S Montana wetiands 333.918 management study Ulrawras 1992 V.2 V MOlfTMia. W/ETLIHDS MMasilfiiMT STUDY 'i I? 1 m, zi '«:• 1) ^y ATTACHMENTS « ATTACHMENT TITLE Voltune I A National Food Security Act Manual (Selected Sections of the Sixth Amendment) B Montana's EPA State Wetlands Protection Grant Application - Components and Tasks C Federal Wetlands Delineation Manuals C-1 1989 Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands C-2 Proposed Revisions to the Federal Manual for Delineating Wetlands C-3 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manxial D National List of Plant Species that occur in Wetlands (Overview) E Natioiul Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan F Montai\a Wetlands Conservation Priority Plan F-1 Wetlands Delineation of Montana F-2 Land Acquisition and Development Plan (Flathead and Lake Counties) Voltmie n G Memorandum of Understanding between USFWS and FmHA H USFWS Mitigation PoUcy I State Coimdl of Governments - Wetland Database Users Manual J Riparian and Wetland Classification Review K Wetlands and 401 Certification - Opjxirtunities and Guidelines for State and Eligible Indian Tribes L Swampbusting: Wetland Conversion and Farm Programs M Directory of Federal Land Management Agency Wetland Contacts STATE DOCUMENTS COLLECTION n:;C l'M992 r\§ ^ ^ .- -«. _ MONTANA STAFE LIBRARY ■? J" i^ • '., : MU|\i TilB E- 6th AVE- , -vf - * ; . ^- ■<• .1"' HELENA. MONTANA 59620 '-'^ ^^ . . ^ ;....: i \,j ^ \\ ATTACHMENTS (Continued) ATTACHMENT TITLE Volvune n (Continued) N State Acts, Polides, and Executive Orders Pertaining to Wetlands N-1 Development and Use of a Wetland Bank as a Mitigation Alternative in Idaho N-2 State of Washington, Executive Order EO 89-10, Protection of Wetlands N-3 State of Washington, Executive Order EO 90-04, Protection of Wetlaivds N-4 State of Washington, Department of Wildlife Wetlands Policy N-5 Slate of Washington, Model Wetlands Protection Ordinance N-6 Washington State Wetlands Rating System N-7 Wyoming Wetlands Act N-8 Wetland Inventory and Wetland Conservation Plans for Oregon N-9 Interagency Memorandvun of Understanding for the Conservation of Wetland Resources associated with Highway Construction Projects in the State of Montana (1992) O SCS Wetland Determination Procedures P State Agency Wetland Programs and Contacts c Attachment G MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING DETWEEN USFWS AND FmHA r r MQ10RANDUM GF UNDERS^ANDI^3G BETOEEN FARMERS HCME ADMINISTRATION AND THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES FOR INTERASENCY COORDINATION ON FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCE ISSUES AFFECTING FARMER PROGRAMS Purpose cuid Policy In corplying with Federal environmental protection laws, regulaticsis, and Executive Orders and assessing the potential environnental inpacts of its actions, including the making of loans and disposal of lands or interests in such lands, the Farmers Home Aininistration (FmHA) consults with appr<^riate Federal, State, or local agencies on the technical aspects of environmental planning, including iirpact analysis and mitigation alternatives. Hiis Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) sets forth the consultation procedures to be followed by FmHA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). Of particular relevance to this MOU is FmHA's need to consult with the Service in inplementing RnHA's affirmative responsibilities to protect and enhance wetland resources under the requirements of Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, and as further specified in 7 CFR Part 1940, Subpart G. This MOU does not supersede ccaisultation as required under Section 7 "of the Endangered Species fcti however, every ef tort win oe made to use tnis nou to tacilitate early coordination on endangered species concerns. The Service has the expertise and capability to act as technical consultant to FmHA on matters dealing with fish and wildlife resources and other ewironroental anedyses, including reccranendations for protectioi and restoratioVenliancenent of wetlands, floodplain habitats, and coastal barrier resources and for endangered, threatened, antVor candidate species and other fish and wildlife resources for which the Federal Government has national or international managonent responsibilities. Hie Service has the expertise to act as advocates for the fish and wildlife resource interest (s) of State or local agencies or private non-profit organizations. In carrying out these responsibilities, the Service will act as liaiscxi betweei FlnHA and State fish and wildlife agencies and non-profit organizations having fish and wildlife conservation as a focus, to ensure that State and private concerns are fully coisidered. In additicai, the Food Security Pet of 1985 (Act) provides inportant new opportunities for strengthening the farm ecoiory and contributing to fish and wildlife resource conservation and wetlands protection and restoratioi. Secticai 1318 of the ADt stipulates a role of the Service to assist FmHA in: (1) selecting real property in which the Secretary (Agriculture) may acquire easements for conservation/ recreation, and wildlife purposes; (2) fonmilating the terms and conditions of such easements; and (3) enforcing such easements. Secti<»i 1314 of the Pet provides an opportunity for easements, restrictions, develcprent rights, or the equivalent of these items to be granted or sold, for conservation purposes, to units of State or local goverrments or private non-profit organizations s^arately fron the farm properties in FinHA's inventory. Therefore, FmHA and the Service agree to coordinate efforts to meet national envircaimenteil and farm program objectives through cooperative inplementation of the Pet, Executive Order 11990, and FmHA's existing environmental planning procedures. Procedures ■ I** I. Loan application processing; In conpleting environmental analyses associated with farm ownership and other FwEh Fanner Program loans (insured and guaranteed) , RnHA will invite assistance from the Service in accordance with 7 CFR Part 1940, Subpart G. To reduce the possibility that Important Resources (Attachment I) may be inadvertently inpacted as a result of RnHA loans, the following process will be enplcyed as a part of loan processing actions: A. the Service will provide FmHA County Offices with periodic updates of appropriate information on Inportant Resources for inclusion in FtaHA's Natural Resource Manag«nent Guides; B. the FmHA County Supervisors will review inf ormaticai provided by the Service in processing Fanner Program loan applications; C. the FmHA County Supervisor will coordinate with the appropriate field office of the Service if: (1) there is potential for the Inportant Resources to be affected through a proposed change in the farm's land use; or (2) the County Supervisor is unsure regarding the possible presence of threatened, endangered, or candidate species or their habitat; D. in areas identified by the Service as a high priority for threatened/endangered species and/or migratory birds, especially waterfowl, FmHA County Supervisors will allow the Service the opportunity to provide corroents, and will fully ccxisider such comments in devel<^ing environmental mitigation measures for individual Farmer Program afplicaticais. 'Vhe Service will identify such areas and will provide such to FmHA as ^>propriate. II. Section 1318; It is the intent of both FmHA and the Service to amend this MOU to incorporate caisultatiai procedures for Section 1318 when regulations are f ijialized and that program becc«nes effective. III. Inventory land disposal process, including Section 1314 requests; In ccirpleting environmental analyses pr^aaratory to leasing or disposal of inventory prc^rties, including interests in such properties, FmHA will request the Service's assistance. Uje Service will be afforded the opportunity to provide input and reccmnandaticxis regarding Inportant Resources. The Service input, including State agency and private non-profit concerns, will be sought and provided as early as possible in FmHA's suitable/surplus determination process. Whenever Inportant Resources are identified by the Service, the Service will assist RnHA in the devel(^3roent of lease or deed restrictions consistent with protecting or restoring such resources and the requirements of 7 CFR Part 1940, Subpart G. EMiA will give full ccMTsideration to Service reconmendations in ccrpletion of environmental analyses prior to disposal actiais. Cnce FmHA has acquired lands through voluntary caiveyance or other means, the follcwing process will be enplpyed as part of disposal actiois: A. the FmHA County Supervisors will notify the appropriate field office (s) of the Service of lands currently in inventory and of additional parcels as they are acquired. ., Notification should include locations, a legal description^ 7 yt, of the property if available, eqpproximate acreage, and other / 7f — descriptive information as appropriate (e.g., maps); / B. the Service will in-tum provide the County Supervisor with assistance in identifying the presence of Inportant Resources listed in Attachment 1, and if present, with reccrmended fish and wildlife conservation measures for inclusion in the environmental analysis, suitabl^surplus determination process, and subsequent disposal actions; C. the Service's contributic»i to FlmHA's environmental analysis process will address the following, as ^prcpriate: (1) existing and potential occurrence and condition of Inportant Resources on the tract (s); (2) emergency fish and wildlife cx)nservation measures needed to protect or conserve environmental value (s) of the tract (s); (3) additioial, long-term fish and wildlife conservation measures needed to meet EWIA mandates to conserve, protect, and enhance Inportant Resources and land uses such as: ^ . (a) the need for wetland protection and enhancement actions in response to Executive Order 11990. In this regard the Service will assist FmHA by identifying inportant wetland protection opportunities and by formulating and inplenenting or sponsoring the inplementation by a third party (e.g., IXicks Unlimited) of mutually acceptable plans for wetland restoration/enhancement; (b) recommended lease or deed restrictions needed to protect Inportant Resources and land uses (e.g., prior to sale the deed would be restricted to protect wetlands or f loodplain habitats from conversion to other land uses) ; or (c) easements, restrictions, or the equivalent to be considered for grant or sale to units of local or State government or private non-profit organizations for coiservatioi purposes; (4) identification of management, monitoring and/or enforcement entities for reccranended conservation measures, easements, and lease/deed restrictions; D. when high resource values warrant retention of a property in public ownership, the Service may reccranand that FmHA pursue all available avenues to grant or sell easements, restrictions, development rights, or their equivalents to State or local agencies or private non-profit organizations. The Service may also indicate a desire to bid and acquire the property itself should EYnBA declare that prcperty surplus and offer it for sale. In order for such reccnmendations to be feasibly considered by RnHA, the Service field staff will consult with FinHA to gain an understanding of RmHA's prc^rty transfer authorities, priorities, and procedures; and E. Service reccnmendations will be submitted to, and considered by, the County supervisor prior to any suitable/surplus determinations, or if such determinations have already been made, they shall be ccxisidered upcxi receipt. For those properties currently in inventory, fish and wildlife conservation measures will be developed prior to resale V C whenever required by RnHA regulations. RecannEndations accepted by RnHA will then be included in subsequent disposal actions. IV. General; Each agency will designate apprc^riate field and State Coordinators to inplenent this Menorandum of Uiderstanding. A. RnHA County Supervisors will serve as day-to-day field coordinators for lands within their jurisdiction. RnHA State Directors will appoint either the Fanner Programs Chief or State Environmental Coordinator (with the other named as alternate) as the overall RnHA State Coordinator for inplementing this document. B. Service Regiaial Directors will designate State Coordinator (s) for each State to work directly with PnnHA County Supervisors and E^nHA State Coordinators to inplement this document. Ihe Service State Coordinator will be assisted by designated biologists responsible for field reviews. C. Within 30 days of the enactment of this Memorandum of Chderstanding the State Coordinator for each agency will meet to initiate e{:prcpriate inplementation activities (e.g. , establish protocols, ideitify county caitacts, screen existing inventory tracts, prepare for processing new tracts) . D. Timeframes for notification, analyses, reviews, resulting actions and transmittal of ccrments will conform to FtnHA requirements. Telephone responses, followed by written documentation, are acceptable. Unless otherwise mutually agreed to by the Service State Coordinator and the affected County Supervisor, the Service will ccnplete its review and provide a written response for invaitory property matters within 45 calendar days from notif icaticxi of the opportunity to ccmment. For technical assistance requests involving Farmer Program eqpplications (loan) , the Service will respond within 15 days of the request unless RnHA indicates in its request that a guaranteed loan involving an Ppptoved Lender is concerned, in which case the Service will respond within 10 days of the FmHA request (in roost cases, this can be handled via tel^hone response) . If the Service does not respond within these timeframes, FmHA may proceed to make any required environmental review and analysis on its cwn. Final decisions, including any land disposal actions, shall rest with the FwEA approval official for the action. Resolution of outstanding issues within a State will be at the State Coordinator level and will not incunber the specific action in which the questi(»i arises. Dhresolved issues and those of a multi-State nature will be addressed at the Regiaial an^or Washingtai Office level of the Service and the Natioial Office level of FmHA. Ttds MenxDrandum of Understanding is effective inmediately upon the last signature date below ani will caitinue in effect until modified or revoked by agreement of both parties, or revoked by either party aloie upon 30 days written notice. Modifications to this document may be made by mutual agreensnt and such roodif icatiais will be in effect upon jsignature of the rocdified document. La^.t^ Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 5 A/ ^7 Date Mninistrator, Fanners Home Aininistration gr^<-^;^ . I KTrPCltEtTT 1 LIST CF IMPORTAh?r RESOURCES 1. Wetlanc3s, as defined in Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, and U.S. Department of Agriculture Regulation 9500-3, Land Use Policy. 2. Riparian zones, floodplains, and coastal barriers. 3. Threatened and endangered species (including proposed and candidate) , for exanple: (a) critical habitat (s) ; (b) known occurrence (for exanple — perch sites, feeding area(s) migration stop-over sites, etc.); or (c) potential habitat (s) for release, restoration, ancVor reintroduction, which would facilitate down listing or diminish the need for listing. 4. Fish and wildlife habitats of local, regional. State or national inportance, for exanple: (a) as identified by Congressional Mandate, Intematiwal Treaty or Managonent Plans; (b) of potential benefit to species of Federal trustee responsibility (e.g.. Migratory Birds, Anadrocous Fish, Endangered £t)ecies); or (c) as identified by State or private non-profit organizations. 5. Aquifer recharge areas of local, regional. State or national inportance, as identified by Federal or State agencies or private non-profit organizatiois. 6. Areas of high water quality or scenic vcilue, including wild and scenic rivers and wilderness areas, as identified by Federal or State agencies or private non-profit organizatiais. ( (. t c L Jlttachment H nsFws MITIGATION POLICY «; Part III . Department of the Interior ^S sfe.^^ Rsh and Wildlife Service U.S. Rsh and Wildlife Service Mitigation Policy [As corrected in the Federal Register of February 4, 1981] c c 7644 \ . ^^edSit^^ I Vol- 46. No. 15 / Friday; January 23. 1981 / Notices i v ii r • DEPARTMENT OF THE iflTERIOR '^^S Fish and Wildlife Service 'S^^ISS'Zffj U^ Fish and WUdlife s^iSS'^^^?^^ Mitigation Policy; Notice of Final Policy' agency: U.S. Fish and virddliJFe Service. Department of the Interior. ;:■ ■>:-rI^r- 1 . action: Notice of Final Ppligr. ^-3i^ summary: This Notice'establishes final policy guidance for U^S. Fishand J- .-: :. Wildlife Service persotmel involveid in i making recommendatioiis'to protect or" conserve Ssh and vlHldlifeiesoarces. 7:5; The policy is needed t^(i)'enspre ; •" consistent and effective ServiceT Js^l^TT: recommendations; (siVaBowFe^ei^ and private developers to anticipate Service recommendations ani^plan' ioT~^'j^£~i]. ., :, mitigation needs early; m3 (3) reduce ~ Service and developer conflicts as well as project delays. "nieliitenHed effect of the policy is to protectluid conserve the most important and valuable'fish and vnldlife resources while facilitating balanced development of the Nation's natural resoiuxes. ::fii~rr^-i''i^'T!^ ■ EFFECTIVE DATE: January 23. 1981. address: Comments submitted on the proposed policy may be'inspected in Room 738. 1375 K Street. N.W, - Washington. D.C 20005. between 9 a jn. and 3 pjn. on business days. FOR FintTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Christian. Policy Group Leader — Environment. VS. Fish and Wildlife Service. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C 20240. (202) 343-7151. StJPPtEllENTARY INFORMATION: BACKGROUND " v'^?' " The development aincl use of the Nation's natur^ resources continues in an effort to provide people with their basic needs and to improve their lives. Fish and wildlife and Ae'intricate fabric of natural resources* upon which they depend provide benefits Jo people in many ways. Fishing, hunting, and bird watching are basic benefits that come to mind-immediately. These activities involve the direct use of these renevrable "natural resources." Perhaps a greater benefit although more difficult for some to understand, is the .< maintenance of the structure and j function of the ecosystem that comprises all living species, including people. The presence of diverse, healthy fish and wildlife populations generally signals a healthy ecosystem which contains those elements necessary for human survival, including unpolluted air and productive land. That fabric of natural resources caDed habitat is the supply for fish and wildlife renewal The life requirements for plant 't'aad animal species are varied and ^-complex. Each species requires a « different set of environmental condibons ^for survival and vigorous growth. These 3: conditions form the habitat of the -various species. The development and — use of natural resources leads to .; changes in environmental conditions -that can redefine habitat and thus change the mix and abundance of plant ~- and animal species. 11. A given change in habitat might •-^increase or decrease overall habitat -3 productivity or result in gains or losses ^.'of species that are valuable to people or "l^ecosystems. In some cases, habitat vv modifications can also increase the [ numbers of species considered "^undesirable, and create a nuisance to -^people or crowd out more valuable ••-:^species. Therefore, development actions ■^can cause habitat changes that are considered either beneficial or adverse depending on the intended wildlife management objectives. When professional biologists determine that a given development action will cause a change that is considered adverse, it is appropriate to consider ways to avoid or minimize and compensate for such adverse change or loss of public resources. This is commonly referred to as mitigation. Fish and wildlife resources are public in nature. The Service has provided Federal leadership for over 40 years to protect and conserve fish and wildlife and their habitat for the benefit of the people of the United States. Under its legal authorities, the Service conducts fish and wildlife impact investigations and provides mitigation recommendations on development projects of all kinds. These efforts have been conducted through a full partnership with State agencies responsible for fish and wildlife resources, and since 1970, with the National Marine Fisheries Service of the U.S. Department of Commerce. The recommendations of the Service are considered by the Federal development and regulatory agencies for their adoption as permitted by law. Over the years, the Service has reviewed innumerable project and program plans with the potential to adversely affect fish and wildlife resources. The mitigation recommended in recent years by Service personnel to . prevent or ameliorate adverse impacts has been governed primarily by a broad policy statement on mitigation promulgated in 1974 and by specific guidelines issued as needed. Recent events have prompted the Service to make known its mitigation objectives and policies. Specific management needs include: (1) Recent legislative, executive and regulatory developments concerning the environment which have led to a need to update and. expand the advice within the 1974 Service policy statement: (2) Increasing Service review responsibilities which require issuance of comprehensive guidance on mitigation to maintain the quality and consistency of Service mitigation recommendations; (3) An explicit summary of Service mitigation planning goals and policies to be disclosed to developers and action agencies to aid their earliest planning efforts; and (4) Finally, the current national need to accelerate development of energy resources which requires that early planning decisions be made that can minimize conflict between important environmental values and energy development For these reasons, it was determined to be necessary to fully outline the overall mitigation policy of the VS. Fish and Wildlife Service. The final Service policy statement integrates and outlines the major aspects of current Service mitigation efforts. Intended as an overview document its guidance is based on an analysis of current Service field recommendations and on the guidance contained in recent Service management docoments. This policy conditions only the actions of Service employees involved in providing mitigation recommendations. It does not dictate actions or positions that Federal action agencies or individuals must accept However, it is hoped that the policy will provide a common basis for mitigation decisionmaking and facilitate eariier consideration of fish and wildlife values in project planning activities. Finally, it should be stressed that this Service policy outlines mitigation needs for fish and wildlife, their habitat and uses thereof. Others interested in mitigation of project impacts on other aspects of the environment such as human health or heritage conservation may find the Service policy does not fully cover their needs. There was no intent to develop a mitigation poUcy that covers all possible public impacts except those stated. However, the Service strongly believes that preservation and conservation of natural resources is a necessary prerequisite to human existence. DISCUSSION The foUowing items are included to provide a better understanding of the policy's relationship to other guidance and to improve the understanding of its technical basis. Feae^TR^ter / Vol. 46. No. 15 / Friday. January 23. 1981 / Notices 7645 1. RelatioDship of Servira Mitigation PoUcy to Other Service Plaiming ^ Activities. " - r— " - " i.3^-T»fe«3j&-i The final policy is de^^t^ iDsl on its own. However, for a aeaxM'T£r: ' perspective of the relationship'of tte ' policy to the goals and ob|ectives'of the VS. Fish and Wildlife ServiceTit can be read vnth the Service Management Plan and the Habitat Preservation Pro-am Management Document -^Pi^^:^""-' The Service Management Plan' /. ^ . describes the overall direction of die ' Service and the intenelatidnships'bf the four major categories, including Habitat Preservatioa Wildlife Resources; "=^1. - Fishery Resources, and Federal Aid- " Endangered Spedes. "^vlv-i^^j»>.',"n;l' The Habitat PreservatfqnlSbgrain' '.. Management DoptwB and 9r,MVt or hind haMat MCOfnnQ scarCA. vakM. 3 Nona* loss of ■vakabon spacias and hatiilat vakM ^uidant 1 lossafirvWnd habitat valua. 4 Madhan to low vMua lor Mininna loss c« hafailal «alua. POUCY HISTORY •> The policy statement integrates and outlines the major aspects of current Service mitigation efforts, hitended as an overview document its guidance is based on an analysis of over 350 Service field recommendations and on the guidance contained in recent Service management documents. The proposed policy was published in the Federal Register on September 9, 1980 (45 FR 59485-59494). A correction notice which corrected insignificant formatting and typographical errors was published on September 19. 1980 (45 FR 62564). A notice extending the comment period on the proposed policy to November 10, 198a was published on October 8. 1980 (45 FR 66878). The final publication is based on full and thorough consideration of the pubUc comments as discussed below. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Over 90 sets of comments were received on the proposed policy. All comments were thoroughly analyzed and cataloged and considered. Many commentors expressed agreement with Service publication of the policy, sensing a more consistent and predictable Service approach to mitigation recommendations and a resultant decrease in the degree of conflict with developers. Many felt the policy represented a rational approach to fish and wildlife resource management and that it would provide for adequate protection and conservation of the Nation's fish and wildlife resources. The imderlying concept that the degree of mitigation requested should correspond to the importance and scarcity of the habitat at risk was also supported by many commentors. Numerous commentors also praised its scope, cohesiveness and clarity, and stressed that it should provide valuable guidance for Government personnel providing technical and project planning assistance. Detailed responses to significant comments follow: GENERAL COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED SERVICE MITIGATION POUCY Comment- Although the Service prepared an Environmental Assessment and, from its findings, concluded that policy issuance did not constitute a major Federal action which would significantly affect the quality of the human environment within the meaning of Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). a few commentors disagreed with the Service's conclusion that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was not necessary for the proposed action. Response: During policy development the Service took action to determine if preparation of an environmental impact statement under NEPA was reqtiired. Although section 1508.18 of the Council on EnAoronmental Quality's (CEQ) Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA classified adoption of an official policy as a "Federal action." it remained imclear as to whether this action was "major." or whether it would "significantly" affect the quality of the human environment since policy implementation would not result in or substantially alter agency programs. As was stated in the preamble, this policy is basically a distillation of approaches and policy currently being practiced by Service field personnel in providing mitigation recommendations. In order to resolve this uncertainty, an Environmental Assessment was prepared for the proposed and final policy. By doing so. the Service has complied with one of the major purposes of the NEPA regulations, which is to have NEPA applied early in the decisionmaking process. The NEPA regulations do not in the opinion of the Service, require that the agency speculate on future, possible events without any relation to actual, existing impacts of an action. Section 1502.2 of the NEPA regulations directs that an EIS is to be analytical, however, the Service action simply does not create any impacts capable of such analysis. Thus, there is no reasonable or scientific way for the Service to analyze any environmental impacts, significant or otherwise, as discussed in | § 1502.16 and 1508.27. This problem is particulariy vexsome when those impacts depend on future contingencies and can be more appropriately analyzed when those contingencies occur. Even S 1502.4, which discussed EIS's in terms of broad agency actions, does so in the context of specific impacts caused by the action. In the opinion of the Service, it has fully complied with the letter and spirit of NEPA and its regulations. Comment: One commentor felt that the preamble statement that an EIS would be premature at this time contradicted a finding of no significant impact Response: The Service sees no contradiction with a finding of no significant impact and the statement that an EIS is premature. The finding of no significant impact derives from an analysis showing that the policy has no signiJEicant impacts amenable to analysis at the present time. However, when in the future the Service does apply the policy in developing mitigation recommendations for a major Federal action which might significantly affect the quality of the human environment then the environmental impacts associated with implementing those recommendations which are considered justifiable by the development agency can be analyzed by that development agency. The Service has no way of predicting which of its recommendations will be accepted by the developer; therefore, analysis of impacts of accepted mitigation recommendations is the responsibility of the developer. Comment One commentor was of the opinion that an EIS "should be prepared for the Service's proposed mitigation recommendations on each project" Moreover, the commentor felt that a significant portion of ftese EIS's should be devoted to analysis of economic impacts. Response: Mitigation recommendations and actions cannot be meaningfully analyzed except in the context of the development action initiating them. And. since an EIS would be required for any major Federal action which wotild significanUy affect the quality of the human environment and whose alternatives would include consideration of mitigation, a separate EIS would not be necessary for mitigation actions. Under the FWCA the action agency which makes the ultimate decision is to include aU "justifiable mitigation means and measures" in project formulation. The burden of analyzing the economic impacts of "justifiable" mitigation measures therefore rests primarily with Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 15 / Friday, January 23, 1981 / Notices 7647 the project sponsor, who will likely use the Water Resources Council's Principles and Standards to assist in the analysis. Comment: The substantive requirements of the Service mitigation policy should be consistent with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act's implementing regulations and the Water Resources Council's Principles and Standards. Response: We agree. The proposed and final policy have been developed consistent with the substantive and procedural requirements of these regulations. Comment: The Environmental " Assessment identifies as one of the advantages of the proposed mitigation policy the establishment of " * * * minimum performance standards for FWS recommendations (which) would serve as benchmarks by which the FWS and developers or action agencies * * * could assess individual Service mitigation proposals." However, neither the Federal Register notice nor the Environmental Assessment identify or discuss these "benchmarks." Response: The term "benchmarks" referred to the mitigation goals and planning procedures. Both the proposed policy preamble and its Environmental Assessment disciissed these guidelines, explaining their derivation and importance to policy purposes. However, a point of darification is needed regarding these guidelines. It is the recommendations made by Service personnel that would be measured against these standards, not the mitigation implemented by an action agency. The final policy makes this point explicit Comment Many commentors argued that the proposed policy goes beyond that authorized by law. Specific concern was expressed over the use of words that were mandatory in tone (e.g.. "require" and "musf^ as opposed to advisory. In addition, some commented that the Service has no authority to support or oppose projects as stated in the policy. Response: The Service agrees that the legal authorities for the mitigation policy do not authorize the Service to exercise veto power over land and water development activities. That understanding was implicit in the proposed policy. Appropriate changes have been made in the policy to more explidUy recognize and signify the advisory nature of the Service responsibilify. However, it should be clearly noted that the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act places dear mandatory requirements on Federal development agendes falling under that Act's authority to (1) consult with the Service, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and State agendes responsible for fish and wildlife resources; (2) incorporate such reports and recommendations in one overall project report; (3) provide "full consideration" of the "reports and reconmiendations;" (4) indude in the project plan "such justifiable means and measures for wildUfe purposes as the reporting agency finds should be adopted to obtain overall maximum project benefits;" and (5) other requirements related to funding and land acquisition. The dear intent of Congress was that recommendations developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. NMFS, and State agendes responsible for fish and wildlife resources be taken seriously, and we know of no law which prohibits the Service from taking a position for or against a project when making mitigation recommendations. Comment: The policy will adversely impact developmental interests. Response: The goal of the policy is to provide for equal consideration of fish and wildlife conservation while facilitating development Congress has dearly stated that "wildlife conservation shall receive equal consideration and be coordinated with other features of water-resource development programs" (Pub. L 85-624, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act). This advice is further amplified in Senate Report 1981 on the FWCA (84th Congress, 2nd Session (1958)). The Congress recognized that in some instances, the level of dollar benefits to some purposes might have to be diminished "in some slight degree" in order to accomplish the fish and wildlife conservation objectives of the Act However, policy issuance should benefit developmental interests. By providing developers with a dear picture of Service mitigation concerns and priorities, the policy will allow developers to antidpate Service mitigation recommendations prior to final dedsions on project design and location. By reducing a developer's planning uncertainties, the policy will result in lowered project costs and fewer project delays and conflicts. Comment- Does the policy present general guidance or minimum required standards? The Service appears to be trying to establish required standards. Response: The final policy sets out mitigation goals and planning guidance to guide the development of Service mitigation recommendations. It does not require absolute strict adherence to a required standard. Changes have been made to reflect this. Comment: No mention is made of the State role in mitigation planning to assure'a compatible approach. The States' authorities and decisionmaking prerogatives with respect to fish and wildlife resources should be denoted and the States' roles in mitigation should be emphasized further. Response: A compatible approach is desirable. We have induded appropriate changes. However, the policy is solely for Service personnel There is no intent to infringe on the States' prerogatives. Comment- The policy should require full public disdosure of Service mitigation analyses, determiniations. and recommendations. Response: We agree that full disdosure of Service analyses, determinations and recommendations during the mitigation process would serve the public interest All public documents associated with Service recommendations for mitigation on specific land and water developments are available for review in Ecological Services field ofiices. No change in the policy is necessary. Comment: The Service should specifically address the acid rain problem in its policy. In particular, the policy should address the impact of Federal policies and programs that support power plant conversions to coal. Response: The Service currendy ( reviews such Federal actions under NEPA. since these polides and programs are likely to require an EIS. Because add rain has been highlighted as an Important Resource Problem (IRP) by the Seniice. environmental analyses which do not adequately address add rain problems will receive particular attention by Service reviewers. Our comments will be technically reinforced by Service research already being conducted in this area. Since the policy already covers this issue, no change is necessary. Comment- Could the mitigation policy call for a recommendation as extreme as reflooding of the Mississippi River VaUey? Response: The mitigation policy would not lead to so extreme a recommendation because it does not apply to development actions completed prior to enactment of Service authorities or exempted by those authorities. In those situations where the policy does apply, there will be no recommendations for mitigation over and above the level of impacts associated with a project This policy acts to minimize impacts of projects, not reverse them. Comment Which agency enforces this C policy and what power does it have? 7648 Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 15 / Friday. January 23. 1981 / Notices Response: This is a policy that applies only to Service personneL It does not predetermine the actioiu of other Federal agencies, nor the actions of State agencies or developers. Although the policy statement is not judicially enforceable, the Service will administer the policy by monitoring the mitigation recommendadons made by its own personneL Comment Too often land acquired for mitigation does not provide the spectrum of resource values previously available because the managing agency's philosophy prevents it from managing the land for a mix of goals. Response: Lands acquired for mitigation purposes must provide the specific mitigation benefits for which they were intended. Secondary land uses, such as provision of timber, oil and gas exploration, or recreational benefits, should be attempted where these uses are compatible with the mitigation lands' primary purpose. This concept has been added to the policy. SPEOnC COMMENTS ON THE MmCATION POUCY [These comments are keyed to sections of the proposed policy.) LPmpos* Comment Why is this policy apparendy unconcerned with Qora? Response: Mitigating for fish and wildlife losses necessarily means dealing with the plant communities on which all animal life indirecUy depends. When habitat is preserved, it is the plant communities that are the vast bulk of the living material of that habitat Plants perse are addressed by other authorities of the Service which are not within the scope of this policy, such as the Endangered Species Act and associated regulations. ILAntbority No significant comments. m. Scope Comment How does the policy affect projects already completed or under construction? Response: Appropriate changes in the Scope section have been made to clarify policy coverage with regard to completed projects or projects under construction. Comment Since Federal permit renewals will result in no new effects on the environment, they should be exempt from the policy. Response: Tlie permit or license renewal process provides an opportunity to re-evaluate the project. Depending on new scientific information concerning impacts, the adequacy of past developer mitigation efforts, or new authorities, new mitigation recommendations may be necessary. Not infrequendy. permit or license holders use the renewal process as a convenient occasion to seek changes in their permits. Any changes in permit or license holders' activities have to be evaluated to determine whether or not they necessitate new mitigation recommendations. lliis policy, therefore, will be used by the Service in permit or license renewal proceedings, keeping in mind that Service recommendations are advisory to action agencies. Appropriate changes were made in the policy to reflect this position. Comment Does this policy apply to man-induced wetlands? Response: Where the Service has the authority and responsibility to recommend mitigation for these habitats, the tenets of the policy shall Comment There is a need for a mechanism for evaluating enhancement and a means to differentiate it from mitigation. Response: Although enhancement is an important concern of the Service, the Service mitigation policy should not serve as the primary vehicle for discussing enhancement. The final policy does differentiate between enhancement and mitigation recommendations by defining enhancement to include measures wdiich would improve fish and wildlff e resources beyond that which would exist without the project and which cannot be used to satisfy the appropriate mitigation planning goaL As for evaluating enhancement it would appear likely that many of the procedures that can be used to evaluate mitigation can be used to evaluate enhancement Comment What is the basis for the policy position that enhancement cannot occur until all losses are compensated? There is no legislative history for this. Response: Unfortunately, the term "enhancement" suffers from wide differences in semantic usage. The proposed policy used the term to be synonymous with improvements beyond the achievement of fiill mitigation. This strict interpretation appeared to spark controversy. The final policy incorporates a different usage of the term. Enhancement is used to describe measures not necessary to accomplish mitigation purposes. Comment The policy should credit towards mitigation goals those habitat value increases associated with areas of the habitat which are enhanced by the project Habitat value should be computed for enhancement activities, and the inclusion of habitat enhancement factors would provide for a more accurate estimate of the project's impact on the environment Response' Use of the term "habitat enhancement" to describe-development or improvement efforts is confused by this comment The mitigation policy does not cover enhancement as we have described it However, where habitat improvement or development caused by a project will result in habitat value increases, it may be considered as mitigation when consistent with the resource category designation criteria and the appropriate mitigation planning goaL Comment There should be a clear statement that all opportunities for enhancement of fish and wildlife resources be thoroughly considered and included in project plans to the extent feasible. Response: We agree. Appropriate changes were made. IV. Definition of Miiigadon Comment Some commentors indicated concern over the definition of mitigation as used in the policy. Specific concern was expressed that those aspects of project planning that include avoidance or actions to TniniimVp impacts should be considered good project plaiming and that mitigation should be confined solely to actions to compensate for resource bsses. Response: The Service agrees diat avoidance or actions to miniiniy impacts should be part of the early design of projects and not just an afterthought Some consider mitigation to be a separate and (fistinct process that occurs after project planning has been completed. The legally binding definition of mitigation as used in the regulations to implement the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA] can have the effect of altenng this notion through incorporation of all those actions that can lessen project impacts throughout the planning process. The policy has been modified to more clearly state that the Service supports and encourages incorporation of features that wiU reduce adverse impacts on fish and wildlife resources as part of early planning and project design in order to avoid delays or conducts. But without the emphasis on avoidance and minimization provided by the NEPA regulations' definition, there would be littie incentive for development agencies to incorporate such features. The Service, therefore, supports and adopts that definition. Federal Register / Vol 46. No. 15 / Friday. January 23. 1981 / Notices 7649 V. Mitigation Policy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servin Comment A number of documents are referred to in the draft policy. They are essential to the functioning of the policy and should be published as an appendix and otherwise made available for public comment, including public hearings. Response: The preamble to the proposed policy clearly indicated that the policy was designed to stand on its own. The referenced documents are not essential to the functioning of the policy. For instance, even though Service field personnel will rely basically on the Habitat Evaluation Procedures in conducting project analyses, the policy indicates that other methods can be used where appropriate and available. The concept of habitat value has been recognized throughout the history of fish and wildlife management It is not new. Regardless of the fact that the policy stands on its own. the referenced documents have undergone varying degrees of public scrutiny independent of the mitigation policy. For instance, a notice of availability and request for public comment was published in the Federal Register for the Service Management Plan and Program Management Document on September 29. 1980 (45 FR 64271-64272). A habitat- based evaluation methodology has been imder active development in the Service since 1973. The first document officially called the Habitat Evaluation Procedures was published in 1976 with the most recent revision in 1980. During this 7 year period, the Nation's top wildlife biologists have been consulted, both within the government and outside. The procedures have been presented at nmnerotis public conferences and have been the subject of intense scrutiny. Finally, the referenced documents were made available to reviewers. Over 75 requests were made and immediately filled to allow commentors the full benefit of this information in preparing comments, including the group providing this comment Minor changes were made in the policy to more clearly indicate that the policy can stand on its ovm. A. General Principles Comment: Pursued to its logical conclusion, the concept of fish and wildlife as public trust resources could lead to serious restrictions on the use and management of private lands. Response: When the concept of personal property rights is exercised in such a way as to jeopardize the interests of the public in fish and wildlife resources on public or private lands, the government may use its authorities to see that any damage to those interests is prevented or mitigated. The Service does and will attempt to fulfill its duties within its authorities and in a reasonable manner. It is certainly cognizant of the fact that pursuing any concept to its logical extreme may lead to unreasonableness, and will continue to strive to prevent this fitim happening in its mitigation activities. Comment: What does "equal consideration" of wildlife conservation mean within the context of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and this mitigation policy? Response: "Equal consideration" was not defined in the Act or this policy, and has no particidar meaning in the context of this policy. This policy only covers Service recommendations, not action agency requirements. Comment: The proposed Service pohcy now absolutely precludes support for non-water dependent projects within or affecting waters of the United States. This should be modified to conform to the requirements of Federal regulatory agencies such as the Army Corps of Engineers (COE] and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Response: The Service policy clearly does not exercise veto power over development actions. Moreover, the Service will execute its responsibilities fully within the context of existing laws and regulations governing environmental reviews. However, the Service feels that wetlands and shallow water habitats should not be subjected to needless development because of the public values of these areas. The Service policy statement does not include water dependency as the "sole" criterion for its reconunendations. Other factors, including the likelihood of a significant loss, are considered prior to a Service recommendation for support of a project or the "no project" alternative. The provisions of the policy have been modified to make such reconunendations discretionary. Comment Congress, not the Service, is the entity that has the authority to require and fund compensation for Federal projects. Response: We agree. The policy has been modified. Comment Mitigation should not be required for an indefinite period of time. Response: Mitigation is appropriate for the entire time period that habitat losses persist which includes the life of the project and as long afterwards as the impacts of the project continue to e.xist The policy reflects this position. Comment Under "General Principles," the policy should seek and endorse novel or imaginative approaches to mitigation. < Response: The Service fully supports development of novel and imaginative approaches that mitigate losses of fish and wildlife, their habitat and uses thereof,~and has been in the forefront of such development No change is necessary. Comment An Indian tribe strongly supports the Department of the Interior's recognition of the role of Indian tribal governments in mitigation planning. Response: Our national heritage and, in some cases, the livelihood of Indian tribes, can be directiy linked with the conservation and use offish and wildlife resources. Therefore, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will continue to recognize and support Indian tribal governments' efforts to mitigate impacts on these resources. B. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mitigation Goals by Resource Category Comment The mitigation goals for the resource categories were characterized as: reasonable, too strict or not strict enough. Response: As was explained in the preamble to the draft policy, the resource categories and their mitigation goals were abstracted from an analysis of actual field recommendations. The designation criteria for the resource categories (replaceability, scarcity, and value for evaluation species] are the basic decision factors used by Service personnel to assess relative mitigation needs. The mitigation goals represent reasonable mitigation expectations for projects, viewed in the light of our two- faceted goal — [1] to conserve, protect and enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats, and (2) to facilitate balanced development of our Nation's natural resources. Numerous comments were received commending us on the balanced approach embodied in this policy. Since its tenets derive from field recommendations and comments, the credit belongs entirely to our field staff. Some commentors criticized the mitigation goals. One group felt that one or several of the mitigation goals were too strict These commentors objected to what they considered to be unreasonably high goals for fish and wildlife mitigation. In contrast to this first group, another set of commentors felt that the goals were not strict enough, and called attention to our legislative responsibility to seek protection for all fish and wildlife resources. Our response is that the mitigation goals represent the best professional judgment and cumulative experience of Service field supervisors in developing mitigation proposals that would satisfy ^' 7650 Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 15 / Friday. January 23. 1981 / Notices our legislative mandates, operate under time and money constraints, and assist in maximizing overall social well-being. The basic concept therefore, is unchanged in the final policy, although minor changes were made to improve understanding based on the comments. Comment Rather than rely on strict inflexible mitigation goals, the Service should use "tradeoS" evaluation procedures in developing mitigation proposals. Response: It is the responsibility of the Federal action agency to use tradeoff evaluation procedures consistent with the Water Resources Council's Principles and Standards, where applicable, to select a mitigation alternative that will assist in maximizing overall project benefits. The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act specifies that "the project plan shall include such justifiable means and measures for wildlife purposes as the reporting agency (emphasis added) finds should be adopted to obtain maximum overall project benefits." The role of the Service is to represent those public trust resources under its jurisdiction. The proposed policy outlined a system wherein the highest valued resources would be subject to the most protective mitigation recommendations. Few, if any, commentors have disagreed with this valuation perspective. Therefore, no changes were made. However, many commentors have questioned the reasonableness of a seemingly uncompromising system that did not appear to allow occasional deviations from these goals. The system is not rigid. As stated in the Purpose section of the policy, the policy advice will be used as guidance for Service personnel, but variations appropriate to individual circumstances are permitted. Comment Numerous commentors raised the issue of the somewhat subjective nature of identifying certain species as "important" for the purposes of the policy. In addition, commentors indicated that such distinctions coidd lead to mis-classification of habitats in terms of resource categories and that clear criteria were needed. Finally, many commentors felt that the artificial distinction of certain species as "important" was both a violation of the public trust and Service legal authorities. Response: People perceive some spedes to be more important than others. In the context of biology and ecology, all species are important serving a useful purpose within the confines of their biological niche. The mitigation policy must address both the needs and desires of human society and the ecosystem perspective. This is a difficult task. But human decisions concerning fish and wildlife resources in the face of a development action require judgment about the values of what will be lost and the need to avoid or minimize and compensate for loss of such values. The specific criteria for such determinations are also exceedingly difficult to frame in a National policy context The importance of a species to society depends on a complex, changing mix of factors. The importance of a species within an ecosystem is also subject to many dynamic factors. But human decisions about the level and type of mitigation necessary for development actions must be made in the absence of perfect information concerning these factors. In addition, the Service biologist reviewing project impacts has severe constraints on the number of species and ecosystem linkages that can be analyzed given funding, personnel and time limitations. Somehow, choices must be made. We have deleted the term "important species" from the policy and replaced it with a more precise term, "evaluation species." The criteria for selection of evaluation species still includes those species of high resource value to humans or that represent a broader ecological perspective of an area. Other changes have been made related to the determination of resource categories to allow for additional public input and resource agency coordination into such determinations, where appropriate. The effect of this change is not intended and shall not be interpreted to broaden the scope or extent of application of this policy. But it does remove the implication that spedes can be ranked against each other in terms of their overall importance to sodety. which many considered quite beyond the capability of human beings. Comment The wording of the policy should dearly indicate that spedes selected for analysis should only be those demonstrated to actually utilize an area. Response: We agree, except for situations where fish and wildlife restoration or improvement plans have been approved by State or Federal resource agendes. In that case the analysis vtrill indude spedes identiBed in such plans. Appropriate darification has been added to the definition of evaluation spedes. Comment The proper focus of the policy should be the ecosystem rather than particular species. Response: Aside from the very real technical problems of applying a complex concept such as the ecosystem to mitigation planning, the authorities underlying this policy deal with fish and wildlife and their habitat rather than ecosystems. - Ecosystems are addressed under this policy in two ways. First one criterion in the selection of an evaluation spedes is the biological importance of the spedes to the functioning of its ecosystem. Secondly, when habitat loss is mitigated, the part of the ecosystem comprising that habitat is itself protected. No changes have been made. Comment Recreational use losses may at times have to be directiy mitigated. The goal statements should reflect this need. Response: We agree. Appropriate changes were made. Comment In addition to assessing conditions of scardty from a biogeographical viewpoint Le.. ecoregions, the policy should also use geopolitical subdivisions. e.g.. state botmdaries. Response: As a Federal agency, the Service perceives its major responsibility to be to protect those fish and wildlife and their habitat that are valuable and scarce on a national level, whether or not they transcend state boundaries. However, should State resource agencies wish to outline relative scarcity on a more local basis.' Service personnel would certainly assist whenever practicable. This point has been added to the policy. CommentThe policy should scale the relative need to achieve a particular mitigation goal to the degree a particular habitat will be impacted. For example, if a half-acre of important habitat is affected by a project and it is part of a one-acre plot this circumstance should lead to a mitigation recommendation different from the situation where the same half-acre is part of a ten thousand acre area. As drafted, the policy does not reflect the differences in these situations. Response: The Purpose section of the policy states that it will be used as guidance for Service personnel but variations appropriate to individual circumstances will be permitted. The relative need to achieve a particular mitigation goal depends primarily on the perceived value of the habitat its scarcity, and the replaceability of the threatened habitat Other factors, such as scaling considerations, can combine to modify this general Service perspective on what constitutes appropriate mitigation. Comment The resource categories and mitigation goals are general, lack definition, and provide no guidance on habitat value. These categories are aU Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 15 / Friday. January 23. 1981 / Notices 7651 subject to interpretation by the Service field personneL Response: It would be counterproductive, if not impossible, for a national policy to be worded as precisely as the commentor suggests and still be implemented in a reasonable manner under numerous and diverse local drcimistances. Words used to describe resource categories and mitigation goals do have generally understood meanings. It is essential that field personnel be allowedto exercise professional judgment in applying resource categories and mitigation goals to specific activities. However, numerous clarifying changes were made based on the comments to increase comprehension and understanding. Comment- It is essential to other agencies' review to know what general types of habitat will be most important in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service mitigation policy. At a miniTnnm, some examples of the types of habitat within each category should be given. Response: The final policy does give guidance on areas that will be generally considered for Resource Category 1 or 2. Providing examples for all resource categories could be misleading since the same type of habitat may fall into several different resource categories, depending on. among other factors, its relative scarcity and qualify &om one locale to another across the nation. On the other hand, field professioneds are generally familiar with the qualify and abundance of a given type of habitat that is in their area, so it is preferable not to burden them with potentially inappropriate guidelines of this nature. Comment The policy should clearly distinguish between upland habitats and the more valuable wetland habitats. Response: In some cases, upland habitats may be determined to have resource values equal to or greater than wetland habitats, so a policy that solely favored one habitat type over the other would not be in the best public interest However, the policy has been changed to indicate that certain habitats within Service-identified Important Resource Problems (IRPs] and special aquatic sites should be given special consideration as Resource Category 1 or 2. The IRPs contain a predominance of wetland coastal areas. Comment' If you build something in a habitat it just changes it to another habitat that some other animal or fish lives in — including the human being, although the Service does not seem to appreciate that For example, if you build a highway, it is bad for dogs, rabbits, opossums and field rats and such that get run over by cars and trucks, but it is good for crows and buzzards that eat dead meat Response: The Service has not come across many instances where crows and buzzards could be considered scarce, but when such a circiunstance can be documented and verified, the Service will certainly try to protect and enhance valuable highway habitat • Resource Category 1 Comment: A literal interpretation of the Resource Category 1 mitigation goal would require absolutely no habitat loss — not even a nature traiL Resource Category 1 should be deleted. Response: Not all environmental changes are adverse to the habitat of a fish and wildlife resource. If a nature trail resulted in an insignificant impact on habitat value that was determined not to be adverse, then the Service would not recommend against it The policy has been clarified to reflect this point Comment- Endangered and threatened species should be included as part of Resource Category 1. Response: It would be inappropriate to expand the scope of the Mitigation PoUcy to include threatened and endangered species. The treatment of these species is addressed in an extensive body of compIe.x and detailed legislation and regulation. The Congress has legislated very specific and precise law with regard to threatened and endangered species. Inclusion of these species under this policy would only confuse the issue and compound the difficulties involved in implementation of the Endangered Spedes Act and its associated regidations. Other reasons are discussed in the scope section of the final policy. Comment For all practical piuposes. Resource Categories 1 and 2 adopt a "no growth" policy. Response: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is not advocating a "no growth" mitigation policy. The means and measures to achieve mitigation for Resource Categories 1 and 2 are designed to provide some flexibilify so that limited growth can occur in an environmentally prudent manner. The policy reflects the national consensus that some habitats are of exceptional public value and should be carefully conserved, as evidenced in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (Pub. L 90-542). the Wilderness Act (Pub. L 88-577). and the National Trails System Act (Pub. L 94- 527). • Resource Category 2 Comment It is ill-advised to support in-kind replacement involving trading habitat for lesser value habitat which is then improved to support the species affected by the project It takes too long, and in the meantime, populations, supported by the habitat on the project site are lost Response: If the period required for improving the replacement habitat to the appropriate condition was exceedingly long, this may be one indication that the habitat at risk was unique or irreplaceable and actually belonged in Resource Category 1. In that case in-kind replacement through improvement of lesser qualify habitat would be an inappropriate mitigation recommendation. Also, additional measures aimed at population restoration could be recommended to restock the area, provided suitable habitat was available to support the stocked spedes. No changes were made. Comment One commenter was perturbed by an apparenUy rigid insistence by the policy of in-kind replacement of lost habitat The commentor pointed out that there could be occasions in which in-kind habitat was not available to a project sponsor. Response: The policy guideline for Resource Category 2 indudes an exception when "* * • in-kind replacement is not physically or biologically attainable". No change was necessary. Comment The policy appears to insist upon "acre-for-acre" replacement of in- kind habitat Response: The policy does not insist on "acre-for-acre" replacement of in- kind habitat The mitigation planning goals involving in-kind replacement specifically ask for replacement of in- kind habitat value. This point has been further darified in the definitions section, throughout the policy, and in the policy preamble. • Resource Category 3 CommentThe mitigation goal for Resource Category 3 is not authorized by law and will be difficult to implement due to professional disagreement on satisfactory achievement Response: Under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act the Service has the responsibilify to recommend compensation for the loss of fish and wildlife resources. The Act does not restrict compensation to in-kind compensation. By recommending out-of- kind compensation under certain circumstances, the Service increases the range of options that developers may use to mitigate project impacts to indude development and improvement of marginal resources different from those lost However, modifications have been made in the policy to indicate that 7652 Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 15 / Friday. January 23. 1981 / Notices in-kind replacement is preferred for Resource Category 3. Comment: The mitigation goal for Resource Category 3 should emphasize that in-kind habitat value replacement is preferable to out-of-kind replacement Response: We agree. This point has been brought out in the final policy statement Comment- Although out-of-kind replacement is acceptable for Resource Category 3 losses and. under certain drcimistances, may be accepted for Resource Category 2 losses, the policy should advise against replacement of rare habitat types for more common habitat types. Response: We agree with the commentor's point and expect that Service field personnel will recommend mitigation alternatives that incorporate this concept to the extent practicable. The Service is entirely in favor of preserving and/or promoting habitat diversity. No changes were necessary. • Resource Categories 4 and 3 Comment: Compensation should be included as a means for satisfying the mitigation goal for Resource Category 4. Response: Appropriate language changes have been made to allow for such recommendations. Comment: Habitats encompassed by Resource Categories 4 and 5 are the only areas wherein significant increases in fish and wildlife can be realized through habitat improvement Yet the mitigation goals for these categories allow continual loss of these areas which possess great potential for improvements in carrying capacity. Response: The Service appreciates the significance of areas with relatively low existing habitat values with respect to their potential for carrying capacity improvements. In fact the Service may recommend improvement of these areas' habitat values to mitigate for unavoidable losses in Resource Categories 2 and 3. In addition, where these areas are included in a project planning area and are not appropriate for mitigation efforts, the Service will recommend that all opportunities for enhancement of these areas be thoroughly considered and included in project plans, where practicable. We have amended the policy to include the above guidance. Comment Resource Category 5 is confusing and unnecessary. All habitat has some value, no matter how low. It should be redefined or deleted. Response: We agree. This resource category has be^n deleted from the final policy. C Mitigadon Pianning Pioceduies 1. Mitigation Goals Comment: Developers. Federal resource agencies, and the public should participate with the Service and State agencies in making Resource Category determinations and in developing mitigation proposals. Response: Developers, as well as other members of the public may provide information that will assist the Service in making Resource Category determinations. This opportunity has been noted in the final policy statement Moreover, where these parties* inputs will significandy aid in development of mitigation proposals that will adequately satisfy mitigation planning goals, the Service will welcome their input Comment It is hoped that reclassification of habitats in Resource Category 3 to Resource Categories 2 or 1 can be readily employed if and when certain habitats become more scarce. Response: Resource Category determinations are made on the basis of conditions likely to occur without the project If those conditions later change, the Resource Category of a given habitat can be redetermined. However, once a mitigation plan in connection with a given project has been agreed upon, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will not provide new or additional recommendations except under limited circumstances as outlined in the policy under the scope section. 2. Impact Assessment Methods Comment The policy does not appear to recognize that development activities may also show positive environmental effects. For example, cleared spaces beneath power lines can provide browsing areas for wildlife. Such positive effects should be factored into the mitigation assessment process. Response: We agree. This point has been included in the final policy statement The final policy further, indicates that the Service and other State and Federal resource agencies shall make the determination of whether a biological change constitutes a beneficial or adverse impact However, when detennining mitigation needs for a planning area, the Service will utilize these policy guidelines to determine whether these positive effects can be applied towards mitigation. Comment The draft policy indicates "no net loss" as a goal for certain Resource Categories but it is imclear in defining the time period allowed to restore the land to its original value as in the case of strip mining operations. Maintenance of "no net loss" throughout the life of a long-term operation is not possible. Response: The policy states that the net biological impact of a specific project proposal is the difference in predicted habitat value between the future with the action and the future without the action. This is based on the procedures established by the Water Resources Council's Principles and Standards. The future with the project determination includes consideration of losses during the life of the project Under the policy, if the disturbed habitat is of sufficient value for evaluation species to warrant a Resource Category 2 or 3 level determination, the Service will provide recommendations for "no net loss" over the life of the project The ability of the project sponsor to achieve this goal depends on many factors that cannot be predicted in advance. In many cases, it will be possible to achieve this goaL No change was necessary. Comment TTie with and without analyses should make allowances for human activities and natural species successions which can reasonably be expected to take place in the project area. Response: We agree. Appropriate changes have been made in this policy. Comment Many commentors disagreed with the emphasis placed on the Habitat Evaluation Procedures [HEP) within the Service policy statement Some commentors felt it should be de-emphasized, whereas others felt it deserved further emphasis. Response: Although references to the more technical aspects of HEP have been deleted, the methodology itself remains one of the Service's more important impact assessment tools. The policy does not recommend exclusive use of HEP. since time or resource contraints may, in some cases, show alternative methods to be more practical Where HEP habitat value assessments do not fully capture important biological characteristics within a planning area. Service personnel will use supplemental data, methodologies, and/or professional judgment to develop appropriate mitigation proposals. Comment What are the "other habitat evaluation systems" alluded to in the policy's section on impact assessment methods? This reference is very vague. Response: Other systems can include the Habitat Evaluation System (HES) developed by the Department of the Army, and the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology [IFIM] of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Additional systems are referenced by the Water Resources Council in a draft document entitled, "Analysis of Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 15 / Friday, January 23. 1981 / Notices 7633 Wetland Evaluation Procedures" and other publications. This information is not appropriate for inclusion into the policy so no change was made. Comment: If other methodologies are found to be more appropriate for use than the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM} for measuring flow impacts, they should be used. Response: We agree. The final policy does state, however, that consideration should be given to the use of the IFIM. Comment: Hopefully, this policy will stop the piecemeal destruction of valuable habitat especially in areas like the Florida Keys where insidious lot-by- lot development continues in low wetland sites with the concurrence of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Response: The Service does not concur with piecemeal development where significant resource losses will occur. Cumulative impacts are addressed by this policy. The Service is sensitive to this loss of habitat and will seek mitigation consistent with this policy. No change was necessary. Comment Population information should be included as an additional factor in determining mitigation requirements. Response: We agree. Although population mitigation was an implicit part of the proposed policy, further language clarifying this point has been added to the final policy statement Comment: Professional judgment should be used as an alternative method for assessing project impacts. Response: We agree tnat this is a valuable method that has been in use for many years. It is difficult to improve on informed and considered scientific judgment by an expert The Service will continue to rely heavily on this approach. The policy was changed to reflect this emphasis. 3. Mitigation Recommendations Comment Service recommendations should be timely. Response: The proposed and final policy specifically require Service personnel to present mitigation recommendations '* * * * at the earliest possible stage of project planning to assure maximum consideration.'' This point has been echoed throughout Service management documents. Service personnel can generally provide timely guidance provided developers make a point of notifying them of proposed projects still in the planning stage and provided Federal action agencies supply sufficient transfer funding with which to conduct environmental investigations. Under Section 2(e] of the Fish and WUdlife Coordination Act Federal action agencies are authorized to . transfer funds to the Service " * * * as may be necessary to conduct all or part of the investigations required to carry out the purposes of * * * (Section 2 of the Act)." The Service uses these transfer funds to conduct project- specific investigations. Comment Requiring field biologists to consider cost-effectiveness in providing mitigation recommendations is beyond their capability and may conflict with the lead agencies' role as the determiner of overall public interest Habitat protection should be a higher priority than cost-effectiveness. Response: The proposed policy did not require a cost-effectiveness analysis by Service biologists in a formal sense. We fully agree that Service personnel must perceive their responsibility to be analysis and recommendations based on the biological aspects of project proposals. There is no intent to require Service biologists to do a formal economic analysis for which they are not trained nor for which there is clear legislative direction. However, the Service has a responsibility to the public to give consideration to cost while recommending ways to conserve fish and wildlife. The policy has been changed to reflect this need for consideration of other factors. Comment The Federal action agency should have the option of non-Service expertise to develop mitigation . measures in those instances where the Service cannot meet lead agency program requirements. Response: Although the Service cannot prevent other agencies from utilizing biological expertise from non- Federal sources to develop mitigation plans, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act specifically authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to prepare a report and recommendations on the fish and wildlife aspects of projects, including mitigation. This report and recommendations are to receive "full consideration" by the development agency. If the Federal action agency involves the Service early and provides sufficient transfer funds, then the Service should be able to meet their needs. No change in the policy was necessary. Comment Several mitigation proposals should be prepared for each alternative structural or non-structural plan. Response: The Service is willing to prepare multiple proposals provided funds and time are available. Comment Some commentors felt that concurrent and proportionate funding of mitigation may not always lead to optimal mitigation and should not be a rigid requirement Other commentors strongly supported concurrent and proportionate funning. Response: The Water Resources Council's Principles and Standards require " * * "at least concurrent and proportionate implementation with other major project features, except where such concurrent and proportionate mitigation is physically impossible" (emphasis added}. We agree with the Council, and endorse expenditure of funds at an earlier stage of project planning when this will lead to more effective mitigation. Appropriate changes to the policy on this matter have been made. Comment Mitigation costs should include the cost of managing the acquired land for the life of the project and the value of present and future timber and crops on acquired land. In addition, an environmental benefit/cost analysis should be developed for each project and Coi^ress should not authorize a project unless the project plan includes the proposed mitigation program and all its costs, including the cost of lost timber productivity and other resources. Response: Costing of projects is determined by the Water Resource Council's Principles and Standards and is therefore beyond the jurisdiction of this policy. We point out that Service policy does not preclude timber harvest or other resource recovery operations on mitigation lands when the activity is compatible with fish and wildlife management objectives. Comment The Service mitigation policy should more clearly note that fee- simple land acquisition should be a measure of last resort Response: The policy statement has undergone further modification to more clearly stress the conditions when land acquisition is to be recommended by Service personneL In the future, the Service wiU place far greater emphasis on developing mitigation recommendations Qiat avoid, minimize, or rectify impacts in order to reduce the need for compensation lands. Amplification of this point may be seen in the section on mitigation planning procedures. Comment U some interest in land must be acquired, areas of marginal productivity should be considered first Such underdeveloped land would benefit from better management of its productive capacity and respond more vigorously than land already at higher levels of production. Response: We agree that special consideration should be given to marginal lands, and have changed the policy accordingly. . 7654 Federal Register / VoL 46. No. 15 / Friday. January 23. 1981 / Notices Comment: Who owns land acquired for mitigation purposes? Response: Depending on the individual circumstances of the project, land acquired through fee-simple title is usually owned either by the Federal or State government and administered by appropriate Federal or State resource agencies. Where wildlife easements are acquired, the land belongs to the property owner, and the easement right to the Federal or State government Comment The policy should require Service personnel to identify the authority to be used in implementing any mitigation recommendations that are made. Response: The Enal policy clearly identifies the legal authorities under which the Service is expected to develop mitigation recommendations. In addition, the policy only applies to Service recommendations and is not an instrument directing legal research in individual circumstances. It would be inappropriate to instruct our personnel to identify the implementing authority for the development agencies which are fully aware of the authorities available to implement Service recommendations. In the case of projects to be authorized by Congress, authorities to implement mitigation can be. and increasingly have been, spelled out. Comment: The policy/ neglects to indicate the necessary process if an agency does not agree with Service mitigation recommendations. Response: This process has already been established for most Federal agencies. If the project planners and the Service field office cannot agree on a modified or substitute proposal for mitigation, the matter often is referred upwards to the next highest leveL Higher management levels are then generally able to resolve the issue quickly, although the Federal action agency has the final say. No change was necessary. Comment: Mitigation recominendations should ensure that habitats which are preserved are adequate in size and contiguous to ensure species survival and ecosystem functioning. Response: We agree. This point has not, however, been added to the policy since it is standard operating procedure at the field level Comment: Improvement of public use prospects within a project area should not be considered mitigation for habitat value losses. Development of public access is legitimate mitigation only when public uses are lost as a result of project action. Response: We agree. Construction of public access facilities does not replace habitat lost or degraded and may even reduce wildlife habitat and invite degradation by making an area more accessible to more people. Construction of public use facilities may be in the public interest but should not be disguised as mitigation for loss or degradation of wildlife habitat This point has been added to the policy. 4. FoUow-up Comment: The Service should initiate post-project evaluation studies, as well as encourage, support and participate in these studies. Response: We agree and will do so within the constraints of time, personnel and cost The Service will initiate additional follow-up studies when funds are provided by the Federal action agency. The policy has been changed to reflect this. Comment: Follow-up studies must be designed so as to separate the effects on Hsh and wildlife populations of implementing mitigation recommendations from other causes of changes in species numbers. This has not been the case in past studies. Response: We agree in principle, but point out that this is a very difficult task technically, and that the conclusions in this regard rarely withstand vigorous analysis. Nonetheless, distinguishing the trje causes of population changes should be one of the goals of the follow-up study. Comment The policy should indicate what actions would occur if post-project evaluation shows mitigation recommendations are not being achieved as agreed to by the developer. Response: We agree. The policy now includes provisions instructing Senice personnel to recommend corrective action in such situations. Appendix A No significant comments. Appendix B . CozTzment: Why not include more intensive management of remaining habitat as a way of reducing net habitat loss? Response: We agree, and have modified the policy accordingly in the Means and Measures section, which has since been integrated into the body of the final policy. The section dearly places priority on increased habitat management as a means of replacing habitat losses, and additionally stresses use of existing public lands to accomplish these ends. Comment A mitigation recommendation of "No project" is not logical or valid as a mitigation measure. Response: The Council on . Environmental Quality's definition of mitigation, which has been adopted in this policy, clearly states that mitigation includes ". . . avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. . . ." Obviously, a mitigation recommendation of "No project" falls under this subset of the definition, since a project's impact can be avoided aJtogetherhy a decision not to construct a project Apiiendix C Comment The definition of the word "practicable" should be amended to denote that the burden of identi^ing alternative mitigation measures and of conducting a searching inquiry into their practicabilify rests with the Service as well as the Federal action agency. Response: The policy indicates that the Service will strive to provide mitigation recommendations that represent the best judgment of the Service on the most effective means and measures to achieve the mitigation goal including consideration of cost Comment A definition for "developments" (as used in Section V.A., "General Principles") should be provided in Appendix C. Response: "Development" is a general-purpose term encompassing those activities falling under the scope of Service mitigation authorities cited within this policy. Fcr s.xample. if timber harvesting activities require preparation of an EIS. or involves waters of the U.S. and requires the issuance of a Federal permit or license, the Service would provide mitigation recooimendacons consistent with the pclicy. NA-nONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POUCY ACT REQUIREMENTS The Service has prepared an Environmental Assessment of this Gnal policy. Based on an analysis of the Environmental Assessment the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has concluded that the final action is not a major Federal action which would significantly affect the quality of the huunan environment within the meaning of Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Folic:.' Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-^347). Thus the policy does not require an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact will be furnished upon request REGULATORY ANALYSIS This policy statement has been issued in conformity with the Department of the Interior's rulemaking requirements, which apply to actions meeting the broad definition of a rule set forth in the Administrative Procedures Act 5 U.S.C Federal Register / Vol 46. No. 15 / Friday. January 23. 1981 / Notices 7655 551(4) and 43 CFR Part 14^(e) (1980). This statement is not intended to be judicially enforceable. It will not be codified. It does not create private rights. It only guides internal Service administration and is not to be inflexibly applied by Service personneL The Department had previously determined that the proposed policy was not a significant rule and did not reqxiire a regulatory analysis tndei Executive Order 12044 and 43 Part 14. No significant changes were made in the final policy that required a new determination. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The primary author of this final policy is John Christian. Leader. Policy Group — ^Environment U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (202) 343-7151. Primary support for policy development was provided by policy analysts Nancy Chu. Scott Cameron, and Peter Clborowski; and Ecological Services Washington Office and field personneL Manuscript preparation was accomplished by Roberta Hissey, Karen Baker. Carol Prescott. and Jinethel Baynes. Accordingly, the mitigation policy of the VS. Fish and Wildlife Service is set forth as follows: 7636 Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 15 / Friday. January 23. 1981 / Notices U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE MITIGATION POUCY L PURPOSE This document estabiishes policy for U.S Fish and Wildlife Ser.ice recommendations on mitigating the ' adverse impacts of land and water developments on Gsh. wildlife, their habitats, and uses thereof. It will help to assure consistent and esective reconmiendations by outlining policy for the levels of mitigatioR needed and the various methods for accomplishing mitigation. It will allow Federal action agencies and private developers to anticipate Service recommendations and plan for mitigation measures early, thus avoiding delays and assuring equal consideration of fish and wildlife resources with other project features and purposes. This policy provides guidance for Service personnel but variations appropriate to individual circumstances are permitted. This policy supersedes the December 18. 1974. policy statement entitled "Position Paper of the Fish and Wildlife Service Relative to Losses to Fish and Wildlife Habitat Caused by Federally Planned or Constracted Water Resource Developments" and the Ser^nce River Basin Studies Manual Release 2.350 entitled "General Bureau Policy on River Basin Studies." IL AUTHORITY This policy is established in accordance with the following major authorities: (See Appendix A for other authorities.) Fish and Wildlife Act of 1938 (18 U.S.C 742(aK5^)- This .\ct authorizes the development and distribution of 5sh and wildlife information to the public. Congress, and the President and the development of policies and procedures that are necessary and desirable to carry out the laws relating to fish and wildlife including: (1) ". . . take such steps as may be required for the development, advancement management conservation, and protection of the fisheries resources:" and (2) ". . . take such steps as may be required for the development management advancement conservation, and protection of wildlife resources through research . . . and other means." Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.a 661-667(e)). This Act authorizes the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). and State agencies responsible for fish and wildlife resources to investigate ail proposed Federal undertakings and non-Federal actions needing a Federal permit or license which would impound, divert deepen, or otherwise control or modify a stream or other body of water and to make mitigation and enhancement recommendations to the involved Federal agency. "Recommendations . . '. shall be as specific as practicable with respect to features recommended for wildlife conservation and development lands to be utilized or acquired for such purposes, the results expected, and shall describe the damage to wildlife attributable to the project and the measures proposed for mitigating or compensating for these damages." In addition, the Act requires that wildlife conservation be coordinated with other features of water resource development programs. Determinations under this authority for specific projects located in estuarine areas constitute compliance with the provisions of the Estuary Protection Act (See Appendix A.] Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (16 U.S.C 1001-1009). This Act allows the Secretary of the Interior to make surveys, investigations. and ". . . prepare a report with recommendations concerning the conser\'ation and development of wildlife resources ..." on small watershed projects. Naticr.ci Er.vironmental Poiicy Act of 1S69 (42 L'.S.C 4321-1347). This .-let and its implementing regulations (40 CFR Part 15CO-1508) requires that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service be notified of all major Federal actions affecting fish and wildlife resources and their views and recommendations solicited. Upon completion of a draft Environmental Impact Statement the Service is required to review it and make comments and recommendations, as appropriate. In addition, the Act provides that "the Congress authorizes and directs that to the fullest e.xtent possible ... all agencies of the Federal Government shall . . . identify and . develop methods and procedures . . . which will ensure that presently unquantified environmental amenities and values may be given appropriate consideration in decisionmaking along with economic and technical considerations." in. SCOPE A. Coverage This policy applies to all activities of the Service related to the evaluation of impacts of land and water developments and the subsequent recommendations to mitigate those adverse impacts except as specifically excluded below. This includes: (1) investigations and recommendations for all actions requiring a federally issued permit or license that would impact waters of the U.S.; (2) all major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment: and (3) other Federal actions for which the Service has legislative authority or executive direction for involvement including, but not limited to: coaL minerals, and outer continental shelf lease sales or Federal approval of State permit programs for the control of discharges of ^dged or fill material B. Exclusions This policy does not apply to threatened or endangered species. The requirements for threatened and endangered species are covered in the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and accompanying regulations at 50 CFR Parts 17. 402. and 424. Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act as amended, all Federal agencies shall ensure that activities authorized, funded, or carried out by them are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Mitigating adverse impacts of a project would not in itself be viewed as satisfactory agency compliance with Section 7. Furthermore, it is clear to the Service that Congress considered the traditional concept of mitigation to be inappropriate for Federal activities impacting listed species or their critical habitat This policy does not apply to Service recommendations for Federal projects completed or other projects permitted or licensed prior to enactment of Service authorities (unless indicated othenvise in a specific statiite] or specifically exempted by them and not subject to reauthorization or renewal It also does not apply where mitigation plans have already been agreed to by the Service, except where new activities or changes in current activities would result in new impacts or where new authorities, new scientific information, or developer failure to implement agreed upon recommendations make it necessary. Service personnel involved in land and water development investigations will make a judgment as to the applicability of the policy for mitigation plans under development and not yet agreed upon as of the date of final publication of this policy. Finally, this policy does not apply to Service recommendations related to the enhancement of nsh and wildlife resources. Recommendations for measures which improve fish and wildlife resources beyond that which would exist without the project and which cannot be used to satisfy the Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 15 / Friday. January 23. 1981 / Notices 7657 appropriate mitigation planning goal should be considered as enhancement measures. The Service strongly supports enhancement offish and wildlife resouroes. The Service will recommend that all opportunities for fish and wildlife resource enhancement be thoroughly considered and included in project plans, to the extent practicable. IV. DEFINITION OF MITIGATION The President's Council on Environmental Quality defined the term "mitigation" in ie National Environmental Policy Act regulations to include: "(a] avoiding the impact altogether by not taldng a certain action or parts of an action; (b)*minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation; (c) rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment: (d] reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action: and (e) compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments." (40 CFR Part 1508.20(a-e)). The Service supports and adopts this definition of mitigation and considers the specific elements to represent the desirable sequence of steps in the mitigation planning process. (See Appendix B for definitions of other important terms necessary to understand this policy.) V. MITIGATION POUCY OF THE U.S. FISH AND WILOUFE SERVICE The overall goals and objectives of the Service are outlined in the Service Management Plan and an accompanying Important Resource Problems document which describes specific fish and wildlife problems of importance for plaiming purposes. Goals and objectives for Service activities related to land and water development are contained in the Habitat Preservation Program Management Document The mitigation policy was designed to stand on its own: however, these documents will be considted by Service personnel to provide the proper perspective for the Service mitigation policy. They are available upon request from the Director. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C 20240. A. General Policy The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is to: PROVIDE THE FEDERAL LEADERSHIP TO CONSERVE. PROTECT AND ENHANCE FISH AND WILDLIFE AND THEIR HABITATS FOR THE CONTINUING BENEFIT OF THE PEOPLE. The goal of Service activities oriented toward land and water development responds to Congressional direction that fish and wildlife resource conservation receive equal consideration and be coordinated with other features of Federal resource development and regulatory programs through effective and harmonious planning, development, maintenance and coordination offish and wildlife resource conservation and rehabilitation in the United States, its territories and possessions. The goal is to: CONSERVE. PROTECT AND ENHANCE FISH AND WILDLIFE AND THEIR HABITATS AND FAOLITATE BALANCED DEVELOPMENT OF THIS NATIONS NATURAL RESOURCES BY TIMELY AND EFFECTIVE PROVISION OF HSH AND WILDLIFE INFORMATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Fish and wildlife and their habitats are public resources with clear commercial, recreational, social, and ecological value to the Nation. They are conserved and managed for the people by State. Federal and Indian tribal Governments. U land or water developments are proposed which may reduce or eliminate the public benefits that are provided by such natural resources, then State and Federal resource agencies and Indian tribal agencies have a responsibility to recommend means and measures to mitigate such losses. Accordingly: IN THE INTEREST OF SERVING THE PUBLIC. IT IS THE POUCY OF THE UA FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE TO SEEK TO MITIGATE LOSSES OF FISH. WILDLIFE. THEIR HABITATS. AND USES THEREOF FROM LAND AND WATER DEVELOPMENTS. In administering this policy, the Service will strive to provide information and recommendations that fully support the Nation's need for fish and wildlife resource conservation as well as sound economic and social development through balanced multiple use of the Nation's natural resouroes. The Service will actively seek to facilitate needed development and avoid confiicts and delays through early involvement in land and water development planning activities in advance of proposals for specific projects or during the early planning and design stage of specific projects. This should include early identification of resource areas containing high and low habitat values for important species and the development of ecological design information that outlines specific practicable means and measures for avoiding or minimizing impacts. The former can be used by developers to site projects in the least valuable areas. This could possibly lower total project costs to development interests, "niese actions are part of good planning and are in the best public interest The early provision of information to private and public agencies in a form which enables them to avoid or minimize fish and wildlife losses as a part of initial project design is the preferred. form offish and wildlife conservation. B. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mitigation Planning Goals by Resource Category The planning goals and guidelines that follow will be used to guide Service recommendations on mitigation of project impacts. Four Resource Categories are used to indicate that the level of mitigation recommended will be consistent with the fish and. wildlife resource values involved. The policy.covers impacts to fish and wildlife populations, their habitat and the human uses thereof However, the primary focus in terms of specific guidance is on recommendations related to habitat value losses. In many cases, compensation of habitat value losses should result in replacement of fish and wildlife populations and human uses. But where it does not the Service will recommend appropriate additional means and measures. RESOURCE CATEGORY 1 a. Designation Cdteiia Habitat to be impacted is of high value for evaluation spedes and is unique and irreplaceable on a national basiiB or in the ecoregion section. b. Mlligadon Goal No Loss of Existing Habitat Value. cGuideliiM The Service will recommend that all losses of existing habitat be prevented as these one-of-a-kind areas cannot be replaced. Insignificant changes that do not result in adverse impacts on habitat value may be acceptable provided they vnU have no significant omiulative impact RESOURCE CATEGORY 2 a. Designation Critena Habitat to be impacted is of high value for evaluation species and is relatively scarce or becoming scarce on ( a national basis or in the ecoregion section. 7658 Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 15 / Friday. January 23. 1981 / Notices b. Mitigation Goal No Net Loss of In-Kind Habitat Value. c Guideline The Service will recommend ways to avoid or minimize losses. If losses are likely to occur, then the Service will recommend ways to immediately rectify them or reduce or eliminate them over time. If losses remain likely to occur, then the Service will recommend that those losses be compensated by replacement of the same kind of habitat value so that the total loss of such in- kind habitat value will be eliminated. SpeciBc ways to achieve this planning goal include: (1) physical modification of replacement habitat to convert it to the same type lost: (2) restoration or rehabilitation of previously altered habitat: (3) increased management of similar replacement habitat so that the in-kind value of the lost habitat is replaced, or [4] a combination of these measures. By replacing habitat value losses with similar habitat values. populations of species associated with that habitat may remain relatively stable in the area over time. This is generally referred to as in-kind replacement. Exceptions: An exception can be made to this planning goal when: (1) different habitats and species available for replacement are detemined to be of greater value than those Iosl or (2) in- kind replacement is not physically or biologically attainable in the ecoregion section. In either case, replacement involving different habitat kinds may be recommended provided that the total value of the habitat lost is recommended for replacement (see the guideline for Category 3 mitigation beloiv). RESOURCE CATEGORY 3 a. Designation Criteria Habitat to be impacted is of high to medium value for evaluation species and is relatively abundant on a national basis. b. Mitigation Goal No Net Loss of Habitat Value While Minimizing Loss of In-Kind Habitat Value. c Guideline The Service will recommend ways to avoid or minimize losses. If losses are likely to occur, then the Service will recommend ways to immediately rectify them or reduce or eliminate them over time. If losses remain likely to occur, then the Service will recommend that those losses be compensated by replacement of habitat value so that the total loss of habitat value will be eliminated. It is preferable, in most cases, to recommend ways to replace such habitat value losses in-kind. However, if the Service determines that in-kind replacement is no.t desirable or possible, then other specific ways to achieve this * planning goal include: (1) substituting different kinds of habitats, or (2) increasing management of di^erent replacement habitats so that the value of the lost habitat is replaced. By replacing habitat value losses with different habitats or increasing management of different habitats, populations of species will be dinerent depending on the ecological attributes of the replacement habitat This will result in no net loss of total habitat value, biit may result in significant differences in fish and wildlife populations. This is generally referred to as out-of-kind replacement RESOLTICE CATEGORY 4 a. Designation Criteria Habitat to be impacted is of medium to low value for evaluation spedes. b. Mitigation Goal Minimize Loss of Habitat Value. c Guideline The Service ^vill recommend ways to avoid or minimize losses. If losses are likely to occur, then the Service will recommend ways to immediately recuiy them or reduce or eliminate them over time. If losses remain likely to occur, then the Service may make a reconmiendation for compensation, depending on the significance of the potential loss. However, because these areas possess relatively low habitat values, they will likely exhibit the greatest potential for significant habitat value improvements. Service personnel wrill fully investigate these areas' potential for improvement since they could be used to mitigate Resource Category 2 and 3 losses. C Mitigation Planning Policies 1. Slate-Federal Partnership a. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will fully coordinate activities with those State agencies responsible for fish and wildlife resources, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) related to the investigation of project proposals and development of mitigation recommendations for resources of concern to the State. NMFS or EP.\. b. Service personnel will place special emphasis on working with State agencies responsible for fish and wildlife resources. NMFS and EP.-\ to develop compatible approaches and to avoid duplication of efforts. 2. Resource Category Detenninations a. The Service will make Resource Category determinations as part of the mitigation planning process. Such determinations wiU be made early in the planning process and transmitted to the Federal action agencj* or private developer to aid them in tiieir project planning, to the e.x'ent practicable. b. Resource Category determinations will be made through consultation and coordination with State agencies responsible for fish and wildlife resources and other Federal resource agencies, particularly the National Marine Fisheries Ser.ice and the Environmental Protection Agenc>% whenever resources of concern to those groups are involved. Where other elements of the public, including development groups, have information that can assist in making such determinations, the Ser/ice will welcome such information. c. All Resource Category determinations will contain a technical rationale consistent with the designation criteria. The rationale will: (i) outline the reasons why the evaluation species were selected; (2) discuss the value of the habitat to the evaluation species: and (3) discuss and contrast the reladve scarcity of the fish and wildlife resource on a national and ecoregion section basis. Note. — If the State agency responsible for fish and wildlife resources wishes to outline scarcity on a more local basis. L'3. Fish asd Wildlife Service personnel should assist is developing such rationale, whenever practicable. d. When funding. persoimeL and available information make it practicable, specific geographic areas or. alternatively, specific habitat types that comprise a given Resource Category shoiild be designated in advance of development Priority for predesignation will be placed on those areas that are of high value for evaluation spedes and are subject to development pressure in the near future. Such predesignations ca I be used by developers or regulators tc determine the least valuable areas for u:.e in project planning and siting considerations. e. The following examples should be given special consideration as either Resource Category 1 or 2: (1) Certain habitats within Service- identified Important Resource Problem (IRP) areas. Those ERPs dealing with threatened or endangered species are not covered by this policy. (See Scope) (2) Special aquatic and terrestrial sites including legally designated or set-aside Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 15 / Friday. January 23. 1981 / Notices 7639 areas such as sanctuaries. 6sh and wildlife management areas, hatcheries, and refuges, and other aquatic sites such as floodpiains. wetlands, mudflats, vegetated shallows, coral reefs, riffles and pools, and springs and seeps. 3. Impact Assessment Principles a. Changes in &sh and wildlife productivity or ecosystem structure and function may not result in a biologically adverse impact The determination as to whether a biological change constitutes an adverse impact for which mitigation should be recommended is the responsibility of the Sen.-ice and other involved Federal and State resource agencies. ^ b. The net biological impact of a development proposal (or alternatives} is the difference in predicted biological conditions between the future with the action and the future without the action. If the future without the action cannot be reasonably predicted and documented by the project sponsor, then the Service analysis should be based on biological conditions that would be expected to exist over the planning period due to nattu'al species succession or implementation of approved restoration/improvement plans or conditions which currentiy exist in the planning area. c Service review of project impacts will consider, whenever practicable: (1) The total long-term biological impact of the project including any secondary or indirect impacts regardless of location: and (2) any cumulative effects when viewed in the context of existing or anticipated projects. d. The Habitat Evaluation ProceHures will be used by the Service as a basic tool for evaluating project impacts and as a basis for formulating subsequent recommendations for mitigation subject to the exemptions in the Ecological Services Manual (100 ESM 1). When the Habitat Evaluation Procedures do not apply, then other evaluation systems may be used provided such use conforms with policies provided herein. e. In those cases where instream flows are an important determinant of habitat value, consideration should be given to the use of the Service's Instream Flow Incremental Methodology to develop instream flow mitigation recommendations, where appropriate. f. Where specific impact evaluation methods or mitigation technologies are not available. Service employees shall continue to apply their best professional judgment to develop mitigation recommendations. 4. Mitigation Recommendations a. The Service may recommend support of projects or other proposals when the following criteria are met: (1) They are ecologically sound' (2) The least enviroimientally damaging reasonable alternative is selected: (3) Every reasonable effort is made to avoid or minimize damage or loss of fish and wildlife resources and uses: (4) All important recommended means and measures have been adopted with guaranteed implementation to satisfactorily compensate for unavoidable damage or loss consistent with the appropriate mitigation goal; and (5) For wetlands and shallow water habitats, the proposed activity is clearly water dependent and there is a demonstrated public need. The Service may recommend the "no project" alternative for those projects or other proposals that do not meet all of the above criteria and where there is likely to be a significant fish and wildlife resource loss. b. Recommendations will be presented by the Service at the earliest possible stage of project planning to assure maximum consideration. The Service will strive to provide mitigation recommendations that represent the best judgment of the Service, including consideration of cost on the most effective means and measures of satisfactorily achieving the mitigation planning goaL Such recommendations will be developed in cooperation with the Federal action agency or private developer responsible for the project whenever practicable, and will place heavy reliance on cost estimates provided by that Federal action agency or private developer. & The Service will recommend that the Federal action agency include designated funds for all fish and wildlife resource mitigation (including, but not limited to. Service investigation costs, initial development costs and continuing operation, maintenance, replacement and administrative costs] as part of the initial and any alternative project plans and that mitigation funds (as authorized and appropriated by Congress for Federal projects) be spent concurrently and proportionately with overall project construction and operation funds throughout the life of the project Note. — ^Prevention of losses may necessitate expenditure of funds at an earlier stage of project planning. This is acceptable and preferred. d. Service mitigation recommendations will be made under an explicit expectation that these means and measures: (1) would be the ultimate responsibility of the appropriate Federal action agency to implement or enforcer and (2) would provide for a duration of effectiveness for the life of the project plus such-addiUonal time required for the adverse effects of an abandoned project to cease to occur. e. Land acquisition in fee title for the purpose of compensation will be recommended by the Service only imder one or more of the following three conditions: (1) When a change in ownership is necessary to guarantee the future conservation of the fish and wildlife resource consistent with the mitigation goal for the specific project area: or (2) When other means and measures for mitigation (see Section 5 below] will not compensate habitat losses consistent with the mitigation goal for the specific project area; or (3) When land acquisition in fee tide is the most cost-effective means that may partially or completely achieve the mitigation goal for the specific project area. Service recommendations for fee tide land acquisition will seek to identify mitigation lands viith marginal economic potentiaL f. First priorit}- will be given to recommendation of a mitigation site within the planning area. Second priority will be given to recommendation of a mitigation site in pro.ximit}' to the planning area within the same ecoregion section. Third priority will be given to recommendation of a mitigation site elsewhere within the same ecoregion section. g. Service personnel will fully support a variefy of uses on mitigation lands where such uses are compatible with dominant fish and wildlife uses and. for Federal wildlffe refuges, are consistent with the provisions of the Refuge Recreation Act and the National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act However, it may be in the best public interest to recommend limiting certain uses that would significantly decrease habitat value for species of high public interest In such cases, the Service may recommend against such incompatible uses. L Measures to increase recreation values will not be recommended by Service personnel to compensate for losses of habitat value. Recreation use losses not restored through habitat value mitigation will be addressed through separate and distinct recommended measures to offset those specific losses. L The gtiidelines contained in this policy do not apply to threatened or endangered species. However, where both habitat and endangered or threatened species impacts are involved. 7660 Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 15 / Friday, January 23. 1981 / Notices Service personnel shall fully coordinate Environment efforts with Endangered Species efforts to provide timely, consistent, and unified recommendations for resolution of fish and wildlife impacts, to the e.xtent possible. More specifically. Environment and Endangered Species personnel shall coordinate all related activities dealing with investigations of land and water developments. This includes full use of all provisions that can e.xpedite Service achievement of "one-stop shopping." including coordinated early planning involvement shared permit review activities, consolidated permit reporting, and consolidated flow of pre-project information to developers, consistent with legislative mandates and deadlines. j. The Service will place high priority on and continue to develop and implement procedures for reducing delays and conflicts in permit related activities. Such procedures will include, but not be limited to: [1] Joint processing of permits. (2) Resource mapping. (3) Early provision of ecological design information. , (4) Involvement in Special Area ■v>-Management Planning. .■i^C k. The Service will encourage V predevelopment compensation actions vby Federal action agencies which can be 'used to offset future unavoidable losses for lands or waters not adequately protected by an existing law, policy, or program. Banking of habitat value for the express purpose of compensation for unavoidable future losses will be considered to be a mitigation measure and not an enhancement measure. Withdrawals &om the mitigation "bank" to offset future unavoidable losses will be based on habitat value replacement, not acreage or cost for land purchase and management 5. Mitigation Means and Measures Mitigation recommendations can include, but are not limited to, the types of actions presented below. These means and measures are presented in the general order and priority in which they should be recommended by -Service personnel with the exception of the "no project" alternative. (See Section 4(a)). a. Avoid the impact (1) Design project to avoid damage or loss of fish and wildlife resources including management practices such as timing of activities or structural features such as multiple ouUets. passage or avoidance structures and water pollution control facilities. (2) Use of nonstructural alternative to proposed project (3) No project b. Minimize the impact (1) Include conservation of fish and wildlife as an authorized purpose of Federal projects. (2) Locate at the least environmentally damaging site. (3) Reduce the size of the project (4) Schedule timing and control of initial construction operations and subsequent operation and maintenance to minimize disruption of biological conununity structure and function. (5) Selective tree clearing or other habitat manipulation. (6) Control water pollution through best management practices. (7) Time and control flow diversions and releases. (8) Maintain public access. (9) Control public access for recreational or commercial purposes. (10) Control domestic livestock use. c. Rectify the impact (1) Regrade disturbed areas to contours which provide optimal fish and wildlife habitat or approximate original contours. (2) Seed, fertilize and treat areas as necessary- to restore fish and wildlife resources. (3) Plant shrubs and trees and other vegetation to speed recovery. (4) Control polluted spoil areas. (5) Restock fish and wildlife resources in repaired areas. Fish stocking or introductions will be consistent with the Service Fish Health Policy January 3, 1978). d Reduce or eliminate the impact over time (1) Provide periodic monitoring of mitigation features to assure continuous operation. (2) Assure proper training of project personnel in the operations of the facility to preserve existing or restored fish and wildlife resources at project sites. (3) Maintain or replace equipment or structures so that future loss of fish and wildlife resources due to equipment or structure failure does not occur. e. Compensate for impacts (1) Conduct wildlife management activities to increase habitat values of existing areas, with project lands and nearby public lands receiving priority. (2) Conduct habitat construction activities to fully restore or rehabilitate previously altered habitat or modify existing habitat suited to evaluation species for the purpose of completely offsetting habitat value losses. (3) Build fishery propagation facilities. (4) Arrange legislative set-aside or protective designation for public lands. (5) Provide buffer zones. (6) Lease habitat (7) Acquire wildlife easements. (8) Acquire water rights. (9) Acquire land in fee tide. 6. Follow-up The Service encourages, supports, and will initiate, whenever practicable, post- project evaluations to determine the effectiveness of recommendations in achieving the mitigation planning goaL The Service will initiate additional follow-up studies when funds are provided by the Federal action agency. In those instances where Service personnel determine that Federal agencies or private developers have not carried out those agreed upon mitigation means and measures, then the Service will request the responsible Federal action agency to initiate corrective action. APPENDIX A— OTHER AUTHORITIES AND DIRECTION FOR SERVICE MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS LEGISLATIVE Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). The 1977 amendments require the Fish and Wildlife Service ". . . upon reqtiest of the Governor of a State, and without reimbursement to provide technical assistance to such State in developing a Statewide (water quality planning) program and in implementing such program after its approvaL" In addition, this Act requires the Service to comment on proposed State permit programs for the control of discharges of dredged or fill material and to comment on all Federal permits within 90 days of receipt Federal Power Act of 1920. as amended (16 U.S.C. 791(a), 803, 811). • This Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to impose conditions on licenses issued for hydroelectric projects within specific withdrawn public lands. The Secretary is given specific authority to prescribe fishways to be constructed, maintained, and operated at the liciensee's expense. Estuary Protection Act (16 U.S.a 1221-1226). This Act requires the Secretary of the Interior to review all project plans and reports for land and water resource development affecting estuaries and to make recommendations for conservation, protection, and enhancement Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451-1464). This Act Federal Register / VoL 46. No. 15 / Friday. January 23. 1981 / Notices 7661 requires the Secretary of Commerce to obtain the views of Federal agencies affected by the program, including the Department of the Interior, and to ensure that these views have been given adequate consideration before approval of Coastal Zone Management Plans. The Service provides the Department's views about fish and wildlife resources. Pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act Amendments of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-464) the Department of Interior provides comments on Federal grants to help Slates protect and preserve coastal areas because of their ■*. . . conservationa], recreational, ecological or aesthetic values." The 1980 Amendments also authorize the Department of Interior to enter into Special Area Management Planning to **. . . provide for increased specificity in protecting natural resources, reasonable coast dependent economic growth . . . and improved predictability in government decisionmaking." Water Bank Act (16 U.S.C 1301-1311). This Act requires that the Secretary of Agriculture ". . . shall consult with the Secretary of Interior and take appropriate measures to insure that the program carried out . . . is in harmony with wedands programs administered by the Secretary of the Interior." Wild and Scenic Rivers Act [16 U.S.C 1271-1287). This Act requires the Secretary of the Interior to comment on such proposals. The Fish and Wildlife Service provides the Department's viev/s with regard to fish and wildlife resources. Ceo thermal Steam Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 1001-1025). This Act requires that the Rsh and Wildlife Service recommend to the Secretary those lands that shall not be leased for geothermal development by reason of their status as "... a fish hatchery administered by the Secretary, wildlife refuge, vrildlife range, game range, wildlife management area, waterfowl production area, or for \aiyA* acquired or reserved for the protection and conservation of fish and wildlife that are threatened with extinction." Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C 1201 et seq.). ITiis Act requires the Department of the Interior to regulate surface "itning and reclamation at existing and future mining areas. The Fish and Wildlife Service provides the Department with technical assistance regarding fish and wildlife aspects of Department programs on active and abandoned mine lands, including review of State regulatory submissions and mining plans, and comments on mining and reclamation plans. Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act Amendments of 1978 (43 UAC lan). This Act requires the Secretary of the Interior to manage an environmentally sound oU and natural gas development program on the outer continental shelL The Fish and Wildlife Service provides recommendations for the Department regarding potential ecological impacts before leasing in specific areas and contributes to environmental studies undertaken subsequent to leasing. Mineral Leasing Act of 1920. as amended (30 U.S.C 185). This Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to grant rights-of-way through Federal lands for pipelines transporting oil nataral gas, synthetic liquids or gaseous fuels, or any other refined liquid fuel Prior to granting a right-of-way for a project which may have a significant impact on the environment, the Secretary is required by this Act to request and review the applicant's plan for construction, operation, and rehabilitation of the right-of-way. Also, the Secretary is authorized to issue guidelines and impose stipulations for such projects which shall include, but not be limited to, ". . . requirements for restoration, revegetalion and curtailment or erosion of surface land: . . . requirements designed to control or prevent damage to the environment (including damage to fish and wildlife habitat): and . . . requirements to protect the interests of individuals living in the general area of the right-of-way or permit who rely on the fish, wildlife and biotic resources of the area for subsistence purposes." Cooperative Unit Act (16 US.C 753(a)-753(b)). This Act provides for cooperative programs for research and training between the Fish and Wildlife Service, the States, and universities. Airport and Airway Development Act (49 U3.C 1716). This Act requires the Secretary of Transportation to ". . . consult v«th the Secretary of the Interior with regard to the effect that any project . . . may have on natural resources ■ including, but not limited to, fish and wildlife, natural scenic, and recreation assets, water and air quality, and other factors affecting the environment . . .". Department of Transportation Act (49 U.S.a 1653(f)). This Act makes it national policy that ". . . special effort should be made to preserve the natural beauty of the countryside and public park and recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites . . ," and requires that the Secretary of Transportation ". . . cooperate and consult with the Secretary of the Interior in developing transportation plans and programs that include measures to maintain or enhance the natural beauty of the lands traversed." The Department of Transportation projects using protected lands cannot be approved unless there are no feasible and prudent alternatives to avoid such use and. if none, all possible measures to minimize harm have been considered. EXECUTIVE President's Water Policy Message (Jime 6, 1978). This Message directs the Secretary of the Interior to promulgate procedures for determination of measures to mitigate losses of fish and wildlife resources. Water Resources Council's Final Rules; Principles and Standards for Water and Related Land Resources Planning— Level C (September 29, 1980). These rules reiterate the importance of participation in the development planning process by interested Federal agencies, including the Department of the Interior. This participation includes review, coordination, or consultation required imder various legislative and executive authorities. Under these rules. "Consideration is to be given to mitigation (as defined in 40 CFR 1508.20) of the adverse effects of each alternative plan. Appropriate mitigation is to be included where suitable as determined by the agency decisiomnaker. Mitigation measures included are to be planned for at least concurrent and proportionate implementation Vkith other major project features, except where such concurrent and proportionate mitigation is physically impossible. In the latter case, the reasons for deviation from this rule are to be presented in the planning report and mitigation is to be planned for the earliest possible implementation. • Mitigation for fish and wildlife and their habitat is to be planned in coordination with Federal and State fish and wildlife agencies in accordance with the Fish and WildUfe Coordination Act of 1958 (16 U5.C 661-664) (sic)." Executive Order 11990— Protection of Wetlands (May 24. 1977). This Executive Order requires tiiat each Federal agency ". . . take action to minimize the destruction, loss or degradation of wedands, and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of ^ wedands in carrying out the agency's responsibilities fon (1) acquiring, managing and disposing of Federal lands and facilities: and (2) providing federally undertaken, financed or assisted construction cind improvements: and (3) conducting Federal activities and programs affecting land use. including but not limited to water and related land resources planning, regulation and licensing activities." Relevant weUand concerns and values include, but are not 7662 Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 15 / Friday. January 23. 1981 / Notices limited to. maintenance of natural systems and long-term productivity of existing flora and fauna, habitat diversity, hydrological utility, fish, wildlife, timber, and food. Under this Order, a developmental project in a wetland may proceed only if no practicable alternatives can be ascertained and if the proposal . . . includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to the wedand that may result from its use." Executive Order llS8&—F!oodplain Management (May 24. 1977). This Executive Order requires that Federal agencies take floodplain management into account when fonnulating or evaluating water or land use plans and that these concerns be reflected in the budgets, procedures, and regulations of the various agencies. This Order allows developmental activities to proceed in Qoodplain areas only when the relevant agencies have ". . . considered alternatives to avoid adverse effects and incompatible developme::t in the floodplains . . ." or when, in lieu of this, they have ". . . designed or modified their actions in order to T^inimize potential harm to or within the floodplain . . .". Executive Order 11S8T— Exotic Organisms (May 24. 1977]. This Executive Order requirsj that Federal agencies shall restrict, to the extent permitted by law, the inroduction of exotic species into the lands or waters which they own. lease, cr hold for purposes of administration, and encourage the States, 'ccal governments, and private citizens to do the same. This Executive Order also requires Federal agencies to restrict, to ±e extent permitted by law, the importation of exotic species and to resTict the use of Federal funds and programs for such importation. The Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, is authorized to develop by rule or regulation a system to standardize and simplify the requirements and procedures appropriate for implementing this Order. NATIONAL/INTERNATIOM.AL TREATIES Federal Trust Responsibility to Indian Tribes. This responsibility is reflected in the numerous Federal treaties with the Indian tribes. These treaties have the force of law. Protection of Indian hunting and fishing rights necessitates conservation offish and wildlife and their habitat Convention Between the United States and Japan (September 19. 1974). This Treaty endorses die establishment of sanctuaries and fixes preservation and enhancement of migratory bird habitat as a major goal of the signatories. Convention Between the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Concerning the Conservation of Migratory Birds and Their Environments (November 8. 1978). This Treaty endorses the establishment of sanctuaries, refuges, and protected areas. It mandates reducing or eliminating damage to all migratory birds. Furthermore, it provides for designation of special areas for migratory bird breeding, wintering, feeding, and molting, and commits the signatories to ". . . undertake measures necessary to protect the ecosystems in these areas . . . against pollution, detrimental alteration and other environmental degradation." Implementing legislation. Pub. L 95-616. was passed in the United States in 1978. Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere (April 15. 1941). This Treaty has several provisions requiring parties to conserve certain wildlife resources and their habitats. Convention Betiveen the United States and Great Britain (for Canada) for Protection of Migrator/ Birds (August 1, 1916. as amended January 30. 1979). This Treaty provides for a uniform ". . . system of protection for certain species of birds which migrate bet^veen the United States and Canada, in order to assure the preservation of species either harmless or beneficial to man." The Treaty prohibits hunting insectivorous birds, but allows killing of birds under permit when injurious to agriculture. The 1979 amendment allows subsistence hunting of waterfowl outside of the normal himting season. APPENDIX B-OTHER DEFINITIONS "Compensation. " when used in the context of Service mitigation recommendations, means full replacement of project-induced losses to fish and wildlife resources, provided such full replacement has been judged by the Service to be consistent with the appropriate mitigation planning goal. "Ecoregion " refers to a large biogeographical unit characterized by distinctive biotic and abiotic relationships. An ecoregion may be subclassified into domains, divisions, provinces, and sections. A technical explanation and map is provided in the "Ecoregions of the United States" by Robert G. Bailey, published by die U.S. Forest Service, 1976. "Ecosystem" meADs all of the biotic elements (i.e., species, populations, and communities] and abiotic elements (i.e., land, air, water, energy) interacting in a given geographic area so that a flow of energy leads to a clearly defined trophic structure, biotic diversity, and material cycles. (Eugene P. Cdum. 1971. Fundamentals of Ecology) "Evaluation species" means those fish and wildhfe resources in the plaiming area that are selected for impact analysis. They must currently be present or known to occur in the plaiming area during at least one stage of dieir life history e.xcept where species not present (1) have been identified in fish and wildlife restoration or improvement plans approved by State or Federal resource agencies, or (2) will result from natural species succession over the life of the project. In these cases, the analysis may include such identified species not currently in the planning area. There are two basic approaches to the selection of evaluation species: (1) selection of species with high public interest economic value or both: and (2) selection of species to provide a broader ecological perspective of an area. The choice of one apprcach in lieu of the other may result in a completely different outcome in the analysis of a proposed land or water development Therefore, the objectives of the study should be clearly defined before species selection is initiated. If the objectives of a shidy are to base a decision on potential impacts to an entire ecological community, such as a unique wedand. then a more ecologically based approach is desirable. If. however, a land or water use decision is to be based on potential impacts to a public use area, then species selection should favor animals with significant human use values. In actual practice, species should be selected to represent social, economic and broad ecological views because mitigation planning efforts incorporate objectives that have social, economic, and ecological aspects. Species selection always should be approached in a manner that will optimize contributions to the stated objectives of the mitigation planning effort. Most land and water development decisions are strcngly influenced by the perceived impacts of the proposed action on human use. Since economically or socially important species have clearly defined linkages to human use. they should be included as evaluation species in all appropriate land and water studies. As a guideline, the following t>T)es of species should be considered: • Species that are associated vvith Important Resource Proble-ms as designated by the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service (except for threate.ned or endangered species). Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 15 / Friday, January 23. 1981 / Notices 7663 * Other species with monetary and non-monetary benefits to people accruing from consumptive and nonconsmnptive human uses including, but not limited to, Bshing, hunting, bird- watching and educational, aesthetic, scientific or subsistence uses. An analysis based only on those spedes with directly identifiable economic or social value may not be broad enough to adequately describe all of the ramifications of a land and water use proposaL If it is desirable to increase the ecological perspective of an assessment, the following types of species should be considered: * Species known to be sensitive to specific land and water use actions. The species selected with this approach serve as "early warning" or indicator species for the affected fish and wildlife community. * Species that perform a key role in a community because of their role in nutrient cycling or energy flows. These species also serve as indicators for a large segment of the fish and wildlife commtmity. but may be difficult to identify. ■ Species that represent groups of species which utilize a common environmental resource (guilds). A representative species is selected from each guild and predicted environmental impacts for the selected species are extended with some degree of confidence to other guild members. "Federal action agency" means a department, agency or instrumentality of the United States which plans, constructs, operates or maintains a project, or which plans for or approves a permit lease, or license for projects or manages Federal lands. "Fish and wildlife resources" means birds, fishes, mammals, and all other classes of void animaU and all types of aquatic and land vegetation upon which wildlife is dependent "Habitat" means the area which provides direct support for a given species, population, or community. It includes all environmental features that ' comprise an area such as air quality, water quality, vegetation and soil characteristics and water supply (including both surface and groundwater]. "Habitat value" means the suitability of an area to support a given evaluation species. "Important Resource Problem " means a clearly defined problem with a single Important population or a community of similar species in a given geographic area as defined by the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service. "In-kind replacement" means providing or managing substitute resources to replace the habitat value of ' the resources lost where such substitute resources are physically and biologically the same or closely approximate those lost "Loss" means a change in fish and wildlife resources due to human activities that is considered adverse and; (1) reduces the biological value of that habitat for evaluation species; (2j reduces population numbers of evaluation species; (3) increases population numbers of "nuisance" species: [4] reduces the human use of those fish and wildlife resources; or (5) disrupts ecosystem structure and function. Changes that improve the value of existing habitat for evaluation species are not to be considered losses. Le.. burning or selective tree harvesting for wildlife management purposes. In addition, reductions in animal populations for the purpose of harvest or fish and wildlife managment will not be considered as losses for the purpose of this policy. "Minimize" means to reduce to the smallest practicable amount or degree. "Mitigation banking" means habitat protection or improvement actions taken expressly for the purpose of compensating for unavoidable losses from specific future development actions. It only includes those actions above and beyond those typically taken by Congress for protection of fish and wdldlife. resources. "Out-of-kind replacement" means providing or managing substitute resources to replace the habitat value of the resources lost where such substitute resources are physically or biologically different from those lost "Planning area" means a geographic space with an identified botmdary that includes: (1) The area identified in the study's authorizing document: (2) The locations of resources included in the study's identified problems and opportimities: (3] The locations of alternative plans, often called "project areas;" and (4) The locations of resources that woijd be direcdy, indirectly, or cumulatively affected by alternative plans, often called the "affected area." "Practicable" means capable of being done within existing constrcdnts. The test of what is practicable depends upon the situation and includes consideration of the pertinent factors, such as environment cost or technology. "Project" means any action, planning or approval process relating to an action that will directly or indirectly affect fish and wildlife resources. "Replacement" means the substitution or offsetting of fish and wildlife resource losses with resoinces considered to be of equivalent biological value. However, resources used for replacement represent loss or modification of another type of habitat value. Replacement actions still result in a loss of habitat acreage and types which will continually diminish the overall national resource base. It shoidd be clearly understood that replacement actions never restore the lost fish and wildlife resource — that is lost forever. Dated: January 13. 1981. Cecil Andnis. Secretary of the Department of the Interior. [FR Doc. n-ia9S FUed l-=-at: ftM am] BILUNO CODE 4310-S5-II o.s. covESHHztrr monae cmcii 1981 o - ue-jea Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. • Other spedes with monetary and resource- non-monetary benefits to people the re- acxruing from consimiptive and res' nonconsumptive himian uses including, *■ ^ but not limited to, fishing, hunting, bird- y watching and educational, aesthetic, scientific or subsistence uses. An analysis based only on tho:' species with directly identifiab' economic or social value mr broad enough to adequate' of the ramifications of ' use proposaL If it is increase the ecol'" assessment, th' species shov' • Spec* spedfi'' sper* e com^ water .. characte. (including >. groundwater;. "Habitat valu of an area to supp. species. "Important Resourct. a clearly defined probleti. important population or a c. similar species in a given geoj, area as defined by the Director «. Fish and Wildlife Service. . ' "In-kind replacement" means \^ providing or managing substitute IF" Attachment I STATE COXJNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS WETLAND DATA BASE - USERS MANUAL G L WETLANDS: A National Database of State Wetland Protection Programs and Contacts User^s Manual Version 1.2 WETLANDS is an electronic database for use by anyone with a computer and modem who is interested in state wetland protection efforts. Produced by The Council of State Governments in cooperation with The United States Environmental Protection Agency The Council of State Governments The Center for the Environment and Natural Resources P.O. Box 11910, Iron Works Pike Lexington, Kentucky 40578 TABLE OF CONTENTS Report Section Page List o£ Figures iii Forevrord ' iv PART I. INTRODUCTION 1 PART II . INFORMATION ABOUT THE SYSTEM 1 PART III. HOW TO USE THE SYSTEM 2 Getting on the System i Using Your Modem. 2 Database "Menus" .....2 Database Screens 3 Logging On 3 Greeting Screen 4 Main Menu 4 WCON Menu 5 WCON Example 6 Searches 8 Output Menu Options 8 Logging Off 9 WPRO Menu 9 WPRO Example 10 APPENDICES 30 Other Important Bits of Information. . ..30 Advanced Techniques 31 Combination Searches 31 Narrowing Searches 33 Expert Mode 34 WPRO Search Menu Glossary 35 Boolean Operators 37 QUICKSTART Siimmary 38 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. CS6 Log-on Screen, Successful Log-on.... 11 2. Log-on Failure Screen 12 3 . Greeting Screen 13 4. WETLANDS Main Menu 14 5 . WCON Search Menu 15 6. WCON "Program Type" Screen 16 7 . WCON "Person's Name" Screen 17 8. WCON "Organization" Screen 18 9. WCON "State" Screen 19 10. WCON Search Menu, "Hits" Displayed 20 11. "Narrow" Screen .21 12. Output Menu 22 13. WCON Records Display 23 14. WPRO Seairch Menu 24 15. WPRO "Program Type" Menu 25 16. WPRO "Program Attribute" Screen 26 17 . WPRO Sample Record Display 27 18. Combined Search Display 28 19. Entering Boolean Operators in a Combined Search 29 iii FOREWORD This User Manual and the electronic database WETLANDS for which the manual was written were produced by The Center for the Environment and Natural Resources of The Council of State Governments. Carl W. Stenberg Is the Executive Director of The Council of State Governments . The author of this user manual is R. Steven Brown, Director, Center for the Environment and Natural Resources, The Council of State Governments, Iiexlngton, KentucJcy. The author of the Data Definition Lauiguage for WETLANDS is Brian Latonzea . Support for this project was provided by the United States Environmental Protection Agency through its Office of Wetlands Protection under Contract X-814720-01-0. Iv WETLANDS Database User*B Manual PART I t INTRODUCTION Introduction, The purpose of this user's manual Is to show how to use the WETLANDS database of State Wetlands Programs. The dateU^ase consists of Information about each state's wetland protection program. Including many of the "nuts and bolts" items about the program. Also include is a comprehensive list of state officials concerned with %eetland protection programs. The information in the database was originally gathered by EPA, and was updated for EPA by the Center for the Environment and Natural Resources of the Council of State Governments in 1988. As with any database, data becomes out-of-date all too fast. If you have corrections, or if you are able to add to sections for which vre have no data, we welcome your information. Data was supplied, for the most part, by state agency personnel. Who Should Use the Database. Anyone with access to a computer with a modem who is Interested in the status and structure of state wetland protection programs should use the database. This Includes state officials, federal officials, local government officials, citizens groups, industry, university researchers, and so on. Cost and Access. Dtiring the first year of operation there is no cost for use of the database, other than the cost of using your telephone to call the system. Anyone can access the system during the first few months of operation by using the Usemeune and Password given later in the manual. Starting in 1989, you must apply for and be assigned your own Usemame and Pass%rard (at no cost other than postage). PART II: INFORMATION ABOUT THE SYSTEM Database Nomenclature. The database is called T^TLANDS, and consists of two subsets of data, WCON and WPRO. WCON Is an acronym for "Wetlands Contacts," i.e., those persons In the states that are active in some capacity in wetland programs. This data consists of names, organizational affiliation, addresses, phone numbers, and fields of expertise of people in state government wetland protection programs, and related programs. WPRO is an acronym for "Wetlands Programs," I.e., the components of each state's wetlands programs. This data consists of the material collected in the bulk of EPA's original report for each state program, Alabama through Wyoming. It consists of a "matrix" of "Program Types" such as Accjuisltion, 401 Permits, Taxation, etc. Each of these 13 program types has 21 "Program Attributes", such as Name of Program, Legal Authority, Values Protected, etc. Since there are 50 states in the database, and each state has up to 13 program types, with each program type having up to 21 attributes, there are a maximum 13,650 pieces of information about the state programs. Each (^ piece of information can range from no data to one or more paragraphs . Users can access this data in a straightforward way, such as all information about state Taxation Programs, or in combination searches, such as information about the Legal Authority of Taxation Programs in Texas and adjacent states. There are many, many possible seeirch combinations with both KCON and WPRO. Database Location and Programming Information. WETLANDS is housed on CSG's Digital MicroVax II computers in Lexington, and has been created by using BASIS software. BASIS is a relational database, and is supported by its author, the Battelle Institute. PART Hit HOW TO USE THE SYSTEM Getting on the System: Using Your Modem. ... Before you can use WETLANDS, you must know how to use your modem and your communications software on your computer. There are so many different kinds, that these instructions cannot be given in this manual. If you know how to use your modem and dial a nximber, you will easily be eible to access the system. First, a few words about / how the Database is organized are in order. ,. ^ ^ Database "Menus . " The supporting progr2aa for WETLANDS uses 'Data Definition Language" (DDL) to create instructions for entering and accessing data. There are two modes for using the DDL instructions in WETLANDS, "novice" mode and "expert" mode. The primary difference between these two modes is that novice mode is menu-driven, whereas expert mode requires some knowledge of DDL commands. The WETLANDS database assumes that users will not be familiar with DDL cononands, and thus the database has been created using menus in the novice mode. More advanced users will still be able to use expert mode if they desire, however CSG will not be giving instructions on how to use expert mode (but see Appendix) . "Menus" are lists of choices that the user selects by pressing one or two keyboard buttons. The use of menus is very cozamon in most personal computer programs. For example, programs such as Lotus 1-2- 3 (T) use menus. WETLANDS uses several different menus to access the dateODase. Database Screens . The "screens" shown in Figures 1 through 17 are typewritten copies of the information that appear on the monitors of users as they use the WETLANDS dated>ase. To the extent possible , these figures are complete copies of the screens seen. All significant screens which are encountered in a routine novice session are displayed herein. Screens displayed while in expert mode are not shown. LOGGING 0N» Screens 1 and 2. [Please read this entire section before trying to log on to the system 1 ] As a user, you will "log on" tp the Council's Digital computer by having your computer modem dial \^SfW^^^^^' 24 hoiirs a day (except during scheduled system back- ups Qr^naintftnance) • To use our system, you should set your modem tos ^^Qk|||Jtii^Xl(1200 baud, no parity, 8 data bits, and 1 stop bits). This is done in your own communications program. These numbers are commonly used in commxinications , and so your computer may already be set to these numbers. If not, you will have to change your settings. After receiving a CONNECT message, it is sometimes necessary to press the Return or Enter key one to three times (this is to allow your modem and the database's to equalize their operating speeds). Tou should try this if you do not receive the message shown at the top of Figure 1 within three seconds. If you fail to do this, you may be disconnected and will have to dail again. Users will be greeted by the log-on screen shown in Figure 1. The purpose of this screen is to permit only authorized (pre-identified) users to access the database. Each user will then enter his/her pre- assigned identification code emd a return (an "enter" button on some keyboards), then enter his/her self-created password and a return (passvrord characters are not displayed on the screen) . Assuming authorized IDs and passwords are used. Figure 3 will appear. If for some reason the usemame or password cannot be accepted. Figure 2 (or part of it) will appear. If the log-on cannot be completed after three attempts, the user will be disconnected automatically. After a "User authorization failure" error message, you must press a Return or Enter to try again. If you take more than about 20 seconds to supply either the usemame or password, the system will disconnect you. If you make a zoistake entering the usemame or password, you may be able to backspace and re-enter, or you could just go ahead and press a Return, get the error message, and try again. Remember, you get three tries to enter the usemame and p&Bsyaoxdf and even if these fail, all you have to do is redial and try again. During 1988, anyone can access the system by using the following: USERNAHE: WETLANDS^ PASSWORD I wetlands ' [Note: You may use capital letters or not, as you prefer.] Log-on Problems z If you are having troiible logging on, disconnect and try again. Make sure that your useimame and password are correct. Sometlxnes telephone transmission of data is "dirty", i.e., there are a lot of extraneous and nonsensical characters on your screen, even though you may have not pressed any keys. Tou may find this to be a problem especially during bad %raather. If this is ^ particularly troublesome, try redialing. From time to time the system may ask you to change your password. Just follow the instructions on the screen if this happens. A Caution About Logging-Of f t It is important that you log-off the system properly (described below) to prevent possible "lock-out" of other people using the system. If you find it difficult to log-on, and other items listed herein seem to be all right, please call us to see if either the system is down, or if someone has improperly logged- off and lock up the database. GREETINGS: Screen 3. Screen 3 is a greeting screen which contains the name of the database, and the address and phone of CSG. Screen 3 will stay on the monitor for about four seconds, then will automatically move to Screen 4. It is best not to strike any keys during this time. [Accidental keystrokes at anytime may have unpredicteUsle (but from our point of view, harmless) results.] MAIN MENU: Screen 4. Screen 4 is the WETLANDS Main Menu and is depicted in Figure 4. This screen presents the user with two basic choices, "System Functions" and "Databases." System functions are explained below, and are selected by pressing the designated letter and a return. The database choices let the user choose between WCON or WPRO by selecting the appropriate number and pressing a return. An incorrect letter or number will result in an error message (such ^ as "3 is an incorrect entry.") and a fresh screen (i.e., screen 4 w will be re-displayed) . If a correct choice is entered then the information below the line reading "PLEASE ENTER TOUR CHOICE:" will appear. This information presents some administrative details and then asks if the user is a novice. A "y" answer will take the user to menus, while a "n" answer will take the user into expert mode (not recommended for beginners). Other answers will cause a re-display of the screen and question. A second question will then appear. This question asks what kind of terminal the user has. There are three choices (VTIOO, IBM3270, and OTHER) that accommodate the type of terminal used. Any terminal capable of sending and receiving ASCII characters can be used, but you should enter OTHER unless you have one of the two terminal types listed, otherwise you will get an error message. Tou may wish to try VTIOO at least once, as it often presents a "cleaner" display of data. System Functions; These are "housekeeping" items, and they do not contain any data about state wetland protection programs. Their functions are: L) Logoff. Select this item when you have completed a session and are ready to quit the database. After selecting Logoff, you will receive some internal system accounting information (probably of no importance to you). At this point, you can either disconnect using your communications softweure commands, or you can press Retxim/Enter, and our system will give you the opportunity to log on to the Wetlands Database again. N) System News. This item carries information about system changes, updates, etc. It is usually one screen long. After reading the information, press Rettim/Enter to return to the Main Menu. P) Change your password. This item may be used from time to time if you wish to change your password. [Please DO NOT change the password of the Usemame "Wetlands", as this Usemame is intended for everyone . ] The WCON and WPRO Options. Pressing a "1" (without the quotation marks) will ta)ce you to the WCON (State Wetland Contacts) database. Pressing a "2" will take you to the WPRO (State Wetland Programs) database. In general, you will follow these Three Steps when using WCON or WPRO: 1. Select one of the search categories on the menu, 2. Run the search to see if any data exists, and then 3. Display the data. WCON MENU; Screen 5. If you chose "1" you will receive Figure 5 as the next screen. Figure 5 is a representation of the WCON Search Menu, i.e., the menu that appears for searching the state wetland program contacts. On this screen, you will search for information by setting up search conditions. Tou may enter a number to define your seeurch, or a letter to execute the seeurch or return to the main menu. How this is done is explained in the following peuragraphs. The user has four general search choices on the WCON database menu: 1 PROGRAM TYPE 2 NAME 3 ORGANIZATION 4 STATE There are more options below these four. These options have letters in front of them instead of numbers and are used AFTER the user has selected one (or more) of the Numbered Items. They are: The "C" (Cancel the Search) item lets you erase a search that failed to find a sufficient number of records. The "X" (Execute the Search) Item tells the system to pull the records up for potential viewing. The "LI" (List and Combine Searches) lets the user xoake combination seeurches (explained in Advanced Techniques). The "EX" (Go to Expert Mode) lets the user enter the system more directly, avoiding menus. Although availedble. Expert Mode is NOT RECOMMENDED for casual users. The "LO" (Leave the WCON Database) will return the user to the WETLANDS Main Menu. The user nay search for state wetland program contacts in a wide v«u:iety of waysi Individual seeurch of one of the above four major groups; Combination search of two, three, or foiir of the major groups. Figure 6 shows the screen that will be displayed if "1 Program Type" is chosen. Figure 7 shows the screen that will be displayed if "2 Person's Name" is chosen. Figure 8 shows the screen that will be displayed if "3 Organization" is chosen. Figure 9 shows the screen that will be displayed if "4 State" is chosen. For example, the user could search for everyone with the last name of "Williams" in the database, or could search for every "Williams" that might be with the state of MD, VA, or DE, or could search for every "Williams" in those states who works in a "Coastal Law" program. A user could also list every "Coastal Law" contact in all 50 states, or could list every wetlands contact who serves in more than one program, etc. There are thousands of possible combinations. WCON Exemiple. For the following example, we will assiime that the user wants to search the wetlands contacts database in all 50 states for people named "Williams." Our presumption for this examplB is that the user met a person named "Williams" at an EPA wetlands conference, but cannot remember the full name or how to contact the person. From Screen 5, the user enters "2" (Person's Name) and a retxim at the prompt . Screen 6. Screen 6 now appears. This screen is the same as Figure 7. The user enters the nzune "Williams*" at the prompt and presses the RETURN key. The user has added an asterisk to make sure that all names containing "Williams" in whole or in part are found. This would include names like "Williamson" and "Williams-Lester." If our r ( c user -thought the person's last name might be just "William" then he should enter "william*". Asterisks are often used this way in programs as "wild cards," that is, an asterisk stands for all possible entries except blanks.. At this point, the user has completed Step 1 of the Three Steps in searching . [Note that our user might have gone to the screens shown in Figures S, 8 or 9 If he/she had pressed a 1, 3 » or 4 during the previous screen.] Screen 7. Screen 7, as shown in Figure 10, now appears. Kote that this screen loolcs very similar to Figure 5. In fact, the only difference is that in the upper right-hand part of the screen, the number of "hits" for "Williams*" is displayed. A "hit" is a piece of data that indicates the number of records fulfilling the search requirements. In -our case, there are 30 records that contain "Williams" as all or part of a person's name. Notice that the message "30 - Williams*" appezirs on the same line as "Person's Name". This should help you remember what category you %rere searching. (This feature is particuleurly helpful when doing combination seeurches . ) Our user decides to look at the 30 records and see if he recognizes the person's name. At the prompt, the user types in "Z" (for execute the search) and presses Return/Enter. This begins the collection and display of the 30 records. Screen 8. Screen 8, as shown in Figure 11, now appears. This screen offers the opportunity to narrow the search criteria to a more manageable number of records. Because our user only found 30 "hits", and because he/she does not mind looking through 30 records for the right name, the user selects "no" for the questions asked by pressing "n" and RETURN. At this point, the user has completed Step 2 of the Three Steps. It is possible that zero hits might have occurred. If you get zero hits, it means that there are no data in the database that meet your search criteria. If you are conducting a combination search (see Advanced Techniques ) , it may mean that yoiir combination does not exist. Anytime you get zero hits, you should press "C" (Cancel current search) as soon as you return to the WCON or HPRO menu. You will know if you have successfully cancelled the search if no zeroes appear to the right of the search categories. [Additional screens that allow narrowing of the search appear if "y" is entered. These screens are shown in the Advanced Techniques section of this manual . ] Screen 9. Screen 9, as shown in Figure 12, now appears. This screen is the "Output Menu" and offers the user several alternatives for seeing the results of his search. To select any item, type in the two letter code emd a Return/Enter. Incorrect entries result in an error message, followed by a re-display of the screen (you get to try again) . ■ Searches . Some users may be confused eibout why they must select a numbered item off the WCON menu, get a result for the number of "hits" and then press a "X" to execute the search. After all, it seems like getting the niimber of "hits" is the search, so why do you have to press an additional key? The answer has to do with the %ray the system looks up data. Rather than thumbing through every shred of data, the system just looks at codes (defined by you when you select a numbered item off the search menu), finds the items, and tells you how many it has found. Then, when you tell the system to "X" (execute the search), it actually goes and pulls the records out for you to see. To make an analogy: selecting a numbered item is like asking a librarian if there are any books on history in the library. The librarian will say yes, there are 200 books. At this point, you would decide whether you really wanted to see 200 history books (i.e., execute the search), or whether you would want to narrow your search. Finally, you would actually go and get the books and look at them (i.e., display the data as explained in the next paragraph). The WETLANDS database system works the same way. Output Menu Options. The "DI" option will display each "hit" (record) one at a time on the (^ screen. In the event that a record is too long to fit on the screen, it will either "scroll" off the top of the screen, or will pause until the user presses Return/Enter. Some terminals have keys that will temporarily halt scrolling, some do not. While in the middle of a display session, the Control-C keys will halt the session, and return the user to the Output Menu (press the Control key and the C key simultaneously — not all terminals have a Control key) . The Control-S keys combination (for MS-DOS systems), or on some keyboards the "Hold Screen" button will temporarily susp>end further screen display. Display can be reactivated by a Return/Enter on many terminals, or by a Control-Q. Please note that the above key combinations may not work on your terminal or with your communications software . The "PR" selection will cause a printout to be made at the CSG printer in Lexington (an "off-line" print), but not at the user's terminal. The PR command will only be of use to users who have acquired their own Usemame and Password. For these users, CSG will mail any printouts to the address you give during the log-off procedure. [Please note that the log-off procedure is slightly different if you have asked for a printout of data, in that you are asked to give your neime and address.] Other users may wish to use 8 g^ any "print screen" feature that their computer may have, or any "capture file" options that their communications software may have. The "SE" selection lets the user return the the previous search menu. This option would be used if you decided that you made a mistake or v&re not ready for the Output Menu. The "EX" selection teJces the user into Expert Mode. Expert mode lets the user access the dateibase without the use of the menus. This is generally faster, but is much less forgiving. It also requires some knowledge of BASIS DDL language, which is beyond the scope of this manual. Those of you that are particularly interested in Expert Mode, should see the Appendix. For most of us, this option is not needed . The "LO" option will return the user to the Main Menu. This will enedsle the user to leave the database and end his session in WETLANDS. The "LO" option is provided mainly as a convenient "quick out" after data has been displayed. Pressing the "H" key will provide a brief statement about each of the above commands as a reminder. Back to our example, the user selects "di" for screen display. Screen 10. This screen, as shown in Figure 13, is the display of the data found. Each of the 30 records will appear on a separate screen, and stay on the screen until the user presses RETURN or one of the other commands. For our example, only one record is shown, instead of all 30 records. At this point, the user has completed step 3 of the Three Steps. Logging Off. Once the user has gotten the data he/she wants, the user will either continue with other work or "back out" of the system by going to various screens already discussed and entering appropriate commands. For example, from the Output Menu, the user would enter a LO and would get a line at the bottom of the screen that reads "***** you ARE LEAVING THE WCON DATABASE". After a short pause. Figure 4, The WETLANDS Main Menu Screen will appear. Entering a "L" will enter the session, as the user receives a "good-bye" screen (not depicted). The WPRO Menu. Working with the Wetlands Programs (WPRO) menu is handled in the seune manner as the WCON menu. The WPRO menu differs slightly in appearance in order to accommodate the different data elements in the menu. WPRO's counterpart to Figure 5 (WCON menu) is shown in Figure 14 . Follow-up screens are shown in Figure 15 and 16. The output menus are the same as in WCON, except for the Records Display, which is shown in Figure 17. The meaning of each of the search items is explained in the WPRO Glossary at the end of the User Manual. WPRO Example. By now, you should be more feuniliar with the workings of the menus and the database. In this example, we will use the NPRO database In much the same fashion as the WCON database. Somewhat less explanation will be given. The scenario for this seeurch is that a user wants a list and description of all the states' Section 401 programs, so that he can compare his state to the others. After successful logon, the user selects "2" (HPRO) from the WETLANDS Main Menu. He now arrives at the screen depicted on Figure 14. He wants to search for the 401 programs, so he selects *1", Program Types, to list all the available wetlands programs. This action results in the screen shown on Figure 15 being shown. The user types in "401" to select 401 Programs. The WPRO Search Menu reappears, with a n\imber to the right of the Program Types line. This number is 45, indicating that the database has information on 45 of the Section 401 programs in the states. Note that this does not necessarily mean that there are only 45 Section 401 programs, but that the database only has data on 45 of them. The user is satisfied with his search, and presses *X" and a Return/Enter to execute the seeirch. The output menu soon appears, and the user selects "DI" to display the 45 items on his screen. After a few seconds, the items begin appezuring, with the complete information for each state being ^ displayed one at a time (see Figure 17 for a fictitious example). To "^ view the next state, the user presses a Return/Enter. To stop the display of data before it has shown all data (and return to the Output Menu) press a Control-C. 10 Figure 1. CSG Log-on Screent Successful Log-on, Welcome to The Council of State Governments Usemeune: WETLANDS Password: WELCOME TO THE COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS SYSTEM Last Interactive login on Monday, 7-MAR-1988 12:04 Last non- interactive login on Friday, 4-MAR-1988 14:18 [Note: Passwords never are displayed on CSG's system.] 11 Figure 2. Log-on Failure Screen. Welcome to The Council of State Governments Username: WETLANDS Password: User authorization failure Username: WETLANDS Password: User authorization failure Username: WETLANDS Password: User authorization failxire NO CARRIER 12 » Figure 3. Greeting Screen VWW WWW EEEEE VWW WWW EEEEE W7W WWW EEE VWW WWW EEE WWW WWW EEEEE WWW WWW EEEEE WWW W WWW EEE WWW W W WWW EEE WWWW WWWW EEE WWWW WWWW EEEEE WWW WWW EEEEE TTTTTTT TTTTTTT TTT TTT TTT TTT TTT TTT TTT TTT TTT LLL LLL T.T.T. LLL LLL LLL T.T.T. LLL T.T.T. LT.TiT.T JA AA. AA AA AA AA AA AA AAAAAA AA AA AA AA AA AA JiL AA AA NN NN T-T.T.T.T.T.T. AA AA NN NN NN NNNN NN NNNN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NNNNN NNNN NNN NN DDDD SSS DDDDD SSS SSS DD DD SS SS DD DD SS DD DD SSS DD DD SSS DD DD SSS DD DD SS DD DD SS SS DDDDDD SSS SSS DDDD SSS The Council of State Governments P.O. Box 11910 Iron Works Pike Lexington, Kentucky 40578 (606) 252-2291 i 13 Figure 4. WETLANDS Main Menu. WETLANDS MAIN MENU System Functions I Databases (L) Log off the syBtem (N) Read the system news (P) Change your password (1) WETLANDS CONTACTS DIRECTORY (WCON) (2) WETLANDS PROGRAM INFORMATION (WPRO) PLEASE ENTER TOUR CHOICE: 1 BASIS R520.21 870302 THE WETLANDS CONTACT DATABASE IS ON-LINE The last update was on 880911 Are you a NOVICE WCON database searcher? — > y What Type of Terminal are You Using (VT100,IBM3270, OTHER)? — > vtlOO 14 Figure 5. WCON Search Menu. SEARCH MENU 1 Program Type 2 Person's Name 3 Organization 4 State C Cancel Current Search X Execute Search EX Go to Expert mode LI List & Combine Searches LO Leave the WCON Database Enter selection and press RETURN OR Press H for help on all fields OR Press H with selection for help on a specific field > 1 • 15 Figure 6» WCON "Proqreun Type" Screen PATRON 9 MAR 88 WCON DATABASE Choose a progreun type from the following list by entering the 3 digit code and pressing RETURN. ACQ « Acquisition LEG > Legal Cotincil /Legislative Liaison CWP " Coastal Wetland Program CZM " Coastal Zone Management 401 « 401 Permits 404 » 404 Permits FLD *■ Floodplain Programs FCR ' Freshwater and Coastal Programs FWP ■ Freshwater Wetland Programs LOC « Local Programs SEP « SEPA (State Env. Policy Acts) TAX * Taxation Programs MAP « Mapping Programs RES « Research OTH « Other Programs * - All FIND PROGRAMS OF TYPEx acq ^ Figure 7. WCON "Person's Name" Screen PATR0N2 9 MAR 88 WCON DATABASE Enter all (or part, use *) of the Person's Namet Williams 17 Figure 8. WCON "Organization" Screen PATR0N2 9 MAR 88 WCON DATABASE r ORGANIZATION Enter the department or division, etc., that administers a program I water resour* 18 Ficrure 9» WCON "State" Screen PATR0N2 WCON DATABASE 9 MAR 88 Enter the full name or 2 letter code for the state. AL * Alabama AK « Alaska AZ " Arizona AR • Arkansas CA - California CO *■ Colorado CT ■■ Connecticut DE " Delaware PL ■ Florida GA ' Georgia HI • Hawaii ID - Idaho IL " Illinois IN * Indiana lA ■ Iowa KS " Kansas KY » Kentucky FIND STATE: VA LA " Louisiana OH ME - Maine OK MD « Maryland OR MA " Massachusetts PA MI " Michigan RI MN « Minnesota SC MS - Mississippi SD MO " Missouri TN MT ■ Montana TX NE *> Nebraska UT NV • Nevada VT NH • New Hampshire VA NJ " New Jersey WA NM - New Mexico WV NY - New York WI NO » North Carolina WY ND - North Dakota ♦ Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming All » I 19 Figure 10. WCON Search Menu, "Hits" Displayed. 16SEARCH MENU t ■.....■■, 1 Program Type 2 Person's Name 30 - Williams* 3 Organization 4 State C Cancel Current Seeutch X Execute Search EX Go to Expert node LI List & Combine Searches LO Leave the NCON Database Enter selection and press RETURN OR Press H for help on all fields OR Press H with selection for help on a specific field —• > > x 20 Figure 11. "Narrow" Screen. 30 ITEM(S) WERE FOUND THAT KET YOUR SEARCH CRITERIA DELETE A TERM OR PHRASE FROM YOUR SEARCH? > n DO YOU WANT TO NARROW THIS SEARCH? > n f 21 Figure 12, Output Menu. OUTPUT MENU DI Display the Items PR Print the Items SE Return to Search Menu EX Go to Expert Mode LO Leave the WCON DateJsase Enter selection and press RETURN OR press H for help ..-.> di 22 Ploure 13. VCON Rp'-^i^dB Display. Item 1 Program Type Name Organization Address City State Zip Phone Access Number Taxation Jerry Williams Department of Conservation Division of Water P.O. Box 180 Jefferson City Missouri 65102-0180 (314) 751-4115 999 HIT RETURN FOR NEXT ITEM 23 Figure 14. WPRO Search Menu. SEARCH MENU 1 Program Type 2 Program Attributes ,. 3 State ^ ^, *••' " ■•'■"' C Cancel Current Search X Execute Search H Go to Expert Mode LI List & Combine Sezurches LO Leave the WPRO Database Enter selection and press RETURN OR Press H for help on all fields OR Press H with selection for help on a specific field — — > i 24 € Figure 15. WPRO "Program Tvpe" Screen PATR0N2 5 *^^ ^^ WPRO DATABASE • Choose a program type from the following list by entering the 3 letter code and pressing RETURN. ACQ « Acquisition CLW « Coastal Law DRN " Drainage Regulation 401 * 401 Permits EXE ' Executive Orders FLD « Floodplain Regulation ILW » Inland Law LEG " Pending Legislation LOC « Local Programs SEPA- SEPA (State Env. Policy Acts) TAX « Taxation Programs RES * Research OTH « Other Programs * « All FIND PROGRAMS OF TYPE: acq 25 Figure 16. WPRO "Program Attribute" Screen PATRON 5 MAR 88 WPRO DATABASE Each of the Program Types has the following Attributes. Choose an attribute from the following list by entering the 3 letter code and pressing RETURN. NAM ■ Name of Program EDU - Education AGE ■ Administering Agency PRO - Problems IMP - Implementation Method SUC - Success LEG - Legal Authority EPA - EPA Role RES - Resources (Funds and Staff) NED - Needed from EPA LND - Lands Covered TAK - -Taking" Issues INV - Inventory and Classification MIT ■ Mitigation ACT » Activities Regulated CUI - Cumulative Impacts EXP - Exemptions WET - Wetland functions VAP ■ Values Protected OTH ■ Other Comments COM » Compliance * " All FIND ATTRIBUTE TYPE: nam 26 Figure 17. WPRO Sample Record Display. Item 1 %) Program Type Name of Program Administering Agency Legal Authority Resources Lands Covered Inventory /Class . Activities Regulated Exemptions Values Protected Compliance Education Problems Success EPA Role Needed from EPA "Taking" Issues Mitigation Cumulative Impacts Wetlemd Functions Other Comments Access Number 401 Permits Section Department of Conservation Revised Statutes Chapter 401, Sections 10-300 Use EPA definition Contracted to State University federal definition federal definition water quality and quantity; scenic lands through Corps 404 programs through Department's Public Programs Office limited jurisdiction of 404 program and lack of enforcement attitude of Corps have reached agreement with State Highway Department to cover mitigation of disturbed wetlands increase 404 compliance activities take lead when %retlands are outside Corps jurisdiction not applicable in this state Follow USFHS policy; legislature appropriated $25 OK for Bayou de Chein Departmental working group studying working group reviewing Adamus method 99999 HIT RETURN FOR NEXT ITEM I 27 Figure 18 » Combined Search Display. Enter one answer per prompt and press RETURN OR press RETURN to terminate the prompts. 4/ LIST .ITEMS. LINE REQUEST * 2 1/ type-tax * 2 2/ type-acq * 5 To 3/ iir first cui-* ( 4 TERMS COMBINED) . selection? --..—> 28 Figure 19. Entering Boolean Operators in a Combined Search. Enter one answer per prompt and press RETURN OR press RETURN to terminate the prompts. » 4/ LIST .ITEMS. LINE 2 1/ 2 2/ 5 3/ REQUEST type»tax type«acq cui-* ( 4 TERMS COMBINED) Yoxir first selection? — - — > 1 The Boolean Operator to be used? — — > or Your first selection? -— ~> 2 The Boolean Operator to be used? — — > and Your first selection? — > 3 The Boolean Operator to be used? ~— > 29 ^ ) APPENDICES OTHER IMPORTANT BITS OF INFORMATION Problems and Help, If things just do not seem to be working right, give us a call for user support. PLEASE MAKE SURE TOU HAVE READ THE MANUAL BEFORE YOU CALL USl Our ability to respond to user problems is limited to items not discussed in this User Manual, or to corrections of the manual. We also would love to hear your suggestions for improvement at any time. Call the following peoples PHONE NUMBERS (606) 252-2291 (Eastern Tine Zone) NORMAL HOURS s 9s00 - 5 s 00, Monday - Friday (but the Database is almost always available) General Use Questions s Steve Brown or Joyce McCord System Status Questions s Brad Riddle or Richard Tyson Usem2une and Password Questions s Brad Riddle or Steve Brown Integrated State Management Information System fISISl. Now that you know how to use KETLANDS, you also have essentially learned how to use ISIS, the Council's bibliographic dateJsase on state government publications! ISIS covers a wide variety of topics, including environment and natural resources, using similar menus and the same commands as WETLANDS. Please call Bill Voit at the eibove phone number, or write for more informations ISIS The Council of State Governments P.O. Box 11910 Iron Works Pike Lexington, KY 40578 30 Advanced Techniques /< COMBIKATION SEARCHES (LJBt and Combine) One of the most powerful uses of the database is to make searches for specific data. This is most often accomplished by combining several search criteria across two or more data fields. Combined searches are made in both the WCON and HPRO databases. Combined searches are made by combining t%io or more fields. In the WCON Database these fields aret 1 Program Type 2 Person's Name 3 Organization 4 State In the WPRO Database these fields are: 1 Program Type 2 Program Attributes 3 State Thus, in the WCON dateibase, a user could search for a couple of Program Types and some States to see if these states had contacts for these programs. In the WCON database, a user could search some Program Types and some Program Attributes to see what the ciimulative effects on %ratland8 of acquisitions emd taxation programs have been. A combined search is built by first executing a series of individual searches, and then combining these individual searches by using "Boolean logic." For those of you who may not remember Senior math. Boolean logic tests the truth of statements using "and", "or", "nor", etc. An example: if your car is registered in such a fashion that either you or your spouse could sell it without being co-signed by the other, then a Boolean "or" has been used. That is, the statement "Ralph or Susan may sell the car" is true. The statement "Ralph and Susan may sell the car" (i.e., it takes both of them) is not true, because both signatures are not required to sell the car. Let's say that a user has been asked to gather some information to present to a departmental %ratlands taskforce on whether the state should promote a tax relief program, and whether the state should pursue a more vigorous wetland acquisition program. If you decide to follow along with the example, you may get different numbers of "hits" because of updates to the database. To do this, the user will use the WPRO database to search for the states that have these programs to see what the cumulative effects of Taxation and Acquisition programs have been on wetland protection. 31 After entering the system the user selects "tax" on the Program Type search menu in WPRO. Returning to the WPRO menu, he finds 2 "hits." As you recall, this means there are 2 taxation programs of some sort in the states (some states may have more than one). Now, instead of hitting "X" and executing the search, select "acq" from the Program Type menu, resulting in 2 "hits." At this point the WPRO Search Menu M. lists 2 hits for "tax" and 2 for "acq." Note that he could elect to do a combined search now, which vrould list all the information for each state's taxation and acquisition programs. Since our user really is only interested in the cumulative impact (one of the program attributes), he will further restrict the search. The user now returns to the WPRO menu and selects "2" to pick the attribute he wants to check. He selects "cui" for Cumulative Impacts and enters it. The search menu is redisplayed, and now shows 5 "hits" for ciunulative impacts. Now we will conduct the combined search by pressing "LI" and a Return/Enter. A screen very similar to Figure 18 now appezurs. This screen shows the recent search topics (tax, acq, and cui) and the ntunber of hits for each (2, 2, and 5). The search topics are shown under the heading REQUEST, and the number of hits under the heading ITEMS. At this point we are ready to enter the Boolean operators (see Appendix for list), and indicate which items are to be combined. Our user, remember, wants to look for all taxation and acquisition programs, but only the cumulative impact attributes of these programs. In Boolean terms, this is expressed ast taxation OR ^ acquistion AND cumulative. Figure 19 shows how this is entered into ^ the system. The order of the entry is not important, except for the location of the Boolean operators between the- items. For example, the combined search could have been made: cumulative AND acquisition OR taxation. On the screen this would have been entered ast 3 AND 2 OR 1. Finally, when done with the combinations, press a return when asked for the next Boolean operator to terminate the prompts and begin the combined search, and go to the display screens (not shown here ) . 32 Advanced Techniques, Continued NARROWING SEARCHES. Often when a search finds a large niunber of "hits" the questions shown at the bottom of Figure 11 will appeeor. These questions should normally be answered no by entering "n" and a Return/Enter. WETLANDS has been designed to prevent the necessity for excessive use of these options, but in some combined searches the options may provide a way to narrow a search without starting over. If "y" is answered to the first question: DELETE A TERM OR PHRASE FROM TOUR SEARCH? > y the following second question will appears ENTER THE TERM OR PHASE TO BE DELETED > At this point, you would enter one of the codes displayed as a "hit" at the top of the screen (not shown in this example). Then the program continues the search, or returns you to the previous screen. If "n" is answered to the first question, the following question appears t DO YOU WANT TO NARROW THIS SEARCH? > If "y" is answered, the following phrase will appear: |[) ALL TERMS WILL BE SEARCHED FOR IN THE LAST DOCUMENT SET CREATED This statement deletes the last item added to your search list. If you are currently only searching one item, this will cause you to get zero "hits," but it will not cancel the current search. This action will preserve the search for use in a "List and Combine" operation, however . 33 Advanced Techniques. Continued EXPERT MODE. Expert Mode is available to users who are familiar with most of the search criteria in the database, and who feel that the menu methods are too slow. Expert mode has fewer menus, substituting direct commands for accessing the data Instead. Explaining Expert Mode fully is beyond the scope of this User Manual, however a few Instructions will be given for those who feel ready and adventurous . To enter expert mode, type "n" and a Return/Enter after selecting either WPRO or WCON off the Main Menu. Selecting "n" tells the system that you are not a novice. The system will then take you to the WCON or WPRO Search Menu, wheire you will select a field to search as usual. The difference is that instead of being given a list of the categories, you will have to enter the code directly. For example, type in *acg" to list acquisition progreun data. An even more advanced version of Expert Mode can be entered by typing in "EX" on the WCON or WPRO Search Menus. The screen will clear and will present some information about how to return to the Main Menu (/patron), and how to learn more about Expert Mode by using the Tutorial (/tutorial). 34 The WPRO Search Menus: A Glossary of Terms The WPRO Search Menu allows for a detailed search into the orgemization and authority of each state's iiretland protection programs. So many options are available, however, that the search screen may be a bit intimidating. This glossary is provided to explain a little more about the search terms on each WPRO menu. The primary WPRO search menu is shown in Figure 14. Only three options are available: Program Tvpei Each state's %retland protection activities has been divided into 13 "programs." These include such items as 'Section 401" peinnitting, «retlands acquisition programs, vretlands research activities, and so on. Obviously, not all states have all 13 programs, so sometimes blanks will be present. These 13 programs are described more thoroughly below. Program Attributes: Each of the 13 programs has a set of 22 descriptive terms eQ>out the program. We call these descriptive terms "attributes . " These attribute categories are the same for all progrtuns and all states, but again some programs in some states may have blanks for some (or mostl) of the attributes. Some of the attributes are the name of the program, the legal or statutory authority, and a description of the wetland values protected by the program. These 22 attributes are explained more thoroughly below. State: Each state's two-letter mail code is shown in this menu. No definitions are required for this menu. "PROGRAM TYPE" DEFINITIONS Acquisition, explains the actions the state is taking to acquire wetlands for the purpose of protecting or rehabilitating them. Coastal Law, describes the vretlands protection programs related to coastal or tidal wetlands. Drainage Regulation, explains the state rules related to the draining or filling of wetlands. 401 Permits, explains the rules of this water quality discharge permitting program as they relate to wetlands management. Executive Orders, explains the content emd effect of state executive orders on wetland management. Floodplain Regulation, describes the role of these regulations on wetland management. Inland Law, describes the vretlands protection programs affecting inland (non-coastal) %ratlands. Pending Legislation, outlines bills that were introduced during the 1986, 1987, and or 1988 legislative sessions. Local Programs, describes significant local government wetlemd protection programs . SEPA. describes the state's Environmental Policy Act, and its role in wetlands protection. 35 Taxation Procrrams. explains tax relief and other taxation programs designed to benefit %/etland8. Research, describes research projects at the state and university level related to wetland protection. Other Programs, includes Coastal Zone Management, construction, dredging, water rights, etc. affecting %retlands. "ATTRIBUTE" DEFINITIONS Name of Program, lists the full name of the program. Administering Agency, lists the name of the agency with primary responsibility Implementation Method, explains main tool for programs assessments, permits, certifications, guidelines, etc. Legal Authority, lists the state or federal statute, name of bill, or other authority for the program. Resources . lists staff positions, funding and other related data. Lands Covered, explains which lands are affected by the progreua. Inventory and Classification, explains the effects of the program upon wetlands inventory and/or classifications. Activities Regulated, explains which activities are covered by the progreun: state projects, private construction, projects above impoiindments , etc . Exemptions . lists activities that are exempted from the program: federal projects, agricultural, recreational, fish & game, etc. Values Protected, explains what wetland values the program is trying to protect: water quality, water supply, wildlife, etc. Compliance, describes the main compliance tools: public meetings, voluntary reporting, inspections, annual reports, etc. Education, describes some of the techniques that are used to educate the regulated community or public about the program. Problems . describes some of the problems/set-backs that the program has experienced: lack of enforcement, unclear jurisdictions, lack of guidance, etc. EPA Role, explains what the U.S. EPA's role (if any) is in the process: oversight, technical guidance, joint meetings, etc. Needed from EPA, assesses what the U.S. EPA might do to make the program more effective. Taking Issues, presents a synopsis of the program's effect or perceived effect on imminent domain or land use planning issues which amount to a "taking" of someone's property. Mitigation, explains what %ratlands mitigation effects have occurred due to the program. Cximulative Impacts, what the long-term beneficial (or hzunnful) effects of the program has been towards wetland protection. Wetland Functions, presents a suimnary of effects on or improvements to wetlands functions. Other Comments, lists some general comments that did not fall into one of the other attributes. 36 I BOOLEAN OPERATORS The Boolean operators AND and OR are the most conoaon but there are many more. CSG recommends that users limit themselves to AND and OR, but some of the other possibilities arei BOTH, NOR, and NOT. "AND" generally means that both the first AND the second argument must be present for the data to show up. "AND" thus usually results in smaller sets of data. "OR" generally means that either the first OR the second argument needs to be present for the data to show up. "OR" thus usually results in larger sets of data. Sometimes operators can be combined. For example, AND NOT means to look for the first term, but not the second term. $ " QUICKSTART SUMMARY AND REFERENCE PAGE 1. Call ^606) 254-3612 to log-on. Set modem at 1200, N, 8,1. 2. Press the Return/Enter key once or twice after connect, if necessary. 3. Log-on to: Usemame: %mtlands Password: %retlands *"' 4. Wait for messages and WETLANDS Main Menu. 5. Select WCON (directory of contacts) or WPRO (state program info) Databases . 6. Select a numbered item from the Search Menu. 7. Press X and Return to execute the seeurch. 8. Press DI and Return to display the data. 9. Press LO and Return to end session on Seeurch Menu, and L to end session on Main Menu. 38 REGISTRATION INFORMATION If you think you or your staff will be a regular user of WETLANDS, then we ask that you register to. get your own ID (Username). You will also be assured of automatically receiving Database Updates as they occur. It costs nothing but a postage stamp to register! Use a copy of the following form to register. Only one registration per office is necessary. Name Title_ Organi zation Address City estate Z IP_ Phone J ) Type of Terminal (s) (List all applicable types): Computer brandname: Modem name and baud rate: Type of Organization (Circle all applicable)! Government: State Federal Local University Piiblic Interest Group Association: Trade Non-profit Other (describe) Userneune: Password: 39 THE COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS The Council of State Governments te a non-proffi, non-partisan service organization of ail 50 state governments - created, supported, funded and directed by them. The states established the Councli in 1933 to improve the state governments and strengthen the state role in the federal system. The Council conducts research on state programs and problems: maintains an information service available to state officials; issues a variety of publicattons: assists in state-federal liaison; promotes regional and state- local cooperation; and provides staff for affiliated organizations. The Council is the United States' only non-profit agency dedicated to serving all branches of state government in ail the states and territories. The Council has nurtured new state roles for over 50 years by bringing state leaders together to share ideas. Innovations, and solutions. The Council annually publishes many volumes concerned with state government, Including Suggested State Legislation, Innovations Reports, The Book of the States (biennially), to name a few. The Coundl also regularty conducts meetings of such state legislative groups as the Southern Legislative Conference, the Midwestern Legislative Conference, the Western Legislative Conference, and the Eastern Regional Conference. Meetings of regional groups of gover- nors and attorneys general are also regularty conducted, as well as national and regional meetings of state en- vironmental officials and others. The Council has 47 different organizations of state officials assodated with it. such as the National Conference of Ueutenant Governors, the National Association of State Treasurers, the Southern Environmental Resource Conference, etc. The Center for the Environment and Natural Resources The Center for the Environment and Natural Resources (CENR) was established by CSG to assist state leaders in environmental policy. CENR is part of the Council of State Governments, and is guided by a Policy Steering Commitlee of senior state legislators and executive branch officials from all regions of the country. Focusing on state program and policy options; the Center helps states to share information, resour- ces, and ideas; prepares model state programs and suggested laws; hosts woridng sessions among state, public, and private sector leaders to develop and recomn)end joint solutions to problems; researches Issues identified by its members; offers states a central referral service; and Identifies and articulates key state problems and solutions. In addition to these services, CSG's Centers infomri state policy maimers through pub- Bcations on state policy initiatives, Including reports, briefs, and survey data; trains and develops state officials on issues and policies; and holds timely regional and national fomms on problems and solutions. For further Information: Mr. R. Steven Brown, Director Center for the Environment and Natural Resources P.O. Box 11910 Lexington. KY 40502 The Latest Releases from csc's center for Environment and Natural Resources Resource Guide to state Environmental Management The most comprehensive collection of data available on the way states are funded and organized to manage the environment • State environmental budgets divided into 16 spending categories including; air pollution, hazardous and solid waste fish and wildlife^ nuclear waste; pesti- cideSfc land management and water quality; • Organization charts of all environmental depart- ments, including information about personnel and job responsibilities; and • Detailed directory of over 70 environmental programs, such as acid raid, non-point source pollution, RCRA permits and citizens advisory boards This includes names, telephone numbers and contact infdrmatioa Electronic and Printed Format . . . Information Any Way You want It! The Resource Guide provides a wealth of data never before compiled in one volume, and in such detail . . . and now, the data is available on floppy disks as well as in printed form. The disks are designed to work with soft- ware on IBM PCs and compatibles* When using the electronic version, the book will help walk you through the data. For state and federal government officials, local agencies, industry, public interest groups, libraries and univer- sities, the Resource Guide of State Environmental Management is your source for state environmental activity State Infectious Waste Regulatory Programs One of the hottest environmental issues reached the boiling point this summer as beaches on both sides of the continent v^re closed by infectious waste refuse State Infectious Waste Regulatory Programs makes it clearthat regardless of federal activity, states are acting to regulate infectious waste Learn who is regulated, who regulates, packaging and labeling requirements, treatment and disposal methods, permit recordkeeping and transportation require- ments, definitions and enforcement approaches Plus the latest bills introduced in the current legislative session. Order your copy and find out what actions the states are taking. Resource Guide to State Environmental Management (C-112) S4o. Floppy disk format (includes book) $240. State officials — 30% discount 200 pages. 1988 ISBN 0-87292-081-X. State Infectious Waste Regulatory Programs. {C-108) S2o. 16 pages state officials - 30% discount The Council of State Governments, Iron Works Pike, RO. Box 11910, Lexington, KY 40478-9989, (605) 252-2291. "Call or write CSG's Center for Environment and Natural Resources for hardware and software requirements I '^ > > Attachment J RIPARIAN AND WETLAND CLASSIFICATION REVIEW » r RIPARIAN AREA MANAGEMENT TR 1737-5 1990 Riparian and Wetland Classification Review U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Copies available ftom: Bureau of Land Management Service Center SC-657B P.O. Box 25047 Denver, Colorado 80225-0047 BLIWYA/PT-QI /002+1 737 f) RIPARIAN AREA MANAGEMENT Riparian and Wetland Classification Review by Karl Gebhardt Hydrologist Bureau of Land Management Idaho State Office, Idaho Steve Leonard Range Scientist Bureau of Land Management A . National Soil - Range Team, Nevada George Staidl Soil Scientist Soil Conservation Service National Soil - Range Team, Nevada Don Prichard Fishery Biologist/Riparian Coordinator Bureau of Land Management Service Center, Colorado Technical Reference 1737-5 1990 U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Service Center P.O. Box 25047 ' ' Denver. CO 80225-0047 Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank the following individuals for the time they offered in the review and comment of this document: Paul Hansen, Bill Platts, Bud Kovalchik, Bob Wagner, Jim Fogg, Dan Muller, Mark Vison, Allen Cooperrider, Ray Boyd, Allan Strobel, and Al Amen. Table of Contents Page I. Introduction 1 II. Purpose 1 III. Vegetation Succession and Site Progression 1 IV. Riparian Health and Ecological Site Status 3 V. Review Format 6 VI. Classification and Description Procedures 8 1. SCS-BLM Standard Ecological Site Description 8 2. Southwestern Wetlands — Their Qassification and Characterization 1 1 3. The Canadian Wetland Classification System 13 4. Riparian Zone Associations of the Deschutes, Ochoco, Fremont, and Winema National Forests 15 5. Classification and Management of Riparian and Wetland Sites in Montana 17 6. Classifying Rangeland Riparian Areas: The Nevada Task Force Approach 21 7. Classification of Riverine Riparian Habitats for Management of Fisheries Resources 23 8. An Ecological Characterization of Rocky Mountain Montane and Subalpine Wetlands 26 9. Ecosystem Classification Handbook 29 10. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States 32 11. Riparian Community Type Classification of Eastern Idaho- Western Wyoming 34 Literature Cited 36 Appendix A - Riparian Classification Comparison 41 Appendix B - Converting Between Qassification Procedures (Vegetation) 47 Appendix C - Definition Crosswalk (Vegetation Classification Terms) 49 Appendix D - Stream Qassification - Wetland and Deepwater Habitats Compared to Rosgen, 1985 51 Appendix E - Classification of Wetland and Deepwater Habitats Compared to Other Procedures (at the Class and Subclass Levels) 53 Appendix F - Processes and Associated Factors Controlling Riparian Function 55 List of Figures Page C Figure 1. Comparison of Two Successional Models 4 Figure 2. Concept of Site Progression 5 C Riparian and Wetland Classification Review I. Introduction In recent years a large number of riparian and wetland classification and description proce- dures have been developed and/or modified by many investigators. Riparian and wetland managers have seen this myriad of procedures and basically have been confused about which one to use and what they arc supposed to do. The following riparian and wetland classifica- tion and description procedures were selected for review fiom a very lengthy list because they have one or more of the foUowing characteristics: they are regional or national in scope; they provide management information; and they integrate stream attributes and riparian vegetation. 1 . SCS-BLM Standard Ecological Site Description. 2. Southwestern Wetlands — Their Qassification and Characterization. 3. The Canadian Wetland Classification System. 4. Riparian Zone Associations of the Deschutes, Ochoco, Fremont, and Winema National Forests. 5. Classification and Management of Riparian and Wetland Sites in Montana. 6. Qassifying Rangeland Riparian Areas: The Nevada Task Force Approach. 7. Gassification of Riverine Riparian Habitats for Management of Fisheries Resources. 8. An Ecological Characterization of Rocky Mountain Montane aiKl Subalpine Wetlands. 9. Ecosystem Qassification Handbook. 10. Qassification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. 1 1 . Riparian Community Type Qassification of Eastern Idaho- Western Wyoming. II. Purpose It is the policy of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to apply the Standard Ecological Site Description procedure patterned after the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Range Site procedure and expanded by the BLM (USDA-SCS 1976, USDI-BLM 1990) to grazable woodland, native pasture, and riparian sites. However, other classification and description procedures exist and often must be used to make use of all available information or to coordi- nate between other agencies and institutions during riparian and wetland inventory. This document introduces major concepts rclevant to the imderstanding of riparian systems and reviews selected riparian and wetland classification and description procedurcs. This docu- ment also provides a means of rclating the various procedurcs. Appendix A contains a crosswalk of those rcviewed classification and description procedures that can be rcadily applied to riparian site descriptions and concepts of vegetation succession and site progres- sion discussed below. Appendixes B-E provide information and define terminology that should help in understanding and applying classification and description procedurcs. in. Vegetation Succession and Site Progression Succession usually rcprcsents an orderly progrcssion (except in cases of fire, etc.) of plant community change, towards a relatively stable state often termed the "potential natural community" (PNC) or "potential plant community" (PPQ. These changes in plant communi- ties may also accompany important rcfinements in certain environmental characteristics, such as physical properties (e.g., organic material in the soil), soil chemistry, soil moisture, under- story solar radiation, root distribution, populations of insects and animals, and appearance. These changes are often made possible through the behavior of the site's environment (particularly soil and water). The ability to discern these environmental factors fiom one site to another is a basis for ecological classification. Often, the plant commimity is used as an indicator of these integrated environmental factors. Currently, the most frequently used procedure of classifying commtmity ecology follows the concepts introduced by Daubenmire (1959). Many recent authors have used these concepts in their woric with riparian and wetland environments (Youngblood et al. 1985, Kovalchik 1987, Hansen et al. 1988, Hansen 1989, Szaro 1989). These authors demonstrate that the concepts of succession used in upland environments are equally applicable to riparian sys- tems, although the riparian site is generally much more dynamic. It is useful in further comparison and discussion to review some of the basic terminology and concepts applied in these recent documents: Association - In normal usage, an association is a climax community type or potential plant community. In riparian systems, because of their dynamic nature, a true climax community may not have an opportunity to occur (Youngblood et al. 1985). An association for a riparian environment is therefore a plant community type represent- ing the latest successional stage attainable on a specific hydrologicaUy influenced surface (Kovalchik 1987, Hansen 1989). Hansen (1989) uses the term "riparian association" while Youngblood et al. (1985) chose the term "potential stable commu- nity type" that approaches an association. Community Type - This is defined as an aggregation of all plant communities in some procedures, or as existing/dominant plant communities in others. Community types are distinguished by floristic and structural similarities in both overstory and undergrowth layers. Community types are considered to represent serai stages. Site Type - This is the area of land occupied or potentially occupied by a specific association. Site types that were the same would have similar environments that could develop the same potential plant community. Hansen (1989) uses the term "riparian site type" when describing a site capable of producing a "riparian associa- tion." Figure 1 offers two similar views of successional concepts. Hansen (1989) provided an illustration, shown in part a of Figure 1, to depict the relationship between site type, commu- nity type, and association. The illustration shows that community types are serai to associations (potential natural communities) and that some community types are common to one or more associations. It also shows that one site type (range type in part b of Figure 1) supports one association (PNQ. In many riparian systems there is a high potential for physical environments to undergo sudden and/or extreme changes because of the potential for soil erosion, deposition, and changes in water availability. Youngblood et al. (1985) stated "Directional processes from one community type to another indicate succession; we have not attempted to indicate the I) many possible relationships resulting from retrogression." This acknowledges succession and the complexity of possible community types due to site change. To help emphasize that these changes are the rule rather than the exception in riparian environments, we have introduced the term "site progression" which denotes major changes in the site. Site progression is not intended to diminish or replace any of the concepts of community succession; rather, it is a term to help those less familiar with the dynamics of riparian systems focus on the expecta- tion for site change. Generally, site progression can be thought of as a site change which may result in a different potential natural community for the site. An example of this would be a site located on a flood plain consisting of fine substrate that imdergoes extreme incisement, eventually changing the site from a moist to a very dry environment. The site progression is also seen in the succession of a gravel bar to an eventual nonflooded, cottonwood dominated terrace. In Figure 1, site progression would be seen as a site change between columns of the site types (riparian and/or habitat types) or cones. Figure 2 is a representation of site progres- sion. Additionally, for a classification or site description to be very useful to management it should recognize and discuss site succession, site progression, and site potential and what makes them occur, thereby offering managers a means for rational management. "It is important to remember tiiat not all the landscape is at its potential. In fact, only relatively small amounts are. However, by knowing what the potential is, a manager can understand the processes and how to best manage for them." (Paul Hansen, pers. commim.) We refer to this as an understanding of "process pathways." Once the process pathways are recognized, management can better understand cause and effect relationships. IV. Riparian Health and Ecological Site Status Riparian healtii has been related to ecological site status in recent years. This is a dangerous and functionally impossible view of how riparian systems operate. The following paragraphs discuss the concepts of ecological site status and riparian healUi in hopes that a more clear understanding of riparian system function will result Ecological site status refers to the position on a successional pathway that a particular site may be in. For example, a newly vegetated gravel bar may be covered with pioneering plant species such as cottonwood and willow. This site is said to be in early serai stage because it is at the beginning of its successional pathway. It is also in a frequentiy flooded state, allowing deposition interspersed with scoured flow patterns. As vegetation succession occurs and aggradation continues, young cottonwood trees may dominate an understory adapted to frequent or occasional flooding. As long as the relationship with flooding frequency and timing is maintained to allow cottonwood regeneration (not allowing the young cottonwoods to effectively trap sediments or become older), vegetation succession cannot proceed and could be considered in an advanced stage for that particular set of physical circumstances. However, if aggradation has occurred far enough (which may be directiy related to the presence of the cottonwoods) or stream channel migration relegates the site to a rarely flooded or nonflooded state, the cottonwoods may persist to a decadent stand. Regardless of the longevity of the cottonwoods at this location, site progression has evolved to a new state allowing vegetation succession to proceed to a new potential dominated by ash or peitiaps a) Time PNC (Climax) Serai Riparian Assoc. B Riparian Assoc. C B-C2 Riparian Assoc. D Comm. TypP^ ^omnTN ^omrr^N 799 Wet Habitat Riparian Riparian Riparian Riparian Type Site Type Site Type Site Type Site Type A B C D E Riparian Assoc. F 7 — ^ ' Comm. ' Type Physical Environment (Site) Riparian Site Type F Dry b) — PNC — (Association) Serai (Common Type) . Pi A 4 1^ Bw Bw Bw1 Bw2 Bt Bt 0 Bt OR OR m^\ 7 \ "A Bwl Bw Bw2 R R Range Site (Site Type) Figure 1. Comparison ofTwoSuccessional Models, a) Illustration of classification terminology as it relates to time and the physical environment (site) for riparian areas, after Hansen (1989). b) Conceptual "cone" model of secondary successional plant communities developed by Huschle and Hironaka, and Neiman, Jr. and Hironaka, modified to illustrate terms as shown in "a" above, and those typically used within range site descriptions. Depicted are two range sites, serai plant communities, and range site specific soil imits. Note serai plant communities 4 and 5 can occur in two sites having different potential natural communities (potential plant commtmities). Site Progression Stream, Aquatic B4orB6 stream type Upland Bottom Assoc, w/ B, C, or F stream ^pe Frequently Rooded Wet Meadow Assoc, w/ B6 stream Semi-Wet Meadow Assoc, w/ B, C, or F stream type Figure 2. Concept of Site Progression. The boxes represented as "states" may include a number of different site types and may be found associated with stream types (i.e., B4, B6, etc.) as described by Rosgen (1985). other self-perpetuating species. The decadent cottonwood stand is now an early successional stage to a different potential natural community. Vegetation succession may or may not be allowed to proceed long enough to reach that new potential, depending on stream dynamics and hydrology in relation to the valley bottom morphology. Since riparian systems are dynamic, some may never be able to attain a climax community, or at least not attain it without long term evolution of existing valley bottom morphology. A stream flood plain developing within the walls of a past incisement provides such an ex- ample. The soil-water-plant relationships within the developing flood plain may provide the same wet meadowAneadow complex of site potentials as found elsewhere. The stream channel may be aggrading at approximately the same rate as the adjacent flood plain. Site progression, in this case, is actually increasing the aerial extent of the riparian vegetation (and associated ground water) as the system aggrades. The system is in an excellent functional state. However, the forming and reforming of plant communities due to the increased fre- quency of deposited sediments limits vegetation succession to early and mid-successional status. This will be the case until the geomorphic processes of aggradation slow sufficiently to allow vegetation succession to proceed. Riparian health must be viewed with the understanding that the riparian system is inherently dynamic. The condition (abundance, vigor) of the vegetation on a site would be only one attribute of riparian health. The riparian health should be evaluated in terms of physical and biological function in relation to tiie entire watershed. The following excerpts from Gebhardt et al. (1990) introduce this concept: "The interaction of watershed characteristics and vegetation can be described in terms of physical and biological processes and factors. Such processes and factors can be grouped by physical and biological characteristics. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1989) identified the major vegetal biological characteristics or responses as survival-maintenance, recruitment-reproduc- tion, and community dynamics. The major physical characteristics follow the watershed characteristics described above grouped as moistureAmunda- tion (water quantity), physical and chemical water quality, transport/deposi- tion, and channel/floodplain geometry. Our responsibility is to imderstand their importance to the riparian system, particularly in terms of their rates, magnitude or extent, and duration." The processes and associated factors controlling riparian function are listed in Appendix F. Riparian health should not be confused with ecological site status. A young site or an old site can be in good health, as with any organism. However, one should not assume that a stream in an advanced ecological condition is desirable (or even attainable) in all instances. Some sites, for example, may be at an early or mid-seral ecological status and provide wonderful waterfowl habitat. Provided these sites are in good health, they are serving a very positive function. Another example might be a willow-dominated PNC supporting a trout population. At the PPC and in excellent health, such a site might produce an abundant fish population, but the vegetation density would preclude fishing. In summary, riparian health and ecological site status are two different characteristics of riparian systems. A site in any ecological status may be in good or poor health. All sites should not necessarily be managed for late serai condition, particularly if it precludes a desired function or beneficial use. Riparian health should be judged on the functions that it provides compared to functions that should be present in relation to the entire watershed. All riparian systems should not be expected to have identical functions. V. Review Format Each classification and description procedure included in this technical reference is described and discussed using the following standard format: Name; Name of the classification or description procedure. Authors: Authors and/or agencies preparing the procedure. References: Doomients that explain the procedure. Objectives: Describes the major objectives of the system or procedure as given or estimates the objectives based on contents of the reference. Designed Users: Estimates likely users of the system. Area of Applicability: Region, state, or locality where the procedure appears or is proven to be able to work. No discussion on scale is givert The procedures described can be used at about any scale. The size of the areas depicted in the classification will be dependent on the purpose of the classification which will define the detail of the mapping units and the sorting process used to aggregate and separate. Classification Units, Description, and Data: Units or major contents or data requirements of the classification are given in order of a hierarchical structure, where given, otherwise they will be placed based on the best estimate of the reviewer. Use, Testing, Validation: Information on use is given, particularly in reference to large- scale testing or validation efforts. Ease of Application: An estimate is given on how easily the procedure could be applied by professional land resource specialists. Use in Defining System Response and Potential: System response is the response of a riparian or wetland to various environmental change. Potential refers to the potential natural community as described above. Qassification and description procedures may simply provide a method of categorization without regards to environmental response. However, without some ability to define the response and potential, a classification procedure cannot relate to management very effectively. Ties to system response might include both physical and biological factors providing clues to a system's limiting factors such as soil-water regime, substrate, riparian-riverine interaction, channel morphology, flora, and fauna. Use in Determining State of System: A discussion is included on the procedures handling of succession and site progression, the concepts of which are explained above. Relation to Other Procedures: Well-known procedures or standards are given if they are known to have been used in the development. Automated Data Processing (ADP): Where ADP applications have been built for the procedure, they are mentioned. Limitations and Assumptions: Perceived limitations in accomplishing objectives are given. Assumptions inherent in the procedure are given if they are considered significant VI. Classification and Description Procedures 1. Name: SCS-BLM Standard Ecological Site Description. Authors: Soil Conservation Service, Bureau of Land Management. References: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1976. National Range Handbook, as amended. Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC. U.S. Department of Interior. 1990. National range handbook. BLM Manual Handbook H- 4410-1. Bureau of Land Management, Washington, DC. Objectives: The National Range Handbook (SCS) as supplemented by BLM Manual Hand- book H-4410-1 National Range Handbook includes procedures for preparing standardized ecological site (range site) descriptions. The National Range Handbook provides for range site descriptions that include a unique name, physiographic features, climatic features, vegetation ecology and production, soils, and management interpretations (which can be used in making management recommendations). BLM Manual Handbook H-4410-1 further provides that the concept also applies to grazable woodlands, forest and riparian/wetland sites. Early in 1988, BLM determined that the standard site description procedures contained in the National Range Handbook as applied to uplands would accommodate land features associated with riparian and wetland sites as well. These procedures were modified by adding riparian and wetland associated water features and additional descriptions of site dynamics to the standard site description format and the Siteform program. Designed Users: All levels of land users. Area of Applicability: Universal application to rangeland, woodland, and native pasture. Classification Units, Description, and Data: Classification Units Description Physiographic Occurrence of the site in the landscape. Degree Features and direction of slopes. Range of elevation. Climatic Range in average annual precipitation, temperature, and Features seasonal distribution. Average beginning and ending dates of growing season for major native forage species. Other featiu^s such as storm intensity, wind velocity, and drought cycles that typify the site and may contribute to or limit its potential. Vegetation Description of the plant community that would become Ecology established if all successional sequences were completed without major disturbance under similar environmental conditions (assuming no major site changes such as seen Soils with site progression). Concepts of potential plant commu- nity, serai ecological status, and serai community apply to this procedure. List of major plant species and their nonnal relative propor- tion in the total natural plant community. Other features, if deemed significant, such as ground cover, plant spacing, and overstory canopy. Descriptions of additional communities that may occur on the site under various stress and/or at different successional stages. Estimated total annual production and range in favorable and imfavorable years. Briefly describes the main properties of the major soils associated with the site with special significance on impor- tant soil-vegetation-water properties. Name of major soils and their respective phase associated with the site. Associated Water Features Site Interpretation Identification Authentication Includes information on the morphology and hydrology of associated water system. Typical attributes include stream type (Rosgen 1985), flow regime, erosional/depositional features, surface and ground water features. Information on potential importance of the site for each of its major uses. Includes successional stages and potential to change characteristics (stability) or to change states. Gives location of typical example of the site. Identifies site with the Major Land Resource Areas (MLRA) in which it occurs. Gives information of when the description was approved and the principal author and agency. Use, Testing, Validation: The procedure in the National Range Handbook is used world- wide to prepare site descriptions for rangelands. These procedures have been modified, tested, and validated for use in preparing site descriptions for riparian areas. Procedures for site correlation exist and are compatible with the National Soil Handbook. Ease of Application: Ease of application depends on the ability and experience of the users. A team of specialists consisting of a biologist, botanist/ecologist, soil scientist, and hydrolo- gist is required to use these procedures on riparian and wetland sites. The procedures for mapping, delineating, describing, and interpreting sites have been used by several agencies for several years. Sufficient training, review, and correlation is key to the success of the procedure. Use in Defining System Response and Potential: A major purpose of the procedure is to defme community response and the reasons why a particular response occurs. Use in Determining State of System: The procedure is well suited to identify changes of state and the reasons for site progression (aggradation/degradation). Relation to Other Procedures: The procedure makes use of other nationally or internation- ally recognized procedures, such as the National Soil Handbook. It is conceptually similar to others in recognizing a potential or climax plant community and successional stages or commimities. Automated Data Processing: Several levels of data processing assistance are available for the procedure. Limitations and Assumptions: Use of this procedure is limited by the extent of knowledge of similar sites and by the expertise of the users. Experienced personnel are required to correctly identify site potential. The end produa of the procedure is a very useful docimient for management. 10 2. Name: Southwestern Wetlands — Their Qassification and Characterization. Authors: David E. Brown. References: Brown, D.E. 1978. Southwestern wetlands — their classification and character- ization, in: Proceedings of the National Riparian Ecosystems Symposium, Callaway Gardens, Georgia, Dec. 1 1-13, 1978. pp. 269-282. Brown, D.E. and C.H. Lowe. 1973. A proposed classification for natural and potential vegetation in the Southwest with particular reference to Arizona. Ariz. Game and Fish Dep., Fed. Aid Proj. RpL W-53-R-22 WP^JI:l-26. Objectives: Provide a hierarchical structure for the worid's biotic communities based on those factors most important in the evolution of origin, structure, and composition of aU ecosystems, both wetland and terrestrial. Recognizes plant components within an assigned ecological distribution and could lead to the species of wildlife expected to be present. Designed Users: Ecologists, wildlife biologists, zoologists. Area of Applicability: Everywhere. Classification Units Description, and Data: Classification Units Biogeographic Realm Vegetation Formation Type Climate Zone Regional Formation Description Geographic and biologic origin-evolutionary boundaries. Generally very large with the exception of small areas showing high degree of endemism. Seven realms are used: Nearctic (Continental North America exclusive of the tropics and most highland areas south of the Tropic of Cancer); Palaearctic (Eurasia exclusive of the tropics); Neotropical and Antarctican; Oriental; Ethiopian; Australian; Oceanic. Classed as either upland wetland, or in the case of altered lands, cultivated. All existing and potential natural vegetation are placed in these classes. Refers to recognized ecological formations (biome interpre- tation types). Wetland formation types include wet tundra, forest, swampscrub, marshland, strand (unvegetated bank or shore), and submergent. Refers to one of four world climate zones (arctic boreal, cold temperate, warm temperate, tropical-subtropical). Refers to a subcontinental unit that is a major biotic commu- nity (biome) usually centered in but not restricted to a biogeographic region or province possessing a particular precipitation pattern or other climatic regime. 11 Series Provides the principal or plant-animal communities within general biomes, recognized and distinguished primarily on distinctive climax plant dominants. These series sometimes referred to as cover types or vegetation types are each composed of one or more biotic associations characterized by shared climax dominants — ^within the same formation, zone, and biome. Association Refers to distinctive plant associations based on the occur- rence of particular dominant species more or less local (or regional) in distribution and generally equivalent to habitat types as outlined by Daubenmire and Daubenmire (1968), Layser (1974), and Pfister et al. (1977). Composition- Is a qualitative description of the structure composition, Structure-Phase density for the dominants. Most detailed. Use, Testing, Validation: The reference for this classification system is preceded by many other references (Brown 1973; Brown and Lowe 1973; Brown and Lowe 1974a, b; Brown, Lowe, and Pase 1977) to the extent it should be considered well tested. There was little information sought on its use; however, it is assumed to be in use in the Southwest. Ease of Application: Half of the categories are developed from existing information. Field work is necessary to classify below the series level and also would be required at the series level in areas where vegetation is not generally identified. Use in Defining System Response and Potential: The hierarchy of the procedure allows for very general climatic consideration and general animal habitat consideration. The procedure does not deal with geomorphic processes or riverine enviroiunents. However, this informa- tion could be incorporated easily. Use in Determining State of System: The state of the system appears inherent at the asso- ciation level in this procedure. The state of a system in regards to site succession and site progression may be identified, but is not recognized as a part of the procedure. Relation to Other Procedures: This procedure has placed reliance on existing classification procedures for zoogeography, world climates, wetland determination [through SCS hydric procedures (assumed but not stated in document), world vegetation-habitat zones, and finally successional vegetation procedures of Daubenmire creation]. Automated Data Processing: The procedure was set up in. a numeric fashion to facilitate data processing. It is not known whether this procedure has an established data standard through any Federal or State agency, however. Limitations and Assumptions: This procedure stresses the importance of evolutionary origin and regional adaptation. The upper portions of the classification may have value to the manager concerned with importing exotic species, recovering native species, and identifying potential zones for adaptation. The lower portions of the classification are very similar to many others* procedures and should provide suitable data at a more site or habitat specific level. The classification does not provide prfiysical process information nor was it intended to; however, this does not preclude more elaboration on the user's part. 12 3. Name: The Canadian Wetland Qassification System. Provisional — this system is currently being revised and should be released in 1990 (Clayton Rubec, pers. com,). Authors: National Wetlands Working Group, Canada Committee on Ecological Land Qassification. Reference: National Weflands Working Group. 1987. The Canadian wetland classification system (provisional edition). Lands Conservation Branch, Canadian Wildlife Service, Envi- ronment Canada, Ecological Land Qassification Series No. 21. 18 pp. Objectives: Develop nationally applicable wetland classification system. Designed Users: Biologists, managers. Area of Applicability: Canada. Classification Units, Description, and Data: Classification Units Description Class Five wetland classes are bog, fen, marsh, swamp, and shallow water. Form There are 70 wetland forms differentiated based on morphol- ogy, pattern, water type, and underlying soil. Type Wetland types are classified according to vegetation physi- ognomy. These include coniferous and hardwood trees; tall, low, and mixed shrub; forb; graminoid (grass, reed, tall rush, low rush, sedge); moss; lichen; floating and submerged aquatic; and nonvegetated. Use, Testing, Validation: Procedure is provisional and in the testing processes. Ease of Application: Procedure is very straightforward. Keys are provided within each class to help a user find the correct form. Use in Defining System Response and Potential: Form keys contain some physical infor- mation that could be used in developing some system responses; however, the intention of the procedure was to strictly classify without addressing response. Use in Determining State of System: Based on the form key, the descriptions given are very close to what might be considered a system state. However, the concept of succession and progression is not inherent to the procedure. Relation to Other Procedures: The procedure utilizes standard soil taxonomy. No refer- ences to any United States standards could be found. Automated Data Processing: The data that is collected during the wetland inventory and/or classification is entered into the Canadian Wetland Registry (Kroetsch et al. 1988). This registry system is a computerized data base holding wetland information on location, climate, chemistry, hydrology, soils, and vegetation community or composition. 13 Limitations and Assumptions: While some of process concepts are handled in the forni key, the classification does not attempt to educate the user in why the forms occur. The classification system is meant to be a complimentary text to National Wetlands Working Group, Canada Committee on Ecological Land Qassification (1986), entitled "Wetlands of Canada," a definitive knowledge base on Canada's wetlands which serves as both an educa- tional and management reference. r 14 » 4. Name: Riparian Zone Associations of the Deschutes, Ochoco, Fremont, and Winema National Forests. Authors: Bernard L. Kovalchik. Reference: Kovalchik, B.L. 1987. Riparian zone associations: Deschutes, Ochoco, Fremont, and Winema National Forests. USDA Forest Service Region 6 Ecology Technical Paper 279- 87 Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon. 171 pp. Objectives: This product describes the general geographic, topographic, edaphic, ftmctional, and floristic features of riparian ecosystems. It describes successional trends and predicts vegetative potential on disturbed riparian ecosystems and presents information on resource values and management opportunities. It contributes to the broad regional classification program of the USDA Forest Service, Region 6. Designed Users: Biologists, foresters, range conservationists, engineers, hydrologists, managers. Area of Applicability: Central and southern Oregon. Concepts of this system can be applied anywhere. Classification Units, Description, and Data: Classification Units Description Upland Ecosystem, Transitional Ecosystem, Riparian Physiographic Area Riparian Landform Riparian Association, Community Type, Fluvial Surface While not actually classified, a distinction is made between upland, transitional, and riparian ecosystems. Riparian ecosystems are those next to water where vegetation is on the perpetual water source. Transitional ecosystems occur between the riparian and upland. Transitional ecosys- tems do not have mesophytic vegetation such as alders, sedges, and willows, yet are maricedly different from the uplands. Transitional areas include inactive flood plains, terraces, toe-slopes, and meadows having high water during a portion of tiie year. This is the broadest level of tiie classification and integrates similar climatic, geologic, and geomoiphic processes. This intermediate level reflects similarities in elevation, valley gradient, fluvial processes, water regime, and soils. This is the lower level and is determined by site environ- ments reflected in the types of vegetation potentiaUy dominated by the site. Riparian associations (or community types) differ from each other with respect to land manage- ment opportunities, can be identified at any level of distur- bance, have a limited variation in species composition, and have a limited variability in productivity. The riparian 15 association is assumed to be the stable plant community on a particular site provided no major changes in the fluvial surface or water regime occur. Essentially, a community type may be a subset of a riparian association and may develop into a riparian association through normal succes- sional stages of development. A community type (as de- scribed, and not one specific site) may also be serai to several riparian associations. Other Attributes Additional modifiers include soils, climate, and management information. Management information includes livestock, wildlife and fisteries potential, fire effects, silvicultural production and considerations, potential and pathways for recovery, and related studies. Use, Testing, Validation: The publication is, in itself, a test and validation. The document is very useful. It includes several keys to define associations and communities fix)m vegeta- tion and landforms. The classification has been in use for 3 years and is well received by U.S. Forest Service managers (Kovalchik, pers. com.). Ease of Application: The procedure is straightforward. Its ease of application is probably dependent on the experience of the field personnel doing the vegetation mapping and identifi- cation. The geomorphic-based alternative for predicting vegetation potential has proved effective for managers without taxonomic skills. Use in Defining System Response and Potential: The procedure requires some thought to produce system response estimates. Geomorphology, at the landform level (64 landform cross-sections given) along with the geomorphic key to vegetation potential can be very useftil in defining system response and is one of the best features of the publication. Use in Determining State of System: The procedure determines associations (i.e., site succession). Reference are made to other potentials from the association descriptions based on changes in water regime, which is approaching the concept of states and site progression. Relation to Other Procedures: This procedure relates to standard Daubenmire classifica- tion, and uses physiographic regions modified fix)m Baldwin (1964) and Franklin and Dymess (1973). Nothing limits this procedure from being used with the USFWS Cowardin et al. (1979) procedure; everything needed is supplied. It is also conceptually related to ecological site classification at the association/community levels. Automated Data Processing: The procedure does not appear to be readily converted to a standard data base management system except at the landform level, which will easily fit into a geographic information system. The knowledge supplied in the descriptions would woric well in an expert system type of envirormient. Limitations and Assumptions: As presented, the author has done a superb job of getting to the manager's need. 16 5. Name: Qassification and Management of Riparian and Wetland Sites in Montana. Authors: Paul Hansen, Robert Pfister, John Joy, Dan Svoboda, Keith Boggs, Lew Myers, Steve Chadde, and John Pierce. References: Batchelor, R., M. Erwin, R. Martinka, D. Mcintosh, R. Pfister, E. Schneegas, J. Tayor, and K. Walther. 1982. A taxonomic classification system for Montana riparian vegeta- tion types. Montana rural Area Development Committee, Bozeman, Montana. 13 pp. Boggs K., P. Hansen, R. Pfister, and J. Joy. 1990. Qassification and management of riparian and wetland sites in northwestern Montana, draft version 1, Montana Riparian Association, School of Forestry, University of Montana. 217 pp. Hansen, P., S.W. Chadde, and R. Pfister, 1988. Riparian dominance types of Montana. Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station, School of Forestry, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana. Misc. Pub. No. 49. 41 1 r). Hansen, P., K. Boggs, R. Pfister, and J. Joy. 1990. Qassification and management of riparian and wetland sites in southwestern Montana, draft version 2a, Montana Riparian Association, School of Forestry, University of Montana. 292 pp. Hansen, P., K. Boggs, R. Pfister, and J. Joy. 1990. Qassification and management of riparian and wetland sites in central and eastern Montana, draft version 2, Montana Riparian Associa- tion, School of Forestry, University of Montana. 279 pp. Objectives: Develop a riparian ecological site classification for Montana to assist in the identification, description, communication, and management of riparian areas by resource managers. Describe the general geographic, topographic, edaphic, functional, and floristic features of riparian ecosystems. Describe successional trends and predict vegetative potential on disturbed riparian sites. Present information on resource values and management opportu- nities. In addition, the classification can be used for mapping and inventory of the riparian zone. Designed Users: Managers, biologists, hydrologists, engineers, resource specialists. Area of Applicability: The approach is both a conceptual framework and an operational taxonomy that is applicable everywhere. The actual "types" described in the work arc applicable to southwestern, central, northwestern, and eastern Montana. Classification Units, Description, and Data: Supplement to classification units: The ecological concepts and terminology used essentially follow the work of Daubenmire (1959), Daubenmire (1968), Daubenmire and Daubenmire (1968), Daubenmire (1970), Daubenmire (1978), and Kovalchik (1987). The hierarchical system is described by Dauberunire (1978). The following is a brief discussion of the hierar- chical system. 17 Classification Units Region Province Zones Series Habitat Types Phase Description Regions have a high degree of physiognomic uniformity among the climatic climaxes, and a gross similarity of climates throughout However, taxonomic similarity is not a requirement. Provinces arc zones in which the dominants of the climatic climaxes have had much the same geologic history, exhibit a strong thread of taxonomic continuity, and occur in climates of somewhat similar pattern. A finer subdivision of a province is a section. Zones are the entire area over which zonal soils support what may be considered the same type of climatic climax. Zones are areas of essentially homogeneous macroclimate as indicated by a coimnon climatic climax. The zones iit together on a map as a mosaic without overlap, although the plant association that is climatic climax in one zone usually occurs as an edaphic or topographic climax in a contiguous zone, where it becomes restricted to an environment which compensates for the relatively unfavorable macroclimate. A series is a group of habitat types having the same potential climax overstory. A habitat type is all the area of land capable of supporting the same climax plant association whether this be climatic, edaphic, or topographic climax. (A plant association is a kind of plant community represented by stands occurring in places where environments are so closely similar that there is a high degree of floristic uniformity in all layers.) A phase is a subdivision of a habitat type representing a characteristic variation in climax vegetation and environ- mental conditions. Riparian Association Additional Ecological Terms A riparian association is a plant community type represent- ing the latest successional stage attainable on a specific hydrologically influenced surface (equal to potential natural community). Because the riparian association is the end result of plant succession, it reflects the most meaningful integration of environmental factors affecting vegetation. [Because of the difficulties of defining climax in the classi- cal sense for flood plain environments, this system currently follows the lead of Kovalchik (1987) in using the term riparian association to represent the latest successional stage available.] 18 Riparian Site Type The riparian site type is the area of land occupied or poten- tially occupied by a specific riparian association (e.g., a vegetation based ecological site type for riparian areas). Each riparian site type represents a relatively narrow seg- ment of environmental variation having a certain potential for vegetation development. Although any given riparian site type may support a wide variety of disturbance induced or serai vegetation, the ultimate product of vegetational succession anywhere within that riparian site type will be a similar plant community. Therefore, the riparian site type is an ecological site classification that uses the plant commu- nity as an indicator of integrated environmental factors as they affect species reproduction and plant community development. Community Type A community type is an aggregation of all plant communi- ties distinguished by floristic and structural similarities in both overstory and undergrowth layers. Community types are considered to represent serai stages. Site Descriptions Location and Riparian Landforms Presents typical elevation range and landforms associated with each type. Floristic Characteristics of Sampled Stands Describes the vegetation on the site. Potential Natural Community Used for serai stages (community types) and describes the proposed successional pathway(s) to the climax vegetation. Soils Follows standard SCS taxonomy and description of moisture regime. Adjacent Communities Describes adjacent wetter or drier sites. This information gives the user a mental picture of the "types" position on the landscape. Management Information The following management information is presented: livestock, timber, wildlife, fisheries, fire, soil management and rehabilitation opportunities, recreational uses and considerations. In addition, the following information (by species) is presented: 1) forage palatability (cattle, sheep, and horses), 2) energy value, 3) protein value, 4) thermal or feeding cover values (elk, mule deer, whitetail deer, upland game birds, waterfowl, small nongame birds, and small mammals), 5) food value or degree of use (elk, mule deer, whitetail deer, antelope, upland game birds, waterfowl, small 19 nongame birds, and small mammals), 6) potential biomass production, 7) erosion control potential, 8) short-term re- vegetation potential, and 9) long-term revegetation potential. Other Studies Summary of similar sites. ■ Use, Testing, Validation: The approach is both a conceptual firameworic and an operational taxonomy that is applicable everywhere. The methodology is being used throughout Mon- tana. The document provides managers with site potentials and management information. Ease of Application: The procedure is straightforward. Its ease of application is dependent on the experience of the field personnel doing the vegetation mapping, identification, and interpretation. Use in Defining System Response and Potential: The procedure's strength is in its attempt to understand system response and site potential for the purpose of providing management information. Use in Determining State of System: A goal of the procedure is to identify associations (i.e., site succession). An effort was made to reference other potentials from the association descriptions based on changes in water regime. Relation to Other Procedures: The procedure uses standard ecological classification principles. The ecological concepts and terminology used essentially follow the woric of Daubenmire (1968), Daubenmire and Daubenmire (1968), Daubenmire (1970), Daubenmire (1978), and Kovalchik (1987). It is conceptually similar in part to ecological sites. Automated Data Processing: The procedure uses the USPS Region 1 Ecodata sampling and automated data processing system. The results of the procedure would not be easily con- verted to a standard ADP system. However, it would work well in a knowledged based system (expert system). Limitations and Assumptions: As presented, the authors have done a superb job of getting to the manager's need. 20 6. Name: Qassifying Rangeland Riparian Areas: The Nevada Task Force Approach. Authors: Sherman Swanson, Ray Miles, Steve Leonard, and Kenneth Genz. Reference: Swanson S., R. Miles, S. Leonard, and K. Genz. 1988. Qassifying rangeland riparian areas: the Nevada task force approach. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 1988. 43:3. Objectives: Develop a system that is interdisciplinary, hierarchical, simple yet reliable, useful for management, related to ecological potential, and mappable. Designed Users: Biologists, soil scientists, hydrologists, managers. Area of Applicability: Rangelands, but concepts are applicable everywhere. Classification Units, Description, and Data: Classification Units Description Physiographic Region Major Riparian Areas Stream Type Nonstream Type Ecosystem - Riparian, Aquatic Subsystem Structure Qass, Subclass Major land classes as defined by Brown and Kerr (1979). Delineates between stream and nonstream types. Stream types are classified using a geomorphic based system developed by Rosgen (1985). Nonstream types include lake, reservoir, pond, pool, spring, seep, and irrigation conveyance. Ecosystem is separated into either aquatic or riparian based effectiveness of the open water column. Aquatic ecosystems include nonpersistent emergent, aquatic beds, and areas not vegetated (bars). Cowardin et al. (1979) can be used to describe aquatic ecosystems at this point. Only the riparian ecosystem is described in the subsystem. This includes moisture regime classes as suggested by Johnson et al. (1984): hydroriparian, mesoriparian, and xeroriparian. Structural class is similar to the Cowardin et al. (1979) class, but is related to perceived potential natural commu- nity. Structural classes include: forest, woodland, shrub, herb, nonvegetated. As with class, subclass attributes are based on potential natural community and include: ever- green, deciduous, mixed, tall, low, nonvegetated. 21 Ecological Site A distinctive type of land that differs from other kinds of land in its ability to produce a characteristic potential natural community. Community Type The existing/dominant plant community distinguished by floristic and structural similarities. Stream Subtype Used under the associated stream type to describe in detail the stream reach being classified. The modifiers used by Rosgen (1985) are suggested to describe flow regimen, size, organic debris/channel blockages, depositional features, and meander patterns. Naming Conventions The physical site attributes are given in the beginning of the site name and are separated by a forward slash (J). The ecological site attributes are given on the right-hand side of the physical attributes and separated from them with a semicolon (;). Codominants are separated using a hyphen (-). Use, Testing, Validation: Currently under testing through the University of Nevada, Reno. Ease of Application: The system appears about as easy as any other procedure to apply. However, since it is more comprehensive than most procedures, there are more data require- ments and may require more expertise. Use in Defining System Response and Potential: The procedure has incorporated the concept of potential natural community, and as such, has recognized one form of system response. It has also incorporated a great deal of geomorphic information, making the tie between major physical systems more possible. Use in Determining State of System: Procedure has all necessary components to determine site progression. Relation to Other Procedures: To a large degree, the procedure maintains consistency with Soil Conservation Service standards for soil descriptions and to a lesser degree with the USFWS Cowardin et al. (1979) wetlands procedures. The procedure does deviate in naming conventions at the system, subsystem, and class level, but there are no major deviations in concept. Automated Data Processing: The procedure is too new to evaluate, but does appear to be suitable to a data base management system. Limitations and Assumptions: As written, the procedure is limited to inland areas; how- ever, this could be expanded by following Cowardin et al. (1979) more closely. The naming convention may be too complex to allow for easy description and cross-referencing. 22 t 7. Name: Qassification of Riverine Riparian Habitats for Management of Fisheries Resources. Authors: William S. Platts, Sherman E. Jensen, Frank Smith. Reference: Platts, W., S. Jensen, and F. Smith. 1988. Preliminary classification and inven- tory of riverine riparian habitats livestock/fishery study areas, Nevada. Progress Report I. Nevada Department of Wildlife, Elko, Nevada. 127 pp. Objectives: Identify the existing state structure and function and their respective physical and biological processes. Identify the natural state under present set of conditions and the variability of this state over time. Estimate achievable state conditions and identify units of similar potential even though present states are not identical. Determine the state direction the system is moving (trends). Determine the time intervals occurring between state changes under known applications of stresses or benefits. Identify Poor and Best Management Practices. Determine limiting factors that determine the biotic carrying capacity for each state. Transfer knowledge and experience over space. Evaluate the influence of natural and artificial geomorphic-physical conditions within the watershed on the fisheries. Determine attainability (as described in the Water Quality Act) of riverine riparian habitats in a regional perspective. Allow valid establishment of control and treatment sites for assessing non-point source impacts to riverine riparian habitats. Display and describe riverine riparian habitats at selected hierarchical levels. Identify those variables that are sensitive for identifying and assessing non-point source impacts (monitoring). Be hierarchical and mappable. Display the regional characteristics of riverine riparian complexes and describe their inherent capabilities and potentials. The process must be amenable to hypothesis or model testing. Designed Users: Biologists, hydrologists, engineers, managers, resource specialists. Area of Applicability: Anywhere. Classification Units, Description, and Data: Classification Units Description Domain Subcontinental area of related climates. Division A subset of domain delineating single reference regional climate as defined by Trewartha and Horn (1980). Ecoregion A subset of division based on land surface fonn as defined by Fenneman (1931). A broad vegetation region with the same types of zonal soils. Qimatic climax at the level of Kuchler's (1964) potential vegetation types. Four major criteria are landform, potential natural vegetation, land use, and soil. Geologic A subset of ecoregions delineating more homogeneous areas District banding together imiforai landforms at the level of Hammond's land-surface fomi regions. 23 Land Type Association Land Type Valley Bottom Qass Riverine- Riparian Complexes Riverine and Riparian Community Types 1 Riverine Site Groups of closely related types within a geologic district with recurring patterns of landforms, soil, and vegetation. Group of neighboring phases within a land type association with similar soil series or families with similar plant commu- nities at the level of Daubermiire's (1968) habitat types (e.g., valley bottom). Group of neighboring sites within land types having similar soil properties with closely related habitat types. Repeating units within valley bottom classes that are made up of distinctive groups of riverine and riparian types. Repeating types within riverine and riparian complexes dictated by the location and combination of soils and water. What's at that final point (i.e., pool, riffle). States Are used to describe functional position within a number of major site environments for a particular piece of ground fixed in space and the cause/effect relationships that deter- mine its position. Ecological Considerations: Daubenmire concepts of succession, climax, ecological site are incorporated at the complex and commimity type level. Use, Testing, Validation: The method has undergone testing and is now being applied in a regional scale to northern Nevada. Ease of Application: The upper hierarchical data requirements are fairly easy to obtain though the use of existing resource information. The data requirements at the complex and community type level require field data collection similar to that required in most of the Daubenmire procedures. The site information can be as complex as the user wants to make it The procedure would require personnel from several areas of expertise. Use in Defining System Response and Potential: System response is a key element and one of the objectives of the procedure. Use in Determining State of System: The state of the system is inherent in the procedure. ^ Riverine and riparian types are two distinct mappable uses, with riverine ecosystems being that within the channel. 24 Relation to Other Procedures: Vegetation classification followed is consistent with Youngblood et al. (1985). The procedure uses standard landform description, soil taxonomy, moisture regimes, and has flexibility to incorporate many types of attributes. Automated Data Processing: Not easily converted to a standard ADP system. Would woric well in a knowledge based system (expert system), however. Limitations and Assumptions: The procedure uses such an integration of various hierarchi- cal attributes that major limitations are unlikely. The procedure integrates both the riverine and riparian system as it is viewed in the upper and middle levels of the hierarchical structure. • 25 8. Name: An Ecological Characterization of Rocky Mountain Montane and Subalpine Wetlands. Authors: John T. Windell, Beatrice E. Willaid, David J. Cooper, Susan Q. Foster, Christo- pher F. Knud-Hansen, Lauranne P. Rink, George N. Kiladis. - Reference: Windell, J., B. Willard, D. Cooper, S. Foster, C. Knud-Hansen, L. Rink, and G. Kiladis. 1986. An ecological characterization of Rocky Mountain montane and subalpine wetlands. National Ecology Center, Division of Wildlife and Contaminant Research, USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC, Biological Report 86(1 1). 298 pp. Objectives: Provide a comprehensive review of Rocky Mountain wetlands. Identify gaps existing in the scientific literature. Provide information for the assessment, planning, and permitting of activities affecting wetlands. Provide an educational source for anyone inter- ested in the ecological functioning and value of high-elevation wetiands. The report also classifies Rocky Mountain wetiands within a system hierarchy that recognizes international wefland terminology, considers duration, depth, velocity of water and frequency of flooding, and variety and concentration of mineral nutrients as the two dominant factors determining pattern of species and communities. Designed Users: Biologists, ecologists, planners, managers. Area of Applicability: Rocky Mountains. Classification Units, Description, and Data: Classification Units Water Regime Subcategory Substrate Water Type Ecosystem Type Description Highest level of the classification and includes: permanent shallow, standing water, communities with seasonal or permanent high water tables, but without permanent standing waters; communities adjacent to running waters; communi- ties in running water. Permanent shallow, standing includes: floating, rooted submerged, rooted floating leaved, rooted emergent Sea- sonal water regime: herb wetiands, shrub wetiands, forested wetiands, unvegetated. Running water regime: moss, herbaceous, shrub, forested, unvegetated. Mineral or organic. Fresh, saline, minerotrophic, ombrotrophic. Types listed to conform to international nomenclature: fen, bog, marsh-meadow, saline marsh- meadow, carr, shrub bog, shrub wetiand, saline shrub wetiand, deciduous angiosperm forest, moss wetiands, herbaceous wetiand, shrub wetiand, coniferous forest 26 Fen » Bog Marsh Sedge, grass, or reed-dominated minerotro{rfuc peatlands. The water table is at. or close to, the surface most of the time. Minerotrophic means that the water source has been in contact with mineral soils and provides a much greater supply of nutrients. A generalized term for a wetland that develops in a deprcs sion, such as a lake with poor drainage. Generally character ized by extensive peat deposits, acidic water, floating sedge, heath shrubs, and often the presence of coniferous trees. The water table is usually close to the surface without standing water (except where there are open ponds). A wetland on mineral soils dominated by herbaceous (nonwoody) plants, often developing in shallow ponds or depressions, river margins, tidal areas, and estuaries. Waters are not acid. Meadow Can- Refers to herbaceous wetlands on mineral soil and may be synonymous with wet meadow. Generally occur in season ally flooded basins and flats, and soils usually are not wet during the entire growing season. Wetlands that occur on organic soil composed of minerotrophic peat, having greater than 25 percent shrubs that may form very dense cover creating thicket, or the overstory may be open. Usually there is abundant water that retards peat decomposition. Willow is common dominant in Rocky Mountain carrs. Shrub Wedand Wetlands dominated with shrubs found on either organic or mineral substrate. When on organic substrate with an ombotrophic water source (water source from precipitation which is also the major source of nutrients), they are called a shrub bog. When on organic substrate with a minerotrophic water source, they are considered a carr. When on mineral substrate with a fresh water source, they are called a shrub wetland, with a saline water source, a saline shrub wetland. Levels below the subcategories are not formally defined, but are assumed to be similar to that of the USFWS (Cowardin et al. 1979) procedure. Use, Testing, Validation: This procedure was intended to present a broad description of the wetland systems in the Rocky Mountains along with an abundance of supportive information on geology, climate, hydrology, and management. The document provides information into wetland ecology that is considered necessary reading to anyone attempting to describe or manage wetlands. 27 Ease of Application: The classification system appears fairly easy to apply; however, the entire report format is quite lengthy. The document as a whole is a tremendous characteriza- tion effort and would serve as a model for other ecoregions. A docximent similar to this would provide very helpful assistance to a more detailed classificatioa Use in Defining System Response and Potential: The text of the document has a good discussion on system response at some levels but is inconsistent finom type to type. The information provided would be useful in defining system response. Use in Determining State of System: The chapter dealing with ecological process discusses theory and gives practical examples of system state change. The applications arc broad, however. Relation to Other Procedures: The document presents a table that cross-references other classification procedures. The procedure uses internationally recognized terms for wetland. As stated above, this document should be considered necessary reading to anyone attempting to describe or manage wetlands. Automated Data Processing: The procedure as presented is not well-suited for ADP other than in a knowledge-based system. Limitations and Assumptions: Qassification nomenclature on an international level could be easily incorporated into many other procedures. Many of the concepts are presented throughout the dociunent. The lack of an index makes rapid retrieval of such information difficult. The docimient does contain a great deal of information that should be reviewed by wetland classifiers and managers in understanding a broad overview of the landscape. 28 9. Name: Ecosystem aassification Handbook. Authors: Wendel J. Hann and Marie E. Jensen. Reference: Hann, W.J., and M.E. Jensen. 1987. Ecosystem classification handbook. Chapter 4 - Ecodata sampling methods. Region I, USDA, Forest Service. Missoula, Montana. Objectives: The classification handbook is a total effort to integrate data inventory and analysis of terrestrial and riparian habitats and to combine this information into classification. The procedure is a means for the collection, management, and interpretation of data. Just about any taxonomical classification would be served by the ECODATA system. Designed Users: Land managers and biologists. Area of Applicability: United States (although system could be used anywhere). Classification Units, Description, and Data: The procedure reviewed did not include any typically hierarchical format, although the attributes collected during the inventory, the inventory design and mapping procedures, and the nomenclature all point to a very complete but flexible hierarchical structure. The units below are given in order of typically structured hierarchical procedures. Mapping terms are: Classification Units Polygon Stand Stratum Complex Inclusion Range Type Description A contiguous unit of land which is delineated on a map or aerial photo within a closed boundary. Can contain similar or dissimilar strata. A type of polygon which is designed to describe one domi- nant stratum type within a unifonn environmental setting. A vegetation classification category defined at any level of resolution dependent upon classification needs. A vegetation type stratum contains all the land within a defmed vegetation type. A community type stratum contains all the land within one particular serai or climax community type. Where two or more dissimilar vegetation stratum are in the same stand (polygon) and each makes up greater than 20 percent of the stand area. Where a dissimilar vegetation stratum comprises less than 10 percent of the stand or polygon area (vegetation). Delineation of major form type riparian and nonriparian (grassland, meadow, perennial forb, sagebrush, browse- mountain shrub, conifer, rock, broadleaf trees, badlands). 29 Ecosystem Habitat Type Vegetation Type Community Type Habitat Phase All the land that has potential to produce similar stnictural life forms and has similar broad environmental characteris- tics (nonvegetated, conifer, juniper, shrub dominated wet- land, grassland/grass-steppe/mountain grass). All the land capable of producing similar plant communities at climax. A habitat type name incorporates those plant species which best define the envirormient (typically two species). Habitat types sometimes are estimated since existing vegetation types may be serai because of distur- bance. All the plant communities that are similar with respect to both species type and abundance within all layers. Charac- terized by minimal variability in plant species composition. All the plant communities in which the dominant and/or indicator species of corresponding layers arc similar. A refinement of a habitat type in which additional indicator plant species are used to define a more narrow range of environmental conditions. Physical Terms Site Type Parent Material Hydrologic Unit Code AH sites possessing similar soil, parent material, slope position, shape, aspect, elevation, and climate. Specific rock type. USGS code for basin, sub-basin. Stream Order Standard Horton stream order. Valley Bottom Type Valley Bottom Subtype Stream Classification Valley gradient. Valley form and sideslope. Class as defined by Rosgen (1985) Al, B2, etc., including debris, stream size, flow regimen, deposiiional feature, meander pattern, sinuosity, form, bankfull gradient. 30 Other miscellaneous measurements include streambank canopy, overiiang, streambank cover, bank slope, and undercut Use, Testing, Validation: Riparian portion of method is in draft. Ease of Application: The system is easy to apply and particularly useM with aerial photo- gra{As. The system becomes more time consuming as additional field attributes are added. Its ease of application would be dependent on the approach used to interpret the data. Use in Defining System Response and Potential: The procedure as described does not address system response other than vegetation ecology, although there are many attributes, such as stream type, that could be used in the interpretation of system response. Site potential is inherent in the data storage and analysis system. The attributes collected will allow a more complete estimate of system response. Use in Determining State of System: The USPS procedure can be used to describe the state of a riparian system, but the inventory would have to be designed to deal with cause and effect relationships that would be useftil in determining potential state changes in a riparian system. Relation to Other Procedures: The USPS procedure does a good job of keeping open to detailed attributes, such as soils information, landforms, and attributes. Standard soil taxo- nomic classification can be placed into the procedure at the modifier level. The procedure appears to fit into other vegetation classification schemes, such as those done on a regional or provincial level. The ECODATA system appears to be a good data manager that would benefit the analysis of any type of wetland/riparian classification effort. Automated Data Processing: ADP is inherent in the procedure and includes automated analysis for determining a number of characteristics including community type. Limitations and Assumptions: The full application of all data attributes in the procedure recognizes nearly all important vegetation, hydrologic, and geomorphic characteristics. Thus it requires a diversified and experienced team to conduct the full application of the data collection described in the document. The procedure appears flexible as it does not tie the user down to any particular taxonomic system, but retains data integrity (with the exception of stream morphology). This allows the user to move into many types of classification systems easily and to provide important additional descriptions. 31 10. Name: Qassification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Authors: Lewis M. Cowardin, Virginia Carter, Francis Golet, and Edward LaRoe. Reference: Cowardin L.M., V. Carter, F. Golet, and E. LaRoe. 1979. Qassification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States, 1979. U.S. Department of the hiterior. Fish and WUdlife Service. FWS/OBS-79/31. Washington, DC. 103 pp. Objectives: The classification is designed for use in a new inventory of wetlands and deepwater habitats and is intended to describe ecological taxa, arrange them in a system useful to resource managers, furnish units for mapping, and provide uniformity of concepts and terms. The system provides hierarchical levels from the broadest (marine, estuarine, riverine, lacustrine, palustrine) to the lowest level, dominance type, which is named for the dominant plant or animal form of the area. Designed Users: Land managers and biologists. Area of Applicability: United States (although system could be used anywhere). Classification Units, Description, and Data: Classification Units Description System Basic water source/feature (marine, estuarine, riverine, etc.). Subsystem Basic water persistence attributes (subtidal, intertidal, lower perennial, upper perermial, etc.). Class Gross substrateA^egetation form (rock bottom, aquatic bed, emergent wetland, rocky shore, forested, etc.). Subclass Specific substrateA'egetation type (bedrock, sand, mud, needle-leaved evergreen, broad-leaved deciduous, etc.). Dominance Dominant plant/animal species (horsetail, black cottonwood, willow, caddisfly, crayfish). Modifiers Site specific attributes of soil, regime, water chemistry, and land alteration (salinity, pH, flooding condition, mineral or organic, farmed, diked, etc.). Use, Testing, Validation: This system is currently in use by many agencies for the general inventory and classification of habitats. It has been used in small and large applications. Products from the classification can give the manager a good overview of the resource. Ease of Application: The system is easy to apply and particularly useful with aerial photo- graphs. The system becomes more complex as modifiers are added to the description, as with specific hydrology and water chemistry. 32 » Use in Defining System Response and Potential: The USFWS procedure does not consider responsiveness or functional processes. Use in Determining State of System: The USFWS procedure can be used to describe the state of a riparian system, but is not designed to deal with cause and effect relationships that would be useful in determining potential state changes in a riparian system. Relation to Other Procedures: The USFWS procedure does a good job of keeping open to more detailed modifiers, such as soils information. Standard soil taxonomic classification can be placed into the procedure at the modifier level. The dominance level is fairly standard as vegetation description goes. Some differences between other procedures can be expected in the delineation between overstory, dominance density, etc. The procedure appears to fit into other vegetation classification schemes, such as those done on a regional or provincial level. Overall, the procedure recognizes the difference between fluvial surfaces and major vegetation forms at a level that makes it reasonably easy to merge with classification proce- dures for other considerations, such as geology, climate, landforms, etc. Automated Data Processing: ADP was not discussed in the procedure. Since all but the lower hierarchy are defined (5 system names, 8 subsystem names, 1 1 class names, and 28 subclass names), most of a classification could be standardized and used in ADP very easily. When more detail is demanded from the dominance and modifier description, ADP applica- tions will be more complex. Limitations and Assumptions: The procedure is not designed to reflect potential natural communities or community ecology. However, a detailed classification using some of the other procedures discussed above could provide information fitting the protocol of this procedure. 33 11. Name: Riparian Community Type Classification of Eastern Idaho- Western Wyoming. Authors: Andrew P. Youngblood, Wayne G. Padgett, and Alma H. Winward. ^ Reference: Yoimgblood, A.P., W.G. Padgett, and A.H. Winward. 1985. Riparian commu- nity type classification of eastern Idaho-western Wyoming. USDA Forest Service, Intennoimtain Region, R4-Ecol-85-01. 78 pp. Objectives: To contribute to the broad regional classification program of the USDA Forest Service by developing a riparian commtmity type classification for eastern Idaho and western Wyoming. To describe the general geographic, topographic, edaphic, and floristic features of each conmiunity type. To describe the successional trends for each community type, where possible. To present information on resource values and management opportunities for each commimity type. Designed Users: Land managers and biologists. Area of Applicability: Eastern Idaho, western Wyoming (although system could be used anywhere). Classification Units, Description, and Data: Classification Units Description Canopy Cover The area covered by the generahzed outiine of an individual plant's foliage, or collectively covered by all individuals of a species within a stand or sample area. Canopy cover per- /" centages are a determining factor in distinguishing commu- nity types, the basic unit of this taxonomical system as described in Daubenmire (1968). Soils Soils were classified to the family level using standard pedon description metiiods (USDA-SCS 1975). Available water capacity (inches of waterfmches of soil) was estimated for the top 50 cm (20 inches) using guidelines developed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (1983). A general characterization of geologic materials was determined from geologic maps. Community Type An aggregation of all plant communities distinguished by floristic and structural similarities in both overstory and undergrowth layers. Use, Testing, Validation: Document serves as a test and validation. The procedure, or a similar representation, is used by a number of U.S. Forest Service offices. Ease of Application: The field data requires a number of statistical procedures to analyze canopy data. However, tiie application is straightforward and should not be difficult for experienced biologists. Developing relationships among adjacent riparian community types and upland vegetation requires experience. / 34 Use in Defining System Response and Potential: The document recognizes the utility of classification to wildlife, livestoclc, and fire effects and the aid such a classification provides to many areas of management The procedure or document does not identify potential natural communities; however, reference is made to a stable conmiunity. Stable refers to the condi- tion of little or rx) perceived change in plant communities that are in relative equilibrium with existing environmental conditions. Stability describes persistent, but not necessarily culmi- nating, stages (climax) of plant conmiunity succession. Use in Determining State of System: The description provided by the procedure included a discussion of succession and management A general discussion of possible successional pathways are givea The physical information on soils and geology would be helpful in determining the state of the system, but more information on geomorphology would be needed for a complete discussioa Relation to Other Procedures: This procedure relates well to other taxonomical procedures reviewed and uses standard soil taxonomy and Daubenmirc conununity ecological principles. This document provides one of the first efforts in describing riparian community ecology and the interrelationship with soil and water. Many of the community types described in this document have been recognized elsewhere. This document should be reviewed by anyone new to riparian classification. Automated Data Processing: ADP is inherent in carrying out the procedure. Limitations and Assumptions: The procedure recognizes that there are stable communities and provides estimates of successional patiiways. This approach would need to be continued to derive the largest benefit to management 35 Literature Cited Baad, M.F. 1988. Soil-vegetation correlations within the riparian zone of Butte Sink in the r Sacramento Valley of northern California. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 88(25), National Ecology Research Center, Ft. Collins, CO. 48 pp. Bailey, R.G. 1976. Ecoregions of the United States. U.S. Forest Service, Ogden, UT. (Map only: scale 1:7,500.000). Baldwin, E.M. 1964. Geology of Oregon. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company. 170 pp. Batchelor, R., M. Erwin, R. Martinka, D. Mcintosh, R. Pfister, E. Schneegas, J. Tayor, and K. Walther. 1982. A taxonomic classification system for Montana riparian vegetation types. Montana rural Area Development Committee, Bozeman, Montana. 13 pp. Boggs, K., P. Hansen, R. Pfister, and J. Joy. 1990. Qassification and management of riparian and wetland sites in northwestern Montana, draft version 1 , Montana Riparian Association, School of Forestry, University of Montana. 217 pp. Brown, D.E. 1978. Southwestern wetlands — their classification and characterization in: Proceedings of the National Riparian Ecosystems Symposiimi, Callaway Gardens, Georgia. Dec. 11-13. 1978. pp. 269-282. . 1973. The natural vegetative communities of Arizona (map. scale 1:500.000). State of Ariz., Arizona Resoiu-ces Information System (ARIS). Phoenix. . and C.H. Lowe. 1973. A proposed classification for natural and potential vegetation in y the Southwest with particular reference to Arizona. Ariz. Game and Fish Dep., Fed. Aid Proj. Rpt. W-53-R-22 WP-4JI:l-26. . 1974a. A digitized computer compatible classification for natural and potential vegetation in the Southwest with particular reference to Arizona. J. Ariz. Acad. Sci. (9) Supp. 2:1-11. . 1974b. The Arizona system for natural and potential vegetation — illustrated summary through the fifth digit for the North American Southwest J. Ariz. Acad. Sci.. (9). Suppl. 3:31-56. , C.H. Lowe, and C.P. Pase. 1977. A digitized systematic classification for the naUiral vegetation of North America with a hierarchical summary of world ecosystems. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in: Symposium on Qassification. Inventory and Analysis of Fish and Wildlife Habitat. Jan. 24-27. 1977. Phoenix, Arizona. Brown. K.F. and R.M. Kerr. 1979. Physiographic regions map. Am. Geographic Soc. New Yoric. NY. Cowardin L.M.. V. Carter, F. Golet, and E. LaRoe. 1979. Qassification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States, 1979. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-79/31. Washington. DC. 103 pp. 36 Daubenmirc, R.D. 1959. A canopy-coverage method of vegetation analysis. Northwest Science 33:43-66. . 1968. Plant Communities. Harper and Row, Publishers, New York, NY. 300 pp. . 1970. Steppe vegetation of Washington. Technical Bulletin 62. Washington Agricul- tural Experiment Station, Washington State University, Pullman, WA. 131 pp. , 1978. Plant geography with special reference to North America. Academic Press, New York, NY. 338 pp. and J.B. Daubenmier. 1968. Forest vegetation of eastern Washington and northern Idaho. Technical Bulletin 60. Washington Agricultural Experiment Station, Washing- ton State University, Pullman, WA. 104 pp. Dick-Peddie, W.A. and J.P. Hubbard. 1977. Qassification of riparian vegetation, in: Sympo- sium on the Importance, Preservation and Management of the Riparian Habitat, July 9, 1977, Tucson, Arizona. Fenneman, N.M. 1931. Physiography of Western United States. McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc. New York and London. 534 pp. Franklin, J.F. and C.T. Dymess. 1973. Natural vegetation of Oregon and Washington. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-8. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station; 1973. 417 pp. I ) Gebhardt, K., W.S. Platts, M. Hill. 1990. Instream fiow considerations for maintenance of wetland/riparian systems. Unpublished presentation at the Society of Wetland Scientists spring meeting, Breckenridge, Colorado. Hann, W.J. and M.E. Jensen. 1987. Ecosystem classification handbook. Chapter 4 - Ecodata sampling methods. Region I, USDA, Forest Service. Missoula, Montana. Hansen, P. 1989. Inventory, classification, and management of riparian sites along the upper Missouri National Wild and Scenic River. Montana Riparian Association, School of Forestry, University of Montana, 213 pp. . Plant Ecologist. University of Montana, Missoula, Montana. Personal Communicatioa , S.W. Chadde, R. Pfister, 1988. Riparian dominance types of Montana. Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station, School of Forestry, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana, Misc. Publ. No. 49. 41 1 pp. , K. Boggs, R. Pfister, and J. Joy. 1990. Qassification and management of riparian and wetland sites in southwestern Montana, draft version 2a, Montana Riparian Associa- tion, School of Forestry, University of Montana. 292 pp. ») ) 37 , K. Boggs, R. Pfister, and J. Joy. 1990. Qassification and management of riparian and wetland sites in central and eastern Montana, draft version 2, Montana Riparian Association, School of Forestry, University of Montana. 279 pp. Johnson, R.R., S.W. Carothers, and JM. Simpsoa 1984. A riparian classification system. Iq: R.E. Warner and K.M. Hendrix [eds]. California Riparian Ecosystems — ^Ecology, Conservation, and Productive Management Univ. California, Berkeley, pp. 375-382. Kovalchik, B.L. 1987. Riparian zone associations: Deschutes, Ochoco, Fremont, and Winema National Forests. USDA Forest Service Region 6 Ecology Technical Paper 279-87 Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon. 171 pp. Kroetsch, D.J., C. Tamocai, and A. Eagle. 1988. The Canadian wetland registry users manual (draft manuscript). Land Resource Research Center, Ottawa, Ontario. 69 pp. Kuchler, A.W. 1964. Potential namral vegetation of the conterminous Untied States. Serial Publication No. 36. Am. Geographic Soc, New Yoric, NY. 55 pp. Layser. E.F. 1974. Vegetative classification: its application to forestry in the northern Rocky Mountains. J. For. 72:354-357. National Wetlands Working Group, Canada Committee on Ecological Land Qassification. 1986. Weflands of Canada. 466 pp. . 1987. The Canadian wetland classification system (provisional edition). Lands Conservation Branch, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, Ecological Land Qassification Series No. 21. 18 pp. Pfister, R.D., B.L. Kovalchik, S.F. Amo, and R.C. Presby. 1977. Forest habitat types of Montana. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT- 34. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT. 175 pp. Platts, W., S. Jensen, F. Smith, 1988. Preliminary classification and inventory of riverine riparian habitats livestock/fishery study areas, Nevada. Progress Report I. Nevada Department of Wildlife, Elko, Nevada. 127 pp. Rosgen, D.L. 1985. A stream classification system, in: Riparian Ecosystems and Their Management — An Interagency North American Riparian Conference. Gen. Tech. Rpt. ROM-120. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Exp. Sta., Forest Service, U.S. Dept. Agr., Fort Collins, CO. pp. 91-95. Rubec, C.D.A. Environment Canada. Hull, Canada. Personal Communication. Swanson S., R. Miles, S. Leonard, and K. Genz. 1988. Qassifying rangeland riparian areas: the Nevada task force approach. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 1988. 43:3. Szaro, R.C. 1989. Riparian forest and scrubland community types of Arizona and New Mexico. Desert Plant 9:3-4, pp. 70-138. Trewartha, G.T. and L.H. Horn. 1980. An Introduction to Qimate. McGraw-Hill Book Company. 415 pp. 38 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1975. Soil taxonomy — a basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. Ag. Handb. No. 436. Washington, DC. 754 pp. . 1976. National range handbook, as amended. Washington, DC. 143 r). . 1983. National soils handbook, as amended. Washington, DC. 619 pp. U.S. Department of Interior. 1990. National range handbook. BLM Manual Handbook H-4410-1. Bureau of Land Management, Washington, DC. Windell. J., B. Willard, D. Cooper. S. Foster, C. Knud-Hansen, L. Rink, and G. Kiladis. 1986. An ecological characterization of Rocky Mountain montane and subalpine wetlands. National Ecology Center, Division of Wildlife and Contaminant Research, USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Biological Report 86(11). 298 pp. Youngblood, A.P., W.G. Padgett, and A.H. Winward. 1985. Riparian community type classification of eastem Idaho-western Wyoming. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Region, R4-Ecol-85-01. 78 pp. 39 Appendix A Riparian Classification Comparison Name of Classification or Description Physiographic Features Geoiogic Features Climatic Features 1 . Standard Ecological Site Description General orientation, geomorphic landform, sk}pe ranges, elevation ranges. Specific formattons, parent rock or material included. Range of average and seasonal distribution of precipitation and temperature for soil and ambient air. 2. Southwest Wetlands inherent to some degree in biogeo- graphic realm. Not provided. inherent in climate zone. 4. Riparian Zone Associations Provided in description. Provided in description. ProvkJed in description. 5. Riparian- Wetland Sites in Montana Geomorphic landform & orientation, elevation ranges, provided for in narrative. ProvWed. Provided. 6. Nevada Task Force Approach Provided at ecological site description level as in (1 ) above. 7. Riverine Riparian Habitats ProvkJed as geotogte distrtet, land type associatk>n, and land type. ProvkJed as geologic distrk^t, land type association. Provided as domain and division (Trewartha and Horn 1980). 9. Ecosystem Classification Handbook includes geomorphk: landform, valley bottom type and subtype, Horton stream order. Parent material description. Not provided. 10. Wetland and Deepwater Habitats General, from Bailey 1976. Not provided. General, from Bailey1976. 1 1 . Riparian Community Types ProvkJed. Provided. Provided. Classifications 3 and 8 are not included. 41 Riparian Classification Comparison (Continued) Name of Classification or Description Soils Features Water Features General Physical Features 1 . Standard Ecological Site Description Description of major properties, associatbn of soils, SCS conven- tions, and soil taxonomy standards. Stream type as defined by Rosgen. Flow regime, surface- ground-water features. Given in site description. Similar to a site type. 2. Southwest Wetlands Not provided. Not provided. Not provided. 4. Riparian Zone Associations Provided. Riverine systems are not specifically discussed, but water regime and fluvial process are generally covered. Basic unit is riparian landform. Includes soils, fluvial process and water regime. 5. Riparian - Wetland Sites in Montana Provide as standard SCS soil taxonomy. Flow regime and sub- surface features are generally covered. Given in site description. Includes soils, fluvial processes and water regimes. 6. Nevada Task Force Approach Provided in naming convention. — Also provided at the eco Stream type as defined by Rosgen. Moisture condition as defined by Johnson and Carothers, 1981. logical site level of classifica Provided in naming convention. tion — 7. Riverine Riparian Habitats Provided in land type, valley bottom units. Described in riverine - riparian complexes and in riverine types. Described at the riverine site level. 9. Ecosystem Classification Handkxjok Uses SCS conventions. Stream type as defined by Rosgen. Basic physical description is called site type. 10. Wetlands and Deep- water Habitats Provided as modifiers. Uses SCS hydric soils descriptions. Identified at the sub- system level, substrate at the class and sub- class level, water persistence at the subsystem level. Provided as modifiers. 1 1 . Riparian Community Types Provided, SCS standard. Not provided. Provided. ^ 42 Riparian Classification Comparison (Continued) Name of Classification or Description Ecosystem Description Existing Vegetation Ciass Subclass Domlnancs Composition 1 . Standard Ecological Site Description Major land resource area (MLRA) given. Can be derived from domin- ance and composrtion. Provkied. Provkied. 2. Southwest Wetlands inherent in bogeographic realm, formation type, vegetation, regional formation (biome). Obtained from formation type and regkjnal formatran. Series and association Provided. 4. Riparian Zone Associations ProvWed. Can be obtained from domin- ance informatkjn. Provided. Provided. 5. Riparian- Wetland Sites in Montana ProvWed. Can be used with USFWS{10). Provided. (called formation claj subclass). Provided, isand Provided. Provided 6. Nevada Tasl< Force Approach Generally provided by land classes. — Also provided at th< Provkied. > ecologkral site level c Provided. )f ciassif k:a1 Provided, ion- Can be provided. 7. Riverine Riparian Habitats Provkied. 1 Can be obtained from domin- ance information. Provided. Provided. 9. Ecosystem Classification Handbook Provkied. Provided in range, e< and vegetation type. 1 :x)system, Provided. Provided. 10. Wetland and Deep- water Habitat Generally provkied at system level as marine, estuarine, riverine, etc. Provkied. Provided. Provkied. Not required. 11. Riparian Community Types Provided. Provided. Provided. 43 Riparian Classification Comparison (Continued) Name of Functional Classification Ecological Ecological Units Community or Description Description PNC Ecological Site Type 1. Standard ProvkJed in site ProvWed. Provkied. Provkied Ecological narrative. in site Site interpretatfon Description narrative. 2. Southwest Inherent to some 1 Not specif k»lly provided. Associatbn. Wetlands degree at all levels. 4. Riparian ProvkJed. ProvWed. Riparian Provkied. Zone associatbn. Associations 5. Riparian - Provkied in site 1 ProvkJed; called habitat type, or riparian Provkied in Wetland Sites interpretatbn. assidatkjn in describing what coukl occur site i n Montana on a riparian site type. 1 description. 6. Nevada We assume a site ProvWed. Provkied. Provkied, Task Force description would called Approach accompany the site name. npanan community. 7. Riverine Provkied. Provkied. Provided. Provkied. Riparian - Also includes riverir ie-riparian complexes whch appear very useful in relating Habitats riparian and riverine 1 sites - 9. Ecosystem ProvWed. 1 Provkied; called habitat type, and a more Provkied; Classification detailed habitat type phase. includes Handbook broader unit, called vege- tatk>n type, whteh groups similar community types. 10. Wetland Not included. and Deepwater Could be placed as modifier s. Habitats 1 1 1 . Riparian Provided. Not given. Not provided. Provkied. Community Stable Types community given. 44 Riparian Classification Comparison (Continued) Name of Classification or Description Description of Procedures Reievance to Site Management 1. Standard Ecological Site Description Provided in site interpretation narrative. Relates various serai stages or community types with management actions such as grazing, wild fire, recreation. Also provides water-soil interaction description and related limiting factors. 2. Southwest Wetlands Not provided, but could be easily accommodated in a site description, provided cause and effect and site correlation information is collected. 4. Riparian Zone Associations Provided in site interpretation narrative. Relates various plant zone associations and community types with management actions such as grazing, wildfire, and recreation. Also provides water-soil interaction, Kovalchik description, and related limiting factors. 5. Riparian- Wetland Sites in Montana Provided in site interpretation narrative. Relates various community types with management actions such as livestock, timber, wildlife, in fisheries, fire, soil management and rehabilitation opportunities, and recreational uses and considerations. 6. Nevada Task Force Approach The reference provides an example of how site management relates to the classification system. It is assumed that site management features would be included in a classification conducted by the proce- dure. 7. Riverine Riparian Habitats Provided in site interpretation narrative. Relates various community types with management actions such as grazing, wildfire, recreation, etc. Also provides water-soil interaction description and related limiting factors. 9. Ecosystem Classification Handbook The ECODATA procedure includes a number of analysis techniques specifically for management. It is assumed that site management features would be included in classification documentation produced as a part of the interpretation and analysis of the ECODATA data base. 10. Wetland and Deep- water Habitats Not provided. 11. Riparian Community Types Some information is given on application to site management. Management information is given under succession/management sections. 45 r 1 Appendix B Converting Between Classification Procedures (Vegetation) Users of riparian classification procedures may want to convert from one procedure to another or may want to structure their inventory data to fit more than one classification process. Generally, it is difficult, if not impossible, to take a classification of lesser detail and fit it into a classification of greater detail. For example, it would be impossible, without additional data, to take information fix)m National Wetlands Inventory, which utilizes the procedure of Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats, Cowardin et al.(1979), at a very general level, and place it into a process designed for community types and/or associa- tions (potential natural community). On the other hand, an inventory that utilizes a very detailed level of vegetation inventory (dominance of species), within Cowardin's (1979) procedure, could be used in most of the other classification processes with some adjustment. Where a procedure of classification has developed a key, such as in Montana, parts of Or- egon, and eastern Idaho, general information on the composition of vegetation sites from less detailed classifications may require only minor field checking to make use of the information. Users will have a much easier time classifying sites utilizing an existing classification in an area where it is applicable compared to developing new classifications in areas where none exist When transferring management recommendations from existing classifications to new areas, it is important that site information be collected to ensure that not only the vegetation is comparable, but that the site functions are comparable as well. The following information in Appendices C-E should help in understanding and applying classification systems to a particular area. 47 Appendix C Definition Crosswalk (Vegetation Classification Terms) Major terms arc given with the applicable reference shown in parentheses. Terms having similar definitions arc indented and given below with their applicable reference shown in parentheses. Association (4.5.6,9) In normal usage, this is a climax community type or potential natural community. In riparian systems, because of their dynamic nature, a true climax community may not have an opportunity to occur (Youngblood et al. 1985). An association for a riparian environment is therefore a plant community type representing the latest succes- sional stage attainable on a specific hydrologically influenced surface (Kovalchik 1987, Hansen 1989).Hansen (1989) uses the term "riparian association" while Youngblood et al. (1985) chose the term "potential stable community type" that approaches an association. Community Type (1,4,5,6,7,9) Association (2) J Dominant Species (1,2,3,4.5,6,7,9,10) All sites in which the dominant and/or indicator species are similar. The aggregation of all plant communities distinguished by floristic and structural similarities in both overstory and undergrowth layers. The method in which community types are determined varies be- tween procedure. Generally some type of statistical procedure is applied to composition or structural data that has been collected through a stratified mapping procedure. The discreetness of the mapping unit reflects the complexity of representative community type. In procedure (7), Platts et al. (1988) has a unit called a com- plex which may contain several community types that appear to be associated to similar riverine sequences. Community type names are generally determined from the name of the dominant or codomi- nant species. Also, Dick-Peddie and Hubbard (1977) stress the importance of using obligate riparian species when determining the dominant species. This convention, however, is not specifically stated in all of the riparian classification procedures. Those species in a stand that have the greatest foliar canopy volume per unit area (9). Those species with at least 25 percent [30 percent in (10)] canopy coverage in the tallest layer of a site (5). Therefore, the method by which dominant species is collected should be known. Also, Dick-Peddie and Hubbard (1977) stress the importance of using obligate riparian species when determining the dominant species. This convention, however, is not specifically stated in all of the riparian classification procedures. J 49 Ecological Site (1,6) Range Site (1) Site Type (9) Riparian Site Type (5) Riverine Site (7) Riparian Site (7) A distinctive type of land that differs from other kinds of land in its ability to produce a characteristic potential natural community. (This definition has been modified to not limit the natural commu- nity to just plants.) For example, as used in (7), a riverine site would be similar to the above but would produce a characteristic natural stream community. Potential Natural The biotic community that would become established if all succes- Community (1 ,9) sional sequences were completed without interferences by man Qimax Community(l) under the present environmental conditions. Often, the potential natural community of a site has to be estimated, since most managed sites support serai plant communities due to ongoing disturbance. Qimax plant community as defined in (9) is the culminating stage in plant succession for a given environment that develops and perpetuates itself in the absence of disturbance (see habitat type). HabitatType(4,5,9) All the land capable of producing similar communities at climax. A habitat type name incorporates those indicator plant species which best define the environment to be classified. A habitat type may or may not be synonymous with a range site/ecological site; most often it is a somewhat broader classification than the range site. 50 Appendix D Stream Classification - Wetland and Deepwater Habitats (10) Compared to Rosgen, 1985 Riverine (10, 7, 6, 5) Tidal (10) Lower Perennial (10) Upper Perennial (10) Intermittent (10) Habitats contained within a channel and/or wetland (assuming also riparian) habitats dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent mosses, or lichens and habitats with water containing ocean-derived salts in excess of 0.5 parts per thousand (10). [This definition generally fits well with (7).] Low gradient with water velocity imder tidal influence. Streambed is mainly mud with occasional patches of sand (10). Would be similar to a Rosgen C4, C5, C6, F4, F5. Low gradient, low velocity water, no tidal influence with water flowing throughout the year. Substrates consists mainly of sand and mud (10). Would be similar to Rosgen C4, C5, C6, F4, F5. High gradient, high velocity. The substrate consists of rock, cobbles, or gravel with occasional patches of sand (10). Similar to Rosgen A and B stream types. The chaimel contains nontidal flowing water for only part of the year. When the water is not flowing, it may remain in pools or surface water may be absent (10). (This definition would also include ephemeral streams, those that only flow in response to precipitation.) J 51 Appendix £ Classification of Wetland and Deepwater Habitats(lO) Compared to Other Procedures (at the Class and Subclass Levels) Class, Subclass (10) The class is the general appearance of the habitat in terms of either the dominant life form of the vegetation or the physiography and composition of the substrate. Subclasses are used for finer differentiation. Emergent Characterized by erect, rooted, herbaceous hydrophytes, exclud- ing mosses and lichens (10). Named marshland in (2). Emergent/saturated/organic soil is equivalent to fen (3, 10). In (3), this includes: Atlantic ribbed fen, basin fen, channel fen, collapse scar fen, feather fen, floating fen, horizontal fen, ladder fen, lowland polygon fen, net fen, northern ribbed fen, palsa fen, shore fen, slope fen, snowpatch fen, spring fen, and stream fen. An emergent/saturated/Palustrine area in (10) would be called herbaceous in (8). Emergent/saturated, fresh water/mineral soil is equivalent to marsh, fresh water in (8), or in (3), a subclass could be tidal fresh water marsh, floodplain marsh, stream marsh, channel marsh, active delta marsh, inactive delta marsh, terminal basin marsh, shallow basin marsh, kettle marsh, seepage track marsh, and shore marsh. Moss-Lichen Aquatic Bed Emergent/saturatedAnixosaline/mineral soil is equivalent to marsh, saline water in (8) or estuarine high marsh, estuarine low marsh, coastal high marsh, and coastal low marsh in (3). A saturated regime where mosses or lichens cover substrate other than rock and where emergents, shrubs, or trees make up less than 30 percent oftheareal cover (10). Called a bog in (8). In (3) this includes: Atlantic plateau bog,basin bog, blanket bog, collapse scar bog, domed bog, flat bog, floating bog, lowland polygon bog, mound bog, northern plateau bog, palsa bog, peat mound bog, peat plateau bog, polygonal peat plateau bog, shore bog, slope bog, string bog, or veneer bog. Wetlands and deepwater habitats dominated by plants that grow principally on or below the surface of the water for most of the growing season (10). Called floating, rooted submerged, ix)oted floating, rooted emergent in (8). Called floating or submerged in (3). Called submergents in (2). 53 Scrab-shrub Forested Streambed Unconsolidated Shore Rock Bottom Areas dominated by woody vegetation less than 6 meters (20 feet) tall (10). Called a Swampscrub in Q); however, height is less than 12 m (35 feet). Called shrub type in (3). Scnib-shrub/saturated/organic soil is called a carr in (8). Scmb-shrab, saturated, fresh (acidic), organic soil in (10) called a shrub bog in (8). Scrub-shrub, seasonally flooded, fresh water, mineral soil in (10) called a shrub wetland, mineral soil, fresh water in (8). Scrub-shrub, seasonally flooded, hypersaline water, mineral soil in (10), called shrub wetland mineral soil, saline water in (8). Characterized by woody vegetation that is 6 m tall or taller (20 feet) in (10). Called swampforest or riparian forest if taller than 35 feet, (12 m) in (2), treed in (3), coniferous or deciduous angio- sperm forest in (8) [which relates to the subclasses of deciduous or evergreen in (10)]. Wetlands contained between chaimels and that are not considered permanendy exposed to water (10). Subclasses included bedrock, rubble, cobble-gravel, sand, mud, organic, and vegetated stream- beds. Called a strand in (2). All wetlands having unconsolidated substrates with less than 75 percent areal cover of stones, boulders, or bedrock; less than 30 percent areal cover of vegetation other than pioneering plants; and not considered permanently covered by water throughout the growing season [see (10) for exact water regime definitions]. Subclasses include cobble-gravel, sand, mud, organic, and vegetated. Called a strand in (2). All wetlands having an areal cover of stones, boulders, or bedrock 75 percent or greater (25 percent or greater for unconsolidated bottom), vegetative cover less than 30 percent, and are generally covered throughout the growing season with water. f' 54 Appendix F Processes and Associated Factors Controlling Riparian Function Moisture/Inundation Discharge Stage/Inundation/ Velocity Flood Plain Recharge Flood Plain Storage and Release Saturated Surface Capillarity Evapotranspiration Vegetation Climate/weadier, watershed roughness/detention, slope. Discharge, channel geometry, energy dissipation (hydraulic controls, channel/flood plain roughness), hydraulic gradient. Substrate texture and configuration, stage^nundation (depth, ex- tent, duration), vegetation. Substrate texture and configiiration, flood plain recharge. Recharge, substrate texture and configuration, hydraulic gradient. Substrate texture and configuration, saturated surface. Shading and wind, capillarity. Physical and Chemical Water Quality Aerobic State Salt Flux (flood plain) Nutrient Flux Material Flux Cation Exchange Shading, Wind Biologic Input^elease Substrate texture and configuration, hydraulic gradient, vegetation density. Dissolved solids in saturated surface, capillarity, evapotranspira- tion, flood plain recharge. Transport/deposition, capillarity, recharge, evapotranspiration, biological processes. Transport/deposition, vegetation, substrate texture, discharge. Substrate texture and composition, vegetation. Vegetation, geomorphology, topography. Temperature, organisms, water chemistry. 55 Transport/Deposition . ,j Degradation/Aggradation Substrate, slope, stage, vegetation. General Material Availability of material, protection removal/transport (armoring), filtration, adsorption, stage (velocity). Ice Temperature, geomoiphology, stage, velocity. Geomorphology/Channel Geometry Channel Cross-Section Substrate texture and configuration, discharge, transport/ deposition. Sinuosity Substrate texture and configuration, discharge, transport/ deposition, hydraulic gradient. Ice Weather, stageAinundation/velocity, substrate. Recruitment/Reproduction Seed, Sprout Transport/deposition, substrate texture, moisture/inundation. Survival Moisture MoistureAnundation. Nutrients, Physical/chemical water quality, transport/deposition. Water Quality Solar Shading. Disturbance Factors Stage/inimdation/velocity, moisture factors, aerobic state, salt flux, shading, aggradation/degradation, material transport,ice, community dynamics (competition). Community Dynamics Community dynamics incorporates all of the reproduction/recruitment and survival factors. •U.S. Govef nment Printing Otiice: 1991 — 573-0(»22005 56 ^ Transport/Deposition Degradation/Aggradation Su' General Material Ice Geomorphology/Ch Channel Cross-Se Sinuosity Ice Recrr Sef Attachment K WETLANDS AMD 401 CERTIFICATION OPPORTUNITIES AND GUIDELINES FOR STATE AND ELIGIBLE INDIAN TRIBES > \ • EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water (A-104F) April 1989 Wetlands And 401 Certification Opportunities And Guidelines For States And Eligible Indian Tribes • ^■^n^^ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY I ^22^ ^ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 % 3^ JUN28 1989 OFFICE OF WATER NOTE TO THF RBADFl^ I am pleased to introduce this handbook, "Wetlands and 401 Certification," developed by EPA's Office of Wetlands Protection. This document examines the Section 401 State water quality certification process and how it applies to wetlands. We strongfy encourage States to use this handbook as one reference when establishing a wetlands protection program or improving wetlands protection tools. Protection of wetland resources has become an important national priority as evidenced by President Bush's 1990 Budget statement calling for "no net loss" of wetiands. In addition, the National Wetlands Policy Forum included a recommendation in their 1988 report which says that States should "make more aggressive use of their certification authorities under Section 401 of the Qean Water Act, to protect wetlands from chemical and other types of alterations". This handbook is intended to help States do just that EPA would like to work with States who wish to delve into 401 certification for ^ wetlands. You will find EPA Regional contacts listed in ^pendix A of the document The Office of Wetlands Protection plans to provide additional technical support including guidance focused on wetland-specific water quality standards. It is very important to begin now to address the loss and degradation of this nation's wetlands. That is why 401 certification is a perfect tool, aheady in place, for States just getting started. It can also help States fiU some gaps in their own statutory authorities protecting wetlands. States can make great strides using their existing 401 certification authorities, while developing the capability and the complementary programs to provide more comprehensive protection for wetiands in the future. avis Director Office of Wetlands Protection ENDNOTES 1. The state water quality certification process is authorized by Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §1341. 2. A Tribe is eligible for treatment as a State if it meets the following criteria: 1) it is federally recognized; 2) it carries out substantial government duties and powers over a Federal Indiem Reservation; 3) it has appropriate regulatory authority over surface waters of the reservation; emd 4) it is reasoneOaly expected to be capeUsle of administering the relevauit Cleem Water Act progreun. EPA is. currently developing regxilations to implement Section 518(e) for programs including Section 401 certification which will provide further expleuiation of the process tribes must go through to achieve state status. In addition, the term "state" also includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, Americaui Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Meuriama Islzmds, emd the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. 3. The National Wetlands Policy Forum, chaired by Governor Kean of New Jersey, represents a very diverse group of perspectives concerned with policy issues to protect emd manage the nation's wetlemd resources. The goal of the Forixm was to develop sound, broadly supported recommendations to improve federal, state, emd local wetlemds policy. The Forum released its recommendations in a report, "Protecting America's Wetlemds: An Action Agenda" which cem be obtained from The Conservation Foundation, 1250 24th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20037. 4. 33 U.S.C. §4.1313 (c)(2)(A). 5. Section 301(b)(1)(c) of the Clean Water Act. 6. If the applicemt is a federal agency, however, at least one federal court has ruled that the state's certification decision may be reviewed by the federal courts. 7. 33 C.F.R. §328.3 (Corps regulations); 40 C.F.R. §232. 2(q) (EPA regulations) . 8. For instance, except for wetlands designated as having unusual local importance. New York's freshwater wetlemds law regulates only thossr wetlands over 12.4 acres in size. 9. Alaska Administrative Code, Title 6, Chapter 50. 10. Kentucky Environmental Protection Act, KRS 224.005(28). 11. Tennessee Water Quality Control Act, §69-3-103(29). 12. Massachusetts Clean Waters Act, Chapter 21, §26. 13. K.R.S. 224.005(28) (Kentuclcy enabling legislation defining waters of the state); 401 K.A.R. 5:029(1) (bb) (Kentucky water quality standards defining surface waters) ; Ohio Water Pollution Control Act, §6111. 01(H) (enabling legislation defining waters of the state); Ohio Adaiinistrative Code, §3745-1-02 (DDD) (water quality stemdards defining surface waters of the state) . 14. Massachusetts Clean Waters Act, Chapter 21, §26 (enabling legislation defining waters of the state) ; 314 Code of Mass. Regs. 4.01(5) (water quality standards defining surface waters). 15. Ohio Administrative Code, 3745-32-01 (N) . 16. 40 C.F.R. §131. 17. A xise attainability analysis (40 C.F.R. §131. 10(g)) must show at least one of six factors in order to justify not meeting the minimtim '*fish2d}le/swimm2U3le'' designated uses or to remove such a designated use. The analysis must show that attaining a use is not feasible becatise of: naturally occurring pollutant concentrations; natural flow conditions or water levels that cannot be made up by effluent discharges without violating state %raiter conservation requirements; htman caiised pollution that cannot be remedied or that would cause more environmental deunage if corrected; hydrologic modifications, if it is not feasible to restore the «rater to its original conditions or operate the modification to attain the tise; natural non-water quality physical conditions precluding attainment of aquatic life protection uses; or controls more stringent thsm those required by §301 (b) and §306 would result in substantial and widespread economic and social impact. 18. Questions and Answers on Antidegradation (EPA, 1985). this document is designated as Appendix A of Chapter 2 of EPA's Water Quality Standards Handbook. 19. The regulations implementing Section 404(b)(1) of the Cleem Water Act are known as the "(b) (1) Guidelines'* emd are located at 40 C.F.R. §230. 20. 40 C.F.R. §230. 1(d) 21. 40 C.F.R. §230. 10(C). 22. Code of Maryland Regulations Title 10, §10.50.01.02(8) (2) (a) . ii 23. Minnesota Rules, §7050.0170. The rule states In full: The waters of the state may, in a state of nature, have some characteristics or properties approaching or exceeding the limits specified in the water quality stemdards. The standards shall be construed as limiting the addition of pollutants of human activity to those of natural origin, where such be present, so that in total the specified limiting concentrations will not be exceeded in the waters by reason of such controllaQjle additions. Where the background level of the natxiral origin is reasoneO^ly defincible and normality is higher than the specified stsmdards the natural level may be used as the stzmdard for controlling the addition of pollutants of human activity which are comparable in nature and significance with those of natural origin. The natural background level may be used instead of the specified water quality stemdard as a maximum limit of the addition of pollutants, in those instances where the natural level is lower them the specified standard and reasoneOsle justification exists for preserving the quality to that found in a state of nature. 24. No. 83-1352-1 (Chancery Coiirt, 7th Division, Davidson Coxinty, 1984) (unpublished opinion) . 25. These criteria are at 401 K.A.R. 5:031, §2(4) and §4(1) (c), respectively. 26. Ohio ildmin. Code, §3745-32-05. 27. Ohio Admin. Code, §3745-1-05 (C) . 28. Copies of Ohio's review guidelines are availedale from Ohio EPA, 401 Coordinator, Division of Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment, P.O. Box 1049, Columbus, Ohio 43266-0149. 29. 40 CFR §131.12. 30. 48 Fed. Reg. 51,400, 51,403 (1983) (preamble) . 31. Kentucky Water Quality Standards, Title 401 K.A.R. 5:031, §7. 32. Minnesota Rules, §7050.0180, Subpart 7. 33. 314 Code of Massachusetts Regulation, §4.04(4). 34. Minnesota Rules, §7050.0180, Subpart 9. 35. H.R. Rep. No. 91-127, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. 6 (1969). iii 36. 115 Cong. Rec. H9030 (April 15, 1969) (House debate); 115 Cong. Rec. S28958-59 (Oct. 1, 1969) (Senate debate). 37. C.F.R. §323. 2(d). However, in Reid v. Marsh, a case predating these regulations, the U.S. District Court for the Northern Corps District of Ohio ruled that "even minimal discharges of dredged material are not exempt from Section 404 review". In this district, the Corps treats all dredging projects under Section 404. . 38. West Virginia Code, §47-5A~l (emphasis added). 39. Clean Hater Act, §401 (a) (2). 40. 40 C.F.R. §230. 10(a). > 41. 40 C.F.R. §230. 10(d). 42. Arnold Irrigation District v. Department of Environmental Qualitv. 717 Pac.Rptr.2d 1274 (Or.App. 1986) . 43. Marmac Corporation v. Department of Natural Resources of the State of West Virginia. C.A. No. CA-81-1792 (Cir. Ct. , Kanawha Coiinty 1982) . 44. 33 U.S. C. §1313 (C) (2) (A). 45. West Va. Admin. Code, §47-5A-9.3 (a). 46. Unpublished paper by Dr. Paul Hill of West Virginia's Department of Natiiral Resources. Prepared for EPA-sponsored December 1987 wor)cshop on "The Role of Section 401 Certification in Wetlands Protection". 47. 33 C.F.R. §325.2(b) (ii). 48. 18 C.F.R. §4. 38(e) (2). 49. 40 C.F.R. §124. 53(C) (3). 50. Wisconsin Administrative Code, NR 299.04. 51. West Va. Admin. Code, §47-5A-4.3. 52. Id. 53. 40 C.F.R. §121.2. EPA's regulations implementing Section 401 were issued under the 1970 Water Pollution Control Act, (not the later Clean Water Act) and thus, may have some anomalies as a result. IV 54. This is a reference to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. 55. Ohio Admin. Code, §3745-32-05. 56. See, e.g. . P. Adamus, Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET), Volume II: Methodology Y-87(U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, 1987) ; L. Cowardin, Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater HeUsitats of the United States (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1979). See also Lonard and Clairain, Identification of Wetland Functions and Values, in Proceedings: National Wetlands Assessment Symposium (Chester, VT: Association of State Wetland Mamagers, 1986) (list of twenty five methodologies) . 57. See, e.g.. R. Tiner, Wetlands of the United States: Current Status and Recent Trends (U.S. Govt. Printing Office 1984) (National Wetlands Inventory) . The National Wetlemds Inventory has mapped approximately 45 percent of the lower forty eight states and 12 percent of Alaska. A number of regional and state reports may be obtained from the National Wetlands Inventory of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Newton Comer, MA. Region 5 maps can also be ordered from the U.S. Geological Survey's National Cartographic Information Center in Reston, VA. 58. The new joint Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands . cem be obtained from the U.S. Government Printing Office 1989) . 59. See, e.g. . Chesapeake Bay Critical Areas Commission, Guidance Paper No. 3, Guidelines for Protecting Non-Tidal Wetlands in the Critical Area (Maryland Department of Natural Resources, April 1987). 60. For information on the Wetlemds Values Data Base contact: Data Base Administrator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Energy Center, 2627 Redwing Road, Creekside One, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80526. Phone: (303) 226-9411. 61. For example, Florida's Section 380 process designates "Areas of Critical State Conceim" which often include wetlands. Florida Statutes §380.05. 62. 40 C.F.R. §230.80 (1987). 63. 16 U.S.C. §1452(3) (1980). See also. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 10 (1986) . 64. See D. Burke, Technical and Progreunmatic Support: for 401 ' Certification in Maryland, (Marylemd Department of Natural Resoiirces, Water Resources Administration, Dec«>ber 1987) (unpublished) ; A. Lam, Geographic Information Systems for River Corridor and Wetland Management in River Corridor Handbook (N.Y. Department of Environmental Conservation) (J. Kusler and E. Meyers eds., 1988). The system described by Burke is called MIPS (Map and Image Processing System) and is capable of translating a myriad of information to the scale specified by the user. 65. See, e.g.. [multiple authors], "Ecological Considerations in Wetlands Treatment of Municipal Wastewaters," (V2ui Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, 1985); E. Stockdale, "The Use of Wetlands for Stormwater Management and Nonpoint Pollution Control: A Review of the Literature," (Dept. of Ecology, State of Washington 1986) ; "Viability of Freshwater Wetlands for Urban Surface Water Management and Nonpoint Pollution: An Annotated Bibliography," prepared by The Resource Planning Section of King County, Washington Department of Plzuming and Community Deivelcq;nient (July, 1986). 66. The Warren S. Henderson Wetlands Protection Act of 1984, Fla. Stat. §403.91 - 403.938, required the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation to establish specific criteria for wetlands that receive and treat domestic wastewater treated to secondary standards. The rule is at Fla. Admin. Code, §17-6. 67. Maiximization of sheet flow. 68. Hydrologic loading and retention rates. 69. Id-; See also L. Schwartz, Criteria for Wastewater Dischetrge to Florida Wetlands, (Florida Depzurtment of EnviromientsU. Regulation) (Dec. 1987) (unpublished report) . 70. Copies of the draft, "Use. of Advance Identification Authorities under Section 404 of -Uie Clean Water Act: Guidamce for Regional Offices", can be obtained from the Regulatory. Actitivities Division of the Office of Wetlands Protection (A- 104F), EPA, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20460. VI Acknowledgements: ^ " , This document was prepared by Katherine Ransel of the Environmental Law 0 Institute, and Dianne Fish of EPA's OfBce of Wetlands Protection, Wetlands Strategies and State Programs Division. Many thanks to the reviewers of the draft handbook, and to those States who gave us infonnatioii on their programs. For additional copies contact: Wetlands Strategies and State Programs Division Office of Wetlands Protection A.104F Environmental Protection Ageni^ 401 M Street, SW Washington, D.C 20460 Phone: (202) 382-5043 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page L INTRODUCTION ^ 5 H. WHAT IS WATER QUALITY CERTMCATION & HOW DOES rr work? . s m. 401 CERTinCATION CAN BE A POWERFUL TOOL TO PROTECT WETLANDS 9 IV. THE ROLE OF WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE CERTIHCATION PROCESS A. Wetlands Should be Specifically Designated as Surface Waters of the States , lO B. General Requirements of EPA's Water Quality Standards Regulations 12 C Applying Water Quality Standards to Wetlands - What States are Doing Now 14 1. Using Narrative Criteria 15 2. Highest Her of Protection • Wetlands as Outstanding Resource Waters ,„. ,,, , „ 18 V. USING 401 CERTMCATION A. The Permits/Licenses Covered & the Scope of Review .^^ ...20 1. Federal Permits/Licenses Subject to Certification 20 2. Scope of Review Under Section 401 22 B. G)nditioning 401 Certifications for Wetland Protection .^.......~^........^.. L What are Appropriate Conditions? 2. The Role of Mitigation in Conditioning Certification 3. The Role of Other State Laws C Special Considerations for Review of Section 404 Permits: • Nationwide and After-the-Fact Permits Nationwide Permits After-the-Fact Permits .23 ..23 »25 .25 .27 .27 .29 VL DEVELOPING 401 CERTIFICATION IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS: ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS _ A. Review Tuneftame and "Complete" Applications B. Requirements for the Applicant C Permit Fees D. Basis for Certification Decisions -^ .30 ..31 .32 .33 ,33 Vn. EXISTING AND EMERGING SOURCES OF DATA TO AID 401 CERTmCATION AND STANDARDS DECISION MAKERS .35 Vm. SUMMARY OF ACTIONS NEEDED A. Steps States Can Take Right Away ^ ...37 .38 B. Laying the Groundwork for Future Decisions ..39 APPE3WICES APPENDIX A: State and Federal Contacts for 401 APPENDIX B: APPENDDCO APPENDIX D: Certification ...~...............^.^.. Federal Definitions: Waters of the U^. & Wetlands Scope of Project Review; Pennsylvania Dam "roposal example ..»...»^ ~~«^^.^^.^.^...^„...., 42 50 Examples of Certification Conditions from Maryland, West Virginia, and Alaska ***•••••••••••>• •••••••• •••••••••••••I >•••••• W*T APPENDIX E: Example Conditions to Minimize Impacts from Section 404(b)(l)Guidelines ••••»— ■••«»«**«««»»«»»»#»»^# 62 ENDNOTES '•••■■■••>»«»»»»«»«««>i *.ii*fa^<>t^--^iw.^M^' 'Sr ■ ■ ■ I. INTRODUCnON. This handbook has been developed by EPA's Office of Wetlands Protection ' * (OWP) to highlight the potential of the State water quality certification process for protecting wetlands, and to provide information and guidaoice to the States.^ Throughout this document, the term '^tate" includes those Indian Tribes which qualify for treatment as States under the federal Qean Water Act (CWA) Section 518(e)? We encourage Tribes who are interested in expanding their protection of wetlands and other waters under this new provision of the CWA to examine water quality certification as a readily available tool to begin their programs. One of OWP's key mandates is to broaden EPA's wetlands protection efforts in areas which complement our authori^ under the Qean Water Act Section 404 regulatory program. Thus, we are exploring and working with other laws, regulations, and nonregulatoiy approaches to enhance their implementatifm to protect wetlands. In addition, the National Wetlands Policy Forum has recommended in its report issued in November 1988, that States "make more aggressive use of their certification authorities under Section 401 of the CWA, to protect their wetlands from chemical and other types of alterations."^ In light of these directives, we have examined the role of the Section 401 State water qxiali^ certification process and are working with States to improve its application to wetlands. This process offers the opportunity to fulfill many goals for wetland protection because: * It is a cooperative federal/State program and it increases the role of States in decisions regarding the protection ot natnral resources; * It gives States extremefy broad authority to review pn^msed activities in and/or affecting State waters (indudiDg wetlands) and, in effect, to deny or place conditions on federal permits or licenses that anthorize snch activities; * It is an existing program vfMcb can be vastly improved to protect wetlands without migor legislative initiatives; * Its proper implementation for wetlands should integrate many State programs related to wetlands, water quality, and aquatic resource preservation and enhancement, to ensure consistency of activities with these State requirements. Examples of snch programs include coastal zone management, floodplain management, and nonpoint source programs. The issues discussed in this handbook were identified through discussions with State 401 certification program personnel and through a workshop held in December 1987 with many of the States who actively apply 401 certification to wetlands. The " handbook includes examples of how some States have successfully approached the ipues discussed. Because the water quality certification process is continually evolving, we do not attempt to address aU the issues here. This handbook is a first step towards darifying how 401 certification applies to wetlands, and helping States use this tool more effectively. EPA would like to work with the States to ensure that their authority imder Section 401 is exercised in a manner that achieves the goals of the Qean Water Act and reflects the State role at the forefront in administering water quality programs. Qearly, the integrity of waters of the UJS. cannot be protected by an exclusive focus on wastewater effluents in open waters. While the federal Section 404 program addresses many discharges into wetlands, and other federal agencies have environmental review programs which benefit wetlands, these do not substitute for a State's responsibilities under Section 40L A State's authority under Secticm 401 includes consideration of a broad range of chemical, physical, and biological impacts. The State's responsibility includes acting upon the recognition that wetlands are critical components of healthy, functioning aquatic systems. To help States implement the guidance provided in this handbook and to foster communication on 401 issues, you will find a list of State 401 certification contacts and fiederal EPA contacts in Appendix A In order to keep this and other wetland contact Qtts current, EPA has asked the G)uncfl of State Governments to establish a Gamputerized database of State wetland programs and contacts (See Appendix A for cietails.) EPA is also refining a list of Tribal contacts to foster communication with mterested Tribes. SUMMARY OF ACnONS NEEDED Hie following is a summary of the activities needed to make 401 certification a more effective tool to protect wetlands. States can undertake many of these activities right away, while also taking other actions which lay the groundwork for improving future 401 certification decisions. Tribes, who primarily are just beginning to develop wetlands programs, should consider these actions (along with developing water quality standards) as first steps to becoming more involved in wetlands regulatory efforts. The actions below are discussed throughout the handbook. * All states should begin by including wetlands in their definitions of state waters. * States should develop or modify their existing 401 certification and water quality standard regulations and guidelines to accomodate special wetland considerations. * . :.... States should make more effective use of their existing narrative water quality standards (including the antidegradation poliqy) to protect the int^rity of wetlands. * States should initiate or improve upon existing inventories of their wetland resources. * States should designate uses for these wetlands based on wetland functions associated with each wetland type. Sudi estimated uses could be verified vdien needed for individual applications with an assessment tool such as the Wetlands Evaluation Technique, or Habitat Evaluation Procedure, or region-specific evaluation methdds. * States should tap into the potential of the outstanding resource waters designation of the antidegradation policy for their wetlands. States should incorporate 401 certification for wetlands into their water quality management planning process. This process can integrate wetland resource information with different water management programs affecting wetlands (including coastal zone management, nonpoint source and wastewater programs). n. WHAT IS WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION AND HOW DOES IT WORK? States may grant or deny "certification" for a federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge to the waters of the United States, if it is the State where the discharge will originate. The decision to grant or deny certification is based on a State's determination from data submitted by an applicant (and any other information available to the State) whether the proposed activity wiU comply with the requirements of certain sections of the Qean Water Act enimierated in Section 401(a)(1). These requirements address effluent limitations for conventional and nonconventional poUutants, water quality standards, new source performance standards, and toxic pollutants (Sections 301, 302, 303, 306 and 307). Also included are reqiiirements of State law or regulation more stringent than those sections or their federal implementing regulations. States adopt surface water quality standards pursuant to Section 303 of the Qean Water Act and have broad authority to base those standards on the waters' use and value for "public water supplies, propagation of fish and wfldlife, recreational purposes, and . . . other purposes.*^ All permits must include effluent limitations at least as stringent as needed to maintain established beneficial uses and to attain the quality of water designated by States for their waters.^ Thus, the States' water quality standards are a critical concern of the 401 certification process. If a State grants water quality certification to an applicant for a federal license or permit, it is in effect saying that the proposed activity w^ comply with State water quality standards (and the other CWA and State law provisions enumerated above). The State may thus deny certification because the applicant has not demonstrated that the project wfll compfy with those requirements. Or it may place whatever limitations or conditions on the certification it determines are necessary to assure compliance with those provisions, and with any other "appropriate" requirements of State law. If a State denies certification, the federal permitting or licensing agency is prohibited from issuing a permit or licensee. While the procedure varies from State to State, a State's decision to grant or deny certification is ordinarily subject to an administrative appeal, with review in the State courts designated for appeals of agency decisions. Court review is typically limited to the question of whether the State agency's decision is supported by the record and is not arbitrary or capricious. The courts generally presume regularity in agency procedures and defer to agency expertise in their review.* States may also waive water quality certification, either affirmatively or involimtarily. Under Section 401(a)(1), if the State fails to act on a certification request 8 'Svithin a reasonable time (which shall not exceed one year)" after the receipt of an application, it forfeits its authority to grant conditionally or to deny certification. The most important regulatory tools for the implementation of 401 certification are the States' water quality standards regulations and their 401 certification implementing regulations and guidelines. While all of the States have some form of water quality standards, not all States have standards which can be easily applied to wetlands. Most Tribes do not yet have water quality standards, and developing them would be a first step prior to having the authority to conduct water quality certification. Also, many States have not adopted regulations implementing their authority to grant, deny and condition water quality certification. The remainder of this handbook discusses specific approaches, and elements of water quality standards and 401 certification regulations that OWP views as effective to implement the States' water quality certification authority, both generally, and specifically with regard to wetlands. in. 401 CERXmCATION CAN BE A POWERFUL TOOL TO PROTECT WETLANDS In States without a wetlands regulatory program, the water quality certification process may be the only way in which a State can exert any direct control over projects in or affecting wetlands. It is thus critical for these States to develop a program that fully includes wetlands in their water quality certification process. But even in States which have their own wetlands regulatory programs, the water quality certification process can be an extremely valuable tool to protect wetlands. Hrst, most State wetland regulatory laws are more limited in the wetlands that are subject to regulation than is the Qean Water Act The Qean Water Act covers all interstate wetlands; wetlands adjacent to other regulated waters; and all other wetlands, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce.^ This definition is extremely broad and one would be hard pressed to find a wetland for which it could be shown that its use or destruction clearly would not affect interstate commerce. Federal jurisdiction extends beyond that of States which regulate only coastal and/or shoreline wetlands, for instance. And in States that regulate inland wetlands, often size limitations prevent States from regulating wetlands that are subject to federal jurisdictioiL* Even if State jurisdiction is as encompassing or more so than federal jurisdiction, however, water quality certification may still be a valuable and essential wetlands protection device. In the State of Massachusetts, for instance, a 401 certification is not simply "rubber stamped" on the permitting decisions made pursuant to the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act The State has denied certification to proposed projects requiring a federal permit even though the State wetlands permitting authority (in Massachusetts, permits are granted by local "conservation commissions") has granted authorization for a project. There may be a nimiber of reasons that a proposed activity may receive authorization tmder a State wetland regulatory program, but fail to pass muster under a 401 certification review. The most commonly cited reason, however, is that water quality personnel have a specialized understanding of the requirements and implementation of the State's water quality standards and the ways in which certain activities may interfere with their attainment It is important, however, to keep in mind the limitations of 401 certification when considering a comprehensive approach to protecting your wetland resources. The primary limitation is that if 401 certification is the only tool a State has to protect wetlands, it cannot place limits on activities which do not require a federal license or permit Some activities such as drainage or groundwater pumping, can have severe impacts on the viabili^ of wetlands, but may not require a permit or license. Ideally, 401 certification should be combined with other programs in the State offering wetlands protection opportunities (such as coastal management and floodplain management). For example, Alaska has integrated its 401 certification and coastal management consistency review processes so that the provisions of each program augment the other to provide more comprehensive protection. This approach not only strengthens protection, it reduces duplication of State efforts and coordinates permit review for applicants.' IV. THE ROLE OF WATER QUAUTY STANDARDS IN THE CERTinCATION PROCESS A. Wetlands Shonld be Spedficalty Designated as Surface Waters of the States In order to bring wetlands fully into the State water quality certification process, a first step is to include the term "wetlands" in the State water quality standards' definition of surface waters. EPA will be working with aU States through the trieimial review process of State standards to ensure that their definitions are at least as. comprehensive as the federal definitions for waters (see Appendix B for federal definitions of "Waters of the US." and the term "wetlands"). It may seem minor, but from every standpoint, it is important to have wetlands specifically designated as surface waters in State water quality standards. First it precludes any arguments that somehow wetlaiids are not covered by water quality standards. Second, it predisposes decision makers (frtjm 401 certification program managers, to the head of the agency or a water quality board, all the way to the judges 10 on the courts that may review these decisions) to consider the importance of wetlands as part of the aquatic ecosystem. Third, it makes it clear that wetlands are to be treated as waters in and of themselves for purposes of compliance with water quality standards and not just as they relate to other surface waters. The third point is critical and bears further explanation. When States include wetlands in the definition of stir&ce waters covered by their water qtiality standards, they clarify that activities in or affecting wetlands are subject to the same analysis in the certification decision as are projects affecting lakes, rivers, or streams. This is not to say that a wetland project's effects on adjacent or downstream waters are not also part of the water quality certification analysis. Rather, it is to say that wetlands, either adjacent to 0£ isolated from other waters, are waterbodies in and of themselves and an applicant for water quality certification must show that a proposed project will not violate water quali^ standards in those wetlands, as well as in other waters. The States currently have a variety of definitions of Vaters of the State" in the legislation that enables water quality standards (e.g., multi-media environmental protection acts, water quality acts, and the like). Only three States currently have the term Vetlands" explicitiy listed as one of the types of waters in this enabling legislation (Nebraska, Rhode Island, West Virginia). These States need only to repeat that definition in their water quality standards and their 401 certification implementing regulations. While most States do not have the term Vetlands" in their enabling legislation, many use the term "marshes" in a list of different types of waters to illustrate "waters of the State" in their enabling legislation. Kentuclty, for example, defines waters of the State as: . . . ar^ and all rivers, streams, creeks, lakes, ponds, impounding reservoirs, springs, wells, marshes, and all other bodies of surface or underground water, natural or artifkial, situated wholly orpartfy within or bordering upon the Commonwealth or within its jurisdiction.^" When used in this way, the term "inarshes" is typically understood to be generic in nature rather than being descriptive of a type of wetland, and can therefore be considered as the equivalent of the term "wetlands". In these States, however, in order to ensure that the term "marshes" is interpreted as the equivalent of wetlands, the best approach is to include the term "wetlands" in the definition of surface waters used in the State's water quality standards and in the 401 certification implementing regulations. There is another group of States that has neither the term "wetlands" or "marshes" in the enabling legislation's definition of waters of the State. These definitions typically contain langtiage that describes in some generic maimer, however, 11 all waters that exist in the State. They may not specifically designate any pzirticular type of water body, as, for instance, Tennessee's Water Quality Control Act: . . . fl/ry and all water, public or private, on or beneath the surface of the ground, which [is] contained within, flowfsj through, or borderfs] upon Tennessee or any portion thereof. ..." Or they may specify some types of surface waters and then genericalfy include all others with a clause such as "and all other water bodies" or "without limitation", as does Massachusetts: AU waters within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth, iru±uiing, without limitation, rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, sjmngs, impoundments, estuaries, and coastal waters and ffoundwaters.^^ In these States, as in the States with "marshes" in the enabling legislation's definition of waters, regulators should clarify that wetlands are part of the surface waters of the State subject to the States' water quality standards by including that term, and any others they deem appropriate, in a definition of surface waters in their water quality standards and in their 401 certification implementing regulations. Both Kentud^ and Ohio, for instance, which have the term "marshes," but not the term "wetlands" in their enabling legislation, have included the term "wetlands" in their stirface water quality standards' definition of waters." Massachusetts, which does not have the term "wetlands" or "marshes" in its enabling legislation, has put the term "Svetlands" into its water quality standards also.*^ Additionally, Ohio's 401 certification implementing regulations include the term "wetlands" in the definition of waters covered by those regulations and specificaify address activities affecting the integrity of wetlands." B. General Requirements of EPA's Water Quality Standards Regulations.^* When the States review their water quality standards for applicability to projects affecting wetlands, it is important to have in miiid the basic concepts and requirements of water quality standards generally. Congress has given the States broad authority to adopt water quality standards, directing only that the States designate water uses that protea the public health and welfare and that take into account use of State waters for drinking water, the propagation of fish and wfldlife, recreation, and agricultural, industrial and other purposes. 12 EPA's water quality standards regulations require States to adopt water quality standards which have three basic components: use designations, criteria to protect * ■ those uses, and an antidegradation policy. EPA directs that, where attainable, designated uses must include, at a minimum, mes necessary to protect the goals of the CWA for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provide for recreation in and on the waters. This baseline is commonly referred to as the "fishable/swimmable" designation. If the State does not designate these minimum uses, or wishes to remove such a designated use, it must justify it through a use attainability analysis based on at least one of six faaors.^'^ In no event, however, may a beneficial existing use (any use which is actually attained in the water body on or after November 28, 1975) be removed from a water body or segment Criteria, either pollutant-specific numerical criteria or narrative criteria, must protect the designated and existing uses. Many of the existing numeric criteria are not specifically adapted to the characteristics of wetlands (see last section of handbook for steps in this direction). However, ahnost all States have some form of the narrative standards (commonly known as the "free froms") which say that all waters shall be free from substances that: settle to form objectionable deposits; float as debris, scimi, ofl or other matter to form nuisances; produce objectionable color, odor, taste, or turbidi^ injure, ot are toxic,or produce adverse physiological responses in humans, animals, or plants; or produce undesirable or nuisance aquatic life. States have also used other narrative criteria to protect wetland quality. The use of criteria to protea wetlands is discussed in the following section. In addition, EPA also requires that all States adopt an antidegradation pohcy. Several States have used their antidegradation poli^ effectively to protect the quality of their wetland resources. At a minimum, a State's antidegradation policy must be consistent with the following provisions: (1) Existing uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect existing uses in all segments of a water bo^ must be maintained; (2) if the quality of the water is higher than that necessaiy to support propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, and recreation in and on the water, that quality shall be maintained and protected, unless the State finds that lowering the water quality is justified by overriding economic or social needs determined after full public involvement In no event, however, may water quality fall below that necessary to protect the existing beneficial uses; (3) if the waters have been designated as outstanding resource waters (ORWs) no degradation (except temporary) of water quality is allowed. 13 In the case of wetland fills, however, EPA allows a slightly different interpretation of the antidegradation policy." Because on the federal level, the Congress has anticipated the issuance of at least some permits by virtue of Section 404, it is EPA's policy that, except in the case of ORWs, the "existing use" requirements of the antidegradation policy are met if the wetland fill does not cause or contribute to "significant degradation" of the aquatic environment as defined by Section 230.10(c) of the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines.^' These Guidelines lay a substantial foundation for protecting wetlands and other special aquatic sixes from degradation or destruction. The purpose section of the Guidelines states that: ". . . from' a national perspective, the d^radation or destruction of special aquatic sites, such as filling operations in wetlands, is considered to be among the most severe environmental impacts covered by these Guidelines. The guiding principal should be that degradation or destruction of special sites may represent an irreversible loss of valuable aquatic resources."^ The Guidelines also state that the following effects contribute to significant degradation, either individually or collectively: ". . . significant adverse effects on (1) human health or welfiure, including efi'ects on municipal water supplies, plankton, fish, shellfish, wildlife, and special aquatic sites (e.g., wetlands); (2) on the life stages of aquatic life and other wildlife dependent on aquatic ecosystems, including the transfer, concentration or spread 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, purity water or reduce wave energy; or (4) on recreational, aesthetic, and economic values."^ The Guidelines may be used by the 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 more stringent requirements than federal law requires for their water quality standards in general. C Apptying Water Quality Standards Reguhitions to Wetlands • What States are Doing Now Some States have taken the lead in using 401 certification as a wetlands protection tool to protect them for 'heir water quality and other irreplaceable functions, such as storage places for flood waters, erosion control, foodchain support and habitat 14 for a wide variety of plants and animals. These States have taken several different approaches to wetlands protection in their water quality certification process. 1. Using Narrative Criteria States have applied a variety of narrative criteria to projects in or affecting wetlands in the 401 certification determination. For example, Maryland's water quality standards contain a narrative directive, which the agency relied upon to deny certification for a non-tidal wetland fill The standard provides that "[a]ll waters of this State shall be protected for the basic uses of water contact recreation, fish, other aquatic life, wildlife, and water supply."^ In its denial, Maryland stated: Storm wcaers are relieved of much of their sediment loads via overbanJdng into the adjacent wetland and a resultant decrease in nutrient and sediment loading to downstream receiving waters is occurring. To permit the fill of this area would eliminate these benefits and in die.future, would leave the waterway susceptible to adverse increased volumes of storm waters and their associated pollutants. It is our deterrrunadon that [a specified waterway] . . . requires protection of these wetland areas to assure that the waters of tftis State are protected for the basic uses offish, other aquatic life, wildlife and water supply. Because wetlands vary tremendously in baci^ound levels of certain parameters measured by the traditional numerical/chemical criteria applied to surface waters, some States have relied on "natural water quality" criteria to protect wetlands in the 401 certification process. Minnesota, for instance, has taken this approach in denying certification for a flood control project because of the State's "primary concern . . . that the project would likely change Little Diann Lake firom an acid bog to a fresh- drcumneutral water chemistry type of wetland." The agenqr was concerned that "introduction of lake water into the closed add system of Little Diann Lake would completely destroy the character of this natural resource." It relied on a provision of its water qu£dity standards allowing the State to limit the addition of pollutants according to bacl^oimd levels instead of to the levels specified by criteria for that class of waters general^. The denial letter pointed out that this rule "States that the natural backgrotmd level may be used instead of the specified water quality standards, where reasonable justification exists for preserving the quality foimd in the State of nature." According to the denial letter, because of the clear potential for impacts to the bog, the State was invoking that particular provision.^ Tennessee has relied on broad prohibitory language in its water quality standards to deny water quality certification for wetland fill projects and has been upheld in court HoUis V. Tennessee Water Quality Control Board^ was brought by a 401 certification 15 applicant who proposed to place fill along the southeastern shoreline of a natural swamp lake. The court upheld the denial of 401 certification, explaining: Reelfoot Lake is classified for fish and aquatic life, recreation, and livestock watering and wildlife uses. The [Water Quality] Board has established various standards for the waters in each class^ation. Among other things, these standards pertain to dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature, toxic substances, and other poUutants. The Permit Hearing Panel found the petitioner's activity will violate the "other pollutants" standard in each classification. CoUectivefy, these ["other pollutants^] standards provide that other pollutants shall not be added to the water that will be detrimental to fish or aquatic life, to recreation, and to livestock watering and wildlife. The court found that while there was no evidence that the project in and of itself would Idll" Reelfoot Lake, there was evidence that the shoreline was important to recreation because tourists visit Reelfoot to view its natural beauty and the lacustrine wetlands function as a spawning ground for fish and produce food for both fish and wildlife. It foimd that although the evidence in the record did not quantify the damage to fish and aquatic life, recreation, and wildlife that would result fitim the proposed fill, the opinion of the State's expert that the activity would be detrimental to these uses was sufficient to uphold the denial of certification. Kentucky has also relied on narrative criteria. It denied an application to place spoil from tmderground mine construction in a wetland area because wetlands are protected firom poUution as 'Waters of the Commonwealth" and because placing spoil or any fill material (pollutants imder KRS 224:005(28)) in a wetland specifically violated at least two water quality criteria. One of Kentucl^'s criteria, applicable to all surface waters, provides that the waters "shall not be aestheticalfy or otherwise degraded by substances that . . . [i]njure, [are] toxic to or produce adverse physiological or behavioral responses in humans, animals, fish and other aquatic life." The other criterion, applicable to warm water aquatic habitat, provides that "[fjlow shall not be altered to a deff-ee which will adversely ajfect the aquatic community."^ This second criterion which addresses hydrological changes is a particularly important but often overlooked component to include in water quality standards to help maintain wetland quality. Changes in flow can severely alter the plant and animal species composition of a wetland, and destroy the entire wetland system if the change is great enough. Ohio has adopted 401 certification regulations applicable to wetlands (and other waters) that, together with internal review guidelines, result m an approach to the 401 certification decision similar to that of the 404(b)(1) Guidelines. Its 401 certification regulations first direct that no certification may be issued unless the applicant has 16 demonstrated that activities pennitted by Section 404 or by Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) will not: (1) prevent or interfere with the attainment or maintenance of applicable water quality standards; (2) result in a violation of Sections 301, 30Z 303, 306 or 307 of the CWA; additionally, the agency may deny a request notwithstanding the applicant's demonstration of the above if it concludes that the activity "will result in adverse long or short term impacts on water quality."^ Ohio has placed all of its wetlands as a class in the category of "State resource waters." For these waters, Ohio has proposed amendments to its standards to say that "[pjresent ambient water quality and uses shall be maintained and protected without exception." ^ The proposed standards also require that point source discharges to State resource waters be regulated according to Ohio's biological criteria for aquatic life. However, Ohio has not yet developed biological indices specifically for wetlands. Thus, for projects affecting wetlands, it bases its certification decisions on internal review guidelines that are similar to the federal Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. Ohio's guidelines are structured by type of activity. For instance, for fills, their requirements are as follows: (a) if the projea is not water dependent, certification is denied; (b) if the project is water dependent, certification is denied if there is a viable altemadve (e.g., available upland nearby is viable alternative); (c) if no viable alternatives exist and impacts to wetland cannot be made acceptable thmugh conditions on certification (e.g., fish movement criteria, creation of floodways to bypass o:d}Ows, flow throu^ criteria), certification is denied Ohio's internal review guidelines also call for (1) an historical overview and ecological evaluation of the site (including biota inventory and existing bioaccumtilation studies); (2) a sediment physical characterization (to predict contaminant levels) and (3) a sediment analysis.^ Using these guidelines, Ohio frequently conditions or denies certification for projects that eliminate wetland uses. For instance, Ohio has issued a proposed denial of an application to fill a three acre wetland area adjacent to Lake Erie for a 17 recreational and picnic area for a lakefront marina based on its classification of wetlands as "State resource waters:" .. Wetlands serve a vital ecological function including food chain production, provision of spawning, nursery and resting habitats for various aquatic species, natural filtration of surface water runoff, ground water recharge, and erosion and flood abatement The Oj\.C. Section 3745-1-05 (C) includes wetlands [in the] State Resource Waters category and allows no further water quality denudation which would interfere with or become injurious to the existing uses. The addition of fill material to the wetland would cause severe adverse effects to the wetland. This fill would eliminate valuable wetland habitat, thereby deffxuUng the existing use. The jmtification for this denial, according to Ohio program managers, was not only that the project would interfere with existing uses, but in addition, the project was not water dependent as called for in Ohio's internal guidelines. Ohio 401 certification program personnel note that these review guidelines present the general approach to certification, but with regard to projects that are determined to be of public necessity, this approach may give way to other public interest concerns. For example, a highway is not water dependent per se; if, however, safety and financial considerations point to a certain route that necessitates filling wetlands, the agen^ may allow it. In that event, however, mitigation by wetland creation and/or restoration would be sought by the agency as a condition of certification. 2. Highest Her of Protection: Wetlands as Ontstanding Resonrce Waters One extremely promising approach taken by some of the States has been to designate wetlands as outstanding resource waters (ORW), in which water quality must be maintained and protected according to EPA's regulations on antidegradation (Le., no degradation for any purposes is allowed, except for short term changes which have no long term consequences).^ This approach provides wetlands with significant protection if the States' antidegradation policies are at least as protective as that of EPA. EPA designed this classification not onfy for the highest quality waters, but also for water bodies which are '^portant, unique, or sensitive ecologicalfy, but whose water quality as measured by the traditional parameters (dissolved oxygen, pH, etc) may not be particularly high or whose character cannot be adequately descnbed by these paramcters."3o This description is particularly apt for many wetland ^tems. The designation of wetlands as outstanding resource waters has occurred in different ways in different States. Minnesota, for instance, has designated some of its rare, calcareous fens as ORWs and intends to deny fills in these fens. 18 Ohio has issued for comment, proposed revised water quality standards that include a newly created "outstanding State resource waters" category. Ohio intends- to prohibit all point source discharges to these waters. Of fourteen specific water bodies proposed to be included in this category by the Ohio EPA at this time, ten are wetlands: four fens; three bogs; and three marshes. Because the designation of wetlands as ORWs is such an appropriate classification for many wetland systems, it would behoove the States to adopt regulations which maximize the ability of State agencies and citizens to have wetlands and other waters placed in this category. The State of Kentucky has set out procedures for the designation of these waters in its water quality standards. Certain categories of waters automatically included as ORWs are: waters designated under the KentuclQr \^d Rivers Aa or the Federal WOd and Scenic Rivers Act; waters within a formally dedicated nature preserve or published in the registry of natural areas and concurred upon by the cabinet; and waters that support federally recognized endangered or threatened spedes. In addition, Kentud^s water quali^ standards include a provision allowing anyone to propose waters for the ORW classification.^ Minnesota has a section in its water quality standards that could be called an "emergency" provision for the designation of outstanding resource waters. Normally it is necessary under Minnesota's water quality standards for the agency to provide an opportunity for a hearing before identifying and establishing outstanding resource waters and before prohibiting or .restricting any discharges to those waters. The "emergency" provision allows the agency to prohibit new or expanded discharges for unlisted waters "to the extent . . . necessary to preserve the existing higfi quality, or to preserve the wilderness, sdentipc, recreational, or other special characteristics that make the water an outstanding resource value water."^ This provision aUows the agency to protect the waterbody whfle completing the listing process which could take several years. Moreover, some States have improved on the formulation of the ORW classification by spelling out the protection provided by that designation more specifically than do EPA's regulations. For instance, Massachusetts' water quality standards state that for "National Resource Waters:" Waters so designated may not be degraded and are not subject to a variance, procedure. New discharges of pollutants to such waters are prohibited. Existing discharges shall be eliminated unless the discharger is able to demonstrate that: (a) Alternative means of disposal are not reasonabfy available or feasible; arui (b) The discharge will not affect the quality of the water as a rumorud resource.^ 19 This provision explicitly outlines how the State intends to maintain and protect the water quality of ORWs. Another provision which Minnesota uses to control discharges to waters that flow into ORWs for their effect on ORWs is that: The agency shall require new or expanded discharges that flow into outstanding resource value waters [to] be controlled so as to assure no deterioration in the quality of the downstream outstanding resource value water.^ V. USING 401 CERXmCATION A. The Pennits/Licenses Covered and the Scope of Review The language of Section 401(a)(1) is written very broadly with respect to the activities it covers. "[A]ny activity, including, but not limited to, the construction or operation of facilities, which mav result in anv discharge" requires water quality certification. When the Congress first enacted the water quality certification provision in 1970, it spoke of the "wide variety of licenses and permits ... issued by various Federal agencies," which "involve activities or operations potentially affecting water quality."^ The purpose of the water quality certification requirement, the Congress said, was to ensure that no license or permit would be issued "for an activity that through inadequate planning or otherwise could in fact become a source of poUution."^ 1. Federal Permits/Licenses Subject to Certificatioii The first consideration is which federal permits or licenses are subject to 401 certification. OWP has identified five federal permits and/or licenses which authorize activities which may result in a discharge to the waters. These are: permits for point source discharges under Section 402 and discharges of dredged and fiU material under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act; permits for activities in navigable waters wliich may affect navij^tion under Sections 9 and 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RBA); and licenses required for hydroelectric projects issued under the Federal Power Act There are likely other federal permits and licenses, such as permits for activities on public lands, and Nuclear Regulatoiy Commission licenses, which may result in a discharge and thus require 401 certification. Each State should work with EPA and the federal agencies active in its State to determiiie whether 401 certification is in fact applicable. 20 Indeed, it is not always dear when 401 certification should apply. For instance, there remains some confusion under Sections 9 and 10 of RHA concerning which .. projects may involve or result in a discharge, and thus require State certification. In many cases there is an overlap between Section 404 CWA and Sections 9 and 10 RHA. Where these permits overlap, 401 certification always applies. Under the Seaion 404 regulations, the question of whether dredging involves a discharge and is therefore subject to Section 404, depends on whether there is more than "de minimis, incidental sofl movement occurring during normal dredging operations".^ Where only a Section 9 or 10 permit is required, 401 certification would apply if the activity may lead to a discharge. For example, in the case of pilings, which the Corps sometimes considers subject to Section 10 only, a 401 certification would be required for the Section 10 permit if structures on top of the pilings may result in a discharge. States shoiild notify the regional office of federal permitting or licensing agencies of their authority to review these permits and licenses (e.g., the Q)rps of Engineers for Section 404 in nonauthorized States, and Sections 9 and 10 of the RHA; EPA for Section 402 permits in nonauthorized States; and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for hydropower licenses). In their 401 certification implementing regulations. States should also give notice to applicants for these particular federal permits and licenses, and for all other permits and licenses that may result in a discharge to waters of the State, of their obligation to obtain 401 certification from the State. that: West Virginia's 401 certification implementing regulations, for instance, state 1.1. Scope. . . . Section 401 of the Clean Water Aa requires that any applicant for a federal license or permit to conduct an activity which wUl or may discharge into waters of the United States (as defined in the Clean Water Act) must present the federal authority with a certification from the appropriate State agency. Federal permits and licenses issued by the federal government requiring certification include permits issued by the United States Army Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.Q 1344 and licenses issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission under the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C 1791 et seq.^ Because West Virginia has been authorized to administer the NPDES permitting program under Section 402 of the Qean Water Act, applicants for NPDES permits do not have to apply for water quality certification separately. In addition. West Virginia has not specifically designated Rivers and Harbors Act permits in the above regulation. However, because the regulation States that such permits or licenses include Section 21 404 and FERC licenses, those and all other permits not specifically designated but which may result in a discharge to the waters would be covered by the regulation's •. language. The better approach would be to enumerate all such licenses and permits that are known to the State and include a phrase for all others generically. 2. Scope of Review Under Section 401 An additional issue is the scope of the States' review under Section 401. Congress mtended for the States to use the water quality certification process to ensure that no federal license or permits would be issued that would violate State standards or become a source of pollution in the future. Also, because the States' certification of a construction permit or license also operates as certification for an operating permit (except for in certain instances specified in Section 401(a)(3)), it is imperative for a State review to consider all potential water quality impacts of the project, both direct and indirect, over the life of the project « A second component of the scope of the review is when an activity requiring 401 certification in one State (Ic the State in which the discharge originates) will have an impact on the water quality of another State.* The statute provides that after receiving notice of application fix>m a federal permitting or licensing agency, EPA wiU notify any States whose water quality may be affected. Such States have the right to submit their objections and request a hearing. EPA may also submit its evaluation and recommendations. If the use of conditions cannot insure compliance with the affected State's water quality requirements, the federal permitting or licensing agencyr shall not issue such permit or license. ^ The following example of 401 certification denial by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (DER) for a proposed FERC hydroelectric project illustrates the breadth of the scope of review under Section 401 (see Appendix C for full description of project and impacts addressed). The City of Harrisburg, Penn^lvania proposed to construct a l^rdroelectric power project on the Susquehanna River. The Pennsylvania DER considered a full range of potential impacts on the aquatic system in its review. The impacts included those on State waters located at the dam site, as weU as those downstream and upstream from the site. The impacts considered were not just from the discharge initiating the certification review, but water quality impacts from the entire project Thus, potential impacts such as flooding, changes in dissolved oxygen, loss of wetlands, and changes in groundwater, both from construction and future operation of the project were all considered in the State's decision. The concerns expressed by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources are not necessarily all those that a State should consider in a dam 22 certification review; each project will have its own specific impacts and potential water quality problems. The point of the illustration is to show that all of the potential . effects of a proposed activity on water quality — direct and indirect, short and long term, upstream and downstream, construction and operation — should be part of a State's certification review. B. Conditioning 401 Certifications for Wetland Protection In 401(d), the Congress has given the States the authority to place any conditions on a water quality certification that are necessary to assure that the applicant will comply with effluent limitations, water quality standards, standards of performance or pretreatment standards; with any State law provisions or regulations more stringent than those sections; and with "any other appropriate requirement of State law." The legislative history of the subsection indicates that the Congress meant for the States to impose whatever conditions on the certification are necessary to ensure that an applicant complies with all State requirements that are related to water quality concerns. L What are Appropriate Conditions? There are any number of possible conditions that could be placed on a certification that have as their purpose preventing water quality deterioration. By way of example, the State of Maryland issued a certification with conditions for placement of fill to construct a 35-foot earthen dam located 200 feet downstream of an existing dam. Maryland used some general conditions applicable to many of the proposed projects it considers, along with specific conditions tailored to the proposed project Examples of the conditions placed on this particular certification include: The applicant shall obtain and cert^ compliance wi^ a grading and sediment control plan which has been approved by the [county] SoU Conservation District The approved plan shall be available at the project site during edl phases of construction. Stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces shall be controlled to prevent the washing of debris into the waterway. The natural vegetation shtUl be maintained and restored when disturbed or eroded Stormwater drairmge facilities shall be designed, implemented, operated, and maintained in accordance with the requirements of the applicable approving authority. 23 The applicant is required to provide a mixing tower release structure to achieve in- stream compliance with Class III trout temperature (20 [degrees] C) and dissolved oxygen (5.0 mg/liter) standards prior to the Piney Run/Church Creek confluence. The design of this structure shall be appvved by the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). The applicant is required to provide a watershed management plan to minimize pollutant loadings into the reservoir. This plan shall be reviewed and approved by MDE prior to operation of the new dam facility. In conjunction with tiUs plan's development any sources of pollutant loading identified during field surveys shall be eliminated or minimized to the extent possible given available techru>logy. The applicant is required to provide to MDE an operating and mainteruuKe plan for the dam assuring mininutm downstream flows in accordance with the requirements oftheDNR and assuring removal of acaamdated sediments with subsequertt approved disposal of the materials removed. ' . . * The applicant is to provide mitigation for the wetlands lost as a remit cfthe construction of this project and its subsequent operation. Wetland recreation should be located in the newfy created headwaters areas to: a) assure adequate filtration of nmoff prior to its entry into the reservoir and b) replace the abiotic resource being lost on an acre for acre basis. '■ '" See Appendix D for the full list of conditions placed on this certificatioh. While fiew of these conditions are based directly on traditional water quality standards, all are valid and relate to the maintenance of water quality or the designated use of the waters in some way. Some of the conditions are clearly requirements of State or local law related to water quality other than those promulgated pursiiant to the CWA sections enumerated in Section 401(a)(1). Other conditions were designed to minimiTe the project's adverse effects on water quality over the life of the project In addition, i^pendix D contains a list of conditions which West Virginia and Alaska placed on the certification of some Section 404 nationwide permits. Maity of the West Virginia conditions are typical of ones it uses on individual proposals as welL For any particular project. West Virginia will include more specific conditions designed to address the potential adverse effects of the project in addition to those enumerated in Appendix D. The conditions from Alaska arc used on a nationwide permit (#26) r^arding isolated waters and waters above headwaters. These conditions are discussed in Section V. C(l). 24 2. The Role of Mitigation in Conditioning Certification Many States are trying to determine the role that mitigation should play in 40l certification decisions. We cannot answer this question definitively for each State, but offer as a guide EPA's general fiamework for mitigation under the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines used to evaluate applications for Section 404 permits. In assuring compliance of a projea with the Guidelines, EPA's approach is to first, consider avoidance of adverse impacts, next, determine ways to minimize the impacts, and finally, require appropriate and practicable compensation for unavoidable impacts. The Guidelines provide for avoiding adverse impacts by selecting the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative. In addition, wetlands are "special aquatic sites." For such sites, if the proposed activity is not "water dependent," practicable alternatives with less adverse environmental impacts are presumed to be available imless the applicant clearly demonstrates otherwise.^ The Guidelines also require an applicant to take "appropriate and practicable" steps to minimize the impacts of the least environmentally damaging alternative selected.^^ Examples in the Guidelines for minimizing impacts through project modifications and best management practices are provided in Appendix E. After these two steps are' complete, appropriate compensation is required for the remaining unavoidable adverse impacts. Compensation would consist of restoration of previously altered wetlands or creation of wetlands frbm upland sites. In most cases, compensation on or adjacent to the project site is preferred over off-site locations. The restoration or creation should be functionally equiv^ent to the values which are lost Finally, compensating with the same type of wetland lost is preferred to using another wetland type. The States may choose to adopt mitigation policies which require additional replacement to help accoimt for the uncertainty in the science of wetland creation and restoration. What is important from EPA's perspective is that mitigation not be used as a trade-off for avoidable losses of wetlands, and that mitigation compensate, to the fullest extent possible, for the functional values provided to the local ecosystem by the wetlands unavoidably lost by the project 3. The Role of Other State Laws Another question that has been asked is what State law or other requirements are appropriately used to condition a 401 certification. The legislative history of Section 401(d) indicates that Congress meant for the States to condition certifications on compliance with any State and local law requirements related to water quality 25 preservation. The courts that have touched on the issue have also indicated that conditions that relate in any way to water quality maintenance are appropriate. Each State will have to make these determinations for itself, of course; there are any number of State and local programs that have components related to water quality preservation and enhancement- One issue that has arisen in two court cases is whether a State may use State law requirements, other than those that are more stringent than the provisions of Sections 301, 302, 303, 306 and 307 of the CWA(401(a)(l)), to deny water quality certification. An Oregon State court has ruled that a State may, and indeed must, include conditions on certifications reflecting State law requirements "to the extent that they have any relationship to water quality." "Only to the extent that [a State law requirement] has absolutely no relationship to water quality," the court said, "wotild it not be an 'other appropriate requirement of State law.*"^ State agencies must act in accord with State law, of course, and thus the decision to grant certification carries with it the obligation to condition certification to ensure compliance with such State requirements. This State court decision struck down a State agency's denial of certification because it was based on the applicant's fafltire to certify compliance with a county's comprehensive plan and land use ordinances. The court held that such "other appropriate requirement[s] of State law" could not be the basis for denying certification. However, the court held that the agency should determine which of the provisions of the land use ordinances had any relation to the maintenance and preservation of water quality. Any such provisions, the court said, could and should be the basis for conditions placed on a certification. Another State court, however, this one in West Virginia, has upheld the State's denial of certification on the basis of State law requirements unrelated to the implementation of the CWA provisions enimierated in Section 401(a)(l).^^ The court simply issued an order upholding the State's denial, however, and did not write an opinion on the subject The questions raised by these two opinions are thon^. If States may not deny certification based on State law requirements other than those implementing the CWA, yet want to address related requirements of State law, they must walk a thin line between their State requirements and the limitations of their certification authori^ under federal law. One way to avoid these difficulties and to ensure that 401 certification may properly be used to deny certification where the State has determined that the activity cannot be conditioned in such a way as to ensure compliance with State water quality related requirements, is to adopt water quality standards that include all State provisions related to water quality preservation. Congress has given the States great latitude to adopt water quality standards that take into consideration the waters' use for 26 such things as "the propagation of fish and wildlife, recreational purposes, and . . . other purposes."** Because of the broad authority granted by the Congress to the States to adopt water quality standards pursuant to Section 303 of the CWA, and because compliance with Section 303 is clearly one of the bases on which a State can deny certification, the States can avoid the difficulty of the deny/condition dilemma by adopting water standards that include all the water quality related considerations it wishes to include in the 401 certification review. For example, the State of Washington has included State water right permit flow requirements in its conditions for certification of a dam project. This is one means of helping to ensure that hydrological changes do not adversely affect the quality of a waterbody. However, a more direct approach is to include a narrative criterion in the State's water quality standards that requires maintenance of base flow necessary to protect the wetland's (or other waterbody's) living resources. The State of Kentucl^ has such a criterion in its water quality standards (see previous section IV. D(l) on "Using Narrative Criteria"). Placing the provision directly in the State standards might better serve the State if a certification is chaUenged because the requirement would be an explicit consideration of 401 certification. C Special Considerations for Review of Section 404 Permits: Nationwide and After-the-Fact Permits 1. Nationwide Permits. Pursuant to Section 404(e) of the CWA, the Corps may issue general permits, after providing notice and an opportunity for a hearing, on a State, regional or nationwide basis for any category of activities involving discharges of dredged or fiU material, where such activities are similar in nature and will cause only minimal adverse environmental effects both individually and cumulatively. These permits may remain in effect for 5 years, after which they must be reissued with notice and an opportimity for a hearing. If the activities authorized by general permits may result in a discharge, the permits are subject to the State water quali^ certification requirement when they are first proposed and when proposed for reissuance. States may either grant certification with appropriate conditions or deny certification of these permits. Under the Corps' regulations, if a State has denied certification of any particular general permit, any person proposing to do work pursuant to such a permit must first obtain State water quali^ certification. If a State has conditioned the grant of certification upon some requirement of State review prior to the activity's commencing, such condition[s] must be satisfied before work can begin. 27 Some States have reported that for general pennits for which they have denied water quality certification or on which they have imposed some condition of review,, they are having diffioilties ensuring that parties performing activities pursuant to these permits are applying to the State for water quality certification or otherwise fulfilling the conditions placed on the certification prior to the commencement of work under these permits. At least one State is grappling with the problem through its 401 certification implementing regulations. The State of West Virginia denied certification for some nationwide permits issued by the Corps and conditioned the granting of certification for others. One of the conditions that West Virginia has imposed on those certifications that it granted (which thus apply to all nationwide permits in the State) is compliance with its 401- certification implementing regulations. The regulations in ttim require that any person authorized to conduct an activity under a nationwide permit must, prior to conducting any activity authorized by a Corps general permit, publish a Qass I legal advertisement in a qualified newspaper in the county where the activity is proposed to take place. The notice must describe the activity, advise the public of the scope of the conditionally granted certification, the public's right to comment on the proposed activity and its right to request a hearing. The applicant must forward a certificate of publication of this notice to the State agen^ prior to conducting any such activity.^ The regulation further provides that any person whose property, interest in property or "other constitutionally protected interest tmder [the West Virginia Constitution] [is] directly affected by the Department's certification" may request a hearing within 15 days of the publication of the notice given by the applicant The agency will then decide whether to "uphold, modify or withdraw certification for the individual activity." West Virginia program ofBcers have described the reasons for this procedure: Because of a long-standing concern . . . that untracked dredge and fill activities could prove disastrous on both individual and cumulative bases, the repdatioru require an authorized permittee [under federal law] to forward proof of publication and a copy of the newspaper advertisement The information on the notice is logged into a computer system and a site specific inspection sheet is generated Inspeaors then may visit the site to determine compliance with permit conditions and to evaluate cumulative impacts.^ Without such notice and a tracking system of activities performed under these permits, such as that adopted by West Virginia, it will be difficult for a State to evaluate whether or nut to grant or deny water quality certification for these permits when they come up for reissuance by the Corps or to condition them in such a way as to avoid adverse impacts peculiar to each of these general permits. It is advisable for 28 the States, regardless of whether they have granted or denied certification, to adopt as part of their 401 certification implementing regulations, provisions addressing these ■ • concerns for general permits. Another way in which some States are attempting to minimize the potential environmental impact of nationwide permits is by stringently conditioning their certification. Alaska, for instance, placed conditions on nationwide permit 26 regarding isolated waters and waters above the headwaters. One of the conditions Alaska used excludes isolated or headwater wetlands of known or suspected high value. When there is uncertain^ about a particular wetland, the Corps is required to send pre-discharge notification to designated State officials for a determination. (See Appendix D for a full description of conditions on nationwide permit 26). 2. Section 404 After-the-Fact Permits The Corps of Engineers' regulations implementing Section 404 provide for the acceptance of after-the-fact permit applications for unauthorized discharges except under certain ciromistances. Several States have expressed concern with after-the-fact permits, including the belief that once the discharges have taken place, the water quality certification process is moot Because of that belief, many States report that they waive certification for after-the-fact permits. Such an approach frustrates law enforcement efforts generally and the water quality certification process in particular because it encourages iUegal. activity. The evaluation of after-the-fact permit applications should be no different than for normal applications. Because the burden should be on the applicant to show compliance with water quality standards and other CWA reqtiirements, rather than waiving certification. States could deny certification if the applicant cannot show fi-om baseline data prior to its activity that the activity did not violate water quality standards. If data exist to determine compliance with water quality standards, the States' analysis should be no different merely because the work has already been partially performed or completed. Arkansas denied after-the-fact water qtiality certification of a wetland fill as follows: [a certain slough] is cwrentfy classified as a warmwater fishery .... Draining and clearing of [its associated] wetlands will significantly alter the existing use by drastically reducing or eliminating the fishery habitat and spawning areas. This physical alteration of the lake will prevent it from being '\vater which is suitable for the propagation of indigenous warmwater species offish" which is the definition of a warmwater fishery. Thus, the . . . project [violates] Section 3 (A) of the Arkansas Water Quality Standards, "Existing instream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the 29 existing uses shall be maintained and protected," The Department recommends the area be restored to as near original contours as possible. With after-the-fact permits, just as with any other permit application, if the State denies certification, the Corps is prohibited from granting a permit. If the applicant refuses to restore the area and does not have a permit, the applicant is subject to a potential enforcement action for restoration and substantial penalties for the unpermitted discharge of pollutants by the EPA, the Corps, a citizen under the citizen suit provision of the CWA, or by the State, if the activi^ violates a prohibition of State law. If the State determines that it will get a better environmental result by conditioning certification, it may choose to take that approach. The condition might require mitigation for the filled area (where restoration may cause more environmental harm than benefit, for instance) with restoration or creation of a potentially more valuable wetland area. In any event, a State should not waive certification of an after-the-fiact permit application simply because it is after-the-facL VL DEVELOPING 401 CERTIFICATION IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS: ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS A comprehensive set of 401 certification implementing regulations would have both procedural and substantive provisions which maYmiiw the State agency's control over the process and which make its decisions defensible in court The veiy fact of having 401 certification regulations goes a long way in providing the State agency that implements 401 certification with credibility in the courts. Currently, no State has "ideal" 401 certification implementing regulations, and many do not have them at alL When 401 certification regulations are carefully considered, they can be very effective not only in conserving the quality of the State's waters, but in providing the regulated sectors with some predictability of State actions, and in minimizing the State's financial and him:ian resource requirements as well Everything in this handbook relates in some way to the development of sound water quality standards and 401 certification implementing regulations that will enhance wetland protection. This section addresses some very basic procedural considerations of 401 certification implementing regulations which have not been treated elsewhere. These include provisions concerning the contents of an application for certification; the agenqr's timefiame for review; and the requirements placed on the applicant in the certification process. 30 A. Review Timeframe and "Complete" Applications Under Section 401(a)(1) a State will be deemed to have waived certification if it fails to act within "a reasonable period of time (which shaU not exceed one year) after receipt of such request" Program managers should keep in mind that the federal permitting or license agen^ may have regulations of its own which provide a time limit for the State's certification decision. For instance. Corps regulations say that a waiver "will be deemed to occur if the certifying agency £ails or refuses to act on a request for certification within sixty days after receipt . . . unless the district engineer determines a shorter or longer period is reasonable . . . ."^ FERC rules state that a certifying agen^ "is deemed to have waived the certification requirements if ... [it] has not denied or granted certification by one year after the date the certifying agency received the request".'^ EPA regulations for Section 402 in non-authorized States set a limit of 60 days unless the Regional Administrator finds that miusual circumstances require a longer time.*' States should coordinate closely with the appropriate federal agency on timing issues. For example, Alaska negotiated joint EPA^tate procedures for coastal NPDES permit review, llie agreement takes into account and coordinates EPA, Coastal Zone Management, and 401 certification time frames. It is also advisable for the States to adopt rules which reasonably protect against an unintended waiver due, for example, to insuEBcient information to make a certification decision or because project plans have changed enough to warrant a reevaluation of the impacts on water quality. Thus, after taking the federal agencies' regulations into accoimt, the State's 401 certification regulations should link the timing for review to what is considered receipt of a complete application. Wisconsin, for instance, requires the applicant to submit a complete application for certification before the official agency review time begins. The State's regulations define the major components of a complete application, including the existing physical environment at the site, the size of the area affected, all enviroimiental impact assessment information provided to the licensing or permitting agency, and the like. The rules State that the agency will review the application for completeness within 30 days of its receipt and notify the applicant of any additional materials reasonably necessary for review. Although the application wiU be deemed "complete" for purposes of review time if the agency does not request additional materials within 40 days of receipt of the application, the agency reserves the right to request additional information during the review process.^ 31 In the case of FERC projects, West Virginia has taken additional precautions with regard to time for review. If the project application is altered or modified during the FERC licensing process prior to FERC's final decision, the applicant shall inform the Department of such changes. The Department may review such alterations or modifications and, if the changes are deemed sig^tificant by the Director, the Department may require a new application for certificadon. The Department will have ninety (90) days to review such dumges or until the end of the year review period . . . , whichever is longer, to determine whether to require a new application or to alter its origbtal certification decision. If the department requires a new application because of a sign^icant application modification, then the Deparmient wiU have ax (6) moritits to issue its certification decision from the date of submission of the apj^ication.^^ ... 1^ B. Reqnireinents for the Applicant It is veiy important, in particular for conserving the agents resources and ensuring that tibere is sufficient information to determine that water quality standards and other provisions of the CWA wiU not be violated by the activity, to clarify that it is the applicant who is responsible for providing or proving particular facts or requirements. For instance. Section 401(a)(1) reqiiires that a State "establish procedures for public notice in the case of aU applications for certification." West A^ginia requires applicants for FERC licenses to be responsible for this notice. In the case of Section 404 permits, West Virginia has a joint notice process with the Corps to issue public notices for 404 applications which also notify the public of the State certification process. Thus, there is no need for West Virginia to require the applicant to do so for these permits.^ A second consideration is that States should require the applicant to demonstrate the project's compliance with applicable federal and State law and regulatioiL EPA's 401 certification regulations name the sources of information a State should toe. as that contained in the application and other information "furnished by the applicant" sufficient to allow the agency to make a statement that water quality standards will not be violated.^ Of course in addition, the regulations also refer to other information the agency may choose to examine which is not furnished by the applicant 32 Ohio, for instance, has written a requirement for the applicant to demonstrate compliance into its 401 certification implementing regulations: (A) The director shall not issue a Section 401 water quality certification unless he determines that the applicant has demonstrated that the discharge of dredged or fill material to waters of the state or the creation of any obstruction or alteration in waters of the state wilL-^ (1) Not preveru or interfere with the attainment or maintenance of applicable water quality standards; (2) Not result in a violation of any applicable provision of the following sections of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act [301, 302, 303, 306 and 307]. (B) Notwithstanding an appUcant's demonstration of the criteria in paragraph (A) ... the director may derty an appticadon for a Section 401 water quality certification if the director concludes that the discharge of dredged orfUl material or obstructions or alterations in waters of the state will result in adverse long or short term impact on water quality.^^ C Permit Fees A very significant concern for all States who plan to initiate or expand their 401 certification program is the availability of funding. Application fee requirements are a potential funding source to supplement State program budgets. The State of California's Regional Water Quality Control Boards require filing fees for 401 certification applications unless a Board determines that certification is not required. The fee structiire is spelled out in the California Water Code. The money collected from the fees goes into the State agency's general fund. The Regional Boards may recover some portion of the fees through the budget request process. The State of Ohio also has a fee structure for 401 certification applicants. In Ohio, however, fees go into the State's general fund, rather than back into the State agency. Neither State coUects fees sufficient to support the 401 certification program fully. Despite these potential barriers, application fees could provide a much needed funding source which States should explore. D. Basis for Certification Decisions The regulations should also set out the grounds on which the decision to grant or deny certification will be based, the scope of the State's review, and the bases for conditioning a certification. If a State has denied water quality certification for a general permit or has conditioned such a permit on some requirement of State review, the State's 401 certification implementing regulations might also outline the obligations 33 of a person proposing to accomplish work under such a pennit. The following is a hypothetical example of regulatoiy language a State might use to define the grounds for the State's decision to grant, condition, or deny certification: In order to obtain certification of any proposed activity that may result in a discharge to waters of the United States, an applicant must demonstrate that the entire activity over its lifetime will not violate or interfere with the attainment of ai^ limitations or standards contained in Section 301, 302, 303, 306, and 307, the federal regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, and any provisions of state law or regulation adopted punuant to, or which are more stringent than, those provisions of the Qean Water Act The agency may condition certification on any requiranents consistent with ensuring the applicant's compliance with the provisions listed above, or with any other requurements of state law related to the maintenance, preservation, orenhancenient of water quality^... :^^^ This sample regulatory language provides the grounds for the certification decision, sets the scope of review (lifetime effects of the entire activity') and clearly States that the applicant must demonstrate compliance. For purposes of conditioning the certification in the event it is granted, the same standards can be applied, with the addition of ai^ other requirements of State law that are related to water qtiality. Regulations are not project specific They must be generally applicable to all projects subject to 401 certffication review, while at the same time providing reasonable notice to an applicant regarding the general standards employed by the agency in the certification process. (A State may choose to adopt license/permit-specific regulations for 401 certification, but such regulations will still have to be applicable to all activities that may occur pursuant to that license or permit). There are other considerations that should be addressed in 401 certification implementing regulations, some of which have been mentioned in other parts of this handbook. These include provisions which require applicants for federal licenses and permits which may result in a discharge to apply for water quality certification; provisions which define waters of the State to include wetlands and which define other pertinent terms; and provisions addressing general permits. 34 Vn. EXISTING AND EMERGING SOURCES OF DATA TO AID 401 CERimCATION AND STANDARDS DECISION MAKERS According to a number of State program managers, more data on wetland functions, or "uses," would greatly assist the certification process. Wetland ecosystems not only perform a wide variety of functions but do so in varying degrees. Public agencies and private applicants currently employ a number of assessment methods such as the Wetlands Evaluation Technique and the Habitat Evaluation Procedure to determine what functions or uses exist in a particular wetland system.^ In many States, however, water quality certification reviewers lack the resources to perform even a simple assessment of a wetland's boundaries, values and functions. Information about the location and types of wetland systems, and of the functions they may perform (such as flood storage, habitat, pollution attenuation, nutrient uptake, and sediment fixing) would aid standard writers in developing appropriate uses and criteria for wetlands, and allow 401 certification ofBcials to conduct a more thorough review. Several States already have extensive knowledge of their wetland resources, and data gathering efforts are also being undertaken by EPA, the VS. Fish and Wildlife Service and other agencies.^ Although these efforts to inventory and classify wetlands have not been dosely tied to the 401 certification process in the past, these existing data can be valuable sources of information for 401 certification reviewers. It is important to remember, however, that wetland boundaries for regulatory purposes may differ fiom those identified by National Wetland Inventory maps for general inventory purposes. The EPA, Corps of Engineers, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Soil Conservation Service have adopted a joint manual for identifying and delineating wetlands in the United States. The manual win be available in June, 1989.^ There are several programs that offer technical support for 401 certification decisions. For example, approximately forty States have worked with the Nature Conservancy to establish "natural heritage programs," which identify the most critical spedes, habitats, plant communities, and other natural features within a State's territorial boundaries. Most States now have a State natural heritage office to coordinate this identification program. Inventory efforts such as the natural heritage program could give 401 certification managers some of the information they need to limit or prohibit adverse water quality impacts in important wetland areas. Specifically, the inventory process can identify existing wetland uses in order to maintain them. The information may also be used in identifying wetlands for Outstanding Resource Waters designation.^' The Fish and Wildlife Service maintains a Wetlands Values Data Base which may be very useful in identifying wetland functions and in designating wetland uses for water quality standards. The data base is on computer and contains an annotated bibliography of sdentific literature on wetland functions and values.^ Several States 35 have established critical area programs to identify and protect unique and highly sensitive land and water resources. These programs can provide data to the State •. water quality certification office and therel^ strengthen the scientific basis for 401 certification decision making.^^ Another potential source of information which might identify wetlands appropriate for designation as Outstanding Resource Waters are the wetland plans which each State is required to develop to comply with the 1986 Emergency Wetlands Resources Act Beginning in fiscal year 1988, Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plans (SCORP) must now contain a Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan ' approved by the Department of Interior. Although these plans are primarily focused on wetlands for acquisition, they are a potential source of data on wetland locations and functions. The wetlands identified may also be suitable for special protection under the Outstanding Resource Waters provisions of the antidegradation policy. The Advance Identification program (ADID), conducted by EPA and the permitting authority, may also furnish a considerable amount of useful informatioiL EPA's 404(b)(1) Guidelines contain a procedure for identifying in advance areas that are generally suitable or unsuitable for the deposit of dredged or fill material^ In recent years, EPA has made greater use of this authority. ADID is often used in wetland areas that are experiencing significant development or other conversion pressures. Many ADID efforts generate substantial data on the location and functions of wetlands within the stucfy area such as wetland maps, and habitat, water qualify, or hydrological studies. Special Area Nfanagement Plans (SAMPs) are another planning process which may yield useful information. SAMPs refer to a process authorized by the 1980 amendments to the Coastal Zone Management Improvement Act, which provides grants to States to develop comprehensive plans for natural resource protection and "reasonable coastal-dependent economic growth."^ The SAMP process implicitly recognizes the State water qualify certification process, directing all relevant local. State, and federal authorities to coordinate permit programs in carrying out the completed SAMP. The Corps of Engineers has supported and initiated several of these processes. In addition, other SAMPs have been completed by several States. Much of these data can be collected, combined, and used in decision making with the aid of geographic-based computer systems that can store, analyze, and present data related to wetlands in graphic and written forms.^ A reviewing official can quickly access and overlay a range of different existing information bases such as flora and fauna inventories, soil suryeys, remote sensing data, watershed and wetland maps, existing uses anu criteria, and project proposal information. 36 Finally, data is presently emerging on the use of wetlands as treatment areas for wastewater, stormwater, and non-point discharges.^ Rorida, for instance, has adopted a rule on wastewater releases into wetlands.^ Florida prohibits wastewater discharges into the following kinds of wetlands: those designated as outstanding waters of the State; wetlands within potable water supplies; shellfish propagation or harvesting waters; wetlands in areas of critical State concern; wetlands where herbaceous ground cover constitutes more than thirty percent of the uppermost stratum (unless sevens-five percent is cattafl); and others. Wastewater discharges are permitted in certain wetlands dominated by woocfy vegetation, certain l^drologically altered wetlands, and artificially created wetlands; however, the State applies special effluent limitations to take account of a wetland's ability to assimilate nitrogen and phosphorus. It also applies qualitative^ and quantitative^ design criteria. The rule establishes four "wetland biological quality" standards. Hrst, the flora and fauna of the wetland cannot be changed so as to impair the wetland's ability to function in the propagation and maintenance of fish and wildlife populations or substantially reduce its effectiveness in wastewater treatment Second, the Shannon- Weaver diversity index of benthic macroinvertebrates cannot be reduced below fifty percent of background levels. Third, fish populations must be monitored and maintained, and an annual survey of each species must be conducted. Fourth, the "importance value" of any dominant plant species in the canopy and snbcanopy at any • monitoring station cannot be reduced by more than fifty percent, and the average "importance value" of aity dominant plant species cannot be reduced by more than twenty-five percent** These types of efforts, constantly being adjusted to take account of new information in a field where knowledge is rapidly expanding, are fertile sources of information for wetland standard writers and 401 certification drmion makers. Vm. SUMMARY OF ACnONS NEEDED This handbook has onfy scratched the surface of issues surrounding effective use of 401 certification to protect wetlands. The preceding discussion and examples from active States have highlighted possible approaches for all States to incorporate into their 401 certification programs. The handbook shows that there are many things that a State can act on right away to improve the effectiveness of 401 certification to protect the integrity of its wetlands. At the same time, there are improvemoits to water quality standards for wetlands which will have to take place within a longer timeframe. 37 Steps States Can Take Right Away All states shoold b^in by explicitly incorporating wetlands into tlieir definitions of state waters in both state water quality standards regulations, and in state 401 certifications regulations. States should develop or modify their regulations and guidelines for 401 certification and water quality standards to clarity their programs, codity their decision process, and to incorporate special wetlands considerations into the more traditional water quality approaches. StiEitiits should make more effective use of their existing narrative water quality standards (indnding the antidegradation poliqr) to protect wetlands. States should initiate or improve upon existing inventories of their wetland resourcefi;..-;:;- ■,,.,;:■••..■ ■ States :shiDnIddesijpiate>use9'f^ on estimates3iDf wetland fimctibns typically associated with given wetland types. Such potential uses could be verified for individual applications with an assessment tool such as the Wetlands Evaluation Technique or Habitat Evaluation Procedure. States should tap into the potential of the outstanding resource waters tier of the antidegradation policy for wetlands. It may not be an appropriate designation for all of a state's wetlands, but it can provide excellent protection to particularty valuable or ecologically sensitive wetlands firom both physical and diemical degradation. . ,,^ States.should incorporate wetlands and 401 certification into thdr other water quality management processes; Integrating this tool with other mechanisms such as coastal zone management programs, point and nonpoiht source programs, and water quality management plans will help fill the gaps of each individual tool and allow better protection of wetlands systems fit>m the whole host of physical, chemical, and biological impacts. Time and the courts may be needed to resolve some of the more complicated and contenuous issues surrounding 401 certification such as which federal permits and licenses require 401 certification. EPA intends to support States in resolving such issues. 38 f OWP, in cooperation with the Office of Water Regulations and Standards • (OWRS), will build on this 401 certification handbook by developing guidance in FY 89-90 on water quality standards for wetlands. The guidance will provide the framework for States to incorporate wetlands into their water quality standards. The guidance will: require States to include wetlands as "waters of the State;" provide methods to designate wetland uses that recognize differences in wetland types and functions; address some chemical-specific and narrative biological criteria for wetlands; and discuss implementation of State antidegradation policies. B: Laying the Groundworic for Future Decisions Many States are successfuUy applying their existing narrative and, to a lesser extent, numeric water quality criteria to their wetland resources. Nevertheless, more work is needed to test the overall adequacy and applicability of these standards for wetlands, and to develop additional criteria where jieeded. For example, existing criteria related to- pH do not account for the extreme natural acidity of many peat bogs nor the extreme alkalinity of certain fens. Also, many existing criteria focus too extensively on the chemical quality of the water colimm without adequately protecting the other physical and biological components which are an integral part of wetland aquatic systems. Some nimieric criteria for chemicals may not be protective enough of species (particularly bird species) which feed, breed, and/or spend a portion of their life cycle in wetlands. Hydrological changes can have severe impacts on wetland quality, but these changes are rarely addressed in traditional water quality standards. Research of interest to State programs is being sponsored by the Wetlands Research Program of EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD). Research covers three areas: Cumulative Effects, Water Quality, and Nfitigation. Although these efforts will be developed over several years, interim products win be distributed to the States. States may find these products of use when developing criteria and standards, when identifying and designating wetlands as outstanding resource waters, and when making 401 certification decisions. Cumulative Effects: EPA's research on cimiulative effects of wetlands takes a regional perspective. Through a series of regional pilot studies involving landscape analyses, ORD is correlating water quality conditions at the outlets of major watersheds with the percentage of wetlands in these watersheds. The types of wetlands, their position, and 39 non-wetland factors are also being analyzed. The results will allow water quality managers in these regions to specify the optimal percentage and combination of vai:ious types of wetlands needed to maintain water quality of lakes and rivers. Such watershed criteria could be used to guide efforts to create or restore wetlands for the purpose of intercepting and improving the quality of nonpoint runoSL The pflot studies will also determine which wetland features can be used to predict wetland functions. Once differences among wetlands can be identified based on their functions, it will be possible to classify particular wetlands with regard to specific designated uses. The cimiulative effects program is using the results of the pflot studies as technical support for developing a "Synoptic Assessment Method". This method has alreacfy been used to rank watersheds within certain regions, acceding to the likely cumulative benefits of their wetlands. Also, sources of informatkm useful for designating uses of individual wetlands were described by ORD in EPA's draft guidance for Advance Identification Appendix D.'^ Information on regionany rare or declining wetland wfldlife, which could be used as one basis for establishing "special aquatic areas" in selected wetlands, is also available from the ORD Wetlands Research Team at the Corvallis EPA Lab. Water Qnality: Another ORD stucfy, being implemented through the Duhith Lab, is examining impacts to the water quality and biota of 30 wetlands, before and after regional development This study win be useful, as part of 401 certification, for developing performance standards for activities which may affect wetland water quality. Several research projects being proposed by the Wetland Research Program could produce information very useful to water quality managers. These are described in ORD's publication, "Wetlands and Water Quality: A Reseaidi and Monitoring Implementation Plan for the Years 1989-1994". Many of these prc^xisals are planned, but wfll hinge upon fimding decisions in future budget years. Those which drew the most support from a 1988 EPA workshop of scientists and State program administrators were as follows: o Water Quality Criteria to Protect Wetland Function. Existing quality criteria for surface waters would be reviewed for applicability to wetlands. Methods for biological and chemical monitoring of wetlands would be refined, and a field manual produced. 40 Ecological Status and Trends of the Wetland Resource. A nationwide network would be established to monitor the wetland resource. Field surveys would ■ . define the expected range of numerical values within each region for particular chemicals and especially, for biological commimity metrics, across a gradient of sites ranging from nearly-pristine to severely disturbed. Waste Assimilative Limits of Wetlands. Observable features which determine the long-term ability of wetlands to retain contaminants and nutrients would be tested. "Safe" loading limits for various substances would be proposed for specific wetland types or regions. Similar kinds of information would also become available from a research effort focused specifically on artificial wetlands and coordinated by EPA-Cinciimati, in cooperation with the Corvallis and Duluth Labs. That study would recommend engineering design factors essential in wetlands constructed by municipalities for tertiary wastewater treatment Mitigation: Information useful to 401 certification will also originate from ORD'S mitigation research. This research aims to determine if created and restored wetlands replace functions lost by wetland destruction permitted imder Section 404. The research is organized to (1) synthesize current knowledge on wetland creation and restoration, (2) compile 404 permit information on created and restored wetlands, and (3) compare created and naturally occurring wetlands. Research results will be incorporated into a "Mitigation Handbook" useful for designing and evaluating mitigation projects. A literature synthesis being developed as a Provisional Guidance Document wiU be available in 1989. A provisional version of the handbook will be produced in 1990. This win assist States in identifying areas at greatest risk due to 404 permit activities and thus help target 401 certification and water quality standards activities. 41 » ■V-- ,;.,....■.,,:..„,■. APPENDIX A ■ ■ ■ Provided below are State 401 certifictation contacts and EPA wetlands contacts ifdio can provide assistance in applying 401 to wetlands. EPA has asked the Council of State Governments (CSG) to maintain a database of State wetland contacts and programs. In order to help keep the database up to date, please contact CSG viiien yon have changes in your program or staff contacts, or if you come across inaccuracies in other State programs. You can access this database using virtually any computer with a modem. In order to obtain your firee usemame and password contact: The Council of State Governments P.O. Box 11910, Iron Works Pike Lexington, Kentudgr 40578 phone: (606) 252-2291 FEDERAL 401 CERTIFICATEON CONTACTS FOR WETLANDS EPA Headquarters: Dianne Fish Wetlands Strategies Team (A-104F) Environmental Protection Agen^ 401 M Street, SW Washington, D.C 20460 Phone: (202) 382-7071 Jeanne Melanson Outreach and State Programs Staff (A-104F) Environmental Protection Agency 401 M Street, SW Washington, D.C 20460 Phone: (202) 475-6745 EPA Region Contacts: EPA Region I Doug Thompson, Chief Wetlands Protection Section (WPP- 1900) John F. Kennedy Federal Building Boston, Massachusetts 02203 (017) 565-4421 EPA Region n Mario del Vicario, Chief Marine/Wetlands Prot Branch (2WM- MWP) 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10278 (212) 264-5170 42 EPA Region III Barbara De Angelo, Chief Marine & Wetlands Policy Sect (3ES42) 841 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107 (215) 597-1181 EPA Region IV Tom Welbom, Acting Chief Wetlands Section (4WM-MEB) 345 Courtland Street, N£. Atlanta, Georgia 30365 (404) 347-2126 EPA Region V Doug Ehom, Deputy Chief Water Quality Branch (5WQ-TUB8) 230 South Dearborn Street Chicago, Illinois 60604 (312) 886-0139 EPA Region VI Jerry Saunders, Chief Technical Assistance Sect (6E-FT) 1445 Ross Avenue 12th Hoor, Suite 1200 Dallas, Texas 75202 (214) 655-2260 EPA Region Vn B. Katherine Biggs, Chief Environmental Review Branch (ENVR) 726 Minnesota Avenue Kansas City, Kansas 66101 (913) 236-2823 EPA Region Vni Gene Reetz, Chief Water Quality Requirements Sect One Denver Place Suite 1300 999 18th Street Denver, Colorado 80202 (303) 293-1568 EPA Region DC Phil Oshida, Chief Wetlands Section (W-7) 215 Fremont Street San Francisco, California 94105 (415) 974-7429 EPA Region X Bill Riley, Chief Water Resources Assessment (WD-138) 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 (206) 442-1412 CD. Robison, Jr. Alaska Operations OfBce, Region X Federal Building Room E551 701 C Street, Box 19 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 EPA Wetlands Research Eric Preston Environmental Research Lab Corvallis/ORD 200 S.W. 35 Street Corvallis,OR 97333 (503) 757-4666 BillSanville Environmental Research Laboratory/ORD 6201 Congdon Blvd Duluth, MN 55804 (218) 720-5723 43 State 401 CERTIFICATION CONTACTS Brad Gane Field Operation Division Dept of Enviromental Management 2204 Perimeter Road Mobile, Alabama 36615 (205)479-2236 Walter Tatum Field Operation Division Dept of Enviromental Management 2204 Perimeter Road Mobfle, Alabama 36615 ■ (205) 968-7576 Doug Redbum Dept of Enviromental Conservation 3220 Hospital Drive Juneau, Alaska 99811 (907) 465-2653 Mr. Dick Stokes Southeast Office Department of Environmental Conservation P.O. Box 2420 9000 Old Glacier Highway Juneau, Alaska 99803 (907) 789-3151 Mr. Tun Rumfelt Southcentral Office Department of Environmental Conservation 437 E Street, Second Floor Anchorage, Alaska 99501 (907) 274-2533 Mr. Paul Bateman Northern Office (Arctic) Department of Environmental Conservation 1001 Noble Street, Suite 350 Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 (907)452-1714 Ms. Joyce Beehnan Northern Office (Interior) Department of Environmental Conservation 1001 Noble Street, Suite 350 Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 (907)452-1714 Steve Drown Dept of Pollution Control and Ecology 8001 National Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 (501)652-7444 Jack Hodges State Water Resources Control Board P.O. Box 100 Sacramento, California 95801-0100 (916) 322-0207 Jon Scherschligt Water Quali^ Control Division 4210 E. 11th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80220 (303) 320-8333 Douglas E. Cooper Wetlands Management Section Dept of Env. Prot Water Resources Room 203, State Office Building 165 Capitol Avenue Hartford, Connecticut 06106 (203) 566-7280 r 44 William F. Moyer Dept. of Natural Resoiirces and Environmental Control 89 King's Highway P.O.Box 1401 Dover, Delaware 19903 (302) 736-4691 Richmond Williams Dept of Natural Resources and Environmental Control Legal Office 89 King's Highway P.O. Box 1401 Dover, Delaware 19903 (302) 736-4691 Randall L. Armstrong Division of Environmental Permitting Dept of Env. Regulation 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-0130 Mike Creason Enviroiunental Protection Division Dept of Natural Resources 205 Butler Street S£. Floyd Towers East Atlanta, Georgia 30334 (404)656-4887 James K. Dceda Environmental Protection & Health Services Division Department of Health 1250 Punchbowl Street P.O. Box 3378 Honolulu, Hawaii 96801-9984 (808) 548-6455 John Winters Water QiialiQr and Standards Branch Dept of Env. Management 105 S. Meridian Street Indianapolis, Indiana 46206-6015 (317) 243-5028 Al KeUer Environmental Protection Agency 2200 Churchill Road Springfield, Dlinois 62706 (217) 782-0610 Bruce Yurdin Environmental Protection Agency 2200 Churchill Road Springfield, imnois 62706 (217) 782-0610 Jeny Yoder Bureau of Water Quality Division of Envinnimental Quality 450 West State Street Boise, Idaho 83720 . (208) 334-5860 Ralph Turkle Department of Natural Resources 900 East Grand Avenue Des Moines, Iowa 50319 (515) 281-7025 Lavoy Haage Department of Natural Resources 900 East Grand Avenue Henry A. Wallace Office Buflding Des Moines, Iowa 50319 (515) 281-8877 45 Larry Hess Dept of Health and Environment ' Bmlding740 Forbes Field Topeka, Kansas 66620 " . .\ (913)862-9360 Paul Becklcy Division of Water Dept of Natural Resources Fort Boone Plaza Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 (502) 564-310, cxL 495 Dale Givens Water Pollution Control P.O. Box 44091 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804 (504) 342-6363 Donald T. WitheriD Dept of Env. Protection Division of Licensing Augusta, Maine 04333 (207) 289-2111 Maiy Jo Carries Division of Standards Department of the Environment 201 West Preston Street Baltimore, Maryland 21201 (301) 225-6293 Jo Ann Watson E^ivision of Standards Dept of Health and Mental Hygiene 201 West Preston Street Baltimore, Maryland 21201 (301) 225-6293 Ken Chrest Water Quality Bureau Cogswell Building Helena, Montana 59620 (406)444-2406 . ,,. ^ . BOl Gaugfaan Div. of Water Pollution DepL of Env. Quality Engineering 1 WmtcT Street Boston, Massachusetts 02108 (617)292-5658 Judy Perry Regulatory Branch Div. of Water Pollution Dept. of Env. Quality Engineering 1 Winter Street Boston, Massachusetts 02108 (617)292-5655 Les Thomas Land and Water Management Div. Dept of Natural Resources P.O. Box 30028 Lansing, Michigan 48909 ' (517) 373-9244 Robert Seyfarth Bureau of PoUution Control Dept of Natural Resources Box 10385 Jackson, Mississippi 39209 (601) 961-5171 Charles Chisohn Bureau of Pollution control Dept of Natural Resources Box 10385 Jackson, Mississippi 39209 (601) %1-5171 r 46 Jim Morris Water Quality Management Section Dept of Natural Resources Box 10385 Jackson, Mississippi 39209 (601)961-5151 Louis Flynn MPLA 1935 West County Road B-2 RosevOle, Minnesota 55113 (612) 296-7355 Laurie K. Collerot Water Supply and Pollution Control Hazen Drive P.O. BoK 95 Concord, New Hampshire 03301 (603) 271-2358 Fred Elkind Water Supply and PoUutibn Control Dept of Env. Services Hsoen Drive P.O. Box 95 Concord, New Hampshire 03301 (603) 271-2358 Ray Carter Water Supply and Pollution Control Hazen Drive P.O. Box 95 Concord, New Hampshire 03301 (603) 271-2358 George Danskin Div. of Regulatory Affairs Dept of Env. Conservation 50 Wolf Road Albany, New York 12233 (518) 457-2224 William Qarke Div. of Regulatory Afifairs Dept. of Env. Conservation 50 Wolf Road Albany, New York 12233 (518) 457-2224 U. Gale Hutton Water Quality Division Dept. of Env. Control P.O. Box 94877 State House Station Lincoln, Nebraska 68509-4877 (402) 471-2186 George Horzepa Division of Water Resources Dept of Env. Protection CN029 Trenton, New Jersey 08625 (609) 633-7021 Barry Chalofsky Division of Water Resources Dept of Env. Protection CN029 Trenton, New Jersey 08625 (609) 633-7021 Robert Piel Div. of Coastal Resources Dept of Env. Protection CN401 Trenton, New Jersey 08625 (609) 633-7021 David Tague Env. Improvement Division P.O. Box 968 Sante Fe, New Mexico 87504-0968 (505) 827-2822 47 Michael T. Saucr State Dept of Health 1200 Missouri avenue Bismarck, North Dakota 58505 (701) 224-2354 Paul Wilms Div. of Env. Management Department of Natural Resources and Community Development P.O. Box 27687 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 (919) 733-7015 BiUMOls Water Quali^ Section Department of Natural Resources P.O. Box 27687 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 (919) 733-5083 Colleen Crook Div. of Water Quality and Ohio EPA 1800 Watermark Drive P.O. Box 1049 Columbus, Ohio 432664)149 (614) 981-7130 Brooks Kirlin Water Resource Board P.O. Box 53585 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73152 (405) 271-2541 Glen Carter Dept of Env. Quality P.O. Box 1760 Portland, Oregon 97207 (503)229-5358 Louis W. Bercheni Bureau of Water Quality Dept of Env. Resources P.O. Box 2063 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 (717) 787-2666 Peter Slack Bureau of Water Quality Dept of Env. Resources P.O. Box 2063 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 (717) 787-2666 Edward S. S^rmanski Dept of Env. Management Di>dsion of Water Resources 291 Promenade Street Providence, Rhode Island 02908-5767 (401) 277-3961 Carolyn Weymouth Office of Environmental Coordination Department of Environmental Management 83 Park Street Providence, Rhode Island 02903 (401) 277-3434 Chester E. Sansbmy Division of Water Quality Dept of Health and Env. Control 2600 Bull Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201 (803) 758-5496 Larry Bowers Div. of Water Pollution Control Dept of Health and Env. 150 Ninth North Avenue Nashville, Tennessee 37203 (615) 741-7883 48 Robert Sfleus Water Commission P.O. Box 13087 Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711 (512) 463-8202 Dr. Donald Hflden Bureau of Water PoDution Control P.O. Box 45500 Salt Lake Qty, Utah 84145 (801) 533^146 Carl Pagel Agen^ of Natural Resources Dept of Environmental Conservation 103 S. Main Street Waterbuiy, Vermont 05676 (802) 244-6951 Steve Syz Agen^ of Natural Resources Dept of Env. Conservation 103 S. Main Street Waterbiny, Vermont 05676 (802) 244-6951 Jean Gregory Office of Water Resources Management Water Control Board P.O. Box 11143 Ridmiond, Virginia 23230 (804) 367-6985 Mike Camavale Water Quality Division State Dept of Env. Quality Herschler BiiOding Cheyenne, Wyoming 82202 (307) 777-7781 MikePalko Dept of Ecology Mail Stop PV-11 Olympia, Washington 98504 (206) 459^6289 John Schinidt Water Resources Division Dept of Natural Resources 1201 Greenbrier Street Charieston, West Virginia 25311 (304) 348-2108 Jim Rawson Wildlife Division Dept of Natural Resources P.aBax67 Elkins, West Virginia 26241 (304) 636-1767 Scott Hausmann Bureau of Water Regulation and Zoning Dept of Natural Resources P.O. Box 7921 Madison, Wisconsin 53701 (608)266.7360 49 APPENDIX B FEDERAL DEFINmONS The federal definition of "waters of the United States" is (40 CFR Section 232^(q)): (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; i , ,,j, (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 ai^ such waters: (i) Which are or could be iised 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.) The federal definition of "wetlands" (40 CFR § 2312(r)). 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 sofl conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. 50 APPENDK C f SCOPE OF PROJECT REVIEW: PENNSYLVANU DAM PROPOSAL EXAMPLE 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 surfoce area of 3,800 acres, a total storage capacity of 35,000 acre feet, and a pool elevation of 306J 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 woxild have been 10,000 cfs (at a nethead of 12S) 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: L 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 I 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 wiU be lost are critical habitat for, among other species, the yeUow 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. AU 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. 51 c. Proposed riprapping of the shoreline could further reduce wetland acreage. The applicant has faUed to demonstrate that there will not be an adverse water quality and related habitat impaa resulting from riprapping. t 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 sufBcient information concerning the impact of increased groimdwater 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 adeqtiately assess the effect of raised groundwater on sewer system laterals, effectiveness of sewer rehabilitation measures and potential for increased flows at the Harrisbtirg wastewater plant 3. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that there wiU 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 fluctuatioiL Suffident information was not provided to allow the Department to conclude that dissolved oxygen standards wfll be met in the pool area. Additionally, the applicant failed to adequately address the issue of anticipated dissolved oxygen levels below the dant 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 quali^ impact resulting from combined sewer overflows. 6. The applicant has faOed to demonstrate that there wiU 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 imp>act on the aquatic resoiirces upstream from the proposed impoundment For example, the suitability of the impoundment for smalimouth bass spawning relative to the frequency of turbid 52 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 impoimdment 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 nimibers 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. I 53 . - ■ . .- *. '.•••■ -; - * r c APPENDIX D EXAMPLES OF CERTIFICATION CONDITIONS •♦MARYLAND** Maryland certified with conditions the fill/alteration of 6.66 acres of non-tidal wetlands as part of the construction of an 18 hole golf course and a residential subdivisioiL Appraximately three-fourths of the entire site of 200 acres had been cleared for cattle grazing and agricultural activities in the past As a result, a stream on the east side of the proper^ with no buffer had been severely degraded. An unbuffered tractor crossing had also degraded the stream. A palustrine forested wetland area on the southeast side xji the property received stormwater nmoff from a highway bordering the property and served as a flood storage and ground water recharge area. Filling this area for construction of a fairway would eliminate some 4.5 acres of wetlands. Additionally, other smaller wetland areas on the property, principally around an old farm pond that was to be fashioned into four sepaizte ponds for water traps, were proposed to be altered or lost as a result of the development The Corps did not exercise its discretionary authority to require an individual permit and thus the project was permitted under a nationwide permit (26). The State decided to grant certification, conditioned on a number of things that it believed would improve the water quality of the stream in the long run. The filled wetland areas had to be replaced on an acre-for-acre basis on the property and in particular, the 4 J acre forested palustrine wetland had to be replaced onsite with a wetland area serving the same functions regarding stormwater nmoff from the highway. Some of the other conditions placed on the certification were as follows: 1. The applicant must obtain and certify compliance with a grading and sediment control plan approved by the [name of county] Sofl Conservation District; 2. Stormwater runoff firom impervious surfaces shall be controlled to prevent the washing of debris into the waterway. Stormwater drainage facilities shaU be designed, implemented, operated and maintained in accordance with the requirements of the [applicable county authority]; 54 3. The applicant shall ensure that fish species are stocked in the ponds upon completion of the construction phase in accordance with the requirements ^ of the [fisheries division of the natural resources department of the State]; v 4. The applicant shall ensure that aU mitigation areas are inspected annually by a wetlands scientist to ensure that all wetlands are functioning properly; 5. A vegetated buffer shall be established around the existing stream and proposed ponds; 6. . Biological control methods for weed, insects and other undesirable species are to be employed whenever possible on the greens, tees, and fairways located within or in dose proximity to the wetland or waterways; 7. Fertilizers are to be used on greens, tees, and fairways only. From the second year of operation, all applications of fertilizers at the golf course shall be in the lower range dosage rates [specified]. The use of slow release compoimds such as sulfur-coated urea is required. There shaU be no application of fertilizers within two weeks of verticutting, coring or spiking operations. 55 ♦* WEST VmGINU *• THE FOLLOWING GENERAL CONDITIONS APPLY TO ALL NATIONWIDE PERMITS IN WEST VIRGINIA: 1. Permittee will investigate for water supply intakes or other activities immediately downstream which may be affected by suspended solids and turbidity increases caused by work in the watercourse. He yriUl give notice to operators of any such water supply intakes before beginning work in the watercourse in sufficient time to allow preparation for any change in water quali^. 2. When no feasible alternative is available, excavation, dredging or filling in the watercourse will be done to the minimum extent practicable. 3. Spofl materials from the watercourse or onshore operations, including sludge deposits, wiU not be dimiped into the water course or deposited in wetlands. 4. Permittee will employ measures to prevent or control spills from fuels, lubricants, or any other materials used in construction from entering the watercourse. 5. Upon completion of earthwork operations, aU fills in the watercourse or onshore and other areas disturbed during construction, will be seeded, riprapped, or given some other type of protection from subsequent soil erosion. If riprap is utilized, it is to be of such weight and size that badk stress or slump conditions will not be created due to its placement Fill is to be clean and of such composition that it will not adversely effect the biological, chemical or physical properties of the receiving waters. 6. Runoff from any storage areas or spills wHl not be allowed to enter storm sewers without acceptable removal of solids, oils and toxic compounds. All spills will promptly be reported to the appropriate Department of Natural Resources office. 7. Best Management Practices for sediment and erosion control as descnbed in the 208 Construction Water Quality Management Plan are to be implemented. 8. Green concrete will not be permitted to enter the watercourse unless contained by tightly sealed forms or cells. Concrete handling equipment wiU not discharge waste washwater into the watercourse or wetlands without adequate wastewater treatment. S6 9. No instream work is pennissible diiring the fish spawning season April through June. 10. Removal of mature riparian vegetation not directly associated with project construction is prohibited. 11. Instream equipment operation is to be minimized and should be accomplished during low flow periods. 12. Nationwide permits are not applicable for activities on Wild and Scenic Rivers or study streams, streams on the Natural Streams Preservation List or the New River Gorge National River. These streams include New River (confluence with Gauiey to mouth of Greenbrier); Greenbrier River (mouth to Knapps Creek), Birch River (mouth to Cora Brown Barge in Nicholas Coun^), Anthony Creek, Cranberry Run, Bluestone River, Gauiey River, and Meadow River. 13. Each permittee shall follow the notice requirements contained in Section 9 of the Department of Natural Resources Regulations for State Certification of Activities Requiring Federal Licenses and Permits. Chapter 20-1, Series XIX (1984). 14. Each permittee shall, if he does not understand or is not aware of applicable Nationwide Permit conditions, contact the Corps of Engineers prior to conducting any activity authorized by a nationwide permit in order to be advised of applicable conditions. 57 •• ALASKA** EXAMPLES OF GERTIHCATION CONDITIONS REQUIRED FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT 26 FROM ALASKA (26) Discharges of dredged or fill material into the ivaters listed in subparagraph (i) and (ii) of this paragraph which do not caiise the loss or substantial adverse modification of 10 acres or more of waters of the United States, mcluding wetlands. For discharges which cause the loss or substantial adverse modification of 1 to 10 acres of such waters, including wetlands, notification of the District Engineer is required in accordance with 330.7 of this part (see Section 2 of this Public Notice). (i) Non-tidal rivers, streams, and their lakes and impoundments, including adjacent wetlands, that are located above the headwaters. (ii) Other non-tidal waters of the United States, including adjacent wetlands, that are not part of the sur&ce tributary ^tem to interstate waters or navigable waters of the Unitisd States (Le., isolated waters). REGIONAL CONDITION R* Work in a designated anadromons fish stream is subject to authorization from the Alaska Department. of I^sh and Gan». (No change firom REGIONAL CONDITION H previously published in.SPN 84-7.) REGIONAL CONDITION J: a. If, during review of the pre-discharge notification, the Corps of Engineers or the designated State of Alaska reviewing officials determine that the proposed activity woiild occur in any of the following areas, the applicant win be advised that an individual 404 permit will be required. Where uncertainty eadsts, the Corps will send pre-discharge notification to the designated State officials for a determination. 1. National Wildlife Refuges 2. National Parks and Preserves 3. National Conservation Areas 4. National Wild and Scenic Rivers 5. National Experimental Areas 6. State Critical Habitat AReas 7. State Sanctuaries 8. State Ranges and Refuges 9. State Eagle Preserves 10. State Ecological Reserves and Experimental Areas 11. State Recreation Areas 58 12. Wetlands contiguous with designated anadromous fish streams 13. Headwaters and isolated wetlands in designated public water supply watersheds of Craig, Hoonah, Hydaburg, Anchorage, Cordova, Seldovia and Kodiak 14. Sitka Area: Wetlands in the Swan Lake Area Meriting Special Attention (AMSA) in the distrirt Coastal Management Plan 15. Anchorage area: Designated Preservation and Conservation Wetlands in the Wetlands Management Plan 16. Bethel area: Designated Significant Wetlands in the district Coastal Management Plan not covered under General Permit 83-4 17. Hydaburg area: The six AMSA's of the district Coastal Management Plan 18. Bering Strait area: All designated conservation AMSA's of the district Coastal Management Plan - 19. Juneau area: Designated Sensitive Wetlands of the district Coastal Management Plan 20. NANA: Designated Special Use Areas and Restricted/ Sensitive areas in the district Coastal Management Plan 21. Tanana Basin Area Plan: type A-1 wetlands in the Alaska Rivers Cooperative State/Federal Study 22. Susitna Area Plan: type A-1 wetlands in the Alaska Rivers Cooperative State/Federal Study 23. High value headwaters and isolated wetlands identified once the ongoing Wetlands Management Plans or Guides listed in b-5 (below) are completed 24. Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Corridor designated type A and B wetlands 25. Headwaters and isolated waters which include identified bald eagle, peregrine falcon, and trumpeter swan nesting areas 26. ADF&G identified waterfowl use areas of statewide significance 27. Designated caribou calving areas. Any individual permit issued in locations covered by district coastal management plans, State or Federal regional wetlands plans or local wetlands plans (numbers 14 through 23 above) will be consistent with the plan provisions for the specific wetland type and may require adding stipulations. 59 Oil and gas activities in the North Slope Borough which involve the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters including wetlands are not covered by the previous nationwide permit under 33 CFR 330.4(a) and (b) and are not covered under the nationwide permit 26. These activities require individual 404 permits or other general permits. These activities were previously excluded by the Corps of Engineers Special Public Notice 84-3 dated March 9, 1984. b. Prc-discharge notification received by the Corps of Engineers for the discharge of dredged or fiU material in the following areas will be provided to designated State agencies which include (1) the appropriate ADEC Regional Environmental Supervisor, (2) the appropriate ADF&G Regional Habitat Supervisor, (3) the appropriate DGC regional contact point, and (4) the appropriate DNR regional contact (should DNR indicate interest in receiving notices). 1. Headwater tributaries of designated anadromous fish streams and their adjacent contiguous wetlands 2. Open water areas of isolated wetlands greater than 10 acres and lakes greater than 10 acres above the headwaters 3. North Slope Borough wet and moist tundra areas not already covered by AFP process 4. Wet and moist tundra areas outside the North Slope Borough 5. High value headwaters and isolated wetlandis identified in the following ongoing State or Federal wetland management guides or plans: Nfat-Su, Kenai Borough, Valdez, North Star Borough Yukon Delta and Copper River Basin 6. Headwater or isolated wetlands within local CZM distria botmdaries or the identified coastal zone botmdaiy, whichever is geographical^ smaller (not withstancUng the requirements imder "a." 1420 (above)) 7. Anchorage Area: designated Special Stucfy areas in the Wetlands Management Plan 8. Tanana Basin Area Plan: areas designated A-2, B-1, B-2 in the Alaska River Cooperative State/Federal Study 9. Susitna Area Plan: areas designated A-2, A-3, A-4 in the Alaska River Cooperative State/Federal Study The designated officials of the State of Alaska, and the Corps will evaluate the notifications received for the areas listed "b." above under the provisions set forth in 33 CFR 330.7 (see Section 2 of this Public Notice) which includes an evaluation of the 60 environmental effects using the guidelines set forth in Section 404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act Notices shaU be screened against the nationwide conditions under 330.5(b) (See Section 4 of the Public Notice) using available resource information. Conditions 330J(b)(l), (2), (3), (4), (6), and (7) and (9) will be focused on during the State C review. , , ,, ,... The State's review of these areas under I)." above will encompass the following: 1. After receiving pre*discharge notification from the Corps, the State of Alaska shall comment verbally, and/or if time permits, in writing to the Corps District Engineer through a single State agen^ concerning the need for an individual permit review. 2. Esdsting fish and wildlife atlases and field knowledge shall be used to evaluate notices. If significant resource values are not identified for the area in question or if insufficient resource information exists. State agencies will not request an individual permit unless: (a) An on-site field evaluation win be conducted, weather permitting, during the extended review provided under the individual permit, or; (b) Federal resource agencies plan a similar field evaluation that could provide identical information to State resource agencies. Should either the State review or the Corps review determine that the nationwide permit is not applicable, an individual 404 permit wiU be required. ( New categories may be added at a later date should either the Corps or the State of Alaska recognize a need. These changes will be made available for public review through a public notice and comment period at the appropriate time. This REGIONAL CONDITION shall be effective for the period of time that nationwide permit 26 is in effect unless the REGIONAL CONDITION is sooner revoked by the Department of the Army with prior coordination with the State of Alaska. 61 APPENDIX E T.d^ R^tm I Vol 45. Na 249 / W.dn..d.y. D,c«mb.r 24. 1980 / Rul., ,nd Rt«.lation. SSSSS T« Eftadi nwiHia or all ■iftui flwttfifcm, 1^>y»>«fMtMi)r.M|iMt4iadMt TIm tOKU of tlM diaehuit eu bt '"i"i<"is*d bjr tfa« ^e4e« of tlw diipoHl •it*. S«M o/iiM wan to •ewapJWl (a) Loealiat md cenfiatag ibo diKfaaiyo to miaimiia aawthoriM of ofyooiMBK ^^ (b) 0«l«ntaf dM dlMiMfit 10 araU • dianiptioo of poftodle woior iaitad«tio0 POttHBC (elSoioctiaf oditpoMltitothothM booB OMd provtoosljr for dndMd ■MtotteldiMfaotvo: ^^ (drSoloctiafl • cUtpoMl tilt at trhieb tho Mbilrato is eoapeawi of aatMfal •taiUar to that botaf dJtehariwL mb a. diaehaniaf sand oa tand or aiad oa ntiCF 62 '»euitc»u«jr. i^ecemoef »•». vjou / Kuies ana Kcguiations {••) S«l«ctint liM disposal sits. th« (iischMffs poiau and tha malhod of . disrhurf* to minimiia Iba sxtanl of any piuma: (0 Designing iha discharga of dradgtd or nil maiehal lo minimiia or pravant tha crtMiion of standing bodiaa of water in areas of normally fluctuatins water levels, snd minimiza or prevent the drainage of areas subject lo such fluctuations. f 390.71 Acttona eofiaamin9 ttM natartal The effects of a discharge can be minimisTd by treatment ol or timitstians on Iha malarial itsalt such as: (a) Disposal of dredged material in such 4 manner thai physiochemieal conditions arc maintained and the potency snd availability of pollulanu are reduced. (b| Limiting the solid, liquid, and gaseous components of material lo b« discharged at a particular sile: (c) Adding treatment subatanca* to the discharge malarial: (d) Utilizing chemical Oocculants to enhance the deposition of suspended particttlatas in diked dispoaal wom. The effects of the drodged or fU material after discfaarga may ba controlled by: (a) Selecting discharge methods and disposal sites where Iha potandai for ereeioa. slumping or laadiing of materials into the surrounding aquatic ceoeystem will be reduced neeo sitae or methods induda. but are not limited lor [X\ Using coQteinment iavaea. sadimant hMins. and cover crops to reduce {2i Using lined eoBteininant araaa lo caduca laacfaiag where 'r'rfint at cbenicd coestltaenta Iram tfao discharged material ia expected to bo a problem: (b) Capping in-piaco nontaminaled material with doaa BataiiaJ or sffteetlvely rtisrharging iha aeet cottUminaled malntelBrat to be capped with the remaining maiwiat (c) Mainteiaing ad — »*«»«««g disdiarged matwiaJ p»B|>ail| to pravant point and oonpoial aooreao of poOatiaa: (d) Timing tne dtacharge to »"*"»'«'«■ impact for instenca during periods of unusual high water flows, wind. wave, and tidal actions. 1 230.7) Acttona affecting ttM mefhod Of (a) Where environmentally desirable, distributing the dredged malarial widely - in a thin layer at the disposal site lo maintain natural substrate contours Mnd elevation: |b| OHenUng a dredged or fill material mound lo minimize undesirable obstruction to the water current or dreulalion p inriiiHing ptotekUva daviees^ and tha aaa of aadh equlpaaat or Buehiaary ia acttvltlaa raiatad to tha diacharga of dradgad or ffl laatarial: |b| rJHiiioylag appcoptiata ■aiBtaaaaoa aad oparatSaa aa aqidpawat of SMchiaary^ itu Imilng adaquato trainiag. stafRag. aad warUag The effects of a discharge can be minimized by the manner in which it is dispersed. lucb ss: (c) Using machinery and tadmlquee that are especially dasigned to reduce daoMga to wetlands This auy iadada machinae equipped with devices that acattar rather than awuad excavated ■utariala. machiaea with specially daaigaad wheels or tracks, and tha use of matt under heavy machines to rsduee wetland surface corapactloa and ratting (d) Designing acceaa roads and channel spanning structures using culverts, open channels, and diversions that will pass both low and high wrater flows, accommodate fluctuating water levels, and maintain circulation and faunal movement (•) Employing appropriate machinery and methods of transport of the matenal for dischsrge. f 2M.7t Minimization of sdverse effects on populations of plants and animais can be achieved by: (a) Avoiding changes in water current and circulation paitems which would interfere with the movement of animals: (b| Selectuig sites or managing discharges to prevent or svoid creatiag habitel eandudve to the davalopmanl of undesirable predators or species which hsva a competiUve edge ecdogically over indigenous piantt or saiinais: (c) Avoiding sites having aniqaa habitat or other vahia. induding hebital of threatened or endangered spedaa: (d) Using pianaiag aad eoaatruetion practices to iastitate habitat development aad reatoratioa to predvea a new or modified eaviroamaatal state of higher ecological vahM by dispiacemeat of soma ar all of tha existing enviroamealal charactariatica. Habitel development aad reatoratioa lachniqaas caa be used to Bhdadaa adverse impaett aad to caatpeasata br destroyed habiteL Use todu^qoaa that hata baea demonsiratad to ba afllsetiva ia drramatancas siadlar to Ihoea aadar caadderatlaa wherever paaaibia. What* proposed devalopweat aad raatoratioB teehaiquee have not yet advanced to dto pilot deaMastraUoa stage, iaittete their use oa a small scale to allow eorrectiva actioa if anantldpaled adverse impactt (a) Tbaing diacharge to avoid spawning or aiigratioa seasons aad odMT biologically oitical time periods: •(I) Avei^ dw deetnetioa of remaaat aataral sitea withia araaa alraady afbctad by I Mlnlmisatioa of adverse aJTacts aa huaaaa use poteatiai may ba achieved (a) Selecdite dischaige sitea aad following disdurgs procedures to prevent or minimiia say poteatiai daauge to the aaethetleaily pleasing featuree of tha aqaade site {94, viewscapee). partlcalariy with respect to weter qiiality: (b) Selecting dispoeal sites which era not valuable as natural aquatie areaa: (c) Timing the Ascharge to avoid tha seasons or periods when human recreatloaal activity associated writh the aquatic site is most Important (d) FoOowiag discharge procedures whidi evoid or mlnlmire the disturbance of eestbettc features of sn aqiutlc site or ecosysleta. 63 F^dwl RtyatT / Vol 45. No. 249 / W«dnei«Uy. Dtombf 24. 1980 / RuIm and Rtgulatiom 853S7 (t^SdwUnt titts that will not bt dttriiBMital or inoaaaa iacompatibla human activity, or raqttlra tha naad for fraquant dradga or f!U aalataiianea activity in ranota fiali aad trildUfa araaa: (f) Locatiat tha diapoaal aita eaUida of tha vieini^ of a poblie watar aupply intaka. lasoin OttiaratHaiia. (a) la tha caaa of fiOa. eentnlllng niaoir and olhar diacfaaffaa from activiUaa to ha eoadoetad ea tha fUk (b) la tha caaa of dank daaifaiaf watar raiaaaaa to aceoauaodata tha naada of Bah aad wUdUla. (e) la dtadgiag ptefaeta fitadad by Fadaral aiaiidaa odiar thaa dta Corpa of Eaflaaara. BMlataia daairad walar qoaUiy of tha latara diaehana thim^ asraoBMat with tha Padaral hiadiag anthotity oa adaatiflca]ly dafaaaibU poOataat eoeeaatratiea lovds ia addittoa to aay appiieabla watar qsality ataadardi^ W Whaa a aipdfleaat acelofieal chaaia ia tha aqvadc aavtroeaMat ia propoaad bv tha dladuifo of dradgad or fln aatariaL dM paiBttti^ aathority ahoold coaaidar tha acoayatam that wlO ba loot aa waO aa tha I baaafltoofthai r ( 64 ?) ^ ( ommJIIs ( Attachmerit L SWAMPBUSTING- WETLAND CONVERSION AND FARM PROGRAMS (/ /^^-^:0v United States JJ) Department of ^' Agriculture EcoTKxnic Research Service Agricultural Economic Report Number 551 Swampbusting: Wetland Conversion and Farm Programs Ralph E. Heimlich Linda L. Langner Swampbusting: Wetland Conversion and Farm Programs, by Ralph E. Heimlich and Linda L. Langner. Natural Resource Economics Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agricuhure. Agricultural Economic Report No. 551. Abstract Farmers who grow annual crops on converted wetlands, a practice pop- ularly known as swampbusting, will be denied all farm program benefits under the Food Security Act of 1985. Denying price supports to operators converting wetlands can be an effective sanction in some situations, but may be legs effective where tax breaks are the main motive for conversion. Although remaining wetlands may be productive if converted, high conver- sion costs probably make most wetlands unprofitable to convert. Further, the high social value of existing wetlands may outweigh the value of in- creased agricultural production through conversion, particularly in wetland areas critical for wildlife habitat. Keywords: Wetland conversion, swampbusting, drainage, potential cropland, farm programs, conservation, wetland functions. Sales Information Additional copies of this report can be purchased from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington; D.C. 20402. For the price of extra copies, write to the above address or call GPO's order desk at (202) 783-3238. You can also charge your purchase by telephone to your VISA, MasterCard, Choice, or GPO deposit account. Discounts are available for bulk quantities. Microfiche copies ($5.95 each) can be purchased from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161. Enclose a check or money order payable to NTIS; add $3 handling charge for each order. Call NTIS at (703) 487-4650 and charge your pur- chase to your VISA, MasterCard, American Express, or NTIS deposit ac- count. NTIS will ship a RUSH order within 24 hours for an extra $10; call (800) 336-4700. The Economic Research Service has no copies for free mailing. Washington, D.C. 20005 August 1986 Contents Page Summary ii Introduction 1 Extent and Location of Wetland Conversion 2 Long-term Trends '. 2 Location of Wetland Change 4 Wetland Conversion for Agriculture 4 Remaining Wetlands 5 Characteristics of Remaining Wetlands 5 Farm Potential of Remaining Wetlands 6 Economics of Wetland Conversion for Agriculture 7 Farm Programs, Income Taxes, and Wetland Conversion 7 Conversion Potential of Private Palustrine Wetlands 9 Economics of Conversion for Hypothetical Farms 13 Indirect Motivations for Conversion 16 Wetland Values Foregone From Conversion 16 Fish and Wildlife Values 17 Ecological Values 17 Socioeconomic Values 17 Estimation of Economic Values 18 Critical Wildlife Wetland Areas 19 South Florida's Palustrine Wetlands 19 Prairie Pothole Emergent Wetlands 21 Nebraska's Sandhills and Rainwater Basin 22 Forested Wetlands of the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Plain 22 North Carolina's Pocosins 22 Western Riparian Wetlands 22 Other Problem Areas for Conversion 23 Conclusions and Policy Implications 24 References 25 Appendix 1— Wetland Data 28 Appendix 2 — Two Hypothetical Farms 30 Summary Farmers who grow annual crops on converted wet- lands, a practice popularly known as swampbust- ing, will be denied all farm program benefits under the Food Security Act of 1985. Denying price sup- ports to operators converting wetlands can be an effective sanction in some situations, but may be less effective where tax breaks are the main motive for conversion. Although remaining wetlands may be productive if converted, high conversion costs probably make most wetlands unprofitable to con- vert. Further, the high social value of existing wet- lands may outweigh the value of increased agri- cultural production through conversion, particularly in wetland areas critical for wildlife habitat. Extent of the problem. Agricultural conversion was responsible for the loss of 12 million acres of wetlands between the mid-1950's and mid-1970's. In 1982, some 78.4 million acres of non-Federal wetlands remained. Privately owned wetlands available for conversion totaled 59.5 million acres. Farm programs and wetlands. Of private wetlands suited to conversion, 72 percent (42.9 million acres) would be productive if converted to cropland. Defi- ciency payments would help offset high clearing and drainage costs that are the principal obstacles to converting these wetlands, but may not be suffi- cient to ensure longrun profitability. Only 5.1 million acres of remaining wetlands were judged to have high or medium potential for conversion to cropland in 1982. Income taxes. Denying price-support payments to representative farms converting wetlands reduced after-tax income 26 to 144 percent. Income tax breaks on land improvements for extensive, high- cost conversions can offset loss of price support payments, especially where the owner has large nonfarm income to shelter from taxes. Denying price supports will discourage wetland conversions ^ when deficiency payments are a large part of net \ farm income and either conversion costs or non- farm incomes are low. Conversion costs. The physical process of convert- ing wetlands for crop production differs across regions and results in widely varying conversion costs. Annual conversion costs can range from less than $20 per acre in the prairie pothole region of Minnesota to almost $200 per acre for North Carolina pocosin wetlands. The importance of farm program subsidies falls as conversion costs in- crease, while the size of income tax subsidies rises along with conversion costs. Wetland values. Wetlands provide habitat for fish and wildlife, reduce floods and improve water quality, and provide recreational and renewable resources. Benefits from existing wetlands may outweigh the social value of additional production of surplus crops through conversion, at least in critical wetland areas. Prospects. The drop in farm prices since 1981 may discourage all conversions to cropland, including wetland conversions. Nevertheless, prohibiting pay- ^ ment of farm program subsidies to operators of f converted wetlands will ensure greater consistency between USDA resource programs and commodity support programs. Eliminating income tax deduc- tions for land clearing and for soil and water con- servation activities related to wetland conversion would also remove incentives for conversion. However, indirect motivations for conversion- associated with timber harvest, removing nuisance wetlands in existing fields, and lowering water tables through irrigation pumping and flood-control channels — will continue despite sanctions in farm and tax legislation. Swampbusting Wetland Conversion and Farm Programs Ralph E. Heimlich and Linda L. Langner* Introduction Public concern with the environment has forced a reevaluation of our attitudes toward wetlands, those frontiers between land and water where so much wildlife finds a home and fisheries are nurtured. Utilitarian views of wetlands — as latent resources awaiting reclamation for "useful" purposes — conflict with environmental concerns about loss of wetland habitat. Agriculture has been an important element in wetland conversion: about 87 percent of recent wetland losses involved draining and clear- ing wetlands for farming (28).* Development of farmland in response to higher commodity prices in the 1970's was responsible for faster conversion of wetlands. Inconsistency be- tween agricultural production goals and conserva- tion goals was a persistent theme in public meetings and in a public opinion poll conducted in conjunction with the 1980 Resource Conservation Assessment [12). Even though official USDA policy seeks to "minimize the destruction, loss or degrada- tion of wetlands. . ." (Executive Order 11990), Government price-support and credit programs are presumed to be an important incentive in private decisions to convert land for farming. Provisions in the 1985 farm act deny farm program benefits both to operators who plow up highly erodible land, a practice termed "sodbusting," and operators who grow annual crops on converted wetlands, called "swampbusting" (17). Critics argue that farm pro- grams should not support cropland converted from wetlands when the Water Bank Program and other Federal wildlife habitat programs seek to preserve wetlands. Laws directly and indirectly regulating wetland conversions exist at the Federal level and in 30 *The authors are agricultural economists with the U.S. Depart- ment of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Natural Resource Economics Division, Washington, D.C. 'Italicized numbers in parentheses refer to sources cited in the References section. States. Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the Army Corps of Engineers regulates the discharge of dredged or filled material onto wetlands. However, excavation, drainage, clearing, and flooding of wetlands are not explicitly covered, so many inland conversions do not require a 404 permit. The Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) found that of the 300,000 acres of wetlands converted annually, more than 80 percent were unregulated. Corps estimates for 1980-81 indicate that of all permits filed, about half the acreage was approved for conversion with no significant modification. The 404 program and State regulatory programs are most effective at preventing coastal wetland conversion, while inland wetlands most vulnerable to agricultural conversion are not effec- tively regulated [28). To address this problem, legislation was introduced in the 99th Congress to deny farm program benefits to operators who convert wetlands for crop produc- tion. The wetland conservation provision (Title XII C.) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (P.L. 99-198) makes an operator ineligible for price-support . payments, farm storage facility loans, crop in- surance, disaster payments, and insured or guaranteed loans for any year in which an annual crop was produced on converted wetlands. Ari^^ operator would retain eligibility if AeJandwer^ converted before enactment of the legislation, or i|^ crop produc^pn^vyece, possible JnJtheweUand^^ natural state or due to natural conditions suck'^ drougm. Wetlands are defined as "land that has a predominance of hydric soils and that is inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a fre- quency and duration sufficient to support ... a prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions" (P.L. 99-198). This report investigates the implications of the swampbuster provision by presenting data on re- maining wetlands and analyzing their potential for conversion to farmland. Background on past losses of wetlands is presented, and trends from recent data are examined. Salient characteristics of re- maining wetlands are described and their physical potential for agricultural conversion assessed. The economics of converting wetlands for farm program crop production are analyzed with and without farm program benefits. The effects of incentives for conversion provided by the Federal income tax code are discussed. A description of wetland values foregone by conversion to cropland is followed by an analysis of farming potential in critical wetland problem areas. The report ends with conclusions and implications for policy. Extent and Location of Wetland Conversion Estimates of historiceil wetland acreage in the United States range from 127 million acres (45) to 185 million acres (28). Comparing these estimates to the best current estimate of 99 million acres of re- maining wetlands (13) reveals a loss of 22 to 46 per- cent of the original wetland acreage that European settlers found on arriving here. There are a variety of data estimating wetland acreage at various times, none of it uniform in scope or definition (see app. 1). Despite the flawed nature of these data for assess- ing trends, a review of the different estimates pro- vides useful background to the problem of wetland conversion. Long-term Trends The U.S. Congress gave 64.9 million acres of wetlands to 15 States in the Swamp Land Acts of 1849, 1850, and 1860. Comparison of recent estimates of wetland acreage in these States in- dicates that 19 percent of this acreage was lost by the mid-1970's (table 1). Six of the 15 States ap- peared to have added 8.9 million acres of wetlands between 1849 and the mid-1970's, but this probably reflects incomplete accounting for all wetlands under the acts. The remaining nine States lost 21.3 million acres, or 40 percent of their wetlands. The first national wetlands inventory, conducted in 1954, estimated 74.4 million acres of wetlands, classified according to 20 types (38). In 1979, a more comprehensive analysis using aerial photographs estimated that there had been 108.2 million acres of wetlands in the 1950's [13). c Wetland Terms • Hydric soil: A soil ". . .that in its undrained condition is saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions that favor the growth and regeneration of hydrophytic vegetation" [48]. • Wetland systems: Wetlands and deepwater habitats that share the influence of similar hydrologic, geomorphologic, chemical, or biological factors. Five major systems are recognized (see [8] for details): Marine— Open ocean overlying the continen- tal shelf and its associated high-energy coastline. Estuarine—Deepv/ateT tidal habitats and adja- cent tidal wetlands that are usually partly enclosed by land but have open, partly obstructed, or sporadic access to the open ocean, and in which ocean water is at least occasionally diluted by freshwater runoff from the land. Riverine— Ml wetlands and deepwater habitats contained within a channel, except for wedands dominated by trees, shrubs, per- sistent emergent plants, mosses, or lichens, and habitats containing ocean-derived salts above 0.5 o/oo (parts per thousand). Lacustrine— Y/etlands and deepwater habitats with all of the following features: 1) situated in a topographic depression or a dammed river channel; 2) lacking trees, shrubs, and persistent emergent plants, mosses, or lichens covering more than 30 percent of the area; and 3) with a total area exceeding 20 acres. PaluBtrine—M\ nontidal wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, and persistent emergent plants, mosses, or lichens, and all such wedands that occur in tidal areas where salinity due to ocean-derived salts is below 0.5 o/oo (parts per thousand). Pocosin wetland (the name is derived from an Algonquin word meaning "swamp on a hill"): These wetlands are unique to the southeastern coastal plain from Virginia to northern Florida. They lie in broad, flat upland areas away from large streams and are covered by evergreen forest and scrub-shrub vegetation [32, 43). Prairie pothole wetland: These wetlands were formed from melting ice fragments in glacial times. They are widespread shallow depres- sions, mostly less than 2 feet deep and varying from less than one to several hundred acres [43]. Many potholes are only seasonally wet and can resemble dry land in periods of drought. c The 1977 National Resources Inventory (NRI), by USDA's Soil Conservation Service, used the 1954 classification system. Only wetland types 3-20 on non-Federal land were counted, even though most agricultural conversion of wetlands occurs in the seasonally flooded basins and flats and inland fresh meadows of types 1 and 2. A total of 41.5 million acres of non-Federal wetland types 3-20 were inven- toried; USDA estimated that an additional 29 million acres of types 1 and 2 remained in 1977, for a toted of 70.5 million acres of wetlands. A more recent NRI in 1982 counted 78.4 million acres of non-Federal wetlands of which 44.5 million acres were in types 3-20, an increase of 3 million acres over the 1977 estimate. The 1982 inventory counted 31.7 million acres of wetland types 1 and 2, about 40 percent of the total. If wetland types 1 and 2 were in roughly the same proportion in 1977, the 41.5 million acres of types 3-20 imply a total of 69.2 million acres of non-Federal wetlands. Allow- ing for higher losses of types 1 and 2, the original estimate of 70.5 million acres of non-Federal wetlands in 1977 appears reasonable. Using a statistical sample of wetlands identiHed from aerial photographs, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) estimated that 99 million acres of wetlands remained in the mid-1970's. The 1982 NRI counted 78.4 million acres of non-Federal wetlands Table 1 — Patented swamplands and remaining wetlands, 1849 and mid-1970's Patented Remaining DifffirfiTipp State 1849-60' 1970's» ^ 20.3 Percent -44.3 Florida 11.3 -9.0 Arkansas 7.7 2.8 -4.9 -63.6 Missouri 3.4 .8 -2.6 -76.5 California 2.2 .4 -1.8 -81.8 Indiana 1.3 .3 -1.0 -76.9 Louisiana 9.5 8.7 -.8 -8.4 Illinois 1.5 .8 -.7 -46.7 Iowa 1.2 .8 -.4 -33.3 Michigan 5.7 5.6 -.1 -1.8 Subtotal 52.8 31.5 -21.3 -40.3 Ohio « .5 .5 1,795.2 Mississippi 3.3 4.1 .8 24.2 Wisconsin 3.4 4.4 1.0 29.4 Oregon .3 1.4 1.1 366.6 Alabama .4 3.1 2.7 675.0 Minnesota 4.7 7.5 2.8 59.6 Subtotal 12.1 21.0 8.9 73.5 Total 64.9 52.5 -12.4 -19.1 remaining in 1982. The 20.7-million-acre difference is partly wetlands in Federal ownership and partly additional losses of wetlands since the mid-1970's. Estimates of federally owned wetlands are surpris- ingly difficult to obtain. The Fish and Wildlife Ser- vice controls 32 million acres of palustrine wetlands and 2 million acres of estuarine wetlands; however, only 5 million acres are in the continental United States, with the remaining majority in Alaska (43). Estimates of Federal wetland holdings collected by Dale Pierce of the Department of In- terior (table 2) show 12.5 million wetland acres under Federal ownership or lease in the lower 48 States. Without better data for Federal wetland acreage, however, no estimate of losses between the mid-1970's and 1980's is possible from these sources. The various estimates of wetland acreage discussed here and in appendix 1 are summarized in figure 1. Rates of wetland conversion implied by the estimates vary widely from period to period. Be- tween 1850 and 1919, wetland conversion ranged from 193,000 to 1 million acres per year. Between 1919 and the mid-1950's, conversion slowed to a rate of 177,000 acres per year. An average of 460,000 acres of wetlands were lost each year be- tween the mid-1950's and the mid-1970's. No estimate of total Federal and non-Federal wetlands exists for 1982, so a conversion rate cannot be calculated. The firmest conclusion that can be drawn from these data is that the highest rate of wetland loss since the turn of the century occurred in the 1960's and 1970's. Wetland conversion rates have probably been somewhat lower since the end of the 1970's [28], but there are few data to support this assertion. Table 2— Estimated Federal wetland holdings, 1985 • = Fewer than 100,000 acres. 'Wetlands given to States by congressional action. Not all original wetlands were patented in all States [38]. V3]- Agency Wetlands Fish and Wildlife Service' Forest Service* National Park Service Bureau of Land Management Army Corps of Engineers Bureau of Reclamation Other agencies Total Million acres 5.0 2.9 1.9 1.4 1.0 .2 .1 12.5 'Excludes 29 million acres of Alaskan wetlands (43). 'Excludes 9 million acres of Alaskan wetlands. Source: Dale Pierce, Dept. of Interior. Location of Wetland Change Wetland Conversion for Agriculture Loss of wetlands between the mid-1950's and mid-1970's was concentrated in the Southeast and Lower Mississippi (fig. 2). Louisiana and Missis- sippi lost more than 1.7 million acres of wetland each, Arkansas lost more than 1.5 million acres, and Florida lost more than 1.4 million acres of wetlands. Wetland losses in the North Carolina pocosin area and in Minnesota's prairie pothole region were also substantial, with more than 500,000 acres lost in each. Wetland loss in these six States was primarily due to agricultural conversion. Figura 1 Changes in U.S. wetlands, 1850-1982 Million acres 250 200 150 100 50 HWl Low Low NWSIK Onulw 39 NWSTA hit SK Nn and Fcdaral Nn 1850 1919 Mid-1950's Mid-1970's 1982 SoutOV {Xf. M. 19. 38. 43. S3. S4) Figura 2 Wetland loss mid-1950's to mid-1970's Loss of wetlands in 1.000 acres ^^^^:' ^ 0-100 100-500 500-1.000 More than 1.000 Increased Given the exploitive attitude toward natural resources that prevailed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, it is not surprising that most interest in wetlands centered on their potential for conver- sion to "useful" purposes, mainly agriculture. Six surveys were conducted between 1906 and 1982 to assess, among other things, the agricultural poten- tial of remaining wetlands across the Nation (see app. 1). There was little attempt to use consistent wetland defintions or comprehensiveness of coverage in these inventories. Consequently, they provide little information for assessing long-term trends in wetland loss. They do, however, reflect changes in the perception of wetlands as a resource for potential conversion to farming. Historical data on drainage have been developed for analysis of investments in natural resource capital (30). While drainage is often installed on land that is merely wet, not wetland, these data in- clude information on wetlands that have been converted. Figure 3 shows the results of the six conversion potential assessments and Pavelis' data on installed drainage. These data allow comparison of conver- sion potentials perceived by Government officials and by farmers actually investing in drainage. Drainage potential is based on the six inventories and interpolated linearly for 5-year intervals be- tween inventories, so it is comparable with the data on drainage installation. Drained land increased dramatically during the first 20 years of the 20th century, leveled off during the Figura 3 Installed and potential drainage, United States, 1905-80 Million acres 160 120 80 *»,^ y Installed drainage 40 ^^ **%^ Potential drainage' 0 II 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 Sourcw (a) V Intsfpolated Irom 1907, 1919. 1946. 1958. 1967. 1977. and 1982 data. Souroa: (2. U. 30. S), 52, S3. £7). agricultural depression and World War II, and then increased at a slowly declining rate in the postwar period. Estimates of remaining potential for agricultural drainage declined steadily as drainage was actually accomplished. Government assessments of drainage potential remained low in the 1960's and early 1970's, reflecting USDA policy denying technical and financial assistance for drainage (9). However, drainage installation during this period increased, partly because of more op- timistic private assessments of drainage potential and partly because of drainage improvements on existing cropland. Remaining Wetlands Several key characteristics of remaining non- Federal wetlands inventoried in the 1982 NRI (USDA Soil Conservation Service), put wetlands subject to agricultural conversion into perspective. Characteristics of Remaining Wetlands Most non-Federal wetlands are privately owned (table 4). States own about 13 percent of non- Federal wetlands. Almost all palustrine wetlands, those most likely to be farmed, are owned privately. More expansive assessments of drainage potential on new cropland in the mid-1970's were tempered by environmental activism, which gradually forced an awareness of the importance of wetlands for wildlife and fisheries. Low official estimates of wetlands suitable for drainage exclude all but the most favorable candidates. Even with the economic prospects faced by farmers today, private wetland owners may see potential profit in converting wetlands for farming. There are few barriers to pre- vent such conversion. According to the National Wetlands Status and Trends Analysis (table 3), 87 percent of the 13.8 million acres of wetlands lost in the 1950's and 1960's were converted to farmland (13). Virtually all of these were classed vegetated palustrine in the most recent Fish and Wildlife Service system (8). While some may have been converted directly to farmland, about half were originally forested and thus may have entered agricultural use after being cut for timber. Table 3 — Sources and uses of converted wetlands, United States, mid-1950's to mid-1970's Wetland system Use of land converted converted Agriculture Urban All other 1 Total Million acres Palustrine: Vegetated- Forested 6.2 0.4 0.2 6.8 Emergent Scrub/shrub 4.6 1.0 .4 .3 .1 5.3 1.1 Subtotal 11.7 .9 .6 13.3 Nonvegetated Total .1 11.8 .1 1.0 .7 .2 13.5 Lacustrine .1 * « .2 Estuarine * .2 .2 Marine 0 « « * Total' 12.0 1.1 .7 13.8 Remaining wetlands were classified by their land cover in the 1982 NRI. Shghtly more than half of all non-Federal wetlands inventoried are forested. Of these 42.7 million acres, about a third are in the oak-gum-cypress forest typical of southeastern wet hardwood forests, and about 15 percent each are in the oak-hickory and spruce-fir types of more north- ern wet woodlands. The swampbuster provision in the 1985 farm act applies to "converted wetlands" (Sec. 1201(4)(A), P.L. 99-198), implying that forested wetlands drained to permit timber harvest would be ineligible for farm programs if brought into crop production after removal of the timber. Hence, this sanction would apply to all wetlands converted in the history of agricultural development, regardless of past ownership or uses between conversion and crop production— an interpretation that would be hard to enforce. (For this analysis, the farm operator is assumed to clear the land for crop production.) The second largest land cover category (20.9 per- cent) in which wetlands were classed in the 1982 NRI is "other lands," a residual category. About 17 percent of wetlands are in pasture and range. Only 5.6 percent of wetlands is in crops and all of this is palustrine wetlands. Table 4 — Ownership of non-Federal wetlands, 1982 WeUand system' Owner Palustrine 1 Other 1 Total non-Federal Million acres Private Government State Local Indian tribes 59.9 8.3 1.7 .8 5.4 2.1 .1 * 65.3 10.4 1.8 .8 Total 70.7 7.7 78.4 * = Fewer than 100,000 acres. 'Detail may not add to total due to rounding. Source: National Wetland Status and Trends Analysis (13). • = Fewer than 100,000. 'Defined in (8). Source: 1982 National Resources Inventory, USDA Soil Conser- vation Service. The use of inventoried wetlands differs from their land cover (table 5). About 50 percent of wetlands are used for wood production, while 20 percent are used for agriculture. Seven percent of wetlands are designated for wild uses such as refuges and parks. More than 20 percent of wetlands are idle or could not be assigned a use, again indicating the residual nature of much wetland. Palustrine wetlands make up almost all the agricultural uses as well as all forest used for wood production ("wood produc- tion" means that no other specific use is designated for a forested wetland). Farm Potential of Remaining Wetlands Since the vast majority of wetlands converted to farming from the mid-1950's to the mid-1970's were palustrine, assessment of wetland conversion poten- tial can be restricted to that class. Almost all Table 5 — Use of non-Federal wetlands, 1982 Wetland system* Land use Palustrine | Other | Total Million acres Agriculture Crop production Grazing 14.4 4.1 10.3 0.5 0 .5 14.9 4.1 10.8 Wood production Designated wild' Urban uses' None of the above 40.3 4.2 .4 11.4 0 1.3 .1 5.8 40.3 S.S .5 17.2 Total 70.7 7.7 78.4 'Defined in (8). 'Includes areas designated wilderness, wildlife, recreation, nature study, and research and experimentation. 'Includes commercial, industrial, institutional, transmission, waste disposal, military, and transportation uses. Source: 1^82 National Resources Inventory, USDA Soil Conser- vation Service. wetlands (96 percent) inventoried in 1982 were palustrine (table 6). USDA restricts technical assistance for agricultural drainage to seasonally flooded basins or flats and inland fresh meadows, which are wetland types 1 and 2 in the classifica- tion of Circular 39 (50). In 1982 about 44 percent of palustrine wetlands were wetland types 1 and 2. Thus, a total of 70.7 million acres of non-Federal wetlands could be converted to farmland, and 31.4 million acres would be eligible for USDA technical assistance for drainage. Soil Conservation Service technicians conducting the 1982 NRI rated inventoried land on its potential for conversion to cropland and the type of effort re- quired for conversion, and listed reasons preventing conversion (54). Of 70.7 million acres of non- Federal palustrine wetlands, only 5.1 million acres were rated as having high or medium potential for conversion to cropland in 1982 (table 7). A quarter of all palustrine wetlands were either already cropland or in an irreversible use. Another quarter were rated as having no potential for conversion, and 40 percent were considered unlikely to be con- verted soon. Almost 85 percent of high- and medium-potential palustrine wetlands (4.3 million acres) could be brought into crop production with no effort or with minor work on the farm. Slightly more than 3 million of the 4.3 million acres would require drainage. Some 470,000 wetland acres have other soil condi- tions, such as low fertility, high erosion potential, alkalinity or salinity, or restrictive root zones, in addition to wetness, that restrict their conversion potential. Many areas that had large losses of wetlands due to agricultural conversion between the mid-1950's and Table 6 — Non-Federal wetlands cross-classified by system and type, 1982 Wetland type' Not typed Inland Coastal Wetland Fresh Saline 9-10 Fresh 12-14 Saline 15-20 system* 1-2 3-8 Total Palustrine Lacustrine Riverine Estuarine Marine Total non-Federal» 2.0 • .1 .1 • 2.2 31.4 .2 .1 * • 31.7 35.7 .6 • .1 0 35.7 Million acres 1.2 .6 0 .1 0 1.9 0.2 • 0 1.3 0 1.6 0.2 • • 4.4 • 4.6 70.7 1.5 .1 6.0 * 78.4 • - Fewer than 100,000 acres. •Defined in (8). 'Defined in (38). 'Detail may not add to totals due to rounding. Source: 1982 National Resources Inventory, USDA Soil Conservation Service. » mid-1970*s had relatively little remaining wetlands with high or medium cropland potential in 1982 (fig. 4). Louisiana and Arkansas had only 144,000 and 121,000 acres of potentially convertible bot- tomlands, a fraction of the 1.7 million acres each lost earlier. There are similar but less dramatic dif- ferences between wetlands lost to agriculture and remaining wetlands with cropland potential in Mississippi and North Carolina. Both Florida and Minnesota had relatively high wetland losses through the 1970's and still have more than 500,000 wetland acres with high and medium cropland Table 7— Conversion potential and effort required to convert non-Federal palustrine wetlands, 1982 Effort required Not Conversion On- Multifarm appli- cable potential None farm or project' Total ^ dillion acres High or medium 0.5 3.8 0.7 • 5.1 Reason preventing conversion- No ne .1 .4 « * .6 Too wet .3 3.0 .7 « 4.0 Soil condition * .4 « 0 .5 Unlikely .8 16.0 9.4 1.9 28.0 Zero .3 4.3 4.8 8.9 18.3 Other 0 0 0 19.2 19.2 Total non-Federal* 1.6 24.1 14.9 30.0 70.7 • = Fewer than 100,000 acres. 'Conversion requires action by several farms or a special district. 'Detail may not add to totals due to rounding. Source: 1982 National Resources Inventory, USDA Soil Conser- vation Service. Figure 4 Remaining wetiands with higli or medium cropiand potentiai, 1982 I Wetlands with high or medium cropland potential 1.000 acres 0-100 100-200 200-300 300-500 ^^^B More than 500 Source (iv) ^^ potential. Both Alabama and North Dakota had small or no net losses of wetlands in the earlier period and had 401,000 and 298,000 acres of high and medium potential wetlands remaining in 1982. Economics of Wetland Conversion for Agriculture Agricultural conversion of wetlands is analyzed in two ways in this report. First, estimated crop yields on remaining private palustrine wetlands are linked with variable costs of crop production to estimate commodity prices at which the farm operator would just break even. Any wetland acre for which the break-even price is smaller than the current commodity price is a candidate for conversion, since it is potentially profitable to bring into crop production. In the long run, revenue from crop pro- duction must be high enough to cover the cost of converting the wetland, as well as other usual fixed costs. Even if current prices are low, conversion may take place if higher prices are expected. Con- versely, high prices in a single year may not induce conversion if prices are expected to drop. Second, hypothetical farm operations engaged in wetland conversion are analyzed to show the im- pact of swampbuster sanctions. The effects of both price-support and income-tax subsidies are ex- amined. A description of the role that price-support programs and income tax provisions play in wetland conversion for agriculture precedes the analyses. Farm Programs, Income Taxes, and Wetland Conversion Farm programs influence farmers' decisions to plant by supporting prices and raising revenues, or by subsidizing costs of production. Crop insurance and disaster payments influence farmers' decisions by reducing risk, which may raise expected revenues if the premium subsidy is sufficiently large. Farm price supports can make the difference between profitable or unprofitable operation to the extent that wetland areas developed for crop pro- duction are economically marginal. If converted wetlands are riskier to farm than other land that could be converted to cropland, crop insurance and disaster payments can reduce differences in the ex- pected returns of these alternatives. The higher cost of developing wetlands can be subsidized through reduced-rate loans. Program effects analyzed here are limited to deficiency payments, except for soy- beans, which have only a loan rate; operating loan subsidies, crop insurance, and disaster payments were not analyzed (but see box). Denying farm program benefits to operators con- verting wetlands would not be effective when market prices are high. Farm program benefits are more important to operators when commodity prices are low. Only 23 percent of total cropland was enrolled in farm programs in 1982, before com- modity prices dropped, but 56 percent of cropland was enrolled in 1984 [47). Farm programs may not be important to many of the farmers who could convert wetlands. Only 27 percent of eligible farms enrolled in the programs in 1984. Participation varies by crop, ranging from a low of 14.5 percent of eligible oat acreage to 87.5 percent of eligible rice acreage. Wheat and corn accounted for more than 75 percent of enrolled acreage. The extent of farm program participation by operators who have converted wetlands in the past, or who currently own wetlands that could be converted, is not known. Soybeans, one of the major crops for which wetlands have been con- verted, have no deficiency payment program, and recent loan rates have been well below market prices. Other Farm Programs Several farm programs do not directly support prices, but reduce costs or risks of crop produc- tion. Among these programs are subsidized in- terest rates on loans from the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA), crop insurance under the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation or its rein- surance programs, and Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service disaster payments. Subsidized interest rates for FmHA operating loans in 1982 were 2.4 percentage points lower than unsubsidized rates, resulting in operating loan subsidies ranging from $0.16 to $3.57 per acre, depending on differences in operating capital between crops and regions. Farm ownership and storage facility loans, when available, affect the entire farm operation and cannot readily be iden- tified with newly converted cropland. Likewise, emergency loans, available only in designated disaster areas, cannot be directly associated with new cropland. Although crop insurance is gradually replacing disaster payments, substantial payments were still being made in recent years. Disaster payments for cotton were as high as $16 per acre in Georgia and were $11 per acre in Texas (29). These pro- grams reduce risks associated with crop produc- tion, thereby raising the expected revenue from farming and providing an incentive to bring land into production. It is not just farm program benefits, but also Federal income tax treatment of land development, that subsidize clearing and draining land for M agriculture (see box). Other researchers have ana- lyzed tax subsidies for farmland development. Analysis of restrictions on use of cropland deduc- tions in the Internal Revenue Code shows that benefits are disproportionately available to larger operators (39). Thus, profitable farms, with suffi- cient net farm income to write off the maximum land-clearing expense and to deduct soil and water conservation expenses in fewer years, have greater incentives to convert land. Watts, Bender, and Johnson (56) calculated the value of tax incentives for converting rangeland to cropland in Montana. They estimated that capital gains treatment and investment tax credits reduced the break-even resale price of plowed rangeland $27 to $85 per acre from the break-even price without such tax treatment. At low tax rates, investment credits were more valuable incentives than capital gains provisions, but at high tax rates capital gains treatment was worth three times as much as the in- vestment credit. Leitch and Kerestes [21] studied land drainage costs and after-tax returns in Minnesota. Assuming a 40-percent tax bracket, tax savings on ditch ■ drainage were estimated at $57 per acre, while credits and depreciation on tile drainage saved be- tween $68 and $93 per acre. These tax savings amounted to 18 percent for tile drainage and 40 percent for ditch drainage. The effect of capital gains was not estimated, and the tile was depreciated using straight-line methods over 8 years rather than accelerated cost recovery in 5 years; therefore, estimated tax incentives are probably low. Barrows, Henneberry, and Schwartz (5) simulated wetland conversions for representative dairy and vegetable farms in southeastern Wisconsin. The 1981 tax returns for families with farm incomes of $6,000, $12,000, and $20,000 were calculated for least favorable, most favorable, and average condi- tions for drainage. Calculating after-tax net income for the first 3 years of the drainage investment, they showed that tax subsidies rise with increasing income, ranging from zero for the $6,000-income farmer to $23 per acre for the $20,000-income farmer. Tax incentives for drainage increased net income for unfavorable and- average conditions more than for favorable situations, since higher taxes on incremental income from draining good ^ land overshadowed benefits of the special provi- ^ sions applying to wetland drainage. Capital gains were not considered and no attempt was made to » compute net present values of tax incentives; only year-by-year changes in tax liabilities were calculated. Shabman (36) estimated tax savings of about 30 per- cent on conversion of Mississippi bottomland hard- woods. Reductions of 44 percent in annual cash flow requirements were estimated for a hypothetical operator in the 30-percent tax bracket. Since these calculations were based on tax law before the Tax Reform Act of 1981, they are probably conservative compared to treatment of property now handled under the accelerated cost recovery system. According to an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) sample of 1982 returns, 2.5 percent of Schedule F filers claimed land clearing deductions averaging $1,060, and 3.9 percent claimed soil and water con- servation expenses averaging $1,065. It is not known how much of these amounts were for clear- ing and draining wetlands. More than half (53.5 per- cent) of the deductions were claimed by low-tax- bracket operators with less than $11,900 of taxable income. Only 5.1 percent of the deductions were claimed by operators with more than $500,000 of farm business receipts. Even less is known of non- farm taxpayers who might become involved in wetland conversion for farming. In 1982 about one- third of total deductions for land clearing and for soil and water conservation was claimed by Schedule F filers with more than $50,000 of off- farm income. Tax reform may eliminate some tax breaks for land conversion. A tax reform bill passed by the House Ways and Means Committee in late 1985 repealed deductions for land clearing expenditures, tightened eligibility for soil and water conservation deduc- tions, and denied exclusion of capital gains from sales of converted wetland (6). However, these changes may not be included in final tax reform legislation. Conversion Potential of Private Palustrine Wetlands We derived estimated crop yields on privately owned palustrine wetlands identified in the 1982 NRI by linking Soil Conservation Service (SCS) soil interpretations with the NRI wetland points (49). SCS collects and analyzes data from research plots, field trials, and farmer's fields for use in soil inter- pretations. Estimated yields are established for benchmark soils based on review of yield data from all available sources, and are reviewed by all States in which the soil occurs. SCS records predicted crop yields approximating those obtained by Income Taxes and Agricultural Land Use Farmers who convert land for farming can reduce their income tax liability through deductions, credits, and capital gains. Some of these are limited to maximum amounts or percentages of in- come and also are subject to other restrictions. Specific provisions are: • Deduction of land clearing costs up to $5,000 or 25 percent of net farm income (Section 182 of the Internal Revenue Code); • Deduction of drainage and land shaping, con- strued as soil and water conservation activities, up to 25 percent of gross farm in- come, with amounts that exceed this limit in 1 year carried forward (Section 175); • Deduction of depreciation under the ac- celerated cost recovery system (Section 168); • Deduction of interest payments on debt Hnancing of clearing and drainage (Section 163); • Investment tax credit equal to 10 percent of depreciable investments associated with clear- ing and drainage (Section 46); • Exclusion of 60 percent of long-term capital gains from sale of improved farmland (Section 1202). Deductions for land clearing and for soil and water conservation reduce taxes in the current year in lieu of capitalizing those expenses, which would increase the taxable basis of the improved land. This deduction also has the effect of increas- ing the amount of long-term capital gain that will be realized on sale of the property; long-term capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than or- dinary income. Land clearing deductions cannot be claimed after the land is in production, and soil and water conservation deductions cannot be claimed for land that is not used for farming. In fact, the interpretation of these deductions is suffi- ciently broad that almost any activity that involves clearing vegetation, moving earth, or ditching can qualify for either one or the other section (55, Chapter 6). The investment tax credit effectively reduces the cost of qualifying investments by one-tenth, if tax liabilities are higher than the credit allowed. Accelerated cost recovery allows the investment to be written off faster, increasing after-tax income in earlier years over true economic depreciation. Deducting interest effectively reduces the cost of financing land conversion investments by a percentage equal to the marginal tax rate, which can be as high as 50 percent. leading commercial farmers at the level of manage- ment that tends to produce the highest economic returns per acre. This level of management involves using the best varieties; balancing plant populations and fertilizers to the potential of the soil; control- ling erosion, weeds, insects, and diseases; and maintaining optimum soil tilth and adequate drainage (49). Some soils have no estimated yields, or no yields estimated for certain crops, because crop production was not judged feasible on these soils given existing technology and economics. Costs of production by crop and by State are estimated in crop budgets developed by Economic Research Service (ERS) as part of the firm enter- prise data system (FEDS). FEDS budgets are based on data from periodic farm production expenditure surveys and are processed using a version of the Oklahoma State University budget generator [20). Variable costs include annual costs of seed, fer- tilizer, and chemicals, interest on operating capital, and costs of machinery fuel, repairs, and labor needed to plant and harvest a crop. They exclude fixed costs such as capital replacement, taxes, in- terest, and insurance on machinery and buildings, land charges, and general farm overhead. Budgets for nonirrigated and irrigated production of eight farm program crops (corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton, oats, barley, sorghum, and rice) at the technology and price levels of 1982 are used in this analysis. We divided variable production costs by estimated yields to get the cost per unit of production. This cost represents the minimum price at which pro- ducing the particular crop just covers variable costs of the enterprise in the short run. Our analysis was limited to privately owned palustrine wetlands since these are the principal remaining wetlands vulnerable to farm conversion. Program Crops and Prices. It is difficult to predict what prices farm operators with wetlands that might be cropped will face. Depending on loan rates in effect, commodity loan programs adminis- tered by the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) can establish a floor price well above market clear- ing levels. Under the Food Security Act of 1985, loan rates are 75-85 percent of average market prices over the previous 5 years (discarding high and low years) and deficiency payments will be used to supplement farm income (40], This should result in: (a) lower season-average prices than those received under the 1981 price-support programs, but (b) target prices nearly equal to earlier levels, at least in the first years of the program. This analysis assumes that farmers contemplating conversion of wetlands would base their decision on an expected price that weighted near-term price projections higher than prices projected for the more distant future. A simple sum-of-years digits weighting scheme was used to calculate an ex- pected price for the 1986-91 period (table 8). Of 59.9 million acres of private palustrine wetlands inventoried in 1982, about 72 percent are suited to at least one of the eight farm program crops. SCS has estimated yields on 42.9 million acres (table 9). Accumulating the acres of private palustrine wet- lands at each break-even unit cost of production for each crop and arraying them in ascending order re- sults in supply curves for wetland conversion, such as the one for soybeans shown in figure 5. This curve shows, for example, that almost all 24 million acres with potential for soybean production would cover variable costs at a soybean price higher than $4 per bushel. Soybeans have the greatest potential for production on private palustrine wetlands, followed by corn, oats, and wheat. Table 8 — Historical and expected prices for Farm program crops Season average market prices' Expected prices 1986-91^ Crop 1980 1 1981 1 1982 1 1983 1984 Market 1 Target Dollars per unit Soybeans Corn Oats Wheat 7.57 3.11 1.79 3.91 6.04 2.50 1.89 3.66 5.69 2.68 1.49 3.55 7.81 3.25 1.67 3.53 6.13 2.69 1.72 3.37 5.21 1.84 .93 2.33 4.65' 2.95 1.56 4.27 Cotton Barley Sorghum Rice .75 2.84 2.94 5.76 .54 2.44 2.38 4.07 .59 2.22 2.52 3.65 .66 2.50 2.84 3.94 .59 2.26 2.37 3.65 .47 1.57 1.69 2.04 .78 2.54 2.ai 5.03 'AgriculturoJ Statistics, 1985. 'Weighted averages of market and target prices implied by 1985 legislation using year number divided by sum of the years (for example, 6/21 for first year, 5/21 for second year). 'Expected loan price for soybeans. 10 At 1982 season-average prices, almost all private palustrine wetlands for which estimated yields are available would have returned sufficient revenue to cover variable costs of production. About 4.4 million acres of these wetlands were used as cropland in 1982, while retaining their status as palustrine wetlands. Thus, 38 million acres could have been converted to cropland, depending on clearing and drainage costs and the availability of equally or more attractive potential cropland from nonwetland sources. This estimate is far larger than the 5.1 million acres of high- and medium-potential cropland inventoried by SCS and reported in table 6. However, the difference is not surprising since field assessments of cropland potential included in- formation on size, accessibility, and ownership fac- tors affecting conversion as well as drainage feasibility and expected yield. The effect of regulatory programs administered by State and Federal agencies can also reduce the economic feasibility of some wetland conversions. Some 21.6 million acres of wetlands in unfavorable land capability classes^ VII and VIII were not rated for conversion potential, although more than 2.8 million acres of existing cropland are in these classes, and drainage would undoubtedly improve this land's agricultural capability. Also, lower assessments of wetland crop potential may, con- sciously or unconsciously, reflect USDA's policy restricting financial and technical assistance for drainage to palustrine wetlands in types 1 and 2. each of the eight crops shown in the second col- umn of table 9. If all producers were to receive deficiency payments, from 25 to 115 percent more acreage would have returns exceeding variable costs. The exception is soybeans, for which defi- ciency payments are not available. Since the ex- pected loan price of $4.65 per bushel is lower than the expected season-average price, slightly fewer acres of soybeans could earn shortrun returns above variable costs at the loan price. Corn and oats would have the largest increases in acreage under price supports compared with season-average prices. For corn, the 7.2 million-acre increase is 62 percent of corn acreage that would earn shortrun returns above variable costs without price supports. Price supports provide an incentive to bring wetlands into production. Feasible acreage without price supports ranges from 46 to 80 percent of acreage that could earn shortrun profits without price supports. However, the costs of conversion and the fixed costs which must be covered for longrun profitability are ignored. The additional revenue provided by deficiency payments is not likely to be sufficient to offset these costs. For soy- beans, probably the most important crop produced on converted wetlands, price supports under CCC loan operations are not likely to rise above market prices, providing no incentive for wetland conver- sion beyond their role in reducing producer risk. At expected season-average prices, returns would cover variable costs of production for acreages of The land capability class system rates land's suitability for agricultural production. Table 9 — Remaining private palustrine wetlands feasible for production of program crops under expected prices, 1986-91 1982 wetlands Positive returns to variable with estimated yields costs at 1986-91 e xpected prices Crop Season-average Target/loan Million acres Soybeans 24.0 24.0 23.8 Corn 19.5 11.6 18.8 Oats 13.0 7.1 12.8 Wheat 6.5 4.5 6.4 Cotton 4.3 2.0 4.3 Barley 3.7 2.3 3.5 Sorghum 3.1 2.6 3.0 Rice .5 .4 .5 With yields' 42.9 na na Remaining wetlands 59.9 na na na = Not available since some acres have estimated yields for more than one crop. 'Detail does not add to total because some acres have estimated yields for more than one crop. Source: 1982 National Resources Inventory, USDA Soil Conser- vation Service. Conversion Costs. The preceding analysis is both short run and applies at the margin. That is, we made no attempt to take account of the costs of Rgun 5 Supply response curve on wetlands for soybeans, 1982 Dollars per bushel 10 0 4 Source: {S^l 8 12 16 Million acres 20 24 28 11 converting the wetland, or the costs of starting a farm by converting large tracts of wetland as the principal cropland in the enterprise. These factors are less important in an area such as the prairie pothole region, where isolated wetlands surrounded by existing cropland are relatively inexpensive to convert. Where large tracts are converted or where the costs of conversion are high, the short-term ' economic feasibility of cropping the marginal wetland acre matters less than the costs of conversion. High costs of converting land to crop production are probably the principal barrier to conversion of most remaining wetlands. In a Minnesota survey of potential cropland owners, high cost was the most important obstacle to conversion listed by respond- ents (34). Conversion costs affect the financial feasibility of wetland conversion because they can be relatively large and are incurred at the begin- ning of land development, before offsetting revenues begin. Such costs are large enough to affect the economic feasibility of conversion if the sum of after-tax annualized conversion cost and acquisition cost exceeds the margin between variable production costs and gross revenues from crops (34). Despite the importance of conversion costs, relatively little systematic information exists on a nationwide basis. The 1983 farm production expend- iture survey (FPES) gathered data on new con- struction expenses for land clearing, surface and subsurface drainage, leveling, and other land im- provements from a national sample of farm operators (10). Clearing expenses averaged $80 per acre, ranging from $42 in the Southern Plains to $267 in the Northeast. Drainage expenditures averaged $101 per acre, ranging from $21 in the Delta to $295 in the Southeast. However, since it is not possible to separate wetland conversions from clearing and drainage on nonwetland, these data probably understate the costs of clearing and drain- ing wetlands. Follow-on surveys to the 1978 USDA landownership survey gathered data on clearing and drainage investments undertaken between 1975 and 1977 (23, 24). Average clearing and drainage costs were $175 and $95 per acre, respectively, but these suffer from the same flaw as the FPES data. Economic studies of wetland conversion in several farming areas where loss of wetlands has been a concern are summarized in table 10. These studies are useful chiefly for revealing the wide variation in activities necessary to convert wetlands in dif- ferent areas, resulting in widely varying conversion costs. Conversion of pocosin wetlands in North Carolina requires constructing drainage canals and pumping stations for outlets, as well as V-ditches to drain the fields. Clearing the forest and scrub ^ vegetation requires heavy bulldozing, and removing roots and fallen logs takes several passes with custom-built root rakes. Newly cleared and drained pocosin land is organic and acid, requiring heavy liming and fertilizing to balance pH and restore trace minerals, and must be worked to condition the soil. Such conversions cost $1,000 to $1,500 per acre, even for large operations that can fully realize economies of scale. In contrast, converting prairie pothole wetlands usually requires only drainage ditches. Costs are estimated at only $150 to $800 per acre, and can be as low as $14 per acre where operators do most of the work with their own machinery (22). Conver- sion of bottomland hardwood swamps in the Lower Mississippi superficially resembles conversion in the North Carolina pocosins. However, drainage outlets usually have been provided by public invest- ment in channelization and flood-control projects, eliminating the largest part of drainage expense (44). Clearing and root removal operations are either not as extensive or not done to the degree seen in North Carolina, resulting in lower land development costs. Soil amendment, apart from ordinary fertilization and liming included in crop , production costs, is apparently not required (18). v. Consequently, conversion costs in this area are only $150 to $225 per acre, about 10 to 20 percent as high as in North Carolina and less expensive than some drainage in the prairie pothole area. Converting land for crop production in the Rain- water basin and Sandhill areas of Nebraska is primarily a byproduct of irrigation development, which incidentally drains wetlands into reuse pits or lowers groundwater levels through pumping (15). Constructing reuse pits or dugouts and leveling for center pivot irrigation systems costs between $120 and $600 per acre, but no clearing or other ex- penses are incurred. Amortized over 20 years at 10-percent interest, these conversion investments imply annual costs ranging from less than $20 per acre for ditch drainage of prairie pothole wetlands to $170 per acre for complete conversion of North Carolina pocosins (table 10). As a percentage of variable pro- duction costs, these annualized costs range from 75 to 186 percent of corn and soybean costs in North Carolina; from 15 to 150 percent of corn, soybean, and wheat costs in Minnesota; from 25 to 35 per- # cent of soybean and wheat costs in Arkansas; and from 6 to 69 percent of irrigated corn and soybean 12 production costs in Nebraska. Thus, fixed costs due to conversion can be relatively unimportant, adding only 6 percent to irrigated corn production costs in Nebraska, or overwhelming, almost tripling produc- tion costs for soybeans in North Carolina. Where ■ conversion costs are high, the relatively small im- pact of farm programs on revenues is probably less important to the conversion decision than in situa- tions where conversions costs are small. Therefore, denying benefits may be more effective on wetlands that are easy to convert to cropland. Economics of Conversion for Hypothetical Farms The impact of swampbuster sanctions does not hinge on the economic feasibility of converting wetlands with or without price supports for crops grown on the converted wetlands. An operator who plants any annual crop on converted wetlands loses eligibility for farm program benefits on all crops grown in the entire operation. The cost to the operator of the swampbuster sanction thus depends on the amount of program benefits received on the initial acreage operated, not the benefits that might have been received for crops grown on the wetland portion. An analysis of hypothetical farms from areas where wetland has been converted can show the impor- tance of loss of benefits as well as tax subsidies. Tradeoffs between expanded production without benefits and foregone expansion with continued Table 10 — Costs of converting wetlands to cropland, by region Nominal cost Cost index' Current cost Description and source Total Annual Total 1 Annual Nominal dollars Current dollars North Carolina: Tile, heavy (3) 239.63 28.15 20.2 1,186.29 139.34 Tile, licht (3) Ditch, heavy (3) 136.63 16.05 20.2 676.39 79.45 187.89 22.07 17.9 1.049.66 123.29 Ditch, light (3) 84.89 9.97 17.9 474.25 55.70 Small operator (10) 1,076.53 126.45 86.S 1.244.54 146.18 Large operator {10] South, forest (35) 1,450.00 170.32 86.5 1.676.30 196.90 900.00 105.71 86.5 1.040.46 122.21 Average 582.22 68.39 N/A 1.049.70 123.30 Standard deviation 509.50 59.85 N/A 362.50 42.58 Prairie pothole region: Ditch (21) 279.00 32.77 86.5 322.54 37.89 Tile (21) 781.00 91.74 87.4 893.59 104.96 Low (5) 153.61 18.04 66.1 232.40 27.30 High (5) 189.92 22.31 68.8 276.04 32.42 Low (5) 156.48 18.38 99.8 156.80 18.42 High (5) 186.34 21.89 99.5 187.28 22.00 Midwest, range (35) 250.00 29.36 87.4 286.04 33.60 Northern plains (10) 105.00 12.33 96.8 108.47 12.74 Average 262.67 30.85 N/A 307.90 36.17 Standard deviation 202.56 23.79 N/A 231.19 27.16 Lower Mississippi: Arkansas {44) 89.00 10.45 20.8 427.88 50.26 Louisiana (44) 69.00 8.10 20.8 331.73 38.96 Mississippi {44] Woodland {18) 94.00 11.04 20.8 451.92 53.08 226.50 26.60 54.4 416.36 48.91 Woodland {18) 224.58 26.38 54.4 412.83 48.49 Woodland (18) 228.00 26.78 54.4 419.12 49.23 Delta, woodland {10) 163.00 19.15 95.8 170.15 19.99 Average 156.30 18.36 N/A 375.71 44.13 Standard deviation 66.34 7.79 N/A 90.74 10.66 Nebraska Sandhills: Reuse pit (15) 637.06 74.83 87.4 728.90 85.62 Leveling (15) 159.21 18.70 87.4 182.16 21.40 Center pivot (15) 115.38 13.55 87.4 132.82 15.51 Average 303.88 35.69 N/A 347.69 40.84 Standard deviation 236.27 27.75 N/A 270.33 31.75 N/A = Not applicable. 'Based on 1982 baseline of 100. 13 benefits and tax subsidies can also be analyzed. Two extremes are analyzed: a large-scale, expensive conversion of pocosin wetlands in North Carolina and a small, inexpensive conversion of prairie pothole wetlands in North Dakota. Converting Pocosin Wetiands in North Carolina. Wetland conversion in this area is typified by large operations developed through previous wetland conversion (7). Expansion is continuing, with con- version in half-section or whole-section blocks in- volving costly excavation for V-ditches and canals and expensive pumping stations to remove drainage water. Much of the conversion has been done by corporate subsidiaries of large, nonfarm corpora- tions or foreign consortiums [32). Farm program participation in this area is low, with only 7.5 per- cent of North Carolina corn farmers and 20 percent of corn acreage base enrolled in 1984. The farm analyzed here assumes a 1,000-acre cash grain operation growing corn and a soybean-wheat double-crop rotation. An individual tax return with substantial off-farm income ($100,000) is assumed. Revenue from the rotation, including deficiency payments, is $410 per acre; variable and fixed costs of production total $288 per acre. A 320-acre wetland conversion is planned, with conversion costs of $1,979 per acre, partly financed out of nonfarm income, and production costs similar to those for existing cropland. Revenues on the newly drained land are $234 per acre in the first year of production and approach revenues from existing acreage in the third year as drainage becomes fully effective. The conversion is assumed sold after 10 years, so that capital gains from ap- preciation are included in the analysis. Details are presented in appendix 2. Prospects for the conversion are considered in terms of the present value of projected revenue, cost, and taxes over the 10-year planning period, discounted at an assumed 5-percent real interest rate. Three situations are shown in table 11: the current situation without the conversion but with deficiency payments; with the conversion and defi- ciency payments; and with the conversion but with price supports denied to the whole operation under swampbuster sanctions. Converting an additional 320 acres of wetland with deficiency payments increases the present value of farm cash income by 5.5 percent. Taxable net farm income drops because conversion costs are written off as land clearing and soil and water conservation investments, and because of interest on debt in- curred to undertake the conversion. Therefore, ad- justed gross taxable income drops by 35 percent and taxes decrease by the same percentage. After-tax income is the sum of farm and nonfarm cash income, less taxes paid, and capital gains realized from sale of the conversion, less any debt remaining from the investment. After-tax income with the conversion and with deficiency payments is just equal to after-tax income before conversion if the 320 converted acres can be sold for $2,315 per acre at the end of 10 years. The cost of swampbuster sanctions against wetland conversion can be estimated by comparing (a) the present value of the operation (with the conversion) with deficiency payments and (b) the value of the Table 11 — Discounted present value of wetland conversion with and without deficiency payments, North Carolina pocosins* Before conversion, with payments After conversion, with payments After conversion, without payments Change Item From conversion From loss of payments Farm receipts Farm expenses Cash income Nonfarm income 2,963 2,158 805 831 3,668 2.819 849 831 3,556 3,084 472 831 23.8 30.6 5.5 0 -3.0 9.4 -44.4 0 Adjusted gross Taxes owed Capital gain 1,386 538 0 895 346 309 520 252 309 -35.4 -35.7 N/A -41.9 -27.2 0 After-tax income' 1.097 1.097 814 0 -25.8 N/A - Not applicable. •Conversion of 320 wetland acres on a 1,000 acre corn-soybean-wheat operation with deficiency payments, sold after 10 years and dis- counted at 5 percent real interest rate. See text and appendix 2. 'Farm cash income plus nonfarm income plus capital gains less taxes owed and debt service on the conversion. 14 operation without deficiency payments. Without deficiency payments, farm receipts drop 3 percent, partly due to loss of the maximum $50,000 in payments. This loss is partly offset by revenue from planting 10 percent of total corn acres and 20 per- cent of total wheat acres set aside as a requirement for receipt of deficiency payments. Farm expenses increase by the cost of this extra planting, resulting in a 44-percent drop in farm cash income. The pre- sent value of net farm income for tax purposes is negative, so adjusted gross income falls 42 percent and taxes are reduced 27 percent. Overall, the pre- sent value of after-tax income is 26 percent lower without deficiency payments. Thus, the net present cost of the swampbuster sanction is $884 per acre converted, an amount likely to outweigh increased net returns at any conceivable yield level. The operation would be subject to increased risk without price supports and crop insurance, and possibly higher finance costs without subsidized loans, but those program benefits are not quantified in the analysis. With up to $100,000 in annual nonfarm income in- vested in the conversion, reduced income taxes are worth $600 in net present value per acre converted, about one-third of the cost of acquisition and con- version. Tax reductions may well play a decisive role in turning economically unjustifiable wetland conversions into financially feasible propositions. For example, on North Carolina's Albermarle- Pamlico peninsula, three corporate farms acquired more than 400,000 acres and have been developing cropland since the mid-1970's (7, 32). These large operations are corporate subsidiaries with substan- tial nonfarm income from transportion, insurance, and foreign sources, so tax sheltering may be their primary motivation. The fact that much of the con- verted acreage is leased or sold to smaller, noncor- porate owners suggests that obtaining tax benefits from conversion, rather than income from farming, is their objective. Converted land is cash-leased for about $75 per acre or share-leased for fixed rates of 25 bushels of corn or 8 bushels of soybeans (equivalent to between $45 and $75 per acre). Capitalized at 10-percent interest, these lease rates imply land values of $450 to $750 per acre, less than half of the $1,579 acquisition and conversion cost. Hence, sheltering nonfarm income from taxes, with the expectation of long-term capital apprecia- tion, can subsidize wetland conversions for large corporate landowners. They can then pass the operation of converted land on to tenants at rates that are economically feasible for farming. Converting Prairie Pothole Wetlands in North Dakota. Wetland conversion in North Dakota is typified by small drainage projects to improve isolated, seasonally wet areas for more intensive crop use. Conversion costs are generally lower than for wooded wetlands such as the North Carolina pocosins, because the pothole area does not have to be cleared and requires less drainage. Farm pro- gram participation in this area is high, with 81 per- cent of wheat acreage base enrolled in 1984 by 73 percent of wheat farmers. The farm analyzed here has 1,170 acres in wheat production, with variable and fixed production costs totaling $126.59 per acre. Wheat yields 35 bushels per acre when the area is drained. A 10-acre pothole area is drained at a cost of $187.20 per acre. To assess the effect of appreciation, we assume that the 10-acre conversion is sold after 10 years for $600 per acre. Details are shown in ap- pendix 2. The discounted present value of 10 years' gross farm receipts from sale of wheat, with set-asides under the farm program, is about $1.2 million, and the conversion adds only $17,102 (table 12). The present value of farm cash income is increased only $9,654 and capital gains from sale of the conversion are worth $3,508. The present value of after-tax in- come increases $8,515 or $851 per acre converted. All of the increase is from deficiency payments on the converted acres and the increase is somewhat offset by a tax increase of $2,865. Deficiency payments for wheat have been higher than for other crops. The expected season-average price for wheat assumed in this analysis is $2.87 per bushel, while the target price is $4.38 per bushel. If eligibility for deficiency payments on the entire 1,180 acres were lost under the swampbuster provisions, the present value of gross farm receipts would fall $193,365, or 16 percent. Annual net farm income would become negative and the present value of adjusted taxable gross income would drop 150 percent. After-tax income would fall $374,655, a loss that amounts to a penalty of almost $37,500 per wetland acre converted. Comparing these two analyses shows that swamp- buster sanctions are likely to be more effective in the prairie pothole region than in the pocosin area for several reasons. First, the rate of farm program participation is higher on wheat farms in the prairie than on corn and soybean farms in eastern North Carolina. For program participants, defi- ciency payments on wheat farms are a larger percentage of net farm income than on corn and soybean farms. Wetlands in the prairie pothole area are small relative to total cropland acreage, so that 15 income gains from conversion are dwarfed by potential loss of benefits on nonwetland cropland. Finally, opportunities to shelter nonfarm income through tax breaks for conversion costs are small in the prairie pothole area, compared with potential tax breaks from the high clearing and drainage costs in the pocosins. Indirect Motivations for Conversion Conversion of wetlands for farming can be ex- pected if operators think conversion will be profit- able. However, conversion to crop production can occur indirectly, even though it may not be profitable. Forestry and agriculture are often linked in wetland conversion. Timber harvest of wooded swamps may be the primary reason for some wetland destruc- tion, with agriculture a residual user of the newly cleared land. More than half of palustrine wetlands converted to agriculture between the 1950*8 and 1970's were forested, but there is no information on how much of these wet forests were directly cleared for agriculture and how much went into agriculture after these wetlands had been cleared for timber. About 60 percent {42.6 million acres) of palustrine wetlands were forested in 1982. Other wetlands are converted to remove obstacles to large-scale agriculture. The prairie pothole wetlands of the Dakotas and Minnesota are the primary example of this kind of conversion. Here, the value of the converted wetland for crop produc- tion is less important than removing an obstacle to straight-row farming or center-pivot irrigation systems. Isolated wetlands within fields require more turns for machinery and form point rows and dead rows that cannot be planted or harvested; wetlands within fields also can restrict machinery choices to smaller, less economical sizes. Many activities lower water tables, destroying wetlands and making agricultural conversion more attractive. Stream channelization for flood control, as occurred in the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project [42) and in the Lower Mississippi Alluvium (44), can increase flow rates and lead to lower water levels in nearby wetlands. Irrigation can lower water levels through pumping and through construction of dugouts as catchments for irrigation water. These indirect modes of conversion will not be af- fected by swampbuster sanctions, since they may destroy wetlands well before the land is farmed. Wetland Values Foregone From Conversion A variety of private and public benefits are lost when wetlands are drained. These highly produc- tive ecosystems are essential habitat for a variety of fish and wildlife species. They provide many ecological services and recreational opportunities, as well as producing renewable resources. For the most part, these benefits have not been measured in monetary terms because they are hard to estimate. Nevertheless, the values of wetlands are real and need to be recognized when conversion is possible. This section reviews values of wetlands and gives examples of monetary estimates. Table 12— Discounted present value of wetland conversion with and without deficiency payments, North Dakota prairie potholes' Before conversion, with payments After conversion, with payments After conversion, without payments Change Item From conversion From loss of payments 1,196,300 984,212 212,088 83,064 Dollars 1,213,402 991,660 221,742 83,064 1,020,037 1,211,363 -191,326 83,064 1.4 .8 4.6 0 Farm receipts Farm expenses Cash income Nonfarm income -15.9 23.9 - 186.3 0 Adjusted gross Taxes owed Capital gain 266,079 44,749 0 274,848 47,614 3,508 -137,615 8,674 2,982 3.3 6.4 N/A - 150.1 -81.8 -15.0 After-tax income* 250,403 258,918 -115,737 3.4 -144.7 N/A = Not applicable. 'Conversion of 10 wetland acres on a t,170-acre wheat operation with deficiency payments, sold after 10 years and discounted at 5-percent real interest. See text and appendix 2. »Farm cash income plus nonfarm income plus capital gains less taxes owed and remaining debt on the conversion. 18 Fish and Wildlife Values Estuarine wetlands play an important role in the life cycle of many fish species. Approximately two- thirds of the major U.S. commercial fish species spawn in estuaries and salt marshes (43). Fifty- seven percent of the 10 most important recreational marine fish species landed in 1979 also depended on estuaries (28). Inland freshwater wetlands are critical feeding, spawning, and nursery areas for several freshwater fish species. For example, marshes along Lake Michigan are used as spawning grounds by northern pike, yellow perch, and carp. Warmwater bass species use the southern bottom- land hardwood forests as nursery and feeding grounds (43). The species most closely associated with wetlands are waterfowl. Waterfowl depend on wetlands in the north for breeding areas, with the prairie pothole region the most important breeding area in the lower 48 States. It has been estimated that 20 percent of the annual continental production of waterfowl occurs in wetlands in the lower 48 States (38). Wetlands of the Chesapeake Bay, the Gulf Coast, the Central Valley of California, and the Mississippi River are major wintering areas for waterfowl. Various wetlands are also used as stopovers on migration routes (28). The 1985 census of duck populations indicates a potentially bleak future for waterfowl. The mallard population was at an all-time low of 5.5 million, a 47-percent decline from the first census figures in 1955. The sharpest decline occurred in the pintail population, which was down 69 percent from 1955. A variety of factors are blamed for these declines, including hunting pressure, disease, and biological stress. There is no debate, however, over the critical role of habitat loss, especially in the prairie pothole areas of Canada and the United States (33). At least 50 fur-bearing and other game species, in addition to waterfowl species, depend on wetlands for food, cover, or water. Most fur bearers, such as muskrat, nutria, and mink, are wetland species. Hundreds of nongame species also depend on wetlands for feeding, breeding sites, and wintering sites. Herons, egrets, cranes, storks, and ibises are all wetland inhabitants. At least 35 endangered species in the United States are wetland species, mostly in California and the Southeast. Only about 10 million acres of wetlands in the lower 48 States are protected through Federal ownership, easement, or lease. Four million of those acres are in the National Wildlife Refuge System (28). Ecological Values Wetlands perform a variety of ecological services. For example, wetlands store flood waters and retard flood peaks. The ability of a wetland to reduce flooding depends on the size, topography, and location of the wetland relative to downstream areas, as well as the magnitude of the flooding. Evidence indicates that wetlands are more effective than terrestrial environments for storing flood waters. Comparisons of watersheds with wetlands and watersheds where wetlands have been drained show that wetlands are important for delaying the simultaneous arrival of flood peaks from tributary streams to main stem channels (1). Wetlands improve water quality by trapping sus- pended sediments and remove nutrients, pesticides, and other toxic substances. Nutrient removal can control eutrophication, the explosive growth and decay cycle of algae, in adjacent waterbodies. Because of these capabilities, freshwater wetlands have been used to treat sewage effluent in some urban areas. However, the ability to remove sediments and adsorbed substances depends on the density of vegetation in the wetland. Wetlands do have a limited capacity to absorb such substances, and can be overloaded (43). Wetlands have also been credited with both ground- water recharge and discharge. Except in certain regions (for example, cypress swamps and prairie potholes), wetlands seem to have no inherent char- acteristics for better recharge. However, data sug- gest that wetlands are more important as water dis- charge areas, and some can augment low flows (1). A variety of other services have been attributed to wetlands. Wetland vegetation controls shoreline erosion. This is particularly important along coasts, where erosion can destroy public and private prop- erty, clog navigable waters, and degrade fish and wildlife habitat. Wetland plants are also efficient converters of solar energy, and provide food for a variety of species. Finally, it has been postulated that wetlands moderate local temperatures, and maintain regional precipitation and global at- mospheric stability (1). Socioeconomic Values In addition to the values described above, wetlands also yield other market and nonmarket benefits. 17 Marketable commodities other than fish, shellfish, and fur bearers include timber, grazing for livestock, cranberries, blueberries, wild rice, and peat. Besides their use for livestock grazing, wetlands can be used to grow hay for winter feed. However, the harvest of peat is not compatible with wetland preservation because it destroys the wetland. ^ Nonmarket values from wetlands are also numerous. Wetlands are popular sites for recreation activities such as birdwatching, water sports, hik- ing, picnicking, and photography. Wetland areas often have high aesthetic appeal. As scientific research areas, wetlands can be an important resource for learning about these unique ecosystems and their associated species. The diver- sity and uniqueness of some of these wetlands may make them important reservoirs of genetic diver- sity. Finally, wetlands have an option value for people who are willing to pay to preserve them for future use, and an existence value for people who are willing to pay simply for their continued presence. Estimation of Economic Values A number of studies have attempted to estimate the value of wetlands for various purposes. Although economic measurement techniques are well developed, a lack of data, as well as scanty informa- tion on the physical and ecological processes of wetlands, plague most studies. In a recent review of wetland valuation studies, Shabman and Batie (37) concluded that few studies have used conceptually valid techniques or considered key linkages be- tween wetland services provided and the wetland area studied. Therefore, the values reported here should be considered indicators, not exact estimates. Wetlands are a critical factor in commercial fisheries. For the 15 most important commercial species of fish and shellfish harvested in 1980, 61 percent of dockside value was attributed to estuarine-dependent species, for a total value of more than $1 billion (28). A 1973 study of Virginia wetlands estimated that the annual potential benefits of the State's tidal marshes for fish produc- tion were $108 per acre, while the potential value for aquaculture ranged from $350 to $900 per acre (4). The total harvest value of unfinished mam- malian pelts in the 1979-80 season was $295 million; 32 percent of that value was from mink, muskrat, and nutria, three wetland species. In Loui- siana, 16,000 alligators were harvested in 1979 for a total value of approximately $1.7 million (28). Pelts and skins acquire further value as they are used to make retail products such as coats and shoes. A final renewable resource of wetlands is timber. The estimated standing value of southern wetland forests alone is $8 billion [43). The value of the timber on the 2,300-acre wetland ecosystem of Georgia's Alcovy River was estimated at more than $1.5 miUion, or $686 per acre (9). Ecological values also have been estimated in several studies. The value of the Alcovy River ecosystem for sediment accretion was estimated at $3,000 per year, and for water quality improvement at $1 million per year. Virginia tidal marshes were estimated to have a value of $2,500 per acre for waste assimilation and $4,150 per acre for total life support, which encompasses a variety of ecological functions (4). The Army Corps of Engineers estimated the flood control benefits of the Charles River Basin wetlands at more than $1.2 million per year (9). Finally, Michigan's coastal marshes were estimated to have a value of $2,600 per acre for ecological functions (4). The benefits of wetlands for fish and wildlife and recreation were also estimated in two of the above studies. In the Charles River Basin, recreation and fish and wildlife benefits from the wetlands were estimated to be $124,800 per year (9). The Michigan coastal marshes were estimated to provide $490 per acre in recreation benefits and commercial fishing and trapping (4). Two additional studies focused on the value of wetlands for waterfowl. Hammack and Brown (16) combined a population dynamics model with a recreation valuation study of waterfowl hunters in the Pacific flyway. They estimated a marginal value of $3.10 to $3.29 per bagged waterfowl. Miller and Hay (26) studied the relationship between habitat availability, hunter success, and hunting participa- tion in the Mississippi flyway. Using a consumer surplus value of $29 per day of waterfowl hunting, they estimated that the loss of 10 percent of water- fowl habitat in the flyway would result in an annual loss of recreation benefits of $17 million per year. Swader and Pavelis (41) used the values from the two waterfowl studies to compare land values for agriculture to those for duck hunting. Using a 7.75-percent discount rate and a bag rate of 1.6 birds per acre, Hammack and Brown's marginal rate was translated into a capitalized land value of $220 per acre in 1984 dollars. The habitat value from Miller and Hay's study was capitalized into a 18 I $160 land value. These waterfowl values were then compared with 1984 and 1985 land values of agricultural lands in 20 Mississippi Flyway counties that had been at least 75-percent drained. The net agricultural value (gross land value minus estimated conversion cost) averaged $628 per acre in 1984. The land value from waterfowl hunting ranged from 21 to 63 percent of the agricultural value, with an average of 30 percent. However, because of the decline in land values in 1985 the average in- creased to 43 percent for 1985, and ranged from 24 to 93 percent of agricultural value. This indicates that the value of wetlands for hunting can be com- petitive with agricultural values, particularly if the value for hunting increases over time. Some values cited in this section are summarized in table 13 on a per acre basis to approximate annual income streams. The values are shown in 1984 dollars, ranging from $3.04 to $10,333 per acre. The highest values are for ecological func- tions. These values are among the most difficult to estimate, and must be viewed with caution. Presenting these values on a per acre basis is artificial in the sense that the economic values of wetland are not divisible. For example, a 50-percent reduction in wetland area does not imply a simple 50-percent reduction in benefits. Wetlands must be treated as ecological units that have a minimum size below which they can no longer provide cer- tain values. The estimation work done to date has Table 13— Estimated wetland values per acre, from recent studies Function Site and source Value per acre 1984 dollars Aquaculture Virginia tidal marsh 872 -2,241 Fish production Virginia tidal marsh 269 Life-support Virginia tidal marsh 10,333 Waste Virginia tidal assimilation marsh 6,225 Sediment accretion Alcovy River, Ga. 3 Timber production Alcovy River, Ga. 1,605 Water quality enhancement Alcovy River, Ga. 1,108 Ecological Michigan coastal functions marshes 4.472 Fish and wildlife Michigan coastal marshes 843 Flood control Charles River, Mass. 362 Fish, wildlife, Charles River, and recreation Mass. 38 Sources: (4, 9) provided valuable information about wetland values. However, these estimates are site-specific for the most part and not amenable to generaliza- tion. Further research on the role of wetlands throughout the country is needed for consistent estimation. If, in fact, these functions provide such large benefits there is a tremendous incentive to preserve wetland ecosystems. Critical Wildlife Wetland Areas Tiner (43) identified nine wetland areas in the con- tinental United States where vdldlife are most threatened by conversion. They are: 1) estuarine wetlands of the coastal zone, 2) Louisiana's coastal marshes, 3) Chesapeake Bay's submerged aquatic beds, 4) South Florida's palustrine wetlands, 5) prairie pothole emergent wetlands, 6) Nebraska's Sandhills and Rainwater basin, 7) forested wetlands of the Lower Mississippi alluvial plain, 8) North Carolina's pocosins, and 9) western riparian wetlands. Agricultural conversion is considered a major threat to wetlands in six areas (4 through 9). Although conversion is not a primary threat in the other three areas, agricultural nonpoint pollution is damaging wetlands in those areas. According to the 1982 NRI, 813,000 acres of non- Federal wetlands have a high potential for agricultural conversion, while another 4.4 million acres have medium potential. Using the 1982 NRI data, we matched Tiner's six problem areas as closely as possible with major land resource areas (MLRA's), in order to determine how much wetland with high and medium conversion potential fell into those six areas (fig. 6). In table 14, the six problem areas are listed with the number of acres in each that have high, medium, or unlikely poten- tial as cropland. Thirty percent of all non-Federal wetlands fell into these six areas, including 37 per- cent of acres with high conversion potential and 34 percent with medium conversion potential. Hence, wetlands with high and medium potential for cropland are not concentrated in these six areas. Other wetland areas may have higher concentra- tions of high and medium potential cropland and should be examined for threatened wetland values. South Florida's Palustrine Wetlands These wetlands cover a 9,000-square-mile area that includes the Everglades. Freshwater runoff from this area is essential to maintain the salinity balance of coastal estuaries, which support 85 per- cent of Florida's offshore fishery. Also, southern Florida is a breeding ground and a wintering 19 (0 (0 ■o c JS 0) <0 u o c o Q. c S lessee uthern al Plai c n) CO O (0 o State -Tenr a - So Coast > ir c c O c <0 O 0] ji; o fe c O) CO CQ O (0 OJ n Years 1-10 With conversion, no payments NPV> Years 1-10 NPV> Years 1-10 Tax calculation improvements: 5-year ACRS depreciation 18-vear ACRS SL depreciation Depreciation Sch F 1.53 Deductions less 1.50 Total deduction Sch F 1.55 Net farm income Sch F 1.56 Investment credit F3468 1.22 Farm income 1040 1.19 Other deductions 1040 1. Total income 1040 1.23 Adjusted gross 1040 1.32 Total taxes 1040 1.40 Business credit 1040 1.48 Taxes owed 1040 1.50 Capital gains improvements (long-term): Capitalized S&WC investments Basis of new land Sale Long-term capital gain Long-term capital loss Loss carryover Tax on capital gain Recapture improvements: S&WC and clearing 4797 1.23fc) Years held Recapture percentage Subject deductions Recapture amount 1040 1.15 Investment credit 4255 Recapturable amount Recapture amount 1040 1.53 ACRS depreciation 4797 1.21(b) Recapture amount Total recapture After-tax income Dollars 60,059 75,117 60,059 75,117 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60,059 75,117 60,059 75,117 2,158,036 2,857,840 3,522,359 4,624,673 3,785,420 4,987,585 2,158,036 2,857,840 3,522.359 4,624,673 3,785,420 4,987,585 804,586 1,065,495 145,924 262,625 (229,026) (250,170) 0 0 6,642 7,512 6,642 7,512 804,586 1,065,495 145,924 262,625 (229,026) (250,170) 83,064 110,000 83,064 110,000 83,064 110,000 1,552,163 2,055,495 1,060,931 1,538,986 685,981 1,026,191 1,386,035 1,835,495 894,802 1,318,986 519,853 806,191 538,518 713,148 349.378 521,803 254,340 377,770 0 0 2,915 3,554 2,526 3,554 538,518 713,148 346,463 518,249 251.814 374,215 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,647,895 4.397.921 2,647,895 4,397,921 0 0 433,130 740,800 433,130 740,800 0 0 308,774 528,109 308,774 528.109 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50,880 87,022 50,880 87,022 0 0 0 0 460.781 0 558,749 0 458.502 0 558,749 0 0 0 0 0 18.706 0 22,535 0 18,706 0 22,535 0 0 0 0 0 43,920 43.920 75,117 75,117 43,920 43,920 75,117 75,117 1,096,709 1.452.348 1.097.043 1,428,372 814,464 1,059,610 'Discounted net present value. 'Section of the Internal Revenue Code. 'IRS form and line number follow each entry where applicable. 32 Appendix table 2— Land improvement tax simulations, North Dakota Prairie Pothole No conversion. With conversion. With I conversion. Item with payments with payments no 1 payments NPV Years 1-10 NPV Years 1-10 NPV Years 1-10 - Dollars and purchase 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nondepreciable im- « provements, soil and water: Leveling and grading 0 0 0 0 0 0 Soil conditioning 0 0 0 0 0 0 Terracing 0 0 0 0 0 0 Restoration of fertility 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diversion channels 0 0 0 0 0 0 Drainage ditches 0 0 0 0 0 0 Irrigation ditches 0 0 0 0 0 0 Earthen dams 0 0 0 0 0 0 Watercourses and outlets 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ponds 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eradication of brush 0 0 0 0 0 0 Windbreaks 0 0 0 0 0 0 SCWD assessments 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nondepreciable im- provements, land clearing: Removal of trees and rocks 0 0 0 0 0 0 Earthmoving 0 0 0 0 0 0 Drainage and filling 0 0 816 900 816 900 Total 0 0 816 900 816 900 Depreciable improvements: Drainage tile (1245)^ Machinery and equipment (1245) Depreciable amount Multi-purpose buildings (1250) Single-purpose buildings (1245) 0 0 0 0 882 0 0 972 0 0 882 0 0 Tax calculations improvements: Gross farm income Sch F 1.31^ Consv. exp. Sch F 1.49 Land clearing exp Sch F 1.50 972 0 0 Depreciable amount 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 Financing improvements: Finance period Long-term balance 0 0 11,823 15,801 11,823 15,801 Long-term payment 0 0 1,783 2,662 1,783 2,662 Interest payments 0 0 591 790 591 790 Other improvements (tax items): Farm business receipts 1,196,300 1,584,233 1,213,402 1,604,022 1,020,037 1,341,084 Farm business expenses 984,212 1,303,371 991,660 1,313,498 1,211,363 1,612,250 Nonfarm income 83,064 110,000 83,064 110,000 83,064 110,000 Adustments to income 16,613 22,000 16,613 22,000 16,613 22,000 See footnotes at end of table. 1,196,300 0 1,584,233 0 1,213,402 0 1,604,022 0 1,020,037 0 1,341,084 0 0 0 816 900 0 0 continued 33 Appendix table 2 — Land improvement tax simulations, North Dakota Prairie Pothole, continued Item No conversion, with payments NPV Years 1-10 With conversion, vtfith payments NPV> Years 1-10 With conversion, no payments NPV Years 1-10 Dollars Tax calculations improvements: 5-year ACRS depreciation 18-year ACRS SL depreciation Depreciation Sch F 1.53 Deductions less 1.50 Total deduction Sch F 1.55 Net farm income Sch F 1.56 Investment credit F3468 1.22 Farm income 1040 1.19 Total income 1040 1.23 Adjusted gross 1040 1.32 Total taxes 1040 1.40 Business credit 1040 1.48 Taxes owed 1040 1.50 Capital gains improvements (long-term): Capitalized S&WC investments Basis of new land Sale Long-term capital gain Long-term capital loss Loss carryover Tax on capital gain Recapture improvements: S&WC and clearing 4797 1.23(c) Years held Recapture percentage Subject deductions Recapture amount 1040 1.15 Investment credit 4255 Recapturable amount Recapture amount 1040 1.53 ACRS depreciation 4797 1.21(b) Recapture amount Total recapture After-tax income 0 0 250,403 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 984,212 984,212 212,087 1,303,371 1,303,371 280,863 993,133 993,949 219,453 1,315,260 1,316,160 287,862 1,212,836 1,212,836 (192,799) 1,614,012 1,614,012 (272,928) 0 0 0 0 0 0 212,087 282,692 266,079 44,749 0 280,863 374,363 352,363 59,260 0 219,453 291,461 274,848 47,614 0 287,862 383,762 361,762 62,322 0 (192,799) (121,002) (137,615) 8,674 0 (272,928) (177,388) (199,388) 9,107 0 44,749 59,260 47,614 62,322 8,674 9,107 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,682 18,000 0 0 3,508 6,000 3,508 6,000 0 0 3,508 6,000 2,982 5,100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 331,603 816 0 0 0 0 0 258,918 900 0 0 0 0 0 341,540 0 0 0 0 0 0 (115,737) 0 0 0 0 0 0 (167,836) 'Discounted net present value. ^Section of tiie Internal Revenue Code. 'IRS form and line number. c 34 *«.$. Government Printing Office : 1986 -621-066/02015 Readings On Soil Conservation and Farmland Assessing Erosion on U.S. Cropland: Land Management and Ptiysical Features, by Nelson L. Bills and Ralph E. Heimlich. AER- 513. July 1984. 24 pp. $1.50. Order SN: 001- 019-00341-3 from GPO. Erosion from rainfall causes nearly 100 million acres of U.S. cropland to erode by more than 5 tons per acre per year. One-third of this land is so highly erosive that annual soil loss can be reduced to tolerable levels only under the most restrictive land management practices. More than one-third of U.S. cropland is inherently nonerosive under all management regimes, about half requires conservation management to keep soil loss within tolerable limits, and the remaining 8 percent is so erosive that acceptable soil loss rates cannot be achieved under intensive cultivation. Do USDA Farm Program Participants Contribute to Soil Erosion? by Katherine H. Reichelderfer. AER-532. April 1985. 84 pp. $3.00. Order SN: 001-019-00383-9 from GPO. Finds that only about one-third of U.S. cropland with excessive soil erosion rates is operated by farmers who might be influenced to reduce erosion if changes were made in USDA's commodity and soil conservation programs. Present commodity programs may conflict with conservation programs by encouraging cultivation of erosive crops. Efforts to increase the consistency of USDA commodity and conservation programs would contribute little to overcoming the Nation's total erosion problem. Cropland Rental and Soil Conservation in the United States, by Nelson L. Bills. AER-529. March 1985. 20 pp. $1.50. Order SN: 001 - 019-00387-1 from GPO. Data from USDA's Resource Economics Survey challenge the common but not well- substantiated view that farmers are less concerned with erosion en land they rent than on land they own. At the national level, farmers' conservation elToi ts on rented cropland compare favorably with those on owner-operated cropland. TO ORDER, WRITE TO: Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402. Telephone (202) 783-3238. Make check payable to Superintendent of Documents and be sure to include the stock number of each publication ordered. Bulk discount of 25% for 100 or more copies sent to one ad- dress. For foreign orders, please add 25% for postage. Agriculture's Links With U.S. and World Economies, by Alden C. Manchester. AIB-496. September 1985. 60 pp. $1.50. OrderSN:001- 019-00409-6 from GPO. Describes the linkages between farming and the supplying industries and those manufacturing and distributing farm products. Within the last 30 years, the food and fiber system has found itself increasingly reliant on nonfarm industries and increasingly affected by general economic developments, not only within the Nation but from overseas as well. Improving U.S. Farmland, by Douglas Lewis and Thomas A. McDonald. AIB-482. November 1984. 12 pp. $1.00. Order SN: 001-019-00362-6 from GPO. A clear, concise account of recent farmland improve- ments. Farmers invested more than $6.5 billion in improving their land in a recent 3-year period. Those investments, while often made on existing cropland, expanded total U.S. cropland by 9.1 million acres. Major Uses of Land in the United States: 1982, by H. Thomas Frey and Roger W. Hexem. AER-535. June 1985. 36 pp. $1.25. Order SN: 001-019-00398-7 from GPO. Discusses the major uses of the Nation's 2,265 million acres of land in 1982: cropland, 469 million acres; grassland pasture and range, 597 million acres; forest land (exclusive of areas in special-purpose uses), 655- million acres; special uses, 270 million acres; and miscellaneous other land, 274 million acres. Changes in cropland and pasture acreages were barely perceptible during 1978-82; forest land (except special use areas) and miscellaneous other land decreased sharply as large acreages in these categories were reclassified as parks, wilderness, and related uses. c UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE 1301 NEW YORK AVENUE, N. W. WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005-4788 € r r c attachment M DIRECTORY OF FEDERAL LAND MAHAGEMEKT AGENCY WETLAND CONTACTS c DIRECTORY OF FEDERAL LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY WETLANDS CONTACTS Prepared by: Interagency Wetlands Coordinating Body (1991) TABLE OF CONTENTS Background 3 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Civil Works) 5-18 Department of Defense 19-28 Forest Service 29-4 2 Fish and Wildlif ® Service - 43-48 National Park Service 49-54 Bureau of Land Management 55-60 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 61-70 Bureau of Reclamation. » 71-80 Soil Conservation Service 80-88 BACKGROUND On October 18-20, 1989, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Forest Service, Soil Conservation Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, Bureau of Reclamation, and Department of Defense participated in a workshop at Harper's Ferry, West Virginia on "Wise Use and Protection of Federally Managed Wetlands: The Federal Land Management Land Management Agency Role." The purpose of the three-day workshop was to bring together staff level/middle management from nine Federal agencies to gain a better understanding of the agencies' missions and the constraints of their missions relative to use and protection of wetlands on Federal lands, and to develop ways to collaborate on common issues and concerns. The workshop was organized because there is great potential for improved protection of wetlands through Federal land management agencies. There are about 10 million acres of wetlands under Federal ownership, easements or leases in the lower 48 (29 million acres in Alaska) , and there are also many opportunities to restore wetlands on Federal lands. An Interagency Wetlands Coordinating Body (IWCB) has been established at the Headquarters level to find ways to implement the Harper's Ferry Workshop recommendations. The IWCB produced a video slide presentation entitled "Planning for the Future: Wetlands on Federal Lands" as its first joint effort to improve understanding/communication between the Federal Land Management Agencies. This Wetlands Points of Contact (POC) Directory is the second product of the IWCB. PURPOSE The purpose of the directory is to (1) promote a better understanding of the missions of the Federal Land Management Agencies and to (2) enhance communications and cooperation between them at the regional level. The names provided in this directory are points of contact. The points of contact should direct users to program managers within the agency if specific questions or projects are involved. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (CIVIL WORKS) CORPS WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers develops, controls, maintains and conserves the Nation's water resources in accordance with the laws and policies established by Congress and the Administration. The Corps carefully considers and seeks to balance the environmental and developmental needs of the nation. Proposed development or action will attempt first to avoid adverse impacts, then minimize or reduce them, and finally compensate for unavoidable effects over the life cycle of the project or action. WETLANDS MANAGEMENT ON CORPS ADMINISTERED LAND AND WATER Several Corps Civil Works organizational elements are involved in wetlands management on Corps administered property. The list includes, but is not limited to: o Dredging o Hydraulics and Hydrology o Natural Resources Management o Planning o Policy o Project Operations o Regulatory (Section 404) Dr. William L. Klesch, Chief, Office of Environmental Policy, is the Headquarters coordinator for Civil Works wetlands activities. This directory includes the address and phone number of Dr. Klesch and other points of contact involved in the operation and maintenance of the 11 million acres of land and water entrusted to the Corps. The points of contact are responsible for directing wetlands management inquiries to the responsible Corps element. The Corps of Engineers is actively involved in wetlands research through the Waterways Experiment Station in Vicksburg, Mississippi. A Wetlands Research Program point of contact is provided in the directory. HEADQUARTERS. DIRECTORATE OF CIVIL WORKS Klesch, William Dr. , Chief Office of Environmental Policy U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Directorate of Civil Works (CECW-PO) 20 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. COMM - (202) 272-0166 Washington, D.C. 20314-1000 FAX - -1163 Lewis, Darrell E. , Chief ^ Natural Resources Management Branch ^ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Directorate of Civil Works (CECW-ON) 20 Massachusetts AVenue, N.W. COMM - (202) 272-0247 Washington, D.C. 20314-1000 FAX - -1671 Wolcott, Jim, Chief Natural Resources Section U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Directorate of Civil Works (CECW-ON) 20 Massachusetts Avenue N.W. COMM - (202) 272-0247 Washington, D.C. 20314-1000 FAX - -1671 LOWER MISSISSIPPI VALLEY DIVISION Redmon, Clyde, Chief Recreation-Resource Management Branch U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Lower Mississippi Valley Division (CELMV-CO-R) P.O. Box 80 COMM - (601) 634-5885 Vicksburg, MS 39180-0080 FAX - -7084 St. Louis District Marzec, John, Chief Natural Resources Management Branch M U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ^ St. Louis District (CELMS-OD-R) 1222 Spruce Street COMM - (314) 331-8622 St. Louis, Missouri 63103-2833 FAX - -8677 Vicksburg District Woods, Billy J., Chief Project Resources Management Branch U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180-0060 COMM - (601) 631-5300 FAX - -7133 MISSOURI RIVER DIVISION Dunwoody, Don, Chief Natural Resources Management Branch U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Missouri River Division (CEMRD-CO-R) P.O. Box 103, Downtown Station COMM - (402) 221-7284 Omaha, Nebraska 68101-0103 FAX - -7379 Kansas City District Lenning, Richard E., Chief Natural Resources Management Branch U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Kansas City District (CEMRK-OD-R) 700 Federal Building Kansas City, Missouri 64106-2896 Omaha District COMM - (816) 426-5758 FAX - -2730 Schaefer, Theodore H. , Chief Natural Resources Management Branch U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Omaha District (CEMRO-OP-N) 215 North 17th Street COMM - (402) 221-4139 Omaha, Nebraska 68102-4978 FAX - -3029 NORTH ATLANTIC DIVISION Puglese, Pete Civil Engineer, Operations Branch U.S. Army Corps of Engineers North Atlantic Division (CENAD-CO-OP) 90 Church Street COMM - (212) 264-7534 New York, N.Y. 10007-9998 FAX - -7392 Baltimore District Snyder, Don, Chief Natural Resources Section U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Baltimore District (CENAB-OP-PN) P.O. Box 1715 Baltimore, Maryland 31203-1715 COMM - (301) 962-3693 FAX - -2451 New York District Hook, Simeon M. , Dr. , Chief, Environmental-Analysis Branch U.S. Army Corps of Engineers New York District (CENAN-PL-E) 26 Federal Plaza New York, N.Y. 10278-0090 COMM - (212) 264-4662 Norfolk District Re id, Andy Operations and Maintenance Section U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Norfolk District (CENAO-OP-R) 803 Front Street Norfolk, Virginia 23510-1096 Philadelphia District Drumm, James Navigation & Maintenance Branch U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Philadelphia District (CENAP-OP-N) U.S. Custom House 2nd & Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19106-2991 COMM - (804) 441-7641 FAX - -7719 COMM - (215) 597-4741 FAX - -5687 NORTH CENTRAL DIVISION Loesch, Michael A. , Dr. Outdoor Recreation Planner U.S. Army Corps of Engineers North Central Division (CENCD-CO-MO) 536 S. Clark Street Chicago, IL 60605-1592 COMM - (312) 353-7762 FAX - -8666 # Buffalo District Borkowski, Don Construction-Operations Division U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Buffalo District (CENCB-CO) 1776 Niagara Street Buffalo, N.Y. 14207-3199 Chicago District Evans, Jim, Chief Construction-Operations Division U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Chicago District (CENCC-CO) 219 South Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60604-1797 COMM - (717) 879-4284 FAX - -4426 COMM - (312) 353-6432 FAX - -2 384 Detroit District Schloop, Wayne Chief, Reports Section U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Detroit District (CENCE-CO-OR) P.O. Box 1027 COMM - (313) 226-6809 Detroit, Michigan 48231-1027 FAX - -2056 Rock Island District Hardison, George, Chief Natural-Resource Management Branch U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Rock Island District (CENCR-OD-R) P.O. Box 2004 Clock Tower Building COMM - (309) 788-6361 Ext. 332 Rock Island, Illinois FAX - Ext. 180 St. Paul District Oksuess, Tom, Chief Natural Resource Management Section U.S. Army Corps of Engineers St. Paul District (CENCS-CO-PO) COMM - (612) 220-0325 1421 USPO & Custom House FAX - -0330 180 East Kellog Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55101-1479 NEW ENGLAND DIVISION Heald, Bob, Chief Natural Resources Management Section U.S. Army Corps of Engineers New England Division (CENED-OD-P) 424 Trapelo Road COMM - (617) 647-8305 Waltham, MA 02254-9149 FAX - -8285 NORTH PACIFIC DIVISION Ardner, Jack Natural Resources Management Section U.S. Army Corps of Engineers North Pacific Division (CENPD-CO-R) P.O. Box 2870 Portland, OR 97208-2870 COMM - (503) 326-4087 FAX - -5462 Alaska District Boardman, Stephen C, Chief Navigation and Flood Control Branch U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Alaska District (CENPA-CO-NF) P.O. Box 898 Anchorage, Alaska 99506-0898 Portland District Webster, Dick, Chief Natural Resource Management Section U.S. Array Corps of Engineers Portland District (CENPP-OP-PN) P.O. Box 2946 Portland, Oregon 97208-2946 Seattle District COMM - (907) 753-2753 FAX - -2 52 6 COMM - (503) 326-6075 FAX - -7190 Rawson, Bob, Chief Natural Resources Management U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District (CENPS-OP-PO) P.O. Box C-3755 Seattle, WA 98124-2255 COMM - (206) 764-3442 FAX - -3 308 Walla Walla District Mason, Mike, Chief Natural Resources Management Branch U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Walla Walla District (CENPW-OP-RM) City-County Airport Walla Walla, WA 99362-9265 COMM - (509) 522-6714 FAX - -6928 10 OHIO RIVER DIVISION Gee, Sherman, Chief Natural Resources Management Section U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Ohio River Division (CEORD-CO-OR) P.O. Box 1159 COMM - (513) 684-3192 Cincinnati, Ohio 45201-1159 FAX - -3800 Huntington District Thompson, Donald L. , Chief Natural Resource Management Branch U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Huntington District (CEORH-OR-R) 502 8th Street COMM - (304) 529-5607 Huntington, WV 25701-2070 FAX - -5591 Louisville District Waller, Ron, Chief Natural Resource Management Branch U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Louisville District (CEORL-OR-R) P.O. Box 59 COMM - (502) 582-5584 Louisville, KY 40201-0059 FAX - -5281 Nashville District Rains, Ronald G. , Chief Natural Resources Management Branch U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Nashville District (CEORN-OR-R) P.O. Box 1070 COMM - (615) 736-5115 Nashville, TN 37202-1070 FAX - -7490 Pittsburgh District Colangelo, Pete, Chief Natural Resources Management Branch U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Pittsburgh District (CEORP-OR-R) 1000 Liberty Avenue COMM - (412) 644-4190 Pittsburgh, PA 15222-4186 FAX - -4795 11 SOUTH ATLANTIC DIVISION Purvis, Gerald T. , Chief Natural Resources Management Branch U.S. Army Corps of Engineers South Atlantic Division (CESAD-CO-R) Room 313 77 Forsythe Street, S.W. Atlanta, GA 30335-6801 Charleston District COMM - (404) 331-6746 FAX - -2 613 Hubbard, David, Chief Operations - Maintenance Branch U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District (CESAC-CO-M) P.O. Box 919 Charleston, SC 29402-0919 Jacksonville District Milam, John "Pete", Chief Natural Resources Management Section U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jacksonville District (CESAJ-CO-OR) P.O. Box 4970 400 W. Bay Street Jacksonville, FL 32232-0019 Mobile District COMM - (803) 724-4677 FAX - -4356 COMM - (904) 791-2215 FAX - -2256 Miller, Mike, Chief Natural Resource Management Branch U.S. Army Corps of E^ ineers Mobile District (CES :-OP-R) 109 St. Joseph Stretc P.O. Box 2288 Mobile, AL 36628-0001 COMM - (205) 694-3720 FAX - -3725 Savannah District Parsley, Philip R. , Chief Natural Resources Management Branch U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Savannah District (CESAS-OP-R) P.O. Box 889 COMM - (912) 944-5343 Savannah, Georgia 31402-0889 FAX - -5065 12 Wilmington District Grimsley, Daniel L. , Chief Chief, Natural Resources Management Branch U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District (CESAW-CO-R) P.O. Box 1890 COMM - (919) 251-4827 Wilmington, NC 28402-1890 FAX - -4848 SOUTH PACIFIC DIVISION McCoy, Bill, Chief Chief, Operations Branch U.S. Army Corps of Engineers South Pacific Division (CESPD-CO-0) 630 Sansome Street, Room 1216 San Francisco, CA 94111-2206 COMM - (415) 705-1443 FAX - -1603 Los Angeles District Grover, Rick, Chief Recreation Resources Management Section U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Los Angeles District (CESPL-CO-0) P.O. Box 2711 Los Angeles, CA 90053-2325 COMM - (213) 894-5635 Sacramento District Holmberg, Joe, Chief Natural Resources Management Unit U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Los Angeles District (CESPK-CO-0) 650 Capitol Mall Sacramento, CA 95814-4794 COMM - (916) 551-2112 FAX - -2613 San Francisco District Earless, Jack, Chief U.S. Army Corps of Engineers San Francisco District (CESPN-CO-0) 211 Main Street San Francisco, CA 94105-1905 COMM - (415) 974-0387 FAX - -8532 13 SOUTHWESTERN DIVISION Quarles, Dwight, Chief Environment and Recreation Division U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Southwestern Division (CESWD-CO-R) 1114 Commerce Street Dallas, TX 75242-0216 Albuquerque District Newton , Dean Operations Branch U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Albuquerque District (CESWA-CO-0) P. O. Box 1580 Albuquerque, NM 87103-1580 Fort Worth District Ensch, Michael G. , Chief Recreation-Resources Management Branch U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Fort Worth District (CESWF-OD-M) P. O. Box 17300 Fort Worth, TX 76102-0300 Galveston District McClenan, Mike, Chief Operations Section U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Galveston District (CESWG-CO-MO) P. O. Box 1229 Galveston, TX 77553-1229 Little Rock District COMM - (214) 767-2435 FAX - -5305 COMM - (505) 766-2724 FAX - -8757 COMM - (817) 334-2705 FAX - -2120 COMM - (409) 766-3979 Leggett, M. Dale, Chief Recreation-Resource Management Branch U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Little Rock District (CESWL-CO-L) P. O. Box 867 Little Rock, AR 72203-0867 COMM - (501) 378-5673 FAX - -6230 U Tulsa District Groves, Earl, Chief Project Operations Branch U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Tulsa District (CESWT-OD-R) P.O. Box 61 Tulsa, OK 74121-0061 WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION COMM - (918) FAX - 581-7340 -5881 Theriot, Russell F. , Manager Wetlands Research Program U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station Environmental Laboratory (CEWES-EL-W) 3909 Halls Ferry Road COMM - (601) 634-2733 Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199 FAC - -3842 15 » » » DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE WETLANDS PROGRAMS PROGRAM STRUCTURE Overall responsibility for DoD's environmental programs is with the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) , which issues Department directives, instructions, policy memoranda and other Department-wide requirements. Each Military Service is responsible for implementing OSD policy. Wetlands management rests with each Service's natural resources division. Each Service has a different organizational structure. The Army and Air Force both are organized by function through major commands; e.g. the Army's Training and Doctrine (TRADOC) Command, and the Air Force's Tactical Air Command (TAC) . The Air Force also has three Regional Civil Engineering offices, which are responsible for intergovernmental coordination. The Navy is organized regionally by Engineering Fiel " Divisions. The Marine Corps, a part of the Navy, manages its natural resources programs directly from Headquarters. Day-to-day operations are normally conducted by each installation's natural resources manager, through its engineering office. Land acquisition and disposal, and related actions such as conservation easements, are assigned separately within DoD to each component's real estate division. A Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) office oversees activities in this area. WETLANDS PROGRAMS : 1. Resources Management; DoD manages its nearly 25 million acres of military lands for multiple use and sustained yield. Integrated natural resources management plans are required for all lands under DoD control. 2. Agreements: DoD enhances its wetlands protection program through interagency and private agreements. For example, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is updating or preparing new fish and wildlife management plans for 15 DoD installations, in conjunction with a cooperative agreement under the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. A 1988 agreement with The Nature Conservancy enabled Vandenberg AFB, California, to plan, produce, and implement a coastal dune management plan for the entire 55 mile Nipomo/Vandenberg dune and wetland complex. 19 3. Creation/Enhancement ; DoD is using public and private ventures to promote wetlands protection and enhancement. For example, a recent wetlands creation project at the Naval Station in Annapolis involved such diverse groups as the Navy Seabees, a local community college, private industry, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, and a center for developmental ly disabled adults. The Air Force, working in cooperation with Ducks Unlimited, is creating new wetlands at Edwards AFB, California, to divert waterfowl away from a major landing strip for the Space Shuttle and experimental aircraft. Expanded guidance for DoD's volunteer and partnership program is being developed, and should be available early in 1991. 4. Inventory; The Army's Intergrated Training Area Management (ITAM) program was designed to identify baseline resource conditions and monitor ecological changes so that training impacts are minimized. The FWS is preparing an inventory of the Navy's wetlands. 5. Land Disposition; Many DoD installations will be affected by base realignment and closure decisions. DoD is exploring the feasibility of using conservation easements to protect some of these lands. 20 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Natural Resources Management Office of the Secretary of Defense L. Peter Boice Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Environment (ODASD(E)) Environmental Planning Division, 206 North Washington Street, Suite 100 Alexandria, VA 22314 COMM: AV: 221-2215 (703) 325-2215 Department of the Army Headquarters Larry Adams Fish and Wildlife Administrator U.S. Army Engineering & Housing Support Center, CEHSC-FN Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-5516 Manor Commands James Sabo U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) Fort Monroe, VA 2 3 651-5000 Scott Klinger U.S. Army Forces Command (FORSCOM) Fort McPherson, GA 30330-6000 Lawrence Hiral U.S. Army Western Command (WESCOM) Fort Shaffer, HI 96958 Rick Clewell U.S. Army Materiel Command (AMC) Rock Island, IL 61299-6000 Paul Strider Army National Guard Bureau Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5420 Edna Barber U.S. Army Military District of Washington (MDW) Fort McNair, DC 20319-5050 COMM: (703) 355-7969 COMM: (804) 727-2265 COMM: (404) 362-7143 COMM: (808) 438-8997 COMM: (309) 782-8282 COMM: (301) 671-1825 COMM: (202) 475-2793 21 Department of the Navy - Headcmarters Lewis R. Shotton Head, Natural Resources Branch and .1 * ] Navy Natural Resources Program Manager Code 2042 Headquarters, Naval Facilities Engineering Command 200 Stovall Street Alexandria, VA 22332-2300 COMM: (703) 325-0427 Engineering Field Divisions William J. Summers Head, Natural Resources Management Section Northern Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command Code 202.3 U.S. Naval Base, Bldg. 77-L Philadelphia, PA 19112-5094 COMM: (215) 897-6207 Joe Hautzenroder Natural Resources Manager (Code 243) Chesapeake Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command Bldg. 212, Washington Navy Yard Washington, DC 20374-2121 Steven Martin Wildlife Biologist (Code 241B4) Atlantic Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command Norfolk, VA 23511-6287 James Cline Natural Resources Manager (Code 243) Southern Divison Naval Facilities Engineering Command P.O. Box 10068 Charleston, SC 29411-0068 Mike Stroud Manager, Natural Resources Management Branch (Code 243) Western Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command P.O. Box 727 San Bruno, CA 94066-0720 COMM: (202) 433-3586 COMM: (804) 445-2380 COMM: (803) 743-0588 COMM: (415) 244-3836 22 Tim Sutterfield Fish and Wildlife Biologist (Code 2432) Pacific Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command Pearl Harbor, HI 96860-7300 COMM: Merrily Severence Natural Resources Manager (Code 243) Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command 1220 Pacific Highway San Diego, CA 92132-5190 COMM: (808) 474-5923 (619) 532-2319 Marine Corps Tom Coda HQ, U.S. Marine Corps, Code LFL Washington, D.C. 20380 Department of the Air Force Headquarters Mark Decot HQ USAF/LEEV Boiling AFB Washington, DC 20332 Regional Environmental Offices COMM: (703) 696-0865 COMM: (202) 767-3668 The Air Force is currently reorganizing their regional offices. Three regional environmental offices report to HQ U.S. Air Force Air Staff. Regional boundaries have not been established. Eastern Office 77 Forsyth Stret, SW Suite 291 Atlanta, GA 30335-6801 Central Office 1114 Commerce Street Dallas, TX 75242 Western Office 630 Sansome Street Room 1316 San Francisco, CA 94111 COMM: (404) ,331-6776 COMM: (214) 653-3351 COMM: (415) 556-6439 Manor Commands Michael Sandine Biologist HQ Strategic Air Command (HQSAC/DEVN) Offutt AFB, Nebraska COMM: (402) 294-6324 Roy Barker Natural Resources Manager HQ Tactical Air Command (HQTAC/DEEV) Langley AFB, VA 23665 Air Force Logistics Command Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio Carl Lahser Natural Resources Manager Air Training Command Randolph AFB, Texas COMM: (804) 764-4430 COMM: (513) 257-6939 COMM: (512) 652-2594 Ernest Lagimoniere Natural Resources Planner Air Force Systems Command Andrews AFB, MD COMM: (301) 981-6341 Alaskan Air Command Elmendorf AFB, Alaska Patricia Calliott Environmental Protection Specialist Military Airlift Command (HQ KAC/DEV) Scott AFB, IL Pacific Air Forces Hickam AFB, HI COMM: (907) 552-4151 COMM: (618) 256-5764 COMM: (808) 449-9824 Gary Maher Chief, Environmental Planning Air Force Space Command Peterson AFB, CO COMM: (719) 554-5187 Richard Masse *.. Natural £Lesourcefi Officer Air NatioAal Guard Andrews AFB, MD COMM: (301) ^81-4048 Albert Loftin Chief, Natural Resources Air Force District of Washington Boiling AFB Washington, DC I COMM?' (202) 767-5443 24 • 6 t •a i I o o > 2 25 Real Estate Management Frank Savat Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Installations (ODASD(I)) Real Estate Division Room 3C767, The Pentagon Washington, DC 20301 COMM: (202) 694-5574 Gordon Hobbs Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations and Logistics (SAILE-IH) Room 3E581, The Pentagon Washington, DC 20301 COMM: (202) 695-0867 Jeff Roth Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Real Estate Branch Hoffman Bldg. 2, 2 00 Stovall Street Alexandria, VA 22332 COMM: (703) 325-0437 John Rittenhouse Director for Installations Management Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Installations Room 4C940, The Pentagon Washington, DC 20301 COMM: (202) 697-7244 27 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE WETLANDS AND RIPARIAN ACTIVITIES The Forest Service manages wetland and riparian habitat on 191 million acres of public land. These lands are administered by nine Regional Offices. These offices also provide assistance to State Foresters. Research on riparian and wetlands is conducted by the eight Experiment Stations. The contacts listed can identify other specific people and projects dealing with riparian areas and wetlands. The National Forest System manages a diverse variety of Wetland and Riparian ecosystems from Puerto Rico to Alaska. These areas are managed according to prescriptions and standards and guidelines in Forest Plans. The Forest Service's goal is to provide for healthy, diverse, and productive ecosystems that will sustain a variety of public benefits now and in the future. The National Forest System and State and Private Forestry Coordinators can provide information on outreach, agreements, inventory, mapping, earth science, ecology, status and trends monitoring, management, restoration, protection and conservation, enhancement, creation and mitigation, land acquisition, activities under the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, recreation, land use, environmental protection, geomorphology, hydrology planning, delineation, program oversight, and evaluation. The research contact can provide information on ongoing and planned research in wetland and riparian areas. 29 a ■o a c c G rt t'.; ■< o c 00 2: o .^ Zl, < cc < 31 ^ USDA FOREST SERVICE - WETLAND CONTACTS NATIONAL OFFICE TEAM Larry J. Schmidt Riparian and Watershed Improvement Program Manager Watershed and Air Management Staff 3rd Floor South Wing 201 14th Street SW Washington, DC 20250 (FTS) 453-9470 (FAX) 8-382-6066 (COM) 202-453-9470 Jim Lloyd Fisheries Program Manager Wildlife and Fisheries Staff 4th Floor NW Wing 201 14th Street SW Washington, DC 20250 (FTS) 453-8205 (FAX) 8-453-3599 (COM) 202-453-8205 NOTE: Washington Office phone prefix changes to 205 beginning August 1, 1991. J • 3.3 USDA FOREST SERVICE - WETLAND CONTACTS Ed Schlatterer, Ecologist Range Management Staff 3rd Floor SW Wing 201 14th Street SW Washington, DC 2 0250 (FTS) 453-9455 (FAX) 8-382-6066 (COM) 202-453-9455 Jacob L."Les" Whitmore Hardwoods and Ecology Management Timber Management Research Staff 1st Floor Central Wing 201 14th Street SW Washington, DC 20250 (FTS) 453-9550 (FAX) 8-447-3610 (COM) 202-453-9550 M. Dean Knighton Forest Environment Research Staff 1st Floor Central Wing 201 14th Street SW Washington, DC 20250 (FTS) 453-9524 (FAX) 8-382-0530 (COM) 202-453-9524 Gordon Stuart Watershed Programs Cooperative Forestry Staff-State and Private Forestry 4th Floor SE Wing 201 14th Street SW Washington, DC 20250 (FTS) 453-9382 (FAX) 8-447-3610 (COM) 202-453-9382 Dennis Murphy Timber Management Staff 3rd Floor SW Wing 201 14th Street SW Washington, DC 2050 (FTS) 475-3751 (FAX) 8-447-3610 (COM) 202-453-9382 34 USDA FOREST SERVICE - WETLAND CONTACTS REGIONAL CONTACTS REGION 1 (MONTANA, IDAHO PANHANDLE, NORTH AND SOUTH DAKOTA) Mark Jenson Regional Soil Scientist Federal Bldg, P.O Box 7669 Missoula, MT 59807 (FTS) 585-3493 (FAX) 8-585-3347 (COM) 406-329-3112 REGION 2 (COLORADO, EASTERN WYOMING, KANSAS, NORTH & SOUTH DAKOTA, NEBRASKA) Glen E. Hetzel, Director Range, Wildlife, Fisheries, and Ecology 11177 W. 8th Avenue Box 25127 Lakewood, CO 80225 (FTS) 776-9526 (FAX) 8-776-9587 (COM) 303-236-9526 REGION 3 (ARIZONA, NEW MEXICO, OKLAHOMA PANHANDLE, WEST TEXAS) Russ LaFayette, Riparian Program Manager Watershed and Air Management Federal Bldg. 517 Gold Avenue S.W. Albuquerque,. NM 87102 (FTS) 476-3253 (FAX) 505-842-3800 (COM) 505-842-3253 REGION 4 (IDAHO, NEVADA, UTAH, WESTERN WYOMING) Thomas M. Collins Alma H. Winward Regional Soil Scientist Regional Ecologist Range and Watershed Management Range and Watershed Management Federal Bldg. Federal Bldg. 324 25th 324 25th St. Ogden, UT 84401 St. Ogden, UT 84401 (FTS) 586-5357 (FAX) (801) 625-5127 (FTS) 586-5596 (FAX) (801) 625-5127 (COM) 801-625-5357 (COM) 801-625-5596 35 USDA FOREST SERVICE - WETLAND CONTACTS ^ REGION 5 (CALIFORNIA) .-.;': .> John Rector Hydrologist Range and Watershed Management 630 Sansome Street San Francisco, CA 94111 (FTS) 465-2818 (FAX) 415-705-2836 - (COM) 415-705-2818 REGION 6 (OREGON, WASHINGTON) Richard N. Ross, Director Ecology, Range, and Watershed Management 319 S.W. Pine Street P.O. Box 3623 Portland, OR 97208 (FTS) 423-2931 (FAX) 503-326-5186 (COM) 503-326-2931 REGION 8 (TEXAS, LOUISIANA, ARKANSAS, MISSISSIPPI, ALABAMA, GEORGIA, FLORIDA, NORTH & SOUTH CAROLINA, KENTUCKY, TENNESSEE, VIRGINIA, PUERTO RICO, OKLAHOMA, VIRGIN ISLANDS) /^ I Keith R. McLaughlin, Group Leader Hydologist and Watershed Manager 1720 Peachtree Road N.W. Atlanta, GA 30367 (FTS) 257-7213 (FAX) 8-257-4448 (COM) 404-347-7213 REGION 9 (MINNESOTA, WISCONSIN, MICHIGAN, ILLINOIS, MISSOURI, INDIANA, OHIO, PENNSYLVANIA, WEST VIRGINIA, VERMONT, NEW HAMPSHIRE, NEW YORK, DELAWARE, CONNECTICUT, IOWA MAINE, MARYLAND, MASSACHUSETTS, MICHIGAN NEW JERSEY, RHODE ISLAND) Bonnie Ilhardt Regional Watershed Specialist 310 W. Wisconsin Avenue Room 500 Milwaukee, WI 52303 (FTS) 362-3697 (FAX) 8-207-3808 (COM) 414-291-3297 c 36 USDA FOREST SERVICE - WETLAND CONTACTS REGION 10 (ALASKA) Max Copenhagen Watershed Group Leader Federal Office Bldg. Box 21628 Juneau, AK 99802-1628 (FTS) 8-871-7847 (FAX) 8-871-7843 (COM) 907-871-7847 RESEARCH STATION - WETLAND CONTACTS PACIFIC NORTHWEST FOREST AND RANGE EXPERIMENT STATION (ALASKA, WASHINGTON, OREGON) Fred A. Stormer Assistant Station Director P. O. Box 3890 Portland, OR 97208 (FTS) 423-5643 (COM) 503-326-5643 PACIFIC SOUTHWEST FOREST AND RANGE EXPERIMENT STATION (CALIFORNIA, HAWAII) Garland N. Mason Assistant Station Director 1960 Addison Street Berkeley, CA 94704 (FTS) 449-3437 (COM) 415-486-3437 INTERMOUNTAIN FOREST AND RANGE EXPERIMENT STATION (IDAHO, MONTANA, NEVADA, UTAH) Keith E. Evans Assistant Station Director 324 5th Street Ogden, UT 84401 (FTS) 586-5417 (COM) 801-625-5417 37 RESEARCH STATION - WETLAND CONTACTS, continued . ROCKY MOUNTAIN FOREST AND RANGE EXPERIMENT STATION (ARIZONA, COLORADO, KANSAS, NEBRASKA, NEW MEXICO, NORTH DAKOTA, SOUTH DAKOTA, TEXAS, WYOMING) Ed F. Wicker Assistant Station Director 240 West Prospect Ft. Collins, CO 80526-2098 (FTS) 323-1157 (COM) 303-498-1157 NORTH CENTRAL FOREST EXPERIMENT STATION (ILLINOIS, INDIANA, IOWA, MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, MISSOURI, WISCONSIN) Peter J. Roussopoulos Assistant Station Director 1992 Folwell Avenue St. Paul, MN 55108 (FTS) 777-5259 (COM) 612-649-5259 NORTHEAST FOREST EXPERIMENT STATION (CONNECTICUT, KENTUCKY, MAINE, MASSACHUSETTS, NEW HAMPSHIRE, NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, OHIO, PENNSYLVANIA, VERMONT, WEST VIRGINIA) ( Albert N. Foulger Assistant Station Director 3 59 Main Road Delaware, OH 43015 (FTS) 975-9305 (COM) 614-369-4473 SOUTHEASTERN FOREST EXPERIMENT STATION (FLORIDA, GEORGIA, NORTH CAROLINA, VIRGINIA) Charles C. Van Sickle Assistant Station Director 200 Weaver Blvd. P. 0. 2680 Asheville, NC 28802 (704) 257-4306 r 33 RESEARCH STATION - WETLAND CONTACTS, continued SOUTHERN FOREST EXPERIMENT STATION (ALABAMA, ARKANSAS, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, OKLAHOMA, TENNESSEE, TEXAS, PUERTO RICO) Walter A. Hough Assistant Station Director U. S. Postal Service Bldg. 701 Loyola Avenue New Orleans, LA 70113 (FTS) 682-3003 (COM) 504-589-3003 39 (C ( Forest Service U.S. Department of Agriculture Research mWashington ^A" National Headquarters • Research Station Headquarters A Forest Products Laboratory National Headquarter* Send ail mail except Express Mail to this address: Forest Service— USOA P 0 Box 96090 Washington. DC 20090-6090 202-447-3957 Send Express Mail to tt^is address: Chief, Forest Service U S Department of Agriculture Soutti Bidg., i2th & Independence Ave. S.W. Washington. DC 20250 Research Station f^eadquarte^8 liitf f?noun(ain Fo(«»( and Rang* ELxp-fldr,^6Pt St-iUon (INT) Fedeial Building 324 25ih Street Oy'-^en. UT 6-1401 801-625-5412 North Central Forest Experiment StatJoo (NC) 1992 Folwell Avenue St Paul, MN 55108 612-649-5000 Northeattem Foreet Experiment >Utkxi(NE) 100 Matsonford Rd. - Suite 200 Radnor, PA 19087 215-975-4111 P»cHk Norlhwett Forr it and Range Experiment Station (PNW) P 0 Box 3890 Portland. OR 97208 503-326-5640 Faclflc Southweflt Forfist and Range Fxper!n><;nt Ctation (PSW) i960 Addison Street P.O. Box 245, (94701) Berkeley. CA 94704 415 466-3292 Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station (RM) 240 West Prospect Road Fort Collins. CO 80526-2098 303-498-1100 Southeastern Forest Experiment Station (SE) 200 Weaver Blvd. P O. Box 2680 Asheville. NC 28802 704-257-4390 Southern Forest Experiment S!;^tion (SO) Room T-10210 U.S. Postal Service Buiidmg 701 Loyola Avenue New Orleans. U\ 70ii3 504-589-6800 Forest Products l.;ibora(orY (TPI ) One Giffofd Pinchct Drive Madison. Wl 53705-2398 608-264-5600 41 Forest Service U.S. Department of Agriculture National Forest System Regional Offices State and Private Forestry Area Office* ■ Radnor ^W'ashington ■^ National Headquarters • Regional Offices ■ Area Office* •In othef regions. Stale and Private Forestry activities are directed from Regional Offices Regional Offices Forest Service, USDA Northern Region, (R-1) Federal Building P O. Box 7669 Missoula. MT 59807 406-329-3511 Forest Service, USOA Rocky Mountain Region (R-2) 11177 West 8th Avenue P.O Box 25127 Lakewood. CO 80225 303-236-9431 ror«ll • W.»'j«K-Sl. Ell»« Laha CItrk • Al.9n.l1 Kfi«l Fjordt / ' A/il.kch.k ,»:iona;k« c.cio p.«ii GlKtar8.r* Seven national park areas in Alaska have adjoining national preserves, counted as separate units of the National Park System. They are: Aniakchak. Deiiali. Cues of the .Arctic. Glacier Bay, Katmai. Lake Clark, and Wrangell-St. F.lias. Guam HaHaii <:ai •-(-% -^^ Puerto ' ico : B.. P»c:»c • USS Arltont UamwUI • Hnlxiala KaloloHf.l. -A J I VI', ■- :i''"i« ^ n » I, r, .,1 « Mp»*.i V'r.l 5A BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT RIPARIAN - WETLANDS ACTIVITIES Bureau of Land Management (BLM) State riparian-wetlands coordinators are wetland-riparian responsible for a wide range of activities primarily associated with the maintenance, restoration, improvement, or expansion of areas. The primary objective for these actitivies is to achieve a healthy and productive ecological condition that will maintain long-term benefits. Specifically, the State coordinators are required to coordinate the implementation of Statewide management strategies that include, but are not limited to the following general areas: o Management goals and objectives o State management policy o Present resource status - acreages/miles by ecological/ functional condition o Benefits/values o Land use plans o Inventory, monitoring and evaluation schedules o Budget and staffing requirements o Traning schedules o Outreach plans o Management accomplishments/results o Program specific multiple use approaches to riparian-wetland management Contacts - BLM Headquarters Office Donald D. Waite (222) or Ronnie D. Clark 1849 C Street, N.W. Premier Bldg. , Room 909 FTS: 653-9210 Washington, D.C. 20240 COMM: (202) 653-9210 Dwight Hovland Alaska State Office (933) 222 W. 7th Avenue #13 COMM: (907) 271-3356 Anchorage, AK 99513-7599 55 Neal Middlebrook or Jack Williams (240) 1849 C Street, N.W. Premier Building, Room 906 Washington, D.C. 20240 Regional Contacts Ron Hooper Arizona State Office (932) 3707 N. 7th Street P.O. Box 16563 Phoenix, AZ 85011 FTS: 653-9202 COMM: (202)653-9202 FTS: 261-5509 COMM: (602) 640-5509 Mark Blakeslee California State Office (932) FTS: 461-4725 2800 Cottage Way COMM: (916) 978-4725 E-2841 Sacramento, CA 95825-1889 Brenda Mitchell (Includes lands in Kansas) Colorado State Office (933) FTS: 554-3724 2850 Youngfield Street COMM: (303) 554-3724 Lakewood, CO 80215 Mike Mescher (Includes all states east of the 100th Meridan) Eastern States Office (960) 350 S. Pickett Street COMM: (703) 461-1307 Alexandria, VA 223 04 Allan Thomas Idaho State Office (931) FTS: 554-1835 3380 Americana Terrace COMM: (208) 334-1835 Boise, ID 83706 Dan Hinckley (Includes lands in North Dakota and South Dakota Montana State Office (931) 222 N. 32nd Street FTS: 588-7928 P.O. Box 36800 COMM: (406) 255-2928 Billings, MT 59107 (! Osborn Casey Nevada State Office (931) 850 Harvard Way P.O. Box 12000 Reno, NV 85920-0006 FTS: 469-6473 COMM: (702) 785-6473 56 Andy Dimas (Includes lands in New Mexico State Office (931) Oklahoma) South Federal Place FTS: 476-6227 P.O. Box 1449 COMM: (505) 988-6231 Santa Fe, NM 87504-1449 Bill Brookes (Includes lands in Oregon State Office (932) Washington) 825 NE Multnomah Street FTS: 392-7054 P.O. Box 2965 COMM: (503) 231-2253 Portland, OR 97208 Jerry Farringer Utah State Office (932) FTS: 581-4183 324 South State Street, Suite 301 COMM: (801) 539-4058 Salt Lake City, UT 84111-2303 Mark Gorges (includes lands in Wyoming State Office (932) Nebraska) 2515 Warren Avenue FTS: 329-6082 P.O. Box 1828 COMM: (307) 772-2095 Cheyenne, WY 82003 Technical documents can be obtained from: Bureau of Land Management Service Center Printed Materials Distribution Section Building 50, Denver Federal Center FTS: 776-7637 P.O. Box 25047 COMM: (303) 236-7637 Denver, CO 80225-0047 Training courses and videos can be obtained from: Dann Tippy Bureau of Land Management Phoenix Training Center 5050 N. 19th Avenue FTS: 261-2651 Suite 300 COMM: (602) 640-2651 Phoenix, Arizona 85015 57 r r >\ t, e e S 59 EPA WETLANDS DIVISION OFFICE OF WETLANDS, OCEANS, AND WATERSHEDS HEADQUARTERS, WASHINGTON, D.C. EPA implements legislation, largely regulatory, directed to protecting human health and the environment. EPA program address a number of environmental concerns including air quality, hazardous waste, and water quality. Under the Clean Water Act the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to implement a variety of programs to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters." EPA implements a variety of programs to protect water quality by working with states, industry and a broad variety of interest groups to regulate and reduce the impacts of ocean dumping, end of pipe discharges from industry and sewage treatment plants, over land discharges such as nonpoint sources and stormwater, and dredge and fill activities. Such activities have a profound impact on the Nation's waters and their adjoining floodplains. EPA has adopted, the goal of no net loss of wetlands and is committed to protecting, enhancing, and restoring the Nation's wetlands. The Wetlands Division in the Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watershed protects wetlands through both traditional regulatory programs and its newer non-regulatory initiatives. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act regulates the discharge of dredge and fill materials into Waters of the U.S. These include rivers, streams and harbors as well as special aquatic sites such as wetlands. The program is carried out jointly by EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers. EPA's nonregulatory activities focus on advancing the President's no net loss goal, by encouraging planning for protection and management of wetlands, promoting private stewardship, providing better information, encouraging wetlands restoration and creation, and financing wetlands protection through activities such as a newly established state wetlands grant program. The organization/functions of the Wetlands Division within the Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds is as follows: Division Director - Responsible for general program management and administrative support. Contact: John Meagher, Director COMM: FTS (202) 475-7791 FAX: (202) 475-8000 Suzanne Schwartz, Deputy Director COMM: FTS (202) 475-7799 FAX: (202) 475-6146 61 Wetlands & Aquatic Resources RecmlatorY Branch (WARRB) - Responsible for all section 404 regulatory activities except State program. Under WARRB are: Contact: Greg Peck, Acting Chief COMM: FTS (202) 475-7799 FAX: (202) 475-6146 The Enforcement and Reqrulatory Policy Staff which is responsible for the development of policy, regulations, and guidance; general section 404 program development, management and regional assistance. Contact: Cliff Rader, Acting Chief COMM: FAX: FTS (202) (202) 475-7799 475-6146 • The Elevated Cases Tezun which is responsible for handling of elevated cases under Section 404(c) or 404 (q); development of related guidance and case-related assistance to the Regions. Contact: Will Garvey, Acting Chief COMM: FAX: FTS (202) (202) 475-7799 475-6146 Wetlands Strategies and state Proqreuns Branch (WSSPB) - Responsible for State program activities and all other (Non-404) activities. Under WSSPD are: Contact: Branch Chief (vacant) COMM: FTS (202) 382-5043 FAX: (202) 475-8000 The Outreach and State Programs Section which is responsible for working with State, Tribal and local governments and other Federal agencies; public information and education activities; international activities. Contact: Glenn Eugster, Chief COMM: FAX: FTS (202) (202) 382-5043 475-8000 The Wetlands Strategies and Initiatives Teeun which is responsible for the development of and support for initiatives in such areas as comprehensive planning and water quality certification; Regional special or ecosystem initiatives. Contact: Dianne Fish, Chief COMM: FTS (202) 382-5043 FAX: (202) 475-8000 Research and Science Liaison which is responsible for the development of technical methods and information; liaison with the research community. Contact: Doreen Robb COMM: FTS (202) 382-5043 FAX: (202) 475-8000 62 NOTE: Numbers are subject to change overtime. Call the EPA locator at FTS (202) 382-2090 for information on new numbers. EPA Regional Offices EPA Regional wetlands coordinators are responsible for a wide range of activities primarily associated with the permit program under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The Section 404 program — the principal Federal regulatory program governing activities in wetlands — is administered jointly by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. EPA. Other Federal agencies — specifically, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service of the Department of Interior and the National Marine Fisheries Service of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration — are given advisory and commenting roles in the 404 process. State and local agencies also play key roles. This program is statutorily authorized by Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, as amended (Clean Water Act) . The Clean Water Act expressly prohibits the discharge of dredged or fill material into "waters of the United States" including most wetlands without prior approval from the Secretary of the Army. EPA Regional coordinators' responsibilities include, but are not limited to the following general areas: Section 404 applications review, EPA 404(b)(1) guidelines (including advance identifica- tion of disposal sites) , Section 404 enforcement activities. Delineation of Section 404 jurisdictional wetlands. State wetlands programs, State water quality certification, Information and outreach programs. 63 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION I Thompson, Douglas, Chief U.S. EPA - Region I Wetlands Protection Section (WWP-1900) John F. Kennedy Federal Building Boston, MA 02203-1911 FTS: 835-4422 COMM: (616) 565-4430 REGION II Montella, Dan, Chief U.S. EPA - Region II Wetlands Section (2WM-MWP) 26 Federal Plaza, Room 837 New York, NY 10278 FTS: 264-5170 COMM: (212) 264-5170 REGION III D'Angelo, Barbara, Chief U.S. EPA - Region III Wetlands and Marine Policy Section (3ES42) 841 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19107 FTS: 597-9301 COMM: (215) 597-9301 REGION IV Vanderhoogt, Gail Chief U.S. EPA - Region IV Wetlands Planning Unit (4WM-MWB) 345 Courtland Street, N.E. Atlanta, GA 30365 FTS: 257-2126 COMM: (404) 347-2126 REGION V Ehorn, Doug, Deputy Chief U.S. EPA - Region V Water Management Division Wetlands Protection Section 230 South Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60604 FTS: 886-0243 COMM: (312) 353-2079 6A REGION VI Thomas, Norman, Chief U.S. EPA - Region VI Technical Assistance Section 144 5 Ross Avenue Dallas, TX 75202 (6E-FT) FTS: 255-2263 COMM: (214) 655-2260 REGION VII Hershberger, Dianne, Chief U.S. EPA - Region VII Wetlands Protection Section 72 6 Minnesota Avenue Kansas City, KS 66101 (ENRV-404) FTS: 276-7573 COMM: (913) 551-7573 REGION VIII Reetz, Gene U.S. EPA - Region VIII Water Quality Requirement Section (8WM-SP) 999 18th Street 500 Denver Place Denver, CO 80202-2405 FTS: 564-1565 COMM: (303) 293-1575 REGION IX Oshida, Phil, Chief U.S. EPA - Region IX Wetlands Section (W-7-2) 1235 Mission Street San Francisco, CA 94103 FTS: 464-2187 COMM: (415) 744-2180 REGION X Reilly, Bill, Chief U.S. EPA - Region X Water Resources Assessment Section (WD-138) 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 FTS: 399-1412 COMM: (206) 442-1412 65 REGION X - OREGON OPERATIONS OFFICE Storm, Linda U.S. EPA - Region X Oregon Operations Office 522 Southwest 5th Avenue Yeon Building, 2nd Floor FTS: 423-2716 Portland, OR REGION X - IDAHO OPERATIONS OFFICE Olson, John EPA - Region X Idaho Operations Office 422 West Washington Street FTS: 554-9488 Boise, ID 83702 REGION X - ALASKA OPERATIONS OFFICE Robinson, Dan EPA, Region X Alaska Operations Office 701 C Street, Box 19 FTS: (907) 271-5083 Anchorage, AK 99513 COMM: (907) 271-5083 66 Wetlands Research EPA's wetlands research program is divided into five topic areas: • Wetlands mitigation (i.e., creation, restoration, enhancement) • Cumulative impact assessment, • Water quality functions of wetlands, • Constructed wetlands, and • The Environmental monitoring and Assessment Program. The wetlands research program is under the direction of the Office of Research and Development in Headquarters, Washington, D.C., However, the wetlands research program manager is in the Corvallis Laboratory, and the research is conducted primarily at the Corvallis and Duluth Labs. Contacts for wetlands research are: EPA Headquarters • Office of Environmental Processes and Effects Research 1. Stephen R. Cordle 202-382-5940 2. Chieh Wu 202-271-5940 • Office of Wetlands Protection Bill Sipple 202-382-5066 Corvallis Lab • Wetlands Program Matrix Manager Eric Preston FTS-420-4666 • Mitigation Mary Kentula FTS-420-4666 • Cumulative Impact Assessment Scott Liebowitz FTS-420-4666 • Constructed Wetlands Richard Olson FTS-420-4666 67 • Environmental Monitoring & Assessment Program (EMAP) Richard Novitski FTS-4 2 0-4666 Duluth Lab • Water Quality William Sanville FTS-780-4723 68 EPA REGIONAL OFFICES WASH MONT N OAK 1 M!NN MAINE IDAHO 8 wise m *^'CH ' OyJ'-'^osion NEV San Fianclsco .CALIF UTAH / Denver KLANS MO Kansas City N.C. OKLA \ ( I . ^p^ , — _ \ga\sc V ^k / 1 pjiM^i5 4 ~S ( "^ AL ^^O, ■^ i> __. UJ ^ X \ N U '" ) t-nj 10 5^ ALASKA GUAM \ /^ VIRGIN ISLANDS X*^ ^ 9- HAWAII d^-rl^ p ■UERTO RiCO Regions Regions Regions 4 — Alabama 1 — Maine 3 — Pennsylvania 10 - Alaska 3 — Maryland 1 — Rhode Island 9 - Arizona 1 — Massachusetts 4 — South Carolina 6 - Arkansas 5 — Michigan 8 — South Dakota 9 - California 5 — Minnesota 4 — Tennessee 8 - Colorado 4 — Mississippi 6 — Texas 1 — Connecticut 7 — Missouri 8 - Utah 3 - Delaware 8 — Montana 1 — Vermont 3 - D.C. 7 — Nebraska 3 — Virginia 4 - Florida 9 — Nevada 1 0 — Washington 4 — Georgia 1 — New Hampshire 3 — West Virginia 9 - Hawaii 2 — New Jersey 5 — Wisconsin 10 - Idaho 6 — New Mexico 8 — Wyoming 5 - Illinois 2 — New York 9 — American Same 5 - Indiana 4 — North Carolina 9 — Guam 7 - Iowa 8 — North Dakota 2 — Puerto Rico 7 - Kansas 5 — Ohio 2 — Virgin Islands 4 — Kentucky 6 — Oklahoma 6 - Louisiana 10 — ( Dregon 69 BUREAU OF RECLAMATION WETLANDS PRESERVATION AND ENHANCEMENT INITIATIVE Background In October 1987, the Bureau of Reclamation announced a redirection of the agency's mission from one of water resource development to that of water resources management and stewardship. Accordingly, the agency is currently in transition from its traditional role of planning and constructing major water projects to focusing on rehabilitation and modernization of existing facilities and concentrating on total resource management including water conservation, groundwater recharge, and providing engineering expertise to other Federal programs. Wetland Program Structure In fiscal year 1991, the Bureau of Reclamation initiated a 5- year, multimillion dollar wetlands program which will emphasize three major elements; and inventory of wetlands and deep water habitats, construction of projects which support the goals and objectives of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, and research and demonstration projects. Some specific activities currently underway include: A. Wetlands Inventory. The Bureau of Reclamation has entered into a cost sharing arrangement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's National Wetlands Inventory to develop wetland maps for Bureau of Reclamation lands throughout the 17 Western States. Mapping efforts began in fiscal year 1990 and should be completed in fiscal year 1993. B. Activity Integration and Coordination. The Bureau of Reclamation is integrating its wetland activities across all traditional agency programs (planning, operations and maintenance, construction, loans) and activities as well as pursuing cooperative efforts with other Federal and state agencies, water users, and special interest groups. C. Research and Development. The agency's wetland research and development activities are currently focused at the local, individual wetland level. Studies have been initiated to assess wetland functioning and cause-and-ef feet mechanisms. Demonstration projects are being initiated in southern California and Arizona to determine how best to integrate constructed wetlands with conventional wastewater treatment facilities to achieve total integrated water resource management in arid climates. 71 D. Technical Capabilities. The Bureau of Reclamation has initiated efforts to develop an in-house technical capability in wetlands ecology, management, and engineering. A special 5-day workshop will be held for Bureau of Reclamation employees in jurisdictional delineation and classification of wetlands during June 1991. In addition, a set of technical guidelines for wetlands design and construction is being developed. 72 BUREAU OF RECLAMATION WETLAND POINTS OF CONTACT WASHINGTON OFFICE - ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER - PROGRAM, BUDGET, T^ND LIAISON Mr. Jack Brynda Technical Liaison Division Assistant Coininissioner - Program, Budget, and Liaison Bureau of Reclamation FTS: 1849 C Street, NW (W-6530) FAX: Washington, DC 20240 COMM: 268-5275 FTS-268-6252 (202) 208-5275 DENVER OFFICE Assistant Commissioner - Engineering and Research Mr. James Sartoris Wetland Research Coordinator Applied Sciences Branch Bureau of Reclamation FTS: PC Box 25007 (D-3742) FAX: Denver, CO 80225 COMM: 776-6004 (303) 236-6763 (303) 236-6004 Assistant Commissioner - Resources Management Mr. J. William McDonald Assistant Commissioner - Resources Management Bureau of Reclamation PO Box 25007 (D-5000) Denver, CO 80225 FTS: 776-3289 FAX: (303) 236-6763 COMM: (303) 236-3289 Dr. John S. Crossman Environmental/Wetlands Environmental Services Bureau of Reclamation PO Box 25007 (D-5150) Denver, CO 80225 Coordinator Staff FTS: 776-8306 FAX: (303) 236-6763 COMM: (303) 236-8306 Dr. Gary Williams Ecologist Ecological Resources Division Bureau of Reclamation PO Box 25007 (D-5520) Denver, CO 80225 FTS: 776-8401 FAX: (303) 236-6763 COMM: (303) 236-8401 73 PACIFIC NORTHWEST REGION Mr. Robert A. Adair Regional Wetland Coordinator Environmental Affairs Office Pacific Northwest Region Bureau of Reclamation 550 W. Fort Street Box 043 (PN-152) Boise, ID 83724 MID-PACIFIC REGION FTS: 554-1209 FAX: FTS 554-1341 COMM: (208) 334-1209 Regional Office Mr. Will Tully Regional Wetland Coordinator Environmental Affairs Office Mid-Pacific Region Bureau of Reclamation 2800 Cottage Way (MP-750) Sacramento, CA 95825 FTS: 460-5131 FAX: FTS-978-5284 COMM: (916) 978-5131 Central Valley Project Folsom Office Mr. Ron Brockman Central Valley Project Folsom Office Mid-Pacific Region Bureau of Reclamation 7794 Folsom Dam Road (FO-400) Folsom, CA 95630 Lake Berryessa Recreation Office Mr. Steve Anderson Lake Berryessa Recreation Office Mid-Pacific Region Bureau of Reclamation 5520 Knoxville Road (LBRO-105) Napa, CA 94558 Lahonton Basin Projects Office Mr. Tom Streckal Lahonton Basin Projects Office Mid-Pacific Region Bureau of Reclamation 705 N. Plaza Street PO Box 640 (LO-780) Carson City, NV 89702 FTS: 460-5064 FAX: COMM: (916) 988-1707 FTS: FAX: (707) 966-0409 Comm: (707) 966-2111 FAX: (702) 882-7592 COMM: (702) 882-3436 74 Klamath Project Office Mr. Bob Davis Klamath Project Office Mid-Pacific Region Bureau of Reclamation 6600 Washburn Way (KO-420) Klamath Falls, OR 97603 LOWER COLORADO REGION Dr. William Rinne Regional Environmental Officer Lower Colorado Region Bureau of Reclamation Nevada Highway and Park Street PO Box 427 (LC-150) Boulder City, NV 89005 UPPER COLORADO REGION FTS: 420-6938 FAX: COMM: (503) 883-6935 FTS: 598-7464 FAX: FTS-598-7042 COMM: (702) 293-8464 Regional Office Ms. Kris Karas Regional Wetland Coordinator Biological Studies Branch Upper Colorado Region Bureau of Reclamation 125 S. State Street PO Box 11568 (UC-770) Salt Lake City, UT 84147 Durango Projects Office Mr. Kirk Lashmett Environmental Affairs Office Durango Projects Office Upper Colorado Region Bureau of Reclamation 835 Second Avenue PO Box 640 (DUR-151) Durango, CO 813 02 FTS: FAX: COMM: 588-3273 FTS 588-5554 FTS: 323-6561 FAX: COMM: (303) 385-6561 75 Utah Projects Office Mr. Lee Sweenson Environmental Coordination Office Upper Colorado Region Bureau of Reclamation 302 East 1860 South PO Box 51338 (UPO-150) Provo, UT 84 605 Rio Grande Projects Office Mr. Tom Shrader Rio Grande Projects Office Upper Colorado Region Bureau of Reclamation Room B-318 (RG-420) 700 East San Antonio Street El Paso, TX 79901 Grand Junction Projects Office Mr. Steve McCall Environmental Affairs Office Upper Colorado Region Bureau of Reclamation 2764 Compass Drive PO Box 60340 (GJ-150) Grand Junction, CO 81506 Albuquerque Projects Office Mr. Marc Rucker Albuquerque Projects Office Upper Colorado Region Bureau of Reclamation 505 Marquette NW, Suite 131 PO Box 252 (ALB-150) Albuquerque, NM 87103-0252 GREAT PLAINS REGION FTS: 584-1150 FAX: COMM: (801) 379-1000 FTS: 570-6316 FAX: COMM: (915) 534-6316 FTS: 326-0638 FAX: COMM: (303) 248-0638 FTS: 474-1753 FAX: COMM: (505) 766-3381 Regional Office Mr. Mike Erwin Regional Wetland Coordinator Environmental Affairs Division Great Plains Region Bureau of Reclamation 316 N. 26th Street PO Box 36900 (GP-154) Billings, MT 59107-6900 FTS: 585-6421 FAX: FTS 585-6418 COMM: (406) 657-6421 76 Missouri-Souris Projects Office Mr. Dick McCabe Technical Support Division Missouri-Souris Projects Office Great Plains Region Bureau of Reclamation 3 04 E. Broadway Avenue PO Box 1017 (MS-702) Bismarck, ND 58502 Montana Projects FTS: 783-4721 FAX: FTS 783-4326 COMM: (701) 250-4721 Mr. Tom Parks Lands and Environmental Resources Branch Montana Projects Great Plains Region Bureau of Reclamation 2525 Fourth Avenue, N. PO Box 30137 (MT-424) Billings, MT 59107-0137 Belle Fourche Projects Office FTS: 585-6733 FAX: FTS 585-6089 Comm: (406) 657-6733 Mr. Loren Hindbjorgen Operations and Maintenance Division Belle Fourche Projects Office Great Plains Region Bureau of Reclamation 320 Girard Street FTS: PO Box 226 (BF-420) FAX: (605) 456-2153 Newell, SD 57760 COMM: (605) 456-2695 Bighorn Basin Projects Office Mr. Dick Loeper Water and Lands Division Bighorn Basin Projects Office Great Plains Region Bureau of Reclamation 702 Yellowstone Avenue FTS: PO Box 2806 (BB-401) FAX: (307) 587-5514 Cody, WY 82414 COMM: (307) 527-6256 77 Eastern Colorado Pro-jects Office Mr. Tom Gibbens Water and Land Operations Branch Eastern Colorado Projects Office Great Plains Region Bureau of Reclamation 995 Wilson Avenue FTS: PO Box 449 (E-400) FAX: Loveland, CO 80539 COMM: Nebraska-Kansas Projects Ms. Jill Manring Land Use Branch Nebraska-Kansas Projects Great Plains Region Bureau of Reclamation 2nd and Locust Streets FTS: PO Box 1607 (G-420) FAX: Grand Island, NE 68802 COMM: North Platte River Projects Office Mr. Tony Morton Land Management Branch North Platte River Projects Office Great Plains Region Bureau of Reclamation FTS: PO Box 1630 (C-424) FAX: Mills, WY 82644 COMM: Oklahoma-Texas Projects Office (303) (303) 663-3212 667-4410 (308) (308) 381-5503 381-5516 328-5664 (307) 328-5683 (307) 261-5664 Mr. Don Moomaw Land Management Branch (OK-422) Oklahoma-Texas Projects Office Great Plains Region Bureau of Reclamation 420 w. Main Street, Suite 630 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 FTS: 736-4515 FAX: FTS 736-5880 COMM: (405) 231-4515 78 A N A D A □ P*CI^IC NORTHWEST O MIO-PACIFIC CJ LOwcR coLOPrAoa □ UPPtR COLORADO CD GfTEAT PLAINS » U L f Of m t X I c o BUREAU OF RECLAMATION MAJOR OFFICES AND REGIONAL BOUNDARIES 79 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) does not manage public lands, however, they provide technical assistance to private landowners and federal, state, and local units of government. SCS provides technical assistance (e.g., soils, biology, engineering) to landowners to achieve conseirvation objectives. This assistance includes the restoration, creation, and enhancement of wetlands. SCS is responsible for delineating wetlands for implementation of the 1985 Farm Bill ("Swampbuster") and the 1990 Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act (FACTA) . In addition, the 1990 FACTA included the Wetland Reserve Program which provides financial and technical assistance to restore and protect 1,000,000 acres of wetlands over the next five years. 81 state Conservationists U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service Ernest V. Todd 665 Opelika Road P.O. Box 311 Auburn, Alabama 36830 Burton L. Clifford 201 East 9th Suite 300 Anchorage, Alaska 99501-3687 Donald W. Gohmert Suite 200 201 E. Indianola Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Ronnie D. Murphy Room 5204 Federal Office Building 700 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Pearl ie S. Reed 2121 C Second Street Davis, California 95616 (FTS) 534-4535 (CML) 205-821-8070 (FTS) (CML) 907-271-2424 (FTS) 261-2247 (CML) 602-640-2247 (FTS) 740-5445 (CML) 501-378-5445 (CML) 916-449-2848 Duane L. Johnson 655 Parfet Street Room E200C Lakewood, Colorado 80215-5517 (FTS) 776-2886 (CML) 303-236-2886 Judith K. Johnson 16 Professional Park Road Storrs, Connecticut 06268-1299 Elsa K. Cottrell Treadway Towers Suite 207 9 East Loockerman Street Dover, Delaware 19901-7377 Niles T. Glasgow Federal Bldg. , Room 248 401 S.E. 1st Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32601 Hershel R. Read Federal Bldg., Box 13 355 East Hancock Avenue Athens, Georgia 30601 (CML) 203-487-4011 (FTS & CML) 302-678-4160 (FTS & CML) 904-377-0946 (CML) 404-546-2272 (FTS) 250-2273 82 Joan Perry Director Pacific Basin Office Suite 602, GCIC Bldg. 414 W. Soledad Avenue Agana, Guam 96910 Warren M. Lee 3 00 Ala Moana Blvd., Room 4316 P.O. Box 50004 Honolulu, Hawaii 96850 Paul H. Calverley 3244 Elder Street Room 124 Boise, Idaho 83705 John J. Eckes Springer Federal Bldg. 3 01 N. Randolph Street Champaign, Illinois 61820 Robert L. Eddleman 6013 Lakeside Blvd. Indianapolis, Indiana 46278 J. Michael Nethery 693 Federal Bldg. 210 Walnut Street Des Moines, Iowa 50309 James N. Habiger 760 South Broadway Salina, Kansas 67401 Billy W. Milliken 333 Waller Avenue Room 305 Lexington, Kentucky 40504 Horace J. Austin 3737 Government Street Alexandria, Louisiana 71302 (FTS (CML (FTS (CML (FTS (CML (FTS (CML (FTS (CML (FTS (CML (CML (FTS (CML (FTS (CML 550-7490 671-472-7490 551-2601 808-541-2601 554-1601 208-334-1601 958-5267 217-398-5267 335-3200 317-290-3200 862-4261 515-284-4261 913-823-4565 355-2749 606-233-2749 497-7751 318-473-7751 Charles Whitmore USDA Building University of Maine Orono, Maine 04473 (CML) 207-581-3446 83 Mr. Jerome J. Hammond, Acting John Hanson Business Center 339 Revel 1 Highway Suite 301 Annapolis, Maryland 21401 Richard D. Swenson, Acting 4 51 West Street Amherst, Massachusetts 01002 (CML) 301-757-0861 (FTS) 836-9056 (CML) 413-256-0441 Homer R. Hilner Room 101 1405 S. Harrison Road East Lansing, Michigan 48823-5202 Gary R. Nordstrom Farm Credit Services Bldg. 375 Jackson Street Room 600 St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-1854 Louie P. Heard Federal Bldg., Suite 1321 100 West Capitol Street Jackson, Mississippi 39269 Russell C. Mills 555 Vandiver Drive Columbia, Missouri 65202 Richard J. Gooby Federal Building, Rm 443 10 East Babcock Street Bozeman, Montana 59715 Ron E. Moreland Federal Bldg., Room 345 100 Centennial Mall, N. Lincoln, Nebraska 68508-3866 William D. Goddard 1201 Terminal Way Room 219 Reno, Nevada 89502 David L. Mussulman Federal Building Durham, New Hampshire (FTS (CML 03824 (FTS (CML (FTS (CML (FTS (CML (FTS (CML (FTS (CML (FTS (CML (FTS (CML 374-6702 517-337-6702 777-3675 612-290-3675 490-5205 601-965-5205 276-5214 314-875-5214 585-4813 406-587-6813 541-5300 402-437-5300 470-5863 702-784-5863 834-5505 603-868-7581 Barbara T. Osgood 1370 Hamilton Street Somerset, New Jersey 08873 (CML) 201-246-1662 84 Ray T. Margo, Jr. 517 Gold Avenue, S.W. Room 3 3 01 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102 Paul A. Dodd James M. Hanley Fed. Bldg. Room 771 100 S. Clinton Street Syracuse, New York 132 60 Bobbye Jack Jones 4405 Bland Road Suite 205 Raleigh, North Carolina 27609 Ronnie L. Clark Federal Building Rosser Avenue & Third Street P.O. Box 1458 Bismarck, North Dakota 58502 Joseph C. Branco 200 North High Street, Rm 522 Columbus, Ohio 43215 C. Budd Fountain USDA Agricultural Center Bldg. Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074 Jack P. Kanalz Federal Bldg., Room 164 0 1220 S.W. Third Avenue Portland, Oregon 97204 Richard N. Duncan One Credit Union Place Suite 340 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110 Humbert o Hernandez Director, Caribbean Area Federal Bldg. , Room 639 Chardon Avenue Hato Rey, Puerto Rico 00918 Mailing Address: USDA-SCS GPO Box 4 868 San Juan, Puerto Rico 00936 (FTS (CML (FTS (CML (FTS (CML (FTS (CML (FTS (CML (FTS (CML (FTS (CML (FTS (CML 474-2173 505-766-2173 950-5521 315-423-5521 672-2888 919-790-2888 783-4421 701-250-4421 943-6962 614-469-6962 744-4360 405-624-4360 423-2751 503-326-2751 590-2202 717-782-2202 (FTS) 753-4206 (CML) 809-753-4206 85 Robert J. Klumpe 4 6 Quaker Lane West Warwick, Rhode Island 02893 Billy R. Abercrombie 1835 Assembly Street, Rm 950 Strom Thurmond Federal Bldg. Colun±»ia, South Carolina 29201 Ronald E. Hendricks Federal Building 200 4th Street, S.W. Huron, South Dakota 57350 Jerry S. Lee 675 Estes Kefauver, FB-USCH 801 Broadway Nashville, Tennessee 37203 Harry W. Oneth W.R. Poage Federal Bldg. 101 S. Main Street Temple, Texas 76501-7682 Francis T. Holt Wallace F. Bennett Federal Building, Rm 4402 125 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84138 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 11350 Salt Lake City, Utah 84147-0350 John C. Titchner 69 Union Street Winooski , Vermont 05404 George C. Norris Federal Bldg. , Room 9201 400 North 8th Street Richmond, Virginia 23240 Lynn A. Brown West 920 Riverside Avenue Room 3 60 Spokane, Washington 99201 Roll in N. Swank 75 High Street, Room 301 Morgantown, West Virginia (FTS) 838-5008 (CML) 401-828-1300 (FTS) 677-5681 (CML) 803-765-5681 (CML) 605-353-1783 (FTS) 852-5471 (CML) 615-736-5471 (FTS) 736-1214 (CML) 817-774-1214 26505 (FTS) 588-5050 (CML) 801-524-5050 (FTS) 832-6795 (CML) 802-951-6795 (FTS) 925-2455 (CML) 804-771-2455 (FTS) 439-2335 (CML) 509-353-2335 (FTS) 923-4151 (CML) 304-291-4151 86 Duane L. Johnson 6515 Watts Road, Suite 200 Madison, Wisconsin 53719-2726 Frank S. Dickson, Jr. Federal Office Bldg. 100 East "B" Street, Rm. Casper, Wyoming 82601 3124 Midwest NTC August J. Dornbusch, Jr. Federal Bldg. , Room 345 100 Centennial Mall North Lincoln, Nebraska 68508-3866 Northeast NTC Arthur B. Holland 160 East 7th Street Chester, Pennslyvania 19013 South NTC Paul F. Larson Fort Worth Federal Center Building 23, Room 60 Felix & Hemphill Streets P.O. Box 6567 Forth Worth, Texas 76115 West NTC Stanley N. Hobson Federal Building, Room 248 511 N.W. Broadway Portland, Oregon 97209-3489 (FTS) 364-5577 (CML) 608-264-5577 (FTS) 328-5201 (CML) 307-261-5201 (FTS) 541-5346 (CML) 402-437-5346 (CML) 215-499-3904 (FTS) 334-5253 (CML) 817-334-5253 (FTS) 423-2824 (CML) 503-221-2824 V ^ y I^ttacliment N ir'BRTAINING TO WETLANDS >"■) ATTACHMENT N-1 Development and Use of a Wetland Bank as a Mitigation Alternative in Idaho € « (S DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF A WETLAND BANK AS A MlTIGATrON ALTERNATIVE IN IDAHO. R.B. TIEDEMANN, CFS, CWB. Ecologist, Idaho Transportation Department, Boise, Idaho, 83707. ABSTRACT Federal policy requires the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) to avoid impacts to wetlands by altemarive roadway locations or benign construction techniques. Impacts to wetlands for which there is no "practicable alternative" require nritigarion in the form of restoration or compensation. Wedand restoration is, at times, inqxjssible to accomplish on-site, comes with such risk that successful mitigation cannot be assured, or can be accomplished only at extraordinary cost Use of a previously constmcted, o£f-site wetland may be appropriate in these situations to compensate for wedand losses. This paper documents development of the wetland banking concept in the State of Idaho and the consensus building which has led to a memorandum of agreement with all resource and regulatory agencies with a stamtory interest in wedand issues. Wedand banking has been used in other states to mitigate for the impacts of a single project or to compensate for minor wetland losses. However, the Idaho effort is the first to enlarge the scope of wetland banking to an entire state and to all the activities of a single agency. This paper describes the issues associated with wedand banking and their resolution by an inter-agency team; the mechanics of the wetland bank and the activities for which it may be used; and the philosophy and components of conceptual site plans for wedand banks. The preliminary results of a wetland revegetation experiment are presented. INTRODUCTION Rarely do resource, regulatory, and development agencies adjourn from a a series of meetings with everyone agreeing that their interests have been best served- However, the unlikely appears to have happened with the recent development of an agreement authored by the Idaho inter-agency wetland banking team. Over the past three years the Idaho inter-agency wedand banking team has investigated die usefulness of banking as a mitigation alternative for roadway impacts to wetlands in Idaho. Team members include representatives from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Environmental Protection Agency, Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Highway Administration, and Idaho Departments of Hsh and Game, Water Resources, Health and Welfare, Lands, and Transportation. This paper offers a toolbox of ideas, based on our experience, for you to develop or evaluate wetland banks in your own region. I will describe the issues associated with wedand banking and their resolution by the inter-agency team; the mechanics of the wedand bank and the activities for which a bank may be used; and the philosophy and components of conceptual site plans for wedand banks. And finally, I will present the preliminary results of a wedand revegetation experiment designed to improve our ability to replicate natural systems. In our first meeting - held November 19, 1985 - we identified both common ground and differences which had to be resolved to develop an agreement. * IN: Proceedings of the Rocky Mountain Chapter of the Society of Wetland Scientists: Restoration, Creation, and Management of Wetland and Riparian Ecosystems of the American West Concerns expressed by the team and answered by our discussions include: \ • Skepticism that wedand restoration techniques can fully restore ail weUand functions and values. The team recogiuzed early that the state-of-the-art of wetiand creation is more ait than science. Projects in-place and on-the-ground can be better evaluated than the promise offered by plans for mitigation. • Concern that a wedand bank will be perceived as "buying" a §404 permit. The team agreed the purchase of existing wetlands or the establishment of a fund for other agencies to create wetlands was not acceptable. • Skepticism of wetiand banking at higher levels in the bureaucracy. A "ghost" policy at the headquarters office of a federal resource agency briefly prevented the agency fix>m signing an agreement. This policy discourages the development and use of wetiand banks. I^ocal agency personnel call this a "ghost" policy because although it appears real, there is no document which describes it • Disagreement on who is responsible for financing operation and maintenance of wetiand banks. Federal Highway Administration policy prohibits state transportation agencies from using federal dollars for operation and maintenance of roadway projects, including wetiand banks. State monies are sparse. A trade of Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP) credits rather than dollar currency is a possible solution to this problem. • Concern that there is a need for change in agency policy to make wedand banking work- Specifically, a change in the mitigation policies of the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the Environmental Protection Agency that describe in-kind, on-site ^ mitigation as most desirable. r • And finally, different concepts among agency personnel of what is wetiand banking? WHAT IS WETLAND BANKING? The team envisions wetland banking as the offsite creation, restoration, or enhancement of wetiands to compensate for unavoidable impacts of constructing, operating, and maintaining roads by the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD). The practice enters the gray zone of US Envirormiental Protection Agaicy and US Fish and Wildlife Service mitigation policies in that wetiand bank sites may be distant from an impacted wetland. ^ Wetland banking has been used inftcquentiy in few states to mitigate for the impacts of a single project or to compensate for minor wedand losses. However, the Idaho effort is the first to enlarge the scope of wetiand banking to an entire state and to all the activities of a single agency. WHY CHANGE PRESENT PRACTICE? E.0. 1 1990 - Protection of Wetiands delivered a message to die Idaho Transportation Department and other development agencies that wetlands arc of national importance. Idaho Transportation Department activities in wetiantS are scrutinized by federal and state resource and regulatory agencies, and the Federal Highway Administration. Resistance to promulgated rules and regitiations resulting from E.O. 11990 caused conflicts with regulatory and resource agencies, and delay in project approvals. Time is money in the highway business. It is the need for greater efficiency, and not empathy for the resource, that likely encouraged the Department to change their way of doing business. Historically, mitigation has not been required by the regulatory agencies for wetiands impacted by (^ some roadway projeas. This, and the finstration of negotiating a reasonable mitigation plan but seeing I it poorly implemented likely motivated resource agencies to sit at the negotiating table and change present practice. Present federal policy requires the Idaho Transportation Department to avoid impacts to wetiands by alternative roadway locations or benign construction techniques. Impacts to wetiands for which there is no "practicable alternative" may require mitigation in the form of restoration or compensation. However, history has shown that wetiand restoration is, at times, impossible to accomplish where the impaa occurs, comes with such ecological risks that successful mitigation cannot be assured, or can be accomplished only at extraordinary cost. Use of a previously constructed, off-site wetiand may be appropriate in these situations to compensate for wetiand losses. The team concluded that appropriate use of a wetiand bank can benefit both the Idaho Transportation Department, and regulatory and resource agencies. It will allow for successful mitigation of several projects with minor individual, but significant cumulative impacts. It will allow for better evaluation of a mitigation proposal by presenting a functioning wetiand, rather than a paper plan. It will improve agency coordination by positioning agencies in a planning rather than a reactive mode. And, it will expedite project permit review. Examples of Idaho Transportation Department activities which may be mitigated by the wetland bank are the placement of sliver fills for roadway widening or curve straightening, placement of fills for bridge abutments and piers, placement of rip-rap on the face of existing roadway fills to prevent erosion, and emergency maintenance of existing roadways threatened by flood or other natural disaster. THE WETLAND BANK DOES NOT GIVE THE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY CARTE BLANCHE I The team agrees that use of the wetland bank comes with conditions. For example, a wetiand bank ' should be capable of compensating for all the wetiand functions and values lost as a result of a project While the wetland bank will be considered one of the practicable mitigation alternatives for Idaho Transportation activities, it may be used (^y after all other restoration and compensation methods have been examined and found to be impracticable. Finally, it is recognized that the wetiand bank may not be appropriate mitigation for wetiands considered unique because of their physical, chemical, or biological composition or ecological importance. And, it may not be practical to establish a wetland bank for some wetiand classes, such as bogs and forested wetiands. THE NUTS AND BOLTS OF WETLAND BANKING The terms of the agreement state that Idaho Transportation may use its best judgement to locate and develop individual wetland bank sites at depleted borrow sources, uneconomical remainders of right- of-way, or other publicly owned properties. As a general rule, Idaho Transportation will locate individual wetland bank sites at locations that have the physical, chemical, and biological character to suppon wetiand development Guidelines for location of a wetland bank include, but are not limited to: the bank site should be as close to the anticipated impact site as possible, the bank site should be within the same hydrologic basin as the impact site, and the same public affected by an impact should be compensated by the bank- Prior to this agreement, borrow sources were reclaimed as prescribed by state law. This resulted in steeply sloped pits, revegetated with grasses intended only to control erosion. With the finalized agreement, Idaho Transportation will be encouraged to reclaim borrow sources in a manner that results in fully functioning wetiands. This includes grading to encourage structure and diversity, the use of I native trees, shrubs, and grasses that arc best adapted to the site, and the placement of structures to provide fish and wildlife habitat Idaho Transportation will design and construct the wetland bank. Regulatory and resource agencies will be encouraged to express their interests and to provide their expertise. Each of the wetland bank sites will be designed to be easily managed and to function with littie or rib human intervention. Two strategies will guide development of wetiand bank sites. The first prescribes the creation, restoration, or enhancement of a wetiand of a particular system and class (eg. palustrine, emergent wetland), with no emphasis given to any one function or value. The second prescribes the development of a wetiand with emphasis given to functions and values of special concern (eg. habitat for waterfowl). Other wetiand values may be incidentally provided by this strategy. However, they are not a part of the intentional plan to compensate for losses. Idaho Transportation acknowledges that regulatory and resource agencies provide no guarantee that an individual wetiand bank site will be accepted as mitigation. Their approval will be sought during the US Army Corps of Engineers §404 - Efredge and Fill permit review process and at the time of a proposed trade. This minimizes risk to the regulatory and resource agencies, and motivates Idaho Transportation to maximize the quality of proposed wetiand bank sites. Review and approval will require Idaho Transportation to demonstrate a functioning wetland has been created according to a previously prepared plan. A transaction from the wetland bank will not be complete until a public agency, preferably a resource agency, accepts ownership of the property and responsibility for operation and maintenance. No public agency is obliged to accept these responsibilities. THE FUTURE With the finalized agreement, the initial wetiand banking effort will focus on pilot projects in borrow sources. In addition, Idaho Transportation may inventory existing wedands for enhancements. The experience gained by the pilot projects will be used to review and modify the memoranda of agreement prior to expansion of the wetland banking program. At present, we are actively developing our first proposed wetiand bank site. The site is located at the Mud Lake Wildlife Management Area in eastern Idaho. Wc are also in the very early stages of investigating the appropriateness of a second wetiand bank site on the Snake River. There is cautious confidence that the efforts of the team will add to the diminishing acreage of wetlands in the Interaaountain West and improve our knowledge of methods and techniques to intentionally create wetiands. KNOWLEDGE OF METHODS AND TECHNIQUES TO INTENTIONALLY CREATE WETLANDS Idaho, like many areas of the coimtry, suffers from a lack of study of wetiand systems. Efforts to intentionally create wetlands can greatiy benefit from advances in the state-of-the-an of wetiand science. In recognition of this, the US Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Highway Administration, and the Idaho Transportation Department are presentiy supporting research designed to improve our ability to replicate namral systems. Preliminary results of a wetland revegetation experiment offer interesting information and suggests means to best manage wetiands. Results of this research, conducted in palustrine, emergent wetiands within the riparian zone of the Boise River, suggest the following: • A ground slope of 5:1, from open water to 0.4 meters elevation above the ordinary high water line, supports a reasonable diversity of hydrophytic plant species. Desirable species include: broad-leaved cattail (Typha latifolia), spike rush (Eleocharis palustris), soft rush {Juncus effusus), slender rush (Juncus tenuis), jointed rush (Juncus articulatus), and longstyle rush (Juncus longistylis). • A ground slope of 5:1, from 0.4 meters above the ordinary high water line to uplands, supports weedy plant species that are undesirable members of the wedand plant community. The results have strong implications for the design and management of wetlands. Specifically, the area below the ordinary saturated soil zone but above ordinary open water may be final graded to > 5: 1 slopes. The area above the ordinary saturated soil zone should rise at its angle of repose. These specifications will likely minimize what I call the Goldielocks phenomenon, that is a site is just wet enough to support both desirable hydrophytes and facultative weedy plant species, but not wet enough to exclude the weedy species. i The analogy to Goldielocks goes something like this. Goldielocks - a weed to the Bear family - found Papa Bear's porridge too hot and Baby Bear's porridge too cold, so she spilt. But Mama Bear's I, ponidge was just right so she hung around to the dismay of the Bear family. [ Finally, my research suggests that the diversity of wedand vegetation cover types increases with the presence of discontinuities on site. They include the intrusion on the wetland of high fiow channels of i an adjacent river, the presence of downed timber, and localized areas of erosion. Selective placement ^ of downed timber within and adjacent to a wetiand may be of considerable benefit to wetland creation projects. In summary, wetland banking may be appropriate when traditional mitigation measures are impracticable or infeasible, in-lond mitigation is impossible to accomplish on-site, the risk of a paper plan for mitigation comes with such ecological risk that success cannot be assured, the significant cumulative impacts of individually minor wedand losses require mitigation, or project approval must be expedited. Wetiand banking is not appropriate when traditional mitigation measures are available. They are, in order of desirability, developing alternative roadway locations that avoid wedand impacts, use of thoughtful roadway designs that minimizing damage to wetiands, restoring impacted wetlands to their original condition, or coiiq)ensating with the development of replacement wetknds in-kind and on-site. A number of factors contributed to the successful completion of an agreement and the productivity of the team. Perhaps the most important include: • Inviting and actively encouraging participation by all of the players with a statutory interest in wetiands. • Basing team decisions on a consensus of opinion that assured all persons would be heard and all concerns would be addressed, rather than a mere majori^. • Open negotiation that recognized that there was more than one right solution to a concern. • A bail out clause that allows any participant in the agreement to withdraw with notice. • Acceptance that the existing agreement is a woricing dociraient that will be refined as we gather greater experience. • Recognition of the missions of each agency and for their policies, rules, and regulations. • And, realization that none of us are as smart as all of us. REFERENCES Council on Environmental Quality. Council on Environmental Quality Terminology and Index. 40 CFR §1508.20 Executive Order 1 1990 - Protection of Wetlands. Federal Register, Vol. 42, No. 101. 5 pp. Tiedemann, R.B. 1988. Memorandum of Agreement for Development and Use of a Wetland Bank in Idaho. Idaho Transportation Department, Boise, ID. 6 pp. Tiedemann, R.B. 1988. Operating Procedures for Development and Use of a Wetland Bank in Idaho. Idaho Transportation Department, Boise, ID. 8 pp. Tiedemann, R.B. 1988. Unpublished data. US Department of the Interior, US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1981. US Fish and Wildlife Service Mitigation Policy. Federal Register, Vol. 46, No. 15. 20 pp. US Department of Transportation. 1978. Preservation of the Nation's Wetlands. DOT Order 5660.1A. 7 pp. US Department of Transportation. 1980. Mitigation of Environmental Impacts to Privately Owned Wetiands. 23 CFR 777. 5 pp. US Environmental Protection Agency - Region X. 1985. §404 Mitigation Policy. 7 pp. Memorandum of Agreement for Development and Use of a Wetland Bank in Idaho 1. Preamble: a. The Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) operates within the direction given by Executive Order 1 1 990, "Protection of Wetlands". Federal aid projects must comply with Department of Transportation (DOT) Order 5660.1 A, "Preservation of the Nation's Wetlands" which results from this executive order. DOT Order 5660.1 A requires that ITD demonstrate there is no practicable alternative to construction in a wetland and all practicable measures to minimize harm have been included in the project. b. Impacts to wetlands for which there is no practicable alternative may require mitigation. In accordance with Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR §1508.20), mitigation includes: (a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. (b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation. (c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment. (d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action. (e) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. c. Avoiding, minimizing, rectifying, or reducing wetland impacts is, at times, impossible to accomplish onsite, comes with such risk that successful mitigation cannot be assured, or can be accomplished only at extraordinary cost. Use of a previously constructed, off-site wetland may be appropriate in these situations to compensate for wetland losses. Such use is consistent with the definition of mitigation provided by 40 CFR §1 508.20(e). 2. Authority: a. This memorandum of agreement is established in accordance with the following authorities: •Clean Water Act (33 USC 1251 etseq.) •National Environmental Policy Act (42 USC 4321 et seq.) •Executive Order 1 1 990 •Preservation of the Nation's Wetlands (DOT Order 5660.1 A) •Mitigation of Environmental Impacts to Privately Owned Wetlands (23 CFR 777) •Stream Channel Protection Act (Idaho Code §42-3803 et seq.) •Lake Protection Act (Idaho Code §58-104(9) and §58-142 et seq.) page 2 3. The Wetland Banking Concept: a. Wetland banking, for the purposes of this memorandum of agreement, is defined as the following: The offsite creation, restoration, or enhancement of wetlands, which are waters of the United States, to compensate for unavoidable impacts due to roadway development, operation, and maintenance activities by the Idaho Transportation Department. The bank represents a net gain of wetlands to be drawn upon to offset losses caused by activities which otherwise comply with the requirements of the Clean Water Act. 4. Consistency with Established Legislation, and Rules and Regulations: a. The wetland banking program will operate within the constraints of the National Environmental Policy Act, the Glean Water Act, Executive Order 1 1990, and all other federal and state legislation, and rules and regulations. b. The term wetland is defined by US ACE rules and regulations [33 CFR §328.3(b)]. 5. Areas and Activities for which Wetland Banking may be Considered: a. The wetland bank will be considered one of the practicable mitigation alternatives for ITD construction, operation, and maintenance activities. It may be used only after all other mitigation methods [ie. 40 CFR §1508.20(a} through (d)] have been examined and found to be Impracticable. b. The wetland bank will not normally be used to mitigate for the loss of wetlands which are considered unique because of their physical, chemical, or biological composition or ecological importance. These wetlands will be identified during the early coordination phase of the environmental review process and plans will normally be made for mitigation other than wetland banking. 6. Criteria for Location and Development of a Wetland Bank: a. ITD may use its best judgement and consultation with interested agencies to locate and develop individual wetland bank sites at depleted borrow sources, uneconomical remainders of right-of-way, and other publicly owned properties. As a general rule, ITD will locate individual wetland bank sites at locations that have the physical, chemical, and biological character to support wetland development, and as close to anticipated impact sites as possible. b. FHWA will participate in the cost of development of a wetland bank when a loss to a wetland resource, attributable to a federal aid construction activity, has been documented. FHWA will approve federal aid participation page 3 for that portion of the wetland bank required to mitigate for specific impacts attributable to a single federal aid project. c. ITD acknowledges that regulatory and resource agencies provide no guarantee that an individual wetland bank site will be accepted as mitigation at the time of a proposed trade, or that permits for a particular project will be issued even though mitigation is offered. d. The wetland bank shall be publicly owned and maintained. 7. Criteria for Use of a Wetland Bank: a. Conceptual review and concurrence in the proposed use of the wetland bank will be sought from regulatory and resource agencies as part of the early coordination phase of the environmental review process. Normally, this will occur after project alternatives and their impacts have been identified. Conceptual review and concurrence will require ITD to demonstrate a wetland bank site is likely to function according to a previously prepared plan. b. Final concurrence from regulatory and resource agencies for use of the wetland bank will normally be sought during the §404 permit review process. Significant new information not available at the time of conceptual review and concurrence will be provided at this time. c. ITD will retain ownership or interest in the wetland bank, and responsibility for operation and maintenance until an agreement with another public agency is completed. ITD will normally solicit a public resource agency to accept ownership and responsibility for an individual wetland bank site at the time all of the resource credits from the site have been withdrawn. No public agency is obliged to accept ownership or responsibility. d. Lands withdrawn from the bank shall normally be functionally equal to those damaged or destroyed. Replacement for impacted wetlands shall normally be on a one to one basis, by area. Situations exist when it is more practical to construct a greater acreage of lesser quality wetland rather than the same acreage of equal quality wetland. In such case, a loss of quality may be compensated for by an increase in quantity. However, in no case may the dollar value of out-of-kind replacement exceed the cost of in-kind replacement. e. Wetlands Intentionally or incidentally created by ITD prior to execution of this agreement shall not be credited to the wetland bank. Wetlands created or enhanced by ITD after execution of this agreement shall be credited to the wetland bank. page 4 f. The wildlife values offered by early successional stages of a wetland bank site will be credited to ITD at the time of a proposed trade according to the amortization process outlined by HEP. g. The wetland bank may be used to mitigate for cumulative impacts to wetlands resulting from several roadway activities. 8. Evaluation Methods: a. The FHWA Method for Wetland Functional Assessment (Adamus method) may be used to evaluate wetland functions and values. The US FWS Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) may be used to evaluate wildlife values when they are of prime concern. Both methods may be used in combination to provide the greatest level of detail. Wetland evaluations shall be done by a team, with representatives from interested agencies. b. Neither Adamus nor HEP may be required in simple situations where best professional judgement will do. Full documentation will be required, regardless of the method of assessment . c. The appropriate assessement method(s) will be agreed to by representatives from each of the Interested agencies. 9. Record Keeping: a. ITD will establish and maintain records which document the activity of the wetland bank accounts. Signatories to this memorandum of agreement and other interested agencies will be sent periodic statements documenting the status of the account. Statements will be generated after each transaction and at the end of each construction season. 10. Pilot Project: a. The initial wetland banking effort will be limited to pilot projects in borrow sources. In addition, ITD may inventory existing wetlands for potential enhancements. The experience gained by the pilot projects will be used to review and modify this agreement prior to further aevelopment of the wetland bank. 11. l\Aodification and Termination of the l\1emorandum of Agreement: a. This agreement and the attached operating procedures may be modified with the approval of all signatories to the memorandum of agreement. Modifications may be proposed by a single or inter-agency team of signatories. Proposed modifications will be submitted for a sixty day period of review to all signatories and approval of the proposed modification will be indicated by written acceptance. page 5 b. This agreement and the attached operating procedures should be viewed as working documents which will be reviewed by all signatories to the agreement and interested agencies within two years of establishing the first wetland bank site. c. A signatory may terminate their participation in this agreement upon written notice to all other signatories. Idaho Transportation Department i.^^^ deral Highway Administration Idaho DepartmenLpf iWater Resources Idaho Dep^ment of Lands K..^ < 'I vjJ" ^ 0 •: ■>• ^ • 7'/ ^ Date Date Date 1 I n. e I. / '- ,, Idaho Department of Health and Welfare Date Date Date Date Date Date 8 s 9 If Is e e •1 « a n •c a E (9 f C Ul ■? i Q If? |1! 1| 'I t 8.5 li 11 t I "S 5 & 03 C « re c .2 I H I c (0 3 M C — cc E (0 V) c « E o >-«. •2: :CO:CO : m: : ^-: "^ = Q| :g!« : _: :C\j!i; : J: :Cvi ':>'■ '• ■ : O: : j 9; : ar: . L— ^UJ: : 0): r^:r^ . ■= 03:00 fl3 ^--i ^v- Q OX f^:> c -f^ (0 : O ^._^ 1 : • j. 1 -§ 8 3 o> e £ «> CO o ■^ —I »- ^ • e « S O ■5 p P 3 T- s ? p « r^ f^ — 1 •<«• 'J' ir> t^ ^ ^~ c o •* ^ w ^ f i 3: r oc tr 1. Qi 1 ^ 1 ^^ s o o o o JZ f 1 B (Q a r 2 2 w _ _ 1 d'Alane d'Alens < c C Coeur Coeur c m CO C\J « i ^ ^ < I ? 1 c 2 t 3 S1^ ( . "i i rs ^ Q : o» 3 j » 3 « i5 5 o o c o o ^c ) :^ ^ ■r- ■>- •« 1 V i Ic n: .CO; Z: ' '^ 1 " ci si p « « CO CC a. e nj V) c a E « < « (0 . J£ i C : (0 :.0 s a c c: O: 9: Qj c; .S: O: <0: ! v>: ; Ci >4 CD (0 5* ■SI «5: <0 UJ: J 1 : (D ol5 c JO « 5 k ATTACHMENT N-2 State of Washington Executive Order EO 89-10, Protection of Wetlands I » BOOTH GARDNER GOVERNOR STATE OF WASHINGTON OFFtCt OF T>« GOVERNOfI OLYMPIA 96504-0413 EXECUTIVE ORDER PROTECTION OF WETLANDS EO 89-10 WHEREAS, wetlands: (A) provide^ protect and preserve drinking^water supplies by purifying^surface water and groundwater; (B) provide a natural means, of ftood:.and storm damage protection through the absorptfocKand storage' ot^watiBr^during-high^ runoff periods, thereby reducing flood crestrand^preventing loss^of iife^and'^propcHrtyr :.;-■.■ re ?-j --• iu." • -q«3 ^'i^nw .. ... ■'-•: -r-*^ -.j . (cyibfteiorsacW^as' transitions tand^and^watec^^coorses^Etherebyu^ retarding soUerosion;^ ':.;)\-, (D)- provide!' essential breeding? spawning^ rearing^ feeding, nestings and-wintering>: habitats'for-a major portlonof the^stattf'rfish^-and wildlife; -_ _ , (E) provide special vegetatibn^andvegetative'Communitiesr (F) maintain surface watere through the^graduat release^of stored -floods waters- and ground water, particularly during drought periods; id) providereadily accessiblafoutdoop- biophysical' laboratories, livings classrooms; and training:and^ducatlonaL7. Each- affected agency-shall, when possible, direct its agency-mandated activities not dependent upon wetlands locations to suitable upland locations. Sections. Nothing in this Executive Order shall apply to assistance provided for emergency woric that Is essential to save lives and protect property and public health and safety. f SENT by: x5S0X Teisc:::?- ^C17:T2-'3-:9 : 9:2 :20PM Exocutfv* Order 89-10 Pagt3 2J5 Hi IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the State of Washington to b^ affixed at Olympla thij i^h day of Deeeaber ., XoT^ ^ nineteen nundred and eighty-nine. governor of Waehlngton BY THE GOVERNOR: . ACTING DZPUTT r i ATTACHMENT N-3 State of Washington Executive Order EO 90-04, Protection of Wetlands (( c STATE OF WASHINGTON OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR OLYMPIA 06SO4-O4I3 BOOTH GARDNER QOVERNOR EXECUTIVE ORDER EG 90-04 PROTECTION OF WETLANDS WHEREAS, wetlands provide ecological as well as economic benefits to the state by protecting and preserving drinicing water supplies; by providing a natural means of flood and storm damage protection; by serving as transition zones between dry land and water courses, thereby retarding soil erosion; by providing essential breeding, spawning, rearing, feeding, nesting, and wintering habitats for fish and wildlife; by providing special vegetation and vegetative communities; by serving important functions for* surface and groundwater supplies of the state; and by providing outdoor training and educational resources; and WHEREAS, as much as fifty percent of the state's original wetlands have been drained, dredged, filled, or otherwise altered and over ninety percent of the original saltwater wetlands in some urban estuaries of Puget Sound have been eliminated; and WHEREAS, losses statewide are as much as two thousand acres annually; and WHEREAS, loss of wetlands harms the economic and ecological welfare of the state; and WHEREAS, local governments are in the process of planning for growth and for the protection of critical areas, including wetlands; and WHEREAS, wetlands are among the most fragile of natural resources and must be protected by state agencies in their stewardship of lands and waters subject to the public trust; and WHEREAS, it is in the public interest to protect the functions and values of wetlands; NOW, THEREFORE, I, Booth Gardner, Governor of the state of Washington, by virtue of the power vested in me, do hereby order. Executivt Order 90-04 Pa9«2 Section 1 . Alt state agencies shall rigorously enforce their existing authorities to assure wetlands protection; Section 2. All state agencies shall exercise their substantive authority under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), to the extent legally permissible, to require mitigation of wetlands impacts for all agency actions affecting wetlands. Such actions include, but are not limited to, rule development and any projects or actions requiring state licenses, permits, approvals, loans or grants. State agencies shall, when necessary, amend their SEPA policies to include wetlands protection components. The Department of Ecology, in its review of SEPA compliance documents, shall encourage and, to the extent legally permissible, require complete analyses of wetlands impacts, mitigation, and buffers; Section 3. The Department of Ecology shall, to the extent legally permissible, exercise its authority under the Shoreline Management Act, to condition, deny, or appeal permits to assure wetlands protection. In addition, the Department of Ecology shall develop a model wetlands protection element for local governments to consider when amending shoreline master programs under the Shoreline Management Act; Section 4. (a) The Department of Ecology shall request the Division Engineer of the Army Corps of Engineers to assert discretionary authority and modify nationwide permit 26 to require individual permits or permit conditions for certain categories of activities, types of wetlands and specific geographical regions. Examples include natural heritage sites, wetlands associated with shorelines of statewide significance, and recorded locations of threatened and endangered species. In these instances, actions affecting wetlands will no longer receive automatic authorization; (b) The Department of Ecology shall evaluate and recommend future actions to reduce impacts to wetlands under the Federal Clean Water Act, such as further modifications to nationwide permit 26. The Department of Ecology shall reevaluate section 401 certification of nationwide permits affecting wetlands at such time as these permits are revised by the Army Corps of Engineers or when the existing certification expires in 1992, whichever comes first; (c) The Department of Ecology, to the extent authorized by law, shall condition or deny water quality certifications under section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act to prevent the degradation of wetlands; Section S. The Department of Ecology, in its triennial review of water quality standards, shall revise the standards to incorporate provisions specifically designed to better protect wetlands; Section 6. The Departments of Wildlife and Fisheries shall fully implement the authority granted under the Hydraulics Code and, to the extent legally permissible, condition or deny permits to protect fish life by assuring wetlands protection; Section 7. The Puget Sound Water Quality Authority shall continue its efforts to ensure full Impr -sntation of the wetlands elements of the Puget Sound Plan. All state a jencies, .ithin available resources, shall use their authorities to assist In implementing applicable portions of the Puget Sound Plan wetlands program; . C Extcutiv* Ordtr 90-04 p^^ Section B. Tb« Oepartment of Agricuiturt shall develop a permit system for application of pesticides on or near wetlands by licensed applicators in order to assist in evaluating the type, amount, and impact of pesticides used in wetlands. The Department of Agriculture shall also develop a program to assess the amount of pesticides applied by non-licensed persons on or near wetland areas through required reporting of sales volume of pesticide products not requiring licensure for purchase; Section 9. The Forest Practices Board, with assistance from th« Department of Ecology, is encouraged to amend both the forest practices rules and the best management practices for forest practices to protect wetlands in a manner consistent with this executive order; Section 10. The Department of Community Development shall adopt standards establishing wetlands protection criteria for administration and issuance of funds through its public works trust fund, community development block grant program, and housing trust fund; and the Department of Trade and Economic Development shall work with the Community Economic Revitalization Board (CERB) to develop and adopt wetlands protection criteria for administration and issuance of CERB loans and grants; Section 11. The Department of Ecology shall give special consideration and allowance to those Centennial Clean Water Act grant proposals containing wetlands protection elements and shall condition any grant approvals to assure wetlands protection; Section 12. All state agencies shall use the following definition of mitigation, in th« following order of preference: (1) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or part of an action; (2) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation, by using appropriate technology, or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts; (3) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; (4) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; (5) Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; (6) Monitoring the impact and taking appropriate corrective measures; Mitigation for individual actions may include a combination of the above measures; Section 13. The Department of Ecology shall develop statewide policies and standards on wetlands rating systems, mitigation, buffers, restoration, and enhancement in consultation with other agencies and interested parties. These policies and standards shall be adopted to the extent legally permissible by all state agencies as part of their SEPA policies, and shall be applied where appropriate to all licenses, permits, approvals, grants and actions undertaken by state agencies; £jc0cutiv« Onter M-04 Pa9«4 S^tion 14. The Department of Ecology, in consultation with agencies and academic institutions with expertise, tribes, local governments, and other appropriate parties, shall coordinate wetlands inventory activities and develop inventory standards and strategies to standardize and maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of inventory efforts in the state; Section 15. The Department of Ecology shall develop a wetlands impact assessment process in conjunction with the demonstration conservation plan required by RCW 90.54. The wetlands impact assessment process shall balance the public policies of wetlands protection and water use efficiency as set out in RCW 90.03. The Department of Ecology shall consult with other Interested and affected parties, in order to assist in decision malcing regarding water use efficiency improvements and wetlands protection; Section 16. The Department of Ecology shall provide technical assistance to the Depairtment of Community Development in the development of wetlands protection policies and standards for the implementation of grants programs and to guide the development of local government comprehensive plans and development regulations under the growth management bill passed by the 1 990 legislature; Section 17. The Department of Ecology shall provide educational and technical assistance, within available resources, for local government implementation of the wetlands protection components of the Puget Sound Plan and wetlands protection components of the growth management bill passed by the 1990 legislature; Section 18. All local governments in this state are requested and encouraged to make all of their actions consistent with the intent and goals of this executive order. The Department of Ecology, in consultation with local governments, shall develop a model local government wetlands protection ordinance, and shall initiate and administer a local grants program, as funding permits, for the development of local wetlands protection programs; Section IS. All appropriate state agencies shall continue to develop and implement wetlands education and outreach activities and to inform public and private interests regarding the provisions of this order; Section 20. (a) There is hereby established an Interagency Wetlands Review Board (Board) which shall consist of the directors or designees of the Department of Ecology, the Department of Fisheries, the Department of Wildlife, the Department of Agriculture, the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, and the Department of Community Development The Department of Transportation and the Department of Natural Resources are invited to become members of the Board. The representative of the Department of Ecology shall serve as chair and shall provide staff support when needed; (b) The Board Is empowered to develop means to implement and monitor agency compliance with this executive order. TTw Board shall submit regular reports to the Governor on actions taken under this order; (c) The Board is authorized to ask for assistance from any department, office, division or agency of this state to supply data, personnel, or assistance as necessary to Implement the directives of this executive order; ( .v=^ Exacutiv* OnJw 90-04 Sect}on21. Nothing in this executive order shall apply to assistance provided for •mergency wor1< that Is essential to save lives or protect property and public health and safety. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the State of Washington to b« affixed at Olympia thls2isi_ day of APRIL , A.O., nineteen hundred and ninety. ington BY THE GOVERNOR: A-sistant Secretary of State f ) IMPLEMENTATION OF GOVERNOR'S EXECUTIVE ORDER I. Identification of agency activities which potentially impact wetlands o Potential adverse impacts. Examples: chemical control programs, fertilizer permit programs, expansion/reduction of wildlife habitat and public access areas, pesticide vsa in hatcheries, construction of hatcheries, siting of energy generating plants and transmission corridors, loans to cities/counties for infrastructure projects, hazardous waste siting and permitting, SEP A review, capital construction projects. o Opportunities for enhancement.- Examples: land acquisition programs, wetlands mitigation: banks,.. vegetation planting, restoration of agency-owned land, use of "design: witir nature" concepts in fzdiity design stage. n. Adoption of procedures: for avoiding impacts, minimization of unavoidable impacts, and compensation for imavoid^le impacts. nL Adoption of procedurer for increasing quality and quanti^ of wetlands, where applicable;;: rv. Adoption of procedures for monitoring agency implementation of Governor Executive Order. v. Adoption of procedures for coordinating wetland-related activities with other agencies, where applicable;. ATTACHMENT N-4 State of Washington Department of Wildlife Wetlands Policy (f ( \ Department of Wildlife poL-3025 DATE: August 8, 1990 PAGE: 1 of lo CAxXCELS: SEE ALSO; pol-3000 POL-3001 EO 89-10 EO 90-4 POLIC Approved by: POL-3025 WETLANDS Wetlands are highly productive wildlife habitat that deserve special protection. The following policies apply to Department of Wildlife (WDW) construction projects and projects that WDW is reviewing through any of the regulatory processes. 1. Wetlands will be Given Special Protection WDW adopts the goal of the Governor's Executive Order, the National Wetlands Policy Forxun, and Puget Sound Water Quality Plan to ensure no net loss of wetland acreage, value or function and to develop a long-term net gain in the state's wetlands through restoration and enhancement. During planning and construction of WDW projects, special attention will be given to avoiding impacts to wetlands, their edges and buffers. Special attention to avoiding impacts to wetlands and their buffers will also be given during review and comment on environmental documents and in permit review and comment for private proposals. Unavoidable losses will be fully compensated. The first goal of wetland mitigation is avoidance of impact. 2. Wetlands are Defined by U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service definition is the beat scientific definition: "Wetlands are lands transi- tional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. For purposes of this classi- fication, wetlands must have one or more of the following three attributes: (1) At least periodically, the land supports predominantly hydrophytes; (2) the substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soil; and (3) the substrate is nonsoil and is saturated with water or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season of each year." (Cowardia et al, 1979) In this definition. ( August 8, 1990 POL-3025 Page 2 of 10 wetlands include streams, rivers, shallow waters of lakes, ponds, intertidal areas and shallow subtidal areas as well as marshes, bogs and swamps, wet meadows and similar habitats. Environmental regulations on wetlands cover subsets of that. For example, the Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) process covers waters of the state. It includes streams, lakes, and ponds to their ordinary high water mark. The Federal Clean Water Act includes the waters plus vegetated wetlands in its definition. The wetland/upland boundary will be defined using the methodology agreed to by the Environmental Protection Agency, Corps of Engineers and Fish and Wildlife Service. 3. Mitigation is Defined in Governor's Executive Order 90-4 The definition of mitigation in EG 90-4 is essentially the same as the definition of mitigation in the State Environ- mental Policy Act rules, Hydraulic Act rules, and WBU mitigation policies (POL-3000). (a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or part of an action; (b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magni- tude of the action and its implementation, by using appropriate technology, or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts; (c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; (d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by pre- servation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; (e) Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments^ (f) Monitoring the impact and taking appropriate corrective measures.. The above order is the order of preference. Mitigation may include a combination of the above measures. Item (f) (Monitoring and Corrective Action) should be employed in all mitigation efforts. ( I August 8, 1990 POL-3025 Page 3 of 10 Mitigation is sequenced so that compensation is employed only after avoidance and minimization of impact are incor- porated to the greatest extent possible. Wetland mitigation should include performance standards, evaluation of the success of mitigation for five years and modification or restoration at earliest opportunity to ensure success of mitigation. 4. Wetland Fills Will Only be Approved for Water Dependent Proj ects In the review of U. S. Army Corps of Engineers' Section 404 permits, WDW will recommend against approval o£ fills that cause an alteration to wetlands unless Section 404 (b) (1) analysis demonstrates there is no practical alternative and the project is needed. 5. Wetland Degradation Will be Avoided and Acreage and Function Will be Preserved WDW will only accept a loss of wetland area, function or value at a site when the loss is unavoidable (no alterna- tive exists) and when any loss of wetland area, function and value is fully compensated. Compensation will be accepted as mitigation only after the proposal has been designed to minimize impacts to wetlands and adjacent uplands. 6. Wetland Compensation Will be Coordinated With Other Agencies WDW will coordinate with the Environmental Protection Agency, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington Department of Fisheries, Washington Department of Ecology, affected tribes and local governments to ensure WDW approved compensation is agreeable to all the resource agencies. ' WDW will work with other resource agencies to develop goals for wetland mitigation, monitoring and contingency plans. August 3, 1990 POL-3025 Page 4 of 10 7. Wetlands Will be Coraoensated at a Minimum of 2:1 - For wetland compensation projects involving a Hydraulic Project Approval (HFA), a minimum of 2:1 compensation to impacted area shall be required. If 2:1 compensation is infeasible, written justification for the lesser compen- sation must accompany the draft HPA when it is returned to Olympia for processing. For wetland compensation projects not involving an HPA, a minimum of 2:1 compensation shall be recommended to the permitting agency. 8. Off-Site Wetland Compensation Should Restore or Enhance Existing Hydraulics In compensation projects, flood storage capacity and year-round surface water quantity should be restored and/or enhanced to preserve aquatic resource habitat. This is usually accomplished by keeping the compensa- tion site in the same drainage basin as the original wetland when onsite compensation is not possible. 9. Native Plants are Preferred in Wetland Sites The following native plants will be preferred in any wetland revegetation projects: Marine and estuarine aquatic bed kelp (Nereocystis luetkeana, Maerocystis integrif olia, Pterygophora californica) sea lettuce (Ulva lactuca) eelgrass (Zostera marina) Brackish and salt marsh arrowgrass (Triglochin maritimum) Lyngby's sedge (Carex lyngbyei) spike rush (Eleocharis parv\ila) American three-square bulrush (Scirpus americanus) salt marsh bulrush (Scirpua maritimus) hardstem bulrush (Scirpus acutus) tufted hairgrass (Deschampsia caespitosa) seaside plantain (Plantago raaritima) salt grass (Distichlis spicata) pickleweed (Salicornia virginica) August 3, 1990 POL-3025 Page 5 of 10 Freshwater marshes slough sedge (Carex obnupta) small-fruited bulrush (Scirpus microcarpus) spike rush (Eleocharis palustris) Watson's willow herb (Epilobium watsonii) cattail (Typha latifolia) speedwell (Veronica spp. ) beaked sedge (Carex rostrata) Sitka sedge (Carex sitchensis) mint (Mentha arvensis) cut-leaved water horehound (Lycoous americanus. L. unif lora) ' angelica (Angelica spp.) water parsley (Oenanthe sarmentosa) cow parsnip (Heracleum lanatum) Shallow freshwater ponds (both east and westside) pondweed (Potamogeton pectinatus. P^ diversifolius. P^ natans, P^ robbinsii, P^ richardsonii) arrowhead (Sagittaria latifolia) " smartweed (Polygonium punctatum. P^ amphibium) water shield (Brasenia shreberi) Indian pond lily (Nuphar polysepalum. N. variegatum) water club rush (Scirpus subterminalisl hardstem bulrush (Scirpus acutus) softstem bulrush (Scirpus validus) Westside scrub/shrub wetter sites: willows (Salix lasiandra. S^ rigida. S^ hookeriana. S. sitchensis) ~ skunk cabbage (Lystichum americanum) lady fern (Athyrium filix- feraina ) red-osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera) salmonberry (Rubis spectabilis) transitional areas: ninebark (Physocarpus capitatus) gooseberry (Ribes lacustre) Indian plum (Oemleria cerasiformis) August 8, 1990 POL-3025 Page 6 of 10 cascara (Rhamnus purshiana) snowberry (Symphoricarpo3 albus ) red elderberry (Sambucua Racemosa) Oregon grape (Berberis aquif olium) Eastside scrub/shrub wetland and riparian areas Douglas hawthorn (Crataegus douglasii var. douglasii) white alder (Alnus rhombifolia) water birch (Betula occidentalis) willows (Salix lasiandra, S. exigua, S. amydaloides) red-osier dogwood (Cornus stolonif era) black twinberry (Lonicera involucrata) honeysuckle (Lonicera utahensis) black Cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) transitional areas; black hawthorn (Crategus douglasii) Columbia hawthorn (C. columbania) bitter cherry (Prunus emarginata var.emarg_inata) common chokecherry (Prunus virginiana) wild rose (Rosa gymnocarpa, R. woods ii) snowberry ( Symphor icarpos albus) serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia) mock orange (Philadephus lewisii) clematis (Clematis llgusticifolia) blue elderberry (Sambucus cerulea) golden current (Ribes aureum), scouier's willow (Salix scouleriana) ninebark (Physocarpus malvaceus) syringa (Philadelphus lewisii) hackberry (Celtis reticulata) ocean spray (Holodiscus discolor) Westside forested black Cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) Oregon ash (Fraxinus oregana) lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) western rad cedar ( Thuj a plicate) Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) red alder (Alnus rubra) hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) f August 8, 1990 POL-3025 Page 7 of 10 Eastside forested wetter sites: black Cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) mountain alder (Alnus incana) white alder (Alnus rhombifolia) water birch (Betula occidentalis) red-osier dogwood (Cornus stolonif era) transitional areas: aspen (Populus tremuloides) Oregon white oak (Quercus garryana) ninebark (Physocarpus malvaceus ) ocean spray (Holodiscus discolor) serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia) wild rose (Rosa gjmmocarpa, R. woodsii) mock orange (Philadelphus lewisii) clematis (Clematis ligusticif olia) blue elderberry (Sambucus cerulea) Oregon grape, tall (Berberis aquifolium) Eastside emergent £alse Solomon seal (Smilacina stellata, S. racemoaa) monkey flower (Mimulus guttatus) woolly sedge (Carex lanuginosa) beaked sedge (Carex rostrata) Nebraska sedge (Carex nebrascensis) field sedge (Carex praegracil is) coninon spike- rush (Eleocharis palustris) hardstem bulrush (Scirpus acutus) baltlc rush (Juncus balticus) three-square bulrush (Scirpus americanus) softstem bulrush (Scirpus validus) broadf ruited burreed (Sparganium eurycarpum) common cattail (Typha latifolia) Eastside grasses giant wildrye (Elymus cinereus) tufted hairgrass (Deschampsia cespitosa) wheatgrass (Agropyron smithii, A. dasystachyum) fowl mannagrass (Glyceria striata) August 8, 1990 POL-3025 Page 8 of 10 Saline or alkaline areas, eastside black greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus ) alkali saltgrass (Distichlia striata) giant wildrye (Elymua cinereus) Vernal Pond Vegetation April - May: Gray's desert parsley (Lomatium grayi) narrowleaved raontia (Monti a linearis) Mid-May to Mid-June: Geyer's onion (Allium geyeri) Navarretia (Navarretia intertexta var. propinqua) close-flowered knotweed (Polygonum confertifolium) Mid-June to Mid-July: c showy downingia (Downingia elegans) ^ alkali bluegrass (Poa juncifolia) common spikerush (Eleocharis palustris) Mid-July to early August low gumweed (Grindelia nana) 3og sphagnum moss (Sphagnum) Labrador tea (Ledum groenlandicum) bog cranberry (Vaccinium oxycoccos) bog laurel (Kalraia occidentalis) Westside riparian areas willows (Salix sp.) snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus) vine maple (Acer circinatum) red-osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera • wild rose (Rosa nutkana) ocean spray (Holodiscus discolor) hazelnut (Corylus cornuta) tall Oregon grape (Berberis aquifolium) / Oregon myrtle (Umbellularia californica ^ red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa var. aborescens) ninebark (Physocarpus capitatus) August 8, 1990 POL-3025 Page 9 of 10 serviceberry (Amelanchier alnif olia) mock orange (Philadelphus lewisii) huckleberry (Vaccinium ovatum, V. parvifolium) hawthorn (Crataegus douglasai var. douglasii red alder (Alnus rubra) moosewood (Viburnum edule) black Cottonwood (Populu3 trlchocarpa) western red cedar ( Thu j a plicata) blue elderberry (Sambucus cerulea) big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) Agricultural riparian areas cattail (Typha latif olia) willows (Salix sp.) wild rose (Rosa nutkana) 10. Exotic Plants Will be Discouraged in Wetlands The following exotic plant species invade native plant communities and shall be discouraged in wetlands. Existing stands of these plants will be restored to native plant communities whenever possible: reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) purple loosestrife (Ly thrum salicaria) Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia) smooth cordgrasa (Spartina alternif lora, Spartlna angelica, Spartina patans) Eurasian water milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) Note: reed canarygrass may be used to control the spread of purple loosestrife or other noxious weeds and prevent erosion, if no acceptable native plant material can be found. 11. Adjacent Uplands Will be Protected and Restored WDV will recommend that buffers and connectors be re- tained and restored around wetlands. This will be accomplished during environmental review and permitting and during compensation and restoration efforts. Recommended buffers will be mature native vegetation when possible. The buffer zones will be large enough August 8, 1990 POL-3025 Page 10 of 10 to preserve important edge habitat and protect primary breeding and feeding areas from adjacent land uses. They should be designed to connect to other wetlands, aquatic systems or forested areas whenever possible. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) Models demonstrate the value of upland adjacent to wetlands for the following guild species: muskrat, trout and salmon, lesser scaup and mallard, beaver, blue heron, black brant, mink, wood duck and red-winged blackbird. Native vegetation in uplands adjacent to wetlands will be protected to ensure diversity of plant and animal communities. It will be designed to meet life needs of priority species and others that depend upon the wetland/ riparian zone for primary breeding and feeding and cover needs. It will also be designed to provide sufficient canopy cover, large organic debris, snags and downed timber, interspersion, and vertical and horizontal edge diversity. 12. Detrimental Uses of Wetlands Vill be Discouraged Use of wetlands or their buffers for housing or urban development will be strongly discouraged. The use of existing wetlands and buffers for urban stormwater or wastewater treatment will be strongly discouraged. Stormwater should be treated in grassy swales and oil/gas separators prior to discharge into wetlands or their buffers. Urban wastewater and stormwater may be treated in artificial wetlands created for that purpose. * Conversion of wetland buffers to recreational facilities will be discouraged. Feat mining in wetlands dominated by native plants will be discouraged. 13. Consideration Shall be Given to Enhancing Wetlands In any WDW project involving a wetland, consideration shall be given to enhancing the wetland to increase functional value. Examples of this include: planting native vegetation, removing exotic plants, increasing the size or diversity of the wetland system, or restor- ing disturbed portions. Areas with existing high value will not be altered (sphagnum peat bogs, for example). May 16, 1990 Revised 7/20/90 DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE COMPLIANCE WITH EXECUTIVE ORDER 89-10, 90-04 PROTECTION OF WETLANDS I. Policy Statement See attached DRAFT POLICIES II. Identification A. Adverse Impact Assessment (Activities with Potential Adverse Impacts to One or more Wetland Functions) 1) Wildlife Area/Habitat Development a) Road construction for public access. b) Bridge construction for access. c) Maintaining parking areas (includes herbicide application) . d) Crop production (herbicide application). e) Grazing. f) Stabilizing stream banks with riprap. g) Erosion control/planting non-native plants. h) Converting one wetland type to another. i) Stream impoundments.* J) Encouraging public use or access, k) Filling to create islands.* 1) Dredging wetlands to provide more open water.* m) Undertaking action to respond to animal damage complaints (beaver dam removal). * Note: These activities may increase habitat and biologic diversity and result in overall increases in wildlife value but could affect some loss of one type of wetland. 2) Fishery Enhancement a) Hatchery construction. b) Use of sloughs as fish rearing facilities. c) Use of springs as hatchery water source. d) Treating lakes and streams with rotenone to kill off undesirable fishes and replant with harvestable fishes. e) Increased recreation on lakes and streams. f) Lake and stream damming. g) Herbicide application for aquatic plant control. h) Draining impoundments for maintenance. 3) Permits and Environmental Review a) Incomplete wetland protection because of limited statutory authority under Hydraulic Project Approval, Water Rights, Section 10 and 404 of Clean Water Act, review of lake herbicide applications, Forest Practice Application. b) Insufficient staff to review all SEFA documents discussing potential impacts to wetlands and field review all permits, and be present at public hearings, and monitor results of mitigation. c) Habitat alterations on mitigation lands to benefit targeted species. d) Designing compensation based upon targeted species rather than fully replacing all lost functional values. 4) Engineering and Construction Activities a) Hatchery, lab, boat launch and access area construction. b) Pesticide and chemical use to restrict weeds at public access areas. c) Non-chemical maintenance activity such as culvert clean out. B) Assessment of Opportunities for Wetlands Preservation, Enhancement, Restoration and Creation as Funding Permits 1) In construction activities, excavating gravel from areas with high water tables to create open water wetlands; revegetating the shoreline. 2. Acquisition of threatened, high value wetlands using dedicated funding source or surplus property. 3. Use of funds to build islands, increase edge and vegetation/open water interspersion and diversity. 4. Create wetlands by impounding drainage. 5. Acquire high value wetlands available from Farmers Home Administration (farms that have foreclosed). C 6. Revegetating degraded wetlands. 7. Breaching dikes on certain Department lands to return wetlands to full function. 8. Working with landowners to restore degraded wetlands. 9. Inventorying wetlands on Department Lands (as funding allows). 10. Educating interested publics (Sports clubs, Environmental groups, local planning departments) oa the functions and values of wetlands through brochure, slide shows, and talks and field walks. 11. Develop educational programs for schools. 12. Revise Agency SEFA VACs to include as much use of the Substantive effect of the Act to protect wetlands. 13. Review Hydraulic Project Approval WACs to see if it is possible to revise WACs to ensure wetlands protection where wetlands or their buffers provide a direct or indirect benefit for fish. 14. Develop a one and five year mitigation monitoring report form. 15. Develop a wetland impact and opportunity checklist to evaluate projects that may impact wetlands. 16. Develop with Department of Ecology and Soil Conservation Service a brochure on wetland/buffer restoration for land managers and owners. 17. Dedicated funds are used to acquire or enhance wetlands with high waterfowl potential. Other preservation opportvinities including work with Wildlife and Recreation Coalition, Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation, The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, The US Park Service, Puget Sound Water Quality Authority-Department of Ecol- ogy done to identify and acquire wetlands and pro- tect them and their buffers through non-regulatory opportunities. III. Implementation 1. Adoption of attached Agency Wetland Policies Completion Date: September 30, 1990 Contact: Hal Beecher, Bob Zeigler 753-3188. 2. Development of Wetland Impact and Opportunity Evaluation form to be attached to SEPA environmental checklist and circulated to agencies with jurisdiction and interested persons. Note; In event the proposal that would affect wetlands is exempt from SEPA, the completed evaluation form will be sent to Department of Ecology's wetland section a minimum of 15 days prior to permits being issued for Department of Wildlife proposals. Completion Date: September 30, 1990 Contact: Bob Zeigler, 753-3188 3. Add three field biologists to provide additional wetlands protection through permit and State Environmental Policy Act review and monitor success on target wetlands. Initiation Date: July 1, 1990 Completion Date: On going Contact: David Mudd/Hal Beecher, 753-3318. 3. Wetlands Inventory on Department Owned Lands that is standardized with other statewide efforts using the Cowardin classification and National Wetland Inventory maps. Initiation Date: July 1, 1990 Completion Date: On going as funding allows. Contact: Maureen Beckstead, 753-5728 4. Develop Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Forms to determine success after one and five years. Completion Date: September 1, 1990 Contact: Bob Zeigler, 753-3188 5. SEEA and Hydraulic Project Approval WAC Revision. Completion Date: July 1, 1992 Contact: David Mudd, 753-3318 6. Serve on Interagency Wetlands Review Board. Completion Date: Ongoing, as staff and funding allow. Contact: Chris Drivdahl, 753-3188 7. Serve Ecology Advisory Committee Completion Date: Ongoing Contact: Hal Beecher/Bob Zeigler, 753-3188 8. Adopt in Policy: a) Wetland definition: US Fish and Wildlife Service with wetland upland edge defined using adopted Federal methodology. Regulations on wetlands cover differing subsets of that. For example, HFA covers waters of the state. It includes streams, lakes, ponds to their ordinary high water mark while Clean Water Act includes vegetated wetlands in its definition. The wetland/upland boundary will be defined using the agreed Federal Methodology. b) Mitigation sequencing as defined in Executive Order 90-04. c) Future mitigation policies and standards at least as stringent as those developed under Section 13 of E.O. 90-04. Note; Success of mitigation will be monitored for 5 years and requiring or performing restoration to meet stated mitigation objectives (as funding allows). c) Develop a Wetland Buffer Policy to protect wetland function and values and provide vegetated connectors between wetlands that are sufficient in depth to maintain primary breeding and feeding habitat for wetland/ riparian species and priority habitat for priority species. Once buffer standards are developed under Section 13 of E.O. 90-04, agency's buffer standards will be reviewed and revised, if need be, to be at least as stringent. d) Once Department of Ecology has adopted rating system policies and standards, agency will review policies and revise, if necessary, to ensure agency's policies are at least as stringent. Initiation Date; August 1, 1990 Completion Date; Ongoing Contact: Bob Zeigler, 753-3188 9. Develop with Department of Ecology and Soil Conservation Service, a brochure on what plants to use, where they may be available, and habitat requirements for restoration of wetlands and buffers. Initiation Date: May 18, 1990 Completion Date: July 1, 1991 Contact: Bob Zeigler 753-3318. 10. Preservation Opportunities. Use Duck Stamp and Print monies to acquire and enhance high value waterfowl wetlands. Use other funding sources to when available to preserve at risk lands through acquisition and easement. Initiation Date: currently in operation Completion Date: On going Contact: Don Kraege, 586-2758, Bob Zeigler, 753-3188. 12- Prepare annual report to the Governor's Office on compliance with the plan, tasks completed, major milestones, problem issues and needed revisions to the plan. Initiation Date: August 1, 1990 Completion Date; June 30, each year Contact: Hal Beecher, 753-3318 Bob Zeigler, 753-3188 ATTACHMENT N-5 State of Washington Model Wetlands Protection Ordinance (« MODEL WETLANDS PROTECTION ORDINANCE Department of Ecology September 1990 ^ MODEL WETLAND PROTECTION ORDINANCE Table of Contents Page Number Section 1: Findings of Fact and Purpose 1 1.1 Findings of Fact 1 1.2 Purpose 2 Section 2: Definitions 4 Section 3: General Provisions 9 3 . 1 Abrogation and General Restrictions 9 3 . 2 Interpretation 9 Section 4: Lands to Which This Chapter Applies 9 4.1 Applicability 9, 4.2 Maps and Inventory 10 4.3 Determination of Regulatory Boundary 10 4.4 Wetland Rating System 10 Section 5; Regulated and Allowed Activities 13 5.1 Regulated Activities 13 5.2 Allowed Activities 14 5.3 Special Permit Uses 15 Section 6: Procedures for Wetland Permits IS ^ 6.1 Permit Requirements, Compliance 15 6.2 Wetland Permits, Extensions 15 6.3 Pennit Applications 16 6. 3. a Request of Determination of Applicability 16 6.3.b Pre-permit Consultations 16 6.3.C Information Requirements 16 6.3.d Filing Fees 17 6.3.e Notification 17 6.3. f Notice on Title 17 6.4 Permit Processing 19 6. 4. a Permit Consolidation 19 6.4.b Completeness of Application 19 6.4.C Public Hearings 19 6.4.d Permit Action 20 Section 7: Standards for Permit Decisions 21 7.1 Wetland Buffers 21 7.1. a Standard Buffer Zone Widths 21 7.1.b Increased Wetland Buffer Zone Widths 22 7.1.C Reduction of Standard Buffer Widths 22 7.1.d Standard Wetland Buffer Width Averaging 22 7.1.e Requirement for Native Vegetation 23 7.1. f Permitted Uses in a Wetland Buffer Zone 23 7.1.g Building Setback Lines 23 7.2 Avoiding Wetland Impacts 23 •7.3 Minimizing Wetland Impacts 26 7.4 Limited Density Transfer 26 7.5 Acting on the Application 7, 5. a Special Use Permit Conditions 7.5.b Bonding 7.5.C Other Laws and Regulations 7.5.d Suspension, Revocation 7.5.e Publication of Notice 7.5. f Compensating for Wetland Impacts 7.5.g Mitigation Plans 7.6 Appeals 7.7 Modification of Wetland Permits 7.8 Resubmittal of Denied Permit Applications Section 8: Temporary Emergency Permit, Enforcement 8.1 Temporary Emergency Permit 8 . 2 Enforcement Section 9: Section 10: Section 11: Section 12: Section 13: Non-Conforming Activities Judicial Review Amendments Severability Assessment Relief Section 14: Hon- regulatory Incentive Program Section 15: Codification Section 16: Effective Date 27 27 29 30 30 30 31 34 37 37 37 38 38 38 40 41 42 42 42 42 42 42 MODEL WETLAND PROTECTION ORDINANCE Section 1: Findings of Fact and Purpose 1.1 Findings of Fact The [City Council or Board of Commissioners] of the [local jurisdiction] hereby finds that: a. Wetlands and their buffer areas are valuable and fragile natural resources with significant development constraints due to flooding, erosion, soil liquefaction potential, and septic disposal limitations. b. In their natural state, wetlands provide many valuable social and ecological services, including: 1) controlling flooding and stormwater jrunoff by storing or regulating natural flows; 2) protecting water resources by filtering out water pollutants, processing biological and chemical oxygen demand, recycling and storing nutrients, and serving as settling basins for naturally occurring sedimentation; 3) providing areas for groundwater recharge; 4) preventing shoreline erosion by stabilizing the substrate; 5) providing habitat areas for many species of fish, wildlife, and vegetation, many of which are dependent on wetlands for their survival, and many of which are on Washington State and Federal Endangered Species lists; 6) providing open space and visual relief from intense development in urbanized area; 7) providing recreation opportunities; and 8) serving as areas for scientific study and natural resource education. c. Development in wetlands results in: 1) increased soil erosion and sedimentation of downstream water bodies, including navigable channels; 2) increased shoreline erosion; 3) degraded water quality due to increased turbidity and loss of pollutant removal processes; 4) elimination or degradation of wildlife and fisheries habitat; 5) loss of fishery resources from water quality degradation, increased peak flow rates, decreased summer low flows, and changes in the streamflow regimen. 6) loss of stormwater retention capacity and slow-release detention resulting in flooding, degraded water quality, and changes in the streamflow regimen of watersheds; 7) loss of groundwater recharge areas; d. Buffer areas surrounding wetlands are essential to maintenance and protection of wetland functions and values. Buffer areas protect wetlands from degradation by: 1) stabilizing soil and preventing erosion; 2) filtering suspended solids, nutrients and harmful or toxic substances ; 3) moderating impacts of stormwater runoff; 4) moderating system microclimate; 5) protecting wetland wildlife habitat from adverse impacts; 6) maintaining and enhancing habitat diversity and/or integrity; 7) supporting and protecting wetlands plant and animal species and biotic communities; and 8) reducing disturbances to wetland resources caused by intrusion of humans and domestic animals. e. The loss of the social and ecological services provided by wetlands results in a detriment to public safety and welfare; replacement of such services, if possible at all, can require considerable public expenditure. f. A considerable acreage of these important natural resources has been lost or degraded by draining, dredging, filling, excavating, building polluting, and other acts inconsistent with the natural uses of such areas. Remaining wetlands are in jeopardy of being lost, despoiled, or impaired by such acts. It is therefore necessary for the [local unit of government] to ensure maximum protection for wetland areas by discouraging development activities in wetlands and those activities at adjacent sites that may adversely affect wetland functions and values, to encourage restoration and enhancement of already degraded wetland systems, and to encourage creation of new wetland areas. 1.2 Purpose It is the policy of the [local unit of government] to require site planning to avoid or minimize damage to wetlands wherever possible; to require that activities not dependent upon a wetland location be located at upland sites; and to achieve no net loss of wetlands by requiring restoration or enhancement of degraded wetlands or creation of new wetlands to offset losses that are unavoideible. In addition, it is the intent of the [local unit of government] that activities in or affecting wetlands not threaten public safety, cause nuisances, or destroy or degrade natural wetland functions and values by: a. Impeding flood flows, reducing flood storage capacity, or impairing natural flood control functions, thereby resulting in increased flood heights, frequencies, or velocities on other lands; b. increasing water pollution through location of domestic waste disposal systems in wetlands; unauthorized application of pesticides and herbicides; disposal of solid waste at inappropriate sites; creation of unstable fills; or the destruction of wetland soils and vegetation; c. increasing erosion; d. decreasing breeding, nesting, and feeding areas for many species of waterfowl and shorebirds, including those rare and endangered ; e. interfering with the exchange of nutrients needed by fish and other forms of wildlife; f. decreasing habitat for fish and other forms of wildlife; g. adversely altering the recharge or discharge functions of wetlands, thereby impacting groundwater or surface water supplies; h. significantly altering wetland hydrology and thereby causing either short-or long-term changes in vegetational composition, soils characteristics, nutrient cycling, or water chemistry; i. destroying sites needed for education and scientific research, such as outdoor biophysical laboratories, living classrooms, and training areas; j. interfering with public rights in navigable waters and the recreation opportunities provided by wetlands for fishing, boating, hiking, birdwatching, photography and other passive uses; or k. destroying or damaging aesthetic and property values, including significant public viewsheds. The purposes of this chapter are to protect the public health, safety and welfare by preventing the adverse environmental impacts of development enumerated in Section 1 of this chapter, and by: a. Preserving, protecting and restoring wetlands by regulating development within them and their buffers; b. Protecting the public against losses from: 1. unnecessary maintenance and replacement of public facilities, including the dredging of ports and navigation channels; 2. publicly funded mitigation of avoidable impacts; 3. cost for public emergency rescue and relief operations; and 4. potential litigation from improper construction practices authorized for wetland areas; c. Alerting appraisers, assessors, owners, and potential buyers or lessees to the development limitations of wetlands; d. Providing [local unit of government] officials with information to evaluate, approve, condition, or deny public or private development proposals; e. Adopting Governor Booth Gardner's interim goal to achieve no overall net loss in acreage and functions of Washington's remaining wetland base and the long-term goal to increase the quantity and quality of Washington's wetland resource base; f. Implementing the policies of the Growth Management Act, the State Environmental Policy Act, Chapter 43.21C RWC, Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan, Washington State Executive Order 90-04, [relevant local plans, policies and ordinances], and all other present and future [local unit of government] functional, environmental and community plans and programs . -r Section 2: Definitions For the purposes of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply: a. "Applicant" means a person who files an application for permit under this chapter and who is either the owner of the land on which that proposed activity would be located, a contract vendee, a lessee of the land, the person who would actually control and direct the proposed activity, or the authorized agent of such a person. b. "Best management practices" means conservation practices or systems of practices and management measures that: 1) Control soil loss and reduce water quality degradation caused by nutrients, animal waste, toxics, and sediment; and 2) Minimize adverse impacts to surface water and groundwater flow, circulation patterns, and to the chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of wetlands. c. "Compensation project" means actions necessary to replace project-induced wetland and wetland buffer losses, including land acquisition, planning, construction plans, monitoring and contingency actions. d. "Compensatory mitigation" means replacing project- induced wetland losses or impacts, and includes, but is not limited to, the following: 1) "Restoration" - Actions performed to reestablish wetland functional characteristics and processes which have been lost by alterations, activities, or catastrophic events within an area which no longer meets the definition of a wetland. 2) "Creation" - Actions performed to intentionally establish a wetland at a site where it did not formerly exist. 3) "Enhancement" - Actions performed to improve the condition of existing degraded wetlands so that the functions they provide are of a higher quality. e. "Critical habitat" means habitat necessary for the survival of endangered, threatened, rare, sensitive or monitor species. f . "Developable Area" means an area of land outside of wetlands and wetland buffers. g. "Department" means the Washington state department of ecology, h. "Emergent wetland" means a regulated wetland with at least 30 percent of the surface area covered by erect, rooted, herbaceous vegetation as the uppermost vegetative strata. i. "Exotic" means any species of plants or animals that are foreign to the planning area. j . "Existing and ongoing agriculture" includes those activities conducted on lands defined in RCW 84.34.020(2), and those activities involved in the production of crops or livestock, for example, the operation and maintenance of farm and stock ponds or drainage ditches, operation and maintenance of ditches, irrigation systems including irrigation laterals, canals, or irrigation drainage ditches, changes between agricultural activities, and normal maintenance, repair, or operation of existing serviceable structures, facilities, or improved areas. Activities which bring an area into agricultural use are not part of an ongoing operation. An operation ceases to be ongoing when the area on which it is conducted is converted to a nonagricultural use or has lain idle for more than five years, unless the idle land is registered in a federal or state soils conservation program, or unless the activity is maintenance of irrigation ditches, laterals, canals, or drainage ditches related to an existing and ongoing agricultural activity. Forest practices are not included in this definition, k. "Extraordinary hardship" means strict application of this chapter and/or programs adopted to implement this chapter by the [Approval Authority] would prevent all reasonable economic use of the parcel. 1. "Forested wetland" means a regulated wetland with at least 20 percent of the surface area covered by woody vegetation greater than 20 feet in height. m. Functions," "beneficial functions," or "functions and values" means the beneficial roles served by wetlands including, but not limited to, water quality protection and enhancement, fish and wildlife habitat, food chain support, flood storage, conveyance and attenuation, groundwater recharge and discharge, erosion control, wave attenuation, historical and archaeological and aesthetic value protection, and recreation. These beneficial roles are not listed in order of priority, n. "High intensity land use" includes land uses which are associated with moderate or high levels of human disturbance or substantial wetland habitat impacts including, but not limited to, medixim and high density residential, multifamily residential, active recreation, and commercial and industrial land uses, o. "High quality wetlands" are those regulated wetlands which meet the following criteria: 1) No, or isolated, human alteration of the wetland topography ; 2) No human-caused alteration of the hydrology or else the wetland appears to have recovered from the alteration; 3) Low cover and frequency of exotic plant species; 4) Relatively little human-related disturbance of the native vegetation, or recovery from past disturbance; 5) If the wetland system is degraded, it still contains a viable and high quality example of a native wetland community; and 6) No known major water quality problems. p. "Hydric Soil" means a soil that is saturated, flooded or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part. The presence of hydric soil shall be determined following the methods described in the "Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands", q. "Hydrophytic vegetation" means macrophytic plant life growing in water or on a substrate that is at least periodically deficient in oxygen as a result of excessive water content. The presence of hydrophytic vegetation shall be determined following the methods described in the "Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands". r. "In-kind compensation" means to replace wetlands with substitute wetlands whose characteristics closely approximate those destroyed or degraded by a regulated activity. It does not mean replacement "in-category. " s. "Isolated wetlands" means those regulated wetlands which: 1) are outside of and not contiguous to any 100-year floodplain of a lake, river, or stream; and 2) have no contiguous hydric soil or hydrophytic vegetation between the wetland and any surface water. t. "Low intensity land use" includes land uses which are associated with low levels of human disturbance or low wetland habitat impacts, including, but not limited to, passive recreation, open space, or agricultural os forest management land uses, u. "Mitigation" includes avoiding, minimizing or compensating for adverse wetland impacts. Mitigation, in the following order of preference is: 1) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; 2) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation, by using appropriate technology, or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts ; 3) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating or restoring the affected environment; 4) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; 5) Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; 6) Monitoring the impact and the compensation project and taking appropriate corrective measures. Mitigation for individual actions may include a combination of the above measures . V. "Native Vegetation" means plant species which are indigenous to the area in question. w. "Offsite compensation" means to replace wetlands away from the site on which a wetland has been impacted by a regulated activity. X. "Onsite compensation" means to replace wetlands at or adjacent to the site on which a wetland has been impacted by a regulated activity. y. "Out-of-kind compensation" means to replace wetlands with substitute wetlands whose characteristics do not closely approximate those destroyed or degraded by a regulated activity. It does not refer to replacement " out-of -category. " z. "Practicable alternative" means an alternative that is available and capable of being carried out after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes, and having less impacts to regulated wetlands. It may include an area not owned by the applicant which could reasonably have been or be obtained, utilized, expanded, or managed in order to fulfill the basic purpose of the proposed activity. aa. "Puget Sound" means all salt waters of the state of Washington inside the international boundary line between the State of Washington and the province of British Columbia, lying east of one hundred twenty-three degrees, twenty-four minutes west longitude, bb. "Regulated wetlands," means ponds twenty acres or less, including their submerged aquatic beds, and those lands defined as wetlands under the federal clean water act, 33 u.s.c. Sec. 1251 et seq., and rules promulgated pursuant thereto and shall be those areas and 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. Regulated wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands created as mitigation and wetlands modified for approved land use activities shall be considered as regulated wetlands. All category I wetlands shall be considered regulated wetlands. Regulated wetlands do not include category II and III wetlands less than 2,500 square feet and category IV wetlands less than 10,000 square feet. Regulated wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities. The applicant shall bear the burden of proving that the site was not previously a wetland. For identifying and delineating a regulated 8 wetland, local government shall consider the "Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands", cc. "Regulated Activities" means any of the following activities which are directly undertaken or originate in a regulated wetland or its buffer: 1) The removal, excavation, grading, or dredging of soil, sand, gravel, minerals, organic matter, or material of any kind; 2) The dumping, discharging, or filling with any material; 3) The draining, flooding, or disturbing of the water level or water table; 4) The driving of pilings; 5) The placing of obstructions; 6) The construction, reconstruction, demolition, or expansion of any structure; 7) The destruction or alteration of wetlands vegetation through clearing, harvesting, shading, intentional burning, or planting of vegetation that would alter the character of a regulated wetland, provided that these activities are not part of a forest practice governed under chapter 76.09 RCW and its rules; or 8) Activities that result in a significant change of water temperature, a significant change of physical or chemical characteristics of wetlands water sources, including quantity, or the introduction of pollutants. dd. "Repair or maintenance" means an activity that restores the character, scope, size, and design of a serviceable area, structure, or land use to its previously authorized and undamaged condition. Activities that change the character, size, or scope of a project beyond the original design and drain, dredge, fill, flood, or otherwise alter additional regulated wetlands are not included in this definition. ee. "Scrub-shrub wetland" means a regulated wetland with at least 30 percent of its surface area covered by woody vegetation less than 20 feet in height as the uppermost strata, ff. "Serviceable" means presently useable. gg. "Unavoidable and necessary impacts" are impacts to regulated wetlands that remain after a person proposing to alter regulated wetlands has demonstrated that no practicable alternative exists for the proposed project. hh, "Water-dependent" means requiring the use of surface water that would be essential to fulfill the purpose of the proposed project, ii" "Wetlands," for the purposes of inventory, incentives, and nonregulatory programs, means those lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. For the purposes of this definition, wetlands must have one or more of the following attributes: 1) At least periodically, the land supports predominantly hydrophytes ; 2) The substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soil; and 3) The substrate is nonsoil and is saturated with water or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season of each year. jj. "Wfetland buffers" or "wetland buffer zones" is an area that surrounds and protects a wetland from adverse impacts to the functions and values of a regulated wetland. kk. "Wetland classes," "classes of wetlands" or "wetland types" means descriptive classes of the wetlands taxonomic classification system of the United States fish and wildlife service (Cowardin, et al 1978) . 11. "Wetlands permit" means any permit issued, conditioned or denied specifically to implement this chapter. mm. "Wetland edge" means the boundary of a wetland as delineated based on the definitions contained in this chapter. Section 3: General Provisions 3 . 1 Abrogation and Greater Restrictions It is not intended that this chapter repeal, abrogate, or impair any existing regulations, easements, covenants, or deed restrictions. However, where this chapter imposes greater restrictions, the provisions of this chapter shall prevail. 3 . 2 Interpretation The provisions of this chapter shall be held to be minimum requirements in their interpretation and application and shall be liberally construed to serve the purposes of this chapter. Section 4: Lands to Which this Chapter Applies 4.1. Applicability a. When any provision of any other chapter of the [local unit of government] conflicts with this chapter, that which provides more protection to wetlands and wetland buffers shall apply unless specifically provided otherwise in this chapter. b. The [Approval Authority is authorized to adopt written procedures for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this chapter. Prior to fulfilling the requirements of this chapter, [local unit of government] shall not grant any approval or permission to conduct a regulated activity in a wetland or wetland buffer including but not limited to the following: [list all applicable permits and approvals, which may include the following: building permit, commercial or residential; binding site plan; conditional use permit; franchise right-of-way construction permit; grading and clearing permit; master plan development; planned unit development; right-of-way permit; shoreline substantial development permit; shoreline variance; shoreline conditional use permit; shoreline environmental redesignation; unclassified use permit; variance; zone reclassification; subdivision; short subdivision; special use permit; utility and other use permit; zone reclassification] ; or any subsequently adopted permit or required approval not expressly exempted by this chapter. 10 Section 4.2. Maps and Inventory This chapter shall apply to all lots or parcels on which wetlands and/or wetland buffers are located within the jurisdiction of [local unit of government]. The approximate location and extent of wetlands in the [local unit of government] is displayed on [Name of local government map or National Wetlands Inventory] . The [Name of local government map or National Wetlands Inventory] is to be used as a guide to the general location and extent of wetlands. Wetlands not shown on the [Name of local government map or National Wetlands Inventory] are presumed to exist in the [local unit of government] and are protected under all the provisions of this chapter. In the event that any of the wetland designations shown on the maps conflict with the criteria set forth in this chapter the criteria shall control . Section 4.3 Determination of Regulatory Wetland Boundary The exact location of the wetland boundary shall be determined by the applicant through the performance of a field investigation applying the wetland definition provided in Section 2 of this chapter. Qualified professional and technical scientists shall perform wetland delineations using the "Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands". The applicant is required under Section 6.3.c of this chapter to show the location of the wetland boundary on a scaled drawing as a part of the permit application. The [Approval Authority], when requested by the applicant, may waive the delineation of boundary requirement for the applicant and, in lieu of delineation by the applicant, perform the delineation. The [Approval Authority] shall consult with qualified professional scientists and technical experts or other experts as needed to perform the delineation. The applicant may be charged for the costs incurred in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.3.d of this chapter. Where [Approval Authority] performs a wetland delineation at the request of the applicant, such delineation shall be considered a final determination. Where the applicant has provided a delineation of the wetland boundary, the [Approval Authority] shall verify the accuracy of, and may render adjustments to, the boundary delineation. In the event the adjusted boundary delineation is contested by the applicant, the [Approval Authority] shall, at the applicant's expense, obtain expert services to render a final delineation. 4.4 Wetlands Rating System The following [Washington State or Puget Sound Region] rating system is hereby adopted as the rating system for the [local unit of government]. Wetlands buffer widths, replacement ratios and avoidance criteria shall be based on these rating systems. 11 a. Washington state Four-tier Wetlands Rating System. 1) Category I Criteria A. Documented habitat for endangered or threatened fish or animal species or for potentially extirpated plant species recognized by state or federal agencies; or B. High quality native wetland communities, including documented category I or II quality Natural Heritage wetland sites and sites which qualify as a category I or II quality Natural Heritage wetland; or C. High quality, regionally rare wetland communities with irreplaceable ecological functions, including sphagnum bogs and fens, estuarine, wetlands, or mature forested swamps ; or D. Wetlands of exceptional local significance. The criteria for such a designation shall be developed and adopted by the local jurisdiction under appropriate public review and administrative appeal procedures. The criteria may include, but not be limited to, rarity, groundwater recharge areas, significant habitats, unique educational sites or other specific functional values within a watershed or other regional boundary. 2) Category II Criteria A. Regulated wetlands that do not contain features outlined in category I ; and B. Documented habitats for sensitive plant, fish or animal species recognized by federal or state agencies; or C. Rare wetland communities listed in subsection 1)C which are not high quality; or D. Wetland types with significant functions which may not be adequately replicated through creation or restoration. E. Regulated wetlands with significant habitat value based on diversity and size. F. Regulated wetlands contiguous with salmonid fish-bearing waters, including streams where flow is intermittent; or G. Regulated wetlands with significant use by fish and wildlife. 3) Category III Criteria A. Regulated wetlands that do not contain features outlined in category I, II or IV. 4) Category IV Criteria A. Regulated wetlands which do not meet the criteria of a category I or II wetland; and B. Isolated wetlands that are less than or equal to one acre in size; and have only one wetland class; and have only one dominant plant species (monotypic vegetation) ; or C. Isolated wetlands that are less than or equal to two 12 acres in size, and have only one wetland class and a predominance of exotic species. b. Puget Sound Region Wetlands Rating System 1) Category I Criteria A. Documented habitat for endangered or threatened plant, fish, or animal species or for potentially extirpated plant species recognized by state or federal agencies; or B. High quality native wetland communities, including documented category I or II quality Natural Heritage wetland sites and sites which qualify as a category I or II quality Natural Heritage wetland; or C. High quality, regionally rare wetland communities with irreplaceable ecological functions, including sphagnum bogs and fens, estuarine, wetlands, or mature forested swamps ; or D. Wetlands of exceptional local significance. The criteria for such a designation shall be developed and adopted by the local jurisdiction under appropriate public review and administrative appeal procedures. The criteria may include, but not be limited to, rarity, groundwater recharge areas, significant habitats, unique educational sites or other specific functional values within a watershed or other regional boundary. 2) Category II Criteria A. Regulated wetlands that do not contain features outlined in category I ; and B. Documented habitats for sensitive plant, fish or animal species recognized by federal or state agencies; or C. Rare wetland communities listed in subsection 1)C which are not high quality; or D. Wetland types with significant fvinctions which may not be adequately replicated through creation or restoration. In the Puget Sound planning area, these wetlands may be demonstrated by the following characteristics : i. significant peat systems; or ii. forested swamps that have three canopy layers, excluding monotypic stands of red alder averaging 8 inches diameter at breast height or less; or iii. significant spring fed systems; E. Wetlands with significant habitat value based on diversity and size. i. 10 acres or greater in size; and 2 or more wetland classes together with open water at any time during a normal year; or ii. 10 acres or greater in size; and 3 or more wetland classes; and 5 or more subclasses of vegetation in a dispersed pattern; or 13 iii. 5 acres or greater in size; and 40 percent to 60 percent open water at any time during a normal year; and 2 or more subclasses of vegetation in a dispersed pattern ; F. Regulated wetlands contiguous with salmonid fish-bearing waters, including streams where flow is intermittent; or G. Wetlands with significant use by fish and wildlife. 3) Category III Criteria A. Regulated wetlands that do not contain features outlined in category I, II or IV. 4) Category IV Criteria A. Regulated wetlands which do not meet the criteria of a category I or II wetland; and B. Isolated wetlands that are less than or equal to one acre in size; and have only one wetland class; and have only one dominant plant species (monotypic vegetation) ; or C. Isolated wetlands that are less than or equal to two acres in size, and have only one wetland class and a predominance of exotic species. c. Wetland rating categories shall be applied as the regulated wetland exists on the date of adoption of the rating system by the local government; as the regulated wetland may naturally change thereafter; or as the regulated wetland may change in accordance with permitted activities, wetland rating categories shall not be altered to recognize illegal modifications . d. Procedures for applying the wetland rating system. Reserved (NOTE; Ecology's procedures for applying the wetland rating system uniformly will be available in Julv 1991.) Section 5: Regulated Activities and Allowed Activities 5.1 Regulated Activities A permit shall be obtained from local government prior to undertaking the following activities in a regulated wetland or its buffer unless authorized by Section 5.2 below: a. The removal, excavation, grading, or dredging of soil, sand, gravel, minerals, organic matter, or material of any Icind; b. The dumping, discharging, or filling with any material; c. The draining, flooding, or disturbing of the water level or water table; d. The driving of pilings; e. The placing of obstructions; f . The construction, reconstruction, demolition, or expansion of any structure; g. The destruction or alteration of wetlands vegetation 14 through clearing, harvesting, shading, intentional burning, or planting of vegetation that would alter the character of a regulated wetland, provided that these activities are not part of a forest practice governed under chapter 76.09 RCW and its rules; or h. Activities that result in a significant change of water temperature, a significant change of physical or chemical characteristics of wetlands water sources, including quantity, or the introduction of pollutants. 5.2 Allowed Activities The following uses shall be allowed within a wetland or wetland buffer to the extent that they are not prohibited by any other chapter or law and provided they are conducted using best management practices, except where such activities result in the conversion of a regulated wetland or wetland buffer to a use to which it was not previously subjected and provided further that forest practices and conversions shall be governed by Chapter 76.09 RCW and its irules: a. Conservation or preservation of soil, water, vegetation, fish, shellfish, and other wildlife; b. Outdoor recreational activities, including fishing, birdwatching, hiking, boating, horseback riding, swimming, canoeing, and bicycling; c. The harvesting of wild crops in a manner that is not injurious to natural reproduction of such crops and provided the harvesting does not require tilling of soil, planting of crops, or alteration of the wetland by changing existing topography, water conditions or water sources; d. Existing and ongoing agricultural activities including farming, horticulture, aquaculture, irrigation, ranching or grazing, of animals. Activities on areas lying fallow as part of a conventional rotational cycle are part of an ongoing operation. Activities which bring an area into agricultural use are not part of an ongoing operation. An operation ceases to be ongoing when the area on which it was conducted has been converted to another use or has lain idle so long that modifications to the hydrological regime are necessary to resume operations. e. The maintenance (but not construction) of drainage ditches; f. Education, scientific research, and use of nature trails; g. Navigation aids and boundary markers; h. Boat mooring buoys; 15 i. site investigative work necessary for land use application submittals such as surveys, soil logs, percolation tests and other related activities. In every case, wetland impacts shall be minimized and disturbed areas shall be immediately restored; and j . The following uses are allowed within wetlands and/or wetland buffers provided that written notice at least ten days prior to the commencement of such work has been given to the [Approval Authority] and provided that wetland impacts are minimized and that disturbed areas are immediately restored : 1) Normal maintenance, repair, or operation of existing serviceable structures, facilities, or improved areas. Maintenance and repair does not include any modification that changes the character, scope, or size of the original structure, facility, or improved area and does not include the construction of a maintenance road and 2) Minor modification of existing serviceable structures within a buffer zone where modification does not adversely impact wetland functions. 5.3 Special Permit Uses Any activity other than those specified in Section 5.2 may not be conducted in wetlands or wetland buffers except upon issuance of a Wetland Permit by the [Approval Authority] . Section 6. Procedures for Wetland Permits 6.1 Permit Requirements, Compliance Except as specifically provided in Section 5.2, no regulated activity shall occur or be permitted to occur within a regulated wetland or wetland buffer without a written permit from the [Approval Authority] . Any alteration approved by such written permit shall comply fully with the requirements and purposes of this chapter, other applicable regulations, and any terms or conditions of said permit. All activities that are not allowed or permitted shall be prohibited. 6.2 Wetland Permits, Extensions Application for a Wetland Permit to conduct any regulated activity not specifically authorized by Section 5.2 within a wetland or wetland buffer shall be made to the [Approval Authority] on forms furnished by that office. Permits shall normally be valid for a period of three years from the date of issue and shall expire at the end of that time unless a longer or shorter period is specified by the [Approval Authority] upon issuance of the permit. 16 An extension of an original permit may be granted upon written request to the [Approval Authority] by the original permit holder or the successor in title. Prior to the granting of an extension, the [Approval Authority] shall require updated studies and/or additional hearings if, in its judgement, the original intent of the permit is altered or enlarged by the renewal, if the circumstances relevant to the review and issuance of the original permit have changed substantially, or if the applicant failed to abide by the terms of the original permit. 6.3 Permit Applications a. Request for Determination of Applicability Any person seeking to determine whether a proposed activity or an area is subject to this chapter may request in writing a determination from the [Approval Authority] . Such a request for determination shall contain plans, data, and other information as may be specified by the [Approval Authority) . b. Pre-permit Consultations Any person intending to apply for a Wetland Permit is strongly encouraged, but not required, to meet with the [Approval Authority) during the earliest possible stages of project planning in order to discuss wetland impact avoidance and minimization, and compensation before large commitments have been made to a particular project design. Effort put into preapplication consultations and planning will help applicants create projects which will be more quickly and easily processed. c. Information Requirements Unless the [Approval Authority] waives one or more of the following information requirements, applications for a Wetland Permit under this chapter shall include: 1) A description and maps overlaid on an aerial photograph at a scale no smaller than 1"=400' showing the entire parcel of land owned by the applicant and the exact boundary pursuant to Section 4.3 of the wetland on the parcel; 2) A description of the vegetative cover of the wetland and adjacent area including dominant species; 3) A site plan for the proposed activity overlaid on an aerial photograph at a scale no smaller than 1"=400' showing the location, width, depth and length of all existing and proposed structures, roads, sewage treatment, and installations within the wetland and its buffer; 4) The exact sites and specifications for all regulated activities including the amounts and methods; 5) Elevations of the site and adjacent lands within the wetland and its buffer at contour intervals of no greater than 5 feet; 6) Top view and typical cross-section views of the wetland i » 17 and its buffer to scale; 7) The purposes of the project and an explanation why the proposed activity cannot be located at other sites including an explanation of how the proposed activity is dependent upon wetlands or water-related resources as described in Section 7.2 of this chapter; and 8) Specific means to mitigate any potential adverse environmental impacts of the applicant's proposal. The [Approval Authority] may require additional information, including, but not limited to, an assessment of wetland functional characteristics, including a discussion of the methodology used; documentation of the ecological, aesthetic, economic, or other values of a wetland; a study of flood, erosion, or other hazards at the site and the effect of any protective measures that might be taken to reduce such hazards; and any other information deemed necessary to verify compliance with the provisions of this chapter or to evaluate the proposed use in terms of the purposes of this chapter. The [Approval Authority] shall maintain and make available to the public, all information applicable to any wetland and its buffer. d. Filing Fees At the time of an application or request for letter of delineation, the applicant shall pay a filing fee as determined by the [Approval Authority] . Sufficient fees shall be charged to the applicant to cover the costs of evaluation of the application or request for delineation. These fees may be used by the [Approval Authority] to retain expert consultants to provide services pertaining to wetland boundary determinations, functional assessments, and evaluation of mitigation measures. As deemed necessary by the [Approval Authority], the [Approval Authority] may assess additional reasonable fees as needed to monitor and evaluate permit compliance and mitigation measures. e. Notification Upon receipt of the completed permit application, the [Approval Authority] shall notify the individuals and agencies, including federal and state agencies, having jurisdiction over or an interest in the matter to provide such individuals and agencies an opportunity to comment. The [Approval Authority) shall establish a mailing list of all interested persons and agencies who wish to be notified of such applications. f. Notice on Title 1) The owner of any property with field verified presence of wetland or wetland buffer pursuant to Section 4.3 on which a development proposal is submitted shall file for record with the appropriate Records Division a notice approved by the 18 [Approval Authority] in a form substantially as set forth in (2) , below. Such notice shall provide notice in the public record of the presence of a wetland or wetland buffer, the application of this chapter to the property, and that limitations on actions in or affecting such wetlands and their buffers may exist. The applicant shall submit proof that the notice has been filed for record before the [local unit of government] shall approve any development proposal for such site. The notice shall run with the land and failure to provide such notice to any purchaser prior to transferring any interest in the property shall be in violation of this chapter. (NOTE; The form for such a notice may shall be developed and adopted by the local jurisdiction under appropriate administrative guidelines or rule procedures) 2) Form of Notice: WETLAND AND/OR WETLAND BUFFER NOTICE Legal Description: Present owner: NOTICE: This property contains wetlands or their buffers as defined by [local unit of government] Ordinance. The property was the subject of a development proposal for ftype of permit) application # filed on rdate) Restrictions on use or alteration of the wetlands or their buffers may exist due to natural conditions of the property and resulting regulations. Review of such application has provided information on the location of wetlands or wetland buffers and restrictions on their use through setback areas. A copy of the plan showing such setback areas is attached hereto. Signature of owner STATE OF WASHINGTON) On this day personally appeared before COUNTY OF ) me to me known to be the individual (s) described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they signed the same r » • 19 as their free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein stated. Given under my hand and official seal this day of NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the state of Washington, residing at 6.4 Permit Processing a. Consolidation The [Approval Authority] shall, to the extent practicable and feasible, consolidate the processing of wetlands related aspects of other [local unit of government] regulatory programs which affect activities in wetlands, such as subdivision, clearing and grading, floodplain, and environmentally sensitive chapter, etc., with the Wetland Permit process established herein so as to provide a timely and coordinated permit process. b. Completeness of Application No later than 10 working days after receipt of the permit application the [Approval Authority] shall notify the applicant as to the completeness of the application. An application shall not be deemed complete until and unless all information necessary to evaluate the proposed activity, its impacts, and its compliance with the provisions of this chapter have been provided to the satisfaction of the [Approval Authority] . Such determination of completeness shall not be construed as an approval or denial of the permit application. (NOTE; It is not intended that every permit application be processed through a Public hearing. Local governments may wish to establish various levels of review, including administrative review, for projects depending on the potential impact of different project types on wetlands.) c. Public Hearings Following the submittal of an application determined to be complete by the [Approval Authority], the [Approval Authority shall hold a public hearing on the application, unless the [Approval Authority] finds that the activity is so minor as to not affect a wetland or wetland buffer. The [Approval Authority] shall, at least fifteen (15) days prior to the date of the hearing, confirm that the applicant has: 1) published a notice of the hearing at least once a week on the same day of the week for two consecutive weeks in a newspaper having a general circulation in the [local jurisdiction] ; 20 2) given notice to the latest recorded real property owners as shown by the records of the county assessor within at least three hundred feet of the boundary of the property upon which the regulated activity is proposed; and 3) posted a notice at the proposed site of activity and at public places of assembly near the site of the proposed activity. The notices shall include a brief description of the project, including the location; notice of the time and place of the hearing; notice that the file regarding the permit application is available for public inspection during regular business hours; the address where the file may be inspected; a request for written comments prior to the hearing, and attendance and oral testimony by concerned parties at the hearing. All hearings shall be open to the public. A record of the hearings shall be made. Any person may present evidence and testimony at the hearing. At the hearing, the applicant shall have the burden of demonstrating that the proposed activity will be in accordance with the purposes of this chapter and the standards set forth below. d. Permit Action 1) Upon receipt of a complete application for a permit authorizing activities on a category I wetland or its buffer, local governments shall submit the application to the Washington State Department of Ecology for its review and comment. When such permit applications are submitted, the Washington State Department of Ecology should submit its comments or should request an extension of the review period within 30 days. Extensions may be up to 30 days in length. When svibmitted, no permit shall be issued under this subsection prior to receipt of such comments or the expiration of the time period or any extension. 2) The [Council, Board, or Commission] shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a permit application within (30) working days of the public hearing, except that where additional information is required by the [Council, Board, or Commission], it may extend this period by 60 days. In acting on the application, the [Council, Board, or Commission] shall in writing deny, permit, or conditionally permit the proposed activity. If a decision must be made in a 90 day period and there is insufficient information or time to process the application, a denial will be issued. I . 2X Section 7: standards for Permit Decisions a. A permit shall only be granted if the permit, as conditioned, is consistent with the provisions of this chapter. Additionally, permits shall only be granted if: 1) A proposed action avoids adverse impacts to regulated wetlands or their buffers or takes affirmative and appropriate measures to minimize and compensate for unavoidable impacts; 2) The proposed activity results in no net loss; or 3) Denial of a permit would cause an extraordinary hardship on the applicant. b. Wetlands permits shall not be effective and no activity thereunder shall be allowed during the time provided to file a permit appeal. 7.1 Wetland Buffers a. Standard Buffer Zone Widths Wetland buffer zones shall be required for all regulated activities adjacent to regulated wetlands. Any wetland created, restored or enhanced as compensation for approved wetland alterations shall also include the standard buffer ^ required for the category of the created, restored, or enhanced wetland. All buffers shall be measured from the wetland boundary as surveyed in the field pursuant to the requirements of Section 2. The width of the wetland buffer zone shall be determined according to wetland category and the proposed land use. 1) Category I High intensity 300 feet Low intensity 200 feet 2) Category II High intensity 200 feet Low intensity 100 feet 3) Category III High intensity 100 feet Low intensity 50 feet 4) Category IV High intensity 50 feet Low intensity 25 feet (NOTE: These buffer ranges have been established to reflect the impact of intense and uses on wetland functions and values. If local jurisdictions choose to adopt a single standard buffer width from within these ranges additional criteria should be added which will result in a reduction or increase in the standard based on ^ landuse intensity and its impact on existing habitat values.) 22 b. Increased Wetland Buffers Zone Width The [Approval Authority] shall require increased standard buffer zone widths on a case-by-case basis when a larger buffer is necessary to protect wetlands functions and values based on local conditions. This determination shall be supported by appropriate documentation showing that it is reasonably related to protection of the functions and values of the regulated wetland. Such determination shall be attached as a permit condition and shall demonstrate that: 1) a larger buffer is necessary to maintain viable populations of existing species; or 2) the wetland is used by species proposed or listed by the federal government or the state as endangered, threatened, rare, sensitive or monitor, critical or outstanding potential . habitat for those species or has unusual nesting or resting sites such as heron rookeries or raptor nesting trees; or 3) the adjacent land is susceptible to severe erosion and erosion control measures will not effectively prevent adverse wetland impacts; or 4) the adjacent land has minimal vegetative cover or slopes greater than 15 percent. c. Reduction of Standard Wetland Buffer Zone Width The [Approval Authority] may reduce the standard wetland buffer zone widths on a case-by-case basis where it can be demonstrated that: 1) the adjacent land is extensively vegetated and has less than 15 percent slopes and that no direct or indirect, short - term or long-term, adverse impacts to regulated wetlands, as determined by the [Approval Authority] , will result from a regulated activity. The [Approval Authority] may require long-term monitoring of the project and subsequent corrective actions if adverse impacts to regulated wetlands are discovered; or 2) the project includes a buffer enhancement plan using native vegetation which substantiates that an enhanced buffer will improve the functional attributes of the buffer to provide additional protection for wetlands functions and values. An enhanced buffer shall not result in greater than a 25 percent reduction in the buffer width, and the reduced buffer shall not be less than 25 feet. d. Standard Wetland Buffer Width Averaging Standard wetland buffer zones may be modified by averaging buffer widths. Wetland buffer width averaging shall be allowed only where the applicant demonstrates all of the following: l)that averaging is necessary to avoid an extraordinary hardship to the applicant caused by circumstances peculiar to the property; 2) that the wetland contains variations in sensitivity due to existing physical characteristics; 3) that low intensity land uses would be located adjacent to 23 areas where buffer width is reduced, and that such low intensity land uses are guaranteed in perpetuity by covenant, deed restriction, easement, or other legally binding mechanism; 4) that width averaging will not adversely impact the wetland functional values; and 5) that the total area contained within the wetland buffer after averaging is no less than that contained within the standard buffer prior to averaging. In no instance shall the buffer width be reduced by more than 50% of the standard buffer or be less than 25 feet. e. Except as otherwise specified, wetland buffer zones shall be retained in their natural condition. Where buffer disturbance has occurred during construction, revegetation with native vegetation may be required. f. Permitted Uses in a Wetland Buffer Zone Regulated activities shall not be allowed in a buffer zone except for the following: 1) activities having minimal adverse impacts on buffers and no adverse impacts on regulated wetlands. These may include low intensity, passive recreational activities such as pervious trails, nonpermanent wildlife watching blinds, short term scientific or educational activities, and sports fishing or hunting; 2) with respect to category III and IV wetlands, stormwater management facilities having no reasonable alternative on-site location; or 3) with respect to category III and IV wetlands, development having no feasible alternative location. g. Building Setback Lines. A building setback line of 15 feet is required from the edge of any wetland buffer. Minor structural intrusions into the area of the building setback may be allowed if the [Approval Authority] determines that such intrusions will not negatively impact the wetland. The setback shall be identified on a site plan which is filed as an attachment to the notice on title required by section 6.2. f. 7.2 Avoiding Wetland Impacts a. Regulated activities shall not be authorized in a regulated wetland except where it can be demonstrated that the impact is both unavoidable and necessary or that all reasonable economic uses are denied. b. With respect to category I wetlands, an applicant must demonstrate that denial of the permit would impose an extraordinary hardship on the part of the applicant brought about by circumstances peculiar to the subject property. 24 c. With respect to category II and III wetlands, the following provisions shall apply; 1) For water-dependent activities, unavoidable and necessary impacts can be demonstrated where there are no practicable alternatives which would not involve a wetland or which would not have less adverse impact an a wetland, and would not have other significant adverse environmental consequences. 2) Where nonwater-dependent activities are proposed, it shall be presumed that adverse impacts are avoidable. This presumption may be rebutted upon a demonstration that: A. the basic project purpose cannot reasonably be accomplished utilizing one or more other sites in the general region that would avoid, or result in less, adverse impact on a regulated wetland; and . B. a reduction in the size, scope, configuration, or density of the project as proposed and all alternative designs of the project as proposed that would avoid, or result in less, adverse impact on a regulated wetland or its buffer will not accomplish the basic purpose of the project; and C. in cases where the applicant has rejected alternatives to the project as proposed due to constraints such as zoning, deficiencies of infrastructure, or parcel size, the applicant has made reasonable attempt to remove or accommodate such constraints. d. With respect to category IV wetlands, unavoidable and necessary impacts can be demonstrated where the proposed activity is the only reasonable alternative which will accomplish the applicant's objectives. e. Reasonable Use If an applicant for a development proposal demonstrates to the satisfaction of the [Approval Authority] that application of these standards would deny all reasonable economic use of the property, development as conditioned shall be allowed if the applicant also demonstrates all of the following to the satisfaction of the [Approval Authority) : i. that the proposed project is water-dependent or requires access to the wetland as a central element of its basic function, or is not water-dependent but has no practicable alternative pursuant to Section 7.2; ii. that no reasonable use with less impact on the wetland and its buffer is possible (e.g., agriculture, aquaculture, transfer or sale of development rights or credits, sale of open Space easements, etc.); iii. that there is no feasible on-site alternative to the proposed activities, including reduction in density, phasing of project implementation, change in timing of 25 activities, revision of road and lot layout, and/or related site planning considerations, that would allow a reasonable economic use with less adverse impacts to wetlands and wetland buffers; iv. that the proposed activities will result in minimum feasible alteration or impairment to the wetland 's functional characteristics and its existing contours, vegetation, fish and wildlife resources, and hydrological conditions; v. that disturbance of wetlands has been minimized by locating any necessary alteration in wetland buffers to the extent possible; vi. that the proposed activities will not jeopardize the continued existence of endangered, threatened, rare, sensitive, or monitor species as listed by the federal government or the State of Washington; vii. that the proposed activities will not cause significant degradation of groundwater or surface-water quality; viii. that the proposed activities comply with all state, local and federal laws, including those related to sediment control, pollution control, floodplain restrictions, and on-site wastewater disposal; ix. that any and all alterations to wetlands and wetland buffers will be mitigated as provided in Section 7.5.g. X. that there will be no damage to nearby public or private property and no threat to the health or safety of people on or off the property; and xi. that the inability to derive reasonable economic use of the property is not the result of actions by the applicant in segregating or dividing the property and creating the undevelopable condition after the effective date of this chapter. If the [Approval Authority] determines that alteration of a wetland and/or wetland buffer is necessary and unavoidable, the [Approval Authority] shall set forth in writing in the file it maintains regarding a permit application its findings with respect to each of the items listed in this subsection. 4) With respect to category IV wetlands, unavoidable and necessary impacts can be demonstrated where the proposed activity is the only reasonable alternative which will accomplish the applicant's objectives. 26 7.3 Minimizing Wetlands Impacts a. After it has been determined by the [Approval Authority] pursuant to Section 7.2 that losses of wetland are necessary and unavoidable or that all reasonable economic use has been denied, the applicant shall take deliberate measures to minimize wetland impacts. b. Minimizing impacts to wetlands shall include but is not limited to: 1) limiting the degree or magnitude of the regulated activity; 2) limiting the implementation of the regulated activity; 3) using appropriate and best available technology; 4) taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts; 5) sensitive site design and siting of facilities and construction staging areas away from regulated wetlands and their buffers; 6) involving resource agencies early in site planning; and 7) providing protective measures such as siltation curtains, hay bales and other siltation prevention measures, scheduling the regulated activity to avoid interference with wildlife and fisheries rearing, resting, nesting or spawning activities. 7.4 Limited Density Transfer For development proposals on lands containing wetland buffers, the [Approval Authority] shall determine allowable dwelling units for residential development proposals based on the formulas below. The following formula for density calculations is designed to provide incentives for the preservation of wetlands and wetland buffers, flexibility in design, and consistent treatment of different types of development proposals. The formula shall apply to all properties within existing residential zones on which wetlands and wetland buffers are located. The maximum number of dwelling units (DU) for a lot or parcel which contains wetlands and wetland buffers shall be equal to: (Acres in Wetland Buffer) (DU/Acre) (Density Credit) The density credit figure is derived from the following table: Percentaae of site in buffers Densitv Credit 1-10% 100% 11-20% 90% 21-30% 80% 31-40% 70% 41-50% 60% 51-60% 50% 61-70% 40% I 27 71-80% 30% 81-90% 20% 91-99% 10% The density credit can only be transferred within the development proposal site. To the extent that application of the formula may result in lot sizes less than the minimum allowed by the underlying district, they are hereby authorized provided that the resultant lot is of sufficient size for a on-site waste disposal system if no sanitary sewer system exists. The [Approval Authority] shall not allow credit for density for the portions of the site occupied by wetlands. 7.5 Acting on the Application a. Special Use Permit Conditions 1) Sensitive Area Tracts As a condition of any permit issued pursuant to this chapter, the permit holder shall be required to create a separate sensitive area tract or tracts containing the areas determined to be wetland and/or wetland buffer in field investigations performed pursuant to Section 4.3 Sensitive area tracts are legally created tracts containing wetlands and their buffers that shall remain undeveloped in perpetuity. Sensitive area tracts are an integral part of the lot in which they are created, are not intended for sale, lease or transfer, and shall be included if the area of the parent lot for purposes of subdivision method and minimum lot size. A. Protection of Sensitive Area Tracts The [Approval Authority] shall require, as a condition of any permit issued pursuant to this chapter, that the sensitive area tract or tracts created pursuant to Section 7. 5. a be protected by one of the following methods : i. The permit holder shall convey an irrevocable offer to dedicate to the [local unit of government] or other public or non-profit entity specified by the [Approval Authority] an easement for the protection of native vegetation within a wetland and/or its buffer or ii. The permit holder shall establish and record a permanent and irrevocable deed restriction on the property title of all lots containing a sensitive area tract or tracts created as a condition of this permit, such deed restriction (s) shall prohibit in Perpetuity the development, alteration, or disturbance of vegetation within the sensitive area tract except for purposes of habitat enhancement as part of an enhancement project which has received prior written 28 approval from [local unit of government], and any other agency with jurisdiction over such activity. (NOTE: The following is is suggested language) 2) The deed restriction shall also contain the following language : A. "Before beginning and during the course of any grading, building construction, or other development activity on a lot or development site subject to this deed restriction, the common boundary between the area subject to the deed restriction and the area of development activity must be fenced or otherwise marked to the satisfaction of [local unit of government]." B. Regardless of the legal method of protection chosen by the [Approval Authority], responsibility for maintaining tracts shall be held by a homeowners association, adjacent lot owners, the permit applicant or designee, or other appropriate entity as approved by the [Approval Authority] . C. The following note shall appear on the face of all plats, short plats, PUDS, or other approved site plans containing separate sensitive area tracts, and shall be recorded on the title of record for all affected lots: NOTE: All lots adjoining separate sensitive area tracts identified as Native Vegetation Protection Easements or protected by deed restriction are responsible for maintenance and protection of the tracts. Maintenance includes insuring that no alterations occur within the separate tract and that all vegetation remains undisturbed unless the express written authorization of the [local unit of government) has been received. The common boundary between a separate sensitive area tract and the adjacent land must be permanently identified. This identification shall include permanent wood or metal signs on treated or metal posts. Signs shall be worded as follows: "Protection of this natural area is in your care. Alteration or disturbance is prohibited by law. Please call the [Approval Authority] for more information." Sign locations and size specifications shall be approved by the [Approval Authority] . The [Approval Authority] shall require permanent fencing of the sensitive area tract or tracts when there is a substantial likelihood of the presence of domestic grazing animals within the 29 development proposal. The [Approval Authority] shall also require as a permit condition that such fencing be provided if, subsequent to approval of the development proposal, domestic grazing animals are in fact introduced. 3) Additional Conditions A. The location of the outer extent of the wetland buffer and the areas to be disturbed pursuant to an approved permit shall be marked in the field, and such field narking shall be approved by the [Approval Authority) prior to the commencement of permitted activities. Such field markings shall be maintained throughout the duration of the permit. B. The [Approval Authority] may attach such additional conditions to the granting of a special use permit as deemed necessary to assure the preservation and protection of affected wetlands and to assure compliance with the purposes and requirements of this chapter. b. Bonding 1) Performance Bonds The [Approval Authority] shall require the applicant of a development proposal to post a cash performance bond or other security acceptable to the [Approval Authority] in an amount and with surety and conditions sufficient to fulfill the requirements of Section 7.5.f and, in addition, to secure compliance with other conditions and limitations set forth in the permit. The amount and the conditions of the bond shall be consistent with the purposes of this chapter. In the event of a breach of any condition of any such bond, the [Approval Authority] may institute an action in a court of competent jurisdiction upon such bond and prosecute the same to judgement and execution. The [Approval Authority] shall release the bond upon determining that: A. all activities, including any required compensatory mitigation, have been completed in compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit and the requirements of this chapter; B. upon the posting by the applicant of a maintenance bond. Until such written release of the bond, the principal or surety cannot be terminated or canceled. 2) Maintenance Bonds The [approval Authority] shall require the holder of a development permit issued pursuant to this chapter to post a cash performance bond or other security acceptable to the 30 [Approval Authority] in an amount and with surety and conditions sufficient to guarantee that structures, improvements, and mitigation required by the permit or by this chapter perform satisfactorily for a minimum of two (2) years after they have been completed. The [Approval Authority] shall release the maintenance bond upon determining that performance standards established for evaluating the effectiveness and success of the structures, improvements, and/or compensatory mitigation have been satisfactorily met for the required period. For compensation projects, the performance standards shall be those contained in the mitigation plan developed and approved during the permit review process pursuant to Section 7.5.g. The maintenance bond applicable to a compensation project shall not be released until the [Approval Authority determines that performance standards established for evaluating the effect and success of the project have been met. c. Other Laws and Regulations No permit granted pursuant to this chapter shall remove an applicant's obligation to comply in all respects with the applicable provisions of any other Federal, State, or local law or regulation, including but not limited to the acquisition of any other required permit or approval. d. Suspension, Revocation In addition to other penalties provided for elsewhere, the [Approval Authority] may suspend or revoke a permit if it finds that the applicant or permittee has not complied with any or all of the conditions or limitations set forth in the permit, has exceeded the scope of work set forth in the permit, or has failed to undertake the project in the manner set forth in the approved application. e. Publication of Notice The [Approval Authority] shall cause notice of its denial, issuance, conditional issuance, revocation, or suspension of a permit to be published in a daily newspaper having a broad circulation in the area wherein the wetland lies. Such notice shall be published within five (5) working days of the decision or order and shall include at least the following: 1) A brief description of the project, including location; 2) The decision or order of the [Approval Authority] with respect to the project; 3) Notification that the permit file is open for public inspection during regular business hours, and the address where such file may be inspected; and 4) A statement of the procedures regarding appeal or judicial review of the decision, if applicable. 31 f. Compensating for Wetlands Impacts. As a condition of any permit allowing alteration of wetlands and/or wetland buffers, or as an enforcement action pursuant to Section 8.2, the [Approval Authority] shall require that the applicant engage in the restoration, creation or enhancement of wetlands and their buffers in order to offset the impacts resulting form the applicant's or violator's actions. The Applicant shall develop a plan that provides for land acquisition, construction, maintenance and monitoring of replacement wetlands that recreate as nearly as possible the original wetlands in terms of acreage, function, geographic location and setting, and that are larger than the original wetlands. The overall goal of any compensatory project shall be no net loss of wetlands function and acreage and to strive for a net resource gain in wetlands over present conditions. Compensation shall be completed prior to wetland destruction, where possible. Compensatory mitigation shall follow an approved mitigation plan pursuant to Section 7.5.g and shall meet the following minimvim performance standards: 1) Given the uncertainties in scientific knowledge and the need for expertise and monitoring, wetland compensatory projects may be permitted only when the [Approval Authority] finds that the compensation project is associated with an activity or development otherwise permitted and that the restored, created, or enhanced wetland will be as persistent as the wetland it replaces. Additionally, Applicants shall: A. demonstrate sufficient scientific expertise, supervisory capability, and financial resources to carry out the pro j ect ; B. demonstrate the capability for monitoring the site and to make corrections during this period if the project fails to meet projected goals; and C. protect and manage or provide for the protection and management of the compensation area to avoid further development or degradation and to provide for long-term persistence of the compensation area. 2) Wetlands Restoration and Creation. A. Any person who alters regulated wetlands shall restore or create equivalent areas or greater areas of wetlands than those altered in order to compensate for wetland losses. B. Where feasible, restored or created wetlands shall be a higher category than the altered wetland. C. Compensation areas shall be determined according to function, acreage, type, location, time factors, ability to be self sustaining and projected success. Wetland functions and values shall be calculated using the best 32 professional judgement of a qualified wetland ecologist using the best available techniques. Multiple compensation projects may be proposed for one project in order to best achieve the goal of no net loss. D. Acreage replacement ratio. The following ratios apply to creation or restoration which is in-kind, onsite, timed prior to or concurrent with alteration, and has a high probability of success. These ratios do not apply to remedial actions resulting from illegal alterations. The first number specifies the acreage of wetlands requiring replacement and the second specifies the acreage of wetlands altered. Category I 6:1 Category II or III Forested 3:1 Scrub-shrub 2:1 Emergent 1.5:1 Category IV 1.25:1 i. Increased Replacement Ratio. The [Approval Authority] may increase the ratios under the following circumstances: -uncertainty as to the probable success of the proposed restoration or creation; - significant period of time between destruction and replication of wetland functions; -projected losses in functional value; or -off site compensation. ii. Decreased Replacement Ratio. The [Approval Authority] may decrease these ratios under the following circumstance: -findings of special studies coordinated with agencies with expertise which demonstrate that no net loss of wetland function or value is attained under the decreased ratio. iii. In all cases, a minimum acreage replacement ratio of 1:1 shall be required. 3) Wetlands Enhancement. A. Any Applicant proposing to alter wetlands may propose to enhance existing significantly degraded wetlands in order to compensate for wetland losses. Applicants proposing to enhance wetlands shall identify how enhancement conforms to the overall goals and requirements of the local wetlands protection program and established regional goals. B. A wetlands enhancement compensation project shall be determined pursuant to Sections 7.5.f, provided that enhancement for one function and value will not degrade another function or value and that acreage replacement I 33 ratios shall be doubled to recognize existing functional values and, provided further, that category I wetlands shall not be enhanced. 4) Wetland Type A. In-kind compensation shall be provided except where the applicant can demonstrate that: i. the wetland system is already significantly degraded and out-of-kind replacement will result in a wetland with greater functional value; ii. scientific problems such as exotic vegetation and changes in watershed hydrology make implementation of in-kind compensation impossible; or ill. out-of-kind replacement will best meet identified regional goals (eg. , replacement of historically diminished wetland types) . iv. where out-of-kind replacement is accepted, greater acreage replacement ratios may be required to compensate for lost functional values. 5) Location. A. On-site compensation shall be provided except where the applicant can demonstrate that: i. the hydrology and ecosystem of the original wetland and those who benefit from the hydrology and ecosystem will not be substantially damaged by the onsite loss; and ii. onsite compensation is not scientifically feasible due to problems with hydrology, soils, waves, or other factors ; or iii. compensation is not practical due to potentially adverse impact from surrounding land uses; or iv. existing functional values at the site of the proposed restoration are significantly greater than lost wetland functional values; or V. that established regional goals for flood storage, flood conveyance, habitat or other wetland functions have been established and strongly justify location of compensatory measures at another site. B. Off site compensation shall occur within the same watershed as the wetland loss occurred, provided that category IV wetlands may be replaced outside of the watershed when there is no reasonable alternative. C. In selecting compensation sites, applicants shall pursue siting in the following order of preference: i. upland sites which were formerly wetlands; ii. idled upland sites generally having bare ground or vegetative cover consisting primarily of exotic introduced species, weeds, or emergent vegetation; iii. other disturbed upland. 34 6) Timing. A. Where feasible, compensatory projects shall be completed prior to activities that will disturb wetlands, and immediately after activities that will temporarily disturb wetlands. In all other cases, except for category I wetlands, compensatory projects should be completed prior to use or occupancy of the activity or development which was conditioned upon such compensation. Construction of compensation projects shall be timed to reduce impacts to existing wildlife and flora. 7) Cooperative Restoration, Creation or Enhancement Projects. A. The [Approval authority] may encourage, facilitate, and approve cooperative projects wherein a single applicant or other organization with demonstrated capability may undertake a compensation project with funding from other applicants under the following circumstances: i. restoration, creation or enhancement at a particular site may be scientifically difficult or impossible; or ii. creation of one or several larger wetlands may be preferable to many small wetlands. B. Persons proposing cooperative compensation projects shall: i. submit a joint permit application; ii. demonstrate compliance with all standards; iii. demonstrate the organizational and fiscal capability to act cooperatively; and iv. demonstrate that long term management can and will be provided. ,,: - . Mitigation Plans All wetland restoration, creation and/or enhancement projects required pursuant to this chapter either as a permit condition or as the result of an enforcement action shall follow a mitigation plan prepared by qualified wetland professionals approved by the [Approval Authority] . The applicant or violator shall receive written approval of the mitigation plan by the Approval Authority prior to commencement of any wetland restoration, creation or enhancement activity. Unless the [Approval Authority], in consultation with qualified wetland professionals, determines, based on the size and nature of the development proposal, the nature of the impacted wetland, and the degree of cumulative impacts on the wetland from other development proposals, that the scope and specific requirements of the mitigation plan may be reduced from what is listed below, the mitigation plan shall contain at least the following components : 1) Baseline Information. A written assessment and accompanying maps of the: -impacted wetland including, at a minimum, wetland delineation; existing wetland acreage; vegetative, faunal % 35 and hydrologic characteristics; soil and substrate conditions; topographic elevations and -compensation site, if different from the impacted wetland site, including at a minimum: existing acreage; vegetative, faunal and hydrologic conditions; relationship within watershed and to existing waterbodies; soil and siibstrate conditions, topographic elevations; existing and proposed adjacent site conditions; buffers; and ownership. 2) Environmental Goals and Objectives. A written report shall be provided identifying goals and objectives and describing: -the purposes of the compensation measures including a description of site selection criteria, identification of compensation goals; identification of target evaluation species and resource functions, dates for beginning and completion, and a complete description of the structure and functional relationships sought in the new wetland. The goals and objectives shall be related to the functions and values of the original wetland or if out — of -kind, the type of wetland to be emulated; and -A review of the available literature and/or experience to date in restoring or creating the type of wetland proposed shall be provided. An analysis of the likelihood of success of the compensation project at duplicating the original wetland shall be provided based on the experiences of comparable projects, if any. An analysis of the likelihood of persistence of the created or restored wetland shall be provided based on such factors as surface and ground water supply and flow patterns, dynamics of the wetland ecosystem; sediment or pollutant influx and/or erosion, periodic flooding and drought, etc., presence of invasive flora or fauna, potential human or animal disturbance, and previous comparable projects, if any. 3) Performance Standards. Specific criteria shall be provided for evaluating whether or not the goals and objectives of the project and for beginning remedial action or contingency measures. Such criteria may include water quality standards, survival rates of planted vegetation, species abundance and , diversity targets, habitat diversity indices, or other ecological, geological or hydrological criteria. 4) Detailed Construction Plans. Written specifications and descriptions of compensation techniques shall be provided including the proposed construction sequence, grading and excavation details, erosion and sediment control features needed for wetland construction and long-term survival, a planting plan specifying plant species, quantities, locations, size, spacing, and density; source of plant materials, 36 propagules, or seeds; water and nutrient requirements for planting; where appropriate, measures to protect plants from predation; specification of substrate stockpiling techniques and planting instructions; descriptions of water control structures and water-level maintenance practices needed to achieve the necessary hydrocycle/hydroperiod characteristics; etc. These written specifications shall be accompanied by detailed site diagrams, scaled cross-sectional drawings, topographic maps showing slope percentage and final grade elevations, and any other drawings appropriate to show construction techniques or anticipated final outcome. The plan shall provide for elevations which are appropriate for the desired habitat type(s) and which provide sufficient tidal prism and circulation data. 5) Monitoring Program. A program outlining the approach for monitoring construction of the compensation project and for assessing a completed project shall be provided. Monitoring may include, but is not limited to: A. Establishing vegetation plots to track changes in plant species composition and density over time; B. using photo stations to evaluate vegetation community response ; C. sampling surface and subsurface waters to determine pollutant loading, and changes from the natural variability of background conditions (pH, nutrients, heavy metals) ; D. measuring base flow rates and storm water runoff to model and evaluate water quality predictions, if appropriate; E. measuring sedimentation rates, if applicable; and F. sampling fish and wildlife populations to determine habitat utilization, species abundance and diversity. A protocol shall be included outlining how the monitoring data will be evaluated by agencies that are tracking the progress of the compensation project. A monitoring report shall be submitted annually, at a minimum, documenting milestones, successes, problems, and contingency actions of the compensation project. The compensation project shall be monitored for a period necessary to establish that performance standards have been met, but not for a period less than five years. 6) Contingency Plan. Identification of potential courses of action, and any corrective measures to be taken when monitoring or evaluation indicates project performance standards are not being met. 7) Permit Conditions. Any compensation project prepared pursuant to this section and approved by the [Approval Authority] shall become part of the application for the permit. 37 8) Performance Bonds and Demonstration of Competence. A demonstration of financial resources, administrative, supervisory, and technical competence and scientific expertise of sufficient standing to successfully execute the compensation project shall be provided. A compensation project manager shall be named and the qualifications of each team member involved in preparing the mitigation plan and implementing and supervising the project shall be provided, including educational background and areas of expertise, training and experience with comparable projects. In addition, bonds ensuring fulfillment of the compensation project, monitoring program, and any contingency measure shall be posted pursuant to Section 7.5 in the amount of one hundred twenty (120) percent of the expected cost of compensation . 9) Regulatory authorities are encouraged to consult with and solicit comments of any federal, state, regional, or local agency, including tribes, having any special expertise with respect to any environmental impact prior to approving a mitigation proposal which includes wetlands compensation. The compensation project proponents should provide sufficient information on plan design and implementation in order for such agencies to comment on the overall adequacy of the mitigation proposal. 10) Compensatory mitigation is not required for regulated activities: A. For which a permit has been obtained that occur only in the buffer or expanded buffer and which have not adverse impacts to regulated wetlands; or B. allowed activities pursuant to Section 5.2 provided such activities utilize best management practices to protect the functions and values of regulated wetlands. 7.6 Appeals Any decision of the [Approval Authority] in the administration of this chapter may be appealed to [hearing body] . The [hearing body] shall give sxibstantial weight to any discretionary decision of the [Approval Authority] rendered pursuant to this Chapter. 7.7 Modification of Wetland Permits A Wetland Permit holder may request and the [Approval Authority] may approve modification of a previously issued Wetland Permit. 7.8 Resubmittal of Denied Permit Applications A Wetland Permit application which has been denied may be modified and resubmitted no earlier than one hundred eighty (180) days following action on the original application. A permit application shall be considered a resubmittal if the site proposed for development was the subject of a Wetland Permit application within the previous one hundred eighty (180) days. 38 Section 8: Temporary Emergency Permit, Enforcement ■■■■- ■,-.»- 8.1 Temporary Emergency Permit ' " Notwithstanding the provisions of this chapter or any other laws to the contrary, the [Approval Authority] may issue a temporary emergency wetlands permit if: a. The [Approval Authority] determines that an unacceptable threat to life or severe loss of property will occur if an emergency permit is not granted; and b. The anticipated threat or loss may occur before a permit can be issued or modified under the procedures otherwise required by this act and other applicable laws. Any emergency permit granted shall incorporate, to the greatest extent practicable and feasible but not inconsistent with the emergency situation, the standards and criteria required for non- emergency activities under this act and shall: a. be limited in duration to the time required to complete the authorized emergency activity, not to exceed 90 days; and b. require, within this 90 day period, the restoration of any wetland altered as a result of the emergency activity, except that if more than the 90 days from the issuance of the emergency permit is required to complete restoration, the emergency permit may be extended to complete this restoration. Issuance of an emergency permit by the [Approval Authority] does not preclude the necessity to obtain necessary approvals from appropriate federal and state authorities. Notice of the issuance of the emergency permit and request for public comments shall be published at least once a week on the same day of the week for two consecutive weeks in a newspaper having a general circulation in the [local jurisdiction] no later than 10 days after issuance of the emergency permit. The emergency permit may be terminated at any time without process upon a determination by the [Approval Authority] that the action was not or is no longer necessary to protect human health or the environment. 8 . 2 Enforcement The [Approval Authority] shall have authority to enforce this chapter, any rule or regulation adopted, and any permit or order issued pursuant to this chapter, against any violation or threatened violation thereof. The [Approval Authority] is authorized to issue violation notices and administrative orders, levy fines, and/or institute legal actions in court. Recourse to > 39 any single remedy shall not preclude recourse to any of the other remedies. Each violation of this chapter, or any rule or regulation adopted, or any permit, permit condition, or order issued pursuant to this chapter, shall be a separate offense, and, in the case of a continuing violation, each day's continuance shall be deemed to be a separate and distinct offense. All costs, fees, and expenses in connection with enforcement actions may be recovered as damages against the violator. a. Enforcement actions shall include: 1) Civil Penalties, Administrative Orders and Actions for Damages and Restoration. A. The [Approval Authority] may bring appropriate actions at law or equity, including actions for injunctive relief, to ensure that no uses are made of a regulated wetland or their buffers which are inconsistent with this chapter or an applicable wetlands protection program. B. The [Approval Authority] may serve upon a person a cease and desist order if an activity being undertaken on regulated wetlands or its buffer is in violation of the act, these rules or a local wetlands protection program. Whenever any person violates this chapter or any permit issued to implement this chapter, the [local unit of government] may issue an order reasonably appropriate to cease such violation and to mitigate any environmental damage resulting therefrom. i. Content of order. The order shall set forth and contain: -A description of the specific nature, extent, and time of violation and the damage or potential damage; and -A notice that the violation or the potential violation cease and desist or, in appropriate cases, the specific corrective action to be taken within a given time. A civil penalty may be issued with the order. -Effective date. The cease and desist order issued under this section shall become effective immediately upon receipt by the person to whom the order is directed. -Compliance. Failure to comply with the terms of a cease and desist order can result in enforcement actions including, but not limited to, the issuance of a civil penalty. C. Any person who undertakes any activity within a regulated wetland or its buffer without first obtaining a permit required by this chapter, except as allowed in Section 5.2, or any person who violates one or more conditions of any permit required by this chapter or of any order issued pursuant to subsection B of this section shall incur a penalty allowed per violation. In the case of a 40 continuing violation, each permit violation and each day of activity without a required pemnit shall be a separate and distinct violation. The penalty amount shall be set in consideration of the previous history of the violator and the severity of the environmental impact of the violation. The penalty provided in this subsection shall be appealable to the superior court within the subject jurisdiction. D. Aiding or abetting. Any person who, through an act of commission or omission procures, aids or abets in the violation shall be considered to have committed a violation for the purposes of the penalty. E. Notice of penalty. Civil penalties imposed under this section shall be imposed by a notice in writing, either by certified mail with return receipt requested or by personal service, to the person incurring the same from the department and/or the [local unit of government], or from both jointly. The notice shall describe the violation, approximate the date(s) of violation, and shall order the acts constituting the violation to cease and desist, or, in appropriate cases, require necessary corrective action within a specific time. F. Application for remission or mitigation. Any person incurring a penalty may apply in writing within thirty days of receipt of the penalty to the [Approval Authority] for remission or mitigation of such penalty. Upon receipt of the application, the [Approval Authority] may remit or mitigate the penalty only upon a demonstration of extraordinary circumstances, such as the presence of information or factors not considered in setting the original penalty. G. Orders and penalties issued pursuant to this subsection may be appealed as provided for by in Section 7.6. H. Criminal penalties shall be imposed on any person who wilfully or negligently violates this chapter or who knowingly makes a false statement, representation, or certification in any application, record or other document filed or required to be maintained under this chapter or who falsifies, tampers with, or knowingly renders inaccurate any monitoring device, record or methodology required to be maintained pursuant to this chapter or pursuant to a Wetland Permit. Section 9: Non-Conforming Activities A regulated activity that was approved prior to the passage of this chapter and to which significant economic resources have been 41 coTomitted pursuant to such approval but which is not in conformity with the provisions of this chapter may be continued subject to the following: a. No such activity shall be expanded, changed, enlarged or altered in any way that increases the extent of its non- conformity without a permit issued pursuant to the provisions of this chapter; b. Except for cases of discontinuance as part of normal agricultural practices, if a non-conforming activity is discontinued for 12 consecutive months, any resumption of the activity shall conform to this chapter; c. If a non-conforming use or activity is destroyed by human activities or an act of God, it shall not be resumed except in conformity with the provisions of this chapter; d. Activities or adjuncts thereof that are or become nuisances shall not be entitled to continue as non-conforming activities. Sttotion 10: Judicial review Any decision or order issued by the [Approval Authority] pursuant to this chapter, including decisions concerning denial, approval, or conditional approval of a Wetland Permit, may be judicially reviewed in the [Circuit Court) , provided that: a. availeOsle administrative remedies, including appeals available pursuant to Section 7.6, have been exhausted; and b. such review is commenced by the filing with the court and the [Approval Authority] of a legal action within thirty (30) working days after service of such order or issuance of notice of such decision, as the case may be. Based on these proceedings and the decision of the court, the [Approval Authority] may, within the time specified by the court, elect to: a. Institute negotiated purchase or condemnation proceedings to acquire an easement or fee interest in the applicant's land; b. Approve the permit application with lesser restrictions or conditions; or c. other appropriate actions ordered by the court that fall within the jurisdiction of the [Approval Authority] . '«) 42 Section 11; Amendments These regulations and the [Name of Local Government Map] may from time to time be amended in accordance with the procedures and requirements in the general statutes and as new information concerning wetland Location, soils, hydrology, flooding, or wetland plants and wildlife become available. Section 12: Severability If any clause, sentence, paragraph, section or part of this chapter or the application thereof to any person or circumstances shall be adjudged by any court of competent Jurisdiction to be invalid, such order or judgement shall be confined in its operation to the controversy in which it was rendered and shall not affect or invalidate the remainder of any part thereof to any other person or circumstances and to this end the provisions of each clause, sentence, paragraph, section or part of this law are hereby declared to be severable. Section 13: Assessment Relief The Assessors [of Local Government] shall consider wetland regulations in determining the fair market value of land. Any owner of an undeveloped wetland who has dedicated an easement or entered into a perpetual conservation restriction with the [local unit of government] or a nonprofit organization to permanently control some or all regulated activities in the wetland shall have that portion of land assessed consistent with those restrictions. Such landowner shall also be exempted from special assessments on the controlled wetland to defray the cost of municipal improvements such as sanitary sewers, storm sewers, and water mains. Section 14 Non-regulatory Incentive Program. Reserved section 15: Codification Section 16: Effective Date STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Mail Stop PV-n • Olympia. Washington 98504-8711 • (206)459-6000 October 24, 1990 Washington State City and County Planning Directors RE: Ecology's Model Ordinance for Wetland Protection The purpose of this letter is to clarify the intent and purpose of Ecology's model ordinance for wetland protection that was distributed earlier this month. The model ordinance, which we developed pursuant to Governor Gardner's Executive Order 90-04, is a voluntary technical assistance recomniendation. The standards and policies contained within the ordinance represent a careful compilation of the best sections of existing local ordinances that protect wetlands and the expertise of Ecology staff and others. We believe that the model is a tool that local government may elect to use in order to achieve no net loss of wetlands within their jurisdiction. The Department of Ecology has no authority to require that local government adopt the model ordinance or any of its policies and standards. Most of you are aware that Ecology has established a Wetland Protection Grant Program and many of you have requested grant funds in order to implement wetland protection regulations. We fully anticipate that local governments choosing to adopt this ordinance under the grant program will choose to modify the document as a result of public comment and the need to tailor it to fit the particular characteristics of each community. We do anticipate that these grant- funded local programs will generally reflect the intent of Ecology's model ordinance to achieve a goal of no net loss of wetland functions and values. Finally, this ordinance is not a static document. We expect to revise the model ordinance to incorporate the knowledge gained by local governments as you implement wetland protection programs during this grant process and new technical information regarding wetlands as it becomes available. Please call me at (206) A59-6777 or SCAN 585-6777 or Wendy El£ot of my staff at (206) A93-2681 or SCAN 585-2681 if you have any questions regarding this letter or the model ordinance. Sincerely, M^^-Jn- %) D. Rodney Mack, Manager Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program DRM:la cc: Wendy Eliot » ATTACHMENT N-6 Washington State Wetlands Rating System (• % WASHINGTON STATE WETLANDS RATING SYSTEM for RATING THE RESOURCE VALUE OF REGULATED WETLANDS TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND 2 INTRODUCTION 2 OVERVIEW FOR USERS: HOW THE WETLANDS RATING SYSTEM WORKS 4 WHEN TO USE THE WETLANDS RATING SYSTEM 4 SUMMARY OF THE RATIONALE BEHIND THE CATEGORIES 6 HOW TO USE THE WETLANDS RATING SYSTEM 8 WETLANDS RATING FORM (Office data) 9 WETLANDS RATING FORM (Field data) 10 ^ SUB-CRITERIA, SOURCES AND JUSTIFICATION FOR EACH CRITERIA CATEGORY I WETLANDS Documented Threatened or Endangered Habitat 13 Documented Natural Heritage Sites 17 Documented Migratory Bird Habitat 18 Regionally Rare Wetland Communities 18 Wetlands With Irreplaceable Ecological Functions 21 PcatWetlands 21 Mature Forested Wetlands 22 Esluarine Wetlands 23 Kelp and Eel Grass 24 CATEGORY n WETLANDS Documented Habitat for Sensitive Species 25 Docunr»entecl Priority Habitats and Species 28 Wetlands with Significant Functions that may not be Adequately Replicated or Replaced 30 Wetlands with Significant Habitat Value 30 CATEGORY IV WETLANDS 31 WETLANDS OF LOCAL SIGNIHCANCE 32 GLOSSARY 34 I REFERENCES CITED 35 FIGURES : SAMPLE LETTERS TO STATE AGENCIES 37 DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY - DRAR 1 BACKGROUND On Octolvr lit, 19v0 the Department of Ecology issued a r,on-mandator\' M-vIe'i OrJ, nance i\;r Wetlands Protection to all Washington Sta^c local governments. The Model Ordinance contained two options for rating wetlands; local governments could use cither the Washington State Four-Tivr Wetlands Ratipg System, or tho Puget 5v'"jnd Rei;uin Wct!and> Rannc 5v>!-^m, This evaluation is a planned review of the recommended wetlands rating system based on comments we have received and our own knowledge of the need to improve the methodology. TTie main thrust is to introduce rating criteria that are more specific and less qualitative. We arc also merging the two rating systems info one statewide system that accounts for regional differences. Following the evaluation and field testing, guidance for users will be finalised and changes to the rating system will be formally recommended to local government. This system will also be used by Ecology and may be used by other state agencies in conjunction with existing regulatory programs as appropriate. INTRODUCTION The remaining wetlands in Washington state differ widely in resource value. Some wetland types are common, and others are rare, but all provide some valued functions. These may be ecologic, economic, recreation or aesthetic. To effectively protect the remaining wetlands, managers, planners and citizens need to be able to better understand the resource value of individual wetlands. One way to accomplish this is with a wetlands rating system: a process that differentiates wetlands according to specific characteristics or functional attributes. Permit decisions are considered in light of the wetland rating and the potential development impact. Regulatory stringency and protective measures are varied, with the highest levels of protection given to the highest rated wetlands. Amongst wetlands scientists, planners and regulators there is debate on the merits of rating wetlands at all. There is also debate on the use of case-by-case versus landscape approaches to wetlands management. Advocates of wetland rating note that this management approach avoids the multitude of case-by ih:r;t<"in, The Pop^rtmcnt of E^rol-^n^'s rating svstcm uses a combm.stion o: a landscape approach c^vd La.~e-b)-cav a:';ai_. -:> to di.:i.rr;v.r,c "•'. .'.l.w.J.:- ■.:■.'.■.:: Ecology's rating system uses specific criteria to allow a determmation of the resource value oi indi\idua! vsctlands within four pc^ssible categones. The rating \aluc is based on wetland >on-i'!\it\ tj oiurbanco, ra';;v, irr^ p':;^^.; rilitv'. cxotm;; ■.c^.ta;;,^ and habitat ■.a!:;c Tho ncccssar)' to protect wetlands from adjacent development, mitigation acreage and replacenicnt ratios and permitted uses in wetlands. This system does not replace a full functional assessment of a wetland which will be necessary in order to plan and monitor a wetland nnitigation project The system identifies a relative value for vegetated wetlands and is intended primarily for use with the Clean Water Act definition of wetlands. It does not include mudflats, strreambeds, beach substrates and other ecologically valuable wetlands. It is not considered perfect nor the final ar\swer, however, it is based on the best information available at this time. Advances in wetlands science will bring further understanding to the valuation of wetlands. It is anticipated that the rating system will be further modified over time as we increase our understanding of wetland systems and improve on our ability to measure wetland functions and values. An essential question is whether or not the rating system will help to protect the public resource value of wetlands. The system is designed to assist local or state government agencies with legal jurisdiction for wetlands. As a tool for protection it's success will depend on how it is used. Nevertheless, the Department of Ecology is confident the system will be used in good faith by agencies with responsibility to protect the public resource. In fine-tuning the system, the Department of Ecology is aware that many local governments are either using, or in the process of developing and adopting systems for determining the value of individual wetlands. The Department's intention in completing this evaluation is to maintain existing distinctions between the four wetland categories, while adding refinement and predictability. DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY - DRAFT OVERVIEW FOR USERS HOW TME WETLANDS R.-\TIXG S\5TEM WORKS The ^'V^tcr:-'. requires that specific cri'cr.i (or sub-cntcria) bo confirmed cither from state j.^-.".c\ -^'l:^■:e^ c: t'e :;r;.-!:;af.or. rf fnc i'x'.2 r:--:thodcIo.;v bv;-forc a particular ■••.e •.'.•: -J is assiene,: t? a A summary of the sources of data and criteria to rate individual wetlands according to category are shown in Table 1 on p3. Details of the subarts, the first for rating wetlands according to information from State Government agencies and the secondpart, beginning on p.lO, for rating wetlands according to infomation from the field data form in the companion document Washington State Wetlands rating System-Field methodology. When using the wetlands rating form, confirmation of criteria (or subcriteria) automatically assigns the wetland to a category. WHEN TO USE THE WETLANDS RATING SYSTEM The system is designed to determine wetlands categories for users of the Department of Ecologys Model Ordinance for Wetlands Protection and for agencies developing agency procedures for wetlands protection and for local regulatory programs being developed or revised. This rating system was developxKi to be used with the management standards on p.7, (or similar standards). The use of lesser protective measures with this rating system may result in inadequate protection of wetlands functions and values. It is important to understand that regional differences may need to be accounted for in addition to these standards. This system was designed for use on a stale wide basis and may not reflect ragional differences accurately. It may therefore be necessary to modify the criteria, or sub- criteria. It may also be necessary to modify the system to account for local circumstances. See p.32 for recommendations on how to address this. DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY - DRAFT TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF CRITERIA BY CATEGORY AND DATA SOURCES CRITERIA FOR EACH CATEGORY DATA SOLRCilr CATEGORY I WETLAN'DS ARE - >i, D..:^:r,.r.;.j rSc::^: :-.„:-.;z.J r threatened or endangered sfxxncs of plant or fxjtentially extirpated plant, animal, or fishspxxics; or (ii) Documented Natural Heritage wetland sites or high quality native wetland communities which qualify as a Natural Heritage wetland sites; or (iii) Documented habitat of regional (Pacific Coast) or national significance for migratory birds; or (iv) Regionally rare wetlands communities; or (v) Wetlands with irreplaceable ecological functions. DNR (Natural Heritage) W D Wildlife \V D Wildlife & W D Fisheries DNR (Natural Heritage) or Field Methodology W D Wildlife Field Methodology Field Methodology CATEGORY II WETLANDS SATISFY NO CATEGORY I CRITERIA, AND ARE- (i) Documented habitat recognized by federal or state agencies for sensitive species of plant, animal, or fish species; or (ii) Documented priority habitats and species recognized by state agencies; or (iii) Wetlands v^th significant functions which may not be adequately replicated through creation or restoration; or (iv) Wetlands voth significant habitat value. DNR (Natural Hcrit< W D Wildlife W D Wildlife & W D Fisheries W D Wildlife Field Methodology Field Methodology CATEGORY UI WETLANDS SATISFY NO CATEGORY I, H OR IV CRITERIA. Field Methodology CATEGORY IV WETLANDS SATISFY NO CATEGORY I, II OR III CRrrERL\, AND ARE- a) hydrologically isolated, < lacre, v/ith one vegetated class and dominated (>80%) by or^e native species from Table 7, (p31 ); or b) hydrologically isolated, < two acres, with one vegetated class, and 90% of plant cover composed of species from Table 8 ,(p31 ). Field Methodology Field Methodology DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY - DRAFT SUMMARY OF THE RATIONALE FOR THE CATEGORIES The follo'.'.ing description of tbc different categories should he!p to ch.irae;..p.zo thv a;-;-- ,■ ;'- \NC ha\c taken in defining and protecting the v.etlands under this S)>tcm. CATEGORY 1 These v/eliandi are the e::a"' cf the crop' . GeoLraliy. th^>.: ^■. ;.:\;rd- :;'e _. :■ : ; ...- rarely in a given area and should make up less than 5% of the wetlands in the slate. These are the types of wetlands that: 1) are very valuable for a particular rare species; 2) represent a high quality example of a rare wetland type; 3) are rare within a given region; 4) provide irreplaceable functions and values; or 5) are impossible to replace within a human lifetime if at all. These are the types of wetlands to which we cannot afford to risk any kind of degradation. CATEGORY U These wetlands are those that: 1) provide habitat for very sensitive or important vdldlife or plants; 2) are either difficult to replace; or 3) provide very high functions and values, particularly wildlife habitat. These wetlands will occur more commonly than Category I wetlands and need a high level of protection. CATEGORY III These wetlands provide important functions and values. They are important for a variety of wildlife species and occur more commonly throughout the state. They will occur most frequently, generally be difficult to replace, and need a moderate level of protection. CATEGORY IV These wetlands are those that are smaller, isolated and less diverse vegetatively. They are the types of wetlands that we should be able to replace and may even be able to improve on from a habitat standpoint. However, replacement is by no means guaranteed. Those wetlands do provide important functions and values, and losses must be mitigated for. In some areas, (for example, islands), these wetlands may be providing imp)ortant groundwater recharge functions and may require higher protection. Thus, regional differences may call for a more narrow definition of this category. DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY - DRAFT HGURE 1. DRAFT MANAGEMENT STANDARDS FOR BUFFER ZONE REQUIREMENTS AND REPLACEMENT RATIOS BY WETLAND CATEGORIES. 'TY.-:-: b'jffcr ro,: :.--:r!-ont'; .-r i -■:■:' ::::rrx-nt. ratio> are currc^.ily '_b :: !? :5L GA i LGORV TO Dc . uRMlNc t BUFFER ZONES (to protect wetlands from adjacent impacts) REPLACEMENT RATIOS (to fully replace wetlands damaged by necessary and unavoidable impacts) CATEGORY BUFFER ZONES (ft.) REPLACEMENT RATIOS I 200 ■ 300 6:1 II 100-200 FORESTED 3 : 1 SCRUB-SHRUB 2 : 1 EMERGENT 13:1 ni 50-100 IV 25-50 1.25 : 1 DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY - DRAFT HOW TO USE THE WETLAND RATING SYSTEM STEP 1. OBTAIN COPY OF MAPS SHOWING DELINEATED BOUNDARIES, OR DECIDE THAT DELINEATION IS NOT NECESSARY FOR YOUR PURPOSES* STEP 2. SENT) LETTERS TO STATE AGENCIES REQUESTING INFORMATION (SEE SAMPLE LETTERS ON p.37) AND ATTACHING A COPY OF A MAP SHOWING THE WETLAND LOCATION. STEP 3. WAIT FOR STATE AGENCIES TO RETURN INFORMATION, THEN COMPLETE THE "OFPICE DATA" SECTION OF THE WETLAND RATING FORM (SEE p.9). STEP 4. IF NECESSARY, GO TO THE UTETLAND AND COMPLETE THE HELD DATA FORM IN THE WASHINGTON WETLANDS RATIN'G SYSTEM - HELD METHODOLOGY. STEP 5. COMPLETE THE "HELD DATA" SECTION OF THE WETLANT) RATLNG FORM TO DETERMINE CATEGORY (SEE p.lO). * For regulatory purposes it is assumed that wetland locations are accurately known before categories are determined. The area of land affected by buffers for example, depends firstly on the location of a given wetland and secondly the category of the wetland. Delineation using the Federal Manual should proceed determination of category. This does not mean that delineation of wetlands must always be detennined according to the (relatively expensive and time consuming) Federal Manual before a meaningful determination of category can be made. For example, determination of category on the basis of a "less than strict" delineation may be useful in a local government overview for inventory or policy purposes, or to meet the needs of individuals who need a "best estimate" of wetland value for project analysis. National Wetlands Inventory maps could be used for this purpose. DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY - DRAFT WETLANDS RATING FORM (Office data) ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS BELOW 'If the apcncv identifies the wetland as satisfying any of the ^■j'. ~f ^".i b-:!:-A. f-; -.-.e'Jard i? a'Jtomat;;alK' a^^■.^ncd to 'ho j.r., ~.r. =;., .. r. r.\ :-.; CATEGORY oc';urr,n. It rr.oro th^r. . r.c category is circled the highest applies.) SOURCE 1 CATEGORY Does the wetland contain individuals of Federal or State-listed Threatened or Endangered plant species; or is the wetland an historic location of a plant species thought to be possibly Extinct or Extirpated from Washington? DNR (Natural Heritage) Yes : Category I N'o; Next Quc>;ior, Does the wetland contain docunnented priority habitats for State-listed or candidate Threatened or Endangered wildlife species managed by the Washington Department of Wildlife? W D Wildlife Yes : Category I No: Next Question Does the wetland contain documented habitats of State or Federally listed or State or Federal candidate Threatened or Endangered fish species, or races of fish, managed by the Washington Department of Wildlife or the Washington Department of Fisheries? W D Wildlife & W D Fisheries Yes : Categor\' 1 No:Next Question Is the wetland already on record with the Washington Natural Heritage Program as a high quality native wetland? DNR (Natural Heritage) Yes: Category 1 No: Next Question Is the wetland documented as habitat of regional (Pacific Coast) or national significance for migratory birds? W D Wildlife Yes: Category I No: Docs the wetland contain individuals of State-listed Sensitive plant species? DNR (Natural Heritage) Yes: Category 11 No: Next Question Does the wetland contain documented habitat for State-listed or candidate sensitive wildlife species managed by the Washington Department of Wildlife? W D Wildlife Yes: Category 11 No; Next (Question Does the wetland contain documented habitats of State or Federally listed or candidate Sensitive fish species managed by the Washington Department of Wildlife or the Washington Department of Fisheries? W D Wildlife & W D Fisheries Yes: Category 11 No: Next Question Does the wetland contain priority species or habitats documented by Washington Department of Wildlife's Priority Habitats and Species Program. W D Wildlife Yes : Category 11 No: Field Methodology DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY - DRAFT WFTIANDS RATINC. FORM (Field data) L-o ir.:,-~-Jt\.n from field data form to ar.>-.\cr tho^o qu^-f.r Work through questions sequentially. Circle answers. CA^COR-i :lo any Gate or answer that applies Circle any Catcgorv Q. 1. !? the ivc'.lard a hich quah.tv nati\c xset'.and commumtv which woiild :j.il;r.- .i- a \ -tural Hcr::.-;:c wetland b.-i~ed rr. ^.w-ivw-z ?."■ of a-e K'l. ■•■. or, IS the wetland is one of the nve highest quality examples c: thi.-. wci.and type known to exist in Washington? a) there is no, or only isolated, human-caused alteration of the wetland topography or soils; b) there is no human-caused alteration of the hydrology of the wetland, or the wetland appears to have recovered from the alteratiort; c) the wetland has no or low cover and frequency of non-native plant species; d) there is relatively little human-caused disturbance of the native vegetation, or has the vegetation recovered from past; disturbance; e) there is no evidence of major hunwnoused water quality problems. Yes: CatCEorv- I No: go to Q, 2. Q. 2, Is the wetland one of only five or less examples of the wetland type, as represented by plant-association, within the Water Resources Inventory Area of which the wetland is a part? Yes: Category I No: go to Q. 3. Q. 3. Is the wetland a peat wetland? Is the Wetland a forested wetland? Is the wetland an estuarine wetland? Are kelp or eelgrass beds present? Q. 3a. Is the wetland a peat wetland without significant hydrologic modification where significant hydrologic modification is demonstrated by any of the following five sub-criteria: -Replacement of pre-settlement flora (if determined) by monotypic Spiraea (hardback), reed canary grass or cattail; or -More than 70% of flora replaced by species in above; or -Evidence of drainage ditches, peat stockpiling, peat dredging or nuning, removal of woody vegetation, plowing or planting i.e. com ; or (see next page) Yes: go to Q. 3a. Yes: go to Q. 3b. Yes: go to Q. 3c. Yes: go to Q. 3d. If No to all go to Q. 4. Yes: Category I No: Category II DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY - DRAFT 10 Q.3a. (continued) -Diversion of water source whcrcthc peat is dry and decomposing, often white and dr.- on surface clear!'. o\idiz:n:: and d;-!r.lL\;rr;n;: r-r -Severe grazing, with evidence of heavy trampling, vegetation rcmo\al and nutrient addition. following four subaiteria? :;^-d ^-;.f-.: - Forested wetland where at least 50% of the tree canopy coverage is mature trees, 80 yrs or older for softwoods and 50 >ts or older for hardwoods; and - Prcsccnce or seedlings or saplings of one or more of the dominant ovcrstory tree species; and - Non-native species constitute less than 50% of herbaceous coverage; and - Area greater than 1 acre. No: Category II or Hi (see Q. 5.) Q. 3c. Does the Estuarine Wetland satisfy any of the following three sub- criteria? - Listed as a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve or any preserve or reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151; or - Greater than five acres; or - Less than five acres and satisfying any four of the following: - greater than 1 acre; or - contains at least two estuarine wetland habitat classes (Dcthicr, 1990); or - minimum existing e\idencc of human related physical alteration (e.g., diking, ditching, filling, cultivating, grazing or introduced spccies);or - contains functional tidal channel(s) or is connected to a tidal stream; or - within 1/4 mile of other water bodies (e.g., lakes or wetlands greater than one aae in size or streams or sloughs greater than 5 cubic feet/second mean annual flow); or - within a watershed that has little to moderate p>oint or non- point water quality problems cited by the Department of Ecology; or - adjacent land uses on more than 75 percent of the wetland border consist of either agriculture, relatively undisturbed forest, or open space or, if there are current or planned Industrial, Commercial, or Residential adjacent uses there is/will be a high quality buffer at least 100" wide. Yes: Category I No: Category II DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY - DRAFT 11 Is an Eel cr.i-> bod prcs^^nt? Is flciting or non-floating kelp bed present which has greater than 50% macro nl -jI cover in the month of Au -->! or September ? Yes : Categop*- I Yes : Categor\- I No Categorv II Q 4. Is the wetland a wetland with significant functions which may not be adequately replicated through creation or restoration as below? Any p>cat wetland that has significant hydrologic modification as in Q. 3a. Any forested wetland not satisfying Q. 3b. and scoring nx)re than 10 points for Q. 5. Any estuarine wetlands not satisfying Q, 3c. Any kelp bed not satisfying Q. 3d. Yes: Category II No: Go to Q. 5. Yes: Category II No: Category HI Yes : Category IT Yes: Category II Q. 5. Does the wetland have significant habitat value based on a habitat value score greater or equal to 10 points (see field methodology)? Yes : Category II No : Category III Q. 6. a) Is the wetland hydrologically isolated, < laae, with one vegetated class and dominated (>80%) by one native species from Table 7, (p. 31 ); or b) Is the wetland hydrologically isolated, < two acres, with one vegetated class, and 907e of plant cover composed of species from Table 8 ,(p. 31). YES: Category IV No: Category I, II or III Yes: Category IV No: Category I, II or III DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY - DRAFT 12 SUBCRITERIA, SOURCES AND JUSTIFICATION FOR EACH CRITERIA CRITLKIA: CATHGORV I (i) - Documented habitat recognized by federal or state agencies for threatened or endangered species of plant or possibly extinct or extirpated plant, animal, or fish. SLB-CRiTERIA - PLAXT SPECIE? Docs the wetland contain individuals of Federal or State-listed Threatened or Endangered plant spocics; or is the wetland an historic location of a plant species thought to be possibly Extinct or Extirpated from Washington? SOURCE OF INFORMATION Contact the Washington Natural Heritage Program by mail to determine if any plant species of concern have been located in or near the study area. A sample letter is included in Figure 2. Send a general map of the study area along with township/range/ section information. A fee is charged for a search of the Natural Heritage Program database. Washington Natural Heritage Program Department of Natural Resources Division of Land and Water Conservation Mail Stop: EX-13 Olympia, Washington 98504 206-753-2449 The Washington Natural Heritage Program maintains a comprehensive database of sitc- spxxrific information on reported occurrences of Sensitive, Threatened, Endangered and known historic occurrences of Possibly Extinct or Extirpated plant species in Washington. At the time of writing most wetlands in Washington have not been surveyed for the occurrence of State Sensitive, Threatened, Endangered and Possibly Extinct or Extirpated plant ics. NOTE: Unidentified plant species collected during site visits should be identified only by qualified botanists familiar with the Pacific Northwest flora. If the study site is an historic collection site for a Possibly Extinct or Extirpated plant species or is within 1/2 mile of such a site, then a rare plant survey by a qualified botanist familiar with the Pacific Northwest flora should be conducted to determine the presence of the species of concern. JUSTIFICATION Sonr>e species of Threatened or Endangered plants are found exclusively or predominantly in wetland habitats. Examples include Wenatchee larkspur Delphinium viridescens in the Leavenworth/Wenatchee area, and howellia HowelUa aquatiUs in Oark and Spokane Counties.Table 2 lists State-listed Threatened and Endangered species that may be found in wetlands. Some species of Possibly Extinct or Extirpated plant sp>edes are (were) found exclusively or predominantly in wetland habitats. Examples include swamp sandwort Arenaria paludicola west of the Cascades, and purple spike-rush Eleocharis atropurpurea in Chelan County. Table 3 lists State-listed sp>ecies thought to be Possibly Extinct or Extirpated from Washington and that may be found in wetlands. DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY - DRAFT 13 TABLE 2. State-listed Threatened and Endangered plant species that may be found in wetlands. (From \Va<;hin-::ton N'aturnl Hcrit.icc rr.-rr.im. Icc- THREATENED SPECIES Calan'.u^rc.-ti^ .-•^->iglu'r.t< 't^;c^-L:iur^.o :^.xd^r..>M Corydalis aquae-gelidae (Clackamas corydalis) Lobelia kalmii (Kalm's lobelia) Platanthera chorisiana (Choriso bog orchid) Sisyrinchium sarmeniosum (pale blue-eyed grass) ENDANGERED SPECIES Cypripedium calceolus var. p>arvinorum (yellow lady's slipper) Delphinium viridescens (Wcna tehee larkspur) Howellia aquatilis (howellia) Liparis loeselii (twayblade) Polemonium pectinalum (Washington polcmoniunr>) Rorippa columbiae (persistentsepal yellowcress) Table 3. State-listed Possibly Extinct or Extirpated plant species that may be found in wetlands. (From Washington Natural Heritage Program, 1990). Arenaria paludicola (swamp sandwort) Eleocharis atropurpurea (purple spike-rush) Juncus hemiendylus var. hemiendylus (dwarf rush) Nymphaea teiragona (pygmy water-lily) Sidalcea maluiflora var. virgata (rose checker-mallow) DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY - DRAFT 14 SUB-CRITERIA - .\N1MAL SPECIES P^c^ the uct:,-'."d c.-^'.ii" doc.;rr.0Pti.\J priontv hjbitJts for Statc-Ii<^fod or candidate T: roiitviK-d (T End.inpcrcd \si'.d'.;:c -;:l\;ics manj_;-.d b\ the '>Va>hir.j;ton Dcpartnicn! oi Wildlife? >.''L'r\>^n Or iNiC A^l ATION Contact the Department of Wildlife by mail to determine if priority habitat for any state listed or candidate species has been documented in or near the wetland being studied. A sample letter is included in Figure 3. Send a general map showing the location of the wetlands along with township/range/scction information. Washington Department of Wildlife Nongame Program c\o Mail Stop EX-12 Olympia, Washington 98504 (206) 586-1449 The Department of Wildlife maintains a database of the locations of priority habitat for all wildlife designated as priority species in Washington. The database includes documented brooding sites, colonial or connmunal roosts, areas of regular concentration and /or locations of individual observations. This information is mapped onto a geographic information system. All federally listed or proposed Threatened and Endangered wildlife species occurring in Washington also have State-listed status. There is relatively complete information on priority habitats for stale listed or candidate Endangered or Threatened wildlife. JUSTIFICATION There are few listed or candidate State Endangered or Threatened species that are confined to wetland habitats in forested areas. One of the few examples is the western pond turtle Clemmys marmorata, a Stale-listed Threatened species. However, the peregrin falcon Falco peregtinus and Columbia white-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus leucurus, both State Endangered species, use wetlands as well as other habitats in forested areas. SUB-CRITERIA - FISH SPECIES Does the wetland contain documented habitats of State or Federally listed or Stale or Federal candidate Threatened or Endangered fish sp>ecies, or races of fish, managed by the Washington Department of Wildlife or the Washington Department of Fisheries? SOURCE OF INFORMATION Washington Department of Wildlife Nongame Program c\o Mail Stop EX-12 Olympia, Washington 98504 (206) 586-1449 and DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY - DRAFT 15 Washington Department of Fishcncs 115 General Administration Building rro-oncc of these species is indicated bv identifying those river drainages in which these >fx^;.> arc : ..: J D;^tr.b.,t;v.:"; ta'^.e^ vr "'jps Cj" -<.r\e as a pr;r;^-. r:-.cihc'd for dc'.,.r~".;r.;r.;; i;' Additional information can be sought from the VSashington River information System (WARIS), a PC-based and GIS-basod database which provides information on anadromous fish habitat, resident fish habitat, rare habitat, and habitat used by species of concern. This database currently includes habitat information for over 2,000 river and stream reaches in the State of Washington. It is being upgraded to include over 60,000 reaches. Information from this database can bo acquired from the Washington [>epartment of Wildlife (GIS Section) in Olympia, and may be available in the future at district offices, universities and colleges, and selected libraries. Most stream/river reaches in the State have not been surveyed for listed or candidate Threatened or Endangered fish species. The statewide distribution of bull trout is currently under investigation. The Washington Department of Wildlife and Washington Department of Fisheries should be consulted as to future listings of species or races of fish as Threatened or Endangered. JUSTIFICATION These are wetlands that contain individuals, populations, or priority habitat of State or Federally listed or State or Federal candidate Threatened or Endangered fish species, or races of fish, managed by the Washington Department of Wildlife or the Washington Department of Fisheries. At the time of publication, no fish species or races of fish species within the State of Washington are listed by the State or Federal government as Threatened or Endangered species. The Olympic mud minnow and bull trout are classified as Federal candidate Threatened species. No fish species or races are currently listed as State candidate Threatened or Endangered. Only one candidate fish species, the Olympic mudminnow, is likely to be dependent upon wetland habitat. This fish occurs in coastal lowlands of the western Olympic Peninsula. It is found in the Queets River south to Grays Harbor, and along the north side of the Chehalis River valley to the Skookumchuck River. Within this range of distribution, the Olympic mudminnow is abundant in marshes and marshy streams. They are generally found in quiet waters with mud substrate and dense aquatic or riparian vegetation. Bull Trout are found in higher Cascade Mountain drainages in clean, cold water. # DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY - DRAFT - 1 6 CRITERIA : CATEGORY I (ii) - Documented high quality Natural Heritage wetland sites or high quality native wetland communities which qualify as a Natural Heritage wetland sites. >'^B-CKiTERIA 1) the wetland is already on record with the Washington \atura! Hcritapc Program a< .1 iM^h j;ua';;\- nati\c -.sotland; or 2) the wetland contains an example of a native wetland communitv- that satisfies all the criteria for a high quality wetland, which are listed below; or a) there is no, or only isolated, human-caused alteration of the wetland topography tvr soils; b) there is no human-caused alteration of the hydrology of the wetland, or does the wetland appear to have recovered from the alteration; c) the wetland has no or low cover and frequency of non-native plant species; d) there is relatively little human-caused disturbance of the native vegetation, or the vegetation has recovered from past; disturbance; e) there is no evidence of major human tO\T Tr:,-: pUcala:T}\r-' rctcropyHa .MJ> ." >\ r F'j::'::.- i'.;:;- .';.; :.rc>t NONFORESTED VEGETATED "'■" kelp community other algae i.e submerged algae seagrass beds Zostera marina salt marsh Carex l\/ngbyii, Salicornia virginica, Scirpus validus. Triglochin maritimum salt meadow brackish marsh similar associations to salt marsh coastal freshwater marsh Alnus incarna. Ledum groenlandicum scrub/shrub Salix pedicillatus, Ledum groenlandicum, Carex deweyenna. Ribes bracteosum, Symphoricarjjus albus inland freshwater marsh bog/fen Ledum grocnlandicumjKalmia occj(ie«ifl/is/sphagnum vernal pxDnds RIPARIAN moss/lichen herbaceous Scrub/Shrub Forested NOTE: PLEASE LET US KNOW OF REGIONALLY RARE TYPES, WE NEED TO ADD MORE EXAMPLES, BY REGION IF POSSIBLE, TO THIS TABLE. JUSTIFICATION While other criteria provide for protection of individual parts of wetlands, the criteria for regionally rare wetland types is designed to protect a high diversity of wetland plant associations, and the range of these associations. For the purposes of this criteria a region is defined as a Water Resources Inventory area. This definition may need refinement as the inventory areas may not be small enough. If this is the case smaller areas will be defined. DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY - DRAFT 19 e Tables. Water Resources Inventory A rea Names and Numbers .•1. X, . k>ack 32^ vValla Walla 02. San Juan 33. Lower Snake 0?. Lower Skagit-Sarr.;sh 34. Palouse "4. I rr-:r fkrict ?5 Middle Snake .V :• ;■.;_.;:--■■-- -" Es;..-.t7olC.v„;..v 06. island 37. Lower Yakima 07. Snohomish 38. Naches 08. Ccdar-Sammamish 39. Upp5er Yakima 09. Duwamish-Grccn 40. Alkali-Squilchuck 10. Puyallup-White 41. Lower Crab n. Nisqually 42. Grand Coulee 12. Chambers-Clover 43. Upper Crab-Wilson 13. Deschutes 44. Moses Coulee 14. Kennedy-Goldsborough 45. Wenatchee 15. Kitsap 46. En Hat 16. Skokomish-Dosewallips 47. Chelan 17. Quilcene-Snow 48. Methow 18. Elwha-Dungcncss 49. Okanogan 19. Lyre-Hoko 50. Foster 20. Soleduck-Hoh 51. Nesf)elem 21. Queets-Quinault 52. Sanpoil 22. Lower Chehalis 53. Lower Lake Roosevelt 23. Upper Chehalis 54. Lower Spxikane 24. Willapa 55. Little Spokane 25. Grays-Elochoman 56. Hangman 26. Cowlitz 57. Middle Spokane 27. Lewis 58. Middle Lake Roosevelt 28. Salmon-Washougal 59. Colville 29. Wind-White Salmon 60. Kettle 30. Klickitat 61 . Upper Lake Roosevelt 31. Rock-Glade 62. Pend Oreille t DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY - DRAFT 20 I CRITERIA : CATEGORY I (v) -Wetlands with irreplaceable ecological functions. SLB-CRITERIA PFAT WETLAND 1) Peat wetlands without sicnific.int hvdrologic mcdificaticn -.shore significant hvdrolo^;; nuviifiCciti. 'H !> dc n'lOroir.U'.-d b\ . a) Replacement of pre-settlcmcnt tlora (it determined) by monotypic Spiraea inaranaoK/, r..vj canary grass or cattail; or b) More than 7Q% of flora replaced by species in above; or c) Evidence of drainage ditches, peat stockpiling, peat dredging or mining, removal of woody vegetation, plowing or planting i.e. com ; or d) Diversion of water source. The f)cat is dry and decomposing, often white and dry on surface, clearly oxidizing and disintegrating; or e) Severe grazing, with evidence of heavy trampling, vegetation removal and nutrient addition. SOURCE See field methodology JUSTIFICATION Bogs and fens are very stable wetland types with peat soils which are very sensitive to disturbance. Bogs and fens form when organic material accumulates faster than it decompcsos Bog/fen systems form extremely slowly, at the rate of one inch per 40 years in w >!cm Washington and one inch per hundred years in eastern Washington. Bogs arc hydrologically closed systems without flowing water. They are extremely acidic and low in nutrients and the plants which grow in them are specifically adapted to such conditions. Fens normally suppcri a greater diversity of plant species and have greater amounts of available nutrients and a higher pH than bogs. A variety of specialized plants live in bogs and fens. Most bog/fen plants have developed adaptations to survive in the acidic, low-nutrient environment. Thus, minor changes in the hydrology or nutrient levels in these systems can have major adverse impacts on the plant communities. Peat systems also provide significant habitat for a variety of wildlife species and jserform important hydrolog;ic functions including groundwater and stream recharge. The vast majority of the bogs/fens observed in western Washington have been degraded through hydrologic modification and reduction in species diversity and integrity. In eastern Washington, peat mining is progressing at a significant and increasing rate. In addition, there is no knowm technology for replicating or creating a bog/fen. DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY - DRAFT 21 SUB-CRITERJA FORESTED WETLANDS If all of the following (1-4) arc satisfied, a forested wetland !<; a Ci!'.";:'^r\- 1 n\iti;rc f -.-t'.d \NCtland; 1) Forested wetland where at least 50^^ of the tree canopy covera^^c is mature -ocs - ;-,v^ ^ yrs or older for softuoC'ds c>ry^ tQ yr> .-.- . [J.^: for h.irJ-.-.. .-^- .-.:■ i 2) Presccnce or seedlings or saplings of one or more oi the dominant o^crstory tree >pvc.^^, a;,o 3) Non-native species constitute less than 50% of herbaceous coverage; and 4) Area greater than 1 acre. All other forested wetlands are rated according to remaining Category II, III criteria. SOURCE See field methodology JUSTIFICATION Forested wetlands are impxirtant because of the variety of functions that these wetlands provide and the very long time that they take to develop. Mature forested wetlands require at least 50 years to develop and are most valuable for wildlife habitat when left undisti;rbcd for several generations. Forested wetlands have exceptionally high functional values for wildlife habitat due to the multiple layers of vegetation which provide a variety of food, breeding and nesting sites, and thermal and hiding cover. Some forested wetlands are associated with standing water during all or part of the year which makes them extremely valuable, especially when the surrounding area is arid or semi-arid. Birds, mammals, and amphibians often reach their greatest densities and diversity within forested wetlands. The tree canopy provides a moderated temperature within the wetland that is cooler in sun.mcr and warmer in winter than surrounding open areas and this reduces energy needs for wildlife. Trees may shade open water providing cover for fish, and dowTicd trees provide large organic debris essential for fish habitat structure in streams. Leaves and insects which are important in the aquatic food-chain drop into the water from overhanging trees. Riparian forested wetlands are those forested wetlands along streams and rivers. Riparian forests nriay contain both wetland and non-wetland forest components. Non-wetland riparian forests are extremely important as a transition between wetland and upland. In arid and semi- arid portions of eastern Washington, the non-wetland riparian forest is an integral part of the streamside habitat. Flood waters are slowed and diminished as they spread out in riparian forested wetlands and the trees and other vegetation trap sediments from the flood waters. Sediments, shorelines and streamsides are stabilized by the extensive root systems and prot<.jn>:;>.-u, an cituariP.c \sc;'..ind is a Category i uciljrj, 1) Listed as a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Rcscr\c, Natural Ar-. ■ Tt', -, r-. o or .>: . r -^^..r. c or rt.>^r-. o dosipnat..d under '.'.'AC 332-30-151, or 2) Greater than five acres; or 3) Less than five acres and satisfies any four of the following: - greater than 1 acre; - contains at least two estuarine wetland habitat classes (Dethier, 1990; - niinimum existing evidence of human related physical alteration ( e.g., diking, ditching, filling, cultivating, grazing or introduced species); - contains functional tidal channcKs) or is connected to a tidal stream; - within 1/4 mile of other water bodies (e.g., lakes or wetlands greater than one acre in size or streams or sloughs greater than 5 cubic feet/second mean annual flow); - within a watershed that has little to moderate point or non- point water quality problems cited by the Department of Ecology - adjacent land uses on more than 75 percent of the wetland border consist of either agriculture, relatively undisturbed forest, or opx?n space or, if there are current or planned Industrial, Commercial, or Residential adjacent uses there is/will be a high quality buffer at least 100' wide. SOURCE See field methodology JUSTIFICATION Estuaries are among the most highly productive and complex ecosystems where tremendous quantities of sediments, nutrients and organic matter arc exchanged between terrestrial, freshwater and marine communities. This availability of resources benefits an enormous variety of plants and animals. Fish, shellfish and birds are the most visible along with emergent plants, however, there is also a huge variety of other life-forms, for example; diatoms, algae and invertebrates. Estuarine systems have substantial economic value as well as environnr>ental value. All Washington state estuaries have been modified to sonr>e degree, bearing the brunt of development pressures through filling, drainage, port development, disposal of urban and industrial wastes. The over-harvest of certain selected economic species has also modified the natural functioning of estuarine systems. Many Puget Sound estuaries such as the Duwamish, Puyallup, Snohomish and Skagit have been extensively modified with losses of up to 99% of estuarine wetland area. Willapa Bay as a whole is probably the most pristine large estaurine wetland remaining in Washington State (Source: mostly Albright et.al. 1980). Even so,Willapa Bay has been modified by development. DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY - DRAFT 23 -SUBCRJTERIA EEL CRASS BEDS and KELP BEDS ^ I'^ an Fcl cri-- bod prcson!"' Is floating or non-floating kelp bod. present which has greater than 50" macro algal co\cr in the month of August or S«.^pterr.bc-^ r ■- ■•TF See Field methodology JUSTIFICATION Broad bladed eel-grass Zoiiera rr.srina is a vascular plant which grows in the marine environment. Together with floating kelp bods Nereocycstis leutkeana and Macrocyslis integrifolia as well as other non-noating kelp species, these plants provide some of the most highly productive and unique habitats in the marine environnrjent. The importance of these plants in the ecosytem fall primarily into four areas: productivity, habitat, hydrodynamics and exploitative. Marine plants, particularly kelps, provide a major input of detritus and dissolved organic matter to the food web. They provide a sig nificant habitat for a number of organisms as a place of refuge and a substrate for reproduction. Eelgrass and kelp beds reduce current flow and wave action, creating a protected environrr>ent and influencing beach slope stabilit\-. Finally , seaweeds are a source of human food, fodder, fertilizer and valuable extracted chemicals, Mumford, 1988. r DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY - DRAFT 24 CATEGORY U WETLANDS CRITERIA :CATEGOR'i II (i) - Docu-.cnlcd habitat for sensitive spccici of pbiU, ar,:rr,al or :..,:•, recognized by federal or state agencies. rLB-CRilERIA - PLANT SPECIES Does the wetland contain individuals of State-listed Sensitive plant species? SOURCE OF INFORMATION Contact the Washington Natural Heritage Program by mail to determine if any plant spcc.cs o: concern have been located in or near the study area. A sample letter is included in Figure 2. Send a general map of the study area along with township/range/section ir\formation. A fee is charged for a search of the Natural Heritage Program database. Washington Natural Heritage Program Department of Natural Resources Division of Land and Water Conservation Mail Stop: EX-13 Olympia, Washington 98504 206-753-2449 The Washington Natural Heritage Program maintains a comprehensive database of site- specific information on reported CKXurrences of Sensitive, Threatened, and Endangered plant species in Washington. Unidentified plant species collected during site visits should be identified only by qualified botanists familiar with the Pacific Northwest flora. Most wetlands in Washington have not been surveyed for the occurrence of State Sensitive, Threatened, and Endangered plant species. JUSTIFICATION Some species of Sensitive plants are found exclusively or predominantly in wetland habitats. Examples include interrupted sedge Carex interrupta scattered throughout Washington, and swamp gentian Gentiana douglasuina in Clallam and King Counties. Table 6 Shows State- listed Sensitive species that may be found in wetlands. DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY - DRAFT 25 Table 6 State-listed Sensitive plant species that may be found in wetlands (From Wa'^hine^'^n Natural Herit.ico Pr.-^eram 1Q<^0). Adiantum pcdatum s?p. subpumjlum (dwarf maidenhair fern) Aster jundform.is (rush aster) B-'iiPOri crocana ibolandrj' Botrychium lunaria (moonwort) Botrychium minganense (Victorin's grape-fem) Botrychium pinnatum (St. John's moonwort) Botrychium simplex (little grape-fern) Carex aenea (bronze sedge) Carex anthoxanthea (yellow-flowered sedge) Carex atrata var. atrosquama (blackened sedge) Carex atrata var. erecta (erect blackened sedge) Carex buxbaumii (Buxbaum's sedge) Carex comosa (bristly sedge) Carex densa (dense sedge) Carex hystricina (porcupine sedge) Carex interrupta (green -fruited sedge) Carex macrochaeta (large-awn sedge) Carex norvegica (Scandanavian sedge) Carex pauciflora (few-flowered sedge) Carex paupercula (poor sedge) Carex pluriflora (several-flowered sedge) Carex saxatilis (russet sedge) Carex sdrpoidea var. scirpoidea (Canadian single-spike sedge) Carex scopulorum var. prinophylla (saw-leaved sedge) Carex stylosa (long-styled sedge) Carex sychnocephala (many-headed sedge) Chrysosplenium tetrandum (northern golden-carpet) Cicuta bulbifera (bulb-bearing water-hemlock) Cimicifuga elata (tall bugbane) Coptis asplenifolia (gold-thread) Cyperus rivularis (shining flalscdge) Dodocatheon pulchellum (few-flowered shooting star) Eleocharis rostellata (beaked spike-rush) Epipactis gigantea (giant helleborine) Eriophorum viridicarinatum (green-keeled cotton-grass) Erythronium revolutum (pink fawn-lily) Fritillaria camchatcensis (black lily) Centiana douglasiana (swamp gentian) Gentiana tenella (slender gentian) Ceum rivale (water avens) llliamna longisepala (longsepal globemallow) Isoetes nuttallii (Nuttall's quillwort Juncus kelloggii (Kellogg's rush) Limosella acaulis (southern mudwort) Listera borealis (northern twayblade) Lobelia dortmanna (water lobelia) Lycopodium inundatum (bog dubmo5.s) Meconella oregana (meconella) DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY - DRAFT 26 Mimulus pulsifcrac (Pulsifcr's monkcyflower) Mimulus suksdorfii (Suksdorf s monkcyflower) Montia diffusa (branching rr^rnai :nbt; r^i^^ r.crata Or\-zopsis hcndcrsonii (Hendersons ncegrass) Pamassia fimbriata var. hoodtara (fnngcd grass-of-Parnassus* a krtrcbi 'Kot2 Podiculans rainicrcnsis (NU. Rai:..or iousovsort; Platanthcra obtusata (small northern bog-orchid) Platanthera sparsiflora (canyon bog-orchid) Potamogcton obtusifolius (blunt-leaved pondwecd) Puccinellia nutkacnsis (Alaska alkaligrass) Ranunculus longirostris (long-beaked water buttecup) Salix Candida (hoary willow) Salix maccalliana (MacCall's willow) Salix scssiliflora (soft-leaved willow) Salix tweedyi (Twecdy's willow) Samolus parviflorus (water pimp>emel) Sanicula marilandica (black snake-root) Sanguisorba menziesii (Menzies' burnet) Saxifraga integrifolia var. apetala (swamp saxifrage) Sisyrinchium scptentrionale (blue-eyed grass) Spartina pcctinata (prairie cordgrass) Spiraea densiflora var. splendens (subalpine spirea) Teucrium canadense ssp. viscidum (woodsage) Thalictrum dasycarpum (purple meadowrue) Tillaea aquatica (pygmy-weed) Tillaca erccta (erect pygmy-weed) Utricularia intermedia (flat-leavcd bladdcrwort) Vacinnium myrtilloides (blueberry) SUB-CRITERIA - ANIMAL SPECIES Does the wetland contain documented habitat for State- listed or candidate sensitive wildlife species managed by the Washington Department of Wildlife? SOURCE OF INFORMATION - See CATEGORY I(i). JUSTIFICATION Relatively few State listed or candidate Sensitive species are confined to wetland habitats. One example is the spotted frog Rana pretiosa, a candidate Sensitive species. Other candidate Sensitive species, such as the Vaux's swift Chaetura vauxi and the pilcated woodpiecker Dryocopus pileatus use forested wetlands as well as other habitats. DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY - DRAFT 27 SUB-CRITERIA - FISH SPECIES ^ Doc- !hc wctljnd ccrt.iin docurr.crlod habitat? of State or FoJcralh' !i-tod or crr.'-.J. '.-■.•.o >,^-;:r>c :i>n ^^^..;ic^ r:-,.;'".;"^-. J b_v the ■vVa^hlngt^.■'n Dcpartn-.cnt oi '>">;'. J ii:.' .-r ;hi. V. :-: ,: ^; Department of Fisheries? ^■:•_RCE^ OF iNFOR'.! ATICX Washington Department of Wildlife Nongame Program c\o Mail Stop EX-12 Olvmpia, Washington 98504 (206) 586-1449 or Washington Department of Fisheries 115 General Adn\inistralion Building Olympia, Washington 98507 206-753-6650 JUSTIFICATION At the time of this publication, no fish species or races are currently listed or candidate State or Federal Sensitive species. CRITERLA : CATEGORY 11 (ii) - Documented priority habitats and species recognized by state agencies. SUB-CRITERIA-WILDLIFE SPECIES Does the wetland contain priority species or habitats documented by Washington Department of Wildlife's Priority Habitats and Species Program? SOURCE OF INFORMATION Washington Department of Wildlife Nongame Program c\o Mail Stop EX-12 Olympia, Washington 98504 (206) 586-1449 or Washington Department of Wildlife Priority Habitat and Species Program 600 Capitol Way Olympia, Washington 98501 (206) 753-3318 The Washington Department of Wildlife, through its Priority Habitat and Species Program, W plans to establish a database documenting locations of areas with high abundance or diversity of wildlife. The database is not expected to be complete until about 1993. DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY - DRAFT ' " • 28 Few wetlands in Washington have been surveyed for wildlife diversity or abundance. C. r.tact the D.. pjrtmcnt of W.'.S.wc 'r\ n-,.;.! t concentration of wildlife has been documented in or near the wetland being studied. A sample letter is included as Figure 3. Send a general map showing the location of the uctlands aiorc SUB-CRITERIA - FISH SPECIES C>oes the wetland provide habitat for priority fish species managed by the Washington Department of Wildlife? SOURCE OF INFORMATION The presence of a priority fish species ii\ a river or stream reach can be identified from the Washington Department of Wildlife's WARIS database, or by consulting Washington Department of Wildlife biologists. A list of priority fish species is provided in Table 6 Washington Department of Wildlife Nongame Program c\o Mail Stop EX-12 Olympia, Washington 98504 (206) 586-1449 or Washington Department of Fisheries 115 General Administration Building Olympia, Washington 98507 206-753-6650 TABLE 6 . Priority fish species managed by Washington Department of Wildl fe. Conunon Name 1 Scientific Name | Spec ial Designation Bull Trout Salvelinus confluentus FC2 Dolly Varden Salvelinus malma Kokanee Salmon Oncorhynchus nerka Mountain Sucker Catostomus platyrhynchus SC Mountain Whitefish Prosopium williamsoni Olympic Mudnriinnow Nuvumbra hubbsi FC2,SC Pygmy Whitefish Prosopium coulteri SC Rainbov^ and Steelhead Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss Wcstslope Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchus clarki SC = State Spedes of Concern FC2 = Proposed Federal Threatened Candidate 2 status DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY - DRAFT 29 CRITERIA : CATEGORY II (iii) - Wetlands with significant functions which may not be adequately replicated through creation or restoration. Thi> category is a default. Wctlar.J- m th;.- Ca-'-^eT)- iiKludo peat -■.■. -.t'.^r .■■ • .i'. :;;'.e - _■ hydrologic modification, forested wetlands not satisfying the mature forested wetland criteria but - ha\nng significant habitat value, and estuarine wetlands and kelp beds that d.^ not satisfy Cau^. r. criter:a CATEGORY II (iv) - Wetlands with significant habitat value (Freshwater Wetlands) SUB-CRITERIA Is the habitat score for significant habitat value greater than or equal to lOpoints. . SOURCE OF INFORMATION See field methodology JUSTIFICATION This value was selected in order to separate wetlands which have characteristics that indicate significant habitat for wildlife species (mammals, birds, amphibians, etc.) and to protect them accordingly. r ^ DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY - DRAFT 30 CATEGORY IV WETLANDS CRITERIA : CATTCORY IV WETLANDS a) Is the wetland hydrologically isolated, < laae, with one vegetated class and dominated (>SO^c) by one native species from Table 7, ; N 1 ^,J U . J - -,1 ocu-j: ■'cd. < t^so ac'ci, -.vith one verct.-itcd c'.jss, ar. 90.1 of plant cover composed of species from Table 8, SOURCE OF INFORMATION See field methodology, and Tables 7 and 8 below Table 7. List of native species for determination of Category IV wetlands Small fruited bullrush Hard hack Cattail Scirpus micTOcarpus Spirea douglasii Typha latifolia Table 8. List of invasive exotic plant species for determination of Category IV wetlands Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria Townsend's cordgrass Spartina townsendii Canada thistle Cirsium arvense Himilayan blackberry Rubus discolor Rood canarygrass Phalaris arundinacea Velvet grass Holcus lanatus Foxtail Alopecurus pratensis Soft Rush Juncus effusus Rccd Phragmites communis Orchard grass Dactylis glomerata Buttercup Ranunculus rqpens JUSTIFICATION Category IV wetlands provide important functions including wildlife habitat, groundwater recharge, water quality improvement and recreation and aesthetic values. Many of these wetlands are degraded. DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY - DRAFT 31 WETLANDS OF LOCAL SIGNinCANCE CRl I LiUA : CATLGOiO, 1, II or III V\ LTLA.\D5 OF LOCAL SICMnCANCE - Anv -Acli.K.J, idoniificd and adopted by a local government as part of its planning process, following public re ;cw and appeals, and Sj:-:M\ing suScriteria below. a) is locally rare, or b) is documented as a groundwater recharge area, or contributes functional value to a local government water quality or flood mitigation program, or c) provides habitat for fish and wildlife that is considered impx)rtant by the local convnunity, or d) is a recognized or planned educational site, or e) is part of a recognized or planned recreation resource, or f) is part of an open space or planned open space resource, or g) is planned for restoration or enhancement as a part of a local government protection program, or h) is part of a wildlife corridor or connects wetland areas of greater value, or i) is recognized and valued as a part of the local landscape, or j) is considered sensitive to development or disturbance, or k) is considered irreplaceable, or I) is a buffer area for a growth management boundary, or m) is an integral part of a wetland system that would benefit from better overall protection, or n) is part of a flyway for migratory birds, or o) satisfies other criteria developed by local government. SOURCE The use of the wetland of local significance concept should be fully described within the planning documents of the local jurisdiction. In order to be recognised as WOLS, each wetland should be specifically identified and adopted as a "wetlands of local significance" under local legislative Authorities. r DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY -DRAFT 32 JUSTIFICATION The purpc >c of criteria for wetlands ct Iccal ?;gniiK\-.nee /O. OL^Sj :> to ;rroMJc ■.■■.r. •:.:'. .... government to protect wetlands within the wetlands rating system to a degree higher than thj afforded by stnct application of the other state or regional critcr.a. rvu-in: ;-:\'.nL5corccpta lo-: co'.v.~----tcoj:j p-. - •_ ,;- ' _-:. -.C--,. -■ '. wetland to Category III, 11 or I protection levels, promote an othcnvi>e Category lii weilanj lo Category II or I protection levels, or promote an otherwise Category- II wetland to Category 1 protection levels. WOLS could also be identified and categorized on the basis of intcr-local agreements w here local government boundaries arbitrarily divide a wetland. This w ould be essential w hen additional protection of a watershed-wide wetland function was sought (i.e. flood-storage capacity) and the watershed is divided by multiple jurisdictions. For inventory purposes, WOLS would be identified on the basis of strict application of the criteria, regardless of the level of protection afforded them. It would not allow a reduction of protection to wetlands where protection is already required by state or federal law. DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY - DRAFT 33 GLOSSARY (^ F'^h! -"^ic^ arc ■•sjtcrs that arc '•omi-cnclosed bv land \s-ith open, pu".'-.- cV-'.r-jctcd ^poraJi: .i:-'-^ i. ■'• vV^,:."., ar.u m ■.■.!-.. ch ><,'a'Aali.T o at L^^t occa-ior.a'.',) d./^tcJ by I^l.^h■.•.J:vr rij" ■;:' from th'. ...: ,: Estuarinc boundaries extend upstream and landward to where ocean dcrued salts measure less than 0.5 ppt dunng the ponod of average annual low flow, and downstream or out to sea where fre-hw ator Oir^t'.on IS r;'.r.r:".ji ■^al■^itic^ scid^'n'i tali boK''V> .^,i PP' ■ •'^'^ o^i-.:'". ">, •N\.;!,:;'d^ ;> Ji^iir.-^d a- ;r.c tides (ELWS =ELLW) to upper limit or influence of ocean-dnven salts. Forested wetland is a wetland or homogeneous stand within a wetland complex whose upper layer of vegetation consists of trees with a canopy coverage of 30^ or more (adapted from Cowardin et. al. 1979). For the purposes of this rating system, a mature forested wetland is a forested wetland with an ovcrstory dominated by mature trees having a wetland indicator status of facultative (FAC), facultative-wet (FACW), or obligate wetland (OBL) (Reed, 1988) and with more than one age class/size present. Mature trees are considered to be trees that are over 50 years old for hardwood species. The prescence of young trees of the dominant overstory species is an indicator of long-term persistence on the site. Hydrologically isolated wetland means those regulated wetlands which 1) have no surface water connection to a lake, river or stream; 2) are outside of and not contiguous to any lOO-yr floodplain of a lake, river, or stream; and 3) have no contiguous hydric soil between the wetland and any surface water. Peat Wetlands means wetlands ith undrained hydric organic soils. Plant Association means climax stands of vegetation in which the dominant sp)ecies of corresponding f^ layers are essentially the same, to the extent that any differences in composition are due to chance dissemination rather than to a fundamental dissimilarity in habitat potential. Priority Habitat: A seasonal range or habitat clement with which a given species has a primary association, and which, if altered, may reduce the likelihood that the spiccies will maintain or increase population over the long term. These might include areas of high relative density, breeding habitat, winter range, and movement corridors. Priority habitats might also include areas that are of limited availability or high vulnerability to alteration, such as cliffs, talus, wetlands, etc. Priority Species: Animal species that are of concern due to their |x>pulation status and their sensitivity to habitat manipulation. Priority species include species of concern, monitor species, priority game species, as well as other game and nongame species. Species of Concern: are those animal species that are listed or candidates for designation as Endangered, Threatened, or Sensitive by the Washington Department of Wildlife. State Endangered Species arc those that are seriously threatened with extirpation throughout all or a significant portion of their range within Washington. State Monitor Species: Those animal and plant sjxxries of special interest because they: 1) have significant popular appeal; 2) require limited habitat during sonr>e portion of their life cycle; 3) are indicators of environmental quality; 4) require further field investigations to determine population status: 5) have unresolved taxononnic problems that may bear upon status classification; or 6) were justifiably removed from Endangered, Threatened, or Sensitive status. c DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY - DRAFT 34 State Potentially Extirpated Plant Species: Also referred to as Possibly Extinct or Possibly Extirpated. Plant taxa thought to be extinct or extirpated in Washington. Plants in this category are all high priorities for field ir.-.c^tication. if found. !'--:v will be as-ijzncd Endangered, Threatened, or Scn-iti'.o status. State rriority Game Species: Hunted spociv.> whose popuKitions have declined from histonc levels to a p^'int \shore thev rc-^airc ;rui.r.~i»v. :";.a;"..;::i. ~. ,,nt, due larj;^'.) to har.t.u 'iO>^ or oth^r hur.iar, State Sensitive Speacs: Anin^l and plant species that could become Threatened in Washington due to linnited papulation size and distribution, sensitivity to disturbance during critical stages in their life cycle, or depjcndence on a very specific habitat typx?. State Threatened Species: Animals and Plant species are those that are not presently Endangered in Washington but could become so in the foreseeable future. DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY - DRAFT 35 REFERENCES CITED A'^-;»-t R H'r-~:h;. R , \';ir.bi^r:h; R .ir.J \'i;.v C l^?-'^ Co.i<;!3l Zone Atl-i- of W.ivh-— !■, n «;',v.v : Cr^-A-ardin, L. M , \'. Carter. F. C Go!ct, and E. T. LaRc'C. N79. Gassification ot wctbnd and dccp\s.!!'jr ^■":-v- .^- t" l""od ^- ::o>, L5 !^;-h a"d \S:lJ:;'o 5v----;co, Oitico ot Biological 5cr\i:os. ■■■■' 'o--"- -^ : -r:. ...;:.- \- r'.'.f ^:^-"- }\-\-'fr Dcthior, M.N. et.al. 1990. A Marine and Estuarine Habitat Classification System for Washington State. Department of Natural Lands, Olympia, Washington. Mumford, T.F. 1988. Marine Plants on State-Owned Aquatic Lands: Their Status and Management. Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting on Puget Sound Research. Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, Seattle. Reed, P.B., Jr. 1988. National list of plant species that occur in wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 88(26.9). 89pp. Washington Natural Heritage Program. 1990. Endangered, threatened, and sensitive vascular plants of Washington. Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, Washington. DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY - DRAFT 36 RGURE 2. SAMPLE LETTER TO WASHLN'CTON NATL^AL HERITAGE PROGRAM TO REQUEST 1\' FORMATION' 1991 Data NtanajZCT Department of Natural Resources Mail Stop EX-13 Olympia, Washington 98504 To Whom This Concerns, is planning to {describe activity) in the drainage, approximately _ nrviles ( insert direction) of the town of , (R.— , T. — , Sec.-). The area of the proposed activity contairis (a) wetland(s). Therefore we are requesting that the Washington Natural Heritage Program answer and document the following questions for this/these wetland(s): Docs the wetland contain individuals of Federal or State-listed Threatened or Endangered plant species; or is the wetland an historic location of a plant species thought to be possibly Extinct or Extirpated from Washington? Is the wetland already on record with the Washington Natural Heritage Program as a high quality native wetland? Does the wetland contain individuals of State-listed Sensitive plant species? Enclosed arc maps of the proposed activity and the location of the wctland(s). We under, land that we will be billed and must remit payment prior to receiving the results of the data search. If you have any questions, please contact at ( ) Thanks in advance for your help. Sincerely, enclosures: Map of DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY - DRAFT 37 nCURE 3. - - SAMPLE LETTER TO WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE TO REQUEST INFORMATION 1991 Database NL^ncer Nongamo Pr^" z'i~ Washington Department of Wildlife Mail Stop EX 12 Olympia, Washington 98504 To Whom This Concerns: . is planning a (describe the activity) in the drainage, approximately _ miles (direction) of the town of , (R. — , T. — , Sec.-). The area of the proposed harvest contains (a) wetland(s). Therefore we are requesting that the WDW answer and document the following questions for this/these wetland(s): Does the wetland contain documented priority habitats for State-listed or candidate Threatened or Endangered wildlife species managed by the Washington Department of Wildlife? Does the wetland contain documented habitats of State or Federally listed or State or Federal candidate Threatened or Endangered fish species, or races of fish, managed by the Washington Department of Wildlife or the Washington Department of Fisheries? Is the wetland documented as habitat of regional (Pacific Coast) or national significance for migratory birds? Does the wetland contain documented habitat for State-listed or candidate sensitive wildlife species managed by the Washington Department of Wildlife? Does the wetland contain priority species or habitats documented by Washington Department of Wildlife's Priority Habitats and Species Program. ErKlosed are maps of the proposed activity and the location of the wetland(s). We understand that we will be billed and must remit payment prior to receiving the results of the data search. If you have any questions, please contact at ( ) Sincerely, enclosure: Map of DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY - DRAFT ' "* " ' 38 nCURE 4 SAV'PLE ! HTTER TO VVA?HI\CTO\' DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES TO REQUEST i\r:.RNlA7,0N Data Base Manager Washington Department of Fisheries 115 General Aclnr\inistration Building 01> mpia, Washington 98507 To Whom This Concerns: is planning a (describe the activity) in the drainage, approximately _ n\iles (direction) of the town of , (R.— , T.~-, Sec.-). The area of the proposed harvest contains (a) wetland(s). Therefore we are requesting that WDF answer and document the following questions for this/these wetland(s): Docs the wetland contain documented habitats of State or Federally listed or State or Federal candidate Threatened or Endangered fish species, or races of fish, managed by the Washington Department of Wildlife or the Washington Department of Fisheries? Docs the wetland contain documented habitats of State or Federally listed or candidate Sensitive fish species managed by the Washington Department of Wildlife or the Washington Department of Fisheries? Enclosed are maps of the proposed activity and the location of the wetland(s). We vr.i . r^ land that we will be billed and must remit payment prior to receiving the results of the data search. If you have any questions, please contact at ( ) Sincerely, enclosure: Map of DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY - DRAFT 39 f ATTACHMENT N-7 Wyoming Wetlands Act (ORIGlhWL SIGNED BY PRESIDENT AND SPEAKER) SIGNED BY GOVERNOR DATRi <=^ ' J^ - ^/ ORIGINAL HOUSE BILL NO. 0048A ENROLLED ACT NO. 74, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FIFTY- FIRST LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WYOMING 1991 GENERAL SESSION AN ACT to create W.S. 35-11-308 through 35-11-311; and to amend W.S. 35-ll-103(c) (vi) and by creating new paragraphs (x) through (xiii) relating to wetlands; requiring notification prior to draining a wetland as specified; providing definitions; provid- ing for guidelines; and providing for an effective date. Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Wyoming; Section 1. W.S. 35-11-308 through 35-11-311 are created to read: 35-11-308. Short title. This act, W.S. 35-11-308 through 35-11-311, may be known and shall be cited as the "Wyoming Wet- lands Act". 35-11-309. Legislative policy and intent. (a) The legislature declares that all water, including col- lections of still water and waters associated with wetlands within the borders of this state are property of the state. The legislature further declares that water is one of Wyoming's most important natural resources, and the protection, development and management of Wyoming's water resources is essential for the long-term public health, safety, general welfare and economic security of Wyoming and its citizens. (b) The legislature finds that agriculture, energy develop- ment and timbering are important industries in this state and that industrial concerns must be accommodated in the protection of wetlands. Wetlands can have an impact on industry prac- tices. Even though property taxes are generally paid on such lands, wetlands provide limited economic return to the land- owner. Wetland policies can obstruct water development projects and water management projects for private industry as well as public entities and can affect other developments. (c) The legislature finds that the primary reason wetlands - 1 - ORIGINAL HOUSE BILL NO. 0048A ENROLLED ACT NO. 74, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FIFTY- FIRST LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WYOMING 1991 GENERAL SESSION are considered important is because wetlands provide the habitat base for the production and maintenance of waterfowl. The leg- islature also finds that wetlands can moderate the water flow and have value as natural flood control mechanisms, can aid in water purification by trapping, filtering and storing sediment and other pollutants and by recycling nutrients, and can serve as ground water recharge and discharge areas. Wetlands also function as nursery areas for numerous aquatic animal species and are habitat for a wide variety of plant and animal species, and provide vital habitat for resident wildlife. Wetlands also can provide scientific, aesthetic and recreational benefits. The legislature therefore concludes that wetlands and values associated therewith deserve to be effectively managed, pro- tected and preserved. (d) The legislature recognizes that significant differences exist in Wyoming between naturally occurring wetlands and those wetlands that result from human activities. Because portions of Wyoming are arid or semiarid, water was diverted from streams and rivers for irrigating cropland, resulting in the creation of wetlands. These wetlands have partially compensated for wet- lands losses. Additionally, road smd highway construction, petroleum industry operations and other human activities have created wetlands where none previously existed. While these man-made wetlands are equally as important as naturally occur- ring wetlands, having the same characteristics and providing the same values and functions, management flexibility is required to acknowledge their different origins and to protect the property rights of landowners and water right holders. (e) In view of the legislative findings and conclusions of the importance of wetlands, water development and management, and industry in Wyoming it is hereby declared to be the wetlands policy of this state that water management and development and wetland preservation activities should be balanced to protect and accommodate private property, industry, water and wetland interests and objectives. - 2 - ORIGINAL HOUSE BILL NO. 0048A ENROLLED ACT NO. 74, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FIFTY-FIRST LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF '/DOMING 1991 GENERAL SESSION 35-11-310. Notice to drain waters recpaired; exception. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, after July 1, 1996, no person shall drain water from a naturally occurring or man-made wetland, or any series thereof, which has an area comprising five (5) acres or more, wichouz firs^ notify- ing the department that the water which will be drained from the wetland, or any series thereof, will not flood or adversely affect downstream lands. Notification shall include the size and location of the wetland, and whether the wetland is natural or man-made. (b) Subsections (a) and (c) of this section do not apply to disturbances of wetlands resulting from mining operations con- ducted pursuant to mining permits issued by the department of environmental quality. (c) Any person draining, or causing to be drained, water of a naturally occurring wetland, or any series thereof, which has an area comprising five (5) acres or more, without first notify- ing the department as required by subsection (a) of this sec- tion, shall not be eligible to participate in the mitigation credit banking system as provided by W.S. 35-11-311. Failure to notify the department pursuant to this section does not consti- tute a violation for purposes of W.S. 35-11-901. 35-11-311. Mitigation; guidelines. (a) The department in conjunction with the Wyoming depart- ment of agriculture shall adopt guidelines for evaluating eco- logical function and values and for establishing and adminis- tering a mitigation credit banking system for compensatory miti- gation. The guidelines shall, at a minimum, provide for: (i) Criteria under which mitigation credits may be earned, with credit to be recognized for man-made wetlands that have already been created; - 3 - ORIGINAL HOUSE BILL NO. 0048A ENROLLED ACT NO. 74, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FIJTY-FIRST LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WYOMING 1991 GENERAL SESSION (ii) Geographical limitations for the application of mitigation bank credits; (iii) Criteria for the use, banking or sale of banked credits; (iv) The approval by the department for the earning, using, banking, transfer or selling of mitigation bank credits; and (v) Requirements for the maintenance and svibmission by the department of records concerning ecological value losses, and credit and debit accounts for each mitigation bank. Section 2. W.S. 35-11-103 (c) (vi ) and by creating new para- graphs (x) through (xiii) is amended to read: 35-11-103. Definitions. (c) Specific definitions applying to water quality: (vi) "Waters of the state" means all surface and ground water, including waters associated with wetlands, within Wyoming; (x) "Wetlands" means those areas in Wyoming having all three (3) essential characteristics: (A) Hydrophytic vegetation; (B) Hydric soils; and (C) Wetland hydrology. (xi) "Compensatory mitigation" means replacement, sub- stitution, enhancement or protection of ecological functions and values to offset anticipated losses of those values caused by - 4 - ORIGINAL HOUSE BILL NO. 0048A ENROLLED ACT NO. 74, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FIFTY- FIRST LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF '-VYOMING 1991 GENERAL SESSION draining a wetland; (xii) "Ecological function and value" means the abil- ity of an area to support vegetation and fish and wildlife popu- lations, recharge aquifers, attenuate flooding and trap sedi- ment; (xiii) "Mitigation" means all actions to avoid, mini- mize, restore and compensate for ecological values lost. Section 3. This act is effective July 1, 1991. (END) Speaker of the House President of the Senate Governor TIME APPROVED: _ DATE APPROVED: (OPJnf>'TAL SIGNED BY PFF'-IDENT AND SPEAKEBJ S" ro BY GOVERNOR DATE: ^'JJ?-^/ niAPTER NO: ///O - 5 ATTACHMENT N-8 Wetland Inventory and Wetland Conservation Plans for Oregon (' (I ;.;.v.V.v.;Av.v.v.v.;.%;.;.;.;,V.;.;.;.;.\v;v:;:v.v.w^^^ -*'*'*'*'*'*'■'■*'*''**'*''*'* 'f "■'■'''''''■'•'''-'-*-***''''•'■'''-'-'-'• VrVr''*-'''''-'-''''*-'-VVf'-'-*-'-*-'-*-*-'-*-*-*-*-'-*-*-*'^ Effective Date: September 1989 Division of State Laads Environmental Pbmiing and Psmiits Section 775 Summer Street NE Salem, Oregon 97310 (503) 378-3805 INDEX statute (O.R.S.) WETLAND INVENTORY AND WETLAND CONSERVATION PLANS 196.668 Legislative findings 1 196.672 Policy 1 196.674 State-wide wetlands inventory 2 196.676 Response to notices from local governments 2 196.678 Contents; procedures for adopting 2 1 96.68 1 Duties; standards and condltlore for approval 2 196.682 Removal-Fill permit requirements 4 196.684 Amendment of plans 4 196.686 Acknowledged estuary management plane 5 196.688 Public information program 6 196.692 Rules 6 Wetland Conservation Plans (Wetland Conservation Plans) 196.668 Legislative findings. The Legis- lative Assembly finds that: (1) Wetlands provide a natural means of flood and storm damage protection through the absorption and storage of water during high runoff periods, thereby reducing flood crests and preventing loss of life and prop- erty; (2) Wetlands provide essential breeding, spawning, rearing, feeding, nesting and win- tering habitats for a major portion of this state's fish and wildlife; (3) Wetlands provide essential habitat for waterfowl using the Pacific Flyway and for the rearing of salmon and other anadromous and resident flsh; (4) Wetlands act as accumulation areas for sediments which retain nutrients and other pollutants that may prevent entry of the pollutants into other waterways; (5) Wetlands provide a valuable public service of maintaining clean water by re- taining nutrients, metals and toxic materials from the water to protect water quality; (6) Wetlands provide significant opportu- nities for environmental and ecological re- search, public recreation and education and provide scenic diversity and aesthetic value as open space and areas of visual enjoyment; (7) Much of this state's original wetlands have been diked, drained, filled, dredged, ditched or otherwise altered; (8) There is continuing development pressure on wetlands in Oregon; (9) There are often conflicts between wetland protection and other resource values and usc^ -'^^^" (10) Uncoordinated regulation of wetlands by local, state and federal agencies can cause confusion, frustration and unrea- sonable delay and uncertainty for the general public; and (11) Wetland mana^ment is a matter of this state's concern since beneflts and im- pacts related to wetland resources can be international, national, regional and state wide in scope. 11989 c.837 S2| I9(.C7t (Fonnerlr 54I.fi(tS: renumbered 196.800 in 19891 ' 196.672 Policy. In addition to the policy described in ORS 196.805, it is the policy of the State of Oregon to: (1) Promote the protection, conservation and best use of wetland resources, their functions and values through the integration and close coordination of state-wide planning goals, local comprehensive plans and state and federal regulatory programs. (2) Use a single definition of "wetlands" for the purposes of ORS 196.800 to 196.905 and state-wide planning goals and a single, uniform methodology of delineating wetland boundaries. (3) Develop a state-wide inventory of wetlands based on uniform identification standards and criteria at a scale practicable for planning and regulatory purposes, and to make such inventory available to state agen- cies and local governments to facilitate bet- ter management of wetland resources and closer coordination of local, state and federal wetland programs. (4) Maintain a stable resource base of wetlands through the mitigation of losses of wetland resources and the adoption of the procedural mitigation standard currently used by federal agencies. (5) Elstablish the opportunity to increase wetland resources by encouraging wetland restoration and creation where appropriate. (6) Reduce the delays and uncertainty which can occur in the current wetland planning and regulatory framework through improved coordination of the provisions in ORS 196.800 to 196.905 with local land use planning and regulation and by providing mechanisms for expedited permit review con- sistent with the protection and conservation of wetland resources. (7) Continue to meet the requirements of federal law in the protection and manage- ment of wetland resources, while asserting the interests of this state, in concert with those of. local governments in urgin^^the federal resource and regulatory agencies to develop a uniform wetland policy and more consistent, cohesive standards to implement the Federal Water Pollution CJontrol Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). (8) Develop and provide information to the general public concerning the fiinctions, values and distribution of wetlands of this state to raise public awareness of these re- sources. (9) Promote the protection of wetland values on private lands by developing and using public recognition programs, incentives and oUier nonregulatory actions. (10) Encourage wetlands as an interim use of mining and construction sites on lands that were not originally wetlands and are designated for other than wetland ptirposes in an acknowledged comprehensive plan. while insuring that interim wetland use does not limit the future use of such sites for mining and construction. (1989 c.837 §31 196.674 State-wide Wetlands Inven- tory. (1) The division shall compile and maintain a comprehensive State-wide Wetlands Inventory. (2) In compiling the State-wide Wetlands Inventory, the division shall develop, by rtiie, a system for uniform wetland identification, delineation and comprehensive mapping. Ini- tial inventories shall be based upon the Na- tional Wetlands Inventory prepared by the United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. The division shall constilt with the public, local governments and affected state and federal agencies con- cerning the accuracy of the inventory. (3) The division shall revise the inventory maps as new or more complete information becomes available. (4) The division shall provide each city and county planning office with copies of the State-wide Wetlands Inventory covering the local jurisdiction. (5) The division shall provide each state agency with a copy of the inventory upon request. (6) Copies of the State-wide Wetlands In- ventory shall be made available to the gen- eral public, through the division, upon payment of a fee to offset administrative and reproduction costis. (7) A wetland inventory developed by an- other party may be utilized by the division if it is consistent with standards adopted pur- suant to this section, after consulting with the affected local government, and is re- viewed and approved by the division as com- plying with the standards adopted pursiumt to subsection (2) of this section. (8) Nothing in -this section shall restrict the regulatory jtirisdiction of the division under ORS 196.800 to 196.905. (9) In compiling and updating the State- wide Wetlands Inventory, the division shall identify opportunities for wetland creation, restoration and enhancement when the in- fornuition is available. (1989 cJ837 S6| 196.675 (Formerly 541^10; renumbered 196 JOS in 19S9I 196.676 Response to notices from local governments. The division shall respond to the notice received from local governments pursuant to ORS 215.418 (1) and 227.350 (1) within 30 days of receipt of the notice. The response shall state whether a permit is or in the future will be required or whether a permit has been issued by the division for the activity which is subject to notice. (1989 cJ37 J7i 196.678 Wetland conservation plans; contents; procedure for adopting. (1) Any city or county may develop and submit to the division a wetland conservation plan for re- view pursuant to the provisions of ORS 196.678 to 196.684. (2) A wetland conservation plan shall in- clude the following elements: (a) A description and maps of the area to be covered by the plan; (b) A detailed inventory of the wetlands, identifying the location, quality and quantity of the wetland resource and the source of the water for the wetlands within the area cov- ered by the plan; (c) An assessment of wetland functions and values, including an historical analysis of wetland degradation, alterations and losses; (d) Designation of wetland areas for pro- tection, conservation or development. Wetlands within areas designated for devel- opment shall be delineated to determine reg- ulatory boundaries; (e) A mitigation plan, including a pro- gram for replacement of planned wetland losses and restoration of lost functions and values through creation of new wetlands or enhancement of existing wetland areas which designates specific sites within the plan area and actions for restoration and enhancement; (f) Policies and implementing measures establishing protection, conservation and best use of the wetlands in the plan area; (g) Specification of sites for fill oe?.r«* moval, or both, and the conditions and. pro- cedures under which fill or removal, or both, may occur; (h) Monitoring provisions that ir wetland miti^tion measures are .m mented and mitigation goals are achi< (i) Identification of public uses wetlands and waters and conflicting plaimjad uses; and "^ (j) Specification of buffer areas allowed on lands which are adjacenC^T.Co- wetlands and which are necessary to nwin- tain, protect or restore wetland functions and values. V^^ (3) The proposed wetland conservation plan shall be adopted by the affected local government according to the procedures set forth in ORS 197.610 to 197.625. (1989 c.837 flOi 196.680 (Formerly S41.6I5; renumbered I96J10 in 19891 196.681 Duties of division; standards for approval of plan; conditions for ap» proval; order. (1) In accordance with rules adopted pursuant to this chapter, the division shall: (a) Review any proposed wetland conser- vation plan or proposed amendment to an approved wetland conservation plan against the standards in this section; (b) Prepare a proposed order that ap- proves, approves with conditions or denies the proposed wetland conservation plan or proposed amendntent to an approved wetland conservation plan; (c) Provide notice and the opportunity for public hearing and comment on the proposed order; (d) Consult with affected local, state and federal agencies; and (e) Consider the applicable findings made in the order of acknowledgment issued by Land Conservation and Development Com- mission. (2) The director may approve by order a wetland conservation plan that includes the necessary elements of ORS 196.678 (2) and meets the standards of subsections (3) and (4) of this section. (3) A wetland conservation plan shall comply with the following standards: (a) Uses and activities permitted in the plan including fill or removal, or both, con- form to sound policies of conservation and will not interfere with public health and safety; (b) Uses and activities permitted in the plan including fill or removal, or both, are not inconsistent with the protection, conser- vation and best use of the water resources of this state and the use of state waters for navigation, fishing and public recreation; and (c) Designation of wetlands for pro- tection, conservation and development is consistent with the resource functions and values of the area and the capability of the wetland area .ta withstand alterations and maintain important functions and values. (4) Wetland areas may be designated for development including fill or removal, or both, only if they meet the following stand- (a) There is a public need for the pro- posed useis set. forth in the acknowledged comprehensive plan for the area; (b) Any planned wetland losses shall be fully ofEsct by creation, restoration or en- hancement of wetland functions and values or in an estuarine area, estuarinc resource replacement is consistent with ORS 196.830; and (c) Practicable, less damaging alterna- tives, including alternative locations for the proposed use arc not available. (5) Approval by the director of a wetland conservation plan shall be conditioned upon adoption by the affected local governments of comprehensive plan policies and land use regulations consistent with and sufficient to implement the wetland conservation plan. Appropriate implementing measures may in- clude the following planning and zoning re- quirements regulating: (a) Adjacent lands or buffer areas neces- sary to maintain, protect or restore wetland functions and values, including riparian veg- etation, and the uses to be allowed in those areas; (b) Sites for mitigation of impacts from development activities; (c) Upland areas adjacent to wetlands; and (d) Activities or location of buildings, structures and improvements which may af- fect wetland values or functions, such as storm water runofE. (6) The director shall issue an order ap- proving, approving with conditions or deny- ing a wetland conservation plan, including^ a clear statement of findings which sets forth the basis for the approval, conditioning . or denial. The order shall include: _=, (a) A clear statement of findings that the elements specified in ORS 196.678 (2) have been developed; "^ (b) The findings in support of the deter- mination of compliance or noncompliance with the standards in subsections (3) and (4) of this section; and (c) The conditions under which fill or re- moval or both may occur. —^i' (7) The director may, as a part of ait- or- der approving a plan, authorize site-spe«ific fill or removal without an individual potmi as required by ORS 1%.810 provided thml^^ (a) The director adopts findings detnpn- strating that fill or removal for any propoiwd - project complies ¥dth ORS 196.682 (l)^^fo (e); or "-^^l' (b) The director adopts finding thai;^|K cific areas of fill or removal within u^nv designated as development in the plan nieei the following standards: i^'* (A) The fill or removal approved bjr^ the order will result in minimal impacts to^i^the wetland system in the planning area; .ii^ (B) The public need for the proposed area of fill or removal outweighs the environ- mental damage likely to result fi-om full de- velopment; (C) The director conditions any such or- der as necessary to insure that the fill or renx>val, or both, is designed to minimize impacts from implementing the project; and (D) Full replacement of wetland losses is provided through creation, restoration or en- hancemcnt of wetlands with comparable functions and values. (8) Upon a finding by the director that a fill or removal, or both, authorized under paragraph (b) of subsection (7) of this section has caused or is likely to cause more than minimal adverse impact to the wetland sys- tem considering required mitigation condi- tions, the director shall revise the order to require individual permit review according to ORS 196.682 or provide additional conditions to insure that adverse impacts are minimal. Such revision shall not be subject to ORS 196.684. (1989 C.837 §lll 196.682 Permits required for removal or fill; conditions on issuance of permit. (1) Except where otherwise provided by the order approving the plan, individual permit applications shall be required for removal or fill, or both, in areas subject to an approved wetland conservation plan. If individual per- mit applications arc to be reviewed under the authority of the director, then application foes and review procedures shall be in ac- cordance with ORS 196.815, 196.825 (5) and (6) and 196.835. In lieu of the substantive standards for permit issuance in ORS 196.815 (1) and 196.825 (1), (2) and (3). the division shall issue a permit if the removal or fill, or both, is consistent with the wetland conser- vation plan or can be conditioned to be con- sistent with the plan. The division shall condition any such permit as necessary to insure that the project: (a) Is properly designed or config\ired to minimize the need for alterations to waters of the state; (b) Is the minimum size necessary to reasonably provide for the proposed use; (c) Complies with applicable provisions of the acknowledged comprehensive plan and land use regulations for the area; (d) Is designed to minimize impacts from implementing the project; and (e) Is conditioned to insure wetland cre- ation, restoration or enhancement measures are implemented to fully replace impacted resources. (2) In any order approving a plan which authorizes any fill or removal or both, with- out the necessity of subsequently obtaining an individual permit, the director shall con- dition such approval as necessary to insure that the project complies with the conditions of subsection (1) of this section and clearly delineates the wetland area in which fill or removal, or both, is to occur. (1989 c.837 $121 196.684 Amendment of plans; revie^v of plans by division; review of orders by Land Use Board of Appeals. (1) Local gov- ernments shall provide notice to the division of any proposed amendnnents to the land use plan and ordinances affecting lands subject to a wetland conservation plan approved un- der this section. (2) Amendments to plan policies, maps and implementing ordinances by the local government within an approved wetland con- servation plan shall be reviewed by the divi- sion against the requirements of this section. These provisions do not exempt local gov- ernments from the provisions of ORS 197.610 to 197.625. (3) The director shall provide notice and the opportunity for public comment and hearing as defined by rule on the matter of including the amendment in the wetland conservation plan. (4) If the director finds that the proposed local government amendment to acknowl- edged comprehensive plan and land use reg- ulations meets the requirements of ORS 196.681, the director shall approve the plan by order, and notify the local government within 10 days of the completion of the pub- lic review provided in subsection (3) of this section. (5) If the amendments to acknowledged comprehensive plan and land use regulations adopted by the local government are deter- mined not to comply with the requirements of ORS 196.668 to 196.692, 196.800, 196.810, 196.825. 196.830, 196.850 to 196.860, 196.885, 196.905, 197.015, 197.279, 215.213, 215.283, 215.418 and 227.350, the director shall revoke the approval order or amend the order to in- sure compliance with the requirements of ORS 196.668 to 196.692, 196.800, 196.810, 196.825, 196.830, 196.850 to 196.860, 196.885, 196.905, 197.015, 197.279, 215.213, 215.283, 215.418 and 227.350. (6) The division shall review each'-~ap- proved wetland conservation plan every" five years. After such review the director - shall either modify, reissue or rescind thearordcr approving the plan. ' i^ (7) In conducting the five-year review of an approved wetland conservation plan, the director shall provide notice and the oppor- tunity for public comment and hearing on whether: (a) There has been a substantial change in circumstances that would affect the wetland resources subject to the plan and would adversely affect the compliance of the plan with the standards in ORS 196.681; (b) Changes have been made in applicable state law, state-wide land use planning goals, federal law or agency rules that require the plan to be changed; and (c) In the director's evaluation, the plan as implemented over the preceding five years meets the goals established in the plan. ■M ^Sfefe"? . '?^m ...,_.^.-^;j.. --. (8) Wetland conservation plans approved by the Director of the Division of State Lands pursuant to ORS 196.668 to 196.692 shall be deemed to comply wth the require- ments of any state-wide planning goals relat- ing to wetlands, other than cstuarine wetlands, for those aireas, uses and activities which are regulated by the plan. (9) An order by the director regsuxling approval, amendntcnt or review of a wetland conservation plan shall be reviewable by the Land Use Board of Appeals as a land use decision of a state agency. For the purpose of such review, the director's order shall not become final until the local government adopts its wetland conservation plan or plan amendment. The Land Use Board of Appeals shall consolidate for review appeals of the director's order and the local government adoption. The Land Use Board of Appeals shall review such order for compliance with the requirements of ORS 196.668 to 196.692, 1%.800, 196.810, 196.825, 196.830, 196.850 to 196.860, 196.885, 196.905, 197.015, 197.279, 215.213, 215.283, 215.418 and 227.350. (10) Nothing in this section shall be con- strued to require a contested case proceeding regarding approval, amendment or review of a wetland conservation plan. (11) Nothing in this section shall be con- strued to aflcct the evaluation of a permit application in areas that do not have a wetland conservation plan. (12) Upon a finding by the director, after a public hearing, that an affected local gov- ernment is not enforcing the comprehensive plan provisions or land use regulations set forth in the conditions of the order, as spec- i5ed in ORS 196.681 (5), and that such lack of enforcement has resulted or would result in adverse impacts to wetlands, the director shall modify, su;q>end or revoke approval of the wetland conservation plan~ (IMS cJtST fl3i 196.6SS (Formerly 541.620; renumbered ' I96J1S in I989I 196.686 Acknowledged estiiary man- agement plans; review and approval; hearings; final order. (1) For the purposes of this section, an acknowledged estuary management plan includes the comprehen- sive plan and land use regulations adopted by cities and counties to satisfy the require- ment of state-wide planning goals related to cstuarine resources including shorcland portions of estuarine sites designated for de- velopment as those plans and regulations ex- isted on January 1, 1989. (2) Any city or county may submit an acknowledged estuary management plan for review and approval by the division pursuant to the provisions of this section. The plan shall be submitted with a written request for review. (3) To allotAr timely and effective review of acknowledged estuary management plans, the division may limit acceptance for review to two plans but not more than one plan for a deep draft development estuary at any one time. (4) With the consent of the city or county submitting an estuary management plan for review and approval, the division may extend any or all of the deadlines set forth in this section. (5) Acknowledged estuary management plans shall be presumed to comply with re- quirements for approval of wetland conser- vation plans specified in ORS 196.681. (6) Within 10 days of acceptance of a re- quest for review, the division shall provide notice to affected state agencies, local gov- ernments, federal agencies and the public of receipt of the acknowledged estuary manage- ment plan and of the request for review and approval of the acknowledged estuary man- agement plan as a wetland conservation plan. (7) Within 30 days of acceptance of a re- quest for review and upon provision of at least two weeks' notice, the division shall hold a public informational hearing on the proposea approval of the acknowledged cstuaiy management plan as a wetland con- servation plan. (8) Within 60 days of acceptance of the request for review, the division shall conduct a preliminazy review of the acknowledged estuary management plan. The division shall consult with the affected local government prior to finalizing the preliminary review. (9) Elxcept as provided in subsection (10) of this section, the director shall approve-tbe acknowledged estuary management plan^by order witMn 60 days of completion of^thie preliminary review..;.^' . ^j. i;^^'4>.' (10) A contested case hearing shalR be- held within 30 days of the completion of Ihe preliminary review or receipt of a request fi>r hearing i£ ^ii^' (a) The director determines there- w probable cause to believe that the estuarr management plan does not meet the stand- ards for approving wetland conservation plans or unreasonably interferes with the use of the estuary for navigation, fisheries or public recreation; or (b) A hearing is requested and the re- quest: (A) Is made in writing within 60 days of the date of mailing of notice of conviction of review; (B) Clearly states the reasons for re- questing the hearing; and (C) Provides sufficient information for the director to determine that there is prob- able cause to believe that the estuary man- agement plan does not meet the standards for approving wetland conservation plans or un- reasonably interferes with the use of the estuary for navigation, fisheries or public re- creation. (11) The director shall approve the ac- knowledged estuary management plan as a wetland conservation plan by order unless the director finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the estuary management plan does not meet the standards for approving wetland conservation plans or unreasonably interferes with the use of the estuary for navigation, fisheries or public recreation or that substantial fills proposed in an estuary management plan for nonwatcr dependent use are not for a public use and would not satisfy a public need that outweighs harm to navigation, fisheries or public recreation. (12) The director shall prepare a proposed order for review by the parties within 30 days of any contested case hearing held pur- suant to subsection (10) of this section. (13) A final order from the director that recommends, pursuant to subsection (8) of this section, denial of an estuary manage- mcnt plan as a wetland conservation plan shall identify deficient elements and pro- visions of the acknowledged estuary manage- ment plan and what measures may be taken to correct those deficiencies. (14) Individual permit applications shall be required for removal Of fill, or both, in areas subject to an approved estuary man- agement plan. Individual permit applications shall be reviewed in accordance with ORS 196.815, 196.825 (5) and (6), 196.830 and 196.835. In lieu of the substantive standards for permit issuance in ORS 196.815 (1) and 1%.825 (1), (2) and (3), the division shall is- sue a permit irthe removal or fill, or both, is determined by the director to be consistent with the estuary management plan or can be conditioned to be consistent with the plan. The division shall condition any such permit as necessary to insure that the project: (a) Is designed or configured to minimize alterations to waters of the state; (b) Is the minimum size necessary to reasonably provide for the proposed use; (c) Is consistent with the resource capa- bilities of the area and the purposes of the management unit, unless this has been pre- viously determined in the approved estuary management plan; (d) Is designed to minimize impacts fix>m implementing the project; and (e) Has estuarine resource replacement measures for creation, restoration or en- hancement that replaces impacted resources. (15) Judicial review of an order g^nting or denying approval of an estuary manage- ment plan as provided in this section shall be as provided in ORS 183.470. (16) Following approval by the director of an estuary management plan, the require- ments of ORS 196.684 shall apply to the ap- r roved estuary management plan. (1989 c.837 Ml 196.688 Public information program. (1) The division shall develop a public infor- mation program to educate permit applicants and the general public about: (a) Wetland functions and values. (b) The status and trends of Oregon's wetlands. (c) The State-wide Wetlands Inventory. (d) Wetland regulation. (2) Upon request, the division shall, within the limits of staffing ability, provide technical assistance to other state agencies and local governments and the public in identifying and delineating the boundaries of wetlands. |1389 C.S37 S20| 196.690 (Fonnerly 541j622; renumbered 19G.820 in 1989! 196.692 Rules. The division shall adopt rules to carry out the provisions of ORS 196.668 to 196.692, 196.800, 196.810, 196.825, 196.830, 196.850 to 1%.860, 196.885, 196.905, 197.015, 197.279, 215.213, 215.283, 215.418 and 227.350. (1989 c.837 $321 -•--^Xv-. .'^: '^i ATTACHMENT N-9 MOU FOR THE CONSERVATION OF WETLAND RESOURCES ASSOCIATED WITH HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS IN MONTANA k ^ f INTERAGENCY MEMORANDUM OF UNPET^STANDING FOR THE CONSERVATION OF WETTAND RESOURCES ASSOCIATED WITH HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS IN THE STATE OF MONTANA MONTANA INTERAGENCY WETLANDS GROUP: Montana Departaient of Transportation (MDT) Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife « Parks (MDFWP) Montana Department of Health « Environmental Sciences (MDHES) Federal Highway Administration, Montana Division (FHWA) Corps of Engineers, Montana Field Office (Corps) Environmental Protection Agency, Monrana Office (EPA) U.S. Fish a. Wildlife Service, Montana /Wyoming Office (USFWS) HELENA, MONTANA 1992 I. Purpose. The purpose of tiiis Memorandtm of Understanding is to establish guidelines for the identification and evaluation of wetland resoxirces impacted by the need to maintain and improve (^(^ transportation corridors in the State of Montana. In addition, with conservation as a goal, guidance is provided to identify appropriate and practicable steps to minimize impacts to valuable wetland resources and where possible, to enhance the environment. The tenets of this Memorandum of Understanding are founded on the principles of the Montana Environmental Policy Act and the National Environmental Policy Act which recognize the right of every citizen to a clean and healthy environment, as well as the responsibility of government agencies to make wise and informed decisions when assessing the impacts of legitimate competing needs. Additionally, activities conducted in accordance with the guidance provided within will ensure compliance with the following: 4 U.S. Department of Transportation Order 5660.1a Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands Section 404, Water Quality Act of 1987 as implemented by: 3 3 CFR 320-330: Corps Regulatory Program Rules 40 CFR 230: Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines Section .401, Water Quality Act of 1987 23 CFR 777 : Mitigation of Environmental Impacts to Privately Owned Wetlands Montana Water Quality Act II. Goals (^ 1. Establish a process to ensure the early involvement of concerned agencies in addressing wetland impacts due to highway construction. 2. Satisfy the requirements of applicable state and federal environmental regulations and directives pertaining to wetland resources. 3. Expedite highway project development by minimizing administrative delays and coordination requirements. III. Objectives The primary objectives clarified by this Memorandum of Understanding are to: 1. Categorize wetlands potentially impacted by highway projects as follows: a. NavigcQ:le and other waters of the U.S. (including 1 1 n i wetlcmds) subject: to Clean Water Act regxilatory autiiority; b. Wetlands exempted from Clean Water Act regulatory authority (e.g., drainage ditches cut in the upland and prior converted cropland) , but sxibject to review under E.O. 11990; c. Wetland habitat containing species designated on a state and/ or federal level as threatened or endangered. 2 . Assess the relative value of all resoiirces impacted by potential alternatives and mitigation proposals associated with a construction project. 3 . Assess the impact of wetland loss in perspective with the need to construct and maintain safe and efficient transportation corridors. 4. Avoid or minimize the loss and/or reduction in function/ importance of wetlands due to highway construction impacts . 5. Obtain effective, high quality mitigation for unavoidable losses of wetlands by evaluating proposed highway projects and transportation corridors ecirly in the planning process in accordance with the following: RSSOURCS CATEGORY l.a. (Section 4 04) l.b. (Federal F\anding) I.e. (T&E Species) MINIMUM >n:TIGATTON REOUTRIJ-fENTS That necessciry to satisfy the requirements of the Clecin Water Act regulatory authority. That necessary to satisfy the requirements of E.O. 11990. That determined to be needed by the lead agency (e.g. Corps of Engineers or FHWA) to avoid maJcing a "likely to adversely affect" determination (50 CFR Part 402, Interagency Cooperation-Endangered Species Act of 1973, as Amm ended; Final Rule [Section 4 02.13 and 402.14], June 3,1986). In cases where a "may adversely affect" determination is necessary, formal consultation will be initiated with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service in conformcmce with Section 402.14. I '' i ) r7. Guidelines ■ "--•■■- -.-^i^-:*- r,-:, '--'-' - --•..,•••:,..., A. This Memorandxim of Understanding is supplementary to all (gs applicable State and Federal laws, regulations and ^^ guidelines, and is for the purpose of expediting implementation of such existing authority only. Participating agencies retain all legally established regulatory authorities and management responsibilities. However, for purposes of compliance with the Statutes and Administrative Orders referenced in Section I, participating agencies agree to aiaide by these procedures, subject to the provisions of Section V. herein. B. This Memorandum of Understanding will function under the general guidance and oversight of the Montana Interagency Wetlands Group, which consists of the following signatory agencies; Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks (MDFWP) Montana Department of Health & Environmental Sciences (MDHES) U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, Montana Division (FHWA) r.,:. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Montana Field Office (Corps) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Montana Office (EPA) U.S. Department of the Interior Fish & Wildlife Service, ,,.„ - Montana /Wyoming Office (USFWS) C. Each agency will designate one representative to the Group, and may also designate substitutes. The Group will be chaired by the representative from MDT. D... . This Memorandum of Understanding will apply to federally and state funded highway projects where the nature of construction would unavoidably adversely impact wetlainds ,.,_, identified in Section III.l. above. 2. . Upon identification of potential impacts to wetlands identified in Section III.l. associated with any project, : the MDT Environmental & Hazardous Waste Bxireau will contact the Technical Subcommittee in compliance with this ^ „ Memorandum of Understanding. The Technical Subcommittee • will be composed of one qualified resoxirce specialist from each of the following Interagency Group members: MDT, .' MDFWP, amd the Corps. The Sxibcommittee will be chaired by . the representative from MDT. Additional ad hoc seats may be added to the Technical Subcommittee to accommodate the ,^ , concerns of nonmember agencies that have project specific JTirisdictional authority by law and similar wetland resource responsibility; or, to provide special expertise not found within the member agencies. W n n I I F. For purposes of this Memorandum of Understanding, the following definitions amd terms will apply: 1. "Kitigation" - in accordcince with 40 CTR 1508.20(a)- (e) , ajid includes the following measxires: a. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; b. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitud&^of the action and its implementation; c. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating or restoring the affected environment; d. ■ Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the lifetime of the action; (Preservation of existing wetlands resources may only in exceptional circumstances 'be accepted as compensatory mitigation. Preservation of existing wetlamds not impacted by a highway project is not, generally of itself, acceptable mitigation for the loss of wetlands functions and values stemming from highway construction.) e. Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing svibstitute resources or environments. 2. "Waters of the United States" - incorporated by reference from 33 CFR 328 .3 (a) (1) - (7) "; 3 . "Wetland" - definitions contained in the following documents will be used as applicable, and are hereby incorporated by reference: a. Resource category l.a. (Section 4 04) - 33 CFR 328.3(b), and 40 CFR 230.3; b. Resource category l.b. (Federal Funding) - Executive Order 11990. 4 . "Wetland delineation" - refers to the process of identifying the boundary of a jurisdictional wetland and will be accomplished by application of the procedures currently in use by the Corps at the time of the study . V. Wetland Inventory and Assessment As early as possible in the planning and design development process for highway projects, or for highway transportation corridors if feasible, the MDT Environmental & Hazardous Waste Bureau will identify wetland resources that may be impacted and contact the. Technical Sxibcommittee if resoxirces listed in Section III.l. are present. The Subcommittee will determine the extent, •t functions and values of all wetlands potentially impacted, and (ijC^, recommend alternatives and mitigation options consistent with this Memorandum of Understajiding , appropriate to the scope, purpose and need of the highway construction project- The impacts on all environmental resoxirces, including existing wetlands, of each alternative and mitigation plan will be assessed in conformance with this Memorandum of Understanding and all other environmental laws and regulations. The Subcommittee will utilize expertise and assistance from local or regional resource specialists or oth&r sovirces as the need arises. If agreement cannot be reached by the Subcommittee on any issue related to this Memorand;2m of Understanding, the matter will be referred to the entire Interagency Group. Failure to respond (without extenuating cause) by any agency representative will be interpreted as agreement with the decision reached by the remainder of the Group. Such 'non-responding agency will not object at a later date after a final decision on an issue has been reached. Final determination of any issue based on legal requirements will rest solely on the legally defined lead agency. The Subcommittee will ensure that a Project Wetland Resotirce Inventory/ Impact Assessment is written for each project involving wetland resource impacts, to be used in the development of the project design and required environmental documents, including a Wetland Finding. The Subcommittee will include a determination of the specific geographic areas of wetland resoxirce sites impacted by the project and recommendations for mitigation alternatives, including avoidance and minimization. The Subcommitee will further include documentation that demonstrates that the appropriate wetland mitigation sequence analysis (i.e., avoidance, minimization, compensation) has been followed in the project alternatives analysis. The Project Wetland Resoxirce Inventory/ Impact Assessment will be made . a part of the official record on the project and will be available to any member of the Interagency Group upon request. After mitigation projects are completed, they will be reviewed by the Subcommittee. The Subcommittee will advise the JIDT when the mitigation project is satisfactorily completed and, if requested, submit an acceptance report to any member of the Interagency Group . Agreement/ concurrence on wetland resource assessment and mitigarion proposals will be by written correspondence between the Subcommittee members or by citing personal communications. A copy of pertinent letters and/ or personal communication records will be maintained in the Wetland Resource Ledger/Mitigation Balance Record document. ^ o VI. Mitigation Procedures and Accoxinting The objectives of mitigation are to avoid, minimize or replace losses of wetland resources due to highway construction. Avoiding and minimizing wetland impacts by design and construction measures will be the first priority mitigation objective. For remaining unavoidable impacts, mitigation plans will be developed in accordance with the general guidance provided in Section III. 5. aibove, and in accordance with all other applicable local, state and federal environmental laws and regulations (see Attachment A) . A wetlands mitigation s;immary balamce sheet for each project will be maintained by MDT as part of the Wetland Resotirce Ledger /Mitigation Balance Record. This balance sheet will be reviewed at 'least annually by the Montana Interagency Wetlands Group. The overall mirigation objective is no net loss of wetlands functions, values and area on am annual basis. However, it is recognized thar due to project development constraints and •Che lac3c of suitable sites f'or effective wetland development identifiable by the Technical STObcommittee , negative or positive balances may accrue and be carried forward from year-to-year. Balances carried forward will apply to the succeeding year-'s mitigation amd will be directed toward wetland replacement within a similar biotic region or geographical area, as determined appropriate by the Interagency Group. VTI. Duration This Memorandum of Understanding shall remain in force from the date of final signing, siibject to review and amendment, upon the approval of the participating agencies. This Memorandum of Understanding may be rescinded by mutual agreement of participating agencies at any time or revoked by any party alone upon 3 0 days written notification to the other participants. VIII. Signatories Signatory agencies to this Memorandum of Understanding follow on Page 7. MONTANA INTERAGSNCY WETIANDS GROUP: SIGNED Hank Honeywell, Divi-sion Administrator Federal Highway Administration SIGNED John F. Warden, Director Montana Office U.S. Environmental Protection Office SIGNED Kemoer M. McMaster, Field Supervisor Montana /Wyoming, U.S. Fish « Wildlife Service SIGNED K. L. Cool, Director Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks SIGNED Dennis Iverson, Director Department of Health & Environmental Sciences SIGNED ^ Robert Mclnerney, Montana State Supervisor Ohamha District - Corps of Engineers *GNED )c^:^I^Z*-'^ rohn Rothwell, Director iDeoartment of Transportation ^ Attacliment A (VT. Mitigation Procediires and Accounting, Page 5) Montana Interagency Wetlands Group Memorandum of Understanding ENVTRONMENTAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS Antiquities Act Antiquities and Archaeological Resource Protection Act Aquatic Lands Conserrration (Confederated Salish-Kootenai) Ordinances 64A £ STA Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act 3ald Eagle Protection Ac^ s-- alackfeet (Water) Permit WIOID Civil Rights Act - Title VI Clean Air Act (as anmended) clean Water Act (Sections 401 and 404) Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation S Liability Act ("CERCLA") Depar-^ment of Transporration Ac- ["Section 4(f)" and 23 CFR 771 regulations] Emergency Werlands Resources Acr Endangered Species Act Execuwive Order 11S14 ' Executive Order 11SS3 Execurive Order 11988 (Floodplains) Executive Order 11990 (Wetlands) Executive Order 11991 Executive Order 12185 Farmland Protection Policy Act Eish and Wildlife Coordination Act Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (to "NEPA" ) Migrarory Bird Act Montana Environmental Policy Acr ( "MEPA" - Title 75, Chapter 1 of the MCA) Montana Human Skeletal Remains and Burial Site Protection Act Montana Stream Protection Act { "MSPA" ) Montana Water Quality Act Montana Wellhead Protection Act National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") National Flood Insurance Act National Historic Preservation Act ( "NHPA/Section 106") National Land and Water Conservation Fund Act ["Section 6(f)"] National Trails System Act Native American Religious Freedom Act Norrh American Wetlands Conservation Act President's Council on Environmental Quality (CSQ) Regulations (40 CTR 1500) Resource Conservation and Recovery Acz ( "RCRA" ) Safe Drinking Water Act ("sole-source aquifer") Superfund Amendments (to "CERCLA" ) and Reauthorization Act Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation and Assistance Act ("STURA") Water Bank Act Wild and Scenic Rivers Act Wilderness Act i i Attachment O SCS WETLAND DETERMINATION PROCEDURES i i WEST NATIONAL TECHNICAL CENTER 1 Subject : Series No.: Reference : NOTE BIOLOGY TECHNICAL NOTE W-3 WETLAND MAPPING CONVENTIONS FOR FOOD SECURITY ACT (FSA) WETLAND INVENTORIES Y Date: I DECEMBER 1988 WST: f-'West T l-XCS a •OILCONSEFWATION SERVICE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE r WETLAND MAPPING CONVENTIONS FOR 1985 FOOD SECURITY ACT (FSA) uttrodoctioii This document outlines the procedures and methods the SCS will use to conduct an FSA wetland inventory. These procedures and methods (conventions) are not intended to state or document service policy. They are designed to ensure mapping consistency between field offices. These conventions are a result of the Wetlands Inventory and Mapping Workshop held in Portland, and derive from the Midwest NTC Technical Note No. 190-LI-8 as modified by the participants. Conventions will conform to the FSA definitions and meet the basic wetland criteria. (See FSA Manual - July 1988). The criteria for mapping conventions of wetlands considers landscape, soils, flooding frequency, vegetation, etc. GENERAL INFORMATIOH J^ Size of an area is not part of the wetland criteria. However, areas large enough to be detected when interpreting aerial photography will be mapped. 2,- At any step in the process that the reviewing person or mapping team is satisfied that the area in question either is or is not a wetland, further evaluation is unnecessary. Decisions and the supporting material used will be documented in each step of these guidelines. Frequent field checking should be done until the reviewing person or mapping team has become proficient at photo interpretation in each mapping location. ^ %^ Maps developed from these conventions will be used as the primary basis for /^ completing wetland determinations in accordance with established FSA definitions and policy. Final determination decisions are the responsibility of the district conservationist. Field determination of hydric soils and hydrophytic vegetation may still be needed. Wetlands will be inventoried using the following procedure. The process takes •.'•'no. -^^^^ consideration both above normal and below normal precipitation years. The "^-' C- principle tools used to make the wetland determination are: soil survey, USGS 5uads, weather data, NWI maps, ASCS color slides, and black and white aerial photos. Generalized maps developed in consultation with Corps of Engineers, USFS, state agencies, etc., showing flooded or flood prone areas may be used. Source documentation is required in the case file. TERMINOLOGT Wetland areas that are seasonally flooded or ponded that have been manipulated prior to December 23, 1985, to produce an agricultural commodity but otherwise continue to meet wetland criteria shall be mapped as a farmed wetland "FW" as defined below. —CROPLAND. — Surface water must be present on cultivated fields for extended periods in the growing season to qualify as seasonally flooded or ponded for farmed wetland "FW", or wetland "W" . Extended periods occur if surface water is continually present for 15 consecutive days or more of the growing season under / average conditions (50 percent chance of occurrence). Growing season for wetland plants in the West is defined in Hydric Soils of the Onited States. ^ • — • Reviev IWI maps where available. NWI maps will give an overview of the wetlands in the area. All wetlands on the NWI maps will be considered wetlands for these conventions unless review of the ASCS slides or local information fails to confirm the area as meeting wetland criteria. This could happen for the following reasons: 1. Review of the slides does not show basins as having water, hdyrophytic vegetation, drowned out crops, or different crop colors during abnormally dry or wet years. — 2. The wetland has been drained since the NVI photos were taXen. Look for manipulation such as ditches, new tile lines, dikes or levees. -HOTE: Many wetlands are excluded on NWI maps because of the Fish and Wildlife Service's Farmed Wetland Policy. The SCS state office may wish to contact the FWS regional wetland coordinator to get an overview of the NWI mapping conventions. '"*- Review othar available ASCS or SCS photographs; such as, 4*=1 mile black and white or colored infrared photographs. —^ Review ASCS color slides (and color infrared if available) for the years 1980 to 1988 (when available). In most cases, 5-7 years will be available in most counties. Use Geological Survey or weather service climatological data in conjunction with the ASCS slides. Review the climatological data to determine those years which were above or below normal precipitation 2 to 3 months prior to the date of the slide. Most slides were taken in late June or July. In most cases, flights were flown in July. — When reviewing slides, the following criteria are considered indicators of a wetland and will be marked. 1. Hydrophytic vegetation in the area. 2. Water or drowned out crop (mud flat). 3. Stressed crop production due to wetness (yellow). 4. Color of crop in dry or wet years (greener or yellow). 5. Differences in color due to different planting dates. When viewing the slides, place a clear overlay on the Kodak caramate screen. Circle the wetland with a dry erasable marker for the first year (view wettest year first) reviewed. Go to the next year slide, circle new wetlands, and place a checkmark by those wetlands that have reoccured. Repeat the process for all the years. The clear overlay is a good way to begin the process. After using the conventions for a period of time, experience may allow the^rlftar overlay to be dropped from the process. Always check tor manipulation of the wetlands. Document manipulations'! (See exhibit - Wetness History . . . -as an example of documentation.) X - An X is used when teas aenber has a question on a call. District ' conservationist needs to make the decision. Not used often. ^ NOTE: Artificial wetlands "AW Bay be difficult to deteraine with this process. Faroer information or an onsite visit may be necessary. The distict conservationist will review the wetlands inventory and any other pertinent information available. A field trip will be taken when necessary to _ check questionable wetlands. The appropriate FSA wetlands determination will be documented on the official ASCS map (photo) and SCS-CPA-026. Pertinent supporting data will be added to the case file. Scope and_fiXftgt of th< _ existing drainage on farmed wetlands "FV* will be~aocmiented in the case file. m ( APPENDIX HYDRIC SOILS CRITERIA 1. All Histosols except Folists, 2. Soil in Aquic suborders, Aquic subgroups, Albolls suborder, Salorthids great group, or Pell great groups of Vertisols that are: a. Somewhat poorly drained and have a water table less than 0.5 feet froa the surface for a significant period (usually a week or aore) during the growing season, or b. Poorly drained or very poorly drained and have either: (1) Water table less than 1.0 feet from the surface for a significant period (usually a week or aore) during the growing season if permeability is equal to or greater than 6.0 inches/hour in any layer within 20 inches, or (2) A water table at less than 1.5 feet from the surface for a significant period (usually a week or more) during the growing season if permeability is less than 6.0 inches/hour in any layer within 20 inches . 3. Soil that are ponded for long (7 days to 1 month) or very long (longer than 1 month) duration during the growing season. 4. Soils that are frequently flooded or long (7 days to 1 month) or very long (longer than 1 month) duration during the growing season. WETLAND PLANT INDICATOR GROUPS Indicator Croup obligate (obi) facultative wet (facw) facultative (fac) facultative upland (facu) upland (upl) \ of Time it Oc?ui? in Wetland Ecological Index > 99 67-99 34-66 1-33 <1 and all plants not on the NLPSOW* 1 2 3 4 5 A prevalence value of 2 3 is not wetland, <3 is wetland. 'National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands. A-1 GDIDELINES FOR WETLAND DELTNKATTQWS CROPLAND 15 DAYS FLOODED OR PONDED 1. yes or no - Hydric soil - Flooded or Ponded Map yes or no - Hydric soil yes or no - Does wetland show up on NVI? 0 = Circle wetland first year observed V s Checkaark for each subsequent year observed 6. Outline boundaries of wetland and enter symbol (see t below) EXAMPLE: Five (5) or aore years of ASCS slides FLOODED OR PONDED STATE LOCAL f MAP RECORDS NWI ASCS SLIDES B & W 81-88 STATUS Tes No Yes Ko No No No No 0 or X Possible-Check weather records 0 None 2 Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes 0^ Probable-Check weather records Vetland 3 Yes Yes Yes Yes or or No No 0 y^^ Wetland or %y^ ■ore y/^ X = An X is used when teas lember has a question on a call. District conservationist needs to sake decision. Not used often. A-2 GDIDELIHES fOR WETLAND DELINEATIONS WOODY COVER OR ABANDONED CROPLAND - 7 DAYS FLOODED OR PONDED 1 . yes or no - Hydric soil - Flooded or Ponded Map 2. yes or no - Hydric soil 3. yes or no - Does wetland show up on NVI? 4. 0 s Circle wetland first year observed 5. ^3 CheckBark for each subsequent year observed 6. Outline boundaries of wetland and enter syabol EXAMPLE: Five (5) or aore years of ASCS slides FLOODED OR PONDED STATE LOCAL I MAP RECORDS MYI ASCS S'-ai SLIDES B & W 81-88 STATOS 1 Yes No Tes No Mo No Ho No 0 or X Possible-Check weather records 0 None Tes Yes No Tes No Yes Yes Yes 0^ Probable-Check weather records Wetland Tes Tes Tes Tes or or Ho No or i/^ ■ore •^ Wetland X = An X is used when teas aember has a question on a call. District conservationist needs to sake decision. Not used often. A-3 FSA WETLAND MAP SYMBOLS W - Wetland Wetlands are defined as areas that have a predoainance of hydric soils and that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions except lands in Alaska identified as having a high potential for agricultural development and a predominance of permafrost soils. m - FarBed Wetland Farmed wetlands are certain wetlands that were manipulated and used to produce an agricultural commodity prior to December 23, 1985, but had not been completely converted prior to that date and therefore are not prior converted cropland. These areas still meet the wetland criteria and include potholes and playas or areas that are seasonally ponded or flooded for an extended period of time. These areas can be farmed and drainage systems maintained as they were prior to December 23, 1985. PC - Prior Converted Cropland Prior converted cropland can be either a pothole or a ponded or flooded area that was completely drained and no loger meets wetland criteria (see NFSAM 512.15); or a saturated hydric soil that was hydrologically manipulated or cleared of trees and stumps and planted to an agricultural commodity produced prior to the FSA, December 23, 1985, and not abandoned. CW— Converted Wetlands Wetlands that are converted after December 23, 1985, and not subject to one or more exemptions cannot be used to produce an agricultural commodity without causing a person to lose eligibility for USDA benefits. 'Converted Wetland" means wetland that has been drained, dredged, filled, leveled, or otherwise manipulated (including any activity that results in impairing or reducing the flow, circulation, or reach of water) that makes possible the production of an agricultural commodity without further application of the manipulations described herein if (1) such production would not have been possible but for such action; (2) before such action such land was neither highly erodible land nor highly erodible cropland; and (3) is not abandoned. AW - Artificial Wetlands An area is an artificial wetland if the area was formerly nonwetland or prior converted wetland but now exhibits wetland characteristics because of human activities, i.e., dugouts, ponds, dams, irrigation, etc. A-4 FWS - NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY - CONDENSED MAP LEGEND SvstffB and subsvstea P - Palustrine No Subsystem R - Riverine L - Lacustrine 1 - Tidal 2 - Lower perennial 3 - Opper perennial 4 - Intermittent 1 - Limnetic (deep) 2 - Littoral (shallow) Wat-gr Reojip Modifiers A - Temporarily flooded B - Saturated C - Seasonally flooded F - Semipermanently flooded G - Intermittently exposed H - Permanently flooded J - Intermittently flooded Em - Emer9ent SS - Scrub/ Shnib FO - Forested AB - Aquatic Bed HL - Moss/Lichen US - Unconsolidated Shore RB - Rock Bottom UB - Unconsolidated Bottom OW - Open Water Sp*>riiil Modifiers b - Beaver d - Partially Drained /Ditched f - Farmed h - Diked /Impounded r - Artificial s - Spoil X - Excavated Examples: PEMA PEMCd L2ABF No Ditch Ditch installed prior to 12/23/85 Ditch installed priot to 12/23/85 Ditch installed since 12/23/85 p - Palustrine; EM - emergent; A - Temporarily flooded. P - Palustrine; EM - emergent; C - seasonally flooded; d - partially drained/ditched L - Lacustrine; 2 - Littoral; AB - aquatic bed; F - semipermanently flooded. ILLUSTRATIONS POTHOLES & PONDED WETLANDS r< " >^' ^ftkkml ^.Hk ktl Note: Before potholes can become PC, they must no longer meet wetland criteria--soils and plants. *M *!»/ A-5 CONVENTIONAL AND SPECIAL SYMBOLS LEGEND DBSCKimON m te xx ni. iTiaoLi V • I V * 0 CD < r A6 •- w u « u o o n •I c 1 ki t> f 1 r. & •O , ^- M E E »n rn t 1-- "c 0 • c ■ m M 8 & r« 00 *^ ^« i v4 0 M ■ * V < 1 r- #n ^ > *r - ■■ 1 1 1 I 1 I.I 1 1 ! J : ! ! 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 _ i ) r« « « O CI o m o » « «0 C • § ft « W 41 B « S. » «i a o & O hi • " . o > u v » o u kl 3 « w< tl «l b S « » 9 t: o U O <-> CI X ^ •- VI >. » •X (^ a ID a « a £ 1^ I I III « a Ai X u. J » «• a 41 3 c & _ M a «i 3 O « V I I * I WETLAND DETERMINATION PROCEDURES AID #1 FLOW CHART* SOIL SURVEY-Determine Soils - Are there map units on the county (field office) hydric soils list? Hydric soils list includes: hydric soil map unit, aap unit with named hydric inclusions and wet miscel- laneous areas. Dse ASCS photos received with 1026; may need to review original ASCS photos Review Soil survey map for wet symbols Review uses quads for wet symbols Review OSFWS NWI maps for wet symbols Review ASCS/SCS large black and white, or infrared photos (eg. 4" = 1 mile scale) Review ASCS colored slides Delineate wetland boundaries and label with appropriate FSA wetland map symbols on ASCS xerox photos or wetland base maps District Conservationist Final determination placed on CPA-026. Label questionable areas with an (x) where field determinations or additional verification is needed. Return to reieri ^" to landowner. .j.n No-> Ye5-> No-> No-> Yes-> Yes-> Yes-> FSA not applicable FSA not applicable CONVERTED WETLAND (CW) (Noncompliance only if planted to an agricultural commodity) WETLAND (W) (Does aritificial wetland (AW) exemption apply?) WETLAND (W) (Does *AW* exemption apply?) WETLAND (W) (Does *AW' exemption apply? ) FARMED WETLAND (FW) (Does 'AW' exemption apply?) FARMED WETLAND (FW) (Does 'AW' exemption apply?) Do not use for conversions to permanent pasture (CW) Note: 'MW' exemption may apply for some "CW" determinations. A-9 INVESTIGATION TECHNIQUES ('" Infomation Needed Hydric Soil Prevalence of hydrophytes Altered or Manipulated? Planted prior 12/23/85 Abandoned? Possible Sources 3 4 »5 «6 »7 8 1 2 3 4 •5 1 2 3 4 «5 •6 •7 «8 1 «2 3 4 5 •1 2 *3 *4 •5 6 County list Soil survey - sap unit descriptions, wet symbols, streams, springs, etc. uses quads ~ Climatological data Landovraer interview site investigation Take a soil scientist onsite flooding maps or inventories NVI ASCS color slides SCS black and white or color photos Soil survey vegetative info, map unit description tables Site investigation - including similar non-cropped areas NWI ASCS color slides - pre & post 85' if possible SCS photos OSGS Quads Case file Site investigation including land- owner interview Other employee interview Landowner interview ASCS records and slides prior to 12/23/85 Case file Photo interpret Employee knowledge Landowner interview ASCS records and slides for the past 5 years SCS photos Case file Owner interview On-site inspection OSGS quads r c A- 10 i Pothole or Playa? Flooding or Ponding Duration 1) NVI naps 2) Soil suvey naps and aap unit description 3) 05GS quads 4) ASCS slides 5) SCS photos •6) Site investigation •7) Field office knowledge •1) *2) Soils 5 NWI Field inspection Landowner interview Case file *6) Flood hazard study •7) Watershed investigations Cliaatological data Flooded crops, stressed crops long tern use as forage rather than cropland, always plant spring crops? •3) M) *5) 8) •9) * Sources which teas sappers aay not have available and aay require field office assistance. I A-11 r ( ■sSlt^i United States Oepartment of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service Room 124 3244 Elder Stre Boise, Idaho 83 June 2, 1988 NATIONAL FOOD SECURITY ACT MANUAL (NFSAM) 180-V " _ AMENDMENT 'ID- 3 SUBJECT: LTP - Wetland Office Determination Procedure and Related Forms. Purpose. To distribute wetland office determination procedures and related worksheets which will be used by field offices In documenting wetland activities. Effective date. Upon receipt. Filing Instructions. 1. File the Procedure In Section 510.50, page 510-26(a) to 510-26(c). 2. File the worksheets In the Exhibit Section as Exhibit 516.14, 516.15, and 516.16. Make pen and Ink changes In the Table of Contents. 3. File the amendment Immediately behind the Manual cover, ahead of the Table of, Contents. PAUL H. CALVERI State Conservationist Attachment A DIST: NFSAM •* #• r. _§510.50 Office Procedure for Making Wetland Determinations The procedure for wetland office determinations throughout the State has not been consistent among Areas. To clear up misunderstandings and to maintain consistency between field offices, the attached office determina- tion procedure will be followed. As noted in the procedure, ASCS aerial slides are the backbone of the process. If 5 years of aerial slides 11981-'85) are not available, you are to use the resources (slides) available in your field office. All field offices should have at a minimum 1985-87 ASCS slides available for our use. Three worksheets (Exhibits 516.14, 516.15 and 516.16), have been developed to assist field offices in documentation of wetland activities. 1. SUMMARY OF USE, MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENTS OF VARIOUS WETLAND CONDITIONS (Exhibit 516.15). This worksheet will be used when any wetland determination is made. The producer will receive a copy to help them understand their responsibilities under Swampbuster. 2. NOTICE OF NO WETLAND DETERMINATION - ID-CPA(FSA)-22, revised 5/88 (Exhibit 516.14). As stated In the final FSA Manual, wetland deter- minations will be made on all 1026' s within the established priority system. The revised form ID-CPA(FSA)-22 (Exhibit 516.14), will be used when a wetland determination is not made for an 1026. In this case, all producers who have hydrlc soils and/or soils with hydrlc Inclusions will receive this form. Wetland determinations will continue to be made on all FmHA borrower and inventory farms and when blocks 7 or 8 are checked yes on the 1026 as in the past. If wetland determinations are not made when the 1026 and 026 forms are processed, a list should be developed which identifies producers who have wetland determinations to be completed in the future. The remarks block on the 026 form should refer landowner to the ID- CPA-22 and that a wetland determination was not made. 3. WETLAND INFORMATION WORKSHEET (Exhibit 516.16). This worksheet will be used by field offices to document past and present drainage activi- ties (if any) on all wetland determinations. This worksheet by itself, does not constitute a prior conversion (PC). A statement would need to be added that the wetland area besides being mani- pulated, does not seasonally flood or pond and Is not a playa or pothole to be considered PC. The landowner should receive a copy of the worksheet when completed. (180-V-NFSAM, Amendment ID. 3, June, 1988) 510-26(a) §510.50 This procedure will lead you through a step-by-step method of making wetland 1/ determinations for the Food Security Act In the office. If a wetland determination Is not made, then ID-CPA(FSA)-22, revised 5/88, will be used to document potential for wetlands and that no determination was made. See Exhibit 516.14. The process of making wetland determinations In the office will require the following resources: ^1. Soil Survey. - ^ 2. Fish and Wildlife National Wetland Inventory Map (MUI), where available. 3. ASCS aerial slides (preferably 5 years -- 1981-1985). Step 1: Review soil survey. Identify the following soils: 1. Named hydrlc map units. 2. Map units with hydrlc soils as inclusions. 3. Map units with no hydrlc soils. In nost cases, these can be eliminated from further review. However, these soils may have artificial wetlands (AW) or other oddities which need to be identified. The review of the soil survey will provide information on which areas have a potential for wetlands^ Step 2: Review FWS NWI maps where available. NWI maps will give an excellent overview of the wetlands la the area. All wetlands on the NWI maps will be considered wetlands for FSA unless review of the ASCS slides does not confirm wetland. This could happen for the following reasons: 1. Review of the slides does not show basins as having water, hydro- phytlc vegetation, and drowned-out crops. 2. Wetland has been drained since the NWI photos were taken in 1979. Step 3: Review ASCS aerial slides. 5 years of slides should be looked at preferabley 1981-85. Most ASCS slides are taken in June or July. You should keep in mind those years where above or below precipitation when viewing the slides. Review the slides for the following information: 1. Basins with water standing. 2. Drowned-out crops. 3. Hydrophytlc vegetation. 1/ The definition of a wetland for the determination procedure Is explained in the SCS National Food Security Act Manual (512.01). (180-V-NFSAM, Amendment ID. 3, June, 1988) 510-26(b) 4. Drainage activities which may constitute a prior conversion (PC, farmed wetland (FW), such as surface drains, ditches, etc. Guidelines for interpreting office information when making wetland determinations. Hydric 'Soil ASCS Slide 1/ NWI 2/ Wetland Status Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Mo 1 1 2 3 0 1-5 Yes No Mo Yes or No Yes Mo or Yes Wetland - W or FW None Wetland-W or FW V (check weather info) Wetland W or FW Prior Covered - PC (Manipulation must be documented) Artificial Wetland- W (Document reason for AW) 1/ Number listed below refers to the number of times an individual wet area was identified on the ASCS slides. 2/ FWS National Wetland Inventory Map. 3/ Check weather information concerning the years wet areas appear on the slides. If wet areas appear only on above normal precipitation years, call area non-wetland. Some other situations that will occur and needs to be Interpreted from available resources are as follows: I. Wetland determinations on non-cropland Cpasture, hayland, woodland) where the soil is a named hydric map unit. For our purposes, we will assume a wetland exists if the soil is a named hydric map unit and the area is in pasture, woodland, or non-cropland. The area also needs to be reviewed for any existing drainage that might Justify a prior converted (PC) status. 2. Wetland determinations on non-cropland (pasture, hayland, and woodland) where the soil is a map unit with hydric inclusions. If an area is identified by available NWI maps, we will assume the area is a wetland. If there are no NWI wetlands Identified, we will review slides of the area to determine If drowned-out areas or basins with water standing are present and follow the previously mentioned wetland chart (180-V-NFSAM, Amendment ID. 3, June, 1988) 5lO-26(c) §510.50 ( (Guidelines for interpreting office information when making wetland determinations). The area also needs to be reviewed for any existing drainage that might justify a prior converted (PC) status. 3. Wetland determinations on areas that are only partially drained and are playas or still seasonally flood or pond during the growing season. These areas will be considered farmed wetlands (FW). f- (180-V-NFSAM, Amendment ID, 3, June, 1988) 510-26(d) CARIBOU Cij. ZETLAND INyEH'JP^^ Starting on January 17, 1989, I started a W^?t 1 and I nve?nrrr •-• of Caribou County, Idaho based in the Sods Sorinus Hj.-.T'jd Office. This paper is a record of the resourcens. "ne ti -rids , iTiatev- i a Is , and notes that I used in the iriventory nrot-.ess. This inventory identified -wetlands according to th.? t'--:^5 Food Security Act (FSA) definitions. It will be used bv t\: District Conservationist (D.C.)to assist in natiinu ■ ^e i I ---im: determinations for FSA. .The D.C. is the final authoi !.t" \t: the 'wstiand determinations, not this mventorv. if tnei-'.' are questions about anv of the wetiar^ds identified in ■hi3 inventory, a field check is highly recommendec. All the areas that I have identified in this inverii^c r v should be considered and referred to as Potential we c !* : inch • rni le Aerial ohotos that were flovjn in the Fall. 19S7 and Spring, 1988. H. SCS Bear Lake-Caribou Courrtv Soil Survev Party Soil I'-sos ( Stereo— pai red , 1 : £'4 , 000 scale. Aerial Fhoto^ flovm in 1980)v;ere used in con junc t ion with a F'ower Stereoscope tc. identify and discriminate Qotroles from rock knob:2. ■/v'a tercourses from r i. dcel i nes , ^Vid ae^iei .-^ i ' imjooi aph i ''. featL;res. Tiiese =:Oils maps vjc-i-'a :'' 'u' D'jtential wetland areas. - nnir,-- vi^r 'f: :■■ det-'rmi :"it? romc 1 3. snce tcm" F'-vc ; " ^ l -inr i. r:^.■ •. i i.m ^ 1 '^- r o i.T r ■' iji ~ } r-Ea'c- ut^ed tc 1 o c £• t 't? vJ';;t i f»'"i" : > lif-ss i"'"' i' i :;?■'!''■ 11^:1 :■•::' ci- the ;JWI rr.r.n5j or to J vt^jv t. , tie •vh^.-^r; ■; .'^oei: ;;^ t ^ ::.n 1 ■ •,^;'-^ •: - to located F:ii"rMi~-d lJeti;.'nds hh?. b ---i-r^- "~-ei" inai"o_'-".^ ij^"' ■ '"■" ."...'I maos , ~ avai lab le . C a r ■,. b o Li C D u n t y i 1 a *: I o n 1 y 1986. 1 t 8 7 , ao d j. -7 S c :? :- ' 1 ^ A. The Aerial Comoliance Slides ai"e shot along Northi- SoLith flight paths that cri = 3cro = 3 the county from IJn^i; :o East. Each flight path is flown to overlap the pre- reus flight path. Pi Flight Path Key Mao is use to "-ecoi-c i^n i r^-- sections each nath was flov^in over and when 1 roll of i\l^■. was used up and another roll was started. Each roil of ■-':. 1- is numbered according to its sequence of exposure?. Ari example of the Flight Path Key Maps is included in thi-j Procedure Manual. 6. Available orec i,o i tat ion data was collected from ;• a 1 " available sources, copies of which have been included ir this book. Data for 1936, 1987, and 1983 indicates tliav 19S6 was a "normal" year as far as precipitation goes, 1 ^ET' was the beginning of a major drought, and 1988 was the i-orsc drought year in recent history. METHODS AND MATERIALS 1. A large composite map labeled "Caribou County Wetlanc Inventory Index Mao" was used to plci: orogress as I --.-eoT. A. The Count V 1 i rie was marked with a wide black lire. B. Township and Range lines were inarked in Blue oi^ :n-5 •■■iaD . C. As a section I'jas in'ventor ied . it was crossed out :■ the ma.D . D. The ividex map can be used to determine which sec; ions were inventoried. E. Each Section was photocooied on an li inch oapsr" . Where Dossible. S sections were copied on a single sh^Tt However, some she€?ts onlv had one section for var 101.13 reasons . A. The ^sections were outlined \\'i black or blue : nk . b. The sections were labeled en the -side v'i !:h I'l^^ '■*bbrevi at ic n "Sac" and the section urnuer (ex.- E'ec IP.. Sec 36 . etc ) . C. 'i'he cownshio avu:' rs.nos designation were alsc Dri.iV'^d aloiia chje sicie of the section oi..ri; i 1 r--^ co ensues ei-.s-- '.dBViK i f icat ion . tf'ie :;iage. Ovi i^iost C'f th^r oho t:::ov i'--ii , )'. \ i.c I ■■Joci ^' ^''m ■. h arrov-j fc'r more raoid id-?" i; if ica ; i 01 <;■ •' :j i ; ^c: r .' on . 3. All sections that v^ere i riveiitor i ed •.-.•ctre phe t:occ;;i led . whether they had an/ wt?tlands on thtjm ov not. Tf' iie i; 1 r^ -dte were not found in a section, "No Wetlands" was ' wr i t ■ e. 1 lii large letters across the center c f tha photocopy. ^. F'hotocDCD ies v-jers rriade only of those sections that wer*-' actually inventoried. Sections that were fJOT invei tttji- i»-d will not have photocopies in the folders. n V '=■' • ~ 5. Three slide projectors- v-if?re? set up to project each of CorriDliance Slides for a particular section or: to a projector screen side bv side. In this way, all th ee? ,e. could be viewed at the same time for the subject sec-rlon- 6. When a. Wetland was identified in a particular secLion. ir was located on the 11 k 17 inch photocopy and thr? bvuridaries outlined in Blue ink: . Ne;-?t, interior ■r-reT'.^ were co">or;;d in with a Yellow High! iter to ensure the wetland ar«ia. '>'0.1g be high 1 y visible. A. Any area in the section that was difficult to '. dentify as NOT being a. wetland in my estimation I'l?.^ cr^ss-- hatched to help recognize it. B. Any Area, that I rr.ade a mistaT:e en that col! Id not b" corrected with "White-out" was also C'"oss-hatched (Exaa^pAe- areas thai; v-Jere Yeiiow Highlighted bv r^ista^e wouL:' dii cross-hatched ) NOTE: Any area on a photocopied section that is cross- hatched OR NOT bounded by blue ink with a vellow centar is NOT, in fT.y estimation, considered a wetland. C . Bo u n d a r i e s 0 f a p a r tic u 1 a r w e^ 1 1 a. n d v j e r e d e t e r m i n e d i n general from the NUI maDS (very conssrvat i ve ) , Soils i-aps (general), and the 3 years of Compliance Slides (verv specific) . These boimdar ies should be- considered gerieral because of the seal a I '^as usinc . When CLiestions r?. ri se a^: to '-he actual boundarias of a i^^etlarid. a f:ei\! checK is . " e c o m m e n d e d . 7. On the baci-:: of aach ohotocopied section. I i.'M"ote down fsxactl-' ■■•jhicn ASCS Photo I use':j . v;hicn Sciiji Mao I used, and i-'h'i. ch ConiDliarice Slije(5) I used. : . d - 1, . ~t'etM~ — Inc i. c:: ;? I ci- whiiP' v^-t^ t'--- t r\ k e o ■. n . 2. Slide f-o .—"!?•■■]. :5 fiuiTibe" in tr"ie ' tra-,' not thf? n'.'Tibev" on t,n(,? Elide, -•- ■• c: ^ ':,i that ivere not storeci i (T a Ci-"" 'ju.ee '; ii: 1 :. ;.: it i~ the nij Tib €?r on the siia^. o . Tv"^y fviD." Tfiis Tiumber ser i 3=: is fr''j-\;n oo. the outside of" the tray box ^nd indicates vfhich 'Cil; >r<^ stored in the Do;< (e?;;.- 1-'+, -+-8, or 8-1.0). 4. Re .1 1 r-4o.-This number identifies the roll of film that has the Hubjcjct slide in it. Trie roll i >o . is usual! • only important when using the 1936 slides that ars not s t o r e d in a C a r o u = e 1 t r a y . 3. Uihen the wetland inventory was come le ted on a s •action -m c all the aC'propr iate data -recorded on both sides of the photocopy >see 11.), the photocopy was filed in an "ExDand- a-File" folder which was then placed ivi a file cabinet locared in the Field Office. 8. The "ExDand— a— F i le" folders v-jere labeled wi ti"; Township and Range designations. Thev were numerically r.irrii.nns:c according to the Towviship number, then by the Range designation in the file cabinet. NDTE5 AND cnr.riENTS 1. A kev part of the definitions of f armed wetlar;d5 (F\yi and prior converted (F'C> i-iet lands is that thev vjere manipu latt-d , i.e. drained, drain tiles instailed, ditched, or channeled. These features were eK'cremei v difficult to identif-- civ: th=; slides and the photos. Therefore, these desigriat ions t-jere rarel y used . E. Since this inventory was completed during the winter months, ground truthinq was not Dossible. Areas that appeared to be definitely questionable were recorded so that as soon as weather and field conditions oermitted the District Conservationist and the Area Office Wetland Coordinator could co oi.it for a field check. nven >:or lea hHs: J. 3. Fo)-est Service and BLM land i>jei"e ''^O' maps ;.:hould be used if de t e'T' i na t 'ons z-'/rf^ necessary on there lands. The only except ioii noj.ld c^e if thie (federal lai'ics i-'er'? intermingled i^^ith criva~i;- ground, then no /-rffor-i wa-^i ej-ctr-nded in t'"> ing to i.dencifv vi^ese ;; ma 1 1 ^^cr^^aci::^ of •^ec'eral ground that ije-e Ju.atafJ o'lt^ide '-A'ls bc;^;ic c;i-: d 1 anci ■iound.-.u~ ies . \ -I ,■ ■ n^Cr X'j^C, for '^ShJV [ -- nC^^ . "■"hr? '■ ■■ I'- Villi'-?,- :-"id " nto ':ne' ."o ■"• hh i '. I ^j . ' ,:■, --■ i i. ■ , t. it t h a c I r e 1 t rri i a h t h ;< v t? high p c r ,-. , t ■ - for <-qi" iC'.;l c dr-jve] OD;Tient S-na 1 J. at"t?5.s of cvou Is nc that tverf? ou t'^ide c I i"i r '.T e V 3 1 1 ? V r j o 1 1 n cl a i " i -r^ :i vj e r" e ■ i c t i o v e n t ivT 1 1 he.yfz' to Again, the Indfv?;-; 1(I'E6 is received for those s.v^bjb, the D.C :i n V e n t C' r V t h e -ti i n d i v i d >. i. a 1 ] y :« t t hi a t 1 1 -ti e . Map will show the bouridaries of the i n -'entorv . 5. I started the Caribou Co. wetland inventory at the ■Jorth ev)d of the Por tne-if /6em/Grace Valley r^t'ar C'lesterf ieid f^eservoir. The D.C. reaij.ested that I start here beca.'-.ie i l^e cropland area bad been soil mapped ]a = t surnmer and the ^i ea would be Dart of the "Winter ReviSi-^" f'.'r the Soil bur -'e -' this winter. Once the sc'-ils were aocro'-ad arid the wetl. ands mappea , the Field Office col* Id start processing the AD-.t '£•:-- for that area. 6. The genera 1 schedule was to complere the P o 1" t n e u f / Q e m / G r a. c e V a 1 ley f r o m the F o r t H a 1 .1 I n d i a n Reservation to the Utah State line, then move over to ''-'e G r a V s L a k e / B 1 a c k: f C' o t F^l e s e r v o i r / S o da 3 p r i n q s .■ B e a. r R i v s •' V a lie ■;-• . I would s t a. r t at G r a y s L a k e . p r o c e e d d o w ri t o Eilackfoot Reservoir, past Soda Springs, through Nounor Vallev, and right ud to the Bear Lake Co. Line. If I hi-'t? tiiTis, I '.■■■ill !Tro%-e over to some of the ana. iler valleys, hu as. Star Vallev, Uoper Valley, Woolev Valley, etc.. However, if I am out of tiriie I will •rc' -e aci"oss ma ■ri^ii-it line into Bear Fis'er Co. and move ric't or\ dowi> the Bear River '-^ailev to the Utah State Line. 7. Ivhen I fi "st starteci the i!>venTorv. :. was avj^rac i :"u acca.' 9.1 sections per day. By the end ot the third week, 'iv, average was up to 1/E township (18 secT:ioris) PLUS p'::T day. Presently, I am averaging between 3/^ township ''£7 5 e c t i Ci n s ) a. n d 1 t o w n s h i d (36 s e c t i o r. s ■ d e p e 'o. d i n o u. p o ri "' h e landform. The lava flcvis ^i-'i^ the hai'cest av-^as i--; vihich ICi identi"f"y potential wetlands. In theE^e i^re^'^, speed was d'-?creasad significantly. In additio": to the ti;T(t? in'-o.l-ed for the actual maDDinq, time must aiac oe c^/ lotted for ti"'';' Ic cat ion, identification, ocssibis c of ■;he iridividua] sections. This orcc?:;'^ per township. In Caricou Crunt -, t^s --- '-■r'c/cess of charigina over' to new S i'C"'!i CO r"'S 1 der ab 1 e time correcting the -;ecv^oi' Dho tos -^ t t^Te di^'sction of the Distr?r ; "set ion. and co;yi'"q - 1-, (-,,.)- ^ j! ! C ■ r; -i E . - '■:. •:■ t ' i 1 i. '• ;" Cv ''1 1 ' ■ S 'l' ! "1 -i nc vJ iv-ei I ■ ■--. ' a ': i Cm • . ■- t wetland w.:r?? bf';:5ci : i? ■:!"•:.. i ;-v"id f.'i"'"C"' ";■ I ■'^ j. r ^:- 1: . it ^ a^;, reli ;■■>►?';: thi'ou.jh '■■?;;Lji:"" i'?f' "'"- -.-rd i-io''. t "I'C'.v. F. '-ink ^■":d '" . Jfime'i- ( St Bte -^.nd nref' i-'s t i f?'''i I nveritcn" v '."ofji" J i ria i;C'i"?4. ■ . t" i-i D.C. , ?rid the Soil Surrey i^^.rirv '"C'lnb'jrs , A. First, I v-jouid go xne th= Wet land -I nventor v Inde;; flap ■:~ in its entiret- (occasionally, I could not find the liection I wanted entirely on orie map, in thia.t case I i-JOi_ild ohotocop- bh'-i -wo photos and cut-and-paste the section together*. C. Photocopy the section (ti-y to copy 2 sections at a ti ne- on the same shet?t ) . 7~4/j /'s 9-if ^^ H tvisf)^ D. Take the photocopy and draw the section liiies on i '"i E^lue ink (ca.re should be taken that the sect ion corners r-.ra verified for a.ccuracv). E. Label the sections wi n u m b e r , a n d N c^ r t h a r r o v j . ;ne i ovvnsn i d ■ iiel: differentiate potholes from rock piles, du^ they all ■Iho shovi the actual soils as they were ■napP': d . T'h i :■ r!'^ L i r;e .'iv "'- the c^^itual borders of hydric soils in 'avi-.r 'j.ar, .>\\d :^\■^"^ s o i 1 s t h a t r : a v e h \' d r i c i n z 1 ' . '. s i o n s . I . Take rhe '/ \i <-! r • ■ n ' lith the prepaveci ■;->•:;■""■: t i o : i •:;1- • a w i n <} the w e fc 1 a n d b o u r t yii :;h • ifi^^C! \\A-i-r 1 p blue ink oe''-. Dr^i,! in those areas that yC':..' are i.-tire r ■i'he locations a.! 'id confirm cheri with the C'-'mo 1 la, nee 'ilide=. ■■o-i ^h^^: ''■'.'..< ':-;■ r: t- i cj 1 ti ji^^jf'ir '. o c 5 t ■? o . ■:'■: ■ j ':'':'.;■ '"or;:';? !i. 1 M;^C€^ iiiide ■~i"C:"it i" > 'rn r'?:; ror '::>':.• v'.;;^!'-' !".• < o ; ■■■ v t^i I'JOi f:: wit:r!. T rio " ;0 1 •.' =?"^rt '.jrhfi I'-'hr -^M•..I i.'--?'" ' i. : c i; bf3cau^e trie--' z'Cz': i >'■ c .ii' "■! i^r? .1 rr^- ii in i ,;i- sl.io-^'i V'jhen I hsve trouble with f^ctLii*! uordec^ or <,-:■ c ■/; 1 1 ' of scuTie of the more subtle avi-as (also hiecause L:hev' sr*:-? • ;;:■ i In carousel travs so -'ou must find tite sppropr ia t^^ ;{i.ide •::- hand ) . K. Find the slides that cros'er th.e section you v\'ant to lout: at and examine them '♦"oaether or"' the screen. Look Tor flv! ;: green circle areas for ootholes and darl-:: gvee;' ir-'egular shafted areas for 'jatercour ses ^ Ko-k oL'ccroos L'J.i. 11 Bti-'iV! >'•• as qrev' areas. Hatch Che dark ore-Hn areas to tr:e loca. i; i o: i: you have already ideritified ar;d adjust the ho'^oers. L. Outline the new areas with 'jiue ink ai>d change a^'iy outlines that y c^ u vi a n t to cor r e c t - j i t h ' ■ i-j h i t i: o u t " . M. Take a Yellow Hign liter and areas . ■ r i '"! the- b 1 u ut 1 J. : lec) N. Place the firjished photocopy in the folders ^r.ud rnark o the section on tiie I ride;-; Mao. r » s c ( STATE WETLAND PROGRAMS AND CONTACTS STATE WETLAND PROGRAMS AMD CONTACTS c STATE WETLAND PROGRAMS AND CONTACTS This section includes information provided by the Council of State Governments database entitled " A National Database of State Wetland Protection Programs and Contacts". The Users Manual for this database is provided in Attachment I. The database printout which identifies state wetland programs, administering agency, resources available for the program, problems, program success, as well as additional information on the program, and contacts is included following a discussion concerning each state's wetland protection efforts. The information in the database was originally gathered by EPA, and was updated for EPA by the Center for the Environment and Natural Resources of the Council of State Governments in 1988. The database has since been updated in January 1989. Each state appears on separate pages in the text for ease of addressing and updating in the future. California State Wetland Programs 1 California State Wetland Contacts 17 Idaho State Wetland Programs 19 Idaho State Wetland Contacts 24 Montana State Wetland Programs 2 6 Montana State Wetland Contacts 29 Nevada State Wetland Programs 31 Nevada State Wetland Contacts 33 North Dakota State Wetland Programs 34 North Dakota State Wetland Contacts 35 Oregon State Wetland Programs 37 Oregon State Wetland Contacts 53 South Dakota State Wetland Programs 56 South Dakota State Wetland Contacts 57 Utah State Wetland Programs 58 Utah State Wetland Contacts 59 Washington State Wetland Programs 61 Washington State Wetland Contacts 67 Wyoming State Wetland Programs 68 Wyoming State Wetland Contacts 6 9 California State Wetland Programs (Council of State Governments Database) Wetland Program 1 Program Type State Name of Program Administering Agency Implementation Method Legal Authority Resources (Funds and Staff) Lands Covered Inventory and Classification Activities Regulated Exemptions Lands Covered Compliance Education Problems Success EPA Role Needed from EPA Ta)cing Issues Mitigation Cumulative Impacts Inland Law California Policy for Preservation of Wetlands Perpetuity (PPWP) Various resources agencies act as applicable Considered as part of permit review process by various agencies The PPWP Policy is very general None PPWP program is the only state protection for wetlands that are not in the Coastal Zone, San Francisco Bay, Suisun Marsh or publicly owned lands NWI maps exist for San Francisco Bay Projects that harm wetlands may not be approved Water dependent projects Projects essential for transportation or utility No alternative site Public trust is not adversely affected Compensation is part of the project 1980 amendment exempts wetlands 1/2 acre or less if they do not have significant wetland values, compensatory restoration required Same as those defined by EPA section 404(b) (1) guidelines No program None Federal authority can override state decision unless section 401 certification is denied Successful agencies implementation has occurred None Develop stronger enforcement posture and firmer stance on mitigation requirements No cases No policy: California Fish and Game policy followed Assessed on a subject qualitative basis only Wetland Program 2 Program Type State Name of Program Administering Agency Implementation Method Legal Authority Resources (Funds and Staff) Lands Covered Inventory and Classification Activities Regulated Exemptions Lands Covered Compliance Education . _ ., Problems „., . Success " - ., EPA Role Needed from EPA Taking Issues Mitigation Cumulative Impacts State Environmental Policy Acts . . California California Environmental Quality Act '70 (similar to federal NEPA program, but not focused only on water quality) All resource agencies Requires Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for major developments Charter for environmental protection (written in generalities and dependent on local political pressure for effectiveness) CEQA of 1970 Not applicable — compliance on an agency-by-agency basis All inland and coastal wetlands NWI maps have been produced for San Francisco Bay All activities that may impact the environment Projects with minor non-significant impacts All values as per EPA section 404(b) (1) guidelines Agency inspection and calls received by individuals Published State Permit Handbook Limited funding for review and compliance Process is clearly working effectively None Establish strong enforcement posture and develop criteria and method for cumulative impact assessment No cases Currently developing policy Subjective Evaluations $ Wetland Program 3 Program Type State Name of Program Administering Agency Implementation Method Legal Authority Resources (Funds and Staff) Lands Covered Inventory and Classification Activities Regulated Exemptions Lands Covered Compliance Education Problems Success EPA Role Needed from EPA Taking Issues Mitigation Cumulative Impacts 401 Permits California 402 Water Quality Program State and Regional Water Quality Control Board Authorization via Water Quality Certification Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1969 Unknown Both tidal and non-tidal NWI maps have been produced for San Francisco Bay All activities that could potentially. impact water quality via point and non-point source discharges None Same as defined by section 404(b) (1) guidelines Permit conditions, on-site inspection and calls from concerned individuals Published State permit Handbook Need inventory mapping Program is working effectively Program review Develop stronger coordination with agency regarding section 404 wetlands issues. Need to develop criteria and method for cumulative impact assessment No cases Follow California Fish and Game Policy Assess on a subjective basis Wetland Program 4 Program Type State Name of Program Administering Agency Implementation Method Legal Authority Resources (Funds and Staff) Lands Covered Inventory and Classification Activities Regulated Exemptions Lands Covered Compliance Education Problems Success EPA Role Needed from EPA Taking Issues Mitigation Cumulative Impacts Acquisition Programs California Keene-Ne jedly California Wetlands Preservation Act '76 Department of Fish and Game Department of Parks and Recreation Act was used (beyond its policy statement) to acquire 10 important wetlands Sec. 5814 Funds designated for preparation of a statewide wetlands plan — has never been produced Tidal and non-tidal waters Significant wetlands definition (only legislation besides Coastal Act to do so) Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable No funding None None Assist via advance identification program Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Wetland Program 5 Program Type State Name of Program Administering Agency Implementation Method Legal Authority Resources (Funds and Staff) Lands Covered Inventory and Classification Activities Regulated Exemptions Lands Covered Compliance Education Problems Success EPA Role Needed from EPA Taking Issues Mitigation Cumulative Impacts Acquisition Programs California Waterfowl Habitat program — Resolution '79 (no. 28) (This funding cut from the Keene-Ne Preservation Act) Department of Fish and Game Goal set to increase wetlands the year 2000 (considered to economic benefit to the state Promotion to public access to See Above None The focus of this Act is wate Wetland to be increased 50 pe The Act calls for a wetlands Any wetlands alteration Not applicable Waterfowl habitats Not applicable Not applicable Lack of funding None None None Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Senate Concurrent act followed a '76 jedly Wetlands by 50 percent by be a $45,000,000 ) wetlands rfowl habitat rcent by year 2000 inventory by '83 Wetland Program 6 Program Type State Name of Progreuti Administering Agency Implementation Method Legal Authority Resources (Funds and Staff) Lands Covered Inventory and Classification Activities Regulated Exemptions Lands Covered Compliance Education Problems Success EPA Role Needed from EPA Taking Issues Mitigation Cumulative Impacts Other Programs California Wetland/Water Use Plans — Delta Master Recreational Plan '76 and Waterways Use Program '76 Resources Agency Programs developed by the Resources Agency Both programs nonbinding land use plans Unknown Tidal and non-tidal wetlands None Water use and recreation Existing developments Water quality values None None None Plans developed have been utilized for planning purposes Limited to comments regarding plan as relates to section 404 Follow-up with advanced section 404 identification program would be helpful No cases Not applicable Not applicable Wetland Program 7 Program Type State Name of Program Administering Agency Implementation Method Legal Authority Resources (Funds and Staff) Lands Covered Inventory and Classification Activities Regulated Exemptions Lands Covered Compliance Education Problems Success EPA Role Needed from EPA Taking Issues Mitigation Cumulative Impacts Other Programs California State Lands Public Trust Doctrine State Lands Commission, exclusive jurisdiction 70 cities, counties and districts (like Port districts) administer tidelands granted by the state Grant tidelands to localities by the state Wetlands protected by public trust Issues permits and leases Supreme Court decision of 1981 extended public trust jurisdiction which added 4,000 more miles of shoreland and inland wetland to the trust (navigable only) Cal. Govt. Code Sec. 13109, Cal. Publ . Res. Code Sec. 6301-6312, 6321-6327 Unknown State owned tidelands and submerged lands (most of the state's tidelands are owned by the state or the legislature's public grantees in trust) Private property (tidelands and submerged lands) is protected by public trust Nontidal navigable water are in public trust as of 1981 Due to illegal surveying, property boundaries are unclear Tidal and submerged lands are being mapped Removal of dredged material None Bottom habitat as well as other section 404(b) (1) values Limited to reported amounts of material removal None Jurisdictional boundaries are sometimes unclear Have successful permit program which refers environmental issues to other resource agencies as well as conducts own in-house environmental review None None Many cases that involve litigation over state ownership None required Subjective evaluation Wetland Program 8 Program Type State Name of Program Administering Agency Implementation Method Legal Authority Resources (Funds and Staff) Lands Covered Inventory and Classification Activities Regulated Exemptions Lands Covered Compliance Education Problems Success " - EPA Role Needed from EPA Taking Issues Mitigation Cumulative Impacts Nb- Acquisition Programs California Acquisition ' ■ Department of Fish and Game (DFG) Manage state wildlife management areas (reserves) Manage two national estuarine sanctuaries Publish "coastal wetland series" '' ' Sec. 1601.03 Unknown Wildlife reserves of the state California DFG has published 21 reports: "Coastal Wetland Series" which are comprehensive wetland inventories and development guides Regulate waterfowl hunting None ^, „ Waterfowl protection w . , -. - Local enforcement personnel See inventory and classification above Limited funding Good management success None None No cases Not applicable Not applicable Wetland Program 9 Program Type State Name of Program Administering Agency Implementation Method Legal Authority Resources (Funds and Staff) Lands Covered Inventory and Classification Activities Regulated Exemptions Lands Covered Compliance Education Problems Success EPA Role Needed from EPA Taking Issues Mitigation Cumulative Impacts Floodplain Regulation .; '".'''[ California Streambed Program: Streambed Alteration Agreement California Department of Fish and Game Written authorization Sec. 1601-03 of the California Fish and Game Code Unknown Those within active streambed None Dredge and fill (suction dredging) None Streambed values such as riffles and pools and associated water quality values Site visits and response to inquiries None Limited funding for compliance and enforcement monitoring Program functions well None Develop stronger enforcement posture for riparian streams No cases Not required Subjective assessment Wetland Program 10 Program Type State Name of Program Administering Agency Implementation Method Legal Authority Resources (Funds and Staff) Lands Covered Inventory and Classification Activities Regulated Exemptions Lands Covered Compliance Education Problems Success EPA Role Needed from EPA Taking Issues Mitigation Cumulative Impacts Acquisition Programs California Rare and Endangered Plants and Animals California Department of Fish and Game: Designate an endangered species Acquisition of wetlands since 1970 Department of Fish and Game is required to notify landowners of the presence of endangered species on their land Comment and consult on other agencies' programs Permit review/coordination with individuals and other agencies CEQA Unknown — sources: (a) Environmental Protection Fund, and (b) Land and Water Conservation Fund Wetlands that are habitat for endangered species Developed endangered species list Not applicable Not applicable Rare and endangered species Via section 7 consultation with USFWS None Limited funding and knowledge of habitat requirements of most species Program has had limited success None Stronger No cases Have adopted similar to USFWS Subjective qualitative assessments only Impacts addressed relate to habitat loss or degradation of habitat quality Wetland Program 11 Program Type State Name of Program Administering Agency Implementation Method Legal Authority Resources (Funds and Staff) Lands Covered Inventory and Classification Activities Regulated Exemptions Lands Covered Compliance Education Problems Success EPA Role Needed from EPA Taking Issues Mitigation Cumulative Impacts i-dt Acquisition Programs California Wildlife Conservation Board Acquisition Program Some Sanctuary Educational Programs California Department of Fish and Game Acquires wetland by (1) purchasing fee title, (2) leasing land from other agencies, and (3) purchasing easements Select acquisition sites Co-manage with federal agencies, several sanctuaries Education programs are set up at some sanctuaries Part of internal program Unknown 19 coastal wetlands identified for priority acquisition Several sanctuaries None Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Have active education programs at sanctuaries Areas will be used in some cases for outdoor education Land costs often far outweigh funds set aside for acquisition Have been able to purchase some areas None None No cases None Not applicable i i Wetland Program 12 Program Type State Name of Program Administering Agency Implementation Method Legal Authority Resources (Funds and Staff) Lands Covered Inventory and Classification Activities Regulated Exemptions Lands Covered Compliance Education Problems Success EPA Role Needed from EPA Taking Issues Mitigation Cumulative Impacts Coastal Law California Regional CZMP San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) (one of the first approved local CZMPs to be approved in the U.S.) Coastal Zone Management Act Cal. Govt. Code Sec. 65600-66661 (West) San Francisco Bay Outlined Appendix C.p.82 Kusier Tidelands and isolated diked wetlands 100 feet beyond mean high tide EPA sponsored inventory maps published in draft form, 1986 Dredge and fill (within 100 feet of the bay) Dikes areas not subject to tidal flow inundation Same as discussed in EPA section 404(b) (1) guidelines Due to low funding, limited to response to agency or individual concerns None Jurisdiction in historic diked bayland areas sometimes unclear Program is successful None Need to develop stronger enforcement posture with regard to diked baylands No cases Follows Fish and Game policy Subjective assessment Wetland Program 13 Program Type State Name of Program Administering Agency Implementation Method Legal Authority Resources (Funds and Staff) Lands Covered Inventory and Classification Activities Regulated Exemptions Lands Covered Compliance Education Problems Success EPA Role Needed from EPA Taking Issues Mitigation Cumulative Impacts Coastal Law California Regional CZMP Suisan Marsh Management District Sulsun Marsh Preservation Act of 1 few laws that protects a specific wetland — program arose from waterf See above Unknown All wetlands within Management Dis Habitat map has been developed for All development activities that wo wetlands None Waterfowl Inspection by district personnel Interpretive programs offered Agricultural runoff (chemical and High natural salt and metal concen incoming fresh water volumes Program has been successful for de waterfowl habitat None None No cases Certain areas within district have via permit requirements for other Subject evaluations 977 (one of the Riparian owl hunting) trict district uld impact sediment) trations in veloping been enhanced nearby areas Wetland Program 14 Program Type State Name of Program Administering Agency Implementation Method Legal Authority Resources (Funds and Staff) Lands Covered Inventory and Classification Activities Regulated Exemptions Lands Covered Compliance Education Problems Success '" ' V EPA Role Needed from EPA Taking Issues Mitigation Cumulative Impacts Coastal Law ■ . ' -'' California Regional CZMP ' Humboldt Bay Harbor Recreation and Conservation District Required compliance with under CEQA prior to permit authorization Authorized by voters in 1972 ''■ Amount unknown Two persons Tidelands within the Humboldt Bay District None All activities None Same as EPA section 404(b) (1) guidelines Local inspection by district personnel None Initial funding Have been successful with plan implementation None None No cases Require in accordance with Fish and Game Policy Make subject evaluations ^ Wetland Program 15 Program Type State Name of Program Administering Agency Implementation Method Legal Authority Resources (Funds and Staff) Lands Covered Inventory and Classification Activities Regulated Exemptions Lands Covered Compliance Education Problems Success EPA Role Needed from EPA ''■ Taking Issues Mitigation Cumulative Impacts Taxation Programs California Coastal Act of 1976 . „,,., California State Coastal Conservancy Assist local zoning Lease, sell or exchange property Tax incentives Redevelopment concepts Acquisition (by fee interests) Give grants to localities or Department of Parks and Recreation for wetland protection Coastal Act of 1976 Amount's and staff unknown _, Coastal wetland Agricultural lands None Not applicable Not applicable Same as defined by section 404(b) (1) guidelines None None Public awareness is low Moderate None Should encourage state to create greater public awareness of programs via tax guidelines No cases Not applicable Not applicable {^ 10 Wetland Program 16 Program Type State Name of Program Administering Agency Implementation Method Resources (Funds and Staff) Lands Covered Inventory and Classification Activities Regulated Exemptions Lands Covered Compliance Education Problems Success EPA Role Needed from EPA Taking Issues Mitigation Cumulative Impacts Acquisition Programs California Flood Control State Reclamation Board 19011 Local authorities Designate floodplains Manages floodplains Acquires land for flood control projects State general funds Wetlands None Acquire and manage wetlands within floodplain Not applicable Same as section 404(b) (1) guidelines Not applicable Not applicable Limited funding Have acquired a considerable number of flood control areas None None No cases Not applicable Not applicable Wetland Program 17 Program Type State Name of Program Administering Agency Implementation Method Legal Authority Resources (Funds and Staff) Lands Covered Inventory and Classification Activities Regulated Exemptions Lands Covered Compliance Education Problems Success EPA Role Needed from EPA Mitigation Cumulative Impacts Other Programs California State Subdivision Map Act Local authorities Requires denial for projects that would significantly damage wildlife habitats Subdivision map must be approved by local authorities for all projects, creating 5 or more parcels of land or condominiums State subdivision map act No direct funds — rely on local planning authorities Those wetlands where wildlife values would be significantly damaged None All projects creating 5+ parcels of land or condominiums Projects that create less than 5 parcels of land or condominiums Wildlife values None beyond approval process and inquiries by concerned individuals None No real inhouse review expertise on wildlife so evaluation is subjective Have caused certain developers to alter plans to minimize wildlife impacts None Advanced identification of critical areas would be quite helpful Educational information about section 404 programs would also be very helpful None Subjective evaluation 11 Wetland Program 18 Program Type State Name of Program Implementation Method Legal Authority Resources (Funds and Staff) Lands Covered Inventory and Classification Activities Regulated Exemptions Lands Covered Compliance Education Problems Success EPA Role Needed from EPA Taking Issues Mitigation Cumulative Impacts Taxation Programs California Open Space Land Use — California Land Conservation Act 1965 (Williamson Act) Tax break for agriculture "agriculture preserves" Open space protection for some wetlands Tax reduction for wetlands Williamson Act , -j Amount's and staff unknown 1969 amendment added wetlands and wildlife habitats, open space, to be covered under the act Inventories of significant wetland in some localities Agriculture tax incentive Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable 1^ Not applicable Awareness level of program is low ^-_ Moderate ^ , None Encourage state to create better public awareness Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Wetland Program 19 Program Type State Name of Program Administering Agency Implementation Method Legal Authority Lands Covered Inventory and Classification Activities Regulated Exemptions Lands Covered Compliance Education Problems Success EPA Role Needed from EPA Taking Issues Mitigation Cumulative Impacts Other Programs California , , --. River Reclamation , . ■- _/ State Reclamation Board Permit review Cal. Water Code Pt . 4 Sec. 8520-9377 Sacramento, San Joaquin River system and tins tributaries None _ , ,. , Dredge and fill None Same as those described for section 404(b) (1) guidelines Limited to inquiry by concerned citizens and occasional field trips downstream None Limited funding Unknown None No cases No cases No requirements for Subject evaluation 12 f Wetland Program 20 Program Type State Name of Program Administering Agency Implementation Method Legal Authority Resources (Funds and Staff) Lands Covered Inventory and Classification Activities Regulated Exemptions Lands Covered Compliance Education Problems Success EPA Role Needed from EPA Taking Issues Mitigation Cumulative Impacts Other Programs California Agency Coordination - Recent analysis of state wetland regulations which evaluated 5 9 relevant state statutes Resources Agency coordinates all state agencies that regulate wetlands: (1) Department of Fish and Game, (2) State Lands Commission and Division, (3) Reclamation Board, (4) Department of Water Resources, (5) San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, (6) Coastal Commission, (7) State Coastal Conservancy, (8) State Water Resources Control Board and Regional Boards, (9) Department of Parks and Recreation, (10) Department of Boating and Waterways, (11) Department of Conservation, (12) Department of Forestry, and (13) Office of Planning and Research Issue permits Review and comment on proposals whose authority lies with another agency Administer state owned lands See discussions for various state agencies Unknown (10 percent of California's original wetlands remain) NWI maps have been developed for San Francisco Bay area Development, mining, farming, maintenance or alteration activities Not applicable here — see further discussion on each agencies' program All as defined by EPA section 404(b) (1) guidelines See discussions for various state agencies Published permit handbook Published permit handbook Coordination program has been extremely successful in coordination of various resource agencies comments None Provide strong section 404 enforcement posture Cases have occurred California Fish and Game has a policy similar to USFWS Assessment is on a subjective qualitative basis 13 Wetland Program 21 '.-■i .'i Program Type State Name of Program Administering Agency Implementation Method Legal Authority Resources (Funds and Staff) Lands Covered Inventory and Classification Activities Regulated Exemptions Lands Covered Compliance Education Problems Success EPA Role Needed from EPA Mitigation Cumulative Impacts Taxation Programs California California Coastal Act 1976, under CZMP 1978 (the Act was passed following the completion of the California Coastal Plan) California Coastal Commission, 1972 Regional commissions Permit development conditions Means of wetland restoration Suggested mitigation measures Compensation required sometimes (part of "Interpretive Guidelines...") Cal. Pub. Res. Code Sec. 3000, 39000 (West) Amount unknown Wetlands landward 1000 yards above mean high tide "Guidelines for Wetlands..." includes classification of wetlands (USFWS definition used) 50,000 applications for development have been processed by the regional commissions in the past 10 years Size of boating facilities Dredge and fill None Same as EPA section 404(b) (1) guidelines None Developed Interpretive Guidelines for Wetlands and other Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas Limited funding to carryout program Controversy over restorability of damaged wetlands Have had successful program, given funding limitations None More closely coordinate with commission Follow Fish and Game Policy Subject evaluation only 14 Wetland Program 22 Program Type State Name of Program Administering Agency Implementation Method Legal Authority Resources (Funds and Staff) Lands Covered Inventory and Classification Activities Regulated Exemptions Lands Covered Compliance Education Problems Success EPA Role Needed from EPA Taking Issues Mitigation Cumulative Impacts Other Programs California Regional Lakeshore Program Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Local authorities Development plan review and authorization Cal. Govt. Code Sec. 67000-67130 Amounts unknown and personnel unknown Placer and El Dorado counties Lake Tahoe Tahoe watershed None All development activities None Same as those defined by EPA section 404(b) (I) guidelines None None Need greater public awareness about program(s) Programs have been successful in causing planned development with concern for environmental issues Section 404 review process Need to establish stronger enforcement posture No cases Plans often require mitigation Subjective evaluation Wetland Program 23 Program Type State Name of Program Administering Agency Implementation Method Resources (Funds and Staff) Lands Covered Inventory and Classification Activities Regulated Exemptions Lands Covered Compliance Education Problems Success EPA Role Needed from EPA Taking Issues Mitigation Cumulative Impacts Floodplain Regulation California Flood Control State Reclamation Board 19011 Local authorities Designate floodplains Manages floodplains Acquires land for flood control projects State general funds Wetlands None Acquire and manage wetlands within floodplain Not applicable Same as section 404(b) (1) guidelines Not applicable Not applicable Limited funding Have acquired a considerable number of flood control areas None None No cases Not applicable Not applicable 15 Wetland Program 2 4 Program Type State Name of Program Administering Agency Implementation Method Legal Authority Resources (Funds and Staff) Lands Covered Inventory and Classification Activities Regulated Exemptions Lands Covered Compliance Education Problems . ,^. .„.. ..-, Success -' '^ ■ - EPA Role ., . ^ - Needed from EPA Taking Issues Mitigation Cumulative Impacts Acquisition Programs California Coastal Act of 1976 California State Coastal Conservancy Assist local zoning ,. ^ - , Lease, sell or exchange property Tax incentives Redevelopment concepts Acquisition (by fee interests) Give grants to localities or Department of Parks and Recreation for wetland protection Coastal Act of 1976 Amount's and staff unknown Coastal wetland ,: . ,^_- Agricultural lands None .,j : Not applicable Not applicable Same as defined by section 404(b) guidelines None None Public awareness is low Moderate None Should encourage state to create greater public awareness of programs via tax guidelines No cases Not applicable Not applicable .^^ -..<': ":.*•■ .•rt'_. '- r c^ 16 California State Wetland Contacts (Council of State Governments Database) Wetland Contact 1 Program Type Name Organization Address City State Zip Code Phone Number Coastal Wetland Program Devon Bates California Coastal Commission 631 Howard Street 4th floor San Francisco California 94105 (415) 543-8555 Wetland Contact 2 Program Type Name Organization City State Phone Number 401 Permits Jaclc Hodges State Water Quality Control Board Sacramento California (916) 322-0207 Wetland Contact 3 Program Type Name Organization Address City State Zip Code Phone Number Legal Council/Legislative Liason Paul Thayer California Coastal Commission 921 11th Street Room 1200 Sacramento California 95814 (916) 445-6067 Wetland Contact 4 Program Type Name Organization Address City State Zip Code Phone Number Mapping Jon Van Coops California Coastal Commission 631 Howard Street 4th Floor San Francisco California 94105 (415) 543-8555 Wetland Contact 5 Program Type Name Organization Address City State Zip Code Phone Number Legal Council/Legislative Liason Roy Govman California Coastal Commission 631 Howard Street 4th Floor San Francisco California 94105 (415) 543-8555 17 Wetland Contact 6 Program Type Name Organization State Phone Number # Other Programs Nancy Wakeman BCDC Bay Permits and Jurisdiction California (415) 557-3686 Wetland Contact 7 Program Type Name Organization State Phone Number Other Programs Jonathan Smith BCDC Bay Permits and Jurisdiction California (415) 557-3686 Wetland Contact 8 Program Type Name Organization State Phone Number Other Programs Don Lollock Environmental Services Branch Fish and Game Dept . California (916) 445-1383 Wetland Contact 9 Program Type Name Organization Address City State Zip Code Phone Number Other Programs Nancy Cave State Enforcement Coordinator State Enforcement Commission 921 11th street Room 1200 Sacramento California 95814 (415) 543-8555 Wetland Contact 10 Program Type Name Organization Address City State Zip Code Flood Plain Programs A. Jean Brown Dept. of Water Resources P.O. Box 942836 Sacramento California 94236-0001 18 Idaho State Wetland Programs (Council of State Governments Database) Wetland Program 1 Program Type State Name of Program Administering Agency Implementation Method Legal Authority Resources (Funds and Staff) Lands Covered Inventory and Classification Activities Regulated Exemptions Lands Covered Compliance Education Problems Success EPA Role Needed from EPA Section 401 Permits Idaho Section 401 - Water Quality Certification Division of Environmental Quality, Bureau of Water Quality Water Quality Certification Section 401 10 6 funds All surface and groundwaters of the state Perennial rivers — USGS Department of Fish and Game — classified rivers and streams by type/quality of fishing Northwest river study has extensive resource data base Defined by federal government Defined by federal government Water Quality - no specific water quality standards for wetlands Have enforcement capabilities under Water Quality Standards Quarterly newsletter distributed to approximately 1500 people Biannual water quality status report discusses activities, defines priorities Annual Environmental Quality Profile Report Training for specific programs (i.e.. Wastewater Treatment Operator Training) Funding at Federal and state level Water quality standards - EPA may promulgate standards for Idaho because proposed standards are unacceptable (antidegradation policy) Not sure how successful No discrete wetlands program Passive, not active program Provide major funding source Funding (undo Graham-Rudman) More funding for section 314 of Clean Water Act, Clean Lakes Program 19 Wetland Program 2 Program Type State Name of Program Administering Agency Implementation Method Legal Authority Resources (Funds and Staff) Lands Covered Inventory and Classification Activities Regulated Compliance Education Problems Success EPA Role Needed from EPA Taking Issues Mitigation Cumulative Impacts c Acquisition Programs : ^■ Idaho Idaho Natural Heritage Program (nongame checkoff funds) Cooperative effort between Natural Conservancy, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation Acquisition Work with federal agencies for conservation of resources on federal land No specific legislation Nongame checkoff The Nature Conservancy Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund Criteria for areas of significant natural value: -system relatively unimpacted by human development, -rarity, -degree of threat Have computer data base and computerized map which stores information on specific natural area sites Not applicable - not a regulatory program Only have compliance activities on their preserves. Control access and some activities Waterfowl hunting and fishing is allowed, as water in state is owned by the state Slide presentations each year oriented toward specific agencies Public information presentations Funding Public lands policy and open range concept conflict with wetland protection Need good quality water as input to wetlands Not sure how successful. No discrete wetlands program. Passive - not active program Significant EPA role through funding for NW River Study Informal exchange of information fairly good Not sure Not had to deal with taking. Conservative government - not concerned with wetlands on private property No formal mitigation plan No method for evaluating r r 20 Wetland Program 3 Program Type State Name of Program Administering Agency- Implementation Method Legal Authority Resources (Funds and Staff) Lands Covered Inventory and Classification Activities Regulated Compliance Education Problems Success EPA Role Needed from EPA Acquisition Programs Idaho Idaho Fish and Game Acquisition Program Department of Fish and Game Fee simple acquisition Purchase only from willing sellers Idaho Code 36-104 (b) 7 Idaho Code 36-107 (c) Hunting license fees Federal Aid Programs: Pittman-Robertson and Dingle- Johns on MARSH program through Ducks Unlimited Endangered species habitat wildlife lands within borders of existing holdings Other types of land Have inventories of lands and resources currently owned and lists of land they would like to purchase Approximately 100,000 acres of land owned in fee title Approximately 100,000 acres controlled through easements, licenses, and coop agreement Compliance monitoring conducted on stated owned properties All lands are open to public use, and use is encouraged via: 1) writeups in wildlife magazines, 2) TV programs, 3) news media releases and printed regulations, and 4) areas posted and signed for public use Lack of funding Counties sometimes oppose state acquisition of properties because of reduction in tax base. Fine money collected from state enforcement of game laws goes for statewide school programs Successful EPA sometimes serves in an advisory role on permit applications Provide additional funding 21 Wetland Program 4 Program Type State Name of Program Administering Agency Implementation Method Legal Authority Resources (Funds and Staff) Lands Covered : . , Inventory and Classification Activities Regulated Exemptions Compliance Education EPA Role Needed from EPA Taking Issues Mitigation Cumulative Impacts *j,':i- ^fi'' State Environmental Policy Acts Idaho Environmental Protection and Health Act Division of Environment Broad scope of legislation. Covers air and water pollution along with hazardous waste regulation Has numerous associated regulations for each program Idaho Code, Title 39, Chapter 1 Various state and federal funds Statewide jurisdiction - protection of environment, health concerns No comprehensive wetland inventory Air, water, hazardous material pollution Have lists Administrative, civil, criminal penalties for noncompliance Newsletter features articles on the act News releases are prepared when enforcement action is undertaken No role Funding Manpower in the field '.'• ■ Not an issue No formal mitigation plan No method for evaluating No method for evaluating r ^ 22 Wetland Program 5 Program Type State Name of Program Administering Agency Implementation Method Legal Authority Resources (Funds and Staff) Lands Covered Inventory and Classification Activities Regulated Compliance Education Problems Success EPA Role Needed from EPA Taking Issues Mitigation Cumulative Impacts Taxation Programs Idaho Idaho Natural Heritage Program (nongame checkoff funds ) Cooperative effort between Nature Conservancy, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, and the Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation Acquisition Work with Federal agencies for conservation of resources on Federal land No specific legislation Nongame checkoff The Nature Conservancy Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund Criteria for areas of significant natural value: -system relatively unimpacted by human development, -rarity, -degree of threat Have computer data base and computerized map which stores information on specific natural area sites Not applicable - not a regulatory program Only have compliance activities on their preserves. Control access and some activities Waterfowl hunting and fishing is allowed, as water in state is owned by the state Slide presentations each year oriented toward specific agencies Public information presentations Funding Public lands policy and open range concept conflict with wetland protection Need good quality water as input to wetlands Not sure how successful. No discrete wetlands program. Passive - not active program Significant EPA role through funding for NW River Study Informal exchange of information fairly good Not sure Not had to deal with taking. Conservative government - not concerned with wetlands on private property No formal mitigation plan No method for evaluating No method for evaluating 23 Idaho State Wetland Contacts (Council of State Governments Database) J '-}',■ • Wetland Contact 1 Program Type Name Organization Address City State Zip Code Phone Number 401 Permits Jerry Yoder Bureau of Water Quality Division of Environmental Quality 450 West State Street Boise Idaho 83720 (208) 334-5860 Wetland Contact 2 Program Type Name Organization Address City State Zip Code Phone Number Acquisition Programs Steve Caicco Natural Heritage Program 4696 Overland Road Suite 518 Boise Idaho 83705 (208) 334-3402 Wetland Contact 3 Program Type Name Organization Address City State Zip Code Phone Number Acquisition Programs Dick Norrell :■>. Fish and Game _ - Realty Dept . P.O. Box 25 Boise Idaho 83707 ■■ (208) 334-3180 c Wetland Contact 4 Program Type Name Organization State Phone Number Other Programs Signe Blair Fish and Wildlife Services Idaho (208) 334-1931 Wetland Contact 5 Program Type Name Organization Address City State Zip Code Phone Number Other Programs Ralph Pierson Dept . of Fish and Game P.O. Box 25 Boise Idaho 83707 (208) 334-2920 24 Wetland Contact 6 Program Type Name Organization Address City State Zip Code Flood Plain Programs Lotwick I . Reese Dept . of Water Resources State House Boise Idaho 83720 i 25 Montana State Wetland Programs (Council of State Governments Database) (v:. Itatland Program 1 Program Type State Name of Program Administering Agency Implementation Method Legal Authority Resources (Funds and Staff) Lands Covered Inventory and Classification Activities Regulated Exemptions Lands Covered Compliance Education Problems stream Success EPA Role Needed from EPA 404 program Taking Issues Mitigation Cumulative Impacts Floodplain Regulation Montana 310 Law for Streambed Protection Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks Permit program Montana Revised Codes Ann. tit. 75, ch. 7 — no authority for specific wetland protection. Unknown Limited to those within stream beds and banks None Private development projects State development projects; Emergency operations Same as those defined by EPA Section 404 (b) (1) guidelines Agency acts on reports provided by other agencies or individuals None Limited funding and limited to wetlands within banks of Very successful None Needs to establish strong enforcement posture via Section No cases No policy Evaluations based on subjective assessment Wetland Program 2 Program Type State Name of Progreun Administering Agency Implementation Method Legal Authority Resources (Funds and Staff) Lands Covered Inventory and Classification Activities Regulated Exemptions Lands Covered Conpliance Education Problems Success EPA Role Needed from EPA Taking Issues Mitigation Cumulative Impacts Floodplain Regulation Montana 124 Law for Stream Protection Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks Permit program Montana Revised Codes Ann, tit. 87, ch. 5 — no authority for specific wetland protection Amount is unknown: One staff Stream beds and banks None State dredge and fill actions and/or alteration Emergency operations Same as those defined by EPA Section 404 (b) (1) guidelines Agency acts on reports provided to agency by other agencies or individuals None Limited funding and limited to wetlands within banks of streams Very successful None Need to establish strong Section 404 enforcement posture via Section 404 program No cases No policy Evaluation based on subjective judgments 26 Wetland Program 3 Program Type Floodplain Regulation State Montana Name of Program Floodplain Regulation (100 year) Administering Agency State Lands Commission Implementation Method State approves local ordinances Legal Authority Sec. 89 -3503 to -35009 Resources (Funds and Staff) Amount unknown: One person Lands Covered Floodplains and floodways Inventory and Classification FEMA flood zone maps Activities Regulated Alteration (s) to stream flows Exemptions Maintenance of existing structures Lands Covered None Compliance Acts on what is discovered or reported Education None Problems Limited to floodplains and floodways Success Very successful with good local cooperation EPA Role None Needed from EPA Provide close coordination via Section 40 4 permit process Taking Issues No cases Mitigation No policy Ciimulative Impacts No assessment made — rely on other resource agencies 27 Wetland Program 4 Program Type State Name of Program Administering Agency Implementation Method Legal Authority Resources (Funds and Staff) Lands Covered Inventory and Classification Activities Regulated Exemptions Lands Covered Compliance Education Problems Success c EPA Role Needed from EPA Taking Issues Mitigation Cumulative Iit^acts Other Programs Montana Water Quality Program Regulation Department of Health and Environmental Services, Water Quality Bureau Permit program State adopted Section 404 program Amount unknown: Two persons Those within streambank and bed None Point source and non-point source discharges into Montana waters Exeirqption applies if discharges fall below minimum standards Those defined by EPA Section 404(b) (1) guidelines Amount's limit active program. Compliance limited to discoveries during routine inspections or complaints called in None Funding limits having a much stronger program. Laws not broad enough to protect all wetland types State has had an excellent record of actively being involved with the Section 404 program via section 401 water quality certification. State agency will deny water quality certification as appropriate Limited to section 401 and Section 404 review and comment EPA needs to establish strong enforcement posture over wetlands to support state effort . EPA should coordinate^ more closely with regard to the section 401 and Sectioi^^ 404 process. Need criteria and standards foi forecasting cumulative reports No cases No mitigation policy Assessment is restricted to a subjective evaluation 28 Montana State Wetland Contacts (Council of State Govermnents Database) Wetlamd Contact 1 Prograim Type Name Address City State Zip Code Phone Number 404 Permits Army Corps of Engineers Federal Building Helena Montana 59626 (406) 444-6670 Ifetland Contact 2 Program Type Name Organization Address City State Zip Code Phone Number 401 Permits Ken Chrest Water Quality Bureau Cogswell Building Helena Montana 59620 (406) 444-2406 Wetland Contact 3 Program Type Name Organization Address City State Zip Code Phone Number Waterfowl Stamp Program Jeff Herbert Dept. of Fish, Wildlife and Parks 1420 E. Sixth Ave. Helena Montana 59620 (406) 444-2612 Ifetland Contact 4 Program Type Name Organization Address City State Zip Code Phone Number Other Programs Steve Potts U.S. Environmental Prot, Federal Building Helena Montana 59626 (406) 449-5486 Agency Wetland Contact 5 Program Type Name Organization Address City State Zip Code Other Programs Steve Odden U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Building Billings Montana 59101 I 29 Wetland Contact 6 Program Type Name Organization Address City State Zip Code Phone Number Other Programs Ken Chrest Dept. of Fish, Wildlife and Parks 1420 East 6th Avenue Helena Montana 59620 (406) 444-2445 r wetland Contact 7 Program Type Name Organization Address City State Zip Code Phone Number Other Programs Dori Passman State Lands Commission Federal Building Helena Montana 59620 (406) 444-2074 Itatland Contact 8 Program Type Name Organization Resources Address City State Zip Code Flood Plain Programs John Hammill Dept. of Natural Resources and Conservation: 1520 East 6th Avenue Helena Montana . ,, 59620 ■ Water *^ ^ 30 Nevada State Wetland Procrrams (Council of State Governments Database) Wetland Program 1 Program Type State Name of Program Administering Agency Implementation Method Legal Authority Resources (Funds and Staff) Lands Covered Inventory and Classification Activities Regulated Exemptions Lands Covered Compliance Education Problems Success EPA Role Needed from EPA Taking Issues Mitigation Cumulative Impacts Other Programs Nevada Best Management Practices Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Permit authorization Section 208, Clean Water Act Unknown No wetlands regulated or protected. However, wetlands often develop within drainways None State regulates disposal of drained water Drainage None Site inspection and response to inquiries by concerned individuals None Requirements of program afford little or no protection for created wetlands Not applicable Program review Develop ways to encourage wetland development and maintenance No cases Not applicable Not applicable 31 Wetland Program 2 Program Type State Name of Program Administering Agency Implementation Method Legal Authority Resources (Funds and Staff) Lands Covered Inventory and Classification Activities Regulated Exemptions Lands Covered Compliance Education Problems Success EPA Role Needed from EPA Taking Issues Mitigation Cumulative Impacts Other Programs - -.-^w •>>" Nevada Critical Area Zoning State Division of Lands, Department of Environmental Protection (for Lake Tahoe) , Department of Fish and Game (Sec. 501.105) Permit/Letter Authorization Nev. Rev. Stat. Sec. 321.595, Sec. 501,105 Amount unknown State and Federal funds Navigable waters Lake Tahoe No mapping, but follow USFWS wetlands classification scheme Dredge and fill Existing structures and maintenance thereof Same as those defined by EPA section 404(b) C guidelines Site visits and response to inquiries by concerned individuals None Limited funding Successful planning effort for mitigation/environmental impacts None Develop strong enforcement posture No cases No formal policy, but requires mitigation for significant impacts to fish and wildlife resources Conduct subjective evaluations c c 32 Nevada State Wetland Contacts (Council of State Governments Database) Wetland Contact 1 Program Type Name Organization Address City State Zip Code Phone Number Other Programs Lew Dodgion Div. of Env. Protection 201 S. Fall Street Carson City Nevada 89710 (702) 885-4670 Wetland Contact 2 Program Type Name Organization State Phone Number Other Programs Pam Wilcox Nevada State Lands Nevada (702) 885-4363 Wetland Contact 3 Program Type Name Organization State Phone Number Other Programs Bill Morgan Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Nevada (702) 588-4547 Wetland Contact 4 Program Type Name Organization State Phone Number Other Programs Dave Ziegler Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Nevada (702) 588-4547 Wetland Contact 5 Program Type Name Organization Address City State Zip Code Flood Plain Programs Robert Andrews, Director Div. of Engineering Management Capitol Complex Carson City Nevada 89710 33 North Dakota State Wetland Proorrams (Council of State Governments Database) Wetland Program 1 Program Type State Name of Program Administering Agency Implementation Method Legal Authority Resources (Funds and Staff) Lands Covered Inventory and Classification Activities Regulated Exemptions Lands Covered Compliance Education Problems Success EPA Role Needed from EPA Taking Issues Mitigation Cumulative Impacts access number 401 Permits " ' . North Dakota State Water Quality Certification Program - Discharges and Modification of State Waters State Water Resources Commission Permit Program N.D. Cent Code Subsec . 61-01-22, 61-02-14, 61-02-20 Unknown All wetlands associated with state waters - isolated wetlands not covered Yes Channel modifications, construction of dikes and dams, drainage of certain ponds, sloughs and lakes -Farm ponds -New state waters Same as Clean Water Act None None Public support for wetlands protection is low Low Limited to 404 review Need to require 404(b) (1) analysis and should show a stronger overall enforcement posture No cases. Required when impacts occur Vast numbers of isolated prairie pot hole wetlands are being lost. Cumulative impacts considered in evaluations, but no quantitative criteria for evaluation has been developed 271 34 •t North Dakota State Wetland Contacts (Council of State Governments Database) Wetland Contact 1 Program Type Name Organization Address City State Zip Code Phone Number Access Number 404 Permits Michael T. Sauer State Dept. of Health 1200 Missouri avenue Bismarck North Dakota 58505 (701) 224-2354 162 Wetland Contact 2 Program Type Name Organization Address City State Zip Code Phone Number Access Number 401 Permits Michael T. Sauer State Dept. of Health 1200 Missouri avenue Bismarck North Dakota 58505 (701) 224-2354 163 Wetland Contact 3 Program Type Name Address City State Zip Code Phone Number Access Number Legal Council/Legislative Liason State Water Commission State Capital Bismarck North Dakota 58505 (701) 224-2750 164 Wetland Contact 4 Program Type Name Organization Address City State Zip Code Phone Number Access Number Other Programs Michael G. McKenna Natural Resource Coordinator Game and Fish Dept . 100 Bismarck Expressway Bismarck North Dakota 58505 (701) 221-6300 165 35 Wetland Contact 5 Program Type Flood Plain Programs Name William Hanson Organization State Water Commission Address 900 East Boulevard City Bismarck State • North Dakota Zip Code 58505 Access Number 4 67 r € r 36 Oregon State Wetland Procrrams (Council of State Governments Database) Wetland Program 1 Program Type State Name of Program Administering Agency Implementation Method Legal Authority Resources (Funds and Staff) Lands Covered Inventory and Classification Activities Regulated Exemptions Lands Covered Compliance Education Problems Success EPA Role Needed from EPA Section 401 Permits Oregon Water Quality Certification Program Department of Environmental Quality Water Quality Certification Section 401, Clean Water Act Federal funds through the Clean Water Act State general revenue funds Lands covered by federal agencies which issue permits: Coast Guard, Corps of Engineers (about 600/year), and FERC (about 12/year) Due to NEDC lawsuit, all waters now subject to section 401 which includes lakes greater than 20 acres and streams with flows greater than 5 ft.3/sec. Inventories/maps are available for waters of the state, including surface and groundwater Defined by federal government Defined by federal government Water quality - no specific water quality standards developed for wetlands . Water quality standards are developed for each basin which are primarily the same throughout the state with some east to west differences Enforcement section in regional operations division can bring civil and criminal penalties for noncompliance Minimal ("poor") education program Hazardous waste threats to water quality Massive water quality cleanup in 1950s and 1960s. Since 1969, primarily just maintenance Very successful Strict "crushing watchdog" role Quarterly reviews Used to provide technical assistance (not much now) Need more technical assistance (like EPA used to do) 37 Wetland Program 2 Program Type State Name of Program Administering Agency Implementation Method Legal Authority Resources (Funds and Staff) Lands Covered Inventory and Classification Activities Regulated Exemptions Lands Covered Compliance Education Problems Success EPA Role Needed from EPA Taking Issues Mitigation Cumulative Impacts Taxation Programs .-_, p.., ,. -'j-jW Oregon Riparian Lands Tax Incentive Program Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Soil and Water Conservation Districts Complete exemption of county property tax 25% personal state income tax exemption for money spent on habitat improvement Oregon Laws Chapter 720, 1981 No funding (therefore not very successful) Department had to absorb costs Any land on a stream, can include up to 100' landward on each side of a stream. Must be on agricultural, range or forest lands (exclusion for urban areas) No inventory Information was supplied to the USFWS for their wetlands classification Tax break for protecting riparian areas Urban areas. Program only covers agricultural, range or forest lands Riparian areas Implied compliance with penalty provisions of up to five years back taxes. In practice there is little monitoring Statewide distribution of program brochure No funds for implementation of protection measures which are required by the Department (for example, fencing to exclude cattle) Just tax break is not enough incentive for program, the tax incentive was so low it was not effective Fencing disliked by cattlemen Agricultural community is very suspicious of resource agencies Small quantitative success, but did focus public attention on value of riparian areas Provides one of first programs in the nation to address riparian protection None Felt EPA could assist but not sure how Funding Tax incentive is not taking — is "giving." No plan - only present for coastal estuaries Subjective biological judgment Stream survey methods r 38 Wetland Program 3 Program Type State Name of Program Administering Agency Implementation Method Legal Authority Resources (Funds and Staff) Lands Covered Activities Regulated Lands Covered Education Problems Success Needed from EPA Research Oregon Nongame Wildlife Program Department of Fish and wildlife Provides funds for research, monitoring, development, and some acquisition of nongame wildlife areas 3/4 of the funds available go toward contractual services for research, monitoring, and development Nongame Wildlife Checkoff Bill, 1979 50% of funds from nongame checkoff 50% of funds from sale of hunting licenses Several projects geared toward species which occur in wetlands (shorebirds, white pelicans) , but program is not specifically aimed at wetlands Conduct research, monitoring, development, and some acquisition Future plans include research on owls, harbor seals, sea lions, snowy plovers, bats, turtles, and other wildlife Wildlife habitat No funds provided for information and education Lack of funding (no acquisition now) Lack of information on poorly understood wildlife species No funding for information and education Lack of appreciation for non-game wildlife. An extensive wetland inventory project in a metropolitan area was presented to the Zoning Commission and wetlands were protected through zoning Four parcels of wetlands purchased with checkoff money Constructed dikes and enhanced an additional 200 acres of wetlands Not sure of other ways EPA can help Enhanced raptor nest platforms on large transmission lines 39 Wetland Program 4 Program Type State Name of Program Administering Agency Implementation Method mj :.4.l. .?fcW Legal Authority Resources (Funds and Staff) Lands Covered Activities Regulated Lands Covered Education Problems Success Needed from EPA Acquisition Programs Oregon Nongame Wildlife Program Department of Fish and Wildlife Provides funds for research, monitoring, development, and some acquisition of nongame wildlife areas 3/4 of the funds available go toward contractual services for research, monitoring, and development Nongame Wildlife Checkoff Bill, 1979 50% of funds from nongame checkoff 50% of funds from sale of hunting licenses Several projects geared toward species which occur in wetlands (shorebirds, white pelicans) , but program is not specifically aimed at wetlands Conduct research, monitoring, development, and some acquisition Future plans include research on owls, harbor seals, sea lions, snowy plovers, bats, turtles, and other wildlife Wildlife habitat No funds provided for information and education Lack of funding (no acquisition now) Lack of information on poorly understood wildlife species No funding for information and education Lack of appreciation for non-game wildlife An extensive wetland inventory project in a metropolitan area was presented to the Zoning Commission and wetlands were protected through zoning Four parcels of wetlands purchased with checkoff money Constructed dikes and enhanced an additional 200 acres of wetlands Not sure of other ways EPA can help Enhanced raptor nest platforms on large transmission lines 40 Wetland Program 5 Program Type State Name of Program Administering Agency Implementation Method Legal Authority Resources (Funds and Staff) Lands Covered Activities Regulated Lands Covered Education Problems Success Needed from EPA Taxation Programs Oregon Nongame Wildlife Program Department of Fish and Wildlife Provides funds for research, monitoring, development, and some acquisition of nongame wildlife areas 3/4 of the funds available go toward contractual services for research, monitoring, and development Nongame Wildlife Checkoff Bill, 1979 50% of funds from nongame checkoff 50% of funds from sale of hunting licenses Several projects geared toward species which occur in wetlands (shorebirds, white pelicans) , but program is not specifically aimed at wetlands Conduct research, monitoring, development, and some acquisition Future plans include research on owls, harbor seals, sea lions, snowy plovers, bats, turtles, and other wildlife Wildlife habitat No funds provided for information and education Lack of funding (no acquisition now) Lack of information on poorly understood wildlife species No funding for information and education Lack of appreciation for non-game wildlife An extensive wetland inventory project in a metropolitan area was presented to the Zoning Commission and wetlands were protected through zoning Four parcels of wetlands purchased with checkoff money Constructed dikes and enhanced an additional 200 acres of wetlands Not sure of other ways EPA can help Enhanced raptor nest platforms on large transmission lines 41 Wetland Program 6 Program Type State Name of Program Administering Agency Implementation Method Legal Authority Resources (Funds and Staff) Lands Covered Inventory and Classification Activities Regulated Lands Covered Compliance Education Problems Success Research Oregon South Slough Natural Estuarine Sanctuary Oregon Division of State Lands Research Acquisition: purchased large part of a watershed (includes about 3,800 acres of timber) . Goals of management are to preserve the natural integrity of the system Natural Estuarian Program (NCAA - Department of Commerce) Cooperative funding. Start-up funding provided by the Federal government. Operating funds from state South Slough National Estuarian Sanctuary Working on an inventory. Have a cursory inventory to create an atlas of resources Purchased large part of a watershed (approximately 5,000 acres, 38,000 acres of timber) Regulate use of motorized boats in shallow water No commercial harvest of timber No herbicides Coordinate research, baseline inventory Sponsor outside research Collect meteorological, toxic, physical information Tidal wetlands research Conduct long term research to monitor for long term changes Conduct research on mitigation and how to create a wetland Only commercial activity allowed is oyster culture Natural integrity of the system State law enforcement officers handle compliance, not estuarian staff Have an interpretive center (worth 1/2 million dollars) , with museum quality exhibits Educational school curriculum Teacher education programs Sponsor a symposium on estuarian research every other year Only 11 year old sanctuary (young) . Needs research, but research funds are tight Potential development on slough may pose a serious threat to water quality from excess cobalt, cadmium, and other substances No effective oil spill plan Need to attract good researchers Very new sanctuary. Measurable successes will go beyond the physical boundary of the sanctuary and provide new approaches to wetland management ^ c EPA Role No role. One contact with EPA in 10 months, not know who to talk to, but would like to 42 Do ^ Needed from EPA Mitigation involve EPA in the sanctuary program. Would like to cooperate with EPA to assess toxic materials problems in sediments Knows EPA has equipment they could use, but does not know how to get in touch with the right people ... J Currently conducting research on mitigation ana how to "create" a wetland I 43 Wetland Program 7 Program Type — State Name of Program Administering Agency Implementation Method Legal Authority Resources (Funds and Staff) Lands Covered Inventory and Classification Activities Regulated Lands Covered Compliance Education Problems Success Coastal Law Oregon South Slough Natural Estuarine Sanctuary Oregon Division of State Lands Research Acquisition: purchased large part of a watershed (includes about 3,800 acres of timber). Goals of management are to preserve the natural integrity of the system Natural Estuarian Program (NOAA - Department of Commerce) Cooperative funding. Start-up funding provided by the federal government. Operating funds from state South Slough National Estuarian Sanctuary Working on an inventory. Have a cursory inventory to create an atlas of resources Purchased large part of a watershed (approximately 5,000 acres, 38,000 acres of timber) Regulate use of motorized boats in shallow water No commercial harvest of timber No herbicides Coordinate research, baseline inventory Sponsor outside research Collect meteorological, toxic, physical information Tidal wetlands research Conduct long term research to monitor for long term changes Conduct research on mitigation and how to create a wetland Only commercial activity allowed is oyster culture Natural integrity of the system State law enforcement officers handle compliance, not estuarian staff Have an interpretive center (worth 1/2 million dollars) , with museum quality exhibits Educational school curriculum Teacher education programs Sponsor a symposium on estuarian research every other year Only 11 year old sanctuary (young) . Needs research, but research funds are tight Potential development on slough may pose a serious threat to water quality from excess cobalt, cadmium, and other substances No effective oil spill plan Need to attract good researchers Very new sanctuary. Measurable successes will go beyond the physical boundary of the sanctuary and provide new approaches to wetland management EPA Role No role. One contact with EPA in 10 months. not know who to talk to, but would like to Do 44 Needed from EPA Mitigation involve EPA in the sanctuary program Would like to cooperate with EPA to assess toxic materials problems in sediments Knows EPA has equipment they could use, but does not know how to get in touch with the right people Currently conducting research on mitigation and how to "create" a wetland Wetland Program 8 Program Type State Name of Program Administering Agency Implementation Method Legal Authority Resources (Funds and Staff) Activities Regulated Education Problems Success EPA Role Needed from EPA Research Oregon Research and Development (arm of Department of Fish and wildlife) Department of Fish and Wildlife Research on fisheries and wildlife habitat improvement, for use by wildlife and fisheries managers Current research projects include techniques for rearing and releasing fish, effects of dams on reaches below dams, background studies on ocean flora and fauna relative to offshore oil leases, and the relationship of predators to downstream migrating salmon Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Commission sets policy and budget Fish and Wildlife Commission sets budget Habitat evaluation and improvement research Applied research - do most of work in streams Not a specific part of program, but do involve public in development of fish management plans Habitat loss - hard to maintain wild populations of fish Not specifically geared toward wetland protection but some areas have been successful Generally, no role Through EMS program - can contact them for information and problems 45 Wetland Program 9 Program Type State Name of Program Administering Agency Implementation Method (.■'' Legal Authority ■ >+-- Resources (Funds and Staff) Lands Covered ^. -'.f-:-. n. Inventory and Classification ■l*- 1 ."^f.; Activities Regulated Lands Covered Compliance Education Problems Coastal Law Oregon Oregon Coastal Zone Management Program (OCZMP) Many state agency statutes are incorporated into the OCZMP Department of Land Conservation and Development Counties and cities Water Resources Department Department of Environmental Quality Division of State Lands Department of Fish and Wildlife Counties and cities develop management plans and implementing ordinances to comply with statewide goals. Counties need to identify wetlands and evaluate conflicts . State reviews plans . State monitors actions of local governments for compliance with their plans Coastal Zone Management Act - Or. Rev. Stat. Chapter 541.605-695, Chapter 215.505-535 (local regulation) Attorney General Opinion No. 7755 Statewide land use planning goals: 4, 5, 6, 16, 17, 18 (state's land use planning program) (ORS 197) State general funds Office of Coastal Resource Management (Federal funds) The Oregon coastal zone includes all lands west of the crest of the coast range. The areas mentioned below are subject to specific goals: 1) 500' from coastal lakes, 1000' from estuaries (Goal 17), 2) all tidal lands (Goal 16), and 3) unprotected forested freshwater wetlands No comprehensive wetland inventory. Current mapping effort underway that will show land use designation. Digitizing estuarine management areas for coast. Noncoastal wetlands - no good inventory Prescribe standards for county Coastal Zone Management Plans Review plans Dredge and fill, piling, riprap, etc. (Goal 16 - permitted uses) Significant shoreland wetlands identified in local plans Estuarine areas in natural management units County submits plan to state. If plans are inadequate, state can revise county plans, initiate enforcement orders, and withhold state funds Newsletter Ocean Book School presentations State agency coordination Conflicts between local, state, federal rules No good state wetlands inventory ^ f Success EPA Role Successful Reviewed county plans and provided comments 46 Needed from EPA Taking Issues Mitigation Cumulative Impacts EPA has limited staff, time State sends notice to EPA on all plan amendments Encourage them to be involved in Coastal Zone Management Plans, review and comment on plans Considered when ditches were put through a significant inland wetland Initiative pending to provide compensation to a landowner if government agency denies land use In coastal intertidal areas and tidal marshes, mitigation is required for comparable values Not developing method of evaluating, but would like to. Estuarine policy is that county plans are supposed to evaluate cumulative impacts of proposed development . Would like to have method for evaluating Wetland Program 10 Program Type State Name of Program Administering Agency Implementation Method Legal Authority Resources (Funds and Staff) Lands Covered Inventory and Classification Activities Regulated Exemptions Lands Covered Compliance Education Problems Success Coastal Law Oregon Oregon Mitigation Law Division of State Lands Mitigation required as condition for alteration of estuarine tidal and intertidal marshes Or Rev. Stat. 541.626 OAR 141-85-240, 242, 244, 246, 248, 250, 252, 254, 256, 258, 260, 262 Administered with the Removal-Fill Law (7 full time equivalents) Funding: 20 percent application fees, 80 percent other funds from public trust lands Intertidal or tidal marsh area of an estuary Inventories of most estuaries prepared by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Mitigation required as condition of any permit for filling or removal of material Limited statutory exemptions Mitigation provides for "creation, restoration or enhancement of an estuarine area to maintain the functional characteristics and processes of the estuary. . . " Enforced as a condition of the state Removal-Fill Permit Administrative rules were printed as a handbook Public misunderstanding Good compliance 47 Wetland Program 11 Program Type State Name of Program Administering Agency Implementation Method Legal Authority - "^ Resources {Funds and Staff) Lands Covered Inventory and Classification Activities Regulated Exemptions Compliance Education Problems Success ' . ' EPA Role Needed from EPA Taking Issues. Mitigation Cumulative Impact.3 Coastal Law ' -'• " Oregon Oregon Removal-Fill Permit Program Oregon Division of State Lands Permits required Enforcement through voluntary compliance, civil or criminal actions Removal and Fill Law, 1967, amended in 1971-1985. OAR 141-85-050 through 141-85-090 Application fees (provides less than 20 percent of costs) Investments and use of state lands 7 full time equivalents Lands within the bed or banks of the waters of the state Wetlands are defined as waters of the state No inventory /mapping efforts Filling, removal or alteration of material within the bed or banks of the waters of the state of more than 50 cubic yards of material Filling or removal within the beds and banks of non-navigable waterways in forest lands Some dam construction and water diversion Federal projects for navigational servitude Active enforcement: civil penalties up to $10,000/day Violation is a criminal offense with fines to $2,500 and one year in jail Cease and desist orders Restoration orders Presentations to public interest groups, SCS, local communities, etc. Brochure Workshops Lack of inventory and designation of waterways under jurisdiction No quantitative measure of success. In 10 years experience, felt this was an excellent way of regulating. Better organized interagency network than other states EPA does all work by phone, never on-site (most Federal regulatory agencies have same problem) Play a role in policy review Funding EPA' s regulations should encourage states to provide funding for enforcement and administration Need local EPA presence No successful legal claim Current case is prodding legislative action Required for estuarine wetlands Possible for freshwater wetlands No mechanism for evaluation A request for EPA funding to examine cumulative impacts issue was denied 48 Wetland Program 12 # Program Type State Name of Program Administering Agency Implementation Method Legal Authority Resources (Funds and Staff) Lands Covered Inventory and Classification Activities Regulated Exemptions Compliance Education Problems Success EPA Role Needed from EPA Taking Issues Mitigation '' • Cumulative Impacts" Inland Law Oregon Oregon Removal-Fill Permit Program Oregon Division of State Lands Permits required Enforcement through voluntary compliance, civil or criminal actions Removal and Fill Law, 1967, amended in 1971-1985 OAR 141-85-050 through 141-85-090 Application fees (provides less than 20 percent of costs) Investments and use of state lands 7 full time equivalents Lands within the bed or banks of the waters of the state Wetlands are defined as waters of the state No inventory/mapping efforts Filling, removal or alteration of material within the bed or banks of the waters of the state of more than 50 cubic yards of material Filling or removal within the beds and banks of non-navigable waterways in forest lands Some dam construction and water diversion Federal projects for navigational servitude Active enforcement: civil penalties up to $10,000/day Violation is a criminal offense with fines to $2,500 and one year in jail Cease and desist orders Restoration orders Presentations to public interest groups, SCS, local communities, etc. Brochure Workshops Lack of inventory and designation of waterways under jurisdiction No quantitative measure of success. In 10 years experience, felt this was an excellent way of regulating. Better organized interagency network than other states EPA does all work by phone, never on-site (most Federal regulatory agencies have same problem) Play a role in policy review Funding EPA' s regulations should encourage states to provide funding for enforcement and administration Need local EPA presence No successful legal claim Current case is prodding legislative action Required for estuarine wetlands Possible for freshwater wetlands No mechanism for evaluation A request for EPA funding to examine cumulative impacts issue was denied 49 Wetland Program 13 Program Type . _ .... . State ", Name of Program Administering Agency Implementation Method Legal Authority Resources (Funds and Staff) Lands Covered Inventory and Classification Problems Success EPA Role Needed from EPA *sW Other Programs • • • .. Oregon • . • Waterfowl Program •.. . Department of Fish and Wildlife Population monitoring Set seasons for waterfowl hunting Oregon Fish and Wildlife Code (scattered sections) Wildlife Fund Federal Pittman-Robertson Funds Waterfowl Stamp Program Not applicable None Funding Competing interests for same land base Not enough success No direct role. Indirect by setting regulations governing water quality Do not know r Wetland Program 14 Program Type State Name of Program Administering Agency Implementation Method ,80"' ,:..t: -t;,. .;^"n.. Legal Authority Resources (Funds and Staff) Inventory and Classification Education Problems .„ ■■^.-..- r, - .- -, Success EPA Role Needed from EPA ,'- L' i-i--;'nfe: Other Programs •-.>, - Oregon Oregon Duck Stamp Program Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Wetland development Hunter education program :- - v Special permit hunting season $100,000 to DU for habitat project in Alaska Crop land planting on waterfowl areas Waterfowl Stamp Bill 2925 Sale of stamps and limited edition prints and other associated artwork, posters, and decoys None Magazine articles News releases This year (second year) large drop in sales First year sales were approximately 15,000 prints, while the second year sales were only 3,000 Too new to have big impact, but gives potential new revenue source No role Not sure r '■ '. JRI Am- 50 Wetland Program 15 Program Type State Name of Program Administering Agency Implementation Method Legal Authority Lands Covered Activities Regulated Education Problems Success Coastal Law Oregon Oregon Scenic Waterway Law State Highway Commission Division of State Lands State Land Board Division of State Lands regulates all fills and removals Joint permit program for oceanshore access and/or construction Or. Rev. Stat. Chapter 390.605 to 390.770 Ocean shore area, beaches Scenic rivers and along their banks Vehicles may be banned All fill and removal Beach front protection structure (sea walls, riprap, etc.) Public meetings Brochures No good set of regulatory criteria for shorefront protective structures Good success I ' Wetland Program 16 Program Type State Name of Program Administering Agency Implementation Method Legal Authority Lands Covered - Activities Regulated Other Programs Oregon Oregon Forest Practices Act State Forester Must give written approval Or. Rev. Stat. S . 527 . 610-527 . 370 Stream channels Wetlands Forestry (all practices)' Stream channel alteration Wetland Program 17 Program Type ■ ' - :• State Name of Program. " -' Administering Agency Floodplain Regulation Oregon County Floodplain Ordinances Most city and county plans regulate floodplain activities to be eligible for FEMA, insurance rates and comply with Goal 6 of Statewide ' Planning Goals Wetland Program 18 Program Type State Name of Program Administering Agency Drainage Regulation Oregon Drainage of Protected Wetlands Some local plans regulate drainage of protected wetlands I, ) 51 Wetland Program 19 Program Type State Administering Agency Legal Authority Activities Regulated Compliance -i;.! Local Programs Oregon Cities, Counties, Coastal Jurisdictions, and local ASCS County Committees ORS 197 The Farm Bill provides wetland protection through local ASCS County Committees All cities and counties have comprehensive land use plans, many of which regulate wetland development. All coastal jurisdictions regulate fill and removal in estuaries, for example, and in significant shoreland wetlands fill and removal is prohibited in protected wetlands. Some inland wetlands are protected through local ordinances A CZM program is based upon incorporation of state land use policies (19 statewide goals) into local comprehensive plans. The goals of particular relevance to wetland regulation are goals 5, 15, 16 and 17. All local governments and state agencies must comply with these policies (see ORS 197) . . , r r ■^ft. 52 Oregon State Wetland Contacts (Council of State Governments Database) Wetland Contact 1 Program Type Name Organization Address City State Zip Code Phone Number Coastal Zone Management Patty Snow Coastal Zone Management Program Dept . of Land Conservation 1175 Court Street N.E. Salem -Oregon " -97310 (503) 378-4932 Wetland Contact 2 Program Type Name Organization ' • Address City : = ' State " •' ' ■■' Zip Code ■■'■•--. " Phone Number 404 Permits . ■ : Ken Bierly ''■ Division of 'State Lands 1445 State Street Salem ■ • Oregon 97310 ■ • ■■ '■■ • - " (513) 229-5358 Wetland Contact 3 Program Type Name Organization Address City State Zip Code Phone Number 404 Permits Earl Johnson Division of State Lands 1445 State Street Salem Oregon 97310 (513) 229-5358 Wetland Contact 4 Program Type Name Organization Address City State Zip Code Phone Number 401 Permits Glen Carter Dept. of Env. Quality P.O. Box 1760 Portland Oregon 97207 (503) 229-5358 Wetland Contact 5 Program Type Name Organization Address City State Zip Code Phone Number Taxation Programs Bill Haight Non-Game Program Dept. of Fish and Wildlife P.O. Box 59 Portland Oregon 97207 (503) 229-5452 53 Wetland Contact 6 Program Type Name Organization Address City State Zip Code Phone Number r Taxation Programs Tony Faust Riparian Tax Incentive Program Dept . of Fish and wildlife P.O. Box 5 9 Portland Oregon 97207 (503) 229-5679 Wetland Contact 7 Program Type Name Organization Address City State Zip Code Phone Number Taxation Programs Ken Durbin Duck Stamp Program Dept. of Fish and Wildlife P.O. Box 59 Portland Oregon ' 97207 (503) 229-5463 Wetland Contact 8 Program Type Name Organization Address City State Zip Code Phone Number Research Every Wagner Duck Stamp Program - Dept. of Fish and Wildlife P.O. Box 59 Portland Oregon 97207 (503) 229-5463 c Wetland Contact 9 Program Type Organization Address City State Zip Code Phone Number Research Oregon State University 303 Extension Hall Corvallis Oregon 97331 (503) 754-3241 Wetland Contact 10 Program Type Name Organization Address City State Zip Code Phone Number Research Mike Graybill South Slough National Estuary P.O. Box 5417 Charleston Oregon 97420 (503) 888-5558 c 54 Wetland Contact 11 Program Type Name Organization Address City State Zip Code Flood Plain Programs Jim Kennedy Land Conservation & Development 1175 Court Street, N.E.,_ Salem _ „ .. Oregon i - . 97310 -, . .' ■ - la.. TfVi f .:•?:■ ■ n,. 1ofc ..:-!:(.:: t.: J. » , 1 '.' • 55 South Dakota State Wetland Programs" (Council of State Governments Database) c Wetland Program 1 -' . Program Type .■ ;•- ; - -. State Name of Program Administering Agency Implementation Method Resources (Funds and Staff) Lands Covered Inventory and Classification Activities Regulated Exemptions Lands Covered Compliance Education Problems :.;_.-ro' Success EPA Role Needed from EPA Taking Issues Mitigation Cumulative Impacts access number Wetland Program 2 Program Type State Name of Program Administering Agency Implementation Method Legal Authority Resources (Funds and Staff) Lands Covered Inventory and Classification Activities Regulated Exemptions Lands Covered Compliance Education Problems Success EPA Role Needed from EPA Taking Issues Mitigation Cumulative Impacts access number 401 Permits ;- ^ .i: . South Dakota 401 Water Quality - State Water Quality Certification Program Department of Water and National Resources Permit/404 Certification Amount is unknown. ■. - ;. One person . State waters and waters of the U.S. None Activities below minimum standards exempted Activities below minimum standards exempted Same as those defined by EPA 404(b) (1) guidelines Site inspection and response to inquiries None No methodology to c[uantify cumulativer -impact Programs appears to be effective Program review More closely coordinate with state personnel on 404 permit issues . No cases ' - r '^r Require various engineering solutions to minimize pollution from discharges Make subject evaluations only 281 Other Programs South Dakota Special Use Permits for Lake Bottoms State. Division of Game, Fish and Parks Permit Program S.D. Compiled Law Ann. Subsec . 41-2-32, 41-2-18 Unknown Shallow lake bottoms (vegetated shallows) None Dredging and filling. Private lakes and ponds. Same as Clean Water Act with emphasis on Game and Fish values. Limited permit enforcement program. None Funding Moderate Limited to 404 review Show stronger enforcement position. No cases Required if adverse impacts could occur. Considered, but no criteria for evaluation has been developed. 428 r c 56 South Dakota State Wetland Contacts (Council of State Governments Database) Wetland Contact 1 Program Type Organization Address : City State Zip Code Phone Number Access Number Other Programs Dept . of Water'and Natural Resources Water Quality Division Foss Building .; - - Pierre - ' - ■ ■. ' ^ '■ South Dakota i . ;■: r . -575.0r . - . - ■-- (605) .'133-335L - ... :>-^: '■ ■ '■- r.i 381 . - c.'".: - .- Wetland Contact .2 k Program Type •■- Name Organization Address City State .-.-: Zip Code Access Number . 'Flood Plain Programs " Darrell Dvorak £. Emergency and Disaster Service 5tatB Capitol Building Pierre " - :■' ■ r - -Soxith Dakota i.- ■=*-o:. 57501- e . - .--- : .r 47 4 ---ri- '-. •-s.-lt'- P-- V ■■ T 1 r^ ', £-J- 57 Utah State Wetland Programs (Council of State Governments Database) ■ '*S>W Wetland Program 1 Program Type ' ';' , r State 11!':.-' - Name of Program Administering Agency Implementation Method Legal Authority Resources (Funds and Staff) Lands Covered Inventory and Classification Activities Regulated Exemptions -.--.. Lands Covered Compliance Education Problems Success EPA Role Needed from EPA Taking Issues Mitigation Cumulative Impacts '. :- .. :-.r'.: . hf'^ii -> •^•,r'i Section 401 Permits _^ .. ""■ Utah State Water Quality Certification Program Department of Natural Resources and Energy Department of Health Via section 401 Water Quality Certification SWPCA Section 401 funds (no taxation programs) State owned wetlands . ,_ NWI mapping in progress with assistance from Corps' Sacramento District Ambient water quality standards for flooded wetlands Non-state owned waters and wetlands. Current emphasis is on chemical and physical attributes. Biological attributes are only minimally considered Those described by section 404(b) (1) guidelines for nonflooded wetlands Acts on what is discovered or reported None ..-. Need to enforce water quality standards, surface water drainage, pQnds and runoff and hazardous chemicals - ,,_ - . . " ". ^ . Losing freshwater: .waterfowl nesting areas very rapidly due to rapid: rise of Great Salt Lake Cooperative f,ederal mapping effort is working well Could assist with, development of wetlands policy and back state up "with strong enforcement posture Establish closer working relationship with state by taking more active enforcement role No cases Currently developing policy similar to USFWS No criteria or- assessment procedures i i. C'r . pv.eJ ^£F.' ..r^Ji;: 58 Utah State Wetland Contacts (Council of State Governments Database) Wetland Contact 1 Program Type Name Organization Address City -''"'^ State Zip Code Phone Number Freshwater Wetland Programs Waterfowl Program Coordinator Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 15 96 W. No._ Temple ,[' Salt Lake Cit^ Utah ' • - ■ ; 84116- ' "- ^■^■- —''■'- ^ (801) 533-9333 ' ....;.: " "" Wetland Contact 2 Program Type Name ■ - Organization Address City State '■'■- ^''- ■• Zip Code Phone Number ■ 401 PerftTits ;;"' ' Dr: 'EroTl'ald -Hildeii • ;■""■"■ Bureau of Water Pollution Control 'P-.O.; B6x '4550"0 ] '_ - Salt Lake City ' - Utah- - - ' ■ '■' ■ ■ 8 4145^ ■ "" '- -- '" ("8 01) 533-614^'; " Wetland Contact 3 J I Program Type Name Organization Address ■ ■ City State Zip Code ■ - ' Phone Numb^rx LBgkl'' Cdtinci"l7 Legislative Liason Robert Ha sen yager ; - ' 'Uta'h Da vision of" Wildlife Resources ■1596; W.^ No/ Temple;^ : "Salt^ L'ake- City ~ ~ ' ''. ' Utah • ' 84116' ■-' ■ ^ '-'- ' , ■ (801)'^-533-V333 ''' ' '^■': Wetland Contact 4 Program Type Name Organization Address City State Zip Code Phone Number Acquisition Programs Dwight Bunnell Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 1596 W. No. Temple Salt Lake City Utah 84116 (801) 533-9333 59 Wetland Contact 5 Program Type Name Organization Address City State Zip Code Phone Number Mapping:.;;, .'i'.".,'-..!. .:..':' V. '- - '-^::Z^.. Waterfowl Program Coordinator Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 1596 W. No. Temple Salt Lake City _ . ,,,,-. Utah - .' :" V- ^, 84116 ,._..c.. ■,. C80.1.). 533-9333 •: ,. :- r Wetland Contact 6 Program Type Name Organization Address City State Zip Code Phone Number Legal Council/Legislative Liason Michael M. Quealy ^ Assistant Attorney General Dept . of Natural Resources Bldg. 1636 W. No. Temple • , , . Salt Lake City- .---:. Utah -r-r-^c, c - V '--■'- " 84116: - -' :■• ?. :; ; ■ :^ (801-J 533^-4.44-6 -..;.-.>.■• Wetland Contact 7 Program Type Name Organization Address: r ■.;; ■: City State Zip Code ; - - Phone Number .:VV' Research- Watierfowl Program Coordinator Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 159€- W. No. Temple Salt- Lake City Utah .:;.- :.. rc^ srj. ': ,84116. :; ■■;- no:.- .; - ^up- .^ (801) 533-9333i.-,t-,- r r Wetland Contact 8 Program Type Name Organization Address City State Zip Code Phone Number Other Programs Dr. Reed Y. -Oberndorferl Bureau of Water'Pollution Control P .0. -Box 45500 ■; -: ■ Salt Lake City Utah 84116 (801) 533-9333 Wetland Contact 9 Program Type Name Organization Address City State Zip Code Flood Plain Programs James D. Harvey Comprehensive Emergency Management 1543 Sunnyside Avenue Salt Lake City Utah 84108 60 ..^K Washincrton State Wetland Programs (Council of State Governments Database) Wetland Programs 1 Program Type State Name of Program Administering Agency Implementation Method Legal Authority Resources (Funds and Staff) Lands Covered Inventory and Classification Activities Regulated Exemptions Lands Covered Compliance Problems Success EPA Role Needed from EPA Cumulative Impacts Section 401 Permits " .' ' ■:■ . Washington State Walter -Quality Certification Program' • •" • Washington State Department of Ecology Water quality certification for federal permits/licenses -- u.-- - • Section 401, Clean Water Act St.ate general, revenue funds - • ." ' ' " Chapter -1.0,6 funds^:.,- . Jurisdiction .determined by appropriate Federal- .agency.;- . -- ; All mapjjed . ,,: , ' ■" '-.-■ ■ '■ Dredge and filL. .: ...-:: ■ : '." FERC hydropower ., . ' e:i J Coast Guard permUtS- '• ■ k-- ' ■ -^ " Federal exemptions. r-o -.•■.• . - - Wood waste (Corps of Engineers claims it is out of their jurisdiction) Garbage disposal " z:i."Ci:.^ b. ■'...t.^i' Automobile body disposal Downstream impacts on wetlands not considered - Use. surface water 'quality standards on wetlands'^ . se.ctioti 404 compliance via Corps of Engineers 7. lead. If water.- quality standards are'-not^met, state will withhold certification Underestimated value of wetlands .-r ;; Acquisition needed. to provide adequate wetlands" protection - . - :'" Wood waste (unregulated) is primary cause of wetland destruction Yes - slow process - -. Jt.-t.Tcr r.nl-t.3 Section 404 - technical assistance and review None -, : -. ; -: d - i ■" . . ■ "f^^""- ~^ Corps may consider the cumulative impacts of '- ' development'A'on wetlands as noted on Paggf34; - OTA Regional' StiJdy,- 33. CFR :. c : 61 Wetland Programs 2 -^^ -:- -- Program Type State ■ :■- ■ .,':^i- ■■■:_ _ „ ■ Name of Program Administering Agency Implementation Method Legal Authority ■_ Resources (Funds ^andb St:ajEf ). Lands Covered" ■-,.';, -;c _ [,>; Activities Regulated -..j-.--^. Exemptions C:~. . "c liDn: :3>,_ "i-- -Si r ...Compliance ---.-.n v. Education Problems Success EPA Role Needed from EPA 'i ^ Lb:: zr ■)Z'X.'L' '■;iv, \ srf:* ■Er;:i:.. V'.: State Environjnental Policy Acts • ■ :: J?as:hington .;-•.-•;: State Environmental Policy Act: 1971 . .City, or county staff determines which agency ;.-;£'r: ' '. .- ~ . ;- ■ . ■ Problems !:-?• ; - " i- ■-, ■-...' J ' c t ' \. bz r: ■),-f ■ ■'••-• V t .4 ** Success ■ - ^'-' ' - g J', ^ - Z: ''' . •^ c "^ "^ . .:j- ' S-V.i EPA Role'-' ■■'" ■" ■K :-.:/. T Needed from- EPA' Other Functions ■ c; _ ^-7 Inland Law _ ,. „..■.. . -. Washington' " ~ ^""' ',' _■• ■ . ... ^^ .. ^ - State Hydi^iilil:^!;' Code ^ ^ ^ .. , . "". ;,■■,: ': '■'b^psAmefctift Fish and Game , ,_,^'\ ;',^ ..''\"' "!" -Permits reguited: ''-■'"' ~ "" Wash-.' 'Rev/ Code. Ann. Chapter 75 .20 . 100 . , , _^ .,_. taf f)-,': Game fund , (sale^ of hunting and" fishing licenses) Waters of the state - in ordinary high water mark of _ state; waters ' No inventory?mapping Any use'^wMch" Would use, divert flow, or change ^wat^ts of "tiiS_ state or stream beds '-"ArekB not in; waters of the state IrrigatioH''ditShes which were not natural streams -•-=-•■■ .... _,,, . - "'All. coirpietely artificial structures ' "" ' " Fish; ■ habitat; Water quality -''•Violltion" is a misdemeanor . Can have up to 1 year -■■in-Ta^l 3nd' $1, '6'00 fine ^.^^ . . .- ,, -.:; • •' ^rK-'with •couiity:planning departmehtS "and large ' landowners ''"' _' * Not - enough- staff .makes monitoring difficult ■^ $ourt enforcement cases given low priority by ''judges When compared to other court cases '. ''State" has "^no cohesive wetland^program - Yes"'^ sficcessful;program althSugh hot specif icallyfdr .wetlands . Try and help local ■^--agencies in ^rp J. f'-'t , s-"^ ■■£ fTrt .-r,c-r 'I b riBlae W -; '■2-^oz ■: s "* ■:= . ' I c e:7;s^ y. .-■ ....'..L-nr. 'A J, i-->:a'; . T -T -t ■ ~ • r* ■ rr- ^ - „ --L.::! Program Type Name Organization Address City State,. Zip Cod© V'^", . Phone Nymbe'r Wetland Contacts 5 Other Programs Bob Zeigler Dept..-, ofrGafl^- .,,. . 600' Nort'h" 'Cajj^t^)^" Olympia ..; *^,,-Tr,'- I?fashj.ngtoa Z ' " - ^ T ,.953q:3:_:' ,;:. ^.:: Jr: ij _ ■-■• ~;£- Program Type Name Organization Address City State Zip Code Flood Plain Programs Edward C. Hammersmith, P.E. Dept . of Ecology Mail Stop PV-11 Olympia Washington 98504 67 WyominQ State Wetland Prog-rams (Council of State Governments Database) Wetland ?rbgracor-l"~'~'~^ Program Type State Name of Program Administering Agency Implementation Method Legal Authority Resources (Funds and Staff) Lands Covered Inventory and Classification Activities Regulated Exemptions Lands Covered Compliance Education Problems Success EPA Role Needed from EPA Taking Issues Mitigation Cumulative Impacts vz ne: e Section 401 Permits r^ rnican c .c Wyoming 401 Watec ,<3j4al-ity: J>r-ogram £-7-.:' -.£ : Department o^, Envdfj:.Q|unental Quality, Water Quality; Divis ion onr.x : r: . : r :. _• r- <: Permit applica^t^-ion .program State certifies, section 404 permit applications and requests- jig.tigation si •.;■ . W.S. Sec.3.5-J:t-i03(TC) (viii) -adrr;.. t'n^: Amount unknown ;: •- 1 -ii' , ' - One person (.15 man year) Only those found within the strea.rtt.chanjiel sdx regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Partially completed: by the Wyoming CJjime^ aad: f ish Departments ,= ;,-,£ • : .r All- activiti.^Sr.imptac.ting water quality s^ttchr; as r point-. souj:ce:i' - - - - " ^ydnSSig^- -- - " - ■ - -r 1 :i - I? ' Wetland Contact 2- Program Typfe- J.T.rcr,'' Er^ 401- ^eritQitisP V--;:-'' --^ .'.;-;• Name Mike Ca ma val«r • -" "-' ■ ^ ~ "- OrganrrzatipJu- ;.' -e:Fw r .watelf -Quag.-i-i-y Oi^sioTi ■-?■:;; 0-- ;-'.joq-r-,- rnfr i ^•fc:&%'fe- 5)4pt'..- of ^ny";-' ^ality Address Herschler Bul.^'d3.ttcr ' --" City E ? -- Cfifeyehhe"' - '- '■■" ': - - - ?'' ^'■^■■- State:..-f t: -jt:? 3 £■•-.- •>: ,-,:.,-, wyo'Miigf---' "'-•■^-'' ?■ - "" Zip Code 82202-'-" -'-■'*" ~~-i-'---i Phone Number -^^ ." .e-- ^^OT?- 777->7781 'f --■"■. " ^rcA. .:,; - 3 .:vi:;t Wetland Contact 3 Program Type Name _-•■-■-■". . '■ Organizati«?n r i..^' Address ."T; City :=c2 0ir ^ State Zip Code sip •Fiood^PIain^P'rograftis' " Gtahl- Soxensoh '•' ' "• '^ wy'' Disisfeer and^^ Civil- Defense P40-?-Bbk-17Q9--'^ ehfe-sr4hftS'^ <~- Bis---'^ A-ja WyomiA^ nj.i,;j;v £-..^-Teoq 82003 £:3:^fc o^: ^■' : c •", } n^ : -so..,; z'-' •r -3e.^.5 !■: ; j\;r' «? 69 if' j^.t '^B_2S^? c- J •■■'ar-.i sen...-. C^ 'id / €9 ^^S