Case Study: Environmental Impact

Marriott, B. (1997). Environmental impact assessment: A practical guide. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

18.1 Groundwater

The study of groundwater resource impacts is closely related to stud- ies of geology and soils. Productive interaction of various members of the multidisciplinary team is necessary to ensure that all important characteristics are noted and all possible impacts are considered.

18.1.1 Existing characteristics

Relevant infonnation on groundwater characteristics of a study area can be determined through coordination with local water manage- ment districts, water quality agencies, or municipal water suppliers. State Stormwater Management Acts require watershed management plans or water quality control plans for groundwater basins. These plans will identify particularly sensitive groundwater issues. Review oflocal or regional water quality control or management plans will in- dicate most recent data on water supply, volume, flow, quality, use, and future goals and objectives. Extensive infonnation on surface and groundwater flow and quality also is available from the USGS.

The USGS provides water supply and quality infonnation through a national assessment program designed to study water quality in rep- resentative basins covering more than 50 percent of the United States (U.S. Department of Interior, USGS 1995a). The USGS-developed mathematical model of groundwater flow has become a widely used computer-based model in the groundwater industry (U.S. Department of Interior, USGS 1995e). For example, USGS programs in California (U.S. Department of Interior, USGS 1995i)

• Assess water resources quantity and quality throughout the state

• Assist water management agencies in southern California in the study of using aquifers for storage and use of reclaimed wastewater for groundwater recharge and irrigation

• Develop water management programs to characterize hydrogeologic conditions in areas that appear to have good potential for water banking (recharging groundwater systems for future pumping), and to optimize combined use of surface and groundwater, control of water levels in an urban area subject to liquefaction during a major earthquake, and containment of groundwater pollutants from Environmental Protection Agency Superfund sites

• Develop management strategies for controlling seawater intrusion into coastal aquifers

The USGS data are stored in the national Water Data Storage and Retrieval System (WATSTORE), which includes a daily-values file that contains 300 million observations of stream flow, water quality, sediment discharge, and groundwater-level data; a water quality file that contains 4.1 million surface and groundwater analyses; a peak- flow file that contains nearly 600,000 observations of annual peaks of stream flow and river stage; and a groundwater site inventory file that contains information for more than 1.4 million wells. Much of this information has been made available over the Internet (U.S. Department of Interior, USGS 1995d).

The USGS also operates the National Water-Use Information Program used to collect, store, analyze, and disseminate water-use in- formation nationally and locally to a wide variety of government agen- cies and private organizations (U.S. Department of Interior, USGS 1995g).

Water quality control plans identify uses of groundwater supplies, such as municipal and domestic, agricultural, industrial services, and/or industrial process. Use characteristics within the basin are described. Specific water quality objectives, or standards, are compared with re- cent and historical quality testing results from monitoring wells.

The major water-bearing geologic formations (aquifers) are identi- fied as related to soils and geologic information. Flow and quantity characteristics of groundwater resources are dependent on local sur- face and geologic conditions. In areas of faults and historic fault activ- ity, impermeable vertical and horizontal restrictions to groundwater flow may occur. In limestone are~s, subsurface caverns and streams may determine groundwater characteristics.

Natural and/or created groundwater recharge areas should be noted on mapping. A recharge area is the area in which water reaches the zone of saturation (groundwater) by surface infiltration. Information will likely be available in local or regional water management plans on the principal sources of groundwater recharge. If the source is precipita- tion, how much of the average annual rainfall is available for recharge? Other sources may include subsurface inflow, seepage from streams and rivers, or artificial recharge. In some areas of California, for example, recharge facilities known as conservation basins have been constructed. These basins are filled through use of diverted local stream flow and from water imported through the California Aqueduct State Water Project. Drywells also can be used to percolate drainage water.

Other information on groundwater recharge may be available from county or regional flood control or water conservation districts. A local or regional hydrology manual will contain specific hydrologic soil classifications based on infiltration rates.

18.1.2 Groundwater impacts and mitigation

Effects on groundwater may be direct, indirect, physical, or chemical. Direct, physical impacts could include loss of wells, interception of the water table, or other physical changes through earthwork, blasting, etc. that alter flow, recharge, or other hydrologic conditions. Depending on the type of project proposed, a physical interception of the water table may, in turn, require continual dewatering through pumping. Dewatering can cause localized drawdowns of the water table elevation and adversely affect local wells.

Substantial new demand and use of groundwater can cause local or regional drawdowns. For example, a new housing project with indi- vidual residential wells, or a system of community wells, may ad- versely lower the water level and available groundwater supply at nearby existing housing developments that also depend on residential wells. If the water level is lowered by deeper new wells below the level of existing wells, those residences on existing wells will be with- out water. Figure 1S.1 illustrates how groundwater wells can affect the flow of groundwater by lowering water levels in an area around the well, known as the zone ofinf7.uence or cone ofdepression. The full recharge area of a well is often called the zone ofcontribution.

Of special concern in coastal areas is the potential for urban de- mand on groundwater to lower the existing water table to a degree to upset the subsurface balance in flow between freshwater and salt water. An adverse infiltration of salt water into underground fresh- water supplies can produce serious regional impacts.

Another potential impact of groundwater withdrawal in particular geographic areas is increased risk of land subsidence. Land subsi- dence due to pumping of groundwater occurs in nearly every state (U.S. Department of Interior, USGS 1995e).

Another factor affecting groundwater supplies is the creation of im- pervious surfaces within the recharge area. This type of impact occurs with projects involving large areas of pavement or a significant num- ber of buildings. By covering the recharge area with impermeable surfaces, the projects reduce the total area available for water perco- lation through the soils to underlying aquifers. The same impact would occur for flood control channels that are entirely paved. For this reason, many artificial river and stream channels are construct- ed with paved sides and natural bottoms.

A common approach to evaluation of potential recharge-area im- pacts is to compare the created impervious surface with the total for the watershed. Unfortunately, the same argument is sometimes made for two entirely different situations. One logic used is that the existing watershed is so large and undeveloped, with such a large pervious recharge area, that a small increase in impervious surface would not significantly affect the quantity of groundwater percolation. The other logic is that the watershed is already urbanized to such an extent that the increase in impervious surface, when compared with the total sur- faced area, would add an insignificant contribution. So it seems that the two extremes of developed and nondeveloped watersheds would not be affected by small amounts of new impervious surface, and that the only impacts would occur in partially developed watersheds.

Although the logic above is most likely applicable for the two cases stated, the analyst must also consider the possible cumulative effects of a particular project or action. Groundwater recharge areas are sel- dom lost all at once. Small amounts of impervious surface are added little by little, each with no significant impact, until there is a signifi- cant overall effect. Whenever possible, even the smallest project should attempt to incorporate detention ponds or other mitigation measures to detain water and permit maximum recharge within the remaining pervious surface.

An increase in impervious surface can contribute to groundwater quality impacts as well as quantity. Possible water quality effects on groundwater may include increases in suspended solids from erosion or in chemical contaminants through rapid runoff from impervious sur- faces. If runoff picks up pollutants such as herbicides, fertilizer, oil, gas, metals, organic or inorganic compounds, or deicing salts, these can move more rapidly into groundwater aquifers in higher concentrations.

The possibility of groundwater contamination can be increased by projects that require excavation within sensitive geologic areas. Geologic characteristics of a particular area, such as rock fractures, sinkholes, solution channels, or shallow soils, may contribute to a di- rect flow of contaminants into local aquifers. Such an impact would be most critical in areas of low groundwater recharge and yield, where dilution and flushing would be minimal.

Mitigation of potential groundwater impacts is best approached through coordination with appropriate officials and an analysis of consistency with water conservation plans and water quality control plans. Geologic voids can be filled or capped, and soil cover can be added to areas of exposed rock. Other measures would apply to both groundwater and surface water quality and may include such project- specific techniques as installation of oil and grease separators in large parking lots. Vegetated swales, drainageways, and created wetlands with extended detention also may be used to filter sediments and con- taminants from drainage.

As with surface waters, groundwater resources may be put at in- creased risk by certain projects to catastrophic events, such as spills of contaminants or hazardous materials. Each proposed project or ac- tion should be examined in terms of the probability of such an occur- rence versus the magnitude of the possible impact. Mitigation may be to require maintaining cleanup equipment on site or to establish spe- cial emergency response teams.

When fuels, pesticides, fertilizers, sewage, solvents, and other sub- stances enter the soil, the contaminants percolate through the soil to groundwater resources. Mitigation may be in the form of using com- puter models to monitor groundwater flow to determine the optimal placement of wells and pumping rates to extract contaminants.

Another form of mitigation, particularly for sites that may have pre- viously been contaminated, is bioremediation. The Superfund legisla- tion (CERCLA) prompted the authorization of the Toxic Substances Hydrology Program by the USGS. The program consisted of systemati- cally investigating the most important categories of wastes at sites throughout the United States. One of the principal findings was that microorganisms in shallow aquifers affect the fate and transport of virtually all kinds of toxic substances (U.S. Department of Interior, USGS 1995b). Microorganisms naturally present in the soils can ac- tively consume fuel-derived toxic compounds and transform them to harmless carbon dioxide. The rate of biodegradation can be greatly in- creased by stimulating the natural microbial community through the addition of nutrients.

Examples of successful bioremediation projects (U.S. Department of Interior, USGS 1995b) are summarized below to show the types of pollution that can occur and the remediation techniques.

A pipeline carrying crude oil burst and contaminated the underly- ing aquifer. The natural microbial population caused the plume of contaminated groundwater to stop expanding after a few years, without human intervention.

A sewage effiuent plume due to disposal of sewage effiuent in septic drain fields caused nitrate contamination in a shallow aquifer. Denitrification was rapidly accomplished by microbial populations.

Chlorinated solvents have been successfully used by microorganisms as oxidants, which remedies solvent contamination of groundwater.

Biological and nonbiological processes have been shown to degrade pesticide and nitrogen fertilizer contamination.

Studies of gasoline-contaminated sites have shown the importance of processes in the unsaturated zone (the zone above the water table) in degrading contaminants.

In Florida, creosote and chlorinated phenols leaked to the underly- ing aquifer through unlined ponds and were transported toward Pensacola Bay. Studies showed that microorganisms can adapt to extremely harsh chemical conditions and that microbial degrada- tion was restricting migration of the contaminant plume.

18.1.3 Sole-source aquifers and other special conditions

Sensitive aquifers and the specific recharge areas and characteristics should be identified. A sole-source aquifer is an aquifer which is the sole or principal drinking water source for an area and which, if conta- minated, would create a significant hazard to public health. Sole-source aquifers are designated and protected under Section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Any designated critical aquifer protection areas (CAPAs) within the sole-source aquifer or recharge area in the area of potential effect of the proposed project or action should be identified. Early coordination regarding sole-source aquifers is required with the Environmental Protection Agency, which will review proposed alterna- tives and offer opinions on possible impacts. A separate report is nor- mally prepared at the draft environmental document stage when other technical analyses are being conducted. The potential impacts of all proposed alternatives on the sole-source aquifer should be comparative- ly discussed. If the selected alternative involves a sole-source aquifer, the final environmental document must contain appropriate analysis and consultation results to ensure that the proposed project or action will not contaminate the aquifer (40 CFR Part 149).

Other regulatory requirements that may apply include wellhead

protection areas as authorized by the 1986 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act. Each state must develop wellhead protection plans to protect groundwater that supplies wells and well fields that contribute drinking water to public water supply systems. The select- ed alternative of the proposed project or action must comply with these plans. Such documentation must be included in the final envi- ronmental document.

In some areas where agricultural land use is dominant, pest man- agement zones may have been established. These designated zones are areas where pesticides have been found in groundwater and thus future spraying is prohibited.

18.2 Municipal Water Supply and Wastewater Systems

In urban and suburban areas, it is important to detennine the major source of potable water: a municipal system or local wells. The source of municipal supply systems and whether the water quality from active wells or surface waters meets standards, or is treated to do so, should be noted. Public water supply standards are established by the Environmental Protection Agency as authorized by the Safe Drinking Water Act. Contained in 40 CFR Parts 141 to 143, the National Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Regulations establish nonenforceable health goals [maximum contaminant level goals (MCLGs)] and enforce- able maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for numerous organic and in- organic pollutants. In rural areas, the primary aquifer source for wells should be described in terms of yields and physical and chemical charac- teristics.

The wellhead protection program of the state will identify wellhead protection areas, sources of contaminants, management approaches, contingency plans, and other valuable information on groundwater supplying public water supply systems.

Area wastewater systems also should be identified, including re- gional facilities' plans, particular characteristics of treatment plants serving the proposed project or action, and current capacity compared with quantities. Wastewater reuse within the basin may be important depending on the type of project being assessed. As discussed in Chap. 17, wastewater treatment plants are required as part of the Clean Water Act NPDES permit to meet established effiuent quality standards. Requirements consist of both numerical values and period- ically reporting the average or maximum values.

18.3 Surface Water

Many of the potential surface water impacts (Fig. 18.2) will be the same as potential groundwater impacts, such as a possible increase in suspended solids from erosion or chemical contamination from runoff. The same is true for subsequent discussions in this text related to floodplains, coastal areas, and wetlands. Surface water studies also include consideration of the aquatic biotic community and of recre- ational and commercial uses.

18.3.1 Existing characteristics

In addition to the sources of information discussed in the section on groundwater, surface water quality and aquatic community data may be available from the U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, state departments of environmental resources; or fish and game, river basin commissions, or local boating and fishing organiza- tions. The USGS information on surface waters may include results of chemical and biological testing as well as detailed flow information col- lected at gaging stations. For example, surface water discharge (flow) data was collected by the USGS at 10,240 stations in 1994; surface water quality data was collected at 3098 stations (U.S. Department of Interior, USGS 1995d).

Water quality standards for surface waters are normally set by state or local agencies and are based on use classifications. Examples of uses include water contact recreation and aquatic life; natural trout waters; and recreation (stocked) trout waters. Depending on the designated use for a particular section of stream or river, maximum permitted concentrations of water quality pollutants will be estab- lished, such as acidity (as measured in pH), alkalinity, biological oxy- gen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD), dissolved oxygen (DO), dissolved solids (DS), nutrients (nitrates and phos- phates), fecal coliforms, and toxic substances (heavy metals, etc.).

As appropriate based on the results of scoping, the environmental document should include a mapping of major surface waterways, water bodies, and watersheds. Existing data should be summarized and compared with applicable water quality standards. Historic trends and sources of pollutants should be described. For proposed projects or actions requiring detailed water resource studies, informa- tion is usually contained in a supporting technical report and summa- rized in the environmental document.

For proposed projects or actions where surface water impact is a key issue and no available data exists for local resources, a stream or lake survey may be conducted by the study team. Such surveys include sampling over a period of time (one year is the best minimum to en- sure all seasons) of water quality and aquatic life. Physical conditions noted at each sampling station include such factors as bottom type, bank cover, percentage of shade, pool and riffle sequence, water tem- perature, and pH. Water samples are collected for analysis in the labo- ratory for water standard parameters. Bottom-dwelling (benthic) macroinvertebrates also may be systematically collected. Benthic macroinvertebrates, such as tube worms, mollusks, and larvae of stoneflies, mayflies, caddisflies, and beetles, are commonly used indica- tors of water quality. The established benthic community-species composition, quantity, and diversity-yields an abundant amount of information on water quality and condition of streams, rivers, and lakes. Fish sampling also may be included through use of seining or electroshocking.

The presence of any state or federal endangered, threatened, or designated sensitive aquatic plant or animal species should be identi- fied through coordination with the Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and appropriate state agencies.

18.3.2 Surface water impacts and mitigation

The ability to assess potential effects on surface water resources re- quires a thorough understanding of the physical and operational characteristics of the proposed alternatives of the project or action. The analyst must be knowledgeable about the construction phase, op- erational phase, and exactly what physical changes to existing sur- face water resources are a component of the alternatives. Impacts can then be comparatively assessed based on the level of design detail available.

Construction (short-term) effects. The primary impact associated with construction activities is usually erosion and sedimentation effects. Stream and lake sedimentation and turbidity loading can cover bottoms with silt and destroy benthic organisms. This in turn can elimi- nate food supplies for particular species and totally upset the balance of the aquatic ecological system.

Some projects may require direct in-channel work during construc- tion activities, or alteration of the surface water channel or shoreline. Channel relocations are more specifically addressed in the next section of this chapter. Direct channel disturbance results in a temporary loss of habitat and bottom-dwelling species. Compaction of stream bottom habitat by construction equipment can permanently degrade the abili- ty to support aquatic vegetation or bottom-dwelling organisms.

The other impact associated with construction activities is that runoff from construction sites will contain water quality contami- nants. Runoff impacts are further discussed in the long-term impacts section of this chapter. The probability of spills of hazardous materi- als directly into water bodies should also be considered.

As discussed in greater detail in Chap. 16, installation of proper erosion control measures can normally mitigate construction-related erosion impacts successfully. Often a requirement is that final design of the selected alternative contain specific erosion and sedimentation control plans. These plans undergo a series of approvals and permits depending on the specific state or local requirements.

Another example of required procedures to minimize impact is a water construction permit that may limit the time of year for any in- stream work, based on the feeding, nesting, or breeding requirements of sensitive aquatic species. Equipment stream crossings should be conducted with minimal disturbance, on rock fills with many pipes to permit natural water flow. Removal should return the bottom to nat- ural compaction characteristics.

The Clean Water Act requires preparation and submission of a gen- eral construction activity stormwater permit before construction is begun. The permit requires preparation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan. The plan is based on the use of best management practices (BMPs). BMPs applicable to construction sites include mea- sures to prevent erosion, prevent pollutants from the construction material from mixing with stormwater, and trap pollutants before they can be discharged.

The plan also contains requirements for the construction contractor to prepare and implement a hazardous materials management plan to reduce the possibility of chemical spills or releases to drainage channels. Proper material handling, storage, and disposal protocols are established and enforced.

Channel relocations. Long-term changes to course, current, or the cross section of the channel or its floodplain may be included as part of the proposed project or action. Sometimes exact design characteristics may not be known prior to the final design stages. The compara- tive analysis of proposed alternatives at the draft environmental doc- ument stage should be accomplished with as much detail as possible, however, to permit inclusion of this important potential impact in the decision-making process.

Many miles of streams in the United States have been lost due to stream channelization. Old practices often consisted of straightening streams into short sections of totally paved channels or culverts. The environmental impact assessment process over the past decades and the agency coordination it has fostered have made enormous changes in the manner in which stream relocations are conducted.

Stream channelization often is associated with linear projects, such as highways or railroads, with an engineering need to occupy relative flatlands. In hilly or mountainous areas, the only relative flatland may be that associated with a stream and its floodplain. Often the comparison of effects of valley floor alternatives with hillside alterna- tives centers on the relative damage of large, destructive cuts and fills on the hillsides versus fill and stream relocation, floodplains, or wetland impacts on the valley bottom.

The assessment of stream channelization impacts normally begins by comparing the length of the natural stream to be destroyed with the length of the new channel. The stream channel to be destroyed is surveyed, noting important physical, chemical, and biological features. The most obvious impact is the loss of all aquatic habitat, streamside vegetation, and benthic organisms within the destroyed channel. This impact should be quantified within the environmental document as a direct impact of the proposed project or action. The loss should be eval- uated based on the sensitivity of the stream, aquatic habitat, endemic species, and designated uses.

In all cases, the goal should be to design the new channel to main- tain the same stream length. A loss oflength and meanders into a rel- atively straight channel creates disturbances to the natural dynamics of water flow. Velocity will increase, causing upstream scouring and downstream deposition. Channel sides will be under constant erosion pressure as the stream flow tries to reach its former equilibrium. Changes in velocity can be estimated based on comparison of old and new channel lengths and flow characteristics of the stream. Degree of upset to the natural stream flow dynamics can then be estimated.

Discharge of dredge or fill material within streams, wetlands, or other waters of the United States requires a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Section 404 (Clean Water Act) permit. Details of the permit application information and process are contained within 33 CFR Parts 320 through 330. Section 404 permits are further dis- cussed in Sec. 18.4 of this chapter. Other permits or regulations that may apply are those of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. Under this act, Section 9 permits apply to crossings of navigable waters of the United States. Section 9 permits are issued by the Corps for dams and dikes and by the Department of Transportation, U.S. Coast Guard, for bridges and causeways. Section 10 of the act requires a permit for various types of work performed in navigable waters, in- cluding stream channelization, excavation, and filling.

Sections 9 and 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act apply to navigable waters of the United States, while Section 404 of the Clean W ater Act applies to waters of the United States. Waters of the United States mean more than navigable waters-they include floodplains and wet- lands.

The Fish and WildlifE: Coordination Act requires consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the state agency responsible for wildlife resources for any modification to a stream channel or other body of water. The environmental document should contain a description of the uses of the stream or body of water and an analysis of impacts to fish and wildlife resulting from loss, degradation, or modification of habitat.

Mitigation of stream channelization impacts includes such mea- sures as ensuring no net loss in stream length (that is, new channel same length as natural channel); natural bottoms as opposed to con- crete channels; shape of concrete channels (trapezoidal) to maintain low-flow conditions; wide channel bottoms to permit stream to cut its own meandering stream course; and stabilization of outside curve banks with rock placements.

Rocks and gravel can be placed randomly within the new channels to encourage rapid naturalization of the streambed and development of a pool and rime sequence. Stream banks should be stabilized before diverting the flow of the stream from the old to the new channels.

Continuing (operational) impacts. Erosion and sedimentation effects should not be ignored as potential continuing impacts of a proposed project or action, particularly if the action is a management plan for large geographic areas or a land-use plan for municipal areas. The evaluation of alternatives for long-term plan components must in- clude an assessment of the possible secondary effects of long-term permitted uses, such as timbering techniques, grazing, mining, or continued growth in housing and development. Such activities can cause loss of vegetation and exposure of bare ground within water- sheds and associated erosion and stream sedimentation effects.

Potential long-term erosion and sedimentation effects can best be mitigated through incorporation of effective control and restoration requirements within the planning documents. These required mitiga- tion measures should be applicable to all permitted activities through the use of permits or approvals prior to project implementation. Mitigation, to be effective, must include proof of funding sources for implementation of the committed measures.

Continuing, long-term water quality effects are mostly related to discharges of runoff from paved surfaces. An increase in impervious strata produces a proportionate increase in the amount of runoff car- rying pollutants. This type of impact is discussed in Sec. 18.1.

Highway projects are used as an example of types of impact assess- ment required. Stormwater runoff containing vehicle-generated high- way pollutants enters local drainage systems and, at bridges, can directly enter streams, rivers, or lakes.

Several studies have been conducted to develop methodologies for predicting highway runoff impacts on surface water quality (U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA 1985; Lord 1987; California Department of Transportation 1982). For example, highway runoff constituents shown to be statistically correlated to traffic have been identified as particulates, total nitrogen, lead, zinc, and chemical oxy- gen demand.

Methodologies include use of formulas and assumptions on pollu- tant deposition per vehicle, rainfall amounts, and runoff coefficients for the paved surface. A worst-case analysis assumes that highway runoff is discharged directly into a receiving stream, with no inter- vening soil, vegetation, or dilution from convergence with additional sources. Calculations can be made by entering data on average daily traffic volumes and area of paved surface. Results, after several stages of calculation, will be in flow-weighted concentrations in mil- ligrams per liter for various pollutants, such as lead, zinc, filterable solids, chemical oxygen demand, and total nitrogen. These concentra- tions can be directly compared to effluent standards. The results could also be refined based on the volume of water in the receiving stream, the dilution factor, and compared with water quality stan- dards established for the stream or river for protection of human and aquatic life, and based on designated uses.

Water quality limits set in the NPDES permit provide the basis for application and enforcement of surface water quality standards and objectives. The NPDES permit requires monitoring (testing) of the ef- fluent and of the receiving waters upstream and downstream of the discharge.

Accidental spills of hazardous materials are always a risk with transportation systems, including highways, railroads, and naviga- tion systems. As discussed in the section on groundwater impacts, the possible magnitude of impact of such spills can be devastating, as demonstrated by coastal and marine life impacts of oil spills from tankers. The probability of such spills, however, is low.

Water quality impacts are not necessarily associated with paved surface runoff. Runoff from agricultural lands or such uses as golf courses can transport fertilizers and pesticides to receiving streams and rivers. Grazing or dairy land uses can contribute significant amounts of nutrients and animal coliform bacteria.

Industrial uses can contribute toxins or heavy metals directly into surface waterways. Some processing plants or nuclear reactors can emit effiuent with significantly higher temperatures than the receiv- ing waters, causing corresponding impacts on aquatic life.

Another important potential impact on surface waters is the possi- bility of secondary and/or cumulative impacts. If the proposed project or action places stress on a particular geographic area for growth, water quality impacts related to that future growth must be assessed to the degree possible with available information. If a project will fa- cilitate and accelerate the rate of development and suburbanization, such growth in turn will increase impervious surface, accelerate dis- charges of polluted runoff, and increase stream channel erosion and sedimentation. Pressures may also be placed on existing treatment plants or water demand facilities.

Water quality impacts of runoff can be mitigated through use of stormwater runoff regulations. Stormwater management practices under such regulations may include

• On-site infiltration

• Flow attenuation by open vegetated swales and natural depressions

• Stormwater retention structures

• Stormwater detention structures

These measures can significantly reduce pollutant loads and control runoff.

Mitigation measures for stream or watershed impacts may include restoration projects for nearby, previously degraded watersheds or streams.

A Clean Water Act Section 401 water quality certification, issued by the appropriate state agency, is required for proposed projects or actions potentially affecting water quality. The certification ensures compliance with established effiuent guidelines and standards.

Recreational and commercial uses. The evaluation of potential surface water impacts must include consideration of recreational and com- mercial uses and the possible impact of the proposed project or action on such uses. Existing uses should be described and quantified to the extent possible. Impact assessment should include such items as boating and passive access, hunting restrictions (waterfowl), aesthetic

qualities, and possible degradation of fisheries or other commercial products through water quality pollution. Coordination with appro- priate state and local agencies, sporting clubs, etc., should be docu- mented.

18.3.3 Wild and scenic rivers

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act provides for preservation of free-flow conditions of certain selected rivers of the nation and protection of those rivers' immediate environments for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations. Th be eligible for the National Wild and Scenic River System, a river must be free-flowing and must pos- sess outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values. The act required river studies to be conducted by the Department of Interior (Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, or National Park Service) or Department of Agriculture (Forest Service) for all rivers, or river segments, potentially eligible for the system. Eligible river segments are classified according to the extent of evidence of human activity as wild, scenic, or recreational. Specific eligibility criteria apply to each classification. Each designated section of river on the system has a management plan, including principles, kinds and amounts of public use, and specific management measures.

The act protects rivers listed on the Nationwide Rivers Inventory and those that may be potentially eligible for listing. Coordination is required prior to any action that may foreclose a river's inclusion in the system.

Follow these steps to comply with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act:

1. Determine whether the proposed project or action could affect an inventory river by checking the current regional inventory lists.

2. Assess potential adverse effects on the natural, cultural, and recre- ational values of the inventory river segment. Any action which could alter the river segment's ability to meet the eligibility and classification criteria should be considered an adverse impact.

Actions which diminish free-flowing characteristics or actions which increase the degree of evidence of human activity, that is, level of development, could prevent qualification or change classifi- cation. Adverse effects may occur under conditions that include

• Destruction or alteration of all or part of the free-flowing nature ofthe river

• Introduction of visual, audible, or other sensory intrusions which are out ofcharacter with the river or alter its setting

• Deterioration ofwater quality

• Transfer or sale ofproperty adjacent to an inventoried river

3. Determine whether the proposed project or action could foreclose options to classify any portion of the segment as wild, scenic, or recreational river areas. This mostly refers to actions that may cause a downgrade in classification based on increased evidence of human activity.

4. Incorporate avoidance and mitigation measures into the proposed project or action to the maximum extent feasible.

The draft environmental document must include evidence of coordi- nation with the agency responsible for managing the listed or study river (Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, or Forest Service). If an adverse impact is anticipated, the draft environmental document must fully consider avoidance and mitigation measures for each alternative that may affect a segment of designated or proposed scenic river. If a selected alternative has po- tential adverse effects, the Finding of No Significant Impact or Final Environmental Impact Statement must identifY committed measures to avoid or mitigate adverse effects, with documentation of concurrence with the managing agency.

Publicly owned segments of designated wild and scenic rivers are also protected by Section 4(0 of the DOT act of 1966. This act applies to transportation use of park, historic, and recreational land and is discussed in Chap. 10.

18.4 Section 404 Permits

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act establishes a program to regulate the discharge of dredged and fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands. The Section 404 regulatory pennit program is administered jointly by the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). The Corps issues the actual permit. Whereas the Section 404 pennit applies to waters of the United States, the Corps also issues Section 9 and Section 10 pennits under the Rivers and Harbors Act for activities applying to navigable waters of the United States.

The Corps Section 404 pennit and the Section 9 and Section 10 per- mits review includes significant consideration of environmental im- pacts; among those are conservation, economics, aesthetics, wetlands, historic properties, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, floodplain values, land use, navigation, shore erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs, and considerations of proper- tyownership.

The Environmental Protection Agency has issued Section 404(b)(1) guidelines that prohibit discharge of dredged or fill material 1. Ifthere is a practicable alternative with less adverse impact on the aquatic environment unless the alternative poses other significant environmental problems

2. If the discharge will have an unacceptable adverse impact, whether individually or cumulatively, on the aquatic ecosystem

3. If the discharge will violate state water quality standards, violate toxic effluent standards, jeopardize a species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act, or violate any requirement of a marine sanctuary designated under the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act

4. Unless appropriate and practicable steps have been taken which will minimize potential adverse impacts of the discharge on the aquatic ecosystem

These are the four basic restrictions to permitting discharge of fill or dredged material. The guidelines require identification of all di- rect, indirect, secondary, and cumulative impacts which could result from a proposed discharge. All practicable steps must be taken to minimize the adverse impacts, including providing compensation (for example, wetland restoration and creation) for unavoidable impacts.

The Section 404(b)(1) guidelines (40 CFR Part 230) offer extensive and valuable information and methodologies to the environmental an- alyst for evaluation of potential environmental effects on water re- sources and aquatic ecosystems. The guidelines require factual determinations, in writing, of the potential short-term or long-term effects of a proposed discharge of dredged or fill material on the phys- ical, chemical, and biological components of the aquatic environment. Determinations must be made regarding

• Physical substrate

• Water circulation, fluctuation, and salinity

• Suspended particulates and turbidity

• Contaminants

• Aquatic ecosystems and organisms

• Disposal sites

• Cumulative effects on the aquatic ecosystem

• Secondary effects on the aquatic ecosystem

Specific guidelines are given to assist in making the required factu- al determinations. Figure 18.3 lists the areas of possible impact that are discussed. The next step in adherence to the Section 404(b)(1) guidelines is to make findings of compliance or noncompliance with the four restrictions noted above. Three findings are possible: 0) com- plying, (2) complying with inclusion of appropriate and practicable discharge conditions to minimize pollution or adverse effects on the affected aquatic ecosystems, or (3) not complying.

Section 404 permits are issued in two basic forms: individual permits and general permits. Individual permits are project-specific and are is- sued after a case-by-case review of individual permit applications. General permits authorize categories of activities in specific geographic regions or nationwide. If an activity is covered by a general permit, an application for a permit is not required. The general permits are issued when (1) proposed activities are substantially similar in nat~re and cause only minimal individual and cumulative environmental impacts; or (2) the general permit would result in avoiding unnecessary duplica- tion of regulatory authority exercised by another agency. Based on the above, there are three types of general permits: regional, nationwide, and programmatic. An activity is authorized under general permits only if that activity and the permittee satisfy all the general pennit's terms and conditions. Details of the Nationwide Pennit Program are contained in 33 CFR Part 330.

The Section 404 process has a 30- to 45-day required public review and comment period. It is advantageous to integrate the Section 404 review process with the NEPA review process of the Environmental Assessment or Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Specific re- quired details for actual permit application will most likely not be available at the draft environmental document stage, because numer- ous alternatives are being considered. The draft document should, however, note the location of proposed dredge and fill activities, the potential adverse effects, and proposed mitigation measures for each alternative. Documentation of coordination with the Corps and appro- priate federal, state, and local resource agencies should be included. The final environmental document should identify, for the selected al- ternative, the location of permitting activities, quantities of dredge and fill material, potential impacts, and mitigation measures. Any outstanding unresolved issues should be identified.

The actual application for a Section 404 permit will likely be made after the final environmental document because of the need for detailed final design information. Some agencies may choose, however, to com- plete the pennit at an earlier stage. In many cases, Section 404 pennits may apply to projects or actions that are not "major federal actions" and therefore would not require an Environmental Impact Statement.

A Corps decision on a permit application requires either an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement, unless it is included within a categorical exclusion. If another federal agency is the lead agency for an action, the Corps will most often be- come a cooperating agency for the environmental document.

18.5 Marine Environment

Actions or projects that may affect marine resources will require an analysis of potential physical, chemical, and biological impacts. Such projects may include sewage treatment plants or industries with dis- charges into the ocean; offshore drilling projects; harbor develop- ments or improvements; changes in shipping operations or type and quantity of activities at an existing port; or construction of bridge or tunnel crossings of bays or estuaries.

The discharge of effiuent into ocean waters requires a Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) per- mit. The permit establishes discharge limitations for all major waste- water constituents, aquatic life toxicants, noncarcinogens, and carcinogens. The NPDES permit also requires an effluent monitoring program and a receiving water monitoring program. Monitoring programs that may be in place because of NPDES permit requirements are a valuable source of information on the existing physical, chemi- cal, and biological characteristics of the marine environment in an area of a proposed project or action.

Other important sources of information are state, regional, and local agencies and established ocean plans. The U.S. Geological Survey conducts extensive studies and monitoring of many of the na- tion's estuaries, bays, deltas, and marine environments, including water quality, water quantity, and such effects as saltwater intrusion into groundwater supplies. The Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, will supply information on threatened and endangered marine species of plants and animals.

The description of the existing marine environment should be given as necessary to determine impacts and resolve issues relevant to the specific project or action being proposed and evaluated. The analyst is warned not to include extraneous data and thereby create an encyclo- pedic narrative just because the information may be interesting to the researcher. If the information and data are not relevant to the magni- tude of potential effects and to the decision at hand, leave them out.

For the purpose of showing the types of infonnation that may be rele- vant, the subjects addressed in an Environmental Impact Statement for a major municipal wastewater treatment facilities plan, with discharges into the Pacific Ocean off the coast of California (County Sanitation Districts ofLos Angeles County 1994), are shown in Fig. 18.4.

Because of the direct and potentially significant impact on marine re- sources, the assessment outlined in Fig. 18.4 included a comprehensive description of existing chemical conditions, aquatic resources, physical characteristics, and historic pollution problems. This degree of thor- oughness is appropriate for municipal or private industrial projects in- volving the disposal of solid wastes or wastewater into ocean waters. It also may be appropriate for navigational dredging operations, port de- velopments, or agriculture-related management programs.

As noted in the outline in Fig. 18.4, impacts associated with effluent discharge include contaminants and suspended solids. Improvements of source control and treatment practices mitigate the potential adverse effect of the effluent. This particular assessment is further complicated by the existence of an historical sediment deposit contaminated with sulfides, metals, PCBs, and DDT. Persistent contaminants, such as DDT, from the sediment deposit are gradually being transported to the sediment surface and redistributed into the marine environment. This upward migration of contaminated sediments is caused by ocean cur- rents and disturbances by animals. The historically deposited sedi- ments have been partially buried by recent sediments from the wastewater outfall. Increasing treatment standards at the plants will reduce the release of suspended solids, normally considered an environ- mentally positive effect. If, however, that reduction in solids slows the burial of the historically contaminated sediment, the impact may, in fact, be adverse. This example demonstrates the sometimes extremely complicated nature of environmental impact assessment studies.

Runoff from agricultural land use is a major source of pollution within many of the nation's estuaries and bays. An example is the Susquehanna River's contribution of nitrogen and phosphorus ("nutri- ents") to the Chesapeake Bay. Nutrients nourish algal blooms that de- prive the Bay's grasses of sunlight and deplete water of oxygen. Draining some of the most productive agricultural lands in the na- tion, the Susquehanna River transports mass quantities of nitrogen from fertilizer and animal waste to the Bay. Pollution reduction strategies in this case include statewide bans on detergents with phosphorus; control of runoff from urban areas, farmland, and pas- tures; improvements in sewage treatment; and preservation of forest and wetlands, which act as buffers to nutrient pollution inputs (U.S. Department of Interior, USGS 1995k).

Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 applies to the transportation of dredged material for pur- pose of disposal in the ocean. Under the jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers, a permit is required to determine that "the disposal will not unreasonably degrade or endanger human health, welfare, or amenities, or the marine environment, ecological systems, or econom- ic potentialities." As with a Section 404 permit, the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to deny the use of any defined areas as a disposal site if that will produce an unacceptable adverse effect on municipal water supplies, shellfish beds and fishery areas, wildlife, or recreational areas.

The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 regulates the construction of dikes, dams, bridges, and causeways across navigable waters of the United States (Sections 9 and 10); establishes harbor lines (Section 11); and grants permission for use of sea walls, bulkheads, jetties, dike, levee, wharf, pier, or other work built by the United States (Section 14). Coastal zones and barriers are discussed in the next chapter.

18.6 Summary of Water-Related Permits-and Legislation

Permits and legislation discussed in this chapter that normally may apply to evaluation of water resources impacts are summarized in Fig. 18.5 a and h.

19.1 Floodplains

The assessment of possible floodplain impacts is closely related to ef- fects on watersheds, water quality, wetlands, and coastal zones. Much of the material presented in this section of the text will also be applic- able to these other related areas.

19.1.1 Legislation, regulations, and terminology

Several legislative and regulatory directives protect the use of land within floodplains. The most commonly referred to is Executive Order 11988, Protection of Floodplains. That order, signed in 1977, recognizes that "floodplains have unique and significant public values." The order requires the following:

1. All federal actions must avoid the occupancy and modification of, or the direct or indirect support of development within, the base floodplain whenever there is a practicable alternative.

2. If an action must be located on the base floodplain, agencies must minimize potential harm to people and to natural and beneficial floodplain values.

3. The public must be notified of a floodplain involvement.

As shown in Fig. 19.1, a floodplain is divided into two areas: the regulated floodway (which must remain unconfined or unobstructed either horizontally or vertically) and the flood fringe (remainder of the floodplain). The regulated floodway represents encroachment lim- its, so that any development permitted in the flood fringe will not re- sult in an increase in height of more than 1 ft at any location along the stream for a 100-year flood. A lOO-year flood is a flood having a 1 percent chance of being exceeded in any given year. The 100-year flood is normally considered the "base" flood. For particularly sensi- tive activities, for which even a slight chance of flooding would be too great, the base flood may be the 500-year flood, which is that flood which has a 0.2 percent chance of being exceeded in any given year. The Executive Order implements and expands the Unified National Program for Floodplain Management, originally established in 1966.

For coastal and lake floodplains, a coastal high-hazard area is iden- tified instead of a flood way. These high-velocity zones, or V zones, are defined as those areas which, because of tides, storm surge, topogra- phy, or other conditions, will support a 3-ft or higher wave and there- fore are the areas where risk of harm or loss is greatest.

The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, established the National Flood Plain Insurance Program. The program, adminis- tered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), pro- vides for technical studies to determine the extent and frequency of flooding. Resultant mapping of all the United States is available in flood insurance studies, flood hazard boundary maps, and flood insur- ance rate maps for municipal and rural areas. The maps identify ele- vations and boundaries of the floodway, flood fringe, 100-year floodplain, and 500-year floodplain.

The National Flood Insurance Program originally applied to all coastal and riverine floodplains. The Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) of 1982 ended any federal financial assistance, specifically in- cluding flood insurance, for new construction or substantial improve- ments to existing structures on designated undeveloped coastal barriers. The act is further discussed in the following section.

Additionally, several federal agencies have specific flood and flood- plain guidelines and regulations. For example, the U.S. Department of Transportation requires hydraulic studies and floodplain impact analysis in compliance with 23 CFR Part 650. Floodplain protection and flood prevention are a significant element in the Bureau of Land Management planning system.

States and local agencies also may have related legislation and reg- ulations. States bordering coastal areas or lakes may have individual coastal flooding provisions. Regional water basin commissions also may have implemented flood control regulations.

19.1.2 Describing existing conditions

Available mapping of limits of designated base floodplains and regula- tory floodway should be obtained from FEMA. Other federal sources of information may include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Department of Commerce National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration. State and local agencies should be contacted to iden- tify applicable regulations, codes, or zoning provisions. Flood or flood- plain management plans should be reviewed to identify permitted activities and land uses within the base floodplain.

To assess possible cumulative impacts, it is necessary to obtain in- formation on other planned projects or actions within the watershed(s) and to review the characteristics of, and the environmental documents prepared for, these other projects.

As dictated by the expected magnitude of impact and the scoping process, detailed information on flood water flow characteristics should be reviewed from appropriate flood insurance studies or hy- draulic studies.

If it appears that the proposed project or action will encroach on a base floodplain, it is necessary to define the natural and beneficial floodplain values and functions. Functional value determinations are discussed in greater detail in Chap. 20.

Floodplains, and wetlands in floodplains, have significant natural and beneficial values including

• Natural flood storage and conveyance

• Improvement of water quality by filtering sediment and contami- nants

• Groundwater recharge

• Habitat and critical energy source for large and diverse populations of plants and animals

• Cultural resources, such as archaeological sites, parks, and aesthet- ic recreational areas

In summary, the environmental impact analyst must have an un- derstanding of previous studies; designated floodplain limits; existing use and values; local goals and objectives for floodplain use and devel- opment; and other planned projects and actions in the project area. The level of detail of acquired information and data will be guided by the expected magnitude of impact and the results of scoping with state and local agencies and the public.

19.1.3 Impact analysis

The assessment of potential floodplain impacts progresses systemati- cally through several steps. First, it must be determined whether the project will cause an encroachment of the floodplain or floodway. The process then continues through development and feasibility assess- ment of avoidance alternatives, determination of risk to human life and property, and assessment of impacts to functional values.

Encroachment determination. The first step is to determine whether the proposed project or action will cause an encroachment on the base floodplain, either directly or indirectly through induced secondary de- velopment. If floodplain issues are identified as an area of concern, the multidisciplinary team will most likely include engineers evaluating changes in the hydraulic and hydrologic characteristics of the study area streams and floodplains due to the proposed project or action. These studies will identify encroachments in the base floodplain or regulatory floodway; calculate changes in flood levels, runoff quantity, and velocity; identify expected groundwater interception or flow changes; and assess flood water flow characteristics at specific, possi- bly problem, areas such as culverts and ponding potential sites for de- termination oflocalized flood water flow attributes. It is often relevant to potential impacts to classify the encroachment as transverse or longitudinal. Longitudinal encroachments are of much greater concern.

The other aspect of identifying applicability of Executive Order 11988 is to determine whether the proposed project or action will cause the direct or indirect support of development within the base floodplain. Although the modification of floodplains most clearly re- sults from actions located in the floodplain, it can also result from ac- tions out of the floodplain. The location of major developments and activities outside the floodplain may support associated, subsequent, secondary development within the floodplain. Floodplain development can be indirectly supported by providing infrastructure, such as water and wastewater systems, power supplies, highway and secondary road

networks, mass transit systems, and airports outside the floodplain.

Avoidance alternatives. The next step in the analysis process, if an en· croachment is identified, is to develop and evaluate alternatives to avoid the encroachment. No floodplain encroachment is permitted un- less there is no practicable alternative. The avoidance alternative concept also applies to identified adverse effects. The first and pre- ferred option is to avoid encroachment or adverse effects.

The analysis must include actual development of real avoidance al- ternatives to a level of detail to permit analysis of practicability. Considered alternatives must include alternative sites, alternative actions, and the no-action alternative. Alternative actions are those that may substitute for the proposed action by constituting new solu- tions or approaches which serve the same function or purpose as that proposed, but which have less potential for harm. The identified pur- pose and need of the proposed project or action will direct develop- ment of evaluation criteria for determining practicability. Other criteria may include legal considerations, costs, and natural, social, and economic impacts.

Risk to life and property. If avoidance of a floodplain encroachment is not practicable, the analysis continues with the evaluation of poten- tial risks to life and property from flood hazards. Risk assessment ex- amines

• Calculation of changes in flood elevations and flow characteristics

• Whether the infringement is located within the regulated floodway or the flood fringe

• Potential destructive velocity flows, flood-related erosion, mudslides, sinkholes, etc.

• Possible combination of flood sources which may flood simultane- ously

Natural and beneficial floodplain values. The Unified National Program for Floodplain Management (Federal Emergency Management Agency 1986) gives direction for analysis of impacts to natural beneficial flood- plain values. The assessment should include potential direct, indirect, cumulative, short-term, and long-term effects. Considered effects should generally include

• Accelerated runoff, with resultant erosion and an upset of the bal- ance of erosion and deposition within the stream

• Increased transport and loading of chemical and organic contaminants

• Increase in flood peaks due to accelerated runoff reducing the amount of water entering the ground

• Decrease in groundwater recharge

• Blocked or diverted groundwater flow

• Changed distribution of sediment on natural shorelines

• Removal of shelter, feeding, and nursery areas for wildlife and fish- ery resources

The types of potential impacts assessed are those also associated with coastal areas, water quality, wetlands, and vegetation and wildlife resources. The assessment, as with these related areas of potential impacts, should be based on an understanding of ecological principles and the "ripple" effects that can occur within a balanced ecosystem when a major change from human intervention, such as development within a floodplain or wetland, takes place.

19.1.4 Mitigation

Executive Order 11988 requires measures to minimize, restore, and preserve if the proposed project or action causes harm to lives and property or to natural and beneficial floodplain values. Minimization applies to harm to lives and property. Possible measures include using structures to cross floodplains instead of fills, providing ade- quate flow circulation, reducing grading requirements, and preserv- ing free, natural drainage when possible.

Any encroachment within a regulatory floodway must undergo a con- sistency analysis to determine if the proposed project or action is consis- tent with, or requires revision to, the regulatory floodway. Coordination is required with the Federal Emergency Management Agency and ap- propriate state and local agencies. Revisions may include such mea- sures as construction of dams and reservoirs; dikes, levees, or floodwalls; channel alterations; or high-flow diversions and spillways. If the conveyance and storage capacity of the floodplain is reduced, measures to compensate and provide for equal conveyance and storage must be assessed. If revisions to the regulatory floodway are required, such revisions must be acceptable to the Federal Emergency Management Agency and to state and local agencies.

The restoration and preservation directives of Executive Order 11988 apply to natural and beneficial floodplain values. The proposed project or action must incorporate all possible measures to preserve and restore floodplain values. Numerous specific measures are suggested in the Executive Order 11988 implementation guidelines (NWRC 1978) and the floodplain management program (Federal Emergency Management Agency 1986). These are examples of suggested measures related to water quality, groundwater recharge, and aquatic and wetland ecosys- tems:

• Maintain wetland and floodplain vegetation buffers to reduce sedi- mentation and delivery of chemical pollutants to the water body.

• Control agricultural activities to minimize nutrient inflow.

• Control urban runoff and other storm water and point and nonpoint discharges.

• Control methods used for grading, filling, soil removal, and soil re- placement to minimize erosion and sedimentation during construc- tion.

Prohibit the location of potential pathogenic and toxic sources on the floodplain.

Require the use of pervious surfaces wherever possible. Design construction projects for water retention.

Dispose of spoils and waste material so as not to contaminate ground or surface water or change land contours.

Identify and protect wildlife habitat and other vital ecologically sen- sitive areas from disruption.

Require topsoil protection programs during construction. Control wetland drainage, channelization, and water withdrawal; reestablish damaged floodplain ecosystems.

• Minimize tree cutting and other vegetation removal.

• Design floodgates and seawalls to allow natural tidal activity and estuarine flow.

Many of the above measures deal with overall floodplain and water- shed management as opposed to possible project-specific techniques. The principles and objectives set forth apply to sound management practices for minimizing impacts, not only to floodplains, but also to watersheds, coastal areas, surface waters, groundwater, wetlands, and biotic communities. Project- or action-specific techniques will be developed based upon these principles.

Mter identification of impacts, steps necessary to minimize im- pacts, and opportunities to restore and preserve floodplain values, the alternatives are reevaluated for feasibility of limiting the proposed project or action or taking no action.

19.1.5 Public notification

Regulations require early notification to the public of potential flood- plain impacts of proposed projects or actions. The public input process should continue throughout the development and evaluation of avoid- ance alternatives, assessment of impacts, and design of mitigation measures, if any are required. Normally this notification is accom- plished as part of the NEPA process through scoping, public meet- ings, and agency consultations. The Environmental Assessment or Draft Environmental Impact Statement will compare proposed alter- natives for impact on floodplains. If a floodplain encroachment is re- quired by the selected alternative, the Finding of No Significant Impact or Final Environmental Impact Statement must contain a floodplain finding, explaining to the public (1) why the proposed ac- tion must be located in the floodplain, (2) why the considered avoidance alternatives are not practicable, and (3) whether the action con- forms to applicable state or local floodplain protection standards.

The statement of findings (including explanatory information) must be issued for all projects or actions proposed within or impacting the floodplain, including proposed actions whose impacts are not significant enough or are not otherwise required to complete an Environmental Impact Statement.

19.1.6 Summary of the process

These are the basic steps in compliance with Executive Order 11988:

1. Gather information on floodplains, state and local plans, other planned projects, and natural and beneficial floodplain values.

2. Consult with FEMA and state and local agencies.

3. Determine whether the proposed project or action involves a direct encroachment and/or encroachment through support of floodplain development.

4. If there is an encroachment, notify the public for input and develop and evaluate avoidance alternatives for practicability.

5. Determine risk to life and property and the effects on natural and beneficial floodplain values.

6. Develop mitigation measures for adverse effects.

7. Reevaluate alternatives.

8. If the project proceeds, notify public with an explanatory finding.

19.2 Coastal Zones and Barriers

Laws and regulations protecting the coastal areas of the United States have developed because of a very basic fact which should be understood by the environmental impact analyst. That fact is that there is intrinsic conflict between the numerous "required" uses of coastal areas by federal and nonfederal programs (Fig. 19.2).

19.2.1 Federal programs affecting coastal areas

Federal agencies are charged with administering programs with mis- sions as diverse as the uses of the coast. Often these programs result in nationwide conflicts between development and conservation. For example:

• The Federal Emergency Management Agency spends billions of dol- lars through its Federal Insurance Administration (FJA).

• The Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for port maintenance and construction for the nation's seaports and for navigation, flood control, and erosion control projects in coastal states.

• The Environmental Protection Agency provides assistance through grants for wastewater treatment facilities in coastal areas.

• The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides assistance for construction of roads and bridges.

• The U.S. Coast Guard issues permits for construction of bridges and causeways across navigable waters.

• Numerous federal programs are available to assist in postdisaster reconstruction (many authorized by the Disaster Relief Act of 1972), even if that reconstruction encourages continued incompatible de- velopment within high-hazard coastal areas.

Many of these federal assistance programs have facilitated develop- ment and population growth in hazardous and vulnerable coastal areas.

19.2.2 Coastal Barriers Resources Act

The purpose of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) is to re- strict growth-inducing federal expenditures and financial assistance in remaining coastal barrier areas. The act establishes the Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS), composed of undeveloped coastal barriers along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts that are depicted on a set of maps. The program is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.

Any proposed project or action alternative which may impact a des- ignated unit of the CBRS should be evaluated, in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, for potential direct and indirect ef- fects. Impacts should be comparably quantified, by alternative, and the results of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service consultation should be documented in the draft environmental document. The final envi- ronmental document should indicate resolution of any issues pertain- ing to resources protected by the act. If the proposed project or action is not consistent with the purposes of the act, it cannot receive federal assistance unless it is determined to be a proper exception.

19.2.3 Coastal Zone Management Act

The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended in 1990, pro- vides for establishment of coastal zone management plans (CZMPs) in coastal states. The act is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), with joint concurrence with the Environmental Protection Agency. Among other things, the CZMPs include

• An identification of the inward and seaward boundaries of the coastal zone subject to the management program

• A definition of what constitutes permissible land uses and water uses within the coastal zone which have a direct and significant im- pact on the coastal waters

• An inventory and designation of areas of particular concern within the coastal zone, such as natural areas, wildlife habitat, and ports

• Broad guidelines on priorities of uses in particular areas, including specifically those uses of lowest priority

• A definition of the term beach and a planning process for the protec- tion of, and access to, public beaches and other public coastal areas of environmental, recreational, historical, aesthetic, ecological, or cultural value

• A planning process for energy facilities likely to be located within or to significantly affect, the coastal zone

• A planning process for assessing the effects and control of shoreline erosion

The plan also must include assurances that local regulations within the coastal zone do not unreasonably restrict or exclude land and water uses of regional or national significance, such as energy facili- ties. This provision again points to the inherent conflict between vari- ous programs vying for use of coastal areas. These needs must be considered in the development of a CZMP and in an environmental impact analysis of such a plan. Possible effects of management plans may be direct, secondary, beneficial, or adverse.

For example, among the most important economic activities affect- ed by coastal management decisions are the nation's seaports. Waterborne commerce contributes significantly to local, state, region- al, and national economic growth. As the demand for deep-draft ports increases, associated impacts of dredging to accommodate those ves- sels also increase. Many issues surrounding port development and ex- pansion also affect the general economic growth in coastal areas.

The assessment of possible secondary and cumulative effects of ac- tions within coastal areas also can be critical, especially for infra- structure improvements which provide access, water supply and wastewater treatment facilities, navigation, flood control, and erosion control. For example, construction of a large, regional wastewater treatment facility may make possible the development of housing projects in areas previously served by small municipal systems. This secondary development may, in turn, destroy wetlands, increase de- mand for better highways, increase air pollution, and increase the de- mand for flood protection.

19.2.4 Coastal Non-point Pollution Control Program

The 1990 amendments of the Coastal Zone Management Act estab- lished the Coastal Non-point Pollution Control Program. Each state's coastal zone management plan must contain enforceable policies and mechanisms to implement the Non-point Pollution Control Program. The Coastal Non-point Pollution Control Program is an important source of information to describe existing conditions in a potential project area. It identifies land uses which individually or cumulative- ly may cause or contribute significantly to the degradation of coastal waters and those areas of coastal waters threatened by reasonably foreseeable increases of pollution loadings from new or expanding sources. It also provides guidance on specific measures to manage

sources of nonpoint pollution.

19.2.5 Impact analysis consultation

All alternatives of the proposed project or action should be reviewed for location within an area included in an approved CZMP. If such in- volvement is apparent, coordination should begin immediately with the state coastal zone management agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and other federal and state agencies as applicable. The exact changes in or adjacent to the designated coastal zone area predicted to occur with each proposed alternative should be quantified to per- mit evaluation of potential impacts.

19.2.6 Consistency determinations

The Coastal Zone Management Act requires that all federal agency ac- tivities within or outside the coastal zone that affect any land or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone be consistent to the maxi- mum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the approved CZMP. Initial early consultation should be conducted with the appropri- ate state agency to identify the provisions of the CZMP which are relat- ed to the proposed activity and the information that will be necessary to determine consistency. A consistency determination must contain

• A brief statement indicating whether the proposed project or action will be undertaken in a manner consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the management plan

• An evaluation or the relevant provisions of the management plan that forms the basis for the statement

• A detailed description of the activity, its associated facilities, and supporting information

The amount of detail in the statement evaluation, activity descrip- tion, and supporting information should be commensurate with the expected effects of the proposed project or action on the coastal zone.

The consistency determination should be prepared and sent to the appropriate state agency at the earliest possible time during environ- mental studies, but it must be transmitted at least 90 days prior to any final decisions by the sponsoring agency. The state agency has 45 days to respond.

If the proposed project or action is not a federal action, but is a fed- erally assisted state or local action, then the state CZMP agency will be notified as part of the normal state clearinghouse notification process. The state agency will issue an opinion on consistency.

The draft environmental document should document coordination with the state agency and describe the potential impacts of all pro- posed alternatives. The final environmental document should docu- ment the state agency's agreement on consistency with the state CZMP. Projects or activities found not to be consistent with the plan, or for which there is disagreement between state and federal agen- cies, enter a mediation process. If the process determines the pro- posed project or action is not consistent with the CZMP, the project cannot proceed with federal funding or assistance.

Federally licensed and permitted activities also require consistency with the state CZMP. The application for the federal permit or license must contain a consistency certification.

19.2.7 National Estuary Program

The National Estuary Program was established to identify nationally significant estuaries, protect estuary water quality, and enhance estu- ary living resources. The program was created in 1987 under the Clean Water Act and is administered by the Environmental Protection Agency.

Management conferences are held for estuaries in the program. The purpose of the conferences is to identify priority problems in the estu- ary and develop comprehensive conservation and management plans (CCMPs) to address the problems. Appropriate management action and mitigation measure plans are then developed to identify specifi- cally who will carry out the action, when and how the action will be conducted, and how the action will be financed. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are usually represented on the committee for each estuary program to ensure consistency with the Coastal Zone Management Act and the Coastal Barriers Resources Act.

The estuary programs have the responsibility to review proposed federal development projects for consistency with the comprehensive conservation and management plan.

20.1 Legislation and Regulations

Executive Order 11990 is the primary regulation protecting wetlands of the United States. The Clean Water Act also provides for protection of wetlands, particularly within the Section 404 permit process and the Section 404(b)(1) guidelines. The Food Security Act (Swampbuster) applies to wetlands on agricultural lands.

Because of the numerous regulatory requirements, wetlands identi- fication, assessment, and permitting became a complex task in the 1980s. By the middle 1990s, several major steps had been taken to avoid duplication, clarify definitions, reduce time for permitting, and ensure consistency among the various regulatory guidelines and man- uals. These were some of the improvements:

Permit flexibility for small landowners

A nationwide permit for single-family housing

Less vigorous permit review for small projects having minor envi- ronmental impacts or affecting wetlands of minimal functional value

A streamlined permit process

Better analytical methodologies for wetland functional assessments

Consistency in wetland delineation techniques

Incentives for private participation in the Wetland Reserve Program of the NRCS

Clarification in definition of waters of the United States, previously converted cropland, and artificial wetlands

Endorsement of the use of mitigation banking under Section 404 regulatory program

Promotion of voluntary incentives for wetland restoration on pri- vate lands

Because of the numerous overlapping regulations and the ongoing changes, it is important that qualified personnel assessing wetlands impacts be up to date on the latest guidelines and regulations.

20.2 Data Collection

Steps to describe existing wetland resources are summarized in Fig. 20.1. A good place to begin is with a check of the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) mapping for the site or corridor of the project. NWI maps are available from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. These na- tionwide maps were prepared mostly by viewing aerial photography and always should be verified in the field.

Coordination and consultation with the EPA, FWS, Corps, and par- ticularly state or regional agencies will likely yield information on ex- isting wetland resources in a particular area. Such coordination, if conducted as part of the scoping and early coordination effort, also can identify study requirements and methodologies.

For example, for a project in Maryland (U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA, and Maryland State Highway Administration 1988), coordination and request for information from the Water Resources Administration of the Department of Natural Resources (Waterways Permit Division) yielded a general outline of the types of nontidal wetlands that presently exist in the project area and results of a preliminary analysis of the NWI maps. Wetland listings were then provided by USGS Quad, including classification, such as

• PF01A-Palustrine forested, temporarily flooded, broad-leaved de- ciduous vegetation

• R20WH-Riverine, lower perennial, open water, permanently flooded • PEM5A-Palustrine, emergent, temporarily flooded, narrow-leaved

persistent vegetation

• PSS1A-Palustrine, scrub and shrub, broad-leaved deciduous, tem- porarily flooded

The Coastal Resources Division recommended that the following in- formation be covered in the environmental analysis:

• Field-identified data on the vegetative species including dominant, understory, and herbaceous plant types

• Soil characteristics of the wetlands, including hydrologic regime (for example, temporary, saturated, seasonal, permanent) and drainage class (for example, poorly drained, very poorly drained)

• Wetlands acreage impacted, by type

• Aquatic and terrestrial wildlife in the project area

• Benthic invertebrates inhabiting the streams or rivers

• Details of proposed mitigation for wetland impacts

• Wetland boundary delineation performed in the field and flagged with bright, plastic ribbon and provided on map of the project

As noted by the above example, federal, state, and local agencies can be important sources of information on existing wetland resources and on requirements for subsequent studies of wetland impacts. Other important sources of information may be environmental documents prepared for other projects or actions in the immediate area, or man- agement and land-use plans. If it appears that a project will impact a wetland, all information obtained from existing sources should be veri- fied in the field.

20.3 Field Surveys and Delineations

Wetlands are defined and classified by the presence of three factors: wetland hydrology, hydric soils, and hydrophytic vegetation (Fig. 20.2). Hydrology refers to the water characteristics of the area, such as the amount of time an area is wet or flooded a year, or intermittence* of streams. Wetland hydrology exists when areas are permanently inun- dated or saturated to the surface at some period during the growing season. Hydric soils are those that are wet long enough to periodically produce anaerobic (lacking free oxygen) conditions, thereby influenc- ing the growth of plants. Hydrophytes are plants growing in water or on a substrate that is at least periodically deficient in oxygen as a re- suIt of excessive water content (U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service 1979).

Although the federal agencies with jurisdiction over, and interest in, wetlands used to have individual methodologies for identification and delineation of wetlands, the EPA, FWS, Corps, and the NRCS now use a methodology jointly acceptable by all. Whereas previous in- dividual methodologies emphasized one or more of the three factors, the accepted methodology now is to use vegetation, soils, and hydrolo- gy to define and delineate wetlands.

The acceptable methodology, however, has been, and may continue to be, refined, including revisions to definitions of wetlands. For ex- ample, a joint-agency identification and delineation methodology pre- pared in 1989 was replaced with a new manual in 1990. Both were then rescinded in 1991, and all agencies went back to using the previ- ous Corps Delineation Manual of 1987. Previous inconsistencies in provisions ofthe Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) guidelines and the Food Security Act (Swampbuster) Manual have been eliminated, es- pecially regarding classification of previously converted cropland and artificial wetlands.

It is therefore important that wetland study team members be ex- perienced professionals with up-to-date information on the most re- cent guidance. Because of an interest within the profession to improve the quality and consistency of wetland delineations, and to streamline the regulatory process, the Corps, as authorized by the Water Resources Development Act of 1990, has developed a program for the training and certification of individuals as wetland delin- eators. Wetland delineations submitted to the Corps for permit appli- cations which have been prepared by certified wetland delineators will be given expedited Corps review.

The next step in the process of identifying wetlands is the prepara- tion for a field view of the project area. Wetlands are defined as "areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapt- ed for life in saturated soil conditions" (U.S. Department of Defense, Army Corps of Engineers, 1987).

The NRCS soil survey should be reviewed. Each NRCS local office will have a list of soil units classified as hydric. Review the soil maps carefully, and note the location of any hydric soils. A list of vegetation classified as hydrophytic should be available for the region of the pro- posed project from either a state agency or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The FWS publishes a national list of plant species that occur in wetlands (U.S. Department of Interior, FWS 1988).

Vegetation species are classified into indicator groups as obligate, facultative, or upland, based on the expected occurrence of the species in wetlands (Fig. 20.3). Obligate species are generally found only in wetlands. Facultative means the species is a border plant that can occur both inside and outside wetlands. Upland species are normally not found in wetlands.

Because the definition of wetlands requires a prevalence of hy- drophytic vegetation, the term prevalence must be defined. If a visual observation estimate indicates that obligate and facultative wet plant species cover a greater percentage of the area than facultative upland and upland plants, then the area is determined to have a prevalence ofhydrophytic vegetation. If not, the area is a nonwetIand.

If visual observation cannot determine prevalence, a formula must be used based on transect techniques of observation. For the purposes of the formula, an ecological index has been assigned to each indica- tor group, from 1 for obligate to 5 for upland. The prevalence index is then calculated based on the frequency of occurrence of each indicator species group and the ecological indices. Results of the formula indi- cate whether a prevalence ofhydrophytic vegetation meeting the defi- nition of wetland exists.

Field views for the presence of wetlands can be general or very spe- cific. If a formal flagging of wetlands boundaries is required, flags are placed in the field to delineate the boundary of the wetland. This de- lineation uses the method established by the four agencies and re- quires identification and classification of plant species, testing of soil, and site observation and further study of local hydrologic conditions.

Each wetland is classified according to type (Fig. 20.4). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service classification system is the one most com- monly used. The system is too extensive to explain in detail in this text; nor would it be consistent with the purpose of this text. In gener- al, however, the wetlands are first classified by system, including ma- rine, estuarine, riverine, lacustrine (lake), or palustrine (border areas between the other systems and uplands). The next level of classifica- tion for the first four systems is the subsystem, such as tidal and intertidal for marine and estuarine; upper perennial (fast-flowing), lower perennial (slow-flowing), or intermittent for riverine; or limnet- ic (deep water) or littoral (shallow water) for lakes. The palustrine system does not have subsystems. The classification continues with descriptors for bottom types and vegetation types (such as emergent or persistent) and flooding descriptors.

20.4 Functional Value Assessment

A functional assessment also is made during the field survey. Several methodologies have been used for functional assessment (U.S. Department of Defense, Army Corps of Engineers 1979; U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA 1982; and U.S. Department of Defense, Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA 1987), and the techniques continue to improve and become more consistent. Regardless ofthe methodology used, the following features of the wetland are important to consider when the functional value of wet- lands is defined:

• Groundwater recharge value • Water quality and sedimentation value • Wildlife habitat • Flood protection • Biological diversity • Recreation • Aesthetics

Other factors entering into the evaluation of wetland value is its uniqueness and its relationship to other wetlands in the area or region.

Although all four agencies may agree on the methodology for identi- fication of wetlands, there often will be differences in jurisdictional interest. The Corps, for example, has jurisdiction in wetlands that qualify for classification under their 404 permit. Therefore, the de- scription of wetlands in the study area may need to designate which of the identified wetlands would fall under Corps 404 jurisdiction as "waters of the United States." Some surface waterways will qualify for 404 jurisdiction as waters of the United States, but may not meet the criteria to be designated as wetlands.

20.5 Interagency Concurrence on Existing Resources

Results of the field view should be circulated to agencies having juris- diction and interest over wetlands for the project site. If a detailed wetland delineation has been conducted, a separate report should be prepared to document the study, including mapping of delineated wet- lands and information on classification and functional value. Agencies should be invited to a field view to concur with the boundaries, classi- fication, and functional value. These same agencies then are later contacted to review the results of the impact assessment and pro- posed mitigation measures.

For example, a field view of a delineated and flagged wetland may in- clude representatives of the EPA, Corps, FWS, and state agencies. For each identified and flagged wetland, concurrence should be requested on

• Whether marginal areas are indeed wetlands (such as, it was agreed that no wetland existed at this site outside of the stream channel)

• Wetland classification

• Wetland boundaries

• Wetland functional values

• Estimated affected acreage-to be refined based on results of field view

• Whether specific identified wetlands are outside the area of poten- tial impact and are eliminated from further consideration

• Whether mitigation will be required

If only minor involvement with wetlands is discovered, the informa- tion sent to agencies can be in the form of the draft text to appear in the DEIS and can include the results of impact analysis and proposed mitigation. In all cases, however, the EPA, FWS, Corps, and appropri- ate state agencies should be contacted for consultation on concurrence with both the identification and impacts assessment at the DEIS stage. In fact, the DEIS must show proof of this consultation. Agreement on specific mitigation can wait until the FEIS because it will be specific to the preferred alternative.

20.6 Impact Assessment

The most common impact to wetlands is from filling or draining to make land available for other uses. To begin evaluation of the impact of the proposed project alternatives, the physical characteristics of the project should be reviewed to ascertain if any part of the identified wetlands will be physically destroyed. The acres of wetlands affected, by wetland type, should be calculated for each proposed alternative.

The EPA Section 404(b)(l) guidelines (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1980), discussed in Chap. 18, lists types of impacts to be consid- ered for aquatic ecosystems, including wetlands. Effects may include changes in water levels, flow characteristics and circulation patterns, or flooding frequencies. Changes in bottom types and other substrate con- ditions will affect the ability of the wetland to sustain vegetation and wildlife populations. Creation of increased runoff may introduce conta- minants or toxins to the wetland ecosystem or may increase nutrient loadings that produce algal blooms and reduce oxygen in the water. Changes in current patterns or velocities can affect coastal and riverine wetland ability to flush contaminants or filter sediments.

The assessment must also consider secondary effects and long-term effects. If a project will change the quality or volume of water flow or drainage patterns, wetland characteristics will be changed. Many projects located outside wetlands may induce additional development. The development, with required infrastructure improvements, could then cause secondary effects and additional stress on wetlands.

Finally, the analysis must consider cumulative effects. The analysis should identify other projects within the area of influence of the wetland and predict the integral increase in impact caused by the pro- posed project or action. The integral increase in impact, or degradation of wetland functions or values, may constitute an adverse impact even if the project, by itself, would not produce adverse effects. The assess- ment should consider the relationship of the particular wetland area affected to the availability ofsimilar resources in the project area.

20.7 Mitigation

The Section 404(b)(1) guidelines establish a three-step sequence for mitigating potential adverse impacts to the aquatic environment asso- ciated with a proposed discharge of dredged or fill material (Fig. 20.5). The three steps are avoidance, minimization, and compensation for unavoidable impacts.

20.7.1 Avoidance alternatives

If a proposed project or action will involve the filling of wetlands, the first step in mitigation is development and evaluation of alternatives to avoid the wetlands. In some cases this may be a very simple and obvious task, to demonstrate that there are no practicable alterna- tives to the loss of wetlands. In other cases, these alternatives should be developed to a level of detail equal to that of the other proposed al- ternatives and should be thoroughly evaluated for feasibility and practicability. Alternatives should include actions as well as sites or locations that may meet the identified project purpose and need.

The Clean W ater Act prohibits discharge of dredged or fill material if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge which would have a less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, if the avoidance alternative does not have other significant adverse envi- ronmental consequences. In other words, if an alternative avoids a wetland impact or has less impact than the original proposed alterna- tives, there is basically no decision remaining to be made. The avoid- ance, or less-impact, alternative must be chosen.

A significant feature of the improvements in the 1990s (Interagency Working Group on Federal Wetlands Policy 1995) in the regulatory process was the introduction offlexibility into the required analysis of avoidance alternatives. The Section 404(b)(1) guidelines are the stan- dards by which all Section 404 permit applications are evaluated. The changes in the guidelines clarified that the level of review of project alternatives should be commensurate with the severity of the impact. The new guidance specifically stated that for projects causing only minor or negligible impacts, a detailed analysis of avoidance alterna- tives should not be conducted. Minor impacts are defined as having little potential to degrade wetlands, such as

• Impacts that occur in wetlands of limited functional value

• Impacts of less than an acre

• Impacts with little potential for secondary or cumulative effects

• Impacts expected to be temporary (less than a year)

The revised guidelines also recognized that avoidance alternatives may not produce much difference in the degree of impact. Therefore, "an elaborate search for and analysis of practicable alternatives is not required if it is reasonably anticipated that the difference between the environmental impacts of the proposed project and potential al- ternatives would be only minimal."

The assessment of feasibility and impacts of avoidance alternatives should be completed to be included in the DEIS or EA stage of the en- vironmental process.

20.7.2 Minimization

If avoidance is not possible, the analyst should evaluate all possible measures to minimize harm to the wetlands and its functional values. As discussed in Chap. 18 and shown in Fig. 18.2, the Section 404(b)(1) guidelines in 40 CFR Part 230, Subpart H, list possible applicable mitigation actions in eight general areas of impact. More than 40 spe- cific measures are suggested for use.

Although a detailed analysis may wait until preparation of the final environmental document, a preliminary evaluation of the feasibility and success of mitigation measures can be done in a time frame to be included within the DEIS. Often if a project has many alternatives, with differing wetland impacts, available mitigation will be generally suggested within the DEIS to enable the reader to understand the de- gree to which the impact can be successfully mitigated or avoided. The commitment to a detailed plan for mitigation is then included within the FEIS for the selected alternative.

20.7.3 Compensation

The third means of mitigating wetland impacts is compensation, in- cluding restoration of degraded wetlands or construction of replace- ment wetlands for those lost. Compensatory actions should be considered only after all appropriate and practicable minimization has been employed and adverse impacts remain. Restoration is preferred over creation of new wetlands because of the ever-present uncertainty of the success of created wetlands. On-site, in-kind compensatory miti- gation is preferred to off-site, out-of-kind.

Restoration. An example of restoration mitigation is a project where construction would result in removal of riparian* scrub habitat (County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County 1994). Mitigation was to restore riparian scrub and forest habitat at sites on district land that presently support ruderaIt and grassland vegetation. At least 2 acres of riparian scrub habitat would be restored for each acre removed (2:1 ratio). A specific riparian habitat restoration plan was prepared and implemented that included the following elements:

• Planting locally native riparian trees and shrubs collected from local genetic stock

• Implementing necessary irrigation, weed control, herbivore control, and other cultivation measures for tree and shrub plantings

• Establishing habitat restoration success criteria based on achieving native vegetative cover and diversity and wildlife habitat equal to or greater than that of habitat that is removed

• Initiating vegetation restoration and monitoring prior to removal of vegetation

• Monitoring the success of habitat restoration for at least 10 years

• Conducting a long-tenn maintenance program

• Establishing funding sources for long-tenn maintenance and moni- toring

Several important points are evident from this example, including not only creating restored wetlands at a 2:1 ratio to those lost, but also ensuring long-tenn success, monitoring, and maintenance. Establishing a means for funding of long-tenn monitoring and maintenance commit- ments is critical to any mitigation program.

Creation of new wetlands. Off-site wetland creation nonnally involves converting an existing upland area to the type of wetland impacted or lost due to the proposed project or action. The design of a mitigation, or compensatory, wetland requires the coordinated efforts of hydrolo- gists, geologists, engineers, and biologists (Fig. 20.6).

The first step is to locate a suitable site for the creation of replace- ment wetland. If a site is not available on or adjacent to the site of the proposed project, then off-site locations will need to be considered. Site selection should be based on characteristics that will enhance the probability of self-sustaining wetland functions; restore degraded wetlands if possible, as opposed to using upland areas; avoid complex hydraulic engineering features and/or questionable water sources that may create greater costs and a higher risk of failure in the re- placement wetland.

The next step is to design the physical characteristics of the re- placement wetland. After testing of soils and geology, the hydrology of the new wetland must receive careful consideration. Required proce- dures, such as possible use of clay liners to prevent immediate perco- lation of water into porous soils, must be identified in detail to ensure long-tenn maintenance of wetland hydrologic conditions. Detailed en- gineering construction plans and specifications are developed to indi- cate the required grading, excavation, soil replacement or liner, location of weirs or dams, etc.

The next step is an assessment of wetland vegetation species to be planted. This selection may be geared to match existing wetland vegetation in surrounding areas to ensure survival percentages. It may in- clude special vegetative species that may enhance the ecosystem by adding more diversity to the vegetative community. The entire plan should reflect the type and chemical, physical, and biological function- al values of the lost wetland. Therefore, vegetation selection may be based on wildlife food, cover, or nesting sites, or on ability to effectively trap sediment and improve water quality through removal of contami- nants. A vegetation plan is then developed with the grading plan to in- dicate what species should be planted at what locations, by groupings. A materials list of required wetland vegetation is prepared.

The wetland replacement plan must include criteria by which to measure success and a funding and monitoring program.

Mitigation wetland banking. Mitigation wetland banking is permitted under certain conditions (U.S. Department of Defense, Army Corps of Engineers, EPA, NRCS, FWS, and NOAA 1995). Mitigation banking means the restoration, creation, enhancement, and in some cases preservation of wetlands expressly for the purpose of compensating future wetlands losses. A wetlands bank is created by restoring de- graded wetlands or constructing new wetlands. A functional assess- ment methodology is used to quantify the amount of credits available for use from the bank. These credits are then subtracted from the bank to be used to offset wetland and aquatic resource impacts for particular projects or actions of the sponsoring agency.

The majority of mitigation banks established to date have been de- veloped by state highway agencies or port authorities to compensate for future wetland impacts. Any private individual or organization, or local communities and counties, however, also may establish a mitiga- tion bank.

20.8 Final Environmental Impact Statement

If a selected project or action alternative involves a wetland impact that cannot be avoided, the FEIS must include a Wetland Finding, or Only Practicable Alternative Finding, in compliance with Executive Order 11990 that includes

1. A reference to Executive Order 11990

2. An explanation of why there are no practicable alternatives to the proposed action

3. Documentation that the proposed action includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands.

Concurrence with this conclusion from all jurisdictional and interested resource agencies should be documented in the Final Environmental Impact Statement.

The FEIS also should note if a Section 404 permit, either individual or nationwide, will be required (refer to discussion in Chap. 18). Acres of wetlands to be lost should be specified, and firm commitments to specif- ic mitigation should be made in the FEIS, including documentation of agreement by jurisdictional agencies on the developed mitigation plan. The mitigation plan should include identification of responsible agen- cies, document that funding is in place, and describe subsequent project monitoring programs.

21.1 Describing EXisting Resources

Vegetation and wildlife studies begin, as most other studies, with co- ordination with federal, state, and local agencies for information on the presence of any special species or particularly valuable vegetation types in the project area. Goals and objectives for the area should be reviewed, particularly if the project involves a large geographic area. Important contacts include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, state natural resources or fish and wildlife agencies, and local planning agencies and organizations (such as fishing and boating groups).

For small, simple projects or actions, it will be sufficient to verbally describe the existing resources. As the level of expected impact in- creases, photographs and vegetation (habitat) mapping will most like- ly be required. Detailed studies are usually contained within a supporting technical report to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement or the Environmental Assessment. Habitat mapping can begin with a review of aerial photographs of the project area. Much preliminary work can be accomplished prior to doing any field sur- veys. Field surveys will then verify the habitat mapping and finalize the classification of vegetation communities.

Vegetative communities can be described generally or in terms of dominant species. Significant secondary species and understory species complete the description. Any special wildlife habitat fea- tures, such as feeding or nesting sites, water supplies, cover, or travel corridors, should be individually identified and emphasized. Unique or rare habitats or vegetative communities, relative to the presence of similar habitat types in the area or region, should be noted.

These are examples of the types of general vegetative community or wildlife habitat descriptors that may be used:

• Hardwood forest-areas where greater than 50 percent of the area is dominated by trees

• Abandoned field scrub-areas not subject to mowing for at least the current growing season and subject to invasion of woody plants

• Agricultural-areas maintained for annual crop production or pas- turing; includes hedgerows and drainage ways

• Human-dominated-mowed aprons, lawns, and residential land- scaping and gardens

For each of these general descriptors, supporting text would fur- ther describe the resources, including representative plant species. For example, the description of hardwood forest should include domi- nant species, understory species, and a discussion of tree size and forest successional maturity. For all natural areas, the extent of evi- dence of disturbance or intervention by humans may be important to note.

Examples of more detailed habitat descriptors may include

• Rivers, streams, floodplains, and wetlands

• Open water

• Marine and coastal areas

• Aquatic bed

• Riparian (streamside)

• Wetlands, by classification

• Sage scrub

• Scrub and shrub

• Annual grassland

• Oak-hickory forest

• Maple and beech forest

• Southern sycamore woodland

• Willow forest

• Conifer forest

• Bottomland hardwoods

• Ruderal (disturbed by humans)

• Ornamental and agricultural

• Developed, or urban

The environmental analyst should become knowledgeable about the communities of fish and wildlife, including reptiles and amphibians, that would be expected to be present within particular vegetative ecosystems or habitat types in the project area and region. It is not necessary to try to list all possible faunal (animal) species within the technical report or draft environmental document. Most often, such an attempt will not be complete. Examples of common species should be given, however, and any special species of concern definitely should be emphasized. Threatened and endangered species and state- listed species are discussed later in this chapter.

If the environmental impact assessment is being conducted on a large management plan, such as for a national forest or a Bureau of Land Management resource area, significantly more details will be involved in the description of existing vegetation and wildlife re- sources, the assessment of impacts of various management practices, and the selection of indicator species. For example, vegetative diversi- ty in the Shawnee National Forest (U.s. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 1992a) is assessed in terms of the following natural community descriptions:

1. Barrens

a. Loess (dry-mesic) barrens

(1) Cretaceous hills type

(2) Shawnee hills type

(3) Ozark hills type

b. Limestone barrens

(1) Ozark hills type

(2) Shawnee hills type

Sandstone barrens

c. Sandbarrens

d. Cretaceous hills gravel barrens

e. Ozark hills gravel barrens

2. Cliffs

a. Sandstonecliffs

b. Sandstone overhang

c. Limestone cliff

3. Forests

a. Xeric* upland forest

b. Dry upland forest

c. Dry-mesic upland forest

d. Mesic upland forest

e. Mesic floodplain forest

f. Wet-mesic floodplain forest

g. Wet floodplain forest

4. Woodlands-dry woodland

5. Wetlands

a. Acid gravel seep

b. Springs

c. Swamps

d. Shrub swamp

e. Pond

Characteristic plant species are listed for each of the 25 identified natural communities. Detailed vegetative diversity and wildlife analyses are conducted, using computer models for incorporation of suitable habitat and population indices information.

A major tool in national forest management is the management in- dicator species (MIS). These species are selected to estimate the ef- fects of forest management activities on wildlife communities and on the forest ecosystem as a whole. Each selected species is representative of a group (guild) of many other species that have the same gen- eral habitat requirements. Effects of management activities on the in- dicator species are assumed to represent the effects on other species in the guild. A forest plan will include a list of indicator species and calculation of acres of suitable habitat for each species.

21.2 Impact Analysis

The level of detail required for impact analysis for vegetation and wildlife will depend on the specific characteristics of the proposed project alternatives and the expected degree of effects. Examples of the types of impacts that may be applicable are given in this section, including loss of unique vegetative communities, direct loss of wildlife habitat and species, deterioration of remaining habitat, barriers to wildlife travel corridors, and effects on recreational activities and land use.

21.2.1 Loss of valuable vegetative community types

The analysis of degree of impact of direct loss of vegetation will de- pend heavily on the value of the vegetative community to be de- stroyed. If the vegetation is common and unremarkable, the effects can be quantified by amount of each type of community to be de- stroyed for each proposed alternative.

The key to ensuring an efficient analysis is the identification and quantification of any special or unique natural communities to be de- stroyed. Special areas would meet criteria such as rare in the area (such as virgin or mature forests), unique, or of high-quality function- al value, such as wildlife habitat, erosion control, recreational use, or visual quality.

21.2.2 Direct loss of wildlife and habitat

For projects or actions requiring land clearance and removal of natural vegetation, the most obvious impact on wildlife will be loss of habitat and individual animals. Species with small home ranges will be most affected. Larger species may emigrate to adjacent areas, but the wildlife biologist should be cautious in assuming that adjacent areas can support any individuals that may invade. Often, the community will already be at its carrying capacity for the particular species, that is, at its maximum ability to support a particular number of individu- als without causing stress or imbalance to the species population as a whole .

The amount of habitat, by type, destroyed by each proposed alternative should be quantified. Any special functions provided by the habitat, such as food supply, water supply, and nesting or resting re- sources, should be identified. Represented species that would incur loss of individuals also should be identified. There may be more emphasis placed on game .species as a result of indicated agency, organization, or public interest and concern during the scoping process.

As with wetlands, methodologies exist for the assessment of the functional value of wildlife habitat, based on the number of functions provided and the quality and rarity of similar areas in the region. The analysis of vegetation and wildlife impacts should identify the func- tional attributes to be lost.

Two methods in common use for impact assessment are the habitat evaluation procedures (HEP) and the instream flow incremental methodology (lFIM) developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1981). Most methodologies use selected species as indicators for as- sessing potential impacts. These "evaluation species" should be select- ed to include species that are economically and socially important with a high degree of public interest, as well as species to indicate ecological conditions, such as the guild species of the U.S. Forest Service methodology. The selection of evaluation species will depend on the magnitude and type of expected impact and the characteristics and use of the affected area, that is, primary value for public use ver- sus primary value for ecosystem features.

The Fish and Wildlife service mitigation policy (U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service 1981) recognizes that a change in wildlife productivity or ecosystem structure and function may not re- sult in a biologically adverse impact. The determination as to whether a biological change constitutes an adverse impact depends on the pre- dicted future biological conditions with and without the proposed project or action.

The policy (U.S. Department of Interior, FWS 1981) defines loss re- quiring mitigation as

A change in fish and wildlife resources due to human activities that is considered adverse and:

(1) Reduces the biological value of that habitat for evaluation species;

(2) Reduces population numbers of evaluation species;

(3) Increases population numbers of "nuisance" species;

(4) Reduces the human use of those fish and wildlife resources; or

(5) Disrupts ecosystem structure and function.

Loss of habitat or individuals of a species for management purposes is not included as losses in the policy.

21.2.3 Deterioration of remaining habitat

An overall degradation of the remaining habitat may occur in a vari- ety of ways. If the habitat destroyed provides an essential functional portion of a species' overall habitat requirements, such as nesting or feeding, the remainder of the habitat area will be incomplete in meet- ing the life requirements of the species and an overall loss in popula- tion numbers and characteristics could be expected.

Loss of even a small area of habitat of nonexceptional value may cause much more significant effects on wildlife populations if the loss results in the remaining habitat being split into smaller noncontigu- ous parcels. Species requiring large integral home ranges will be most affected.

Similarly, direct loss of a substantial number of individuals of a particular species may not be considered significant. If that loss af- fects the overall ecological, or food web, balance of the remaining habitat, there may be an adverse impact on numerous wildlife species occupying the remaining habitat. Such an impact may be particularly critical if the balance of predator and prey populations is upset.

Another example of a secondary type of impact that may occur is changes in the light exposure or moisture content of soils, which would, in turn, cause changes in the composition and diversity of the vegetative community and the wildlife populations.

Management proposals can affect vegetation and wildlife communi- ties through such activities as permitting grazing which could increase soil erosion and deteriorate watersheds or remove important forest undergrowth, upsetting the normal successional progression. Management techniques designed to maintain large populations of eco- nomically valued game species can result in severe degradation of vege- tative diversity and quality of habitat for the other species in the area.

Direct loss-of-cover impacts are immediate and permanent. Habitat degradation impacts, direct and secondary, and resultant effects on wildlife may be short-term if fairly rapid recovery is expected. The analysis of potential impacts on vegetation and wildlife also should attempt to conclude whether a proposed project or action would pro- duce any long-term serious changes in the overall species' population levels or characteristics.

21.2.4 Barriers to travel corridors

The analyst must consider whether the proposed project or action would cause removal of connecting travel corridors between areas of wildlife habitat. Such corridors may cover large areas or may be very small but very important. This type of impact can often occur in sub- urban or partially rural areas where farmland or naturally vegetated land is being converted to developed use in a piecemeal approach. Often large natural areas may remain, but travelways for wildlife among the remaining large areas may be limited to narrow strips of woodland, fence rows, or riparian areas along streams.

Linear projects, such as highways, railroads, power lines, pipelines, or artificial drainage channels, are particularly likely to produce bar- riers to wildlife travel. The effect on wildlife populations can be par- ticularly adverse, for example, if feeding or watering areas are separated from nesting or resting areas. Species requiring large home ranges are most affected. The analysis must consider not only the proportion of habitat lost, which in some cases may be a small per- centage, but also whether that portion would split and render useless the remaining habitat because travel is restricted. Some species are more sensitive than others. For example, even a small two-lane road- way may present a genuine barrier if the particular species will not cross the paved area or is particularly sensitive to any human distur- bance whatsoever. Some species require very remote areas.

21.2.5 Recreational use and enjoyment

Direct or indirect impacts to vegetation can produce secondary effects on recreational resource values. Vegetation is a major amenity in both expansive natural settings and smaller urban parks and open areas. Very small parks and open areas in urban environments can support recreational activities such as birding, picnicking, walking, bicycling, and general high-quality visual resources. Larger natural areas sup- port fishing, camping, hunting, hiking, and research studies. 'lb the degree possible, the impact of the proposed project or action alterna- tives on both active and passive recreational activities and qualities should be comparatively assessed and quantified.

21.3 Mitigation

Mitigation for potential impacts on vegetation and wildlife may be very site-specific, such as replacing landscaping or creating open space and parks in more urban areas; or geographically expansive in scope, such as implementing particular management techniques in national forests. In some cases, rare plants or particular animals may actually oe transplanted or trapped and moved to other locations out of harm's way.

Mitigation measures to be considered are basically the same as those discussed for wetlands, and they follow the mitigation guidance of the CEQ Regulations, to include (1) avoiding, (2) minimizing, (3) rectifying, (4) reducing, and (5) compensating.

If particularly sensitive or valuable natural areas would be destroyed, the first mitigation technique should be development and feasibility analysis of avoidance alternatives. If total avoidance is not possible, design refinements may reduce the quantity of exceptional natural area affected.

Techniques to improve the productivity and functional value of the remaining habitat can be used to offset adverse impacts. Such mea- sures may include installation of nesting boxes or trees, creation of waterholes and open spaces, plantings of food supply vegetation, or increasing the overall vegetational diversity.

Habitat impacts also are mitigated through compensatory preserva- tion or created, replacement habitats. Depending on the value of the lost habitat, the required replacement ratio may be as high as 5:1, and the replacement should be functionally in kind to that lost. As with wetland mitigation programs, the habitat replacement plan should in- clude detailed plans for physical construction and for plantings of vari- ous plant species. Sometimes, trees and vegetation removed by the proposed project or action can be saved and used to replant the created habitat.

Barriers to wildlife travel corridors can sometimes be mitigated through provision of wildlife underpasses in highway or railroads fills or similar types of protected travel corridors for power lines or artifi- cial drainage channels. Wildlife losses through road kills can be fur- ther minimized by installation of fencing to prevent wildlife from crossing the highway and to direct wildlife movement to the provided underpasses.

Proposed mitigation measures should be coordinated with appropri- ate federal, state, and local agencies. The mitigation plan should in- clude documentation of designated funding, responsible parties, performance criteria, monitoring methods, and schedule.

21.4 Endangered and Threatened Species

This section discusses the required compliance procedures for consid- eration of federally listed or proposed threatened and endangered species (Fig. 21.1). Many states also protect wildlife species through specific laws and regulations, as discussed next.

21.4.1 Legislation

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is authorized under the Endangered Species Act of 1972 to establish lists of endangered and threatened plants and animals and to identify critical habitats for list- ed species. The lists are contained in 50 CFR Parts 17.11 and 17.12 and are published periodically in the Federal Register. Critical habitat is designated under the act and consists of that part of the geographic area occupied by a listed species which contains those features essen- tial to the conservation of the species. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) of the Department of Commerce also administers the Endangered Species Act and is responsible for protecting listed marine species. In this discussion, the two agencies together will be referred to as FWSINMFS.

The act requires federal agencies to ensure that any action autho- rized, funded, or carried out by such an agency is not likely to jeopar- dize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or to result in the destruction or adverse modification of its designat- ed critical habitat.

21.4.2 Identification of protected species

The initial step in compliance with the Endangered Species Act is a request to either the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service for a list of any listed or proposed species or designated habitat that may be present in the area of the proposed project or action. If a listed species or critical habitat may be present within the impact area of the proposed project or action, a biological assessment is required under Section 7 of the act.

21.4.3 Biological assessment

The biological assessment contents are at the discretion of the federal agency sponsoring the proposed project or action, but may include

• Results of on-site inspections or surveys

• Views of recognized experts

• Review of literature and other infonnation

• Analysis of effects of the proposed project or action on the species and habitat

• Analysis of alternative actions considered

The biological assessment should be conducted in a level of detail suitable to the project or action characteristics and the biological re- quirements of the listed species. Keep in mind that the list received from FWSfNMFS will indicate species or habitat that may exist in the area. The list will usually encompass a very large geographic area, sometimes even all the species known, or thought, to occur in the en- tire state or county, even though the particular proposed project or ac- tion may affect only a very small area. Such a comprehensive approach is entirely appropriate. It remains the ultimate responsibili- ty of the federal agency not to assist or sponsor any activity that may adversely affect an endangered species in compliance with the Endangered Species Act. The agency must therefore assume a proper share of accountability in identification of the presence of a listed species or critical habitat within the area of likely project effect.

In many circumstances, the biological assessment will be simple and obvious. For other proposed projects or actions, detailed surveys and analysis may be required. Such detailed studies, if required, can be extremely time-consuming and can have severe ramifications to the project or action implementation schedule.

First answer these three questions (Fig. 21.2):

1. Are there any historic sightings of the species within the project area? Review the literature and check with local universities and experts.

2. Does designated critical habitat exist in the project area? If not, does habitat required, or suitable for use by the species, for nesting, feeding, or resting (animals) or survival (plants) exist in the project area? In some cases, the answer may be obvious. In other circumstances, a field view of the area of potential project effect may be required.

3. Will the characteristics of the project or action cause any distur- bance or other adverse effects on such species or habitat known or thought to exist in the project area?

If the answers to the three questions above are all no, then a letter with documentation sent to the FWSINMFS will normally result in a biological opinion that no adverse effects will occur, and the Endangered Species Act process is complete. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement or Environmental Assessment should include docu- mentation of coordination with the FWSINMFS and agreement on con- clusions.

For projects requiring more in-depth analysis, it is extremely im- portant to coordinate with the FWSINMFS prior to conducting any detailed studies related to the biological assessment, to reach agree- ment and understanding on exactly what will be done. A detailed methodology, or protocol, should be developed in consultation with FWSINMFS, especially for studies of species requiring field sampling and surveys. All parties should agree, in writing, to the approach, du- ration, and level of analysis detail of studies for each affected species before any work commences.

Previously prepared biological assessments for other projects in the area may be used if the information is verified to be current and still applicable. The biological assessment should be completed within 180 days after its initiation.

If the biological assessment concludes that there are no listed species or critical habitat present likely to be adversely affected by the action, and the FWSINMFS concurs, the process is completed.

21.4.4 Formal consultation

If it is detennined that the proposed project or action will affect a list- ed endangered or threatened species or critical habitat, formal consul- tation is initiated with the FWS/NMFS, with submission of the following information:

• Description of the proposed project or action

• Description of any listed species or critical habitat that may be af- fected

• Description of the effects on the species or habitat, including an analysis or any cumulative effects

• Relevant reports, including the Environmental Impact Statement or biological assessment prepared

• Any other relevant information

The formal consultation period can last up to 90 days. Within 45 days after completion of the formal consultation, the FWSINMFS will issue a biological opinion as to whether the action, taken together with cumulative effects, is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.

21.4.5 Biological opinion

A no-jeopardy biological opinion ends the process. Ajeopardy biologi- cal opinion must include reasonable and prudent alternatives that the agency can take to avoid violation of the act. If the FWSINMFS cannot develop such alternatives, the biological opinion must indicate that there are no reasonable and prudent alternatives.

If a project would affect a listed species or critical habitat, but not to the jeopardy extent protected by the Endangered Species Act, the impact is referred to as an incidental take. The biological opinion from the FWSINMFS for an incidental take will specify

• The impact

• Reasonable and prudent mitigation measures

• Terms and conditions to implement the mitigation measures

• The procedures to be used to handle or dispose of any individuals of a species actually taken

An example of such mitigation is the relocation of individual plants or animals to other areas.

If the sponsoring agency decides to proceed with the proposed proj- ect or action after a jeopardy biological opinion is issued, the agency must inform the FWS/NMFS and apply for an exception to the Endangered Species Act.

21.4.6 Incidental take permit for nonfederal projects

The 1982 amendments to the Endangered Species Act included a pro- vision to allow incidental takes of endangered and threatened species of wildlife by nonfederal entities. Federal projects and nonfederal projects with federal funding or permitting obtain incidental take au- thority through the consultation process under Section 7 of the act, as discussed above. The incidental take permit is issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and is also referred to as a Section 10 permit or, more specifically, as a Section lO(a)(I)(B) permit.

The permit process (U.S. Department of Interior, FWS 1995) re- quires preparation of a habitat conservation plan CHCP). The HCP must include the following elements:

• Impacts, including anticipated take levels in terms of number of in- dividual plants or animals or in terms of habitat acres

• Mitigation programs and standards, including any compensation in the form of habitat banking or replacement

• Monitoring measures • Unforeseen circumstances and plan amendments

• Funding • Alternatives analyzed • Implementing agreements

The project sponsor must apply for a Section 10 permit through submission of a complete package to FWS, including the HCP. The process and review time varies depending on the category of conser- vation planning efforts and permit applications as high-effect, medi- um-effect, or low-effect. The FWS has specific permit issuance criteria that are assessed in determining whether to issue the permit.

21.5 State-Protected Species

Many states have legislation to protect important or special plant and animal species. Early coordination with appropriate state and region- al agencies should include a request for information on any species of special concern that may exist within the area of the proposed project or action. The study team should become thoroughly familiar with the accepted procedures and processing required for compliance with state regulations and guidelines. In some cases, the amount of study required for state-listed species may be more detailed than that re- quired for compliance with the federal Endangered Species Act. State regulations also would apply to projects with no involvement of feder- al assistance or funding.

For example, the state of California has an Environmental Quality Act, an Endangered Species Act, a Native Plant Protection Act, a Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and codes requiring "streambed alter- ation agreements" for modifications that may affect fish and wildlife resources. Environmental impact assessments in California must con- sider species listed on the federal FWSINMFS list; species listed as candidate for federal listing; species listed as endangered, threatened, or rare by the state; California Department of Fish and Game species of special concern; federal sensitive species listed by the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service; and species listed by the California Native Plant Society. Databases available include the California Natural Diversity Data Base and the Wildlife Habitat Relationships Data Base. Specific forms have been developed for use in the field for wetland surveys, native-species field surveys, and nat- ural community field surveys.

21.6 Contents of Environmental Document

If the required wildlife and vegetation studies are detailed and exten- sive, the description of study methodologies, sampling or surveys, analysis, and results should be contained within a technical report supporting the Environmental Assessment or Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The environmental document should summarize the information from the technical report in a comparative manner for the proposed alternative, including the no-build alternative. Impacts should be quantified to the degree possible; mitigation opportunity and expected success should be comparatively stated for each alternative.

Documentation with appropriate federal, state, and local agencies should be provided, including an opinion on the identification and value of existing resources, conclusions of the impact analysis, and proposed mitigation measures.

All specific legislative requirements for public and agency review should be met within the environmental document, if possible.

Marriott, B. (1997). Environmental impact assessment: A practical guide. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.