demonstrated that activities pennitted by Section 404 or by Section 10 of the Rivers 

 and Harbors Act (RHA) will not: 



(1) prevent or interfere with the attainment or maintenance of applicable water 

 quality standards; 



(2) result in a violation of Sections 301, 30Z 303, 306 or 307 of the CWA; 

 additionally, the agency may deny a request notwithstanding the applicant's 

 demonstration of the above if it concludes that the activity "will result in adverse 

 long or short term impacts on water quality."^ 



Ohio has placed all of its wetlands as a class in the category of "State resource 

 waters." For these waters, Ohio has proposed amendments to its standards to say that 

 "[pjresent ambient water quality and uses shall be maintained and protected without 

 exception." ^ The proposed standards also require that point source discharges to 

 State resource waters be regulated according to Ohio's biological criteria for aquatic 

 life. 



However, Ohio has not yet developed biological indices specifically for wetlands. 

 Thus, for projects affecting wetlands, it bases its certification decisions on internal 

 review guidelines that are similar to the federal Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. Ohio's 

 guidelines are structured by type of activity. For instance, for fills, their requirements 

 are as follows: 



(a) if the projea is not water dependent, certification is denied; 



(b) if the project is water dependent, certification is denied if there is a viable 

 altemadve (e.g., available upland nearby is viable alternative); 



(c) if no viable alternatives exist and impacts to wetland cannot be made acceptable 

 thmugh conditions on certification (e.g., fish movement criteria, creation of 

 floodways to bypass o:d}Ows, flow throu^ criteria), certification is denied 



Ohio's internal review guidelines also call for (1) an historical overview and ecological 

 evaluation of the site (including biota inventory and existing bioaccumtilation studies); 

 (2) a sediment physical characterization (to predict contaminant levels) and (3) a 

 sediment analysis.^ 



Using these guidelines, Ohio frequently conditions or denies certification for 

 projects that eliminate wetland uses. For instance, Ohio has issued a proposed denial 

 of an application to fill a three acre wetland area adjacent to Lake Erie for a 



17 



