Critical elements in the application of water quality standards to wetlands classification system, beneficial use designation and the identification of exceptional wetlands

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

Task 91 FINAL PRODUCT DEQ - Water
FY 1"3 Protecting VA's Nontidal Wetlands

Critical Elements in the Application of
Water Quality Standards to Wetlands:

Classification System, Beneficial Use Designation
and the Identification of Exceptional Wetlands

46'*

Submitted to the
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality

By
Pamela A. Mason
Carl Hershner

The Department of Resource Management and Policy
Wetlands Program
Virginia Institute of Marine Science
College of William and Mary

May 1995

Critical Elements in the Application of
Water Quality Standards to Wetlands:

Classification System, Beneficial Use Designation
and the Identi cation of Exceptional Wetlands
ff

Submitted to the
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality

By
Pamela A. Mason
Carl Hershner

The Department of Resource Management and Policy
Wetlands Program
Virginia Institute of Marine Science
College of William and Mary

May 1995

This report was funded, in part, by the Virginia Institute of Marine
Science and the Department of Environmental Quality's Coastal
Resources Management Program through Grant #NA37OZO360-01
of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of
Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, under the Coastal Zone
Management Act, as amended.

Table of Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Wetlands Classification System ................................... 4

Options for Classification System Design ........................... 5

State Waters Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Objectives for Proposed Classifiaction System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Proposed Classification System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Classification System Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Classification System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Designation of Beneficial Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Criteria for Exceptional Wetlands Designation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Citations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Appendix I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Introduction

The development and implementation of water quality standards for wetlands is
essential to ensure the protection and enhancement of the State's wetland resources. Water
quality standards provide a link to other water quality management activities including the.
following provisions of the federal Clean Water Act: permitting under section 402 and 404,
control of nonpoint source pollution under section 319 and water quality certification under
section 401.

Section 401 requires the issuance of a certificate prior to any activity which may result in
a discharge to state waters. States administer the �401 certification program and make
certification decisions by ensuring that the proposed activity will comply with state water
quality standards. In 1989, Virginia adopted legislation establishing the Virginia Water
Protection Permit. The Water Protection Permit was designated to constitute the water
quality certification necessary under the existing Virginia �401 certification program.

There are five basic steps required in the process of applying state water quality
standards regulations to wetlands. They are:

Include wetlands in the definition of "State waters."
Designate uses for wetlands.
Adopt aesthetic criteria ("free froms") and appropriate numeric criteria for wetlands.
Adopt narrative biological criteria for wetlands.
Apply the State's antidegradation policy and implementation methods to wetlands.
(EPA, 1990).

There are, of course, many ways to approach the development and implementation of a
program to apply water quality standards to wetlands. The current effort in Virginia is a
comprehensive approach incorporating many components including: wetlands
classification, the development of functional assessment techniques, a functional analysis
and ve-etative characterization of Virginia's nontidal wetlands of the coastal zone, a review
of current Virginia legislation, regulations and policy on wetlands and water quality
standards and a review of the application of water quality standards to wetlands in other
states.

Under a contractual agreement, the Department of Resource Management and Policy of
the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, is to assist the Department of Environmental
Quality, Water Division in the development of water quality standards to wetlands. As a
result of on-going research efforts, and previous contractual agreements, the Department of
Resource Management and Policy has been involved in the production of many components
necessary for a comprehensive approach to water quality standards for wetlands. RMAP
has produced, and previously submitted to DEQ, a draft wetlands classification scheme, a
functional assessment technique and a review of the approaches taken by other states in the
application of water quality standards to wetlands.

Under the current contract, RMAP is directed to report on several of the remaining
components and make recommendations to assist DEQ in the application of water quality
standards to wetlands. Specifically, RMAP is to provide the following:

a report on the functional assessment of Virginia's coastal zone nontidal wetlands,
a report on wetlands classification,
a report on the designation of beneficial uses to wetlands, and
a report on the identification of exceptional wetlands.

RNIAP staff visited 300 wetland sites in order to characterize the vegetative communities
and assess Virginia's nontidal wetlands using the VIMS Functional Assessment Technique.
The preliminary results of the functional assessment analysis and vegetative
characterization can be found in Appendix 1. The remaining components are reported
within the main text of fl-ds document.

Wetlands Classification System

There are at least two possible approaches to the implementation of a wetlands
classification scheme and the designation of beneficial uses within the framework of the
existing Virginia regulatory program. Virginia may choose to use existing general and
0 0
water-specific classification systems, or they may develop and implement a system just for
wetlands.

Wetlands are defined as waters of the state (VR680-14-03, VR680-15-02). As such, it may
be inferred that the seven classes of state waters include wetlands where they occur within
the area designated by that class. In other words, wetlands located in areas designated as
Class H Estuarine are indeed Estuarine waters with all the corresponding numeric criteria
and special standards. Under this scheme, wetlands are designated for the same uses as the
adjacent waters. Following this process, the designation of beneficial uses of wetlands
would result in the same beneficial use designation for all waters within any given class. As
such, a wetlands classification within this scheme would need to fit into the current water
classes.

The current classes lack designated uses and are basically geographic assignments. The
lack of existing designated uses for water classes would make the option of incorporating
wetlands uses into the existing classes impractical as it would require the development and
adoption of uses for all classes of Virginia waters. The incorporation of wetlands into
existing classes is further complicated by the fact that wetlands often violate the existing
standards for water quality. While the long term goal may be the incorporation of wetlands
into each water class, with associated standards, the development of a wetlands
classification scheme built on the existing water classes would result in an ineffective
construct at present.

The second possible approach is to create an additional class, or amend and replace an
existing class of State waters. Once again, for ease of implementation, the best choice is to

incorporate the proposed class into the existing class structure in such a way as to require
minimal change to the remaining classes. Of the current classes, the only class vaguely
representing wetlands is Class VII Swamp Waters.

Current regulations assign dissolved oxygen, pH or minimum temperature standards to
each class of waters. In addition to the dissolved oxygen, pH, and temperature standards,
Virginia has adopted numeric criteria for chemical constituents. For purposes of application
to the water classes, the numeric standards are separated into saltwater and freshwater
standards (See box on next page). Class VII is not included in the class groupings used to
apply the saltwater or freshwater standards (VR680-21-01.14), nor is Class VII assigned
standards for dissolved oxygen, pH and temperature (VR680-21-01.5).

All state waters are designated by class under VR680-21-08.1. However, no waters have
been designated with the classification of Swamp waters under this provision. The Swamp
waters classification has only been used in the permitting process for waters which fail to
meet the standards of the appropriate class under VR680-21-08.1. This probably explains
the lack of standards and the exclusion from the numerical standards groups. The fact that
the class is not currently used and has no specific standards creates an opportunity for the
replacement of Class VII with a new class of waters with associated standards and
designated uses. (See box on next page.)

Options for Classification System Design

As noted above, extant classification systems cover the spectrum from those based
entirely on structure to those relying on functional distinctions. Both approaches have
advantages and disadvantages, and appropriateness is dependent on the reason or need for
classification. With no notable exceptions, regulatory programs are driven by concern for
the functions of wetlands. As a result, the classification systems with greatest direct utility
to regulatory programs are those based on function. Unfortunately, for purposes of
developing an advanced inventory of wetland resources, functional classifications are
difficult to implement.

The most widely utilized classification system at the present time is the hierarchical
system of Cowardin et al (1979). This system is the one employed by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service's National Wetlands Inventory Program. Several states use, or have
investigated the use of the Cowardin classification. As such it is well known and has been
applied in many areas, including all of Virginia. The system is structurally based with floral
composition and hydrologic conditions as the primary determinant characteristics.
However, the scheme was developed to be applicable to the entire United States and does
not provide regional detail. The system does not address functions of wetlands.
df
Another classification system available is a hydrogeomorphic classification system
under development by Brinson and others for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This
system is essentially a structurally based approach, with hydrologic conditions and
landscape setting as principal determinants (Brinson 1993). The related functional
do assessment system is currently under development.

State Waters Classification

Current Virginia Water Quality Regulations define seven classes of state waters.
Class designations are used to apply water quality standards and criteria. The classes
are:

1. Open Ocean
U. Estuarine Waters (Tidal Water- Coastal Zone to Fall Line)
III. Non-tidal Waters (Coastal and Piedmont Zones)
IV. Mountainous Zones Waters

V. Put and Take Trout Waters

VI. Natural Trout Waters
VU. Swamp Water (VR680-21-01.5).

Classes I through VI have minimum standards for dissolved oxygen, pH and
maximum temperature. However, Class VII, Swamp Water, has no set standards for
dissolved oxygen, Ph or maximum temperature. The regulations recognize the natural
variable quality of swamp waters and the need for a case-by-case determination of
water quality.

For the purposes of applying freshwater and saltwater numerical standards
(excluding dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature and chlorine), the classes of waters are
0
grouped into 3 groups. Swamp water, Class VII, is not included in any of the numerical
standards groups (VR680-21-01.14(C)).

Class of Waters Numerical Standard

I, and 11 (Estuarine Waters) Saltwater standards apply
U (Transition Zone) More stringent of either the freshwater or
saltwater standards apply
II (Tidal Freshwater), III, Freshwater standards apply
IV, V and VI

*NOTE: Class VII is not included in the groupings of water classes.

Functionally based and mixed systems are used by some states as part of their
management programs. Generally, these systems place wetlands in three or more categories
reflecting relative value. Assignment to a category can depend on either a particular service
(habitat for a rare or threatened species is a common high value service) or a structural
characteristic (connection to a public water supply or location in a flood plain are examples).
Almost all of these systems are designed primarily as regulatory guidance systems, and
have not yet found routine application in inventory programs.

Objectives for Proposed Classification System

Three basic objectives have been adopted in the design of a classification system for
Virginia's wetlands management program:

� the system should meld with and support the existing management efforts;
� the system should support informed decision making in the regulated community;
and
� the system should accommodate future developments of both technical
understanding and regulatory effort.

The existing management programs include a tidal wetlands management program
(under the Virginia Wetlands Act with the Virginia Marine Resources Commission as lead
agency), and a water quality permitting effort (under the Virginia Water Protection Permit
program with the Department of Environmental Quality as lead agency). In addition the
Commonwealth has an ongoing tidal wetlands inventory program (conducted by the
Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences) and a cooperative wetlands mapping program with
the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) program. Melding with and supporting these
various efforts can be accomplished by designing a classification system which covers both
tidal and nontidal wetlands and which can be related to both the Virginia tidal wetlands
classification system developed in the early 1970's and the Cowardin or NWI system.

Supporting the regulated community requires development of a system which embodies
general mana ement interests and which can be implemented in conjunction with a
9
continuing inventory program. According to Mitsch and Gosselink (1986), a classification
system is necessary to provide consistency for inventories, mapping, concepts and
terminology. An ongoing inventory is necessary to track changes in wetland resources
throu-h chan-e detection analysis. The coordination of an inventory program and a
wetlands classification system allows for change detection to be done by wetland type.
Paired with a functional analysis of wetlands types, the long-term goal is the ability to
determine changes in wetland functions. This implies a simple, easily interpreted system,
and one which can be applied using remotely sensed information.

Accommodating future developments simply means the system must be structured to
allow future modification and/or refinement. Ideally it should be possible to extend the
system to new levels of discrimination by simply adding information, without necessitating
a complete restructuring.

Proposed Classification System

All wetlands can be classified as either riparian or isolated. Riparian wetlands are all
those wetlands adjacent to surface waterbodies or water courses, whether permanent or
intermittent. Isolated wetlands are all other wetlands. They are not connected to defined
J watercourses, either permanent or intermittent.

Riparian wetlands may be subdivid ed into tidal and nontidal wetlands based on
hydrologic conditions.

Tidal wetlands may be subdivided according to general ecological value (refer
to existing tidal wetlands management program). Assignment to value classes
is made on the basis of dominant vegetative community.

Nontidal riparian wetlands can be further classified by the associated stream
order designation. Until such time as additional information becomes available
to guide valuation, we recommend that general value be assumed to increase as
stream order decreases.

Isolated wetlands may be subdivided by general geographic province into coastal plain,
piedmont, and ridge/valley wetlands. From the perspective of water quality
considerations, isolated wetlands in the piedmont and ridge/valley provinces may be of
greater importance due to the increased opportunity to play a role in recharging
groundwater aquifers. No other generalization regarding value of isolated wetlands is
recommended at this time due to insufficient technical information.

Within this generalized classification system, modifiers should be added to include use
or quality designations of adjacent waters. For example, the classification of surface waters
currently used by the Department of Environmental Quality should be considered as a
modifier for riparian wetlands. Wetlands adjacent to high quality waters should be
assumed to have importance for their role in maintaining that water quality. Exceptional
wetlands, as a special class, are typically specific wetlands or wetland types particularly
valued for exceptional quality. A complete discussion of the Exceptional wetlands class
follows this section.

Classification System Rationale

The proposed classification system is designed to: (1) be very simple; (2) depend
basically on information available through remote sensing; (3) accommodate existing
classification or management efforts in Virginia; and (4) offer opportunities for expansion/
refinement as appropriate information becomes available. The system provides some
guidance to regulatory efforts by incorporating both existing policy/management strategy
(tidal wetlands management program and Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act) and a
conservative synthesis of current technical information.

The distinction between riparian and isolated wetlands is based on two considerations.
First, a review of the commonly identified potential roles of wetlands indicates that
compared to isolated wetlands, riparian wetlands have a greater opportunity/ probability of
attaining a broad based importance (evaluated as potential number of simultaneous roles
and level of performance). Is 'olated wetlands lack flowing water and are generally small in
water volume. Lack of connectivity means isolated wetlands are unlikely to provide finfish
habitat, particularly for anadromous fish, or support navigation. This does not mean that
specific isolated wetlands may not have very high value and therefore warrant special
management attention. What it does imply is that as a class, riparian wetlands warrant a

high level of consideration for their ability to perform functions valued in management
programs.

The second consideration in separating riparian and isolated wetlands is the existing
focus on riparian wetlands established under the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act (CBPA)
management program. The CBPA seeks to preserve and protect existing riparian tidal and
nontidal wetlands by moving land disturbing activities back from their landward
boundaries. This is in recognition of the importance riparian wetlands can have for
maintenance of surface water quality. This rationale was sound at the time the CBPA was
passed and remains so today. Therefore the proposed classification system reflects and
accommodates the existing program.

The proposed classification system is designed to be a "nested" system. The riparian/
isolated classification is very broad and very straightforward. It crosses all types of
wetlands. Within this broad classification, subclassifications can be, and have been,
developed and may be utilized as either current or future need dictates. For example, the
tidal wetlands management program subdivides vegetated tidal wetlands into twelve
different types (based on dorninant plant community) and nonvegetated wetlands into five
different types. Both vegetated and nonvegetated wetland types are grouped into five
classes based on assumed general ecological value (VMRC 1993). Since tidal wetlands are
all riparian wetlands, the existing class'ification becomes a refinement of the overarching
system for the subset of riparian wetlands which are tidal.

It is proposed that nontidal riparian wetlands be further classified according to their
landscape position, using stream order as a designation. Within this subclassification, it is
.00 proposed that position along low order streams be viewed as an indication of potential
importance. Again, this does not imply that position along higher order channels precludes
high value. Rather it is a reflection of current thinking which holds that wetlands closest to
headwaters have the greatest opportunity to produce beneficial hydrologic and water
quality modifications. Wetlands along low order channels have the opportunity to reduce
flows and pollutant loadings before water reaches the main channels of the watershed.
While these wetlands may be no more efficient at such activities than those elsewhere in the
watershed, the fact that they act early in the movement of water through the system implies
that their actions can have impact through a much larger portion of the system.

It is noteworthy that this recommendation, if followed, would counter current federal
management practices for nontidal wetlands which tend to place lower value/concern on
headwater wetlands.

Finally, there is a great deal of research underway seeking to extend current knowledge
of wetland functions and the relationships between structure and function. As results of
this Work become available, refinement of the proposed classification system may be
appropriate. In particular, work is underway in Virginia evaluating the relationships
between nontidal wetland structure (including landscape position) and function. This work
may permit increased discrimination of potential value in both riparian and isolated
nontidal wetlands. If a relationship between functions and easily observed structural
characteristics can be developed, then the information can be incorporated into the
proposed classification system. At present, determination of relative value within the broad
classes proposed is best left to site specific functional assessment methods.

N 0

Classification System

Class VII as it is currently defined and applied does not specifically address the diverse
and complex nature of wetlands. A wetlands classification scheme must be incorporated
into Class VU in order to allow for the recognition of the various beneficial uses of different
wetland classes. We propose the following classification system be incorporated into
Virginia Code under VR680-21-01.5. The current Class VU Swamp waters would be
substituted with: IN

Class V11 Wetlands

A. Exceptional Wetlands
1. Specific geographically identified sites
2. Specific and general criteria for designation under this provision

B. Riparian Wetlands
1. Tidal wetlands
a. Group I
b. Group Il
c. Group III
d. Group IV
e. Group V
2. Nontidal wetlands
a. First order stream channels

b. Second order stream channels
c. Third order stream channels

C. Isolated Wetlands
1. Nontidal wetlands
a. Coastal plain wetlands
b. Piedmont wetlands
c. Ridge/Valley wetlands

Figure 1. Class V11 Wetlands

Subclass Exceptional Riparian Isolated
Wetlands Wetlands Wetlands
r I I I I I
Group Specifically General Croup I 1st Order Stream Channels Coastal Plain
Identified Criteria Group 11 2nd Order Stream Channels Piedmont
Group III 3rd Order and Above Ridge/Valley
Group IV
Group V

Designation Of Beneficial Uses

States should designate uses based on the functions and values of their wetlands. At a
minimum these uses must meet the goals of Section 101(a)(2) of the CWA by providing for
the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish and wildlife and for recreation in and on the
water. This baseline is commonly referred to as the "fishable/ swimmable" designation and
is applicable to all waters. As wetlands are included in the definition of waters of the State,
the fishable/ swimmable designation applies to wetlands. The propagation of fish and
wildlife is an attainable use in virtually all waters, including wetlands. Similarly, all waters
provide recreational opportunities, although certain recreational uses may be limited in
wetlands based on the presence of sufficient water. States may designate other uses based
on wetland functions and values.

There are enumerable ecological functions performed by wetlands. Depending on
how functions are defined, a list of wetland functions may include 27 or more different
functions (Adamus 1992). More commonly, the scientific literature cites the following
functions attributable to wetlands:

� ground-water recharge aquatic and wildlife
� ground-water discharge diversity/ abundance
� floodwater alteration )o- storm buffering
� sediment stabilization recreation
� sediment/ toxicant retention >- uniqueness /hertitage (Adamus et al.
� nutrient removal/ transformation 1991).
production export

For additional discourse on wetland functions, the reader is referred to:
Our national wetland heritage (Kusler 1983),
Wetland functions and values: the state of our understanding (Greeson et al. 1979),
Tidal wetland values (Wohlgemuth 1990), and
Nontidal wetland functions and values (Wohlgemuth 1991).

Beneficial uses of wetlands, as a reflection of wetland functions and values, are generally
designated according to wetland types, ie. classes. After all, different wetland types provide
different functions. For instance, wetlands without permanent water are unlikely to provide 41
finfish habitat, isolated wetlands are unlikely to provide erosion protection, and so forth.
Similarly, the identification of high value wetlands may recognize the high value of a
particular wetland type, or name specific wetland areas. So, prior to the designation of
beneficial uses or the identification of exceptional wetlands, a classification scheme is
required.
41
All Virginia state waters are designated for recreational use and for the propagation and
growth of a balanced, indigenous population of fish, shellfish, and wildlife (VR680-21-01.1).
The "fishable / swimmable" uses are the only use designations defined as such in Virginia's
water quality standards regulations. However, there are several categories of waters with
special designations. Special designation waters are: Scenic Rivers, Trout Streams, and
Waters containing Endangered or Threatened Species (VR680-21-07.2 A-C) and Public
Water Supplies (VR 680-21-08.3(D)(1)). Additionally, under VR680-21-07, special standards
and designations are set for various waters including shellfish waters. The identification of
waters with special designations and/or standards is found along with the assignment of
water classes in VR680-21-08.1.

Existing and Potential Uses of Wetlands

Wetland Type (Cowardin)
Beneficial Use Marine Estuarine Riverine Lacustrine Palustrine
Municipal and Domestic Supply X X X
Agricultural Supply X X X X
Industrial Process Supply X 0 0
Groundwater Recharge X X X X X
Freshwater Replenishment X X X
Navigation X X X X X
Water Contact Recreation X X X X X
Ocean Commercial and Sport Fishing X X
Warm Fresh Water Habitat X X X
Cold Fresh Water Habitat X X X
Preservation of Areas of Special
Biological Significance
Wildlife Habitat X X X X X
Preservation of Rare and Endangered X X X X X
Species
Marine Habitat X X
Fish Migration X X X X
Shellfish Harvesting X X X
Estuarine Habitat X

X = existing beneficial use
o = potential beneficial use

EPA guidance (1990) suggests a tabular presentation of existing and potential uses and
the designation of such as beneficial uses by wetlands class (The Cowardin classification is
used here-See box on previous page). The first step in the development of such a table is
the identification of which beneficial uses are to be designated. After all, there are many
wetland functions and values which may be designated as beneficial uses. However, in
order to meld the beneficial use designations with existing management programs, the
logical place to look for acknowledgement of beneficial uses is within the enabling
legislation and implementing regulations of Virginia's wetland management programs.

A review of Virginia laws identified several specific cites of beneficial use(s) of waters.
The Virginia Water Control Law states that beneficial use means both instream and
offstream uses (� 62.1-10 Va Code Ann.). Instream beneficial uses include, but are not
limited to, protection of fish and wildlife habitat, maintenance of waste assimilation,
recreation, navigation, and cultural and aesthetic values. Offstream beneficial uses include
but are not limited to domestic (including public water supply), agricultural, electric power
generation, commercial and industrial uses (� 62.1-10 and � 62.1-242 Va Code Ann.). The
Virginia Water Protection Permit designates the preservation of instream. flows for the
purposes of the protection of navigation, maintenance of waste assimilation capacity, the
protection of fish and wildlife resources and habitat, recreation, cultural and aesthetic values
as a beneficial use (� 62.1-44.15:5 Va Code Ann.).

Additionally, wetlands are attributed several values under the Virginia Wetlands Act
(�28.2-1301 Va Code Ann.). The values listed in the Act are ideologically consistent with
those parameters currently termed as beneficial uses and are paralleled by many of the
beneficial uses listed in the Virginia Water Protection Permit language. The values cited are:
production of marine and inland wildlife, waterfowl, finfish, shellfish and flora; protective
barrier against floods, tidal storms and the erosion of the Commonwealth's shores and soil;
the absorption of silt and pollutants; the recreation and aesthetic enjoyment of the people;
and the promotion of tourism, navigation and commerce.

Using the proposed wetland classification system for Virginia and the beneficial uses
already acknowledged within the Code of Virginia, it is possible to develop a matrix of
beneficial use designation which is compatible with existing wetlands management
programs. Table 1 is a simple yes/no table of those beneficial uses which may be assigned to
the proposed wetlands classification at the group level. The short-comings of this type of
table is that aside from counting check-marks the table does not allow for the determination
of relative importance among wetland groups. As such, the table falls short of the goal of
providing regulatory guidance for informed wetlands management decision-making.

The assignment of numerical values to the beneficial uses does allow for a numerical
ranking of wetlands. The term value "...connotes something worthy, desirable or useful to
humans. The reasons that wetlands are legally protected have to do with their value to
society, not with abstruse ecological processes that proceed therein... Perceived values arise
out of functional ecological processes.., but are determined also by the location of a
particular wetland, the human population pressures on it, and the extent of the resource."
(Nfitsch and Gosselink 1986, p393). Since many beneficial uses are societal values, and
societal values vary with time and place, certain uses are valued more highly than others by
10 different segments of society. The assignment of value is further complicated by those
beneficial uses which elude accurate economic description. In other words, uses such as

Table 1. Beneficial Use According to the Proposed Wetlands Classification.

Wetland Classification
Beneficial Use Riparian Isolated
tidal nontidal nontidal

1I M IV v Ist 2nd 3rd Coast Pied RV

Public Water Supply*

Threat & Endangered

Fish & Wildlife Habitat* Ve I" rl W/

Recreation*

Navigation* 0 Of

Cultural/ Aesthetic*

AgriculturaV(Harvest)* f

Electric Generation*

Waste Assimilation* W/

Commercial/ Industrial*

Erosion Protection'

Flood Buffering"

7 = extsung use AS Per @62.1-10 Virg@7 Wnte Itotecuon Fernut
o = potential use As per �28.1-1301 'ridal Wedan& Act

recreation, cultural/ aesthetic and threatened and endangered species habitat would be
assigned the lowest value if the assessment is based solely on market-based evaluation
techniques. Thus, the actual assignment of numerical values is a difficult, complex task
which requires some balance between those beneficial uses which are easily valued
economically and those uses which are not easily defined in economic terms.

Once again, it is most expeditious to look to the existing management programs for any
prioritization of uses. In the State Policy as to Waters (� 62.1-10 Va Code Ann.) and the
Surface Water Management Act (� 62.1-242 Va Code Ann.), domestic use (public water
supply) is the highest priority beneficial use. The regulations implementing the Surface
Water Management Act provide a water-use classification system (VR 680-15-03) for the
purposes of permitting under the Act. In this system domestic use is Class 1, fish and
wildlife habitat, waste assimilation, agriculture, power generation, commercial and
industrial uses are in Class 2, and Class 3 includes recreation, navigation, cultural and
aesthetic uses. This grouping provides a basis for the assignment of numerical values to
beneficial uses. However, the class designations in this regulation appear to be exclusively
an acknowledgement of economic value and do not account for uses which are difficult to
define economically such as environmental sensitivity. Furthermore, the regulations have
not yet been applied, so there are no Surface Water Management Areas in Virginia.
@
bhc Water

at& Enda
,P:7
,sh& WjldW

Table 2. Beneficial Use Ranking by Group.

WETLAND CLASSIFICATION
BENEFICIAL Rank Riparian Isolated
USE tidal nontidal nontidal
ITII III IV V nd 3rd Coast Pied RV

Public Water Supply 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 0 0 0

Treat & Endangered 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Fish & Wildlife Habitat 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Recreation 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1
Erosion Protection 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 0 0 0

Cultural/ Aesthetic 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Flood Buffering 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Waste Assimilation 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Navigation I I I I I I I I 1 0 0 0

Commercial/ Industrial I I 1 1 0 0 - I 1 0 0 0

Agricultural/Harvest I I 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
Electric Generation 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
TOTAL 1 1 18 18 1 16 15 15 1 20 21 22 14 14 14

A numerical designation should reflect both societal value (often economic) and the
environmental sensitivity of the function to impacts or loss due to human activities. In other
words, the ranking should consider which functions are either very valuable economically,
and/or very important ecologically. The numerical rankings in Table 2 acknowledge
societal values while attempting to account for ecological sensitivity. These rankings are
also consistent with the use ranking or prioritization of other state programs. In the table,
the numbers correspond directly with the use priority, with 3 being the highest and 1 being
the lowest. Depending upon the level of detail necessary for the rankings, more general
tables amy be created using the same ranking designations (Table 3).
0

Wetlands functions are not uniformly susceptible to change as a result of human
activity. Small anthropogenic changes in water quality may greatly affect certain wetland
functions while other functions are affected either moderately or not at all. Of the most
sensitive functions, those which also have high societal value are public water supply and
threatened and endangered species habitat. A third function, similarly sensitive and
valuable, is water quality maintenance necessary for the provision of native trout habitat.

Public water supply, per se, is not typically associated with wetland use. Wetlands do
co-occur with surface waters that are used as public water supplies. Public water supply is,
however, recognized as a special class of waters by most states and afforded extra
protection. Some states including Connecticut, Georgia, New York, Florida, have chosen to
include these waters in the highest class in recognition of the societal importance and
ecologic sensitivity of this beneficial use. As previously stated, wetlands adjacent to waters
with special designations should share the designation.

Table 3. Beneficial Use Ranking.

WETLAND CLASSIFICATION
BENEFICIAL USE RANK Riparian Isolated

tidal nontidal nontidal

Public Water Supply 3 0 3 0

Threatened & 3 3 3 3
Endangered

Fish & Wildlife 2 2 2 2

Recreation 2 2 2 2

Cultural/ Aesthetic 2 2 2 2

Waste Assimilation 2 2 2 2

Flood Buffering 2 2 2 2

Erosion Protection 2 2 2 0

Navigation 1 1 1 0

Agricultural 1 1 1 1

Electric Generation 1 0 1 0

Commercial/ Industrial 1 1 1 0

TOTAL is 22 14

It is a common practice in the development of regulations promulgating water quality
legislation to include verbatim language from the enabling legislation. The implementing
legislation for the Virginia Water Protection Permit legislation (� 62.1-44.15:5 Va Code Ann.)
includes waste assimilation as a beneficial use. The adoption of waste assimilation as a
designated use is however, prohibited under the federal Water Quality Standards
Regulation (40 CFR 131.10(a)). (Wetlands designed, built and operated as wastewater
treatment systems are considered by EPA as a special case.)

For wetlands adjacent to waters with special designations under VR 680-21-07.1 (A-C)
(Scenic Rivers, Trout Streams, and Waters containing Endangered or Threatened Species or
VR680-21-08.3 (D)(1) (Public Water Supplies), we recommend the adoption of the same as
designated uses. As previously stated, wetlands are included in the definition of waters of
the state. As a result, wetlands inundated by waters with a special designation have the
same designation. Wetlands occupy a transitional position in the landscape between upland
and water. Thus, wetlands are ecologically linked to both uplands and waters. The
hydrologic connection between wetlands and adjacent waters makes it impossible to
separate the two for purposes of defining many ecological parameters. The exclusion of
wetlands from the special designations of adjacent waters could result in a scenario where
impacts which degrade the wetland also degrade adjacent waters.

According to EPA guidance (1990), wetlands which may be considered as candidates
for designation of exceptional quality include:

Parks, refuges, wild and scenic rivers, estuarine sanctuaries, and wildlife
management areas;
Wetlands adjacent to other exceptional waters;
Priority wetlands identified under the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of
1986 through Statewide Outdoor Recreation Plans (SORP) and Wetland Priority
Conservation Plans;
Sites within joint venture project areas under the North American Waterfowl
Management Plan;
Sites under the RAMSAR Treaty on Wetlands of International Importance;
Biosphere reserve sites identified as part of the "Man and the Biosphere"
Program sponsored by the United Nations;
)o- Natural Heritage areas and other similar designations established by the State or
private organizations (e.g., Nature Conservancy); and
Priority wetlands identified as part of comprehensive planning efforts
conducted at the local, State, Regional, or Federal levels of government; e.g.,
Advance identification (ADID) program under section 404 of the CWA and
Special Area Management Plans (SAMPs) under the CZNLk (EPA, 1990).

Criteria For Exceptional Wetlands Designation

The establishment of a class of Exceptional Wetlands is critical to the protection and
special management of wetlands. In Virginia, Exceptional Waters are afforded the highest
level of protection (i.e., no degradation) under the antidegradation policy (VR680-21-
01.3(C)). Exceptional Waters are analogous to Outstanding National Resource Waters
(Section 131.12(a)(3) of the Federal Water Quality Standards Regulation). The designation of
Exceptional Wetlands may be based on exceptional environmental settings and exceptional
aquatic communities or exceptional recreational opportunities. A review of other state
water classification systems reveals particular beneficial uses that are commonly afforded
special protection within management programs (EPA 1988). Two of these uses are specific
wetland functions. The third use covers a suite of functions. The specific functions afforded
special protection are; Public water supply (an economically valuable and ecologically
sensitive use) and habitat for threatened and endangered species (a highly sensitive use).
The third "use" recognizes a suite of values-particularly aesthetics-in the establishment
of a national or state park, refuge, wild or scenic river, etc. Some 20 different states
designate wetlands in these areas with the highest value category of their classification, be it
High Value or Outstanding Resource Waters (Jessup 1994). As wetlands already afforded
special protection wiffiin the park system, these wetlands potentially function at high levels
for many beneficial uses, ie. fish and wildlife habitat, recreation, and cultural and aesthetic
uses. This category also offers an opportunity to make use of protection tools already in
place due to the park, refuge or wild and scenic river designation.

In addition to the Exceptional designation, state regulations and federal guidance
provide for the maintenance and protection of High Quality Waters. The protection of High
Quality Waters is provided for under VR680-21-01.3(B). High quality waters are waters
which meet all of the water quality standards. The designation of wetlands as high quality
may be problematic as wetlands often fail to meet existing water quality standards.
However, it is likely that wetlands adjacent to high quality waters would meet the standards
and should be designated as high quality wetlands. Advances in wetlands science should
allow for the subsequent development of water quality standards specific to wetlands
making the designation of high quality wetlands more feasible.

We propose the creation of a subclass of Exceptional wetlands and the protection of
these wetlands under VR680-21-01.3 (C) of Virginia's Antidegradation Policy. The
antidegradation policy should provide for the protection of existing uses in wetlands and
the level of water quality necessary to protect those uses. Concerns arise over the
application of Section C at the anti-degradation policy. A strict application of the
antidegradation policy would result in preventing the issuance of any discharge permits
including wetland fill permits under �404 of the CWA. This would preclude, for instance,
the development of a state park with waters and wetlands designated as Exceptional
Wetlands. However, EPA allows a slightly different interpretation of existing uses under
the antidegradation policy in the case of wetland fills. The EPA guidance, found in
Questions and Answers on: Antidegradation, is stated below:

Since a literal interpretation of the antidegradation policy could result in
preventing the issuance of any wetlandfill permit under �404 of the Clean
Water Act, and it is logical to assume that Congress intended some such
permits to be granted within theframework of the Act, EPA interprets 40CFR
131.12(a)(1) of the antidegradation policy to be satisfied with regards tofills in
wetlands if the discharge did not result in significant degradation to the aquatic
ecosystem as defined under �230.10(c) of the �404(b)(1) guidelines.

Under the proposed classification system, wetlands may be specifically identified or
generally identified through the application of criteria. The first category requires, by
definition, a case-by-case review of the wetlands to be included. For instance, New York
state specifically identifies two kettle-hole bog wetlands in the state as worthy of highest
protection due to unique natural heritage. Minnesota and Ohio have also designated
specific wetlands for the highest order of protection (EPA 1989). Similarly Virginia may
have rare, unique or otherwise highly valuable wetlands that may be listed as high quality
wetlands. The second category allows for the inclusion of a wetland, or wetlands, based
upon a designated beneficial use. This category of general criteria may include, for
example, wetlands adjacent to waters which are public water supplies or native trout waters
(class i or ii after Department of Game and Inland Fisheries classification). The most logical
choice is the use of the Exceptional designation as acknowledgement of the beneficial uses
of greatest value and sensitivity,. public water supply and threatened and endangered
species habitat.

Citations

Adamus, P.R. 1992. A process for regional assessment of wetland risk. Appendix A: Results
of application of the risk assessment process. EPA/600/R-92/249. U.S. Envir. Prot.
Agency, Envir. Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR.

Adamus, P.R., L.T. Stockwell, E.J. Clairain, Jr., M.E. Morrow, L.P. Rozas, and R.D. Smith.
1991. Wetlands evaluation technique (WET); Vol. 1: Literature review and evaluation
rationale. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station. Tech. Rep.
WRP-DE-2.

Brinson, M.M. 1993. A hydrogeomorphic classification for wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Wetlands Research Program Technical
Report WRP-DE-4.

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and
deepwater habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. Office of Biological Services,
Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

Environmental Protection Agency. 1988. State water quality standards summaries. EPA
440/5-88-031. Office of Water Quality Regulation and Standards. Washington, D.C.

-. 1989. Wetlands and 401 Certification: Opportunities and guidelines for states and
eligible indian tribes. Office of Wetlands Protection A-104F. Washington, D.C.

1990. Water quality standards for wetlands: National guidance. EPA 440/5-90-011.
Office of Water Regulations and Standards. Washington, D.C.
0

Greeson, P.B., J.R. Clark, and J.E. Clark (eds). 1979. Wetland functions and values: The state
of our understanding. Proc. of the National Symposium on Wetlands. November 7-10,
1978. Amer. Water Resources Assn., Minneapolis, MN.

Jessup, D.H. 1994. Guide to state environmental programs. The Bureau of National Affairs,
Inc. Washington, D.C.

Kusler, J.A. 1983. Our national wetland heritage. Environmental Law Institute. Washington,
D.C.

Mitsch, W.J. and J-G. Gosselink. 1986. Wetlands. Van Nostrand Reinhold. New York, New
York.

Virginia Marine Resources Commission. 1993. Wetlands Guidelines. Habitat Management
Division. Newport News, VA.

Wohlgemuth, M. 1990. Tidal wetland values. Technical Report no. 90-5. Wetlands Program.
Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, VA.

1991. Nontidal wetland functions and values. Technical Report no. 91-A.
Wetlands Program. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary,
Gloucester Point, VA.

Appendix 1.

Preliminary Characterization of
Nontidal Wetlands in Virginia's Coastal Plain

Gene Silberhom, Pam Mason, Julie Herman, and Carl Hershner

Introduction

Nontidal wetlands in coastal Virginia are valued for their ecological functions that
benefit man. These functions include flood storage, protecting surface and ground-water
through filtration, wildlife habitat, erosion buffer especially along streams, primary
production, and resources for recreational, educational, and research activities.

There are approximately 750,000 acres (303,643 hectares) of nontidal wetlands in
Virginia (Tiner, 1987; Odum, 1988). Approximately 64% or 480,000 acres of nontidal
wetlands are in Virginia's coastal zone (Tiner, 1987). Most of these wetlands are forested
palustrine wetlands. Over 90% of the nontidal wetlands in Virginia are forested or
scrub/shrub, the former representing 83% of the woody wetlands in the state or 625,804
acres (253,362 hectares) (Odum, 1988).

Effective nontidal wetland management can be enhanced or facilitated by a body of
knowledge and information of existing resources, their ecological function, and vegetative
composition. There is very little published material of use to wetland managers regarding
nontidal wetlands in Virginia's coastal plain. In order to increase our knowledge of nontidal
wetlands, the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) has undertaken a two-phased
study in coastal Virginia. The two components of the study are integrally linked: wetland
functional assessment and vegetative community characterization. The functional
0
assessment analysis is grouped by wetlands type, and uses the vegetative community
0
descriptions to demonstrate linkages between any one of a suite of wetlands functions and
vegetative community type(s).

Nontidal Wetland Communities

Forested Wetlands

Blackwater wetlands Blackwater streams are typical of the southeastern Atlantic coast
of the United States. They are narrower and shorter than larger alluvial southern rivers that
originate in the Appalachians or deep within the Piedmont Plateau. Blackwater rivers
originate within the coastal plain or nearby piedmont fringes (Wharton, et al, 1982). They

are less turbid and are relatively clear or colored (coffee-colored) because of organics and
tannins (Wharton, et al, 1982; Smock and Gilinsky, 1992).

Blackwater bottomland hardwood forests in Virginia are similar to BLH forests farther
south although not as extensive. The forested wetlands along three blackwater waterways
(Blackwater, Nottoway, and Meherrin Rivers), and the Chickahominy River and Dragon
Run north of the James River represent the northem-most extent of typical southeastern
bottomland hardwood forests (BLH) (Wharton, et al., 1982, Smock and Gilinsky, 1992).
These forests have developed on narrow flood plains of smaller, shallower streams which
usually do not become flooded except during local storm events (Penfound, 1952; Virginia
Water Control Board, 1985 and Smock and Gilinsky, 1992). Dominant canopy species are
bald cypress (PF02E) and bald cypress/tupelo (PF01/2E) in large segments of the state's
blackwater streams (Cowardin et al., 1979). In some areas along the Nottoway and
Blackwater and their tributaries nearly monospecific stands of tupelo predominate (PF01E).

As the flood plain narrows farther upstream from the mouths of these waterways, bald
cy
, press often codominates with Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora, green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica) and red maple. Near the headwaters or along smaller tributaries broad
leaved species dominate such as red maple associated with ash, river birch (Be tu la nigra),
sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), American elm (Ulm us americana) and black gum (Nyssa
sylvatica var. sylvatica). These wooded wetlands are typically classified as palustrine
forested, broad-leaved deciduous and seasonally flooded (PF01C).

The narrowest flood plain forests (50 to 30 m wide), usually located in the headwaters of
tributary streams, are often dominated by red maple in association with sweet gum
(Liquidambar styraciflua), black gum, river birch, American hombeam (Carpffius
carolinina) or loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). Wooded wetlands that often occupy these narrow
ravines are typically 'winter wet woods' or PF01A's or PF01 AA's.

Small Stceam Bottoms Small stream wetlands occupy a significant amount of the
landscape in the Mid-Atlantic and Southeastern States (Penfound, 1952; Monk, 1963;
Bernard, 1966; Gemborys and Hodgkins, 1971 and Glascock and Ware, 1979). Many of these
streams are tributaries of estuarine waterways, large alluvial or blackwater rivers. Their
appellation varies from locale and region i.e., branch bottoms, shallow swamps, creeks,
runs, branches and drains.

Small stream wetlands in coastal Virginia typically are found in the inner coastal plain
where local relief may range from 25 to 200 feet. The narrowest streams usually have steep
sided banks and intermittent flow. Temporary flooding often occurs at irregular intervals
(Glascock and Ware, 1979) especially during local storm events. Often the hydrology of the
streams are impacted by road construction and beaver dams.

Nearly all of the small stream wetlands are dominated by trees. There is a remarkable
similarity in dominant canopy species distributed in these wetlands from New Jersey south
to Florida and Alabama. Our own findings and other works in Virginia (Glascock and
Ware, 1979) indicate that red maple, ashes (Fra xin u s spp., black gum (N. sy 1va tica), L.
styraciflua, and elms are all common components in these narrow wetlands throughout the
east and Gulf coasts (Bernard, 1963; Monk, 1966; Gemborys and Hodgkins, 1971; Tiner, 1985;
Tiner, 1988 and Kuenzler, 1989).

Pocosins

Pocosins, also known by other common names such as bays, Carolina bays, bayheads,
shrub bogs, southern bogs and other designations, are distributed along the Atlantic Coast
from Virginia to northern Florida, but are most extensive in North Carolina (Ash, et al. 1983,
Gresham 1989; Richardson 1991). Description varies in the literature for these wetlands but,
in North Carolina they occupy poorly drained, flat, shallow basins, with soils ranging from
sandy humus, mineral soils, organic muck and peat (Brinson 1991). Vegetation typically
found in North Carolina pocosins are pond pine (Pinus se ro tina) as the dominant tree, with
red bay (Persea borbonia), loblolly bay (Gordonia lasianthus), Atlantic white cedar
(Chamaecyparis thyoides) and sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana) as associated trees (Ash, et
al. 1983, Richardson 1991). Common shrubs found in pocosins of North Carolina are titi
(Cyrilla racemiflora), fetterbush (Lyonia lucidia), honeycup (Zenobia pulverulenta),
inkberry (Ilex glabra), wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera) and others (Ash, et al. 1983, Richardson
1991).

Emergent (herbaceous) Nontidal Wetlands

Emergent nontidal wetlands are not nearly as extensive (less than 10%) in Virginia,
compared to forested and scrub/shrub wetlands (Tiner 1987, Odum 1988). Herbaceous
dominated wetlands usually exist in isolated depressions, narrow fringes along the margins
of ponds, lakes and streams. In our study, many emergent wetlands were the result of
disturbed wooded wetlands, often because of clear-cutting for power line right-of-way or
timbering. Emergent wetlands are typically associated with palustrine scrub/shrub
wetlands. Both of these wetland types (Cowardin et al. 1979) are smaller and less frequently
encountered than palustrine forested wetlands in Virginia's coastal zone.

Maritime dune swales, found only sporadically in undisturbed coastal dune fields are
wetlands of seeming contradictions. Plants growing there vary from season to season,
hydrophytes to upland species, halophytes to freshwater species. Typically, Juncus species
would indicate wet conditions, however, And ropogon virginicus, a grass indicating xeric
conditions coexist (Jones 1992). Other species common to these sites are Centella asiatica,
Scirpus americana, Drosera intermedia, and Xyris spp. (Tyndall and Levy 1978, Ludwig
1990, Jones 1992). Many of the plants are difficult to identify because they are dwarfed
when compared to their more robust inland conspecifics (Jones 1992).

Scrub/Shrub Wetlands

Nontidal scrub/shrub wetlands represent only about 10% of nontidal wooded wetlands
in the state (Tiner 1987). Many of the wetlands designated as palustrine scrub/ shrub on
National Wetland Inventory maps (NWI) are cut-oYer areas that were once palustrine
forested wetlands. Often scrub/shrub wetlands are depicted as long narrow strips, which
are cut-over utility line right-of-ways. Clear cutting forested wetlands for utility
right-of-ways is a major type of alteration in the Northeast (Golet et al, 1993). Typically
these disturbed wetlands are dominated by red maple and sweet gum saplings.

Undisturbed scrub/shrub wetlands usually have a mixture of shrubs such as silky
dogwood (Comus ammomum), alder (Alnus semulata), button bush (Cephalanthus
occidentalis), swamp rose (Rosa palustris); trees such red maple, sweet gum, black willow
(Salix nigra) and a diverse emergent plant component.

Methods

Site Selection and Assessment

Potential study sites were identified and located using NWI maps, USGS topographic
maps and SCS soil surveys. Staff from the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of
William and Mary visited 300 potential sites. All sites were visited in the field between
March and November (1991-92) with 85.0% of the sites visited between late May and
August. Data collection for the vegetative characterization and the field portion of the VIMS
Functional Assessment Technique (Bradshaw, 1991) were performed on 268 sites. The
remaining sites were eliminated either due to the fact that the site was misidentified on the
NWI map and was an upland site, or major disturbance had made characterization and
assessment of the wetland impossible.

The Cowardin classification on the NWI maps was used to categorize wetland types.
On those occasions when the field observations were inconsistent with the assigned NWI
classification, the wetland was assigned a class by the assessment team.

Upon returning to the lab, the vegetative data and the data from the functional
0
assessment field sheets were entered into a dBase database for analysis.

All field site wetlands were marked on the mylar National Wetlands Inventory Maps
(NWIS). Most of the NWIs used were the maps produced in the 1970's. Any missing maps
were replaced with 1990's map. The total areal extent of each wetland was not field checked.
In some cases the extent of the wetland was noted by the field team, and in the rest, the
extent of the wetland was assumed to be what was on the NWI. On the old NWIs it was
assumed that the classification type of some of the very large wetlands changed where
roads crossed them (roads would affect their drainage and therefore hydrology).

Watersheds were delineated usin- the NWI's and United States Geological Survey
0
topographic maps (topos). As required by the functional assessment technique, primary
and secondary (upstream) subwatersheds were delineated.

The area of primary watersheds is affected by the number and proximity of wetlands
near the wetland of interest. It appears that the primary watersheds on the newer NWIs
would be smaller because so many wetlands are more finely subdivided. Wetlands that
"straddled" stream courses had watersheds delineated that encompassed all the upstream
area. In some cases this produces a secondary watershed with a very large area (e.g. in the
Blackwater River watershed). The watersheds for wetlands that sat adjacent to stream
courses only included the land area on that side of the stream.

Wetlands and watersheds were digitized and coded. Arc/INF0 Macro Language
(AML) programs were used to extract the primary and secondary watersheds for each
wetland. Every primary and secondary watershed generated was doublechecked.

ERDAS imaging processing software was used to overlay 1989 National Ocean and
Atmospheric Administration Coastwatch landuse/land cover data on the watersheds.
Slope of watersheds was estimated from topo maps using change in elevation (from the
contour lines) over distance. Stream order was also determined from topo maps.

A dBase program was used to enter and calculate the landuse/landcover acreages and
percentages required on the furictional assessment technique office data sheet.

Community Characterization Sampling

Trees were sampled using a modified Bitterlich method. Utilizing a Cruz-Angle, this
technique is a standard method used by foresters and is efficient, ravid and accurate
sampling process to measure tree dominance (Grosenbough, 1952; Phillips, 1959;
Mueller-Doumbois and Ellenburg, 1974 and Bell and Dilworth, 1988). For this study, trees
are defined as greater than 4.0 in. (10.2 cm) in diameter at breast height (dbh) and greater
than 20.0 feet tall (6.0 m). Density of saplings and shrubs were counted within a 10.0 m
circumference. Saplings were defined as tree species that are less than 4.0 in. dbh and less
than 20.0 feet tall.

Herbaceous plants, woody seedlings and vines were estimated as percent cover using
1m x 1m quadrats. Percent'no cover'was also recorded. No cover was often mud, or bare
soil, water (void of subaquatic vegetation), or'blackened leaves'. Sites were sampled with
two 1m x 1m quadrats during the growing season. Plots were systematically placed to
measure the lower and higher elevations within the 10.0 m circle.

Hydrologic conditions were recorded as flooded when the site was covered with surface
water (depth measured), partially flooded when hummocks extended above the water, and
not flooded when surface water was not evident. Determination of hydrologic conditions,
when no surface water was present, was facilitated by indicators of flooding. The following
indicators were recorded, if present: 1) buttressed or fluted tree trunks, 2) pneumatophores
(cypress knees), 3) wrack or debris accumulation, 4) water marks, 5) crayfish chimneys, 6)
blackened leaves, 7) oxidized rhizospheres, 8) saturated soil and 9) adventitious roots. The
site was considered saturated if the soil was wet within the root zone.

Hydric soil conditions were determined using the guidelines in the Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987), Munsell Soil Charts (1990),
and frequently local soil maps. Soil samples were taken by probe.

Recent plant manuals were used to assist in plant identification (Radford et. al., 1968;
Godfrey and Wooten, 1979, 1981). Plant indicator status was determined according to Reed
(1988).

Results

Community Structure

There are very few expansive nontidal emergent wetlands in coastal Virginia (PEMs).
Our study indicates that PEMss are usually quite wet and are often dominated by
broad-leaved herbs including; dicotyledons such as lizard's tail (Saurlints cernulis),
smartweeds (Polygonum spp.),jewel-weed (Impatiens capensis) as well as monocotlydons
such as arrow arurn (Peltandra virginica). Species composition is often similar to tidal
freshwater wetlands, but quite dissimilar to salt and brackish water marshes which are
generally dominated by grasses with associated rushes and sedges. Field observations
made throughout the growing seasons of the two year study revealed that most
broad-leaved, emergent dominated wetland types were flooded or partially flooded most of
the time. Maritime dune swales, often grass and rush dominated, appeared to be the driest
of the emergent wetland types.

The PFOIAs in our study (n = 68) were saturated (63.9%) or partially flooded (19.1%)
during the growing season. This wetland type, often referred to as 'winter wet woods', is
common in poorly drained areas of tidewater Virginia, often at or near the headwaters of
small streams, or on the fringes of large, wetter forests. The canopy species are
predominately Acer rubrum in association with sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), and
sycamore (Platanus occidentalis). Upland trees or saplings did not dominate or codominate
at any of the PF01A sites and accounted for less than 10% of the canopy in only a few sites.
FACU tree species did not dominate at any of the sites, but Ilex opaca (FACU) did dominate
or codominate in the sapling strata in 8 or 15-79/6 of the 68 sites. Shrub and herbaceous
components in PFOIA sites indicate a higher percentage of FACW species than the tree and
sapling strata.

Seasonally flooded palustrine forested wetlands (PFOlCs), are similar to PFOlAs, but
typically are wetter and have a higher percentage of hydrophytic species (facultative
wetland plants (FACW) and obligate wetland plants (OBL)), Reed (1988). PFO1Cs are
typically found on higher flood plain terraces along blackwater rivers, usually above
cy
, press/tupelo forests. They are also commonly found below headwater streams in areas
were the flood plains are broader than the narrow flood plains of PFOlAs. Nearly one half
of all sites (N=68) were at least partially flooded during the growing season in 1991-92
(Figure 2). More than one quarter of the sites were completely flooded with shallow water
(averaging less than 30 cm). None of the sites were dry, even during peak growing season
(June-fuly-August).

Bald cypress swamps (PF02E) were always flooded or partially flooded (50% or more of
site area flooded) during our sites visits during the growing season (March - September
1991-1992). The largest expanse of this wetland type occur along the blackwater rivers, the
Nottoway, Blackwater, and Chickahominy rivers and the Dragon Run. FACU plants were
not found in any of the fifeform, categories in the cypress swamp study sites (N=17). FAC
species dominated (55.5%) only in the sapling strata and were not found in the other three
strata. Acer rubrum was the sole species represented (Table 6). Obligate plants totally
dominated the canopy strata (99.9% - Taxo d iu m d is tch iu m), shrubs (99.9%) and were
significantly abundant as herbaceous cover (84.5%).

PFOI/2Es, bald cypress/hardwood mixed forests were nearly always flooded or
partially flooded. In wetlands where cypress codominated with red maple, most of the later
were smaller trees growing on deadfall or isolated hummocks of elevated substrate.
Cypress/maple swamps were usually partially flooded or saturated. Cypress/tupelo
swamps were mostly flooded and the trees had buttressed trunks and knees. In PFO1/2E
sampled wetlands, facultative wetland (FACW) species were found in all categories, but
were more prevalent as saplings 49.9% (mainly Acer rubrum), shrubs 30.8% (Clethra
alnifolia), herbs 31.5% and least common in the canopy strata (16.2%). Obligate species,
Taxodium distichum and Nyssa aquatica (Table 5) dominated the canopy (58.1%) of the
sites. OBL plants (Saururus cernuus and Murdannia keisak) also dominated most of the
herbaceous strata (69.5%).

Tupelo dominated swamps (PF01E) were nearly always flooded or partially flooded.
PF01E sampled sites did not have any dominating FACU plants in any of the four lifeform.
cate-ories. Facultative (FAC) species dominated/ codominated 21.6% of the canopy strata
and 41.6% of the sapling/ understory strata and 0.0% in the shrub and herbaceous strata.
Facultative wet (FACW) hydrophytes were found in all four categories: trees 41.1%, saplings
58.1%, shrubs 41.1% and herbs 25.0%. Obligate (OBL) wetland plants dominated/
codominated the tree strata at 36.6% of the study sites, 0.0% of the sapling understory, 58.3%
of the shrub category and 75.0% of the herbaceous cover.

Discussion

Community Structure

The nontidal palustrine forested wetlands of Coastal Virginia have affinities with
palustrine forested wetlands of both the Mid-Atlantic States and the Southeastern States.
Generally, PF01A and PF01C types, based on this study, are similar in dominant and
associated canopy species composition to those found in Maryland (Tiner, 1988). Acer
rub rum appears to be the dominant canopy tree in these wetland types in both Virginia and
Maryland. Other common dominant/ codominant trees are Nyssa sylvatica var.biflora,
Liqiddambar styraciflita,and Platanus occidentalis.

PFOIE, PF01/2E and PF02E forests in Virginia are similar to bottomland forests farther
south (Wharton, et al, 1982, Smock and Gilinsky, 1992) (Fig.la). PF01E forests are
commonly dominated by Nyssa aquatica, N. sylvatica var. biflora, Fraxinus pennsylvanica
and A.rubrum. PFOI/2E forests are dominated by Taxodium distichum and N. aquatica
and PF02E by T.distchum. The tupelo and tupelo/cypress bottornland forests reach their
northern distribution in coastal Virginia.

Functional Assessment

The functional assessment technique used in this study allowed us to rapidly sample a
large number (268) of nontidal wetlands in coastal Virginia over two growing seasons
0
(1991-1992). The method was not only designed to facilitate our needs for the study, but to

be of possible use to wetland managers as an easily deployed yet scientifically sound tool to
be used in the field. Rapid assessment programs have been recently developed to sample
the environment where time is a critical factor because of human impacts (Abate, 1992). -

The results of the functional assessement are still being analyzed. The preliminary data
is presented in a series of graphs summarizing rankings of all sampled wetlands for each
function by wetland type and by stream order. This data is being analyzed to determine if
wetland type or position can be useful predictors of wetland function. Preliminary analysis
suggests weak relationships exist within the sample population of wetlands. This analysis
will continue and be extended during the summer of 1995. The graphs presented here are
simple data summaries and have not been used to draw any conclusions thus far.

Literature Cited

Abate, Tom. 1992. Environmental rapid-assessment programs have appeal and critics: Are
they the domain of the conservative? Bioscience 42: 486-489.

Ash, AX, C.B. McDonald, E.S. Kane, and C.A. Pories. 1983. Natural and modified
pocosins: literature synthesis and management options. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FWS/OBS-83/04. Wash, D.C. 156 pp.

Bell, J.F. and J.R. Dilworth. 1988. Log scaling and timber crusing. Oregon State University,
Corvallis, Ore. 396 pp.

Bernard, J.M. 1963. Lowland forests of the Cape May Formation in Southern New Jersey.
Bull. N.J. Academy of Science. 8:1-12. C

Brinson, M.M. 1991. Landscape properties of pocosins and associated wetlands. Wetlands
11:441-465.

Corps of Engineers, 1992. Memor@ndum: clarification and interpretation of the 1987 Manual.
Dept. of the Army, U.S. Army C.O.E., Washington, DC. 4 pp.

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and
deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FWS/OBS-79/31, Wash., D.C.

Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Tech.
Rpt. Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Ms.

Gemborys, S.R. and E.J. Hodgkins 1971. Forests of small stream bottoms in the Coastal Plain
of Southwestern Alabama. Ecology 52:70-84.

Glascock, S. and S. Ware. 1979. Forests of small stream bottoms in the Peninsula of Virginia.
Va. J. Sci. 30: 17-21.

Godfrey, R.K. and J.W. Wooten. 1979. Aquatic and wetland plants of Southeastern United
States. Monocotyledons. vol. 1, University of Georgia Press, Athens, Ga. 712 pp.

Godfrey, R.K. and J.W. Wooten. 1981. Aquatic and wetland plants of Southeastern United
States. Dicotyledons. v. 2, University of Georgia Press, Athens, Ga. 933 pp.

Golet, F.C., A.J.K. Calhoun, W.R. DeRagon, D. J. Lowry, and A.J. Gold. 1993. Ecology of red
maple swamps in the Glaciated Northeast: a community profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. Biol. Rep. 12. 151 pp.

Gresham, C.A. 1989. A literature review of effects of developing pocosins. In D.D. Hook and
R. Lea (eds.) Proceedings of the symposium: The forested wetlands of the Southern
United States; 1988 July 12-14, Orlando, FL Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-50. Ashville, NC. U.S.
Dept. Agri., For. Ser., Southeastern For. Exp. Sta. 168pp.

Grosenbough, L.R. 1952. Plotless timber estimates - new, fast, easy. Jour. Forestry. 50: 32-37

Jones, H.E. 1992. A vegetational analysis of interdunal swale communities of False Cape
State Park, Currituck Spit, Virginia. MA thesis, College of William and Mary,
Williamsburg, Va. 68 pp.

Kuenzler, E.J. 1989. Value of forested wetlands as filters for sediments and nutrients. In D.D.
Hook and R. Lea, (eds.) Proceedings of the symposium: The forested wetlands of the
Southern United States; 1988 July 12-14, Orlando, FL. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-50. Ashville,
NC. U.S. Dept. Agri., For.Ser., Southeastern For. Exp. Sta. 168 pp.

Monk, D.D. 1966. An ecological study of hardwood swamps in North Central Florida. Ecol.
47:649-654.

Mueller-Dombois, D. and E. Ellenberg. 1974. Aims and methods of vegetation ecology. John
Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. 547 pp.

Miunsell Soil Color Charts. 1990. Munsell color, Kollmorgen Instruments Corp. Baltimore,
Md.

Odum, W.E. 1988. Nontidal freshwater wetlands in Virginia. Va. J. Nat. Res. Law. 7:421-434.

Penfound, W.T. 1952. Southern swamps and marshes. Bot. Rev. 18:413-446.

Phillips, E.A. 1959. Methods of vegetation study. Holt, Rhinehart, & Winston, New York,
Z7
NY. 107 pp.

Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and C.H. Bell. 1968. Manual of the vascular flora of the Carolinas.
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 1183 pp.

Reed, P.R. 1988. National list of plant species that occur in wetlands: 1988, Virginia. National
Wetlands Inventory. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, St. Petersburg, Fl.

Richardson, C.J. 1991. Pocosins: An ecological perspective. Wetlands 11: 335-352.

Smock, L.A. and E. Glinsky. 1992. Blackwater streams. In C.T. Hackney, S.M. Adams and
W.H. Martin, (eds.) Biodiversity of the Southeastern United States: aquatic communities.
John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, NY. 779 pp.

Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of New Jersey. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National
Wetlands Inventory. Newton Comer, MA 117 pp.

Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1987. Mid-Atlantic Wetlands: A disappearing national treasure. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and U.S. EPA. 28 pp.

Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1988. Field guide to nontidal wetland identification. Maryland Dept. of Nat.
Res., Annapolis, MD and U.S. Fish Wild. Ser., Newton Comer, MA. Cooperative Pub.
283 pp.

Virginia Water Control Board, 1992. Chowan Basin nutrient control: update for Virginia
(1982-1989). Va. Water Cont. Brd., Inf. Bull. #591, Richmond, Va.

Wharton, C.H., W.M. Kitchens and T.N. Sipe. 1982. The ecology of bottomland hardwood
swamps of the Southeast: a community profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FWS/OBS-81/37.

Floodflow vs. Stream Order

50 -

H
M
w 40 -
0 L
CC
0 30 -
cf:

(n
-&- 20 -
0

010 -

0 -

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
STRORDER
t
a
@ MRIS

Nutrient Retention vs. Stre a*m Order

60 -

M
CC 50 - L
w
0
0@ 40 -
0
G@
30 -

0
20 -

:3
0 )10 -

1 2 3 4
STRORDER

Sediment Trapping vs. Stream Order

60 -

50 - INN,
w
0
M 40 -
0
rr
30 -
C/)

4-
0
20 -

0 lo -
0 t
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
STRORDER

Toxicity Trapping vs. Stream Order

60 -

50 -
w

40 -
0
rr
1-- 30 -

0
20 -

0 10 -

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
STRORDER
L

oil 4p

Sediment Stability vs. Stream Order

50 -

M
40 - H
L
0 30 -
Cf)
,#.- 20 -
0

010 -

0 -

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
STRORDER

Wildlife vs. Stream Order

40 -

30 -

20 -

10 -

0 -

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
STRORDER
i I

Aquatic Habitat vs. Stream Order

40 -

w 30 -

0
0@
20 -
CD

%4-
0

10 -
0

0 -

0 1 2 3 4 6
STRORDER

Public Use vs. Stream Order

40 -
H
M
0 30 - L
rr
0
CE
1-- 20
C/)

10
0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
STRORDER
Ma

@ 1 1, 1 %6,1 1 1 1 1 4 P

Floodflow vs. Wetland Type

150 - H
M
L

100 -

*-P
C- 50 -
D
0

0
0 = nonwetland
0 1 2 3
1 = palustrine emergent WTLDTYPE
2 = palustrine forested
3

Nutrient Retention vs. Wetland Type

200 -

M
w L
H

100

0
0
0 - M
0 = nonwetland I
1 = palustrine emergent 0 1 2 3
2 = palustrine forested WTLDTYPE
3 = palustrine scrub/shrub

i 1 4,1 (1 tl

1, 1 %,1 1 0 1 '1 4 P

Sediment Trapping vs. Wetland Type

200 -

El M
w
CL EM L
IM H

100 -

4-a

0
0 = nonwetland
1 = palustrine emergent 0 1 2 3
2 = palustrine forested WTLDTYPE
3 = palustrine scrub/shrub

Toxicity Trapping vs. Wetland Type

200 -

M
w L

F- 100 -

+-a
C-
=3
0
C)

0 -
0 = nonwetland
1 = palustrine emergent0 1 2 3
2 = palustrine forested WTLDTYPE
3 = palustrine scrub/shrub

Sediment Stability vs. Wetland Type

150 - M
w H
IL
L
9 100 -

0
50 -

0
0 = nonwetland
1 = Palustrine emergent0 1
2 = palustrine forested WTLDTYPE
3 = palustrine scrub/shrub

Wildlife vs. Wetland Type

150 - M
EM H
w ED M

100 -

0
50 -

0
0 MEN
0 = nonwetland
1 = palustrine emergent0 1
2 = palustrine forested WTLDTYPE
3 = palustrine scrub/shrub

Aquatic Habitat vs. Wetland Type

100 - L
w H
IL
>- EM M
F-

F-
50 -

0 -
0 = nonwetland
0 1 2 3
1 = palustrine emergent WTLDTYPE
2 = palustrine forested
3 = Palustrine scrub/shrub

Public Use vs. Wetland Type

100 - M
EM H
w EM M
CL
L

50 -

0
0 = nonwetland
1 = palustrine emergent0 1 2 3
2 = palustrine forested WTLDTYPE
3 = palustrine scrub/shrub MEE

NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY

3 6668 14112736 7