State Water Resources Control Board

State Water ResourcesControl Board
Executive Office
Winston H. Hickox
10011Street,2s* Floor, Sacramento,California 95814
P.O. Box 100,Sacramento,California 95812-0100
(916) 341-5615 . FAX
(916) 341-5621
_.~.C8.-
Secretary lor
EnvirollmenlaJ
Gray Davis
GoIIenrJr
.
Protection
The energy cllDl/enge facing CDlifornia Is rml. E~
Californian IIeed.f to take immediate action to redIIce enNgy conSIIJIIptlon.
Fora list of.rilnP/e ltVpyml CDIIredllcedemand and cut your eIID'gy costs, see our weblite at ~.swrcb.CG.gov.
MR 1 3 2003
Water Docket Staff
WaterDocket Mail Code4101T
U.S. EnvironmentalProtectionAgency
1200PennsylvaniaAvenueNW
Washington,DC 20460
Attn:
Docket
m
No.
OW -2002-0050
Dear Staft":
COMMENT ON ADVANCED NonCE OF PROPOSEDRULEMAKING ON DEFINITION
OF "WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES"
Thank you for the opportunityto commenton the January1O,2003..AdvanceNotice of
ProposedRulemakingOn Definition Of 'Waters Of The United States'" (ANPRM). The
ANPRM respondsto the 2001U.S. SupremeCourt decisionin Solid WasteAgencyof Northern
Cook Countyv. US. Army Corpsof Engineers(SWANCC) andrequestscommenton (1) whether
commerceclausefactorscurrently listed in federalregulationshouldcontinueasa basisfor
CleanWaterAct (CWA) jurisdiction and (2) whetherfederalregulationsshoulddefine "isolated
waters,"and if so how. In answeringthesequestionsthe ANPRM suggeststhat the public
provide information on projectedenvironmentalimpacts,functionsandvaluesof watersthat
may be affected,projectedimpa;ctson commerce,otherregulatorychangeswhich shouldbe
made,the availability of stateprogralnsto protect affectedwaters,and the effect on TMDLs. As
notedin our February1O,2003 requestfor an extensionof the commentperiod for the ANPRM,
the inter-relatednatureof the abovequestionsprecludesa comprehensiveresponsewithin the
time available.
The SWANCC decisionthrew uncertaintyover the useof the commerceclauseto determine
CWA jurisdiction over a poorly definedset of ,'isolated"waters. In clarifying this issuewe
believe it is legally andscientifically essentialto refer to the overarchingObjectiveof the CWA:
., . . . to restoreandmaintainthe chemical,physical, andbiological integrity of the Nation's
waters." We respondto the two specificquestionsposedin the ANPRM from this perspective
andbroadly indicatehow the proposedredefinition of "watersof the United States"could affect
California's waters,economy,andwater quality programs.
Our commentsare enclosed.In summary,we recommendfor legal, technical,economic,and
programmaticreasonsthat the federalagenciesmaintainjurisdiction over the broadestscopeof
watersconsistentwith the SWANCC decision. We further recommendthat any reductionin
California Environmental ProtectionAgency
0
R~led Paper
-2-
Water Docket Staff
federalauthoritiesbe phasedin over a numberof yearsand that the federalgovernmentprovide
substantialfunding andtechnicalassistanceto the statesto assistin the transition. We believe
that failure to do so will result in significant lossesto the quantity andquality of watersof the
Stateandwatersof the United States,with significantattendantecologicand economicintra- and
interstaterepercussions.
SecretaryHickox of the California EnvironmentalProtectionAgency and SecretaryNichols of
the ResourcesAgency have askedus to conveythat they concurin the substanceof our
comments.It is alsomy understandingthat you will be receiving a separateletter from Secretary
Hickox and SecretaryNichols.
Shouldyou have any questions,this issueis underthe direction of StanMartinson,Chief of the
Division of Water Quality, who canbe reachedat (916) 341-5458or [email protected].
You
may alsocontactOscarBalaguer,Chief of the Water Quality Certification Unit, who canbe
reachedat [email protected].
cc: ColonelMichael I. Cenar~ Ir.
Mr. Winston H. Hickox
Agency Secretary
California Environmental
ProtectionAgency
1001I Street
Sacramento,CA 95814
SacramentoDistrict
U.S. Anny Corpsof Engineers
1325I Street
Sacramento,CA 95814-2922
Colonel Michael McCormick
SanFranciscoDistrict
U.S. Anny Corpsof Engineers
333 Market Street
SanFrancisco,CA 94105-2197
Ms. Mary Nichols, Secretary
ResourcesAgency
1416Ninth Street,13thFloor
Sacramento,CA 95814
Mr. WayneNastri
RegionalAdministrator
U.S. EnvironmentalProtection
Agency,Region 9
75 HawthorneStreet
SanFrancisco,CA 94105
ColonelRichardG. Thompson
Los AngelesDistrict
U.S. Anny Corpsof Engineers
911 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles,CA 90053-2325
cc: Continuednext page
California Environmental Protection Agency
~
0
R«)/dedp.-.
WaterDocket Staff
-3-
cc: (Continued)
MAR132003
Mr. Loren Harlow
AssistantExecutiveOfficer
CentralValley RegionalWater Quality
Control Board,FresnoOffice
1685E Street
Fresno,CA 93706-2020
Ms. CatherineKuhlman
Acting Director (WTR-1)
WaterDivision
U.S. EnvironmentalProtection
Agency,Region 9
75 HawthorneStreet
SanFrancisco,CA 94105
Ms. SusanWarner,ExecutiveOfficer
North CoastRegionalWater
Quality Control Board
5550 SkylaneBoulevard,SuiteA
SantaRosa,CA 95403
Ms. LorettaBarsamian
ExecutiveOfficer
SanFranciscoBay RegionalWater
Quality Control Board
1515Clay Street,Suite 1400
Oakland,CA 94612
Mr. JamesPedri
AssistantExecutiveOfficer
CentralValley RegionalWater Quality
Control Board,ReddingOffice
415 Knollcrest Drive
Redding,CA 96002
Mr. Harold J. Singer,ExecutiveOfficer
LahontanRegionalWater Quality
Control Board
2501 Lake TahoeBoulevard
SouthLake Tahoe,CA 96150
Mr. Hisam Baqai, SupervisingEngineer
LahontanRegionalWater Quality
Control Board,Victorville Office
15428Civic Drive, Suite 100
Victorville, CA 92392-2359
Mr. RogerBriggs, ExecutiveOfficer
CentralCoastRegionalWater
Quality Control Board
895 AerovistaPlace,Suite 101
SanLuis Obispo,CA 93401
Mr. Phillip Gruenberg
ExecutiveOfficer
ColoradoRiver BasinRegionalWater
Quality Control Board
73-720Fred Waring Drive, Suite 100
PalmDesert,CA 92260
Mr. DennisDickerson
ExecutiveOfficer
Los AngelesRegionalWater Quality
Control Board
320 West 4th Street,Suite200
Los Angeles,CA 90013
Mr. ThomasR. Pinkos
ExecutiveOfficer
CentralValley RegionalWater Quality
Control Board
3443Routier Road,SuiteA
Sacramento,CA 95827-3098
Mr. GerardThibeault,ExecutiveOfficer
SantaAna RegionalWater Quality
Control Board
3737Main Street,Suite 500
Riverside,CA 92501-3339
Mr. JohnRobertus,ExecutiveOfficer
SanDiego RegionalWater Quality
Control Board
9174 Sky Park Court
SanDiego, CA 92124-1331
California Environmental ProtectionAgency
0
Recyclewi
Paper
bc
(electronic)
USCOERegulatoryBranch Chiefs
Tim Vendlinsky,U.S. EPA
Maria Rea,U.S. EPA
401 RB Liaisons
MargaretKim, ResourcesAgency
Chris Potter,ResourcesAgency
Mike Levy, OCC
DebbieMatulis, OCC
MJLevy/sehosmann for jlbashaw
3/13/033
i:\bashj\2-mjl\us waters comment Itr.doc
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
StateWater ResourcesControl Board
COMMENT ON ADVANCED NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON
DEFINITION OF "WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES"
March 12, 2003
The U.S. EnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA) andthe U.S. Army Corpsof Engineers
(Corps)havepromulgateda January10, 2003 "AdvanceNotice of ProposedRulemakingOn
Definition Of 'WatersOf The United States'"(ANPRM). The ANPRM respondsto the 2001
U.S. SupremeCourt decisionin Solid WasteAgencyo/Northern Cook Countyv. U.S.Army
Corps of Engineers(SWANCC) andrequestscommenton (1) whethercommerceclausefactors
currently listed in federalregulationshouldcontinueas a basisfor CleanWaterAct (CWA)
jurisdiction and (2) whetherfederalregulationsshoulddefine "isolatedwaters,"andif so how.
In answeringthesequestionsthe ANPR suggeststhat the public provide informationon
projectedenvironmentalimpacts,functions,andvaluesof watersthat may be affected,projected
impactson commerce,other regulatorychangeswhich shouldbe made,the availability of state
programsto protectaffectedwaters,andthe effect on TMDu.
The SWANCC decisionthrew uncertaintyover the useof the commerceclauseto detennine
CWA jurisdiction over a poorly definedsetof "isolated" waters. In clarifying this issuewe
believe it is legally and scientifically essentialto refer to the overarcbingObjectiveof the CWA
", , ,"
to restoreandmaintainthechemical,physical,andbiologicalintegrityof theNation's
waters",i We respondto the two specificquestionsposedin the ANPRM from this perspective
andbroadly indicatehow the proposedredefinition of "watersof the United States"could affect
California's waters,economy,andwater quality programs.
POTENnALLY AFFECfEDCALIFORNIA
WATERS
We expectthat California's waterscould be heavily affectedby the proposedredefinition of
jurisdictional waters. California's climate andhydrologic regimesrangefrom coastalrain forest
to inland desert. Many partsof the Stateare arid or semi-arid,andmountainrangescovermuch
-1-
PROPOSED DEFINITION OF "ISOLATED" WATERS" AND COMMERCE CLAUSE
BASES FOR JURISDICTION UNDER THE CW A
1. IsolatedWaters
In the SWANCC decisionthe SupremeCourt notedthat in UnitedStatesv. RiversideBayview
Homes,Inc. (1985) 474 U.S. 121,106 S.Ct. 455, it "recognizedthat Congressintendedthe
phrase'navigablewaters' to include 'at leastsomewatersthat would not be deemed
'navigable' underthe classicalunderstandingof that tenn.'" (531 U.S. 159,171.:
"We found that Congress'concernfor the protectionof water quality and aquatic
ecosystemsindicatedits intent to regulatewetlandsinseparablyboundup with the
waters' of the United States. It was the significant nexusbetweenthe wetlandsand
'navigablewaters' that infonned our readingof the CWA in RiversideBayview
Homes." (SWANCC,531 U.S. at 167(internal quotesand citationsomitted).)
According to the SupremeCourt, the extentto which non-navigablewatersarereachedby
the CWA act is largely "infOrDled"by the "nexusbetween"the water at issueandthe
"navigablewaters." Equally clear is statutorylanguagedictatingthat the purposeof the
statuteis to "restoreandmaintainthe chemical,physical, andbiological integrity of the
Nation's waters." (33 U.S.C. § 1251(a). See531 U.S. at 166.) Any definition of the term
"isolatedwaters"must be viewedin this context. While thejurisdictional reachof the statute
may be infonned by whetherthe waterto be protectedis navigable,the purposeof the CWA
is to ensurethe tripartite integrity of thosewaters. California thusproposesthat the Corps
andEPA definethe tenD"isolatedwaters" as follows:
"Isolated waters" are those waters which, individually or cumulatively, have no affect on
the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of the navigable waters (including their
tributaries and adjacent wetlands), and whoseloss would not diminish the chemical,
physical, or biological integrity of the navigable waters (including their adjacent wetlands
or tributaries).
3
The commerceclausefactorscurrently listed in federalregulationsshouldcontinueasa basis
for CleanWater Act jurisdiction to protectisolated,intrastate,non-navigablewatersif:
The waterhasbeendesignatedby the Stateor United Statesas an OutstandingNatural
ResourceWater;
The waterhasbeendesignatedby the Stateor the United Statesasa water whose
protectionis importantfor the protectionof regional,statewide,or national economic
interests;or
iii. Thereis a significantnexusbetweenthe water and a significant and demonstrable
commerceinterestthat would be impairedif the water wasnot protected(e.g.,tourism,
drinking water supply,etc.).
Outstanding Natural Res~urce Waters are national resourcesthat engender intrastate,
interstate,and foreign commerce.Wherea stateor the federalgovernmenthasdesignateda
water asimportant for the protectionof broad economicinterests,the commerceauthority
shouldbe exercised.Finally, by limiting other commercenexi to "significant and
demonstrable"commercialinterests,the federalagenciesimplementthe SupremeCourt's
holding that commercialconnectionsnot be attenuated,but be clear.
3. Other Basesfor CWA Jurisdiction
While Congressmay havea particularjurisdictional groundin mind when it choosesto
regulate,nowhereis Congressrequiredto identify all Constitutionalbasesfor an enactment
beforeit promulgateslegislation. The CWA's reachover "watersof the United States"
beyondnavigablewatersis justified not only when thereare significant effectson
commercialinterests,but when othernational or federalinterestsareimplicated. California
thus recommendsthat the Corpsand EPA exert federaljurisdiction underthe CWA in the
following additionalcircumstances
CleanWater Act jurisdiction shouldextendto isolated,non-navigable,intrastatewaterswhen
thereis a significantnexusbetweenthe water and a significantanddemonstrablefederal
interestthat would be impairedif the water was not protected(e.g.,protectionof federal
lands,abidingby treatiesto which the United Statesis a party, etc.).
.5-
HOW POTENTIALLY AFFECTED WATERS SUPPORT THE INTEGRITY OF
WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
Non-adjacentwetlandsand otherpotentially affectedwaterbodiesgenerallyperfonn the same
site-specificand landscapelevel functionsasdo other waters!i It is clearthat potentially affected
waterscan and often do playa key role in protecting andmaintainingthe chemical,physical,and
biological integrity of watersthat areindisputably"Waters of the United States"- i.e.,interstate
andnavigablewaters,their tributariesandadjacentwetlands,andthe territorial seas.Whethera
specificpotentially affectedwaterbodyperformsthis function is subjectto case-specific
detennination. Suchconsiderationshouldinclude a review of the following:
1.
Chemical Integrity.
We interpretthe term "chemical integrity" to meanthat the chemicalcompositionof a
waterbodyis maintainedwithin the rangethat fully supportsthe beneficialuseshistorically
providedby that water. Potentiallyaffectedwetlandsandheadwaterstreamscanplay an
importantrole in maintainingthe chemicalintegrity of watersof jurisdictional watersand
their removalor degradationmay result in an increasedaddition of pollutantsto watersof the
United States,compromisingtheir chemicalintegrity andtheir ability to supportbeneficial
uses. The role of wetlandsin nutrient cycling is well known. Wetlandscanbe sources,
sinks,andtransformersof chemicals}ii Hydrologically isolatedwetlandsby their natureact
astrapsfor sediment,nutrients,and otherpollutantsenteringthem. Headwaterstreamsare
also very effective at removingpollutants}v
2. Physical Integrity.
We interpret the term "physical integrity" to mean that the temperature, hydrologic regime,
geomorphology, and other physical characteristics of a waterbody are maintained within the
ranges that fully supports the be~eficial useshistorically provided by that water. Isolated
wetlands and headwater streamsplay an important role in maintaining the physical Integrity
of waters of the United States. Hydrologically isolated wetlands by their nature retain all
stormwater flows entering them and the storage capacity of isolated wetland complexes can
be enormous. Headwater streams are also very effective at detaining and de-synchronizing
flood flows. Functioning isolated wetlands and headwaters thus decreasethe amplitude of
downstream flood peaks, avoiding damage to property, abnormal channel instability, and
-6-
1 Lossof pollutant removalwould degradedownstreamwaters,increasingtreatmentcosts,
making watersunsuitablefor someuses,andrequiring additionalTMDLs with associated
public and private costs.vi
2.
Loss of flood storagecapacitywould increaseeconomiclossesfrom flooding and channel
instability, requiring expensiveflood control projects.
3. Loss of aquiferrechargecould affect industrialt agriculturaltandmunicipal usesof
groundwatertandreducedstreambaseflowwould affect a myriad of economicinterests.
4. Loss of headwaterstreamswould reducespawningandrefugehabitat for commercially
important salmonpopulations.vii
s.
Loss of seasonalwetlandsandheadwaterhabitatwould result in additionalstateand federal
endangeredspecieslistings, with associatedconstraintson economicactivity.
6.
Wherespeciesarealreadyfederally listed as endangered,lossof federaljurisdiction would
foreclosefederalEndangeredSpeciesAct section7 consultationandmakeproject
proponentssubjectto the more oneroussection 10process.
7. Loss of revenuefrom public recreation(e.g:,bird-watching,sight-seeing).
8.
Loss of federalregulationwould put environmentallyprotectivestatesat an economic
disadvantagerelative to lessprotectiveneighborstates,removingthe "level playing field"
that now existsand creatingpressurefor reducedstateprotection.The legislativehistory of
the CWA clearly indicatesthat a centralpurposeof the CWA was to preventthis problem
from occurring.
POTENTIAL NEGATIVE PROGRAMMATIC EFFECTS
Futurerulemakingcould diminish the reachof federaljurisdictional waters,affectingprograms
operatingunderCWA sections303 (waterquality standards),311 (oil andhazardoussubstance
spills), 401 (waterquality certification), 402 (nationalpollutant dischargeelimination system),
and404 (dredgeand fill discharges).Thes~sectionscomprisethe regulatorycore of the CWA's
protectionof water quality. It would be up to the statesto replicatethe federalresponsibilities
that would be withdrawn asa result of redefiningjurisdictional waters. The state/federalCWA
regulatorypartnershiphasdevelopedover thirty years. We anticipat~that reducingthe scopeof
-8-
this partnershipwould causesignificant programdisruption,additionalstatecosts,potential
lapsesin regulation,and an eventualreductionof federalfunding support.
1 CW A Section 402 Programs.
Loss of federaljurisdiction over potentially affectedwaterswould affect CWA section402
NPDESregulationof municipal, industrial,stormwater,and confinedanimaldischargesto
thosewaters. In California, many suchdischargesareto ephemeraland intermittent
("effiuent-dominated")streams.Most of the new urbangrowth projectedfor California is
locatedin headwaterareas. We haveat leasttwo concerns.First, stateswould no longer
havethe fim1 criteria set forth in 40 C.F.R. 131.10to determinehow beneficialusesareto be
designated,applied,andmodified. It would be difficult for California to protectbeneficial
usesfor the potentially affectedwaterswhich would be exemptfrom theseregulations.
Second,any effiuent dischargedto an ephemeralor intermittentstreamwill eventuallydrain
to navigablewaters. Impedingthe ability of statesto protectwater quality in ephemeral
streamswould jeopardizethe chemical,physical,andbiological integrity of downstream
rivers, lakes,wetlands,estuaries,andcoastalregions. This would exacerbatethe difficulties
of formulatingTMDL plans in the downstreamjurisdictional waters,andwould likely leadto
additionalwaterbodiesbeing listed as"impaired" underCWA section303(d).
2. CWA Section401and 404Programs.
California hasno "wetland permitting program" as such. The Staterelies on CWA section
401 asits primary CWA tool to protectwetlands,supportedby statefish andwildlife
protectionauthorities. Under CWA section401, we havehistorically relied on the U.S.
Anny Corpsof Engineers'(Corps)CWA section404 program,andhavenot established
independentwetlandregulation. The Statehasno statewidedefinition of "wetlands,"no
policy analogto the CWA section4O4(b)(1) guidelines,no consultationprocesswith federal
agenciesto assureprotectionof federally listed endangeredor threatenedspecies,andno
statewidewetlandbeneficial usedesignationsto protectwetland functionssuchaspollutant
removal,floodwaterstorage,andhabitatconnectivity. The State'sexistingprogramsdo not
replicatethe Corps' protectionof the potentially affectedwaters,and expandingthese
programsin the foreseeablefuture is unlikely given the State'sbudgetcrises. Iffunding
were madeavailable,preparingenvironmentdocumentationfor and adoptingregulationsand
-9-
policy to establisha Statewetlandprogramwould take severalyearsbecauseof the
controversialnatureof this issue. Training staffs and adoptingfield-level protocolsand
guidancewould take additionaltime.
OTHER REGULATORY CHANGES THAT SHOULD BE MADE
The following two regulatorychangeswould supportimplementationof our proposeddefinition
of "isolated" watersandwould correctshortcomingsin how currentregulationaddressdry-land
streamsystems.
1. Provide science-based,
regionally appropriateguidancefor detemliningwhetheror not a
given waterbodyis "isolated" per the proposeddefinition, obtainingassistanceasappropriate
from the National Academyof Sciences/National
ResearchCouncil.
2. Modify delineationprotocolsfor riparian areasto recognizethe dynamicnatureof Westem
dryland hydrologic regimes,and the associatedeffectson riparian location and function.viii
For the abovelegal, technical,economic,andprogrammaticreasonswe recommendthat the
federalagenciesmaintainjurisdiction over the broadestscopeof watersconsistentwith the
SWANCC decision. We further recommendthat any reductionin federalauthoritiesbe phasedin
over a numberof yearsand that the federalgovernmentprovide substantialfunding andtechnical
assistanceto assistin the transition. We believethat failure to do so will result in significant
lossesto the quantity and quality of watersof the Stateandwatersof the United States,with
si~ficant attendantecologicand economicintra- and interstaterepercussions.
i
CWA§ 101.
ii The functionsand valuesof "isolated" wetlandshavebeenwell documented.Seefor example:
National ResearchCouncil, "Values of RiparianAreas," in Compensating/orWetland
LossesUnder the Clean WaterAct, Committeeon Mitigating WetlandLosses,National
AcademyPress,Washington,D.C., 2001,p. 43.
JenniferRuffolo, The US. SupremeCourtLimits Federal Regulationo/Wetlands:
Implications 0/ the SWANCC Decision,California ResearchBureau,California State
Library, February2002,p. 14.
Ralph W. Tiner, Herbert.C.Bergquist,GabrealB. DeAlessio,andMatthew J. Starr,
GeographicallyIsolated Wetlands:A Preliminary Assessment
0/ their Characteristicsand
Statusin SelectedAreas o/the UnitedStates,U.S. Departmentof the Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service,NortheastRegion,Hadley,MA, June2002,pp. 2-6.
-10-
iii The transport and transfonnation of chemicals in ecosystems,known as biogeochemical
cycling, involves a great number of interrelated physical, chemical, and biological processes.
The unique and diverse hydrological conditions in wetlands markedly influence biogeochemical
processes. The standing water or intermittent flooding of wetlands causessome processesto be
more dominant in wetlands than in either upland or deep aquatic ecosystems. More nutrients in
wetlands are tied up in organic deposits and are lost from ecosystem cycling as peat deposits
and/or organic export. This process of "carbon sequestration" helps counteract global warming
by moderating human-caused increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Wetlands are also very
effective in removing excessnutrients and other pollutants from aquatic systems, through
chemical transfonnation, plant uptake, deposition, and other mechanisms. See:
S. Mark Dennison and JamesF. Berry, Wetlands: Guide to Science,Law and Technology,
Noyes Publications, Park Ridge, New Jersey, 1993.
J. William Mitsch and James G. Gosselink, Wetlands (2ndedition), VanNostrand Reinhold,
New York, 1993.
iv A recent nationwide study demonstratedthe role of headwater streamsin maintaining the
chemical integrity of navigable waters. Most of California' s runoff is channeledthrough the
ephemeral or intermittent headwater streamswhere thesetransformations occur. SeeJ. P Peterson,
W. M. Wollheim, P. J. Mulholland, J. R Webster, J. L. Meyer, J. L. Tank, E. Marti, W. B.
Bowdwn, H. M., Valett, A. E. Hershey, W. H. McDowell, W. K. Dodds, S. K. Hamilton,
S. Gregory, D. D. Morrall, "Control of Nitrogen Export from Watersheds by Headwater
Streams," Science 292:86-88,2001, April: "... the most rapid uptake and transformation of
inorganic nitrogen occurred in the smallest streams. . . headwater streamstypically export
downstream less than half of the input of dissolved inorganic nitrogen from their watersheds. . . .
Small streamsmay be the most important in regulating water chemistry in large drainagesbecause
their large surface-to-volume ratios favor rapid N uptake and processing. Yet small streamsare
endangeredbecausethey are the most vulnerable to human disturbance such as diversion,
channelization, and elimination in agricultural and urban environments. Restoration and
preservation of small stream ecosystemsshould be a central focus of managementstrategiesto
ensuremaximum N processing in watersheds,which in turn will improve the quality of water
delivered to downstream lakes, estuaries,and oceans." (peterson, 2001.)
v "Habitat connectivity" refers to the need for plant and animal populations to have some
mobility over the landscape, i.e., to avoid becoming "isolated" or "disjunct." Such mobility may
occur at the level of the individual organism (e.g., a bird or turtle traveling between separated
wetlands) and/or of the population (e.g., a plant species colonizing a new wetland through seed
dispersal); and over different time scales. In recent decadesa large body of research has
demonstrated that such "isolated" populations face a high probability of eventual extinction,
even if their immediate habitats are spared. In general, the smaller such an isolated population,
the more quickly it will die out. Urban development typically fragments habitat by creating
artificial landscapeswhich are movement barriers for most species. Unless mitigation measures
are taken, isolated, non-viable populations are created as buildings, roads, and landscaping cut
off lines of movement.
In the context of wetlands, "habitat connectivity" refers to three related phenomena:
-11-
a. The needof someanimalsto haveaccessto both wetland anduplandhabitatsat
different partsof their life cycle. Somewetland animals,e.g.,someamphibiansand
turtles,requireaccessat different seasonsand/or at different life stagesto both
wetland andto nearbyupland. Preservingthe wetlandbut not accessto upland
habitatwill locally exterminatesuchspecies."
b. The ecologicalrelationshipbetweenseparatewetlands. Somewetlandcommunities
andtheir associatedspeciescomprisenetworksof "patches"throughouta landscape.
Wetlandplants and animalsareadaptedto the presenceof wetlandcomplexeswithin
a watershedand are dependenton moving amongthe wetlandswithin the complex,
eitherregularly or in responseto environmentalstressorssuchasflood or drought,
local food shortage,predatorpressure,or influx of pollution. Removingone such
water from the complexwill reducethe biological quality of the rest,and at some
point the simplified wetlandcomplexwill be incapableof supportingat leastsomeof
the species,eventhough somewetlandsremain.
c. The role wetlandsand riparian corridorsplay in allowing larger-scalemovements.
Somestrategicallylocatedwetlandsand especiallycontinuousstrips of riparian
habitat along streamsfacilitate connectivity at watershedandregionalscalesfor
terrestrialaswell asaquaticandamphibiousspecies.
As notedabove,habitat connectivity is critical to biodiversity maintenance,andwill become
more so becauseof global warming. Significantrangeshifts and other responsesto global
warming have alreadyoccurred. The ability of biotic populationsto move acrossthe
landscapemay be critical to their survival in coming decades.
For the effectsof habitat fragmentationandpopulationisolation on the survival of plants and
animals,seefor example:
K. L. Knutson andV.L. Naef, ManagementRecommendations
for Washington'sPriority
Habitats: Riparian, WashingtonDept. ofFish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA, December
1997,p.71.
RF NossandA. Y Cooperrider,SavingNature's Legacy;Protecting and Restoring
Biodiversity,Washington,D.C., IslandPress,1994,pp. 33-34, 50-54,59-62,61-62.
D.E. Saunders,R.J. Hobbs, andC.R. Margules,"Biological Consequences
of Ecosystem
Fragmentation:A Review," ConservationBiology 5(1), March 1991,pp. 18-32.
Michael E. Soule,"Land Use Planningand Wildlife Maintenance,Guidelinesfor
ConservingWildlife in an Urban Landscape,"Journal of theAmericanPlanning
Association57(3), 1991,pp. 313-323.
Michael E. Soule,"The Effects of Habitat Fragmentationon ChaparralPlantsand
Vertebrates,"Gikas 63, 1992,pp. 39-47.
United StatesFederalInteragencyStreamRestorationWorking Group,StreamCorridor
Restoration: Principles, Practices,and Processes,October1998,[Online]. Available
from: htto://www.usda.20v/streamrestoration. Printed copy availablefrom: National
TechnicalInformation Service(NTIS), Springfield, VA, pp. 2-80, 2-82.
Regardingthe relationshipbetweenwetlandand uplandhabitats,seefor example:
-12-
Vincent J. Burke andJ. Whitfield Gibbons,"TerrestrialBuffer Zonesand Wetland
Conservation:A CaseStudy of FreshwaterTurtles in a CarolinaBay," Conservation
Biology 9(6), 1995,pp. 1365-1369;
C. KennethDodd, Jr. andBrian S. Cade,"Movement Patternsandthe Conservationof
AmphibiansBreedingin Small TemporaryWetlands"" ConservationBiology 12(2), 1998,
pp. 331-339;
RaymondD. Semlitsch,"Biological Delineationof TerrestrialBuffer Zonesfor Pond
BreedingSalamanders,"ConservationBiology 12(4), 1997,pp. 1113-1119.
Regardingthe ecologicalrelationshipbetweenseparatedwetlands,seefor example:
C. ScottFindley andJeffHoulahan, "AnthropogenicCorrelatesof SpeciesRichnessin
SoutheasternOntario Wetlands,"ConservationBiology 11(4), 1997,pp. 1000-1009;
Lisa A. Joyal, Mark McCollough, andMalcom L. Hunter,Jr., "LandscapeEcology
Approachesto Wetland SpeciesConservation:A CaseStudyof Two Turtle Speciesin
SouthernMaine," ConservationBiology 15(6),2001,pp. 1755-1762;
RaymondD. SemlitschandJ. RussellBodie, "Are Small, IsolatedWetlandsExpendable?"
ConservationBiology 12(5), 1998,pp. 1129-1133;
National ResearchCouncil, op. cit., 2001,p. 42;
NatureConservancy,op. cit., July 2000,p. 10.
Two recentreportscomprehensivelyreview observedeffectsof global changeon plant and
animalrangeshifts, advancementof springevents,and other responses.See:
Terry L. Root, JeffT. Price, Kimberly R Hall, StephenH. Schnieder,CynthiaRosenzweig,
and Alan Pounds,"Fingerprintsof Global Warming on Wild Animals andPlants,"Science
421(2), January2003,pp. 57-60.
Camille Parmesanand Gary Yohe, "A Globally CoherentFingerprintof Climate Change
ImpactsCrossNatural Systems,"Science421:2, January2003,pp. 37-42.
vi Replicatingthe pollutant removal functionsof naturalwetlandsis expensive.On February4,
2003,the California StateWater ResourcesControl Board approveda grant of$I.2 million to
enlargea wetland areabehind PradoDam in RiversideCounty. The wetlandwasplantedandis
maintainedto filter contaminantsfrom the SantaAna River. In recentyearsCalifornia has
allocatedlarge sumsfor wetlandrestorationunderCWA section319 and other grantprograms.
vii For the value of headwaterstreamsto salmonand trout, see:
Don C. Entlan and Vernon M Hawthorne,"The quantitativeimportanceof an intermittent
streamin the spawningof rainbow trout," Transactionsof theAmericanFisheriesSociety
105(6)t 1976,pp. 675-681.
N.P Petersonand L.M.Reid, "Wall-basechannels: their evolution,distribution,anduseby
juvenile coho salmonin the ClearwaterRiver, Washington,"in: J.M. Walton andD.B.
Houston,eds: Proceedingsof the Olympic Wild Fish Conference.23-25March 1983,
Port Angeles, 1984.
-13-
viii Much of Californianriparian function is delineatedout of federallyjurisdictional watersin
most years. In the East,the physicalindicatorsdemarcating"watersof the United States"
correlatewith the portion of the floodplain providing wetlandandriparian functions;in more
arid regions,they do not. Dynamic Westernhydrologic regimesresult in reducedCWA
protectionbecausethe physicalcharacteristicsspecifiedin 33 C.F.R.328.3(e)- scourlines, flood
debris,etc. - usedto delimit "waters" areleft by frequentlyrecurringfloods, whereasriparian
functionscanbe supportedby lessfrequentfloods. In the East,this is unimportantbecause
seasonaland annualflow variationsaremuted. For example,the increasein flow betweenthe
one-yearand 50-yearflood in a Pennsylvaniawatershedis 2.5 times (i.e., the 50-yearflood
carries2.5 times asmuch water asthe one-yearflood). Westerndryland systems,however,are
muchmorevariable. The samefigure in a dryland streamis 280, andin small southern
California drylandbasinsthe 50-yearflood may carry 400 times asmuch water asthe one-year
flood. Westernriparianvegetationhasadaptedto establishand survivein portions of the
floodplain inundatedrelatively infrequently,beyondthe boundaryof physical characteristicsleft
by the frequentflood eventsandhenceoutsideof federalCWA jurisdiction. See:
Aaron Allen and D. Malanchuk,Guidelinesfor Jurisdictional Determinationsfor Watersof the
UnitedStatesin theArid Southwest,USACOE, SouthPacific Division, June2001.
-14-