APPENDIX D 

National Guidance: 

Water Quality Standards 

for Wetlands 

WATER QUALITY STANDARDS HANDBOOK 

SECOND EDITION 
United States 

Environmental Protection 

Agency 

Office of Water 

Regulations and Standards (WH-585) 

Washington, DC 20460 

EPA 440/S-90-011 

July 1990 

EPA Water Quality Standards 

for Wetlands 

National Guidance 
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR 

WETLANDS 

National Guidance 

July 1990 

Prepared by: 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Water Regulations and Standards 

Office of Wetlands Protection 
This document is designated as Appendix B to Chapter 2 - General Program Guidance of the Water Quality 

Standards Handbook, December 1983. 

Table of Contents 

page 

Transmittal Memo.. ......................................................................................................................................... v 

Executive Summary.. ...................................................................................................................................... vii 

1.0 INTRODUCTION.. ..................................................................................................................................... 1 

1.1 Objectives.. ........................................................................................................................................ 2 

1.2 Organization ................................................................................................................................ 2 

1.3 Legal Authority ............................................................................................................................... 3 

2.0 INCLUSION OF WETLANDS IN THE DEFINITION OF STATE WATERS.. ...................................... 5 

3.0 USE CLASSIFICATION.. ......................................................................................................................... 7 

3.1 Wetland Types ................................................................................................................................. 8 

3.2 Wetland Functions and Values.. .................................................................................................. 10 

3.3 Designating Wetland Uses.. ........................................................................................................ 11 

4.0 CRITERIA ............................................................................................................................ 15 

4.1 Narrative Criteria ............................................................................................................................ 15 

4.1.1 General Narrative Criteria ............................................................................................................. 16 

4.1.2 Narrative Biological Criteria .......................................................................................................... 16 

4.2 Numeric Criteria ................................................................................................... ...................... 17 

4.2.1 Numeric Criteria - Human Health.. .............................................................................................. 17 

4.2.2 Numeric Criteria - Aquatic Life.. ................................................................................................... 17 

5.0 ANTIDEGRADATION.. .......................................................................................................................... 19 

5.1 Protection of Existing Uses .......................................................................................................... 19 

iii 
5.2 Protection of High-Quality Wetlands .................................................. 20 

5.3 Protection of Outstanding Wetlands.. .............................................................. 20 

6.0 IMPLEMENTATION ........................................................................ 23 

6.1 

6.2 

6.3 

6.4 

Section 401 Certification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 

Discharges to Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 

6.2.1 Municipal Wastewater Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 

6.2.2 Stormwater Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 

6.2.3 Fills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 

6.2.4 Nonpoint Source Assessment and Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 

Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . .............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 

Mixing Zones and Variances ......................................................26 

7.0 FUTURE DIRECTIONS .............................................. 29 

7.1 Numeric Biological Criteria for Wetlands ..................................................... 29 

7.2 Wildlife Criteria ..................................................................................... 30 

7.3 Wetlands Monitoring ................................................................................... 30 

References ........................................................................................................... 31 

Appendices 

A - Glossary.. .............................................................................................. A-1 

B - Definition of “Waters of the U.S.“. ........................................................... .B-1 

C - Information on the Assessment of Wetland Functions and Values ........................... C-1 

D - Regional Wetlands Coordinators 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ..................... D-1 

E - Example of State Certification Action Involving Wetlands under CWA Section 401 ..... E-1 

iv 
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 

OFFICE OF 

WATER 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Final Document: National Guidance on Water Quality 

Standards for Wetlands 

FROM: Martha G. Prothro, Director 

Office of Water Regulations and Standards 

David G. Davis, Director 

Office of Wetlands Protection 

TO: Regional Water Division Directors 

Regional Environmental Services Division Directors 

Assistant Regional Administrator for Policy 

and Management, Region VII 

OW Office Directors 

State Water Quality Program Managers 

State Wetland Program Managers 

The following document entitled "National Guidance: Water 

Quality Standards for Wetlands" provides guidance for meeting the 

priority established in the FY 1991 Agency Operating Guidance to 

develop water quality standards for wetlands during the FY 1991- 

1993 triennium. This document was developed jointly by the 

Office of Water Regulations and Standards (OWRS) and the Office 

of Wetlands Protection (OWP), and reflects the comments we 

received on the February 1990 draft from EPA Headquarters and 

Regional offices, EPA laboratories, and the States. 

By the end of FY 1993, the minimum requirements for States 

are to include wetlands in the definition of "State waters", 

establish beneficial uses for wetlands, adopt existing narrative 

and numeric criteria for wetlands, adopt narrative biological 

criteria for wetlands, and apply antidegradation policies to 

wetlands. Information in this document related to the 

development of biological criteria has been coordinated with 

recent guidance issued by OWRS; "Biological Criteria: National 

Program Guidance for Surface Waters", dated April 1990. 

We are focusing on water quality standards for wetlands to 

ensure that provisions of the Clean Water Act currently applied 

to other surface waters are also being applied to wetlands. The 

document focuses on those elements of water quality standards 

v 
that can be developed now using the overall structure of the 

water quality standards program and existing information and data 

sources related to wetlands. Periodically, our offices will 

provide additional information and support to the Regions and 

States through workshops and additional documents. We encourage 

you to let us know your needs as you begin developing wetlands 

standards. If you have any questions concerning this document, 

please contact us or have your staff contact Bob Shippen in OWRS 

(FTS-475-7329) or Doreen Robb in OWP (FTS-245-3906). 

Attachment 

cc: LaJuana Wilcher 

Robert Wayland 

vi 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Background 

This document provides program guidance to States on how to ensure effective application of water 

quality standards (WQS) to wetlands. This guidance reflects the level of achievement EPA expects the States 

to accomplish by the end of FY 1993, as defined in the Agency Operating Guidance, FY 1991, Office of Water 

The basic requirements for applying State water quality standards to wetlands include the following: 

• Include wetlands In the definition of “State waters.” 

• Designate uses for all wetlands. 

• Adopt aesthetic narrative criteria (the “free forms”) and appropriate numeric criteria for wetlands 

• Adopt narrative biological criteria for wetlands. 

• Apply the State’s antidegradation policy and implementation methods to wetlands. 

Water quality standards for wetlands are necessary to ensure that the provisions of the Clean Water Act 

(CWA) applied to other surface waters are also applied to wetlands. Although Federal regulations implementing the CWA include wetlands in the definition of ‘waters of the U.S.” and therefore require water 

quality standards, a number of States have not developed WQS for wetlands and have not included wetlands 

in their definitions of “State waters.” Applying water quality standards to wetlands is part of an overall effort 

to protect and enhance the Nation’s wetland resources and provides a regulatory basis for a variety of 

programs to meet this goal. Standards provide the foundation for a broad range of water quality management activities including, but not limited to, monitoring under Section 305(b), permitting under Sections 402 

and 404, water quality certification under Section 401, and the control of NPS pollution under Section 319. 

With the issuance of this guidance, EPA proposes a two- phased approach for the development of WQS 

for wetlands. Phase 1 activities presented in this guidance include the development of WQS elements for 

wetlands based upon existing information and science to be implemented within the next triennium. Phase 

2 involves the further refinement of these basic elements using new science and program developments. The 

development of WQS for all surface waters is an iterative process. 

Definition 

The first and most important step in applying water quality standards to wetlands is ensuring that wetlands 

are legally included in the scope of States’ water quality standards programs. States may accomplish this by 

adopting a regulatory definition of “State waters” at least as inclusive as the Federal definition of waters of 

the U.S.” and by adopting an appropriate definition for “wetlands.” States may also need to remove or modify 

regulatory language that explicitly or implicitly limits the authority of water quality standards over wetlands. 

Use Designation 

At a minimum, all wetlands must have uses designated that meet the goals of Section 101(a)(2) of the CWA 

by providing for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and for recreation in and on the 

water, unless the results of a use attainability analysis (UAA) show that the CWA Section 101(a)(2) goals 

cannot be achieved. When designating uses for wetlands, States may choose to use their existing general 

vii 
and water-specific classification systems, or they may set up an entirely different system for wetlands 

reflecting their unique functions. Two basic pieces of information are useful in classifying wetland uses: (1) 

the structural types of wetlands and (2) the functions and values associated with such types of wetlands 

Generally, wetland functions directly relate to the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of wetlands. 

The protection of these functions through water quality standards also may be needed to attain the uses of 

waters adjacent to, or downstream of, wetlands. 

Criteria 

The Water Quality Standards Regulation (40 CFR 131.11 (a)(l)) requires States to adopt criteria sufficient 

to protect designated uses that may include general statements (narrative) and specific numerical values 

(i.e., concentrations of contaminants and water quality characteristics). Most State water quality standards 

already contain many criteria for various water types and designated use classes that may be applicable to 

wetlands. 

Narrative criteria are particularly important in wetlands, since many wetland impacts cannot be fully 

addressed by numeric criteria. Such impacts may result from the discharge of chemicals for which there are 

no numeric criteria in State standards, nonpoint sources, and activities that may affect the physical and/or 

biological, rather than the chemical, aspects of water quality (e.g., discharge of dredged and fill material) 

Narratives should be written to protect the most sensitive designated use and to support existing uses under 

State antidegradation policies. In addition to other narrative criteria, narrative biological criteria provide a 

further basis for managing a broad range of activities that impact the biological integrity of wetlands and 

other surface waters, particularly physical and hydrologic modifications. Narrative biological criteria are 

general statements of attainable or attained conditions of biological integrity and water quality for a given use 

designation. EPA has published national guidance on developing biological criteria for all surface waters. 

Numeric criteria are specific numeric values for chemical constituents, physical parameters, or biological 

conditions that are adopted in State standards. Human health water quality criteria are based on the toxicity 

of a contaminant and the amount of the contaminant consumed through ingestion of water and fish 

regardless of the type of water. Therefore, EPA’s chemical-specific human health criteria are directly 

applicable to wetlands. EPA also develops chemical-specific numeric criteria recommendations for the 

protection of freshwater and saltwater aquatic life. The numeric aquatic life criteria, although not designed 

specifically for wetlands, were designed to be protective of aquatic life and are generally applicable to most 

wetland types. An exception to this are pH-dependent criteria, such as ammonia and pentachlorophenol. 

since wetland pH may be outside the normal range of 6.5-9.0. As in other waters, natural water quality 

characteristics in some wetlands may be outside the range established for uses designated in State standards. These water quality characteristics may require the development of criteria that reflect the natural 

background conditions in a specific wetland or wetland type Examples of some of the wetland characteristics that may fall into this category are dissolved oxygen, pH, turbidity, color, and hydrogen sulfide 

Antidegradation 

The antidegradation policies contained in all State standards provide a powerful tool for the protection of 

wetlands and can be used by States to regulate point and nonpoint source discharges to wetlands in the 

same way as other surface waters. In conjunction with beneficial uses and narrative criteria, antidegradation 

can be used to address impacts to wetlands that cannot be fully addressed by chemical criteria, such as 

physical and hydrologic modifications. With the inclusion of wetlands as “waters of the State," State 

antidegradation policies and their implementation methods will apply to wetlands in the same way as other 

surface waters. State antidegradation policies should provide for the protection of existing uses in wetlands 

and the level of water quality necessary to protect those uses in the same manner as provided for other 

surface waters; see Section 131.12(a)(1) of the WQS regulation. In the case of fills, EPA interprets protection 

of existing uses to be met if there is no significant degradation as defined according to the Section 404(b)(1) 

guidelines. State antidegradation policies also provide special protection for outstanding natural resource 

waters. 

viii 
Implementation 

Implementing water quality standards for wetlands will require a coordinated effort between related 

Federal and State agencies and programs. Many States have begun to make more use of CWA Section 401 

certification to manage certain activities that impact their wetland resources on a physical and/or biological 

basis rather than just chemical impacts. Section 401 gives the States the authority to grant, deny, or 

condition certification of Federal permits or licenses that may result in a discharge to “waters of the U.S.” 

Such action is taken by the State to ensure compliance with various provisions of the CWA, including the 

State’s water quality standards. Violation of water quality standards is often the basis for denials or 

conditioning through Section 401 certification. 

Natural wetlands are nearly always “waters of the U.S.” and are afforded the same level of protection as 

other surface waters with regard to standards and minimum wastewater treatment requirements. Water 

quality standards for wetlands can prevent the misuse and overuse of natural wetlands for treatment through 

adoption of proper uses and criteria and application of State antidegradation policies. The Water Quality 

Standards Regulation (40 CFR 131,10(a)) states that, “in no case shall a State adopt waste transport or waste 

assimilation as a designated use for any ‘waters of the U.S.‘.” Certain activities involving the discharge of 

pollutants to wetlands may be permitted; however, as with other surface waters, the State must ensure, 

through ambient monitoring, that permitted discharges to wetlands preserve and protect wetland functions 

and values as defined in State water quality standards. For municipal discharges to natural wetlands, a 

minimum of secondary treatment is required, and applicable water quality standards for the wetland and 

adjacent waters must be met. EPA anticipates that the policy for stormwater discharges to wetlands will 

have some similarities to the policies for municipal wastewater discharges to wetlands. 

Many wetlands, through their assimilative capacity for nutrients and sediment, also serve an important 

water quality control function for nonpoint source pollution effects on waters adjacent to, or downstream of, 

the wetlands. Section 319 of the CWA requires the States to complete assessments of nonpoint source 

(NPS) impacts to State waters, including wetlands, and to prepare management programs to control NPS 

impacts. Water quality standards for wetlands can form the basis for these assessments and management 

programs for wetlands. 

In addition, States can address physical and hydrological impacts on wetland quality through the application of narrative criteria to protect existing uses and through application of their antidegradation policies. 

The States should provide a linkage in their water quality standards to the determination of “significant 

degradation” as required under EPA guidelines (40 CFR 230.10(c)) and other applicable State laws affecting 

the disposal of dredged or fill materials in wetlands. 

Finally, water quality management activities, including the permitting of wastewater and stormwater 

discharges, the assessment and control of NPS pollution, and waste disposal activities (sewage sludge, 

CERCLA, RCRA) require sufficient monitoring to ensure that the designated and existing uses of “waters of 

the U.S.” are maintained and protected. The inclusion of wetlands in water quality standards provides the 

basis for conducting both wetland-specific and status and trend monitoring of State wetland resources 

Monitoring of activities impacting specific wetlands may include several approaches, including biological 

measurements (i.e., plant, macroinvertebrate, and fish), that have shown promise for monitoring stream 

quality. The States are encouraged to develop and test the use of biological indicators. 

Future Directions 

Development of narrative biological criteria are included in the first phase of the development of water 

quality standards for wetlands. The second phase involves the implementation of numeric biological criteria. 

This effort requires the detailed evaluation of the components of wetland communities to determine the 

structure and function of unimpaired wetlands. Wetlands are important habitats for wildlife species. It is 

therefore also important to consider wildlife in developing criteria that protect the functions and values of 
wetlands. During the next 3 years, the Office of Water Regulations and Standards is reviewing aquatic life 

water quality criteria to determine whether adjustments in the criteria and/or alternative forms of criteria (e.g., 

tissue concentration criteria) are needed to adequately protect wildlife species using wetland resources. 

EPA’s Offlce of Water Regulations and Standards Is also developing guidance for EPA and State surface 

water monitoring programs that will be issued by the end of PY 1990. Other technical guidance and support 

for the development of State water quality standards will be forthcoming from EPA in the next triennium. 

X 
Chapter 1.0 

Introduction 

0 ur understanding of the many benefits that 

wetlands provide has evolved rapidly over 

the last 20 to 30 years. Recently, 

programs have been developed to restore and 

protect wetland resources at the local, State, and 

Federal levels of government. At the Federal level, 

the President of the United States established the 

goal of “no net loss” of wetlands, adapted from the 

National Wetlands Policy Forum recommendations 

(The Conservation Foundation 1988). Applying 

water quality standards to wetlands is part of an 

overall effort to protect the Nation’s wetland resources and provides a regulatory basis for a variety of 

programs for managing wetlands to meet this goal. 

As the link between land and water, wetlands play 

a vital role In water quality management programs. 

Wetlands provide a wide array of functions including 

shoreline stabilization, nonpoint source runoff filtration, and erosion control, which directly benefit adjacent and downstream waters. In addition, wetlands provide important biological habitat, including 

nursery areas for aquatic life and wildlife, and other 

benefits such as groundwater recharge and recreation Wetlands comprise a wide variety of aquatic 

vegetated systems including, but not limited to, 

sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, bogs, fens, 

vernal pools, and marshes. The basic elements of 

water quality standards (WQS). including designated uses, criteria, and an antidegradation policy, 

provide a sound legal basis for protecting wetland 

resources through State water quality management 

programs. 

Water quality standards traditionally have been 

applied to waters such as rivers, lakes, estuaries, 

and oceans, and have been applied tangentially, if at 

all, to wetlands by applying the same uses and 

criteria to wetlands as to adjacent perennial waters. 

Isolated wetlands not directly associated with perennial waters generally have not been addressed in 

State water quality standards. A recent review of 

State water quality standards (USEPA 1989d) shows 

that only half of the States specifically refer to wetlands, or use similar terminology, in their water 

quality standards. Even where wetlands are refer1 
enced, standards may not be tailored to reflect the 

unique characteristics of wetlands. 

Water quality standards specifically tailored to 

wetlands provide a consistent basis for the development of policies and technical procedures for 

managing activities that impact wetlands. Such 

water quality standards provide the goals for 

Federal and State programs that regulate discharges to wetlands, particularly those under CWA Sections 402 and 404 as well as other regulatory 

programs (e.g., Sections 307, 318, and 405) and 

nonregulatory programs (e.g., Sections 314, 319, 

and 320). In addition, standards play a critical role 

in the State 401 certification process by providing 

the basis for approving, conditioning, or denying 

Federal permits and licenses, as appropriate. Finally, standards provide a benchmark against which to 

assess the many activities that impact wetlands. 

1.1 Objectives 

The objective of this document is to assist States 

in applying their water quality standards regulations 

to wetlands in accordance with the Agency Operating Guidance (USEPA 1990a), which states: 

By September 30, 1993, States and qualified 

Indian Tribes must adopt narrative water 

quality standards that apply directly to wetlands. Those Standards shall be established 

in accordance with either the National 

Guidance, Wet- Water Quality Standards for 

lands . . . or some other scientifically valid 

method. In adopting water quality standards 

for wetlands, States and qualified Indian 

Tribes, at a minimum, shall: (7) define wetlands as “State waters”; (2) designate uses 

that protect the structure and function of wetlands; (3) adopt aesthetic narrative criteria 

(the “free froms’) and appropriate numeric 

criteria in the standards to protect the designated uses; (4) adopt narrative biological 

criteria in the standards; and (5) extend the 

antidegradation policy and implementation 

methods to wetlands. Unless results of a use 

attainability analysis show that the section 

101(a) goals cannot be achieved, States and 

qualified Indian Tribes shall designate uses 

for wetlands that provide for the protection of 

fish, shellfish, wildlife, and recreation. When 

extending the antidegradation policy and implementation methods to wetlands, consideration should be given to designating 

critical wetlands as Outstanding National 

Resource Waters. As necessary, the antidegradation policy should be revised to 

reflect the unique characteristics of wetlands. 

This level of achievement is based upon existing 

science and information, and therefore can be completed within the FY 91-93 triennial review cycle. 

Initial development of water quality standards for 

wetlands over the next 3 years will provide the foundation for the development of more detailed water 

quality standards for wetlands in the future based on 

further research and policy development (see Chapter 7.0.). Activities defined in this guidance are 

referred to as “Phase 1 activities,” while those to be 

developed over the longer term are referred to as 

“Phase 2 activities.” Developing water quality standards is an iterative process. 

This guidance is not regulatory, nor is it designed 

to dictate specific approaches needed in State water 

quality standards. The document addresses the 

minimum requirements set out in the Operating 

Guidance, and should be used as a guide to the 

modifications that may be needed in State standards. EPA recognizes that State water qualify standards regulations vary greatly from State to State, as 

do wetland resources. This guidance suggests approaches that States may wish to use and allows for 

State flexibility and innovation. 

1.2 Organization 

Each chapter of this document provides guidance 

on a particular element of Phase 1 wetland water 

quality standards that EPA expects States to undertake during the next triennial review period (i.e., by 

September 30, 1993). For each chapter, a discussion of what EPA considers to be minimally acceptable is followed by subsections providing information that may be used to meet, and go beyond, the 

minimum requirements during Phase 1. Documents 

referenced in this guidance provide further information on specific topics and may be obtained from the 

sources listed in the “References” section. The following paragraphs introduce each of the chapters of 

this guidance. 

Most wetlands fall within the definition of “waters 

of the U.S.” and thus require water quality stand2 
ards. EPA expects States by the end of FY 1993 to 

include wetlands in their definition of “State waters” 

consistent with the Federal definition of “waters of 

the U.S.” Guidance on the inclusion of wetlands in 

the definition of “State waters” is contained in Chapter 2.0. 

The application of water quality standards to wetlands requires that States designate appropriate 

uses consistent with Sections 101(a)(2) and 

303(c)(2) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). EPA expects States by the end of FY 1993 to establish 

designated uses for ail wetlands. Discussion of 

designated uses is contained in Chapter 3.0. 

The WCS regulation (40 CFR 131) requires States 

to adopt water quality criteria sufficient to protect 

designated uses. EPA expects the States, by the 

end of FY 1993, to adopt aesthetic narrative criteria 

(the “free froms”), appropriate numeric criteria, and 

narrative biological criteria for wetlands. Narrative 

criteria are particularly important for wetlands, since 

many activities may impact upon the physical and 

biological, as well as chemical, components of 

water quality. Chapter 4.0 discusses the application 

of narrative and numeric criteria to wetlands 

EPA also expects States to fully apply antidegradation policies and implementation methods 

to wetlands by the end of FY 1993. Antidegradation 

can provide a powerful tool for the protection of 

wetlands, especially through the requirement for full 

protection of existing uses as well as the States’ 

option of designating wetlands as outstanding national resource waters. Guidance on the application 

of State antidegradation policies to wetlands is contained in Chapter 5.0. 

Many State water quality standards contain 

policies affecting the application and implementation of water quality standards (e.g., variances, 

mixing zones). Unless otherwise specified. such 

policies are presumed to apply to wetlands in the 

same manner as to other waters of the State. States 

should consider whether such policies should be 

modified to reflect the characteristics of wetlands. 

Guidance on the implementation of water quality 

standards for wetlands is contained in Chapter 6.0 

Application of standards to wetlands will be an 

iterative process; both EPA and the States will refine 

their approach based on new scientific information 

as well as experience developed through State 

programs. Chapter 7.0 outlines Phase 2 wetland 

standards activities for which EPA is planning additional research and program development 

1.3 Legal Authority 

The Clean Water Act requires States to develop 

water quality standards, which include designated 

uses and criteria to support those uses, for 

“navigable waters.” CWA Section 502(7) defines 

“navigable waters” as “waters of the U.S.” “Waters of 

the U.S.” are, in turn, defined in Federal regulations 

developed for the National Pollution Discharge 

Elimination System (40 CFR 122.2) and permits for 

the discharge of dredged or fill material (40 CFR 

230.3 and 232.2). “Waters of the U.S.” include 

waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; interstate waters (including interstate wetlands) and intrastate waters (including wetlands), the use, 

destruction, or degradation of which could affect 

interstate commerce; tributaries of the above; and 

wetlands adjacent to the above waters (other than 

waters which are themselves waters). See Appendix 

B for a complete definition 

The term ‘wetlands” is defined in 40 CFR 

232.2(r) as: 

Those areas that are inundated or saturated 

by surface 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. Werlands 

generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, 

and similar areas. 

This definition of “waters of the U.S.,” which includes most wetlands, has been debated in Congress and upheld by the courts. In 1977, a proposal 

to delete CWA jurisdiction over most wetlands for 

the purpose of the Section 404 permit program was 

defeated in the Senate. The debate on the amend. 

ment shows a strong congressional awareness 01 

the value of wetlands and the importance of retain. 

ing them under the statutory scheme. Various 

courts have also upheld the application of the CWP 

to wetlands See, e.g., United Srates v Riverside 

Bayview Homes, 474 U S. 121 (1985); Unired Srate: 

v. Byrd, 609 F.2d 1204 (7th Cir 1979). Avoyelle: 

Sportsmen’s league v Marsh, 715 F 2d 897 (5tt 

3 
Cir. 1983); United States v. Leslie Salt [ 1990 

decision]. The practical effect Is to make nearly all 

wetlands “waters of the U.S.” 

Created wastewater treatment wetlands’ 

designed, built, and operated solely as wastewater 

treatment systems are generally not considered to 

be waters of the U.S. Water quality standards that 

apply to natural wetlands generally do not apply to 

such created wastewater treatment wetlands. Many 

created wetlands, however, are designed, built, and 

operated to provide, in addition to wastewater treatment, functions and values similar to those provided 

by natural wetlands. Under certain circumstances, 

such created multiple use wetlands may be considered waters of the U.S. and as such would require 

water quality standards. This determination must be 

made on a case-by-case basis, and may consider 

factors such as the size and degree of isolation of 

the created wetlands and other appropriate factors. 

1 Different offices within EPA use different terminology (e.g., “create” or “constructed”) to describe 

wastewater treatment wetlands. This terminology is evolving; for purposes of this guidance 

document, the terms are interchangeable in meaning. 

4 
Chapter 2.0 

Inclusion of Wetlands in 

the Definition of State 

Waters 

T he first, and most important, step in applying water quality standards to wetlands Is 

ensuring that wetlands are legally included 

in the scope of States’ water quality standards 

programs. EPA expects States’ water quality standards to include wetlands in the definition of “State 

waters” by the end of FY 1993. States may accomplish this by adopting a regulatory definition of 

“State waters” at least as inclusive as the Federal 

definition of “waters of the U.S.” and by adopting an 

appropriate definition for “wetlands.” For example, 

one State includes the following definitions in their 

water quality standards: 

“Surface waters of the State”... means all 

streams. . . . lakes . . . , ponds, marshes, wetlands or other waterways... 

“Wetlands” means areas of land where the 

water table is at, near or above the land surface long enough each year to result in the 

formation of characteristically wet (hydric) 

soil types, and support the growth of water 

dependent (hydrophytic) vegetation. Wetlands include, but are not limited to, marshes, 

swamps, bogs, and other such low-lying 

areas. 

States may also need to remove or modify 

regulatory language that explicitly or implicitly limits 

the authority of water quality standards over wetlands. In certain instances, such as when water 

5 
quality standards are statutory or where a statute 

defines or limits regulatory authority over wetlands, 

statutory changes may be needed. 

The CWA does not preclude States from adopting, under State law, a more expansive definition of 

‘waters of the State” to meet the goals of the act. 

Additional areas that could be covered include 

riparian areas, floodplains, vegetated buffer areas, 

or any other critical areas identified by the State. 

Riparian areas and floodplains are important and 

severely threatened ecosystems, particularly in the 

arid and semiarid West. Often it is technically difficult to separate, jurisdictionally. wetlands subject 

to the provisions of the CWA from other areas within 

the riparian or floodplain complex. 

States may choose to include riparian or 

floodplain ecosystems as a whole in the definition of 

‘Waters of the State” or designate these areas for 

special protection in their water quality standards 

through several mechanisms, including definitions, 

use classifications, and antidegradation. For example, the regulatory definition of “waters of the 

State” in one State includes: 

. . . The flood plain of free flowing waters determined by the Department.. on the basis of the 

700-year flood frequency. 

In another State, the definition of a use classification states: 

This beneficial use is a combination of the 

characteristics of the watershed expressed in 

the water quality and the riparian area. 

And in a third State, the antidegradation protection for high-quality waters provides that: 

These waters shall not be lowered in 

quality . . . unless it is determined by the commission that such lowering will not do any of 

the following. 

. . . [b]ecome injurious to the value or 

utility of riparian lands.. 

6 
Chapter 3.0 

Use Classification 

A t a minimum, EPA expects States by the 

end of FY 1993 to designate uses for all 

wetlands, and to meet the same minimum 

requirements of the WQS regulation (40 CFR 

131.10) that are applied to other waters. Uses for 

wetlands must meet the goals of Section 101(a)(2) 

of the CWA by providing for the protection and 

propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and for 

recreation in and on the water, unless the results of 

a use attainability analysis (UAA) show that the CWA 

Section 101(a)(2) goals cannot be achieved. The 

Water Quality Standards Regulation (40 CFR 

131.10(c)) allows for the designation of subcategories of a use, an activity that may be appropriate for wetlands. Pursuant to the WQS 

Regulation (40 CFR 131.10(i)), States must designate any uses that are presently being attained in 

the wetland. A technical support document is currently being developed by the Office of Water 

Regulations and Standards for conducting use attainability analyses for wetlands. 

The propagation of aquatic life and wildlife is an 

attainable use in virtually all wetlands. Aquatic life 

protection need not refer only to year-round fish and 

aquatic life. Wetlands often provide valuable 

seasonal habitat for fish and other aquatic life, amphibians, and migratory bird reproduction and 

migration. States should ensure that aquatic life 

and wildlife uses are designated for wetlands even if 

a limited habitat is available or the use is attained 

only seasonally. 

Recreation in and on the water, on the other hand, 

may not be attainable in certain wetlands that do not 

have sufficient water, at least seasonally. However, 

States are also encouraged to recognize and 

protect recreational uses that do not directly involve 

contact with water, e.g., hiking, camping, bird 

watching. 

The WQS regulation requires a UAA wherever a 

State designates a use that does not include the 

uses specified in Section 101(a)(2) of the CWA; see 

40 CFR Part 131.10(j). This need not be an onerous 

task for States when deciding whether certain 

recreational uses are attainable. States may conduct generic UAAs for entire classes or types of 

7 
wetlands based on the demonstrations in 40 CFR 

Part 131.10(g)(2). States must, however, designate 

CWA goal uses wherever these are attainable, even 

where attainment may be seasonal. 

When designating uses for wetlands, States may 

choose to use their existing general and waterspecific classification systems, or they may set up 

an entirely different system for wetlands. Each of 

these approaches has advantages and disadvantages, as discussed below. 

Some States stipulate that wetlands are designated for the same uses as the adjacent waters. 

States may also apply their existing general classification system to designate uses for specific wetlands or groups of wetlands. The advantage of 

these approaches is that they do not require States 

to expend additional effort to develop specific wetland uses, or determine specific functions and 

values, and can be generally used to designate the 

CWA goal uses for wetlands. However, since wetland attributes may be significantly different than 

those of other waters, States with general wetland 

use designations will need to review the uses for 

individual wetlands In more detail when assessing 

activities that may impair the specific “existing uses” 

(e.g., functions and values). In addition, the “adjacent” approach does not produce uses for “isolated” wetlands. 

Owing to these differences in attributes, States 

should strongly consider adopting a separate use 

classification system for wetlands based on wetland 

type and/or beneficial use (function and value). This 

approach initially requires more effort in developing 

use categories (and specific criteria that may be 

needed for them), as well as in determining what 

uses to assign to specific wetlands or groups of 

wetlands. The greater the specificity in designating 

uses, however, the easier it is for States to justify 

regulatory controls to protect those uses. States 

may wish to designate beneficial uses for individually named wetlands, including outstanding wetlands 

(see Section 6.3), although this approach may be 

practical only for a limited number of wetlands. For 

the majority of their wetlands, States may wish to 

designate generalized uses for groups of wetlands 

based on region or wetland type. 

Two basic pieces of information are useful in 

classifying wetland uses: (1) the structural types of 

wetlands; and (2) the functions and values associated with such types of wetlands. The functions 

and values of wetlands are often defined based 

upon structural type and location within the 

landscape or watershed. The understanding of the 

various wetland types within the State and their 

functions and values provides the basis for a comprehensive classification system applicable to all 

wetlands and all wetland uses. As with other waters, 

both general and waterbody-specific classifications 

may be needed to ensure that uses are appropriately assigned to all wetlands in the State. Appropriate 

and definitive use designations allow water quality 

standards to more accurately reflect both the “existing” uses and the States’ goals for their wetland 

resources, and to allow standards to be a more 

powerful tool in protecting State wetlands. Sections 

3.1 through 3.3 provide further information on wetland types, functions, and values, and how these 

can be used to designate uses for wetlands. 

3.1 Wetland Types 

A detailed understanding of the various wetland 

types within the State provides the basis for a comprehensive classification system. The classification 

system most often cited and used by Federal and 

State wetland permit programs was developed by 

Cowardin et al. (1979) for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (FWS); see Figure 1. This system provides 

the basis for wetland-related activities within the 

FWS. The Cowardin system is hierarchical and thus 

can provide several levels of detail in classifying 

wetlands. The “System” and “Subsystem” levels of 

detail appear to be the most promising for water 

quality standards. The “Class” level may be useful 

for designating uses for specific wetlands or wetland 

types. Section 3.3 gives an example of how one 

State uses the Cowardin system to generate designated uses for wetlands. 

Under the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 

1986. the FWS is required to complete the mapping 

of wetlands within the lower 48 States by 1998 

through the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) and 

to assess the status of the nation’s wetland resources every 10 years. The maps and status and trend 

reports may help States understand the extent of 

their wetlands and wetland types and ensure that all 

wetlands are assigned appropriate uses. To date, 

over 30,000 detailed 1:24,000 scale maps have been 

completed, covering approximately 60 percent of 

8 
Unconwlrdawd Bottom 

Aquahe Red 

Reef 

Emerpnt H’etland 

Scrub-Shrub Wcrland 

Forested N’ctland 

i 

Rock Bottom 

I:ncon,ohdated Bottom 

AquatIc Bed 

Rocky Shore 

Unconsohdacrd Shore 

Emergcnc N’ctland 

t I’nconsohdati Short 

Erner(lcnt Wetland 

Emgcnc WeLland 

Scrub Shrub H’rrLnd 

Forcared W+tiand 

Figure 1. Classification hierarchy of wctl;rnds and 

deepwater habitats, showing Systems, Subsystems, and Classes. The Pdustrine S>\tcnl &x-s not include dcc‘p\r.\tcr 

habitats (from Cowardin ct al., 1070). 

9 
the cotermrnous Unrted States and 16 percent of 

Alaska2 

In some States, wetland maps developed under 

the NWI program have been digitized and are available for use with geographic information systems 

(GIS) To date, more than 5.700 wetland maps representing 10 5 percent of the coterminous United 

States have been digitized. Statewide digital 

databases have been developed for New Jersey, 

Delaware, Illinois. Maryland, and Washington, and 

are in progress in Indiana and Virginia. NWI digital 

data files also are available for portions of 20 other 

States NWI data files are sold at cost in 7 5-minute 

quadrangle units The data are provided on magnetic tape in MOSS export, DLG3 optional, EIAS, 

and IGES formats3 Digital wetlands data may expedite assigning uses to wetlands for both general 

and wetland-specific FIG classifications 

The classification of wetlands may benefit from 

the use of salinity concentrations. The Cowardin 

classification system uses a salinity criterion of 0.5 

ppt ocean-derived salinity to differentiate between 

estuarine and freshwater wetlands. Differences in 

salinity are reflected in the species composition of 

plants and animals The use of salinity in the classification of wetlands may be useful in restricting 

activities that would alter the salinity of a wetland to 

such a degree that the wetland type would change. 

These activities include. for example, the construction of dikes to convert a saltwater marsh to a freshwater marsh or the dredging of channels that would 

deliver saltwater to freshwater wetlands 

3.2 Wetland Functions and 

Values 

Many approaches have been developed for identifying wetland functions and values Wetland 

evaluation techniques developed prior to 1983 have 

been summarized by Lonard and Clairain (1985). 

and EPA has summarized assessment 

methodologies developed since 1983 (see Appendix 

C). EPA has also developed guidance on the selection of a methodology for activities under the Section 404 program entitled Draft Guidance lo EPA 

Regional Offices on the Use of Advance Identification Authorities Under Section 404 of the Clean 

WaterAct (USEPA 1989a). States may develop their 

own techniques for assessing the functions and 

values of their wetlands 

General wetland functions that directly relate to 

the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of 

wetlands are listed below. The protection of these 

functions through water quality standards also may 

be needed to attain the uses of waters adjacent to, 

or downstream of, wetlands. 

Groundwater RechargeiDischarge 

Flood Flow Alteration 

Sediment Stabilization 

Sediment/Toxic Retention 

Nutrient Removalflransformation 

Wildlife Diversity/Abundance 

Aquatic Diversity/Abundance 

Recreation 

Methodologies that are flexible with regard to 

data requirements and include several levels of 

detail have the greatest potential for application to 

standards One such methodology is the Wetland 

Evaluation Technique developed by Adamus. et al 

(1987) for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the 

2 Information on the availability of draft and final maps may be obtained for the coterminous United 

States by calling 1-800-USA-MAPS or 703-860-6045 in Virginia. In Alaska, the number is 

907-271-4159, and in Hawaii the number is 808-548-2861. Further information on the FWS National 

‘Wetlands Inventory (NWI) may be obtained from the FWS Regional Coordinators listed in Appendix D 

3 For additional information on digital wetland data contact: USFWS. National Wetlands Inventory 

Program, 9720 Executive Center Drive, Monroe Building, Suite 101, St Petersburg, FL 33702; 813-893-3624. FTS 826-3624. 

10 
Department of Transportation. The Wetland Evaluation Technique was designed for conducting an initial rapid assessment of wetland functions and 

values in terms of social significance, effectiveness, 

and opportunity. Social significance assesses the 

value of a wetland to society in terms of its special 

designation, potential economic value, and strategic 

location. Effectiveness assesses the capability of a 

wetland to perform a function because of tts physical, chemical, or biological characteristics. Opportunity assesses the [opportunity] of a wetland to 

perform a function to Its level of capability. This 

assessment results In “high,” “moderate,” or “low” 

ratlngs for 11 wetland functions in the context of 

social significance, effectiveness, and opportunity. 

This technique also may be useful in identifying outstanding wetlands for protection under State antidegradatlon policies; see Section 5.3. 

The FVVS maintains a Wetlands Values Database 

that also may be useful in identifying wetland functions and In designating wetland uses. The data are 

keyed to the Cowardin-based wetland codes identified on the National Wetland Inventory maps. The 

database contains scientific llterature on wetland 

functions and values. It Is computerized and contalns over 18,000 citations, of which 8,000 are annotated. For further information, contact the NWI 

Program (see Section 3.1) or the FWS National Ecology Research Center*. In addition, State wetland 

programs, EPA Regional wetland coordinators, and 

FWS Regional wetland coordinators can provide information on wetland functions and values on a 

State or regional basis; see Appendix D. 

3.3 Designating Wetland Uses 

The functions and values of specifically identified 

and named wetlands, including those Identified 

within the State’s water-specific classification system and outstanding national resource wa’ter 

(ONRW) category, may be defined using the Wetland Evaluatlon Technique or similar methodology. 

For the general classification of wetlands, however, 

States may choose to evaluate wetland function and 

values for all the wetlands wlthin the State based on 

wetland type (using Cowardin (1979); see Figure 1). 

One State applies its general use classifications to 

different wetland types based on Cowardin’s system 

level of detail as illustrated in Figure 2. Note that the 

State’s uses are based on function, and the designation approach links specific wetland functions to a 

given wetland type. The State evaluates wetlands 

on a case-by-case basis as individual permit 

decisions arise to ensure that designated uses are 

being protected and have reflected existing uses. 

4 USFWS; Wetlands Values Database, National Ecology Research Center, 4512 McMurray. Ft. Collins, 

CO 80522; 303-226-9407. 
BENEFICIAL USH MARINE ESIUMINB BIVEBINE LACU!3TRINE PALWTRINB 

Municipal and Domestic Supply 

Agricultural Supply 

Industrial Process Supply 

Groundwater Recharge 

Freshwater Replenishment 

Navigation 

Water Contact Recreation 

Non-Contact Water Recreation 

Ocean Commercial and Sport Fishing 

Warm Fresh Water Habitat 

Cold Fresh Water Habitat 

Preservation of Areas of Special 

Biological Significance 

Wildlife Habitat 

Preservation of Rare and Endangered 

Species 

Marine Habitat 

Fish Migration 

Shellfish Harvesting 

Estuarine Habitat 

x = existing beneficial use 

o = potential beneficial use 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Figure 2. Example Existing and Potential Uses of Wetlands 

I2 
Alternatively, a third method may use the location 

of wetlands within the landscape as the basis for 

establishing general functions and values applicable 

to all the wetlands within a defined region. EPA has 

developed a guidance entitled RegionaIizarion as a 

Tool for Managing Environmental Resources 

(USEPA 1989c). The guidance illustrates how 

various regionalization techniques have been used 

in water quality management, including the use of 

the ecoregions developed by EPA’s Office of Research and Development, to direct State water 

quality standards and monitoring programs. These 

approaches also may be useful in the classification 

of wetlands. 

EPA’s Office of Research and Development is currently refining a draft document that will provide 

useful lnformatlon to States related to use classification methodologies (Adamus and Brandt - Draft). 

There are likely many other approaches for designating uses for wetlands, and the States are encouraged to develop comprehensive classification 

systems tailored to their wetland resources. As with 

other surface waters, many wetlands are currently 

degraded by natural and anthropogenic activities. 

The classification of wetlands should reflect the 

potential uses attainable for a particular wetland, 

wetland type, or class of wetland. 

13 
Chapter 4.0 

Criteria 

T he Water Quality Standards Regulation (40 

CFR 131.11 (a)(l)) requires States to adopt 

criteria sufficient to protect designated 

uses. These criteria may include general statements 

(narrative) and specific numerical values (i.e., concentrations of contaminants and water quality characteristics). At a minimum, EPA expects States to 

apply aesthetic narrative criteria (the “free froms”) 

and appropriate numeric criteria to wetlands and to 

adopt narrative biological criteria for wetlands by 

the end of FY 1993. Most State water quality standards already contain many criteria for various water 

types and designated use classes, including narrative criteria and numeric criteria to protect human 

health and freshwater and saltwater aquatic life, that 

may be applicable to wetlands. 

In many cases, it may be necessary to use a combination of numeric and narrative criteria to ensure 

that wetland functions and values are adequately 

protected. Section 4.1 describes the application of 

narrative criteria to wetlands and Section 4.2 discusses application of numeric criteria for protection of 

human health and aquatic life. 

4.1 Narrative Criteria 

Narrative criteria are general statements designed 

to protect a specific designated use or set of uses 

They can be statements prohibiting certain actions 

or conditions (e.g., “free from substances that 

produce undesirable or nuisance aquatic life”) or 

positive statements about what is expected to occur 

in the water (e.g., “water quality and aquatic life shall 

be as it naturally occurs”). Narrative criteria are 

used to identify impacts on designated uses and as 

a regulatory basis for controlling a variety of impacts 

to State waters. Narrative criteria are particularly 

important in wetlands, since many wetland impacts 

cannot be fully addressed by numeric criteria. Such 

impacts may result from the discharge of chemicals 

for which there are no numeric criteria in State 

standards, from nonpoint sources, and from activities that may affect the physical and/or biological, 

rather than the chemical, aspects of water qualify 

(e.g., discharge of dredged and fill material). The 

Water Quality Standards Regulation (40 CFR 

131.11 (b)) states that “States should . . . include narra15 
tive criteria in their standards where numeric criteria 

cannot be established or to supplement numeric 

criteria.” 

4.1.1 General Narrative Criteria 

Narrative criteria within the water quality standards program date back to at least 1968 when five 

“free froms” were included in Water Quality Criteria 

(the Green Book), (FWPCA 1968). These “free 

froms” have been included as “aesthetic criteria” in 

EPA’s most recent Section 304(a) criteria summary 

document, Quality Criteria for Wafer - 1986 (USEPA 

1987a). The narrative criteria from these documents 

state: 

All waters [shall be] free from substances attributable to wastewater or other discharge 

that: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

settle to form objectionable deposits; 

float as debris, scum, oil, or other matter to 

form nuisances; 

produce objectionable color, odor, taste, or 

turbidity; 

injure or are toxic or produce adverse 

physiological responses in humans, 

animals or plants; and 

produce undesirable or nuisance aquatic 

life. 

The Water Quality Standards Handbook (USEPA 

1983b) recommends that States apply narrative 

criteria to all waters of the United States. If these or 

similar criteria are already applied to all State waters 

in a State’s standards, the inclusion of wetlands in 

the definition of “waters of the State” will apply these 

criteria to wetlands. 

4.1.2 Narrative Biological Criteria 

Narrative biological criteria are general statements of attainable or attained conditions of biological integrity and water quality for a given use designation. Narrative biological criteria can take a number of forms. As a sixth “free from,” the criteria 

could read “free from activities that would substantially impair the biological community as it naturally 

occurs due to physical, chemical, and hydrologic 

changes,” or the criteria may contain positive statements about the biological community existing or 

attainable in wetlands. 

Narrative biological criteria should contain attributes that support the goals of the Clean Water 

Act, which provide for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife. Therefore, narrative criteria should include specific language about 

community characteristics that (1) must exist in a 

wetland to meet a particular designated aquatic 

life/wildlife use, and (2) are quantifiable. Supporting 

statements for the criteria should promote water 

quality to protect the most natural community associated with the designated use. Mechanisms 

should be established in the standard to address 

potentially conflicting multiple uses. Narratives 

should be written to protect the most sensitive 

designated use and to support existing uses under 

State antidegradation policies. 

In addition to other narrative criteria, narrative 

biological criteria provide a further basis for managing a broad range of activities that impact the 

biological integrity of wetlands and other surface 

waters, particularly physical and hydrologic 

modifications. For instance, hydrologic criteria are 

one particularly important but often overlooked 

component to include in water quality standards to 

help maintain wetlands quality. Hydrology is the 

primary factor influencing the type and location of 

wetlands. Maintaining appropriate hydrologic conditions in wetlands is critical to the maintenance of 

wetland functions and values. Hydrologic manipulations to wetlands have occurred nationwide in the 

form of flow alterations and diversions disposal of 

dredged or fill material, dredging of canals through 

wetlands. and construction of levees or dikes. 

Changes in base flow or flow regime can severely 

alter the plant and animal species composition of a 

wetland, and destroy the entire wetland system if the 

change is great enough. States should consider the 

establishment of criteria to regulate hydrologic alterations to wetlands. One State has adopted the 

following language and criteria to maintain and 

protect the natural hydrologic conditions and values 

of wetlands: 

Natural hydrological conditions necessary to 

support the biological and physical characteristics naturally present in wetlands shall be 

protected to prevent significant adverse impacts on. 

16 
(7) Wafer currents, erosion or sedimentation 

patterns; 

(2) Na Ural water temperature variations; 

(3) The chemical, nutrient and dissolved 

oxygen regime of the wefland; 

(4) The normal movemenf of aquatic fauna; 

(5) The p/-i of the wetland; and 

(6) Normal water levels or elevations. 

One source of information for developing more 

quantifiable hydrologic criteria is the lnstream Flow 

Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which 

can provide technical guidance on the minimum 

flows necessary to attain various water uses. 

Narrative criteria, in conjunction with antidegradation policies, can provide the basis for determining 

the impacts of activities (such as hydrologic 

modifications) on designated and existing uses. 

EPA has published national guidance on developing 

biological criteria for all surface waters (USEPA 

1990b). EPA’s Office of Research and Development 

also has produced a literature synthesis of wetland 

biomonitoring data on a State-by-State basis, which 

is intended to support the development of narrative 

biological criteria (Adamus and Brandt - Draft). 

4.2 Numeric Criteria 

Numeric criteria are specific numeric values for 

chemical constituents, physical parameters, or 

biological conditions that are adopted in State 

standards. These may be values not to be exceeded 

(e.g., toxics), values that must be exceeded (e.g., 

dissolved oxygen), or a combination of the two 

(e.g., pfi). As with all criteria, numeric criteria are 

adopted to protect one or more designated uses. 

Under Section 304(a) of the Clean Water Act, EPA 

publishes numeric national criteria recommendations designed to protect aquatic organisms and 

human health. These criteria are summarized in 

Quality Criferia for Wafer - 1986 (USEPA 1987a). 

These criteria serve as guidelines from which States 

can develop their own numeric criteria, taking into 

account the particular uses designated by the State. 

4.2.1 Numeric Criteria - Human 

Health 

Human health water quality criteria are based on 

the toxicity of a contaminant and the amount of the 

contaminant consumed through ingestion of water 

and fish regardless of the type of water. Therefore, 

EPA’s chemical-specific human health criteria are 

directly applicable to wetlands. A summary of EPA 

human health criteria recommendations is contained in Qualify Criferia for Water - 7986. 

Few wetlands are used directly for drinking water 

supplies. Where drinking water is a designated or 

existing use for a wetland or for adjacent wafers 

affected by the wetland, however, States must provide criteria sufficient to protect human health based 

on water consumption (as well as aquatic life consumption if appropriate). When assessing the 

potential for water consumption, States should also 

evaluate the wetland’s groundwater recharge function to assure protection of drinking water supplies 

from that source as well 

The application of human health criteria, based on 

consumption of aquatic life, to wetlands is a function 

of the level of detail in the States’ designated uses. 

If all wetlands are designated under the State’s 

general “aquatic life/wildlife” designation, consumption of that aquatic life is assumed to be an included 

use and the State’s human health criteria based on 

consumption of aquatic life will apply throughout. 

However, States that adopt a more detailed use 

classification system for wetlands (or wish to derive 

site-specific human health criteria for wetlands) may 

wish to selectively apply human health criteria to 

those wetlands where consumption of aquatic life is 

designated or likely to occur (note that a UAA will be 

required where CWA goal uses are not designated). 

States may also wish to adjust the exposure assumptions used in deriving human health criteria. 

Where it is known that exposure to individuals at a 

certain site, or within a certain category of wetland, 

is likely to be different from the assumed exposure 

underlying the States’ criteria, States may wish to 

consider a reasonable estimate of the actual exposure and take this estimate into account when 

calculating the criteria for the site. 

4.2.2 Numeric Criteria - Aquatic Life 

EPA develops chemical-specific numeric criteria 

recommendations for the protection of freshwater 

17 
and saltwater aquatic life. These criteria may be 

divided into two basic categories: (1) chemicals 

that cause toxicity to aquatic life such as metals, 

ammonia, chlorine, and organic% and (2) other 

water quality characteristics such as dissolved 

oxygen, alkalinity, salinity, pH, and temperature. 

These criteria are currently applied directly to a 

broad range of surface waters in State standards, 

including lakes, impoundments, ephemeral and 

perennial rivers and streams, estuaries, the oceans, 

and in some instances, wetlands. A summary of 

EPA’s aquatic life criteria recommendations is published in Qualify Criteria for Water - 7986. The 

numeric aquatic life criteria, although not designed 

specifically for wetlands, were designed to be 

protective of aquatic life and are generally applicable to most wetland types. 

EPA’s aquatic life criteria are most often based 

upon toxicological testing under controlled conditions in the laboratory. The EPA guidelines for the 

development of such criteria (Stephan et al., 1985) 

require the testing of plant, invertebrate, and fish 

species. Generally, these criteria are supported by 

toxicity tests on invertebrate and early life stage fish 

commonly found in many wetlands. Adjustments 

based on natural conditions, water chemistry, and 

biological community conditions may be appropriate for certain criteria as discussed below 

EPA’s Office of Research and Development is currently finalizing a draft document that provides additional technical guidance on this topic, including 

site-specific adjustments of criteria (Hagley and 

Taylor - Draft). 

As in other waters, natural water quality characteristics in some wetlands may be outside the range 

established for uses designated in State standards 

These water quality characteristics may require the 

development of criteria that reflect the natural background conditions in a specific wetland or wetland 

type. States routinely set criteria for specific waters 

based on natural conditions. Examples of some of 

the wetland characteristics that may fall into this 

category are dissolved oxygen, pH, turbidity, color, 

and hydrogen sulfide. 

Many of EPA’s aquatic life criteria are based on 

equations that take into account salinity, pti. 

temperature and/or hardness. These may be directly 

applied to wetlands in the same way as other water 

types with adjustments in the criteria to reflect these 

water quality characteristics. However, two national 

criteria that are pt-i dependent. ammonia and pentachlorophenol. present a different situation. The 

pH in some wetlands may be outside the pH range 

of 6.5-9.0 units for which these criteria were derived. 

It is recommended that States conduct additional 

toxicity testing if they wish to derive criteria for ammonia and pentachlorophenol outside the 6.590 

pH range, unless data are already available 

States may also develop scientifically defensible 

site-specific criteria for parameters whose Statewide values may be inappropriate. Site-specific adjustments may be made based on the water quality 

and biological conditions in a specific water, or in 

waters within a particular region or ecoregion. EPA 

has developed guidance on the site-specific adjustment of the national criteria (USEPA 1983b). These 

methods are applicable to wetlands and should be 

used in the same manner as States use them for 

other waters As defined in the Handbook, three 

procedures may be used to develop site-specific 

criteria. (1) the recalculation procedures, (2) the 

indicator species procedures, and (3) the resident 

species procedures. These procedures may be 

used to develop site-specific numeric criteria for 

specific wetlands or wetland types. The recalculation procedure is used to make adjustments based 

upon differences between the toxicity to resident 

organisms and those used to derive national criteria. 

The indicator species procedure IS used to account 

for differences in the bioavallability and,or toxicity of 

a contaminant based upon the physical and chemical characteristrcs of sate water The resident 

species procedure accounts for differences in both 

species sensitivity and water quality characteristics 
Chapter 5.0 

Antidegradation 

T he antidegradation policies contained in all 

State standards provide a powerful tool for 

the protection of wetlands and can be used 

by States to regulate point and nonpoint source 

discharges to wetlands in the same way as other 

surface waters. In conjunction with beneficial uses 

and narrative criteria, antidegradation can be used 

to address impacts to wetlands that cannot be fully 

addressed by chemical criteria, such as physical 

and hydrologic modifications. The implications of 

antidegradation to the disposal of dredged and fill 

material are discussed in Section 5.1 below. At a 

minimum, EPA expects States to fully apply their 

antidegradation policies and implementation 

methods to wetlands by the end of FY 1993. No 

changes to State policies are required if they are 

fully consistent with the Federal policy. With the 

inclusion of wetlands as “waters of the State,” State 

antidegradation policies and their implementation 

methods will apply to wetlands in the same way as 

other surface waters. The WQS regulation 

describes the requirements for State antidegradation policies, which include full protection of existing 

uses (functions and values), maintenance of water 

quality in high-quality waters, and a prohibition 

against lowering water quality in outstanding national resource waters. EPA guidance on the implementation of antidegradation policies is contained in the 

Water Quality Standards Handbook (USEPA 1983b) 

and Questions and Answers on: Antidegradation 

(USEPA 1985a) 

5.1 Protection of Existing Uses 

State antidegradation policies should provide for 

the protection of existing uses in wetlands and the 

level of water quality necessary to protect those 

uses in the same manner as for other surface 

waters; see Section 131.12(a)(1) of the WQS regulation. The existing use can be determined by 

demonstrating that the use or uses have actually 

occurred since November 28, 1975, or that the water 

quality is suitable to allow the use to be attained. 

This is the basis of EPA’s antidegradation policy and 

is important in the wetland protection effort. States, 

especially those that adopt less detailed use classifications for wetlands, will need to use the existing 

use protection in their antidegradation policies to 

ensure protection of wetland values and functions. 

19 
Determination of an existing aquatic life and 

wildlife use may require physical, chemical, and 

biological evaluations through a waterbody survey 

and assessment. Waterbody survey and assessment guidance may be found in three volumes entitled Technical Support Manual for Conducting Use 

Attainability Analyses (USEPA 1983b, 1984a, 

1984b). A technical support manual for conducting 

use attainability analyses for wetlands is currently 

under development by the Office of Water Regulations and Standards. 

In the case of wetland fills, EPA allows a slightly 

different interpretation of existing uses under the 

antidegradation policy. This interpretation has been 

addressed in the answer to question no. 13 in Questions and Answers on: Antidegradation (USEPA 

1985a), and is presented below: 

Since a literal interpretation of the antidegradation policy could result in preventing the issuance of any wetland fill permit 

under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and 

it is logical to assume that Congress intended 

some such permits to be granted within the 

framework of the Act, EPA interprets 40 CFR 

731.12(a)(1) of the antidegradation policy to 

be satisfied with regard to fills in wetlands if 

the discharge did not result in “significant 

degradation” to the aquatic ecosystem as 

defined under Section 230.10(c) of the Section 404(b)(I) guidelines. If any wetlands 

were found to have better water quality than 

“fishable/swimmable," the State would be allowed to lower water quality to the no significant degradation level as long as the requirements of Section 137.12(a)(2) were followed. As for the ONRW provision of antidegradation (131.12(a)(3)), there is no difference in the way it applies to wetlands and 

other waterbodies. 

The Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines state that the 

following effects contribute to significant degradation, either individually or collectively: 

. . . significant adverse effects on (7) human 

health or welfare, including effects on 

municipal water supplies, plankton, fish, 

shellfish, wildlife, and special aquatic sites 

(e.g., wetlands); (2) on the life stages of 

aquatic life and other wildlife dependent on 

aquatic ecosystems, including the transfer, 

concentration or spread of pollutants or their 

byproducts beyond the site through biological, physical, or chemical process; (3) on 

ecosystem diversity, productivity and 

stability, including loss of fish and wildlife 

habitat or loss of the capacity of a wetland to 

assimilate nutrients, purify water or reduce 

wave energy; or (4) on recreational, aesthetic, and economic values. 

These Guidelines may be used by States to determine “significant degradation” for wetland fills. Of 

course, the States are free to adopt stricter requirements for wetland fills in their own antidegradation 

policies, just as they may adopt any other requirements more stringent than Federal law requires. For 

additional information on the linkage between water 

quality standards and the Section 404 program, see 

Section 6.2 of this guidance. 

5.2 Protection of High-Quality 

Wetlands 

State antidegradation policies should provide for 

water quality in “high quality wetlands” to be maintained and protected, as prescribed in Section 

131.12(a)(2) of the WQS regulation. State implementation methods requiring alternatives 

analyses, social and economic justifications, point 

and nonpoint source control, and public participation are to be applied to wetlands in the same manner they are applied to other surface waters. 

5.3 Protection of Outstanding 

Wetlands 

Outstanding national resource waters (ONRW) 

designations offer special protection (i.e., no 

degradation) for designated waters, including wetlands. These are areas of exceptional water quality 

or recreational/ecological significance. State antidegradation policies should provide special 

protection to wetlands designated as outstanding 

national resource waters in the same manner as 

other surface waters; see Section 131.12(a)(3) of the 

WQS regulation and EPA guidance Water Quality 

Standards Handbook (USEPA 1983b), and Questions and Answers on: Antidegradation (USEPA 

1985a). Activities that might trigger a State analysis 

of a wetland for possible designation as an ONRW 

are no different for wetlands than for other waters. 

20 
The following list provides general information on 

wetlands that are likely candidates for protection as 

ONRWs. It also may be used to identify specific 

wetlands for use designation under the State’s wetland classffication system; see Chapter 4.0. Some 

of these information sources are discussed in 

greater detail In EPA’s guidance entitled Wetlands 

and Section 401 Certification: OpportuniNes and 

Guldelines for States and Eligible lndian Tribes 

(USEPA 19899; see Section 6.1. 

l Parks, wfldlffe management areas, refuges, wild 

and scenic rfvers, and estuarfne sanctuarfes; 

l Wetlands adjacent to ONRWs or other high-quality 

waters (e.g., lakes, estuaries shellfish beds); 

l Priority wetlands identified under the Emergency 

Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 through 

Statewfde Outdoor Recreation Plans (SORP) and 

Wetland Priority Conservation Plans; 

l Sites wfthln joint venture project areas under the 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan; 

l Sites under the Ramsar (Iran) Treaty on Wetlands 

of International Importance; 

l Biosphere reserve sites identified as part of the 

“Man and the Biosphere” Program sponsored by 

the United Nations; 

l Natural heritage areas and other similar designations established by the State or private organizations (e.g., Nature Conservancy); and 

l Prlorfty wetlands identified as part of comprehensfve planning efforts conducted at the local, State, 

Regional, or Federal levels of government; e.g., 

Advance Identification (ADID) program under Section 404 and Special Area Management Plans 

(SAMPs) under the 1980 Coastal Zone Management Act. 

The Wetland Evaluation Technique; Volume II: 

Methodology (Adamus et al., 1987) provides additional guidance on the identification of wetlands with 

high ecological and social value; see Section 3 2 

21 
Chapter 6.0 

Implementation 

I mplementing water quality standards for wetlands will require a coordinated effort between 

related Federal and State agencies and 

programs, In addition to the Section 401 certification for Federal permits and licenses, standards 

have other potential applications for State 

programs, including landfill siting, fish and wildlife 

management and aquisition decisions, and best 

management practices to control nonpoint source 

pollution. Many coastal States have wetland permit 

programs, coastal zone management programs, 

and National Estuary Programs; and the development of water quality standards should utilize data, 

information and expertise from these programs. For 

all States, information and expertise is available 

nationwide from EPA and the Corps of Engineers as 

part of the Federal 404 permit program. State 

wildlife and fisheries departments can also provide 

data, advice, and expertise related to wetlands. 

Finally, the FWS can provide information on wetlands as part of the National Wetlands Inventory 

program, the Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Program, the Endangered Species and Habitat Conservation Program, the North American Waterfowl 

Management Program and the National Wildlife 

Refuge program. EPA and FWS wetland program 

contacts are included in Appendix D 

This section provides information on certain elements of standards (e g mixing zones) and the 

relationship between wetland standards and other 

water-related activities and programs (e.g. monitoring and CWA Sections 401, 402, 404, and 319). As 

information is developed by EPA and the States 

EPA will periodically transfer It nationwide through 

workshops and program summaries EPA’s Office 

of Water Regulations and Standards has developed 

an outreach program for providing this information. 

6.1 Section 401 Certification 

Many States have begun to make more use of 

CWA Section 401 certification to manage certain 

activities that impact their wetland resources Section 401 gives the States the authority to grant. 

deny, or condition certification of Federal permits or 

licenses (e.g., CWA Section 404 permits issued by 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Energy 

23 
Regulatory Commission licenses, some Rivers and 

Harbors Act Sections 9 and 10 permits, and CWA 

Section 402 permits where issued by EPA) that may 

result in a discharge to "waters of the U.S.” Such 

action is taken by the State to ensure compliance 

with various provisions of the CWA. Violation of 

water quality standards is often the basis for denials 

or conditioning through Section 401 certification In 

the absence of wetland-specific standards, States 

have based decisions on their general narrative 

criteria and antidegradation policies. The Office of 

Wetlands Protection has developed a handbook for 

States entitled Wetlands and 407 Certification: Opportunities and Guidelines for States and Eligible 

Indian Tribes (USEPA 1989g) on the use of Section 

401 certification to protect wetlands. This document provides several examples wherein States 

have applied their water quality standards to wetlands; one example is included in Appendix E. 

The development of explicit water quality standards for wetlands. including wetlands in the definition of “State waters,” uses, criteria, and antidegradation policies, can provide a strong and 

consistent basis for State 401 certifications. 

6.2 Discharges to Wetlands 

The Water Quality Standards Regulation (40 CFR 

131.10(a)) states that, in no case shall a State adopt 

waste transport or waste assimilation as a designated use for any ‘waters of the U S.'." This prohibition extends to wetlands, since they are included in 

the definition of “waters of the U.S.” Certain activities involving the discharge of pollutants to wetlands may be permitted, as with other water types, 

providing a determination is made that the designated and existing uses of the wetlands and 

downstream waters will be maintained and 

protected. As with other surface waters, the State 

must ensure, through ambient monitoring, that permitted discharges to wetlands preserve and protect 

wetland functions and values as defined in State 

water quality standards, see Section 6.4. 

Created wastewater treatment wetlands that are 

not impounded from waters of the United States and 

are designed, built, and operated solely as wastewater treatment systems, are a special case, and 

are not generally considered ‘waters of the U.S.” 

Some such created wetlands, however, also provide 

other functions and values similar to those provided 

by natural wetlands Under certain circumstances, 

such created, multiple use wetlands may be considered “waters of the U.S.,” and as such. would be 

subject to the same protection and restrictions on 

use as natural wetlands (see Report on the Use of 

Wetlands for Municipal Wastewater Treatment and 

Disposal (USEPA 1987b)). This determination must 

be made on a case-by-case basis, and may consider 

factors such as the size and degree of isolation of 

the created wetland. 

6.2.1 Municipal Wastewater Treatment 

State standards should be consistent with the 

document developed by the Office of Municipal Pollution Control entitled Report on the Use of Wetlands for Municipal Wastewater Treatment and Disposal (USEPA 1987b), on the use of wetlands for 

municipal wastewater treatment. This document 

outlines minimum treatment and other requirements 

under the CWA for discharges to natural wetlands 

and those specifically created and used for the purpose of wastewater treatment. 

The following is a brief summary of the above-referenced document For municipal discharges to 

natural wetlands, a minimum of secondary treatment is required, and applicable water quality standards for the wetland and adjacent waters must be 

met Natural wetlands are nearly always “waters of 

the U.S." and are afforded the same level of protection as other surface waters with regard to standards and minimum treatment requirements. There 

are no minimum treatment requirements for wetlands created solely for the purpose of wastewater 

treatment that do not qualify as “waters of the U.S.” 

The discharge from the created wetlands that do not 

qualify as “waters of the U.S.” must meet applicable 

standards for the receiving water. EPA encourages 

the expansion of wetland resources through the 

creation of engineered wetlands while allowing the 

use of natural wetlands for wastewater treatment 

only under limited conditions. Water quality standards for wetlands can prevent the misuse and overuse of natural wetlands for treatment through adoption of proper uses and criteria and application of 

State antidegradation policies 

6.2.2 Stormwater Treatment 

Stormwater discharges to wetlands can provide 

an important component of the freshwater supply to 

wetlands However, stormwater discharges from 

24 
various land use activities can also contain a significant amount of pollutants. Section 402(p)(2) of 

the Clean Water Act requires that EPA, or States 

with authorized National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) programs, issue 

NPDES permits for certain types of stormwater dlscharges. EPA is in the process of developing 

regulations defining the scope of this program as 

well as developing permits for these discharges. 

Stormwater permits can be used to require controls 

that reduce the pollutants discharged to wetlands as 

well as other waters of the United States. In addltion. some of the stormwater management controls 

anticipated in permits will require creation of wetlands or structures with some of the attributes of 

wetlands for the single purpose of water treatment. 

EPA anticipates that the policy for stormwater dlscharges to wetlands will have some similarities to 

the policies for municipal wastewater discharges to 

wetlands. Natural wetlands are “waters of the 

United States” and are afforded a level of protection 

with regard to water quality standards and technology-based treatment requirements. The discharge 

from created wetlands must meet applicable water 

quality standards for the receiving waters. EPA will 

issue technical guidance on permitting stormwater 

discharges, including permitting stormwater discharges to wetlands, over the next few years. 

6.2.3 Fills 

Section 404 of the CWA regulates the discharge of 

dredged and fill material into “waters of the U.S.” 

The Corps of Engineers’ regulations for the 404 program are contained in 33 CFR Parts 320-330, while 

EPA’s regulations for the 404 program are contained 

in 40 CFR Part 230-33. 

One State uses the following guidelines for fills in 

their internal Section 401 review guidelines 

(a) if the project is not water dependenf, certifica tion is denied; 

(b) if the project is wa?er dependent, certification is denied if there is a viable alternative 

(e.g., available upland nearby is a viable 

alternative); 

(c) if no viable alternatives exist and impacts to 

wetland cannot be made acceptable 

through conditions on certification (e.g., 

fish movement criteria, creation of floodways to bypass oxbows, flow through 

criteria), certification is denied. 

Some modification of this may be incorporated 

into States’ water quality standards. The States are 

encouraged to provide a linkage in their water 

quality standards to the determination of “significant 

degradation” as required under EPA guidelines (40 

CFR 230.10(c)) and other applicable State laws affecting the disposal of dredged or fill materials in 

wetlands; see Section 5.1. 

6.2.4 Nonpoint Source Assessment 

and Control 

Wetlands, as with other waters, are impacted by 

nonpoint sources of pollution. Many wetlands, 

through their assimilative capacity for nutrients and 

sediment, also can serve an important water quality 

control function for nonpoint source pollution effects on waters adjacent to, or downstream of, the 

wetlands. Water quality standards play a pivotal 

role in both of the above First, Section 319 of the 

CWA requires the States to complete assessments 

of nonpoint source (NPS) impacts to State waters, 

including wetlands, and to prepare management 

programs to control NPS impacts. Water quality 

standards for wetlands can form the basis for these 

assessments and management programs for wetlands. Second, water quality standards requirements for other surface waters such as rivers, lakes, 

and estuaries can provide an impetus for States to 

protect, enhance, and restore wetlands to help 

achieve nonpoint source control and water qualify 

standards objectives for adjacent and downstream 

waters. The Office of Water Regulations and Standards and the Office of Wetlands Protection have 

developed guidance on the coordination of wetland 

and NPS control programs entitled National 

Guidance - Wetlands and Nonpoint Source Control 

Programs (USEPA 199Oc) 

6.3 Monitoring 

Water quality management activities, including 

the permitting of wastewater and stormwater discharges, the assessment and control of NPS pollution, and waste disposal activities (sewage sludge. 

CERCLA. RCRA) require sufficient monitoring to ensure that the designated and existing uses of 

‘waters of the U.S.’ are maintained and protected 

In addition, Section 305(b) of the CWA requires 
States to report on the overall status of their waters 

in attaining water quality standards. The inclusion 

of wetlands in water quality standards provides the 

basis for conducting both wetland-specific and 

status and trend monitoring of State wetland resources. Information gathered from the 305(b) reports 

may also be used to update and refine the designated wetland uses. The monitoring of wetlands is 

made difficult by limitations in State resources. 

Where regulated activities impact wetlands or other 

surface waters, States should provide regulatory incentives and negotiate monitoring responsibilities of 

the party conducting the regulated activity. 

Monitoring of activities impacting specific wetlands may include several approaches. Monitoring 

methods involvlng biological measurements, such 

as plant, macroinvertebrate, and fish (e.g., biomass 

and diversity indices), have shown promise for 

monitoring stream quality (Plafkin et al., 1989). 

These types of indicators have not been widely 

tested for wetlands; see Section 7.1. However, the 

State of Florida has developed biological criteria as 

part of their regulations governin 

3 

the discharge of 

municipal wastewater to wetlands The States are 

encouraged to develop and test the use of biological 

indicators. Other more traditional methods currently applied to other surface waters, including but not 

limited to the use of water quality criteria, sediment 

quality criteria, and whole effluent toxicity, are also 

available for conducting monitoring of specific wetlands. 

Discharges involving persistent or bioaccumulative contaminants may necessitate the monitoring of 

the fate of such contaminants through wetlands and 

their impacts on aquatic life and wildlife. The exposure of birds and mammals to these contaminants 

is accentuated by the frequent use of wetlands by 

wildlife and the concentration of contaminants in 

wetlands through sedimentation and other processes States should conduct monitoring of these 

contaminants in wetlands, and may require such 

monitoring as part of regulatory activities involving 

these contaminants. 

Status and trend monitoring of the wetland 

resources overall may require additional approaches; see Section 3.1. Given current gaps in 

scientific knowledge concerning indicators of wetland quality, monitoring of wetlands over the next 

few years may focus on the spatial extent (Le., quantity) and physical structure (e.g.. plant types, diversity, and distribution) of wetland resources. The 

tracking of wetland acreage and plant communities 

using aerial photography can provide information 

that can augment the data collected on specific activities impacting wetlands, as discussed above. 

EPA has developed guidance on the reporting of 

wetland conditions for the Section 305(b) program 

entitled Guidelines for the Preparation of fhe 7990 

Stare Water Quality Assessment 305(b) Reporr 

(USEPA 1989b). When assessing individual specific 

wetlands, assessment information should be 

managed in an automated data system compatible 

with the Section 305(b) Waterbody System. In addition, the NWI program provides technical procedures and protocols for tracking the spatial extent of 

wetlands for the United States and subregions of the 

United States. These sources provide the 

framework for reporting on the status and trends of 

State wetland resources. 

6.4 Mixing Zones and Variances 

The guidance on mixing zones in the Water 

Ouality Standards Handbook (USEPA 1983b) and 

the Technical Support Document for Water QualiryBased Toxics Conrrol (TSD) (USEPA 1985b) apply 

to all surface waters, including wetlands. This includes the point of application of acute and chronic 

criteria. As with other surface waters, mixing zones 

may be granted only when water is present, and 

may be developed specifically for different water 

types. Just as mixing zone procedures are often 

different for different water types and flow regimes 

(e.g., free flowing streams versus lakes and estuaries), separate procedures also may be 

developed specifically for wetlands Such procedures should meet the requirements contained in 

the TSD. 

5 Florida Department of Environmental Regulations; State Regulations Part I, “Domestic Wastewater 

Facilities,” Subpart C. “Design/Performance Considerations,” 17-6 055. “Wetlands Applications 

26 
As in other State waters, variances may be 

granted to discharges to wetlands. Variances must 

meet one or more of the six requirements for the 

removal of a designated use (40 CFR Part 131.10(g)) 

and must fully protect any existing uses of the wetland. 

27 
Chapter 7.0 

Future Directions 

E PA’s Office of Water Regulations and 

Standards’ planning document Water 

Quality Standards Framework (USEPA - 

Draft 1989e), identifies the major objectives for the 

program and the activities necessary to meet these 

objectives. Activities related to the development of 

water quality standards for wetlands are separated 

into two phases: (1) Phase 1 activities to be 

developed by the States by the end of FY 1993. 

discussed above; and (2) Phase 2 activities that will 

require additional research and program development, which are discussed below. 

7.1 Numeric Biological Criteria 

for Wetlands 

Development of narrative biological criteria is included in the first phase of the development of water 

quality standards for wetlands; see Section 5.1.2. 

The second phase involves the implementation of 

numeric biological criteria. This effort requires the 

detailed evaluation of the components of wetland 

communities to determine the structure and function 

of unimpaired wetlands. These measures serve as 

reference conditions for evaluating the integrity of 

other wetlands. Regulatory activities involving discharges to wetlands (e.g., CWA Sections 402 and 

404) can provide monitoring data to augment data 

collected by the States for the development of 

numeric biological criteria; see Section 7.4. The 

development of numeric biological criteria for wetlands will require additional research and field testing over the next several years. 

Biological criteria are based on local and regional 

biotic characteristics. This is in contrast to the nationally based chemical-specific aquatic life criteria 

developed by EPA under controlled laboratory conditions The States will have primary responsibility 

for developing and implementing biological criteria 

for their surface waters, including wetlands, to 

reflect local and regional differences in resident 

biological communities. EPA will work closely with 

the States and the EPA Office of Research and 

Development to develop and test numeric biological 

criteria for wetlands. Updates on this work will be 

provided through the Office of Water Regulations 

29 
and Standards, Criteria and Standards Division’s • identifying high-quality waters deserving special 

regular newsletter. protection; 

7.2 Wildlife Criteria • using remote-sensing data; 

Wetlands are important habitats for wildlife • using integrated assessments to detect subtle 

species. It is therefore important to consider wildlife ecological impacts; and 

in developing criteria that protect the functions and 

values of wetlands. Existing chemical-specific • identifying significant nonpoint sources of polluaquatic life criteria are derived by testing selected tion that will prevent attainment of uses. 

aquatic organisms by exposing them to contaminants in water. Although considered to be One or more case studies will address efforts to 

protective of aquatic life, these criteria often do not quantify the extent of a State’s wetlands and to idenaccount for the bioaccumulation of these con- tify sensitive wetlands through their advance identaminants, which may cause a major impact on tification (USEPA 1989a). 

wildlife using wetland resources. Except for criteria 

for PCB, DDT, selenium, and mercury, wildlife have 

not been included during the development of the 

national aquatic life criteria. 

During the next 3 years, the Office of Water 

Regulations and Standards is reviewing aquatic life 

water quality criteria to determine whether adjustments in the criteria and/or alternative forms of 

criteria (e.g., tissue concentration criteria) are 

needed to adequately protect wildlife species using 

wetland resources. Since wetlands may not have 

open surface waters during all or parts of the year, 

alternative tissue based criteria based on contaminant concentrations in wildlife species and their 

food sources may become important criteria for 

evaluating contaminant impacts in wetlands, particularly those that bioaccumulate. Based on 

evaluations of current criteria and wildlife at risk in 

wetlands, national criteria may be developed 

7.3 Wetlands Monitoring 

EPA’s Office of Water Regulations and Standards 

is developing guidance for EPA and State surface 

water monitoring programs that will be issued by the 

end of FY 1990. This guidance will (1) encourage 

States to use monitoring data in a variety of program 

areas to support water quality management 

decisions; and (2) provide examples of innovative 

monitoring techniques through the use of case 

studies. The uses of data pertinent to wetlands that 

will be discussed include the following: 

• refining use classification systems by developing 

physical, chemical, and biological water quality 

criteria, goals, and standards that account for 

regional variation in attainable conditions; 

30 
References 

Adamus. P.R., E.J. Ciairain Jr., R.D. Smith, and R.E. 

Young. 1987. Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET); Volume II: Methodology. Operational Draft Technical Report Y-87; U.S. Army 

Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, 

Vicksburg, MS. (Source #1 1) 

Adamus, P.R. and K. Brandt. Draft. impacts on 

Quality of Inland Wetlands of the United 

States: A Survey of Techniques, indicators, 

and Applications of Community-level 

Biomonitoring Data. USEPA Environmental 

Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR. (Source 

#firs) 

The Conservation Foundation. 1988. Protecting 

America’s Wetlands: An Action Agenda, The 

Final Report of the National Wetlands Policy 

Forum. Washington, DC. (Source #lo) 

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Goiet. and E.T. 

LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and 

Deepwater Habitats of the United States, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. 

FWStOBS-79131. (Source #6a) 

Federal Water Pollution Control Administration. 

1968. Water Quality Criteria (the Green 

Book), Report of the National Technical Advisory Committee to the Secretary of the interior. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Washington, DC. (out of print). 

Hagiey, C.A. and D.L. Taylor. Draft. An Approach 

for Evaluating Numeric Water Quality Criteria 

for Wetlands Protection. USEPA Environmental Research Laboratory, Duluth, MN. 

(Source # 12) 

Lonard. R.I. and E.J. Clairain. 1986. identification 

of Methodologies for the Assessment of Wetland Functions and Values, Proceeding of the 

National Wetland Assessment Symposium, 

Association of Wetland Managers, Berne, 

NY. pp. 66-72. (Source Rl) 

Plafkin, J.L., M.T. Barbour, K.D. Porter, S.K. Gross, 

and R.M. Hughes. 1989. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use In Streams and 

Rivers, USEPA. Office of Water Regulations 

31 

and Standards. EPA/444/4-89/001. (Source 

4Q) 

Stephan, C.E., D.I. Mount, D.J. Hansen, J.H. Gentile, 

G.A. Chapman, and W.A. Brungs. 1985. 

Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National 

Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of 

Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses. USEPA, 

Office of Research and Development, Duluth, 

MN. NTIS# PB-85227049. (Source #S) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983a. 

Technical Support Manual: Waterbody Surveys and Assessments for Conducting Use 

Attainability Analyses. Office of Water 

Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC. 

(Source #4) 

---’ 1983b. Water Quality Standards Handbook. Office of Water Regulations and Standards, 

Washington, DC. (Source #4) 

-----_-’ 1984a. Technical Support Manual: 

Waterbody Surveys and Assessments for Conducting Use Attainability Analyses. Vol II. Estuarine Systems. Office of Water Regulations and Standards, 

Washington, DC. (Source ~4) 

----_-’ 1984b. Technical Support Manual: 

Waterbody Surveys and Assessments for Conducting Use Attainability Analyses. Vol III. Lake Systems. Office of Water Regulations and Standards, 

Washington, DC. (Source #4) 

1985a. Ouestions and Answers on: Antidegradation. Office of Water Regulations and 

Standards, Washington, DC (Source #4) 

---’ 1985b. Technical Support Document 

for Water Quality-based Toxics Control. Office of 

Water Enforcement and Permits, Washington, DC 

(Source #5) 

---’ 1987a. Quality Criteria for Water - 1986 

Office of Water Regulations and Standards, 

Washington, DC. EPA 44015-86-001. (Source #6b) 

1987b. Report on the Use of Wetlands 

for Municipal Wastewater Treatment and Disposal. 

Office of Municipal Pollution Control, Washington, 

DC. (with Attachment D, September 20, 1988). 

EPA 430/09-88-005. (Source #9) 
1989a. Guidance to EPA Regional Offices on the Use of Advanced Identification 

Authorities Under Section 404 of the Clean Water 

Act. Office of Wetlands Protection, Washington, 

DC. (Source #l) 

1989b. Guidelines for the Preparation 

of the 1990 State Water Quality Assessment (305(b) 

Report). Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC. (Source #2) 

. 1989~. Regionalization as a Tool for 

Managing Environmental Resources. Office of Research and Development, Corvallis, OR. EPA/600/3- 

89/060. (Source #8) 

19894. Survey of State Water Quality 

Standards for Wetlands. Office of Wetlands Protection, Washington, D.C. (Source #l) 

-------’ 19898. Water Quality Standards 

Framework (draft). Office of Water Regulations and 

Standards, Washington, DC. (Source #4) 

. 19891. Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science. Office of Research 

and Development, Cotvallis. OR. EPA 600/3-89/038a 

and EPA 600/3-89/038b. (Source #8) 

19890. Wetlands and 401 Certification: 

Opportunities and Guidelines for States and Eligible 

Indian Tribes. Office of Wetlands Protection, 

Washington, DC. (Source #l) 

199Oa. Agency Operating Guidance, 

FY 1991:’ Office of Water. Office of the Administrator, Washington, DC. (Source 17) 

1990b. Biological Criteria, National Program Guidance for Surface Waters. Office of Water 

Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC. 

EPA 440/5-90-004. (Source #4) 

. 199Oc. National Guidance, Wetlands 

and Nonpoint Source Control Programs. Office of 

Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC. 

(Source #2) 

Sources of Documents 

USEPA. Office of Wetlands Protection 

Wetlands Strategies and State 

Programs Division 

401 M St., S.W. (A-104F) 

Washington, DC 20460 

(202) 382-5048 

USEPA, Office of Water Regulations 

and Standards 

Assessment and Watershed Protection Division 

401 M St., S.W. (WH-553) 

Washington, DC 20460 

(202) 382-7040 

National Technical Information Service (NTIS) 

5285 Front Royal Road 

Springfield, VA 22 116 

(703) 487-4650 

USEPA, Office of Water Regulations 

and Standards 

Criteria and Standards Division 

401 M St.. S.W. (WH-585) 

Washington, DC 20460 

(202) 475-7315 

Out of print. A revised Technical Support Document for Water Oualitybased Toxics Control will be available 

October 1990 from: 

Office of Water Enforcement and 

Permits 

Permits Division 

401 M St.. S.W. (EN-336) 

Washington, DC 20460 

U.S. Government Printing Office 

North Capitol St., N.W. 

Washington, DC 20401 

(202) 783-3238 

a Order No. 024-010-00524-6 

b Order No. 955-002-0000-8 

32 
7 USEPA, Water Policy Office 

401 M St., S.W. (WH-556) 

Washington, DC 20460 

(202) 382-5818 

10 The Conservation Foundation 

1250 Twenty-Fourth St., N.W. 

Washington, DC 20037 

(202) 293-4800 

8 USEPA, Office of Research and 

Development 

Environmental Research Laboratory 

200 SW 35th St. 

Corvallis, OR 97333 

(503) 420-4666 

9 USEPA, Office of Municipal Pollution 

Control 

401 M St., S.W. (WH-546) 

Washington, DC 20460 

(202) 382-5850 

11 U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers 

Wetlands Research Program 

(601) 634-3774 

12 USEPA, Office of Research and 

Development 

Environmental Research Laboratory 

Duluth, MN 55804 

(2 18) 780-5549 

33 
Appendix A 

Glossary 

Ambient Monitoring - Monitoring within natural 

systems (e.g., lakes, rivers, estuaries, wetlands) to 

determine existing conditions. 

Created Wetland - A wetland at a site where it did 

not formerly occur. Created wetlands are designed 

to meet a variety of human benefits including, but 

not limited to, the treatment of water pollution discharges (e.g., municipal wastewater, stormwater) 

and the mitigation of wetland losses permitted under 

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. This term encompasses the term “constructed wetland” as used 

in other EPA guidance and documents. 

Enhancement - An activity increasing one or 

more natural or artificial wetland functions. For example, the removal of a point source discharge impacting a wetland. 

Functions - The roles that wetlands serve, which 

are of value to society or the environment. 

Habitat - The environment occupied by individuals of a particular species, population, or community. 

Hydrology - The science dealing with the properties, distribution, and circulation of water both on 

the surface and under the earth. 

Restoration - An activity returning a wetland from 

a disturbed or altered condition with lesser acreage 

or functions to a previous condition with greater 

wetland acreage or functions. For example, restoration might involve the plugging of a drainage ditch to 

restore the hydrology to an area that was a wetland 

before the installation of the drainage ditch. 

Riparian - Areas next to or substantially influenced by water. These may include areas adjacent to rivers, lakes, or estuaries. These areas 

often include wetlands. 

Upland - Any area that does not qualify as wetland because the associated hydrologic regime is 

not sufficiently wet to elicit development of vegetation, soils and/or hydrologic characteristics associated with wetlands, or is defined as open 

waters. 

Waters of the U.S. - See Appendix B for Federal 

definition, 40 CFR Parts 122.2, 230.3, and 232.2. 

Wetlands - Those areas that are inundated or 

saturated by surface or groundwater 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. See Federal 

definition contained in Federal regulations: 40 CFR 

Parts 122.2, 230.3, and 232.2. 

A-1 
Appendix B 

The Federal definition of “waters of the United 

States” (40 CFR Section 232.2(q)) is: 

(1) All waters which are currently used, 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 would 

or 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 could be 

taken and sold in interstate or 

foreign commerce; 

(iii) Which are used or could be used for 

industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce;* 

(5) Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs 

1-4; 

(6) The territorial sea; and 

(7) Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than 

waters that are themselves wetlands) identified in 1-6; 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 criteria in 

this definition) are not waters of the United 

States. 

(*Note: EPA has clarified that waters of the 

U.S. under the commerce connection in (3) 

above also include, for example, waters: 

Which are or would be used as 

habitat by birds protected by 

Migratory Bird Treaties or migratory 

birds which cross State lines; 

Which are or would be used as 

habitat for endangered species; 

Used to irrigate crops sold in interstate commerce.) 

(4) All impoundments of waters otherwise 

defined as waters of the United States under 

this definition; 

B-1 
Appendix C 

Information on the 

Assessment of Wetland 

Functions and Values 

Summary of Methodologies Prior to 1983 

(Lonard and Clairain 1986) 

Introduction 

Since 1972, a wide variety of wetlands evaluation 

methodologies have been developed by Federal or 

State agencies, private consulting firms, and the 

academic community. These evaluation methods 

have been developed to ascertain all or selected 

wetland functions and values that include habitat; 

hydrology, including water quality recreation; 

agriculture/silviculture; and heritage functions. 

Publications by the U.S. Water Resources Council 

(Lonard et al., 1981) and the U.S. Army Engineer 

Waterways Experiment Station (Lonard et al., 1984) 

documented and summarized pre-1981 wetland 

evaluation methods. The two documents include a 

critical review of the literature, identification of research needs, and recommendations for the improvement of wetlands evaluation methodologies. 

Methodology analyses include an examination of 

wetlands functions; geographic features; personnel 

requirements for implementation, data requirements, and products; field testing; flexibility; and 

administrative uses. Recently, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, with technical assistance 

from WAPORA, Inc. (1984) summarized freshwater 

wetland evaluation methodologies related to 

primary and cumulative impacts published prior to 

1981. The specific objective of this paper is to 

present a summary of wetlands evaluation 

methodologies identified from the pre-1981 literature, and to present an update of methodologies 

published since 1981. 

Methods 

In 1981, a U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (WES) study team evaluated 40 wetlands evaluation methodologies according to 

several screening criteria, and examined 20 of the 

methodologies in detail using a series of descriptive 

parameters (Lonard et al., 1981). The criteria and 

parameters were developed to ensure consistency 

during review and analysis of methodologies. Five 

additional methodologies proposed since 1981 have 

been analyzed and summarized for this paper using 

the same criteria. This does not suggest, however, 

that only five methodologies have been developed 

since 1981. 

Available Wetlands Evaluation Methodologies 

Abstracts of 25 wetlands evaluation 

methodologies that met the WES study team’s 

criteria include the following: 

1. Adamus, P.R., and Stockwell, L.T. 1983. “A 

Method for Wetland Functional Assessment. 

Volume I. Critical Review and Evaluation 

Concepts.” U.S. Department of TransportaC-1 
tion Federal Highway Administration. Office of Research, Environmental Division. 

Washington. D.C. 20590; and Adamus, P.R. 

1983. “A Method for Wetland Functional Assessment. Volume II. The Method,” U.S. 

Department of Transportation. Federal 

Highway Administration. Office of Research, Environmental Division. 

Washington, D.C. 20590. 

Volume I of the method provides a detailed literature review and discussion of the rationale of the 

method. The wetland functional assessment or 

evaluation methodology presented in Volume II consists of three separate procedures. Procedure I, 

referred to as a “Threshold Analysis,” provides a 

methodology for estimating the probability that a 

single wetland is of high, moderate, or low value for 

each of 11 wetland functions discussed in detail in 

Volume I. This procedure is based on assessment 

of 75 bio-physical wetland features obtained from 

office, field, and quantitative studies. It also incorporates consideration of the social significance of 

the wetland as indicated by public priorities. The 

priorities are determined based on results of a series 

of questions that the evaluator must consider. Procedure II, designed as a “Comparative Analysis,” 

provides parameters for estimating whether one 

wetland is likely to be more important than another 

for each wetland function, and Procedure II, referred 

to as “Mitigation Analysis,” provides an outline for 

comparing mitigation alternatives and their 

reasonableness.” The evaluation methodology is 

qualitative in its approach. 

2. Brown, A., Kittle, P., Dale, E.E., and Huffman, R.T. 1974. “Rare and Endangered 

Species, Unique Ecosystems, and Wetlands,” Department of Zoology and Department of Botany and Bacteriology. The 

University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas 

The Arkansas Wetlands Classification System 

contains a two-part, multivariate approach for 

evaluating freshwater wetlands for maximum wildlife 

production and diversity. Initially, Arkansas wetlands were qualitatively classified as prime or nonprime wetlands habitats according to use by man. A 

numerical value for a wetland was determined by 

calculating a subscore, which was based on the 

multiplication of a significance coefficient by a 

determined weighted value. The values for each 

variable were summed, and a total wetland qualitative value was obtained for use by decision makers. 

3. Dee, N.. Baker, J.. Drobney, N., Duke, K., 

Whitman, I., and Fahringer, D. 1973. “Environmental Evaluation System for Water 

Resources Planning,” Water Resources Research, Vol 9, No. 3. pp 523-534. 

The Environmental Evaluation System (EES) is a 

methodology for conducting environmental impact 

analysis. It was developed by an interdisciplinary 

research team, and is based on a hierarchical arrangement of environmental quality indicators, an arrangement that classifies the major areas of environmental concern Into major categories, components, 

and ultimately into parameters and measurements 

of environmental quality. The EES provides for environmental impact evaluation in four major 

categories. ecology, environmental pollution, aesthetics, and human interest. These four categories 

are further broken down into 18 components, and 

finally into 78 parameters. The EES provides a 

means for measuring or estimating selected environmental impacts of large-scale water resource 

development projects in commensurate units 

termed environmental impact units (EIU). Results of 

using the EES include a total score in EIU “with” and 

‘without” the proposed project; the difference between the two scores in one measure of environmental impact. Environmental impact scores 

developed in the EES are based on the magnitude of 

specific environmental impacts and their relative importance. Another major output from the EES is an 

indication of major adverse impacts called “red 

flags,” which are of concern of and by themselves. 

These red flags indicate “fragile” elements of the 

environment that must be studied in more detail. 

(Authors’ abstract.) 

4. Euler, D.L., Carreiro, F.T., McCullough, G.B., 

Snell, E.A., Glooschenko, V., and Spurr, R.H. 

1983. "An Evaluation System for Wetlands 

of Ontario South of the Precambrian Shield,” 

First Edition. Ontario Ministry of Natural 

Resources and Canadian Wildlife Service, 

Ontario Region. Variously paged. 

The methodology was developed to evaluate a 

wide variety of wetland functions that include 

biological, social. hydrological, and special feaC-2 
tures. The procedures includes a rationale of scientific and technical literature for wetlands values, the 

evaluation methodology, a step-by-step procedure 

manual, a wetland data record, and a wetland 

evaluation record. The procedure was developed to 

evaluate and rank a wide variety of inland wetlands 

located in Ontario, Canada, south of the 

Precambrian Shield. 

5. Fried, E. 1974. “Priority Rating of Wetlands 

for Acquisition,” Transaction of the Northeast Fish and Wildlife Conference, Vol 3 1, 

pp 15-30. 

New York State’s Environmental Quality Bond Act 

of 1972 provides $5 million for inland wetland acquisition, $18 million for tidal wetlands acquisition, 

and $4 million for wetlands restoration. A priority 

rating system, with particular emphasis on inland 

wetlands, was developed to guide these programs. 

The governing equation was: priority rating = (P + 

V + A) x 5, where the priority rating is per acre 

desirability for acquisition, P is biological productivity, V is vulnerability, and A is additional factors. 

Both actual and potential conditions could be rated. 

The rating system was successfully applied to some 

130 inland wetlands. Using a separate equation, 

wetland values were related to costs. (Authors’s 

abstract.) 

6. Galloway, G.E. 1978. “Assessing Man’s Impact on Wetlands,” Sea Grant Publications 

Nos. UNC-SG-78-17 or UNC-WRRI-78-136, 

University of North Carolina, Raleigh, North 

Carolina. 

The Wetland Evaluation System (IVES) proposed 

by Galloway emphasizes a system approach to 

evaluate man’s impact on a wetland ecosystem. Impacts are determined and compared for “with” and 

“without” project conditions. The advice of an interdisciplinary team, as well as the input of local 

elected officials and laymen, are included as part of 

the WES model. Parameters that make up a wetland 

are assessed at the macro-level, and the results of 

the evaluation are displayed numerically and graphically with computer assisted techniques. 

7. Golet, F.C. 1973. “Classification Evaluation 

of Freshwater Wetlands as Wildlife Habitat in 

the Glaciated Northeast,” Transactions of 

the Northeast Fish and Wildlife Conference, 

Vol 30. pp 257-279. 

A detailed classification system for freshwater 

wetlands is presented along with 10 criteria for the 

evaluation of wetlands as wildlife habitat. The 

results are based on a 2-year field study of over 150 

wetlands located throughout the state of Massachusetts. The major components of the classification system include wetland classes and subclasses, based on the dominant life form of vegetation and surface water depth and permanence; size 

categories; topographic and hydrologic location; 

surrounding habitat types; proportions and interspersion of cover and water; and vegetative interspersion. These components are combined with 

wetland juxtaposition and water chemistry to 

produce criteria for a wetland evaluation. Using a 

system of specification and ranks, wetlands can be 

arranged according to their wildlife value for 

decision-making. (Author’s abstract.) “At this point, 

the system has been used in numerous states on 

thousands of wetlands: recent revisions have 

resulted in such use.” (F.C Golet) 

8. Gupta. T.R.. and Foster, J.H. 1973. “Valuation of Visual-Cultural Benefits from Freshwater Wetlands in Massachusetts,” Journal 

of the Northeasrern Agricultural Council, Vol 

2, No 1, pp 262-273. 

The authors suggested an alternative to the “willingness to pay” approaches for measuring the social 

values of natural open space and recreational 

resources. The method combines an identification 

and measurement of the physical qualities of the 

resource by landscape architects. Measurement 

values were expressed in the context of the political 

system and current public views. The procedure is 

demonstrated by its application to freshwater wetlands in Massachusetts. 

9. Kibby. H V 1978. “Effects of Wetlands on 

Water Quality,” Proceedings of the Symposium on Strategies for Protection and 

Management of Floodplain Wetlands and 

ofher Riparian Ecosystems. General Technical Report No. GTR-WO-12, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Washington, D.C. 
Wetlands potentially have significant effects on 

water quality Significant amounts of nitrogen are 

assimilated during the growing season and then 

released in the fall and early spring. Phosphorus, 

while assimilated by wetlands, is also released 

throughout the year. Some potential management 

tools for evaluating the effect of wetlands on water 

quality are discussed. (Author’s abstract.) 

10. Larson, J.S. (ed.) 1976. “Models for Assessment of Freshwater Wetlands,” Publication No. 32. Water Resources Research 

Center, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts. 

Four submodels for relative and economic evaluation of freshwater wetlands are presented within a 

single, 3-phase elimination model. The submodels 

treat wildlife, visual-cultural. groundwater, and 

economic values. 

The wildlife and visual-cultural models are based 

on physical characteristics that, for the most part, 

can be measured on existing maps and aerial 

photographs. Each characteristic is given values by 

rank and coefficient. A relative numerical score is 

calculated for the total wetland characteristics and 

used to compare it with a broad range of northeastern wetlands or with wetlands selected by the 

user The groundwater model places wetlands in 

classes of probable groundwater yield, based on 

surficial geologic deposits under the wetland. 

The economic submodel suggests values for 

wildlife, visual-cultural aspects, groundwater, and 

flood control. Wildlife values are derived from the 

records of state agency purchases of wetlands with 

sportsmen’s dollars for wildlife management purposes. Visual-cultural economic values are based 

on the record of wetland purposes for open space 

values by municipal conservation commissions. 

Groundwater values stem from savings realized by 

selection of a drilled public water supply over a surface water source. Flood control values are based 

on U S. Army Corps of Engineers data on flood control values of the Charles River, Massachusetts, 

mainstream wetlands. 

The submodels are presented within the 

framework of an overall 3-phase eliminative model. 

Phase I identifies outstanding wetlands that should 

be protected at all costs Phase II applies the 

wildlife, visual-cultural, and groundwater submodels 

to those wetlands that do not meet criteria for outstanding wetlands. Phase III develops the 

economic values of the wetlands evaluated in Phase 

II. 

The models are intended to be used by local, 

regional, and state resource planners and wetlands 

regulation agencies. (Author’s abstract.) 

11. Marble, A.D., and Gross, M. 1984. “A 

Method for Assessing Wetland Characteristics and Values,” Landscape Planning, 

Vol 11. pp 1-17. 

The method presented for assessing wetland 

values identified the relative importance of wetlands 

in providing wildlife habitat, flood control, and improvement of surface water quality. All wetlands in 

the study area were categorized on the basis of their 

landscape position of hilltop, hillside, or valley. 

Each of the wetland values measured were then related to the corresponding landscape position 

categories. Valley wetlands were found to be most 

valuable in all instances. The method provides information on wetland values that can be simply 

gathered and easily assessed, requiring only available data and a minimum of resources. Implementation of this method on a regional or municipalitywide basis can provide decision makers with readily 

accessible and comparative information on wetland 

values. (Authors’ abstract.) 

12. Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 

1980 “Manual for Wetland Evaluation Techniques Operation Draft,’ Division of Land 

Resource Programs Lansing, Michigan. 29 

PP. 

The Michigan Department of Natural Resources 

(MDNR) Wetland Evaluation Technique is designed 

to assist decision makers on permit applications involving projects where significant impacts are anticipated. The manual describes the criteria to be 

used in evaluating any particular wetland The technique provides a means of evaluating the status of 

existing wetlands as well as potential project-related 

impacts on wetland structure and aerial extent. One 

part of the technique requires examination of six 

basic features of wetlands, including: (1) hydrologic 

functions; (2) soil characteristics; (3) wildlife 

habitat/use evaluation; (4) fisheries habitat/use; (5) 

c-4 
nutrient removal/recycling functions; (6) removal of 

suspended sediments A second part of the 

analysis includes consideration of public interest 

concerns. This method also includes brief consideration of cumulative, cultural/historic, and 

economic impacts. 

13. Reppert, R.T., Sigleo, W., Stakhiv, E.. 

Messman, L., and Meyers, C. 1979. “Wetland Values: Concepts and Methods for 

Wetlands Evaluation,” IWR Research Report 

79-R-1, U.S. Army Engineer Institute for 

Water Resources, Fort Belvoir, Virginia. 

The evaluation of wetlands is based on the 

analysis of their physical, biological, and human use 

characteristics. The report discusses these functional characteristics and identifies specific criteria 

for determining the efficiency with which the respective functions are performed. 

Two potential wetlands evaluation methods are 

described. One is a non-quantitative method in 

which individual wetland areas are evaluated based 

on the deductive analysis of their individual functional characteristics. The other is a semi-quantitative 

method in which the relative values of two or more 

site alternatives are established through the mathematical rating and summation of their functional 

relationships. 

The specific functions and values of wetlands that 

are covered in this report are (1) natural biological 

functions, including food chain productivity and 

habitat; (2) their use as sanctuaries, refuges, or 

scientific study areas; (3) shoreline protection; (4) 

groundwater recharge; (5) storage for flood and 

stormwater; (6) water quality improvement: (7) 

hydrologic support; and (8) various cultural values. 

(Authors’ abstract.) 

14. Shuldiner. P.W., Cope, D.F., and Newton, 

R.B. 1979. “Ecological Effects on Highway 

Fills of Wetlands, Research Report. National Cooperative Highway Research Program 

Report No. 218A, Transportation Research 

Board, National Research Council, 

Washington, D.C.; and Shuldiner. P.W., 

Cope, D.F , and Newton, R B 1979 

“Ecological Effects of Highway Fills on Wetlands,” User’s Manual. National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report No. 

218B. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. 

The two reports include a Research Report and a 

User’s Manual to provide, in concise format, 

guidelines and information needed for the determination of the ecological effects that may result 

from the placement of highway fills on wetlands and 

associated floodplains, and to suggest procedures 

by which deleterious impacts can be minimized or 

avoided. The practices that can be used to enhance 

the positive benefits are also discussed. Both 

reports cover the most common physical, chemical, 

and biological effects that the highway engineer is 

likely to encounter when placing fills in wetlands, 

and displays the effects and their interactions in a 

series of flowcharts and matrices. 

15. SCS Engineers. 1979. “Analysis of Selected 

Functional Characteristics of Wetlands,” 

Contract No. DACW73-78-R-0017. Reston. 

Virginia 

The investigation focused on identifying factors 

and criteria for assessing the wetland functions of 

water quality improvement, groundwater recharge, 

storm and floodwater storage, and shoreline protection. Factors and criteria were identified that could 

be used to develop procedures to assist Corps personnel in wetlands assessing the values of general 

wetland types and of specific wetlands in performing 

the functions indicated. To the extent possible, procedures were then outlined that allow the application of these criteria in specific sites. 

16. Smardon. R.D. 1972. “Assessing VisualCultural Values on Inland Wetlands in Massachusetts,” Master of Science Thesis. 

University of Massachusetts. Amherst, Massachusetts. 

This study deals with the incorporation of visualcultural values of inland wetlands into the decision 

making process of land use allocation of inland wetlands in Massachusetts Visual-cultural values of inland wetlands may be defined as visual, recreational, and educational values of inland wetlands to 

society. The multivariate model is an eliminative 

and comparative model that has three levels of 

evaluation The first level identifies those wetlands 

that are outstanding natural areas, have regional 

landscape value, or are large wetland systems. 

C-5 
These wetlands have top priority for preservation. 

The second levei is a rating and ranking system. At 

this stage, the combined natural resource values of 

the wetland are evaluated. Wetlands wlth hlgh 

ratings or rank from this level are ellmlnated and 

have the next highest priority for preservation or 

some sort of protection. The third level evaluation 

considers the cultural values (e.g., accessibility, 

location near schods) of wetlands. The model is 

designed to be utilized at many different levels of 

decision maklng. For example, it can be used by 

state agencies, town conservation commlsslons, 

and conceivably could be used by other states In 

northeastern United States. (Author’s abstract.) 

17. Solomon, R.D.. Colbert. B.K., Hansen, W.J., 

Richardson, S.E., Ganter, L.W., and Vlachos, 

E.C. 1977. “Water Resources Assessment 

Methodology (WRAM)--Impact Assessment 

and Alternative Evaluation,” Technical 

Report Y-77-1, Environmental Effects 

Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways 

Experiment Station, CE. Vicksburg, Mississippi. 

This study presented a review of 54 impact assessment methodologies and found that none entirely Qtisfied the needs or requirements for the 

Corps’ water resources project and programs. 

However, salient features contained in several of the 

methodologies were considered pertinent and were 

utilized to develop a water resources assessment 

methodology (WRAM). One of the features consisted of weighting impacted variables and scaling 

the impacts of alternatives. The weighted rankings 

technique is the basic weighting and scaling tool 

used in this methodology. Principal components of 

WRAM include assembling an interdisciplinary team; 

selecting and ensuring assessment variables; identifying, predicting, and evaluating Impacts and alternatives; and documenting the analysis. Although 

developed primarily for use by the Corps in water 

resources management, WRAM is applicable to 

other resources agencies. 

18. State of Maryland Department of Natural 

Resources. Undated. “Environmental 

Evaluation of Coastal Wetlands (Draft),” 

Tidal Wetlands Study, pp 181-208. 

The Maryland scheme for the evaluation of coastal wetlands is based on the recognition of 32 distinct types of vegetation in the marshes and swamps 

of tidewater areas of the state. Rankings of vegetation types were developed and parameters for the 

evaluation of specific areas of wetlands were 

described. The application of the scheme is explained and demonstrated. Guidance is provided 

for the interpretation of results. The application of 

the Maryland scheme requires a detailed inventory 

of the types of vegetation in the area selected for 

evaluation. 

19. U.S. Army Engineer District, Rock Island. 

1983. “Wetland Evaluation Methodology,” 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Water Regulation and 

Zoning. 

The Wetland Evaluation Methodology is a shortened and revised version of a technique developed 

for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) (see 

Adamus. 1983; Number 1). The FHWA technique 

was designed to assess all wetland types whereas 

the Wetland Evaluation Methodology assesses 

those wetlands in Wisconsin (e.g., assessment procedures In the FHWA technique for estuarine marshes have been omitted from the Wetland Evaluation 

Methodology). Other changes have also been incorporated into the Wetland Evaluation Methodology to more closely reflect other regional conditions. 

20. U.S. Army Engineer Division, Lower Mississippi Valley. 1980. “A Habitat Evaluation 

System for Water Resources Planning,” U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, Lower Mississippi 

Valley Division, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 

A methodology is presented for determining the 

quality of major habitat types based on the description and quantification of habitat characterisfics. 

Values are compared for existing baseline conditions, future conditions without the project, and with 

alternative project conditions. Curves, parameter 

characteristics, and descriptive information are included in the appendices. The Habitat Evaluation 

System (HES) procedure includes the following 

steps for evaluating impacts of a water resource 

development project. The steps include: (1) obtaining habitat type or land use acreage; (2) deriving 

Habitat Quality Index scores; (3) deriving Habitat 

Unit Values; (4) projecting Habitat Unit Values for 

the future “with” and “without” project conditions; (5) 

C-6 
using Habitat Unit Values to assess impacts of 

project conditions; and (6) determining mitigation 

requirements. 

21. U.S. Army Engineer Division, New England. 

1972. “Charles River: Main Report and Attachments,” Waltham, Massachusetts. 

The study was a long-term project directed by the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to study the resources of the Charles River Watershed in eastern Massachusetts. It had an emphasis on how to control 

flood damage in the urbanized lower watershed, and 

how to prevent any significant flood damage in the 

middle and upper watershed. Seventeen crucial 

wetlands were identified for acquisition to maintain 

flood storage capacity in the watershed as a nonstructural alternative for flood protection in the lower 

Charles River basin. Various aspects of the watershed were studied in an interdisciplinary fashion. 

22. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1978. “Wetlands Evaluation Criteria--Water and Related 

Land Resources of the Coastal Region, Massachusetts,” Soil Conservation Service, Amherst, Massachusetts. 

A portion of the document contains criteria used 

to evaluate major wetlands in the coastal region of 

Massachusetts. Each of the 85 wetlands evaluated 

was subjected to map study and field examination 

Ratings were assigned based on point values obtained for various attributes. A rationale for each 

evaluation item was developed to explain the 

development of the criteria. 

23. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. 

“Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) 

Manual (102ESM),” Washington, D.C. 

HEP is a method that can be used to document 

the quality and quantity of available habitat for 

selected wildlife species. HEP provides information 

for two general types of wildlife habitat comparisons: (1) the relative value of different areas at 

the same point In time; and (2) the relative value of 

the same area at future points in time. By combining the two types of comparisons, the impact of 

proposed or anticipated land and water changes on 

wildlife habitat can be quantified This document 

described HEP. discusses some probable applications, and provides guidance in applying HEP in the 

field. 

24. Virginia Institute of Marine Science. Undated. “Evaluation of Virginia Wetlands,” 

(mimeographed). Glouchester Point, Virginia. 

The authors presented a procedure to evaluate 

the wetlands of Virginia. The objective of the wetland evaluation program was to recognize wetlands 

that possess great ecological significance as well as 

those of lesser significance. Two broad categories 

of criteria were utilized in evaluating the ecological 

significance of wetlands: (1) the interaction of wetlands with the marine environment; and (2) the interaction of the wetland with the terrestrial environment. A formula was developed to incorporate 

various factors into “relative ecological significance 

values.” 

25. Winchester, B.H., and Harris, L D 1979. 

“An Approach to Valuation of Florida Freshwater Wetlands,” Proceedings of rhe Sixth 

Annual Conference on rhe Restorarion and 

Crearion of Wetlands, Tampa, Florida 

A procedure was presented for estimating the 

relative ecological and functional value of Florida 

freshwater wetlands. Wetland functions evaluated 

by this procedure include water quality enhancement, water detention, vegetation diversity and 

productivity, and wildlife habitat value The field 

parameters used in the assessment were wetland 

size, contiguity, structural vegetative diversity, and 

an edge-to-area ration. The procedure was field 

tested and was time- and cost-effective Allowing 

flexibility in both the evaluative criteria used and the 

relative weight assigned to each criterion, the 

methodology is applicable in any Florida region for 

which basic ecological data are available 

c-7 
Literature Clted 

Adamus, P. and Stockwell. L.R. 1983. A method for 

wetland functional assessment. Volume 1. 

Critical review and evaluation concepts. U.S. 

Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration. Office Research, Environmental Division. Washington, D.C. 

20590 (No. FHWA-IP-82-23). 

Adamus. P.R. 1983. A method for wetland functional assessment. Volume II. The method. U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Office of Research, Environmental Division. Washington, D.C. 

20590. (No. FHWA-IP-82-24). 

Brown, A., Kittle. P., Dale, E.E.. and Huffman, R.T. 

1974. Rare and endangered species, unique 

ecosystems, and wetlands. Department of 

Zoology and Department of Botany and Bacteriology. University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas. 

Dee, N., Baker, J., Drobney, N., Duke, K., Whitman, 

I. and Fahringer, D. 1973. Environmental 

evaluation system for water resources planning. Water Resources Research, Vol 9. No 

3, pp 523-534. 

Euler, D.L., Carreiro, F.T., McCullough, G.B., Snell, 

E.A.. Glooschenko. V., and Spurr. R.H 1983. 

An evaluation system for wetlands of Ontario 

south of the Precambrian Shield. First Edition. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 

and Canadian Wildlife Service, Ontario 

Region. Variously paged. 

Fried, E. 1974. Priority rating of wetlands for acquisition. Transaction of the Northeast Fish 

and Wildlife Conference, Vol 31, pp 15-30. 

Galloway, G.E. 1978. Assessing man’s impact on 

wetlands, Sea Grant Publication Nos. UNCSG-78-17 or UNC-WRRI-78-136. University of 

North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina. 

Golet. F.C. 1973. Classification and evaluation of 

freshwater wetlands as wildlife habitat in the 

glaciated Northeast Transactions of the 

Northeast Fish and Wildlife Conference, Vol 

30, pp 257-279. 

Gupta, T.R., and Foster, J.H. 1973. Evaluation of 

visual-cultural benefits from freshwater wetlands in Massachusetts, Journal of the Northeastern Agricultural Council, Vol 2. No. 2, pp 

262-273. 

Kibby, H.V. 1978. Effects of wetlands on water 

quality. Proceedings of the symposium on 

strategies for protection and management of 

floodplain wetlands and other riparian 

ecosystems, General Technical Report No. 

GRW-WO-12, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Washington, D.C. 

Larson, J.S. (ed.) 1976. Models for assessment of 

freshwater wetlands. Publication No. 32, 

Water Resources Center, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts. 

Lonard, R.I.. Clairain. E.J., Jr., Huffman, R.T.. Hardy, 

J.W., Brown, L.D., Ballard, P.E., and Watts, 

J.W. 1981. Analysis of methodologies used 

for the assessment of wetlands values. U S. 

Water Resources Council, Washington, D C 

Lonard. R.I., Clairain, E.J., Jr., Huffman, R.T.. Hardy, 

J.W., Brown, L.D.. Ballard, P E.. and Watts. 

J.W. 1984. Wetlands function and values 

study plan, Appendix A Analysis of 

methodologies for assessing wetlands 

values Technical Report Y-83-2, U S Arrny 

Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, CE. 

Vicksburg, Mississippi. 

Marble, A.D., and Gross, M. 1984. A method for 

assessing wetland characteristics and 

values. Landscape Planning II, pp 1.17 

Michigan Department of Natural Resources 1980. 

Manual for wetland evaluation techniques: 

operation draft. Division of Land Resources 

Programs, Lansing, Michigan. 22 pp. 

Reppert, R.T.. Sigleo, W., Stakhiv, E.. Messman. L , 

and Meyer, C. 1979. Wetlands values. concepts and methods for wetlands evaluation 

IWR Research Report 79-R-1, U S Army Engineer Institute for Water Resources Fort 

Belvoir. Virginia 
Shuldiner, P.W., Cope, D.F., and Newton, R.B. 

1979a. Ecological effects of highway fills on 

wetlands. Research Report No. 2188. 

Transportation Research Board, National Research Council. Washington, D.C. 

Smardon, R.C. 1972. Assessing visual-cultural 

values on inland wetlands in Massachusetts. 

Master of Science Thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts. 

Solomon, R.D., Colbert. B.K., Hansen, W.J., 

Richardson, S.E.. Canter, L.W., and Vlachos. 

E.C. 1977. Water resources assessment 

methodology (WRAM)--impact assessment 

and alternative evaluation. Technical Report 

Y-77-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, CE, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 

State of Maryland Department of Natural Resources. 

Undated. Environmental evaluation of coastal wetlands (Draft). Tidal Wetlands Study, 

pp 181-208. 

Stearns, Conrad and Schmidt Consulting Engineers, 

Inc. 1979. Analysis of selected functional 

characteristics of wetlands. Contract No. 

DACW72-78-0017, Draft Report, prepared for 

U.S. Army Engineers Research Center by the 

authors, Reston, Virginia. 

U.S. Army Engineer Division, Lower Mississippi Valley. 1980. A habitat evaluation system 

(HES) for water resources planning US 

Army Engineer Division, Lower Mississippi 

Valley. Vicksburg, Mississippi. 

U.S. Army Engineer Division, New England. 1972. 

Charles River; main report and attachments. 

U.S. Army Engineer Division, New England. 

Waltham, Massachusetts. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1978. Wetland 

evaluation criteria--water and related land 

resources of the coastal region of Massachusetts. Soil Conservation Service, Amherst, Massachusetts. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984. 

Technical report: literature review of wetland 

evaluation methodologies. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Chicago, IIlinois. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. Habitat 

evaluation procedures (HEP) manual. 102 

ESM. Washington, D.C. 

Virginia Institute of Marine Science. Undated. 

Evaluation of Virginia wetlands. 

Mimeographed Paper, Glouchester Point, 

Virginia. 

Winchester, B.H., and Harris, L.D. 1979. An approach to valuation of Florida freshwater wetlands. Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Conference on the Restoration and Creation of 

Wetlands, Hillsborough Community College, 

Tampa, Florida 
Wetland Assessment Techniques 

Developed Since 1983 (USEPA 1989a) 

8 Wetlands Evaluation Technique (Adamus, et al. 

1987). This nationally applicable procedure has 

been used in at least six ADIOS to date, mostly in 

its orfginal form (known popularfy as the “FHWA” 

or “Adamus” method). It has since been extensively revised and is available at no cost (with simple 

software) from the Corps of Engineers Wetlands 

Research Program (contact: Buddy Cfairain. 601- 

634-3774). Future revisions are anticipated. 

l Bottomland Hardwoods WET (Adamus 1987). 

This is a simplified, regionalized version of WET, 

applicable to EPA Regions 4 and 6. It is available 

from OWP (contact: Joe DaVii at 202475-8795). 

Supporting software is being developed, and future revisions are anticipated. 

l Southeastern Alaska WET (Adamus Resource Assessment 1987). This is also a simplified, regionalized version of WET. 

l Minnesota Method (U.S. Army Corps of EngineersSt!Paul, 1988). This was a joint State-Federal effort 

that involved considerable adaptation of WET A 

similar effort is underway in Wisconsin. 

Onondaga County Method (SUNY-Syracuse 

1987). This was adapted from WET by Smardon 

and others at the State University of New York. 

Hdlands-Magee Method. This is a scoring technique developed by two consultants and has been 

applied to hundreds of wetlands in New England 

and part of Wisconsin (contact: Dennis Magee at 

6034725191). Supporting software is available. 

Ontario Method (Euler et al. 1983). This is also a 

scoring technique. and was extensively peerreviewed in Canada. (Contact: Valanne Glooschenko, 4169667641). 

Connecticut Method (Amman et al. 1986). This is 

a scoring technique developed for inland 

municipal wetland agencies. 

Marble-Gross Method (Marble and Gross 1984). 

This was developed for a local application in Connecticut. 

Habitat Evaluation System (HES) (Tennessee 

Dept. of Conservation 1987). This is a revised 

version of a Corps-sponsored method used to 

evaluate Lower Mississippi wildlife habitat. 

c- 10 
References 

Adamus, P.R. (ed.) 1987. Atlas of breeding birds in 

Maine 1978-1983. Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, Augusta. 366 pp. 

Adamus Resource Assessment, Inc. 1987. Juneau 

wetlands: functions and values. City and 

Borough of Juneau Department of Community Development, Juneau, Alaska. 3 vols. 

Amman, A.P., R.W. Franzen, and J.L. 

Johnson. 1986. 

Method for the evaluation of inland wetlands in Connecticut. Bull. No. 9. Connecticut Dept. 

Envir. Prot. and USDA Soil Conservation Service, Hartford, Connecticut. 

Euler, D.L., F.T. Carreiro, G.B. McCullough, G.B. 

Snell, V. 

Glooschenko, and R.H. Spurr. 1983. An evaluation 

system for wetlands of Ontario south of the 

Precambrian Shield. Ontario Ministry of 

Natural Resources and Canadian Wildlife 

Service, Ontario Region. 

Marble, A.D. and M. Gross. 1984. A method for 

assessing wetland characteristics and 

values. Landscape Planning 2: l-1 7. 

State University of New York at Syracuse (SUNY). 

1987. Wetlands evaluation system for Onondaga County, New York State. Draft. 93 pp. 

Tennessee Dept. of Conservation. 1987. Habitat 

Evaluation 

System: Bottomland Forest Community Model. 

Tennessee Dept. of Conservation, Ecological 

Services Division, Nashville. 92 pp. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-St. Paul. 1988. The 

Minnesota wetland evaluation methodology 

for the North Central United States. Minnesota Wetland Evaluation Methodology 

Task Force and Corps of Engineers-St. Paul 

District. 97 pp. + appendices. 
Appendix D 

REGIONAL COORDINATORS 

Regional Water Quality Standards Coordinators 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 

Eric Hall, WQS Coordinator 

USEPA, Region 1 

Water Management Division 

JFK Federal Building 

Boston, MA 02203 

(FTS) 835-3533 

(617) 565-3533 

Rick Balla, WQS Coordinator 

USEPA, Region 2 

Water Management Division 

26 Federal Plaza 

New York, NY 10278 

(FTS) 264-1559 

(212) 264-1559 

Linda Hoist, WQS Coordinator 

USEPA, Region 3 

Water Management Division 

841 Chestnut Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19107 

(FTS) 597-0133 

(215) 597-3425 

Fritz Wagener, WQS Coordinator 

USEPA, Region 4 

Water Management Division 

345 Courtland Street, N.E. 

Atlanta, GA 30365 

(FTS) 257-2126 

(404) 347-2126 

Larry Shepard, WQS Coordinator 

USEPA, Region 5 (TUD-8) 

Water Management Division 

230 South Dearborn Street 

Chicago, IL 60604 

(FTS) 886-0135 

(312) 886-0135 

David Neleigh, WQS Coordinator 

USEPA, Region 6 

Water Management Division 

1445 Ross Avenue 

First Interstate Bank Tower 

Dallas, TX 75202 

(FTS) 255-7145 

(214) 655-7145 

John Houlihan, WQS Coordinator 

USEPA, Region 7 

Water Compliance Branch 

726 Minnesota Avenue 

Kansas City, KS 66101 

(FTS) 276-7432 

(913) 551-7432 

Bill Wuerthele, WQS Coordinator 

USEPA, Region 8 (8WM-SP) 

Water Management Division 

999 18th Street 

Denver, CO 80202-2405 

(FTS) 330-1586 

(303) 293-1586 

Phil Woods, WQS Coordinator 

USEPA, Region 9 

Water Management Division (W-3-1) 

75 Hawthorne Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

(FTS) 484-1994 

(415) 744-1994 

Sally Marquis, WQS Coordinator 

USEPA, Region 10 

Water Management Division (WD-139) 

1200 Sixth Avenue 

Seattle, WA 98101 

(FTS) 399-2116 

(206) 442-2116 

D-1 
Regional Wetland Program Coordinators 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 

Doug Thompson, Wetlands Coordinator 

USEPA, Region 1 

Water Management Division 

Water Quality Branch 

John F. Kennedy Federal Building 

Boston, Massachusetts 02203-2211 

(FTS) 835-4422 

(617) 565-4422 

Dan Montella, Wetlands Coordinator 

USEPA, Region 2 

Water Management Division 

Marine & Wetlands Protection Branch 

26 Federal Plaza 

New York, New York 10278 

(FTS) 264-5170 

(212) 264-5170 

Barbara D’Angelo, Wetlands Coordinator 

USEPA, Region 3 

Environmental Service Division 

Wetlands and Marine Policy Section 

841 Chestnut Street 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107 

(FTS) 597-9301 

(2 15) 597-9301 

Tom Welborn, Wetlands Coordinator 

(Regulatory Unit) 

Gail Vanderhoogt, Wetlands Coordinator 

(Planning Unit) 

USEPA, Region 4 

Water Management Division 

Water Quality Branch 

345 Courtland Street, N.E. 

Atlanta, Georgia 30365 

(FTS) 257-2126 

(404) 347-2126 

Doug Ehorn, Wetland Coordinator 

USEPA, Region 5 

Water Management Division 

Water Quality Branch 

230 South Dearborn Street 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

(FTS) 886-0243 

(3 12) 886-0243 

Jerry Saunders, Wetlands Coordinator 

USEPA, Region 6 

Environmental Services Division 

Federal Activities Branch 

12th Floor, Suite 1200 

1445 Ross Avenue 

Dallas, Texas 75202 

(FTS) 255-2263 

(214) 655-2263 

Diane Hershberger, Wetlands Coordinator 

Assistant Regional Administrator for 

Policy and Management 

USEPA, Region 7 

Environmental Review Branch 

726 Minnesota Avenue 

Kansas City, Kansas 66101 

(FTS) 276-7573 

(913) 551-7573 

Gene Reetz, Wetlands Coordinator 

USEPA, Region 8 

Water Management Division 

State Program Management Branch 

One Denver Place, Suite 500 

999 18th Street 

Denver, Colorado 80202-2405 

(FTS) 330-1565 

(303) 293-1565 

Phil Oshida, Wetlands Coordinator 

USEPA, Region 9 

Water Management Division 

Wetlands, Oceans and Estuarine Branch 

1235 Mission Street 

San Francisco, California 94103 

(FTS) 464-2187 

(4 15) 744-2180 

Bill Riley, Wetlands Coordinator 

USEPA, Region 10 

Water Management Division 

Environmental Evaluation Branch 

1200 Sixth Avenue 

Seattle, Washington 98101 

(FTS) 399-1412 

(206) 422-1412 

D-2 
Regional Wetland Program Coordinators 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

Region 1 California, Hawaii, 

Idaho, Nevada, 

Oregon, Washington 

RWC: Dennis Peters 

ASST: Howard Browers 

Region 2 Arizona, New Mexico 

Oklahoma, Texas 

RWC: Warren Hagenbuck 

ASST: Curtis Carley 

Region 3 Illinois, Indiana. 

Iowa, Michigan, 

Minnesota, Missouri, 

Ohio, Wisconsin 

RWC: Ron Erickson 

ASST: John Anderson 

Region 4 Alabama, Arkansas, 

Florida, Georgia, 

Kentucky, Louisiana, 

Mississippi, 

North Carolina, 

Puerto Rico, 

South Carolina, 

Tennessee, 

Virgin Islands 

RWC: John Hefner 

ASST: Charlie Storrs 

Regional Wetland Coordinator 

USFWS, Region 1 

Fish and Wildlife Enhancement 

1002 N.E. Holladay Street 

Portland, Oregon 97232-4181 

COM: 503/231-6154 

FTS: 429-6154 

Regional Wetland Coordinator 

USFWS, Region 2 

Room 4012 

500 Gold Avenue, SW 

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103 

COM: 505/766-2914 

Frs: 474-2914 

Regional Wetland Coordinator 

USFWS, Region 3 

Fish and Wildlife Enhancement 

Federal Building, Ft Snelling 

Twin Cities, Minnesota 551 11 

COM: 6121725-3536 

FTS: 725-3536 

Regional Wetland Coordinator 

USFWS, Region 4 

R.B. Russell Federal Building 

75 Spring Street, S.W. 

Suite 1276 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303 

COM: 404/33 l-6343 

FTs:841-6343 
Region 5 Connecticut, 

Delaware, Maine, 

Maryland, 

Massachusetts, New 

Hampshire, New York, 

New Jersey, 

Pennsylvania, Rhode 

Island, Vermont, Virginia, 

West Virginia 

Regional Wetland Coordinator 

USFWS, Region 5 

One Gateway Center, Suite 700 

Newton Corner, MA 02158 

COM 617/965-5100 

FTS: 829-9379 

RWC: Ralph Tiner 

ASST: Glenn Smith 

Region 6 Colorado, Kansas, 

Montana, Nebraska, 

North Dakota, 

South Dakota, 

Utah, Wyoming 

RWC: Chuck Elliott 

ASST- Bill Pearson 

Region 7 Alaska 

RWC: Jon Hall 

ASST: David Dal1 

Regional Wetland Coordinator 

USFWS, Region 6 

Fish and Wildlife Enhancement 

P 0 Box 25486 

Denver Federal Center 

Denver, Colorado 80225 

COM 303i236-8180 

FTS 776-8180 

Regional Wetland Coordinator 

USFWS. Region 7 

10 11 East Tudor Road 

Anchorage, Alaska 99503 

COM: 907i786-3403 or 3471 

FTS. (8) 907/786-3403 

D-4 
Appendix E 

EXAMPLE OF STATE CERTIFICATION ACTION INVOLVING 

WETLANDS UNDER CWA SECTION 401 

The dam proposed by the City of Harrisburg was 

to be 3,000 feet long and 17 feet high. The dam was 

to consist of 32 bottom-hinged flap gates. The dam 

would have created an impoundment with a surface 

area of 3,800 acres, a total storage capacity of 

35,000 acre-feet, and a pool elevation of 306.5 feet. 

The backwater would have extended approximately 

8 miles upstream on the Susquehanna River and 

approximately 3 miles upstream on the Conodoguinet Creek. 

The project was to be a run-of-the-river facility, 

using the head difference created by the dam to 

create electricity. Maximum turbine flow would have 

been 10,000 cfs (at a nethead of 12.5), and minimum 

flow would have been 2,000 cfs. Under normal conditions, all flows up to 40,000 cfs would have passed 

through the turbines. 

b. The destruction of the wetlands will 

cause the loss of beds of emergent 

aquatic vegetation that serve as 

habitat for juvenile fish. Loss of this 

habitat will adversely affect the relative abundance of juvenile and adult 

fish (especially smallmouth bass) 

C. The wetlands which will be lost are 

critical habitat for, among other 

species, the yellow crowned night 

heron, black crowned night heron, 

marsh wren and great egret In addition. the yellow crowned night heron 

is a proposed State threatened 

species, and the marsh wren and 

great egret are candidate species of 

special concern 

The public notice denying 401 certification for this 

project stated as follows: 

1. The construction and operation of the 

project will result in the significant loss of 

wetlands and related aquatic habitat and 

acreage. More specifically 

d. All affected wetlands areas are important and, to the extent that the loss of 

these wetlands can be mitigated. the 

applicant has failed to demonstrate 

that the mitigation proposed is adequate. To the extent that adequate 

mitigation is possible. mitigation must 

a. The destruction of the wetlands will 

include replacement in the river syshave an adverse impact on the local 

tem. 

river ecosystem because of the integral role wetlands play in maintaine. Proposed riprapping of the shoreline 

ing that ecosystem. 

could further reduce wetland 

acreage The applicant has failed to 

demonstrate that there will not be an 

E-1 
adverse water quality and related 

habitat impact resulting from riprapping. 

f. Based upon information received by 

the Department, the applicant has underestimated the total wetland 

acreage affected. 

2. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that 

there will be no adverse water quality impacts from increased groundwater levels 

resulting from the project. The ground 

water model used by the applicant is not 

acceptable due to erroneous assumptions 

and the lack of a sensitivity analysis. The 

applicant has not provided sufficient information concerning the impact of increased 

groundwater levels on existing sites of subsurface contamination, adequacy of subsurface sewage system replacement areas and 

the impact of potential increased surface 

flooding. Additionally, information was not 

provided to adequately assess the effect of 

raised groundwater on sewer system 

laterals, effectiveness of sewer rehabilitation 

measures and potential for increased flows 

at the Harrisburg wastewater plant. 

3. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that 

there will not be a dissolved oxygen problem 

as a result of the impoundment. Present information indicates the existing river system 

In the area is sensitive to diurnal, dissolved 

oxygen fluctuation. Sufficient information 

was not provided to allow the Department to 

conclude that dissolved oxygen standards 

will be met In the pool area. Additionally. the 

applicant failed to adequately address the 

issue of anticipated dissolved oxygen levels 

below the dam. 

4. The proposed impoundment will create a 

backwater on the lower three miles of the 

Conodoguinet Creek. Water quality in the 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

Creek Is currently adversely affected by 

nutrient problems. The applicant has failed 

to demonstrate that there will not be wafer 

quality degradation as a result of the impoundment. 

The applicant has failed to demonstrate that 

there will not be an adverse water quality 

impact resulting from combined sewer overflows. 

The applicant has failed to demonstrate that 

there will not be an adverse water quality 

impact to the 150-acre area downstream of 

the proposed dam and upstream from the 

existing Dock Street dam. 

The applicant has failed to demonstrate that 

the construction and operation of the 

proposed dam will not have an adverse impact on the aquatic resources upstream 

from the proposed impoundment. For example, the suitability of the impoundment for 

smallmouth bass spawning relative to the 

frequency of turbid conditions during 

spawning was not adequately addressed 

and construction of the dam and impoundment will result in a decrease in the diversity 

and density of the macroinvertebrate community in the impoundment area. 

Construction of the dam will have an adverse impact on upstream and downstream 

migration of migratory fish (especially shad). 

Even with the construction of fish passageways for upstream and downstream 

migration, significant declines in the numbers of fish successfully negotiating the 

obstruction are anticipated. 

The applicant has failed to demonstrate that 

there will not be an adverse water quality 

impact related to sedimentation within the 

pool area. 

E-2