National Guidance Water Quality Standards for Wetlands

5.0 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. The implications of antidegradation to the disposal of dredged and fill material is discussed in Section 5.1 below. At a minimum, EPA expects States to fully apply their antidegradation policies and implementation method to wetlands by the end of FY 1993. No changes to State policies are required if they are fully consistent with the Federal policy. With the inclusion of wetlands as "waters of the State," State antidegradation policies and their implementation methods will apply to wetlands in the same way as other surface waters. The WQS regulation describes the requirements for State antidegradation policies which include full protection of existing uses (functions and values), maintenance of water quality in high quality waters and a prohibition against lowering water quality in outstanding national resource waters. EPA guidance on the implementation of antidegradation policies is contained in the Water Quality Standards Handbook and Questions and Answers on Antidegradation (USEPA 1985a).

5.1 Protection of Existing Uses

State antidegradation policies should provide for the protection of existing uses in wetlands and the level of water quality necessary to protect those uses in the same manner as for other surface waters; see Section 131.12(a)(1) of the WQS regulation. The existing use can be determined by demonstrating that the use or uses have actually occurred since November 28, 1975, or that the water quality is suitable to allow the use to be attained. This is the basis of EPA's antidegradation policy and is important in the wetland protection effort. States, especially those that adopt less detailed use classifications for wetlands, will need to use the existing use protection in their antidegradation policies to ensure protection of wetland values and functions.

Determination of an existing aquatic life and wildlife use may require physical, chemical, and biological evaluations through a waterbody survey and assessment. Waterbody survey and assessment guidance may be found in three volumes entitled Technical Support Manual for Conducting Use Attainability Analyses (USEPA 1983b, 1984a, 1984b). A technical support manual for conducting use attainability analyses for wetlands is currently under development by the Office of Water Regulations and Standards.

In the case of wetland fills, EPA allows a slightly different interpretation of existing uses under the antidegradation policy. This interpretation has been addressed in the answer to question #13 in "Questions and Answers on: Antidegradation", (USEPA 1985a) and is presented below.
 

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

These Guidelines may be used by States to determine "significant degradation" for wetland fills. Of course, the States are free to adopt stricter requirements for wetland fills in their own antidegradation policies, just as they may adopt any other requirements more stringent than Federal law requires. For additional information on the linkage between water quality standards and the Section 404 program, see Section 6.2.

5.2 Protection of High Quality Wetlands

State antidegradation policies should provide for water quality in "high quality wetlands" to be maintained and protected, as prescribed in Section 131.12(a)(2) of the WQS regulation. State implementation method requiring alternatives analyses, social and economic justifications, point and nonpoint source control and public participation are to be applied to wetlands in the same manner as other surface waters.

5.3 Protection of Outstanding Wetlands

Outstanding national resource waters (ONRW) designations offer special protection (i.e., no degradation) for designated waters, including wetlands. These are areas of exceptional water quality or recreational/ecological significance. State antidegradation policies should provide special protection to wetlands designated as outstanding national resource waters in the same manner as other surface waters; see Section 131.12(a)(3) of the WQS regulation and EPA guidance (Water Quality Standards Handbook (USEPA 1983b), and Questions and Answers on: Antidegradation (USEPA 1985a)). Activities that might trigger a State analysis of a wetland for possible designation as an ONRW are no different for wetlands than for other waters.

The following list provides general information on wetlands which are likely candidates for protection as ONRWs. It also may be used to identify specific wetlands for use designation under the State's wetland classification system; see Section 4.0. Some of these information sources are discussed in greater detail in EPA's guidance entitled Wetlands and Section 401 Certification: Opportunities and Guidelines for States and Eligible Indian Tribes (USEPA 1989f); see Section 6.1.

o Parks, wildlife management areas, refuges, wild and scenic rivers, and estuarine sanctuaries;

o Wetlands adjacent to ONRWs or other high quality waters (e.g., lakes, estuaries shellfish beds, etc.);

o Priority wetlands identified under the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 through Statewide Outdoor Recreation Plans (SORP) and Wetland Priority Conservation Plans;

o Sites within joint venture project areas under the North American Waterfowl Management Plan;

o Sites under the Ramsar (Iran) Treaty on Wetlands of International Importance;

o Biosphere reserve sites identified as part of the "Man and the Biosphere" Program sponsored by the United Nations;

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

o Priority wetlands identified as part of comprehensive planning efforts conducted at the local, State, Regional or Federal levels of government; e.g., Advance Identification (ADID) program under Section 404 and Special Area Management Plans (SAMPs) under the 1980 Coastal Zone Management Act.

The Wetland Evaluation Technique; Volume II: Methodology (Adamus et al. 1987) provides additional guidance on the identification of wetlands with high ecological and social value; see Section 3.2.

6.0 IMPLEMENTATION

Implementing water quality standards for wetlands will require a coordinated effort between related Federal and State agencies and programs. In addition to the Section 401 certification for Federal permits and licenses, standards have other potential applications for State programs including landfill siting, fish and wildlife management and acquisition decisions, and best management practices to control nonpoint source pollution. Many coastal States have wetland permit programs, coastal zone management programs, and National Estuary Programs; and the development of water quality standards should utilize data, information and expertise from these programs. For all States, information and expertise is available nationwide from EPA and the Corps of Engineers as part of the Federal 404 permit program. State wildlife and fisheries departments can also provide data, advice and expertise related to wetlands. Finally, the FWS can provide information on wetlands as part of the National Wetlands Inventory program, the Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Program, the Endangered Species and Habitat Conservation Program, the North American Waterfowl Management Program and the National Wildlife Refuge program. EPA and FWS wetland program contacts are included in Appendix B.

This section provides information on certain elements of standards (e.g., mixing zones) and the relationship between wetland standards and other water related activities and programs (e.g., monitoring and CWA Sections 401, 402, 404 and 319). As information is developed by EPA and the States, EPA will periodically transfer it nationwide through workshops and program summaries. EPA's Office of Water Regulations and Standards has developed an outreach program for providing this information.

6.1 Section 401 Certification

Many States have begun to make more use of CWA Section 401 certification to manage certain activities that impact their wetland resources. Section 401 gives the States the authority to grant, deny, or condition certification of Federal permits or licenses (e.g., CWA Section 404 permits issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission licenses, some Rivers and Harbors Act Sections 9 and 10 permits, and CWA Section 402 permits where issued by EPA) that may result in a discharge to "waters of the U.S." Such action is taken by the State to ensure compliance with various provisions of the CWA. Violation of water quality standards is often the basis for denials or conditioning through Section 401 certification. In the absence of wetland-specific standards, States have based decisions on their general narrative criteria and antidegradation policies. The Office of Wetlands Protection has developed a handbook for States entitled Wetlands and 401 Certification: Opportunities and Guidelines for States and Eligible Indian Tribes (USEPA 1989g) on the use of Section 401 certification to protect wetlands. This document provides several examples where States have applied their water quality standards to wetlands, one example of which is included in Appendix E.

The development of explicit water quality standards for wetlands, including wetlands in the definition of "State waters," uses, criteria and antidegradation policies, can provide a strong and consistent basis for State 401 certifications.

6.2 Discharges to Wetlands

The Water Quality Standards Regulation (40 CFR 131.10(a)) states that, "in no case shall a State adopt waste transport or waste assimilation as a designated use for any 'waters of the U.S.'." This prohibition extends to wetlands since they are included in the definition of "waters of the U.S." Certain activities involving the discharge of pollutants to wetlands may be permitted, as with other water types, providing a determination is made that the designated and existing uses of the wetlands and downstream waters will be maintained and protected. As with other surface waters, the State must ensure, through ambient monitoring, that permitted discharges to wetlands preserve and protect wetland functions and values as defined in State water quality standards; see Section 6.4.

Created wastewater treatment wetlands that are not impounded from waters of the U.S. and are designed, built and operated solely as wastewater treatment systems, are a special case, and are not generally considered waters of the U.S. Some such created wetlands, however, also provide other functions and values similar to those provided by natural wetlands. Under certain circumstances, such created, multiple use wetlands may be considered "waters of the U.S.," and as such, would be subject to the same protection and restrictions on use as natural wetlands (see Report on the Use of Wetlands for Municipal Wastewater Treatment and Disposal (USEPA 1987b)). This determination must be made on a case-by-case basis, and may consider factors such as the size and degree of isolation of the created wetland.

6.2.1 Municipal Wastewater Treatment

State standards should be consistent with the document developed by the Office of Municipal Pollution Control entitled Report on the Use of Wetlands for Municipal Wastewater Treatment and Disposal (USEPA 1987b), on the use of wetlands for municipal wastewater treatment. This document outlines minimum treatment and other requirements under the CWA for discharges to natural wetlands and those specifically created and used for the purpose of wastewater treatment.

The following is a brief summary of the above referenced document. For municipal discharges to natural wetlands, a minimum of secondary treatment is required and applicable water quality standards for the wetland and adjacent waters must be met. Natural wetlands are nearly always "waters of the U.S." and are afforded the same level of protection as other surface waters with regard to standards and minimum treatment requirement. There are no minimum treatment requirements for wetlands created solely for the purpose of wastewater treatment which do not qualify as "waters of the U.S." The discharge from the created wetlands which do not qualify as "waters of the U.S." must meet applicable standards for the receiving water. EPA encourages the expansion of wetland resources through the creation of engineered wetlands while allowing the use of natural wetlands for wastewater treatment only under limited conditions. Water quality standards for wetlands can prevent the misuse and overuse of natural wetlands for treatment through adoption of proper uses and criteria and application of State antidegradation policies.

6.2.2 Storm Water Treatment

Storm water discharges to wetlands can provide an important component of the fresh water supply to wetlands. However, storm water discharges from various land use activities can also contain a significant amount of pollutants. Section 402(p)(2) of the Clean Water Act requires that EPA, or States with authorized National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) programs, issue NPDES permits for certain types of storm water discharges. EPA is in the process of developing regulations defining the scope of this program as well as developing permits for these discharges. Storm water permits can be used to require controls that reduce the pollutants that are discharged to wetlands as well as other waters of the United States. In addition, some of the storm water management controls anticipated in permits will require creation of wetlands or structures with some of the attributes of wetlands for the single purpose of water treatment.

EPA anticipates that the policy for storm water discharges to wetlands will have some similarities to the policies for municipal wastewater discharges to wetlands. Natural wetlands are "waters of the United States" and are afforded a level of protection with regard to water quality standards and technology-based treatment requirements. The discharge from created wetlands must meet applicable water quality standards for the receiving waters. EPA will issue technical guidance on permitting storm water discharges, including permitting storm water discharges to wetlands, over the next few years.

6.2.3 Fills

Section 404 of the CWA regulates the discharge of dredged and fill material into "waters of the U.S." The Corps of Engineers' regulations for the 404 program are contained in 33 CFR Parts 320-330 while EPA's regulations for the 404 program are contained in 40 CFR Part 230-33.

One State uses the following guidelines for fills in their internal Section 401 review guidelines:

Some modification of this may be incorporated into States' water quality standards. The States are encouraged to provide a linkage in their water quality standards to the determination of "significant degradation" as required under EPA guidelines (40 CFR 230.10(c)) and other applicable State laws affecting the disposal of dredged or fill materials in wetlands; see Section 5.1.

6.2.4 Nonpoint Source Assessment and Control

Wetlands, as with other waters, are impacted by nonpoint sources of pollution. Many wetlands, through their assimilative capacity for nutrients and sediment, also can serve an important water quality control function for nonpoint source pollution effects on waters adjacent to, or downstream of, the wetlands. Water quality standards play a pivotal role in both of the above. First, Section 319 of the CWA requires the States to complete assessments of nonpoint source (NPS) impacts to State waters, including wetlands, and to prepare management programs to control NPS impacts. Water quality standards for wetlands can form the basis for these assessments and management programs for wetlands. Second, water quality standards requirements for other surface waters such as rivers, lakes and estuaries can provide an impetus for States to protect, enhance and restore wetlands to help achieve nonpoint source control and water quality standards objectives for adjacent and downstream waters. The Office of Water Regulations and Standards and the Office of Wetlands Protection have developed guidance on the coordination of wetland and NPS control programs entitled National Guidance - Wetlands and Nonpoint Source Control Programs (USEPA 1990c).

6.3 Monitoring

Water quality management activities, including the permitting of wastewater and storm water discharges, the assessment and control of NPS pollution, and waste disposal activities (sewage sludge, CERCLA, RCRA) require sufficient monitoring to ensure that the designated and existing uses of "waters of the U.S." are maintained and protected. In addition, Section 305(b) of the CWA requires States to report on the overall status of their waters in attaining water quality standards. The inclusion of wetlands in water quality standards provides the basis for conducting both wetland specific and status and trend monitoring of State wetland resources. Information gathered from the 305(b) reports may also be used to update and refine the designated wetland uses. The monitoring of wetlands is made difficult by limitations in State resources. Where regulated activities impact wetlands or other surface waters, States should provide regulatory incentives and negotiate monitoring responsibilities of the party conducting the regulated activity.

Monitoring of activities impacting specific wetlands may include several approaches. Monitoring methods involving biological measurements, such as plant, macroinvertebrate and fish (e.g., biomass and diversity indices), have shown promise for monitoring stream quality (Plafkin, et al. 1989). These types of indicators have not been widely tested for wetlands; see Section 7.1. However, the State of Florida has developed biological criteria as part of their regulations governing the discharge of municipal wastewater to wetlands.5 The States are encouraged to develop and test the use of biological indicators. Other more traditional methods currently applied to other surface waters, including but not limited to the use of water quality criteria, sediment quality criteria and whole effluent toxicity, are also available for conducting monitoring of specific wetlands.

Discharges involving persistent or bioaccumulative contaminants may necessitate the monitoring of the fate of such contaminants through wetlands and their impacts on aquatic life and wildlife. The exposure of birds and mammals to these contaminants is accentuated by the frequent use of wetlands by wildlife and the concentration of contaminants in wetlands through sedimentation and other processes. States should conduct monitoring of these contaminants in wetlands, and may require such monitoring as part of regulatory activities involving these contaminants.

Status and trend monitoring of the wetland resources overall, may require additional approaches; see Section 3.1. Given current gaps in scientific knowledge concerning indicators of wetland quality, monitoring of wetlands over the next few years may focus on the spatial extent (i.e., quantity) and physical structure (e.g., plant types, diversity and distribution) of wetland resources. The tracking of wetland acreage and plant communities using aerial photography can provide information that can augment the data collected on specific activities impacting wetlands, as discussed above.

EPA has developed guidance on the reporting of wetland conditions for the Section 305(b) program entitled Guidelines for the Preparation of the 1990 State Water Quality Assessment 305(b) Report, (USEPA 1989b). When assessing individual specific wetlands, assessment information should be managed in an automated data system compatible with the Section 305(b) Waterbody System. In addition, the NWI program provides technical procedures and protocols for tracking the spatial extent of wetlands for the U.S. and subregions of the U.S. These sources provide the framework for reporting on the status and trends of State wetland resources.

6.4 Mixing Zones and Variances

The guidance on mixing zones in the Water Quality Standards Handbook and the Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control (TSD) (USEPA 1985b) applies to all surface waters, including wetlands. This includes the point of application of acute and chronic criteria. As with other surface waters, mixing zones may be granted only when water is present, and may be developed specifically for different water types. Just as mixing zone procedures are often different for different water types and flow regimes (e.g., free flowing streams versus lakes and estuaries), separate procedures also may be developed specifically for wetlands. Such procedures should meet the requirements contained in the TSD.

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

7.0 FUTURE DIRECTIONS

EPA's Office of Water Regulations and Standards' planning document (Water Quality Standards Framework, (USEPA Draft 1989e)) identifies the major objectives for the program and the activities necessary to meet these objectives. Activities related to the development of water quality standards for wetlands are separated into two phases: (1) phase 1 activities to be developed by the States by the end of FY 1993, discussed above, and (2) phase 2 activities that will require additional research and program development, which are discussed below.

7.1 Numeric Biological Criteria for Wetlands

Development of narrative biological criteria are included in the first phase of the development of water quality standards for wetlands; see Section 5.1.2. The second phase involves the implementation of numeric biological criteria. This effort requires the detailed evaluation of the components of wetland communities to determine the structure and function of unimpaired wetlands. These measures serve as reference conditions for evaluating the integrity of other wetlands. Regulatory activities involving discharges to wetlands (e.g., CWA Sections 402 and 404) can provide monitoring data to augment data collected by the States for the development of numeric biological criteria; see Section 7.4. The development of numeric biological criteria for wetlands will require additional research and field testing over the next several years.

Biological criteria are based on local and regional biotic characteristics. This is in contrast to the nationally based chemical specific aquatic life criteria developed by EPA under controlled laboratory conditions. The States will have primary responsibility for developing and implementing biological criteria for their surface waters, including wetlands, to reflect local and regional differences in resident biological communities. EPA will work closely with the States and the EPA Office of Research and Development to develop and test numeric biological criteria for wetlands. Updates on this work will be provided through the Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Criteria and Standards Division's regular newsletter.

7.2 Wildlife Criteria

Wetlands are important habitats for wildlife species. It is therefore important to consider wildlife in developing criteria which protect the functions and values of wetlands. Existing chemical specific aquatic life criteria are derived by testing selected aquatic organisms by exposing them to contaminants in water. Although considered protective of aquatic life, these criteria often do not account for the bioaccumulation of these contaminants, which may cause a major impact on 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 three years, the Office of Water Regulations and Standards is reviewing aquatic life water quality criteria to determine whether adjustments in the criteria and/or alternative forms of criteria (e.g., tissue concentration criteria) are needed to adequately protect wildlife species using wetland resources. Since wetlands may not have open surface waters during all or parts of the year, alternative tissue based criteria based on contaminant concentrations in wildlife species and their food sources may become important criteria for evaluating contaminant impacts in wetlands; particularly those that bioaccumulate. Based on evaluations of current criteria and wildlife at risk in wetlands, national criteria may be developed.

7.3 Wetlands Monitoring

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

REFERENCES

11 Adamus, P.R., E.J. Clairain Jr., R.D. Smith, and R.E.Young. 1987. Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET); Volume II: Methodology. Operational Draft Technical Report Y-87; U.S. Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

8 Adamus, P.R. and K. Brandt. Draft. Impacts on Quality of Inland Wetlands of the United States: A Survey of Techniques, Indicators, and Applications of Community-level Biomonitoring Data. USEPA Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR.

10 The Conservation Foundation. 1988. Protecting America's Wetlands: An Action Agenda, The Final Report of the National Wetlands Policy Forum. Washington, DC.

6a Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. FWS/OBS-79/31.

Federal Water Pollution Control Administration. 1968. Water Quality Criteria (the Green Book), Report of the National Technical Advisory Committee to the Secretary of the Interior. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. (out of print).

12 Hagley, C.A. and D.L. Taylor. Draft. An Approach for Evaluating Numeric Water Quality Criteria for Wetlands Protection. USEPA Environmental Research Laboratory, Duluth, MN.

1 Lonard, R.I. and E.J. Clairain. 1986. Identification of Methodologies for the Assessment of Wetland Functions and Values, Proceeding of the National Wetland Assessment Symposium, Association of Wetland Managers, Berne, NY. pp. 66-72.

2 Plafkin, J.L., M.T. Barbour, K.D. Porter, S.K. Gross, and R.M. Hughes. 1989. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers, USEPA, Office of Water Regulations and Standards. EPA/444/4-89/001.

3 Stephan, C.E., D.I. Mount, D.J. Hansen, J.H. Gentile, G.A. Chapman, and W.A. Brungs. 1985. Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses. USEPA, Office of Research and Development, Duluth, MN. NTIS# PB-85-227049.

4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983a. Technical Support Manual: Waterbody Surveys and Assessments for Conducting Use Attainability Analyses. Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC.

4 _______. 1983b. Water Quality Standards Handbook. Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC.

4 _______. 1984a. Technical Support Manual: Waterbody Surveys and Assessments for Conducting Use Attainability Analyses. Vol II. Estuarine Systems. Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington,&nbspDC.

4 _______. 1984b. Technical Support Manual: Waterbody Surveys and Assessments for Conducting Use Attainability Analyses. Vol III. Lake Systems. Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC.

4 _______. 1985a. Questions and Answers on:Antidegradation. Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC.

5 _______. 1985b. Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control. Office of Water Enforcement and Permits, Washington, DC.

6b _______. 1987a. Quality Criteria for Water - 1986. Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC. EPA&nbsp440/5-86-001.

9 _______. 1987b. Report on the Use of Wetlands for Municipal Wastewater Treatment and Disposal. Office of Municipal Pollution Control, Washington, DC. (with Attachment D, September 20, 1988). EPA&nbsp430/09-88-005.

1 _______. 1989a. Guidance to EPA Regional Offices on the Use of Advanced Identification Authorities Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Office of Wetlands Protection, Washington, DC.

2 _______. 1989b. Guidelines for the Preparation of the 1990 State Water Quality Assessment (305(b) Report). Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC.

8 _______. 1989c. Regionalization as a Tool for Managing Environmental Resources. Office of Research and Development, Corvallis, OR. EPA/600/3-89/060.

1 _______. 1989d. Survey of State Water Quality Standards for Wetlands. Office of Wetlands Protection, Washington, D.C.

4 _______. 1989e. Water Quality Standards Framework (draft). Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC.

8 _______. 1989f. Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science. Office of Research and Development, Corvallis, OR. EPA 600/3-89/038a and EPA 600/3-89/038b.

1 _______. 1989g. Wetlands and 401 Certification: Opportunities and Guidelines for States and Eligible Indian Tribes. Office of Wetlands Protection, Washington, DC.

7 _______. 1990a. Agency Operating Guidance, FY 1991: Office of Water. Office of the Administrator, Washington, DC.

4 _______. 1990b. Biological Criteria, National Program< Guidance for Surface Waters. Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC. EPA&nbsp440/5-90-004.

2 _______. 1990c. National Guidance, Wetlands and Nonpoint Source Control Programs. Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC.

Sources of Documents

1 USEPA, Office of Wetlands Protection
Wetlands Strategies and State Programs Division
401 M St., S.W. (A-104F)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 382-5048

2 USEPA, Office of Water Regulations and Standards
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division
401 M St., S.W. (WH-553)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 382-7040

3 National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
5285 Front Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22116
(703) 487-4650

4 USEPA, Office of Water Regulations and Standards
Criteria and Standards Division
401 M St., S.W. (WH-585)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 475-7315

5 Out of print. A revised Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control will be available October 1990 from:
Office of Water Enforcement and Permits
Permits Division
401 M St., S.W. (EN-336)
Washington, DC 20460

6 U.S. Government Printing Office
North Capitol St., N.W.
Washington, DC 20401
(202) 783-3238
aOrder No. 024-010-00524-6
bOrder No. 955-002-0000-8

7 USEPA, Water Policy Office
401 M St., S.W. (WH-556)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 382-5818

8 USEPA, Office of Research and Development
Environmental Research Laboratory200 SW 35th St.
Corvallis, OR 97333
(503) 420-4666

9 USEPA, Office of Municipal Pollution Control
401 M St., S.W. (WH-546)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 382-5850

10 The Conservation Foundation
1250 Twenty-Fourth St., N.W.
Washington, DC 20037
(202) 293-4800

11 U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Research Program
(601) 634-3774

12 USEPA, Office of Research and Development
Environmental Research Laboratory
Duluth, MN 55804
(218) 780-5549

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

Created Wetland - A wetland at a site where it did not formerly occur. Created wetlands are designed to meet a variety of human benefits including, but not limited to, the treatment of water pollution discharges (e.g., municipal wastewater, storm water, etc.) and the mitigation of wetland losses permitted under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. This term encompasses the term "constructed wetland" as used in other EPA guidance and documents.

Enhancement - An activity increasing one or more natural or artificial wetland functions. For example, the removal of a point source discharge impacting a wetland.

Functions - The role wetlands serve which are of value to society or the environment.

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

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

Restoration - An activity returning a wetland from a disturbed or altered condition with lesser acreage or functions to a previous condition with greater wetland acreage or functions. For example, restoration might involve the plugging of a drainage ditch to restore the hydrology to an area that was a wetland before the installation of the drainage ditch.

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

Upland - Any area that does not qualify as wetland because the associated hydrologic regime is not sufficiently wet to elicit development of vegetation, soils and/or hydrologic characteristics associated with wetlands, or is defined as open waters.

Waters of the U.S. - See Appendix B for Federal definition; 40 CFR Parts 122.2, 230.3, and 232.2.

Wetlands - Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetland 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.

The federal definition of "waters of the United States" (40 CFR Section 232.2(q)) is:

(1) All waters which are currently used, were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide;
(2) All interstate waters including interstate wetlands;
(3) All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which would or could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters:

(4) All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under this definition;
(5) Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs 1-4.
(6) The territorial sea;
(7) Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands) identified in 1-6; waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet the requirements of CWA (other than cooling ponds as defined in 40 CFR § 423.11(m) which also meet criteria in this definition) are not waters of the United States.

(* Note: EPA has clarified that waters of the U.S. under the commerce connection in (3) above also include, for example, waters:

APPENDIX C

INFORMATION ON THE ASSESSMENT OF WETLAND FUNCTIONS AND VALUES

Summary of Methodologies Prior to 1983
(Leonard and Clairain 1986)

Wetland Assessment Techniques Developed Since 1983
(USEPA 1989a)

• Wetlands Evaluation Technique (Adamus, et al. 1987). This nationally-applicable procedure has been used in at least 6 ADID's to date, mostly in its original form (known popularly as the "FHWA" or "Adamus" method). It has since been extensively revised and is available at no cost (with simple software) from the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Research Program (contact: Buddy Clairain, 601-634-3774). Future revisions are anticipated.
   
• Bottomland Hardwoods WET (Adamus 1987). This is a simplified, regionalized version of WET, applicable to EPA Regions 4 and 6. It is available from OWP (contact: Joe DaVia at 202-475-8795). Supporting software is being developed, and future revisions are anticipated.
   
• Southeastern Alaska WET (Adamus Resource Assessment 1987). This is also a simplified, regionalized version of WET.
   
• Minnesota Method (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-St.Paul, 1988). This was a joint State-federal effort that involved considerable adaptation of WET. A similar effort is underway in Wisconsin.
   
• Onondaga County Method (SUNY-Syracuse 1987). This was adapted from WET by Smardon and others at the State University of New York.
   
• Hollands-Magee Method. This is a scoring technique developed by two consultants and applied to hundreds of wetlands in New England and part of Wisconsin (contact: Dennis Magee at 603-472-5191). Supporting software is available.
   
• Ontario Method (Euler et al. 1983). This is also a scoring technique, and was extensively peer-reviewed in Canada. (Contact: Valanne Glooschenko, 416-965-7641).
   
• Connecticut Method (Amman et al. 1986). This is a scoring technique developed for inland municipal wetland agencies.
   
• Marble-Gross Method (Marble and Gross 1984). This was developed for a local application in Connecticut.
   
• Habitat Evaluation System (HES) (Tennessee Dept. of Conservation 1987). This is a revised version of a Corps sponsored method used to evaluate Lower Mississippi wildlife habitat.
   

REFERENCES

Adamus, P.R. (ed.) 1987. Atlas of breeding birds in Maine 1978-1983. Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, Augusta. 366 pp.

Adamus Resource Assessment, Inc. 1987. Juneau wetlands: functions and values. City and Borough of Juneau Department of Community Development, Juneau, Alaska. 3 vols.

Amman, A.P., R.W. Franzen, and J.L. Johnson. 1986. Method for the evaluation of inland wetlands in Connecticut. Bull. No. 9. Connecticut Dept. Envir. Prot. and USDA Soil Conservation Service, Hartford, Connecticut.

Euler, D.L., F.T. Carreiro, G.B. McCullough, G.B. Snell, V. Glooschenko, and R.H. Spurr. 1983. An evaluation system for wetlands of Ontario south of the Precambrian Shield. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Canadian Wildlife Service, Ontario Region.

Marble, A.D. and M. Gross. 1984. A method for assessing wetland characteristics and values. Landscape Planning 2:1-17.

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

Tennessee Dept. of Conservation. 1987. Habitat Evaluation System: Bottomland Forest Community Model. Tennessee Dept. of Conservation, Ecological Services Division, Nashville. 92 pp.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-St. Paul. 1988. The Minnesota wetland evaluation methodology for the North Central United States. Minnesota Wetland Evaluation Methodology Task Force and Corps of Engineers-St. Paul District. 97 pp. + appendices.

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

Doug Thompson, Wetlands Coordinator
USEPA, Region 1
Water Management Division
Water Quality Branch
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, Massachusetts 02203-2211
(FTS) 835-4422
(617) 565-4422

Dan Montella, Wetlands Coordinator
USEPA, Region 2
Water Management Division
Marine & Wetlands Protection Branch
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10278
(FTS) 264-5170
(212) 264-5170

Barbara D'Angelo, Wetlands Coordinator
USEPA, Region 3
Environmental Service Division
Wetlands and Marine Policy Section
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107
(FTS) 597-9301
(215) 597-9301

Tom Welborn, Wetlands Coordinator (Regulatory Unit)
Gail Vanderhoogt, Wetlands Coordinator (Planning Unit)
USEPA, Region 4
Water Management Division
Water Quality Branch
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
(FTS) 257-2126
(404) 347-2126

Doug Ehorn, Wetland Coordinator
USEPA, Region 5
Water Management Division
Water Quality Branch
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
(FTS) 886-0243
(312) 886-0243


Jerry Saunders, Wetlands Coordinator
USEPA, Region 6
Environmental Services Division
Federal Activities Branch
12th Floor, Suite 1200
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, Texas 75202
(FTS) 255-2263
(214) 655-2263

Diane Hershberger, Wetlands Coordinator
Assistant Regional Administrator for Policy and Management
USEPA, Region 7
Environmental Review Branch
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, Kansas 66101
(FTS) 276-7573
(913) 551-7573

Gene Reetz, Wetlands Coordinator
USEPA, Region 8
Water Management Division
State Program Management Branch
One Denver Place, Suite 500
999 18th Street
Denver, Colorado 80202-2405
(FTS) 330-1565
(303) 293-1565

Phil Oshida, Wetlands Coordinator
USEPA, Region 9
Water Management Division
Wetlands, Oceans and Estuarine Branch
1235 Mission Street
San Francisco, California 94103
(FTS) 464-2187
(415) 744-2180

Bill Riley, Wetlands Coordinator
USEPA, Region 10
Water Management Division
Environmental Evaluation Branch
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
(FTS) 399-1412
(206) 422-1412
 

Regional Wetland Program Coordinators,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

Region 1 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
RWC: Ron Erickson Twin Cities, Minnesota 55111
ASST: John Anderson COM: 612/725-3536
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


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
RWC: Jon Hall 1011 East Tudor Road
ASST: David Dall Anchorage, Alaska 99503
COM: 907/786-3403 or 3471
FTS: (8) 907/786-3403

APPENDIX E

EXAMPLE OF STATE CERTIFICATION ACTION INVOLVING WETLANDS UNDER CWA SECTION 401

The dam proposed by the City of Harrisburg was to be 3,000 feet long and 17 feet high. The dam was to consist of 32 bottom hinged flap gates. The dam would have created an impoundment with a surface area of 3,800 acres, a total storage capacity of 35,000 acre feet, and a pool elevation of 306.5 feet. The backwater would have extended approximately eight miles upstream on the Susquehanna River and approximately three miles upstream on the Conodoguinet Creek.

The project was to be a run-of-the-river facility, using the head difference created by the dam to create electricity. Maximum turbine flow would have been 10,000 cfs (at a nethead of 12.5) and minimum flow would have been 2,000 cfs. Under normal conditions, all flows up to 40,000 cfs would have passed through the turbines.

The public notice denying 401 certification for this project stated as follows:

1. The construction and operation of the project will result in the significant loss of wetlands and related aquatic habitat and acreage. More specifically:

a. The destruction of the wetlands will have an adverse impact on the local river ecosystem because of the integral role wetlands play in maintaining that ecosystem.

b. The destruction of the wetlands will cause the loss of beds of emergent aquatic vegetation that serve as habitat for juvenile fish. Loss of this habitat will adversely affect the relative abundance of juvenile and adult fish (especially smallmouth bass).

c. The wetlands which will be lost are critical habitat for, among other species, the yellow crowned night heron, black crowned night heron, marsh wren and great egret. In addition, the yellow crowned night heron is a proposed State threatened species, and the marsh wren and great egret are candidate species of special concern.

d. All affected wetlands areas are important and, to the extent that the loss of these wetlands can be mitigated, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the mitigation proposed is adequate. To the extent that adequate mitigation is possible, mitigation must include replacement in the river system.

e. Proposed riprapping of the shoreline could further reduce wetland acreage. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that there will not be an adverse water quality and related habitat impact resulting from riprapping.

f. Based upon information received by the Department, the applicant has underestimated the total wetland acreage affected.

2. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that there will be no adverse water quality impacts from increased groundwater levels resulting from the project. The ground water model used by the applicant is not acceptable due to erroneous assumptions and the lack of a sensitivity analysis. The applicant has not provided sufficient information concerning the impact of increased groundwater levels on existing sites of subsurface contamination, adequacy of subsurface sewage system replacement areas and the impact of potential increased surface flooding. Additionally, information was not provided to adequately assess the effect of raised groundwater on sewer system laterals, effectiveness of sewer rehabilitation measures and potential for increased flows at the Harrisburg wastewater plant.

3. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that there will not be a dissolved oxygen problem as a result of the impoundment. Present information indicates the existing river system in the area is sensitive to diurnal, dissolved oxygen fluctuation. Sufficient information was not provided to allow the Department to conclude that dissolved oxygen standards will be met in the pool area. Additionally, the applicant failed to adequately address the issue of anticipated dissolved oxygen levels below the dam.

4. The proposed impoundment will create a backwater on the lower three miles of the Conodoguinet Creek. Water quality in the Creek is currently adversely affected by nutrient problems. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that there will not be water quality degradation as a result of the impoundment.

5. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that there will not be an adverse water quality impact resulting from combined sewer overflows.

6. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that there will not be an adverse water quality impact to the 150 acre area downstream of the proposed dam and upstream from the existing Dock Street dam.

7. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the construction and operation of the proposed dam will not have an adverse impact on the aquatic resources upstream from the proposed impoundment. For example, the suitability of the impoundment for smallmouth bass spawning relative to the frequency of turbid conditions during spawning was not adequately addressed and construction of the dam and impoundment will result in a decrease in the diversity and density of the macroinvertebrate community in the impoundment area.

8. Construction of the dam will have an adverse impact on upstream and downstream migration of migratory fish (especially shad). Even with the construction of fish passageways for upstream and downstream migration, significant declines in the numbers of fish successfully negotiating the obstruction are anticipated.

9. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that there will not be an adverse water quality impact related to sedimentation within the pool area.

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

2 Information on the availability of draft and final maps may be obtained for the coterminous U.S. 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

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

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