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





                                 United States                    Office of Waw
                                 Environmental Protection         Regulations and Standards (WH-585)         EPA 440/S-90-01 1
                                 Agency                           Washinton, DC 20460                        July 1990
              EPA                Water                  Quality Standards
                                 for Wetlands

                                 National Guidance







                                 H









                                                                                                  Pb















      QH
      76
       W37
      1990
      c* . 5
                                                                           'ddMI111b.-    doommb,                  dolombb.,   -dd=











             WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR
                                      WETLANDS


                                     National Guidance




                                            U . S . DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
                                            COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
                                            2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
                                            CHARLESTON , SC 29405-2413



                                            July 1990


                                                  Property of CSC Library



                                          Prepared by:

                            U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                         Office of Water Regulations and Standards
                                 Office of Wetlands Protection







                  This document is designated as Appendix B to Chapter 2 - General Program Guidance of the Water Ouality
               Standards Handbook, December 1983.


                                           Table of Contents

                                                                                                                                                                            EX19
                 Transmittal                                                              ......*.......                                                       .......  ....v

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


                               4.1.1 General Narrative Criteria                  .............................................................................................................. 16
                               4.1.2 Narrative Biological Criteria                  ........................................................................................................... 16

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

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

                               4.2.2 Numeric Criteria - Aquatic Life                    ..................................................................................................... 17
                 5.0 ANTIDEGRADATION                     ..........................................................................................................I .................... 19

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











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

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

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

                   6.1 Section401 Certification                   ............................................................................................................... 23

                   6.2 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

                   6.3 Monitoring            ....................................................................................................................................... 25

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

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

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

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

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

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


            Appendices

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

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


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


                   D - Regional Wetlands Coordinators
                              U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                              U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service                  ................................................................................................ D-1


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













                           UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                           WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460







                                                                             OFFICE OF
                MEMORANDUM                       JUL 3 0 1990                  WATER

                SUBJECT:   Final Document: National Guidance on Water Quality
                           Standards for Wetlands


                FROM:      Martha G. Prothro, Director
                           Office of Water Regul         -axid Standards

                           David G. Davis, Dir ct r I
                           Office of Wetlands Protect n

                TO:        Regional Water Division Directors
                           Regional Environmental Services Division Directors
                           Assistant Regional Administrator for Policy
                            and Management, Region VII
                           OW Office Directors
                           State Water Quality Program Managers
                           State Wetland Program Managers


                     The  following document entitled "National Guidance: Water
                Quality Standards for Wetlands" provides guidance for meeting the
                priority established in the FY 1991 Agency Operating Guidance to
                develop water quality standards for wetlands during the FY 1991-
                1993 triennium. This document was developed jointly by the
                Office of Water Regulations and Standards (OWRS) and the Office
                of Wetlands Protection (OWP), and reflects the comments we
                received on the February 1990 draft from EPA Headquarters and
                Regional offices, EPA laboratories, and the States.

                     By the end of FY 1993, the minimum requirements for States
                are to include wetlands in the definit.ion of "State waters",
                establish beneficial uses for wetlands, adopt existing narrative
                and numeric criteria for wetlands, adopt narrative biological
                criteria for wetlands, and apply antidegradation policies to
                wetlands. Information in this document related to the
                development of biological criteria has been coordinated with
                recent guidance issued by OWRS; "Biological Criteria: National
                Program Guidance for Surface Waters", dated April 1990.

                     We are focusing on water quality standards for wetlands to
                ensure that provisions of the Clean Water Act currently applied
                to other surface waters are also being applied to wetlands. The
                document focuses on those elements of water quality standards
                                               r
                                                    r
                                                CtL
                                                       @Zn
                                               Protect














           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 arid
           States through workshops and additional documents. We encourage
           you to let us know your needs as you begin developing wetlands
           standards. If you have any questions concerning this document.,
           please contact us or have your staff contact Bob Shippen in OWRS
           (FTS-475-7329) or Doreen Robb in OWP (FTS-245-3906).



           Attachment



           cc: LaJuana Wilcher
                Robert Wayland

















































                                           Vi






                EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


           Background
            This document provides program guidance to States on how to ensure effective application of water
          quality standards (WQS) to wetlands. This guidance reflects the level of achievement EPA expects the States
          to accomplish by the end of FY 1993, as defined in the Agency Operating Guidance, FY 1991, Office of Water.
          The basic requirements for applying State water quality standards to wetlands include the following:



             * Include wetlands in the definition of "State waters."
             o Designate uses for all wetlands.
             * Adopt aesthetic narrative criteria (the "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.


            Water quality standards for wetlands are necessary to ensure that the provisions of the Clean Water Act
          (CWA) applied to other surface waters are also applied to wetlands. Although Federal regulations im-
          plementing the CWA include wetlands in the definition of "waters of the U.S." and therefore require water
          quality standards, a number of States have not developed WOS for wetlands and have not included wetlands
          in their definitions of "State waters." Applying water quality standards to wetlands is part of an overall effort
          to protect and enhance the Nation's wetland resources and provides a regulatory basis for a variety of
          programs to meet this goal. Standards provide the foundation for a broad range of water quality manage-
          ment activities including, but not limited to, monitoring under Section 305(b), permitting under Sections 402
          and 404, water quality certification under Section 401, and the control of NPS pollution under Section 319.

            With the issuance of this guidance, EPA proposes a two- phased approach for the development of WOS
          for wetlands. Phase 1 activities presented in this guidance include the development of WOS elements for
          wetlands based upon existing information and science to be implemented within the next triennium. Phase
          2 involves the further refinement of these basic elements using new science and program developments. The
          development of WOS for all surface waters is an iterative process.

           Definition
            The first and most important step in applying water quality standards to wetlands is ensuring that wetlands
          are legally included in the scope of States'water quality standards programs. States may accomplish this by
          adopting a regulatory definition of "State waters', at least as inclusive as the Federal definition of "waters of
          the U.S." and by adopting an appropriate definition for "wetlands." States may also need to remove or modify
          regulatory language that explicitly or implicitly limits the authority of water quality standards over wetlands.
           Use Designation
            At a minimum, all wetlands must have uses designated that meet the goals of Section 101 (a) (2) of the CWA
          by providing for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and for recreation in and on the
          water, unless the results of a use attainability analysis (UAA) show that the CWA Section 10 1 (a) (2) goals
          cannot be achieved. When designating uses for wetlands, States may choose to use their existing general








        and water-specific classification systems, or they may set up an entirely different system for wetlands
        reflecting their unique functions. Two basic pieces of information are useful in classifying wetland uses: (1)
        the structural types of wetlands and (2) the functions and values associated with such types of wetlands.
        Generally, wetland functions directly relate to the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of wetlands
        The protection of these,functions through water quality standards also may be needed to attain the uses oi
        waters adjacent to, or downstream of, wetlands.

         Criteria
          The Water Quality Standards Regulation (40 CFR 131.11 (a)(1)) requires States to adopt criteria sufficient
        to protect designated uses that may include general statements (narrative) and specific nurnerical values
        (i.e., concentrations of contaminants and water quality characteristics). Most State water quality standards
        already contain many criteria for various water types and designated use classes that may be applicable to
        wetlands.


          Narrative criteria are particularly important in wetlands, since many wetland impacts cannot be fully
        addressed by numeric criteria. Such impacts may result from the discharge of chemicals for which there are
        no numeric criteria in State standards, nonpoint sources, and activities that may affect the physical and/or
        biological, rather than the chemical, aspects of water quality (e.g., discharge of dredged and fill material).
        Narratives should be written to protect the most sensitive designated use and to support existing uses under
        State anticlegraclation policies. In addition to other narrative criteria, narrative biological criteria provide a
        further basis for managing a broad range of activities that impact the biological integrity of wetlands and
        other surface waters, particularly physical and hydrologic modifications. Narrative biological criteria are
        general statements of attainable or attained conditions of biological integrity and water quality for a given use
        designation. EPA has published national guidance on developing biological criteria for all surface waters.

          Numeric criteria are specific numeric values for chemical constituents, physical parameters, or biological
        conditions that are adopted in State standards. Human health water quality criteria are based on the toxicity
        of a contaminant and the amount of the contaminant consumed through ingestion of water and fish
        regardless of the type of water. Therefore, EPA's chemical-specific human health criteria are directly
        applicable to wetlands. EPA also develops chemical-specific numeric criteria recommendations for the
        protection of freshwater and saltwater aquatic life. The numeric aquatic life criteria, although not designed
        specifically for wetlands, were designed to be protective of aquatic life and are generally applicable to most
        wetland types. An exception to this are pH-dependent criteria, such as ammonia and pentachlorophenol,
        since wetland pH may be outside the normal range of 6.5-9.0. As in other waters, natural water quality
        characteristics in some wetlands may be outside the range established for uses designated in State stand-
        ards. 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 charac-
        teristics that may fall into this category are dissolved oxygen, pH, turbidity, color, and hydrogen sulfide.
         Antidegradation
          The antidegradation policies contained in all State standards provide a powerful tool for the protection of
        wetlands and can be used by States to regulate point and nonpoint source discharges to wetlands in the
        same way as other surface waters. In conjunction with beneficial uses and narrative criteria, antidegradation
        can be used to address impacts to wetlands that cannot be fully addressed by chemical criteria, such as
        physical and hydrologic modifications.: With the inclusion of wetlands as ,waters of the State," State
        antidegraclation policies and their implementation methods will apply to wetlands in the same way as other
        surface waters. State antidegraclation policies should provide for the protection of existing uses in wetlands
        and the level of water quality necessary to protect those uses in the same manner as provided for other
        surface waters; see Section 131.12(a)(1) of the WOS regulation. In the case of fills, EPA interprets protection
        of existing uses to be met if there is no significant degradation as defined according to the Section 404(b)(1)
        guidelines. State antidegradation policies also provide special protection for outstanding natural resource
        waters.




                                                                vid







           Implementation
            Implementing water quality standards for wetlands will require a coordinated effort between related
          Federal and State agencies and programs. Many States have begun to make more use of CWA Section 401
          certification to manage certain activities that impact their wetland resources on a physical and/or biological
          basis rather than just chemical impacts. Section 401 gives the States the authority to grant, deny, or
          condition certification of Federal permits or licenses that may result in a discharge to "waters of the U.S.,
          Such action is taken by the State to ensure compliance with various provisions of the CWA, including the
          State's water quality standards.    Violation of water quality standards is often the basis for denials or
          conditioning through Section 401 certification.

            Natural wetlands are nearly always "waters of the U.S." and are afforded the same level of protection as
          other surface waters with regard to standards and minimum wastewater treatment requirements. Water
          quality standards for wetlands can prevent the misuse and overuse of natural wetlands for treatment through
          adoption of proper uses and criteria and application of State antidegradation policies. The Water Quality
          Standards Regulation (40 CFR 131.10(a)) states that, "in no case shall a State adopt waste transport or waste
          assimilation as a designated use for any 'waters of the U.S.'." Certain activities involving the discharge of
          pollutants to wetlands may be permitted; however, as with other surface waters, the State must ensure,
          through ambient monitoring, that permitted discharges to wetlands preserve and protect wetland functions
          and values as defined in State water quality standards. For municipal discharges to natural wetlands, a
          minimum of secondary treatment is required, and applicable water quality standards for the wetland and
          adjacent waters must be met. EPA anticipates that the policy for stormwater discharges to wetlands will
          have some similarities to the policies for municipal wastewater discharges to wetlands.

            Many wetlands, through their assimilative capacity for nutrients and sediment, also serve an important
          water quality control function for nonpoint source pollution effects on waters adjacent to, or downstream of,
          the wetlands. Section 319 of the CWA requires the States to complete assessments of nonpoint source
          (NPS) impacts to State waters, including wetlands, and to prepare management programs to control NPS
          impacts. Water quality standards for wetlands can form the basis for these assessments and management
          programs for wetlands.

            In addition, States can address physical and hydrological impacts on wetland quality through the applica-
          tion of narrative criteria to protect existing uses and through application of their anticlegraclation policies.
          The States should provide a linkage in their water quality standards to the determination of "significant
          degradation" as required under EPA guidelines (40 CFR 230. 10(c)) and other applicable State laws aff ecting
          the disposal of dredged or fill materials in wetlands.
            Finally, water quality management activities, including the permitting of wastewater and stormwater
          discharges, the assessment and control of NPS pollution, and waste disposal activities (sewage sludge,
          CERCLA, RCRA) require sufficient monitoring to ensure that the designated and existing uses of "waters of
          the U.S.'' are maintained and protected. The inclusion of wetlands in water quality standards provides the
          basis for conducting both wetland-specific and status and trend monitoring of State wetland resources.
          Monitoring of activities impacting specific wetlands may include several approaches, including biological
          measurements (i.e., plant, macroi nverteb rate, and fish), that have shown promise for monitoring stream
          quality. The States are encouraged to develop and test the use of biological indicators.

            Future Directions
            Development of narrative biological criteria are included in the first phase of the development of water
          quality standards for wetlands. The second phase involves the implementation of numeric biological criteria.
          This effort requires the detailed evaluation of the components of wetland communities to determine the
          structure and function of unimpaired wetlands. Wetlands are important habitats for wildlife species. It is
          therefore also important to consider wildlife in developing criteria that protect the functions and values of









       wetlands. During the next 3 years, the Office of Water Regulations and Standards is reviewing aquatic life
       water quality criteria to.determine whether adjustments in the criteria and/or alternative forms of criteria (e.g.,
       tissue concentration criteria) are needed to adequately protect wildlife species using wetland resources.
       EPA's Office of Water Regulations and Standards is also developing guidance for EPA and State surface
       water monitoring programs that will be issued by the end of FY 1990. Other technical guidance and support
       for the developm  ent of State water quality standards will be forthcoming from EPA in the next triennium.



















































                                                                X







                                                                               0:0-
                                                                 pter i


                                          Introduction





                                                    @A 4,      P   4 a


             0
                      ur understanding of the many benefits that       benefits such as groundwater recharge and recrea-
                      wetlands provide has evolved rapidly over        tion. Wetlands comprise a wide variety of aquatic
                      the last 20 to 30 years.           Recently,     vegetated systems including, but not limited to,
           programs have been developed to restore and                 sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, bogs, fens,
           protect wetland resources at the local, State, and          vernal pools, and marshes. The basic elements of
           Federal levels of government. At the Federal level,         water quality standards (WOS), including desig-
           the President of the United States established the          nated uses, criteria, and an antidegradation policy,
           goal of "no net loss" of wetlands, adapted from the         provide a sound legal basis for protecting wetland
           National Wetlands Policy Forum recommendations              resources through State water quality management
           (The Conservation Foundation 1988). Applying                programs.
           water quality standards to wetlands is part of an
           overall effort to protect the Nation's wetland resOur-         Water quality standards traditionally have been
           ces and provides a regulatory basis for a variety of        applied to waters such as rivers, lakes, estuaries,
           programs for managing wetlands to meet this goal.           and oceans, and have been applied tangentially, if at
                                                                       all, to wetlands by applying the same uses and
             As the link between land and water, wetlands play         criteria to wetlands as to adjacent perennial waters.
           a vital role in water quality management programs.          Isolated wetlands not directly associated with peren-
           Wetlands provide a wide array of functions including        nial waters generally have not been addressed in
           shoreline stabilization, nonpoint source runoff filtra-     State water quality standards. A recent review of
           tion, and erosion control, which directly benefit ad-       State water quality standards (USEPA 1989d) shows
           jacent and downstream waters.         In addition, wet-     that only half of the States specifically refer to wet-
           lands provide important biological habitat, including       lands, or use similar terminology, in their water
           nursery areas for aquatic life and wildlife, and other      quality standards. Even where wetlands are refer-









       enced, standards may not be tailored to reflect the           plementation methods to wetlands, con-
       unique characteristics of wetlands.                           sideration should be given to designating
                                                                     critical wetlands as Outstanding National
          Water quality standards specifically tailored to           Resource Waters. As necessary, the an-
       wetlands provide a consistent basis for the develop-          tidegradation policy should be revised to
       ment of policies and technical procedures for                 reflect the unique characteristics of wetlands.
       managing activities that impact wetlands. Such
       water quality standards provide the goals for                 This level of achievement is based upon existing
       Federal and State programs that regulate dischar-          science and information, and therefore can be com-
       ges to wetlands, particularly those under CWA Sec-         pleted within the FY 91-93 triennial review cycle.
       tions 402 and 404 as well as other regulatory
       programs (e.g., Sections 307, 318, and 405) and               Initial development of water quality standards for
       nonregulatory programs (e.g., Sections 314, 319,           wetlands over the next 3 years will provide the foun-
       and 320). In addition, standards play a critical role      dation for the development of more detailed water
       in the State 401 certification process by providing        quality standards for wetlands in the future based on
       the basis for approving, conditioning, or denying          further research and policy development (see Chap-
       Federal permits and licenses, as appropriate. Final-       ter 7.0.). Activities defined in this guidance are
       ly, standards provide a benchmark against which to         referred to as "Phase 1 activities," while those to be
       assess the many activities that impact wetlands.           developed over the longer term are referred to as
                                                                  "Phase 2 activities." Developing water quality stand-
       1.1 Objectives                                             ards is an iterative process.
         The objective of this document is to assist States          This guidance is not regulatory, nor is it designed
       in applying their water quality standards regulations      to dictate specific approaches needed in State water
       to wetlands in accordance with the Agency Operat-          quality standards. The document addresses the
       ing Guidance (USEPA 1990a), which states:                  minimum requirements set out in the Operating
           By September 30, 1993, States and qualified            Guidance, and should be used as a guide to the
           Indian Tribes must adopt narrative water               modifications that may be needed in State stand-
           quality standards that apply directly to wet-          ards. EPA recognizes that State water quality stand-
           lands. Those Standards shall be established            ards regulations vary greatly from State to State, as
           in accordance with either the National                 do wetland resources. This guidance suggests ap-
           Guidance. Water Quality Standards for Wet-             proaches that States may wish to use and allows for
           lands... or some other scientifically valid            State flexibility and innovation.
           method. In adopting water quality standards            1.2 Organization
           for wetlands, States and qualified Indian
           Tribes, at a minimum, shall: (1) define wet-              Each chapter of this document provides guidance
           lands as "State waters"; (2) designate uses            on a particular element of Phase I wetland water
           that protect the structure and function of wet-        quality standards that EPA expects States to under-
           lands; (3) adopt aesthetic narrative criteria          take during the next triennial review period (i.e., by
           (the "free froms') and appropriate numeric             September 30, 1993). For each chapter, a discus-
           criteria in the standards to protect the desig-        sion of what EPA considers to be minimally accept.
           nated uses; (4) adopt narrative biological             able is followed by subsections providing informa-
           criteria in the standards; and (5) extend the          tion that may be used to meet, and go beyond, the
           antidegradation policy and implementation              minimum requirements during Phase 1. Documents
           methods to wetlands. Unless results of a use           referenced in this guidance provide further informa-
           attainability analysis show that the section           tion on specific topics and may be obtained from the
           10 1 (a) goals cannot be achieved, States and          sources listed in the "References" section. The fol-
           qualified Indian Tribes shall designate uses           lowing paragraphs introduce each of the chapters of
           for wetlands that provide for the protection of        this guidance.
           fish, shellfish, wildlife, and recreation. When           Most wetlands fall within the definition of "waters
           extending the antidegradation policy and im-           of the U.S." and thus require water quality stand-

                                                               2







           ards. EPA expects States by the end of     FY 1993 to      as well as experience developed through State
           include wetlands in their definition of ,State waters"     programs. Chapter 7.0 outlines Phase 2 wetland
           consistent with the Federal definition of "waters of       standards activities for which EPA is planning addi-
           the U.S.,, Guidance on the inclusion of wetlands in        tional research and program development.
           the definition of "State waters" is contained in Chap-
           ter 2.0.                                                   1.3 Legal Authority
             The application of water quality standards to wet-         The Clean Water Act requires States to develop
           lands requires that States designate appropriate           water quality standards, which include designated
           uses consistent with Sections 101(a)(2) and                uses and criteria to support those uses, for
           303(c)(2) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). EPA ex-            "navigable waters." CWA Section 502(7) defines
           pects States by the end of FY 1993 to establish            "navigable waters" as "waters of the U.S." ''Waters of
           designated uses for all wetlands. Discussion of            the U.S." are, in turn, defined in Federal regulations
           designated uses is contained in Chapter 3.0.               developed for the National Pollution Discharge
                                                                      Elimination System (40 CFR 122.2) and permits for
             The WOS regulation (40 CFR 131) requires States          the discharge of dredged or fill material (40 CFR
           to adopt water quality criteria sufficient to protect      230.3 and 232-2). "Waters of the U.S." include
           designated uses. EPA expects the States, by the            waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; inter-
           end of FY 1993, to adopt aesthetic narrative criteria      state waters (including interstate wetlands) and in-
           (the "free froms"), appropriate numeric criteria, and      trastate waters (including wetlands), the use,
           narrative biological criteria for wetlands. Narrative      destruction, or degradation of which could affect
           criteria are particularly important for wetlands, since    interstate commerce; tributaries of the above-, and
           many activities may impact upon the physical and           wetlands adjacent to the above waters (other than
           biological, as well as chemical, components of             waters which are themselves waters). See Appendix
           water quality. Chapter 4.0 discusses the application       B for a complete definition.
           of narrative and numeric criteria to wetlands.                The term "wetlands'' is defined in 40 CFR
             EPA also expects States to fully apply an-                  232.2(r) as:
           fidegradation policies and implementation methods             Those areas that are inundated or saturated
           to wetlands by the end of FY 1993. Anticlegradation           by surface or ground water at a frequency
           can provide a powerful tool for the protection of             and duration sufficient to support, and that
           wetlands, especially through the requirement for full         under normal circumstances do support, a
           protection of existing uses as well as the States'            prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for
           option of designating wetlands as outstanding na-             life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands
           tional resource waters. Guidance on the application           generally include swamps, marshes, bogs,
           of State anticlegraclation policies to wetlands is con-       and similar areas.
           tained in Chapter 5.0.                                       This definition of "waters of the U.S.," which in-
             Many State water quality standards contain               cfudes7 most wetlands, has been debated in Con-
           policies affecting the application and implementa-         gress and upheld by the courts. In 1977, a proposal
           tion of water quality standards (e.g., variances,          to delete CWA jurisdiction over most wetlands for
           mixing zones). Unless otherwise specified, such            the purpose of the Section 404 permit program was
           policies are presumed to apply to wetlands in the          defeated in the Senate. The debate on the amend-
           same manner as to other waters of the State. States        ment shows a strong congressional awareness of
           should consider whether such policies should be            the value of wetlands and the importance of retain-
           modified to reflect the characteristics of wetlands.       ing them under the statutory scheme.           Various
           Guidance on the implementation of water quality            courts have also upheld the application of the CWA
           standards for wetlands is contained in Chapter 6.0.        to wetlands. See, e.g., United States v. Riverside
             Application of standards to wetlands will be an          Bayview Homes, 474 U.S. 121 (1985): United States
           iterative process: both EPA and the States will refine     v. Byrd, 609 F-2d 1204 (7th Cir. 1979); Avoyelles
           their approach based on new scientific information         Sportsmen's League v. Marsh, 715 F.2d 897 (5th


                                                                   3









         Cir. 1983); United States v. Leslie alt [1990
         decision]. The practical effect is to make nearly all
         wetlands "waters of the U.S."

          Created wastewater treatment wetlandsi
         designed, built, and operated solely as wastewater
         treatment systems are generally not considered to
         be waters of the U.S. Water quality standards that
         apply to natural wetlands generally do not apply to
         such created wastewater treatment wetlands. Many
         created wetlands, however, are designed, built, and
         operated to provide, in addition to wastewater treat-
         ment, functions and values similar to those provided
         by natural wetlands. Under certain circumstances,
         such created multiple use wetlands may be con-
         sidered waters of the U.S. and as such would require
         water quality standards. This determination must be
         made on a case-by-case basis, and may consider
         factors such as the size and degree of isolation of
         the created wetlands and other appropriate factors.






























         1   Different offices within EPA use different terminology (e.g., "create" or "constructed") to describe
             wastewater treatment wetlands. This terminology is evolving; for purposes of this guidance
             document, the terms are interchangeable in meaning.



                                                               4







                  Inclusion of Wetlands in
                       the Definition of State
                                                        Waters











                    he first, and most important, step in apply-            lands or other waterways...
                    ing water quality standards to wetlands is
                    ensuring that wetlands are legally included             ''Wetlands" means areas of land where the
           in the scope of States' water quality standards                  water table is at, near or above the land sur-
           programs. EPA expects States' water quality stand-               face long enough each year to result in the
           ards to include wetlands in the definition of "State             formation of characteristically wet (hydric)
           waters'' by the end of FY 1993. States may ac-                   soil types, and support the growth of water
           complish this by adopting a regulatory definition of             dependent (hydrophytic) vegetation. Wet-
           ''State waters" at least as inclusive as the Federal             lands include, but are not limited to, marshes,
           definition of "waters of the U.S." and by adopting an            swamps, bogs, and other such low-lying
           appropriate definition for "wetlands." For example,              areas.
           one State includes the following definitions in their
           water quality standards:                                        States may also need to remove or modify
                                                                        regulatory language that explicitly or implicitly limits
              "Surface waters of      the State"... means all           the authority of water quality standards over wet-
              streams,... lakes...,   ponds, marshes, wet-              lands. In certain instances, such as when water


                                                                     5









       quality standards are statutory or where a statute          State" in one State includes:
       defines or limits regulatory authority over wetlands,
       statutory changes may be needed.                               ...The flood plain of free flowing waters deter-
                                                                      mined by the Department ... on the basis of the
          The CWA does not preclude States from adopt-                100-year flood frequency.
       ing, under State law, a more expansive definition of
       "waters of the State" to meet the goals of the act.           In another State, the definition of a use classifica-
       Additional areas that could be covered include             tion states:
       riparian areas, floodplains, vegetated buffer areas,
       or any other critical areas identified by the State.           This beneficial use is a combination of the
       Riparian areas and floodplains are important and               characteristics of the watershed expressed in
       severely threatened ecosystems, particularly in the            the water quality and the riparian area.
       arid and semiarid West. Often it is technically dif-          And in a third State, the antidegradation protec-
       ficult to separate, jurisdictionally, wetlands subject      tion for high-quality waters provides that:
       to the provisions of the CWA from other areas within
       the riparian or floodplain complex.                            These waters shall not be lowered in
          States may choose to include riparian or                    quality ... unless it is determined by the com-
       floodplain ecosystems as a whole in the definition of          mission that such lowering will not do any of
       "waters of the State" or designate these areas for             the following:
       special protection in their water quality standards               ... [b]ecome injurious to the value or
       through several mechanisms, including definitions,                utility of riparian lands...
       use classifications, and antidegradation. For ex-
       ample, the regulatory definition of "waters of the

































                                                                 6






                                                      Chap
                                                                   ter@ 3.


                                    Se            C assiflcation
          /1V/1



                                                                   V- ago



                                                                                                                     A

             A
                     t a minimum, EPA expects       States by the      protection need not refer only to year-round fish and
                     end of FY 1993 to designate uses for all          aquatic life. Wetlands often provide valuable
                     wetlands, and to meet the same minimum            seasonal habitat for fish and other aquatic life, am-
            requirements of the WOS regulation (40 CFR                 phibians, and migratory bird reproduction and
            131.10) that are applied to other waters. Uses for         migration.   States should ensure that aquatic life
            wetlands must meet the goals of Section 101 (a)(2)         and wildlife uses are designated for wetlands even if
            of the CWA by providing for the protection and             a limited habitat is available or the use is attained
            propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and for       only seasonally.
            recreation in and on the water, unless the results of
            a use attainability analysis (UAA) show that the CWA         Recreation in and on the water, on the other hand,
            Section 101(a)(2) goals cannot be achieved. The            may not be attainable in certain wetlands that do not
            Water Quality Standards Regulation (40 CFR                 have sufficient water, at least seasonally. However,
            131.10(c)) allows for the designation of sub-              States are also encouraged to recognize and
            categories of a use, an activity that may be ap-           protect recreational uses that do not directly involve
            propriate for wetlands.      Pursuant to the WOS           contact with water, e.g., hiking, camping, bird
            Regulation (40 CFR 131.10(i)), States must desig-          watching.
            nate any uses that are presently being attained in
            the wetland. A technical support d6cument is cur-            The WOS regulation requires a UAA wherever a
            rently being developed by the Office of Water              State designates a use that does not include the
            Regulations and Standards for conducting use at-           uses specified in Section 101(a)(2) of the CWA: see
            tainability analyses for wetlands.                         40 CFR Part 131.10fl). This need not be an onerous
                                                                       task for States when deciding whether certain
              The propagation of aquatic life and wildlife is an       recreational uses are attainable. States may con-
            attainable use in virtually all wetlands. Aquatic life     duct generic UAAs for entire classes or types of


                                                                    7









       wetlands based on the demonstrations in 40 CFR             wetlands; and (2) the functions and values as-
       Part 131 - 1 0(g) (2). States must, however, designate     sociated with such types of wetlands. The functions
       CWA goal uses wherever these are attainable, even          and values of wetlands are often defined based
       where attainment may be seasonal.                          upon structural type and location within the
                                                                  landscape or watershed. The understanding of the
          When designating uses for wetlands, States may          various wetland types within the State and their
       choose to use their existing general and water-            functions and values provides the basis for a com-
       specific classification systems, or they may set up        prehensive classification system applicable to all
       an entirely different system for wetlands. Each of         wetlands and all wetland uses. As with other waters,
       these approaches has advantages and disad-                 both general and waterbody-specific classifications
       vantages, as discussed below.                              may be needed to ensure that uses are appropriate-
                                                                  ly assigned to all wetlands in the State. Appropriate
          Some States stipulate that    wetlands are desig-       and definitive use designations allow water quality
       nated for the same uses as      the adjacent waters.       standards to more accurately reflect both the "exist-
       States may also apply their existing general clas-         ing" uses and the States' goals for their wetland
       sification system to designate uses for specific wet-      resources, and to allow standards to be a more
       lands or groups of wetlands. The advantage of              powerful tool in protecting State wetlands. Sections
       these approaches is that they do not require States        3.1 through 3.3 provide further information on wet-
       to expend additional effort to develop specific wet-       land types, functions, and values, and how these
       land uses, or determine specific functions and             can be used to designate uses for wetlands.
       values, and can be generally used to designate the
       CWA goal uses for wetlands. However, since wet-            3.1 Wetland Types
       land attributes may be significantly different than
       those of other waters, States with general wetland           A detailed understanding of the various wetland
       use designations will need to review the uses for          types within the State provides the basis for a com-
       individual wetlands in more detail when assessing          prehensive classification system. The classification
       activities that may impair the specific "existing uses"    system most often cited and used by Federal and
       (e.g., functions and values). In addition, the "ad-        State wetland permit programs was developed by
       jacent" approach does not produce uses for "iso-           Cowardin et al. (1979) for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
       lated" wetlands.                                           Service (FWS)--, see Figure 1. This system provides
                                                                  the basis for wetland-related activities within the
          Owing to these differences in attributes, States        FWS. The Cowardin system is hierarchical and thus
       should strongly consider adopting a separate use           can provide several levels of detail in classifying
       classification system for wetlands based on wetland        wetlands. The "System" and "Subsystem" levels of
       type and/or beneficial use (function and value). This      detail appear to be the most promising for water
       approach initially requires more effort in developing      quality standards. The "Class" level may be useful
       use categories (and specific criteria that may be          for designating uses for specific wetlands or wetland
       needed for them), as well as in determining what           types. Section 3.3 gives an example of how one
       uses to assign to specific wetlands or groups of           State uses the Cowardin system to generate desig-
       wetlands. The greater the specificity in designating       nated uses for wetlands.
       uses, however, the easier it is for States to justify         Under the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act        I of
       regulatory controls to protect those uses. States
       may wish to designate beneficial uses for individual-      1986, the FWS is required to complete the mapping
       ly named wetlands, including outstanding wetlands          of wetlands within the lower 48 States by 1998
       (see Section 6.3), although this approach may be           through the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) and
       practical only for a limited number of wetlands. For       to assess the status of the nation's wetland resour-
       the majority of their wetlands, States may wish to         ces every 10 years. The maps and status and trend
       designate generalized uses for groups of wetlands          reports may help States understand the extent of
       based on region or wetland type.                           their wetlands and wetland types and ensure that all
                                                                  wetlands are assigned appropriate uses. To date,
          Two basic pieces of information are useful in           over 30,000 detailed 1:24,000 scale maps have been
       classifying wetland uses: (1) the structural types of      completed, covering approximately 60 percent of


                                                                8













                                             System                                      Subsystem                                  Class

                                                                                                                                    Rock Bottom
                                                                                         Subtidal                                 @:Unconsoiidated Bottom
                                                                                                                                    Aquatic Bed
                                                                                                                                  tReef
                                             Marine
                                                                                                                                    Aquatic Bed
                                                                                         Interticial                              - Reef
                                                                                                                                  - Rocky Shore
                                                                                                                                  -Unconsolidated Shore


                                                                                                                                    Rock Bottom
                                                                                         Subtidal-                                -Unconsolidated Bottom
                                                                                                                                  -Aquatic Bed
                                                                                                                                  - Reef


                                                                                                                                    Aquatic Bed
                                         -Estuarine                                                                               - Reef
                                                                                                                                  - Streambed
                                                                                         k  erticial                              - Rocky Shore
                                                                                                                                  -Unconsolidated Shore
                                                                                                                                    Emergent Wetiand
                                                                                                                                    Scrub-Shrub Wetland
                                                                                                                                    Forested Wetland


                                                                                                                                    Rock Bottom
                                                                                                                                    Unconsolidated Bottom
                                                                                                                                    Aquatic Bed
                                                                                         Tidal
                                 <                                                                                                - Rocky Shore
                                                                                                                                  - Unconsolidated Shore
                                                                                                                                  - Emergent Wetland
                                 E-
                                 <                                                                                                  Rock Bottom
                                                                                                                                  - Unconsolidated Bottom
                                                                                                                                  - Aquatic Bed
                                                                                         Lower Perennial                            Rocky Shore
                                             Riverine                                                                               Unconsolidated Shore
                                                                                                                                    Emergent Wetland

                                                                                                                                    Rock Bottom
                                                                                                                                    Unconsolidated Bottom
                                                                               -Upper Perennial                                     Aquatic Bed
                                                                                                                                  - Rocky Shore
                                                                                                                                  - Unconsolidated Shore


                                                                               -Intermittent                              -Streambed

                                                                                                                                  f- Rock Bottom
                                                                                         Limnetic                                   Unconsolidated Bottom
                                         -Lacustrine                                                                              L Aquatic Bed
                                                                                                                                    Rock Bottom
                                                                                                                                  -Unconsolidated Bottom
                                                                                         Littoral                                 -Aquatic Bed
                                                                                                                                  - Rocky Shore
                                                                                                                                  - Unconsolidated Shore
                                                                                                                                  - Emergent Wetland

                                                                                                                                    Rock Bottom
                                                                                                                                  - Unconsolidated Bottom
                                                                                                                                  -Aquatic Bed
                                                                                                                                  - Unconsolidated Shore
                                         L Palustrino                                                                             - Moss-Lichen Wetland
                                                                                                                                  - Emergent Wotland
                                                                                                                                  -Scrub-Shrub Wetland
                                                                                                                                  '- Forested Wetland



                                                                Figure 1. Classification hierarchy of wetlands and
                   deepwater habitats, showing Systems, Subsystems, and Classes. The Palustrine System does not include deepwater
                                                                         habitats (from Cowardin et al., 1979).


                                                                                                 9









        the coterminous United States and 16 percent of
        Alaska 2.                                                   3.2 Wetland Functions and
          In some States, wetland maps developed under              Values
        the NWI program have been digitized and are avail-            Many approaches have been developed for iden-
        able for use with geographic information systems            tifying wetland functions and values. Wetland
        (GIS). To date, more than 5,700 wetland maps rep-           evaluation techniques developed prior to 1983 have
        resenting 10.5 percent of the coterminous United            been summarized by Lonard and Clairain (1985),
        States have been digitized. Statewide digital               and    EPA     has    summarized          assessment
        databases have been developed for New Jersey,               methodologies developed since 1983 (see Appendix
        Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, and Washington, and           C). EPA has also developed guidance on the selec-
        are in progress in Indiana and Virginia. NWI digital        tion of a methodology for activities under the Sec-
        data files also are available for portions of 20 other      tion 404 program entitled Draft Guidance to EPA
        States. NWI data files are sold at cost in 7.5-minute       Regional Offices on the Use of Advance Identifica-
        quadrangle units. The data are provided on mag-             tion Authorities Under Section 404 of the Clean
        netic tape in MOSS export, DLG3 optional, ELAS,             Water Act (USEPA 1989a). States may develop their
        and IGES formats   3. Digital wetlands data may ex-         own techniques for assessing the functions and
        pedite assigning uses to wetlands for both general          values of their wetlands.
        and wetland-specific FIC classifications.
                                                                      General wetland functions that directly relate to
          The classification of wetlands may benefit from           the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of
        the use of salinity concentrations. The Cowardin            wetlands are listed below. The protection of these
        classification system uses a salinity criterion of 0.5      functions through water quality standards also may
        ppt ocean-derived salinity to differentiate between         be needed to attain the uses of waters adjacent to,
        estuarine and freshwater wetlands. Differences in           or downstream of, wetlands.
        salinity are reflected in the species composition of
        plants and animals. The use of salinity in the clas-
        sification of wetlands may be useful in restricting             * Groundwater Recharge/Discharge
        activities that would alter the salinity of a wetland to        * Flood Flow Alteration
        such a degree that the wetland type would change.               * Sediment Stabilization
        These activities include, for example, the construc-            * Sediment/Toxic Retention
                                                                        * Nutrient Removal/Transformation
        tion of dikes to convert a saltwater marsh to a fresh-          * Wildlife Diversity/Abundance
        water marsh or the dredging of channels that would              * Aquatic Diversity/Abundance
        deliver saltwater to freshwater wetlands.                       9 Recreation

                                                                      Methodologies that are flexible with regard to
                                                                    data requirements and include several levels of
                                                                    detail have the greatest potential for application to
                                                                    standards. One such methodology is the Wetland
                                                                    Evaluatio .n Technique developed by Adamus, et al.
                                                                    (1987) for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the


        2    Information on the availability of draft and final maps may be obtained for the coterminous United
             States by calling 1-800-USA-MAPS or 703-860-6045 in Virginia. In Alaska, the number is
             907-271-4159, and in Hawaii the number is 808-548-2861. Further information on the FWS National
             Wetlands Inventory (NWI) may be obtained from the FWS Regional Coordinators listed in Appendix D.

        3    For additional information on digital wetland data contact: USFWS; National Wetlands Inventory
             Program, 9720 Executive Center Drive, Monroe Building, Suite 101, St. Petersburg, FL 33702;
             813-893-3624, FTS 826-3624.




                                                                  10








           Department of Transportation. The Wetland Evalua-
           tion Technique was designed for conducting an ini-            3.3 Designating Wetland Uses
           tial rapid assessment of wetland functions and                  The functions and values of specif;-311y identified
           values in terms of social significance, effectiveness,        and named wetlands, including t@o_se identified
           and opportunity. Social significance assesses the             within the State's water-specific classification sys-
           value of a wetland to society in terms of its special         tem and outstanding national resource water
           designation, potential economic value, and strategic          (ONRW) category, may be defined using the Wet-
           location. Effectiveness assesses the capability of a          land Evaluation Technique or similar methodology.
           wetland to perform a function because of its physi-           For the general classification of wetlands, however,
           cal, chemical, or biological characteristics. Oppor-          States may choose to evaluate wetland function and
           tunity assesses the [opportunity] of a wetland to             values for all the wetlands within the State based on
           perform a function to its level of capability. This           wetland type (using Cowardin (1979); see Figure 1).
           assessment results in "high," "moderate," or "low"            One State applies its general use classifications to
           ratings for 11 wetland functions in the context of            different wetland types based on Cowardin's system
           social significance, effectiveness, and opportunity.          level of detail as illustrated in Figure 2. Note that the
           This technique also may be useful in identifying out-         State's uses are based on function, and the designa-
           standing wetlands for protection under State an-              tion approach links specific wetland functions to a
           ticlegradation policies; see Section 5.3.                     given wetland type. The State evaluates wetlands
             The FWS maintains a Wetlands Values Database                on a case-by-case basis as individual permit
           that also may be useful in identifying wetland func-          decisions arise to ensure that designated uses are
           tions and in designating wetland uses. The data are           being protected and have reflected existing uses.
           keyed to the Cowardin-based wetland codes iden-
           tified on the National Wetland Inventory maps. The
           database contains scientific literature on wetland
           functions and values. It is computerized and con-
           tains over 18,000 citations, of which 8,000 are an-
           notated. For further information, contact the NWI
           Program (see Section 3. 1) or the FWS National Ecol-
                                   4
           ogy Research Center       . In addition, State wetland
           programs, EPA Regional wetiand coordinators, and
           FWS Regional wetland coordinators can provide in-
           formation on wetland functions and values on a
           State or regional basis; see Appendix D.














           4    USFWS: Wetlands Values Database, National Ecology Research Center, 4512 McMurray, Ft. Collins,
                CO 80522; 303-226-9407.
















                                                            WETLAND TYPE (Cowardini

      BENEFICIAL USE                        MARINE ESrUARINE 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


      Non-Contact Water 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





                                     Figure 2. Example Existing and Potential Uses of Wetlands




                                                                 12








             Alternatively, a third method may use the location
           of wetlands within the landscape as the basis for
           establishing general functions and values applicable
           to all the wetlands within a defined region. EPA has
           developed a guidance entitled Regionalization 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 Re-
           search and Development, to direct State water
           quality standards and monitoring programs. These
           approaches also may be useful in the classification
           of wetlands.

              EPA's Office of Research and Development is cur-
           rently refining a draft document that will provide
           useful information to States related to use classifica-
           tion methodologies (Adamus and Brandt - Draft).
           There are likely many other approaches for desig-
           nating uses for wetlands, and the States are en-
           couraged to develop comprehensive classification
           systems tailored to their wetland resources. As with
           other surface waters, many wetlands are currently
           degraded by natural and anthropogenic activities.
           The classification of wetlands should reflect the
           potential uses attainable for a particular wetland,
           wetland type, or class of wetland.



























                                                                     13




                                                      i
                                                      I
                                                      I
                                                      I
                                                      I
                                                      I
                                                      I
                                                      I
                                                      I
                                                      I
                                                      I
                                                      I
                                                      I
                                                      I
                                                      I
                                                      I
                                                      I
                                                      1
                          14
                                                      I







                                                                               :4 0
                                                         Chapter


                                                       Criteria


           A A&                                    I




                                                                            lit

              T
                     he Water Quality Standards Regulation (40
                     CFR 131.11 (a)(1)) requires States to adopt            4.1 Narrative Criteria
                     criteria sufficient to protect designated                Narrative criteria are general statements designed
            uses. These criteria may include general statements             to protect a specific designated use or set of uses.
            (narrative) and specific numerical values (i.e., con-           They can be statements prohibiting certain actions
            centrations of contaminants and water quality char-             or conditions (e.g., "free from substances that
            acteristics). At a minimum, EPA expects States to               produce undesirable or nuisance aquatic life") or
            apply aesthetic narrative criteria (the "free froms")           positive statements about what is expected to occur
            and appropriate numeric criteria to wetlands and to             in the water (e.g., ''water quality and aquatic life shall
            adopt narrative biological criteria for wetlands by             be as it naturally occurs").      Narrative criteria are
            the end of FY 1993. Most State water quality stand-             used to identify impacts on designated uses and as
            ards already contain many criteria for various water            a regulatory basis for controlling a variety of impacts
            types and designated use classes, including narra-              to State waters. Narrative criteria are particularly
            tive criteria and numeric criteria to protect human             important in wetlands, since many wetland impacts
            health and freshwater and saltwater aquatic life, that          cannot be fully addressed by numeric criteria. Such
            may be applicable to wetlands.                                  impacts may result from the discharge of chemicals
              In many cases, it may be necessary to use a com-              for which there are no numeric criteria in State
            bination of numeric and narrative criteria to ensure            standards, from nonpoint sources, and from ac-
            that wetland functions and values are adequately                tivities that may affect the physical and/or biological,
            protected. Section 4.1 describes the application of             rather than the chemical, aspects of water quality
            narrative criteria to wetlands and Section 4.2 discus-          (e.g., discharge of dredged and fill material). The
            ses application of numeric criteria for protection of           Water Quality Standards Regulation (40 CFR
            human health and aquatic life.                                  131 .11 (b)) states that "States should ... include narra-










          tive criteria in their standards where numeric criteria               ments about the biological community existing or
          cannot be established or to supplement numeric                        attainable in wetlands.
          criteria."
                                                                                  Narrative biological criteria should contain at-
             4.1.1 General Narrative Criteria                                   tributes that support the goals of the Clean Water
             Narrative criteria within the water quality stand-                 Act, which provide for the protection and propaga-
          ards program date back to at least 1968 when five                     tion of fish, shellfish, and wildlife. Therefore, narra-
          "free froms" were included in Water Quality Criteria                  tive criteria should include specific language about
          (the Green Book), (FWPCA 1968). These "free                           community characteristics that (1) must exist in a
          froms" have been included as "aesthetic criteria" in                  wetland to meet a particular designated aquatic
          EPA's most recent Section 304(a) criteria summary                     life/wildlife use, and (2) are quantifiable. Supporting
          document, Quality Criteria for Water - 1986 (USEPA                    statements for the criteria should promote water
          1987a). The narrative criteria from these documents                   quality to protect the most natural community as-
          state:                                                                sociated with the designated use.                Mechanisms
                                                                                should be established in the standard to address
             All waters [shall be] free from substances at-                     potentially conflicting multiple uses. Narratives
             tributable to wastewater or other discharge                        should be written to protect the most sensitive
             that:                                                              designated use and to support existing uses under
                                                                                State antidegradation policies.
             (1)   settle to form objectionable deposits;                         In addition to other narrative criteria, narrative
             (2)   float as debris, scum, oil, or other matter to               biological criteria provide a further basis for manag-
                   form nuisances;                                              ing a broad range of activities that impact the
                                                                                biological   integrity of wetlands and other surface
             (3)   produce objectionable color, odor, taste, or                 waters, particularly physical and hydrologic
                   turbidity;                                                   modifications. For instance, hydrologic criteria are
                                                                                one particularly important but often overlooked
             (4)   injure or are toxic or produce adverse                       component to include in water quality standards to
                   physiological responses in humans,                           help maintain -wetlands quality. Hydrology is the
                   animals or plants; and                                       primary factor influencing the type and location of
             (5)   produce undesirable or nuisance aquatic                      wetlands. Maintaining appropriate hydrologic con-
                                                                                ditions in wetlands is critical to the maintenance of
                   life.                                                        wetland functions and values. Hydrologic manipula-
             The   Water Quality Standards Handbook (USEPA                      tions to wetlands have occurred nationwide in the
          1983b) recommends that States apply narrative                         form of flow alterations and diversions, disposal of
          criteria to all waters of the United States. If these or              dredged or fill material, dredging of canals through
          similar criteria are already applied to all State waters              wetlands, and construction of levees or dikes.
          in a State's standards, the inclusion of wetlands in                  Changes in base flow or flow regime can severely
          the definition of "waters of the State" will apply these              alter the plant and animal species composition of a
          criteria to wetlands.                                                 wetland, and destroy the entire wetland system if the
                                                                                change is great enough. States should consider the
             4.1.2 Narrative Biological Criteria                                establishment of criteria to regulate hydrologic al-
             Narrative biological criteria are general               state-     terations to wetlands. One State has adopted the
          ments of attainable or attained conditions of biologi-                following language and criteria to maintain and
          cal integrity and water quality for a given use desig-                protect the natural hydrologic conditions and values
                                                                                of wetlands:
          nation. Narrative biological criteria can take a num-
          ber of forms. As a sixth "free from," the criteria                        Natural hydrological conditions necessary to
          could read "free from activities that would substan-                      support the biological and physical charac-
          tially impair the biological community as it naturally                    teristics naturally present in wetlands shall be
          occurs due to physical, chemical, and hydrologic                          protected to prevent significant adverse im-
          changes," or the criteria may contain positive state-                     pacts on:


                                                                             16









                                                                        4.2.1 Numeric Criteria -Human
             (1)   Water currents, erosion or sedimentation             Health
                   patterns;                                            Human health water quality criteria are based on
             (2)   Natural water temperature variations;              the toxicity of a contaminant and the amount of the
                                                                      contaminant consumed through ingestion of water
             (3)   The chemical, nutrient and dissolved               and fish regardless of the type of water. Therefore,
                   oxygen regime of the wetland;                      EPA's chemical-specific human health criteria are
                                                                      directly applicable to wetlands. A summary of EPA
             (4)   The normal movement of aquatic fauna;              human health criteria recommendations is con-
             (5)   The pH of the wetland; and                         tained in Quality Criteria for Water - 1986.
                                                                        Few wetlands are used directly for drinking water
             (6)   Normal water levels or elevations.                 supplies. Where drinking water is a designated or
                                                                      existing use for a wetland or for adjacent waters
             One   source of information for developing more          affected by the wetland, however, States must pro-
          quantifiable hydrologic criteria is the Instrearn Flow      vide criteria sufficient to protect human health based
          Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which        on water consumption (as well as aquatic life con-
          can provide technical guidance on the minimum               sumption if appropriate). When assessing the
          flows necessary to attain various water uses.               potential for water consumption, States should also
                                                                      evaluate the wetland's groundwater recharge func-
             Narrative criteria, in conjunction with antidegrada-     tion to assure protection of drinking water supplies
          tion policies, can provide the basis for determining        from that source as well.
          the impacts of activities (such as hydrologic
          modifications) on designated and existing uses.               The application of human health criteria, based on
          EPA has published national guidance on developing           consumption of aquatic life, to wetlands is a function
          biological criteria for all surface waters (USEPA           of the level of detail in the States' designated uses.
          1990b). EPA's Office of Research and Development            If all wetlands are designated under the State's
          also has produced a literature synthesis of wetland         general "aquatic life/wildlife" designation, consump-
          biomonitoring data on a State-by-State basis, which         tion of that'aquatic life is assumed to be an included
          is intended to support the development of narrative         use and the State's human health criteria based on
          biological criteria (Adamus and Brandt - Draft).            consumption of aquatic life will apply throughout.
                                                                      However, States that adopt a more detailed use
          4.2 Numeric Criteria                                        classification system for wetlands (or wish to derive
             Numeric criteria are specific numeric values for         site-specific human health criteria for wetlands) may
          chemical constituents, physical parameters, or              wish to selectively apply human health criteria to
          biological conditions that are adopted in State             those wetlands where consumption of aquatic life is
          standards. These may be values not to be exceeded           designated or likely to occur (note that a UAA will be
          (e.g., toxics), values that must be exceeded (e.g.,         required where CWA goal uses are not designated).
          dissolved oxygen), or a combination of the two              States may also wish to adjust the exposure as-
          (e.g., pH). As with all criteria, numeric criteria are      sumptions used in deriving human health criteria.
          adopted to protect one or more designated uses.             Where it is known that exposure to individuals at a
          Under Section 304(a) of the Clean Water Act, EPA            certain site, or within a certain category of wetland,
          publishes numeric national criteria recommenda-             is likely to be different from the assumed exposure
          tions designed to protect aquatic o'rganisms and            underlying the States' criteria, States may wish to
          human health. These criteria are summarized in              consider a reasonable estimate of the actual ex-
          Quality Criteria for Water - 1986 (USEPA 1987a).            posure and take this estimate into account when
          These criteria serve as guidelines from which States        calculating the criteria for the site.
          can develop their own numeric criteria, taking into           4.2.2 Numeric Criteria - Aquatic Life
          account the particular uses designated by the State.          EPA develops chemical -specific numeric criteria
                                                                      recommendations for the protection of freshwater


                                                                   17









        and saltwater aquatic life. These criteria may be              water quality characteristics. However, two national
        divided into two basic categories: (1) chemicals               criteria that are pH dependent, ammonia and pen-
        that cause toxicity to aquatic life such as metals,            tachlorophenol, present a different situation. The
        ammonia, chlorine, and organics; and (2) other                 pH in some wetlands may be outside the pH range
        water quality characteristics such as dissolved                of 6.5-9.0 units for which these criteria were derived
        oxygen, alkalinity, salinity, pH, and temperature.             It is recommended that States conduct additional
        These criteria are currently applied directly to a             toxicity testing if they wish to derive criteria for am-
        broad range of surface waters in State standards,              monia and pentachlorophenol outside the 6.5-9.0
        including lakes, impoundments, ephemeral and                   pH range, unless data are already available.
        perennial rivers and streams, estuaries, the oceans,.
        and in some instances, wetlands. A summary of                     States may also develop scientifically defensible
        EPA's aquatic life criteria recommendations is pub-            site-specific criteria for parameters whose State-
        lished in Quality Criteria for Water - 1986. The               wide values may be inappropriate. Site-specific ad-
        numeric aquatic life criteria, although not designed           justments may be made based on the water quality
        specifically for wetlands, were designed to be                 and biological conditions in a specific water, or in
        protective of aquatic life and are generally ap-               waters within a particular region or ecoregion. EPA
        plicable to most wetland types.                                has developed guidance on the site-specific adjust-
                                                                       ment of the national criteria (USEPA 1983b). These
           EPA's aquatic life criteria are most often based            methods are applicable to wetlands and should be
        upon toxicological testing under controlled condi-             used in the same manner as States use them for
        tions in the laboratory. The EPA guidelines for the            other waters. As defined in the Handbook, three
        development of such criteria (Stephan et al., 1985)            procedures may be used to develop site-specific
        require the testing of plant, invertebrate, and fish           criteria:  (1) the recalculation procedures, (2) the
        species. Generally, these criteria are supported by            indicator species procedures, and (3) the resident
        toxicity tests on invertebrate and early life stage fish       species procedures. These procedures may be
        commonly found in many wetlands. Adjustments                   used to develop site-specific numeric criteria for
        based on natural conditions, water chemistry, and              specific wetlands or wetland types. The recalcula-
        biological community conditions may be ap-                     tion procedure is used to make adjustments based
        propriate for certain criteria as discussed below.             upon differences between the toxicity to resident
        EPA's Office of Research and Development is cur-               organisms and'those used to derive national criteria.
        rently finalizing a draft document that provides addi-         The indicator species procedure is used to account
        tional technical guidance on this topic, including             for differences in the bioavailability and/or toxicity of
        site-specific adjustments of criteria (Hagley and              a contaminant based upon the physical and chemi-
        Taylor - Draft).                                               cal characteristics of site water.         The resident
                                                                       species procedure accounts for differences in both
           As in other waters, natural water quality charac-           species sensitivity and water quality characteristics.
        teristics in some wetlands may be outside the range
        established for uses designated in State standards.
        These water quality characteristics may require the
        development of criteria that reflect the natural back-
        ground conditions in a specific wetland or wetland
        type. States routinely set criteria for specific waters
        based on natural conditions. Examples of some of
        the wetland characteristics that may fall into this
        category are dissolved oxygen, pH, turbidity, color,
        and hydrogen sulfide.

           Many of EPA's aquatic life criteria are based on
        equations that take into account salinity, pH,
        temperature and/or hardness. These may be directly
        applied to wetlands in the same way as other water
        types with adjustments in the criteria to reflect these



                                                                    18







                                 Antidegradation








                    he antidegradation policies contained in all       quality in  high-quality waters, and a prohibition
                    State standards provide a powerful tool for        against lowering water quality in outstanding nation-
                    the protection of wetlands and can be used         al resource waters. EPA guidance on the implemen-
           by   tates to regulate point and nonpoint source            tation of antidegradation policies is contained in the
           discharges to wetlands in the same way as other             Water Quality Standards Handbook (USEPA 1983b)
           surface waters. In conjunction with beneficial uses         and Questions and Answers on: Antidegradation
           and narrative criteria, antidegradation can be used         (USEPA 1985a).
           to address impacts to wetlands that cannot be fully
           addressed by chemical criteria, such as physical            5.1 Protection of Existing Uses
           and hydrologic modifications. The implications of              State antidegradation policies should provide for
           antidegradation to the disposal of dredged and fill         the protection of existing uses in wetlands and the
           material are discussed in Section 5.1 below. At a           level of water quality necessary to protect those
           minimum, EPA expects States to fully apply their            uses in the same manner as for other surface
           antidegradation policies and implementation                 waters; see Section 131.12(a)(1) of the WOS regula-
           methods to wetlands by the end of FY 1993. No               tion. The existing use can be determined by
           changes to State policies are required if they are          demonstrating that the use or uses have actually
           fully consistent with the Federal policy. With the          occurred since November 28, 1975, or that the water
           inclusion of wetlands as "waters of the State," State       quality is suitable to allow the use to be attained.
           antidegradation policies and their implementation           This is the basis of EPA's antidegradation policy and
           methods will apply to wetlands in the same way as           is important in the wetland protection effort. States,
           other surface waters.         The WOS regulation            especially those that adopt less detailed use clas-
           describes the requirements for State antidegrada-           sifications for wetlands, will need to use the existing
           tion policies, which include full protection of existing    use protection in their antidegradation policies to
           uses (functions and values), maintenance of water           ensure protection of wetland values and functions.

                                                                    19









            Determination of an existing aquatic life and                 aquatic ecosystems, including the transfer,
        wildlife use may require physical, chemical, and                  concentration or spread of pollutants or their
        biological evaluations through a waterbody survey                 byproducts beyond the site through biologi-
        and assessment. Waterbody survey and assess-                      cal, physical, or chemical process; (3) on
        ment guidance may be found in three volumes en-                   ecosystem diversity, productivity and
        titled Technical Support Manual for Conducting Use                stability, including loss of fish and wildlife
        Attainability Analyses (USEPA 1983b, 1984a,                       habitat or loss of the capacity of a wetland to
        1984b). A technical support manual for conducting                 assimilate nutrients, purify water or reduce
        use attainability analyses for wetlands is currently              wave energy; or (4) on recreational, aes-
        under development by the Office of Water Regula-                  thetic, and economic values.
        tions and Standards.                                              These Guidelines may be used by States to deter-
            In the case of wetland fills, EPA allows a slightly        mine "significant degradation" for wetland fills. Of
        different interpretation of existing uses under the            course, the States are free to adopt stricter require-
        antidegradation policy. This interpretation has been           ments for wetland fills in their own antidegradation
        addressed in the answer to question no. 13 in Ques-            policies, just as they may adopt any other require-
        tions and Answers on: Antidegradation (USEPA                   ments more stringent than Federal law requires. For
        1985a), and is presented below:                                additional information on the linkage between water
                                                                       quality standards and the Section 404 program, see
            Since a literal interpretation of the an-                  Section 6.2 of this guidance.
            tidegradation policy could result in prevent-
            ing the issuance of any wetland fill permit                5.2 Protection of High-Quality
            under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and              Wetlands
            it is logical to assume that Congress intended
            some such permits to be granted within the                    State antidegradation policies should provide for
            framework of the Act, EPA interprets 40 CFR                water quality in "high quality wetlands'* to be main-
            131.12(a)(1) of the antidegradation policy to              tained and protected, as prescribed in Section
            be satisfied with regard to fills in wetlands if           131.12(a)(2) of the WOS regulation. State im-
            the discharge did not result in "significant               plementation methods requiring alternatives
            degradation" to the aquatic ecosystem as                   analyses, social and economic justifications, point
            defined under Section 230.10(c) of the Sec-                and nonpoint source control, and public participa-
            tion 404(b)(1) guidelines. If any wetlands                 tion are to be applied to wetlands in the same man-
            were found to have better water quality than               ner they are applied to other surface waters.
            "fishablelswimmable," the State would be a/-
            lowed to lower water quality to the no sig-                5.3 Protection of Outstanding
            nificant degradation level as long as the re-              Wetlands
            quirements of Section 131.12(a)(2) were fol-
            lowed. As for the ONRW provision of an-                       Outstanding national resource waters (ONRW)
            tidegradation (131.12(a)(3)), there is no dif-             designations offer special protection (i.e., no
            ference in the way it applies to wetlands and              degradation) for designated waters, including wet-
            other waterbodies.                                         lands. These are areas of exceptional water quality
                                                                       or recreational/ecological significance. State an-
            The Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines state that the            tidegradation policies should provide special
        following effects contribute to significant degrada-           protection to wetlands designated as outstanding
        tion, either individually or collectively:   -                 national resource waters in the same manner as
                                                                       other surface waters; see Section 131-12(a) (3) of the
            ... significant adverse effects on (1)      human          WOS regulation and EPA guidance Water Quality
            health or welfare, including effects on                    Standards Handbook (USEPA 1983b), and Ques-
            municipal water supplies, plankton, fish,                  tions and Answers on: Antidegradation (USEPA
            shellfish, wildlife, and special aquatic sites             1985a). Activities that might trigger a State analysis
            (e.g., wetlands); (2) on the life stages of                of a wetland for possible designation as an ONRW
            aquatic life and other wildlife dependent on               are no different for wetlands than for other waters.



                                                                     20








             The following list provides general information        on         e Sites under the Ramsar (Iran) Treaty on Wetlands
           wetlands that are likely candidates for protection as                 of International Importance;
           ONRWs. It also may be used to identify specific
           wetlands for use designation under the State's wet-                 * Biosphere reserve sites identified as part of the
           land classification system see Chapter 4.0. Some                      Man and the Biosphere" Program sponsored by
           of these information sources are discussed in                         the United Nations;
           greater detail in EPA's guidance entitled Wetlands                  * Natural heritage areas and other similar designa-
           and Section 401 Certification: Opportunities and
           Guidelines for States and Eligible Indian Tribes                      tions established by the State or private organiza-
           (USEPA 1989f); see Section 6.1.                                       tions (e.g., Nature Conservancy); and
               ï¿½ Parks, wildlife management areas, refuges, wild               * Priority wetlands identified as part of comprehen-
                  and scenic rivers, and estuarine sanctuaries;                  sive planning efforts conducted at the local, State,
                                                                                 Regional, or Federal levels of governmem e.g.,
               ï¿½  Wetlands adjacentto ONRWs or other high-quality                Advance Identification (ADID) program under Sec-
                  waters (e.g., lakes, estuaries shellfish beds);                tion 404 and Special Area Management Plans
                                                                                 (SAMPs) under the 1980 Coastal Zone Manage-
               ï¿½  Priority wetlands identified under the Emergency               ment Act.
                  Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 through
                  Statewide Outdoor Recreation Plans (SORP) and               The Wetland Evaluation Technique; Volume 11:
                  Wetland Priority Conservation Plans;                     Methodology (Adamus et al., 1987) provides addi-
                                                                           tional guidance on the identification of wetlands with
               ï¿½  Sites within joint venture project areas under the       high ecological and social value; see Section 3.2.
                  North American Waterfowl Management Plan:

































                                                                          21




                                                                                                                                                                                                                         I
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         i
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         I
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         I
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         I
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         I
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         I
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         I
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         I
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         I
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         I
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         I
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         I
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         I
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         I
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         I
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         I
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         I
                                                                                                           ,Y)                                                                                                           I













                                                          . . .... .....
                                                     Chapter@:'6@.:..O


                                  Implementation

                                                                                                                        Z'
                                             S41-



                                                                                                 W









                                                                          71
             i
                 mplementing water quality standards for wet-         Management Program and the National Wildlife
                 lands will require a coordinated effort between      Refuge program. EPA and FWS wetland program
                 related Federal and State agencies and               contacts are included in Appendix D.
           programs. In addition to the Section 401 certifica-
           tion for Federal permits and licenses, standards             This section provides information.on certain ele,
           have other potential applications for State                ments of standards (e.g., mixing zones) and the
           programs, including landfill siting, fish and wildlife     relationship between wetland standards and other
           management and aquisition decisions, and best              water-related activities and programs (e.g., monitor-
           management practices to control nonpoint source            ing and CWA Sections 401, 402, 404, and 319). As
           pollution. Many coastal States have wetland permit         information is developed by EPA and the States,
           programs, coastal zone management programs,                EPA will periodically transfer it nationwide through
           and National Estuary Programs; and the develop-            workshops and program summaries. EPA's Office
           ment of water quality standards should utilize data,       of Water Regulations and Standards has developed
           information and expertise from these programs. For         an outreach program for providing this information.
           all States, information and expertise is available
           nationwide from EPA and the Corps of Engineers as          6.1 Section 401 Certification
           part of the Federal 404 permit program. State                Many States have begun to make more use of
           wildlife and fisheries departments can also provide        CWA Section 401 certification to manage certain
           data, advice, and expertise related to wetlands.           activities that impact their wetland resources. Sec-
           Finally, the FWS can provide information on wet-           tion 401 gives the States the authority to grant,
           lands as part of the National Wetlands Inventory           deny, or condition certification of Federal permits or
           program, the Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Pro-            licenses (e.g., CWA Section 404 permits issued by
           gram, the Endangered Species and Habitat Conser-           the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Energy
           vation Program, the North American Waterfowl


                                                                   23










         Regulatory Commission licenses, some Rivers and            such created, multiple use wetlands may be con-
         Harbors Act Sections 9 and 10 permits, and CWA             sidered "waters of the U.S.," and as such, would be
         Section 402 permits where issued by EPA) that may          subject to the same protection and restrictions on
         result in a discharge to "waters of the U.S." Such         use as natural wetlands (see Report on the Use of
         action is taken by the State to ensure compliance          Wetlands for Municipal Wastewater Treatment and
         with various provisions of the CWA. Violation of           Disposal (USEPA 1987b)). This determination must
         water quality standards is often the basis for denials     be made on a case-by-case basis, and may consider
         or conditioning through Section 401 certification. In      factors such as the size and degree of isolation of
         the absence of wetland-specific standards, States          the created wetland.
         have based decisions on their general narrative
         criteria and antidegradation policies. The Office of          6.2.1 Municipal Wastewater Treat-
         Wetlands Protection has developed a handbook for              ment
         States entitled Wetlands and 401 Certification: Op-           State standards should be consistent with the
         portunities and Guidelines for States and Eligible         document developed by the Office of Municipal Pol-
         Indian Tribes (USEPA 1989g) on the use of Section          lution Control entitled Report on the Use of Wet-
         401 certification to protect wetlands. This docu-          lands for Municipal Wastewater Treatment and Dis-
         ment provides several examples wherein States              posal (USEPA 1987b), on the use of wetlands for
         have applied their water quality standards to wet-         municipal wastewater treatment. This document
         lands; one example is included in Appendix E.              outlines minimum treatment and other requirements
           The development of explicit water quality stand-         under the CWA for discharges to natural wetlands
         ards for wetlands, including wetlands in the defini-       and those specifically created and used for the pur-
         tion of "State waters," uses, criteria, and an-            pose of wastewater treatment.
         tidegradation policies, can provide a strong and              The following is a brief summary of the above-ref-
         consistent basis for State 401 certifications.             erenced document. For municipal discharges to
         6.2 Discharges to Wetlands                                 natural wetlands, a minimum of secondary treat-
                                                                    ment is required, and applicable water quality stand-
           The Water Quality Standards Regulation      (40 CFR      ards for the wetland and adjacent waters must be
         131.10(a)) states that, "in no case shall a State adopt    met. Natural wetlands are nearly always "waters of
         waste transport or waste assimilation as a desig-          the U.S." and are afforded the same level of protec-
         nated use for any 'waters of the U.S.'." This prohibi-     tion as other surface waters with regard to stand-
         tion extends to wetlands, since they are included in       ards and minimum treatment requirements. There
         the definition of "waters of the U.S." Certain ac-         are no minimum treatment requirements for wet-
         tivities involving the discharge of pollutants to wet-     lands created solely for the purpose of wastewater
         lands may be permitted, as with other water types,         treatment that do not qualify as "waters of the U.S "
         providing a determination is made that the desig-          The discharge from the created wetlands that do not
         nated and existing uses of the wetlands and                qualify as "waters of the U.S." must meet applicable
         downstream waters will be maintained and                   standards for the receiving water. EPA encourages
         ,protected. As with other surface waters, the State        the expansion of wetland resources through the
         must ensure, through ambient monitoring, that per-         creation of engineered wetlands while allowing the
         mitted discharges to wetlands preserve and protect         use of natural wetlands for wastewater treatment
         wetland functions and values as defined in State           only under limited conditions. Water quality stand-
         water quality standards; see Section 6.4.                  ards for wetlands can prevent the misuse and over-
                                                                    use of natural wetlands for treatment through adop-
           Created wastewater treatment wetlands that are           tion of proper uses and criteria and application of
         not impounded from waters of the United States and         State antidegradation policies.
         are designed, built, and operated solely as was-              6.2.2 Stormwater Treatment
         tewater treatment systems, are a special case, and
         are not generally considered "waters of the U.S."             Stormwater discharges to wetlands can provide
         Some such created wetlands, however, also provide          an important component of the freshwater supply to
         other functions and values similar to those provided       wetlands.    However, stormwater discharges from
         by natural wetlands. Under certain circumstances,


                                                                  24







           various land use activities can also contain a sig-                  fish movement criteria, creation of flood-
           nificant amount of pollutants. Section 402(p)(2) of                  ways to bypass oxbows, flow 07rough
           the Clean Water Act requires that EPA, or States                     criteria), certification is denied.
           with authorized National Pollutant Discharge
           Elimination System (NPDES) programs, issue                      Some modification of this may be incorporated
           NPDES permits for certain types of stormwater dis-            into States' water quality standards. The States,are
           charges.    EPA is in the process of developing               encouraged to provide a linkage in their water
           regulations defining the scope of this program as             quality standards to the determination of ''significant
           well as developing permits for these discharges.              degradation" as required under EPA guidelines (40
           Stormwater permits can be used to require controls            CFR 230.10(c)) and other applicable State laws af-
           that reduce the pollutants discharged to wetlands as          fecting the disposal of dredged or fill materials in
           well as other waters of the United States. In addi-           wetlands; see Section 5.1.
           tion, some of the stormwater management controls                6.2.4 Nonpoint Source Assessment
           anticipated in permits will require creation of wet-
           lands or structures with some of the attributes of              and Control
           wetlands for the single purpose of water treatment.             Wetlands, as with other waters, are impacted by
                                                                         nonpoint sources of pollution. Many wetlands,
              EPA anticipates that the policy for stormwater dis-        through their assimilative capacity for nutrients and
           charges to wetlands will have some similarities to            sediment, also can serve an important water quality
           the policies for municipal wastewater discharges to           control function for nonpoint source pollution ef-
           wetlands.    Natural wetlands are "waters of the              fects on waters adjacent to, or downstream of, the
           United States" and are afforded a level of protection         wetlands. Water quality standards play a pivotal
           with regard to water quality standards and technol-           role in both of the above. First, Section 319 of the
           ogy-based treatment requirements. The discharge               CWA requires the States to complete assessments
           from created wetlands must meet applicable water              of nonpoint source (NPS) impacts to State waters,
           quality standards for the receiving waters. EPA will          including wetlands, and to prepare management
               e technical guidance on permitting stormwater             programs to control NPS impacts. Water quality
           discharges, including permitting stormwater dis-              standards for wetlands can form the basis for these
           'ssu


           charges to wetlands, over the next few years.                 assessments and management programs for wet-
              6.2.3 Fills                                                lands. Second, water quality standards require-
                                                                         ments for other surface waters such as rivers, lakes,
              Section 404 of the CWA regulates the discharge of          and estuaries can provide an impetus for States to
           dredged and fill material into "waters of the U.S."           protect, enhance, and restore wetlands to help
           The Corps of Engineers' regulations for the 404 pro-          achieve nonpoint source control and water quality
           gram are contained in 33 CFR Parts 320-330, while             standards objectives for adjacent and downstream
           EPA's regulations for the 404 program are contained           waters. The Office of Water Regulations and Stand-
           in 40 CFR Part 230-33.                                        ards and the Office of Wetlands Protection have
                                                                         developed guidance on the coordination of wetland
              One State uses the following guidelines for fills in       and NPS control programs entitled National
           their internal Section 401 review guidelines:                 Guidance - Wetlands and Nonpoint Source Control
              (a)   if the project is not water dependent, cer-          Programs (USEPA 1990c).
                    tification is denied;                                6.3 Monitoring
              (b)   if the project is water dependent, certifica-          Water quality management activities, including
                    tion is denied if there is a viable alternative      the permitting of wastewater and stormwater dis-
                    (e.g., available upland nearby is a viable           charges, the assessment and control of NPS pollu-
                    alternative);                                        tion, and waste disposal activities (sewage sludge,
                                                                         CERCLA, RCRA) require sufficient monitoring to en-
              (c)   if no viable alternatives exist and impacts to       sure that the designated and existing uses of
                    wetland cannot be made acceptable                    waters of the U.S." are maintained and protected.
                    through conditions on certification (e.g.,           In addition, Section 305(b) of the CWA requires


                                                                      25









        States to report on the overall status of their waters        Status and trend monitoring of the wetland
        in attaining water quality standards. The inclusion         resources overall may require additional ap-
        of wetlands in water quality standards provides the         proaches; see Section 3.1. Given current gaps in
        basis for conducting both wetland-specific and              scientific knowledge concerning indicators of wet-
        status and trend monitoring of State wetland resour-        land quality, monitoring of wetlands over the next
        ces. Information gathered from the 305(b) reports           few years may focus on the spatial extent (i.e., quan-
        may also be used to update and refine the desig-            tity) and physical structure (e.g., plant types, diver-
        nated wetland uses. The monitoring of wetlands is           sity, and distribution) of wetland resources. The
        made difficult by limitations in State resources.           tracking of wetland acreage and plant communities
        Where regulated activities impact wetlands or other         using aerial photography can provide information
        surface waters, States should provide regulatory in-        that can augment the data collected on specific ac-
        centives and negotiate monitoring responsibilities of       tivities impacting wetlands, as discussed above.
        the party conducting the regulated activity.
                                                                       EPA has developed guidance on the reporting of
          Monitoring of activities impacting specific wet-          wetland conditions for the Section 305(b) program
        lands may include several approaches. Monitoring            entitled Guidelines for the Preparation of the 1990
        methods involving biological measurements, such             State Water Quality Assessment 305(b) Report
        as plant, mac roi nverte brat e, and fish (e.g., biomass    (USEPA 1989b). When assessing individual specific
        and diversity indices), have shown promise for              wetlands, assessment information should be
        monitoring stream quality (Plafkin et al., 1989).           managed in an automated data system compatible
        These types of indicators have not been widely              with the Section 305(b) Waterbody System. In addi-
        tested for wetlands; see Section 7.1. However, the          tion, the NWI program provides technical proce-
        State of Florida has developed biological criteria as       dures and protocols for tracking the spatial extent of
        part of their regulations governing the discharge of        wetlands for the United States and subregions of the
        municipal wastewater to wetlands5. The States are           United States.       These sources provide the
        encouraged to develop and test the use of biological        framework for reporting on the status and trends of
        indicators. Other more traditional methods current-         State wetland resources.
        ly applied to other surface waters, including but not
        limited to the use of water quality criteria, sediment      6.4 Mixing Zones and Variances
        quality criteria, and whole effluent toxicity, are also        The guidance on mixing zones in the Water
        available for conducting monitoring of specific wet-        Quality Standards Handbook (USEPA 1983b) and
        lands.                                                      the Technical Support Document for Water Quality-
          Discharges involving persistent or bioaccumula-           Based Toxics Control (TSD) (USEPA 1985b) apply
        tive contaminants may necessitate the monitoring of         to all surface waters, including wetlands. This in-
        the fate of such contaminants through wetlands and          cludes the point of application of acute and chronic
        their impacts on aquatic life and wildlife. The ex-         criteria. As with other surface waters, mixing zones
        posure of birds and mammals to these contaminants           may be granted only when water is present, and
        is accentuated by the frequent use of wetlands by           may be developed specifically for different water
        wildlife and the concentration of contaminants in           types. Just as mixing zone procedures are often
        wetlands through sedimentation and other proces-            different for different water types and flow regimes
        ses. States should conduct monitoring of these              (e.g., free flowing streams versus lakes and es-
        contaminants in wetlands, and may require such              tuaries), separate procedures also may be
        monitoring as part of regulatory activities involving       developed specifically for wetlands. Such proce-
        these contaminants.                                         dures should meet the requirements contained in
                                                                    the TSD.




        5    Florida Department of Environmental Regulations@ State Regulations Part 1, "Domestic Wastewater
             Facilities," Subpart C, "Design/Performance Considerations," 17-6.055, "Wetlands Applications."



                                                                  26







            As in other State waters, variances may be
          granted to discharges to wetlands. Variances must
          meet one or more of the six requirements for the
          removal of adesignated use (40 CFR Part 131.10(g))
          and must fully protect any existing uses of the wet-
          land.



































































                                                               27




                                                 I

                         I
                                                 I
                                                 I
                                                 I
                                                 I
                                                 I
                                                 I
                                                 I
                                                 I
                                                 I
                                                 I
                                                 I
                                                 I
                                                 I
                                                 I
                                                 I
                                                 I
                                                 1

                        28
                                                 I






                                                         Chapter.7.0:


                                Future Directions






            E
                     PA's Office of Water Regulations and                  reference conditions for evaluating the integrity of
                     Standards' planning document Water                    other wetlands. Regulatory activities involving dis-
                     Quality Standards Framework (USEPA -                  charges to wetlands (e.g., CWA Sections 402 and
           0 aft 1989e), identifies the major objectives for the           404) can provide monitoring data to augment data
           program and the activities necessary to meet these              collected by the States for the development of
           objectives. Activities related to the development of            numeric biological criteria; see Section 7.4. The
           water quality standards for wetlands are separated              development of numeric biological criteria for wet-
           into two phases:        (1) Phase 1 activities to be            lands will require additional research and field test-
           developed by the States by the end of FY 1993,                  ing over the next several years.
           discussed above; and (2) Phase 2 activities that will
           require additional research and program develop-                   Biological criteria are based on local and regional
           ment, which are discussed below.                                biotic characteristics. This is in contrast to the na-
                                                                           tionally based chemical-specific aquatic life criteria
           7.1 Numeric Biological Criteria                                 developed by EPA under controlled laboratory con-
           for Wetlands                                                    ditions. The States will have primary responsibility
                                                                           for developing and implementing biological criteria
              Development of narrative biological criteria is in-          for their surface waters, including wetlands, to
           cluded in the first phase of the development of water           reflect local and regional differences in resident
           quality standards for wetlands; see Section 5.1.2.              biological communities. EPA will work closely with
           The second phase involves the implementation of                 the States and the EPA Office of Research and
           numeric biological criteria. This effort requires the           Development to develop and test numeric biological
           detailed evaluation of the components of wetland                criteria for wetlands. Updates on this work will be
           communities to determine the structure and function             provided through the Office of Water Regulations
           of unimpaired wetlands. These measures serve as


                                                                        29










        and Standards, Criteria and Standards Division's                9 identifying high-quality waters deserving special
        regular newsletter.                                               protection;

        7.2 Wildlife Criteria                                           9 using remote-sensing data;
          Wetlands are important habitats for wildlife                  * using integrated assessments to detect subtle
        species. It is therefore important to consider wildlife           ecological impacts; and
        in developing criteria that protect the functions and
        values of wetlands.      Existing chemical-specific             * identifying significant nonpoint sources of pollu-
        aquatic life criteria are derived by testing selected             tion that will prevent attainment of uses.
        aquatic organisms by exposing them to con-
        taminants in water. Although considered to be                 One or more case studies will address efforts to
        protective of aquatic life, these criteria often do not     quantify the extent of a State's wetlands and to iden-
        account for the bioaccumulation of these con-               tify sensitive wetlands through their advance iden-
        taminants, which may cause a major impact on                tification (USEPA 1989a).
        wildlife using wetland resources. Except for criteria
        for PCB, DDT, selenium, and mercury, wildlife have
        not been included during the development of the
        national aquatic life criteria.

          During the next 3 years, the Office of Water
        Regulations and Standards is reviewing aquatic life
        water quality criteria to determine whether adjust-
        ments in the criteria and/or alternative forms of
        criteria (e.g., tissue concentration criteria) are
        needed to adequately protect wildlife species using
        wetland resources. Since wetlands may not have
        open surface waters during all or parts of the year,
        alternative tissue based criteria based on con-
        taminant concentrations in wildlife species and their
        food sources may become important criteria for
        evaluating contaminant impacts in wetlands, par-
        ticularly those that bioaccumulate.          Based on
        evaluations of current criteria and wildlife at risk in
        wetlands, national criteria may be developed.

        7.3 Wetlands Monitoring
          EPA's Office of Water Regulations and Standards
        is developing guidance for EPA and State surface
        water monitoring programs that will be issued by the
        end of FY 1990. This guidance will (1) encourage
        States to use monitoring data in a variety of program
        areas to support water quality management
        decisions; and (2) provide examples of.innovative
        monitoring techniques through the use of case
        studies. The uses of data pertinent to wetlands that
        will be discussed include the following:

              refining use classification systems by developing
              physical, chemical, and biological water quality
              criteria, goals, and standards that account for
              regional variation in attainable conditions;          I


                                                                 30










                                                                            and Stand
            References                                                      #2) Stand rds. EPA/444/4-89/001. (Source
           Adamus, P.R., E.J. Clairain Jr., R.D. Smith, and R.E.
                  Young. 1987. Wetland Evaluation Techni-            Stephan, C.E., D.I. Mount, D.J. Hansen, J.H. Gentile,
                  que (WET); Volume 11: Methodology. Opera-                 G.A. Chapman, and W.A. Brungs. 1985.
                  tional Draft Technical Report Y-87; U.S. Army             Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National
                  Engineers Waterways Experiment Station,                   Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of
                  Vicksburg, MS. (Source #11)                               Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses. USEPA,
                                                                            Office of Research and Development, Duluth,
           Adamus, P.R. and K. Brandt. Draft. Impacts on                    MN. NTIS# PB-85-227049. (Source #3)
                  Quality of Inland Wetlands of the United           U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.          1983a.
                  States: A Survey of Techniques, Indicators,               Technical Support Manual: Waterbody Sur-
                  and Applications of Community-level                       veys and Assessments for Conducting Use
                  Biomonitoring Data. USEPA Environmental                   Attainability Analyses.     Office of Water
                  Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR. (Source               Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC.
                                                                            (Source #4)
           The Conservation Foundation.       1988. Protecting                   1983b. Water Quality Standards Hand-
                  America's Wetlands: An Action Agenda, The
                  Final Report of the National Wetlands Policy       book.  Office of Water Regulations and Standards,
                  Forum. Washington, DC. (Source #10)                Washington, DC. (Source #4)
           Cowardin, L.M., V, Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T.                         1984a. Technical Support Manual:
                  LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and        Waterbody Surveys and Assessments for Conduct-
                  Deepwater Habitats of the United States, U.S.      ing Use Attainability Analyses. Vol 11. Estuarine Sys-
                  Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.         tems. Office of Water Regulations and Standards,
                  FWSIOBS-79/31. (Source #6a)                        Washington, DC. (Source #4)
           Federal Water Pollution Control Administration.                         1984b. Technical Support Manual:
                  1968. Water Quality Criteria (the Green            Waterb;@_y Surveys and Assessments for Conduct-
                  Book), Report of the National Technical Ad-        ing Use Attainability Analyses. Vol 111. Lake Sys-
                  visory Committee to the Secretary of the Inte-     tems. Office of Water Regulations and Standards,
                  rior.  U.S. Department of the Interior,            Washington, DC. (Source #4)
                  Washington, DC. (out of print).                              . 1985a. Questions and Answers on: An-
           Hagley, C.A. and D.L. Taylor. Draft. An Approach          tidegradation. Office of Water Regulations and
                  for Evaluating Numeric Water Quality Criteria      Standards, Washington, DC. (Source #4)
                  for Wetlands Protection. USEPA Environ-                         1985b. Technical Support Document
                  mental Research Laboratory, Duluth, MN.
                  (Source # 12)                                      for Water Quality-based Toxics Control. Office of
                                                                     Water Enforcement and Permits, Washington, DC.
           Lonard, R.I. and E.J. Clairain. 1986. Identification      (Source #5)
                  of Methodologies for the Assessment of Wet-                     1987a. Quality Criteria for Water - 1986.
                  land Functions and Values, Proceeding of the
                  National Wetland Assessment Symposium,             Office of Water Regulations and Standards,
                  Association of Wetland Managers, Berne,            Washington, DC. EPA 440/5-86-001. (Source #6b)
                  NY. pp. 66-72. (Source #11)                                     1987b. Report on the Use of Wetlands
            Plafkin, J.L., M.T. Barbour, K.D. Porter, S.K. Gross,    for Municipal Wastewater Treatment and Disposal.
                  and R.M. Hughes. 1989. Rapid Bioassess-            Office of Municipal Pollution Control, Washington,
                  ment Protocols for Use in Streams and              DC. (with Attachment D, September 20, 1988).
                  Rivers, USEPA, Office of Water Regulations         EPA 430/09-88-005. (Source #9)


                                                                   31









                    1989a. Guidance to EPA Regional Of-
       fices on the Use of Advanced Identification                 Sources of Documents
       Authorities Under Section 404 of the Clean Water                   1    USEPA, Office of Wetlands Protection
       Act. Office of Wetlands Protection, Washington,                         Wetlands Strategies and State
       DC. (Source #1)                                                         Programs Division
                                                                               401 M St., S.W. (A-104F)
                    1989b. Guidelines for the Preparation                      Washington, DC 20460
       of the 1990 State Water Quality Assessment (305(b)                      (202) 382-5048
       Report). Office of Water Regulations and Stand-
       ards, Washington, DC. (Source #2)                                  2    USEPA, Office of Water Regulations
                  . 1989c. Regionalization as a Tool for                       and Standards
       Managing Environmental Resources. Office of Re-                         Assessment and Watershed Protec-
                                                                               tion Division
       search and Development, Corvallis, OR. EPA/600/3-                       401 M St., S.W. (WH-553)
       89/060. (Source #8)                                                     Washington, DC 20460
                  . 1989d. Survey of State Water Quality                       (202) 382-7040
       Standards for Wetlands. Office of Wetlands Protec-                 3    National Technical Information Ser-
       tion, Washington, D.C. (Source #1)                                      vice (NTIS)
                   .  1989e. Water Quality Standards                           5285 Front Royal Road
         -------                                                               Springfield, VA 22116
       Framework (draft). Office of Water Regulations and                      (703) 487-4650
       Standards, Washington, DC. (Source #4)
                  . 1989f. Wetland Creation and Restora-                       USEPA, Office of Water Regulations
       tion: The Status of the Science. Office of Research                     and Standards
       and Development, Corvallis, OR. EPA 600/3-89/038a                       Criteria and Standards Division
       and EPA 600/3-89/038b. (Source #8)                                      401 M St., S.W. (WH-585)
                                                                               Washington, DC 20460
                    1989g. Wetlands and 401 Certification:                     (202) 475-7315
       Opportunities and Guidelines for States and Eligible
       Indian Tribes. Office of Wetlands Protection,                      5    Out of print. A revised Technical Sup-
       Washington, DC. (Source #1)                                             port Document for Water Quality-
                                                                               based Toxics Control will be available
                     1990a. Agency     Operating Guidance,                     October 1990 from:
       FY 1991: Office of Water.         Office of the Ad-                       Office of Water Enforcement and
       ministrator, Washington, DC. (Source #7)                                  Permits
                                                                                 Permits Division
                    1990b. Biological Criteria, National Pro-                    401 M St., S.W. (EN-336)
       gram Guidance for Surface Waters. Office of Water                         Washington, DC 20460
       Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC.
       EPA 440/5-90-004. (Source #4)                                      6    U.S. Government Printing Office
                     1990c. National Guidance, Wetlands                        North Capitol St., N.W.
                                                                               Washington, DC 20401
       and Nonpoint Source Control Programs. Office of                         (202) 783-3238
       Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC.                        a Order No. 024-010-00524-6
       (Source #2)                                                             b Order No. 955-002-0000-8








                                                              32









                 7     USEPA, Water Policy office                       10    The Conservation Foundation
                       401 M St., S.W. (WH-556)                               1250 Twenty-Fourth St., N.W.
                       Washington, DC 20460                                   Washington, DC 20037
                       (202) 382-5818                                         (202) 293-4800

                 8     USEPA, Office of Research and                    11    U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers
                       Development                                            Wetlands Research Program
                       Environmental Research Laboratory                      (601) 634-3774
                       200 SW 35th St.
                       Corvallis, OR 97333                               12   USEPA, Office of Research and
                       (503) 420-4666                                         Development
                                                                              Environmental Research Laboratory
                 9     USEPA, Office of Municipal Pollution                   Duluth, MN 55804
                       Control                                                (218) 780-5549
                       401 M St., S.W. (WH-546)
                       Washington, DC 20460
                       (202) 382-5850









































                                                               33




                                                      I
                                                      I
                                                      I
                                                      I
                                                      I
                                                      I
                                                      I
                                                      I
                                                      I
                                                      I
                                                      I
                                                      I
                                                      I
                                                      I
                                                      I
                                                      I
                                                      I
                                                      1

                          34
                                          .           I









                                                                        @ix
                                                   ..Append


                                                   Glossary


              Ambient Monitoring        Monitoring within natural         Restoration    An activity returning a wetland from
           systems (e.g., lakes, rivers, estuaries, wetlands) to       a  disturbed or altered condition with lesser acreage
           determine existing conditions.                              or functions to a previous condition with greater
                                                                       wetland acreage or functions. For example, restora-
              Created Wetland - A wetland at a site where it did       tion might involve the plugging of a drainage ditch to
           not formerly occur. Created wetlands are designed           restore the hydrology to an area that was a wetland
           to meet a variety of human benefits including, but          before the installation of the drainage ditch.
           not limited to, the treatment of water pollution dis-
           charges (e.g., municipal wastewater, stormwater)               Riparian - Areas next to or substantially in-
           and the mitigation of wetland losses permitted under        fluenced by water. These may include areas ad-
           Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. This term en-           jacent to rivers, lakes, or estuaries. These areas
           compasses the term "constructed wetland" as used            often include wetlands.
           in other EPA guidance and documents.                           Upland - Any area that does not qualify as wet-
              Enhancement , An activity increasing one or              land because the associated hydrologic regime is
           more natural or artificial wetland functions. For ex-       not sufficiently wet to elicit development of vegeta-
           ample, the removal of a point source discharge im-          tion, soils and/or hydrologic characteristics as-
           pacting a wetland.                                          sociated with wetlands, or is defined as open
              Functions - The roles that wetlands serve, which         waters.
           are of value to society or the environment.                    Waters of the U.S. - See Appendix 8 for Federal
                                                                       definition; 40 CFR Parts 122.2, 230.3, and 232.2.
              Habitat - The environment occupied by in-
           dividuals of a particular species, population, or com-         Wetlands - Those areas that are inundated or
           munity.                                                     saturafted by surface or groundwater at a frequency
                                                                       and duration sufficient to support, and that under
              Hydrology - The science dealing with the proper-         normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of
           ties, distribution, and circulation of water both on        vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil
           the surface and under the earth.                            conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps,
                                                                       marshes, bogs, and similar areas. See Federal
                                                                       definition contained in Federal regulations: 40 CFR
                                                                       Parts 122.2, 230.3, and 232.2.




                                                                                                                                                     I
                                                                                                                                                     I
                                                                                                                                                     I
                                                                                                                                                     I
                                                                                                                                                     I
                                                                                                                                                     I
                                                                                                                                                     I
                                                                                                                                                     I
                                                                                                                                                     I
                                                                                                                                                     I
                                                                                                                                                     I
                                                                                                                                                     I
                                                                                                                                                     I
                                                                                                                                                     I
                                                                                                                                                     I
                                                                                                                                                     I
                                                                                                                                                     I
                                                                                                                                                     I
                                                                                                                                                     I
     I
                                                                         A - 2                                                                       1









                                                       A
                                                                vendi               B
                                                            p.











              The Federal definition of "waters of the United                (5)    Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs
           States" (40 CFR Section 232.2(q)) is:                                    1-4;

              (1)   All waters which     are currently used, were            (6)    The territorial sea; and
                    used in the past,    or may be susceptible to
                    use in interstate    or foreign commerce, in-            (7)    Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than
                    cluding all waters which are subject to the                     waters that are themselves wetlands) iden-
                    ebb and flow of the tide;                                       tified in 1-6; waste treatment systems, in-
                                                                                    cluding treatment ponds or lagoons
              (2 )  All interstate waters including interstate wet-                 designed to meet the requirements of CWA
                    lands;                                                          (other than cooling ponds as defined in 40
                                                                                    CFR 423.11 (m) which also meet criteria in
              (3)   All other waters such as intrastate lakes,                      this definition) are not waters of the United
                    rivers, streams (including intermittent                         States.
                    streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands,
                    sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows,                         (*Note: EPA has clarified that waters of the
                    playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use,                         U.S. under the commerce connection in (3)
                    degradation or destruction of which would                       above also include, for example, waters:
                    or could affect interstate or foreign com-                           Which are or would be used as
                    merce including any such waters:                                     habitat by birds protected by
                                                                                         Migratory Bird Treaties or migratory
                    (i)    Which are or could be used      by inter-                     birds which cross State lines:
                           state or foreign travelers for recrea-                        Which are or would be used as
                           tional or other purposes; or                                  habitat for endangered species;
                    (i i)  From which fish or shellfish could be                         Used to irrigate crops sold in inter-
                           taken and sold in interstate or                               state commerce.)
                           foreign commerce;
                    (iii)  Which are used or could be used for
                           industrial purposes by industries in in-
                           terstate commerce;*


              (4)   All impoundments of waters otherwise
                    defined as waters of the United States under
                    this definition;







                                                                      B - I




                                                                                            I
                                                                                            I
                                                                                            I
                                                                                            I
                                                                                            I
                                                                                            I
                                                                                            I
                                                                                            I
                                                                                            I
                                                                                            I
                                                                                            I
                                                                                            I
                                                                                            I
                                                                                            I
                                                                                            I
                                                                                            I
                                                                                            I
                                                                                            I

                                            B-2
                                                                                            I







                                                                                C
                                                     AM               _X
                                                            Vend'


                            Information on the
                               sessment of Wetland
                       Functions and Values


             Summary of Methodologies Prior to 1983                    1981. The specific objective of this paper is to
           (Lonard and Clairain 1986)                                  present a summary of wetlands evaluation
                                                                       methodologies identified from the pre-1981 litera-
             Introduction                                              ture, and to present an update of methodologies
             Since 1972, a wide variety of wetlands evaluation         published since 1981.
           methodologies have been developed by Federal or                Methods
           State agencies, private consulting firms, and the
           academic community. These evaluation methods                   In 1981, a U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experi-
           have been developed to ascertain all or selected            ment Station (WES)     study team evaluated 40 wet-
           wetland functions and values that include habitat;          lands evaluation methodologies according to
           hydrology, including water quality recreation:              several screening criteria, and examined 20 of the
           agriculture/silviculture; and heritage functions.           methodologies in detail using a series of descriptive
                                                                       parameters (Lonard et al., 1981). The criteria and
             Publications by the U.S. Water Resources Council          parameters were developed to ensure consistency
           (Lonard et al., 1981) and the U.S. Army Engineer            during review and analysis of methodologies. Five
           Waterways Experiment Station (Lonard et al., 1984)          additional methodologies proposed since 1981 have
           documented and summarized pre-1981 wetland                  been analyzed and summarized for this paper using
           evaluation methods. The two documents include a             the same criteria. This does not suggest, however,
           critical review of the literature, identification of re-    that only five methodologies have been developed
           search needs, and recommendations for the im-               since 1981.
           provement of wetlands evaluation methodologies.
           Methodology analyses include an examination of                 Available Wetlands Evaluation Metoodoiocies
           wetlands functions; geographic features; personnel
           requirements for implementation,. data require-                Abstracts     of    25    wetlands      evaluation
           ments, and products; field testing; flexibility; and        methodologies that met the WES study team's
           administrative uses. Recently, the U.S. Environmen-         criteria include the following:
           tal Protection Agency, with technical assistance               1.    Adamus, P.R., and Stockwell, L.T. 1983. ''A
           from WAPORA, Inc. (1984) summarized freshwater                       Method for Wetland Functional Assessment.
           wetland evaluation methodologies related to                          Volume 1. Critical Review and Evaluation
           primary and cumulative impacts published prior to                    Concepts," U.S. Department of Transporta-


                                                                   C_ I








                tion. Federal Highway Administration. Of-           determined weighted value. The values for each
                fice of Research, Environmental Division.           variable were summed, and a total wetland qualita-
                Washington, D.C. 20590; and Adamus, P.R.            tive value was obtained for use by decision makers.
                1983. "A Method for Wetland Functional As-
                sessment. Volume If. The Method," U.S.                 3.    Dee, N., Baker, J., Drobney, N., Duke, K..
                Departnient of Transportation. Federal                       Whitman, I., and Fahringer, D. 1973, "En-
                Highway Administration. Office of Re-                        vironmental Evaluation System for Water
                search,       Environmental           Division.              Resources Planning," Water Resources Re-
                Washington, D.C. 20590.                                      search, Vol 9, No. 3, pp 523-534.

          Volume I of the method provides a detailed litera-           The   Environmental Evaluation System (EES) is a
        ture review and discussion of the rationale of the          methodology for conducting environmental impact
        method. The wetland functional assessment or                analysis. It was developed by an interdisciplinary
        evaluation methodology presented in Volume 11 con-          research team, and is based on a hierarchical arran-
        sists of three separate procedures. Procedure 1,            gement of environmental quality indicators, an ar-
        referred to as a "Threshold Analysis," provides a           rangement that classifies the major areas of environ-
        methodology for estimating the probability that a           mental concern into major categories, components,
        single wetland is of high, moderate, or low value for       and ultimately into parameters and measurements
        each of 11 wetland functions discussed in detail in         of environmental quality. The EES provides for en-
        Volume 1. This procedure is based on assessment             vironmental impact evaluation in four major
        of 75 bio-physical wetland features obtained from           categories: ecology, environmental pollution, aes-
        office, field, and quantitative studies. It also incor-     thetics, and human interest. These four categories
        porates consideration of the social significance of         are further broken down into 18 components, and
        the wetland as indicated by public priorities. The          finally into 78 parameters. The EES provides a
        priorities are determined based on results of a series      means for measuring or estimating selected en-
        of questions that the evaluator must consider. Pro-         vironmental impacts of large-scale water resource
        cedure 11, designed as a, "Comparative Analysis,"           development projects in commensurate units
        provides parameters for estimating whether one              termed environmental impact units (EIU). Results of
        wetland is likely to be more important than another         using the EES include a total score in EIU "with" and
        for each wetland function, and Procedure 11, referred       "without" the proposed Oroject; the difference be-
        to as "Mitigation Analysis," provides an outline for        tween the two scores in one measure of environ-
        comparing mitigation alternatives and their                 mental impact. Environmental impact scores
        reasonableness." The evaluation methodology is              developed in the EES are based on the magnitude of
        qualitative in its approach.                                specific environmental impacts and their relative im-
                                                                    portance. Another major output from the EES is an
          2.    Brown, A., Kittle,   P., Dale, E.E., and Huf-       indication of major adverse impacts called "red
                fman, R.T. 1974.      "Rare and Endangered          flags," which are of concern of and by themselves.
                Species, Unique      Ecosystems, and Wet-           These red flags indicate "fragile', elements of the
                lands," Department of Zoology and Depart-           environment that must be studied in more detail.
                ment of Botany and Bacteriology. The                (Authors' abstract.)
                University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkan-
                sas.                                                   4.    Euler, D.L., Carreiro, F.T., McCullough, G.B..
                                                                             Snell, E.A., Glooschenko, V., and Spurr, R.H.
          The Arkansas Wetlands Classification System                        1983. "An Evaluation System for Wetlands
        contains a two-part, multivariate approach for                       of Ontario South of the Precambrian Shield,"
        evaluating freshwater wetlands for maximum wildlife                  First Edition.   Ontario Ministry of Natural
        production and diversity. Initially, Arkansas wet-                   Resources and Canadian Wildlife Service,
        lands were qualitatively classified as prime or non-                 Ontario Region. Variously paged.
        prime wetlands habitats according to use by man. A
        numerical value for a wetland was determined by                The   methodology was developed to evaluate a
        calculating a subscore, which was based on the              wide variety of wetland functions that include
        multiplication of a significance coefficient by a           biological, social, hydrological, and special fea-


                                                                C-2









            tures. The procedures includes a rationale of scien-               the Northeast Fish and Wildlife Conference,
            tific and technical literature for wetlands values, the            Vol 30, pp 257-279.
            evaluation methodology, a step-by-step procedure
            manual, a wetland data record, and a wetland                 A detailed classification system for freshwater
            evaluation record. The procedure was developed to           wetlands is presented along with 10 criteria for the
            evaluate and rank a wide variety of inland wetlands         evaluation of wetlands as wildlife habitat. The
            located in Ontario, Canada, south of the                    results are based on a 2-year field study of over 150
            Precambrian Shield.                                         wetlands located throughout the state of Mas-
                                                                        sachusetts.   The major components of the clas-
             5.     Fried, E. 1974. ''Priority Rating of Wetlands       sification system include wetland classes and sub-
                    for Acquisition," Transaction of the North-         classes, based on the dominant life form of vegeta-
                    east Fish and Wildlife Conference, Vol 31,          tion and surface water depth and permanence; size
                    pp 15-30.                                           categories; topographic and hydrologic location;
                                                                        surrounding habitat types; proportions and inter-
             New York State's Environmental Quality Bond Act            spersion of cover and water; and vegetative inter-
            of 1972 provides $5 million for inland wetland ac-          spersion. These components are combined with
            quisition, $18 million for tidal wetlands acquisition,      wetland juxtaposition and water chemistry to
            and $4 million for wetlands restoration. A priority         produce criteria for a wetland evaluation. Using a
            rating system, with particular emphasis on inland           system of specification and ranks, wetlands can be
            wetlands, was developed to guide these programs.            arranged according to their wildlife vaiue for
            The governing equation was: priority rating = (P +          decision-making. (Author's abstract.) "At this point,
            V + A) x 5, where the priority rating is per acre           the system has been used in numerous states on
            desirability for acquisition, P is biological produc-       thousands of wetlands; recent revisions have
            tivity, V is vulnerability, and A is additional factors.    resulted in such use." (F.C. Golet)
            Both actual and potential conditions could be rated.
            The rating system was successfully applied to some            8.     Gupta, T.R., and Foster, J.H. 1973. "Valua-
            130 inland wetlands. Using a separate equation,                      tion of Visual-Cultural Benefits from Fresh-
            wetland values were related to costs.         (Authors's             water Wetlands in Massachusetts," Journa)
            abstract.)                                                           of the Northeastern Agricultural Council, Vol
                                                                                 2, No 1, pp 262-273.
              6.    Galloway, G.E. 1978. "Assessing Man's Im-
                    pact on Wetlands," Sea Grant Publications             The  authors suggested an alternative to the "will-
                    Nos. UNC-SG-78-17 or UNC-WRRI-78-136,               ingness to pay" approaches for measuring the social
                    University of North Carolina, Raleigh, North        values of natural open space and recreational
                    Carolina.                                           resources. The method combines an identification
                                                                        and measurement of the physical qualities of the
              The Wetland Evaluation System (WES) proposed              resource by landscape architects. Measurement
            by Galloway emphasizes a system approach to                 values were expressed in the context of the political
            evaluate man's impact on a wetland ecosystem. Im-           system and current public views. The procedure is
            pacts are determined and compared for "with" and            demonstrated by its application to freshwater wet-
            vithout" project conditions. The advice of an inter-        lands in Massachusetts.
            disciplinary team, as well as the input of local
            elected officials and liymen, are included as part of          9.    Kibby, H.V. 1978. "Effects of Wetlands on
            the WES model. Parameters that make up a wetland                     Water Quality," Proceedings of the Sym-
            are assessed at the macro-level, and the results of                  posium on Strategies for Protection and
            the evaluation are displayed numerically and graphi-                 Management of Floodplain Wetlands and
            cally with computer assisted techniques.                             other Riparian Ecosystems, General Techni-
                                                                                 cal Report No. GTR-WO-12, U.S. Depart-
              7.    Golet, F.C. 1973. "Classification     Evaluation             ment of Agriculture, Forest Service.
                    of Freshwater Wetlands as Wildlife Habitat in                Washington, D.C.
                    the Glaciated Northeast," Transactions of




                                                                    C-3









           Wetlands potentially have significant effects on         wildlife, visual -cultural, and groundwater submodels
        water quality. Significant amounts of nitrogen are          to those wetlands that do not meet criteria for out-
        assimilated during the growing season and then              standing wetlands.        Phase III develops the
        released in the fall and early spring. Phosphorus,          economic values of the wetlands evaluated in Phase
        while assimilated by wetlands, is also released             11.
        throughout the year. Some potential management
        tools for evaluating the effect of wetlands on water          The models are intended to be used by local,
        quality are discussed. (Author's abstract.)                 regional, and state resource planners and wetlands
                                                                    regulation agencies. (Author's abstract.)
           10.  Larson, J.S. (ed.) 1976. "Models for As-
                sessment of Freshwater Wetlands," Publica-            11.   Marble, A.D., and Gross, M. 1984. "A
                tion No. 32. Water Resources Research                       Method for Assessing Wetland Charac-
                Center, University of Massachusetts, Am-                    teristics and Values," Landscape Planning,
                herst, Massachusetts.                                       Vol 11, pp 1-17.

           Four submodels for relative and economic evalua-           The   method presented for assessing wetland
        tion of freshwater wetlands are presented within a          values  identified the relative importance of wetlands
        single, 3-phase elimination model. The submodels            in providing wildlife habitat, flood control, and im-
        treat wildlife, visual -cultural, groundwater, and          provement of surface water quality. All wetlands in
        economic values.                                            the study area were categorized on the basis of their
                                                                    landscape position of hilltop, hillside, or valley.
           The wildlife and visual-cultural models are based        Each of the wetland values measured were then re-
        on physical characteristics that, for the most part,        lated to the corresponding landscape position
        can be measured on existing maps and aerial                 categories. Valley wetlands were found to be most
        photographs. Each chdracteristic is given values by         valuable in all instances. The method provides infor-
        rank and coefficient. A relative numerical score is         mation on wetland values that can be simply
        calculated for the total wetland characteristics and        gathered and easily assessed, requiring only avail-
        used to compare it with a broad range of north-             able data and a minimum of resources. Implemen-
        eastern wetlands or with wetlands selected by the           tation of this method on a regional or municipality-
        user. The groundwater model places wetlands in              wide basis can provide decision makers with readily
        classes of probable groundwater yield, based on             accessible and comparative information on wetland
        surficial geologic deposits under the wetland.              values. (Authors' abstract.)

           The economic submodel suggests values for                  12.   Michigan Department of Natural Resources.
        wildlife, visual-cultural aspects, groundwater, and                 1980. "Manual for Wetland Evaluation Tech-
        flood control. Wildlife values are derived from the                 niques: Operation Draft," Division of Land
        records of state agency purchases of wetlands with                  Resource Programs, Lansing, Michigan. 29
        sportsmen's dollars for wildlife management pur-                    pp.
        poses. Visual-cultural economic values are based
        on the record of wetland purposes for open space              The   Michigan Department of Natural Resources
        values by municipal conservation commissions.               (MDNR) Wetland Evaluation Technique is designed
        Groundwater values stem from savings realized by            to assist decision makers on permit applications 'in-
        selection of a drilled public water supply over a sur-      volving projects where significant impacts are an-
        face water source. Flood control values are based           ticipated. The manual describes the criteria to be
        on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers data on flood con-          used in evaluating any particular wetland. The tech-
        trol values of the Charles River, Massachusetts,            nique provides a means of evaluating the status of
        mainstream wetlands.                                        existing wetlands as well as potential project-related
                                                                    impacts on wetland structure and aerial extent. One
           The submodels are presented within the                   part of the technique requires examination of six
        framework of an overall 3-phase eliminative model.          basic features of wetlands, including: (1) hydrologic
        Phase I identifies outstanding wetlands that should         functions; (2) soil characteristics: (3) wildlife
        be protected* at all costs.      Phase 11 applies the       habitat/use evaluation; (4) fisheries habitat/use; (5)


                                                                C-4








           nutrient removal/recycling functions; (6) removal of                 218B, Transportation Research Board, Na-
           suspended sediments. A second part of the                            tional Research Council, Washington, D.C.
           analysis includes consideration of public interest
           concerns. This method also includes brief con-                The two reports include a Research Report and a
           sideration of cumulative, cultural/historic, and             User's Manual to provide, in concise format,
           economic impacts.                                            guidelines and information needed for the deter-
                                                                        mination of the ecological effects that may result
             13.   Reppert, R.T., Sigleo, W., Stakhiv, E.,              from the placement of highway fills on wetlands and
                   Messman, L., and Meyers, C. 1979. Wet-               associated floodplains, and to suggest procedures
                   land Values: Concepts and Methods for                by which deleterious impacts can be minimized or
                   Wetlands Evaluation," IWR Research Report            avoided. The practices that can be used to enhance
                   79-8-1, U.S. Army Engineer Institute for             the positive benefits are also discussed.          Both
                   Water Resources, Fort Belvoir, Virginia.             reports cover the most common physical, chemical,
                                                                        and biological effects that the highway engineer is
             The   evaluation of wetlands is based on the               likely to encounter when placing fills in wetlands,
           analysis of their physical, biological, and human use        and displays the effects and their interactions in a
           characteristics. The report discusses these func-            series of flowcharts and matrices.
           tional characteristics and identifies specific criteria
           for determining the efficiency with which the respec-          15.   SCS Engineers. 1979. "Analysis of Selected
           tive functions are performed.                                        Functional Characteristics of Wetlands,''
                                                                                Contract No. DACW73-78-R-0017, Reston,
             Two potential wetlands evaluation methods are                      Virginia.
           described. One is a non-quantitative method in
           which individual wetland areas are evaluated based             The   investigation focused on identifying factors
           on the deductive analysis of their individual function-      and criteria for assessing the wetland functions of
           al characteristics. The other is a semi-quantitative         water quality improvement, groundwater recharge,
           method in which the relative values of two or more           storm and floodwater storage, and shoreline protec-
           site alternatives are established through the mathe-         tion. Factors and criteria were identified that could
           matical rating and summation of their functional             be used to develop procedures to assist Corps per-
           relationships.                                               sonnel in wetlands assessing the values of general
                                                                        wetland types and of specific wetlands in performing
              The specific functions and values of wetlands that        the functions indicated. To the extent possible, pro-
           are covered in this report are (1) natural biological        cedures were then outlined that allow the applica-
           functions, including food chain productivity and             tion of these criteria in specific sites.
           habitat; (2) their use as sanctuaries, refuges, or
           scientific study areas; (3) shoreline protection; (4)          16.   Smarclon, R.D.     1972. "Assessing Visual-
           groundwater recharge; (5) storage for flood and                      Cultural Values on Inland Wetlands in Mas-
           stormwater; (6) water quality improvement; (7)                       sachusetts," Master of Science Thesis.
           hydrologic support; and (8) various cultural values.                 University of Massachusetts. Amherst, Mas-
           (Authors' abstract.)                                                 sachusetts.
              14.   Shuldiner, P.W., Cope, D.F., and Newton,              This  study deals with the incorporation of visual-
                    R.B. 1979. "Ecological Effects on Highway           cultural values of inland wetlands into the decision
                    Fills of Wetlands," Research Report. Nation-        making process of land use allocation of inland wet-
                    al Cooperative Highway Research Program             lands in Massachusetts. Visual-cuitural values of in-
                    Report No. 218A, Transportation Research            land wetlands may be defined as visual, recreation-
                    Board, National Research Council,                   al, and educational values of inland wetlands to
                    Washington, D.C.; and Shuldiner, P.W.,              society. The multivariate model is an eliminative
                    Cope, D.F., and Newton, R.B.              1 979@    and comparative model that has three levels of
                    "Ecological Effects of Highway Fills on Wet-        evaluation, The first level identifies those wetlands
                    lands," User's Manual. National Coopera-            that are outstanding natural areas, have regional
                    tive Highway Research Program Report No.            landscape value, or are large wetland systems.


                                                                    C-5









        These wetlands have top priority for preservation.          tinct types of vegetation in the marshes and swamps
        The second level is a rating and ranking system. At         of tidewater areas of the state. Rankings of vegeta-
        this stage, the combined natural resource values of         tion types were developed and parameters for the
        the wetland are evaluated. Wetlands with high               evaluation of specific areas of wetlands were
        ratings or rank from this level are eliminated and          described. The application of the scheme is ex-
        have the next highest priority for preservation or          plained and demonstrated. Guidance is provided
        some sort of protection. The third level evaluation         for the interpretation of results. The application of
        considers the cultural values (e.g., accessibility,         the Maryland scheme requires a detailed inventory
        location near schools) of wetlands. The model is            of the types of vegetation in the area selected for
        designed to be utilized at many different levels of         evaluation.
        decision making. For example, it can be used by
        state agencies, town conservation commissions,                19.   U.S. Army Engineer District, Rock Island.
        and conceivably could be used by other states in                    1983. "Wetland Evaluation Methodology,''
        northeastern United States. (Author's abstract.)                    Wisconsin Department of Natural Resour-
                                                                            ces, Bureau of Water Regulation and
          17.   Solomon, R.D., Colbert, B.K., Hansen, W.J.,                 Zoning.
                Richardson, S.E., Ganter, L.W., and Vlachos,
                E.C. 1977. "Water Resources Assessment                The  Wetland Evaluation Methodology is a shor
                Methodology (WRAM)--Impact Assessment               tened and revised version of a technique developed
                and Alternative Evaluation," Technical              for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) (see
                Report Y-77-1, Environmental Effects                Adamus, 1983; Number 1). The FHWA technique
                Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways            was designed to assess all wetland types whereas
                Experiment Station, CE, Vicksburg, Missis-          the Wetland Evaluation Methodology assesses
                sippi.                                              those wetlands in Wisconsin (e.g., assessment pro-
                                                                    cedures in the FHWA technique for estuarine mar-
          This study   presented a review of 54 impact as-          shes have been omitted from the Wetland Evaluation
        sessment methodologies and found that none en-              Methodology). Other changes have also been in-
        tirely satisfied the needs or requirements for the          corporated into the Wetland Evaluation Methodol-
        Corps' water resources project and programs.                ogy to more closely reflect other regional condi-
        However, salient features contained in several of the       tions.
        methodologies were considered pertinent and were
        utilized to develop a water resources assessment              20.   U.S. Army Engineer Division, Lower Missis-
        methodology (WRAM). One of the features con-                        sippi Valley. 1980. "A Habitat Evaluation
        sisted of weighting impacted variables and scaling                  System for Water Resources Planning," U.S.
        the impacts of alternatives. The weighted rankings                  Army Corps of Engineers, Lower Mississippi
        technique is the basic weighting and scaling tool                   Valley Div .ision, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
        used in this methodology. Principal components of             A methodology is presented for determining the
        WRAM include assembling an interdisciplinary team;
        selecting and ensuring assessment variables; iden-          quality of major habitat types based on the descrip-
        tifying, predicting, and evaluating impacts and alter-      tion and quantification of habitat characteristics.
        natives: and documenting the analysis. Although             Values are compared for existing baseline condi-
        developed primarily for use by the Corps in water           tions, future conditions without the project, and with
        resources management, WRAM is applicable to                 alternative project conditions. Curves, parameter
        other resources agencies.                                   characteristics, and descriptive information are in-
                                                                    cluded in the appendices. The Habitat Evaluation
          18. State of Maryland Department          of Natural      System (HES) procedure includes the following
                Resources.      U ndated.      "Environmental       steps for evaluating impacts of a water resource
                Evaluation of Coastal Wetlands (Draft),--           development project. The steps include: (1) obtain-
                Tidal Wetlands Study, pp 181-208.                   ing habitat type or land use acreage: (2) deriving
                                                                    Habitat Quality Index scores; (3) deriving Habitat
          The Maryland scheme for the evaluation of coas-           Unit Values; (4) projecting Habitat Unit Values for
        tal wetlands is based on the recognition of 32 dis-         the future "with" and "without" project conditions; (5)



                                                                C - 6








            using Habitat Unit Values to assess impacts of               the same area at future points in time. By combin-
            project conditions; and (6) determining mitigation           ing the two types of comparisons, the impact of
            requirements.                                                proposed or anticipated land and water changes on
                                                                         wildlife habitat can be quantified. This document
              21. U.S. Army Engineer Division, New England.              described HEP, discusses some probable applica-
                    1972. ''Charles River: Main Report and At-           tions, and provides guidance in applying HEP in the
                    tachments," Waltham, Massachusetts.                  field.

              The study was a long-term project directed by the             24.   Virginia Institute of Marine Science.        Un-
            U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to study the resour-                     dated. ''Evaluation of Virginia Wetiands,''
            ces of the Charles River Watershed in eastern Mas-                    (mimeographed). Glouchester Point, Vir-
            sachusetts. It had an emphasis on how to control                      ginia.
            flood damage in the urbanized lower watershed, and
            how to prevent any significant flood damage in the              The   authors presented a procedure to evaluate
            middle and upper watershed. Seventeen crucial                the wetlands of Virginia. The objective of the wet-
            wetlands were identified for acquisition to maintain         land evaluation program was to recognize wetlands
            flood storage capacity in the watershed as a non-            that possess great ecological significance as well as
            structural alternative for flood protection in the lower     those of lesser significance. Two broad categories
            Charles River basin. Various aspects of the water-           of criteria were utilized in evaluating the ecological
            shed were studied in an interdisciplinary fashion.           significance of wetlands: (1) the interaction of wet-
                                                                         lands with the marine environment: and (2) the inter-
              22.   U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1978. "Wet-          action of the wetland with the terrestrial environ-
                    lands Evaluation Criteria--Water and Related         ment.    A formula was developed to incorporate
                    Land Resources of the Coastal Region, Mas-           various  factors into ''relative ecological significance
                    sachusetts," Soil Conservation Service, Am-          values."
                    herst, Massachusetts.
                                                                            25.   Winchester, B.H., and Harris, L.D.         1979.
              A portion of the document contains criteria used                    "An Approach to Valuation of Florida Fresh-
            to evaluate major wetlands in the coastal region of                   water Wetlands," Proceedings of the Sixt17
            Massachusetts. Each of the 85 wetlands evaluated                      Annual Conference on the Restoration and
            was subjected to map study and field examination.                     Creation of Wetlands, Tampa, Florida.
            Ratings were assigned based on point values ob-
            ained for various attributes. A rationale for each              A procedure was presented for estimating the
            evaluation item was developed to explain the                 relative ecological and functional value of Florida
            t

            development of the criteria.                                 freshwater wetlands. Wetland functions evaluated
                                                                         by this procedure include water quality enhance-
              23.   U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.            1980.     ment, water detention, vegetation diversity and
                    "Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP)                 productivity, and wildlife habitat value. The field
                    Manual (102ESM)," Washington, D.C.                   parameters used in the assessment were wetland
                                                                         size, contiguity, structural vegetative diversity, and
              HEP   is a method that can be used to document             an edge-to-area ration. The procedure was field
            the quality and quantity of available habitat for            tested and was time- and cost-effective. Allowing
            selected wildlife species. HEP provides information          flexibility in both the evaluative criteria used and the
            for two general types of wildlife habitat com-               relative weight assigned to each criterion, the
            parisons: (1) the relative value of different areas at       methodology is applicable in any Florida region for
            the same point in time; and (2) the relative value of        which basic ecological data are available.









                                                                     C - 7










                                                                               Northeast Fish and Wildlife Conference, Vol
           Literature Cited                                                    30, pp 257-279. '                                          I

                                                                       Gupta, T.R., and Foster, J.H. 1973. Evaluation of
        Adamus, P. and Stockwell, L.R. 1983. A method for                      visual-cultural benefits from freshwater wet-
                wetland functional assessment. Volume 1.                       lands in Massachusetts, Journal of the North-
                Critical review and evaluation concepts. U.S.                  eastern Agricultural Council, Vol 2, No. 2, pp
                Department of Transportation. Federal High-                    262-273.
                way Administration. Office Research, En-
                vironmental Division. Washington, D.C.                 Kibby, H.V. 1978. Effects of wetlands on water
                20590 (No. FHWA-IP-82-23).                                     quality. Proceedings of the symposium on
                                                                               strategies for protection and management of
        Adamus, P.R. 1983. A method for wetland function-                      floodplain wetlands and other riparian
                al assessment. Volume 11. Themethod. U.S.                      ecosystems, General Technical Report No.
                Department of Transportation, Federal High-                    GRW-WO-1 2, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
                way Administration. Office of Research, En-                    Forest Service, Washington, D.C.
                vironmental Division. Washington, D.C.
                20590. (No. FHWA-IP-82-24).                            Larson, J.S. (ed.) 1976. Models for assessment of
                                                                               freshwater wetlands.       Publication No. 32,
        Brown, A., Kittle, P., Dale, E.E., and Huffman, R.T.                   Water Resources Center, University of Mas-
                1974. Rare and endangered species, unique                      sachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts.
                ecosystems, and wetlands. Department of
                Zoology and Department of Botany and Bac-              Lonard, R.I., Clairain, E.J., Jr., Huffman, R.T., Hardy.
                teriology. University of Arkansas, Fayet-                      J.W., Brown, L.D., Ballard, P.E., and Watts,
                teville, Arkansas.                                             J.W. 1981. Analysis of methodologies used
                                                                               for the assessment of wetlands values. U.S.
        Dee, N., Baker, J., Drobney, N., Duke, K., Whitman,                    Water Resources Council, Washington, D.C.
                I., and Fahringer, D. 1973. Environmental
                evaluation system for water resources plan-            Lonard, R.I., Clairain, E.J., Jr., Huffman, R.T., Hardy,
                ning. Water Resources Research, Vol 9, No.                     J.W., Brown, L.D., Ballard, P.E., and Watts,
                3, pp 523-534.                                                 J.W. 1984. Wetlands function and values
                                                                               study plan;      Appendix A:        Analysis of
        Euler,  D.L., Carreiro,  F.T., McCullough, G.B., Snell,                methodologies for assessing wetlands
                E.A., Glooschenko, V., and Spurr, R.H. 1983.                   values. Technical Report Y-83-2, U.S. Army
                An evaluation system for wetlands of Ontario                   Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, CE,
                south of the Precambrian Shield. First Edi-                    Vicksburg, Mississippi.
                tion. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources            Marble, A.D., and Gross, M. 1984. A method for
                and Canadian Wildlife Service, Ontario
                Region. Variously paged.                                       assessing wetland        characteristics and
        Fried, E. 1974. Priority rating of wetlands for ac-                    values. Landscape Planning 11, pp 1-17.
                quisition. Transaction of the Northeast Fish           Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 1980.
                and Wildlife Conference, Vol 31, pp 15-30.                     Manual for wetland evaluation techniques:
                                                                               operation draft. Division of Land Resources
        Galloway, G.E. 1978. Assessing man's impact              on            Programs, Lansing, Michigan. 22 pp.
                wetlands, Sea Grant Publication Nos. UNC-
                SG-78-17 or UNC-WRRI-78-136, University of             Reppert, R.T., Sigleo, W., Stakhiv, E., Messman, L.,
                North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina.                       and Meyer, C. 1979. Wetlands values: con-
                                                                               cepts and methods for wetlands evaluation.
        Golet, F.C. 1973. Classification and evaluation of                     IWR Research Report 79-R-1, U.S. Army En-
                freshwater wetlands as wildlife habitat in the                 gineer Institute for Water Resources, Fort
                glaciated Northeast. Transactions of the                       Belvoir, Virginia.


                                                                  C-8








          Shuldiner, P.W., Cope, D.F., and Newton, R.B.             U.S. Army Engineer Division, New England. 1972.
                 1979a. Ecological effects of highway fills on             Charles River; main report and attachments.
                 wetlands. Research Report No. 218B,                       U.S. Army Engineer Division, New England.
                 Transportation Research Board, National Re-               Waltham, Massachusetts.
                 search Council. Washington, D.C.                   U.S. Department of Agriculture.      1978. Wetland
          Smardon, R.C.     1972. Assessing visual-cultural                evaluation criteria--water and related land
                 values on inland wetlands in Massachusetts.               resources of the coastal region of Mas-
                 Master of Science Thesis, University of Mas-              sachusetts. Soil Conservation Service, Am-
                 sachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts.                       herst, Massachusetts.
                 Solomon, R.D., Colbert, B.K., Hansen, W.J.,
                 Richardson, S.E., Canter, L.W., and Vlachos,       U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984.
                 E. C.  1977. Water resources assessment                   Technical report: literature review of wetland
                 methodology (WRAM)--impact assessment                     evaluation methodologies. U.S. Environmen-
                 and alternative evaluation. Technical Report              tal Protection Agency, Region 5, Chicago, Il-
                 Y-77-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Ex-                  linois.
                 periment Station, CE, Vicksburg, Mississippi'.     U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. Habitat
          State of Maryland Department of Natural Resources.               evaluation procedures (HEP) manual.         102
                 Undated. Environmental evaluation of coas-                ESM, Washington, D.C.
                 tal wetlands (Draft). Tidal Wetlands Study,        Virginia Institute of Marine Science.       Undated.
                 pp 181-208.                                               Evaluation      of    Virginia      wetlands.
          Stearns, Conrad and Schmidt Consulting Engineers,                Mimeographed Paper, Glouchester Point,
                 Inc.  1979. Analysis of selected functional               Virginia.
                 characteristics of wetlands.     Contract No.
                 DACW72-78-0017, Draft Report, prepared for         Winchester, B.H., and Harris, L.D. 1979. An ap-
                 U.S. Army Engineers Research Center by the                proach to valuation of Florida freshwater wet-
                 authors, Reston, Virginia.                                lands. Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Con-
                                                                           ference on the Restoration and Creation of
          U.S. Army Engineer Division, Lower Mississippi Vai-              Wetlands, Hillsborough Community College,
                 ley.   1980. A habitat evaluation system                  Tampa, Florida.
                 (HES) for water resources planning. U.S.
                 Army Engineer Division, Lower Mississippi
                 Valley. Vicksburg, Mississippi.




















                                                                C-9









                                                                             * Onondaga County Method (SUNY-Syracuse
           Wetland Assessment Techniques                                       1987). This was adapted from WET by Smardon
           Developed Since 1983 (USEPA 1989a)                                  and others at the State University of New York.

                                                                             * Hollands-Magee Method. This is a scoring techni-
            ï¿½  Wetlands Evaluation Technique (Adamus, et al.                   que developed by two consultants and has been
               1987). This nationally applicable procedure has                 applied to hundreds of wetlan-as in New England
               been used in at least six ADIDs to date, mostly in              and part of Wisconsin (contact: Dennis Magee at
               its original form (known popularly as the "FHWA"                603-472-5191). Supporting software is available.
               or "Adamus" method). It has since been extensive-             * Ontario Method (Euler et al. 1983). This is also a
               ly revised and is available at no cost (with simple             scoring technique, and was extensively peer-
               software) from the Corps of Engineers Wetlands                  reviewed in Canada. (Contact: Valanne Gloos-
               Research Program (contact: Buddy Clairain, 601 -                chenko, 416-965-7641).
               634-3774). Future revisions are anticipated.
            ï¿½  Bottomland Hardwoods WET (Adamus 1987).                       * Connecticut Method (Amman et al. 1986). This is
               This is a simplified, regionalized version of WET,              a scoring technique developed for inland
               applicable to EPA Regions 4 and 6. It is available              municipal wetland agencies.
               from OWP (contact: Joe DaVia at 202-475-8795).                * Marble-Gross Method (Marble and Gross 1984)
               Supporting software is being developed, and fu-                 This was developed for a local application in Con-
               ture revisions are anticipated.                                 necticut.
            ï¿½  Southeastern Alaska WET (Adamus Resource As-                  9 Habitat Evaluation System (HES) (Tennessee
               sessment 1987). This is also a simplified, regional-            Dept. of Conservation 1987). This is a revised
               ized version of WET.                                            version of a Corps-sponsored method used to
            ï¿½  Minnesota Method (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-                 evaluate Lower Mississippi wildlife habitat.
               St:Paul, 1988). This was a joint State-Federal eff ort
               that involved considerable adaptation of WET. A
               similar effort is underway in Wisconsin.






























                                                                    C_ 10









                                                                              Natural Resources and Canadian Wildlife
             References                                                       Service, Ontario Region.
           Adamus, P.R. (ed.) 1987. Atlas of breeding birds in         Marble, A.D. and M. Gross. 1984. A method for
                  Maine 1978-1983, Maine Department of In,                    assessing wetland characteristics and
                  land Fisheries and Wildlife, Augusta. 366 pp.               values, Landscape Planning 2:1-17.
           Adamus Resource Assessment, Inc. 1987. Juneau               State University of New York at Syracuse (SLINY).
                  wetlands: functions and values. City and
                  Borough of Juneau Department of Com-                        1987. Wetlands evaluation system for Onon-
                  munity Development, Juneau, Alaska. 3 vols.                 daga County, New York State. Draft. 93 pp.
                  Amman, A.P., R.W. Franzen, and J.L.                  Tennessee Dept. of Conservation. 1987. Habitat
                  Johnson. 1986.                                              Evaluation
           Method for the evaluation of inland wetlands in Con-        System: Bottomland Forest Community Model.
                  necticut.   Bull. No. 9. Connecticut Dept.                  Tennessee Dept. of Conservation, Ecological
                  Envir. Prot. and USDA Soil Conservation Ser-                Services Division, Nashville. 92 pp.
                   ice, Hartford, Connecticut.
           Euler, v).L., F.T. Carreiro, G.B. McCullough, G.B.          U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-St. Paul. 1988. The
                  Snell, V.                                                   Minnesota wetland evaluation methodology
                                                                              for the North Central United States.        Min-
           Glooschenko, and R.H. Spurr. 1983. An evaluation                   nesota Wetland Evaluation Methodology
                  system for wetlands of Ontario south of the                 Task Force and Corps of Engineers-St. Paul
                  Precambrian Shield. Ontario Ministry of                     District. 97 pp. + appendices.































                                                                   C_ 11





                                                                                                                           t
                                                                                                                           I
                                                                                                                           I
                                                                                                                           I
                                                                                                                           I
                                                                                                                           I
                                                                                                                           I
                                                                                                                           I
                                                                                                                           I
                                                                                                                           I
                                                                                                                           i
                                                                                                                           I
                                                                                                                           i
                                                                                                                           I
                                                                                                                           I
                                                                                                                           i
                                                                                                                           I
                                                                                                                           I
                                                                                                                           i
                                                         C- 12                                                             1









                                                     vvenu
                                                     AL ALw


                            REGIONAL COORDINATORS

                          Regional Water Quality Standards Coordinators
                          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
             Eric Hall, WQS Coordinator                               David Neleigh, WOS Coordinator
             USEPA, Region I                                          USEPA, Region 6
             Water Management Division                                Water Management Division
             JFK Federal Building                                     1445 Ross Avenue
             Boston, MA 02203                                         First Interstate Bank Tower
             (FTS) 835-3533                                           Dallas, TX 75202
             (617) 565-3533                                           (FTS) 255-7145
                                                                      (214) 655-7145
             Rick Balla, WOS Coordinator
             USEPA, Region 2                                          John Houlihan, WOS Coordinator
             Water Management Division                                LISEPA, Region 7
             26 Federal Plaza                                         Water Compliance Branch
             New York, NY 10278                                       726 Minnesota Avenue
             (FTS) 264-1559                                           Kansas City, KS 66101
             (2-12) 264-1559                                          (FTS) 276-7432
             Linda Hoist, WOS Coordinator                             (913) 551-7432
             USEPA, Region 3                                          Bill Wuerthele, WOS Coordinator
             Water Management Division                                LISEPA, Region 8 (8WM-SP)
             841 Chestnut Street                                      Water Management Division
             Philadelphia, PA 19107                                   999 18th Street
             (FTS) 597-0133                                           Denver, CO 80202-2405
             (215) 597-3425                                           (FTS) 330-1586
                                                                      (303) 293-1586
             Fritz Wagener, WOS Coordinator
             USEPA, Region 4                                          Phil Woods, WOS Coordinator
             Water Management Division                                USEPA, Region 9
             345 Courtland Street, N.E.                               Water Management Division (W-3-1)
             Atlanta, GA 30365                                        75 Hawthorne Street
             (FTS) 257-2126                                           San Francisco, CA 94105
             (404) 347-2126                                           (FTS) 484-1994
             Larry Shepard, WOS Coordinator                           (415) 744-1994
             USEPA, Region 5 (TUD-8)                                  Sally Marquis, WOS Coordinator
             Water Management Division                                LISEPA, Region 10      ision (WD-139)
             230 South Dearborn Street                                Water Management Div
             Chicago, IL 60604                                        1200 Sixth Avenue
             (FTS) 886-0135                                           Seattle, WA 98101
             (312) 886-0135                                           (FTS) 399-2116
                                                                      (206) 442-2116



                                                               D - I








                              Regional Wetland Program Coordinators
                       U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)

          Doug Thompson, wetlands Coordinator                       Jerry Saunders, Wetlands Coordinator
          USEPA, Region I                                           USEPA, Region 6
          Water Management Division                                 Environmental Services Division
          Water Quality Branch                                      Federal Activities Branch
          John F. Kennedy Federal Building                          12th Floor, Suite 1200
          Boston, Massachusetts 02203-2211                          1445 Ross Avenue
          (FTS) 835-4422                                            Dallas,Texas 75202
          (617) 565-4422                                            (FTS) 255-2263
          Dan Montella, Wetlands Coordinator                        (214) 655-2263
          USEPA, Region 2                                           Diane Hershberger, Wetlands Coordinator
          Water Management Division                                 Assistant Regional Administrator for
          Marine & Wetlands Protection Branch                        Policy and Management
          26 Federal Plaza                                          USEPA, Region 7
          New York, New York 10278                                  Environmental Review Branch
          (FTS) 264-5170                                            726 Minnesota Avenue
          (212) 264-5170                                            Kansas City, Kansas 66101
                                                                    (FTS) 276-7573
          Barbara D'Angelo, Wetlands Coordinator                    (913) 551-7573
          USEPA, Region 3
          Environmental Service Division                            Gene Reetz, Wetlands Coordinator
          Wetlands and Marine Policy Section                        USEPA, Region 8
          841 Chestnut Street                                       Water Management Division
          Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107                          State Program Management Branch
          (FTS) 597-9301                                            One Denver Place, Suite 500
          (215) 597-9301                                            999 18th Street
                                                                    Denver, Colorado 80202-2405
          Tom Welborn, Wetlands Coordinator                         (FTS) 330-1565
            (Regulatory Unit)                                       (303) 293-1565
          Gail Vanderhoogt, Wetlands Coordinator
            (Planning Unit)                                         Phil Oshida, Wetlands Coordinator
          USEPA, Region 4                                           USEPA, Region 9
          Water Management Division                                 Water Management Division
          Water Quality Branch                                      Wetlands, Oceans and Estuarine Branch
          345 Courtland Street, N.E.                                1235 Mission Street
          Atlanta, Georgia 30365                                    San Francisco, California 94103
          (FTS) 257-2126                                            (FTS) 464-2187
          (404) 347-2126                                            (415) 744-2180

          Doug Ehorn, Wetland Coordinator                           Bill Riley, Wetlands Coordinator
          USEPA, Region 5                                           USEPA, Region 10
          Water Management Division                                 Water Management Division
          Water Quality Branch                                      Environmental Evaluation Branch
          230 South Dearborn Street                                 1200 Sixth Avenue
          Chicago, Illinois 60604                                   Seattle, Washington 98101
          (FTS) 886-0243                                            (FTS) 399-1412
          (312) 886-0243                                            (206)422-  1412



                                                             D-2






                                 Regional Wetland Program Coordinators
                                  U.S. Fish an.d Wildlife Service (USFWS)

                  Region I           California, Hawaii,               Regional Wetland Coordinator
                                     Idaho, Nevada,                    USFWS, Region 1
                                     Oregon, Washington                Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
                                                                       1002 N.E. Holladay Street
                                     RWC: Dennis Peters                Portland, Oregon 97232-4181
                                     ASST: Howard Browers                COM: 503/231-6154
                                                                         FTS: 429-6154


                  Region 2           Arizona, New Mexico               Regional Wetland Coordinator
                                     Oklahoma, Texas                   USFWS, Region 2
                                                                       Room 4012
                                                                       500 Gold Avenue, SW
                                     RWC: Warren Hagenbuck             Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103
                                     ASST: Curtis Carley                 COM: 505/766-2914
                                                                         FTS: 474-2914


                  Region 3           Illinois, Indiana,                Regional Wetland Coordinator
                                     Iowa, Michigan,                   USFWS, Region 3
                                     Minnesota, Missouri,              Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
                                     Ohio, Wisconsin                   Federal Building, Ft Snelling
                                                                       Twin Cities, Minnesota 55111
                                     RWC: Ron Erickson                   COM: 612/725-3536
                                     ASST: John Anderson                 FTS: 725-3536


                  Region 4           Alabama, Arkansas,                Regional Wetland Coordinator
                                     Florida, Georgia,                 USFWS, Region 4
                                     Kentucky, Louisiana,              R.B. Russell Federal Building
                                     Mississippi,                      75 Spring Street, S.W.
                                     North Carolina,                   Suite 1276
                                     Puerto Rico,                      Atlanta, Georgia 30303
                                     South Carolina,                     COM: 404/331-6343
                                     Tennessee,                          FTS: 841-6343
                                     Virgin Islands


                                     RWC: John Hefner
                                     ASST: Charlie Storrs


















                                                                   D-3










             Region 5          Connecticut,                  Regional Wetland Coordinator
                               Delaware, Maine,              USFWS, Region 5
                               Maryland,                     One Gateway Center, Suite 700
                               Massachusetts, New            Newton Corner, MA 02158
                               Hampshire, New York,            COM: 617/965-5100
                               New Jersey,                     FTS: 829-9379
                               Pennsylvania, Rhode
                               Island, Vermont, Virginia,
                               West Virginia

                               RWC: Ralph Tiner
                               ASST: Glenn Smith


             Region 6          Colorado, Kansas,             Regional Wetland Coordinator
                               Montana, Nebraska,            USFWS, Region 6
                               North Dakota,                 Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
                               South Dakota,                 P.O. Box 25486
                               Utah, Wyoming                 Denver Federal Center
                                                             Denver, Colorado 80225
                               RWC: Chuck Elliott              COM: 303/236-8180
                               ASST: Bill Pearson              FTS: 776-8180


             Region 7          Alaska                        Regional Wetland Coordinator
                                                             USFWS, Region 7
                                                             1011 East Tudor Road
                                                             Anchorage, Alaska 99503
                               RWC: Jon Hall                   COM: 907/786-3403 or 3471
                               ASST: David Dail                FTS: (8) 907/786-3403




























                                                          D-4






                                                     Appendi.X: E







                   EXAMPLE OF STATE CERTIFICATION ACTION INVOLVING
                                 WETLANDS UNDER                       CWA SECTION 401


              The dam proposed by the City of Harrisburg was                   b.    The destruction of the wetlands will
            to be 3,000 feet long and 17 feet high. The dam was                      cause the loss of beds of emergent
            to consist of 32 bottom-hinged flap gates. The dam                       aquatic vegetation that serve as
            would have created an impoundment with a surface                         habitat for juvenile fish. Loss of this
            area of 3,800 acres, a total storage capacity of                         habitat will adversely affect the rela-
            35,000 acre-feet, and a pool elevation of 306.5 feet.                    tive abundance of juvenile and adult
            The backwater would have extended approximately                          fish (especially smallmouth bass).
            8 miles upstream on the Susquehanna River and
            approximately 3 miles upstream on the Con-                         C.    The wetlands which will be lost are
            ocloguinet Creek.                                                        critical habitat for, among other
                                                                                     species, the yellow crowned night
              The project was to be a run-of-the-river facility,                     heron, black crowned night heron,
            using the head difference created by the dam to                          marsh wren and great egret. In addi-
            create electricity. Maximum turbine flow would have                      tion, the yellow crowned night heron
            been 10,000 cfs (at a nethead of 12.5), and minimum                      is a proposed State threatened
            flow would have been 2,000 cfs. Under normal con-                        species, and the marsh wren and
            ditions, all flows up to 40,000 cfs would have passed                    great egret are candidate species of
            through the turbines.                                                    special concern.

               The public notice denying 401 certification for this            d.    All affected wetlands areas are impor-
            project stated as follows:                                               tant and, to the extent that the loss of
               1    The construction and operation of the                            these wetlands can be mitigated, the
                    project will result in the significant loss of                   applicant has failed to demonstrate
                    wetlands and related aquatic habitat and                         that the mitigation proposed is ade-
                    acreage. More specifically:                                      quate. To the extent that adequate
                                                                                     mitigation is possible, mitigation must
                                                                                     include replacement in the river sys-
                    a.    The destruction of the wetlands will                       tem.
                          have an adverse impact on the local
                          river ecosystem because of the in-                   e.    Proposed riprapping of the shoreline
                          tegral role wetlands play in maintain-                     could further reduce wetland
                          ing that ecosystem.                                        acreage. The applicant has failed to
                                                                                     demonstrate that there will not be an



                                                                   E- I





                                                                                               NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY



                                                                                               3 6668 14114015 4

                     adverse water quality and related                      Creek is currently adversely affected by
                     habitat impact resulting from riprap-                  nutrient problems. The applicant has failed
                     ping.                                                  to demonstrate that there will not be water
                                                                            quality degradation as a result of the im-
                f.   Based upon information received by                     poundment.
                     the Department, the applicant has un-
                     derestimated the total wetland                   5.    The applicant has failed to demonstrate that
                     acreage affected.                                      there will not be an adverse water quality
                                                                            impact resulting from combined sewer over-
         2.     The applicant has failed to demonstrate that                flows.
                there will be no adverse water quality im-
                pacts from increased groundwater levels               6.    The applicant  has failed to demonstrate that
                resulting from the project. The ground                      there will not be an adverse water quality
                water model used by the applicant is not                    impact to the  150-acre area downstream of
                acceptable due to erroneous assumptions                     the proposed   dam and upstream from the
                and the lack of a sensitivity analysis. The                 existing Dock Street dam.
                applicant has not provided sufficient infor-          7.    The applicant has failed to demonstrate that
                mation concerning the impact of increased                   the construction and operation of the
                groundwater levels on existing sites of sub-                proposed dam will not have an adverse im-
                surface contamination, adequacy of subsur-                  pact on the aquatic resources upstream
                face sewage system replacement areas and                    from the proposed impoundment. For ex-
                the impact of potential increased surface                   ample, the suitability of the impoundment for
                flooding. Additionally, information was not                 smallmouth bass spawning relative to the
                provided to adequately assess the effect of                 frequency of turbid conditions during
                raised groundwater on sewer system                          spawning was not adequately addressed
                laterals, effectiveness of sewer rehabilitation             and construction of the dam and impound-
                measures and potential for increased flows
                at the Harrisburg wastewater plant.                         ment will result in a decrease in the diversity
                                                                            and density of the macroinvertebrate com-
          3.    The applicant has failed to demonstrate that                munity in the impoundment area.
                there will not be a dissolved oxygen problem          8.    Construction of the dam will have an ad-
                as a result of the impoundment. Present in-                 verse impact on upstream and downstream
                formation indicates the existing river system               migration of migratory fish (especially shad)
                in the area is sensitive to diurnal, dissolved              Even with the construction of fish pas-
                oxygen fluctuation. Sufficient information                  sageways for upstream and downstream
                was not provided to allow the Department to                 migration, significant declines in the num-
                conclude that dissolved oxygen standards
                will be met in the pool area. Additionally, the             bers of fish successfully negotiating the
                applicant failed to adequately address the                  ob.struction are anticipated.
                issue of anticipated dissolved oxygen levels          9.    The applicant has failed to demonstrate that
                below the dam.                                              there will not be an adverse water quality
          4.    The proposed impoundment will create a                      impact related to sedimentation within the
                                                                            pool area.
                backwater on    the lower three miles of the
                Conodoguinet    Creek. Water quality in the









                                                               E-2