# APPENDIX D

National Guidance: WaterQualityStandards for Wetlands



# WATERQUALITY 

# STANDARDS HANDBOOK

SECOND

# EDITIONUnited States Environmental Protection Agency Office ofWater 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 OfficeofWaterRegulations andStandards OfficeofWetlandsProtectionThis document isdesignated asAppendix Bto Chapter 2-General Program Guidance ofthe 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 OFWETLANDS INTHE 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

iii5.2 Protection of High-Quality Wetlands

.................................................. 20

5.3 Protection ofOutstanding 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 ofthe U.S.“.

........................................................... .B-1

C-Information onthe Assessment ofWetland Functions and Values

........................... C-1

D-Regional Wetlands Coordinators U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

..................... D-1

E- Example ofState 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 OWOffice 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.
Weare 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. Weencourage 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) towetlands. This guidance reflects the level ofachievement EPAexpects the States toaccomplish bythe end ofFY 1993, asdefined inthe Agency Operating Guidance, FY 1991, Office ofWater The basic requirements for applying State water quality standards towetlands include the following:

• Include wetlands Inthedefinition of“Statewaters.”
• Designate usesforallwetlands.
• Adopt aesthetic narrative criteria (the“freeforms”) andappropriate numeric criteria forwetlands
• Adopt narrative biological criteria forwetlands.
• Apply the State’s antidegradation policy and implementation methods towetlands.

Water quality standards for wetlands are necessary to ensure that the provisions ofthe 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, anumber ofStates have not developed WQS forwetlands and have not included wetlands intheir definitions of“State waters.” Applying water quality standards to wetlands ispart ofan overall effort to protect and enhance the Nation’s wetland resources and provides a regulatory basis for avariety of programs to meet this goal. Standards provide the foundation for abroad 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 ofthis guidance, EPA proposes atwo- phased approach for the development ofWQS for wetlands. Phase 1activities presented inthis guidance include the development ofWQS elements for wetlands based upon existing information and science to be implemented within the next triennium. Phase 2involves the further refinement ofthese basic elements using new science and program developments. The development ofWQS for all surface waters isan iterative process. 

# Definition
The first and most important step inapplying water quality standards towetlands isensuring that wetlands
are legally included inthe scope ofStates’ water quality standards programs. States may accomplish this by adopting aregulatory definition of“State waters” at least asinclusive asthe Federal definition of waters of the U.S.” and byadopting anappropriate definition for “wetlands.” States may also need to remove ormodify regulatory language that explicitly or implicitly limits the authority ofwater quality standards over wetlands. 

# Use Designation
Ataminimum, allwetlands must have uses designated that meet the goals ofSection 101(a)(2) ofthe CWA by providing forthe protection and propagation offish, shellfish, and wildlife and for recreation inand onthe 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

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

reflecting their unique functions. Two basic pieces ofinformation are useful inclassifying 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 ofthese functions through water quality standards also may be needed to attain the uses of waters adjacent to, ordownstream 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 ofcontaminants and water quality characteristics). Most State water quality standards already contain many criteria for various water types and designated use classes that may beapplicable 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 ofchemicals forwhich 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 bewritten to protect the most sensitive designated useand 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 ofattainable orattained conditions ofbiological integrity and water quality foragiven use designation. EPA has published national guidance ondeveloping biological criteria for all surface waters.

Numeric criteria are specific numeric values for chemical constituents, physical parameters, or biological conditions that areadopted in State standards. Human health water quality criteria are based onthe 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 offreshwater and saltwater aquatic life. The numeric aquatic life criteria, although not designed specifically for wetlands, were designed to be protective ofaquatic 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 beoutside 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 inall State standards provide apowerful tool for the protection of wetlands and can be used by States to regulate point and nonpoint source discharges to wetlands inthe
same way asother surface waters. Inconjunction 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 inthe same way asother surface waters. State antidegradation policies should provide forthe protection ofexisting uses inwetlands 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) ofthe WQS regulation. Inthe case offills, EPA interprets protection ofexisting uses to be met ifthere isno significant degradation asdefined according tothe 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 aphysical 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 adischarge to “waters ofthe U.S.” Such action istaken 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 ofthe 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 ofnatural wetlands for treatment through adoption of proper uses and criteria and application of State antidegradation policies. The Water Quality Standards Regulation (40CFR 131,10(a)) states that, “in nocase shall aState adopt waste transport orwaste assimilation as adesignated use for any ‘waters ofthe 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 tothe policies for municipal wastewater discharges towetlands.
Many wetlands, through their assimilative capacity for nutrients and sediment, also serve an important water quality control function for nonpoint source pollution effects onwaters adjacent to, ordownstream 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.

Inaddition, States can address physical and hydrological impacts onwetland 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 EPAguidelines (40CFR 230.10(c)) and other applicable State laws affecting the disposal ofdredged orfill materials inwetlands.
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 ofwetlands inwater 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 forwetlands. The second phase involves the implementation ofnumeric 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 ofwetlands. During the next 3years, the Office ofWater Regulations and Standards is reviewing aquatic life

water quality criteria todetermine whether adjustments inthe criteria and/or alternative forms ofcriteria (e.g., tissue concentration criteria) are needed to adequately protect wildlife species using wetland resources. EPA’s Offlce of Water Regulations and Standards Isalso developing guidance for EPA and State surface water monitoring programs that will be issued bythe end of PY 1990. Other technical guidance and support for the development of State water quality standards will beforthcoming from EPA inthe next triennium.

X

# Chapter 1.0



# Introduction



# 0 urunderstanding ofthe 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. Atthe Federal level, the President of the United States established the goal of “no net loss” ofwetlands, 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 avariety of programs for managing wetlands to meet this goal.

Asthe link between land and water, wetlands play
avital role Inwater quality management programs. Wetlands provide awide array offunctions 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 awide 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, ifat all, to wetlands by applying the same uses and criteria to wetlands asto 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 ofthe States specifically refer towetlands, or use similar terminology, in their water quality standards. Even where wetlands are refer1enced, standards may not betailored to reflect the

unique characteristics ofwetlands.

Water quality standards specifically tailored to wetlands provide aconsistent 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 acritical role in the State 401 certification process by providing the basis for approving, conditioning, or denying Federal permits and licenses, asappropriate. Finally, standards provide abenchmark against which to
assess the many activities that impact wetlands.

1.1 Objectives
The objective ofthis document isto assist States inapplying 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, WaterQualityStandards for Wet- 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 ofwetlands; (3) adopt aesthetic narrative criteria (the “free froms’) and appropriate numeric criteria in the standards toprotect the designated uses; (4) adopt narrative biological criteria in the standards; and (5) extend the antidegradation policy and implementation methods towetlands. Unless results ofause 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 ofwetlands.

This level of achievement is based upon existing science and information, and therefore can becompleted within the FY91-93 triennial review cycle.

Initial development of water quality standards for wetlands over the next 3years will provide the foundation for the development of more detailed water quality standards forwetlands inthe future based on further research and policy development (see Chapter 7.0.). Activities defined in this guidance are referred to as“Phase 1activities,” while those to be developed over the longer term are referred to as “Phase 2activities.” Developing water quality standards isan iterative process.

This guidance isnot regulatory, nor isitdesigned todictate specific approaches needed inState 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 ofthis document provides guidance
on a particular element of Phase 1wetland water quality standards that EPA expects States to undertake during the next triennial review period (i.e., by September 30, 1993). For each chapter, adiscussion ofwhat 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 inthis guidance provide further information on specific topics and may beobtained from the
sources listed in the “References” section. The following paragraphs introduce each ofthe chapters of this guidance.

Most wetlands fall within the definition of “waters of the U.S.” and thus require water quality stand2ards. EPA expects States bythe end of FY 1993 to

include wetlands intheir definition of“State waters” consistent with the Federal definition of “waters of the U.S.” Guidance on the inclusion ofwetlands in the definition of“State waters” iscontained inChapter 2.0.

The application ofwater 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 iscontained 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 forwetlands, since many activities may impact upon the physical and biological, as well as chemical, components of water quality. Chapter 4.0discusses the application of narrative and numeric criteria towetlands

EPA also expects States to fully apply antidegradation policies and implementation methods towetlands bythe 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 onthe application of State antidegradation policies towetlands iscontained inChapter 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 astoother waters ofthe 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 iscontained inChapter 6.0
Application of standards to wetlands will be an iterative process; both EPAand 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 ofthe U.S.” “Waters of the U.S.” are, inturn, 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 ofthe 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 arethemselves waters). SeeAppendix Bfor acomplete 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 ofvegetation 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 bythe courts. In 1977, aproposal to delete CWA jurisdiction over most wetlands for the purpose ofthe 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 ofthe CWP to wetlands See, e.g., United Srates v Riverside Bayview Homes, 474 US. 121 (1985); Unired Srate:

v. Byrd, 609 F.2d 1204 (7th Cir 1979). Avoyelle: Sportsmen’s league v Marsh, 715 F2d 897 (5tt

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

decision]. The practical effect Isto make nearly all wetlands “waters ofthe U.S.”

Created wastewater treatment wetlands’ designed, built, and operated solely as wastewater treatment systems are generally not considered to bewaters 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, inaddition towastewater treatment, functions and values similar tothose provided by natural wetlands. Under certain circumstances, such created multiple use wetlands may be considered waters ofthe U.S.and assuch 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”) todescribe wastewater treatment wetlands. This terminology isevolving; for purposes ofthis guidance document, the terms are interchangeable in meaning.

4

# Chapter 2.0



# Inclusion of Wetlands in the Definition of State

Waters



# T hefirst, 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 aregulatory definition of “State waters” at least as inclusive as the Federal definition of “waters ofthe U.S.” and byadopting 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 orother 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

5quality 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, amore 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 istechnically difficult to separate, jurisdictionally. wetlands subject tothe provisions ofthe CWAfrom other areas within the riparian orfloodplain complex.

States may choose to include riparian or floodplain ecosystems asawhole inthe 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” inone State includes:

...Theflood plain offree flowing waters determined bythe Department.. onthe basis ofthe 700-year flood frequency.

Inanother State, the definition ofause classification states:

This beneficial use is a combination of the characteristics ofthe watershed expressed in the water quality and the riparian area.

And in athird 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 ofFY 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 inand on the water, unless the results of
ause 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. Atechnical 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 toyear-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 inand onthe water, onthe other hand, may not beattainable incertain 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) ofthe CWA; see 40CFR Part 131.10(j). This need not beanonerous task for States when deciding whether certain recreational uses are attainable. States may conduct generic UAAs for entire classes or types of



### 7wetlands 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 beseasonal.

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, asdiscussed 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 isthat 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 onwetland type and/or beneficial use (function and value). This approach initially requires more effort indeveloping
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 indesignating uses, however, the easier it is for States to justify regulatory controls to protect those uses. States may wish todesignate beneficial uses for individually named wetlands, including outstanding wetlands (see Section 6.3), although this approach may be practical only for alimited number ofwetlands. For the majority of their wetlands, States may wish to designate generalized uses for groups of wetlands based on region orwetland 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 ofwetlands. The functions and values of wetlands are often defined based upon structural type and location within the landscape orwatershed. The understanding ofthe various wetland types within the State and their functions and values provides the basis for acomprehensive classification system applicable to all wetlands and allwetland uses. Aswith other waters, both general and waterbody-specific classifications may be needed toensure that uses are appropriately assigned to all wetlands inthe 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 inprotecting State wetlands. Sections 3.1 through 3.3 provide further information on wetland types, functions, and values, and how these
can be used todesignate uses for wetlands. 

## 3.1 Wetland Types

A detailed understanding of the various wetland types within the State provides the basis for acomprehensive classification system. The classification system most often cited and used by Federal and State wetland permit programs was developed by Cowardin etal. (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 ishierarchical 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 fordesignating uses for specific wetlands orwetland 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 isrequired 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 10years. 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

8Unconwlrdawd 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 ofwctl;rnds and deepwater habitats, showing Systems,Subsystems,andClasses.The Pdustrine S>\tcnl &x-s notinclude dcc‘p\r.\tcr habitats (from Cowardin ctal.,1070).

9the 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 105 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 atcost in75-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 FIGclassifications

The classification of wetlands may benefit from the use of salinity concentrations. The Cowardin classification system uses asalinity 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 ofawetland to such adegree that the wetland type would change. These activities include. for example, the construction ofdikes to convert asaltwater marsh toafreshwater marsh orthe dredging ofchannels that would deliver saltwater tofreshwater 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 (seeAppendix 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 ofAdvance Identification Authorities Under Section 

# 404 of the Clean WaterAct (USEPA 1989a). States may develop their
own techniques for assessing the functions and values oftheir wetlands

General wetland functions that directly relate to the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of wetlands are listed below. The protection ofthese functions through water quality standards also may be needed to attain the uses of waters adjacent to,
ordownstream 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 isthe Wetland Evaluation Technique developed by Adamus. etal (1987) forthe U.S.Army Corps of Engineers and the 

# 2 Information on the availability ofdraft and final maps may beobtained for the coterminous United States by calling 1-800-USA-MAPS or703-860-6045 inVirginia. InAlaska, the number is 907-271-4159, and in Hawaii the number is808-548-2861. Further information onthe FWS National ‘Wetlands Inventory (NWI) may beobtained from the FWS Regional Coordinators listed inAppendix 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, FL33702; 

# 813-893-3624.

FTS 826-3624. 

# 10Department ofTransportation. The Wetland Evaluation Technique was designed for conducting an initial rapid assessment of wetland functions and values interms of social significance, effectiveness, and opportunity. Social significance assesses the value ofawetland to society interms of its special designation, potential economic value, and strategic location. Effectiveness assesses the capability ofa wetland to perform afunction 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 FVVSmaintains aWetlands Values Database that also may be useful in identifying wetland functions and Indesignating 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 Iscomputerized and contalns over 18,000 citations, of which 8,000 are annotated. For further information, contact the NWI Program (see Section 3.1) orthe 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; seeAppendix 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 ofwetlands, however, States may choose toevaluate 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 ofdetail asillustrated in Figure 2. Note that the State’s uses are based onfunction, 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 ProcessSupply
Groundwater Recharge

Freshwater Replenishment Navigation

WaterContact 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 andPotential UsesofWetlands



### I2Alternatively, athird method may usethe location

of wetlands within the landscape as the basis for establishing general functions and values applicable to allthe wetlands within adefined region. EPA has developed aguidance 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 inthe classification ofwetlands.

EPA’s Office ofResearch and Development iscurrently 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 totheir wetland resources. Aswith 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, orclass ofwetland.

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 ofcontaminants and water quality characteristics). At a minimum, EPA expects States to apply aesthetic narrative criteria (the “free froms”) and appropriate numeric criteria towetlands 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 beapplicable towetlands.

Inmany cases, itmay benecessary to useacombination of numeric and narrative criteria to ensure that wetland functions and values are adequately protected. Section 4.1 describes the application of narrative criteria towetlands and Section 4.2discusses application of numeric criteria for protection of human health and aquatic life. 

# 4.1 Narrative Criteria

Narrative criteria are general statements designed to protect aspecific 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 isexpected tooccur inthewater (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 aregulatory basis for controlling avariety ofimpacts to State waters. Narrative criteria are particularly important inwetlands, since many wetland impacts cannot befully addressed by numeric criteria. Such impacts may result from the discharge ofchemicals 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 narra15tive criteria intheir 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 toform objectionable deposits;

float asdebris, 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 orplants; and
produce undesirable or nuisance aquatic life.

The Water Quality Standards Handbook (USEPA 1983b) recommends that States apply narrative criteria toall waters ofthe United States. Ifthese or similar criteria are already applied toall State waters in a State’s standards, the inclusion of wetlands in the definition of“waters ofthe State” will apply these criteria towetlands. 

## 4.1.2 Narrative Biological Criteria
Narrative biological criteria are general statements ofattainable orattained conditions ofbiological integrity and water quality for agiven use designation. Narrative biological criteria can take anumber of forms. As a sixth “free from,” the criteria could read “free from activities that would substantially impair the biological community as itnaturally
occurs due to physical, chemical, and hydrologic changes,” orthe criteria may contain positive statements about the biological community existing or attainable inwetlands.

Narrative biological criteria should contain attributes that support the goals of the Clean Water Act, which provide for the protection and propagation offish, 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 afurther 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 inwater 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 orfill 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 ofa wetland, and destroy the entire wetland system ifthe change isgreat 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 ofwetlands:

Natural hydrological conditions necessary to support the biological and physical characteristics naturally present inwetlands shall be protected to prevent significant adverse impacts on.

16(7) Wafer currents, erosion or sedimentation patterns;
(2) NaUral water temperature variations;
(3) The chemical, nutrient and dissolved oxygen regime ofthe wefland;
(4) The normal movemenf ofaquatic fauna;
(5) The p/-i ofthe wetland; and
(6) Normal water levels orelevations.

One source of information for developing more quantifiable hydrologic criteria isthe lnstream Flow Program ofthe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which
can provide technical guidance on the minimum flows necessary to attain various water uses.

Narrative criteria, inconjunction 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 ondeveloping biological criteria for all surface waters (USEPA 1990b). EPA’s Office of Research and Development also has produced aliterature synthesis ofwetland biomonitoring data on aState-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 bevalues not to beexceeded (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 asguidelines from which States
can develop their own numeric criteria, taking into account the particular uses designated bythe State. 

## 4.2.1 Numeric Criteria -Human Health
Human health water quality criteria are based on the toxicity ofacontaminant and the amount ofthe contaminant consumed through ingestion of water and fish regardless ofthe type ofwater. Therefore, EPA’s chemical-specific human health criteria are directly applicable to wetlands. Asummary of EPA human health criteria recommendations is contained inQualify Criferia for Water -7986.

Few wetlands are used directly for drinking water supplies. Where drinking water is adesignated or existing use for a wetland or for adjacent wafers affected by the wetland, however, States must provide criteria sufficient toprotect 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 ofdrinking water supplies from that source aswell

The application ofhuman health criteria, based on consumption ofaquatic life, towetlands isafunction ofthe level of detail inthe States’ designated uses. If all wetlands are designated under the State’s general “aquatic life/wildlife” designation, consumption ofthat aquatic life isassumed to bean 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 forwetlands) may wish to selectively apply human health criteria to those wetlands where consumption ofaquatic life is designated orlikely to occur (note that aUAAwill 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 ata certain site, orwithin acertain category ofwetland, 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

17and 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 inthe laboratory. The EPA guidelines for the development of such criteria (Stephan etal., 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 adraft 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 insome wetlands may beoutside the range established for uses designated in State standards These water quality characteristics may require the development ofcriteria that reflect the natural background conditions in aspecific 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 bedirectly applied to wetlands inthe same way asother water types with adjustments inthe 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 of6.5-9.0 units forwhich these criteria were derived. It is recommended that States conduct additional toxicity testing ifthey 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 aparticular region or ecoregion. EPA has developed guidance on the site-specific adjustment ofthe 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 toderive national criteria. The indicator species procedure ISused toaccount for differences inthe bioavallability and,or toxicity of
acontaminant 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 heantidegradation policies contained inall State standards provide apowerful tool for the protection ofwetlands and can beused 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 befully 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 ifthey are fully consistent with the Federal policy. With the inclusion ofwetlands as“waters ofthe State,” State antidegradation policies and their implementation methods will apply to wetlands inthe same way as other surface waters. The WQS regulation describes the requirements for State antidegradation policies, which include full protection ofexisting
uses (functions and values), maintenance of water quality in high-quality waters, and a prohibition against lowering water quality inoutstanding national resource waters. EPAguidance on the implementation ofantidegradation policies iscontained inthe 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) ofthe WQS regulation. The existing use can be determined by demonstrating that the use or uses have actually occurred since November 28, 1975, orthat thewater quality is suitable to allow the use to be attained. This isthe basis ofEPA’s antidegradation policy and isimportant inthe wetland protection effort. States, especially those that adopt less detailed use classifications for wetlands, will need to usethe existing
use protection in their antidegradation policies to
ensure protection ofwetland values and functions.

19Determination of an existing aquatic life and

wildlife use may require physical, chemical, and biological evaluations through awaterbody 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). Atechnical 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 aslightly different interpretation of existing uses under the antidegradation policy. This interpretation has been addressed inthe answer to question no. 13inQuestions and Answers on: Antidegradation (USEPA 1985a), and ispresented below:

Since a literal interpretation of the antidegradation policy could result in preventing the issuance of any wetland fill permit under Section 404ofthe Clean WaterAct, and itislogical toassume 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 itapplies towetlands and other waterbodies.

The Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines state that the following effects contribute to significant degradation, either individually orcollectively:

...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 ofpollutants 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 ofthe capacity ofawetland to assimilate nutrients, purify water or reduce
wave energy; or (4) on recreational, aesthetic, and economic values.

These Guidelines may beused by States todetermine “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 onthe linkage between water quality standards and the Section 404 program, see Section 6.2 ofthis 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 areto beapplied to wetlands inthe same mannerthey 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 ofexceptional 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; seeSection 131.12(a)(3) ofthe WQS regulation and EPA guidance Water Quality Standards Handbook (USEPA 1983b), and Questions and Answers on: Antidegradation (USEPA 1985a). Activities that might trigger aState analysis of awetland for possible designation as an ONRW
are nodifferent for wetlands than for other waters.

20The 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 toONRWsorother 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 Siteswfthln joint venture project areas under the North American Waterfowl Management Plan; l Sites under the Ramsar (Iran)Treaty onWetlands ofInternational Importance;

l Biosphere reserve sites identified as part ofthe “Man and the Biosphere” Program sponsored by the United Nations;

l Natural heritage areas and other similar designations established bythe Stateorprivate organizations (e.g., Nature Conservancy); and

l Prlorfty wetlands identified aspartofcomprehensfveplanning efforts conducted atthelocal, 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 onthe identification ofwetlands with high ecological and social value; see Section 32



### 21

# Chapter 6.0



# Implementation



# I mplementing water quality standards for wetlands will require acoordinated 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 EPAand 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 inAppendix D

This section provides information on certain elements of standards (eg mixing zones) andthe 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 ofWater 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, orcondition certification of Federal permitsor licenses (e.g., CWA Section 404 permits issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Energy

23Regulatory Commission licenses, some Rivers and

Harbors Act Sections 9and 10 permits, and CWA Section 402 permits where issued by EPA) that may result in adischarge 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 isoften the basis for denials
orconditioning through Section 401certification 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 ahandbook 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 isincluded inAppendix 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, innocase shall aState adopt waste transport or waste assimilation as a designated use for any ‘waters ofthe US.'." 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, aswith 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 towetlands 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 ofthe United States and
are designed, built, and operated solely as wastewater treatment systems, are aspecial case, and
are not generally considered ‘waters of the U.S.” Some such created wetlands, however, also provide other functions and values similar tothose provided by natural wetlands Under certain circumstances, such created, multiple use wetlands may be considered “waters ofthe 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 bemade onacase-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 bythe 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 ofwastewater treatment.

The following isabrief summary ofthe above-referenced document For municipal discharges to natural wetlands, a minimum of secondary treatment isrequired, 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 ofthe U.S.” The discharge from the created wetlands that do not qualify as“waters ofthe 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 ofthe freshwater supply to wetlands However, stormwater discharges from

24various 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 towetlands as well as other waters of the United States. In addltion. some ofthe stormwater management controls anticipated in permits will require creation of wetlands or structures with some of the attributes of wetlands for the single purpose ofwater treatment.

EPAanticipates 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 alevel 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. EPAwill issue technical guidance on permitting stormwater discharges, including permitting stormwater discharges towetlands, over the next few years. 

## 6.2.3 Fills
Section 404 ofthe 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 forthe 404 program are contained in40CFR Part 230-33.

One State uses the following guidelines forfills in their internal Section 401 review guidelines
(a) if the project is not water dependenf, certifica tion isdenied;
(b) if the project is wa?er dependent, certification is denied ifthere is aviable alternative (e.g., available upland nearby is a viable alternative);
(c) ifno 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 isdenied.

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 tothe 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, aswith 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 ofthe above First, Section 319 ofthe 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 ofWater Regulations and Standards and the Office of Wetlands Protection have developed guidance on the coordination ofwetland 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

### Statesto report on the overall status oftheir waters

in attaining water quality standards. The inclusion of wetlands inwater quality standards provides the basis for conducting both wetland-specific and status and trend monitoring ofState wetland resources. Information gathered from the 305(b) reports may 

### also be used to update and refine the designated wetland uses. The monitoring ofwetlands 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 3the discharge of municipal wastewater to wetlands The States are encouraged todevelop and test the useofbiological indicators. Other more traditional methods currently applied to other 

### surface waters, including but not limited to the use ofwater 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 ofsuch contaminants through wetlands and their impacts on aquatic life and wildlife. The exposure ofbirds and mammals tothese 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 mayfocus onthe 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 

### canaugment the data collected on specific 

### activities impacting wetlands, asdiscussed 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. Inaddition, the NWI program provides technical procedures and protocols fortracking the spatial extent of wetlands forthe United States and subregions ofthe 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 ofapplication ofacute and chronic criteria. Aswith 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,” 17-6055. “Wetlands Applications

26As 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 ofadesignated use (40CFR Part 131.10(g)) and must fully protect any existing uses ofthe wetland.

27

# Chapter 7.0



# Future Directions



# E PA’s Office of Water Regulations and Standards’ planning document Water Quality Standards Framework (USEPA - Draft1989e),identifiesthemajorobjectivesforthe programandtheactivitiesnecessarytomeetthese objectives. Activitiesrelatedtothedevelopmentof waterqualitystandardsforwetlandsareseparated into two phases: (1) Phase 1activities to be developed bythe States bythe endof FY 1993. discussedabove;and(2)Phase2activitiesthatwill require additional research and program development,whicharediscussed below. 

# 7.1 Numeric Biological Criteria for Wetlands Developmentofnarrativebiological criteriaisincludedinthefirstphaseofthedevelopmentofwater quality standards forwetlands; seeSection 5.1.2. Thesecond phase involvesthe implementation of numeric biological criteria. Thiseffortrequiresthe detailed evaluation ofthecomponents ofwetland communitiestodeterminethestructureandfunction ofunimpairedwetlands. Thesemeasuresserveas referenceconditions forevaluatingtheintegrity of otherwetlands. Regulatoryactivitiesinvolvingdischarges towetlands (e.g.,CWASections 402and 404)canprovidemonitoring datatoaugmentdata collected by the States for the development of numeric biological criteria; seeSection 7.4. The development ofnumeric biological criteriaforwetlandswillrequireadditional researchandfieldtestingoverthenextseveralyears. Biologicalcriteriaarebasedonlocalandregional bioticcharacteristics. Thisisincontrast tothenationally basedchemical-specific aquatic lifecriteria developed byEPAundercontrolled laboratory conditions TheStateswillhaveprimary responsibility fordeveloping andimplementing biological criteria for their surface waters, including wetlands, to reflect local and regional differences in resident biological communities. EPAwillworkcloselywith the States and the EPAOffice of Research and Developmenttodevelopandtestnumericbiological criteriaforwetlands. Updatesonthisworkwillbe provided through theOfficeofWaterRegulations

29

### and Standards, Criteria and Standards Division’s • identifyinghigh-qualitywatersdeservingspecial

regularnewsletter. protection; 

# 7.2 Wildlife Criteria • usingremote-sensingdata;
Wetlands are important habitats for wildlife • usingintegratedassessmentstodetect subtle species. Itisthereforeimportanttoconsiderwildlife ecologicalimpacts;and indeveloping criteriathatprotectthefunctionsand values ofwetlands. Existing chemical-specific • identifyingsignificantnonpointsourcesofpolluaquatic lifecriteriaarederived bytestingselected tionthatwillpreventattainmentofuses. aquatic organisms by exposing them to contaminants inwater. Although considered to be Oneormorecasestudieswilladdresseffortsto protectiveofaquaticlife,thesecriteriaoftendonot quantifytheextentofaState’swetlandsandtoidenaccount for the bioaccumulation ofthese con- tifysensitivewetlands through theiradvance identaminants, which may cause a major impact on tification(USEPA1989a). wildlifeusingwetland resources. Exceptforcriteria forPCB,DDT,selenium,andmercury,wildlifehave not been included during thedevelopment ofthe nationalaquaticlifecriteria. During the next 3years, the Office ofWater RegulationsandStandards isreviewingaquaticlife water quality criteria todetermine whether adjustments inthe criteria and/or alternative forms of criteria (e.g., tissue concentration criteria) are neededtoadequately protectwildlifespeciesusing wetland resources. Sincewetlands maynothave opensurfacewatersduringallorpartsoftheyear, alternative tissue based criteria based on contaminantconcentrations inwildlifespeciesandtheir food sources may become important criteria for evaluating contaminant impacts inwetlands, particularly those that bioaccumulate. Based on evaluationsofcurrent criteriaandwildlifeatriskin wetlands,nationalcriteriamaybedeveloped

7.3 Wetlands Monitoring EPA’sOfficeofWaterRegulationsandStandards isdeveloping guidance for EPAand Statesurface watermonitoring programsthatwillbeissuedbythe endofFY1990. Thisguidance will(1)encourage Statestousemonitoringdatainavarietyofprogram areas to support water quality management decisions; and (2)provide examplesofinnovative monitoring techniques through the use of case studies. Theusesofdatapertinenttowetlandsthat willbediscussed includethefollowing:

• refininguseclassificationsystemsbydeveloping physical,chemical,andbiologicalwaterquality criteria,goals,andstandardsthataccountfor regionalvariationinattainableconditions;

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: ASurvey ofTechniques, 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 ofthe National Wetlands Policy Forum. Washington, DC. (Source #lo)
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Goiet. and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification ofWetlands and Deepwater Habitats ofthe 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 tothe Secretary ofthe 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 ofWetland Functions and Values, Proceeding ofthe 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 UseAttainability 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 forWater -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). EPA430/09-88-005. (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 ofthe 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 ofWetlands 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 ofthe Science. Office of Research and Development, Cotvallis. OR. EPA600/3-89/038a and EPA600/3-89/038b. (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 ofWater Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC. EPA440/5-90-004. (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 ofWetlands Protection Wetlands Strategies and State Programs Division 401 MSt., S.W. (A-104F) Washington, DC20460 (202) 382-5048

USEPA, Office ofWater Regulations and Standards Assessment and Watershed Protection Division 401 MSt., S.W. (WH-553) Washington, DC20460 (202) 382-7040

National Technical Information Service (NTIS) 5285 Front Royal Road Springfield, VA22116 (703) 487-4650

USEPA, Office ofWater Regulations and Standards Criteria and Standards Division 401 MSt.. S.W. (WH-585) Washington, DC20460 (202) 475-7315

Out of print. Arevised Technical Support Document for Water Oualitybased Toxics Control will beavailable October 1990from: Office ofWater Enforcement and Permits Permits Division 401 MSt.. S.W. (EN-336) Washington, DC20460

U.S. Government Printing Office North Capitol St., N.W. Washington, DC20401 (202) 783-3238
a Order No. 024-010-00524-6 b Order No. 955-002-0000-8

327 USEPA, Water Policy Office 401 MSt., S.W. (WH-556) Washington, DC20460 (202) 382-5818 10 The Conservation Foundation 1250Twenty-Fourth St., N.W. Washington, DC20037 (202) 293-4800

8 USEPA, Office of Research and Development Environmental Research Laboratory 200 SW35th St. Corvallis, OR97333 (503) 420-4666

9 USEPA, Office of Municipal Pollution Control 401 MSt., S.W. (WH-546) Washington, DC20460 (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 (218)780-5549

33

# Appendix A



# Glossary

Ambient Monitoring -Monitoring within natural systems (e.g., lakes, rivers, estuaries, wetlands) to determine existing conditions.

Created Wetland -Awetland atasitewhere itdid notformerly occur. Created wetlands aredesigned to meet avariety ofhuman benefits including, but not limited to,the treatment ofwater pollution discharges (e.g., municipal wastewater, stormwater) andthemitigation ofwetland lossespermitted under Section 404ofthe Clean WaterAct. Thisterm encompasses theterm “constructed wetland” asused inother EPAguidance anddocuments.

Enhancement -An activity increasing one or more natural orartificial wetland functions. Forexample, the removal ofapoint source discharge impacting awetland.

Functions -The rolesthatwetlands serve,which
areofvaluetosociety ortheenvironment.

Habitat - The environment occupied by individuals ofaparticular species, population, orcommunity.
Hydrology -Thescience dealing withtheproperties, distribution, and circulation ofwater both on thesurface and under theearth. Restoration -Anactivity returning awetland from
adisturbed oraltered condition with lesseracreage or functions to a previous condition with greater wetland acreage orfunctions. Forexample, restoration might involve theplugging ofadrainage ditch to restore thehydrology toanareathatwasawetland beforetheinstallation ofthedrainage 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 areathat does not qualify aswetland because the associated hydrologic regime is not sufficiently wettoelicit development ofvegetation, soils and/or hydrologic characteristics associated with wetlands, or is defined as open waters.

Waters ofthe U.S. -SeeAppendix Bfor Federal definition, 40CFRParts 122.2,230.3,and232.2.

Wetlands -Those areas that are inundated or saturated bysurface orgroundwater atafrequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, aprevalence of vegetation typically adapted forlifeinsaturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. See Federal definition contained inFederal regulations: 40CFR Parts 122.2,230.3,and232.2.

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 ofthe 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 orcould 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 ininterstate commerce;* (5) Tributaries ofwaters identified inparagraphs 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 ofthe U.S. under the commerce connection in (3) above also include, for example, waters: Which are orwould be used as habitat by birds protected by Migratory Bird Treaties or migratory birds which cross State lines; Which are orwould be used as habitat for endangered species; Used to irrigate crops sold in interstate commerce.)

(4) All impoundments of waters otherwise defined aswaters ofthe 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, awide variety ofwetlands 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 bythe U.S. Water Resources Council (Lonard et al., 1981) and the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (Lonard etal., 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, aU.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 indetail using aseries ofdescriptive 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-1tion Federal Highway Administration. Office of Research, Environmental Division. Washington. D.C. 20590; and Adamus, P.R. 1983. “AMethod 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 Iofthe method provides adetailed literature review and discussion of the rationale of the method. The wetland functional assessment or evaluation methodology presented inVolume IIconsists of three separate procedures. Procedure I, referred to as a “Threshold Analysis,” provides a methodology for estimating the probability that a single wetland isof high, moderate, or low value for each of 11wetland 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. Italso incorporates consideration of the social significance of the wetland as indicated by public priorities. The priorities aredetermined based on results ofaseries ofquestions 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 itsapproach.

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 atotal wetland qualitative value was obtained for use bydecision 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.pp523-534.

The Environmental Evaluation System (EES) isa methodology for conducting environmental impact analysis. It was developed by an interdisciplinary research team, and isbased on ahierarchical arrangement of environmental quality indicators, an arrangement that classifies the major areas ofenvironmental 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 18components, 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 atotal 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 inthe EESare based onthe magnitude of specific environmental impacts and their relative importance. Another major output from the EES isan 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 ofOntario South ofthe 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-2tures. The procedures includes arationale ofscientific 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 awide variety of inland wetlands located in Ontario, Canada, south of the Precambrian Shield.

5. Fried, E. 1974. “Priority Rating ofWetlands for Acquisition,” Transaction of the Northeast Fish and Wildlife Conference, Vol 31, 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 isvulnerability, and A isadditional factors. Both actual and potential conditions could be rated. The rating system was successfully applied tosome 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 onawetland ecosystem. Impacts are determined and compared for “with” and “without” project conditions. The advice ofan interdisciplinary team, as well as the input of local elected officials and laymen, are included as part of the WES model. Parameters that make upawetland
are assessed at the macro-level, and the results of the evaluation aredisplayed numerically and graphically with computer assisted techniques.

7. Golet, F.C. 1973. “Classification Evaluation ofFreshwater Wetlands asWildlife 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 10criteria for the evaluation of wetlands as wildlife habitat. The results are based on a2-year field study ofover 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 ofvegetation 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 awetland evaluation. Using a system of specification and ranks, wetlands can be arranged according to their wildlife value for decision-making. (Author’s abstract.) “Atthis point, the system has been used in numerous states on thousands of wetlands: recent revisions have resulted insuch use.” (F.C Golet)

8. Gupta. T.R.. and Foster, J.H. 1973. “Valuation of Visual-Cultural Benefits from Freshwater Wetlands in Massachusetts,” Journal ofthe 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 inthe context ofthe political system and current public views. The procedure is demonstrated by its application to freshwater wetlands in Massachusetts.

9. Kibby. HV 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 isgiven 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 ofstate agency purchases ofwetlands 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 ofadrilled public water supply over asurface water source. Flood control values are based
on US.Army Corps of Engineers data onflood control values of the Charles River, Massachusetts, mainstream wetlands.

The submodels are presented within the framework of an overall 3-phase eliminative model. Phase Iidentifies 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 ofthe 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 ofwetlands in providing wildlife habitat, flood control, and improvement of surface water quality. All wetlands in the study area were categorized onthe basis oftheir 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 inall instances. The method provides information on wetland values that can be simply gathered and easily assessed, requiring only available data and aminimum 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 isdesigned to assist decision makers on permit applications involving projects where significant impacts are anticipated. The manual describes the criteria to be used inevaluating any particular wetland The technique provides a means of evaluating the status of existing wetlands aswell aspotential project-related impacts onwetland structure and aerial extent. One part of the technique requires examination of six basic features ofwetlands, including: (1) hydrologic functions; (2) soil characteristics; (3) wildlife habitat/use evaluation; (4) fisheries habitat/use; (5)

c-4nutrient 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 oftheir 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
onthe deductive analysis oftheir individual functional characteristics. The other is asemi-quantitative method inwhich 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 ofwetlands 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 ofWetlands, 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 aResearch 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 onwetlands and associated floodplains, and to suggest procedures by which deleterious impacts can be minimized or avoided. The practices that can beused toenhance 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 offlowcharts and matrices.

15. SCS Engineers. 1979. “Analysis ofSelected 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 inwetlands assessing the values of general wetland types and ofspecific wetlands inperforming the functions indicated. Tothe extent possible, procedures were then outlined that allow the application ofthese criteria inspecific 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 ofvisualcultural values of inland wetlands into the decision making process ofland use allocation ofinland wetlands in Massachusetts Visual-cultural values of inland wetlands may bedefined asvisual, 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-5These wetlands have top priority for preservation.

The second levei isarating 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 inseveral ofthe 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 inthis 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 ofvegetation inthe marshes and swamps oftidewater areas ofthe state. Rankings ofvegetation 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 adetailed 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 ofatechnique developed forthe 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 Inthe 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-6using 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 along-term project directed bythe U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to study the resources ofthe Charles River Watershed in eastern Massachusetts. It had an emphasis on how to control flood damage inthe urbanized lower watershed, and how to prevent any significant flood damage inthe middle and upper watershed. Seventeen crucial wetlands were identified for acquisition to maintain flood storage capacity in the watershed as a nonstructural alternative forflood protection inthe lower Charles River basin. Various aspects ofthe watershed were studied inan interdisciplinary fashion.

22. U.S. Department ofAgriculture. 1978. “Wetlands Evaluation Criteria--Water and Related Land Resources ofthe Coastal Region, Massachusetts,” Soil Conservation Service, Amherst, Massachusetts.

Aportion ofthe document contains criteria used to evaluate major wetlands inthe coastal region of Massachusetts. Each ofthe 85wetlands 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 ofthe 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 Intime; and (2)the relative value of the same area atfuture points in time. By combining the two types of comparisons, the impact of proposed oranticipated land and water changes on wildlife habitat can be quantified This document described HEP. discusses some probable applications, and provides guidance inapplying HEP inthe 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 aswell as those of lesser significance. Two broad categories of criteria were utilized in evaluating the ecological significance ofwetlands: (1)the interaction ofwetlands 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, LD 1979. “An Approach to Valuation of Florida Freshwater Wetlands,” Proceedings of rhe Sixth Annual Conference on rhe Restorarion and Crearion ofWetlands, 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 isapplicable in any Florida region for which basic ecological data are available

c-7

## Literature Clted

Adamus, P.and Stockwell. L.R. 1983. Amethod for wetland functional assessment. Volume 1. Critical review and evaluation concepts. U.S. Department ofTransportation. Federal Highway Administration. Office Research, Environmental Division. Washington, D.C. 20590 (No. FHWA-IP-82-23).

Adamus. P.R. 1983. Amethod forwetland functionalassessment. Volume II. The method. U.S. Department ofTransportation, 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 ofOntario 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 aswildlife habitat inthe 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 ofthe 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 ofAgriculture, 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. US. Water Resources Council, Washington, DC

Lonard. R.I., Clairain, E.J., Jr., Huffman, R.T.. Hardy, J.W., Brown, L.D.. Ballard, PE.. 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, US 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. 22pp.
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, US Army Engineer Institute for Water 

### Resources Fort Belvoir. VirginiaShuldiner, 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 ofNatural 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 bythe 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 ofwetland 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 tovaluation ofFlorida freshwater wetlands. Proceedings ofthe Sixth Annual Conference on the Restoration and Creation of Wetlands, Hillsborough Community College, Tampa, Florida

## Wetland Assessment Techniques

Developed Since 1983 (USEPA 1989a)

8Wetlands Evaluation Technique (Adamus, et al. 1987). This nationally applicable procedure has been used inatleast sixADIOStodate, mostly in itsorfginal form (known popularfy asthe “FHWA”
or“Adamus” method). Ithassince beenextensivelyrevised and isavailable atnocost (with simple software) from the Corps ofEngineers Wetlands Research Program (contact: Buddy Cfairain. 601- 634-3774). Future revisions areanticipated.

l Bottomland Hardwoods WET (Adamus 1987). This isasimplified, regionalized version ofWET, applicable to EPARegions 4and 6. Itisavailable from OWP (contact: Joe DaVii at202475-8795). Supporting software isbeing developed, and future revisions areanticipated.

l Southeastern Alaska WET(Adamus Resource Assessment 1987). This isalsoasimplified, regionalizedversion ofWET.

l Minnesota Method (U.S.ArmyCorps ofEngineersSt!Paul, 1988). Thiswasajoint State-Federal effort that involved considerable adaptation ofWET A similar effort isunderway inWisconsin. Onondaga County Method (SUNY-Syracuse 1987). This was adapted from WET bySmardon and others atthe State University ofNewYork.
Hdlands-Magee Method. This isascoring technique developed bytwo consultants and has been applied tohundreds ofwetlands in New England and partofWisconsin (contact: Dennis Magee at 6034725191). Supporting software isavailable.

Ontario Method (Euler etal. 1983). This isalso a scoring technique. and was extensively peerreviewed in Canada. (Contact: Valanne Glooschenko, 4169667641).

Connecticut Method (Amman etal. 1986). This is
a scoring technique developed for inland municipal wetland agencies.

Marble-Gross Method (Marble and Gross 1984). Thiswasdeveloped foralocal application inConnecticut.

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. 3vols. Amman, A.P., R.W. Franzen, and J.L. Johnson. 1986.

Method for the evaluation ofinland wetlands inConnecticut. 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-17.

State University of New York at Syracuse (SUNY). 1987. Wetlands evaluation system for Onondaga County, New York State. Draft. 93pp.

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 (215)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 (312)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 (415)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, FtSnelling Twin Cities, Minnesota 55111 COM: 6121725-3536 FTS: 725-3536
Regional Wetland Coordinator USFWS, Region 4 R.B. Russell Federal Building 75Spring Street, S.W. Suite 1276 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 COM: 404/33 l-6343 FTs:841-6343Region 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 P0 Box 25486 Denver Federal Center Denver, Colorado 80225 COM 303i236-8180 FTS 776-8180
Regional Wetland Coordinator USFWS. Region 7 1011East Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99503 COM: 907i786-3403 or3471 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 be3,000 feet long and 17feet high. The dam was to consist of32 bottom-hinged flap gates. The dam would have created an impoundment with asurface
area of 3,800 acres, a total storage capacity of 35,000 acre-feet, and apool elevation of306.5 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 (atanethead of 12.5), and minimum flow would have been 2,000 cfs. Under normal conditions, allflows upto40,000 cfswould have passed through the turbines. b. The destruction ofthe wetlands will
cause the loss of beds ofemergent aquatic vegetation that serve as habitat for juvenile fish. Loss ofthis habitat will adversely affect the relative abundance ofjuvenile and adult fish (especially smallmouth bass)

C. The wetlands which will belost are critical habitat for, among other species, the yellow crowned night heron, black crowned night heron, marsh wren and great egret Inaddition. the yellow crowned night heron isaproposed State threatened species, and the marsh wren and great egret are candidate species of special concern

The public notice denying 401certification forthis project stated asfollows:

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, tothe 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 ofthe wetlands will include replacement inthe river syshave anadverse impact onthe local tem.

river ecosystem because ofthe integral role wetlands play inmaintaine. Proposed riprapping ofthe shoreline ing that ecosystem. could further reduce wetland acreage The applicant has failed to demonstrate that there will not bean

E-1adverse 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 todemonstrate 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 ofsewer rehabilitation
measures and potential for increased flows atthe Harrisburg wastewater plant.

3. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that there will not beadissolved oxygen problem
asa result ofthe impoundment. Present information indicates the existing river system Inthe area is sensitive to diurnal, dissolved oxygen fluctuation. Sufficient information
was not provided toallow the Department to conclude that dissolved oxygen standards will bemet Inthe pool area. Additionally. the applicant failed to adequately address the issue ofanticipated 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 todemonstrate 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 todemonstrate 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 ofthe 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 inadecrease inthe diversity and density of the macroinvertebrate community inthe impoundment area.

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