<pubnumber>843F93001aff</pubnumber>
<title> EPA Wetlands Fact Sheets 1 - 32 </title>
<pages>47</pages>
<pubyear>1993</pubyear>
<provider>NEPIS</provider>
<access>online</access>
<operator>LM</operator>
<scandate>20070124</scandate>
<origin>hardcopy</origin>
<type>single page tiff</type>
<keyword>wetlands corps epa water section wetland states program district protection army engineers state permit office epa843 fact hotline united waters</keyword>
<author> United States. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds.</author>
<publisher>U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds,</publisher>
<subject> Wetlands--United States ; Wetland conservation--United States</subject>
<abstract>"To increase public awareness of the values and productivity of wetlands, enourage people to enjoy tjem, and to protect, recognize, enhance, commemorate, and restore our Nation's wetlands"--Back panel. </abstract>
843F93001aff
EPA Wetlands Fact Sheets
What is a wetland
and how are they
identified?
see fact sheet # 9
Unsure of what wetlands
information you need or
where to find it?
Call EPA Wetlands Hotline *
at 1-800-832-7828
What assistance
is available to
private land-
owners? see fact
sheets # 17,30
For a complete Table
of Contents,
see next page
Whooping Crane*
Questions about
404? Many relate to
Swampbuster.
see fact sheet # 19
Was the Clean
Water Act really
intended to
protect wetlands?
see fact sheet #10
Mallard Dock*
' contractor opcnted
1 Printed on Recycled Paper
image:
Table of Contents
fact sheet
Introductory Information
Wetlands Protection - Overview 1
Values and Functions of Wetlands 2
Consequences of Wetlands Loss and Degradation 3
Economic Benefits of Wetlands 4
Facts About Wetlands 5
Wetland Quotes 6
Regulatory Information - - Section 404
dean Water Act Section 404:Overview 7
Clean Water Act Section 404: Permits 8
Definition and Delineation 9
Was the 404 Program Intended to Regulate 10
Wetlands?
Clean Water Act Section 404(q): Case Specific 11
Elevation
Clean Water Act Section 404(c): Veto Authority 12
Wetlands Enforcement 13
Wetlands Mitigation Banking 14
Wetlands Categorization 15
What About Takings? 16
Wetland Acquisition and Restoration: 17
Sources of Funding and Technical Assistance
Section 404 Regulatory Program: Issues 18
and Examples
Agriculture and Wetlands: Section 404 and 19
Swampbuster
Clean Water Act Section 404(f) Exemptions 20
State and Local Programs
State, Tribal, Local and Regional Roles in 21
Wetlands Protection
State Wetlands Grants Program 22
State Assumption of Section 404 23
401 Certification and Wetlands 24
Wetlands and Runoff 25
continued
image:
Table of Contents
continued
fact sheet
Planning and Partnerships
Wetlands and Watersheds 26
What is a State Wetland Conservation Plan? 27
Advance Identification (ADID) 28
EPA's Outreach Efforts 29
Partnerships with Landowners 30
Contacts for More Information
Environmental Protection Agency: Directory 31
Corps of Engineers Regulatory Program 32
Directory
image:
United States
Environmental Protection
Office of Water (WH-556F).
Office of Wetlands, Oceans,
and Watersheds (A-104 F)
EPA843-F-93-001a
March 1993
SERA WETLANDS FACT SHEET* 1
Wetlands Protection - Overview
Over the past few years,
the issue of wetlands protec-
tion seems to come up every-
where you turn. It's in the news-
papers and on T.V. and radio
news and talk shows.
Why all the fuss?
Wetlands are, by defi-
nition, transitional areas be-
tween open water and dry land.
The "natural" values of these
wet areas have historically com-
peted with their value as "dry"
land where they can be con-
verted for other purposes such
asdevelopments or agriculture.
The water may
not be on the
surface all the
time, making it
hard to "know
it when you see
it."
However,
wetlands are generally ex-
tremely valuable and produc-
USOKSUKf A
WETUNPTDAB!
Reprinted with pennisaion from Jcny L. Bunctt, The Indi«n«polia Ncwi
tive ecosystems. They are
home to many beautiful and
rare species. They are the
sourceof many commercially
and recreationally valu-
able species of fish,
shellfish and wildlife.
They retain flood wa-
ters and protect shore-
lines from erosion.
Wetlands filter runoff
and adjacent surface
waters to protect the quality of
our lakes, bays and rivers. Wet-
Egrtt
lands also protect many
of our sources of drink-
ing water. And wet-
lands provide varied
recreational opportuni-
ties throughout the
country.
EPA knows that there
is confusion about wet-
lands and programs
that protect them.
This collection of fact
sheets is designed to offer some
bask information about wet-
lands and the programs that
affect them. If you would like
more information, please con-
tact the sources identified
within. And remember, the
EPA WETLANDS HOTLINE*
is there for everyone afc
1-800-832-7828
Reprinted with permiMion. DMIZJMT in The Christian Science Monitor. 1991TCSP5
& Printed on Recycled Paper
image:
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water (WH-556F),
Office of Wetlands, Oceans.
and Watersheds (A-104 F)
EPA843-F-93-001b
March 1993
WETLANDS FACT SHEET # 2
Values and Functions of Wetlands
In their natural condition, wetlands often provide many benefits, including food and habitat
forfish and wildlife, flood protection, shoreline erosion control, natural products for human
use, water quality improvement, and opportunities for recreation, education and research.
Products
Altogether, wetlands are among the most
biologically productive natural ecosystems in
the world, comparable to tropical rain forests
and coral reefs in the number and diversity of
species that they support. Wetlands produce
great volumes of food as leaves and stems break
down in the water to form detritus. This en-
riched material is the principal food for many
aquatic invertebrates (including shellfish) and
forage fish that are food for larger commercial
and recreational fish species such as bluefish
and striped bass.
Wetlands are critical habitat to the
survival of numerous threatened
and endangered species
Wetlands are critical to the survival of a
wide variety of animals and plants, including
numerous threatened and endangered species
like the wood stork, Florida panther, whooping
crane, and bald eagle. For many species such as
the wood duck, muskrat and swamp rose, wet-
lands are primary habitats. For others, wetlands
provide important seasonal habitats where food,
water and cover are plentiful
Wetlands produce a wealth of natural
products, including fish and shellfish, wildlife,
timber, wild rice, and furs. Much of the Nation's
fishing and shellfishing industry harvests wet-
lands-dependent species. For example, in the
Southeast, % percent of the commercial catch
and over 50 percent of the recreational harvest
are fish and shellfish that depend on the estu-
ary-coastal wetlands system. Waterfowl hunt-
ers spend over $300 million annually in pursuit
of wetlands-dependent birds.
Services
Wetlands often function like natural tubs,
storing either floodwater that overflows
riverbanks or surface water that collects in iso-
lated depressions. By doing so, wetlands help
protect adjacent and downstream property from
flood damage. Trees and other wetland vegeta-
tion help slow the speed of fioodwaters. This
action, combined with water storage, can lower
flood heights and reduce the water's erosive
potential. In agricultural areas, wetlands can
help reduce the likelihood of flood damage to
crops. Wetlands within and upstream of urban
areas are especially valuable for flood protec-
tion, since urban development increases the rate
and volume of surface water runoff, thereby
increasing the risk of flood damage. Some wet-
lands also help recharge ground water supplies
and help maintain base stream flows durin
times of drought
luring
Often located between rivers and high
ground, wetlands buffer shorelines against ero-
sion. These wetlands bind soil, dampen wave
action, and reduce current velocity through fric-
tion.
Wetlands can help maintain and im-
prove water quality by interceptingsurface water
runoff before it reaches open water, removing
or retaining nutrients, processing organic wastes,
and reducing sediment loads to receiving wa-
ters. Such runoff represents the most prevalent
cause of degradation of our nation's surface
waters today (1990 Water Quality Inventory).
**
Wetlands provide endless opportunities
for popular recreational activities such as hik-
ing, bird watching, fishing and boating. An
estimated 50 million people spend nearly $10
billion each year observing and photographing
wetlands-dependent birds.
For more information, contact the EPA Wetlands Hotline at 1-800-832-7828
* contractor operated
image:
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water (WH-556F),
Office of Wetlands, Oceans,
and Watersheds (A-104 F)
EPA843-F-93-001C
March 1993
WETLANDS FACT SHEET #3
Consequences of Wetland
Loss and Degradation
The lost or degradation of wetland* can lead to serious consequences, including increased
flooding; species decline, extinction or deformity; and decline in water quality. The
following ait* few examples oftkeconseauences of wetlands loss and degradation*
12000
10000
8000
£000
4000
2000
0
I I I I I I I I I I I I
SPECIES DECLINE
Populations of mallard and northern pin-
tail ducks in North America have declined since
1955 (see graph
above). The loss
and degradation
of wetlands is one
of the major
causes for the de-
cline in certain
waterfowl popu-
lations. For ex-
ample, in the US.
prairies in 1990,
mallard duck
populations
reached their
lowest recorded
number. The
well-being of wa-
terfowl popula-
tions is tied directly to the status and abundance
of wetland habitats. Waterfowl populations
have reached record lows in recent years. Sim-
ply said, as wetlands go, so go waterfowl.
SPECIES DEFORMITY
Wetlands in the Kesterson National
Wildlife Refuge in California's Central Valley
weredegradedafter being continuously flooded
with agricultural irrigation return flow waters
that contained high concentrations of selenium.
Large-mouth and striped bass and catfish dis-
appeared from Kesterson National Wildlife Ref-
uge in 1982. In the spring of 1983, eggs from
water birds at the site hatched less frequently
and had more deformities in the embryos. Cost
estimates for the refuge cleanup and restoration
of its wetlands now exceed $5 billion.
Decline in Duck Populations: 1955 -1991
Source Office of Migratory Bird Management Population
' ii mm i m Section, USFWS
FLOODING
Based on a study comparing parts of the
Charles River in Massachusetts with and with-
out wetlands, it was
determined that the
loss of 8,422 acres of
wetlands within the
Charles River Basin
would have pro-
duced an annual
flood damage of
over $17 million.
For this reason, the
US Army Corps of
Engineers elected to
preserve wetlands
rather than con-
struct extensive
flood control facili-
ties for this portion
of the Charles River
near Boston.
WATER QUALITY
Forested riparian (streamside) wetlands
play an important role in reducing nutrient
loading into water bodies such as the Chesa-
peake Bay. In one study, a riparian forest in a
predominantly agricultural watershed was
shown to remove approximately 80% of the
phosphorus and 89% of the nitrogen from the
water before entering a tributary of the Chesa-
peake Bay. Destruction of wetlands that reduce
the amount of nutrients entering the Bay would
lead to an increase of undesirable weed growth
and algae blooms. When these algal blooms
decompose, large amounts of oxygen are used
up, depriving fish and other aquatic organisms
of the oxygen needed for survival. Algal blooms
are a major cause of fish kills.
For more information, contact the EPA Wetlands Hotline at 1-800-832-7828
* contractor operated
image:
United StatM
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water (WH-556F).
Office of Wetlands, Oceans,
and Watersheds (A-104 F)
EPA843-F-93-001 d
March 1993
WETLANDS FACT SHEET # 4
Economic Benefits of Wetlands
Wetlands contribute to the National
economy through the resources/commodities
they produce and the services they provide.
In 1991, the dockside value of fish landed in the
U.S. was $33 billion which served as the basis
of a $26.8 billion fishery processing and sales
industry which employs hundreds of thousands
of people. It has been estimated that 71 % of this
value is derived from fish species that during
their lifecydedepend directly
or indirectly on coastal wet-
lands. Also, more than half of
all U.S. adults (98 million
Americans) hunt, fish,
birdwatch or photograph
wildlife. These activities
which rely on wetlands added
an estimated $59.5 billion to
theNation'seconomy in 1991.
Due to the diversity of
wetland types and their loca-
tion, each wetland provides
different products and ser-
vices. This fact makes it ex-
tremely difficult to measure the total eco-
nomic benefits all wetlands, ora particular type,
provide for the entire nation. However, some
site-specific studies have been completed that
illustrate the economic benefits to society of
preserving wetlands. It should be remembered
that these studies usually measure only one or
several of the many functions or values wet-
lands provide to sodery.
Resources and Services
Water quality service/ improvement
The wetlandsof theCongareeBottomland Hard-
wood Swamp in South Carolina provide valu-
able water quality functions such as sediment
removal as well as toxicant and excess nutrient
removal or filtration. The least cost substitute
for the water quality services provided would
be a water treatment plant costing $5 million
[1990$].
Flood control: The Minnesota Depart-
ment of Natural Resources has computed the
cost to replace on average each acre-foot of flood
water storage at $300. In other other words, if
development eliminates a one acre wetland that
naturally holds 12 inches of water storage dur-
ing a storm, it would cost the public $300 to
replace that water storage. The cost to replace
the 5,000 acres of wetlands lost annually in
Minnesota would be $1.5
million [1990$].
Fishing Industry: Wet-
lands are important spawn-
ing and nursery areas and
provide plant food for com-
mercial and recreational fish
-w and shellfish industries.
Louisiana's marshes, for ex-
ample, produce an annual
commercial fish and shellfish
harvest of 1.2 billion pounds
worth $244 million in 1991.
Michigan: A1977 study
estimated that Michigan's
over-100,000 acres of coastal wetlands produced
an economic value of $489.69 per acre or an
aggregate $51.8 million [1977$]. This figure
measured the individual sendees provided by
the wetlands (see chart below).
Economic value of wetland services in Michigan (1977)
300/
For Mora Information: call the EPA
Wetlands HotHne* at 1-800-832-7828
image:
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water (WH-556F),
Office of Wetlands, Oceans,
and Watersheds (A-104 F)
EEPA843-F-93-OOle
March 1993
«*er*\ WETLANDS FACT SHEET'# 5
Facts About Wetlands
Over half (53%) of the wetlands in the conterminous United States were lost between
the late-1700's and mid-1970's. About 100
million acres of wetlands remain today.
Source: D»hl Status ind Trendy of Wfflgnds in the Conterminous
United Stetea USFWS. 1989
Coastal wetlands make up only 5% of the
wetland types in the continental United
States; inland wetlands such as freshwater
swamps, prairie potholes, bogs and fens make
up the remaining 95% of wetland types.
Source Office of Technology Assessment, 1984
Amount of Wetlands in the
Conterminous United States
since the late 1700's
53% Lost
SounrDikUM*
47% Remain
It has been estimated that up to forty-three percent (43%) of the threatened and
endangered species listed in the United States by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service rely
directly or indirectly on wetlands for their survival
Source USFWS
A recent survey showed that when asked whether they felt wetlands protection efforts
were adequate, 53% of respondents replied more effort was needed, 24% said current
efforts struck the right balance, and 8% said
it had gone too far.
Source Times Minor Magazines/Roper Survey «»dted in Popular
Seiaut July 1992, p52.
From the mid-1970lstomid-1980's, wetlands
were lost at an annual rate of 290,000 acres
per year.
Source Dshl and Johi
•on
d Trend, of Wetlands
ContmninotM United States. Mld-197P'« to MId-1980'a USFWS.
1991.
Is Cunent Wetlands Protection Adaquate?
Nationally, 80% of America's breeding bird population require bottomland hard-
woods for survival; bottomland hardwood (BLH) systems are wooded
swamps found predominantly in the Southeastern United States.
Source Wvton and Kitchens, 1982.
• In the United States, over-logging of mature bottomland hardwood
(BLH) forests is believed to have caused the extinction of the Ivory-
Billed Woodpecker, North America's largest woodpecker.
Ivory-Billed Woodpecker
Printed on Recycled Paper
image:
... More Facts About Wetlands
Twenty-three States have lost at least 50% of their original wetlands. Seven of those
twenty-three States (California, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, Kentucky, and Ohio)
have lost more than 80% of their original wetlands.
Source Drill, 1990
STATES WITH OVER 50% WETLAND LOSS
[50% to 80% LOSS
> 80% LOSS
Source: DaW, 1990
In Fiscal Year 1992, the Army Corps of Engineers made decisions on over 16,000
individual permit applications, denying fewer than 400. It is estimated that at least
80,000 additional activities are authorized by Corps general permits yearly. In the 21-
year history of the Section 404 program, EPA has vetoed only 11 permits.
Source US Army Corp» of Englneen, US EPA
Approximately 92% of all permit evaluations (that is both general and individual
permits) are completed in less than 60 days after a completed application has been
recdved by the Army Corps of Engineers.
Source US Annjr Corp* of Engineers
For more information contact the EPA Wetlands Hotline at 1-800-832-7828
* contractor operated
1 Printed on Rtcycied Paper
image:
United States Office of Water (WH-556F). EPA843-F-93-001 f
Environmental Protection Office of Wetlands. Oceans. March 1 993
Agency _ and Watersheds (A-104 F) _
oEPA WETLANDS FACT SHEET* 6
Wetland Quotes
\fero
January
U S. £, P, A, Heed quarters
5,W«
Dear £V< iri ron #e* l-//$h
nat"* /5 Jcy5"f/ ,
yade. a Beach\*r><l Jch&ef* -I '/'
Q deal \f y&u can
the e/ijti*? wei-la/?<ls .
tu help y®u do / h And
W)fe 4ha/) 1A of M
We v/e\ la/id$, 5o i
fare' the
Greater familiarity with marshes on the part of more people could give man a truer and more
wholesome view of himself in relation to Nature. In marshes, life's undercurrents and un-
knowns and evolutionary changes are exemplified with a high degree of independence from
human dominance as long as the marshes remain in marshy condition. They have their own life-
rich genuineness and reflect forces that are much older, much more permanent, and much
mightier than man. - Paid L. Enington, Of Men and Marshes
continued on back
> Printed on Recycled Paper
image:
Wetland Quotes Continued.
In a green place lanced through
With amber and gold and blue - -
A place of water and weeds,
and roses pinker than dawn
And ranks of lush young reeds
And grasses straightly withdrawn
From graven ripples of sands.
The still blue heron stands.
-"The Blue Heron" by Theodore
Goodridge Roberts
ft»r«i*.
Otter
A habitat is where if s at
Keep them so the ducks can quack,
The marshes filter the water's dirt,
They're homes for many who we don't
want hurt.
Save The Wetlands
SO 561
A dawn wind stirs on the great marsh. With almost imperceptible slowness, it
rolls a bank of fog across the wild morass. Like the white ghost of a glacier, the
mists advance, riding over phalanxes of tamarack, sliding across bog meadows
heavy with dew. A single silence hangs from horizon to horizon.
-AJdo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac
For More Information! contact the EPA Wetlands Hotline* at 1-800-832-782&
&& Printed on Recycled Paper
image:
unnea
Environmental Protaction
Agency
Offica of Wetlands, Ocaans,
and Watersheds (A-104 F)
March 1993
WETLAN DS FACT SH EET # 7
Clean Water Act §404: Overview
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act estab-
lishes a program to regulate the discharge of
dredged and fill material into waters of the United
States, including wetlands. Activities in waters
that are typically regulated under Section 404
include fills for development, water resource
projects (e.g., dams and levees), infrastructure
development (e.g., highways and airports), and
conversion of wetlands to uplands for farming
and forestry.
Since its enactment by Congress in 1972, Sec-
tion 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. § 1344)
has evolved through a series of statutory amend-
ments, regulatory changes and key court deci-
sions into the primary Federal regulatory pro-
gram providing protection for the Nation's re-
maining wetlands. EPA and the Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) jointly administer the Section
404 program. In addition, the US. Fish and
ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS:
• day-to-day program administration
(e.g. including individual permit decisions
and jurisdictional determinations)
• development of policy and guidance
• enforcement
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
• develop and interpret the environmental criteria
used in evaluating permit applications
(i-e., the Section 404(b)(l) Guidelines)
• determine the scope of geographic jurisdiction
• approve and oversee State assumption
of the program's administrative responsibilities
• identify activities that are exempt under §404(0
• review and comment on individual permit appli-
cations
• §404(c) authority to veto Corps' permit decisions
• §404(q) case specific elevation
• enforcement
Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries
Service, and State resource agencies have impor-
tant advisory roles.
The basic premise of the Section 404 program
is that no discharge of dredged or fill material can
be permitted if there is a practicable alternative
that is less damaging to the aquatic environment
or if the discharge would result in significant
degradation of our Nation's waters.
An applicant must demonstrate that
steps nave been taken to avoid wet-
land impacts where it is practicable.
In addition, applicants are required to minimize
potential impacts to wetlands, and finally to pro-
vide compensation for any remaining unavoid-
able impacts through wetland restoration or cre-
ation activities.
For projects involving potentially significant
impacts, authorization must usually be sought
through an "individual permit" review process.
However, for the great majority of discharges, i.e.,
those activities that will have only minimal ad-
verse environmental effects, authorization is of-
ten granted up-front through "general permits."
General permits may be issued by the Corps on a
nationwide, regional or State basis for particular
categories of activities (e.g., minor road crossings,
utility line backfill, and bedding) as a means of
expediting the permitting process. Moreover,
Section 404(f) exempts other activities from regu-
lation under Section 404, including many on-go-
ing farming, ranching and silviculture practices.
FOR MORE INFORMATION: "call the-EPA Wetlands Hotline* at 1-800-832-7828
'contractor operated
^ Printed on Recycled Paper
image:
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water (WH-556F).
Office of Wetlands, Oceans,
and Watersheds (A-104 F)
EPA843-F-93-001h
March 1993
WETLAN DS FACT SH EET # 8
Clean Water Act §404: Permits
THE §404 INDIVIDUAL PERMIT PROCESS
. .ptsj^nng.v% -jyf.v yv.vj&j, ^\ .> ^ ^
Issues PoblkN.
™»«8
Within 15 days of receiving all peonftinf onnation, the Corps will issue
a public notice that gives a brief dftCnpnon of the proposed activity,
its location, potential environsaesKfttapacts, a deadline for receiving
written comments, and the adfttt^br the agency receiving those
comments. .•
The application is reviewed by tlirCSrps and other interested Federal
and State agencies, organization** ind individuals. The comment
period can take 15 to 30 days depeadtogupon the nature of the activity.
The necessity to gather infonM*fe»*ftd prepare an Environmental
Impact Statement (OS) may furmwrextend the comment period.
,
Public Hearing
'Normally, the Corps does not totM a public hearing on a permit;
however, dozens may request tlutf-orie be held. The Corps will use the
testimony presented at the he«to(Jjte»S permit review.
The Corps evaJuates the permitafSicatton based on its regulations
(the Public Interest Review), an*&k$404 (bXD Guidelines.
For every permit
that explains how
public
permit ouui]
Corps prepares a statement of finding
wallaade. This document is
provide dat* ti> assist in monitoring
luating a permit -.:s
FexmtlDenic
ModMhd (nxnK*Uil««» Suit, •CantrHttOK You Cm Mito « Dtttotiia.'
Stpmrbtr/Oaobv 1MO. U-O.
TYPES OF §404 PERMITS
SECTION 404(a)
*. V. %V.-.Mfc\%V.-.V.-.V.»VASM.-.%-^VA\S\%-.-.-.-.-.V.-.-.-.iV.W.-.NV.'V •.-,..*••%
Case-by-case review
• Public interest review and compliance
with theSection404(bX 1) Guidelines, which
are regulations issued by EPA, with the Corps.
Guidelines requirements include:
• Mitigation sequence
(1) avoidance of impacts through practi-
cable alternatives,
(2) minimization of impacts, and
(3) compensation of unavoidable impacts
through creation or restoration.
• No significant degradation.
• Compliance with other laws.
SECTIQN4Q4(e)
The Corps of Engineers has the authority to
issue general permits for those categories of
activities in wetlands and other aquatic areas
that will have only minimal adverse environ-
mental effects-individually or cumulatively.
• General permits are widely used and speed
up the §404 permitting process because they
do not require a detailed, case-specific re-
view.
• General permits are issued on a nation-
wide, regional, and State basis.
If an activity falls under a nationwide per-
mit, a discharger generally (but not al-
ways) can proceed with the activity with-
out first applying for an individual permit
Individu^shWdccmtacttheirlocalCorps
Districts for applicability of general per-
mits.
TOR MORE INFORMATION: call the.£P.A Wetlands Hotline* at 1,800-832^7828
contrActor operated
^ Printed on Recycled Paper
image:
United StatM
Environmental Protection
Agancy
Offica of Water (WH-556F).
Office of Wattands, Ocaana,
and Watersheds (A-104 F)
EPA843-F-93-001 j
March 1993
WETLANDS FACT SHEET* 9
Definition and Delineation
Definition
Since the 1970's, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) and the US. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) have used the same
definition of wetlands for regulatory purposes:
Wetlands an anas that an inundated or satu-
rated by surface or ground water at a frequency
and duration sufficient to support, and that under
normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of
vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated
soil conditions. Wetlands generally include
swamps, marshes, bogs and similar anas.
Basically, wetlands are areas where the
frequent and prolonged presence of water at or
near the soil surface drives the natural system -
the kind of soils that form and the plants that
grow, and the fish and/or wildlife communities
that use the habitat Swamps, marshes and bogs
are well-recognized types of wetlands, but there
aremanyimportantspecific wetland types, such
as vernal pools, playas and prairie potholes, that
have drier or more variable water regimes than
those well-recognized by the general public.
Field Indicators
When the upper part of the soil is satu-
rated with water at growing season tempera-
tures, soil organisms consume the oxygen in the
soil, and conditions unsuitable for most plants
quickly develop. Such conditions also cause the
development of soil characteristics (e.g., color
and texture) that are diagnostic of so called
"hydric soils". The plants that can grow in such
conditions are called "hydrophytes" (e.g., marsh
grasses). Together, hydric soilsand hydrophytes
FOR MORE INFORMATION: Call the EPA
Wetlands Hotime» at 1-800-832-7828
are useful field indicators of the presence of
wetlands and are essential for field identifica-
tion of wetlands.
The actual presence or absence of water
itself (Le., by ponding, flooding, or soil satura-
tion), however, is a less reliable indicator of the
presence of wetlands. Except for wetlands
flooded by ocean tides, the hydrology of wet-
lands fluctuates as a result of rainfall patterns,
snowmelt, dry seasons and droughts. Some of
the most well-known wetlands, such as the Ev-
erglades and Mississippi bottomland hardwood
swamps, are often dry. Conversely, many up-
land areas are very wet during and shortly after
wet weather. Such natural fluctuations must be
taken into account when identifying areas sub-
ject to federal wetlands jurisdiction. Similarly,
the effects of upstream dams, drainage ditches,
dikes, irrigation and other modifications must
also be considered.
Delineation Manual
EPA and the Corps are currently using
the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delinea-
tion Manual to delineate wetlands for the Clean
Water Act Section 404 permit program. Section
404 requires a pernit from the Corps or autho-
rized State for the discharge of dredged or fill
material into the waters of the United States,
including wetlands. The 1987 Manual will re-
main in use pending review of public omments
on the 1991 proposed Manual and the ongoing
National Academy of Sciences study of wet-
lands delineation.
The 1987 manual organizes field indica-
tors into three categories- soils, vegetation, and
hydrology- and has evidence thresholds, or cri-
teria, for each category. With this approach, an
area that meets all three criteria is considered a
wetland.
itmctor opcnM
image:
inited StatM
itwiroamcntal Protection
gwtcy
Offic* of Water (WH-556F).
Office of Wetlands, Oceans,
and Watemhad* (A-104 F)
EPA843-F-93-001 j
March 1993
WETLANDS FACT SHEET #10
Was the 404 Program Intended to
Regulate Wetlands?
The History
In 1972, Congress passed the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments "to
restore and maintain the chemical, physical,
and biological integrity" of the Nation's waters.
The Act defined "navigable waters" as "waters
of the United States." The legislative history
made plain that Congress intended the broadest
possible Federal jurisdiction, expanding beyond
traditionally navigable waters.
However, when the US. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) issued regulations to imple-
ment the Section 404 program in 1974, it limited
the program's jurisdiction to traditionally navi-
gable waters, including adjacent wetlands, but
excluding many small waterways and most
wetlands. In 1975, a federal district court di-
rected the Corps to revise and expand its regu-
lations to be consistent with Congressional in-
tent.
In response, the Corps issued interim
final regulations to include waters that are not
adjacent to navigable waters ("isolated waters")
in the program's jurisdiction. In 1977, the Corps
issued final regulations and explicitly included
"isolated wetlands and lakes, intermittent
streams, prairie potholes, and other waters that
are not part of a tributary system to interstate
waters or to navigable waters of the United
States, the degradation or destruction of which
could affect interstate commerce." The defini-
tion r 1977 is substantiall the
EPA and the Corps of Engineers
have identified examples of waters
generally not considered waters of die
United States. These examples include
nontidal drainage and irrigation
ditches excavated on dry land, artifi-
cially irrigated areas which would
revert to upland if the irrigation ceased,
and certain artificial lakes or ponds
created on dry land.
same as the one in effect today.
What Has Congress Done?
WhenCongressamended the Act in 1977.
i\ w^ff j<ware of the Corps' recent assertion of
jurisdiction over wetlands. This issue was in
fact extensively debated. In the end, Congress
rejected attempts to narrow the scope of that
jurisdiction, in large part because of concern
that to do so would unduly hamper protection
of wetlands. Other 1977 amendments, such as
the Section 404(f) exemptions, general permit-
ting authority, and the provision for State as-
sumption of the 404 program in some waters,
responded to concerns regarding this scope of
jurisdiction. In providing for State assumption,
Congress made specific reference to wetlands in
the Act itself.
What Has the Supreme
Court Said?
Regarding the issue of jurisdiction for
wetlands adjacent to rivers, lakes, streams, estu-
aries, etc., the Supreme Court has unanimously
held that the Corps acted reasonably in inter-
preting the Act's geographic jurisdiction to ex-
tend to wetlands adjacent to other "waters of the
US.," even if those wetlands are saturated only
by ground water sources (as opposed to surface
water flooding). However, the Supreme Court
has not yet ruled on the issue of non-adjacent,
isolated wetland jurisdiction.
FOR MORE INFORMATION: Call the EPA
Wetfanda Hotline* at 1-800^32-7828.
contnctaf optfMtv
image:
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water (WH-556F).
Office of Wetlands, Oceans.
and Watersheds (A-104 F)
EPA843-F-93-001 k
March 1993
FPA WETLANDS FACT SHEET # 11
Clean Water Act §404(q):
Case Specific Elevation
THE §404 (q) PROCESS
.* » j.. i. ***.*/%. A v •'*''•'••
Formal determination that iwuaSe* of the §404 permit will result in
unacceptable adverse effects to Aijuajjc Resources of National Impor-
tance (ARN1). -*.-</
o£ Intent to Proceed
Corps District Engineer must notify the EPA Regional Administrator
if he intends to issue the permit over EPA objections. The Regional
Administrator has 15 days to respond to the request.
The EPA Regional Administrator makes a recommendation to EPA's
Assistant Administrator for Water to elevate the case. The Assistant
Administrator reviews the recommendation and within 20 days makes
a determination.
The Assistant Administrator seeks higher level review of the District
permit decision by the Assistant Secretary gf the Army (Civil Works).
EPA Headquarters' case elevation is reviewed by the Assistant Secre-
tary of the Army (Civil Works), who determines whether or not the
decision will be made at a higher level than the Corps District Engineer
or to issue case specific policy guidance.
Under §404 of the Clean Water Act, the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has
the primary authority for determining
whether or not a permit for the discharge of
dredged or fill material should be issued. In
making a permit decision, the Corps solicits
and considers the views of the public as well
as State and Federal resource agencies.
Where the Corps finds that the particular
project in question is likely to receive a §404
permit and EPA opposes issuance of the
permit, administrative procedures are avail-
able to EPA to address unresolved issues.
The principal mechanism for reso-
lution of interagency disputes related to
§404 permit issuance is spelled out in the
§404(q) Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
signed by EPA and the Department of the
Army in August of 1992. Under the §404(q)
•*i•*•!"i which EPA may formally el-
evate, for higher level review, interagency
disputes on particular permit actions. In
order to minimize duplication of effort,
needless paperwork and delays in the issu-
ance of §404 permits, a dear timeframe and
process for elevated review of a Corps per-
mit decision is established in the
§404(q) MOA.
In addition to the case spe-
cific elevation authorities contained in the
Section 404(q) MOA, issues related to gen-
eral program policies and procedures may
be formally raised by either the Corps or
EPA. This type of elevation does not di-
rectly relate to permit specific cir-
cumstances and thereforedoes not
delay issuance of pending permit
applications.
FOR MORE INFORMATION: call the EPA Wetlands Hotline* at 1-800-832-7828
'contractor operated
i Printed on Recycled Paper
image:
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water (WH-556F).
Office of Wetlands, Oceans,
and Watersheds (A-104 F)
EPA843-F-93-001I
March 1993
&EFA WETLANDS FACT SHEET #12
Clean Water Act §404(c):
Veto Authority
THE §404 (c) PROCESS
**C3«w Wafer Arf
fmm«
EPA Regional Administrator states higgler intention to issue a public notice of
a Proposed Determination to withdraW/fttphibit deny, or restrict the specifica-
tion of a defined area for the clispos&jjji|dredged or fill material.
If within 15days,ithas not been demowlrated to the satisfaction of the Regional
Administrator that no unacceptable adverse effects will occur, the Regional
Administrator publishes notice of the: Proposed Determination. The Proposed
Determination does not represent a jddjjjirierit that discharges of dredged or fill
material will result in unacceptable etfetarse effects; it merely means that the
Regional Administrator believes thalfl^t issue should be explored.
The public comment period for the Pftposed Determination isjqnger man 30
days and less than 60 days, except uoefer circumstances whereitonger period
is warranted. Generally, due to the dfgpee of public interest in tfWiPA action,
a public hearing is held. Within 3? £tjf»0f the public hearing, ortfjtt* public
hearing is held, within 15 days of thcf^d of the comment period, the Regional
Administrator takes action. v
Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act
authorizes EPA to restrict or prohibit the use
of an area as a disposal site for dredged or fill
material if the discharge will have unaccept-
able adverse effects on municipal water sup-
plies, shellfish beds and fishery areas, wild-
life or recreational areas. Because §404(c)
actions have historically arisen in response
to unresolved permit applications, the EPA
action is frequently referred to as an EPA
"veto" of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
permit
Recommendation to withdraw,
cation of a defined area for the
deny, or restrict the specifi-
" dredged or fill material
The Regional Administrator forwar
record to the Administrator and
for review. Within 30 days. EPA
document and the administrative
it Administrator for Water of EPA
initiates action.
Within 60 days of receipt of the recommendation and the administrative record.
EPA Headquarters makes a Final Determination affirming, modifying, or
rescinding the Recommended Determination. Notice of the'final determination
shall be published in the Federal Register.
Unacceptable Adverse Effects
Impact on an aquatic or wetland ecosystem which
is likely to result in significant degradation of
municipal water supplies (including surface or
groundwater) or significant loss of or damage to
fisheries, shellfishing, or wildlife habitat, or recre-
ation areas.
Under the current §404(c) regulations, EPA
decisions regarding formal elevation of a
project under Section 404(c) must be initi-
ated by the Regional Administrator. Initia-
tion of a Section 404(c) action is completely
within the discretion of the Agency. If the
Regional Administrator chooses to recom-
mend actions pursuant to
Section 404(c) of theClean
Water Act, EPA Head-
quarters then becomes
formally involved. The
authority for Final Deter-
minations pursuant to
§404(c) regarding site re-
striction or prohibition is
currently delegated to
-...*. . SSiSr. !«!»..- .
The Assistant Administrator tor
Water may review the withdrawn
Proposed Determination
EPA's Assistant Administrator for Water,
who is EPA's National §404 program man-
ager.
FOR MORE INFORMATION: call Ihc EPA Wetlands Hotline* at 1-800-832-7828
'contractor operated
<g> Printed on Recycled Paper
image:
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water (WH-556F).
Office of Wetlands, Oceans.
and Watersheds (A-104 F)
EPA843-F-93-001m
March 1993
WETLANDS FACT SHEET # 13
Wetlands Enforcement
in addition to jointly implementing the
dean Water Act Section 404 program, EPA and
the US. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) share
Section 404 enforcement authority. There are two
broad categories of Section 404 violations:
• failure to comply with the terms or
conditions of a Section 404 permit
• discharging dredged or fill material
to waters of the U.S. without first
obtaining a permit
In 1989, EPA and the Corps entered into a Memo-
randum of Agreement (MOA) on enforcement to
ensure efficient and effective implementation of
this shared authority. Under the MOA, the Corps,
as the Federal permitting agency, has the lead on
Corps-issued permit violation cases. For
unpermitted discharge cases, EPA and the Corps
determine the appropriate lead agency based on
criteria in the MOA.
Turning to judicial enforcement, Sections
309(b) and (d) and 404(s) give EPA and the Corps
the authority to pursue civil judicial enforcement
actions seeking restoration and other types of
injunctive relief, as well as civil penalties. The
agencies also have authority under Section 309(c)
to bring criminal judicial enforcement actions for
knowing or negligent violations of Section 404.
The goals of EPA's Section 404
enforcement are three-fold: environ-
mental protection; deterrence; and fair
and equitable treatment of the regu-
lated community. In addition to vol-
untary compliance, which plays an im-
portant role in the Section 404 enforce
ment program, Sections 309 and 404 of
the Clean Water Act provide the agen-
cies with several formal enforcement
mechanisms to use in achieving these
goals.
In the administrative arena, un-
der Section 309(a), EPA can issue ad-
ministrative compliance orders requir-
ing a violator to stop any ongoing ille-
gal discharge activity and, where ap-
propriate, to remove the illegal dis-
charge and otherwise restore the site.
Section 309(g) authorizes EPA and the
Corps to assess administrative civil
penalties of no more than $125,000 per
violation.
EPA and the Corps consider a wide vari-
ety of factors when deciding whether to exercise
our enforcement discretion and, if so, what type of
enforcement action to initiate. These factors in-
clude: the amount of fill; the size of the waterbody,
including acres of wetlands filled and their envi-
ronmental significance; the discharger's previous
experience with Section 404 requirements and the
discharger's compliance history.
In general, EPA and the Corps prefer to
resolve Section 404 violations through voluntary
compliance or administrative enforcement.
1990
1992
1991
FbalYcw
EPA Section 404 enforcement actions (initiated)
FOR MORE INFORMATION: call the EPA Wetlands Hotline* at 1-800-832-7828
•contractor operated
<g^ Printed on Recycled Paper
image:
Wetlands Criminal Enforcement
Since enactment of the Clean Water Act,
EPA and the Corps have taken fewer than 20
criminal enforcement actions in response to Sec-
tion 404 violations. Moreover, of those found
guilty of criminal Section 404 violations, fewer
than 10 of these violators have actually been
sentenced to jail time. As demonstrated by the
following examples, EPA and the Corps reserve
their criminal enforcement authority for only
the most flagrant and egregious Section 404
violations.
United States v. Pozsgai
In December 1989, a Philadelphia jury
convicted John Pozsgai on 40 counts of know-
ingly filling wetlands in Bucks County, Pennsyl-
vania, without a Section 404 permit Mr. Pozsgai
was sentenced to three years in jail, ordered to
restore the site upon his release, and assessed a
fine. His conviction and sentence have been
affirmed by the US Supreme Court.
Even prior to purchasing the 14-acre tract
in 1987, Mr. Pozsgai was told by private consult-
ants that the site contained wetlands subject to
the permitting requirements of Section 404. He
purchased the property at a reduced price due to
the presence of wetlands, and then proceeded to
ignore no less than 10 warnings from EPA and
Corps field staff to stop filling the wetlands
without first getting a Section 404 permit. He
also defied a temporary restraining order (TRO)
issued by a Federal court judge. In fact, the
government documented violations of the TRO
on videotape, thanks to the cooperation of neigh-
bors whose homes were being flooded as a result
of Mr. Pozsgai's filling in his wetlands.
United States v. Ellen
In January 1991, William Ellen was found
guilty by a Maryland jury of knowingly filling 86
acres of wetlands without a Section 404 permit.
He was sentenced to six months in jail and one
year supervised release. TheU5.SupremeCourt
denied review of the conviction and sentence.
Mr. Ellen is a consultant who was hired
by Paul Tudor Jones to assist in the location and
creation of a private hunting dub and wildlife
preserve on Maryland's Eastern Shore. With
Mr. Ellen's assistance, Jones selected a 3,000-
acre site in Dorchester County that bordered
Chesapeake Bay tributaries and consisted largely
of forested wetlands and tidal marshes. As
project manager, Mr. Ellen was responsible for
acquiring environmental permits and comply-
ing with all applicable environmental rules and
regulations. His own consulting engineers re-
peatedly told him that a Section 404 permit
would be required. Nevertheless, he supervised
extensive excavation and construction work
destroying wetlands at the site without first
obtaining a Section 404 permit Despite repeated
warnings to Mr. Ellen from the Corps, this
unpennitted activity did not stop until theCorps
contacted the subcontractors directly.
For more information: contact the EPA Wetlands Hotline* at 1-800-832-7828
•contractor operated
1 Printed on Recycled Paper
image:
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water (WH-556F).
Office of Wetlands. Oceans.
and Watersheds (A-104 F)
EPA843-F-93-001n
March 1993
®EPA WETLANDS FACT SHEET # 14
Wetlands Mitigation Banking
i
more ecologically advantageous for maintaining
the integrity of the aquatic ecosystem.
Development of a mitigation bank can
Wetlands mitigation banking is the resto- also bring together financial resources, as well as
ration, creation, enhancement, or in certain cir- planning and scientific expertise not generally
cumstances, preservation of wetlands expressly practical for individual mitigation proposals,
for the purpose of providing compensation in thereby increasing the likelihood of success.
advance of proposed or future wetland impacts.
A wetlands mitigation bank is created when a
government agency, corporation ornon-profit or-
ganization, under a formal agreement, acquires a
long-term interest in a degraded wetland or an
appropriate upland area and restores or creates
the site into a functional wetland ecosystem. The
value of a bank is determined by quantifying the
wetland values restored or created in terms of
"credits," which may later be utilized to compen-
sate for wetland losses, or "debits," associated
with a permitted discharge. Banking has the
potential to play a significant role in the Section
404 regulatory program by reducing uncertainty
and delays for qualified projects, especially when
the project is associated with a comprehensive
resource planning effort. Agencies have received
commentsnotingbothbenefitsandconcemsabout
mitigation banking, some of which are noted be-
low.
A primary concern with the use of mitiga-
tion banking in the Section 404 regulatory pro-
gram is that establishment of a bank may be
wrongfully construed as direct or implied autho-
rization of specific projects, regardless of the
avoidability of wetland impacts associated with
the proposed project. Implementation of a bank-
ing agreement involves substantial administra-
tive and legal complexities. Moreover, the scien-
tific and technical expertise for creation and resto-
ration is limited for some wetland types.
With mitigation banking, compensatory
mitigation can be implemented and functioning
in advance of project impacts, thereby assuring
the success of compensation. In addition, it elimi-
nates the temporal losses of aquatic functions and
valuesr that typically occur when the compensa-
tion is intiated during or after the time wetlands
impacts occur.
In addition, consolidation of mitigation
for impacts to numerous small, isolated or frag-
mented habitats into a single large parcel is often
The 1990 EPA/Army Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) on Mitigation identifies miti-
gation banking as "an acceptable form of compen-
satory mitigation under specific criteria designed
to ensure an environmentally successful bank."
Approximately 100 mitigation banks are in opera-
tion or are proposed for construction in 34 States
across the country.
FOR MORE INFORMATION: tall the EPA Wetlands Hotline* at 1-800-832-7828
'contractor opcntad
, Printed on Recycled Paper
image:
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water (WH-556F).
Office of Wetlands. Oceans,
and Watersheds (A-104F)
EPA843-F-93-001o
(March 1993
WETLANDS FACT SHEET # 15
Wetlands Categorization
There has been interest over many years
in revising the Section 404 regulatory program
to base decisions more on the relative values of
wetlands as determined in advance based on
the type or condition of the wetland. In re-
sponse, several approaches have been proposed
to classify or "categorize" wetlands based on
their relative value, with commensurate levels
of regulatory protection assigned to each wet-
land category.
Issues
Categorization proponents believe wet-
lands regulation would be improved by focus-
ing agency resources on protection of the most
valuable wetlands, by providing greater consis-
tency and predictability in the permit review
process, and by reducing regulatory burden for
activities in lower value wetlands. However,
some have raised concerns that a hierarchical
approach to wetlands protection may result in
"writing off' low value wetlands and increas-
ing the potential for wetlands "takings" claims
for high value wetlands. Additional concerns
include the inadequacy of objective methods
for identifying and evaluating wetland func-
tions and values, and the increased reliance that
some approaches place on mitigation techniques
(i.e., wetland restoration and creation), which
are still relatively new and unproven. State
experience also indicates that categorization pro-
grams require substantial time and financial
resources to implement
Current Status
Wetland values are currently assessed
on a case-by-case basis in the Section 404 permit
review process. The level of review an indi-
vidual permit application receives is commen-
surate with the significance of the environmen-
tal impact, considering both the relative value of
the wetland and the impacts of the proposed
activity. For many in the regulated community,
however, such an approach does not provide
sufficient predictability and certainty. Efforts in
the mid-1980's to categorize wetlands nation-
Cattail
ally were abandoned because of scientific un-
certainties. A number of States (most notably,
New York, Maine, Vermont, and Delaware) have
applied or are considering a categorization ap-
proach within their wetlands protection pro-
grams. Alternatively, some states are establish-
ing wetland categories as they incorporate wet-
lands into their Water Quality Standards pro-
gram. Categorization has worked most effec-
tively in the context of local or regional water-
shed planning initiatives where the relative
value of wetlands within the context of a par-
ticular watershed can be more accurately as-
sessed.
For more information: call the EPA
Wetlands Hotline* at 1-800-832-7828.
image:
United State*
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water (WH-556F).
Office of Wetlands, Oceans.
and Watersheds (A-104 F)
EPA843-F-93-001P
March 1993
WETLANDS FACT SHEET #16
What About Takings?
The Issue: When does a government action affecting private
property amount to a "taking,,'1 and what are the takings
implication* of wetlands regulation?
Background
The Fifth Amendment prohibits the tak-
ing of private property by the government for a
public use without payment of just compensa-
tion. A body of law has been established by the
Supreme Court (and
lower courts) that is
used to determine
when government ac-
tions affecting use of
private property
amount to a "taking"
of that property by the
government. When
private property is
"taken" by the gov-
ernment, the prop-
erty owner must be
fairly compensated.
The fifth Amendment
to the Constitution of the
United States of America
No person shall...be deprived of...property
without due process of law, nor shall
private property be taken for public use,
without just compensation.
Initially, the courts recognized takings
claims based on governmental action that re-
sulted in a physical seizure or occupation of
private property. Thecourtssubsequentlyruled
that, in certain limited circumstances, govern-
ment regulation affecting private property also
may amount to a taking.
In reviewing these "regulatory" takings
cases, the courts generally apply a balancing
test, and examine the character of the
government's action and its effect on the
property's economic value. Government ac-
tions for the purpose of protecting public health
and safety, including many types of actions for
environmental protection, generally will not
constitute takings. The courts also look at the
extent to which the government's action inter-
feres with the reasonable, investment-backed
expectations of the property owner.
In the recent T.uraa decision (Lucas v.
South Carolina Coastal Council), the U. S. Su-
preme Court ruled that a State regulation that
deprives a property owner of §11 economically
beneficial use of that property can be a taking.
However, even then a regulation will not result
in a taking if the regulation is consistent with
"restrictions that background principles of the
State's law of property
and nuisance already
place upon land own-
ership." Some com-
mentators have stated
that the Lucas ruling
is not likely to have a
significant effect on
environmental regula-
tion, because it is ex-
plicitly limited to
those relatively rare
situations where the
government action de-
nies iU economically beneficial use of the prop-
erty.
Current Status
The presence of wetlands does not mean
that a property owner cannot undertake any
activity on the property. In fact, wetlands regu-
lation under Section 404 does not necessarily
even result in a restriction on use of the site. For
example, many activities are either not regu-
lated at all, explicitly exempted from regulation,
or authorized under general permits. Moreover,
in situations where individual permits are re-
quired, the Federal agencies can work with per-
mit applicants to design projects that meet the
requirements of the law and protect the environ-
ment and public safety, while accomplishing the
legitimate individual objectives and protecting
the property rights of the applicant. Overall,
more than 95 percent of all projects are autho-
rized.
For more information, contact the EPA Wetlands Hotline at 1-800-832-7828 *
* contractor operated <g| Prixltd m ^^ Paper
image:
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water (WH-556F).
Office of Wetlands, Oceans,
and Watersheds (A-104 F)
EPA843-F-93-001 q
March 1993
4*EPA WETLANDS FACT SHEET #17
Wetland Acquisition and Restoration:
Funding and Technical Assistance
Seventy-four percent of the remaining wetlands
in the contiguous United States are located on pri-
vate property. As stewards of the land, private
property owners have a tremendous opportunity to
safeguard the Nation's wetlands resources through
wise land-use decisions. Many Federal, State, and
local programs as well as private and non-profit
organizations offer cost-sharing, technical, and often
direct payment assistance to private landowners to
protect, restore, and create wetlands. Much of the
information, and funding involves agricultural-re-
lated activities in wetlands, however, ample resources
also exist for landowners who engage in other activi-
ties. Options for private landowners include land
banks, transferrable development rights, deed re-
strictions, easements to conservation organizations-
-all of which can provide tax breaks-and leases of
rights to hunt, fish, harvest timber, and trap fur-
bearing animals on the property.
The EPA Wetlands Hotline, staffed by a contract-
ing company, can provide you with more informa-
tion about the agencies and program requirements
discussed in this fact sheet, as well as publications
and regional contacts in your area. In addition, your
local Soil Conservation Service office or County Ex-
tension Agent may know of additional State and
local programs.
Governmental Assistance
The U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) supports
many sources of assistance for wetland acquisition and
restoration through several offices:
The Agricultural Stahflte»*inn and Conservation Service
(ASCS). oversees programs such as the Agricultural Res-
toration Program (ARP), the Wetland Reserve Program
(WRP), the Water Bank Program, and the Agricultural
Conservation Program (ACP).
•Contact: USDA ASCS, Conservation and
Environmental Protection Division, P. O. Box 2415,
Washington, DC 20013.
The Fanners Home Administration (FmHA) provides debt
reduction assistance on FmHA loans in exchange for con-
servation easements.
•Contact USDA FmHA, Room 5449,
Washington, DC 2025(M)700.
The U. S. Department of the Interior (USDOD helps pri-
vate landowners through the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
OJSFWS). These programs include Partners for Wildlife
(Private Lands Assistance and Restoration Program), and
the North American Waterfowl Management Plan
(NAWMP) Joint Ventures.
•Contact: USDC4, USFWS, North American
Waterfowl and Wetlands Office, 4401 N. Fairfax Dr.,
Arlington, VA 22203.
The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA),
through its Office of Wetlands. Oceans, and Watersheds.
Wetlands Division and the contractor-operated Wetlands
Hotline, offers information on current EPA wetland conser-
vation, acquisition, and restoration initiatives.
•Contact: US EPA, OWOW, Wetlands Division
(A-104 F), 401 M St., SW, Washington, DC 20460.
Private/Non-Profit Assistance
In the private sector. Ducks Unlimited administers the
MARSH (Matching Aid to Restore States Habitat) Program.
•Contact: MARSH Program Coordinator, 1155
Connecticut Ave, NW, #800, Washington, DC 20036.
The Nature Conservancy provides help through the Natu-
ral Areas Registry.
•Contact: 2 Wisconsin Ave^
Chevy Chase, MD 20815.
The Izaak Walton League offers the Partners for Wetlands
program.
•Contact: 1401 Wilson Bvd, Level B,
Arlington, VA 22209.
Private Land Trusts assist landowners in acquiring and
restoring wetlands using a master planning process to
select a variety of programs based on the landowner's
resource needs, goals, and opportunities.
•Trust for Public lands 312 Massachusetts Ave.,
Washington, DC 20002
• Land Trust Alliance 90017th St, NW,
Washington, DC 20006
The U. S. Forest Service (USFS) administers the Forestry
Incentives Program (FIP), the Stewardship Incentives Pro-
gram (SIP), and the Forest Legacy Program.
•Contact: USDA USFS, Cooperative Forestry Staff,
Auditor's Building, 20114th St, SW,
Washington, DC 20250.
•American Farmland Trust 1920NSt.,NW,
Washington, DC 20036
For more information contact the EPA Wetlands Hotline at 1*800*832*7828 *
* contractor operated
image:
Environmental Protection
Agency
Offica of Wetlands, Ocaans,
and Watersheds (A-104 F)
March 1993
wEPA WETLANDS FACT SHEET #18
Section 404 Regulatory Program:
Issues and Examples
' • ,C
ISSUES
-vOwllW«4«WL. A
In recent years, implementation of the
Section 404 regulatory program has received con-
siderable attention. In addition to coverage in the
popular press, in late 1991 the Environmental
Protection Subcommittee of the Senate Environ-
ment and Public Works Committee requested
that EPA and the US. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) review 108 cases submitted to the Sub-
committee which allegedly illustrated problems
in implementation of the Sec-
tion 404 regulatory program.
While it would be unmanage-
able to furnish the complete re
suits of our review, it is useful
to review the type of issues fre-
quently raised. In general, it is
important to note that these
cases often reflected confusion,
misunderstanding, or misinfor-
mation, rather than problems
with the actual implementation
of the program. In some cases,
it appeared that commentors
equated the regulation of wetland areas with ad-
vance denial of authorization for any discharge or
activity or the loss of one's ability to use that
property for any financial return. In its most
extreme form, this perception prevented land-
owners from even applyinging for permits which
they believed would never be granted. This is
certainly the most unfortunate misperception re-
vealed in the case examples and simply does not
reflect actual implementation of the Section 404
regulatory program.
ACCURACY OF WETLANDS
DETERMINATIONS
Many case examples raised concerns about
what were believed to be inaccurate determina-
tions of the presence of wetlands on the property.
In many of these cases, particularly in areas that
may not be wet year-round, the subject property
did not fit the landowners' particular perception
of what constitutes a wetland. These important
systems, nevertheless, are wetlands, and may be
jurisdictional wetlands for the purposes of the
Clean Water Act
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
Certain cases reflected a lack of under-
standing about regulatory requirements for ac-
tivities in wetlands because of different regula-
tory requirements from gov-
ernment agencies, including
State and local requirements.
This concern was particularly
evident in those cases involv-
ing farmers potentially affected
by the Swampbuster program
under the Food Securities Act.
Many cases reflected the fear
that the mere presence of wet-
lands precluded any activity
and rendered the land unus-
able to the landowner.
...cases often re-
flected confusion,
misunderstanding,
or misinformation,
rather than prob-
lems with the actual
implementation of
the program...
TIMEFRAMES FOR THE §404
PERMIT PROCESS
Many of the case examples cited perceived
delays in the Section 404 permitting process. It is
true that some delays do occur in the Section 404
program. To address this problem, EPA and the
Corps have been working to make the process
more efficient, and to ensure adequate staffing. It
is alsq the case that some delays involve regula-
tory requirements of other State or Federal laws.
Additionally, in many cases the issues of concern
were related to enforcement actions on the part of
the Federal government for unauthorized dis-
charges or requirements for processing of after-
the-fact permit applications. Because these cases
may involve illegal activities carried out without
required Section 404 permits, resolution of the
issues involved in these cases is, by the very
nature of the circumstances, time consuming and
controversial. These circumstances, however, do
not represent normal processing requirements of
che Section 404 regulatory program.
image:
Section 404 Regulatory Program:
~ „ *x * J "
"- ' " 2j
A^5 % v %,
EXAMPtE
RANDY LONGBONS
ST. VINCENT DePAUL SOCIETY
HOMELESS SHELTER PARKING LOT
JUNEAU, ALASKA
In this case a fanner in Albion, Illinois,
cleared 3 acres of brush on his farm and straight-
ened a ditch (routine maintenance operations) to
prevent water from ponding on his land. Mr.
Longbons has stated that he received conflicting
information regarding the regulation of his opera-
tions and that agencies have placed excessive
demands on him by requiring mitigation for ditch-
ing activities. He is concerned about losing the
right to continue normal farm management prac-
tices.
Mr. Longbons contacted the Soil Conser-
vation Service to assure the work would be consis-
tent with the Food Securities Act (Farm Bill). The
SCS responded that the work was allowable, but
that he should contact the Corps and EPA to
assure compliance with the Clean Water Act.
However, Mr. Longbons did not do so.
Staff from the Environmental Protection
Agency, the Corps of Engineers, and Congress-
man Pouchard's office conducted an inspection of
the site. The inspection showed that Mr. Longbons
had cleared a ditch and 3 acres of bottomland
hardwood forest, and dug a new lateral ditch,
sidecasting the material into the wetlands. It
should be noted that maintenance activities for
existing drainage ditches are exempted from the
Section 404 program. Mr. Longbons' clearing of
the old drainage ditch, the major component of
this project, was never regulated. However, clear-
ing a bottomland hardwood forest, creating a new
lateral ditch, and disposing of materials into wet-
lands are regulated activities. Therefore, Mr.
Longbons' actions constituted a violation of Sec-
tion 404 of the Clean Water Act In light of the facts
of this case, EPA Region 5 recommended to the
Corps that an after-the-fact permit be issued with
a mitigation condition for the loss of the 3 acres of
bottomland hardwood forest The lateral ditch
has been stabilized with perennial grasses. Under
the permit, Mr. Longbons is able to plant crops in
the cleared area.
This anecdote has appeared in several
places, including the Wall Street Journal and Con-
gressional testimony. In general, the account
raises concerns regarding alleged delays in the
evaluation of a Section 404 permit application for
a homeless shelter in Juneau, Alaska.
The Section 404 permit application was,
in fact, for construction of a parking lot The
public comment period ended on January 26,
1990, and after interagency discussions, the per-
mit was issued on August 3,1990.
In 1989, the EPA and the Corps of Engi-
neers adopted an Advance Identification plan
identifying wetland areas generally suitable or
unsuitable for fill within the core service area of
the City/Borough of Juneau, Alaska. The Ad-
vance Identification program is designed to pro-
vide information to the regulated public of the
suitability of proposed discharges into designated
wetland areas. The area targeted by the St. Vincent
DePaul Society for future development was clas-
sified as "generally unsuitable" for the discharge
of fill material
The final Section 404 permit application
was only for expansion of a parking lot adjacent
to the shelter. The expansion was based upon
local zoning restrictions requiring facilities of a
designated size to have a requisite number of
parking spaces. While the Society submitted the
permit application, it was noted by the Society
that a homeless shelter did not necessarily require
the number of parking spaces required by the
ordinance.
EPAandtheUS. Fish and Wildlife Service
objected to the proposed project, expressing con-
cerns regarding the size and design of the parking
lot. In response, the applicant made modifica-
tions to minimize potential impacts of erosion to
surrounding wetlands. As previously stated, the
issues were mutually resolved and the permit was
issued about six months after the application was
submitted.
TOR MORE INFORMATION: call the EPA Wetlands Hotline* at l-MO-£32-7828
•contractor operated
^ Printed on Recycled Paper
image:
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water (WH-556F).
Office of Wetlands. Oceans.
and Watersheds (A-104 F)
EPA843-F-93-001 s
March 1993
WETLANDS FACT SHEET #19
Agriculture and Wetlands:
§ 404 and Swampbuster
The two most important Federal wet-
lands programs-that directly affect farmers are
the Section 404 permitting program and the
Swampbuster program. Section 404 of the dean
Water Act requires that individuals must obtain
a U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) 404
permit before discharging dredged or fill mate-
rial into waters of the United States, including
most wetlands. The Swampbuster program of
the Food Security Act, administered by the U. S.
Department of Agriculture, is intended to dis-
courage the alteration of wetlands by withhold-
ing certain Federal farm program benefits from
farmers who convert or modify wetlands.
Section404 permitting andSwampbuster
provision requirements are complex and can be
confusing. The Federal agencies involved are
actively working together to improve program
coordination, and to clarify the relationship be-
tween Section 404 and Swampbuster. For ex-
ample, "prior converted croplands" have been
excluded from regulation under Section 404 to
be consistent with Swampbuster.
Section 404 Provisions
Perhaps the most important informa-
tion for farmers regarding Section 404 is that
most routine/ ongoing farming activities do
not require individual Section 404 permits.
Section 404 permitting requirements apply only
to discharges of dredged or fill materials in
wetlands, streams, rivers, and "other waters of
theUnitedStates." In general, farming activities
that occur in areas that are not wetlands or
waters of the U. S. or that do not involve dis-
charges of dredged and fill material do not
require Section 404 permits.
Many normal farming, silviculture and
ranching activities that involve discharges of
dredged orfill materials into waters of the United
States are exempted from Section 404, and do
not require notification or submission of a per-
mit application to the Corps. In order to be
exempt, the fanning activity must be part of an
ongoing fanning operation and cannot be asso-
ciated with bringing a wetland into agriculture
production or converting an agricultural wet-
land to a non-wetland area.
Swampbuster Provisions
The Swampbuster provision of the 1985
Food Security Act, as amended by the Food,
Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of
1990, withholds Federal farm program ben-
efits from any person who:
• plants an agricultural commodity on a
converted wetland that was converted by
drainage, dredging, leveling, or any other
means after December 23,1985; or
• converts a wetland for the purpose of or to
make agricultural commodity production
possible after November 28,1990.
Fanners are asked to report on whether
they plan to or have altered any "wet area"
when they apply for their farm benefits (Form
AD 1026). The Soil Conservation Service
assists farmers in making wetland determina-
tions with regard to the Swampbuster Pro-
gram.
To make sure fanners maintain
their benefits tinder the USD A farm
program,, they should contact the Soil
Conservation Service before clearing
and stumping, draining, or manipu-
lating any wet areas on their land.
They should also check with the
local Corps district office if they are
unsure whether ongoing or planned
activities occurring in wetlands are
regulated under Section 404.
For more information, contact the EPA Wetlands Hotline at 1-800-832-7828 *
* contractor operated
image:
Unftad St*M
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water (WH-556F),
Office of Wetlands. Oceans,
and Watersheds (A-104 F)
EPA843-F-93-001I
March 1993
WETLANDS FACT SHEET # 20
Clean Water Act § 404(f) Exemptions
Section 404 of the dean Water Act (Act) production are also exempt. To find out whether
requires permits for the discharge of dredged or specific activities are exempt, contact the local
fill material into waters of the United States, Corps or EPA office
including wetlands.
Exemptions
Section 404(f) of the Act generally ex-
empts discharges of dredged or fill material
associated with normal farming, ranching, and
forestry activities such as plowing, cultivating,
minor drainage, and harvesting for the produc-
tion of food, fiber, and forest products or upland
soil and water conservation practices. This ex-
emption pertains to normal fanning and har-
vesting activities that are part of an established,
ongoing farming or forestry operation.
Activities Not Exempt
If an activity involving a discharge of
dredged or fill material represents a new use of
the wetland, and the activity would result in a
reduction in reach or impairment of flow or circula-
tion of regulated waters, including wetlands,
the activity is not exempt. Both conditions must
be met in order for the activity to be considered
non-exempt
Examples
Activities that bring a wetland into farm
production where that wetland has not previ-
ously been used for farming are not considered
part of an established operation, and therefore
are not exempt In general, any discharge of
dredged or fiu material associated with an activ-
ity that converts a wetland to upland is not
exempt, and requires a Section 404 permit.
However, introduction of a new cultiva-
tion technique such as discing between crop
rows for weed control may be a new farming
activity, but because the farm operation is ongo-
ing, the activity is exempt from permit require-
ments under Section 404. Planting different
crops as part of an established rotation, such as
soybeans to rice, is exempt Discharges associ-
ated with ongoing rotations of rice and crawfish
Activities Exempt Under the
Clean Water Act Section 404 (f)
Established (ongoing) normal fanning,
ranching, and forestry activities:
• plowing
- seeding
- cultivating
• harvesting food, fiber, and
forest products
- minor drainage
-upland soil and water
conservation practices
Maintenance (but not construction) of
drainage ditches
Construction and maintenance of
irrigation ditches
Construction and maintenance of farm
or stock ponds
Construction andmaintenance of farm
or forest roads, in accordance with best
management practices
Maintenance of structures, such as
dams, dikes/ and levees
I
The publication "Agriculture and Wetlands: A
Compilation of Factsheets" can be requested
free of charge from the EPA Wetlands Hotline.
iculture
Wetlands
For more information, contact the EPA Wetlands Hotline at 1-800-832-7828 *
•contractor operated
image:
United St*M
Environmental Protection
Ag«ncy
Office of Water (WH-556F).
Office of Wetlands, Oceans,
and Watersheds (A-104 F)
EPAS43-F-93-001U
March 1993
&EPA WETLANDS FACT SHEET # 21
State, Tribal, Local and Regional
Roles in Wetlands Protection
Many of the factors that are attributed to
wetlands degradation and loss can be addressed
at the State or local level States, Indian Tribes,
and local governments are becoming more in-
terested and active in comprehensive wetlands
protection through the authorities granted to
them in the Clean Water Act and existing State
legislation.
All levels of government must work together
to determine how to best protect wetland re
sources and what the appropriate roles and
programs are for Federal, State, and local gov-
ernments. Thus, EPA is supporting the strength-
ening of State, Tribal, and local roles in wetlands
protection.
Current Opportunities
Section 404 Program
One of the ways States and Indian Tribes can
strengthen their role in wetlands protection is
by assuming permitting authority under the
dean Water Act Section 404 program. To date,
only Michigan has assumed this program, which
regulates the discharge of dredged and fill ma-
terial in wetlands and other waters. Reasons
cited for limited State interest in program as-
sumption include:
• having to share jurisdiction with the Army
Corps of Engineers;
• the lack of Federal funding;
• the degree of Federal oversight allowed;
• burdensome program requirements;
• the lack of inland wetland protection
programs in all States; and
• the availability of other less controversial
opportunities for States to be involved in
wetlands protection.
Florida, New Jersey, and Delaware are cur-
rently pursuing Section 404 assumption. EPA is
working to assist these and other States inter-
ested in assumption.
Other Programs
Other strategies available to States and In-
dian Tribes to strengthen their role in wetlands
protection include:
• undertaking comprehensive State Wetland
Conservation Plans;
• obtaining State Program General Permits
from the Corps for discharges of dredged
and fill material in wetlands;
• promulgating wetland water quality
standards;
• applying the Clean Water Act Section 401
Water Quality Certification program more
specifically to wetlands; and
• incorporating wetlands protection into other
State water programs.
Financial assistance is available from EPA to
pursue many of these activities through EPA's
State Wetlands Protection Development Grant
Program. EPA also helps by providing informa-
tion and program guidance and by sponsoring
national forums on State program development
Regional and local participation in wetland
protection can also be strengthened through
geographically-targeted comprehensive re-
source planning, such as multi-objective river
corridor management, watershed protection
"approaches and advance identification of suit-
able and unsuitable sites for discharges.
Foe nntiiei infomuttu
* contractor operated
. contact the EPA Wetlands Hotline: 1-800-832-7828 *
<&$ Printed on Recycled Paper
image:
United Slates
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water (WH-556F),
Office of Wetlands, Oceans.
and Watersheds (A-104 F)
EPA843-F-93-001v
March 1993
wEPA WETLANDS FACT SHEET #22
State Wetlands Grants Program
Background
States have been interested and involved
in wetlands protection for a long time. How-
ever, in many cases their efforts have been ham-
pered by the lack of funds to support State
wetlands protection programs.
In FY90 Congress first appropriated
funds for a grant program to support State wet-
lands protection efforts. This grant program
has provided an important opportunity for the
States to improve their wetland protection ef-
forts.
Current Program
These grant funds can be used to de-
velop State wetland protection programs that
enhance existing programs or develop new pro-
grams. However, grant funds cannot be used
for operational support of State wetland protec-
tion programs. Lack of funds to support opera-
tion of State wetlands programs will continue to
be a serious impediment to State involvement in
wetlands protection.
The State Wetlands Protection Develop-
ment Grant Program was initiated in FY90 with
$1 million appropriated to support the grant
program. In FY93 $10 million was appropriated
by Congress to support the grant program. State
interest in the grant program continues to grow.
States usually request more than double the
amount of grant funds available each year.
During FY92, EPA received approximately 160
applications from 43 States, 29 Tribes and two
Territories, and awarded 80 grants to 41 States,
9 Tribes and one Territory (see chart).
During the first three years of the grant
program,«EPA has awarded a total of $14.5
million in grant funds to 48 States, 15 Tribes,
and pnf .Territory.
FT 90
Applications
Grants Awarded
FY'91
Ft 92
Examples
Currently, the grant program is supporting:
• Section 404 assumption efforts in
Florida, Louisiana, and North Dakota;
• development of State Wetland Con-
servation Plans for the Tribal lands of the Red
Lake Band of Chippewa Tribe and in New York,
Ohio, Delaware, New Jersey, Michigan, North
Dakota, Montana, and other States;
• Watershed Protection Approach Dem-
onstration Projects in Michigan (Grand Traverse
Bay), Delaware (Nanticoke River), and Oregon
(Willamette Valley);
• development of wetland water qual-
ity standards in Washington, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, North Carolina, Ohio and other
States;
• incorporation of wetlands into Sec-
tion 401 Water Quality Certification programs
in Arizona, Idaho, Indiana, Massachusetts, Ne-
braska, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Minnesota,
South Carolina and other States.
For More Information: Contact the EPA Wetlands Hotline* at 1-800-
832-7828 for copies of "Catalog of State Wetlands Protection Develop-
ment Grants,* available for Fiscal Years 1990,1991,1992,
Yellow Perch
1 Printed on Recycled Paper
image:
United States Office of Water (WH-556F). EPA843-F-93-001 w
Environmental Protection Office of Wetlands. Oceans, March 1993
Agency and Watersheds (A-104 F)
&EPA WETLANDS FACT SHEET # 23
State Assumption of the § 404
Permit Program
The Clean Water Act provides States and Tribes with the option of
assuming the Federal Section 404 permit program in certain waters
within the State or Tribal jurisdiction.
Why Assume § 404? permit program thatis similar to the Federal
program. Even for States or Tribes with an
Over a dozen States are currently existing wetlands regulatory program, this
administering aquatic resources/wetlands can require the passage of new legislation.
protection programs similar to the Federal In particular, the State's or Tribe's program
Section 404 program. State and Tribal must:
regulators are, in many cases, located closer • have an equivalent scope of jurisdiction;
to the proposed activities and are often more • regulate at least the same activities;
familiar with local resources, issues, and • provideforsuffidentpublicparticipation;
needs than are Federal regulators. Formal • ensure compliance with the § 404 (b) (1)
assumption of the regulatory program Guidelines, which provideenvironmental
eliminates unnecessary duplication between criteria for permit decisions; and
State or Tribal and Federal programs. After * have adequate enforcement authority.
assumption, permit applicants will need only
a State or Tribal permit for dredged or fill What Happens After Assumption?
material discharges in certain waters.
After assumption, the Corps no longer
What Waters are Assumable? processes Section 404 permits in those
assumable waters under State or Tribal
StatesandTribescanassumetheFederal jurisdiction. Instead, the State or Tribe
Section 404 program only in certain "non- assumes responsibility for the program,
navigable" waters. The Army Corps of including determining what areas and
Engineers retains jurisdiction in: activities are regulated, processing the
• tidal waters and their adjacent wetlands; individual permits, for specific proposed
and activities, and enforcement. EPA reviews
• navigable waters and their adjacent the program annually, to ensure that the
wetlands. State or Tribe is operating its program in
In addition, the Corps continues to compliance with the requirements of the
regulate navigable waters under Section 10 law and regulations. In addition, for a small
of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. subset of activities, generally larger
discharges with potentially serious impacts,
Requirements to Assume § 404 EPA and other Federal agencies review the
permit application and comment to the State
In order to assume the Section 404 or Tribe; the State or Tribe cannot issue a
program, States or Tribes need a wetlands permit over EPA's objection.
Printed on Recycled Paper
image:
Status of State § 404 Assumption
To date, Michigan is the only State that
has assumed the Federal permit program.
However, other States and some Tribes are
working toward or investigating the
possibility of assuming the permit program.
New Jersey is seeking to assume the program
in 1993. Florida, North Dakota, and
Louisiana are investigating the feasibility
of program assumption. Other States, such
as Wisconsin, Delaware, and some Tribes
have expressed interest in Section 404
assumption.
Several States have expressed a number
of reasons why they have not more actively
pursued assumption. These include:
• lack of available funding to run the
program;
• limit on State/Tribal assumption to "non-
navigable" waters;
• concerns regarding Federal
requirements and oversight;
• the availability of alternative
mechanisms for State/Tribal wetlands
protection; and
« the controversial nature of regulation
of wetlands and other aquatic
resources.
State 404 Assumption Process
SteteVTribe's request to
the fedenl Permit Program
EPA Receives Complete State/Tribal
Assumption Application
The Governor of the Stale orgqofraknt Tribal entity* submits
to EPA a full and complete description of the program it
proposes to establish and administer under State law or under
an interstate compact la additioWthe State submits a state-
ment from the Attorney General mat the laws provide ad-
equate authority to carry out tfii' described program.
Distribution of Application
for Public Comment
EPA distributes assumption apjiBhation toother Federal Agen-
cies (Corps, FWS, and NMESj^ ;>, -
Public Hearing
EPA also makes the Slate's /tH&Cs package available for pub-
lic review and commentandfotd* a public hearing(s) in the
State. . v*
EPA Decision
After reviewing tfctSUte's/Tribes appUifcon and consider-
ing the Agenocramfpublic comments, CPAlaakes a decision
on tr«requ«rt to assume the I^eralpcnnftprogrwn. EPA's
decision tabasad on whether or not the State or Ifctt* meets the
applicable statutory and regulatory requteimuBrts for an
approvable program. s v**
For More Information
• Assumption Approved Assumption Denied I
If a State or Tribe is interested in
investigating assumption of the Section 404
permit program, the appropriate EPA
Regional Office should be contacted. See
Wetlands Fact Sheet # 31, or call the EPA
Wetlands Hotline* for the appropriate
contact person. EPA can provide technical
assistance, and may also be able to provide
some financial assistance, through the State
Wetlands Grants Program, to help States
and Tribes develop the authority, capability,
and documentation needed to assume the
Federal permit program.
* NOTE Tribes are eligible to apply to assume the Federal Permit
Program after they have met the requirements for "treatment as a
State." See the February 11, 1993, Regulations listed below for
more information.
Publications of Interest:
• Clean Water Act, Section 404 Program
Definition and Permit Exemptions; Section
404 State Program Regulations, June 6,1988,
Federal Register, 40 CFR Parts 232 and 233.
• Clean Water Act, Section 404 Tribal
Regulations, February 11, 1993, Federal
Register, 40 CFR Parts 232 and 233.
For more information contact the EPA Wetlands Hotline at 1-800-832-7828 *
* contractor operated
inted on Recycled Paper
image:
United States
Envtoonnrantal Protection
Agwwy
Offka of Water (WH-556F),
Offica of Wetlands, Oceans,
and Watersheds (A-104 F)
EPA843-F-93-001 x
March 1993
WETLANDS FACT SHEET #24
401 Certification and Wetlands
Opportunity for States
Under Section 401 of the Clean Water
Act (CWA), States and eligible Indian Tribes
have the authority to review and approve, con-
dition, or deny all Federal permits or licenses
that might result in a discharge to State waters,
including wetlands. The major Federal pro-
grams subject to §401 certification are: Section
404 and 402 permits (in non-delegated States);
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
hydropower licenses; and Rivers and Harbors
Act Section 9 and 10 permits. States may choose
to waive their §401 certification authority.
States make their decision to deny, cer-
tify or condition permits or licenses primarily
by ensuring mat the activity will comply with
State water quality standards. In addition,
States look at whether the activity will violate
effluent limitations, new source performance
standards, toxk pollutants and other water re-
source requirements of State law or regulation.
EPA Assistance to States
Technical Guidance:
In 1988, the National Wetlands Policy
Forum recommended 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 al-
terations". In response, EPA issued guidance in
1989 to States on applying §401 certification to
protect wetlands. A year later, EPA followed
this up with guidance on developing water qual-
ity standards specifically for wetlands. Wet-
land water quality standards are important be-
cause they are the primary tool used in water
quality certification decisions.
Financial Support:
Nineteen States and one Indian Tribe
have been awarded State Wetlands Grants to
support use of Section 401 Certification to pro-
Does §401 certification add another
layer of bureaucracy or cause delays?
It shouldn't Instead, 401 certification
allows States to tflkg ? more active role in
wetland decisions. In most cases, 401
certification review is conducted at the
same time as the Federal agency review.
Many States have established joint per-
mit processing to ensure this. In addi-
tion, the 401 review allows for better
consideration of State-specific concerns.
tect wetlands. These grantees are: Arizona, Cali-
fornia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Maryland, Mas-
sachusetts, Michigan, Mille Lacs Tribe, Minne-
sota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, Or-
egon, South Carolina; Texas, Utah, Virginia,
West Virginia and Wyoming.
State Progress
Over the past several years, States have
made progress in applying §401 certification to
wetlands. Some States rely on §401 certification
as their primary mechanism to protect wetlands
in the State. In addition, most States denied or
conditioned §401 certification for some §404 na-
tionwide general permits in order to reduce
certain problematic losses in their State. In par-
ticular, many States denied certification of na-
tionwide 26 because they believe that individual
review of projects in isolated and headwater
wetlands is critical to achieving CWA goals in
their State.
EPA has asked States to develop or im-
prove their wetland water quality standards by
the end of September 1993. Wisconsin is using
continued on back
<£& Printed m Recycled Paper
image:
401 Certification and Wetlands.
its new standards in §401 certification decisions
on wetlands. Other States are using their §401
authority to condition some of the more than 300
dams that are coming up for relicensing by FERC
§401 certification allows States to address asso-
ciated chemical, physical and biological impacts
such as: low dissolved oxygen levels, turbidity,
inundation of habitat, stream volumes and fluc-
tuations, filling of habitat, impacts on fish
migration and loss of aquatic species due to
habitat alterations.
Wood Stork
How can water quality standards protect wetlands?
Water quality standards have three
components: designated uses; criteria to pro-
tect those uses; and an antidegradation policy.
States designate uses based on the functions
and values of their wetlands. At a minimum
these uses must meet the CWA goals to pro-
vide for the protection and propagation of
fish, shellfish, and wildlife and for recreation
in and on the water. States may also designate
uses associated with unique functions and
values of wetlands such as floodwater storage
and groundwater recharge.
States adopt criteria to protect those
uses. Criteria can be general narrative state-
ments such as "maintain natural hydrologic
conditions, including hydroperiod, hydrody^
namics, and natural water temperature varia-
tions necessary to support vegetation which
would be present naturally." Criteria may
also include specific numeric values such as a
dissolved oxygen concentration of 5.0 mg/l.
State antidegradation policies include
provisions for full protection of existing uses
(functions), maintenance of water quality of
high quality waters,anda prohibition against
lowering water quality in outstanding re-
source waters. In addition, a State's
antidegradation policy addresses fill activi-
ties in wetlands by ensuring that there is no
significant degradation due to the fill activ-
ity.
Narrative criteria in conjunction
with antidegradation policies, can provide
the basis for addressing hydrologic and
physical impacts to wetlands (not discerned
through numeric criteria) caused by
nonpoint source pollution, storm water dis-
charges, groundwater pumping, filling and
othersourcesof wetland degradation. When
combined with a strong implementation
policy, wetland water quality standards can
provide the basis for such tools as best man-
agement practices, monitoring programs,
and mitigation plans, as well as serve as the
primary basis for §401 certification deci-
sions.
For more information: contact the EPA Wetlands Hotline* at 1-800-832-7828 for copies
oft Wtftayttfff and 401 Certification. 1989; Water Quality Standards for Wetlands, 1990;
Statement of Martha G. Prothro May 1992.
• Contractor operated
&& Printed on Recycled Paper
image:
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water (WH-556F),
Office of Wetlands, Oceans,
and Watersheds (A-104 F)
EPA843-F-93-001y
March 1993
WETLANDS FACT SHEET #25
Wetlands and Runoff
Since wetlands are typically the lowest
points on the landscape, they often receive runoff
from surrounding land. Runoff can be collected,
conveyed or discharged from conduits, pipes,
animal feedlots, waste treatment plants or float-
ing crafts. In addition, precipitation, atmospheric
deposition, seepage, or hydrologic modifications
can result in runoff that moves over and through
the ground picking up natural or anthropogenic
pollutants, which then become deposited directly
into surface or groundwater. In either case, as
runoff move across the land, water picks up and
carries with it pollutants which ultimately end up
in rivers, lakes, groundwater, and wetlands.
they art omtaminated or their :
ihdestuaries,
protected.
wetlands,
Should be
including
[•:PA PKOCRAMS
Clean Wafer Act §402(p)
Section 402(p) requires stormwater permits
for four major classes of stormwater dis-
charges: (1) a discharge with respect to
which a permit has been issued under Sec-
tion 402 before the date of the enactment of
this subsection, (2) a discharge associated
with industrial activity, (3) a discharge from
a municipal separate stormwater sewer
system serving an incorporated or unincor-
porated, urbanized population greater than
100,000, and (4) a discharge that contrib-
utes to a violation of a water quality stan-
dard or is a significant contributor of pol-
lutants to waters of the United States. This
program has issued guidance for prepara-
tion of permit applications for regulated
municipal and industrial stormwater dis-
charges. In addition, it stresses the use of
best management practices (BMPs) to mini-
mize or eliminate the contribution of pol-
lutants to stormwater discharges to waters
of the United States, including wetlands.
Clean Water Act §319
EPA supports a national program to con-
trol nonpoint sources of pollution. EPA
stresses a watershed based approach to
nonpoint source management which can
include protection or restoration of wet-
lands and riparian areas to reduce nonpoint
source pollution. EPA has funded a num-
ber of these projects under Section 319(h).
Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization
Amendments (CZARA) of 1990 §6217
EPA and the National Oceanic and Atmo-
spheric Administration have developed
guidance specifyingmanagementmeasures
for nonpoint source pollution affecting
coastal waters. Included in the guidance
(released January 1993) is a chapter on pro-
tection and restoration of wetlands and
riparian areas, and use of vegetated treat-
ment systems for nonpoint source control.
FOR MORE INFORMATION: call the EPA Wetlands Hotline* at 1-800-832-7828
•contractor operated
<gj) Printed on Recycled Paper
image:
IMPACTS TO WETDUNDS •
off resulted in mortality and deformities of wild-
life populations, particularly fish and migratory
birds.
Untreated runoff from agricultural land,
urban areas, and other sources is a leading cause
of water quality impairment. Siltation, excess
nutrients, changes to water flows such as, more
frequent inundation, and increased turbidity are
responsible for most of the impacts to wetlands
from runoff.
Impacts to wetlands have resulted in con-
sequences such as changed species composition,
increased pollutant loadings (e.g., heavy metals),
and replacing complex wetland systems with less
desired open water. Modifications of wetlands
associated with some stormwater management
practices have resulted in-significant impacts to
wetlands.
Some impacts have been particularly
tragic, such as in Kesterson and Stillwater Wild-
life Refuges, where untreated, contaminated run-
EPA is developing technical information
that landowners can use to protect the many func-
tions of wetlands, including water quality im-
provement. An issue paper highlighting the im-
pacts of stormwater on wetlands entitled, Natural
Wetlands and Urban Stormwater: Potential Impacts
and Management, is available through the EPA
Wetlands Hotline. A guide describing best man-
agement practices to pretreat stormwater runoff
before it enters a natural wetland is also being
developed. Additional materials on wetlands pro-
tection and restoration for nonpoint source ben-
efits will be developed to assist in implementation
of the wetlands and riparian areas chapter in the
CZARA Management Measures Guidance. EPA
will continue to work to address potential oppor-
tunities and conflicts regarding wetlands and pro-
grams addressing runoff.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION;
• For additional information regarding the Section 319 program or the CZARA guidance,
contact the EPA Nonpoint Source Control Branch at (202) 260-7100.
• For additional information about the Section 402 stormwater program, contact the
Stormwater Hotline at (703) 821-4823.
FOR MORE INFORMATION: calUfie'EP A. Wetlands Hotline* at l-800-832r.7828.
'contractor operated
£& Printed on Recycled Paper
image:
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water (WH-556F).
Office of Wetlands, Oceans,
and Watersheds (A-104 F)
EPA843-F-93-001 z
March 1993
WETLANDS FACT SHEET #26
Wetlands and Watersheds
Water resource protection measures
need to be better coordinated to reflect the inter-
connected natureof water resources and to make
current efforts more efficient and more effec-
tive. Wetlands and traditional surface and
ground water quality protection programs
should be integrated with each other as well as
with other resource management programs, such
as flood control, water supply, protection of fish
and wildlife, recreation, control of stormwater,
and nonpoint source pollution.
Background
The quality of the waters of the United
States, including wetlands and other aquatic
resources, is related to the quality of the envi-
ronment adjacent to these waters. Current pro-
grams have historically been organized around
separate goals. Given that the larger point
A watershed, also called a drainage
basin, is the area in which all water,
sediments, and dissolved materials flow
or drain from the land into a common
river, lake, ocean or other body of water
sources of water pollution are now identified
and controlled to some degree, remaining wa-
ter quality problems require an approach which
addresses the interconnections between water
resources and the land, air, and water environ-
ment surrounding the resources. A watershed
based approach to water and wetlands protec-
tion considers the whole system, including other
resource management programs addressing
land, air, and water, to successfully manage
problems or solutions for a given aquatic re-
source. It should be noted that a watershed
encompasses not only the water resource, but
also the surrounding land from which the water
drains. This can be an area as large as the
Mississippi River drainage basin, or as small as
a backyard.
Current Activities
EPA's Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and
Watersheds (OWOW) is actively pursuing a Wa-
tershed Protection Approach within the Office
of Water and with other Federal agencies. One
of OWOW's activities was to convene a national
conference in March, 1993, bringing watershed
management experts from across the nation to-
gether to discuss methods and directions for
watershed approaches. OWOW's Wetlands Di-
vision incorporates a watershed approach in
much of its work with other agencies, States, and
organizations. Current activities include inte-
grating a watershed approach into Federal flood-
plain management activities, funding State wa-
tershed projects through State Wetland Protec-
tion Grants and Nonpoint Source Grants, and
supporting a series of national and regional
meetings on wetlands and regional watershed
planning.
PROTECTION
• An Integrated, Holistic Approach •
For more information, contact the EPA Wetlands Hotline at 1-800-832-7828 *
* contractor operated
image:
United StatM
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water (WH-556F).
Office of Wetlands, Oceans,
and Watersheds (A-104 F)
EPA843-F-93-001aa
March 1993
wEPA WETLANDS FACT SHEET #27
What is a State Wetland
Conservation Plan?
A new tool that States are using to pro-
tect wetlands is the State Wetland Conservation
Plan (SWCP). A State Wetland Conservation
Plan is not meant to create a new level of bureau-
cracy. Instead, it improves government and
private sector effectiveness and efficiency by
identifying gaps in wetland protection programs
and finding opportunities to make wetlands
programs workmen better.
SWCP's are strategies for States to
achieve no net loss and other wetland
management goats by integrating both
regulatory and cooperative approaches
to protecting wetlands.
Advantages
A large number of land and water-based
activities impact wetlands. These activities are
not addressed by any single Federal, State or
local agency program. While many public and
private programs and activities protect wet-
lands, these programs are often limited in scope
and not well coordinated. Neither do these
programs address all of the problems affecting
wetlands.
States are well positioned between Fed-
eral and local government to take the lead in
integrating and expanding wetland protection
and management programs. They are experi-
enced in managing Federally mandated envi-
ronmental programs under the Clean Water Act
and the Coastal Zone Management Act. They
are uniquely equipped to help resolve local and
regional conflicts and identify the local eco-
nomic and geographic factors that may influ-
ence wetlands protection.
What arp Static
VVIiai are States
Currently, nineteen States are at various
stages of developing an SWCP and have re-
ceived financial assistance from EPA.
• Michigan's SWCP will focus primarily on
non-regulatory aspects of wetlands manage-
ment to complement their regulatory programs.
Initiatives will be developed for wetland water
quality, reclamation of valuable wetland func-
tions, coordination of existing wetland protec-
tion and management efforts, and wetland edu-
cation and outreach.
• California plans through its SWCP to inven-
tory its wetlands, identify crucial wetlands, de-
velop a statewide strategy to plan wetlands
protection and restoration, and take a crucial
role in overall wetland regulation.
• New York will work towards a "no net loss/
net gain" goal under its SWCP. Because one
purpose of an SWCP is to integrate wetlands
protection into other programs, wetland issues
and references to the SWCP have been inte-
grated into several State programs.
Other States working on SWCFs include: MO,
TN, DE, N], ND, OH, OK, OR, TX, AL, AR, IL,
MT,NE,VT,WA,
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
• Seethe Statewide Wetlands Strategies guidebook, which te available from Island Press
(1-800-828-1302).
• Call the EPA Wetlands Hotline* at 1-800-832-7828.
• Askfor copies of theSWCP brochure "Why Develop a State Wettand Conservation Plan?"
from the hotline*.
image:
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water (WH-556F),
Office of Wetlands, Oceans.
and Watersheds (A-104 F)
EPA843-F-93-001bb
March 1993
&EPA WETLANDS FACT SHEET #28
Advance Identification (ADID)
Advance Identification of disposal areas
(ADID) is an advance planning process under
which EPA, in cooperation with the Corps of
Engineers and after consultation with the State,
may identify wetlands and other
waters which are either gener-
ally suitable or unsuitable for
the discharge of dredged and
fill material prior to the receipt
of a Section 404 permit applica-
tion. The ADID process gener-
ally involves collection and dis-
tribution of information on the
values and functions of wetland
areas. This information pro-
vides the local community with
information on the values of
wetland areas that may be af-
fected by their activities as well
as a preliminary indication of
factors which are likely to be
considered during review of a
Section 404 permit application.
lixperience shows that
local cooperation and sup-
port are vital to the suc-
cess of the ADID project.
Recently, ADID's have
been initiated by local en-
tities in order to facilitate
local planning efforts.
While an ADID study generally classifies
wetland areas as suitable or unsuitable for the
discharge of dredged or fill material, the classifi-
cation does not constitute either a permit ap-
proval or denial and should
be used only as a guide by
landowners and project pro-
ponents in the planning of fu-
ture activities. The nature of
the classification is strictly ad-
visory.
The ADID process is in-
tended to add predictability to
the wetlands permitting pro-
cess as well as better account
for the impacts of losses from
multiple projects within a geo-
graphic area. The process also
serves to inform the local popu-
lation of the values and func-
tions of wetlands in their area,
and it generates environmental
information valuable for other
purposes.
These efforts have proven
to be the most successful
iv.iy for generating sup-
port for wetlands protec-
Because they are usu-
• ally based on watershed
planning, ADIDef tofts j re
extremely compatible
with geographic and eco-
system initiatives such as
H'A's Watershed Protec-
tion Approach.
As of December 1992, there
were 35 completed ADID
projects, and 36 are ongoing.
ADID projects have ranged in
size from less than 100 acres to
greater that 4,000 square miles,
and are located from Alaska to
Florida. Advance Identifica-
tion projects can be resource
intensive activities, although
some have been completed in
as little as 6 months. Regional
experience seems to indicate
that the smaller or more local
the ADID project boundaries,
the more complete and effec-
tive the ADID analysis and re-
sults. EPA has seen an in-
crease in interest in ADID, and
expects more States, localities,
and private organizations to
become involved in providing
funds and otherwise support-
ing ADID or other comprehen-
sive planning efforts.
M-ehensive plan, and
land use law*
FOR MORE INFORMATION: call the EPA Wetlands Hotline* at 1-800-832-7828
'contractor operated
t Printed on Recycled Paper
image:
Status of EPA Wetlands Advance Identification Projects - February 1993
SIZE(sq.ml.)
- <100
«100-1,000
- > 1,000
STATUS
• Ongoing
- Complete
U.S. EPA, Office of Water, OWOW, Wetlands Division
image:
United StatM
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water (WH-556F).
Office of Wetlands, Oceans.
and Watersheds (A-104 F)
EPA843-F-93-001 cc
March 1993
CRA WETLANDS FACT SHEET #29
EPA's Outreach Efforts
EPA's Wetlands Division marshals
a variety of tools to protect wetlands effec-
tively. One of the primary tools is outreach,
including fostering public and private part-
nerships, providing technical assistance, and
educating the public. The Wetlands Divi-
sion and EPA's Regional Offices are actively
involved in outreach initiatives that include:
• creating partnerships with the agricul-
tural community, private landowners,
State and local governments, and other
Federal agencies;
• educating the public, children, and
adults; and
• providing technical assistance to State
and local governments as well as pri-
vate, and non-profit organizations.
BACKGROUND
In order to increase long-term wet-
lands conservation and management, it is
necessary to enhance public understanding
of the value of wetlands as well as support
innovative programs that encourage pri-
vate, State and local actions to conserve
wetlands.
OUTREACH INITIATIVES
• EPA Wetlands Protection Hotline:
(1-800-832-7828): A toll free telephone ser-
vice, operated by a contrac-
tor to EPA, that is respon-
sive to public interest, ques-
tions, and requests for in-
formation about wetlands.
In its first year of operation (March 1991-
February 1992), the Hotline received and
responded to over 14,100 calls, an average of
more than 1,100 per month.
•American Wetlands Month—Across the
country each May, Federal agencies, State
and local governments, and private and
non-profit organizations come together vol-
untarily to increase public awareness of the
values and productivity of wetlands, en-
courage people to enjoy these resources,
and to protect, recognize, enhance, com-
memorate, and restore our Nation's wet-
lands.
•Audubon's America: A program to pro-
tect, conserve, restore, en-
hance and interpret the
natural and cultural re-
source values of the land
and water areas in the 35
States where John James Audubon lived,
traveled, wrote, painted, and observed. This
will be accomplished by recognizing and
establishing a system of connected public
and privately owned natural areas in the
mid-western and eastern United States.
•Sponsorship of Workshops and Confer-
ences: EPA sponsors a vari-
ety of forums encouraging in-
formed discussion on wet-
lands issues including State
programs, wetlands and wa-
tershed management, categorization, miti-
gation, altered wetlands, and education.
• Available Publications: Private
Landowner's Wetlands Assistance Guide;
Agriculture and Wetlands: a Compilation
of Factsheets; Beyond the Es-
tuary: ThelmportanceofUp-
EPA \ stream Wetlands in Estuarine
Processes; and America's
Wetlands: Our Vital Link Be-
tween Land and Water.
For more information,, contact the EPA Wetlands Hotline at 1-800-832-7828 *
•contractor operated
image:
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water (WH-556F),
Office of Wetlands, Oceans,
and Watersheds (A-104 F)
EPA843-F-93-001dd
March 1993
WETLANDS FACT SHEET #30
Partnerships with Landowners
All ethics so far evolved rest upon a single premise: that the
individual is a member of a community of interdependent parts. His
instincts prompt him to compete for his place in the communityf but his
ethics prompt him also to co-operate (perhaps in order that there may
be a place to compete for). The land ethic simply enlarges the bound-
aries of the community to include soils, waters, plants, animals, or
collectively, the land.
- Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac
There is a real and increasingly popular
opportunity to strengthen wetlands protection
by fostering innovative public/private partner-
snips and promoting landowner participation
in voluntary wetlands stewardship programs.
These programs address individual and
community economic and quality of life issues.
Wetlands conservation has positive, long term
impacts on the environment commerce, and
quality of life. In contrast, continued wetland
loss has negative impacts on water quality,
biodiversity, the economy, and human health
and safety.
Ownership of Wetlands in US
25%
75%
USFW&MM
Approximately 75% of the remaining
wetlands in the lower 48 States are privately
owned. Recently, much of the national focus on nate programs that assist private landowners in
wetlands protection has been on regulatory pro- conserving and managing wetlands nationwide.
grams. However, regulatory programs only
provide partial protection. In contrast, there are
numerous voluntary programs in the public
and private sector that provide educational,
technical, and financial assistance to private
landowners.
Private landowner assistance and part-
nership programs among government, non-
profit and private interest groups are areas of
growing national interest. The potential for
voluntary programs to protect wetland resources
is being recognized by Federal, State, and local
governments. EPA has actively promoted land-
owner assistance and partnership programs
through activities such as American Wetlands
Month, Audubon's America, the EPA Wetlands
Hotline*, and a multiagency pilot project pro-
moting voluntary wetlands programs in the
State of Maryland.
Other States and regions have indicated
a strong interest in initiating a program similar
to the Maryland program, including EPA Re
gion VI, and the States of Arizona and Oregon.
EPA is also participating in the initiation of an
interagency wetlands marketing initiative by
the USD A Soil Conservation Service. EPA is
developing a strategy to publicize and coordi-
FOR MORE INFORMATION: • Private Landowner's Wetlands Assistance Guide: Volun-
tary Options for Wetlands Stewardship in Maryland available from the EPA Wetlands
Hotline* at 1-800-832-7828
antnctoropcnttd
image:
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water (WH-556F),
Office of Wetlands, Oceans.
and Watersheds (A-104 F)
EPA843-F-93-OOlee
March 1993
&EPA WETLANDS FACT SHEET #31
Environmental Protection Agency:
Directory
OFFICE OF WATER • OFFICE OF WETLANDS, OCEANS, AND WATERSHEDS
Robert Wayland, III, Director
David Davis, Deputy Director
Tel: (202) 260-7166
Fax: (202) 260-6294
U.S. EPA
WETLANDS DIVISION (A-104F)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
John Meagher, Director
Suzanne Schwartz, Deputy Director
Tel: (202)260-7791
Fax: (202) 260-2356
WETLANDS AND AQUATIC
RESOURCES REGULATORY BRANCH
Tel: (202) 260-1799
Fax: (202)260-7546
Gregory Peck, Chief
Enforcement and Regulatory Policy
Section
Cliff Rader, Chief
Elevated Cases Section
Will Garvey, Chief
WETLANDS STRATEGIES AND STATE
PROGRAMS BRANCH
Tel: (202)260-9043
Fax: (202) 260-8000
Glenn Eugster, Chief
Outreach and State Programs Section
Jeanne Melanson, Chief
Wetlands Strategies and Initiatives
Section
Dianne Fish, Chief
REGIONAL WETLANDS CONTACTS
Region I: CT, MA, ME MH, RI, VT
Douglas Thompson, Chief
Wetlands Protection Section (WWP-1900)
US. EPA-Region I
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203-1911
Tel: (617) 565-4421
Fax: (617) 565-4940
Region It NJ, NY, PR, VI
Daniel Montella, Chief
Wetlands Section (2WM-MWP)
US. EPA-Region II
26 Federal Plaza, Room 837
New York, NY 10278
Tel: (212)264-5170
Fax: (212)264-4690
Region lit DE, MD, PA, VA. WV
Barbara D'Angeto, Chief
Wetlands Protection Section
(3ES42)
US. EPA-Region in
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Tel: (215) 597-9301
Fax (215) 597-1850
Regton IV: AU FL, CA, KY, MS, NC, SC,
TN
Tom Wdborn, Chief
Wetland* Regulatory Section
US. EPA-Region IV
345 Courtland Street N.E
Atlanta. GA 30365
Tel: (404) 347-4015
Fax: (404) 347-3269
Region V: IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI
Douglas Ehorn, Chief
Wetlands and Watersheds Section
(WQW-16J)
US. EPA-Region V
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604
Tel: (312)88641243
Fax: (312)886-7804
Region VI: AR, LA, MM, OK, TX
Beverly Ethridge, Chief
Wetlands Protection Section (6E-FT)
US. EPA-Region VI
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 900
Dallas, TX 75202
Tel: (214)655-2263
Fax: 014)655-7446
Region VII: IA, KS, MO, ME
Diane Henhberger, Chief
Wetlands Protection Section (ENRV)
US. EPA-Region VII
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
Tel: (913) 551-7573
Fax: (913) 551-
Region VIII: CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY
Gene Reetz, Chief
Wetlands Protection Section (8WM-WQ)
US. EPA-Region VIII
99918th Street
500 Denver Place
Denver, CO 80202-2405
Tel: (303)293-1570
Fax: (303)391-6957
Region IX AZ, CA, HI, NV, Pacific Islands
Philip Qshida, Chief
Wetlands and Coastal Planning Section
<W<7-4)
US. EPA-Region IX
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Tel: (415) 744-1971
Fax: (415) 744-1078
Region X: AK.ID,OR,WA
William Riley, Chief
Wetlands Section (WD-128)
US. EPA-Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Tel: (206)553-1412
Fax: 006)553-1775
FOR MORE INFORMATION: call the EPA Wetlands Hotline* at 1-800-832-7828
contractor opcntai
<gj> Printed on Recycled Paper
image:
EPA REGIONAL OFFICES
Region*
4 — Alabama 1
10 — Alaska 3
9 — Arizona 1
6 — Arkansas 5
9 - California 5
8 — Colorado 4
1 — Connecticut 7
3 — Delaware 8
3 - D.C. 7
4 — Florida 9
4 — Georgia 1
9 — Hawaii 2
10 — Idaho 6
5 — Illinois 2
5 — Indiana 4
7 — Iowa 8
7 — Kansas 5
4 — Kentucky 6
6 — Louisiana 10
Regions
Maine 3
Maryland 1
Massachusetts 4
Michigan 8
Minnesota 4
Mississippi 6
Missouri 8
Montana 1
Nebraska 3
Nevada 10
New Hampshire 3
New Jersey 5
New Mexico 8
New York 9
North Carolina 9
North Dakota 2
Ohio 2
Oklahoma
Oregon
Regions
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
image:
United Statee
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water (WH-556F).
Office of Wetlands, Ocaana,
andWatarehada(A-104F)
EPA843-F-93-001tf
March 1993
wEPA WETLANDS FACT SHEET #32
Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Program Directory
Michael L Davis
Assistant for Regulatory Affairs
Office of the Assistant Sec. of Army
(CW)
Room 2E569 The Pentagon
Washington, D.C 20310-0108
Tel: (703)695-1376
Fax: (703)697-3366
John F. Studt
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Branch (CECW-OR)
20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20314-1000
Tel: (202)272-0199
Fax (202)504-5069
LOWER MISSISSIPPI VALLEY
DIVISION
Leo Max Reed
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Lower Mississippi Valley Division
(CELMV-CO-R)
P.O. Box 80
Vicksburg, MS 39180-0080
(601)634-5818
Memphis District
Larry D. Watson
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Memphis District (CELMM-COR)
B-202 Clifford Davis Federal
Building
Memphis, TN 38103-1894
(901)544-3471
New Orleans
Ronald J.Ventola
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
New Orleans District (CELMN-OD-
R)
P.O. Box 60267
New Orleans, LA 70160-0267
(504)862-2270
St. Louis District
Michael Brazier
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
St. Louis District (CELMS-OD-R)
1222 Spruce Street
St. Louis, MO 63103-2833
(314)331-8575
Vicksburg District
E. Guynes
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Vicksburg District (CELMK-OD-F)
35151-20 Frontage Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-5191
(601)631-5276
MISSOURI RIVER DIVISION
Mores V. Bergman
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Missouri River Division (CEMRD-
CO-R)
P.O. Box 103, Downtown Station
Omaha, ME 68101-0103
(402)221-7290
Kansas City District
Meljewett
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Kansas City District (CEMRK-OD-R)
700 Federal Building
Kansas City, MO 64106-2896
(816)426-3645
Omaha District
John Morton
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Omaha District (CEMRO-OP-N)
215 North 17th Street
Omaha, NE 68102-4978
(402) 221-4133
NEW ENGLAND DIVISION
William R. Lawless
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
New England Division (CNEED-
OD-P)
424 Trapelo Road
Waltham,MA 02254-9149
(617)647-8057
NORTH ATLANTIC DIVISION
Lenny Kotkiewkz
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
North Atlantic Division (CENAD-
CO-OP)
90 Church Street
New York, NY 10007-9998
(212)264-7535
Baltimore District
Donald W. Roeseke
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Baltimore District (CENAB-OP-PN)
P.O. Box 1715
Baltimore, MD 31203-1715
(301)962-3670
New York District
Joseph Seebode
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
New York District (CENAN-PL-E)
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278-0090
(212) 264-3996
Norfolk District
William H.Poore, Jr.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Norfolk District (CENAO-OP-N)
803 Front Street
Norfolk, VA 23510-1096
(804)441-7068
continued-.
& Printed on Recycled Paper
image:
USAnflyCon*
Directory Continued
Philadelphia District
Frank Canfnni
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Philadelphia District (CENAP-OP-
N)
Wanamaker Building
100 Perm Square East
Philadelphia, PA 19107-3390
(215) 656-6725
NORTH CENTRAL DIVISION
Mitchell A. Isoe
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
North Central Division (CENCD-
CO-MO)
536 S. Clark Street
Chicago, IL 60605-1592
(312) 353-6379
Buffalo District
Paul G. Leuchner
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Buffalo District
1776 Niagara Street
Buffalo, NY 14207-3199
(716)879-4313
Chicago District
Jim Evans
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Chicago District (CENCC-CO)
219 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604-1797
(312)353-6428
Detroit District
Gary R, Mannesto
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Detroit District (CENCE-CO-OR)
P.O. Box 1027
Detroit, MI 48231-1027
(313) 226-2432
Rock Island District
Steven J. Vander Horn
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Rock Island District (CENCR-OD-R)
P.O. Box 2004
Clock Tower Building
Rock Island, IL 61204-2004
(309)788-6361
St. Paul District
BenWopat
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
St. Paul District (CENCS-SO-PO)
1421 USPO & Custom House
180 East Kellog Boulevard
St. Paul MN 55101-1479
(612)220-0375
NORTH PACIFIC DIVISION
John Zammit
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
North Pacific Division (CENPD-CO-
R)
P.O. Box 2870
Portland, OR 97208-2870
(503)326-3780
Alaska District
Robert ICOja
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Alaska District (CENPA-CO-NF)
P.O. Box 898
Anchorage, AK 99506-0898
(907) 753-2712
Portland District
Burt Paynter
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Portland District (CENPP-OP-PN)
P.O. Box 2946
Portland, OR 97208-2946
(503)326-6995
Seattle District
Tom Mueller
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Seattle District (CENPS-OP-PO)
P.O.BoxC-3755
Seattle, WA 98124-2255
(206) 764-3495
Walla Walla District
Dean Milliard
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Walla Walla District (CENPW-OP-
RM)
City-County Airport
Walla Walla, WA 99362-9265
(509) 522-6720 or (509) 522-6724
OHIO RIVER DIVISION
Roger D. Graham
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Ohio River Division (CEORD-CO-
OR)
P.O. Box 1159
Cincinnati OH 45201-1159
(513)684-3972
Huntington District
MikeGheen
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Huntington District (CEORH-OR-R)
502 8th Street
Huntington, WV 25701-2070
(304)529-5487
Louisville District
Don Purvis
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(CEORH-OR-R)
P.O. Box 59
Louisville, KY 40201-0059
(502)582-6461
Nashville District
Joseph R. Castleman
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Nashville District (CEORN-OR-R)
P.O. Box 1070
Nashville,TN 37202-1070
(615)736-5181
Pittsburgh District
E. Raymond Beringer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Pittsburgh District (CEORP-OR-R)
1000 Liberty Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15222-4186
(412)644-6872
PACIFIC OCEAN DIVISION
Mike Lee
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Pacific Ocean Division (CEPOD-CO-
O)
Building 230
Fort Shatter, HI 96858-5440
(808)4384258
continued-.
' Printed m Recycled Paper
image:
US Army Corp*
Directory Continued
SOUTH ATLANTIC DIVISION
James M. Kelly
U.S. Army Corp« of Engineers
South Atlantic Division (CESAD-
CO-R)
Room 313
77 Forsythe Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30335-6801
(404)331-2778
Charleston District
Clarence H. Ham
U.S. Army Corp* of Engineers
Charleston District (CESAC-CO-M)
P.O. Box 919
Charleston, SC 29402-0919
(803) 724-4330
Jacksonville District
John Hall
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Jacksonville District (CESAJ-CO-OR)
P.O. Box 4970
400 West Ray Street
Jacksonville, FL 32232-0019
(904) 791-1666
Mobile District
RonKrizman
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Mobile District (CESAM-OP-R)
109 St. Josevph Street
P.O. Box 2288
Mobile, AL 36628-0001
(205)690-2658
Savannah District
NlckOgden
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Savannah District (CESAS-OP-R)
P.O. Box 889
Savannah, GA 31402-0889
(912)944-5347
Wilmington District
G.Wayne Wright
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District (CESAW-CO-R)
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
(919) 251-4629
SOUTH PACIFIC DIVISION
Theodore E. Durst
U.S Army Corps of Engineers
S. Pacific Division (CESPD-CO-O)
630 Sansome Street, Room 1216
San Francisco, CA 94111-2206
(415) 705-1443
Los Angeles District
John Gill
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Los Angeles District (CESPL-CO-O)
P.O. Box 2711
Los Angeles, CA 90053-2325
(213) 894-5606
Sacramento District
Art Champ
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Sacramento District (CESPK-CO-O)
650 Capitol Mall
Sacramento, CA 95814-4794
(916) 551-2275
San Francisco District
Calvin C. Fong
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
San Francisco District
(CESPN-CO-O)
211 Main Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-1905
(415) 744-3036
SOUTHWESTERN DIVISION
KenWaldie ~~ -*-
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Southwestern Division (CESWD-
CO-R)
1114 Commerce Street
Dallas, TX 75242-0216
(214) 767-2432 or (214) 767-2436
Albuquerque District
Andrew J. Rosenau
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Albuquerque District (CESWA-CO-
O)
P.O. Box 1580
Albuquerque, NM 87103-1508
(505) 766-2776
Fort Worth District
Wayne A. Lea
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Fort Worth District (CESWF-OD-M)
P.O. Box 17300
Fort Worth, TX 76102-0300
(817) 334-2681
Galveston District
CurtBatey
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Galveston District (CESWG-CO-MO)
P.O. Box 1229
Galveston, TX 77553-1229
(409) 766-3930
Little Rock District
Louie C. Cockmon, Jr.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Little Rock District (CESWL-CO-L)
P.O. Box 867
Little Rock, AR 72203-0867
(501) 324-52%
Tulsa District
Dave Manning
U.S Army Corps of Engineers
Tulsa District (CESWT-OD-R)
P.O. Box 61
Tuba, OK 74121-0061
(918)581-7261
WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT
STATION
Russell F. Theriot, Manager
Wetlands Research Program
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Waterways Experiment Station
Environmental Laboratory
(CEWES-EL-W)
3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vkksburg, MS 39180-6199
(601) 634-2733
(601) 634-3528 (fax)
<£& Printed on Recycled Paper
image:
Civil Works
Division/District Boundaries
NORTH PACIFIC
NORTH CENTRAL
WISCONSIN
PAUL
NORTH PACIFIC
MISSOURI RIVER
>'SOUTH PACIFIC
rt«AS
SOUTHWESTERN
NEW ORLEANS SOUTH ATLANTIC
VESTON ^^
LOWER
MISSISSIPPI VALLEY
ENGLAND
WA1THAM
NEW YORK
NORTH
ATLANTIC
WILMMGTON
CHARLESTON
HAWAII
PACIFIC OCEAN
• DIVISION AND DISTRICT HEADQUARTERS
• DIVISION HEADQUARTERS
A DISTRICT HEADQUARTERS
— STATE BOUNDARIES
-- DISTRICT BOUNDARIES
— DIVISION BOUNDARIES
'-•' SOUTH ATLANTIC
PUI MTO neo »na
VMOIN ISLANDS
image:
