(in Massachusetts, permits are granted by local "conservation commissions") has granted 

 authorization for a project. 



There may be a nimiber of reasons that a proposed activity may receive 

 authorization tmder a State wetland regulatory program, but fail to pass muster under a 

 401 certification review. The most commonly cited reason, however, is that water 

 quality personnel have a specialized understanding of the requirements and 

 implementation of the State's water quality standards and the ways in which certain 

 activities may interfere with their attainment 



It is important, however, to keep in mind the limitations of 401 certification 

 when considering a comprehensive approach to protecting your wetland resources. The 

 primary limitation is that if 401 certification is the only tool a State has to protect 

 wetlands, it cannot place limits on activities which do not require a federal license or 

 permit Some activities such as drainage or groundwater pumping, can have severe 

 impacts on the viabili^ of wetlands, but may not require a permit or license. Ideally, 

 401 certification should be combined with other programs in the State offering wetlands 

 protection opportunities (such as coastal management and floodplain management). 

 For example, Alaska has integrated its 401 certification and coastal management 

 consistency review processes so that the provisions of each program augment the other 

 to provide more comprehensive protection. This approach not only strengthens 

 protection, it reduces duplication of State efforts and coordinates permit review for 

 applicants.' 



IV. THE ROLE OF WATER QUAUTY STANDARDS IN THE CERTinCATION 

 PROCESS 



A. Wetlands Shonld be Spedficalty Designated as Surface Waters of the 

 States 



In order to bring wetlands fully into the State water quality certification process, 

 a first step is to include the term "wetlands" in the State water quality standards' 

 definition of surface waters. EPA will be working with aU States through the trieimial 

 review process of State standards to ensure that their definitions are at least as. 

 comprehensive as the federal definitions for waters (see Appendix B for federal 

 definitions of "Waters of the US." and the term "wetlands"). 



It may seem minor, but from every standpoint, it is important to have wetlands 

 specifically designated as surface waters in State water quality standards. First it 

 precludes any arguments that somehow wetlaiids are not covered by water quality 

 standards. Second, it predisposes decision makers (frtjm 401 certification program 

 managers, to the head of the agency or a water quality board, all the way to the judges 



10 



