|
|
National Guidance
Water Quality Standards for Wetlands
July 1990
Prepared by:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water Regulations and Standards
Office of Wetlands Protection
*This document is designated as Appendix B to Chapter 2 - General Program
Guidance of the Water Quality Standards Handbook, December, 1983.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements
Executive Summary
1.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0
INCLUSION OF WETLANDS IN THE DEFINITION OF STATE WATERS
3.0 USE CLASSIFICATION
4.0 CRITERIA
5.0 ANTIDEGRADATION
6.0 IMPLEMENTATION
7.0 FUTURE DIRECTIONS
References
Appendices
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This document was co-authored by John Maxted and Doreen Robb, of the
Office of Wetlands Protection and Bob Shippen of the Office of Water Regulations
and Standards. We wish to thank the many reviewers at the Federal and
State levels who provided useful comments and additions. We would especially
like to thank Dianne Fish of the Office of Wetlands Protection for her
extensive review and assistance during the final stages of development.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background
This document provides program guidance to States on how to ensure effective
application of water quality standards (WQS) to wetlands. This guidance
reflects the level of achievement EPA expects the States to accomplish
by the end of FY 1993, as defined in the Agency Operating Guidance, FY
1991, Office of Water. The basic requirements for applying State water
quality standards to wetlands include the following:
- Include wetlands in the definition of "State waters."
- Designate uses for all wetlands.
- Adopt aesthetic narrative criteria (the "free 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 implementing
the CWA include wetlands in the definition of "waters of the U.S."
and therefore require water quality standards, a number of States have
not developed WQS for wetlands and have not included wetlands in their
definitions of "State waters." Applying water quality standards
to wetlands is part of an overall effort to protect and enhance the
Nation's wetland resources and provides a regulatory basis for a
variety of programs to meet this goal. Standards provide the foundation
for a broad range of water quality management activities including,
but not limited to, monitoring under Section 305(b), permitting under
Sections 402 and 404, water quality certification under Section 401,
and the control of NPS pollution under Section 319.
With the issuance of this guidance, EPA proposes a two phased approach
for the development of WQS for wetlands. Phase 1 activities presented
in this guidance include the development of WQS elements for wetlands
based upon existing information and science to be implemented within
the next triennium. Phase 2 involves the further refinement of these
basic elements using new science and program developments. The development
of WQS for all surface waters is an iterative process.
Definition
The first, and most important, step in applying water quality standards
to wetlands is ensuring that wetlands are legally included in the scope
of States' water quality standards programs. States may accomplish
this by adopting a regulatory definition of "State waters"
at least as inclusive as the Federal definition of "waters of the
U.S." and 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 which meet the
goals of Section 101(a)(2) of the CWA by providing for the protection
and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and for recreation
in and on the water, unless the results of a use attainability analysis
(UAA) show that the CWA Section 101(a)(2) goals cannot be achieved.
When designating uses for wetlands, States may choose to use their existing
general and water specific classification systems or they may set up
an entirely different system for wetlands reflecting their unique functions.
Two basic pieces of information are useful in classifying wetland uses:
(1) the structural types of wetlands and (2) the functions and values
associated with such types of wetlands. Generally, wetland functions
directly relate to the physical, chemical and biological integrity of
wetlands. The protection of these functions through water quality standards
also may be needed to attain the uses of waters adjacent to, or downstream
of, wetlands.
Criteria
The Water Quality Standards Regulation (40 CFR 131.11(a)(1)) requires
States to adopt criteria sufficient to protect designated uses which
may include general statements (narrative) and specific numerical values
(i.e., concentrations of contaminants and water quality characteristics).
Most State water quality standards already contain many criteria for
various water types and designated use classes that may be applicable
to wetlands.
Narrative criteria are particularly important in wetlands since many
wetland impacts cannot be fully addressed by numeric criteria. Such
impacts may result from the discharge of chemicals for which there are
no numeric criteria in State standards, nonpoint sources, and activities
that may affect the physical and/or biological, rather than the chemical,
aspects of water quality (e.g., discharge of dredged and fill material).
Narratives should be written to protect the most sensitive designated
use and support existing uses under State antidegradation policies.
In addition to other narrative criteria, narrative biological criteria
provide a further basis for managing a broad range of activities that
impact the biological integrity of wetlands and other surface waters,
particularly physical and hydrologic modifications. Narrative biological
criteria are general statements of attainable or attained conditions
of biological integrity and water quality for a given use designation.
EPA has published national guidance on developing biological criteria
for all surface waters.
Numeric criteria are specific numeric values for chemical constituents,
physical parameters or biological conditions that are adopted in State
standards. Human health water quality criteria are based on the toxicity
of a contaminant and the amount of the contaminant consumed through
ingestion of water and fish regardless of the type of water. Therefore,
EPA's chemical specific human health criteria are directly applicable
to wetlands. EPA also develops chemical specific numeric criteria recommendations
for the protection of freshwater and saltwater aquatic life. The numeric
aquatic life criteria, although not designed specifically for wetlands,
were designed to be protective of aquatic life and are generally applicable
to most wetland types. An exception to this are pH dependent criteria,
such as ammonia and pentachlorophenol, since wetland pH may be outside
the normal range of 6.5-9.0. As in other waters, natural water quality
characteristics in some wetlands may be outside the range established
for uses designated in State standards. These water quality characteristics
may require the development of criteria that reflect the natural background
conditions in a specific wetland or wetland type. Examples of some of
the wetland characteristics that may fall into this category are dissolved
oxygen, pH, turbidity, color, and hydrogen sulfide.
Antidegradation
The antidegradation policies contained in all State standards provide
a powerful tool for the protection of wetlands and can be used by States
to regulate point and nonpoint source discharges to wetlands in the
same way as other surface waters. In conjunction with beneficial uses
and narrative criteria, antidegradation can be used to address impacts
to wetlands that cannot be fully addressed by chemical criteria, such
as physical and hydrologic modifications. With the inclusion of wetlands
as "waters of the State," State antidegradation policies and
their implementation methods will apply to wetlands in the same way
as other surface waters. State antidegradation policies should provide
for the protection of existing uses in wetlands and the level of water
quality necessary to protect those uses in the same manner as for other
surface waters; see Section 131.12(a)(1) of the WQS regulation. In the
case of fills, EPA interprets protection of existing uses to be met
if there is no significant degradation as defined according to the Section
404(b)(1) guidelines. State antidegradation policies also provide special
protection for outstanding natural resource waters.
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 storm
water 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 to
wetland quality through the application of narrative criteria to protect
existing uses and through application of their antidegradation policies.
The States should provide a linkage in their water quality standards
to the determination of "significant degradation" as required
under EPA guidelines (40 CFR 230.10(c)) and other applicable State laws
affecting the disposal of dredged or fill materials in wetlands.
Finally, water quality management activities, including the permitting
of wastewater and 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.
The inclusion of wetlands in water quality standards provides the basis
for conducting both wetland specific and status and trend monitoring
of State wetland resources. Monitoring of activities impacting specific
wetlands may include several approaches, including biological measurements
(i.e., plant, macroinvertebrate and fish) which 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 which protect
the functions and values of wetlands. 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.
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 development of State water quality standards will be forthcoming
from EPA in the next triennium.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Our understanding of the many benefits that wetlands provide has evolved
rapidly over the last 20 to 30 years. Recently, programs have been developed
to restore and protect wetland resources at the local, State and Federal
levels of government. At the Federal level, the President of the United
States established the goal of "no net loss" of wetlands,
adapted from the National Wetlands Policy Forum recommendations (The
Conservation Foundation 1988). Applying water quality standards to wetlands
is part of an overall effort to protect the Nation's wetland resources
and provides a regulatory basis for a variety of programs for managing
wetlands to meet this goal.
As the link between land and water, wetlands play a vital role in water
quality management programs. Wetlands provide a wide array of functions
including shoreline stabilization, nonpoint source runoff filtration,
and erosion control, which directly benefit adjacent and downstream
waters. In addition, wetlands provide important biological habitat,
including nursery areas for aquatic life and wildlife, and other benefits
such as groundwater recharge and recreation. Wetlands comprise a wide
variety of aquatic vegetated systems including, but not limited to,
sloughs, prairies potholes, wet meadows, bogs, fens, vernal pools, and
marshes. The basic elements of water quality standards (WQS), including
designated uses, criteria, and an antidegradation policy, provide a
sound legal basis for protecting wetland resources through State water
quality management programs.
Water quality standards traditionally have been applied to waters such
as rivers, lakes, estuaries, and oceans, and have been applied tangentially,
if at all, to wetlands by applying the same uses and criteria to wetlands
as to adjacent perennial waters. Isolated wetlands not directly associated
with perennial waters generally have not been addressed in State water
quality standards. A recent review of State water quality standards
(USEPA 1989d) shows that only half of the States specifically refer
to wetlands, or use similar terminology, in their water quality standards.
Even where wetlands are referenced, standards may not be tailored to
reflect the unique characteristics of wetlands.
Water quality standards specifically tailored to wetlands provide a
consistent basis for the development of policies and technical procedures
for managing activities that impact wetlands. Such water quality standards
provide the goals for Federal and State programs that regulate discharges
to wetlands, particularly those under CWA Sections 402 and 404 as well
as other regulatory programs (e.g., Sections 307, 318, and 405) and
non-regulatory programs (e.g., Sections 314, 319, and 320). In addition,
standards play a critical role in the State 401 certification process
by providing the basis for approving, conditioning or denying Federal
permits and licenses, as appropriate. Finally, standards provide a benchmark
against which to assess the many activities that impact wetlands.
1.1 Objectives
The objective of this document is to assist States in applying their
water quality standards regulations to wetlands in accordance with the
Agency Operating Guidance (USEPA 1990a), which states:
By September 30, 1993, States and qualified Indian Tribes must adopt
narrative water quality standards that apply directly to wetlands. Those
Standards shall be established in accordance with either the National
Guidance, Water Quality Standards for Wetlands ... or some other scientifically
valid method. In adopting water quality standards for wetlands, States
and qualified Indian Tribes, at a minimum, shall: (1) define wetlands
as "State waters"; (2) designate uses that protect the structure
and function of wetlands; (3) adopt aesthetic narrative criteria (the
"free froms") and appropriate numeric criteria in the standards
to protect the designated uses; (4) adopt narrative biological criteria
in the standards; and (5) extend the antidegradation policy and implementation
methods to wetlands. Unless results of a use attainability analysis
show that the section 101(a) goals cannot be achieved, States and qualified
Indian Tribes shall designate uses for wetlands that provide for the
protection of fish, shellfish, wildlife, and recreation. When extending
the antidegradation policy and implementation methods to wetlands, consideration
should be given to designating critical wetlands as Outstanding National
Resource Waters. As necessary, the antidegradation policy should be
revised to reflect the unique characteristics of wetlands.
This level of achievement is based upon existing science and information,
and therefore can be completed within the FY 91-93 triennial review cycle.
Initial development of water quality standards for wetlands over the next
three years will provide the foundation for the development of more detailed
water quality standards for wetlands in the future based on further research
and policy development (see Section 7.0.). Activities defined in this
guidance are referred to as Phase 1 activities, while those to be developed
over the longer term are referred to as Phase 2 activities. Developing
water quality standards is an iterative process.
This guidance is not regulatory nor is it designed to dictate specific
approaches needed in State water quality standards. The document addresses
the minimum requirements set out in the Operating Guidance, and should
be used as a guide to the modifications that may be needed in State standards.
EPA recognizes that State water quality standards regulations vary greatly
from State to State as do wetland resources. This guidance suggest approaches
States may wish to use and allows for State flexibility and innovation.
1.2 Organization
Each section of this document provides guidance on a particular element
of Phase 1 wetland water quality standards that EPA expects States to
undertake during the next triennial review period (i.e., by September
30, 1993). For each section, a discussion of what EPA considers to be
minimally acceptable is followed by subsections that provide information
that may be used to meet, and go beyond, the minimum requirements during
Phase 1. Documents referenced in this guidance provide further information
on specific topics and may be obtained from the sources listed in the
"References" Section. The following paragraphs introduce each
of the sections of this guidance.
Most wetlands fall within the definition of "waters of the U.S."
and thus require water quality standards. EPA expects States by the end
of FY 1993 to include wetlands in their definition of "State waters"
consistent with the Federal definition of "waters of the U.S."
Guidance on the inclusion of wetlands in the definition of "State
waters" is contained in Section 2.0.
The application of water quality standards to wetlands requires that States
designate appropriate uses consistent with Sections 101(a)(2) and 303(c)(2)
of the Clean Water Act (CWA). EPA expects States by the end of FY 1993
to establish designated uses for all wetlands. Discussion of designated
uses is contained in Section 3.0.
The WQS regulation (40 CFR 131) requires States to adopt water quality
criteria sufficient to protect designated uses. EPA expects the States,
by the end of FY 1993, to adopt aesthetic narrative criteria (the "free
froms"), appropriate numeric criteria and narrative biological criteria
for wetlands. Narrative criteria are particularly important for wetlands
since many activities may impact upon the physical and biological, as
well as chemical, components of water quality. Section 4.0 discusses the
application of narrative and numeric criteria to wetlands.
EPA also expects States to fully apply antidegradation policies and implementation
methods to wetlands by the end of FY 1993. Antidegradation can provide
a powerful tool for the protection of wetlands, especially through the
requirement for full protection of existing uses as well as the States'
option of designating wetlands as outstanding national resource waters.
Guidance on the application of State antidegradation policies to wetlands
is contained in Section 5.0.
Many State water quality standards contain policies affecting the application
and implementation of water quality standards (e.g., variances, mixing
zones, etc.). Unless otherwise specified, such policies are presumed to
apply to wetlands in the same manner as to other waters of the State.
States should consider whether such policies should be modified to reflect
the characteristics of wetlands. Guidance on the implementation of water
quality standards for wetlands is contained in Section 6.0.
Application of standards to wetlands will be an iterative process with
both EPA and the States refining their approach based on new scientific
information as well as experience developed through State programs. Section
7.0 outlines Phase 2 wetland standards activities for which EPA is planning
additional research and program development.
1.3 Legal Authority
The Clean Water Act requires States to develop water quality standards,
which include designated uses and criteria to support those uses, for
"navigable waters". CWA Section 502(7) defines "navigable
waters" as "waters of the U.S." "Waters of the U.S"
are, in turn, defined in Federal regulations developed for the National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (40 CFR 122.2) and permits for
the discharge of dredged or fill material (40 CFR 230.3 and 232.2). "Waters
of the U.S." include waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide,
interstate waters (including interstate wetlands), intrastate waters (including
wetlands), the use, destruction, or degradation of which could affect
interstate commerce, tributaries of the above, and wetlands adjacent to
the above waters (other than waters which are themselves waters). See
Appendix B for a complete definition.
The term "wetlands" is defined in 40 CFR 232.2(r) as:
Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water
at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted
for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps,
marshes, bogs, and similar areas.
This definition of "waters of the U.S.", which includes most
wetlands, has been debated in Congress and upheld by the courts. In 1977,
a proposal to delete CWA jurisdiction over most wetlands for the purpose
of the Section 404 permit program, was defeated in the Senate. The debate
on the amendment shows a strong Congressional awareness of the value of
wetlands and the importance of retaining them under the statutory scheme.
Various courts have also upheld the application of the CWA to wetlands.
See e.g., United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, 474 U.S. 121(1985);
United States v. Byrd, 609 F.2d 1204 (7th Cir. 1979); Avoyelles Sportsmen's
League v. Marsh, 715 F.2d 897 (5th Cir. 1983); United States v. Leslie
Salt [1990 decision]. The practical effect is to make nearly all wetlands
"waters of the U.S."
Created wastewater treatment wetlands which are designed, built and operated
solely as wastewater treatment systems are generally not considered to
be waters of the U.S. Water quality standards which apply to natural wetlands
generally do not apply to such created wastewater treatment wetlands.
There are, however, many created wetlands which are designed, built and
operated to provide, in addition to wastewater treatment, functions and
values similar to those provided by natural wetlands. Under certain circumstances
such created multiple use wetlands may be considered waters of the U.S.
and as such would require water quality standards. This determination
must be made on a case-by-case basis, and may consider factors such as
the size and degree of isolation of the created wetlands and other appropriate
factors.
2.0 INCLUSION OF WETLANDS IN THE DEFINITION OF STATE WATERS
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. EPA expects States'
water quality standards to include wetlands in the definition of "State
waters" by the end of FY 1993. States may accomplish this by adopting
a regulatory definition of "State waters" at least as inclusive
as the Federal definition of "waters of the U.S." and adopting
an appropriate definition for "wetlands." For example, one State
includes the following definitions in their water quality standards:
"Surface waters of the State"... means all streams,... lakes...,
ponds, marshes, wetlands or other waterways...
"Wetlands" means areas of land where the water table is at,
near or above the land surface long enough each year to result in the
formation of characteristically wet (hydric) soil types, and support
the growth of water dependent (hydrophytic) vegetation. Wetlands include,
but are not limited to, marshes, swamps, bogs, and other such low-lying
areas.
States may also need to remove or modify regulatory language that explicitly
or implicitly limits the authority of water quality standards over wetlands.
In certain instances, such as when water quality standards are statutory
or where a statute defines or limits regulatory authority over wetlands,
statutory changes may be needed.
The CWA does not preclude States from adopting, under State law, a more
expansive definition of "waters of the State" in order to meet
the goals of the Act. Additional areas that could be covered include riparian
areas, flood plains, vegetated buffer areas or any other critical areas
identified by the State. Riparian areas and flood plains are important
and severely threatened ecosystems, particularly in the arid and semi-arid
West. Often it is technically difficult to separate, jurisdictionally,
wetlands subject to the provisions of the CWA from other areas within
the riparian or flood plain complex.
States may choose to include riparian or flood plain ecosystems as a whole
in the definition of "waters of the State" or designate these
areas for special protection in their water quality standards through
several mechanisms including definitions, use classifications and antidegradation.
For example, the regulatory definition of "waters of the State"
in one State includes:
...The flood plain of free flowing waters determined by the Department...
on the basis of the 100-year flood frequency.
In another State, the definition of a use classification states:
This beneficial use is a combination of the characteristics of the
watershed expressed in the water quality and the riparian area.
And in a third State, the antidegradation protection for high quality
waters provides that:
These waters shall not be lowered in quality... unless it is determined
by the commission that such lowering will not do any of the following:
...(b)ecome injurious to the value or utility of riparian lands...
3.0 USE CLASSIFICATION
At a minimum, EPA expects States by the end of FY 1993 to designate uses
for all wetlands, and to meet the same minimum requirements of the WQS
regulation (40 CFR 131.10) that are applied to other waters. Uses for
wetlands must meet the goals of Section 101(a)(2) of the CWA by providing
for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and
for recreation in and on the water, unless the results of a use attainability
analysis (UAA) show that the CWA Section 101(a)(2) goals cannot be achieved.
The Water Quality Standards Regulation (40 CFR 131.10(c)) allows for the
designation of sub-categories of a use, an activity that may be appropriate
for wetlands. Pursuant to the WQS Regulation (40 CFR 131.10(i)), States
must designate any uses that are presently being attained in the wetland.
A technical support document is currently being developed by the Office
of Water Regulations and Standards for conducting use attainability analyses
for wetlands.
The propagation of aquatic life and wildlife is an attainable use in virtually
all wetlands. Aquatic life protection need not refer only to year-round
fish and aquatic life. Wetlands often provide valuable seasonal habitat
for fish and other aquatic life, amphibians, and migratory bird reproduction
and migration. States should ensure that aquatic life and wildlife uses
are designated for wetlands even if a limited habitat is available or
the use is attained only seasonally.
Recreation in and on the water, on the other hand, may not be attainable
in certain wetlands that do not have sufficient water, at least seasonally.
However, States are also encouraged to recognize and protect recreational
uses that do not directly involve contact with water; e.g., hiking, camping,
bird watching, etc.
The WQS regulation requires a UAA wherever a State designates a use that
does not include the uses specified in Section 101(a)(2) of the CWA; see
40 CFR Part 131.10(j). This need not be an onerous task for States when
deciding whether certain recreational uses are attainable. States may
conduct generic UAAs for entire classes or types of wetlands based on
the demonstrations in 40 CFR Part 131.10(g)(2). States must, however,
designate CWA goal uses wherever these are attainable even where attainment
may be seasonal.
When designating uses for wetlands, States may choose to use their existing
general and water specific classification systems or they may set up an
entirely different system for wetlands. Each of these approaches has advantages
and disadvantages, as discussed below.
Some States stipulate that wetlands are designated for the same uses as
the adjacent waters. States may also apply their existing general classification
system to designate uses for specific wetlands or groups of wetlands.
The advantage of these approaches is that they do not require States to
expend additional effort to develop specific wetland uses, or determine
specific functions and values, and can be generally used to designate
the CWA goal uses for wetlands. However, since wetland attributes may
be significantly different than those of other waters, States with general
wetland use designations will need to review the uses for individual wetlands
in more detail when assessing activities that may impair the specific
"existing uses" (e.g., functions and values). In addition, the
"adjacent" approach does not produce uses for "isolated"
wetlands.
Due to these differences in attributes, States should strongly consider
adopting a separate use classification system for wetlands based on wetland
type and/or beneficial use (function and value). This approach initially
requires more effort in developing use categories (and specific criteria
that may be needed for them), as well as determining what uses to assign
to specific wetlands or groups of wetlands. The greater the specificity
in designating uses, however, the easier it is for States to justify regulatory
controls to protect those uses. States may wish to designate beneficial
uses for individually named wetlands, including outstanding wetlands (see
Section 6.3), although, this approach may be practical only for a limited
number of wetlands. For the majority of their wetlands, States may wish
to designate generalized uses for groups of wetlands based on region or
wetland type.
Two basic pieces of information are useful in classifying wetland uses:
(1) the structural types of wetlands and (2) the functions and values
associated with such types of wetlands. The functions and values of wetlands
are often defined based upon structural type and location within the landscape
or watershed. The understanding of the various wetland types within the
State and their functions and values provides the basis for a comprehensive
classification system applicable to all wetlands and all wetland uses.
As with other waters, both general and waterbody-specific classifications
may be needed to ensure that uses are appropriately assigned to all wetlands
in the State. Appropriate and definitive use designations allow water
quality standards to more accurately reflect both the "existing"
uses as well as the States' goals for their wetland resources, and
allow standards to be a more powerful tool in protecting State wetlands.
Sections 3.1 through 3.3 provide further information of wetland types,
functions and values, and how these can be used to designate uses for
wetlands.
3.1 Wetland Types
A detailed understanding of the various wetland types within the State
provides the basis for a comprehensive classification system. The classification
system most often cited and used by Federal and State wetland permit programs
was developed by Cowardin et al. (1979) for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS); see Figure 1. This system provides the basis for wetland
related activities within the FWS. The Cowardin system is hierarchical
and thus can provide several levels of detail in classifying wetlands.
The "System" and "Subsystem" levels of detail appear
to be the most promising for water quality standards. The "Class"
level may be useful for designating uses for specific wetlands or wetland
types. Section 3.3 gives an example of how one State uses the Cowardin
system to generate designated uses for wetlands.
Under the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986, the FWS is required
to complete the mapping of wetlands within the lower 48 States by 1998
through the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) and to assess the status
of the nation's wetland resources every ten years. The maps and status
and trend reports may help States understand the extent of their wetlands
and wetland types and ensure that all wetlands are assigned appropriate
uses. To date, over 30,000 detailed 1:24,000 scale maps have been completed,
covering approximately 60 percent of the coterminous United States and
16 percent of Alaska.
In some States, wetland maps developed under the NWI program have been
digitized and are available for use with geographic information systems
(GIS). To date, more than 5,700 wetland maps representing 10.5 percent
of the coterminous U.S. have been digitized. Statewide digital databases
have been developed for New Jersey, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland and Washington
and are in progress in Indiana and Virginia. NWI digital data files also
are available for portions of 20 other States. NWI data files are sold
at cost in 7.5 minute quadrangle units. The data are provided on magnetic
tape in MOSS export, DLG3 optional, ELAS and IGES formats. Digital wetlands
data may expedite assigning uses to wetlands for both general and wetland
specific classifications.
The classification of wetlands may benefit from the use of salinity concentrations.
The Cowardin classification system uses a salinity criterion of 0.5 ppt
ocean-derived salinity to differentiate between estuarine and freshwater
wetlands. Differences in salinity are reflected in the species composition
of plants and animals. The use of salinity in the classification of wetlands
may be useful in restricting activities that would alter the salinity
of a wetland to such a degree that the wetland type would change. These
activities include, for example, the construction of dikes to convert
a saltwater marsh to a freshwater marsh or the dredging of channels that
would deliver saltwater to freshwater wetlands.
3.2 Wetland Functions and Values
Many approaches have been developed for identifying wetland functions
and values. Wetland evaluation techniques developed prior to 1983 have
been summarized by Lonard and Clairain (1985) and EPA has summarized assessment
methodologies developed since 1983 (see Appendix C). EPA has also developed
guidance on the selection of a methodology for activities under the Section
404 program entitled: Draft Guidance to EPA Regional Offices on the Use
of Advance Identification Authorities Under Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (USEPA 1989a). States may develop their own techniques for assessing
the functions and values of their wetlands.
Generally, wetland functions that directly relate to the physical, chemical
and biological integrity of wetlands are listed below. The protection
of these functions through water quality standards also may be needed
to attain the uses of waters adjacent to, or downstream of, wetlands.
o Groundwater Recharge/Discharge
o Flood Flow Alteration
o Sediment Stabilization
o Sediment/Toxic Retention
o Nutrient Removal/Transformation
o Wildlife Diversity/Abundance
o Aquatic Diversity/Abundance
o Recreation
Methodologies that are flexible with regard to data requirements and include
several levels of detail have the greatest potential for application to
standards. One such methodology is the Wetland Evaluation Technique developed
by Adamus, et al. (1987) for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the
Department of Transportation. The Wetland Evaluation Technique was designed
for conducting an initial rapid assessment of wetland functions and values
in terms of social significance, effectiveness, and opportunity. Social
significance assesses the value of a wetland to society in terms of its
special designation, potential economic value, and strategic location.
Effectiveness assesses the capability of a wetland to perform a function
because of its physical, chemical or biological characteristics. Opportunity
assesses the [opportunity] of a wetland to perform a function to its level
of capability. This assessment results in "high", "moderate"
or "low" ratings for eleven wetland functions in the context
of social significance, effectiveness, and opportunity. This technique
also may be useful in identifying outstanding wetlands for protection
under State antidegradation policies; see Section 5.3.
The FWS maintains a Wetlands Values Database that also may be useful in
identifying wetland functions and in designating wetland uses.The data
are keyed to the Cowardin-based wetland codes identified on the National
Wetland Inventory maps. The database contains scientific literature on
wetland functions and values. It is computerized and contains over 18,000
citations of which 8,000 are annotated. For further information, contact
the NWI Program (see Section 3.1) or the FWS National Ecology Research
Center3. In addition, State wetland programs, EPA Regional wetland coordinators
and FWS Regional wetland coordinators can provide information on wetland
functions and values on a State or regional basis; see Appendix D.
3.3 Designating Wetland Uses
The functions and values of specifically identified and named wetlands,
including those identified within the State's water specific classification
system and outstanding national resource water (ONRW) category, may be
defined using the Wetland Evaluation Technique or similar methodology.
For the general classification of wetlands, however, States may choose
to evaluate wetland function and values for all the wetlands within the
State based on wetland type (using Cowardin (1979) - Figure 1). One State
applies its general use classifications to different wetland types based
on Cowardin's system level of detail as illustrated in Figure 2. Note
that the State's uses are based on function and the designation approach
links specific wetland functions to a given wetland type. The State evaluates
wetlands on a case-by-case basis as individual permit decisions arise
to ensure designated uses are being protected and have reflected existing
uses.
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
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 Research and Development,
to direct State water quality standards and monitoring programs. These
approaches also may be useful in the classification of wetlands.
EPA's Office of Research and Development is currently refining a draft
document which will provide useful information to States related to use
classification methodologies (Adamus and Brandt - Draft). There are likely
many other approaches for designating uses for wetlands, and the States
are encouraged to develop comprehensive classification systems tailored
to their wetland resources. As with other surface waters, many wetlands
are currently degraded by natural and anthropogenic activities. The classification
of wetlands should reflect the potential uses attainable for a particular
wetland, wetland type or class of wetland.
4.0 CRITERIA
The Water Quality Standards Regulation (40 CFR 131.11(a)(1)) requires
States to adopt criteria sufficient to protect designated uses. These
criteria may include general statements (narrative) and specific numerical
values (i.e., concentrations of contaminants and water quality characteristics).
At a minimum, EPA expects States to apply aesthetic narrative criteria
(the "free froms") and appropriate numeric criteria to wetlands
and adopt narrative biological criteria for wetlands by the end of FY
1993. Most State water quality standards already contain many criteria
for various water types and designated use classes, including narrative
criteria, and numeric criteria to protect human health and freshwater
and saltwater aquatic life, that may be applicable to wetlands.
In many cases it may be necessary to use a combination of numeric and
narrative criteria to ensure that wetland functions and values are adequately
protected. Section 4.1 describes the application of narrative criteria
to wetlands and Section 4.2 discusses application of numeric criteria
for protection of human health and aquatic life.
4.1 Narrative Criteria
Narrative criteria are general statements designed to protect a specific
designated use or set of uses. They can be statements prohibiting certain
actions or conditions (e.g., "free from substances that produce undesirable
or nuisance aquatic life") or positive statements about what is expected
to occur in the water (e.g.,"water quality and aquatic life shall
be as it naturally occurs"). Narrative criteria are used to identify
impacts to designated uses and as a regulatory basis for controlling a
variety of impacts to State waters. Narrative criteria are particularly
important in wetlands since many wetland impacts cannot be fully addressed
by numeric criteria. Such impacts may result from the discharge of chemicals
for which there are no numeric criteria in State standards, 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). The Water Quality Standards Regulation (40 CFR 131.11(b))
states that "States should ... include narrative criteria in their
standards where numeric criteria cannot be established or to supplement
numeric criteria."
4.1.1 General Narrative Criteria
Narrative criteria within the water quality standards program date back
to at least 1968 when five "free froms" were included in Water
Quality Criteria (the Green Book), (FWPCA 1968). These "free froms"
have been included as "aesthetic criteria" in EPA's most
recent Section 304(a) criteria summary document, Quality Criteria for
Water - 1986 (USEPA 1987a). The narrative criteria from these
documents state:
All waters [shall be] free from substances attributable to wastewater
or other discharge that:
(1) settle to form objectionable deposits;
(2) float as debris, scum, oil, or other matter to form nuisances;
(3) produce objectionable color, odor, taste, or turbidity;
(4) injure or are toxic or produce adverse physiological responses
in humans, animals or plants; and
(5) produce undesirable or nuisance aquatic life.
The Water Quality Standards Handbook (USEPA 1983b) recommends that States
apply narrative criteria to all waters of the United States. If these
or similar criteria are already applied to all State waters in a State's
standards, the inclusion of wetlands in the definition of "waters
of the State" will apply these criteria to wetlands.
4.1.2 Narrative Biological Criteria
Narrative biological criteria are general statements of attainable or
attained conditions of biological integrity and water quality for a given
use designation. Narrative biological criteria can take a number of forms.
As a sixth "free from" the criteria could read "free from
activities that would substantially impair the biological community as
it naturally occurs due to physical, chemical and hydrologic changes",
or the criteria may be positive statements about the biological community
existing or attainable in wetlands.
Narrative biological criteria should contain attributes that support the
goals of the Clean Water Act, which provide for the protection and propagation
of fish, shellfish, and wildlife. Therefore, narrative criteria should
include specific language about community characteristics which (1) must
exist in a wetland to meet a particular designated aquatic life/wildlife
use, and (2) are quantifiable. Supporting statements for the criteria
should promote water quality to protect the most natural community associated
with the designated use. Mechanisms should be established in the standard
to address potentially conflicting multiple uses. Narratives should be
written to protect the most sensitive designated use and support existing
uses under State antidegradation policies.
In addition to other narrative criteria, narrative biological criteria
provide a further basis for managing a broad range of activities that
impact the biological integrity of wetlands and other surface waters,
particularly physical and hydrologic modifications. For instance, hydrologic
criteria are one particularly important but often overlooked component
to include in water quality standards to help maintain wetlands quality.
Hydrology is the primary factor influencing the type and location of wetlands.
Maintaining appropriate hydrologic conditions in wetlands is critical
to the maintenance of wetland functions and values. Hydrologic manipulations
to wetlands have occurred nationwide in the form of flow alterations and
diversions, disposal of dredged or fill material, dredging of canals through
wetlands, and construction of levees or dikes. Changes in base flow or
flow regime can severely alter the plant and animal species composition
of a wetland, and destroy the entire wetland system if the change is great
enough. States should consider the establishment of criteria to regulate
hydrologic alterations to wetlands. One State has adopted the following
language and criteria to maintain and protect the natural hydrologic conditions
and values of wetlands:
Natural hydrological conditions necessary to support the biological
and physical characteristics naturally present in wetlands shall be
protected to prevent significant adverse impacts on:
(1) Water currents, erosion or sedimentation patterns;
(2) Natural water temperature variations;
(3) The chemical, nutrient and dissolved oxygen regime of the wetland;
(4) The normal movement of aquatic fauna;
(5) The pH of the wetland; and
(6) Normal water levels or elevations.
One source of information for developing more quantifiable hydrologic
criteria is the Instream Flow Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
which can provide technical guidance on the minimum flows necessary to
attain various water uses.
Narrative criteria, in conjunction with antidegradation policies, can
provide the basis for determining the impacts of activities (such as hydrologic
modifications) on designated and existing uses. EPA has published national
guidance on developing biological criteria for all surface waters (USEPA
1990b). EPA's Office of Research and Development also has produced
a literature synthesis of wetland biomonitoring data on a State-by-State
basis which is intended to support the development of narrative biological
criteria (Adamus and Brandt - Draft).
4.2 Numeric Criteria
Numeric criteria are specific numeric values for chemical constituents,
physical parameters or biological conditions that are adopted in State
standards. These may be values not to be exceeded (e.g., toxics), values
that must be exceeded (e.g., dissolved oxygen), or a combination of the
two (e.g., pH). As with all criteria, numeric criteria are adopted to
protect one or more designated uses. Under Section 304(a) of the Clean
Water Act, EPA publishes numeric national criteria recommendations which
are designed to protect aquatic organisms and human health. These criteria
are summarized in Quality Criteria for Water -1986, (USEPA 1987a).
These criteria serve as guidelines from which States can develop their
own numeric criteria taking into account the particular uses designated
by the State.
4.2.1 Numeric Criteria - Human Health
Human health water quality criteria are based on the toxicity of a contaminant
and the amount of the contaminant consumed through ingestion of water
and fish regardless of the type of water. Therefore, EPA's chemical
specific human health criteria are directly applicable to wetlands. A
summary of EPA human health criteria recommendations is contained in Quality
Criteria for Water - 1986.
Few wetlands are used directly for drinking water supplies. Where drinking
water is a designated or existing use for a wetland or for adjacent waters
affected by the wetland, however, States must provide criteria sufficient
to protect human health based on water consumption (as well as aquatic
life consumption if appropriate). When assessing the potential for water
consumption, States should also evaluate the wetland's groundwater
recharge function to assure protection of drinking water supplies from
that source as well.
The application of human health criteria, based on consumption of aquatic
life, to wetlands is a function of the level of detail in the States'
designated uses. If all wetlands are designated under the State's
general "aquatic life/wildlife" designation, consumption of
that aquatic life is assumed to be an included use and the State's
human health criteria based on consumption of aquatic life will apply
throughout. However, States that adopt a more detailed use classification
system for wetlands (or wish to derive site specific human health criteria
for wetlands) may wish to selectively apply human health criteria to those
wetlands where consumption of aquatic life is designated or likely to
occur (note that a UAA will be required where CWA goal uses are not designated).
States may also wish to adjust the exposure assumptions used in deriving
human health criteria. Where it is known that exposure to individuals
at a certain site, or within a certain category of wetland, is likely
to be different from the assumed exposure underlying the States' criteria,
States may wish to consider a reasonable estimate of the actual exposure
and take this estimate into account when calculating the criteria for
the site.
4.2.2 Numeric Criteria - Aquatic life
EPA develops chemical specific numeric criteria recommendations for the
protection of freshwater and saltwater aquatic life. These criteria may
be divided into two basic categories: (1) chemicals that cause toxicity
to aquatic life such as metals, ammonia, chlorine and organics, and (2)
other water quality characteristics such as dissolved oxygen, alkalinity,
salinity, pH, and temperature. These criteria are currently applied directly
to a broad range of surface waters in State standards, including lakes,
impoundments, ephemeral and perennial rivers and streams, estuaries, the
oceans, and in some instances, wetlands. A summary of EPA's aquatic
life criteria recommendations is published in Quality Criteria for Water
- 1986. The numeric aquatic life criteria, although not designed specifically
for wetlands, were designed to be protective of aquatic life and are generally
applicable to most wetland types.
EPA's aquatic life criteria are most often based upon toxicological
testing under controlled conditions in the laboratory. The EPA guidelines
for the development of such criteria (Stephan et al. 1985) require the
testing of plant, invertebrate, and fish species. Generally, these criteria
are supported by toxicity tests on invertebrate and early life stage fish
commonly found in many wetlands. Adjustments based on natural conditions,
water chemistry and biological community conditions may be appropriate
for certain criteria as discussed below. EPA's Office of Research
and Development is currently finalizing a draft document which provides
additional technical guidance on this topic, including site-specific adjustments
of criteria (Hagley and Taylor - Draft).
As in other waters, natural water quality characteristics in some wetlands
may be outside the range established for uses designated in State standards.
These water quality characteristics may require the development of criteria
that reflect the natural background conditions in a specific wetland or
wetland type. States routinely set criteria for specific waters based
on natural conditions. Examples of some of the wetland characteristics
that may fall into this category are dissolved oxygen, pH, turbidity,
color, and hydrogen sulfide.
Many of EPA's aquatic life criteria are based on equations that take
into account salinity, 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 water quality characteristics. However,
two national criteria that are pH dependent, ammonia and pentachlorophenol,
present a different situation. The pH in some wetlands may be outside
the pH range of 6.5-9.0 units for which these criteria were derived. It
is recommended that States conduct additional toxicity testing if they
wish to derive criteria for ammonia and pentachlorophenol outside the
6.5-9.0 pH range, unless data are already available.
States may also develop scientifically defensible site- specific criteria
for parameters whose State-wide values may be inappropriate. Site-specific
adjustments may be made based on the water quality and biological conditions
in a specific water, or in waters within a particular region or ecoregion.
EPA has developed guidance on the site-specific adjustment of the national
criteria (USEPA 1983b). These methods are applicable to wetlands and should
be used in the same manner as States use them for other waters. As defined
in the Handbook, there are three procedures for developing site-specific
criteria:
(1) recalculation, (2) indicator species and (3) resident species procedures.
These procedures may be used to develop site-specific numeric criteria
for specific wetlands or wetland types. The recalculation procedure is
used to make adjustments based upon differences between the toxicity to
resident organisms and those used to derive national criteria. The indicator
species procedure is used to account for differences in the bioavailability
and/or toxicity of a contaminant based upon the physical and chemical
characteristics of site water. The resident species procedure accounts
for differences in both species sensitivity and water quality characteristics.
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.
Since a literal interpretation of the antidegradation policy could
result in preventing the issuance of any wetland fill permit under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act, and it is logical to assume that Congress
intended some such permits to be granted within the framework of the
Act, EPA interprets 40 CFR 131.12(a)(l) of the antidegradation policy
to be satisfied with regard to fills in wetlands if the discharge did
not result in "significant degradation" to the aquatic ecosystem
as defined under Section 230.10(c) of the Section 404(b)(l) guidelines.
If any wetlands were found to have better water quality than "fishable/
swimmable", the State would be allowed to lower water quality to
the no significant degradation level as long as the requirements of
Section 131.12(a)(2) were followed. As for the ONRW provision of antidegradation
(131.12(a)(3)), there is no difference in the way it applies to wetlands
and other waterbodies.
The Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines state that the following effects contribute
to significant degradation, either individually or collectively:
...significant adverse effects on (1) human health or welfare, including
effects on municipal water supplies, plankton, fish, shellfish, wildlife,
and special aquatic sites (e.g., wetlands); (2) on the life stages of
aquatic life and other wildlife dependant on aquatic ecosystems, including
the transfer, concentration or spread of pollutants or their byproducts
beyond the site through biological, physical, or chemical process; (3)
on ecosystem diversity, productivity and stability, including loss of
fish and wildlife habitat or loss of the capacity of a wetland to assimilate
nutrients, purify water or reduce wave energy; or (4) on recreational,
aesthetic, and economic values.
These Guidelines may be used by States to determine "significant
degradation" for wetland fills. Of course, the States are free to
adopt stricter requirements for wetland fills in their own antidegradation
policies, just as they may adopt any other requirements more stringent
than Federal law requires. For additional information on the linkage between
water quality standards and the Section 404 program, see Section 6.2.
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 aquisition decisions, and best
management practices to control nonpoint source pollution. Many coastal
States have wetland permit programs, coastal zone management programs,
and National Estuary Programs; and the development of water quality standards
should utilize data, information and expertise from these programs. For
all States, information and expertise is available nationwide from EPA
and the Corps of Engineers as part of the Federal 404 permit program.
State wildlife and fisheries departments can also provide data, advice
and expertise related to wetlands. Finally, the FWS can provide information
on wetlands as part of the National Wetlands Inventory program, the Fish
and Wildlife Enhancement Program, the Endangered Species and Habitat Conservation
Program, the North American Waterfowl Management Program and the National
Wildlife Refuge program. EPA and FWS wetland program contacts are included
in Appendix 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:
(a) if the project is not water dependent, certification is denied;
(b) if the project is water dependent, certification is denied if there
is a viable alternative (e.g., available upland nearby is viable alternative);
(c) if no viable alternatives exist and impacts to wetland cannot be
made acceptable through conditions on certification (e.g., fish movement
criteria, creation of floodways to bypass oxbows, flow through criteria),
certification is denied.
Some modification of this may be incorporated into States' water
quality standards. The States are encouraged to provide a linkage in their
water quality standards to the determination of "significant degradation"
as required under EPA guidelines (40 CFR 230.10(c)) and other applicable
State laws affecting the disposal of dredged or fill materials in wetlands;
see Section 5.1.
6.2.4 Nonpoint Source Assessment and Control
Wetlands, as with other waters, are impacted by nonpoint sources of pollution.
Many wetlands, through their assimilative capacity for nutrients and sediment,
also can serve an important water quality control function for nonpoint
source pollution effects on waters adjacent to, or downstream of, the
wetlands. Water quality standards play a pivotal role in both of the above.
First, Section 319 of the CWA requires the States to complete assessments
of nonpoint source (NPS) impacts to State waters, including wetlands,
and to prepare management programs to control NPS impacts. Water quality
standards for wetlands can form the basis for these assessments and management
programs for wetlands. Second, water quality standards requirements for
other surface waters such as rivers, lakes and estuaries can provide an
impetus for States to protect, enhance and restore wetlands to help achieve
nonpoint source control and water 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:
o refining use classification systems by developing physical, chemical
and biological water quality criteria, goals and standards that account
for regional variation in attainable conditions,
o identifying high-quality waters deserving special protection,
o using remote sensing data,
o using integrated assessments to detect subtle ecological impacts, and
o identifying significant nonpoint sources of pollution that will prevent
attainment of uses.
One or more case studies will address efforts to quantify the extent of
a State's wetlands and to identify sensitive wetlands through their
advance identification (USEPA 1989a).
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, DC.
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 440/5-86-001.
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 430/09-88-005.
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 440/5-90-004.
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
APPENDIX A - GLOSSARY
Ambient Monitoring - Monitoring within natural systems (e.g., lakes,
rivers, estuaries, wetlands) to determine existing conditions.
Created Wetland - A wetland at a site where it did not formerly
occur. Created wetlands are designed to meet a variety of human benefits
including, but not limited to, the treatment of water pollution discharges
(e.g., municipal wastewater, 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.
APPENDIX B
The federal definition of "waters of the United States" (40
CFR Section 232.2(q)) is:
(1) All waters which are currently used, were used in the past, or
may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including
all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide;
(2) All interstate waters including interstate wetlands;
(3) All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including
intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie
potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation
or destruction of which would or could affect interstate or foreign commerce
including any such waters:
(i) Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for
recreational or other purposes; or
(ii) From which fish or shellfish could be taken and sold in interstate
or foreign commerce;
(iii) Which are used or could be used for industrial purposes by industries
in interstate commerce;*
(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:
Which are or would be used as habitat by birds protected by Migratory
Bird Treaties or migratory birds which cross State lines;
Which are or would be used as habitat for endangered species;
Used to irrigate crops sold in interstate commerce.)
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.
APPENDIX D
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".
|