

Section 319 Success Stories: Volume II - Highlights

of State and Tribal Nonpoint Source Programs.

1997. EPA Office of Water. EPA 841-R-97-001.

Catalog of State Wetlands Protection Grants:

Fiscal Year 1991-Fiscal Year 1994. EPA Office of

Water.

http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/wetlands/initiative/

grntcatalog.html

EPA Environmental Financing Information Network

(EFIN). http://www.epa.gov/efinpage/efin.htm

A State and Local Government Guide to Environmental Program Funding Alternatives. 1994. EPA

Office of Water. EPA 841-K-94-001.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Division of Federal

Assistance. http://federalaid.fws.gov/

Farm Bill Network. http://www.fb-net.org/

General Wetland Internet Links

EPA Office of Water Homepage

http://www.epa.gov/OW/

EPA Wetlands Homepage

http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/wetlands/

EPA Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program

Homepage

http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/NPS/

EPA Surf Your Watershed

http://www.epa.gov/surf

The Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF), a loan

program administered by EPA, can be used to obtain

water rights, easements, and fee simple titles to wetlands and riparian areas if the areas protected or

acquired serve a demonstrated water quality improvement function. Additional information on this program

as well other federal, state, nonprofit, and private

programs providing financial and technical assistance

can be found in Appendix A and Appendix F.
Resources

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 83

EPA Watershed Academy

http://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/wacademy/

EPA BASINS http://www.epa.gov/ost/basins/

Wetlands Conservation and Restoration, National

Wetlands Conservation Alliance.

http://users.erols.com/wetlandg/#top

North Carolina State University - WATERSHEDSS

(Water, Soil, and Hydro-Environmental Decision

Support System) for Nonpoint Source Pollution

http://www.water.ncsu.edu/watershedss/

Izaak Walton League-American Wetlands Campaign

http://www.iwla.org/sos/awm.

Ramsar Convention on Wetlands

http://www.ramsar.org

University of Nebraska-Lincoln Agriculture Network

Information Center Water Quality Page

http://ianrhome.unl.edu/dlc/projects/unlagnic.shtml

WetNet - Texas Wetland Information Network

http://www.glo.state.tx.us/wetnet/

The U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment

Station, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

http://www.wes.army.mil/

Listservers

Subscribing to a listserver is a good way to recieve the

most up-to-date information.

Wetlands Listserver - Environmental Law Institute

http://www2.eli.org/index.cfm

NPSINFO Listserver - EPA

http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/npsinfo/

WaterNews Listserver - EPA

http://www.epa.gov/ow/waternews/

Education Materials

Wetland Reading List. 1995. EPA Office of Water.

EPA 843-B-94-002.

http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/wetlands/science/

readlist.html

The Young Scientist’s Introduction to Wetlands.

1993. USACE, Waterways Experiment Station.

http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/wetlands/ysi.html

WOW! The Wonders of Wetlands. 1995. Britt E.

Slattery and Alan S. Kesselheim. Co-published by

Environmental Concern and The Watercourse.

http://www.wetland.org/wowteacher.html

National Wildlife Federation Kids Page

http://www.nwf.org/kids/

Ducks Unlimited Puddler Page

http://www.ducks.org/puddler/index.html

Project WET Homepage

http://www.projectwet.org/

National Audubon Society - Wetlands

http://www.audubon.org/campaign/wetland/

index.html
Resources

84 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005
EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 85

Abiotic: Not biological; not involving or produced by

organisms (Merriam-Webster, 1991).

Adsorption: The accumulation of substances at the

interface between two phases; in water treatment, the

interface is between the liquid and solid surfaces that

are artificially provided (Peavy et al., 1985).

Best Management Practice (BMP): Methods that

have been determined to be the most effective,

practical means of preventing or reducing pollution

from nonpoint sources.

Biofiltration: The removal and oxidation of compounds from contaminated air using microorganisms.

(Environmental Engineering Program, University of

Southern California; http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~bfilter/

intro.html)

Biological assimilation: The conversion of nonliving

substances into living protoplasm or cells by using

energy to build up complex compounds of living matter

from the simple nutritive compounds obtained from

food (Barnhart, 1986).

Biotic: Caused or produced by living beings

(Merriam-Webster, 1991).

Chemical decomposition: Separation into elements

or simpler compounds; chemical breakdown

(Merriam-Webster, 1991).

Complexation: The process by which one substance

is converted to another substance in which the constituents are more intimately associated than in a

simple mixture; chelation is one type of complexation

(Merriam-Webster, 1991).

Connectedness: Having the property of being joined

or linked together, as in aquatic or riparian habitats.

Constructed wetland: Engineered wetlands that

utilize natural processes involving wetland vegetation,

soils, and their associated microbial assemblages to

assist, at least partially, in treating an effluent or other

source water. These systems are engineered and

constructed in uplands, outside “waters of the United

States,” unless the water source can serve a signifiGlossary

cant restoration function to a degraded system

(USEPA, 1998).

Denitrification: The biochemical reduction of nitrate

or nitrite to gaseous nitrogen, either as molecular

nitrogen or as an oxide of nitrogen.

Ecosystem: The complex of a community and its

environment functioning as an ecological unit in

nature; a basic functional unit of nature comprising

both organisms and their nonliving environment,

intimately linked by a variety of biological, chemical,

and physical processes (Barnhart, 1986; MerriamWebster, 1991).

Erosion and Sediment Control: A set of plans

prepared by or under the direction of a licensed

professional engineer indicating the specific measures

and sequencing to be used to control sediment and

erosion on a development site during and after construction (USEPA, 1993c).

Filtration: The process of being passed through a

filter (as in the physical removal of impurities from

water) or the condition of being filtered (Barnhart,

1986).

Habitat: The place where an organism naturally lives

or grows.

Mitigation: For the purpose of CWA section 404,

compensatory mitigation is the restoration, creation, or

enhancement of wetlands.

Riparian area: Vegetated ecosystems along a

waterbody through which energy, materials, and water

pass. Riparian areas characteristically have a high

water table and are subject to periodic flooding and

influence from the adjacent waterbody. These systems encompass wetlands, uplands, or some combination of these two landforms; they do not in all cases

have all of the characteristics necessary for them to

be classified as wetlands (Lowrance et al., 1983;

Mitsch and Gosselink, 1986).

Sedimentation: The formation of earth, stones, and

other matter deposited by water, wind, or ice

(Barnhart, 1986).
Glossary

86 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

Species diversity: The variations between groups of

related organisms that have certain characteristics in

common (Barnhart, 1986; Merriam-Webster, 1991).

Synoptic Assessment Approach: An approach that

involves compiling, organizing, and depicting environmental information in a manner that ranks watersheds

according to the relative significance and risks to

wetlands and other ecosystems. The approach

considers the environmental effects of cumulative

impacts on wetlands and other ecosystems.

Upland: Ground elevated above the lowlands along

rivers or between hills (Merriam-Webster, 1991).

Vegetated buffer: Strips of vegetation separating a

waterbody from a land use that could act as a

nonpoint pollution source. Vegetated buffers (or simply

buffers) are variable in width and can range in function from vegetated filter strips to wetlands or riparian

areas.

Vegetated filter strip: Created areas of vegetation

designed to remove sediment and other pollutants

from surface water runoff by filtration, deposition,

infiltration, adsorption, decomposition, and volatilization. A vegetated filter strip is an area that maintains

soil aeration as opposed to a wetland, which at times

exhibits anaerobic soil conditions (Dillaha et al.,

1989a).

Vegetated treatment system: A system that

consists of a vegetated filter strip, a constructed

wetland, or a combination of both.

Watershed: The land area that drains into a stream;

the watershed for a major river may encompass a

number of smaller watersheds that ultimately combine

at a common point.

Waters of the United States: As defined by 40

CFR 230.3:

(s) The term waters of the United States means:

(1) All waters which are currently used, or were used

in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate

or foreign commerce, including all waters which are

subject to the ebb and flow of the tide;

(2) All interstate waters including interstate wetlands;

(3) All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers,

streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats,

sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet

meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use,

degradation or destruction of which could affect

interstate or foreign commerce including any such

waters:

(i) Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign

travelers for recreational or other purposes; or

(ii) From which fish or shellfish are or could be taken

and sold in interstate or foreign commerce; or

(iii) Which are used or could be used for industrial

purposes by industries in interstate commerce;

(4) All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as

waters of the United States under this definition;

(5) Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs

(s)(1) through (4) of this section;

(6) The territorial sea;

(7) Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters

that are themselves wetlands) identified in paragraphs

(s)(1) through (6) of this section; waste treatment

systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet the requirements of CWA (other than

cooling ponds as defined in 40 CFR 423.11(m) which

also meet the criteria of this definition) are not waters

of the United States.

Waters of the United States do not include prior

converted cropland. Notwithstanding the determination of an area’s status as prior converted cropland by

any other federal agency, for the purposes of the

Clean Water Act, the final authority regarding Clean

Water Act jurisdiction remains with EPA.

Wetlands: Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency

and duration to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions;

wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs,

and similar areas. (This definition is consistent with

the federal definition at 40 CFR 230.3, promulgated

December 24, 1980. As amendments are made to the

wetland definition, they will be considered applicable

to this guidance.)
EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 87

Abbruzzese, B., S.G. Leibowitz, and R. Sumner.

1990a. Application of the Synoptic Approach to

Wetland Designation: A Case Study in Louisiana.

Final report. Submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands Protection, Washington, DC.

Abbruzzese, B., S.G. Leibowitz, and R. Sumner.

1990b. Application of the Synoptic Approach to

Wetland Designation: A Case Study in Washington.

Final report. Submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, WA.

Abramovitz, J. 1997. Damage to Nature Now Causing

Widespread “Natural” Disasters, Economic Hardship.

Worldwatch press briefing. World Watch Institute,

Washington, DC.

American Rivers. 1998. American Rivers 1997 Urban

Hometown River Award. American Rivers, Washington, DC.

American Samoa Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution Program. 1995. American Samoa Environmental

Protection Agency, American Samoa.

Anacostia Watershed Network. 2000. Anacostia

Watershed Restoration Committee. Anacostia

Watershed Network, Washington, DC.

Atcheson, J., E.T. Conrad, S.F., W. Bailey, and

M. Hughes, Jr. 1979. Analysis of Selected Functional Characteristics of Wetlands. Prepared for the

U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center,

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

Auburn University. 1995. Alabama Water Watch.

Auburn University, Auburn, AL.

Azous, A. 1991. An Analysis of Urbanization

Effects on Wetland Biological Communities.

Master’s thesis, University of Washington. Puget

Sound Wetlands and Stormwater Management

Research Program.

Baird, K. 1989. High quality restoration of riparian

ecosystems. Restoration & Management Notes

7(2):60-64.

References

Baldwin G.W. 1995. Tinian Magpo Watershed and

Wetland Protection Plan. Prepared for Division of

Coastal Resources Management, Department of

Lands and Natural Resources, Saipan, MP; Division

of Environmental Quality, Department of Public

Works, Saipan, MP; U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Washington, DC.

Barataria-Terrebonne National Estuary Program. No

date. Economic Value Assessment of the BaratariaTerrebonne Estuarine System. Published Research

Report 26. Nicholls State University Campus,

Thibodaux, LA.

Barnett, J., Greenways Coordinator, City of Boulder,

1990. Personal communication.

Barten, J.M. 1987. Stormwater runoff treatment in a

wetland filter: Effects on the water quality of Clear

Lake. Lake and Reservoir Management 3:297-305.

Baum, S. 1995. Illinois Wetland Strategy. Illinois

Natural History Survey, Champagne, IL.

Bedford, B.L., and E.M. Preston. 1988. Developing

the scientific basis for assessing cumulative effects of

wetland loss and degradation on landscape functions:

Status, perspectives, and prospects. Environmental

Management 12(5):751-771.

Belt, G.H., J. O’Laughlin, and T. Merrill. 1992.

Design of Forest Riparian Buffer Strips for the

Protection of Water Quality: Analysis of Scientific

Literature. Report no. 8. Idaho Forest, Wildlife and

Range Policy Analysis Group, University of Idaho,

Moscow, ID.

Blackburn, R.D., P.L. Pimentel, and G.E. French.

1986. Treatment of Stormwater Runoff Using

Aquatic Plants: The Use of Wetlands for Controlling Stormwater Pollution, ed. E.W. Strecker, J.M.

Kersnar, and E.D. Driscoll. Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Portland, Oregon. Prepared for U.S. EPA,

Region 5, Water Division, Watershed Management

Unit. EPA/600 February 1992.
References

88 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

Booth, D.E., and C.R. Jackson. 1994. Urbanization of

Aquatic Systems-Degraded Thresholds and Limit of

Mitigation. In Proceedings Annual Summer Symposium of the American Water Resources Association,

June 26-29, 1994.

Briggs, M.K. 1996a. Our National Wetland Heritage: A Protection Guide. University of Arizona

Press, Tucson.

Briggs, M.K. 1996b. Riparian Ecosystem Recovery

in Arid Lands: Strategies and References. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Brinson, M.M. 1988. Strategies for assessing the

cumulative effects of wetland alteration on water

quality. Environmental Management 12(5):655-662.

Brown, M.T., J. Schaefer, and K. Brandt. 1990.

Buffer Zones for Water, Wetlands, and Wildlife in

East Central Florida. Publication no. 89-07 and

Florida Agricultural Experiment Station Journal Series

no. T-00061. Center for Wetlands, University of

Florida, Gainesville, FL.

Brown, R.G. 1985. Effects of an urban wetland on

sediment and nutrient loads in runoff. Wetlands,

4(1):147-158.

BufferNotes. 2003. Buffer Benefits at Home and

Away. January 2003 issue, National Association of

Conservation Districts, Washington, DC.

<www.nacdnet.org/buffers>. Accessed January

2003.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). No date.

Problems and Solutions: A Riparian Improvement

Example. Bureau of Land Management, Washington,

DC.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1997. Environmental Education. Bureau of Land Management,

Eugene, OR.

Burke, D.G., E.J. Meyers, R.W. Tiner, Jr., and

H. Gronman. 1988. Protecting Nontidal Wetlands.

Planning Advisory Service report no. 412/413. American Planning Association, Washington, DC.

California Environmental Resources Evaluation

System. 1995. CWIS, Tahoe Conservancy. Programs.

California Environmental Resource Evaluation System, Sacramento CA.

Carothers, S.W., and G.S. Mills. 1990. The Creation

and Restoration of Riparian Habitat in Southwestern

Arid and Semi-arid Regions. In Wetland Creation

and Restoration: The Status of Science, ed. J.A.

Kusler and M.E. Kentula. Island Press, Washington,

DC.

Cheng, Janice, USEPA, Region 5. January 18, 2000.

Personal communication.

Chesapeake Bay Program. 1997a. Chesapeake Bay

Watershed Riparian Buffer/Local Case Studies.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake

Bay Program, Annapolis, MD.

Chesapeake Bay Program. 1997b. Riparian Buffer

Case Study. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, MD.

Chesapeake Bay Program. 1998. Riparian Forest

Buffer Demonstration Sites: Chapel Point State

Park, MD. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, MD.

Coastal America Partnership. 1997. Wetlands Protection and Restoration. Coastal America, Washington,

DC.

Connecticut CZARA Program. 1996. Connecticut

Department of Environmental Protection, Hartford,

CT.

Cooper, J.R., J.W. Gilliam, and T.C. Jacobs. 1986.

Riparian Areas as a Control of Nonpoint Pollutants. In

Watershed Research Perspectives, ed. D. Correll,

pp. 166-192. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

Cooper, J.R., and J.W. Gilliam. 1987. Phosphorus

redistribution from cultivated fields into riparian areas.

Soil Science Society of America Journal

51(6):1600-1604.

Cooper, J.R., J.W. Gilliam, R.B. Daniels, and W.P.

Robarge. 1987. Riparian areas as filters for agriculture sediment. Soil Science Society of America

Journal 51(6):417-420.

Correll, D. 1997. Vegetated Stream Riparian Zones:

Their Effects on Stream Nutrients, Sediments, and

Toxic Substances. An annotated and indexed bibliography. Smithsonian Environmental Research Center,

Edgewater, MD.
References

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 89

Correll, D.L., and D.E. Weller. 1989. Factors Limiting

Processes in Freshwater: An Agricultural Primary

Stream Riparian Forest. In Freshwater Wetlands and

Wildlife, ed. R.R. Sharitz and J.W. Gibbons, pp. 9-23.

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science and

DOE Symposium Series no. 61. Technology Information, Oak Ridge, TN.

Correll D.L., T.E. Jordan, and D.E. Weller. 1992.

Nutrient flux in a landscape: Effects of coastal land

Use and terrestrial community mosaic on nutrient

transport to coastal waters. Estuaries 15(4, December):431-442.

Costanza, R., S.C. Farber, and J. Maxwell. 1989.

Valuation and management of wetland ecosystems.

Ecological Economics 1: 335-361.

Craft, C.B., E.D. Seneca, and S.W. Broome. 1991.

Porewater chemistry of natural and created marsh

soils. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and

Ecology 152(2):187(14).

Cwikiel, W. 1996. Living with Michigan’s Wetlands:

A Landowner’s Guide. Tip of the Mitt Watershed

Council, Conway, MI.

Daggett, S. 1994. Stage 1 Watershed Assessment:

Final Report. Oregon Division of State Lands, Salem,

OR.

Davis, L. 1996. A Handbook of Constructed Wetlands. Vols. 1-5. Prepared for U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service,

and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3.

DC Department of Health. Kingman Lake Wetland

Restoration Project. DC Watershed Protection

Division.

DC Watershed Protection Division. No date.

Kennelworth Marsh Restoration. DC. Department

of Health, DC Watershed Protection Division, Washington, DC.

Debano, L., J. Brejda, and J. Brock. 1984. Enhancement of riparian vegetation following shrub control in

Arizona chaparral. Journal of Soil and Water

Conservation, September-October, pp. 317-320.

Decker Lake Project. 1998. Decker Lake Wetlands

Preserve Foundation. Salt Lake City, UT.

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and

Environmental Control. 1998. Wetlands Rehabilitation Program. Delaware Department of Natural

Resources and Environmental Control, Dover, DE.

Detenbeck, N.E., C.A. Johnson, and G.J. Niemi.

1993. Wetland effects of lake water quality in the

Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area. Landscape

Ecology 8:39-61.

Dickey, E.C., and D.H. Vanderholm. 1981. Vegetative

filter treatment of livestock feedlot runoff. Journal of

Environmental Quality 10(3):279-284.

Dillaha, T.A., J.H. Sherrard, D. Lee, S. Mosttaghimi,

and V.O. Shanholtz. 1988. Evaluation of vegetative

filter strips as a best management practice for feed

lots. Journal of Water Pollution Control Federation

60(7):1231-1238.

Dillaha, T.A., R.B. Renear, S. Mostaghimi, and D.

Lee. 1989a. Vegetative filter strips for agricultural

nonpoint source pollution control. Transactions of the

American Society of Agricultural Engineers

32(2):513-519.

Dillaha, T.A., J.H. Sherrard, and D. Lee. 1989b.

Long-term effectiveness of vegetative filter strips.

Water Environment and Technology (November

1989):419-421.

Doppelt, B., M.C. Scurlock, C.A. Fissell, and J.R.

Karr. 1993. Entering the Watershed: A New Approach to Save America’s River Ecosystems. Island

Press, Washington, DC.

Downer, C.W., and T.E. Myers. 1995. Constructed

Wetlands for Sediment Control and Non-Point Source

Pollution Abatement at US Army Corps of Engineers

Project: Ray Roberts Lake, Dallas, Texas, and Bowman Haley Reservoir, Bowman, North Dakota. In

National Interagency Workshop on Wetlands,

USACE Waterways Experiment Station, New Orleans, LA, April 5-7, 1997.

Doyle, R.C., G.C. Stanton, and DC. Wolf. 1977.

Effectiveness of forest and grass buffer strips in

improving the water quality of manure polluted runoff.

ASAE Paper 77-2501. ASAE Winter Meeting,

Chicago, IL. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI.
References

90 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

Earth Conservation Corps (ECC). 1997. Eagle Corps

and Salmon Corps. Earth Conservation Corps,

Washington, DC.

Eitniear, T. 1995. Peterson Wetland Restoration

Project. In Methods of Modifying Habitat to

Benefit the Great Lakes Ecosystem, ed .J.R.M.

Kelso and J.H. Hartig, pp. 282-286 CISTI Occas.

Paper No.1. Natural Research Council of Canada,

Research Press, Ottawa, ON, Canada.

Environmental Defense Fund. 1998. EDF Praises

Minnesota River Conservation Reserve Enhancement

Program. News release, February 19, 1998.

Environmental News Network (ENN). 1996. Riparian restoration is cost-effective, study shows. ENN,

Sun Valley, ID.

Faber, P.M., E. Keller, A. Sands, and B.M. Massey.

1989. The Ecology of Riparian Habitats of the

Southern California Coastal Region: A Community

Profile. Biological Report 85(7.27). U.S. Department

of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington,

DC.

Fail, J.L., Jr., B.L. Haines, and R.L. Todd. No date.

Riparian forest communities and their role in nutrient

conservation in an agricultural watershed. American

Journal of Alternative Agriculture II(3):114-120.

Fairfax County, Virginia, Board of Supervisors. 1982.

Occoquan Basin Study: Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Adopted by the Board of Supervisors

June 15, 1982. Fairfax County Office of Comprehensive Planning, Fairfax, VA.

Fannin, T.E., M. Parker, and T.J. Maret. 1985.

Multiple Regression Analysis for Evaluating Non-point

Source Contributions to Water Quality in the Green

River, Wyoming. In Proceedings of Riparian Ecosystems and Their Management: Reconciling

Conflicting Issues, Tucson, Arizona, April 16-

18,1985, pp. 201-205. GTR RM-120. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain

Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins,

CO.

Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working

Group. 1998. Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles, Processes, and Practices. EPA 841-R-98-

900. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of

Water, Washington, DC.

Fields, S. 1992. Regulations and policies relating to the

use of wetlands for nonpoint source pollution control.

Ecological Engineering 1(1-2):135-141.

Floodplain Management Association. 1994. Economic

benefits of wetlands. FMA News: The Newsletter of

the Floodplain Management Association (July).

Florida Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. 1995. Florida Coastal Management

Program, Tallahassee, FL.

Frenkel, R.E., and J.C. Morlan. 1991. Can we restore

our salt marshes? Lessons from the Salmon River,

Oregon. Northwest Environment Journal 7:119-135.

Gantt, L.K. 1994. Atlantic White Cedar Wetlands

Restoration Cookbook of Innovations in Coastal

Protection. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watershed, Washington, DC.

Gillespie, A.R., B.K. Miller, and K.D. Johnson. 1995.

Effects of Ground Cover on Tree Survival and

Growth in Filter Strips of the Cornbelt Region of

the Midwestern US. Texas A&M Blackland Research Center.

GolfWeb. 1997. Golfing with Mother Nature at

Stevinson Ranch.

Government Accounting Office (GAO). 1999. Water

Quality: Federal Role in Addressing and Contributing to Nonpoint Source Pollution. Chapter

Report, February 26, 1999, GAO/RCED-99-45.

Groenveld, D.P., and E. Griepentrog. 1985. Interdependence of Groundwater, Riparian Vegetation, and

Streambank Stability: A Case Study. In Proceedings

of Riparian Ecosystems and their Management:

Reconciling Conflicting Issues, Tucson, Arizona,

April 16-18, 1985, pp. 44-48. GTR RM-120. U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky

Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort

Collins, CO.

Guam Nonpoint Source Pollution Management

Plan. 1996. Guam Environmental Protection Agency,

Tiyan, Guam.
References

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 91

Gumb, D., J. Vokral, R. Smith, S. Mehrotra. 1996.

Staten Island Bluebelt Project: New York City’s

Watershed Approach with Multiple Benefits. In

Watershed ‘96 Proceedings. U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.

Hammer, D.A., ed. 1988. Constructed Wetlands for

Wastewater Treatment: Municipal, Industrial, and

Agricultural. Proceedings from the First International

Conference on Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater

Treatment, Chattanooga, Tennessee, June 13-17,

1988. Lewis Publishers, Inc., Chelsea, MI.

Hammer, D.A. 1992. Designing constructed wetlands

systems to treat agricultural nonpoint source pollution.

Ecological Engineering 1(1992):49-82.

Hammer, D.A., B.P. Pullin, and J.T. Watson. 1989.

Constructed Wetlands for Livestock Waste Treatment. Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, TN.

Hanson, G.C., P.M. Groffman, and A.J. Gold. 1994.

Denitrification in riparian wetlands receiving high and

low groundwater nitrate inputs. Journal of Environmental Quality 23:917-922.

Hanson, J.S., G.P. Malanson, and M.P. Armstrong.

1990. Landscape fragmentation and dispersal in a

model of riparian forest dynamics. Ecological Modeling 49(1990):277-296.

Haycock, N.E., and G. Pinay. 1993. Groundwater

nitrate dynamics in grass and poplar vegetated riparian

buffer strips during the winter. Journal of Environmental Quality 22:273-278.

Haycock, N.E., T.P. Burt, K.W.T. Goulding, and G.

Pinay. 1996. Buffer Zones: Their Processes and

Potential in Water Protection. In Proceedings of the

International Conference on Buffer Zones. Quest

Environmental, Harpenden, Herts, United Kingdom.

Heasley, P. 1994. Options for Wetland Conservation: A Guide for California Landowners. California Coastal Conservancy, Oakland, CA.

Henjum, M.G., J.R. Karr, D.L. Bottom, D.A. Perry,

J.C. Bednarz, S.G. Wright, S.A. Beckwett, and E.

Beckett. 1994. Interim Protection for Late-successional Forests, Fisheries, and Watersheds; National Forests East of the Cascade Crest, Oregon

and Washington. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda,

MD.

Hoffman J.T., Green D.L., and Eager D. 1998.

Riparian Restoration and Streamside Erosion

Control Handbook. Tennessee Department of

Agriculture, Nashville, TN.

Hoffman, D., and T. Gerik. 1995. Limiting Herbicide

Runoff with Vegetative Filter Strips. In Proceeding

of the 1995 Water for Texas Conference, TWRI,

College Station, TX.

Hubbard, R.K. and J.M. Sherridan. 1989. Nitrate

movement to groundwater in the southeastern coastal

plain. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 20-

27.

Hubbard, R.K., G. Vellidis and R. Lowrance. 1992.

Wetland Restoration for Filtering Nutrients from an

Animal Waste Application Site. In Land Reclamation: Advances in Research and Technology

International Symposium, Nashville, Tennessee,

December 14-15, 1992. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI.

International City/County Management Association

and National Association of Counties (ICMA and

NACO). 1999. Protecting Wetlands, Managing

Watersheds...Local Government Case Studies.

International City/County Management Association

and National Association of Counties, Washington,

DC.

Jacobs, Susan M., Maryland Department of Transportation. No date. Personal communication.

Jacobs, T.C., and J.W. Gilliam. 1985. Riparian losses

of nitrate from agricultural drainage waters. Journal

of Environmental Quality 14(4):472-478.

James, B.R., B.B. Bagley, and P.H. Gallagher. 1990.

Riparian Zone Vegetation Effects on Nitrate Concentrations in Shallow Groundwater. Submitted for

publication in the Proceedings of the 1990 Chesapeake Bay Research Conference. University of

Maryland, Soil Chemistry Laboratory, College Park,

MD.

Jolley, J.W. 1990. The Efficiency of Constructed

Wetlands-Pond Systems in the Reduction of Phosphorus and Sediment Discharges from Agricultural

Watersheds. Thesis in Civil Engineering, University of

Maine.
References

92 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

Johnson, C.A., N.E. Detenbeck, and G.J. Niemi. 1990.

The cumulative effect of wetlands on stream water

quality and quantity: A landscape approach. Biogeochemistry 10:105-141.

Jordan, T.E., D.L. Correll, and D.E. Weller. 1993.

Nutrient interception by a riparian forest receiving

inputs from adjacent croplands. Journal of Environmental Quality 22:467-473.

Kadlec, R.H., and R.L. Knight. 1996. Treatment

Wetlands. CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, FL.

Karr, J.R., and O.T. Gorman. 1975. Effects of Land

Treatment on the Aquatic Environment. In U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency Non-Point

Source Pollution Seminar, 4-1 to 4-18. 905/9-75-007

USEPA, Washington, DC.

Karr, J.R., and I.J. Schlosser. 1977. Impact of

Nearstream Vegetation and Stream Morphology on

Water Quality and Stream Biota. Ecological

Research Series. EPA-600/3-77-097. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

Kent, D.M. 1994. Applied Wetlands Science and

Technology. CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, FL.

Kentula, Brooks, Gwin, Holland, Sherman, and

Sifneos. 1993. An Approach to Decision Making in

Wetland Restoration and Creation. CRC Press,

Boca Raton, FL.

The Keystone Center. 1996. The Keystone National

Policy Dialogue on Ecosystem Management.

Report No. 6. The Keystone Center, Keystone, CO.

Kleiss, B.A. 1996. Sediment retention in a bottomland

hardwood in eastern Arkansas. Wetlands 16:321-333.

Kleiss, B.A., E.E. Morris, J.F. Nix, and J.W. Barko.

1989. Modification of Riverine Water Quality by an

Adjacent Bottomland Hardwood Wetland. In Proceedings of Wetlands: Concerns and Successes,

ed. D.W. Fisk, Tampa, Florida, September 17-22,

1989, pp. 429-438. TPS 89-3. American Water

Resources Association, Bethesda, MD.

Kunkel, J.R., T.D. Steele, B. Urbonas, and J. Carlson.

1992. Chemical-Constituent Load Removal Efficiency

of an Urban Detention Pond/Wetlands System in the

Denver Metropolitan Area, Colorado. In Proceedings

of Environmental Engineering: Saving a Threatened Resource in Search of Solutions, Baltimore,

Maryland, August 2-6, 1992.

Lambou, V.W. 1985. Aquatic Organic Carbon and

Nutrient Fluxes, Water Quality, and Aquatic Productivity in the Atchafalaya Basin, Louisiana. In Proceedings of Riparian Ecosystems and Their Management: Reconciling Conflicting Issues, Tucson,

Arizona, April16-18, 1985, pp. 180-185. GTR RM-120.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment

Station, Fort Collins, CO.

Langer E., and H. Stuart. 1997. James Pielsticker

Wins Regional Wetlands Conservation Award From

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S. Department of

the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington,

DC.

Lanier, A.L. 1990. Database for Evaluating the

Water Quality Effectiveness of Best Management

Practices. North Carolina State University, Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering,

Chapel Hill, NC.

Leeds, R.D., L. Forster, and L.C. Brown. 1993.

Vegetative Filter Strip Economics. Ohio State

University Extension, Columbus, OH.

Leibowitz, S.G., B. Abbruzzese, P.R. Adamus, L.E.

Hughes, and J.T. Irish. 1992. A Synoptic Approach

to Cumulative Impact Assessment. EPA/600/R-92/

167. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR.

Livingston, E.H. No date. Stormwater Management

Systems: A Source of Mosquitoes? Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Stormwater/

Nonpoint Source Management Section, Tallahassee,

FL.

Licht, L.A., and J.L. Schnoor. 1990. Poplar tree roost

for water quality improvement. ASAE Paper No. 90-

2057. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI.

Lock, Patricia A., Division of Wildlife Resources.

1993. Personal communication.

Lorenzi, Andy, The Nature Conservancy. 1992.

Personal communication.

Lowrance, R.R., R.L. Todd, and L.E. Asmussen.

1983. Waterborne Nutrient Budgets for the Riparian
References

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 93

Zone of an Agricultural Watershed. Agriculture,

Ecosystems and Environment 10:371-384.

Lowrance, R.R., R.L. Todd, and L.E. Asmussen.

1984. Nutrient cycling in an agricultural watershed:

Phreatic movement. Journal of Environmental

Quality 13(1):22-27.

Maine Coastal Nonpoint Source Control Program.

1996. Maine State Planning Office, Coastal Program,

Augusta, ME.

Magette, W.L., R.B. Brinsfield, R.E. Palmer, and J.D.

Wood. 1989. Nutrient and sediment removal by

vegetated filter strips. Transactions of the American

Society of Agricultural Engineers 32(2):663-667.

Martin, E.H. 1988. Effectiveness of an urban runoff

detention pond-wetlands system. Journal of Environmental Engineering 114(4).

Martin E.H., and J.L. Smoot. 1986. Constituent Load

Changes in Urban Stormwater Runoff Routed

Through a Detention Pond-Wetlands System in

Central Florida. Prepared in cooperation with the

Florida Department of Transportation. USGS Water

Resources Investigation Report 85-4310.

Martin, K. 1996. The Effects of Riparian Zone

Restoration on Ground Water Nitrate Concentrations. Master’s thesis, University of Connecticut.

Massachusetts Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control

Plan. 1995. Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone

Management, Boston, MA.

McAliney, M., ed. 1993. Arguments for Land Conservation: Documentation and Information

Sources for Land Resources Protection. Trust for

Public Land, Sacramento, CA.

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments

(MWCOG). 1996. Anacostia Watershed. Washington, DC.

Michigan Coastal Nonpoint Source Program. 1996.

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality,

Lansing, MI.

Michigan Wildlife Habitat Foundation. 1997. Saginaw

Bay Watershed: A Strategy for Wetland Restoration. Consortium for International Earth Science

Information Network.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 1997.

Minnesota Wetland Conservation Plan, Version

1.0. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St.

Paul, MN.

Missouri Department of Conservation. 1998. Ralph

and Martha Perry Memorial Conservation Area.

Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City,

MO.

Mitsch, W.J. 1977. Water hyacinth (Eichhornia

crassipes) nutrient uptake and metabolism in a northcentral Florida marsh. Archiv fur Hydrobiologie

81:188-210.

Mitsch, W.J., and J.G. Gosselink. 1986. Wetlands.

Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, NY.

Mitsch, W.J., and J.G. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands. 2nd

ed. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, NY.

Monsanto. 1997. Operation Green Stripe. Monsanto,

St. Louis, MO.

Montana Department of Environmental Quality. 1995.

The Stream Management Guide for Landowners,

Managers and Stream Users. Color World,

Bozeman, MT.

Montgomery, D.R., G.E. Grant, and K. Sullivan. 1995.

Watershed analysis as a framework for implementing

ecosystem management. Water Resources Bulletin

31(3).

Moshiri, G.A. 1993. Constructed Wetlands for Water

Quality Improvement. CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton,

FL.

Moustafa, M.D., T.D. Fontaine, and M.J. Chimney.

1995. The Response of a Freshwater Wetland to

Long-term Low-level Nutrient Loads. In National

Interagency Workshop on Wetlands, USACE

Waterways Experiment Station, New Orleans, LA,

April 5-7, 1997.

Multi-Agency Wetland Planning Team. 2001. Arkansas Wetland Conservation Plan: State Wetland

Strategy. Little Rock, AR.

Myers, J. 1996. The ongoing salt marsh restoration at

Stonington, Connecticut. In Restoration and Reclamation Review. University of Minnesota, Department

of Horticultural Science, St. Paul, MN.
References

94 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

Naiman, R.J., H. Decamps, J. Pastor, and C.A.

Johnston. 1988. The potential importance of boundaries to fluvial ecosystems. Journal of the North

American Benthological Society 7(4):289-306.

National Audubon Society. No date a. Wetlands

Horror Stories. National Audubon Society, New

York, NY.

National Audubon Society. No date b. What’s a

Wetland Worth? National Audubon Society, New

York, NY.

National Audubon Society. No date c. Why are

Wetlands Important? National Audubon Society,

New York, NY.

National Audubon Society. 1995. Ohio Wetlands.

National Audubon Society, New York, NY.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).

1999. The National Conservation Buffer Initiative.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).

2000a. Iowa Conservation Reserve Program (CRP),

Bottomland. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).

2000b. Erosion Control, Water Management, Local

Partnerships, Wildlife Habitat. U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Washington, DC.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).

2000c. Illinois-Water Quality, Flood Protection,

State Program. U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Washington, DC.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). No

date. Iowa–Middle Raccoon Watershed Partnership, Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), City

of Des Moines drinking water. U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Washington, DC.

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). 1999.

Reports: Stormwater Strategies—Community

Responses to Runoff Pollution. Natural Resource

Defense Council, New York, NY.

National Wildlife Federation (NWF). 1997. Wetlands

Provide Tremendous Economic Benefits for People.

National Wildlife Federation, Reston, VA.

The Nature Conservancy. 1997. Gila Riparian

Preserve. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA.

The Nature Conservancy. 1998a. Matheson Wetland

Preserve. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA.

The Nature Conservancy. 1998b. The Nature Conservancy Magazine. January/February 1998. The

Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA.

The Nature Conservancy. 1998c. Pine Butte Swamp

Preserve. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA.

Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. 1997.

Programs for Restoring, Creating, and Enhancing

Wetlands on Private Lands in Nebraska. Nebraska

Game and Parks Commission, Lincoln, NE.

New Jersey Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control

Program. 1995. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Trenton, NJ.

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

and Energy. 1992. Freshwater Wetlands Protection

Act Rules, New Jersey Administrative Code 7:7A.

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection,

Trenton, NJ.

New York Coastal Nonpoint Program Submission.

1995. New York Department of Environmental

Conservation, Albany, NY.

Nieswand, G.H., B.B. Chavooshian, R.M. Hordon, T.

Shelton, S. Blarr, and B. Brodeur. 1989. Buffer Strips

to Protect Water Supply Reservoirs and Surface

Water Intakes: A Model and Recommendations.

Prepared for the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection by Cook College Department of

Environmental Resources.

North Carolina Department of Environment and

Natural Resources. 1998. News release, January 27,

1998. North Carolina Department of Environment and

Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC.

Northern Virginia Soil and Water Conservation

District. 1997. Conservation Currents 25(1, September/October) and 25(2, November/December).

Noss, R.F., and A.Y. Cooperrider. 1994. Saving

Nature’s Legacy: Protecting and Restoring

Biodiversity. Island Press, Washington, DC.
References

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 95

Oberts, G.L., and R.A. Osgood. 1991. Water-quality

effectiveness of a detention/wetland treatment system

and its effect on an urban lake. Environmental

Management 15(1):131-138.

Ohlendorf, H.M., R.L. Hothem, C.M. Bunck, T.W.

Aldrich, and J.F. Moore. 1986. Relationships between

selenium concentrations and avian reproduction. In

Transactions of the North American Wildlife and

Natural Resources Conference, pp. 330-342.

Oregon Administrative Rules. 1994. Chapter 141,

Division of State Lands, Division 86, Wetland

Conservation Plan.

Oregon Wetlands Conservation Alliance. No date.

The Oregon Wetlands Conservation Guide: Voluntary Wetlands Stewardship Options for Oregon’s

Private Landowners. Oregon Wetlands Conservation

Alliance, Portland, OR.

Osborne, L.L., and D.A. Kovacic. 1993. Riparian

vegetated buffer strips in water quality restoration and

stream management. Freshwater Biology 29:243-

258.

Palone, R.S. and A.H. Todd (eds). 1998. Chesapeake

Bay Riparian Handbook: A Guide for Establishing

and Maintaining Riparian Forest Buffers, NA-TP02-97. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, DC.

Parsons, J.E., J.W. Gilliam, R. Munoz-Carpena, R.B.

Daniels, and T.A. Dillaha. 1994. Nutrient and Sediment Removal by Grass and Riparian Buffers. In

Proceedings of the Second Environmentally Sound

Agriculture Conference, Orlando, FL, April 20-22,

1994.

Pearce, R., M.J. Trlica, W.C. Leiniger, J.L. Smith, and

G.W. Frasier. 1996. Efficiency of Grass Buffer Strip

Length and Vegetation Height on Sediment Filtration in Laboratory Rainfall Simulations. USDA

National Agricultural Library.

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 1997a. Monroe County’s Wetlands Protection.

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Harrisburg, PA.

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 1997b. Wetland Restoration: A Lasting Tribute

for Earth Day. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Harrisburg, PA.

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. No date. Coastal Zone Management Program.

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Harrisburg, PA.

Perkins, A. 1997. 4a Indiana. Perdue University, West

Lafayette, IN.

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, J.D. 1989. Nonpoint source pollution control

effectiveness of riparian forests along a coastal plain

river. Journal of Hydrology 110(1989):221-237.

Pinay, G., and H. Decamps. 1988. The role of riparian

woods in regulating nitrogen fluxes between the

alluvial aquifer and surface water: A conceptual

model. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 2:507-516.

Plans Developed for Wetland Community Park.

Confederated Umatilla Journal, Feb. 19, 1998, p. 9.

Platts, W.S., and S.J. Jensen. 1990. Restoration of

Degraded Riverine/Riparian Habitat in the Great

Basin and Snake River Regions. In Wetland Creation

and Restoration: The Status of Science, ed. J.A.

Kusler and M.E. Kentula. Island Press, Washington,

DC.

Prairie Restorations, Inc. 2000. Guidelines for

Establishing a Prairie. Prairie Restorations, Inc.

Princeton, MN.

Powers, R.M., and J.F. Spence. 1989. Headwater

Restoration: The Key Is Integrated Project Goals. In

Proceedings of Wetlands: Concerns and Successes, ed. D.W. Fisk, Tampa, Florida, September 17-

22, 1989, pp. 269-279. TPS 89-3. American Water

Resources Association, Bethesda, MD.

Puerto Rico Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control

Plan. 1995. Draft. Department of Natural Resources,

Puerta de Tierra, PR.
References

96 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

Purdue Agriculture Experiment Station. 1997. Purdue

Makes Money Grow on Filter-Strip Bushes. Purdue

University, West Lafayette, IN.

Raccoon River Watershed Project. 1999. Partner

Initiatives of the Raccoon River Watershed

Project: Constructed Wetland Project. Raccoon

River Watershed Project, Urbandale, IA.

Reinelt, L.E., and R.R. Horner. 1990. Characterization of the Hydrology and Water Quality of

Palustrine Wetlands Affected by Urban

Stormwater. Puget Sound Wetlands and Stormwater

Management Research Program. King County

Department of Natural Resources, King County, WA.

Reuter, J.E., T. Djohan, and C.R. Goldman. 1992. The

use of wetlands for nutrient removal from surface

runoff in a cold climate region of California: Results

from a newly constructed wetland at Lake Tahoe.

Journal of Environmental Management

36(1):35(19).

Rhode Island Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control

Program. 1995. Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, Providence, RI.

Rhodes, J., C.M. Skau, D. Greenlee, and D. Brown.

1985. Quantification of Nitrate Uptake by Riparian

Forests and Wetlands in an Undisturbed Headwaters

Watershed. In Proceedings of Riparian Ecosystems

and Their Management: Reconciling Conflicting

Issues, Tucson, Arizona, April 16-18,1985, pp. 175-

179. GTR RM-120. U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range

Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO.

Richardson, C.J. 1988. Freshwater wetlands: Transformers, filters, or sinks? FOREM 11(2):3-9. School of

Forestry and Environmental Studies, Duke University.

Richardson, C.J., and J.A. Davis. 1987. Natural and

artificial wetland ecosystems: Ecological opportunities

and limitations. In Aquatic Plants for Water Treatment and Resource Recovery, ed. K.R. Reddy and

W.H. Smith, pp. 819-854. Magnolia Publishing Inc.,

Oklahoma City, OK.

Richman, M. 1996. Utility restores salt marshes in

large wetlands enhancement program. Water Environment Federation 1(1, June).

Richter, K.O., A. Azous, S.S. Cooke, R. Wisseman,

and R. Horner. 1991. Effects of Stormwater Runoff

on Wetland Zoology and Wetland Soils Characterization and Analysis. King County Resource Planning Section, Washington State Department of Ecology.

Robb, D. M. 1992. The role of wetland water quality

standards in nonpoint source pollution control

strategies. Ecological Engineering 1(1-2):143-148.

Rose, R.I. 2001. Pesticides and public health:

Integrated methods of mosquito management.

Emerging Infectious Diseases 7(1): 17–23.

Rushton, B.T., and C.W. Dye. 1990. Tampa Office

Wet Detention Stormwater Treatment. In Annual

Report for Stormwater Research Program Fiscal

Year 1989-1990, pp. 39-74. Southwest Florida Water

Management District, Brooksville, FL.

SAIC. 1999. Economic Analysis of the Final

Phase II Storm Water Rule. Science Applications

International Corporation, Reston, VA.

Schipper, L., A. Cooper, and W. Dyck. 1991. Mitigating nonpoint-source-nitrate pollution by riparian zone

denitrification. NATO ASI Series, Vol. G 30. Nitrate

Contamination. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

Schueler, T. 1987. Controlling Urban Runoff: A

Practical Manual for Planning and Designing

Urban BMPs. Metropolitan Washington Council of

Governments, Washington, DC.

Schueler, T. 1992. Design of Stormwater Wetland

Systems: Guidelines for Creating Diverse and

Effective Stormwater Wetlands in the Mid-Atlantic

Region. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington, DC.

Schueler, T.R. 1994. The Importance of Imperviousness. Watershed Protection Techniques, 1(Fall

1994):3.

Schueler, T.R., P.A. Kumble, and M.A. Heraty. 1992.

A Current Assessment of Urban Best Management

Practices. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, Washington, DC.

Schultz, D. No date. Portrait of an Estuary: Functions and Values of the Barataria-Terrebonne

Estuary. Barataria-Terrebonne National Estuary
References

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 97

Program Office, Nicholls State University Campus,

Thibodaux, LA.

Schultz, R.C., J.P. Colletti, T.M. Isenhart, W.W.

Simpkins, C.W. Mize, and M.L. Thompson. 1995.

Design and placement of a multi-species riparian

buffer strip system. Agroforestry Systems. 29:201-

226.

Schwer, C.B., and J.C. Clausen. 1989. Vegetative

filter treatment of dairy milkhouse wastewater.

Journal of Environmental Quality 18:446-451.

Shead, L. 1997. Restoration and Construction of

Coastal Wetlands. U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Washington, DC.

Simmons, R.C., A.J. Gold, and P.M. Groffman. 1992.

Nitrate dynamics in riparian forests: Groundwater

studies. Journal of Environmental Quality, 21:659-

665.

Simmons, R.C., A.J. Gold, and P.M. Groffman. 1992.

Nitrate dynamics in riparian forests: Groundwater

studies. Journal of Environmental Quality 21:659-

665. ISSN: 0047-2425.

Sip, R.L., J.A. Leitch, A.J. Meyer. 1998. An Economic Assessment of Wetland Mitigation in Northwest Minnesota. North Dakota State University,

Department of Agricultural Economics, Fargo, ND.

Scheirer, R.S. 1994. Wetlands Restoration and

Mosquito Control. Northeastern Mosquito Control

Assocation Newsletter, December, 1994.

<www.nmca.org/Nmca945a.htm>

Smith, R.D., A. Ammann, C. Bartoldus, and M.M.

Brinson. 1995. An Approach for Assessing Wetland

Functions Using Hydrogeomorphic Classification,

Reference Wetlands, and Functional Indices.

Technical Report WRP-DE-9, U.S. Army Engineer

Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

Sperl, R., A. Davis, and B. Scheidecker. 1996. Wetland Development: Economic Evalvation. East St.

Louis Action Research Project. University of Illinois

at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL.

State of Alaska. 1995. Alaska Coastal Clean Water

Plan. Draft. Alaska Coastal Management Program,

Anchorage, AK.

State of Maryland. 1989. Maryland Code, Annotated.

Natural Resources. Nontidal Wetlands Protection Act

Sections 8-1201–8-1211.

State of Maryland. 1992. Private Landowner’s

Wetlands Assistance Guide: Voluntary Options for

Wetlands Stewardship in Maryland. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3, Philadelphia, PA.

Steiner, R.C. 1996. Relative Nutrient Requirements

of Plants Suitable for Riparian Vegetated Buffer

Strips. Interstate Commission on the Potomac River,

Rockville, MD.

Stewardship Incentive Program. 1991. Riparian

Forest Buffers, pp. 29-1 and 29-2. U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, DC.

Stockdale, E.C. 1991. Freshwater Wetlands, Urban

Stormwater, and Nonpoint Source Pollution Control: A Literature Review and Annotated Bibliography. Washington State Department of Ecology,

Olympia, WA.

Stuart, G., and J. Greis. 1991. Role of Riparian

Forests in Water Quality on Agricultural Watersheds. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Washington, DC.

Swift, L.W., Jr. 1986. Filter strip widths for forest

roads in the southern Appalachians. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 10(1):27-34.

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. 1997. Environment and Conservation Receives

an EPA Grant. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Nashville, TN.

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. 1998. Tennessee Rivers and Wetlands

Program. Tennessee Department of Environment and

Conservation, Nashville, TN.

Tepper, L., and W. Cwikiel. 1995. Wetland Monitoring and Assessment in the Grand Traverse Bay

Watershed: Background Paper. Tip of the Mitt

Watershed Council, Conway, MI.

Texas Parks and Wildlife. 1995. Wetlands Assistance

Guide for Landowners. State Wetlands Conservation Plan. Texas Parks and Wildlife, Austin, TX.
References

98 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

Texas Parks and Wildlife. 1997a. Texas Wetlands

Conservation Plan. Texas Parks and Wildlife, Austin,

TX.

Texas Parks and Wildlife. 1997. Texas Wetlands Plan

Update. Vol. 2, issue 2. Texas Parks and Wildlife,

Austin, TX.

Tori, G. No date. Project 21. Metzger Marsh Coastal

Wetland Restoration Project. In Methods of Modifying Habitat to Benefit the Great Lakes Ecosystem.

Canada Institute for Scientific and Technical Information, Ottowa, ON. Occasional paper no. 1.

Triska, F.J., V.C. Kennedy, R.J. Avanzino, G.W.

Zellweger, and K.E. Bencala. 1990. In situ retentiontransport response to nitrate loading and storm discharge in a third-order stream. Journal of North

American Benthological Society 9(3):229-239.

Trust for Public Land. 1999. Economic Benefits of

Open Space Bibliography: Infrastructure Savings.

Trust for Public land, San Francisco, CA.

Tuovila, B.J., T.H. Johengen, P.A. LaRock, J.B.

Outland, D.H. Esry, and M. Franklin. 1987. An

Evaluation of the Lake Jackson (Florida) Filter System

and Artificial Marsh on Nutrient and Particulate

Removal from Stormwater Runoff. In Aquatic Plants

for Water Treatment and Resource Recovery.

University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.

University of Arizona. 1997. Constructed wetlands

treating more of Arizona’s wastewater. Arizona

Water Resource, 6(1)1-2.

University of Nebraska–Lincoln. 1997a. Heron

Haven Wetland Restoration Project. Water Center

Environmental Programs Unit. University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE.

University of Nebraska–Lincoln. 1997b. Riparian

Buffer Strips (RBS). Water Center Environmental

Programs Unit. University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE.

University of North Dakota. 1997. Red River Riparian Demonstration Project. Energy and Environmental Research Center. University of North Dakota,

Fargo, ND.

Urban Resources Partnership. 1997. Prairie Wolf

Slough—A Chicago Wetland/Prairie Restoration

Project. In WHC 1997 Wildlands Conference

“Beyond-the-Case-Study” Workshops. United

Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, World Heritage Commitee, Paris, France.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1990.

Anacostia River Basin Reconnaissance Study. U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District; Baltimore, MD.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Great

Lakes Regional Headquarters. 1997. Environmental

Management Program: Bay Island Wetland Habitat Rehabilitation and Enhancement. U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers, Great Lakes Regional Headquarters, Chicago, IL.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Waterways

Experiment Station. 1997. U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,

MS.

U.S Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2001.

Annual Report to Congress on the Status of the

Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund for Fiscal Year

1999. IWR-Report 00-R-7.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2002a.

Regulatory Guidance Letter (RGL 02-2): Compensatory Mitigation Projects for Aquatic Resource

Impacts Under the Corps Regulatory Program

Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act

and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of

1899, USACE, Washington, DC.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2002b.

National Wetlands Mitigation Action Plan, USACE,

Washington, DC. <http://www.mitigationaction

plan.gov/map1226withsign.pdf>. Accessed

February 2003.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1988.

Handbook of Conservation Practices. Supplement.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation

Service, Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1993.

Aquatic and Wetland Vascular Plants of the Northern Great Plains. U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment

Station, Fort Collins, CO.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1995.

Riparian Forest Buffers: 391 Model State Stan-
References

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 99

dard and General Specifications. U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation

Service, Watershed Science Institute.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2000.

Conservation Buffers Work... Economically and

Environmentally. USDA, Washington, DC.

<http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/feature/buffers/pdf/

BufferBr.pdf>. Accessed January 2003.

U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE). 1995. The

Cost of Wetland Creation and Restoration. Final

report. Prepared by University of Maryland Center

for Environmental and Estuarine Studies, Chesapeake

Biological Laboratory, Solomons, MD.

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). 1996.

Evaluation and Management of Highway Runoff

Water Quality. Office of Environment and Planning,

Federal Highway Administration, Washington DC.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

1990. Water Quality Standards for Wetlands:

National Guidance. EPA 440/S-90-011. USEPA,

Office of Water, Washington, DC.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

1991. Characteristics of Successful Riparion

Restoration Projects in the Pacific Northwest, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle,

WA.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

1992a. A Synoptic Approach to Cumulative Impact

Assessment: A Proposed Methodology. EPE/600/R92/167. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Washington, DC.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

1992b. Managing Nonpoint Source Pollution. EPA

506/9-90. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Office of Water, Washington, DC.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

1992c. Protecting Coastal and Wetlands Resources.

EPA 842-R-92-002. U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

1993a. Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater

Treatment and Wildlife Habitat. EPA832-R-93-005.

USEPA, Office of Wastewater Management, Washington, DC.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

1993b. Created and Natural Wetlands for

Contolling Nonpoint Source Pollution. Office of

Research and Development and Office of Wetlands,

Oceans, and Watersheds. CRC Press Inc., Boca

Raton, FL.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

1993c. Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal

Waters. EPA 840-B-92-002. U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

1993d. Wetlands Regulation Guidebook for New

York State. EPA-902-R-93-004. U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 2, Water Management

Division, Marine and Wetlands Protection Branch.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

1994a. Innovations in Coastal Protection: Searching for Uncommon Solutions to Common Problems.

EPA 842-F-94-002. U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

1994b. State/Tribal Wetlands Grant Catalog. 5th ed.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of

Water, Washington, DC.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

1994c. Wetlands Research Update (November

1994). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

1995a. Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage

Stream Quality. EPA 841-F-95-007. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

1995b. National Water Quality Inventory: 1994

Report to Congress. EPA841-R-95-005. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water,

Washington, DC.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

1995c. Nonpoint Source News-Notes. August/

September, issue no. 42. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
References

100 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

1995d. Section 319 National Monitoring Program:

An Overview. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Washington, DC.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

1995-1996. Landowner’s Guide to Voluntary Wetland Programs in Arkansas. U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

1996a. Protecting Natural Wetlands: A Guide to

Stormwater Best Management Practices. EPA-843-

B-96-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Office of Water, Washington, DC.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

1996b. Watershed Approach Framework. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water,

Washington, DC.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

1996-1997. Living with Michigan’s Wetlands: A

Landowner’s Guide. U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Washington, DC.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

1997a. Personal communication from Laura J. Talbot

to Wetlands Strategies and State Programs Branch,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

1997b. Protecting Wetlands: Tools for Local Governments in the Chesapeake Bay Region. EPA 903-

R-97-008. Prepared for Chesapeake Bay Program by

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,

DC.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

1997c. Section 319 Success Stories: Volume II. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

1997d. The Water Monitor. EPA 841-N-97-005.U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands,

Oceans and Watersheds. August-September 1997.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

1998a. Top Ten Watershed Lessons Learned. EPA

840-F-97-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Office of Water, Washington, DC.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

1998b. Wetlands Projects funded by the Clean

Water State Revolving Fund (CW-SRF). U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wastewater, Washington, DC.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

1998c. Winona Wetlands Purchase. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wastwater

Management, Washington, DC.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

1999. Free Water Surface Wetlands for Wastewater

Treatment: A Technology Assessment. Environmental Technology Initiative Report prepared by Humboldt

State University, CH2M Hill, and PBS&J. EPA 832-

S-99-002.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

2000a. The Quality of Our Nation’s Waters. A

Summary of the National Water Quality Inventory:

1998 Report to Congress. EPA841-5-00-001. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water,

Washington, DC.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

2000b. Monitoring Water Quality. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington,

DC.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

2000c. Guiding Principles for Constructed Treatment Wetlands: Providing Water Quality and

Wildlife Habitat. Developed by the Interagency

Workgroup on Constructed Wetlands. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water,

Washington, DC.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

2000d. Constructed Wetlands Treatment of Municipal Wastewater (Manual). EPA 625-R-99-010.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of

Water, Washington, DC.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

2002. National Water Quality Inventory 2000

Report. EPA-841-R-02-001. U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

2003. EPA and Army Corps Issue Wetlands Decision. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
References

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 101

<http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/

540f28acf38d7f9b85256dfe00714ab0?OpenDocument>.

Accessed March 2004.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). No

date. Landowning Colorado Style. Environmental

Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1998.

Clean Water Action Plan: Restoring and Protecting

America’s Waters. EPA 840-R-98-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1998a.

Case Studies—U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S.

Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,

Washington, DC.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1998b.

1998 Coastal Wetlands Conservation Grant. U.S.

Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,

Washington, DC.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1998c.

Illinois. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife

Service, Washington, DC.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1998d. New

Mexico Partners Project Wins National Wetlands

Award. Press release, April 22, 1998. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1998e.

Wetlands Projects Approved for 19 States. Fish and

Wildlife Service News List Server. Listed April 30,

1998. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife

Service, Washington, DC.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1996. National

Water Summary of Wetlands. Water Supply Paper

2425. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Northern Prairie

Science Center. 1997a. Riparian Ecosystem Creation and Restoration: A Literature Summary. Case

Studies: Agrico Swamp. U.S. Geological Survey,

Reston, VA.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1997b. Summary of

Project MN14702: Effectiveness of Vegetated Filter

Strips for Remediating Feedlot Runoff in Minnesota.

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1998. Watershed

Scale Wetland Restoration. U.S. Geological Survey,

Reston, VA.

U.S. Golf Association. 1998. An Overview of U.S.

Golf Association Environmental Research. U.S.

Golf association, Far Hills, NJ.

Vance, T., and A.B. Larson. February 1988. Fiscal

Impact of Major Land Uses in Culpeper County,

Virginia. Piedmont Environmental Council, VA.

Vellidis, G., R. Lowrance, M.C. Smith and R.K.

Hubbard. 1993. Methods to assess the water quality

impact of a restored riparian wetland. Journal of Soil

and Water Conservation 48(3):223(8).

Walsh, P.M., Barrett, M.E., Malina, J.F., Jr., and

Charbeneau, R.J. 1997. Use of Vegetative Controls

for Treatment of Highway Runoff. Center for

Research in Water Resources. CRWR Online Report

97-5. University of Texas, Center for Research in

Water Resources, Austin, TX.

Washington State Department of Ecology. 1992.

Stormwater Program Guidance Manual for the

Puget Sound Basin. Washington State Department of

Ecology, Olympia, WA.

Washington State Department of Ecology. 1996.

Managing Water Pollution from Nonpoint Sources

in Washington State. Preliminary draft. Publication

no. 96-15. Washington State Department of Ecology,

Olympia, WA.

Watson, J.T., S.C. Reed, R. Kadlec, R.L. Knight, and

A.E. Whitehouse. 1988. Performance Expectations

and Loading Rates for Constructed Wetlands. In

paper prepared for International Conference on

Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment,

Chattanooga, TN, June 13-17, 1988.

Whigham, D.F., C. Chitterling, and B. Palmer. 1988.

Impacts of freshwater wetlands on water quality: A

landscape perspective. Environmental Management

12(5):663-671.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1991.

Water Quality Standards for Wetlands—Natural

Resources Chapter 103. Register, July 1991, No. 427.
References

102 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1999.

Apple, Ashwaubenon Creek Watershed (LF02).

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI.

Wright, C. 1997. Grand Traverse Bay Watershed

Initiative. Traverse City, MI.

Wood, G. 1997. BMPs make the grade. Farm Journal, February.

World Wildlife Fund. 1992. Statewide Wetlands

Strategies: A Guide to Protecting and Managing

the Resource. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Xu, L., J.W. Gilliam, and R.B. Daniels. 1992. Nitrate

movement and loss in riparian buffer areas.

Agronomy Abstracts 342. ASA, Madison, WI.

Yonge, D. 1996. Vegetative Filter Strip Monitoring

and Assessment. Washington State Department of

Transportation. Olympia, WA.

Young, G.K., S. Stein, P. Cole, T. Kammer, F.

Graziano, and F. Bank. 1995. Evaluation and Management of Highway Runoff Water Quality.

FHWA-PD-96-032. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Washington,

DC.

Young, R.A., T. Huntrods, and W. Anderson. 1980.

Effectiveness of vegetated buffer strips in controlling

pollution and feedlot runoff. Journal of Environmental Quality 9(3):483-487.

Zinkand, D. 1996. Wetlands restoration project to look

like giant buffer strip. Iowa Farmer Today. Iowa

Farmer Today Publications, Cedar Rapids, IA.
EPA # April 2001

Appendix A

Federal, State, Nonprofit, and Private

Financial and Technical Assistance

Programs to Protect and Restore

Wetlands

This appendix contains examples of financial and technical assistance programs

to protect and restore wetlands. It also contains incentive programs offered by

state, nonprofit, and private organizations. For each agency and organization,

contacts are provided for further information.

Appendix A

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 A-1

Federal Programs

United States Army Corps of Engineers

The United States Army Corps of Engineers

(USACE) provides design and engineering services

and construction support for a variety of military and

civilian projects worldwide. One civil duty includes

protecting the integrity of the navigable waters of the

United States, wetland resources, and the nation’s

water resources. USACE’s duties also include

maintaining navigation and shipping channels, providing emergency response to natural disasters, regulating discharges of dredged or fill material, operating

and maintaining flood control reservoirs, and regulating

activities in wetlands.

• Wetlands are managed by the USACE by the

issuance or denial of Clean Water Act section

404 and other permits authorizing certain

activities in wetlands and other waters of the

United States. Of the approximately 15,000

permits requested each year, approximately

67 percent are granted.

For more information on the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers, contact:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Branch

20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW

CECW-OR

Washington, DC 20314-1000

Phone: (202) 761-0199

Web site: www.usace.army.mil

United States Department of Agriculture

The missions of the United States Department of

Agriculture (USDA) are to enhance the quality of life

for the American people by supporting production of

agriculture by

• Ensuring a safe, affordable, nutritious, and

accessible food supply.

• Caring for agricultural, forest, and range

lands.

• Supporting sound development of rural

communities.

• Providing economic opportunities for farm and

rural residents.

• Expanding global markets for agricultural and

forest products and services.

• Working to reduce hunger in America and

throughout the world.

Within the USDA, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, Farm Service Agency, Forest Service,

Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extensive

Service, and the National Association of Conservation

Districts participate in wetland incentives programs.

○○○○○○○○○ ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○

The Farm Service Agency (FSA) of the USDA is

interested in ensuring the well-being of American

agriculture, the environment, and the American public

through efficient management of farm commodities,

emergency and disaster assistance, domestic and

international food assistance and credit programs, and

conservation and environmental programs.

• The Conservation Easement Debt Cancellation Program of the FSA allows for reduction

of Farmer’s Home Administration borrower

debt in exchange for granting conservation

easements for valuable habitat, including

wetlands, on their property for a period of not

less than 50 years.

• The Conservation Reserve Enhancement

Program (CREP) is a cooperative partnership

between the federal and state governments.

The program has been administered by the

USDA FSA since 1986. The program provides ranchers and farmers with incentives to

remove land from production. These lands are

then planted with trees or grass to prevent
Appendix A

A-2 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

erosion, improve air and water quality, and

establish wildlife habitat.

• Farmers nationwide have contributed 36

million acres of cropland into the Conservation

Reserve Program (CRP) (as of 1997). These

farmers receive annual rental payments, costsharing, and technical assistance to plant

vegetation for land they put into reserve for

10 to 15 years. Few of the fields placed in

reserve have yet to have their full wetlands

values restored. Although CRP funds are no

longer available to help restore wetlands on

these lands, the landowner may do so at any

time with any other non-USDA assistance.

The CRP is administered by the CFSA in

cooperation with the NRCS.The Conservation

Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP),

under the Conservation Reserve Program, is a

1996 initiative continued in the 2002 Farm Bill.

CREP targets state and federal funds to

achieve shared environmental goals of

national and state significance. The program

uses financial incentives to encourage farmers

and ranchers to voluntarily protect soil, water,

and wildlife resources.

• Grassland Reserve Program (GRP) - This

2002 provision of the Farm Bill will use 30-

year easements and rental agreements to

improve management, restore, or conserve up

to 2 million acres of private grasslands.

500,000 acres are to be reserved for protected tracts of 40 acres or less as native

grasslands. Restoration cost payments may

be up to 75 percent of eligible projects.

For more information, contact:

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Farm Service Agency

14th and Independence Avenues, SW

Washington, DC 20250

Phone: (202) 720-3467

Web site: http://www.fsa.usda.gov/

○○○○○ ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○

The Forest Service (FS) is a USDA agency that

manages public lands in national forests and grasslands and is also the largest forestry research organization in the world. The agency provides technical and

financial assistance to state and private forestry

agencies “to provide the greatest amount of good for

the greatest amount of people in the long run.”

• Forest Stewardship Program (FSP) and

Stewardship Incentive Program (SIP) - FSP

and SIP are U.S. Forest Service programs

established to help landowners protect and

enhance their forestlands and associated

wetlands. FSP provides technical assistance

to help landowners enhance and protect the

timber, fish and wildlife habitat, water quality,

wetlands, and recreational and aesthetic

values of their property. SIP provides costshare assistance to private landowners for

implementing the management plans developed under FSP.

http://www.fs.fed.us/spf/coop/programs/loa/

fsp.shtml

• Forest Legacy Program - The Forest Legacy

Program is a U.S. Forest Service program

that purchases easements to conserve environmentally important forestlands, which often

contain wetlands, threatened with conversion

to other uses. Puerto Rico and 17 states are

currently active in the program (as of 1997)

(USEPA, 1997c).

• Forest Land Enhancement Program (FLEP) -

Authorized in the 2002 Farm Bill, the FLEP is

a new conservation program to provide

financial, technical, and educational assistance

to State Foresters who will help private

landowners actively manage their land. It

replaces and expands the Stewardship

Incentive program and Forestry program.

The new FLEP will provide up to $100 million

over 6 years to private, non-industrial forest
Appendix A

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 A-3

owners. The new title also provides $210

million to help fight fire on private land and

address fire prevention.

For more information on the Forest Service, contact:

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service

Public Affairs Office

P.O. Box 96090

Washington, DC 20090-6090

Phone: (202) 205-1760

Fax: (202) 205-1765

Web site: http://www.fs.fed.us

○○○○○ ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○

The Natural Resources Conservation Service

(NRCS) [formerly USDA Soil Conservation Service]

is a federal agency that works in partnership with the

public to conserve and sustain natural resources. The

NRCS provides technical assistance to landowners in

development of resource management systems that

conserve soil, air, water, plant, and animal resources.

This agency employs soil scientists, plant scientists,

and engineers who can provide assistance in identifying, restoring, enhancing, and creating wetlands. The

NRCS provides technical assistance and information

for making wetland determinations for wetland

protection and management programs; developing

conservation plans for protecting and managing

wetlands; providing income-producing alternatives for

use and management of wetlands; developing standards and specifications and designing and installing

conservation measures for wetland restoration,

creation, and enhancement; providing information on

plant materials for wetland planting; and providing soil

surveys and information for identifying, planning, and

managing wetlands. Wetland incentive programs

administered by the NRCS include the following:

• Conservation of Highly Erodible Lands - The

highly erodible land part of the 1985 Food

Security Act restricts access by agricultural

producers who grow crops on highly erodible

land to specified farm program benefits. The

goals are to reduce soil lost to wind and water

erosion and to improve water quality. Compliance requires the development of a conservation plan for all highly erodible fields on a

farm. The plans must be approved by the

producer, NRCS, and the local Natural

Resources District. NRCS provides technical

assistance to the producer in developing the

plan.

• Conservation of Private Grazing Land - This

program was authorized by the 1996 Farm Bill

for the purpose of providing technical and

educational assistance to owners of private

grazing lands. It offers opportunities for better

land management, erosion reduction, water

conservation, wildlife habitat, and improving

soil structure.

• Environmental Quality Incentives Program

(EQIP) - EQIP provides a voluntary conservation program for farmers and ranchers to

address threats to soil, water, and related

natural resources. It offers 5- to 10-year

contracts that provide incentive payments and

cost-sharing for conservation practices called

for in the site-specific plan. NRCS conducts

an evaluation of the environmental benefits

the producer offers, and funding is approved

for the highest-priority applications first. Cost

sharing may pay up to 75 percent of the costs

of certain conservation practices, such as

grassed waterways, filter strips, and other

practices important to improving and maintaining the health of natural resources in the area.

• National Conservation Buffer Initiatives - The

National Conservation Buffer Initiative plans

to install 2 million miles of conservation

buffers nationwide by the year 2000. This

initiative does not specifically target streamside areas for buffers, but it includes buffers

between fields, wind breaks, and a variety of

other practices.

• Resource Conservation and Development

(RC&D) - The RC&D is a program for

landowner associations and interest groups

that allocates grants to RC&D areas to

accelerate resource protection projects and

programs in multicounty areas as a base for

economic development and environmental

protection.

• Swampbuster - The Swampbuster program is

a provision of the Food Security Act of 1985.

It discourages the draining, filling, and other

alteration of wetlands for agricultural uses
Appendix A

A-4 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

through financial disincentives. The NRCS

determines compliance with Swampbuster

provisions and assists farmers in identifying

wetlands and developing wetland protection,

restoration, and creation plans.

• Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) - The

WRP is a voluntary USDA program offering

landowners a chance to receive payments for

restoring and protecting wetlands. Authorized

by the Food Security Act of 1985, the WRP

provides a unique opportunity for farmers to

retire marginal lands through permanent

easements, 30-year easements, or restoration

cost-share agreements and reap the many

benefits of having wetlands on their property.

• Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP)

- WHIP is a voluntary program for people

who want to develop and improve wildlife

habitat on private lands. The USDA provides

both technical assistance and cost-share

incentives to help establish and improve fish

and wildlife habitat. Participants who own or

control land agree to prepare and implement a

wildlife habitat development plan.

For more information on the NRCS programs, contact:

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Natural Resources Conservation Service

14th and Independence Avenues, SW

Washington, DC 20250

Phone: (202) 720-4525

Web sites: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/farmbill/2002/

United States Department of The Interior

The mission of the United States Department of the

Interior (DOI) is to manage, develop, and protect

water and related resources in an environmentally and

economically sound manner in the interest of the

American people.

The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) is an

agency within the DOI whose mission is to manage,

develop, and protect water and related resources in an

environmentally and economically sound manner in the

interest of the American public. Reclamation operates

and manages dams and reservoirs throughout the

western United States for irrigation, hydroelectricity,

municipal and industrial water supply, fish and wildlife,

and recreation uses.

• Reclamation’s Wetland Development Program restores, enhances, and develops

wetlands, riparian habitat, and associated

habitats on Reclamation lands and on lands

associated with water supplies and systems

affected by Reclamation projects. The

program aims to improve water quality and

habitat for wildlife at Reclamation projects

and to support the North American Waterfowl

Management Plan and other migratory bird

initiatives. Although not required, almost

every project involves partnership development and cost-sharing with federal and nonfederal entities. Recent collaborative projects

include restoration of the 300-acre Alpine

wetland on the Idaho-Wyoming border,

restoration of the 8,000-acre Rincon BayouNueces estuary on the Texas Gulf Coast,

development of wetlands to improve wastewater and provide habitat for endangered

species in Arizona and Nevada, restoration of

vernal pools and habitat for endangered

species in California, development and

restoration of wetlands in the Devils Lake

basin in North Dakota to attenuate runoff and

reduce high lake levels in Devils Lake,

restoring wetlands and water control structures on national wildlife refuges and waterfowl management areas, and working with

irrigation districts to develop wetlands to

improve the quality of return flows.

• Reclamation partnerships with the National

Fish and Wildlife Foundation have funded

wetland restoration and development projects
Appendix A

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 A-5

for fish and wildlife throughout the western

United States. Funds have been provided to

restore wetlands in Oklahoma for migratory

birds, develop wetlands for endangered

species in Nevada, and stabilize channel

morphology and restore riparian habitat to

improve water quality in Montana.

• The DOI’s National Irrigation Water Quality

Program was established in 1986 to develop

coordinated remediation plans with appropriate federal, state, and local entities to implement corrective actions where irrigation

drainage from federal irrigation projects has

affected endangered species or migratory

birds or created water quality problems from

naturally occurring sources. Reclamation is

responsible for program management. The

U.S. Geological Survey, Fish and Wildlife

Service, and Bureau of Indian Affairs work

cooperatively with Reclamation on program

oversight and technical issues.

For more information, contact:

Department of the Interior

Bureau of Reclamation, Public Affairs

1849 C Street, NW

Main Interior Building

Washington, DC 20240

Phone: (202) 513-0575

Web Site: http://www.usbr.gov/

○○○○○ ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○

National Park Service (NPS) was created to

promote and regulate the use of national parks to

conserve scenery and the natural and historic resources within them to serve for enjoyment today and

in the future.

• The Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program (RTCA) is a program that

works in partnership with project cooperators

to help them obtain funding for their projects.

Several projects have some focus on wetland

protection and restoration. Examples of such

programs include the protection of 2,500 acres

of wetlands in the upper Des Plaines River

Macrosite (Illinois and Wisconsin) and the

rehabilitation of habitat of wetlands in the

Missouri River Corridor (Kansas, Nebraska,

and Iowa).

For more information on NPS projects, contact:

U.S. Department of the Interior

National Park Service

1849 C Street, NW

Washington, DC 20240

Phone: (202) 208-6843

Web site: http://www.nps.gov/

○○○○○ ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

is the principal federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting, and enhancing certain fish and

wildlife and their habitats, in particular migratory game

and endangered species. Among other roles, the

USFWS administers the federal Endangered Species

Act and establishes and maintains a system of more

than 500 National Wildlife Refuges nationwide. The

USFWS also manages the taking of migratory waterfowl and conducts research and monitoring programs

to inventory and record changes in populations of fish

and wildlife and in habitats.

• Challenge Cost Share Program - The USFWS

designed this program to manage, restore, and

enhance fish and wildlife resources and

natural habitats on public and private lands.

The program is a partnership with non-federal

public and private institutions, organizations,

and individuals. Challenge Cost Share allows

the USFWS to provide matching funds for

projects that support the management, restoration, and protection of natural resources on

more than 500 National Wildlife Refuges, 70
Appendix A

A-6 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

fish hatcheries, research facilities, and private

lands.

• The National Coastal Wetlands Conservation

Grant Program was founded with the enactment of the Coastal Wetlands Planning,

Protection, and Restoration Act (Title III of

P.L. 101-646) in 1990. The program allows

the USFWS to work directly with states to

acquire, restore, manage, or enhance coastal

wetlands through a matching grants program.

Louisiana is the only coastal state that is not

eligible for grant monies because that state

has its own coastal wetland program under

the act. The program has awarded $53 million

to 24 states and one territory, allowing more

than 63,000 acres of coastal wetlands to be

acquired, protected, or restored.

• The Small Wetlands Acquisition Program

(SWAP) was created by the Migratory Bird

Hunting Stamp Act to preserve wetlands and

increase waterfowl production. The primary

focus of the program is on the Prairie Pothole

Region of the United States (Montana, North

Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, and Minnesota).

Prairie potholes are freshwater depressions,

usually less than 2 feet deep and smaller than

1 acre, that were carved by glaciers. Since

1989 more than 23,000 easements on 1.2

million acres of wetlands have been obtained

by the USFWS to protect these areas.

• Conservation Easement Debt Cancellation

Program - The Consolidated Farm Service

Agency (CFSA) allows for reduction of

Farmer’s Home Administration (FmHA)

borrower debt in exchange for granting

conservation easements for valuable habitat,

including wetlands, on their property for a

period of not less than 50 years. Wetlands

placed in easements by farmers for FmHA

debt reduction may be managed by the

USFWS. FmHA has become part of the

CFSA; therefore, CFSA now manages FmHA

loans.

• The North American Wetlands Conservation

Act (NAWCA), established in 1989, encourages partnerships among public agencies and

other interests in the United States, Canada,

and Mexico to (1) protect, enhance, restore,

and manage wetland ecosystems and other

habitats for migratory birds, fish, and wildlife

in North America; (2) maintain current or

improved distribution of migratory bird populations; and (3) sustain an abundance of waterfowl and other migratory birds consistent with

the goals of the North American Waterfowl

Management Plan and international treaty

obligations.

• The North American Waterfowl Management

Plan (NAWMP) was signed in 1986 between

the United States and Canada to protect,

restore, and enhance wetlands important to

waterfowl and other wetland-dependent bird

species. Mexico has recently signed the

NAWMP as well. The NAWMP’s primary

objective is to return waterfowl populations to

levels observed in the 1970s, when fall flights

exceeded 80 million ducks. The plan is

implemented at the grassroots level by

partnerships called joint ventures. Wetlands

identified under NAWMP as "areas of major

concern" for waterfowl habitat (e.g., migration, nesting, and forage areas) are targets for

these joint ventures.

Examples of NAWMP projects include the Gulf Coast

Joint Venture, which focuses on perpetuating healthy

wintering grounds for migrating waterfowl and other

birds and wildlife species along the Gulf Coast from

Alabama to Texas, and the Lower Mississippi Valley

Joint Venture, covering 22 million acres in 10 Delta

states. Its target is the enhancement of wetlands on

private lands. In California, there are three joint

ventures: the Central Valley Habitat Joint Venture

(1988), the Pacific Coast Joint Venture (1994), and the

Intermountain West Joint Venture (1994). A fourth,

covering the southern region of the state, is being

planned.

○○○○○ ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○

The Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program

(PFFW), also known as the Private Lands Assistance
Appendix A

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 A-7

and Restoration Program, offers technical and costshare assistance to landowners who wish to restore

wildlife habitat, including degraded or converted

wetlands and those upland habitats that meet specific

eligibility criteria. The objectives of PFFW programs,

which operate in all 50 states, are to restore, enhance,

and manage wetlands for fish and wildlife habitat;

promote profitable land use for agriculture, industry,

and private landowners; and promote a wise and

lasting land-use ethic. Formerly known as the Partners

for Wildlife Program (PFW), the USFWS will enter

into agreements with private landowners for the

restoration, creation, and enhancement of wetlands

and associated habitats. The PWF and PFFW have

protected almost 1 million acres of wetlands and other

habitats since 1987.

• The Montana PFFW has focused on five

areas for restoration projects: Northern

Continental Divide Ecosystem, the Rocky

Mountain Front, Beaver Creek Prairie Pothole

Joint Venture, and Centennial and Big Hole

Valleys. Under these projects, Montana

PFFW has worked with the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Ducks

Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, and the Flathead Indian Reservation to restore wetlands,

fence riparian areas, and manage livestock.

• In South Dakota, 1,879 landowners are

participating in the program (as of 1997).

• The Prairie Wetlands Project (PWP) was

designed to accomplish the goals and objectives of the Gulf Coast Joint Venture (GCJV);

the PWP is a partnership effort to restore,

create, or enhance wetlands beneficial for

waterfowl and other wildlife use. PWP

projects include management of water on

cropped lands, restoration of converted

wetlands, enhancement of natural wetlands,

or creation of wetlands on non-wetland sites.

The PWP is a FWS partnership effort to

restore, create, or enhance wetlands beneficial for waterfowl and other wildlife. In

exchange for financial and technical incentives, landowners develop a management plan,

which may include management of water on

cropped lands, restoration of converted

wetlands, enhancement of natural wetlands,

or creation of wetlands on non-wetland sites.

Cost-share assistance of up to 75 percent is

available.

For more information on the USFWS programs,

contact:

U.S. Department of the Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Federal Aid

Arlington Square, Room 140

4401 North Fairfax Drive

Arlington, VA 22203

Phone: (703) 358-2156

Fax: (703) 358-1837

Web site: http://www.fws.gov/

For information specific to the Coastal Habitat Conservation Program, contact USFWS’:

Division of Habitat Conservation

4401 N. Fairfax Drive Room 400

Arlington, VA 22203

Phone: (703) 358-2201

Fax: (703) 358-2232

Web site: http://www.fws.gov/coastal/coastalgrants

○○○○○○○○○ ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○

The United States Geological Survey (USGS)

provides the nation with reliable, impartial information

to describe and understand the earth.

• The National Wetlands Research Center

(NWRC) was established by USGS to

develop and disseminate scientific information

needed for understanding the ecology and

values of the nation’s wetlands and for

managing and restoring wetland habitats and

associated plant and animal communities. The

Water Quality Incentives Program (WQIP) is

a voluntary incentive program designed to

protect water sources on farmlands through

3- to 5-year agreements with the CFSA.

These agreements require the development

and implementation of a water quality management program that provides water quality

benefits, wetland protection, and wildlife

benefits. The Wetland Ecology Branch of the

NWRC conducts research related to sustainable management and restoration of the

nation’s coastal saltwater wetlands, coastal
Appendix A

A-8 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

and inland freshwater wetlands, submerged

aquatic ecosystems, and coastal prairie.

For more information, contact:

U.S. Geological Survey

12201 Sunrise Valley Drive

Reston, VA 20192

Phone: (703) 648-4748

Web site: http://www.usgs.gov/

United States Environmental Protection

Agency

The mission of the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) is to protect human health and to

safeguard the natural environment—air, water, and

land—upon which life depends.

EPA is responsible for implementing federal laws

designed to protect the nation’s natural resources.

This is done primarily through regulation, but EPA has

also developed a wide variety of funding, planning, and

education programs. EPA has the authority to regulate

wetlands under section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

Under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act, EPA

awards funds to states and eligible tribes to implement

NPS management programs. These funds can be

used for projects that include protection and restoration of wetlands and the development of vegetated

treatment systems. More information about the

Section 319 program is provided at www.epa.gov/

owow/nps/cwact.html.

• EPA’s Wetland State Partnership Grant

Program provides money to states that

encourage wetlands protection and restoration. For example, the Division of Natural

Heritage of the Tennessee Department of

Environment and Conservation received a

$208,207 grant to encourage property owners

to voluntarily enroll wetlands in state and

federal wetland conservation and assistance

programs; to work with state, county, and

local governments to avoid or minimize

impacts on wetlands; and to encourage

voluntary wetland conservation in four of the

state’s counties: Fayette, Franklin, Lauderdale,

and Rutherford.

• The 51 Clean Water State Revolving Funds

(SRF) programs currently issue approximately

$3 billion in loans annually. SRF loans are

issued at below market rates (0 percent to

less than market), offering borrowers significant savings over the life of the loan. Based

on the serious threats to wetland resources

across the country, EPA would like to see the

SRF become a major source of funding for

wetland protection. In creating the SRF,

Congress ensured that it would be able to

fund virtually any type of water quality

project, including nonpoint source, wetlands,

estuary, and other types of watershed

projects, as well as more traditional municipal

wastewater treatment systems. Today, the

SRF provisions in the Clean Water Act give

no more preference to one category or type

of project than any other. Wetland projects

typically fall under approved state nonpoint

source management plans or are included in

national estuary management plans. Constructed wetlands may be considered wastewater or stormwater management projects

and are also eligible for funding. SRFfundable projects include wetland restoration,

wetland protection, and constructed wetlands.

For more information, contact your Clean Water State

Revolving Fund Program or contact:

The Clean Water State Revolving Fund Branch

U.S. EPA

Ariel Rios Building

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20460

Phone: (202) 260-7359

Web site: http://www.epa.gov/OWM

For more information on EPA’s other wetlands

programs, contact:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

OWOW, OW, Office of Wetlands

Phone: (800) 832-7828 (Monday through Friday

from 9:00 am to 5:30 pm EST)

Web site: http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/
Appendix A

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 A-9

State, Nonprofit, and

Private Organizations

Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay

The Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay is a private,

nonprofit organization that recruits and mobilizes broad

participation in restoration of the bay’s resources,

public policy, and education by providing citizens with

the information and opportunities to make a difference

at home, in their communities, and on a regional basis.

• The Alliance was chosen to manage the Small

Watershed Grants program, developed by the

Chesapeake Bay Program. This program was

allocated $750,000 by Congress for grants to

local governments and watershed-based

nonprofit groups in the Chesapeake Bay

drainage basin. In 1998 more than 160

organizations applied for the grants, and 37

were chosen. The major criterion for selection

was that the project must have tangible results

showing bay or river improvement that

includes community involvement.

For more information, contact:

Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay

6600 York Road, Suite 100

Baltimore, MD 21212

Phone: (410) 377-6270 (or call the Chesapeake

Regional Information Service (800) 662-CRIS)

Web site: http://www.acb-online.org

○○○○○ ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○

American Farmland Trust

The American Farmland Trust (AFT) was established

as a nonprofit organization that works with farmers,

business people, legislators, and conservationists to

encourage sound farming practices and preserve the

country’s most critical agricultural resources.

• The Farm Legacy Program of the AFT

encourages farm owners threatened by

development to donate their lands to AFT. By

donating their land, the landowners may retain

lifetime use of the property because the AFT

sells the farm with conservation easements to

guarantee the preservation of the property.

The AFT also accepts nonfarm properties and

appreciated securities.

For more information, contact:

American Farmland Trust National Office

1920 N Street, N.W., Suite 400

Washington, D.C. 20036

Phone: (202) 659-5170

Fax: (202) 659-8339

Web site: http://www.farmland.org

California Coastal Conservancy

The California Coastal Conservancy was established

by the California legislature to protect, restore, and

enhance coastal resources by working in partnership

with local governments, other public agencies, nonprofit organizations, and private landowners.

The California Coastal Conservancy has done more

than 700 projects along California’s 1,110 mile coastline and San Francisco Bay. The goals of the California Coastal Conservancy include:

• Improving public access to the coast and bay

shores.

• Protecting and enhancing coastal wetlands,

steams, and watersheds.

• Restoring urban waterfronts for public use

and coastal development.

• Resolving coastal land use conflicts.

• Acquiring and holding environmentally valuable coastal land.

• Protecting agricultural lands.
Appendix A

A-10 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

For more information, contact:

California Coastal Conservancy

1330 Broadway, 11th Floor

Oakland, CA 94612

Phone: (510) 286-1015

Fax: (510) 286-0470

Web site: http://www.coastalconservancy.ca.gov/

California Waterfowl Association

The California Waterfowl Association (CWA) is a

nonprofit organization that preserves, protects, and

enhances California’s waterfowl and wetland resources. The CWA provides technical assistance to

landowners, conducts research, and lobbies state and

federal governments to promote protection of waterfowl and provision of habitat.

• The Waterfowl Programs seek increases in

populations of waterfowl, especially mallards,

pintails, wood ducks, and Canada geese.

• Under the California Waterfowl Habitat

Program, CWA assists the California Department of Fish and Game in providing incentive

funds and preparing detailed plans for habitat

management on private lands.

• A nontraditional effort involving salvage of

eggs from nests destroyed by agricultural

operations is being closely monitored to

determine if released ducklings can assist

waterfowl population enhancement efforts.

For further information, contact:

California Waterfowl Association

4630 Northgate Boulevard, Suite 150

Sacramento, CA 95834

Phone: (916) 648-1406

Fax: (916) 648-1665

Web site: http://www.calwaterfowl.org/

Chesapeake Bay Foundation

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) is a nonprofit

organization whose mission is to restore and sustain

the bay’s ecosystem by substantially improving water

quality and productivity of the watershed.

• Restoration programs by CBF are voluntary

and include citizens, school groups, and

corporate participants. Examples of wetland

restoration projects include wetland plantings,

wetland mapping, and educational activities.

For more information, contact:

162 Prince George Street

Annapolis, MD 21401

Phone: (410) 268-8816

Fax: (410) 268-6687

Web site: http://www.cbf.org

Chesapeake Bay Trust

The Chesapeake Bay Trust is a nonprofit organization

that promotes public awareness and participation in

the restoration and protection of the Chesapeake Bay.

• The Trust was created by the Maryland

General Assembly in 1985.

• More than 1,000 communities, volunteer

groups, and schools in Maryland have received grant money totaling $933,287 for

habitat restoration, cleanups, and other bay

resource-related projects.

• The Trust is supported by private citizens and

the business community. The purchase of

Chesapeake Bay license plates funds part of

the Trust. In addition, taxpayers may make

donations of their refund to the Trust.
Appendix A

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 A-11

For further information, contact:

Chesapeake Bay Trust

60 West Street, Suite 200A

Annapolis, MD 21401

Phone: (410) 974-2941

Fax: (410) 269-0378

Web site: http://www.chesapeakebaytrust.org

Ducks Unlimited

Ducks Unlimited (DU) is a private, nonprofit organization that works to help fulfill annual life cycle needs of

waterfowl by protecting, enhancing, restoring, and

managing important wetland and associated upland

habitat throughout the states.

• DU cost-shares in the improvement of habitat

through the Matching Aid to Restore States’

Habitat (MARSH) Program. This reimbursement program provides matching funds for

wetland acquisition and development.

• Habitat 2000: Campaign for a Continent - This

is DU’s six year comprehensive campaign to

ensure a future for North America’s wetlands

and waterfowl. The program’s goal is to

restore 1.7 million acres of wetland and

upland habitat by raising $600 million.

For further information, contact:

Ducks Unlimited National Headquarters

One Waterfowl Way

Memphis, TN 38120-2351

Phone: (901) 758-3825 or (800) 45-DUCKS

Web site: http://www.ducks.org

Great Plains Partnership

Spanning the 13 Great Plains states and the corresponding regions of Canada and Mexico, the Great

Plains Partnership (GPP) is an outcome-oriented

partnership composed of federal, state, and local

agencies, tribes, nongovernmental organizations, and

landowners. Its mission is to catalyze and empower

the people of the Great Plains to define and create

their own generational sustainable future.

• The GPP provides technical assistance and

help in overcoming institutional and regulatory

hurdles that local partnerships cannot resolve

on their own.

• Sandhills (NE) - Ranchers in the Sandhills of

Nebraska have been working with a local

coordinator from the USFWS to preserve and

restore wetlands areas that are important for

hay meadows and fens, which are globally

unique natural communities. Their coalition

has grown to include representatives from

other state and federal agencies. Their work

provides an important example of successful

cooperation.

• Rainwater Basin (NE) - The Rainwater Basin

is a North American Waterfowl Management

Plan Joint Venture in Nebraska to restore

wetlands for migratory birds. GPP will test the

use of a newly developed model that classifies

wetland by functional value, in order to foster

an alternative compliance strategy that allows

farmers to develop a wetland restoration

program through wetlands banking and trades

to protect both the most valuable wetlands

and croplands. Regulatory agencies, which

will have to suspend current regulations, will

be important partners and will oversee that

the results equal or exceed those achievable

through normal enforcement.
Appendix A

A-12 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

For more information, contact:

Great Plains Partnership

Web site: http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov

Illinois Wetlands Conservation Strategy

The Illinois Wetlands Conservation Strategy (IWCS)

is a comprehensive plan to guide the development and

implementation of Illinois’s wetland programs and

protection initiatives. It is an organizational tool used

to identify opportunities for making programs work

better. The goal of the IWCS is to ensure that there

will be no net loss of wetlands or their functions in

Illinois.

For further information, contact:

Illinois Wetlands Conservation Strategy

15536 Sr. 78

Havana, IL 62644

Web site: http://www.inhs.uiuc.edu/chf/pub/

surveyreports/jul-aug95/wetland.html

Iowa River Corridor Project

The Iowa River Corridor Project uses a voluntary

approach to wetland restoration by giving landowners

economic alternatives for frequently flooded farmland,

and the project is intended to improve water quality

and wildlife habitat. It is sponsored by the Iowa

NRCS. The farmers can choose to continue farming

as they have, sell an easement and have a wetland

restored, sell an easement and title to the USFWS, or

try some alternative farming practices.

For further information, contact:

Iowa River Corridor Project

Web site: http://www.fws.gov/midwest/

IowaRiverCorridor/

Izaac Walton League of America

The mission of the Izaac Walton League of America

(IWLA) is to protect the nation’s soil, air, woods,

waters, and wildlife.

• The Wetlands Conservation and Sustainability

Project, part of the Save Our Streams Program, helps bring citizens, planners, government agencies, businesses, and others together to become wetland stewards by taking

a proactive role in wetland conservation and

protection. The IWLA has lobbied at the

national level to create and protect wetland

legislation, and League members have worked

for wetland protection and restoration through

350 local chapters nationwide.

For further information, contact:

Izaac Walton League of America National Office

707 Conservation Lane

Gaithersburg, MD 20878

Phone: (301) 548-0150

Fax: (301) 548-0146

Web site: http://www.iwla.org

Land Trust Alliance

The Land Trust Alliance supports conservation in

communities across the country by ensuring that

people who work through voluntary land trust organizations have the information, skills, and resources they

need to save land.
Appendix A

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 A-13

• Land trusts are used to acquire land and then

either transfer it to a governmental agency or

retain it for long-term ownership and stewardship.

• Conservation easements are the principle tool

used by most land trusts to achieve their land

conservation objectives.

• There are currently more than 1,100 land

trusts in America, including many for wetlands.

For more information, contact:

Land Trust Alliance

1319 F Street, NW, Suite 501

Washington, DC 20004

Phone: (202) 638-4725

Fax: (202) 638-4730

Web site: http://www.lta.org/

Michigan Wildlife Conservancy

The Michigan Wildlife Conservancy provides technical

and financial assistance that landowners and managers need to restore and maintain wildlife habitat

through cost-effective projects.

For more information, contact:

Michigan Wildlife Habitat Conservancy

Web site: http://www.miwildlife.org

National Audubon Society

The mission of the National Audubon Society (NAS)

is to conserve and restore natural ecosystems, focusing on birds and other wildlife for the benefit of

humanity and the earth’s biological diversity.

• One of the high-priority campaigns of the

NAS is to preserve wetlands. The goal of the

Wetlands Campaign is to preserve and restore

the nation’s wetland ecosystems through a

partnership of Audubon volunteer leaders,

staff, and directors to protect birds, other

wildlife, and their habitats, as well as to

protect human health and safety and to

sustain a healthy economy. The campaign

includes a community-based effort to protect

and restore 1,000,000 wetland acres within 3

years, establishment of strong wetland

protection and restoration laws, creation of a

network of thousands of Audubon volunteers

and chapters, working together to promote

sound measures to manage and protect

wetland ecosystems, and public communication and education.

For more information, contact:

National Audubon Society

700 Broadway

New York, NY 10003

Phone: (212) 979-3000

Web site: http://www.audubon.org/

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation

The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) is

a nonprofit organization established by Congress in

1984 to foster cooperative efforts to conserve fish,

wildlife, and plant species. Its mission is to provide
Appendix A

A-14 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

creative and sustainable solutions for fish and wildlife,

and plant conservation. All NFWF grants are a twoto-one match (non-federal to federal), and the match

must be derived from a source other than the applicant.

NFWF projects include education projects about fish,

wildlife, plants, and habitats for schoolchildren, higher

education institutions, and professionals. The organization is involved in fisheries conservation and management, neotropical migratory bird conservation, wetlands and private lands, and wildlife and habitat.

For more information, contact:

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation

1120 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 900

Washington, DC 20036

Phone: (202) 857-0166

Fax: (202) 857-0162

Web site: http://www.nfwf.org

National Wildlife Federation

The mission of the National Wildlife Federation

(NWF) is to educate, inspire, and assist individuals and

organizations of diverse cultures to conserve wildlife

and other natural resources and to protect the earth’s

environment in order to achieve a peaceful, equitable,

and sustainable future.

The NWF’s main goal is to raise awareness and

involve people of all ages in their fight to conserve and

protect the environment.

For further information, contact:

National Wildlife Federation

8925 Leesburg Pike

Vienna, VA 22184

Phone: (703) 790-4000

Web site: http://www.nwf.org

National Wetlands Conservation Alliance

The National Wetlands Conservation Alliance is an

informal partnership of private organizations and

government agencies working to build broad support

for and to improve the delivery of voluntary landowner

wetlands restoration, enhancement, and conservation.

• The organization’s vision is to become informed landowners voluntarily deciding to

protect and manage existing wetlands and

restore and enhanced drained and partially

drained wetlands.

• Funding and program guidance are provided

by participating organizations and government

agencies and the National Association of

Conservation Districts.

• A major emphasis of the organization is to

support and improve USDA’s Wetland Reserve Program, Conservation Reserve

Program, and other “Farm Bill” programs, and

the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Partners for

Wildlife and North American Waterfowl

Management Plan programs.

For further information, contact:

National Wetlands Conservation Alliance

509 Capitol Court, NE

Washington, DC 20002-4946

Phone: (202) 547-6223

Fax: (202) 547-6450

Web site: http://www.erols.com/wetlandg

Nebraska Environmental Trust

The Nebraska Environmental Trust Fund was organized in 1992 as a means to raise money for

Nebraska’s environment. What is unique about this

program is that it is funded by the Nebraska Lottery.

The public is also involved in the state’s environment

because the fund is administered by a governorappointed board of nine citizens and six state agency

representatives.
Appendix A

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 A-15

• One of the major focuses of the trust fund is

the preservation and restoration of wetlands

and other areas critical to rare or endangered

species.

• Applicants that receive grant money must

meet economic, technical, and financial

feasibility criteria and show that the public

benefits of the proposed project will be as

apparent as the environmental benefits.

For more information, contact:

Nebraska Environmental Trust Fund

2200 North 33rd Street, P.O. Box 3070

Lincoln, NE 68503-0370

Phone: (402) 471-5409

Web site: http://www.environmentaltrust.org

Operation Green Stripe

Operation Green Stripe was developed in 1992 to

combat the problem of surface water runoff of soil

sediment by encouraging the planting of grassy buffer

strips along streams, lakes, and sinkholes on farm

property.

• Through Operation Green Stripe, Future

Farmers of America (FFA) chapters recruit

farmers to establish vegetative buffers

between their fields and surface water

supplies. Cooperating agriculture retailers

provide free grass seed for the strips, and

Monsanto provides educational grants to FFA

chapters based on the number of farmers the

students recruit.

For further information, contact:

Monsanto Company

800 North Lindbergh Boulevard

St. Louis, MO 63167

Phone: (314) 694-2789

Fax: (314) 694-2922

Web site: http://www.monsanto.com

Pheasants Forever

Pheasants Forever (PF) is a nonprofit wildlife conservation group whose mission is to protect and enhance

pheasant and other wildlife populations throughout

North America through public awareness and education, habitat restoration, development and maintenance, and improvements in land and water management policies. Local PF chapters work with private

landowners to provide for the creation and enhancement of wildlife habitat.

• Since its establishment, PF has spent more

than $24 million on habitat restoration projects

on 850,000 acres of land. These projects

restore habitat by renovating nesting cover,

planting windbreaks and hedgerows, establishing food plots, restoring wetlands, and acquiring lands.

For further information, contact:

Pheasants Forever National Headquarters

1783 Buerkle Circle

St. Paul, MN 55110

Phone: (612) 773-2000

Fax: (612) 773-5500

Web site: http://www.pheasantsforever.org

Public Service Electric & Gas Co.

The Public Service Electric & Gas Co. (PSE&G) is a

leader in providing energy-efficient services and

developing environmentally sound energy systems to

improve the social, economic, and environmental

standards of society.

• PSE&G is conducting the Estuary Enhancement Program (EEP) under the New Jersey

Department of Environmental Protection and

the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. Of the
Appendix A

A-16 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

land slated for restoration, 12,500 acres are in

New Jersey, and 8,000 are in Delaware.

Nearly 17,000 acres are going to be restored

as salt marshes, creating the largest endeavor

of its kind. PSE&G purchased land and made

agreements with landowners to gain access to

land.

For more information, contact:

Public Service Enterprise Group (PSE&G)

Englewood, NJ 07631

Phone: 800-350-PSEG

Web site: http://www.pseg.com

Quail Unlimited

Quail Unlimited is a nonprofit organization that was

established in 1981 to improve and preserve upland

game habitat. It has more than 400 chapters. QU

funds are used for local habitat and education projects,

state wildlife departments, upland game bird management, habitat research, and education programs.

• One of QU’s habitat improvement initiatives is

to create water sites in arid and semiarid

areas for quail habitat. Much of the water site

development work is performed in cooperation with the Forest Service and the Bureau of

Land Management under cost-share agreements.

For further information, contact:

Quail Unlimited National Headquarters

P.O. Box 610

Edgefield, SC 29824

Phone: (803) 637-5731, ext. 28

Web site: http://www.qu.org

Restore America’s Estuaries

Restore America’s Estuaries (RAE) is a nonprofit

coalition of community-based organizations working to

save coastal resources. Its mission is to protect and

restore coastal areas by increasing awareness and

appreciation of the resources and leading a campaign

to restore 1 million acres of estuarine habitat (including wetlands) by the year 2010.

• RAE’s 11 members are American Littoral

Society (Hudson-Raritan estuaries of New

York and New Jersey), Chesapeake Bay

Foundation, Coalition to Restore Coastal

Louisiana, Conservation Law Foundation

(Gulf of Maine), Galveston Bay Foundation;

North Carolina Coastal Federation, North

Carolina Coastal Federation, People for Puget

Sound, Save San Francisco Bay Association;

Save the Bay (Narragansett Bay), Save the

Sound (Long Island Sound), and Tampa

BAYWATCH.

• Estuary habitat restoration includes maintaining food supplies for aquatic life, creating and

protecting jobs that rely on estuaries (fishing,

tourism, boating), protecting human health,

expanding recreational abilities, enhancing

quality of life, and education.

For more information, contact:

Restore America’s Estuaries

1200 New York Avenue, N.W.

Suite 400

Washington, DC 20005

Phone: (202) 289-2380

Fax: (202) 842-4932

Web site: http://www.estuaries.org
Appendix A

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 A-17

Sierra Club

The Sierra Club is a nonprofit organization that

promotes conservation of the natural environment by

influencing public policy decisions.

More information about wetlands is available from the

Sierra Club’s wetlands website at

http://www.sierraclub.org/wetlands

For information on the Sierra Club, contact:

Sierra Club

85 Second Street, Second Floor

San Francisco, CA 94105-3441

Phone: (415) 977-5500

Fax: (415) 977-5799

Web site: http://www.sierraclub.org/

The Tahoe Conservancy

The Tahoe Conservancy, a California agency, is

charged with preserving and enhancing the unique

ecological and recreational values of the Tahoe basin

through the Tahoe Conservancy Program. Its primary

objectives goals are to protect the natural environment

of the basin, to increase public access and recreation

opportunities for visitors to the lake, and to preserve

and enhance the broad diversity of wildlife habitat in

the Tahoe Basin.

• The Conservancy’s work with private owners

of wetland property comes primarily through

its acquisition program. It focuses on obtaining

conservation easements, development rights,

and full titles to lands that contain marsh,

meadow, or riparian areas. The Conservancy

offers 95 percent of what property would

bring on the open market.

For further information, contact:

The Tahoe Conservancy

2161 Lake Tahoe Boulevard

South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150

Phone: (916) 542-5580

Fax: (916) 542-5591

Web site: http://www.tahoecons.ca.gov/

The Nature Conservancy

The Nature Conservancy’s (TNC) mission is to

preserve plants, animals, and natural communities that

represent the diversity of life on earth by protecting

the lands and water they need to survive.

• The Natural Areas Registries program of the

TNC honors private landowners of outstanding natural areas for their commitment to the

survival of the land’s natural heritage. The

registry is voluntary, and no payment is

involved.

For more information, contact:

The Nature Conservancy, International Headquarters

1815 North Lynn Street

Arlington, VA 22209

Phone: (703) 841-5300

Web site: http://nature.org

Trout Unlimited

Trout Unlimited (TU) is an organization of conservation-minded anglers who promote quality trout and

salmon fisheries for their intrinsic values, as well as a

reminder of watershed health. TU conserves, protects, and restores North America’s trout and salmon
Appendix A

A-18 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

fisheries and their watersheds. This is accomplished

on the local, state, and national level.

For more information, contact:

Trout Unlimited

1500 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 310

Arlington, VA 22209-2404

Phone: (703) 522-0200

Fax: (703) 284-9400

Web site: http://www.tu.org

Wetland Habitat Alliance of Texas

The Wetland Habitat Alliance of Texas (WHAT) is an

organization dedicated to preserving Texas wetlands

by raising public awareness and appreciation of

wetlands and funding projects to manage wetland

waters; protect, enhance, and restore natural wetlands; and create wetlands on non-wetland sites.

• The cooperator and WHAT agree to a

proposed project, and NRCS verifies the

operable conditions before the project is

approved. Interested landowners can receive

up to 100 percent financial assistance for a

10-year minimum agreement.

For more information, contact:

Wetland Habitat Alliance of Texas

118 East Hospital, Suite 208

Nachodoches, TX 75961

Phone: (409) 569-9428 or (800) 962-WHAT

Web site: http://www.whatduck.org/homepage.htm

Wildlife Habitat Council

The Wildlife Habitat Council seeks to increase the

quality of wildlife habitat on corporate, private, and

public lands.

• WHC’s Corporate Wildlife Habitat Certification/International Accreditation Program

recognizes corporate properties with meaningful wildlife habitat management programs,

including environmental education programs.

Certification through WHC provides thirdparty credibility and an objective evaluation of

projects.

• WHC builds cooperative ventures between

corporate, private, government, and conservation communities to improve and manage

habitat along river corridors and watersheds.

• Under its Wastelands to Wetlands program,

WHC reclaims sites considered unsalvageable

for wildlife habitat.

For further information, contact:

Wildlife Habitat Council

1010 Wayne Avenue, Suite 920

Silver Spring, MD 20910

Phone: (301) 588-8994

Fax: (301) 588-4629

Web site: http://www.wildlifehc.org/
EPA # April 2001

Appendix B

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Contacts

This appendix provides wetlands contacts, nonpoint source regional contacts, and

Clean Water State Revolving Fund Contacts.

Appendix B

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 B-1

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Contacts

EPA is grouped into 10 Regions. For questions about a particular state, contact the appropriate EPA Regional

Coordinator listed below.

Region 1:

CT, MA, ME, NH,

RI, VT

http://www.epa.

gov/region01/

Region 2:

NJ, NY, PR, VI

http://www.epa.

gov/Region2

Region 3:

DC, DE, MD, PA,

VA, WV

http://www.epa.

gov/region03

Region 4:

AL, FL, GA, KY,

MS, NC, SC, TN

http://www.epa.

gov/region4/

Region 5:

IL, IN, MI, MN,

OH, WI

http://www.epa.

gov/region5/

U.S. EPA-Region 1

Wetlands Protection Unit

One Congress Street

Boston, MA 02114-2023

http://www.epa.gov/region01/

topics/ecosystems/

wetlands.html

U.S. EPA-Region 2

Water Programs Branch

Wetlands Section

290 Broadway

New York, NY 10007-1866

http://www.epa.gov/region02/

water/wetlands/

U.S. EPA-Region 3

Wetlands Protection

Section

1650 Arch Street (3WP12)

Philadelphia, PA 19103

http://www.epa.gov/reg3esd1/

hydricsoils/index.htm

U.S. EPA-Region 4

Wetlands Section

61 Forsyth Street, SW

Atlanta, GA 30303

http://www.epa.gov/region4/

water/wetlands/

U.S. EPA-Region 5

Watersheds and Wetlands

Water Division (W-15J)

77 West Jackson Blvd.

Chicago, IL 60604

http://www.epa.gov/region5/

water/wshednps/

topic_wetlands.htm

U.S. EPA-Region 1

Nonpoint Source Coordinator

One Congress Street,

Boston, MA 02114-2023

http://www.epa.gov/region01/

topics/water/npsources.html

U.S. EPA-Region 2

Water Programs Branch

Nonpoint Source Coordinator

290 Broadway

New York, NY 10007-1866

http://www.epa.gov/region02/

water/npspage.htm

U.S. EPA-Region 3

Nonpoint Source Coordinator

1650 Arch Street (3WP12)

Philadelphia, PA 19103

http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/

nps/

U.S. EPA-Region 4

Nonpoint Source Coordinator

61 Forsyth Street, SW

Atlanta, GA 30303

http://www.epa.gov/region4/

water/nps/

U.S. EPA-Region 5

Nonpoint Source Coordinator

Water Division (W-15J)

77 West Jackson Blvd.

Chicago, IL 60604

http://www.epa.gov/region5/

water/wshednps/topic_nps.htm

U.S. EPA-Region 1

SRF Program Contact

One Congress Street

Boston, MA 02114-2023

http://www.epa.gov/ne/cwsrf/

index.html

U.S. EPA-Region 2

Water Programs Branch

SRF Program Contact

290 Broadway

New York, NY 10007-1866

http://www.epa.gov/Region2/

water/wpb/staterev.htm

U.S. EPA-Region 3

Construction Grants Branch

SRF Program Contact

1650 Arch Street (3WP12)

Philadelphia, PA 19103

http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/

srf/index.htm

U.S. EPA-Region 4

Surface Water Permits & Facilities

SRF Program Contact

61 Forsyth St.

Atlanta GA, 30303

http://www.epa.gov/Region4/

water/gtas/grantprograms.html

U.S. EPA-Region 5

SRF Program Contact

Water Division (W-15J)

77 West Jackson Blvd.

Chicago, IL 60604

http://www.epa.gov/region5/

business/fs-cwsrf.htm

EPA Region Nonpoint Source Regional

Coordinators

Wetland Contact Clean Water State

Revolving Fund

Regional Coordinators
Appendix B

B-2 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

Region 6:

AR, LA, NM, OK,

TX

http://www.epa.

gov/region6

Region 7:

IA, KS, MO, NE

http://www.epa.

gov/region7

Region 8:

CO, MT, ND, SD,

UT, WY

http://www.epa.

gov/region8

Region 9:

AZ, CA, HI, NV,

Pacific Islands

http://www.epa.

gov/region9/

Region 10:

AK, ID, OR, WA

http://www.epa.

gov/region10/

General Program

Information

U.S. EPA-Region 6

Marine and Wetlands Section

1445 Ross Ave., Suite 1200

Dallas, TX 75202

http://www.epa.gov/region6/

water/ecopro/index.htm

U.S. EPA-Region 7

Wetlands Protection

Section (ENRV)

901 N. 5th St.

Kansas City, KS 66101

http://www.epa.gov/region7/

wetlands/index.htm

U.S. EPA-Region 8

Wetlands Program

999 18th Street, Suite 500

Denver, CO 80202-2405

http://www.epa.gov/region8/

water/wetlands/wetlands.html

U.S. EPA-Region 9

Water Division, Wetlands

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

http://www.epa.gov/region09/

water/wetlands/index.html

U.S. EPA-Region 10

Wetlands Section

1200 Sixth Ave.

Seattle, WA 98101

http://yosemite.epa.gov/R10/

ECOCOMM.NSF/webpage/

Wetlands

U.S. EPA

Wetlands Division (4502F)

Mail Code RC-4100T

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20460

http://www.epa.gov/owow/

wetlands/

U.S. EPA-Region 6

Nonpoint Source Coordinator

1445 Ross Ave., Suite 1200

Dallas, TX 75202

http://www.epa.gov/region6/

water/ecopro/watershd/

nonpoint/

U.S. EPA-Region 7

Nonpoint Source Coordinator

901 N. 5th St.

Kansas City, KS 66101

U.S. EPA-Region 8

Nonpoint Source Coordinator

 999 18th Street, Suite 300

Denver, CO 80202-2405

http://www.epa.gov/region8/

water/nps/contacts.html

U.S. EPA-Region 9

Nonpoint Source Coordinator

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

http://www.epa.gov/region09/

water/nonpoint/index.html

U.S. EPA-Region 10

Nonpoint Source Coordinator

1200 Sixth Ave.

Seattle, WA 98101

U.S. EPA Nonpoint Source

Control Branch (4503-T)

Ariel Rios Bldg.

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20460

http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps

U.S. EPA-Region 6

SRF Program Contact

1445 Ross Ave., Suite 1200

Dallas, TX 75202

http://www.epa.gov/Arkansas/

6en/xp/enxp2c4.htm

U.S. EPA-Region 7

SRF Program Contact

901 N. 5th St.

Kansas City, KS 66101

http://www.epa.gov/Region7/

water/srf.htm

U.S. EPA-Region 8

SRF Program Contact

999 18th Street, Suite 300

Denver, CO 80202-2405

U.S. EPA-Region 9

Construction Grants Branch

SRF Program Contact

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

http://www.epa.gov/region9/

funding/

U.S. EPA-Region 10

Ecosystems & Communities

SRF Program Contact

1200 Sixth Ave.

Seattle, WA 98101

http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/

ecocomm.nsf/webpage/

Clean+Water+State+Revolving

+Fund+in+Region+10

U.S. EPA

The Clean Water State

Revolving Fund Branch

(4204M)

1201 Constitution Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20004

http://www.epa.gov/owm/

cwfinance/cwsrf/index.htm

EPA Region Nonpoint Source Regional

Coordinators

Wetland Contact Clean Water State

Revolving Fund

Regional Coordinators

Wetlands Helpline

For general questions about wetlands and questions about the national wetlands program,

call the EPA Wetlands Helpline at 1-800-832-7828 or send an e-mail to <wetlands.helpline@epa.gov>.
EPA # April 2001

Appendix C

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland

Contacts

This appendix provides information on Division Regulatory Offices and District

Regulatory Offices for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 C-1

Appendix C

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland

Contacts (Civil Works – Regulatory Office)

Headquarters Regulatory Office:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Office of the Chief of Engineers

20 Massachusetts Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20314-1000

Phone: 202-761-0200

Fax: 202-761-5096

Division and District Offices:

Great Lakes and Ohio River Division

CELRD-ET-CO-F

550 Main Street

Cincinnati, OH 45201-1159

Phone: 513-684-6212

Fax: 513-684-2460

Mississippi Valley Division

CEMVD-ET-CO

1400 West Walnut Street

Vicksburg, MS 39181

Phone: 601-634-5821

Fax: 601-634-7073

North Atlantic Division

CENAD-ET-O

90 Church Street

New York, NY 10007-2979

Phone: 212-264-7636

Fax: 212-264-5037

Northwestern Division

CENWD-ET-OR

220 Northwest 8th Avenue

Portland, OR 97209-3589

Phone: 503-808-3888

Fax: 503-808-3880

Missouri River Regional Headquarters

CENWD-MR

12565 West Center Road

Omaha, NE 68144-3871

Phone: 402-697-2552

Pacific Ocean Division

CEPOD-ET-PO

Building 230

Ft. Shafter, HI 96858-5440

Phone: 808-438-0030

Fax: 808-438-4060

South Atlantic Division

CESADET-CO-R

77 Forsyth Street, SW

Atlanta, GA 30355-6801

Phone: 404-331-6744

Fax: 404-331-2613

South Pacific Division

CESPD-ET-CR

630 Sansome Street

San Francisco, CA 94111-2206

Phone: 415-977-8030

Fax: 415-977-8047

Southwestern Division

CESWD-ETO-R

1114 Commerce Street

Santa Fe Building

Dallas, TX 75242-0216

Phone: 214-767-2435

Fax: 214-767-5305

District Offices:

Alaska

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District

Attention: CEPOA-CO-RF

P.O. Box 898

Anchorage, AK 99506-0898

Phone: 907-753-2712

Fax: 907-753-5567

Albuquerque

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Albuquerque District

Attention: CESPA-OD-R

4101 Jefferson Plaza, NE

Albuquerque, NM 87109-3435

Phone: 505-342-3283

Fax: 505-342-3498
C-2 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

Appendix C

Baltimore

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore Distict

Attention: CENAB-OP-R

P.O. Box 1715

Baltimore, MD 21203-1715

Phone: 410-962-3670

Fax: 410-962-8024

Buffalo

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo District

Attention: CELRB-CO-S

1776 Niagara Street

Buffalo, NY 14207-3199

Phone: 716-879-4313

Fax: 716-879-4310

Chaleston

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Charleston District

Attention: CESAC-CO-P

P.O. Box 919

Charleston, SC 29402-0919

Phone: 803-727-4330

Fax: 803-727-4445

Chicago

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Chicago District

Attention: CELRC-CO-R

111 North Canal Street

Suite 600

Chicago, IL 60606-7206

Phone: 312-353-6428

Fax: 312-353-4110

Detroit

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit District

Attention: CELRE-CO-L

P.O. Box 1027

Detoit, MI 48231-1027

Phone: 313-226-2432

Fax: 313-226-6763

Ft. Worth

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Ft. Worth District

Attention: CESWF-EV-R

P.O. Box 17300

Ft. Worth, TX 76102-0300

Phone: 817-978-2681

Fax: 817-978-2120

Galveston

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Galveston District

Attention: CESWG-CO-R

P.O. Box 1229

Galveston, TX 77553-1229

Phone: 409-766-3930

Fax: 409-766-3931

Huntington

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Huntington District

Attention: CELRH-OP-F

502 8th Street

Huntington, WV 25701-2070

Phone: 304-529-6900

Fax: 304-529-6086

Honolulu

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Honolulu District

Attention: CEPOH-CO-O

Building 230, Fort Safter

Honolulu, HI 96858-5440

Phone: 808-438-0030

Fax: 808-438-4060

Jacksonville

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District

Attention: CESAJ-RD

P.O. Box 4970

Jacksonville, FL 32232-0019

Phone: 904-232-1666

Fax: 904-232-1684

Kansas City

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas City District

Attention: CENWK-CO-R

700 Federal Building

601 East 12th Street

Kansas City, MO 64106-2896

Phone: 816-983-3990

Fax: 816-426-2321

Little Rock

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Little Rock District

Attention: CESWL-CO-P

P.O. Box 867

Little Rock, AR 72203-0867

Phone: 501-324-6296

Fax: 501-324-6013
EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 C-3

Appendix C

Los Angeles

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District

Attention: CESPL-CO-R

911 Wilshire Boulevard

P.O. Box 2711

Los Angeles, CA 90053-2325

Phone: 213-452-3425

Fax: 213-452-4196

Louisville

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Louisville District

Attention: CELRL-OP-F

P.O. Box 59

Louisville, KY 40401-0059

Phone: 502-582-6461

Fax: 502-582-5072

Memphis

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Memphis District

Attention: CEMVM-CO-G

Clifford Davis Federal Building Room B-202

Memphis, TN 38103-1894

Phone: 901-544-3471

Fax: 901-544-3266

Mobile

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District

Attention: CESAM-OP-S

P.O. Box 2288

Mobile, AL 36628-00001

Phone: 334-690-2658

Fax: 334-690-2660

Nashville

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Nashville District

Attention: CELRN-CO-F

P.O. Box 1070

Nashville, TN 37202-1070

Phone: 615-736-2761

Fax: 615-736-2745

New England

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England District

Attention: CENAE-OD-R

424 Trapelo Road

Waltham, MA 02254-9149

Phone: 617-647-8338

Fax: 617-647-8303

New Orleans

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District

Attention: CEMVN-OD-S

P.O. Box 60267

New Orleans, LA 70160-0267

Phone: 504-862-2255

Fax: 504-862-2289

New York

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District

Attention: CENAN-OP-R

26 Federal Plaza

New York, NY 10278-0090

Phone: 212-264-3996

Fax: 212-264-4260

Norfolk

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District

Attention: CENAO-CO-R

803 Front Street

Norfolk, VA 23510-1096

Phone: 757-441-7068

Fax: 757-441-7678

Omaha

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District

Attention: CENWO-OP-N

P.O. Box 5

Omaha, NE 68101-0005

Phone: 402-221-4211

Fax: 402-221-4939

Philadelphia

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District

Attention: CENAP-OP-R

100 Penn Square East

2nd and Chestnut Street

Philadelphia, PA 19107-3396

Phone: 215-656-6725

Fax: 215-656-6724

Pittsburgh

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Pittsburgh District

Attention: CELRP-OP-F

Federal Building

1000 Liberty Avenue

Pittsburgh, PA 15222-4186

Phone: 412-644-4204

Fax: 412-644-4211
C-4 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

Appendix C

Portland

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District

Attention: CENWP-OP-G

P.O. Box 2946

Portland, OR 97208-2946

Phone: 503-808-4371

Rock Island

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Rock Island District

Attention: CEMVR-OD-S

Clock Tower Building

Rock Island, IL 61201-2004

Phone: 309-794-5370

Fax: 309-794-5191

Sacramento

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District

Attention: CESPK-CO-R

1325 J Street

Sacramento, CA 95814-2922

Phone: 916-557-5252

Fax: 916-557-6877

St. Louis

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis District

Attention: CEMVS-OD-F

210 Tucker Blvd North

St. Louis, MO 63101-1986

Phone: 314-331-8575

Fax: 314-331-8741

St. Paul

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District

Attention: CEMVP-CO-RF

1135 USPO & Custom House

St. Paul, MN 55101-1479

Phone: 612-290-6376

Fax: 612-290-5330

San Francisco

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District

Attention: CESPN-CO-R

333 Market Street, 8th floor

San Francisco, CA 94105-2197

Phone: 415-977-8460

Fax: 415-977-8483

Savannah

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah District

Attention: CESAS-OP-F

P.O. Box 889

Savannah, GA 31402-0889

Phone: 912-652-6768

Fax: 912-652-5065

Seattle

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District

Attention: CENWS-OP-RF

P.O. Box C-3755

Seattle, WA 98124-2255

Phone: 206-764-3495

Fax: 206-764-6602

Tulsa

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District

Attention: CESWT-OD-RF

P.O. Box 61

Tulsa, OK 74121-0061

Phone: 918-669-7401

Fax: 918-669-7373

Vicksburg

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg District

Attention: CEMVK-Regulatory Branch

4155 Clay Street

Vicksburg, MS 39180-3435

Phone: 601-631-6276

Fax: 601-631-6459

Walla Walla

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District

Attention: CENWW-OP-RF

201 North 3rd Street

Walla Walla, WA 99362

Phone: 509-527-7151

Fax: 509-527-7823

Wilmington

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District

Attention: CESAW-CO-E

P.O. Box 1890

Wilmington, NC 28402-1890

Phone: 910-251-4630

Fax: 910-251-4025

This information can be found at the following web sites:

<http://www.usace.army.mil/inet/functions/cw/cecwo/reg/district.htm>

<http://www.usace.army.mil/inet/functions/cw/cecwo/reg/division.htm>
EPA # April 2001

Appendix D

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional

Wetland Contacts

This appendix provides wetland contacts for each region of the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service.

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 D-1

Appendix D

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional

Wetland Contacts

Region 1

(CA, HI, ID, NV, OR, WA)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

911 Northeast 11th Avenue

Portland, OR 97232

Region 2

(AZ, NM, OK, TX)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

P.O. Box 1306

Albuquerque, NM 87102

Region 3

(IL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, OH, WI)

National Wetlands Inventory Office

U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

9720 Executive Center Drive,

Monroe Building, Suite 101

St. Petersburg, FL 33702

Region 4

(AL, AR, FL, GA, KY, LA, MS, NC, SC, TN, PR,

VI)

National Wetlands Inventory Office

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

1875 Century Blvd, Room 240

Atlanta, GA 30345

Region 5

(CT, DE, ME, MA, MD, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI,

VT, VA, WV)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

300 West Gate Center Drive

Hadley, MA 01035

Region 6

(CO, KS, MT, NE, ND, SD, UT, WY)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

P.O. Box 25486, DFC

Denver, CO 80225-0486

Region 7

(AK)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

1011 East Tudor Road

Anchorage, AK 99503

Region 8

(Washington, DC National Office)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

4401 North Fairfax Drive, Suite 110

Arlington VA, 22203

This information can be found at the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory web site:

http://wetlands.fws.gov/Regionofc/Rwc.htm

EPA # April 2001

Appendix E

U.S. State and Territory Agency Wetland

Contacts

This appendix provides agency wetland contact information for each state and

trust territory.

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 E-1

Appendix E

U.S. State and Territory Agency

Wetland Contacts

Alabama

Department of Environmental Management

1400 Coliseum Blvd.

Montgomery, AL 36111

(334) 271-7700

http://www.adem.state.al.us/

Alaska

Department of Environmental Conservation

Division of Water

410 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 303

Juneau, AK 99801-1795

(907) 465-5180

http://www.dec.state.ak.us

Arizona

Department of Environmental Quality

1110 W. Washington St.

Phoenix, AZ 85007

(602) 771-2300

http://www.azdeq.gov

Arkansas

Department of Environmental Quality

8001 National Drive

Little Rock, AR 72209

(501) 682-0744

http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/

California

California State Water Resources Control Board

1001 I Street

Sacramento, CA 95814

(916) 341-5250

http://www.swrcb.ca.gov

Colorado

Department of Natural Resources

Division of Water Resources

1313 Sherman Street, Rm. 818

Denver, CO 80203

(303) 866-3581

http://www.dnr.state.co.us/index.asp

Connecticut

Department of Environmental Protection

79 Elm Street

Hartford, CT 06106-5127

(860) 424-3009

http://dep.state.ct.us

Delaware

Department of Natural Resources

& Environmental Control

89 Kings Highway

Dover, DE 19901

(302) 739-5072

http://www.dnrec.state.de.us/dnrec2000

Florida

Department of Environmental Protection

3900 Commonwealth Blvd.

M.S. 49

Tallahassee, FL 32399

(850) 245-2118

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/

Georgia

Department of Natural Resources

2 Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive, S.E.

Suite 1252 East Tower

Atlanta, GA 30334

(404) 656-3500

http://www.gadnr.org

Hawaii

Department of Land and Natural Resources

Kalanimoko Bldg.

1151 Punchbowl St.

Honolulu, HI 96813

(808) 587-0400

http://www.state.hi.us/dlnr/

Idaho

Department of Water Resources

322 E. Front St.

P.O. Box 83720

Boise, ID 83720-0098

(208) 287-4800

http://www.idwr.state.id.us
E-2 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

Appendix E

Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency

500 Stratton Office Bldg.

Springfield, IL 62706

(217) 524-1321

http://www.epa.state.il.us/

Indiana

Department of Environmental Management

Indiana Govt. Center-North

100 N. Senate Ave.

Indianapolis, IN 46204

(317) 232-8603

http://www.state.in.us/idem

Iowa

Department of Natural Resources

Wallace State Office Building

502 E. 9th Street

Des Moines, IA 50319-0034

(515) 281-5918

http://www.iowadnr.com

Kansas

Department of Health and Environment

1000 SW Jackson

Topeka, KS 66612

(785) 296-1500

http://www.kdhe.state.ks.us

Kentucky

Division of Water

14 Reilly Road

Frankfort, KY 40601

(502) 564-3410

http://www.water.ky.gov

Louisiana

Department of Environmental Quality

602 N. 5th Street

Baton Rouge, LA 70802

(225) 342-1234

http://www.deq.state.la.us/

Maine

Department of Environmental Protection

17 State House Station

Augusta, ME 04333-0017

(207) 287-7688, (800) 452-1942

http://www.maine.gov/dep/index.shtml

Maryland

Department of Natural Resources

580 Taylor Avenue

Annapolis, MD 21401

(410) 260-8701

http://www.dnr.state.md.us/

Massachusetts

Department of Environmental Protection

1 Winter Street

Boston, MA 02108-4746

(617) 292-5500

http://www.state.ma.us/dep/brp/ww/rpwwhome.htm

Michigan

Department of Environmental Quality

525 W. Allegan St.

P.O. Box 30473

Lansing, MI 48909-7973

(517) 373-7917

http://www.michigan.gov/deq

Minnesota

Department of Natural Resources

500 Lafayette Rd., Box 7

St. Paul, MN 55155-4040

(612) 296-6157

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/index.html

Mississippi

Department of Environmental Quality

P.O. Box 10631

Jackson, MS 39289-0631

(601) 961-5171

http://www.deq.state.ms.us/mdeq.nsf/page/

main_home?opendocument

Missouri

Department of Natural Resources

P.O. Box 176

Jefferson City, MO 65102

(573) 751-3443

http://www.dnr.state.mo.us/wpscd/wpcp/wp-index.html

Montana

Department of Natural Resources and Conservation

1625 Eleventh Avenue

P.O. Box 201601

Helena, MT 59620-1601

(406) 444-2074

http://www.dnrc.state.mt.us/index.htm
EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 E-3

Appendix E

Nebraska

Department of Environmental Quality

1200 “N” Street, Suite 400

P.O. Box 98922

Lincoln, NE 68509

(402) 471-2186

http://www.deq.state.ne.us/

Nevada

Department of Conservation

& Natural Resources

901 S. Stewart St., Suite 5001

Carson City, NV 89701

(775) 687-4360

http://www.dcnr.nv.gov

New Hampshire

Department of Environmental Services

29 Hazen Dr.

P.O. Box 95

Concord, NH 03302

(603) 271-3503

http://www.des.state.nh.us/wetlands/

New Jersey

Department of Environmental Protection

P.O. Box 402

Trenton, NJ 08625-0402

(609) 292-2178

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/

New Mexico

Department of Labor

P.O. Box 1928

Albuquerque, NM 87103

(505) 841-8409

http://www.dol.state.nm.us/dol_asd.html

New York

Department of Environmental Conservation

625 Broadway

Albany, NY 12233

(518) 357-2234

http://www.dec.state.ny.us/

North Carolina

Department of Environment and Natural Resources

1601 Mail Service Center

Raleigh, NC 27699

(919) 733-4984

http://www.enr.state.nc.us/

North Dakota

Department of Health

600 East Boulevard Ave.

Bismarck, ND 58505-0200

(701) 328-2372

http://www.health.state.nd.us

Ohio

Department of Natural Resources

2045 Morse Rd.

Columbus, OH 43229

(614) 265-6717

http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/

Oklahoma

Conservation Commission

2800 North Lincoln Blvd., Suite 160

Oklahoma City, OK 73105

(405) 521-2384

http://www.okcc.state.ok.us

Oregon

Department of Environmental Quality

811 Southwest Sixth Ave.

Portland, OR 97204-1390

(503) 229-5696

http://www.deq.state.or.us

Pennsylvania

Department of Environmental Protection

16th Floor, Rachel Carson State Office Bldg.

P.O. Box 2063

Harrisburg, PA 17105-2063

(717) 787-4686

http://www.dep.state.pa.us/

Rhode Island

Department of Environmental Management

235 Promenade Street

Providence, RI 02908-5767

(401) 222-6800

http://www.dem.ri.gov

South Carolina

Department of Health and Environmental Control

2600 Bull Street

Columbia, SC 29201

(803) 898-3432

http://www.scdhec.gov/environment
E-4 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

Appendix E

South Dakota

Department of Environment & Natural Resources

Joe Foss Bldg.

523 East Capitol

Pierre, SD 57501

(605) 773-3151

http://www.state.sd.us/denr/denr.html

Tennessee

Department of Environment and Conservation

1st Floor L&C Annex

401 Church Street

Nashville, TN 37243-0435

(615) 532-0109

http://www.state.tn.us/environment/

Texas

Commission on Environmental Quality

P.O. Box 13087

Austin, TX 78711-3087

(512) 239-1000

http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/index.html

Texas Parks & Wildlife Department

4200 Smith School Road

Austin, TX 78744

(512) 389-4800

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us

Utah

Department of Natural Resources

PO Box 145610

1594 W. North Temple

Salt Lake City, UT 84114-5610

(801) 538-7200

http://www.water.utah.gov

Vermont

Agency of Natural Resources

103 South Main Street, Center Bldg.

Waterbury, VT 05671-0301

(802) 241-3300

http://www.anr.state.vt.us/

Virginia

Department of Environmental Quality

629 East Main Street, P.O. Box 10009

Richmond, VA 23240-0009

(804) 698-4000

http://www.deq.state.va.us/

Washington

Department of Ecology

P.O. Box 47600

Olympia, WA 98504-7600

(800) 633-6193

http://www.ecy.wa.gov

West Virginia

DEP, Division of Water and Waste Mgt

601 - 57th Street

Charleston, WV 25304

(304) 926-0495

http://www.dep.state.wv.us/item.cfm?ssid=11

Wisconsin

Department of Natural Resources

101 S. Webster

P.O. Box 7921

Madison, WI 53707-7921

(608) 266-2621

http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/

Wyoming

Department of Environmental Quality

122 West 25th Street, Herschler Building

Cheyenne, WY 82002

(307) 777-7937

http://deq.state.wy.us/

Territories

American Samoa

American Samoa Coastal Management Program

Department of Commerce

Government of American Samoa

Pago Pago, AS 96799

(684) 633-5155

Guam

Coastal Management Program

Economic Research Center

P.O. Box 9970

Tamuning, Guam 96931

(617) 475-7062

http://www.spc.int/prism/country/gu/stats/divisions/

gcmp.htm

Northern Marianas Islands

Coastal Resources Management Office

Nauru Building

Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands 96950

(670) 234-6623
EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 E-5

Appendix E

Puerto Rico

Puerto Rico DNER

Bureau of Reserves, Refuges, and Coastal Resources

P.O. Box 5887

Puerto de Tierra, PR 00906

(809) 724-2816

Virgin Islands

Department of Planning and Natural Resources

Cyril E. King Airport Terminal Bldg., 2nd Floor

Charlotte Amalie

St. Thomas, VI 00800

(340) 774-3320

http://www.dpnr.gov.vi

EPA # April 2001

Appendix F

Index of Case Studies Organized by State,

Territory, and Tribe

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 F-1

Appendix F

STATES

 Alabama

Gulf Oak Ridge

The Alabama Department of Conservation and

Natural Resources will acquire 588 acres of Gulf Oak

Ridge, the only remaining globally imperiled maritime

forest in Alabama. The area will be included in Gulf

State Park. Six rare plant species occur on the site,

and a large number of neotropical migratory birds use

the area as their first and last staging area in spring

and fall. The federally endangered red-cockaded

woodpecker, Mississippi sandhill crane, and jaguarundi

and federally threatened indigo snake are likely

inhabitants of the Gulf Oak Ridge.

Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).

1998b. 1998 Coastal Wetlands Conservation Grant.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife

Service, Washington, DC.

Water Watch

Alabama Water Watch is dedicated to developing

Citizen Volunteer Monitoring of Alabama’s lakes,

streams, and wetlands. The program, which is funded

in part by a grant from EPA and the Alabama Department of Environmental Management, educates

citizens about water issues, both statewide and

worldwide, and trains them to measure water quality

conditions at sites of concern. The program challenges

citizens to make a difference and potentially improve

environmental policy by actively participating in

determining long-term water quality trends.

Source: Auburn University. 1995. Alabama Water

Watch. Auburn University, Auburn, AL.

Index of Case Studies Organized by State,

Territory, and Tribe

Alaska

Eagle River Watershed Wonders

The Anchorage School District and partners are

collaborating to restore riparian habitat along the

habitat banks of the Eagle River, which supports all

five species of Pacific salmon in addition to resident

populations of rainbow trout. The project is bringing

together the fourth-grade students from Ravenwood

Elementary School with experts from Chugach Sate

Park, the Anchorage Waterways Council, federal

resource agencies, and others to promote stewardship

of the Eagle River Watershed through the restoration

projects. As part of their involvement, students learn

scientific methods for collecting water samples and

monitoring fish populations, as well as gaining an

ecological understanding of human activities that

affect the health of the watershed. Partial funding for

this grant is being provided by the National Marine

Fisheries Service Community-based Restoration

Program.

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, River

Corridor and Wetland Restoration: Projects Funded by

Five Star Restoration Program in FY00.

<www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/restore/5star/

fy00grants.html>. Accessed January 2003.

Local Wetland Management Plans

The municipalities of Anchorage and Juneau have

implemented wetlands management plans that identify

sensitive wetlands, specify practices for protection

and restoration of high-value wetlands, and contain

enforceable policies requiring compensation for

wetland damages from development. Similar plans for

wetlands management and conservation are anticipated for other populated areas of the state’s coastal

region.

Source: State of Alaska. 1995. Alaska Coastal Clean

Water Plan. Draft. Alaska Coastal Management

Program, Anchorage, AK.
Appendix F

F-2 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

 Arizona

Chaparral Watershed

The effect of upstream shrub control on the establishment of riparian vegetation was evaluated on a

chaparral watershed in central Arizona. The response

of riparian vegetation to increased water yield through

shrub control treatments was evaluated. Studies

indicated that the continuity of flow had a greater

effect on enhancing the riparian zones than did total

streamflow increases.

Source: Debano, L., J. Brejda, and J. Brock. 1984.

Enhancement of riparian vegetation following shrub

control in Arizona chaparral. Journal of Soil and Water

Conservation, September-October, pp. 317-320.

Ramsey Canyon

The Nature Conservancy acquired an in-stream water

rights certificate for its Ramsey Canyon Preserve in

the Huachuca Mountains. The certificate gives the

Arizona Nature Conservancy the legal right to maintain in-stream flows in the stretch of Ramsey Creek

along their property, which in turn preserves in-stream

and riparian habitat and wildlife.

Source: Andy Lorenzi, The Nature Conservancy. 1992.

Personal Communication.

Tres Rios Project

The Tres Rios Demonstration Constructed Wetlands

Project was originally initiated to meet current and

future NPDES discharge requirements for the 91st

Avenue wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) in

Phoenix. For 60 months, 12 acres of wetland system

were created and monitored. This project has been

underway since 1995. The use of constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment is preferred because

the cost of initial upgrades to existing WWTP facilities

to meet future NPDES charges were estimated at

$625 million, and wetland treatment is estimated at

$82 million. Other benefits would include habitat;

environmental education; flood control; aesthetics; and

reduction in vandalism, dumping, and nuisance conditions in the river corridor.

Source: International City/County Management

Association and National Association of Counties

(ICMA and NACO). 1999. Protecting Wetlands,

Managing Watersheds...Local Government Case

Studies. International City/County Management

Association and National Association of Counties,

Washington, DC.

 Arkansas

Bottomland Hardwood Study

A long-term study was conducted to determine

chemical and hydrological functions of bottomland

hardwood wetlands along the Cache River. Hydrologic gauging stations were established at inflow and

outflow points on the river, and more than 25 chemical

constituents were measured. Preliminary results for

the 1988 water year indicated that total and inorganic

suspended solids and nitrate were retained in the

wetlands, and organic suspended solids, total and

dissolved organic carbon, inorganic carbon, total

phosphorus, soluble reactive phosphorus, ammonia,

and total Kjeldahl nitrogen were exported. All measured constituents were exported during low water

when there was limited contact between the river and

the wetlands and retained when the Cypress-Tupelo

part of the floodplain was inundated.

Source: Kleiss, B.A., E.E. Morris, J.F. Nix, and J.W.

Barko. 1989. Modification of Riverine Water Quality

by an Adjacent Bottomland Hardwood Wetland. In

Proceedings of Wetlands: Concerns and Successes, ed.

D.W. Fisk, Tampa, Florida, September 17-22, 1989,

pp. 429-438. TPS 89-3. American Water Resources

Association, Bethesda, MD.

Cache River

The USACE studied a 20-mile stretch of the Cache

River where floodplain deposition was shown to

reduce suspended solids by 50%, nitrates by 80%, and

phosphates by 50%.

Source: Stuart, G., and J. Greis. 1991. Role of Riparian

Forests in Water Quality on Agricultural Watersheds.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Washington, DC.
Appendix F

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 F-3

Cache River Wetland

Suspended sediment dynamics were measured in a

hardwood wetland adjacent to the Cache River during

the 1988-1990 water years. A suspended sediment

mass balance was calculated using depth-integrated,

flow-weighted daily measurements at wetland inflow

and outflow points. Measurements of sediment

accretion were made at 30 sites in the wetland.

Multiple regression was used to relate sedimentation

rates to several biological factors. A combination of

distance to the river, flood duration, and tree basal

area accounted for nearly 90% of the variations in

sedimentation rates.

Source: Kleiss, B.A. 1996. Sediment retention in a

bottomland hardwood in eastern Arkansas. Wetlands

16:321-333.

Landowner’s Guide

The purpose of the guide is to assist private landowners in the conservation and management of Arkansas’

wetlands and associated agricultural lands. The guide

contains information on voluntary programs that

provide technical and/or financial assistance for

wetland and riparian habitat restoration and agricultural land management activities.

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA). 1995-1996. Landowner’s Guide to Voluntary

Wetland Programs in Arkansas. U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

 California

Nature Conservancy

The Nature Conservancy brought together a dozen

public partners to acquire 5,000 acres critical to the

Cosumnes River Preserve, which now covers 12,000

acres. The Cosumnes watershed supports significant

natural communities, such as vernal pool grasslands,

streamside forests, and wetlands, that are used by

thousands of migratory birds.

Source: The Nature Conservancy. 1998b. The Nature

Conservancy Magazine. January/February 1998. The

Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA.

Huichica Creek Vineyard

The Napa County Resource Conservation District of

Napa, California, received a loan from the SRF for the

Huichica Creek Vineyard Sustainable Agricultural

Demonstration Project. The project will be an outdoor

classroom designed to encourage the adoption of best

management practices in perennial crops in California.

The SRF loan will be used to install surface drainage

improvements; restore wetland areas between vineyard blocks, which includes constructing a weir,

planting native vegetative species, and developing the

necessary habitat structures for waterfowl and

raptors; and stabilize the creekbed and restore riparian

vegetation. The overall project includes incorporating

best management practices and low input viticulture

techniques that include long-term monitoring of water

quality, soil nutrition, insect pest populations, and

biodiversity changes.

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA). 1998b. Wetlands Projects Funded by the

Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CW-SRF). U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wastewater, Washington, DC.

Tahoe Conservancy

The Tahoe Conservancy is charged with preserving

and enhancing the unique ecological and recreational

values of the Tahoe basin. The Conservancy’s work

with private owners of wetland property comes

primarily through its acquisition program. It focuses on

obtaining conservation easements, development rights,

and full titles to lands that contain wetlands, meadows,

or riparian areas. The Conservancy offers 95% of

what the property would bring on the open market .

Source: California Environmental Resources Evaluation

System. 1995. CWIS, Tahoe Conservancy. Programs.

California Environmental Resource Evaluation System,

Sacramento CA.

Carmel River

A study was conducted that linked Mediterranean

climate and ground water extraction with the decline

of riparian vegetation and subsequent severe bank

erosion on the Carmel River. Ground water is closely

coupled with streamflow to maintain water supply to

riparian vegetation, particularly where precipitation is

seasonal.
Appendix F

F-4 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

Source: Groenveld, D.P., and E. Griepentrog. 1985.

Interdependence of Groundwater, Riparian Vegetation,

and Streambank Stability: A Case Study. In Proceedings

of Riparian Ecosystems and their Management:

Reconciling Conflicting Issues, Tucson, Arizona, April

16-18, 1985, pp. 44-48. GTR RM-120. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain

Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO.

Little Lost Man Creek

Nitrate retention was evaluated in a third-order stream

under background conditions and during four intervals

of modified nitrate concentration caused by nutrient

amendments or storm-enhanced discharge. Measurements of stream response to nitrate loading and storm

discharge showed that nitrate was exported from the

subsurface (11% greater than input) under normal

background conditions. With increased nitrate input,

there was an initial 39% reduction followed by a

steady state reduction of 14%. Subsurface measurements taken during a storm event showed a 6%

increase in exported nitrate.

Source: Triska, F.J., V.C. Kennedy, R.J. Avanzino, G.W.

Zellweger, and K.E. Bencala. 1990. In situ retentiontransport response to nitrate loading and storm

discharge in a third-order stream. Journal of North

American Benthological Society 9(3):229-239.

Lake Tahoe

A wetland was constructed near Lake Tahoe to

determine the potential for treating urban runoff in

sub-Alpine regions of the United States. The purpose

of the project was to determine the effectiveness of

the wetland in removing nitrate, phosphorus, iron,

suspended solids, and other constituents from runoff.

Nitrate concentrations were decreased by the

wetland by 85%-90%. Particulate phosphorus concentrations decreased by 47%, soluble phosphorus

decreased by 20%, iron was reduced by 84%, and

turbidity and suspended solids were reduced by 85%

by the wetland.

Source: Reuter, J.E., T. Djohan, and C.R. Goldman.

1992. The use of wetlands for nutrient removal from

surface runoff in a cold climate region of California:

Results from a newly constructed wetland at Lake

Tahoe. Journal of Environmental Management

36(1):35(19).

Redwood City

Wetland loss near the port of Redwood City, California, is believed to be responsible for damage to

shipping channels. The USACE recently spent $2.8

million on a dredging project there.

Sources: McAliney, M., ed. 1993. Arguments for Land

Conservation: Documentation and Information Sources

for Land Resources Protection. Trust for Public Land,

Sacramento, CA.

U.S Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2001. Annual

Report to Congress on the Status of the Harbor

Maintenance Trust Fund for Fiscal Year 1999. IWRReport 00-R-7.

San Luis Rey and San Diego Rivers

A restoration project was conducted to create and

restore riparian habitat for the endangered least

Bell’s vireo. The most important aspects of restoration

planning were found to include careful analysis of

species composition, density, community structure,

and arrangement, and ground water and soil characteristics.

Source: Baird, K. 1989. High quality restoration of

riparian ecosystems. Restoration & Management Notes

7(2):60-64.

Stevinson Ranch

The Stevinson Ranch golf course has achieved

Signature Status from Audubon International through

the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program for

Golf Courses (see New York Audubon Golf Course

Program). At Stevinson, great care has been taken to

protect existing wetlands, and more than 100 acres of

additional wetlands have been added.

Source: GolfWeb. 1997. Golfing with Mother Nature at

Stevinson Ranch.

Wetland Conservation Guide

The guidebook describes the financial advisory and

technical assistance available to private property

owners who choose to create, protect, or enhance

wetlands on their land. It also explains benefits that

can be derived from having wetlands on private

property and from making use of this assistance. All

options presented in the program are voluntary.
Appendix F

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 F-5

Source: Heasley, P. 1994. Options for Wetland Conservation: A Guide for California Landowners. California

Coastal Conservancy, Oakland, CA.

 Colorado

Boulder Creek Restoration

Boulder reduced potential wastewater treatment costs

significantly by deciding to restore Boulder Creek

rather than construct a nitrification tower. Discharge

effluent at the wastewater treatment plant met water

quality standards; however, farther downstream

ammonia concentrations exceeded the allowable level.

Downstream the creek previously had been

channelized and degraded. Through revegetation,

terracing, construction of aeration structures, and

other improvements, the stream was restored. The

natural functions of the stream would then cool and

reaerate the water to convert the ammonia. Restoration of Boulder Creek would also improve wildlife

habitat, particularly fisheries.

Source: Barnett, J., Greenways Coordinator, City of

Boulder. 1990. Personal communication.

Fort Collins

A laboratory study was conducted by the Crops

Research Laboratory in Fort Collins using a rainfall

simulator to evaluate how buffer zone length and

vegetation height influence runoff and sediment yield.

Results showed not only that sediment was filtered

from the runoff by vegetation, but also that most

sediment was deposited upslope from the vegetated

buffer strips as a sediment wedge. The sediment

wedge developed outside the vegetation zone and then

progressed into the vegetation as time passed.

Source: Pearce, R., M.J. Trlica, W.C. Leiniger, J.L.

Smith, and G.W. Frasier. 1996. Efficiency of Grass

Buffer Strip Length and Vegetation Height on Sediment

Filtration in Laboratory Rainfall Simulations. USDA

National Agricultural Library.

Landowning Colorado Style

The booklet offers information about natural and manmade laws in Colorado. Riparian area and wetland

functions along with regulatory policies are discussed.

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA). No date. Landowning Colorado Style.

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

Shop Creek Pond

The Shop Creek Pond/wetland system was evaluated

to determine ability to remove suspended solids and

phosphorus species from stormwater runoff. Suspended solid removals for 66 storms averaged 78% in

Shop Creek Pond and 36% in the wetlands. Total

phosphorus removals for the same storm events

averaged 47% in Shop Creek Pond and 10% in the

wetland. The Shop Creek Pond/wetland system was

capable of removing about 52% of the total phosphorus load entering the system.

Source: Kunkel, J.R., T.D. Steele, B. Urbonas, and J.

Carlson. 1992. Chemical-Constituent Load Removal

Efficiency of an Urban Detention Pond/Wetlands

System in the Denver Metropolitan Area, Colorado. In

Proceedings of Environmental Engineering: Saving a

Threatened Resource in Search of Solutions, Baltimore,

Maryland, August 2-6, 1992.

 Connecticut

Barn Island

Impoundment of the Barn Island tidal marsh in the

1940s for waterfowl management following ditching

for mosquito control and harvesting of salt meadow

hay greatly impacted and altered habitat in the system.

Prior to restoration efforts the impoundment consisted

primarily of phragmites and narrow-leafed cattails.

Several attempts at restoring salt marsh vegetation to

the site have been made with varying degrees of

success. The restoration has proceeded significantly

toward restoring salt marsh communities following

reestablishment of tidal influx.

Source: Myers, J. 1996. The ongoing salt marsh

restoration at Stonington, Connecticut. In Restoration

and Reclamation Review. University of Minnesota,

Department of Horticultural Science, St. Paul, MN.

Coastal Embayments

In 1991 the Connecticut Department of Environmental

Protection requested a study be conducted by Coastal

America to identify salt marshes that have been

degraded as a result of tidal flow restrictions caused
Appendix F

F-6 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

by the placement of transportation facilities. This

study provided an initial assessment of all degraded

salt marshes between New Haven and the Connecticut-Rhode Island border. Ten sites were selected for

further study, and six were found to be experiencing

degradation as a result of tidal flow restrictions. As a

result, the Connecticut congressional delegation

drafted legislation to provide for a comprehensive

examination of degraded coastal wetlands.

Source: Coastal America Partnership. 1997. Wetlands

Protection and Restoration. Coastal America, Washington, DC.

Wetland Protection

Connecticut requires a permit for dredging or filling

activities in tidal and inland wetlands. Permit applications for new projects are reviewed for impacts on

water quality, water circulation, aquatic life, and

wetlands. Soil erosion and sediment controls are also

required for construction adjacent to wetlands, thereby

reducing sediment impacts in wetlands from development in adjacent upland areas. Local authorities

frequently incorporate mandatory setbacks from

wetlands into zoning regulations to provide added

protection against effects from upland areas on

wetlands.

Source: Connecticut CZARA Program. 1996. Connecticut

Department of Environmental Protection, Hartford, CT.

 Delaware

PSE&G’s Estuary Enhancement Program:

The Public Service Electric & Gas Co. (PSE&G) is

conducting a restoration program under the New

Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and

the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and

Environmental Control. Of the land slated for restoration, 12,500 acres are in New Jersey and 8,000 are in

Delaware. Nearly 17,000 acres will be restored as salt

marshes, making this the largest endeavor of its kind.

PSE&G purchased land and made agreements with

landowners to gain access to land.

Source: Richman, M. 1996. Utility restores salt

marshes in large wetlands enhancement program. Water

Environment Federation 1(1, June).

Wetlands Rehabilitation Program

The Northern Delaware Wetlands Rehabilitation

Program was established by the Department of

Natural Resources and Environmental Control to bring

together civic and business leaders, scientists, resource managers, and property owners to develop

strategies to restore close to 10,000 acres of wetlands

in 31 distinct sites along the Christina and Delaware

rivers in New Castle County. The program seeks to

improve water quality; increase wildlife populations;

control nuisance plants, mosquitoes, and flooding;

reduce shoreline erosion; and improve recreational

and educational opportunities in designated marshes.

Source: Delaware Department of Natural Resources and

Environmental Control. 1998. Wetlands Rehabilitation

Program. Delaware Department of Natural Resources

and Environmental Control, Dover, DE.

 Florida

Agrico Swamp

This evaluation of the success of restoring phosphate

mined lands involved comparisons between natural

and reclaimed sites over a 4-year period. Species

richness, percent cover, and the survival and growth

of vegetation were measured. Restored sites were

determined to improve water quality to levels consistent with state water quality standards.

Source: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Northern

Prairie Science Center. 1997a. Riparian Ecosystem

Creation and Restoration: A Literature Summary. Case

Studies: Agrico Swamp. U.S. Geological Survey,

Reston, VA.

Banana Lake

The Banana Lake project was conducted as compensation for impacts on wetlands from a highway

construction project. Objectives of the restoration

project included improving the surface water quality,

eliminating localized flooding, restoring pre-mining

drainage and functions of the headwater system, and

restoring a hardwood wetland. The restored wetland

was shown to reduce nitrate, ammonia, Kjeldahl

nitrogen, total nitrogen, orthophosphate, and total
Appendix F

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 F-7

phosphorus in comparison to adjacent unrestored

wetlands.

Source: Powers, R.M., and J.F. Spence. 1989. Headwater Restoration: The Key Is Integrated Project Goals. In

Proceedings of Wetlands: Concerns and Successes, ed.

D.W. Fisk, Tampa, Florida, September 17-22, 1989,

pp. 269-279. TPS 89-3. American Water Resources

Association, Bethesda, MD.

Buffer Zone Guidelines

The East Central Florida Regional Planning District

has developed guidelines for determining buffer zones

for water, wetlands, and wildlife.

Source: Brown, M.T., J. Schaefer, and K. Brandt. 1990.

Buffer Zones for Water, Wetlands, and Wildlife in East

Central Florida. Publication no. 89-07 and Florida

Agricultural Experiment Station Journal Series no.

T-00061. Center for Wetlands, University of Florida,

Gainesville, FL.

Emerson Point Park

The Emerson Point Park restoration project is part of

a larger estuary watershed restoration program

through the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program.

Emerson Point is one of 26 habitat restoration and

enhancement projects. In 1995 Manatee County

began planning the restoration project. A $1.5 million

budget was secured through the integral financial

commitment of local, regional, state, and federal

agencies and several nonprofit and corporate donators. So far, $475,000 of $828,000 budgeted for

restoration has been spent. The project has helped

increase community awareness and appreciation of

the Tampa Bay environment.

Source: International City/County Management

Association and National Association of Counties

(ICMA and NACO). 1999. Protecting Wetlands,

Managing Watersheds...Local Government Case

Studies. International City/County Management

Association and National Association of Counties,

Washington, DC.

Kissimmee Prairie Watershed

Through the efforts of the Florida Department of

Environmental Protection’s Division of Recreation and

Parks, Florida’s Conservation and Recreation Lands

Program, the South Florida Water Management

District, the National Audubon Society, and the Nature

Conservancy, 48,000 acres in the 100,000-acre

Kissimmee Prairie Watershed were acquired. The

Kissimmee Prairie Watershed is an area of more than

100,000 acres in northern Okeechobee and southern

Osceola counties. Habitats in the watershed consist of

wet and dry prairie, pine flatwoods, scrub, oak hammock, marsh, and hardwood swamp, as well as native

and improved rangeland. The watershed, therefore,

provides prime habitat for several federally listed

threatened and endangered birds.

Source: International City/County Management

Association and National Association of Counties

(ICMA and NACO). 1999. Protecting Wetlands,

Managing Watersheds...Local Government Case

Studies. International City/County Management

Association and National Association of Counties,

Washington, DC.

Kissimmee River

Total phosphorus and total nitrogen mass balance

equations were calculated for Boney Marsh, a subtropical constructed freshwater wetland in the floodplain of the Kissimmee River in South Florida. River

water was diverted through the marsh for 9 years.

Nutrient retention was influenced primarily by nutrient

loading rates. The Boney Marsh mean annual total

phosphorus removal efficiency was 72%. Total

phosphorus removal efficiencies were consistently

higher than total nitrogen removal efficiencies at all

times. Unlike wetlands in temperate latitudes, Boney

Marsh was a net positive sink for total phosphorus

year-round but not for total nitrogen.

Source: Moustafa, M.D., T.D. Fontaine, and M.J.

Chimney. 1995. The Response of a Freshwater Wetland

to Long-term Low-level Nutrient Loads. In National

Interagency Workshop on Wetlands, USACE Waterways Experiment Station, New Orleans, LA, April 5-7,

1997.

Lake Jackson

A sediment filtration plant and artificial wetland were

constructed to remove suspended solids and nutrients

from stormwater runoff prior to discharge into Lake

Jackson. Water samples collected during storm events

were analyzed for a wide range of particulate and

dissolved parameters including suspended solids and

various nitrogen and phosphorus species. Results from

the first year of study indicated that under normal

operating conditions, the facility was capable of

removing about 95% of the suspended solid load. All

other parameters measured showed reductions of

from 35% to 90%.
Appendix F

F-8 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

Source: Tuovila, B.J., T.H. Johengen, P.A. LaRock, J.B.

Outland, D.H. Esry, and M. Franklin. 1987. An

Evaluation of the Lake Jackson (Florida) Filter System

and Artificial Marsh on Nutrient and Particulate

Removal from Stormwater Runoff. In Aquatic Plants

for Water Treatment and Resource Recovery. University

of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.

Orange County

The efficiency of a detention pond and wetland

temporary storage system in reducing constituent

loads in runoff was determined in a study conducted in

an urban area of west Orlando. Regression efficiencies, which relate the amount of constituent load into

the wetland versus the amount exported, were used to

quantify the removal effectiveness. The detention

pond generally reduced suspended constituent loads.

The pond had regression efficiencies of 65% for

suspended solids, 41% for suspended lead, 37% for

suspended zinc, 17% for suspended nitrogen, and 21%

for suspended phosphorus. The wetland was generally

effective in reducing both suspended and dissolved

constituent loads. Regression efficiencies for suspended constituents were 66% for solids, 75% for

lead, 50% for zinc, 30% for nitrogen, and 19% for

phosphorus. Regression efficiencies for dissolved

constituents were 38% for solids, 54% for lead, 75%

for zinc, 13% for nitrogen, and 0% for phosphorus.

The detention pond/wetland system achieved appreciable reduction of loads for most constituents. System

regression efficiencies were 55% for total solids, 83%

for total lead, 70% for total zinc, 36% for total nitrogen, and 43% for total phosphorus.

Source: Martin E.H., and J.L. Smoot. 1986. Constituent

Load Changes in Urban Stormwater Runoff Routed

Through a Detention Pond-Wetlands System in Central

Florida. Prepared in cooperation with the Florida

Department of Transportation. USGS Water Resources

Investigation Report 85-4310.

Orlando

An urban stormwater treatment system consisting of a

detention pond and a wetland was constructed to

receive runoff from a four-lane roadway and adjacent

areas. Water quality monitoring at the pond inlet, pond

outlet, and wetland outlet was conducted to determine

the effectiveness of the pond, the wetland, and the

system in treating stormwater runoff. The detention

pond reduced suspended constituent concentrations

and loads of solids, lead, and zinc. The wetland was

found to be more effective at reducing constituent

concentrations and loads than the detention pond. By

utilizing two treatment units in series, a variety of

physical and biological processes acted to improve

water quality. The system achieved appreciable

reductions in the loads of solids, lead, zinc, and, to a

somewhat lesser degree, loads of nutrients. Total

solids, lead, and zinc efficiencies ranged between 55%

and 83%. Total nitrogen and phosphorus efficiencies

were 36% and 43%, respectively.

Source: Martin, E.H. 1988. Effectiveness of an urban

runoff detention pond-wetlands system. Journal of

Environmental Engineering 114(4).

Palm Beach Gardens

A system of man-made wetlands (36 ha) and a natural

wetland retention impoundment (120 ha) were used to

treat stormwater runoff from a residential/golf course

development (947 ha). The wetland system was

designed to improve water quality, restore destroyed

wetlands, provide habitat for fish and wildlife, and add

natural aesthetics. All water quality parameters

monitored were improved by the wetland treatment

system. The wetland system removed 71% of nitrite,

68% of turbidity, 62% of total phosphate, and 50% of

total suspended solids. Water discharged from the

development met state potable water standards.

Source: Blackburn, R.D., P.L. Pimentel, and G.E.

French. 1986. Treatment of Stormwater Runoff Using

Aquatic Plants: The Use of Wetlands for Controlling

Stormwater Pollution, ed. E.W. Strecker, J.M. Kersnar,

and E.D. Driscoll. Woodward-Clyde Consultants,

Portland, Oregon. Prepared for U.S. EPA, Region 5,

Water Division, Watershed Management Unit. EPA/600

February 1992.

Tampa

A wet detention pond built as part of a parking lot

expansion in Tampa was studied to assess its ability to

remove pollutants from urban runoff. The pond, which

has a wetland vegetation coverage of 90%, was

measured for pollutant removal efficiencies from

flows generated by 18 storm events over the summer

of 1989. Measurements taken at pond inflow and

outflow points showed reductions of 44% for ammonia nitrogen, 75% for nitrate and nitrite, 56% for

orthophosphate, 47% for total phosphorus, and 71%

for total suspended solids. Organic nitrogen was not

removed.
Appendix F

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 F-9

Source: Rushton, B.T., and C.W. Dye. 1990. Tampa

Office Wet Detention Stormwater Treatment. In Annual

Report for Stormwater Research Program Fiscal Year

1989-1990, pp. 39-74. Southwest Florida Water

Management District, Brooksville, FL.

Wetland Protection

Florida requires a permit for dredging or filling activities in waters of the state, including wetlands. Permit

applications are reviewed for impacts on water quality,

habitat, and the functions of wetlands as NPS pollution

filters. Stormwater regulations require the placement

of BMPs to reduce or eliminate pollutants entering

wetlands from upland developments. Further protection of wetlands and riparian areas is achieved through

the Surface Water Improvement and Management

Program, which identifies point and nonpoint sources

of water pollution in individual watersheds and develops strategies for restoration and protection of river

corridors and wetland systems with the goal of

bringing all sources of surface water pollution into

compliance with state water quality standards.

Source: Florida Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution

Control Program. 1995. Florida Coastal Management

Program, Tallahassee, FL.

 Georgia

Little River

A study was conducted on riparian forests located

adjacent to agricultural uplands to test their ability to

intercept and utilize nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus,

potassium, calcium) in agricultural runoff. Tissue

nutrient concentrations, nutrient accretion rates, and

production rates of woody plants on the sites were

compared to control sites. Data from the study

provide evidence that young (bloom state) riparian

forests within agricultural ecosystems absorb nutrients

lost from agricultural uplands.

Source: Fail, J.L., Jr., B.L. Haines, and R.L. Todd. No

date. Riparian forest communities and their role in

nutrient conservation in an agricultural watershed.

American Journal of Alternative Agriculture II(3):114-

120.

Tifton

A mixed hardwood riparian forest located in an

agricultural watershed was shown to be effective in

retaining nitrogen (67%), phosphorus (25%), calcium

(42%), and magnesium (22%). Nitrogen was removed

from subsurface water by plant uptake and microbial

processes. Riparian land use was also shown to affect

the nutrient removal characteristics of the riparian

area. Forested areas were more effective in nutrient

removal than pasture areas, which were more effective than croplands.

Source: Lowrance, R.R., R.L. Todd, and L.E.

Asmussen. 1983. Waterborne Nutrient Budgets for the

Riparian Zone of an Agricultural Watershed. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 10:371-384.

Nutrient Cycling in an Agricultural Watershed

Processes within a riparian area apparently converted

primarily inorganic nitrogen (76% nitrate, 6% ammonia,

18% organic nitrogen) into primarily organic nitrogen

(10% nitrate, 14% ammonia, 76% organic nitrogen).

Source: Lowrance, R.R., R.L. Todd, and L.E.

Asmussen. 1984. Nutrient cycling in an agricultural

watershed: Phreatic movement. Journal of Environmental Quality 13(1):22-27.

Riparian Restoration

The study evaluated the effectiveness and feasibility

of restoring a riparian wetland and using it as a

bioremediation site for nutrients moving downslope

from an animal waste application site. Short-term

effectiveness of the restored wetland in enhancing

water quality was monitored. Water sampling design

and procedures are presented in detail.

Source: Vellidis, G., R. Lowrance, M.C. Smith and R.K.

Hubbard. 1993. Methods to assess the water quality

impact of a restored riparian wetland. Journal of Soil

and Water Conservation 48(3):223(8).

 Hawaii

Hamakau Wetlands

The Hamakau Wetlands restoration project, funded

through the National Coastal Wetlands Conservation

Grant Program, was completed in the spring of 1995.

The project was designed to restore a 22.7-acre
Appendix F

F-10 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

wetland in Honolulu County that had been donated to

the state by Ducks Unlimited. The parcel was donated

to Ducks Unlimited by a private landowner, the

Kaneohe Ranch. The wetland is connected to the

Kawainiu Marsh, which at 800 acres is the largest

wetland in Hawaii. An important goal of this project

was to restore habitat to benefit endangered birds.

Critical to the restoration of the wetlands was removal

of nonnative plants and animals species. In addition to

the direct benefits to wildlife, the Hamakua Wetlands

is important as a model for the multi-partner approach

to wetland conservation projects in Hawaii. Finally, its

high profile in the urban setting of the city of Kailua in

Honolulu County provides excellent public education

opportunities on the importance of conserving and

restoring wetlands.

Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).

1998a. Case Studies—U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,

Washington, DC.

 Idaho

Teton River Basin

The National Wildlife Refuge System has provided

funding for the acquisition of 1,000 acres of wetland

habitat in Teton County. The site, which consists of

several wetlands and associated uplands, provides

migratory, nesting, feeding, and resting habitat for

waterfowl, raptors, shorebirds, and wading birds, as

well as several rare, threatened, and endangered plant

and animal species. The project will be managed by

the Teton Valley Land Trust.

Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).

1998e. Wetlands Projects Approved for 19 States. Fish

and Wildlife Service News List Server. Listed April 30,

1998. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife

Service, Washington, DC.

 Illinois

Des Plaines River

The Des Plaines River Wetlands Demonstration

Project was designed to improve water quality in the

river through the use of constructed wetlands. Four

wetlands were constructed to improve water quality

affected by agricultural and urban runoff. The four

wetlands were found to reduce total suspended solids

by 86% to 90%, nitrogen by 61% to 92%, and phosphorus by 65% to 78%.

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA). 1993a. Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater

Treatment and Wildlife Habitat. EPA832-R-93-005.

USEPA, Office of Wastewater Management, Washington, DC.

East St. Louis

The East St. Louis Action Research Project evaluated

the economics of wetland development in areas where

wetlands had formerly been located to improve

surface water quality, to create recreational spaces, to

create habitat, and to alleviate flooding. Many benefit

assumptions were made to estimate the amount of

benefit that can be derived from the reintroduction of

a wetland. This analysis took into account only the

money that the wetland would bring in by people using

it for recreation and education. Lodging will be

provided in the wetlands and is included in the cost

and benefit analysis. The total recreational benefit

comes to $371,350 per year. The true benefits of the

wetland will be seen by the surrounding area and its

various populations. The indirect monetary benefits of

wetlands were not estimated for East St. Louis.

However, the following list is being considered in

addition to the direct benefits from recreation alone.

• It is likely that the residents get their water

supply from these wetlands, as opposed to

ground wells. Wetlands recharge the water

table over time by trapping and holding

snowmelt and rainfall. The benefits from

increased water will be felt by farms bordering the wetland, which may discover increased yields.
Appendix F

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 F-11

• The large size of this wetland will provide

flood protection to large areas lower in the

drainage basin, increasing property values.

• The wetlands and their surrounding vegetation

will help to capture and filter runoff water of

pesticide residue, nutrients from crop fertilizer,

animal waste, and organic matter. After this

occurs, the particles can be converted to less

harmful forms or remain buried, helping to

improve water quality. This puts less demand

on treatment facilities.

Source: Sperl, R., A. Davis, and B. Scheidecker. 1996.

Wetland Development: Economic Evaluation. East St.

Louis Action Research Project. University of Illinois at

Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL.

Embarras River

Studies were conducted on forested and grassed VFS

in central Illinois. It was found that both types of VFS

reduced nitrate-nitrogen concentrations up to 90% in

shallow ground water. On an annual basis, the forested

VFS was more effective at reducing nitrate-N than the

grass VFS, but it was less efficient at retaining total and

dissolved phosphorus.

Source: Osborne, L.L., and D.A. Kovacic. 1993.

Riparian vegetated buffer strips in water quality

restoration and stream management. Freshwater

Biology 29:243-258.

Iroquois County

Iroquois County, Illinois, is using the Natural Resources Conservation Service’s (NRCS) Conservation

Reserve Program (CRP) to establish VFS along the

many miles of creeks, streams, rivers, and drainage

ditches throughout the county. An NRCS district

representative helps farmers register for the program,

which has provided about $26,000 worth of switchgrass seed to the participants. The VFS will remove

chemicals and sediment and lead to improved water

quality. NRCS is also working to obtain easements for

those areas currently enrolled in the program, so that

the land does not return to production after the CRP

contract ends. In addition, the Illinois Department of

Natural Resources, through its Conservation 2000

fund, is acquiring easements on key floodplains,

many of which are in or adjacent to continuous CRP

buffers.

Source: Natural Resources Conservation Service

(NRCS). 2000c. Illinois-Water Quality, Flood Protection, State Program. U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Washington, DC.

Prairie Wolf Slough Restoration Project

The Prairie Wolf Slough Restoration Project was an

Urban Resources Partnership-funded program that

involved 13 different local, private, state, and federal

agencies. There was a desire among partners to

demonstrate wetland restoration techniques and the

benefit of wetlands in urban and suburban areas. The

restored wetlands were shown to help improve water

quality and control stormwater flooding. During storm

events in 1996, the site flooded and stored water that

would normally have moved downstream.

Source: Urban Resources Partnership. 1997. Prairie

Wolf Slough—A Chicago Wetland/Prairie Restoration

Project. In WHC 1997 Wildlands Conference “Beyondthe-Case-Study” Workshops. United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, World

Heritage Committee, Paris, France.

Agricultural Watersheds

Small streams in agricultural watersheds in Illinois

were shown to have water temperature problems

following the removal of trees. Loss of shade increased water temperatures by 10 to 15 degrees

Fahrenheit. Slight increases in water temperature over

60 degrees caused a significant increase in phosphorus release from sediments.

Source: Karr, J.R., and I.J. Schlosser. 1977. Impact of

Nearstream Vegetation and Stream Morphology on

Water Quality and Stream Biota. Ecological Research

Series. EPA-600/3-77-097. U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

Heron Pond

A riparian forested wetland adjacent to the Cache

River in southern Illinois was studied to determine its

ability to serve as a nutrient and sediment trap. The

30-ha alluvial cypress wetland, dominated by bald

cypress and water tupelo, was estimated to retain

about 0.4% of the total annual phosphorus flux of the

river and approximately 3% of the sediments passing

through the system.

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA). 1993b. Created and Natural Wetlands for

Controlling Nonpoint Source Pollution. Office of
Appendix F

F-12 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

Research and Development and Office of Wetlands,

Oceans, and Watersheds. CRC Press Inc., Boca Raton,

FL.

Meredosia Wetland Complex Project

In March 1998 the Migratory Bird Conservation

Commission, as authorized under the North American

Wetlands Conservation Act, approved $524,556 in

funding for the Meredosia Wetland Complex Project in

Brown, Cass, and Morgan counties. This act is nonregulatory and calls for voluntary partnerships to

develop and implement the projects. Partners will

acquire 1,160 acres (a $2 million value) of farmland

from John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company

as part of a larger project that is protecting and restoring areas along the Illinois River. Restoration of this

property could provide a significant increase in waterfowl hunting, birdwatching, and nature exploration.

Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).

1998c. Illinois. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and

Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.

Wetland Assessment

The synoptic assessment approach is being applied to

develop maps for use in ranking riparian wetlands for

restoration according to their potential for water

quality improvements. The approach is being used to

identify areas where wetland restoration would

provide the greatest benefit from reduced nitrogen

levels to human water supply and to non-degraded fish

communities.

Source: USEPA. 1992a. A Synoptic Approach to

Cumulative Impact Assessment - A Proposed Methodology. EPE/600/R-92/167.

Wetlands Conservation Strategy

The Illinois Wetland Conservation Strategy is a

comprehensive plan to guide the development and

implementation of Illinois’s wetland programs and

protection initiatives. It is an organizational tool used

to identify opportunities for making programs work

better. The goal of the Illinois Wetland Conservation

Strategy is to ensure that there will be no net loss of

wetlands or their functions in Illinois.

Source: Baum, S. 1995. Illinois Wetland Strategy. Illinois

Natural History Survey, Champagne, IL.

University of Illinois

Four vegetative filters were installed on feedlots in

central and northern Illinois. Two configurations were

used: channelized flow and overland flow. Filters

removed as much as 95% of nutrients and

oxygen-demanding materials from the applied runoff

on a weight basis and 80% on a concentration basis.

Removal was directly related to two variables: flow

distance and contact time with the filter. Channelized

flow with greater flow depths required either greater

contact time or longer flow distance than shallow

overland flow to achieve the same level of treatment.

Source: Dickey, E.C., and D.H. Vanderholm. 1981.

Vegetative filter treatment of livestock feedlot runoff.

Journal of Environmental Quality 10(3):279-284.

Indiana

Center for Alternative Agricultural Systems

Purdue University Center for Alternative Agricultural

Systems began a study in 1990 to determine the

feasibility of offsetting the costs of converting productive land into VFS by planting certain tree and shrub

species. Pussy willow, red twigged dogwood, and

corkscrew willows were planted as wind breaks in

buffer strips. Two years after planting, researchers

sold harvested branches to florists for gains equivalent

to $5,500 per acre. Erosion from the test fields was

dramatically reduced, and corn stubbles and soil that

would normally have washed into ditches and drain

tiles were trapped by the shrubs.

Sources: Perkins, A. 1997. 4a Indiana. Perdue University, West Lafayette, IN.

Purdue Agriculture Experiment Station. 1997. Purdue

Makes Money Grow on Filter-Strip Bushes. Purdue

University, West Lafayette, IN.

Kosciusko County

A 1-acre wetland was constructed downstream of a

dairy farm and monitored to determine the water

quality effects of the system on surface water runoff

from the dairy. The effects of the wetland on water

quality were determined by monitoring the chemical

composition of the surface water, nutrient load, and
Appendix F

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 F-13

plant and animal dynamics. Significant reductions

were seen in fecal coliform, phosphates, total phosphorus, ammonia, suspended solids, total nitrogen, and

conductivity. Year-round routine operation and maintenance were determined to be required for successful

treatment.

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA). 1997d. The Water Monitor. EPA 841-N-97-

005.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of

Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds. August-September

1997.

Purdue University

A project was conducted to develop a VSF system

with familiar native herbaceous and tree species that

would not inhibit tree establishment and growth, would

provide beneficial wildlife habitat, and would provide

necessary erosion control. Three VSF plots composed

of mixed native weeds and grasses, ladino clover, and

orchard grass were established with seedlings of oak,

walnut, and ash. VSF cover, wildlife, and erosion

control were monitored monthly throughout a 4-year

period. The native species control plot performed

better than the planted clover and orchard grass plots.

Wildlife habitat use and browsing statistics indicated

an increase in biodiversity due to VSF use. Tree

planting within the VSF system was shown to diversify land use objectives to include hardwood production and wildlife habitat enhancement without restricting tree growth or VSF effectiveness in meeting

water quality improvement objectives.

Source: Gillespie, A.R., B.K. Miller, and K.D. Johnson.

1995. Effects of Ground Cover on Tree Survival and

Growth in Filter Strips of the Cornbelt Region of the

Midwestern US. Texas A&M Blackland Research

Center.

Southern Lake Michigan

A $1 million grant through the National Wildlife

Refuge System will be used to help purchase more

than 1,200 acres of critical habitat for migrating

waterfowl, raptors, shorebirds, and neotropical birds in

Lake, Porter, and LaPorte counties along southern

Lake Michigan.

Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).

1998e. Wetlands Projects Approved for 19 States. Fish

and Wildlife Service News List Server. Listed April 30,

1998. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife

Service, Washington, DC.

Iowa

Allamakee County

Since the Conservation Reserve Program was initiated in Allamakee County, 1,700 acres of continuous

land have been enrolled. In addition, buffers on 40

miles of stream have been enrolled. One contract is

on Vernon and Sandra Gavles’ dairy farm, which has

44 acres in the CRP. A state-owned, stocked trout

stream runs across their property. Practically the

entire corridor they own is in buffers, with 29.2 acres

of woody riparian zone and 14.6 acres of grass filter.

The CRP rent is approximately $150/acre for a total

of $6,600. The Gavles have also installed 6,870 feet of

exclusionary fencing to keep their cattle out of the

stream. All of these efforts will help protect and

improve water quality. Without the 50 percent cost

share, they would not have been able to make these

changes.

Source: Natural Resources Conservation Service

(NRCS). 2000a. Iowa Conservation Reserve Program

(CRP), Bottomland. U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Washington, DC.

Iowa River Corridor Project

The Iowa River Corridor Project uses a voluntary

approach to wetland restoration, gives landowners

economic alternatives for frequently flooded farmland,

and is intended to improve water quality and wildlife

habitat. It is sponsored by the Iowa Natural Resources Conservation Service. The farmers can

choose to continue farming as they have, sell an

easement and have a wetland restored, sell an easement and title to the FWS, or try some alternative

farming practices.

Source: Zinkand, D. 1996. Wetlands restoration project

to look like giant buffer strip. Iowa Farmer Today.

Iowa Farmer Today Publications, Cedar Rapids, IA.

Iowa State University

Studies at Iowa State University have shown that

vegetated buffer strips are 35% to 40% effective in

reducing runoff volumes. Vegetated buffer strips

removed, on average, 26% to 50% of the atrazine,

metolachlor, and cyanazine from runoff from test

fields. Heavier rainfall meant a lower percentage

reduction in runoff. Plots with a 15-to-1 drainage
Appendix F

F-14 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

area-to-buffer strip area ratio had an average 40%

runoff reduction, while plots with a 30-to-1 ratio had a

35% reduction.

Source: Wood, G. 1997. BMPs make the grade. Farm

Journal, February.

Middle Raccoon Watershed Partnership

Farmers in Carroll County, Iowa, have been encouraged to participate in CRP to reduce soil erosion,

improve water quality, enhance wildlife habitat, and

improve the aesthetic qualities of their farms. By the

third year of the CRP program, the 420-square mile

Middle Raccoon watershed outside Des Moines,

Iowa, had about 75 miles of stream buffers averaging

approximately 100 feet wide. Also, four constructed

wetlands have been installed on farms in the watershed through an EPA and Iowa Department of

Natural Resources Section 319 grant.

The city of Des Moines, Iowa, may also join the

collaborative watershed protection effort in the Middle

Raccoon watershed. Since the city receives its

drinking water from the Raccoon River, it is investigating the impact of the stream buffers on water

quality in the Raccoon River. The CEO and General

Manager of the Water Works Department, L.D.

McMullen, is researching whether the stream buffers

have made enough difference in the water quality to

avoid having to alter or expand the city’s water

treatment system. He stated that currently it costs

$1,000 per day to run the system’s nitrate reducer

after a severe rainstorm and hopefully the installation

of stream buffers will enable the city to save that

money.

Sources: Natural Resources Conservation Service

(NRCS). No date. Iowa–Middle Raccoon Watershed

Partnership, Conservation Reserve Program (CRP),

City of Des Moines drinking water. U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Washington, DC.

Raccoon River Watershed Project. 1999. Partner

Initiatives of the Raccoon River Watershed Project:

Constructed Wetland Project. Raccoon River Watershed

Project, Urbandale, IA.

Wetland Restoration Program

The Wetland Science and Watershed Science Institutes, in cooperation with the Social Sciences Institute,

the Natural Resources Conservation Service (Iowa

State Office), and the USFWS, are implementing a

watershed-scale wetland restoration project in

Winnebago County, Iowa. Winnebago County is in the

heart of the southern prairie pothole region, and all of

the wetlands in the project watershed have been

impacted to some degree by agricultural drainage. The

overall purpose of this project is to determine where

wetland restoration would create the greatest benefits

and give deference to those wetlands in the Wetland

Restoration Program sign-up. Landowners with

wetlands identified for restoration are being given

assurance that their lands would be accepted into the

program.

Source: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1998.

Watershed Scale Wetland Restoration. U.S. Geological

Survey, Reston, VA.

 Kansas

Johnson County Streamway Park System

Leaders in Johnson County, Kansas, expected to

spend $120 million on stormwater control projects.

Instead, voters passed a $600,000 levy to develop a

county-wide streamway park system. Development of

a greenways network along streambeds will address

some of the county’s flooding problems, as well as

provide a valuable recreation resource. This greenway

network will save Johnson County over $119 million if

it is implemented, and no additional stormwater

controls are necessary.

Source: International City/County Management

Association and National Association of Counties

(ICMA and NACO). 1999. Protecting Wetlands,

Managing Watersheds...Local Government Case

Studies. International City/County Management

Association and National Association of Counties,

Washington, DC.

Water Quality Assessment

Every 3 years, Kansas assesses water quality conditions in seven state or federally owned wetlands

covering 25,069 acres. Data collected at these wetlands are compared against baseline wetland conditions. The data will be used to define standards to

protect wetlands.

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA). 1995b. National Water Quality Inventory:

1994 Report to Congress. EPA841-R-95-005. U.S.
Appendix F

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 F-15

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water,

Washington, DC.

 Kentucky

Reference Reach Monitoring Program

Kentucky has added several wetlands to its reference

reach monitoring program to characterize general

wetland conditions in each of the physiographic

regions of the state. The assessments will be used to

develop designated uses and biological criteria for

wetlands.

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA). 1995b. National Water Quality Inventory:

1994 Report to Congress. EPA841-R-95-005. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water,

Washington, DC.

 Louisiana

Atchafalaya Basin

Overflow areas in the Atchafalaya Basin had large

areal net exports of total nitrogen (predominantly

organic nitrogen) and dissolved organic carbon but

acted as a sink for phosphorus. Ammonia levels

increased dramatically during the summer. The

Atchafalaya Basin floodway acted as a sink for total

organic carbon mainly through reductions in particulate organic carbon.

Source: Lambou, V.W. 1985. Aquatic Organic Carbon

and Nutrient Fluxes, Water Quality, and Aquatic

Productivity in the Atchafalaya Basin, Louisiana. In

Proceedings of Riparian Ecosystems and Their

Management: Reconciling Conflicting Issues, Tucson,

Arizona, April16-18, 1985, pp. 180-185. GTR RM120. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station,

Fort Collins, CO.

Barataria-Terrebonne Estuary

Several economic studies have shown that the value

of Barataria-Terrebonne Estuarine System (BTES)

wetlands for tertiary wastewater treatment ranges

from $82 to $157 per acre for municipal wastewater.

The value for industrial wastewater is as high as

$4,626 per acre. The costs to replace wetlands in the

BTES area ranges from $368 to $2,204, depending on

the type of creation. For dredged material placement,

the costs range from $502 to $1,250; for uncontrolled

sediment diversion, $368; and for controlled sediment

diversion, $1,004 to $2,204. In addition to the commercial activity that is dependent on the estuary, the

resource provides area residents and visitors with a

number of valuable non-market services, such as

recreational opportunities. The most significant

activities are fishing, hunting, swimming, and boating.

The economic benefits were estimated to be between

$3.3 million and $1 billion per year for these activities.

Estimates were also developed for recreational

benefits per acre of wetland within the study area.

Fishing was the highest-valued activity at between $96

and $1,213 per acre of wetland.

Source: Barataria-Terrebonne National Estuary

Program. No date. Economic Value Assessment of the

Barataria-Terrebonne Estuarine System. Published

Research Report 26. Nicholls State University

Campus, Thibodaux, LA.

Coastal Wetlands

Louisiana’s coastal swamps constitute about 40% of

the entire coastal wetland resources of the U.S.

(Bergstrom et al., 1990). These wetlands are of great

importance for the recreational, commercial harvest,

and ecological service benefits they provide. A case

study involved an attempt to value several of the key

direct and indirect uses of Louisiana’s coastal wetlands within a total valuation framework (Farber and

Costanza, 1987; Costanza et al., 1989). Since the

population of the region has been growing rapidly, the

researchers incorporated a 1.3% annual increase into

their benefit estimates to take this into account.

The estimated value of commercial fisheries in the

coastal wetlands of Louisiana is between $317 and

$846 per acre. The value for trapping is estimated to

be between $151 and $401 per acre. The value placed

on recreation in these wetlands is between $46 and

$181 per acre. The highest value is found in

stormwater protection, estimated to be between

$1,915 and $7,549 per acre. These values were

obtained from Costanza et al. (1989) and are in 1983

dollars, shown for both an 8 percent and 3 percent

discount rate.
Appendix F

F-16 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

Source: Costanza, R., S.C. Farber, and J. Maxwell.

1989. Valuation and management of wetland ecosystems. Ecological Economics 1: 335-361.

Marsh Terracing

In response to critical coastal land loss, this pilot

project was launched to test a technique for restoring

wetlands in an area where sediment inflow is minimal.

Bay bottom terracing uses existing sediment to form a

baffle system of ridges or “terraces” at marsh elevation, after sedimentation. Data analyzed from aerial

photography, on-site surveys, and readings from

satellite-linked data collection platforms have shown

that the technique was a success and that the marsh is

coming back strongly. The terraces were quickly and

completely vegetated, shoreline retreat was reversed,

and annual primary productivity was increased.

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA). 1994a. Innovations in Coastal Protection:

Searching for Uncommon Solutions to Common

Problems. EPA 842-F-94-002. U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.

 Maine

St. Agatha

A constructed wetland-pond treatment system was

installed on Long Lake to test its effectiveness in

removing phosphorus and sediments from agricultural

runoff. The 1-acre treatment system, which consists

of an initial sedimentation basin, a grass filter strip, a

constructed wetland, and a deep detention pond,

removed 92% of total phosphorus and 95% of total

suspended solids over a 150-day study period.

Source: Jolley, J.W. 1990. The Efficiency of Constructed Wetlands-Pond Systems in the Reduction of

Phosphorus and Sediment Discharges from Agricultural

Watersheds. Thesis in Civil Engineering, University of

Maine.

Long Lake

Agricultural runoff was determined to be the largest

pollutant source to Long Lake. The NRCS designed

treatment systems called Nutrient/Sediment Control

Systems to improve the quality of runoff entering the

lake. Four systems, consisting of sediment basins,

grass filters, constructed wetlands, and pond components, were installed in the Long Lake watershed. The

system approach incorporated design ideas based on

the ecology of wetlands, in addition to design parameters already reported in the literature on the individual

performance of ponds, filter strips, and wetlands.

Monitoring data for 1989 and 1990 showed annual

removal efficiencies of 82% to 91% for total phosphorus, 96% to 97% for total suspended solids, and 92%

to 94% for volatile suspended solids. Monitoring for

both years ended in mid-November when the systems

froze over. Although the annual removals were good,

seasonal removals varied considerably, with spring

(April to May) flows exporting more phosphorus and

sediment from the system than was imported.

Source: Moshiri, G.A. 1993. Constructed Wetlands for

Water Quality Improvement. CRC Press, Inc., Boca

Raton, FL.

Wetland Conservation Plan

The State Planning Office, in cooperation with other

state agencies and a diverse task force, is developing

a State Wetland Conservation Plan (WCP). The plan

will include an inventory and assessment of state

wetland resources, implementation of a conservation

strategy, recommendations for regulatory changes,

and a monitoring program.

Source: Maine Coastal Nonpoint Source Control

Program. 1996. Maine State Planning Office, Coastal

Program, Augusta, ME.

 Maryland

Anacostia Restoration Plan

In Maryland and the District of Columbia, a basinwide

plan for the restoration of the Anacostia River and

associated tributaries considered in detail the impacts

of wetland creation and riparian plantings within the

watershed.

Source: USACE. 1990. Anacostia River Basin Reconnaissance Study. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

Baltimore District; Baltimore, MD.

Chesapeake Bay

Simulated rainfall and bare plots were used to determine the effectiveness of 4.6- and 9.2-meter-long
Appendix F

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 F-17

VFS in removing nutrients and sediments from

agricultural runoff. Total suspended solids, total

nitrogen, and total phosphorus in surface runoff were

reduced by 66%, 0%, and 27%, respectively, by the

4.6-meter VFS. Nutrient removals appeared to be

greater with longer filters but decreased as the

number of runoff events increased.

Source: Magette, W.L., R.B. Brinsfield, R.E. Palmer,

and J.D. Wood. 1989. Nutrient and sediment removal

by VFSs. Transactions of the American Society of

Agricultural Engineers 32(2):663-667.

Chesapeake Bay

Riparian forest buffers have been used to treat

stormwater in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

According to a study found in the Chesapeake Bay

Riparian Handbook, the costs of engineered

stormwater BMPs that incorporate natural systems,

such as grassed swales and bioretention areas, is less

expensive than the construction of storm drain systems. These engineered stormwater BMPs cost $500

to $10,000 per acre.

Sources: Palone, R.S. and A.H. Todd (eds). 1998.

Chesapeake Bay Riparian Handbook: A Guide for

Establishing and Maintaining Riparian Forest Buffers,

NA-TP-02-97. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Washington, DC.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1997b.

Protecting Wetlands: Tools for Local Governments in the

Chesapeake Bay Region. EPA 903-R-97-008. Prepared

for Chesapeake Bay Program by U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

Forest Buffer Legislation

Baltimore County, Maryland, has adopted legislation to

protect the water quality of streams, wetlands, and

floodplains. The legislation requires forest buffers for

any activity that is causing or contributing to pollution,

including NPS pollution, of the waters of the state.

Baltimore County has also developed management

requirements for the forest buffers, including those

located in wetlands and floodplains, that specify

limitations on alteration of the natural conditions of

these resources. The provisions call for public and

private improvements to forest buffers to abate and

prevent water pollution, erosion and sedimentation of

stream channels, and degradation of aquatic and

riparian habitat.

Source: Chesapeake Bay Program. 1997a. Chesapeake

Bay Watershed Riparian Buffer/Local Case Studies.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake

Bay Program, Annapolis, MD.

GIS

Since the early 1980s, Prince George’s County has

been using GIS technologies. The Department of

Environmental Resources found GIS to be the most

cost-effective means to continue its flood management and water quality programs. In 1992 the county

completed a 15-year effort modeling the watershed,

covering approximately 85% of the county. Recognizing the need to update the data, the county determined

that it could cost $4 million by traditional methods. As

an alternative, the county developed Geo-STORM, a

flood management model, and WPS, a water quality

model. These models automatically perform much of

the necessary data analysis and provide alternative

solutions. The final part of the program was a Wetland

Banking System using GIS. The total cost of this

program was $450,000 and is part of the county’s

stormwater management funding, provided through ad

valorem taxes, surplus, interest income, permit fees, a

fee-in-lieu program, and miscellaneous budgeting

items.

Source: International City/County Management

Association and National Association of Counties

(ICMA and NACO). 1999. Protecting Wetlands,

Managing Watersheds...Local Government Case

Studies. International City/County Management

Association and National Association of Counties,

Washington, DC.

Nontidal Wetlands Protection Act

Maryland’s Nontidal Wetlands Protection Act encourages development of comprehensive watershed plans

for addressing wetlands protection, mitigation, and

restoration issues in conjunction with water supply

issues.

Source: State of Maryland. 1989. Maryland Code,

Annotated. Natural Resources. Nontidal Wetlands

Protection Act Sections 8-1201–8-1211.

Rhode River 1

A case study focusing on the hydrology and belowground processing of nitrate and sulfate was conducted on a riparian forested wetland. Nitrate and

sulfate entered the wetland from cropland ground

water drainage and from direct precipitation. Data
Appendix F

F-18 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

collected over a 3-year period showed that an average

of 86% of nitrate and 25% of sulfate inputs were

removed in the wetland. Annual removal of nitrates

varied from 87% in the first year to 84% in the second

year, and sulfate removal varied from 13% in the

second year to 43% in the third year. Nitrate removal

was always highest in the fall (average of 96%) when

input fluxes were lowest and lowest in the winter

(average of 81%) when input fluxes were highest.

Source: Correll, D.L., and D.E. Weller. 1989. Factors

Limiting Processes in Freshwater: An Agricultural

Primary Stream Riparian Forest. In Freshwater

Wetlands and Wildlife, ed. R.R. Sharitz and J.W.

Gibbons, pp. 9-23. U.S. Department of Energy, Office

of Science and DOE Symposium Series no. 61.

Technology Information, Oak Ridge, TN.

Rhode River 2

A riparian deciduous hardwood forest in the Rhode

River watershed was shown to remove over 80% of

nitrate and total phosphorus in overland flows and

about 85% of the nitrate in shallow ground water

drainage from cropland.

Source: Correll D.L., T.E. Jordan, and D.E. Weller.

1992. Nutrient flux in a landscape: Effects of coastal

land Use and terrestrial community mosaic on nutrient

transport to coastal waters. Estuaries 15(4, December):431-442.

Riparian Forest Buffer Demonstration Sites

A restoration effort in the Chapel Point State Park,

located in the town of Marbury, has been made

possible by funds from the Maryland Greenways

Program. Excess sediment from erosion of agricultural land is of primary concern. The main objectives

of the restoration effort are improved water quality

and establishment of forested buffer strips along the

Port Tobacco River. Riparian forest buffer demonstration sites have already been established along the Port

Tobacco River in the Chapel Point State Park.

Source: Chesapeake Bay Program. 1998. Riparian

Forest Buffer Demonstration Sites: Chapel Point State

Park, MD. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, MD.

Sligo Creek

Wet Ponds were constructed to filter stormwater

entering Sligo Creek, a tributary to the Anacostia

River. The Sligo Creek watershed is highly urbanized,

which has resulted in the creek’s poor water quality

and limited habitat. Before the stormwater ponds

were constructed, there were only three species of

fish and no amphibians living in the creek. The

Wheaton Branch stormwater detention pond project is

one of 12 stormwater projects. It captures runoff from

a commercial area and filters it through a retrofitted

and expanded three-celled extended detention wet

pond. Hand stones were placed to stabilize the

channel. In 1993 vernal ponds were dug to help

repopulate fish and amphibians.

Source: Chesapeake Bay Program. 1997a. Chesapeake

Bay Watershed Riparian Buffer/Local Case Studies.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake

Bay Program, Annapolis, MD.

In the Maryland Department of Transportation, the

Environmental Programs Division (EPD) is responsible for the preparation of plans, specifications, and

estimates for wetland mitigation and stream restoration projects; ensuring compliance with all applicable

environmental regulations; and ensuring that all

natural, cultural, and socioeconomic commitments

made during the planning phase are met during final

design of all SHA capital projects.

Source: Jacobs, Susan M., Maryland Department of

Transportation. No date. Personal communication.

Wye Island

Changes in nitrate concentrations in ground water

between an agricultural field planted in tall fescue

(Festuca arundinacea) and riparian zones vegetated

by leguminous or nonleguminous trees were measured

to determine the effectiveness of riparian vegetation

management practices. Analysis of shallow ground

water samples indicated that nitrate concentrations

beneath nonleguminous riparian trees decreased

toward the shoreline, and removal of the trees resulted

in increased nitrate concentrations. Nitrate concentrations did not decrease below leguminous trees, and

removal of the trees resulted in decreased ground

water nitrate concentrations.

Source: James, B.R., B.B. Bagley, and P.H. Gallagher.

1990. Riparian Zone Vegetation Effects on Nitrate

Concentrations in Shallow Groundwater. Submitted for

publication in the Proceedings of the 1990 Chesapeake

Bay Research Conference. University of Maryland, Soil

Chemistry Laboratory, College Park, MD.
Appendix F

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 F-19

Rhode River Subwatershed

Phosphorus export from a riparian forest was shown

to be nearly evenly divided between surface runoff

(59%) and ground water flow (41%) for a total

phosphorus removal of 80%. The mean annual

concentration of dissolved total phosphorus changed

little in surface runoff. Most of the concentration

changes occurred during the first 19 meters of the

riparian forest for both dissolved and particulate

pollutants. Dissolved nitrogen compounds in surface

runoff also declined. Total reductions of 79% for

nitrate, 73% for ammonium nitrate, and 62% for

organic nitrate were observed. Changes in mean

annual ground water concentrations decreased

significantly (90% to 98%), while ammonium nitrate

concentrations increased by more than threefold.

Again, most of the nitrate loss occurred in the first 19

meters of the riparian forest. It appears that the major

pathway of nitrogen loss from the forest was in

subsurface flow (75% of the total nitrate) with a total

removal efficiency of 89% for total nitrate.

Source: 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.

Wetlands Assistance Guide

The Private Landowner’s Wetland Assistance

Guide is a comprehensive guide to federal, state, and

private/nonprofit programs offering technical and/or

financial assistance to private wetland owners within

the state of Maryland.

Source: State of Maryland. 1992. Private Landowner’s

Wetlands Assistance Guide: Voluntary Options for

Wetlands Stewardship in Maryland. U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 3, Philadelphia, PA.

 Massachusetts

Cape Cod Coastal Embayments

In 1990 the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection initiated a $100,000 study to examine the potential restoration of 500 to 1000 acres of

salt marsh cut off from tidal influence by transportation infrastructure. It is anticipated that, by designing

culverts to provide tidal flows that more closely

approximate natural conditions and by constructing

larger channels in and around transportation facilities,

the productivity of these marshes will be restored.

Source: Coastal America Partnership. 1997. Wetlands

Protection and Restoration. Coastal America, Washington, DC.

Natural Storage in the Charles River Valley

The Charles River basin drains approximately 307

square miles in the Boston, Massachusetts, area. It is

the most densely populated river watershed in New

England. Severe flooding in 1955 due to Hurricane

Diane caused more than $5 million in damages to the

watershed. The USACE studied the area to identify a

solution for future flooding. In 1984 the USACE

unveiled a plan entitled “The Charles River Natural

Valley Storage Project.” Instead of structural controls,

the project relied mainly on preserving wetlands. The

plan identified 6,930 acres of land in 17 existing

wetlands within the river basin as essential and stated

that they would be protected. Protection is a result of

purchasing the land outright or purchasing easements,

which prevent current and future owners from

interfering with natural water storage. A portion of the

land protected is uplands and fringe wetlands.

The USACE decided on the measures in the Charles

River Natural Valley Storage Project because “wetlands provide a prudent and least-cost solution to

future flooding.” By preserving the wetlands, costly

structural controls were avoided. Purchasing the land

and easements had cost $10 million, only 10 percent of

the estimated $100 million cost of constructing a dam

for the same purpose. The USACE also estimated

that in 1987 an additional $3.2 million in damages was

prevented by controlling severe spring flooding in the

land purchased as part of the Charles River Natural

Valley Storage Project. It has been further estimated

that the city of Boston has realized annual savings of

$17 million in flood damage from the project.

In addition to maintaining the natural hydrology of the

area, the preservation of the wetlands also benefits

the aesthetic and ecological quality of the floodplain.

Further benefits are seen in the local property values.

Statistical analysis in the Charles River Natural Valley

Storage Project area has confirmed a 1.5 percent

premium added to the property values of homes next

to the wetlands. Realtors in the area have also noted
Appendix F

F-20 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

an undeniable advantage to selling the land adjacent to

the wetlands.

Sources: National Audubon Society. No date b. What’s

a Wetland Worth? National Audubon Society, New

York, NY.

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). 1999.

Reports: Stormwater Strategies—Community Responses

to Runoff Pollution. Natural Resource Defense Council,

New York, NY.

Wetland Protection

Massachusetts requires a permit for activities involving dredge-and-fill, or other alterations, within a

wetland area or within a 100-foot buffer zone around

a wetland area. The Wetlands Protection Act (Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 131, Section 40)

provides jurisdiction for activities outside wetland

areas and their buffer zones once a wetland has been

altered as a result of an activity. Regulations have

explicit criteria for the protection of water quality and

aquatic habitat functions of wetlands, which are

addressed in the review of permit applications. The

Commonwealth’s Stormwater Initiative also helps to

protect wetlands by requiring the best practical

method of treatment of new stormwater discharges to

wetlands. Other practices to protect wetland functions, such as acquisition efforts, local bylaws, and

increased buffer zones, are achieved through planning

processes at the town meeting level.

Source: Massachusetts Coastal Nonpoint Pollution

Control Plan. 1995. Massachusetts Office of Coastal

Zone Management, Boston, MA.

 Michigan

Peterson Wetland Restoration

The project successfully restored 14 ha of wetlands

drained by a county tax ditch. Project goals included

restoration of the 14-ha wetland, reduction of siltation

and water volume entering the county drain and the

Looking Glass River, increased flood storage, improved water quality, and creation of habitat for

wetland wildlife. Wetland vegetation, waterfowl

usage, and water retention increased. Because of the

increase in water retention, the restored wetland now

provides excellent wildlife habitat in addition to

reducing sedimentation, erosion, and flooding. Water

quality and siltation data are not available due to the

absence of an adequate monitoring and assessment

program.

Source: Eitniear, T. 1995. Peterson Wetland Restoration

Project. In Methods of Modifying Habitat to Benefit the

Great Lakes Ecosystem, ed .J.R.M. Kelso and J.H.

Hartig, pp. 282-286 CISTI Occas. Paper No.1. Natural

Research Council of Canada, Research Press, Ottawa,

ON, Canada.

Grand Traverse Bay Watershed Initiative

The Grand Traverse Bay Watershed Initiative in

Michigan represents an effort on the part of local

organizations and agencies to manage resources in a

five-county area in the state’s lower peninsula. The

program considers wetlands, riparian areas, and other

environmental issues related to water quality within

the bay watershed in a manner that balances economic growth with environmental protection.

Source: Wright, C. 1997. Grand Traverse Bay Watershed Initiative. Traverse City, MI.

Landowner’s Guide

Living with Michigan’s Wetlands is a comprehensive

guide designed to help landowners understand wetlands, their benefits, basic techniques and options for

wetland management, and the economic benefits of

various protection methods. Wetland regulatory

policies affecting landowners and sources for information and assistance are included. The document also

provides information to help landowners make decisions regarding protection of wetlands and other

natural resources while meeting economic needs and

personal goals.

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA). 1996-1997. Living with Michigan’s Wetlands:

A Landowner’s Guide. U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Washington, DC.

Meadows Golf Club

The Meadows Golf Club, which finished its first year

of operation in 1994, was designed to model sound

environmental practices. Wetlands located on the

course are used as biological filters. In addition,

vegetated buffer zones, established around sensitive

wetland areas, aid in reducing nutrient runoff into the

waterways. Water quality monitoring indicates a
Appendix F

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 F-21

steady decline in the amount of nitrates, phosphates,

suspended and dissolved solids, and ammonia exported

from golf course wetlands.

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA). 1995c. Nonpoint Source News-Notes.

August/September, issue no. 42. U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.

Michigan Wildlife Habitat Foundation

The Michigan Wildlife Habitat Foundation (MWHF) is

focused on restoring and improving wildlife habitat,

and it has an active program for wetland restoration

on private lands. The landowner must provide a match

of at least $100 per acre and must sign an agreement

that land uses on the site will not change for 10 years.

The remaining restoration costs are covered by

MWHF.

Source: Michigan Wildlife Habitat Foundation. 1997.

Saginaw Bay Watershed: A Strategy for Wetland

Restoration. Consortium for International Earth Science

Information Network.

Wetland Protection

Michigan has implemented the Clean Water Act §404

Program since 1984. Water quality impacts are

considered in the permit review process, and §404

permits are not issued for activities that would result in

a violation of state water quality standards. The

Goemaere-Anderson Wetland Protection Act, the

Inland Lakes and Streams Act, and the Great Lakes

Submerged Lands Act are also used to protect

wetlands and riparian areas from the effects of new

activities.

Source: Michigan Coastal Nonpoint Source Program.

1996. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality,

Lansing, MI.

Watershed Initiative Program

Michigan’s Watershed Initiatives program implements

management measures to protect nonpoint source

functions within wetlands and riparian areas. Existing

conditions within the wetlands, as well as the effects

of activities upstream in the watershed, are addressed.

This is accomplished on a targeted basis through the

Watershed Initiatives, which identify priority areas for

wetland protection and restoration in selected watersheds. The state utilizes funds and technical assistance provided through Clean Water Act §319 and

Coastal Zone Management Act grants to encourage

local governments and communities to implement best

management practices on a watershed basis for

wetland protection and restoration.

Source: Michigan Coastal Nonpoint Source Program.

1996. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality,

Lansing, MI.

Wetland Acquisition

Michigan’s wetland protection approach is supplemented by a program of state acquisition of wetlands,

state encouragement of wetland easements, state

designation of Environmental Areas to protect coastal

wetlands and adjacent uplands, and encouragement of

private wetland acquisition efforts. Instruments such

as tax reversion and land exchange are used to

maximize acquisition efforts.

Source: Michigan Coastal Nonpoint Source Program.

1996. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality,

Lansing, MI.

 Minnesota

Clear Lake

Clear Lake, a 257-ha body of water in south central

Minnesota, is a heavily used recreational area. The

lake has become eutrophic because of inflow of

nutrient-rich runoff from the adjacent city of Waseca.

In 1981, 50% of the hydraulic load and 55% of the

phosphorus load to the lake was diverted into a 21.4-

ha marsh system. Between 1981 and 1986, the

wetland reduced the annual phosphorus load to Clear

Lake by 39%. In 1986 construction was completed on

a second marsh system designed to filter urban and

agricultural runoff carrying 20% of the phosphorus

load into the lake.

Source: Barten, J.M. 1987. Stormwater runoff treatment

in a wetland filter: Effects on the water quality of Clear

Lake. Lake and Reservoir Management 3:297-305.

Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program

In February 1998 Minnesota and the Federal Government approved the Minnesota River Conservation

Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP). CREP will

combine state funds with the federal Conservation
Appendix F

F-22 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

Reserve Program to restore 190,000 acres of floodplain marshes and forests around the Minnesota River.

Source: Environmental Defense Fund. 1998. EDF Praises

Minnesota River Conservation Reserve Enhancement

Program. News release, February 19, 1998.

Economic Efficiency of Wetland Mitigation in

Minnesota’s Red River Valley

The economic efficiency of wetland mitigation in

Minnesota’s Red River Valley was examined using

the Minnesota Routine Assessment Method on 10

wetland case studies to rate the functions of impacted

and replacement wetlands. Secondary sources were

used to assign dollar values to wetland functions of

impacted and replacement wetlands. Estimated annual

social values ranged from $207 to $1,027 per acre for

impacted wetlands and from $268 to $927 per acre for

replacement wetlands. The social values of replacement wetlands exceeded the social values of impacted

wetlands in seven cases. Values of replacement

wetlands were 1.8 to 4 times greater than the values

of impacted wetlands due to 2-to-1 replacement

ratios.

Source: Detenbeck, N.E., C.A. Johnson, and G.J. Niemi.

1993. Wetland effects of lake water quality in the

Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area. Landscape

Ecology 8:39-61.

Fish Lake

An urban lake in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area was

found to retain sediment and nutrient loads in runoff

routed through the wetland. Comparison of annual

loads entering and leaving the wetland showed the

retention of incoming loads in the wetland was 97% of

nonvolatile suspended solids, 76% of volatile suspended solids, 48% of total phosphorus, 4% of dissolved phosphorus, 3% of dissolved nitrite plus nitrate

nitrogen, 1% of total ammonia nitrogen, and 47% of

total organic nitrogen.

Source: Brown, R.G. 1985. Effects of an urban wetland

on sediment and nutrient loads in runoff. Wetlands,

4(1):147-158.

Lake McCarrons

A combined detention/wetland stormwater treatment

facility was constructed upstream of Lake McCarrons

to decrease phosphorus loads in stormwater entering

the lake and to restore a degraded wetland. Nutrient

removal effectiveness of the pond was determined

based on mass inflows and outflows from rainfall and

snowmelt events summed over the entire period of the

study. Samples were analyzed for a wide range of

particulate and dissolved constituents including suspended solids and various nitrogen and phosphorus

species. Removal of total suspended solids was

greater that 90%, total phosphorus was reduced by

over 78%, and total nitrogen was reduced by greater

than 74%. The goal to reduce the total phosphorus

load to the lake by 75% was achieved.

Source: Oberts, G.L., and R.A. Osgood. 1991. Waterquality effectiveness of a detention/wetland treatment

system and its effect on an urban lake. Environmental

Management 15(1):131-138.

The Minnesota Department of Natural

Resources

The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

computed the average cost to replace an acre-foot of

floodwater storage to be $300. In other words, if

development eliminates 1-acre of wetland that naturally stores a 12-inch depth of water during a storm, it

would cost the public $300 to replace the water

storage. The cost to replace 5,000 acres of wetlands

lost annually in Minnesota would be $1.5 million.

Source: Floodplain Management Association. 1994.

Economic benefits of wetlands. FMA News: The

Newsletter of the Floodplain Management Association

(July).

Minnesota USGS

The USGS conducted a study to determine the

effectiveness of two VSF for reducing chemical loads

in feedlot runoff and to investigate how infiltration

from the VSF affects ground water. Water samples

were analyzed for concentrations of nitrate, ammonium, organic nitrogen, phosphorus, chloride, sulfate,

fecal coliforms, and chemical oxygen demand. Ground

water samples were analyzed for dissolved oxygen,

pH, specific conductance, and temperature. A report

is being prepared that will summarize the discharge

and chemical data collected, information about the

effectiveness of VSF for treating feedlot runoff, and

information about the impacts of infiltration from VSF

on ground water.

Source: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1997b.

Summary of Project MN14702: Effectiveness of
Appendix F

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 F-23

Vegetated Filter Strips for Remediating Feedlot Runoff

in Minnesota. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA.

Reference Wetlands Project

Minnesota initiated the Reference Wetlands Project to

develop a basis for assessing the biological and

chemical health of wetlands. The assessment of 32

relatively undisturbed and three disturbed wetlands

will be used to provide a basis for determining use

support status and will help the state determine if

restored wetlands can achieve conditions comparable

to natural wetlands.

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA). 1995b. National Water Quality Inventory:

1994 Report to Congress. EPA841-R-95-005. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water,

Washington, DC.

Stevens County

Vegetated buffer strips were evaluated to determine

pollution control efficiencies for feedlot runoff. Buffer

strips were planted in corn, sorghum, sudan grass, or

oats. Runoff and total solids transported from the

feedlot were reduced by 67% and 79%, respectively.

Total nitrogen was reduced by an average of 84% and

total phosphorus by an average of 83%.

Source: Young, R.A., T. Huntrods, and W. Anderson.

1980. Effectiveness of vegetated buffer strips in

controlling pollution and feedlot runoff. Journal of

Environmental Quality 9(3):483-487.

Wetland Conservation Plan

The Conservation Plan was developed to improve

management and conservation of wetlands. The plan

was designed to use existing wetland policies as a

starting point to improve policies and enhance information for decision making. The plan addresses

regional differences in the state based on their ecology

and general landscape, watershed features, major land

use patterns, and wetland characteristics.

Source: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.

1997. Minnesota Wetland Conservation Plan, Version

1.0. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St.

Paul, MN.

 Mississippi

Coastal Preserves

The Mississippi Department of Marine Resources will

acquire 2,500 acres of Grand Bay savannah and

coastal marshes within the Grand Bay Bioreserve in

the Grand Bay/Bangs Lake area of Jackson County.

Only 3% of the rare and biologically significant coastal

savannah remains. It is the largest and least disturbed

wet pine savannah in the nation. The area includes

estuarine, marsh, and scrub shrub wetlands. The

preserve is one of Mississippi’s three largest estuarine

wetland ecosystems and is a vital nursery area for

estuarine and marine fish and shellfish species.

Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).

1998b. 1998 Coastal Wetlands Conservation Grant.

U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,

Washington, DC.

Pearl River Basin

The synoptic assessment approach is being used in the

Pearl River Basin to provide information on cumulative impacts for use in the 404 permit review process.

The assessment approach evaluates wetland losses

from conversion and the effects of the losses on

hydrologic function.

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA). 1992a. A Synoptic Approach to Cumulative

Impact Assessment: A Proposed Methodology. EPE/

600/R-92/167. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Washington, DC.

 Missouri

Missouri Department of Conservation

The Ralph and Martha Perry Memorial Conservation

Area Wetlands Restoration program created 737

acres of wetlands in three counties located along the

Blackwater River. The project will enable the Missouri Department of Conservation to better manage

the habitat by controlling the flow of water to and

from the land in ways that simulate natural processes.

This is one of only 24 projects nationwide that re-
Appendix F

F-24 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

ceived funding in 1995 from the North American

Wetlands Conservation Council.

Source: Missouri Department of Conservation. 1998.

Ralph and Martha Perry Memorial Conservation Area.

Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City,

MO.

Bay Island, Hannibal

Sedimentation resulting from high flow levels in the

Upper Mississippi River has resulted in deterioration

and loss of riverine forested wetland habitat. Restoration of wetland functions in the Bay Island Complex

included construction of low-level levees, water level

management, and planting of mast tree species. Water

level management during critical times of the year

provides valuable resting and feeding habitat for

migratory waterfowl and wintering bald eagles.

Shorebirds, furbearers, and other wildlife species also

benefit from restoration of prime wetland habitat.

Planting of mast tree species provides important food

resources for wood ducks and adds diversity to the

bottomland hardwood forest that currently exists in the

area.

Source: USACE, Great Lakes Regional Headquarters.

1997. Environmental Management Program: Bay

Island Wetland Habitat Rehabilitation and Enhancement. USACE, Great Lakes Regional Headquarters,

Chicago, IL.

Operation Green Stripe

Through Operation Green Stripe, Future Farmers of

America (FFA) chapters recruit farmers to establish

vegetative buffers between their fields and surface

water supplies. Cooperating agriculture retailers

provide free grass seed for the strips, and Monsanto

provides educational grants to FFA chapters based on

the number of farmers the students recruit.

Source: Monsanto. 1997. Operation Green Stripe.

Monsanto, St. Louis, MO.

 Montana

Pine Butte Swamp

The Nature Conservancy’s Pine Butte Swamp

Preserve is an 18,000-acre area consisting of a large

fen, native foothills prairie, and rocky ledges of limber

pine and creeping juniper. The preserve includes the

largest wetland complex along the Rocky Mountain

Front and represents the grizzly bear’s last stronghold

on the plains. Studies have been completed on the

area’s hydrology, vegetation, and wildlife, and the

Conservancy has developed a long-range management plan for the fen, the grizzly bear, and the surrounding foothill prairie. Cooperative efforts with local

agencies and neighboring landowners enhance the

integrity of the ecosystem.

Source: The Nature Conservancy. 1998c. Pine Butte

Swamp Preserve. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington,

VA.

Ronan Spring Creek

Located in northwestern Montana, about 50 miles

north of Missoula, Ronan Spring Creek is only 4 miles

long. It is a tributary to Crow Creek, which flows to

the Flathead River and eventually drains into the

Columbia River. Farming practices, urbanization, and

grazing activities had led Ronan Spring Creek to be

200 feet wide but only a few inches deep. In 1996 the

Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Bill

Edelman (who owns the creek), and the NRCS began

to contact neighbors along the creek, local groups, and

state and federal natural resource agencies to create a

large partnership. Money for the restoration effort

was provided through a grant by the state Fish,

Wildlife and Parks Department’s Future Fisheries

program, the Ronan State Bank, and Pheasants

Forever. Approximately $5,000 was used for shrubs.

Harriman Trout Farms donated fish, and the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes offered staff time

and expertise. In the end, the creek was restored to 8

feet wide and 4 feet deep, which will help to bring

back fish habitat and backwaters for waterfowl.

Source: Natural Resources Conservation Service

(NRCS). 2000b. Erosion Control, Water Management,

Local Partnerships, Wildlife Habitat. U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Washington, DC.

Stream Management Guide

The Stream Management Guide for Landowners,

Managers, and Stream Users provides helpful

background information for landowners and managers,

resource professionals, state and local decision

makers, recreationists, and others interested in

streams. The document discusses the characteristics

of streams and restoration of degraded streams and
Appendix F

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 F-25

riparian areas, and it presents examples of stream and

riparian area problems that might be encountered.

Source: Montana Department of Environmental

Quality. 1995. The Stream Management Guide for

Landowners, Managers and Stream Users. Color

World, Bozeman, MT.

 Nebraska

Heron Haven Wetland Restoration

Monitoring of water quality is being conducted (as of

1997) on this highly urbanized wetland to determine

the appropriate best management practices to be

applied in restoration efforts. Restoration efforts are

being directed at protecting the wetland from NPS

impacts and improving water quality and habitat

characteristics. Quarterly monitoring was begun in

December 1995, and some impacts of urban runoff to

the wetland have been assessed. A report on restoration efforts to date is being prepared for the project.

Source: University of Nebraska–Lincoln. 1997a. Heron

Haven Wetland Restoration Project. Water Center

Environmental Programs Unit. University of Nebraska,

Lincoln, NE.

Ithica

A series of studies and demonstrations are being

conducted at the Agricultural Research and Development Center near Ithica to develop and demonstrate

regionally relevant VFS designs in large-scale riparian

plots, compare and demonstrate the efficacy of several

VFS designs with different vegetation compositions and

widths, and to evaluate the overall contribution of

riparian VFS in NPS abatement on a realistic

subwatershed scale. The overall aim of the program is

to better define the most effective VFS for the Midwest and promote their use as BMPs in Nebraska.

Source: University of Nebraska–Lincoln. 1997b.

Riparian Buffer Strips (RBS). Water Center Environmental Programs Unit. University of Nebraska,

Lincoln, NE.

Private Lands Wetlands Initiative Program

The Nebraska Game and Parks Commission (NGPC)

funds a two component program that provides for

wetland development and financial incentives to

participate in the water bank program. The intent of

the program is to pay for the landowner’s actual costs

for restoring, enhancing, or creating shallow wetlands

and adjacent upland habitat for the benefit of waterfowl and other wildlife. The NGPC will reimburse the

landowner for 100% of the costs. It will also provide

landowners a one-time lump sum incentive for enrolling existing wetlands in the USDA’s Water Bank

Program or for extending their existing contract.

Source: Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. 1997.

Programs for Restoring, Creating, and Enhancing

Wetlands on Private Lands in Nebraska. Nebraska

Game and Parks Commission, Lincoln, NE.

Tiburon Golf Course

The Wehrspann Lake Watershed Project has organized several Water Quality Opens at a local golf

course in Omaha. Participants enjoy 18 holes of golf

while learning about measures the golf course is

taking to preserve water quality on the course and

other steps being taken to preserve water quality and

habitat elsewhere in the watershed. A unique educational feature of the tournament lies in the fact that

people from all walks of life are brought together in a

casual environment that is conducive to learning about

nonpoint source pollution. The tournaments also help

to stimulate discussions between the golfers and the

golf course managers about management practices,

such as the nonpoint source treatment functions of

wetlands.

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA). 1998a. Top Ten Watershed Lessons Learned.

EPA 840-F-97-001. U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.

 Nevada

Lake Tahoe

A 3-year study in Lake Tahoe of nitrate removal in an

undisturbed headwater watershed showed that riparian

forests and wetlands were capable of removing over

99% of the incoming nitrate nitrogen. Wetlands and

riparian areas in the watershed appeared to be capable

of “cleaning up” nitrate-containing waters with a very

high degree of efficiency and for providing a major

value as natural pollution controls for sensitive waters.
Appendix F

F-26 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

Source: Rhodes, J., C.M. Skau, D. Greenlee, and D.

Brown. 1985. Quantification of Nitrate Uptake by

Riparian Forests and Wetlands in an Undisturbed

Headwaters Watershed. In Proceedings of Riparian

Ecosystems and Their Management: Reconciling

Conflicting Issues, Tucson, Arizona, April 16-18,1985,

pp. 175-179. GTR RM-120. U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest

and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO.

Walker River Paiute Tribe

The purpose of the Walker River Paiute Riparian

Management Plan (Walker River Paiute Tribe) is to

protect and improve riparian areas and water quality

on the reservation.

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA). 1994b. State/Tribal Wetlands Grant Catalog.

5th ed. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office

of Water, Washington, DC.

 New Hampshire

Wetland Water Quality Standards

In New Hampshire, monitoring of a variety of parameters at five wetlands throughout the state will provide

baseline data for developing specific wetland water

quality standards.

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA). 1995b. National Water Quality Inventory:

1994 Report to Congress. EPA841-R-95-005. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water,

Washington, DC.

 New Jersey

Agricultural Experiment Station

The New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station has

developed a five-zone model for determining buffer

widths for the protection of surface waters from NPS

pollution.

Source: Nieswand, G.H., B.B. Chavooshian, R.M.

Hordon, T. Shelton, S. Blarr, and B. Brodeur. 1989.

Buffer Strips to Protect Water Supply Reservoirs and

Surface Water Intakes: A Model and Recommendations.

Prepared for the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection by Cook College Department of

Environmental Resources.

Freshwater Protection Act Rules

The Freshwater Protection Act Rules (New Jersey

Administrative Code 7:7A) require ecological transition areas adjacent to wetlands of exceptional or

intermediate value. Wetlands of ordinary resource

value, which constitute approximately 5% of the state,

do not require buffers. The standard width of the

transition area for wetlands of exceptional value is 150

feet, and for freshwater wetlands of intermediate

value, it is 50 feet. Wetlands of exceptional value

include those which discharge into FW-1 or FW-2

trout waters or their tributaries (FW-1 and FW-2 are

water quality rankings for fresh surface waters in

New Jersey) or those which provide habitat for

threatened or endangered species. Freshwater

wetlands of ordinary resource value are those which

do not exhibit the characteristics above, are isolated

wetlands that are more than 50% surrounded by

development, and are less than 5,000 square feet in

size, including, but not limited to drainage ditches,

swales, and detention facilities. Freshwater wetlands

of intermediate value include those which are not

defined as either exceptional or ordinary. Activities

within buffers are limited based on the determined

wetland value and guidelines established at New

Jersey Administrative Code 7:7A-6.2.

Source: New Jersey Department of Environmental

Protection and Energy. 1992. Freshwater Wetlands

Protection Act Rules, New Jersey Administrative Code

7:7A. New Jersey Department of Environmental

Protection, Trenton, NJ.

Green Acres Program

The New Jersey Green Acres Program provides

funding for state, county, municipal, and nonprofit

organization acquisition of open lands, including

wetlands, for the purpose of conservation. The

program also provides funding for the development of

recreational facilities that offer public access and use

of wetlands and riparian areas.

Source: New Jersey Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control

Program. 1995. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Trenton, NJ.
Appendix F

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 F-27

 New Mexico

Partners Project

Kimberly de Castro of Santa Fe, a participant in the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Partners for Fish and

Wildlife Program, received the Environmental Law

Institute’s National Wetlands Award in the Land

Stewardship and Development category. The award

recognizes her commitment to habitat restoration and

her devotion to educating youth about having respect

for the land. Ms. de Castro dedicated her entire 50-

acre property to wildlife, restoring two wetlands and

planting more than 5,000 plants. The restored land has

also become an outdoor learning center. Since 1987,

Partners for Fish and Wildlife has funded more than

17,900 landowner agreements and helped restore

397,000 acres of wetlands and 1,400 miles of riparian

and in-stream habitat.

Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).

1998d. New Mexico Partners Project Wins National

Wetlands Award. Press release, April 22, 1998. U.S.

Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,

Washington, DC.

Riparian Preserve

The Gila Riparian Preserve protects a prime example

of Southwest riparian habitat along the Gila River,

New Mexico’s last major free-flowing river. Regular

flooding facilitates the germination of seedlings in beds

created by high river flows.

Source: The Nature Conservancy. 1997. Gila Riparian

Preserve. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA.

 New York

Audubon Golf Course Program

The Audubon Society of New York State teamed with

the U.S. Golf Association to establish the Audubon

Cooperative Sanctuary Program for Golf Courses.

Objectives include enhancement of wildlife habitat and

protection of natural resources on golf courses. Active

participation in conservation programs by golf course

superintendents, course officials, golfers, and the

public is encouraged. Participants in the program

develop a plan of action to enhance habitat and

improve management practices. A course may

become certified in the following areas: environmental

planning, wildlife and habitat management, public

involvement, integrated pest management, water

conservation, and water quality management. More

than 1900 golf courses nationwide have joined the

program since its inception.

Source: U.S. Golf Association. 1998. An Overview of

U.S. Golf Association Environmental Research. U.S.

Golf association, Far Hills, NJ.

Buffalo River and Cazenovia Creek Model

The Buffalo River and Cazenovia Creek Model

Wetlands and Watershed Stewardship Program is part

of the Erie County Department of Environment and

Planning’s program to assist municipalities with

planning issues at a watershed level. The project was

first proposed in 1997 as a demonstration project,

which was very successful and cost-effective. It aims

to create a heightened sense of community awareness

and encourages environmental stewardship for three

new natural parks along the Buffalo River. It also

provides an educational work experience and real job

training for youth. The project cost $10,450 and was

supplemented by a grant from EPA and the U.S.

Department of Labor. NACO provided funding to

implement and document the program. The county

estimates that other counties that wish to implement a

similar project should expect a cost of $10,000 to

$15,000.

Source: International City/County Management

Association and National Association of Counties

(ICMA and NACO). 1999. Protecting Wetlands,

Managing Watersheds...Local Government Case

Studies. International City/County Management

Association and National Association of Counties,

Washington, DC.

Monroe County Wetland Education Program

Through a $20,000 grant from EPA, $5,000 of in-kind

services from the county Health Department, and at

least $4,000 of in-kind services from the Environmental Management Council, Monroe County hired an

intern to advance wetland education efforts in schools

and with public officials. The wetland education

activities were developed by the intern and other

county staff. This effort focuses on watersheds in
Appendix F

F-28 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

Monroe County, but participants from adjoining

municipalities that share common watersheds with

Monroe County have participated in the wetland

workshops.

Source: International City/County Management

Association and National Association of Counties

(ICMA and NACO). 1999. Protecting Wetlands,

Managing Watersheds...Local Government Case

Studies. International City/County Management

Association and National Association of Counties,

Washington, DC.

The Salt Marsh Restoration Team (SMRT)

The SMRT has received the American Rivers 1997

Urban Hometown River Award, a GOLD award for

Special Achievement in Scientific/Engineering Breakthrough. SMRT is restoring and enhancing a critical

salt marsh on the western shore of Staten Island and

on the islands of Arthur Kill and Kill Van Kull that

were damaged by a 567,000-gallon oil spill. The

restoration focused on restoring smooth cordgrass.

Cordgrass stabilizes the shoreline against the massive

erosion that is occurring in the absence of the plant

community, replaces lost habitat, and accelerates the

rate of reduction for petroleum contaminants left from

the spill. SMRT has successfully restored over 1.25

miles of shoreline, amounting to over 6 acres of handplanted nursery-grown grasses. Rapid erosion of

shoreline has been halted in this area.

Source: American Rivers. 1998. American Rivers 1997

Urban Hometown River Award. American Rivers,

Washington, DC.

Skaneateles Lake

Chris and Rick Fesko own a 1,200-acre farm on the

hillside east of Skaneateles Lake. With the help of the

Onondaga Soil and Water Conservation District and

the Skaneateles Lake Watershed Agricultural Program, the Feskos plan to add more BMPs to those

already existing on their property. The costs for these

new efforts are estimated at $150,000, which will be

contributed by the Feskos, NRCS, Farm Service

Agency, EPA, New York State, and the city of

Syracuse.

Source: Natural Resources Conservation Service

(NRCS). 2000b. Erosion Control, Water Management,

Local Partnerships, Wildlife Habitat. U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Washington, DC.

Staten Island Bluebelt Project

Staten Island is the least populated and least developed of New York City’s five boroughs. In the 1970s,

the city zoned 672 acres as “Open Space Network,”

an undevelopable, environmentally sensitive area. In

the 1980s, the state began regulating freshwater and

tidal wetlands, which allowed for more wetland

protection on Staten Island. In the 1990s, the DEP

started the storm sewer construction and maintenance

system in South Richmond, Staten Island. The system

uses existing, natural drainage systems (including

streams, ponds, and wetlands) as the main part of the

stormwater system. The system covers 11 watersheds

consisting of 6,000 acres. Additions to the system will

include constructed wetlands, settling ponds, and sand

filters (NRDC, 1999). Freshwater and tidal wetlands

on Staten Island were acquired for use as stormwater

treatment systems. Beginning in the 1970s, the New

York State Department of Environmental Conservation delineated rivers and wetlands of important

nonpoint source abatement functions. A cost/benefit

study indicated that the Bluebelt project saves about

$50 million over the conventional trunk sewer line

approach! Constructed wetlands might be incorporated into the Bluebelt System (Gumb, D., et al.,

1996). The Bluebelt is 265.5 acres.

Sources: Gumb, D., J. Vokral, R. Smith, S. Mehrotra.

1996. Staten Island Bluebelt Project: New York City’s

Watershed Approach with Multiple Benefits. In

Watershed ‘96 Proceedings. U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). 1999.

Reports: Stormwater Strategies—Community Responses to Runoff Pollution. Natural Resource Defense

Council, New York, NY.

Wetland Protection

New York requires permits for activities within a tidal

or nontidal wetland or regulated adjacent area, generally extending a distance of 100 to 300 feet landward

from the wetland boundary. New York also establishes

cooperative agreements with local governments and

municipal governments for the purpose of preserving,

maintaining, or enhancing wetlands. The State Environmental Quality Review evaluates impacts on
Appendix F

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 F-29

wetlands and riparian areas from activities outside the

wetland or regulated adjacent area.

Source: New York Coastal Nonpoint Program Submission. 1995. New York Department of Environmental

Conservation, Albany, NY.

Wetland Regulation Guidebook

The purpose of the guidebook is to provide planners,

developers, and the public with an introduction to the

scope and application of existing laws and regulations

that directly or indirectly affect wetlands in New York.

Source: Trust for Public Land. 1999. Economic Benefits

of Open Space Bibliography: Infrastructure Savings.

Trust for Public land, San Francisco, CA.

 North Carolina

Atlantic White Cedar Wetland Restoration

The purpose of the restoration project was to restore

wetland hydrology on 392 acres and plant Atlantic

White Cedars on 25 acres of cleared, ditched, and

drained wetlands to revitalize wildlife and water

quality attributes. The time frame for completing

restoration work was limited due to planting requirements. The project was completed in 3 months.

Source: Gantt, L.K. 1994. Atlantic White Cedar

Wetlands Restoration Cookbook of Innovations in

Coastal Protection. U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watershed,

Washington, DC.

Coastal Plain vs. Piedmont

The effectiveness of VFS and riparian buffers for

trapping sediment and nutrients was compared for two

sites in North Carolina, one in the Piedmont Physiographic Province and the other in the Coastal Plain.

Runoff, sediment, and chemical analyses were

completed on a number of storm events at each site.

At both test sites, the grass strips filtered in excess of

50% of the sediment from the agricultural source

areas. The riparian strips were less consistent at

reducing sediment yields. Chemical filtration of

agricultural runoff by the grass and riparian buffers

also occurred. Sediment-bound constituents were

shown to be reduced to a greater degree than soluble

nutrients, such as orthophosphorus.

Source: Parsons, J.E., J.W. Gilliam, R. Munoz-Carpena,

R.B. Daniels, and T.A. Dillaha. 1994. Nutrient and

Sediment Removal by Grass and Riparian Buffers. In

Proceedings of the Second Environmentally Sound

Agriculture Conference, Orlando, FL, April 20-22, 1994.

Pamlico River

The chemistry of porewaters and soils was compared

using a low-organic-matter created intertidal marsh

and an adjacent high-organic-matter natural intertidal

marsh. Five years after emergent vegetation had

established in the created wetland, the conversion

from upland porewater and soil properties to natural

wetland characteristics was incomplete. Results of the

study indicate that wetlands created on upland sites

initially may not duplicate the hydrologic and nutrient

cycling functions characteristic of natural wetland

systems. It is likely to take many more years before

the created wetland soils become reduced and soil and

porewater nutrient reservoirs develop to produce

hydrologic and nutrient cycling attributes comparable

to natural wetlands.

Source: Craft, C.B., E.D. Seneca, and S.W. Broome.

1991. Porewater chemistry of natural and created marsh

soils. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and

Ecology 152(2):187(14).

Riparian Buffer Width Study

Riparian forests are effective as sediment, nitrogen,

and phosphorus filters. Four watersheds in two

research projects on the Coastal Plain were studied.

The optimal width of a riparian forest for effective

filtering is based on the contributing area, slope, and

cultural practices on adjacent lands. Riparian strips as

narrow as 16 meters were effective in removing

nitrate.

Source: Cooper, J.R., J.W. Gilliam, and T.C. Jacobs.

1986. Riparian Areas as a Control of Nonpoint

Pollutants. In Watershed Research Perspectives, ed. D.

Correll, pp. 166-192. Smithsonian Institution Press,

Washington, DC.

Streamside Rules for Nuese River

Modified rules protecting existing 50-foot riparian

buffers along the Nuese River became effective

January 22,1998. The riparian rule makes it illegal to

remove existing forest vegetation within 30 feet of the

bank, and it requires maintenance of dense vegetative

cover for an additional 20 feet. Landowners are
Appendix F

F-30 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

required to keep trees and plants healthy and to

promptly repair any eroded channels.

Source: North Carolina Department of Environment

and Natural Resources. 1998. News release, January 27, 1998. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC.

Beaver Dam Creek Watershed

Nitrate concentrations in shallow ground waters

beneath cultivated fields and in the drainage waters

from those fields were examined to determine the fate

of nitrogen lost to drainage waters. Studies indicated

that a substantial part of the nitrogen in the drainage

water was denitrified in the buffer strip. Buffer strips

of less than 16 meters were effective for nitrogen

reduction before drainage waters reached the stream.

Subsurface nitrate leaving agricultural fields was

reduced by 93% on average after passing through a

forested buffer.

Source: Jacobs, T.C., and J.W. Gilliam. 1985. Riparian

losses of nitrate from agricultural drainage waters.

Journal of Environmental Quality 14(4):472-478.

Cypress Creek 1

A riparian forest was shown to be a sink for phosphate from cultivated fields. Over a 20-year period the

riparian forest provided a sink for about 50% of the

phosphate in runoff from adjacent croplands.

Source: Cooper, J.R., and J.W. Gilliam. 1987. Phosphorus redistribution from cultivated fields into riparian

areas. Soil Science Society of America Journal

51(6):1600-1604.

Cypress Creek 2

Riparian areas adjacent to agricultural fields were

examined to determine sediment accumulation over a

20-year period. The areal extent and thickness of

sediment were described using 137Cesium data and

soil sediment morphology. Sediment delivery estimates

for the Coastal Plain watershed indicated that 84% to

90% of the sediment removed from the cultivated

fields remained in the watershed.

Source: Cooper, J.R., J.W. Gilliam, R.B. Daniels, and

W.P. Robarge. 1987. Riparian areas as filters for

agriculture sediment. Soil Science Society of America

Journal 51(6):417-420.

 North Dakota

Red River Riparian Area

The objectives of this research project were to

identify and demonstrate BMPs by restoring riparian

areas and subsequently reducing NPS pollution and to

transfer this technology to producers and natural

resource professionals throughout North Dakota.

Source: University of North Dakota. 1997. Red River

Riparian Demonstration Project. Energy and Environmental Research Center. University of North Dakota,

Fargo, ND.

Spring Creek Wetland

Two wetlands constructed on USACE reservoirs

were monitored for their ability to remove NPS

pollutants from stormwater runoff and possibly

improve reservoir water quality. The two sites were

the Spring Creek wetland, a 23-acre emergent marsh

constructed in 1991 on Bowman Reservoir near

Bowman, North Dakota, and a 5-acre wetland

constructed in 1992 as part of a larger wetland

complex on Range Creek, a major tributary of Ray

Roberts Reservoir near Dallas, Texas. Sampling

focused on storm events with less emphasis on base

low flows. Samples were analyzed for suspended

sediments, nutrients, and selected herbicides. Results

from the two sites varied, but overall, the wetlands

removed suspended sediments from inflows while

being less effective at removing dissolved NPS

pollutants. The Spring Creek wetland was capable of

removing approximately 40% of total phosphorus.

Neither wetland was effective at removing nitrogen or

herbicide.

Source: Downer, C.W., and T.E. Myers. 1995.

Constructed Wetlands for Sediment Control and NonPoint Source Pollution Abatement at US Army Corps

of Engineers Project: Ray Roberts Lake, Dallas, Texas,

and Bowman Haley Reservoir, Bowman, North

Dakota. In National Interagency Workshop on Wetlands, USACE Waterways Experiment Station, New

Orleans, LA, April 5-7, 1997.
Appendix F

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 F-31

 Ohio

Conservation Easement Purchase

The Ohio EPA recently awarded a low-interest SRF

loan to The Nature Conservancy to foster creek bank

conservation. The Nature Conservancy received the

$110,000 loan to purchase a 154-acre permanent

conservation easement along Brush Creek in Adams

County, Ohio. Ohio EPA’s water quality standards

classify this section of Brush Creek as almost achieving the exceptional warm water aquatic habitat

classification. The creek is a significant statewide

water resource and is known to contain four endangered aquatic species, including the club shell mussel.

Conservation easements allow owners to voluntarily

place permanent restrictions on how their property will

be used and are an effective way to protect the

quality of streams and their adjacent areas.

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA). 1998b. Wetlands Projects Funded by the

Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CW-SRF). U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wastewater, Washington, DC.

Metzger Marsh Coastal Wetland Restoration

Project

The Metzger Marsh Coastal Wetland Restoration

Project, undertaken through the North American

Waterfowl Management Plan, seeks to restore

emergent wetland vegetation while permitting open

access between the wetland and Lake Erie. This

approach has not been successful in the past along

Lake Erie, but innovative methods are being implemented to try to maximize coastal wetland values and

functions.

Source: Tori, G. No date. Project 21. Metzger Marsh

Coastal Wetland Restoration Project. In Methods of

Modifying Habitat to Benefit the Great Lakes Ecosystem. Canada Institute for Scientific and Technical

Information, Ottowa, ON. Occasional paper no. 1.

Ohio State University Extension Service

The Ohio State University Extension Service calculated the costs associated with creating VSFs on

agricultural land. One of the costs they found was for

tree planting and maintenance. The planting of seedlings in a VSF adds about $0.45/seedling to the total

installation cost. Mowing once per month during May

through September of the first 2 years only of the

VSF adds $7/acre for each mowing operation. VSFs

provide both economic and noneconomic benefits to

the farmer, landowner, and surrounding areas. VSFs

can cause a reduction in ditch maintenance costs that

are assessed to landowners. In 1985 Ohio had 4,615

miles of open ditch under county maintenance programs. The costs of ditch maintenance in those

counties with 50 miles or more of maintained ditch

averaged $328/mile/year. The total estimated costs

would exceed $1.5 million per year.

Since the VSF is an edge-of-the-field best management practice, which reduces the potential for sediment movement into water resources, most of the

economic pollution control benefits occur off the farm.

Based on a 1987 estimate, sediment added an extra

$0.32/ton to water treatment costs. When considering

all the communities in Ohio, a 25 percent reduction in

the amount of sediment entering surface water

supplies would save $2.7 million per year in water

treatment costs.

Source: Leeds, R.D., L. Forster, and L.C. Brown. 1993.

Vegetative Filter Strip Economics. Ohio State University Extension, Columbus, OH.

Ohio Wetlands

The Ohio Wetlands guide provides useful information

on wetland status, type, and function. The effects of

land use on wetlands and their protection and conservation are also presented.

Source: National Audubon Society. 1995. Ohio

Wetlands. National Audubon Society, New York, NY.

Protecting Darby Creek

Recently, the Ohio SRF provided a low-interest loan to

a homebuilder to construct a variety of preventive

nonpoint source measures to protect the Darby Creek,

which is one of the highest quality watersheds in the

state. The project includes a wide variety of structural

and nonstructural best management practices intended

to protect approximately 1.5 miles of this high-quality

watershed from potential runoff from a new housing

development. The project includes construction of

sediment and stormwater retention lakes, grassed

waterways for stormwater treatment, restoration of

the wooded stream corridor, and the establishment of

emergent wetland habitat. Additionally, the project
Appendix F

F-32 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

includes a 200-acre conservation easement to protect

the most environmentally sensitive areas. The conservation easement contains conditions, covenants, deed

restrictions, and regulations that protect the entire

area. The project also contains an environmental

education component for homeowners and housing

contractors. This $575,000 project is part of the

Nonpoint Source Program (Clean Water Act §319).

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA). 1998b. Wetlands Projects Funded by the

Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CW-SRF). U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wastewater, Washington, DC.

 Oklahoma

Hackberry Flat

More than 4,000 acres of wetlands and associated

uplands in Tillman County will be acquired as migration, wintering, and breeding habitat for waterfowl and

other migratory birds. A grant of $900,000 through the

National Wildlife Refuge System and partner contributions of $2.4 million will fund the project, which also

contributes to the habitat goals of the North American

Waterfowl Management Plan’s Playa Lakes Joint

Venture. The project area is in the direct migration

route of whooping cranes and provides habitat for

bald eagles, thousands of ducks and geese, and

sandhill cranes.

Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).

1998e. Wetlands Projects Approved for 19 States. Fish

and Wildlife Service News List Server. Listed April 30,

1998. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife

Service, Washington, DC.

Wetlands Conservation Award

James Pielsticker, a civic leader in Tulsa who owns

land along the Deep Fork River in Chandler, was

awarded the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Regional

Wetlands Conservation Award for his work to restore

and enhance wetlands on 310 acres of his property

and his efforts to promote wetland conservation

across Oklahoma. The restored wetlands are now

managed to benefit waterfowl and other wetlanddependent wildlife, such as wintering bald eagles and

migratory songbirds. Water quality has also improved

with the reduced sedimentation and decreased erosion. Pielsticker participated in the Fish and Wildlife’s

Partners for Wildlife and has contributed over

$150,000 to restoring wetland habitat on his property

along the Deep Fork River floodplain.

Source: Langer E., and H. Stuart. 1997. James

Pielsticker Wins Regional Wetlands Conservation

Award From U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S.

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,

Washington, DC.

 Oregon

Bear Creek

Bear Creek, located in central Oregon, has been

undergoing a constant transformation for more than 20

years. During 1977, it was reported that streambanks

were eroding and sedimentation levels in Bear Creek

were elevated during high water flows. To reverse

this condition, grazing was reduced in the area, and

during the early 1980s, grazing was stopped. In an

attempt to promote willow growth along Bear Creek,

existing juniper trees were also felled. By the mid

1980s, a new grazing regime was instituted to preserve newly emerging stream-bank vegetation. The

surrounding pasture was divided into three units, and

livestock were grazed in late winter and early spring.

By this point, the stream channel had narrowed and

approximately 1.5 feet of sediment was trapped in the

floodplain by vegetation. A flood during the summer of

1987 threatened the stability of the stream, but within

one month streamside vegetation reestablished and

stabilized the floodplain.

Forage amounts for grazing livestock increased to

5 times the original amount grazed in the area by

1989. This led to local cost savings of $10,000 annually for hay production by local livestock operators. By

the mid 1990s, Bear Creek was experiencing minimal

damage from occasional flooding because of wellestablished riparian vegetation. The overall health of

the creek was also improving as rainbow trout and

beaver returned to the creek. In addition, forage levels

increased from 200 pounds/acre to 2,000 pounds/acre,

and the area now stores 4 million gallons of water per

mile compared to 1977’s 500,000 gallons per mile.
Appendix F

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 F-33

Sources: Bureau of Land Management (BLM). No date.

Problems and Solutions: A Riparian Improvement

Example. Bureau of Land Management, Washington, DC.

Salmon River Salt Marsh

Progress in the restoration of the Salmon River Salt

Marsh was assessed by examining changes in the

plant species, plant communities, elevation of the site,

the role of salinity and soil texture, width and depth of

creek cross sections, and estimated aboveground net

primary production. Restoration goals were determined to be met in the sense that the restored salt

marsh now consists of typical Pacific Northwest salt

marsh communities; tidal exchanges are complete;

creeks now provide habitat for juvenile fish; and the

marsh is highly productive. The goal of returning the

diked salt marsh to its original high salt marsh condition was not met. Based on study results, guidelines

were developed to aid wetland managers in restoration projects.

Source: Frenkel, R.E., and J.C. Morlan. 1991. Can we

restore our salt marshes? Lessons from the Salmon

River, Oregon. Northwest Environment Journal

7:119-135.

Tulatin River, Washington County

A graduate student at Oregon State University studied

two tributaries of the Tulatin River. His studies

showed that riparian restoration on a widespread scale

could result in savings of more than $1 million annually

in reduced river dredging and water treatment costs.

The costs of restoring 19.7 miles of Gale Creek and

26.1 miles of Dairy Creek, two tributaries of the

Tulatin, were estimated at $660,000, or $2 per person

in Washington County.

Source: Environmental News Network (ENN). 1996.

Riparian restoration is cost-effective, study shows.

ENN, Sun Valley, ID.

West Eugene Wetlands Project

The West Eugene Wetlands Project is a cooperative

partnership between the Bureau of Land Management, the City of Eugene, and Lane County, Oregon,

to acquire and manage the last wetlands in the

Willamette Valley.

Source: Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1997.

Environmental Education. Bureau of Land Management, Eugene, OR.

Wetland Mitigation Bank

The West Eugene Wetland Mitigation Bank was

established by the city of Eugene, Public Works

Engineering Division, Water Resources Team. Its goal

is to provide a mechanisms to fund wetland mitigation

projects and to carry out the West Eugene Wetlands

Plan. It might also serve other community needs.

Funds for mitigation are derived from credit sales. The

mitigation bank currently charges $30,000 per mitigation credit, of which 83 percent was spent on the

development, design, planning, and construction of the

credit. The remaining charge is for the management

of the mitigation site and the mandated operation and

management period.

Source: Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1997.

Environmental Education. Bureau of Land Management, Eugene, OR.

Wetlands Conservation Guide

The Oregon Wetlands Conservation Guide is a

comprehensive guide to federal, state, and private/

nonprofit programs offering technical and/or financial

assistance to private wetland owners in the state of

Oregon. It is also an appropriate resource guide for

management of public lands (parks, open space,

wildlife refuges, recreation areas).

Source: Oregon Wetlands Conservation Alliance. No

date. The Oregon Wetlands Conservation Guide:

Voluntary Wetlands Stewardship Options for Oregon’s

Private Landowners. Oregon Wetlands Conservation

Alliance, Portland, OR.

Wetland Conservation Plan

Local jurisdictions are authorized to develop WCPs.

The plans enable decisions on wetland use to be made

through the planning process, rather than on a caseby-case basis. The WCPs provide a basis for characterizing wetlands and adjacent uplands over a large

area and to evaluate the effects of land use activities

on wetlands.

Source: Oregon Administrative Rules. 1994. Chapter

141, Division of State Lands, Division 86, Wetland

Conservation Plan.

Wetlands Construction

Oregon has taken advantage of its SRF for many

wetland projects. In the town of Lakeview, city of

Woodburn SRF is funding a project to expand and
Appendix F

F-34 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

upgrade a lagoon wastewater treatment system.

Included in this project is the construction of a wetland to improve the natural treatment system. The

SRF funded the construction of a wetland in the city

of Mount Angel to polish effluent from another lagoon

treatment system. The city of Woodburn used the

SRF to fund the construction of a wastewater treatment system using a poplar plantation for

phytoremediation. Although this is not a constructed

wetland, it is a project that expanded and improved a

natural treatment system. In addition, the cities of

Florence and Ashland plan to use constructed wetlands in future SRF funded projects.

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA). 1998b. Wetlands Projects Funded by the

Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CW-SRF). U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wastewater, Washington, DC.

 Pennsylvania

DEP

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental

Protection, through several partnerships, has restored

more than 100 miles of tributary habitat. This amounts

to 3,728.1 acres of wetlands, representing a net gain

of 3,107.4 acres. Funding was provided by section 319

money to initiate Pennsylvania’s Stream ReLeaf—A

Plan for Restoring and Conserving Buffers Along

Pennsylvania Streams and the Forest Buffer Toolkit,

a “how-to” manual.

Source: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental

Protection. No date. Coastal Zone Management

Program. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental

Protection, Harrisburg, PA.

East Goshen

Wetlands destroyed throughout East Goshen, Pennsylvania to make room for rapid development in the town

resulted in septic system overflows. Residents’ yards

were polluted with wastewater, and the town was

forced to install a $1.5 million sewer system. The

town also expects to expand the system in the future.

Source: National Audubon Society. No date a. Wetlands

Horror Stories. National Audubon Society, New York,

NY.

The Pike Run Restoration Project

The Pike Run restoration project demonstrates the

effectiveness of including habitat restoration techniques in a watershed treatment program. Forty

wetland acres were restored as a result of cooperative efforts among landowners, government agencies,

and conservation groups. The main source of funding

for the project came from an EPA section 319 grant

administered by the Pennsylvania Department of

Environmental Protection, Division of Watershed

Conservation. The project is a partnership venture of

the USFWS Partners for Wildlife Program, the

Pennsylvania Game Commission, the USDA Natural

Resources Conservation Service and Pasture Systems

and Watershed Management Research Laboratory,

Ducks Unlimited, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, California University of Pennsylvania, Pheasants

Forever, the Audubon Society of Western Pennsylvania, and interested landowners.

Source: Environmental Protection Agency. Polluted

Runoff (Nonpoint Source Pollution): Partners in

Wildlife- The Pike Run Watershed Restoration Project.

<http://www.epa.gov/owow/NPS/Section319II/

PA.html> Accessed January 2003.

Wetland Restoration/Creation Site Registry

Under the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental

Protection’s Wetland Restoration/Creation Site

Registry Program, interested property owners register

the number of acres they have available for wetland

creation. A developer with requirements to mitigate

for wetland impacts then pays the cost of restoration

or creation of new wetlands on the property at no cost

to the landowner. The developer is also responsible for

monitoring the success of the project. So far, 39

landowners have registered 240 acres in the program

(as of 1997).

Source: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental

Protection. 1997b. Wetland Restoration: A Lasting

Tribute for Earth Day. Pennsylvania Department of

Environmental Protection, Harrisburg, PA.

Wetland Replacement Project

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental

Protection, in cooperation with the USFWS, Ducks

Unlimited, and the Lake Naomi Club, will create 7.5

acres of wetlands from an abandoned sand and gravel

mine on the club’s property in Monroe County. The

Wetland Replacement Fund provides permit applicants
Appendix F

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 F-35

with more options for replacing small wetlands that

are unavoidably lost. Wetlands can thus be created on

a larger scale and in better areas.

Source: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental

Protection. 1997a. Monroe County’s Wetlands Protection.

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection,

Harrisburg, PA.

 Rhode Island

Galilee Bird Sanctuary

In 1992 the Rhode Island Division of Fish, Wildlife and

Estuary Resources requested the USACE to act as

the federal lead in the restoration of tidal flows into a

portion of the salt marsh at the Galilee Bird Sanctuary,

Narragansett. Up to one-half of the sanctuary qualifies for salt marsh restoration under the authority of

section 1135 of the Water Resources Development

Act of 1986. The remaining half will be restored under

the authority of the state. Two acres will consist of

intertidal habitat within tidal channels, 24 acres will be

fully restored to salt marsh, and 8 acres will be

partially restored to salt marsh. This will be done by

re-excavating natural channels and installing twin box

culverts beneath the escape road to improve tidal

exchange.

Source: Coastal America Partnership. 1997. Wetlands

Protection and Restoration. Coastal America, Washington, DC.

Kingston 1

A study was conducted to evaluate the removal of

ground water nitrate in and adjacent to wetlands

located within three different riparian forests. Removal rates were found to be in excess of 80% within

wetlands during both the growing and dormant seasons. Removal rates within transition zones were less

than 36% during the growing season and ranged

between 50% and 78% in the dormant season. Test

results show that both wetlands and transition zones

between wetlands and uplands can be important sinks

for ground water nitrate.

Source: Simmons, R.C., A.J. Gold, and P.M. Groffman.

1992. Nitrate dynamics in riparian forests: Groundwater studies. Journal of Environmental Quality 21:659-

665. ISSN: 0047-2425.

Kingston 2

Denitrification was measured in a riparian forest with

upland wetland transition zones and red maple wetlands on two sides of a stream. Upland use on one

side of the stream was high-density, unsewered

residential development, and upland on the other side

was undeveloped. The developed and undeveloped

sites were compared to determine removal efficiencies. Nitrate removal efficiencies for the developed

site were determined to be 59% from ground water.

Source: Hanson, G.C., P.M. Groffman, and A.J. Gold.

1994. Denitrification in riparian wetlands receiving high

and low groundwater nitrate inputs. Journal of

Environmental Quality 23:917-922.

Wetland Protection

The Division of Freshwater Wetlands Rules and

Regulations Governing the Administration and Enforcement of the Freshwater Wetlands Act regulates

all projects that might alter freshwater wetlands,

including activities in close proximity to a freshwater

wetland that might impact the natural character or

functions of a wetland, including nonpoint source

functions. Projects in close proximity to a wetland

require a permit if changes result in the flow of

surface runoff into or away from a wetland, or if

modifications in water quality would change its natural

character.

Source: Rhode Island Coastal Nonpoint Pollution

Control Program. 1995. Rhode Island Department of

Environmental Management, Providence, RI.

 South Carolina

Congaree Swamp

The Congaree Bottomland Hardwood Swamp has

been determined to provide valuable water quality

functions, such as removing and stabilizing sediment,

nutrients, and toxic contaminants. It was determined

that the total cost of constructing, operating, and

maintaining a tertiary treatment plant to perform the

same functions would be $5 million.

The National Audubon Society estimates that the cost

to replace the pollution prevention role of all of the

Congaree Bottomland Hardwood Swamp in South
Appendix F

F-36 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

Carolina with a water treatment facility would be $5

million.

Sources: National Audubon Society. No date b. What’s

a Wetland Worth? National Audubon Society, New

York, NY.

USEPA. 1995b. National Water Quality Inventory:

1994 Report to Congress. EPA841-R-95-005. USEPA,

Office of Water, Washington, D.C.

 South Dakota

Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater

Treatment

Five communities in South Dakota have received SRF

loans for wetland projects. The communities of Clear

Lake, Huron, Lake Cochrane, Pickeral Lake, and

Richmond Lake have used SRF loans to construct

wetlands as part of improvements to a publicly owned

treatment works. Constructed wetlands are a complex

of saturated substrates, emergent and subemergent

vegetation, animal life, and water that simulates

natural wetlands for various benefits. In these cases,

the wetlands follow a lagoon treatment system to

further reduce pollutant levels in the wastewater prior

to discharge. User charges are being used to repay

the loans, which total about $7.5 million for all five

communities. These projects are all eligible under the

Nonpoint Source Program (Clean Water Act §319).

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA). 1998b. Wetlands Projects Funded by the

Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CW-SRF). U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wastewater, Washington, DC.

 Tennessee

Riparian Restoration Guide

The Riparian Restoration and Streamside Erosion

Control Handbook was prepared in response to a

need by landowners to prevent erosion of private

lands and to rehabilitate damaged streamside or

riparian zones. The document presents successful

techniques for planting, bank armoring, in-stream

structures, and soil bioengineering, which have been

used by others to stabilize streambanks and restore

riparian and aquatic resources.

Source: Hoffman J.T., Green D.L., and Eager D. 1998.

Riparian Restoration and Streamside Erosion Control

Handbook. Tennessee Department of Agriculture,

Nashville, TN.

Rivers and Wetlands Program

The Rivers and Wetlands Program assesses the

conditions and trends of rivers and wetlands in Tennessee and uses the information to assist in the

restoration and conservation of aquatic resources. The

mission of the Rivers Program is to characterize the

biological, aesthetic, recreational, and cultural resources of the rivers of Tennessee. The mission of the

Wetlands Program is to identify wetlands across

Tennessee for conservation and restoration, assist in

the development of a strategy for the best use of

wetland resources, assist in the implementation of the

State Wetlands Conservation Strategy, and educate

the public and private sectors about the importance of

wetlands. The program was established in 1995

through an EPA Wetlands Planning Grant.

Source: Tennessee Department of Environment and

Conservation. 1998. Tennessee Rivers and Wetlands

Program. Tennessee Department of Environment and

Conservation, Nashville, TN.

Wetland Conservation Grant

The Division of Natural Heritage of the Tennessee

Department of Environment and Conservation has

received a $208,207 grant from EPA’s Wetland State

Partnership Grant Program to continue funding for the

Division’s Wetlands Program through June of 1999.

The grant will be used to encourage property owners

to voluntarily enroll wetlands in state and federal

wetland conservation and assistance programs; to

work with state, county, and local governments to

avoid or minimize impacts to wetlands; and to encourage voluntary wetlands conservation. The grant will

also be used to provide information about wetland

values and protection to all 95 Tennessee counties.

Source: Tennessee Department of Environment and

Conservation. 1997. Environment and Conservation

Receives an EPA Grant. Tennessee Department of

Environment and Conservation, Nashville, TN.
Appendix F

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 F-37

 Texas

Austin

A study was conducted to measure the efficiency of

VFS for removing constituents in highway runoff.

Efficiency was determined by measuring concentrations of pollutants in samples of the runoff directly off

the road and after the runoff passed through the VSF.

Two VSF were monitored (U.S. 183 and Walnut

Creek) to investigate the potential for variation in

performance between VFS.

Source: Walsh, P.M., Barrett, M.E., Malina, J.F., Jr.,

and Charbeneau, R.J. 1997. Use of Vegetative Controls

for Treatment of Highway Runoff. Center for Research

in Water Resources. CRWR Online Report 97-5.

University of Texas, Center for Research in Water

Resources, Austin, TX.

Galveston Bay Foundation

A cooperative effort between volunteers and local,

state, and federal agencies was organized by the

Galveston Bay Foundation to restore coastal marshes

primarily through the planting of smooth cordgrass.

Approximately 200 volunteers participated in 16

plantings at 6 sites and created over 20,000 square

feet of marsh. The large number of volunteers is a

reflection of the growing awareness of the need to

restore the ecological balance in Galveston Bay.

Source: Shead, L. 1997. Restoration and Construction of

Coastal Wetlands. U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Washington, DC.

Ingleside

Underutilized public property is being converted into a

multiuse coastal biofilter and wildlife habitat. Best

management practices implemented at the site include

a VSF, enlargement of a mitigated wetland for filtering

runoff, soil enhancement, xeriscaping, and the use of

solid waste disposal material and dredge material to

improve the effectiveness of the biofilter. The project

includes an education component targeting high school

and adult populations. The site is being monitored to

evaluate the effectiveness of the best management

practices.

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA). 1997a. Personal communication from Laura

J. Talbot to Wetlands Strategies and State Programs

Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Refugio

A wetland is being constructed (as of 1997) in Lions/

Shelby Park in the city of Refugio. Stormwater runoff

from urban and rangeland sources will be directed to

the constructed wetland for treatment. A strong public

outreach program is intended to complement the

project for maximum effectiveness and demonstration.

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA). 1997a. Personal communication from Laura

J. Talbot to Wetlands Strategies and State Programs

Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Texas Agricultural Experiment Station

A study was conducted to determine the effectiveness

of permanent grass and winter wheat strips in trapping

herbicides. Study sites were located in nine watersheds. In each watershed, three 30-foot wide buffer

strips of grass, winter wheat, and corn were established. Atrazine, cyanazine, and metolachlor were

applied as preemergent herbicides. Runoff was

measured and sampled during rainfall events to

determine the amount and quality of water leaving

each field. Results show that 15- and 30-foot-wide

filter strips of coastal Bermuda grass were effective

at intercepting herbicides and that the filter strips

reduced runoff volume by 60%. Herbicide levels in

both wheat and grass filter strips were shown to be

significantly lower than those in areas that were

planted completely in corn.

Source: Hoffman, D., and T. Gerik. 1995. Limiting

Herbicide Runoff with Vegetative Filter Strips. In

Proceeding of the 1995 Water for Texas Conference,

TWRI, College Station, TX.

Wetlands Assistance Guide

Texas Parks and Wildlife has developed the Wetlands

Assistance Guide for Landowners to assist landowners in protecting wetlands and riparian areas

according to their different needs within the context of

broader conservation goals. The document provides a

comprehensive guide to federal, state, and private

programs offering technical and/or financial assistance

to private wetland owners within the state of Texas.
Appendix F

F-38 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

Source: Texas Parks and Wildlife. 1995. Wetlands

Assistance Guide for Landowners. State Wetlands

Conservation Plan. Texas Parks and Wildlife, Austin,

TX.

Wetland Habitat Alliance of Texas

The Wetland Habitat Alliance of Texas (WHAT) is an

organization dedicated to preserving Texas wetlands

by raising public awareness and appreciation of

wetlands and funding projects to manage wetland

waters; protect, enhance, and restore natural wetlands; and create wetlands on nonwetland sites. The

cooperator and WHAT agree to a proposed project,

and the NRCS verifies the operable conditions before

the project is approved. Interested landowners can

receive up to 100% financial assistance for a 10-year

minimum agreement.

Source: Texas Parks and Wildlife. 1995. Wetlands

Assistance Guide for Landowners. State Wetlands

Conservation Plan. Texas Parks and Wildlife, Austin,

TX.

Wetlands Conservation Plan

The Conservation Plan focuses on nonregulatory,

voluntary approaches to conserving Texas’s wetlands.

Wetland issues addressed in the plan fall into five

general categories: education, economic incentives,

statewide and regional conservation, assessment and

evaluation, and coordination and funding. Because of

the extensive size and physiography of the state, a

regional approach is used to best characterize the

diverse wetlands needs and resources of Texas.

Source: Texas Parks and Wildlife. 1997a. Texas

Wetlands Conservation Plan. Texas Parks and Wildlife,

Austin, TX.

Wetlands Restoration Site Registry

Texas Parks and Wildlife received a $60,000 grant

from EPA to develop a voluntary registry for public

and private lands available for mitigation or registration. The program will function to link those who do

not own land but who need or want to do wetland

restoration with property owners who have similar

goals. The purpose of the registry is to identify

potential sites for wetland restoration, but there is no

guarantee that all registered sites will be restored.

Source: Texas Parks and Wildlife. 1997. Texas Wetlands

Plan Update. Vol. 2, issue 2. Texas Parks and Wildlife,

Austin, TX.

 Utah

Decker Lake

The Decker Lake Wetlands Preserve Foundation is a

nonprofit group dedicated to preserving its namesake

lake as an educational resource and natural preserve.

The group is hoping to create a preserve surrounding

the 35-acre, West Valley City lake that includes trails,

an education center, and wildlife observation areas,

thus creating a retreat in the center of the urban

valley.

Source: Decker Lake Project. 1998. Decker Lake

Wetlands Preserve Foundation. Salt Lake City, UT.

Matheson Preserve

The Scott M. Matheson Wetlands Preserve is managed by the Nature Conservancy and the Utah

Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) to ensure the

lasting protection of a spectacular desert wetland

system and its associated biological diversity. Studies

are being conducted in hydrology and ground salinity

to develop an understanding of how the wetland

system functions. Surveys are being conducted for

sensitive species, such as the northern leopard frog,

and to identify invasive plant species that pose a

threat to native vegetation communities. Birds are also

monitored to assess their resting, breeding, and

foraging habits. With this information, the Conservancy and UDWR can better design conservation

strategies to maintain the wetland and its plant and

animal residents. The Conservancy hopes to demonstrate cooperative private land management efforts

and educate children and other visitors about wetlands

and broader conservation issues on the Colorado

Plateau.

Source: The Nature Conservancy. 1998a. Matheson

Wetland Preserve. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington,

VA.

Wetlands Workbook

Utah’s Guide to Proper Wetland Management and

Development is a workbook that targets decision
Appendix F

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 F-39

makers, land managers, planners, and private citizens

and is intended to aid these groups in proper wetland

management. The document provides guidelines for

wetland identification, discusses wetland functions,

and provides guidelines for responsible development.

Wetland permitting requirements and a list of available

technical and agency resources is provided.

Source: Lock, Patricia A., Division of Wildlife Resources. 1993. Personal communication.

 Vermont

Charlotte

A VSF constructed to treat milkhouse wastewater

from a dairy farm was evaluated to determine its

effectiveness in reducing phosphorus and nitrogen

concentrations as well as exports in surface and

subsurface flow. The strip significantly reduces solids,

phosphorus, and nitrogen on a concentration basis, and

it retained 95% solids, 89% phosphorus, and 92%

nitrogen on a mass basis. Retention was greatest

during the growing season and poorest during periods

of snowmelt. Concentrations in subsurface outputs

were greater than those in surface runoff.

Source: Schwer, C.B., and J.C. Clausen. 1989. Vegetative filter treatment of dairy milkhouse wastewater.

Journal of Environmental Quality 18:446-451.

Lake Champlain Basin

The Lake Champlain Basin Watersheds National

Monitoring Program is designed to implement and

evaluate the effectiveness of livestock exclusion,

riparian revegetation, and grazing management in

reducing the concentrations and loads of nutrients,

bacteria, and sediment from agricultural sources.

Monitoring will continue over at least a 6-year period,

including a 2-year calibration period prior to best

management practice implementation, 1 year during

land management implementation, and at least 3 years

after best management practice implementation.

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA). 1995d. Section 319 National Monitoring

Program: An Overview. U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Washington, DC.

 Virginia

Blacksburg

VFS were used to remove sediment, nitrate, and

phosphate from a confined livestock area. Removal

efficiencies were evaluated under varying flow

characteristics and filter strip lengths. Results indicated that the VSF were effective for the removal of

sediment and other suspended solids if the feedlot

runoff was shallow and uniform. Sediment removal

decreased with time as sediment accumulated in the

filters. Total nitrogen and phosphorus were not

removed as effectively as sediment, and the filter

strips were not effective in removing soluble nitrogen

and phosphorus.

Source: Dillaha, T.A., J.H. Sherrard, D. Lee, S.

Mosttaghimi, and V.O. Shanholtz. 1988. Evaluation of

vegetative filter strips as a best management practice

for feed lots. Journal of Water Pollution Control

Federation 60(7):1231-1238.

Comprehensive Plan Policy

Fairfax County, Virginia, adopted a comprehensive

plan policy in 1982 to protect water quality and

sensitive lands along watercourses from encroachment. The environmental quality corridor (EQC)

policy established a “sensitive lands EQC” that

provides for all presently mapped 100-year floodplains

(and those mapped during the subsequent development process); all floodplain soils or soils with high

water table, poor bearing strength, or other severe

development constraints; wetlands adjacent to the

streams; and steep slopes (defined as 15 percent or

greater) adjacent to the floodplains, soils, or wetlands.

Where the floodplains, soils, and wetlands cover only

a narrow area, a minimum buffer width of 50 feet plus

a factor of 4 times the percent slope is provided. The

policy has resulted in protection of substantial portions

of Fairfax County stream valleys. However, because

it is only a policy rather than an ordinance, it can be

implemented in an enforceable manner only on land

uses that must be found to be in conformance with the

county’s comprehensive plan.

Source: Fairfax County, Virginia, Board of Supervisors.

1982. Occoquan Basin Study: Amendments to the

Comprehensive Plan Adopted by the Board of
Appendix F

F-40 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

Supervisors June 15, 1982. Fairfax County Office of

Comprehensive Planning, Fairfax, VA.

Culpeper County

A study concluded that for every dollar of tax revenue

collected from residential land uses in Culpeper

County in 1987, $1.25 was spent on county services.

For every dollar collected from industrial/commercial

or farm/forest/open space lands, only $0.19 was spent

on services.

Source: Vance, T., and A.B. Larson. February 1988.

Fiscal Impact of Major Land Uses in Culpeper County,

Virginia. Piedmont Environmental Council, VA.

Henrico County’s Environmental Program

Henrico County, which lies within the Chesapeake

Bay Watershed, was dominated by agricultural activity

until the 1940s and is now growing at a steady rate.

Because of the many wetlands in the county, the

Environmental Division of the Department of Public

Works is developing a stormwater management

program that will offer additional protection to water

resources, including wetlands. The goal of this project

is to strike a balance between the need to protect

stream systems not yet degraded and the desire to

restore those that have been impacted by development. This proposed program would help increase the

overall effectiveness of the county’s future

Stormwater Management Program, protect and

restore stream systems in the county, and protect and

establish forested buffers.

Source: International City/County Management

Association and National Association of Counties

(ICMA and NACO). 1999. Protecting Wetlands,

Managing Watersheds...Local Government Case

Studies. International City/County Management

Association and National Association of Counties,

Washington, DC.

Prices Fork Research Farm

Rainfall simulation was used to evaluate the effectiveness of 9.1 and 4.6 meter-long VFS for the removal of

sediment, nitrogen, and phosphorus from cropland

runoff. The 9.1 and 4.6 meter long VFS under shallow

uniform flow conditions removed an average of 84%

and 70% of the incoming suspended solids, 79% and

61% of the incoming phosphorus, and 73% and 54%

of the incoming nitrogen, respectively. Soluble nutrients in effluent were sometimes greater than the

incoming soluble nutrient load.

Source: Dillaha, T.A., R.B. Renear, S. Mostaghimi, and

D. Lee. 1989a. Vegetative filter strips for agricultural

nonpoint source pollution control. Transactions of the

American Society of Agricultural Engineers 32(2):513-

519.

Riparian Restoration Demonstration

The Riparian Restoration Demonstration and Education Project Committee was established in 1994 to

provide technical training and support for riparian

restoration. In 1997, as part of the program, the

Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation

conducted hands-on riparian restoration seminars at

six locations across the Commonwealth. The seminars

were designed to present restoration techniques for

both rural and urban settings.

Source: Northern Virginia Soil and Water Conservation

District. 1997. Conservation Currents 25(1, September/October) and 25(2, November/December).

VFS Effectiveness Study

VFS of varying ages were inspected and evaluated

throughout rural Virginia through site visits and mail

surveys. Results of the study indicate that many VFS

performed poorly because of poor design and maintenance. It was determined that in order to make VFS

more efficient, one or more of the following should be

included in the design or management: a stone trench

to spread water effectively; careful shaping of VFS to

ensure sheet flow; inspection for, and repair of,

damage following major storm events; and removal of

any accumulated sediment.

Source: Dillaha, T.A., J.H. Sherrard, and D. Lee. 1989b.

Long-term effectiveness of vegetative filter strips.

Water Environment and Technology (November

1989):419-421.

 Washington

City of Bellevue

Estimates of the cost of artificially replacing wetland

functions with engineering solutions are enormous and

such projects are, in many case, impossible. The city

of Bellevue, Washington, conducted a study which
Appendix F

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 F-41

showed that it would be 8 times more expensive to

build an artificial stormwater system than to use the

natural stormwater control system provided by

wetlands. The flood peaks in watersheds with extensively destroyed or degraded wetlands are substantially higher than those in healthy watersheds. Higher

flood levels cause greater individual property damage

and impose massive costs on taxpayers.

Source: National Audubon Society. No date c. Why Are

Wetlands Important? National Audubon Society, New

York, NY.

Synoptic Assessment Approach

The synoptic assessment approach was applied to

provide information on future risk of valued habitat

loss and to identify habitat areas for protection as part

of the development of a State WCP. The assessment

tool was used to evaluate wetland functions, make

regional comparisons, and identify significant impacts

on wetland resources.

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA). 1992a. A Synoptic Approach to Cumulative

Impact Assessment: A Proposed Methodology. EPE/

600/R-92/167. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Washington, DC.

Thurston County

A study is being conducted to determine the pollutant

removal effectiveness of VFS constructed along

roadsides in treating stormwater runoff from highways. Water quality data from the study will be used

to assist the Washington State Department of Transportation in developing design criteria for inclusion in

its highway runoff manual. Three 20-foot-wide, 10-

foot-long VFS located in three different soil types will

be evaluated in the study. Removal rates for total

suspended solids, zinc, copper, lead, cadmium, total

petroleum hydrocarbons, nitrate-nitrite, total phosphorus, soluble reactive phosphorus, and toxics will be

measured.

Source: Yonge, D. 1996. Vegetative Filter Strip Monitoring and Assessment. Washington State Department of

Transportation. Olympia, WA.

Wetland Reconstruction

The City of Des Moines, Washington, is using SRF to

purchase and reconstruct a badly degraded wetland

area and to construct a sediment trap/pond facility.

This project is allowing the city to meet two goals it

constantly struggles to achieve: flood protection and

wetland preservation and enhancement. Area

stormwater will enter one of two sediment traps by

way of the surrounding reconstructed wetlands. The

wetlands serve the dual purpose of providing flood

protection by collecting stormwater runoff and acting

as a preliminary filter by removing suspended solids.

The majority of sediment and any heavy metal removal will occur while the water is in the sediment

traps. The water will then leave the traps through

artificial inlets that lead to Barnes Creek, which

eventually enters Puget Sound. This $222,500 project

is part of the National Estuary Program (Clean Water

Act §320).

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA). 1998b. Wetlands Projects Funded by the

Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CW-SRF). U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wastewater, Washington, DC.

Wetlands Regulatory Program

The Washington State Department of Ecology has

instituted a regulatory program to counteract encroachment into wetlands due to compliance with

infrastructure-related development standards. Local

governments in the Puget Sound basin have authority

to require more stringent controls to protect water

quality where minimum setback requirements do not

provide adequate protection of water quality-sensitive

areas such as wetlands.

Source: Washington State Department of Ecology.

1992. Stormwater Program Guidance Manual for the

Puget Sound Basin. Washington State Department of

Ecology, Olympia, WA.

Winona Wetlands Purchase

The city of Port Townsend, Washington, was able to

meet both stormwater management objectives and a

wetlands preservation goal by obtaining funding from

Washington’s SRF to purchase an area known as the

Winona Wetlands. These wetlands act as a critical

stormwater basin for the area and provide valuable

wildlife habitat. Potential development of the area not

only threatened the wetlands but would also result in

stormwater management problems. By purchasing the

wetlands, the city was able to protect a natural

stormwater management system as well as a wildlife

refuge. The city purchased 6.5 acres in Phase I and is

currently planning to borrow additional SRF for a
Appendix F

F-42 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

Phase II purchase of 9 acres. This $400,000 project is

part of the National Estuary Program (Clean Water

Act §320) for the Puget Sound estuary. A portion of

the city’s stormwater utility fee paid by households is

being used to repay the Washington SRF.

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA). 1998c. Winona Wetlands Purchase. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wastewater Management, Washington, DC.

 West Virginia

Riparian Task Force

The Hampshire County Riparian Task Force was

established in 1992. The task force, which is composed of landowners and 12 local organizations, has

dedicated itself to educating the public about the

important role that forested riparian buffers play in

maintaining water quality. An important part of the

task force’s message is that individual actions and

personal choices can have both good and bad effects

on the region’s water resources. Committed to

reaching as large an audience as possible, the task

force developed an educational strategy that targets

both children and adults. The task force has developed

educational materials and demonstration sites to

promote the importance of protecting water quality in

the Potomac River Basin.

Source: Chesapeake Bay Program. 1997b. Riparian

Buffer Case Study. U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, MD.

 Wisconsin

State Water Quality Standards

The state of Wisconsin has adopted specific wetlands

water quality standards designed to protect the

sediment and nutrient filtration or storage function of

wetlands. The standards prohibit addition of those

substances that would “otherwise adversely impact

the quality of other waters of the State” beyond

natural conditions of the affected wetland. In addition,

the state has adopted criteria protecting the hydrologic

conditions in wetlands to prevent significant adverse

impacts on water currents, erosion or sedimentation

patterns, and the chemical and nutrient regimes of the

wetland. Wisconsin has also adopted a sequenced

decision-making process for projects potentially

affecting wetlands that considers the wetland dependency of a project; practicable alternatives; and the

direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the project.

Source: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.

1991. Water Quality Standards for Wetlands—Natural

Resources Chapter 103. Register, July 1991, No. 427.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources,

Oneida Indian Reservation

The Duck, Apple, and Ashwaubenon (DAA) Priority

Watershed Project is a 10-year project to reduce

runoff and improve water quality and aquatic habitat

within the 265-square-mile watershed of Lake Michigan. In 1997 the Wisconsin Land and Water Conservation Board approved the $21.8 million DAA

Nonpoint Source Control Plan to improve water

quality and quantity and the economy and quality of

life in northeastern Wisconsin. The Priority Watershed

Project is a watershed-based program that addresses

all nonpoint sources of pollution and provides a

coordinating framework for environmental management that focuses on public and private efforts to

address the highest priority problems within hydrologically defined geographic areas. The goal of the

program is to reduce phosphorus and total suspended

solids by 50 percent or more.

Source: International City/County Management

Association and National Association of Counties

(ICMA and NACO). 1999. Protecting Wetlands,

Managing Watersheds...Local Government Case

Studies. International City/County Management

Association and National Association of Counties,

Washington, DC.

 Wyoming

Green River

The Green River drains 12,000 square miles of

western Wyoming and northern Utah and incorporates

a diverse spectrum of geology, topography, soils, and
Appendix F

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 F-43

climate. Land use is predominantly range and forest.

A multiple regression model was used to associate

various riparian and nonriparian basin attributes

(geologic substrate, land use, channel slopes, etc.)

with previous measurements of phosphorus, nitrate,

and dissolved solids.

Source: Fannin, T.E., M. Parker, and T.J. Maret. 1985.

Multiple Regression Analysis for Evaluating Non-point

Source Contributions to Water Quality in the Green

River, Wyoming. In Proceedings of Riparian Ecosystems and Their Management: Reconciling Conflicting

Issues, Tucson, Arizona, April 16-18,1985, pp. 201-

205. GTR RM-120. U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range

Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO.

Washington, DC

Anacostia River Watershed

Intergovernmental agencies that include the District of

Columbia, Montgomery County, Prince George’s

County, and the State of Maryland collaborated and

organized efforts to restore the Anacostia River and

tributaries. Over 98 percent of the tidal wetlands and

nearly 75 percent of the freshwater wetlands within

the watershed were destroyed prior to the start of the

project. Restoration activities were facilitated by the

Metropolitan Council of Governments through administrative and technical support. The project was

funded through annual contributions from Anacostia

residents.

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Polluted

Runoff (Nonpoint Source Pollution): Anacostia River

Watershed District of Columbia. <www.epa.gov/

OWOW/NPS/Ecology/chap6ana.html>. Accessed

January 2003.

Kenilworth Marsh: A Classic Wetland

Restoration Success Story in The Nation’s

Capitol

The USACE in consultation with several federal and

local agencies restored more than 30 acres of emergent wetland in a reconstructed freshwater tidal

marsh in Washington, DC’s Anacostia River. Restoration of the marsh involved using dredge materials from

the Anacostia River and planting about 350,000 plants

comprising of 16 local, native species. An EPA section

319 grant administered by the District of Columbia

was used to support the monitoring effort of the

restored marsh. The lessons learned from using

dredged materials were used to build similar wetlands

in nearby marshes.

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA), Office of Research and Development. 2002.

Kenilworth Marsh: A Classic Wetland Restoration

Success Story in The Nation’s Capitol.

TERRITORIES

 American Samoa

Coastal Management Program

The American Samoa Coastal Management Program

Administrative Rules require the establishment of

buffer zones of 25 to 50 feet between wetlands and

development. Special Management Plans, which

provide additional protection to wetlands, have been

established for Pago Pago Harbor and the pala, or

wetland, areas around the villages of Leone and

Nu’uuli. In addition, American Samoa, has developed

a Comprehensive Wetlands Management Plan for the

islands of Tutuila, Aunu’u, American Samoa, and

Manu’a that documents the status of wetlands and

suggests strategies to protect remaining wetlands.

Source: American Samoa Coastal Nonpoint Source

Pollution Program. 1995. American Samoa Environmental Protection Agency, American Samoa.

Guam

Wetland Protection

The Guam Environmental Protection Agency includes

NPS evaluations of all wetlands in or adjacent to

projects under their review. The Guam Nonpoint
Appendix F

F-44 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

Source Management Plan states that the Guam

Environmental Protection Agency will include in their

formal review standards specific evaluations for NPS

control potential of existing and constructed wetlands.

The agency will also review projects adjacent to

wetlands for their impact on wetlands.

Source: Guam Nonpoint Source Pollution Management

Plan. 1996. Guam Environmental Protection Agency,

Tiyan, Guam.

Commonwealth of the

Northern Marianas Islands

Tinian Magpo Watershed and Wetland

Protection Plan

The Division of Coastal Resources Management and

the Division of Environmental Quality applied for and

received a grant from EPA to prepare the Tinian

Magpo Watershed and Wetland Protection Plan.

The plan includes rationale for development and

descriptions of the environment, previous and ongoing

investigations, federal and commonwealth agencies

regulating wetlands, and water resources. The final

plan includes detailed descriptions of the Magpo

watershed and the Magpo wetland. The plan also

identifies problems and concerns within the Magpo

watershed and wetland and provides recommendations for solutions.

Source: Baldwin G.W. 1995. Tinian Magpo Watershed

and Wetland Protection Plan. Prepared for Division of

Coastal Resources Management, Department of Lands

and Natural Resources, Saipan, MP; Division of

Environmental Quality, Department of Public Works,

Saipan, MP; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Washington, DC.

 Puerto Rico

Los Manchos Mangrove Restoration

The $1.6 million Los Manchos Mangrove Restoration

Project lies within the Los Manchos Mangrove Forest.

It involves the restoration of tidal flushing to approximately 1,000 acres of mangrove forest along the

eastern coast of Puerto Rico, at the U.S. Naval

Station, Roosevelt Roads. Construction phasing of the

project includes the demolition of existing causeways,

construction of a new causeway with bridges to allow

greater tidal flow and saltwater exchange, and the

clearing of damaged or fallen mangroves. New

mangroves will be planted in areas that were severely

damaged.

Source: Coastal America Partnership. 1997. Wetlands

Protection and Restoration. Coastal America, Washington, DC.

Mangrove Protection in Puerto Rico

In Puerto Rico protection of mangroves receives

priority attention. In 1974 the Environmental Quality

Board adopted Resolution 74-21 to protect mangrove

wetlands. The resolution states a need to preserve,

protect, and when possible restore mangroves;

minimize changes in the quantity or quality of water in

mangroves; protect mangroves from adverse effects

of dredging or the placement of dredge spoils; and

promote environmental measures for the protection of

mangroves.

Source: Puerto Rico Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control

Plan. 1995. Draft. Department of Natural Resources,

Puerta de Tierra, PR.
Appendix F

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 F-45

 Virgin Islands

GIS Assessment

The U.S. Virgin Islands Department of Planning and

Natural Resources is developing a wetland geographic

information system (GIS). The system will be used to

evaluate wetland management needs and priorities.

Data in the GIS wetlands database will be used to

ascertain historic losses of salt ponds. This data will

also be used to formulate salt pond protection measures, e.g., establishment of specific salt pond boundaries and setbacks, and creation of guidelines for the

maintenance and restoration of ponds.

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA). 1994b. State/Tribal Wetlands Grant Catalog.

5th ed. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office

of Water, Washington, DC.

TRIBES

Bad River Band of

Chippewa Indians

Wetlands Conservation Plan/Outreach

The Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa

Indians is serving as a wetlands information center for

Wisconsin tribes. The Bad River Band is focusing on

learning various wetland programs and on the development of a tribal Wetlands Conservation Plan (WCP)

for their reservation. The WCP addresses the threats

to the Kakagon/Bad River Sloughs ecosystem. In

conjunction with this plan, the tribe is working with

federal agencies to provide outreach services and help

other Wisconsin tribes develop WCP.

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA). 1994b. State/Tribal Wetlands Grant Catalog.

5th ed. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office

of Water, Washington, DC.

Colville Confederated

Tribes

Owhi Lake

Owhi Lake, Washington, has the most important

resident fishery within the Colville Confederated

Tribes reservation. The tribes have restored riparian

areas and limited livestock access to Owhi Creek and

Lake in an effort to reduce phosphorus levels. Tribal

activities included the fencing of Owhi Lake and

creation of livestock enclosures to restrict the use of

pastures along the creek. School children worked with

tribal technicians; they planted riparian vegetation and

helped put medium organic debris in the creek, using

only local materials.

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA). 1997c. Section 319 Success Stories: Volume II.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

Confederated Salish and

Kootenai Tribes of the

Flathead Reservation

Watershed Demonstration Project

The tribe is conducting a Watershed Demonstration

Project for the Bitterroot watershed. Criteria are

being developed by the Flathead Tribes to inventory

wetland resources and to identify wetlands that have

incurred detrimental impacts. Outreach activities are

being undertaken with stakeholders to determine what

measures could be taken to restore and enhance the

use of wetland resources.
Appendix F

F-46 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA). 1994b. State/Tribal Wetlands Grant Catalog.

5th ed. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office

of Water, Washington, DC.

Confederated Tribes of the

Umatilla Indian

Reservation

Wetland Community Park

There are plans to create a community park between

two wetland areas near Oregon housing projects and

the Umatilla Indian Reservation tribal government

campus. The 3.5-acre park, among the cottonwoods

of Mission Highway, would provide traditional amenities in addition to a platform that extends into the

wetlands to accommodate viewing, with information to

educate the public on the value of wetlands and

wetland protection.

Source: Plans Developed for Wetland Community Park.

Confederated Umatilla Journal, Feb. 19, 1998, p. 9.

Umatilla River Watershed

A variety of land uses on the Umatilla Indian Reservation and in the surrounding Umatilla River watershed

(in north-central Oregon) result in nonpoint source

pollution. Erosion has led to the loss of wetlands and

riparian vegetation along the river. The tribes hope to

restore these areas by improving livestock and crop

management practices. Objectives include increased

riparian shade and bank storage to improve productivity and survival of coldwater fisheries habitat; rotational grazing and wider use of upland pastures;

improved crop management; increased riparian

vegetation and the possible introduction of beaver to

provide natural habitat structural improvements;

increased in-stream structure and channel diversity;

and implementation of a proactive approach to private

land grazing and agricultural management.

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA). 1997c. Section 319 Success Stories: Volume II.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

Watershed Protection

The tribes are conducting a watershed protection

approach demonstration project in the Umatilla Basin.

Building on last year’s grant, they are developing a

watershed protection program and multilevel-government integrated watershed management plan.

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA). 1994b. State/Tribal Wetlands Grant Catalog.

5th ed. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office

of Water, Washington, DC.

Fort Peck Assiniboine and

Sioux Tribes

Managed Grazing

The demonstration of a managed grazing system is

under way as part of a riparian restoration and water

quality protection plan for the Fort Peck Reservation

in northeastern Montana. The system is located in the

Little Porcupine Creek watershed. Little Porcupine

Creek has lost almost all integrity because of uncontrolled grazing, which has stripped the banks and the

riparian corridor of vegetation. The stream also serves

as the only livestock watering source for the range.

The goal of the project is to restore the riparian zone

from a severely impaired to a moderately impaired

biological condition.

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA). 1997c. Section 319 Success Stories: Volume II.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

The Grand Portage Reservation

The Grand Portage Reservation received an EPA

grant for $50,000 in 1995 to develop a Wetland

Protection and Conservation Ordinance for the

reservation that includes regulatory and nonregulatory

approaches to wetland protection. The draft ordinance

was developed, and sections of land on the reservation

that were most at risk from development were the

focus of the wetland evaluations conducted in conjunction with the development of the ordinance.

According to Janice Cheng, EPA Region Wetlands

Division, the tribe did not use other outside funding
Appendix F

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 F-47

sources besides EPA for the development of the

ordinance, but the tribe did provide a 25 percent match

to the grant funds. Ms. Cheng stated that other tribes

in EPA Region 5 have received similar grants for

developing wetland protection ordinances. The cost of

developing the ordinances has varied from approximately $50,000 to $100,000. The length of time

involved in their development has also ranged from

slightly less than 1 year to more than 2 years. The

variation in cost and duration of the projects depends

largely on the amount of background wetland information that is available for the reservation.

Source: Cheng, Janice, USEPA, Region 5. January 18,

2000. Personal communication.

Hopi Tribe

Wetlands Conservation Project

The Hopi Tribe is preparing the Hopi Wetland Conservation Plan for protecting and conserving wetlands on the Hopi Reservation. In addition, the tribe is

completing a watershed protection demonstration

project for the Blue Canyon area of the reservation, a

unique riparian area that is currently being considered

for a National or Tribal Park. An important objective is

to develop a plan that provides adequate protection but

still allows for economic development by the tribe.

The emphasis is on establishing goals that provide

direct protection of the wetland resources.

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA). 1994b. State/Tribal Wetlands Grant Catalog.

5th ed. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office

of Water, Washington, DC.

Hualapai Tribe

Spencer Creek

Spencer Creek is the largest perennial stream on the

Hualapai Indian Reservation in Arizona. The creek,

nearby wetlands, and native vegetation are plagued by

fecal contamination resulting from burro overgrazing.

A 3-day restoration project involves helicopter crews

that will haul fence panels down to Indian Gardens to

make a temporary holding pen, net all burros, and

transport them by helicopter to the holding pen for

relocation to other areas. The Hualapai Department of

Natural Resources hopes to prevent the buildup of

buro populations to allow woody riparian vegetation,

now lost to overgrazing, to reestablish. Removal of the

burros will improve wetland plants and water quality

throughout the Spencer Creek drainage.

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA). 1997c. Section 319 Success Stories: Volume II.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

 Inter-Tribal Council of

Michigan

Wetlands Outreach

The Inter-Tribal Council of Michigan (MITC) is

providing wetlands technical assistance to the Bay

Mills Indian Community and expanding this assistance

to all Michigan tribes. This project is fulfilling the need

for outreach and education specific to the 404 program. MITC is determining the specific needs of each

tribe and is working with the federal agencies to

provide technical information and wetland management assistance. MITC’s goal is to eventually develop

wetland management strategies for all the Michigan

tribes that request their assistance. The strategies
Appendix F

F-48 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

include the identification, preservation, and management of wetlands on reservations.

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA). 1994b. State/Tribal Wetlands Grant Catalog.

5th ed. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office

of Water, Washington, DC.

Miccosukee Tribe of Indians

of Florida

Wetland Water Quality Standards

The Miccosukee Tribe has vested interests in approximately 2.1 million acres in South Florida, and the vast

majority of this acreage is wetlands. The tribe is

collecting and analyzing water samples at 20 sites,

including eight wetland reference sites on the

Miccosukee Tribe’s federal reservations. The tribe is

using this information to develop wetland water quality

standards and to assess and monitor the ecological

integrity of the tribe’s wetlands with development of

potential indicators.

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA). 1994b. State/Tribal Wetlands Grant Catalog.

5th ed. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office

of Water, Washington, DC.

 Narragansett Indian Tribe

Wetlands Protection Program

The tribe is developing a program for the protection of

tribal wetlands, including development of zoning

by-laws, a conservation and recreation plan, and

biological criteria/wetland water quality standards. In

addition, the tribe is developing educational and

training opportunities for tribal members and staff

involved in the administration of their newly developed

wetland protection program.

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA). 1994b. State/Tribal Wetlands Grant Catalog.

5th ed. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office

of Water, Washington, DC.

 Nez Perce Tribe

Wetland Conservation Program

The tribe is developing and implementing a watershed

protection approach demonstration project in the

Lapwai Creek Watershed and a comprehensive WCP

for the reservation.

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA). 1994b. State/Tribal Wetlands Grant Catalog.

5th ed. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office

of Water, Washington, DC.

 Pueblo of Acoma

Wetlands Protection Program

The tribe is developing a comprehensive plan for

wetland areas on the reservation as an ongoing project

with other tribal programs such as range management,

forestry, fish and wildlife, and various agricultural and

recreational programs. By developing a Wetlands

Protection Plan, these areas can be incorporated into

an overall tribal lands management program.

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA). 1994b. State/Tribal Wetlands Grant Catalog.

5th ed. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office

of Water, Washington, DC.
Appendix F

EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 F-49

 Pueblo of Laguna

Wetlands Program

The tribe is developing a program to manage and

conserve its wetlands as they relate to other resources. The elements of the wetland program are

being incorporated into the overall Integrated Resources Management Plan. The objectives are to

establish a Wetlands Section within the pueblo’s

Natural Resources Department, to gather data for a

WCP, to develop a WCP, to develop water quality

standards, to improve wetlands potential through

watershed improvement projects, and to gain public

input on a WCP.

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA). 1994b. State/Tribal Wetlands Grant Catalog.

5th ed. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office

of Water, Washington, DC.

Red Lake Band of

Chippewa Indians

Red Lake Farm

The Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians will manage

more than 1,200 acres of wetlands and other habitats,

including a portion of the Kiwosay Wildlife Area in

Minnesota. A $177,000 grant through the National

Wildlife Refuge System, along with $338,000 from

partners, will be used to help restore nesting habitat as

well as wild rice and small grain food plots, which are

a food source for migrating and breeding waterfowl.

Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).

1998e. Wetlands Projects Approved for 19 States. Fish

and Wildlife Service News List Server. Listed April 30,

1998. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife

Service, Washington, DC.

Wetlands Outreach

The Red Lake Band is developing expertise in both

regulatory and advanced planning aspects of the

wetland program and providing wetland outreach to

the tribes of Minnesota. They are providing technical

assistance in wetland delineation, wetlands regulations,

and eventually, assistance in the development of

individual tribal wetland ordinances or WCP. They are

also upgrading their existing computer equipment to

accommodate an expanded geographic information

system. They are gathering information on current

needs of the Minnesota tribes and are working with

the federal agencies on training in policy issues.

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA). 1994b. State/Tribal Wetlands Grant Catalog.

5th ed. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office

of Water, Washington, DC.

 Rincon San Luiseno Band

of Mission Indians

Wetlands Protection Plan

In 1992 the Rincon San Luiseno Band initiated work

to develop a wetland management program for the

reservation lands along the San Luis Rey River. The

Rincon are defining short- and long-term data requirements to assess water and wetland quality on the

reservation. Data include quantitative information on

chemical, physical, and biological parameters. Permanent sampling and monitoring stations are being

defined on the reservation, along with data collection

requirements and protocols.

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA). 1994b. State/Tribal Wetlands Grant Catalog.

5th ed. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office

of Water, Washington, DC.
Appendix F

F-50 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005

 Santa Clara Pueblo

Wetlands Project:

The tribe is developing a comprehensive wetland

monitoring and assessment plan for the pueblo,

finalizing a draft Wetlands Management Plan, and

developing a pollution prevention strategy for

remediation of the pueblo’s wetlands.

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA). 1994b. State/Tribal Wetlands Grant Catalog.

5th ed. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office

of Water, Washington, DC.

Sisseton-Wahpeton Dakota

Nation

Wetlands Conservation Plan

The nation is developing a Tribal WCP. They are

undertaking activities to protect, restore, and maintain

wetland resources on the reservation. With the

assistance of the Natural Resources Conservation

Service and USFWS, they are using existing wetland

data to inventory wetland resources and identify

priority wetlands on the reservation.

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA). 1994b. State/Tribal Wetlands Grant Catalog.

5th ed. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office

of Water, Washington, DC.

 Warm Springs Tribe

Wetlands Conservation Plan

The tribe is inventorying existing wetlands, identifying

functions and values, refining tribal monitoring and

enforcement programs, and consolidating existing

tribal laws affecting wetlands. These activities will

provide the basis for the development of a wetlands

conservation programs for the reservation.

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA). 1994b. State/Tribal Wetlands Grant Catalog.

5th ed. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office

of Water, Washington, DC.