Coastal Wetlands Initiative:
view
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
EPA-843-R-10-005 D
National Picture
Coastal wetlands provide important ecosystem services that
are vital to the health and well-being of our nation. They
serve as buffers, protecting coastal areas from storm damage
and sea level rise. They are vital to the health of commercially
and recreationally important fisheries resources, providing
food and essential fish and shellfish habitat. Wetlands also
serve as nesting and foraging habitat for birds and other
wildlife. As "living filters," wetlands improve water quality by
removing pollutants, nutrients, and sediments. Furthermore,
coastal wetlands provide direct value to people in other ways,
such as minimizing erosion of upland, protecting property
and infrastructure and supporting the tourism, hunting, and
fishing sectors of the economy.
There are a number of threats to coastal areas, in particular
wetland habitats. The most significant threats include conver-
sion of wetlands to other land uses and climate change, in
particular, sea level rise and increases in hurricane intensity
and frequency. In some regions, wetlands are being converted
to open water due to land subsidence.
Numerous recent reports have examined coastal wetland loss
and potential strategies to address threats like climate change.
The Association of State Wetland Managers (ASWM, 2009)
recommended a national wetland and climate change initia-
tive. The report contains measures to reduce impacts and
adapt coastal/estuarine wetlands to climate change. The U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps) and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) both pub-
lished frameworks to guide how they will consider impacts
of climate change and sea level rise as they implement resto-
ration activities, including those in coastal wetlands (Army
Corps, 2009; NOAA, 2010a).
NOAA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) ana-
lyzed the status and trends of wetland acreage along the Atlan-
tic Coast, Gulf of Mexico, and the Great Lakes to provide an
estimate of losses or gains that occurred in those coastal water-
sheds. Their report, released in 2008, found that 361,000 acres
of coastal wetlands were lost in the Eastern United States alone
between 1998 and 2004 (Stedman and Dahl, 2008). This
amounts to an average net decrease of 59,000 acres each year.
The vast majority of the loss (82 percent) occurred in fresh-
water wetlands, both tidal and non-tidal. Nearly 60 percent
of the total loss of coastal freshwater wetlands is attributed to
"other development," which includes conversion of wetlands
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: Gulf of Mexico Review
to unknown or undetermined
land uses (Figure 1). There were
also losses of saltwater tidal
wetlands to open water (deeper
than 2 meters), particularly in
the Mid-Atlantic region. The
2008 NOAA and USFWS
Status and Trends report did
not examine the loss of wetland
condition or function.
In response to these reports,
EPA established a two-part
Coastal Wetlands Initiative.
The first part is the Coastal Wetlands Team, which is a joint
effort between NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service,
Office of Habitat Conservation and EPA's Wetlands Division
and the Oceans and Coastal Protection Division. The team's
goals are: 1) confirming wetland loss and better understand-
ing contributing stressors; 2) identifying and disseminating
tools, strategies, policies, and information to protect and
restore coastal wetland resources; and 3) raising awareness of
the functions and values of coastal wetlands, threats to these
resources, and opportunities to protect and restore coastal
wetlands. To achieve its goals, the Coastal Wetlands Team met
with stakeholders in the Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, Gulf of
Mexico, and North Atlantic regions (see Figure 2). For each
of these Coastal Wetland Reviews (CWRs), the team identi-
fied key stressors; examined regulatory and voluntary efforts at
the federal, regional, state, and local level to reduce or reverse
Agriculture
3.6%
Deepwater
14.5%
Figure 1. Wetland loss and changes in land cover, 1998-2004: Atlantic, Gulf of
Mexico, and Great Lakes. Source: Stedman and Dahl, 2008.
-------
Coastal Wetlands Review Regions
coastal wetland loss; and assessed whether successful strategies
can be replicated elsewhere. The information from the reviews
could be used to help inform policy decisions, influence
program direction, and develop projects to reduce or reverse
coastal wetland loss nationally. The results of these CWRs are
provided in a report distributed to the respective participants,
and will also be posted on EPA's and NOAA's websites. This
document is the CWR report for the Gulf of Mexico region.
The second part of the Coastal Wetlands Initiative is the
federal Interagency Coastal Wetlands Workgroup, which is
composed of members from EPA, NOAA, USFWS, the U.S.
Geological Survey, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Natural Resources Conservation Service, the Army Corps,
and the Federal Highway Administration. The Interagency
Coastal Wetlands Workgroup serves in an advisory capacity
to the Coastal Wetlands Team by helping to identify CWR
watersheds, participating in the CWR on-site discussions, and
providing input on the reports.
Coastal Wetland Regional Reviews
EPA and NOAA conducted these CWRs to identify and bet-
ter understand the stressors on coastal wetlands and the strate-
gies needed to protect and restore them. The Coastal Wet-
lands Team is interested in identifying the cause(s) of losses
in the areal extent of wetlands, as well as examining losses in
wetland function and/or ecological integrity. Though quantifi-
able data on functional loss are limited in availability, EPA
and NOAA recognize that it is an issue in many watersheds
and included qualitative information to reflect this concern
where appropriate. EPA and NOAA coordinated with the
Consistent with other federal
agencies, EPA is defining "coastal
wetlands"as saltwater and
freshwater wetlands* within HUC-8
watersheds that drain to the Atlantic,
Pacific, or Gulf of Mexico. "Coastal
wetland loss" is defined as "a decline
in the areal extent and/or ecological
integrity** of wetlands in coastal
watersheds." (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Coastal wetlands regions identified in
EPA's Coastal Wetlands Initiative.
Interagency Coastal Wetlands Workgroup and stakeholders
to gather information on available tools and strategies used to
address wetland function and condition within the region(s)
of interest. The CWRs and the subsequent regional reports
will not be used to evaluate specific wetland assessment tools
or methodologies, but rather to describe which tools are being
used and discuss participants' views on their experiences and
relative success with such tools.
The purpose of the CWRs is to facilitate dialogue among
stakeholders who share a vested interest in coastal wetland
resource protection such that continued local, regional, and
national efforts to stem coastal wetland losses can be increas-
ingly effective. They are not considered a commitment of
future resources to address issues identified during the review
process. Each CWR is intended to provide information on a
particular focal watershed or region and should not be consid-
ered a final assessment of the study area. Instead, each review
should be considered a baseline reconnaissance to aid in mov-
ing the entire Coastal Wetlands Initiative forward.
This report contains points raised during the course of the dis-
cussions with stakeholder groups. Participants were afforded
an opportunity to comment on CWR notes and draft reports
in order to provide the broadest perspective possible. The
Coastal Wetlands Team supplemented these perspectives with
documentation (e.g., relevant references, citations), but it was
not possible to do so for every comment provided. Thus, the
information presented in this report cannot be considered
the definitive and most comprehensive presentation of issues
within the region or within specific focal watersheds. Instead,
it can serve as a starting point for identifying priority stressors,
* For the purposes of this initiative, "wetlands" means those areas meeting the definition of wetlands in: Cowardin, L., et al. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwate
Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS 79/31. 131 pp.
** EPA recognizes that there are limited quantifiable data currently available regarding loss of wetland ecological integrity.
-------
tools and strategies to address them, and key information and
data gaps that need to be filled in order to reduce wetland loss
in the future.
The process for the CWRs was intended to be flexible and
encouraged participation from a diverse and representative
group of stakeholders in each of the focal watersheds. Four
steps were followed for each CWR:
1. Identify focal watersheds.
USFWS identified candidate watersheds for the CWRs based
on observed wetland loss in the USFWS/NOAA Status and
Trends report. These are generally areas where the most
wetland loss has occurred, due to development, other human
actions, or where losses were attributed to inundation or other
coastal processes.
The Coastal Wetlands Team further refined this larger candi-
date watershed to focus in on specific eight-digit HUC water-
sheds ("HUC 8 watersheds"). The focal watersheds selected
for analysis are based on existing wetland conditions assess-
ments, available data, a variety of efforts to protect and restore
coastal wetlands, and the willingness of local stakeholders to
participate.
The HUC 8 watersheds identified may correspond directly to
National Estuary Program (NEP) study areas (the geographic
boundary in which the NEPs work to improve estuary
health). In other words, the CWRs often occur in the same
watersheds as the NEP study areas or a sub-set thereof.
NEPs provide an effective mechanism to assist the CWRs
in a few important ways. They consist of broad-based stake-
holder groups that work in close partnership to protect and
restore habitats in their study area. These groups represent a
wide range of interests and expertise at local, state, and federal
levels (e.g., general public, state natural resource agencies,
academics, local governments, watershed groups). EPA and
NOAA use stakeholder lists from the NEPs along with con-
tacts provided by the Interagency Coastal Wetlands Work-
group to invite participants to attend the CWRs.
NEPs and their partners create and implement a manage-
ment plan that is based on scientific characterization of the
study area, and contains actions to address habitat loss and
modification. This characterization is a collection of scientific
information that includes an assessment of extent and condi-
tion of habitats such as wetlands. These data can help provide
key information for the CWR assessments and reports.
2. Conduct a review of current, readily available
information.
For the selected review area, the Coastal Wetlands Team gath-
ered more specific existing information on coastal wetland
loss, stressors contributing to coastal wetland loss, tools and
NEPs are already employing a variety of efforts
to protect and restore wetlands. NEPs can assist
by: 1) convening the appropriate stakeholders
to participate in the CWRs, 2) providing scientific
data on wetland conditions in their study areas,
and 3) providing a strong platform and scientific
understanding to support the CWRs.
strategies used to protect and restore coastal wetlands, and
key information gaps that, if addressed, could help reverse
the trend of wetland loss. Information was gathered from the
Internet, reports provided by the "host" organization, and
CWR invitees or participants in advance of the local stake-
holders discussions. In addition, to estimate coastal wetlands
loss, the Coastal Wetlands Team consulted with NOAA's
Coastal Change Analysis Program (C-CAP), which uses satel-
lite imagery to measure land cover change in coastal areas.
The Team also requested permit data from the Army Corps
and state agencies, where applicable, in order to quantify
authorized losses and associated mitigation gains for wetlands
which are under the jurisdiction of Section 404 of the federal
Clean Water Act (CWA) or similar state programs. When
made available by the relevant agency, these data were pro-
vided in the CWR report. Due to database limitations, permit
data provided by the Army Corps did not cover the same time
frame as C-CAP (1996-2006) and therefore it was not pos-
sible to compare the magnitude of losses identified by each.
See Appendices C and D for more information on the CWA
Section 404 program and C-CAP, respectively.
3. Conduct stakeholder discussions.
EPA and NOAA sought an entity to serve as the "host" of
each review and to help identify a broad range of local stake-
holders to participate in the discussions. The host organiza-
tion (such as an NEP) helped to arrange the meeting logistics
and used their partnerships to invite all the appropriate
participants to that dialogue. Invited participants included a
-------
Questions posed during stakeholder discussions:
1. What are the root causes of coastal wetland loss in your area?
Are there differences between fresh and saltwater stressors?
Which are the top three stressors?
2. What are the current regulatory and non-regulatory protec-
tion and restoration tools being used to adapt to or mitigate
wetland loss in your area?
3. What are the successful strategies being employed to protect
and restore coastal wetlands in your area?
4. What information gaps would be most helpful to address loss,
and how can these gaps be addressed?
broad cross-section of business, environmental, academic, and
government representatives. Invitee lists were collected from
the organization hosting the event, as well as suggestions from
the Interagency Coastal Workgroup (which includes their
regional representatives).
The Coastal Wetlands Team convened a stakeholder forum
of the invitees in each selected focal watershed. These one- or
two-day facilitated dialogues provided additional insights
about on-the-ground (existing) condition of coastal wetlands
within the focal watershed and growing pressures within the
region; i.e., issues often best identified by those with the most
vested interest in the outcome of such efforts. Attendees were
asked to provide information on threats to coastal wetlands
(including reduction in acreage as well as function and
conditions) and tools and techniques used locally to reduce
or reverse wetland loss. The term "stressor" was not defined
for participants in advance of the reviews. While stressors
are traditionally limited to "physical, chemical, or biologi-
cal entities, or processes that adversely affect the ecological
condition of a natural ecosystem" stakeholders in every CWR
also identified programmatic issues as stressors related to loss
or degradation of coastal wetlands. While state and federal
regulatory programs are tools for wetland protection, limits
to regulation are captured in the report under the "Stressors"
sections in accordance with commonly expressed stakeholder
input. A neutral facilitator captured the discussion in meet-
ing notes. While there may be disagreements among parties
regarding the validity of the data presented or provided, EPA
and NOAA considered all documented sources of informa-
tion and recognized that reference documents would not be
available for all points raised by participants in the discussion.
To coincide with the stakeholder discussions, site visits were
scheduled to nearby wetland protection, restoration, or miti-
gation projects when feasible. This enabled EPA and NOAA
to obtain a firsthand view of local stressors or approaches
being employed to address wetland loss in that watershed.
Collection and analysis of raw field data is outside the scope
of these field visits.
4. Assemble a coastal wetland regional review
summary.
Once the notes from the stakeholder discussions were vetted
with the participants, they were combined with the available
data collected in Step 2 to form the basis of a regional report.
Although these reports are not exhaustive and only reflect
readily available, existing documentation and the viewpoints
of participating stakeholders, EPA and NOAA believe they
are a good indicator or snapshot of wetland issues in the focal
watersheds.
The results of the Gulf of Mexico review are summarized
below and are also presented in Tables 1 and 2, and in the
"Conclusion" section of this report:
Major stressors:
» Development pressure and its associated impacts (storm-
water runoff, shoreline armoring).
» Hurricanes and storms.
» Hydrologic modifications (channelization, diversion, and
dredging).
» Resource extraction (groundwater, oil, and gas).
» Limited estuarine marsh retreat opportunities in the face
of sea level rise.
» Subsidence, which was noted as a significant issue in the
past, but has become less pronounced today.
Major tools and strategies:
» Beneficial use of dredged material to restore wetlands.
» Watershed-based planning for wetlands protection, miti-
gation, and restoration.
» Conservation of existing coastal wetlands through direct
purchase of land or through conservation easements.
» Property buyouts to remove buildings from flood-prone
areas and restore the floodplain to its natural state.
» The development of a CWA regional general permit for
living shorelines.
-------
Major gaps:
» Outreach and education of both the public and local/
regional decision-makers.
» Resources (staffing and funding) for regulatory programs,
monitoring and assessment, and outreach.
» Widespread use and implementation of watershed-based
plans and land use planning.
» Clarifying CWA jurisdiction and applying results from
new studies to isolated wetlands protection (in Texas in
particular).
» High-resolution aerial photography and mapping of
coastal areas to accurately characterize coastal wetland
losses and to assist in enforcement.
» Accessible database of authorized wetlands impacts/miti-
gation to compare total losses to authorized losses.
» Watershed-based mitigation and customized mitigation
approaches based on the wetland type impacted.
Gulf of Mexico Review
The Gulf of Mexico coastline stretches approximately 1,631
miles from the tip of the Gulf-facing coast of Florida west to
the border of Texas and Mexico. The Gulf of Mexico region
is home to a diverse array of coastal wetlands, from Florida's
freshwater Everglades to Texas's estuarine marshes. The coastal
watersheds in the region contain 15-6 million acres of wet-
lands (Stedman and Dahl, 2008). Within this region, the
Interagency Coastal Wetlands Workgroup chose two areas for
review: the East and West Galveston Bay watersheds in Texas
(HUG 12040202 and 12040204) and the Mississippi Coastal
watershed (HUC 03170009) in Mississippi and Alabama (see
Figures 4 and 17).
The Gulf of Mexico's coastal wetlands are an important eco-
nomic resource, a critical habitat to a variety of species, and
a means of shoreline protection from storms and hurricanes.
Numerous rare and endangered bird species depend on the
freshwater marshes in Florida, Louisiana, and Texas. Some
species, such as the endangered whooping crane, use these
coastal marshes as their sole wintering ground (Twilley et al.,
2001). Almost 70 percent of waterfowl migrating along the
Central and Mississippi flyways winter in the coastal marshes
of Louisiana, including the gadwall, green-winged teal, north-
ern shoveler, and snow goose (Bellrose andTrudeau, 1988;
as cited in Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and
Restoration Task Force, 2010). Alabama contains the second
largest number of federally threatened and endangered species
in the contiguous United States (many of which are found in
the coastal watersheds), including the Alabama beach mouse,
American alligator, piping plover, Alabama red-bellied turtle,
and Gulf sturgeon (ELI, 2008; USFWS, 2012).
A diverse assemblage offish
relies on coastal wetlands as
nursery areas and as habitats
to feed and reproduce. Brown
shrimp, blue crab, red drum,
spotted sea trout, southern
flounder, and Gulf menhaden
are just a few of the species
that rely on Gulf coastal habi-
tats. Many of these species are
economically significant for
the area. Commercial fishing
is a billion dollar industry for
some states, and 97 percent
(by weight) of the fish and shellfish caught by U.S. fisher-
men in the Gulf of Mexico are dependent on estuaries and
wetlands at some point in their life cycle (Lellis-Dibble et al.,
2008). In 2010 alone, ports in the Gulf region took in more
than $639 million worth of commercial fish and shellfish, or
14 percent of total national catch value (NMFS, 201 la). The
Gulf region led in oyster and shrimp production, with 55
percent of the national total of oyster meat coming from the
region and 68 percent of the national total of shrimp brought
to shore for sale. Recreational fishing is an important compo-
nent of the Gulf region coastal economy as well. Recreational
fishing expenditures in the five Gulf States total almost $9-5
billion, with Florida and Texas ranked as the states with the
most anglers and highest recreational fishing-related expen-
ditures (USFWS, 2006). These expenditures include money
spent on travel, lodging, food, equipment, and other related
expenses such as licenses and permits for recreational fishing.
The unique combination of regional and global climate fac-
tors in the Gulf region increases the importance of coastal
wetlands. Hurricanes and tropical storms, which are prevalent
in this region, erode shorelines and cause flooding and wind
damage to properties and infrastructure. Climate models pre-
dict an increased frequency and intensity of hurricanes in the
Atlantic as ocean temperatures rise (UGSCRP, 2009). Wet-
lands can lessen hurricane damage by reducing wind energy
and buffering the impacts of storm surge (Twilley, 2007).
-------
Often, artificial hydrologic modifications impede the abil-
ity of wetlands to migrate inland and abate flooding. Levees,
dams, and dikes change the source, quality, or quantity of
water and sediment that is available to coastal ecosystems,
which restricts the ability of coastal wetlands to survive (Day
et al., 2000, 2007; Martin et al., 2000; EPA, 1987).
Gulf of Mexico Wetland Stressors
The Gulf States have suffered a high amount of coastal wetland
loss over the last century, threatening the wildlife, economy,
and resilience of the entire Gulf coastal region. Land loss in
coastal Louisiana has been studied most intensively; a recent
report by the U.S. Geological Survey (Couvillion et al., 2011)
documented 1,833 square miles (1.2 million acres) of land loss
from 1932 to 2010, and a more recent annual loss from 1985
to 2010 of 10,605 acres per year. A majority of the land loss
tracked in this report is tidal wetlands. Studies also exist for
other states, including Mississippi and Texas, where the CWR
focal watersheds are located. Before the 1800s, Mississippi
had nearly 10 million acres of wetlands. Nearly 60 percent of
that acreage has since been lost, including 10,000 acres of salt
and brackish marshes (MDEQ, 2007). Wetlands in the Texas
coastal plain decreased by 200,000 acres between the mid-
1950s and the early 1990s. The greatest losses were of freshwa-
ter emergent and forested wetlands (Moulton et al., 1997).
Using the remote sensing and mapping methodology of
NOAA's Coastal Change Analysis Program (C-CAP), losses
of wetlands in the Gulf of Mexico coastal watersheds from
1996 to 2006 were estimated at approximately 256,100 acres,
or an annual average loss of approximately 25,610 acres. This
methodology measures only changes in wetland acreage and
does not measure change in wetland function (see Appendix
D for more information on C-CAP methodology). Conver-
sion to open water accounted for more than a third of those
losses, while about 40 percent of the loss was attributed to
development and bare land (often a precursor to develop-
ment), and another 25 percent was attributed to agriculture
(which includes pasture) (Figure 3).
Numerous stressors contribute to coastal wetland acreage
and functional loss in the Gulf region. Some of the common
stressors mentioned in the literature (see Appendix B) are
listed below:
Coastal development resulting in upland conversion, non-
point and point source pollution, and shoreline hardening.
Hurricanes and storms.
Hydrologic modifications, including channelization, surface
water diversions, and dredging.
Agriculture and silviculture practices.
Resource extraction, including groundwater pumping and
oil and gas extraction.
Limited estuarine marsh retreat opportunities in the face of
sea level rise.
Invasive species.
Rapid population growth is one of the catalysts for stress-
ors on the Gulf region's coastal wetlands. The population of
coastal counties in the Gulf region has increased 150 percent
from I960 to 2008, and in 2010 Texas was identified as the
state with the fifth fastest growing population (U.S. Census
Bureau, 2010). Review participants identified the limited
ability of existing regulations to address the projected increase
in coastal development as an associated stressor. While many
activities may not be regulated by the federal government,
state and/or local governments could develop and implement
regulations to address these impacts.
Storms and hurricanes are another stressor causing coastal
wetland acreage loss in the Gulf region. Hurricanes Katrina
and Rita affected coastal Louisiana and surrounding areas in
August 2005, and Hurricane Ike struck the coast of Galves-
ton, Texas, in September 2008. These storms caused heavy
damage and flooding along the coast, including damage to
coastal wetlands. Coastal Louisiana lost approximately 200
square miles of coastal wetlands between October 2004 and
October 2005, although it should be noted that this includes
some transitory loss which is likely to be recovered within a
few growing seasons (Barras, 2006).
In both of the Gulf region focal watersheds, hydrologic altera-
tions were noted as another major stressor causing wetland
losses. One of the limiting variables associated with wet-
land growth is consistent inflow of sediment and nutrients;
however, natural riverine input to most of the Gulf of Mexico
has been impacted by artificial flood controls, resulting in a
decrease in the sediment and nutrients needed for wetlands
Figure 3. Wetland loss and changes in land use, 1996-2006: Gulf of Mexico.
Source: NOM, 201 la.
-------
to survive (Ko and Day, 2004). The movement and deposi-
tion of sediment can be impeded by a variety of flood control
mechanisms (Louisiana Sea Grant, 2010). These structures
can also restrict freshwater flow, which in turn can allow toxic
metals and organics to accumulate. In addition, the creation
of channels and canals, often the result of activity by the gas
and oil industry, can lead to saltwater intrusion, which can
destroy freshwater marshes (Ko and Day, 2004).
Oil and gas extraction were also identified as stressors in the lit-
erature. Oil spills can occur as a result of that activity. In 2010,
the Deepwater Horizon spill released the equivalent of almost 5
million barrels of oil into the Gulf marine and coastal environ-
ment. While the impacts from the spill have not been fully
assessed, the damage done to ecologically, commercially, and
recreationally valuable habitats and species is clearly extensive.
The spill resulted in the oiling of over 1,000 miles of shoreline,
including 400 miles of intertidal marsh in Louisiana, and a
countless number of marine species in the spill's path (Deepwa-
ter Horizon Natural Resource Trustees, 2012).
Gulf of Mexico Tools and Strategies
Constituencies in the Galveston Bay and Mississippi Coastal
watersheds are working with available tools and strategies to
manage and conserve coastal wetlands and improve coastal
resilience. The Gulf States manage coastal wetlands stressors
using both regulatory and non-regulatory tools and strategies.
Various state-level regulatory activities complement federal
wetland protection offered by the CWA Section 404 program
(see Appendix C for more information on CWA Section 404).
Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama have varying degrees of
state regulation of wetlands in the coastal zone (e.g., Loui-
siana's Coastal Use Permit, Mississippi's Coastal Wetlands
Protection Act, and Alabama's Coastal Area Management Pro-
gram). Florida has a comprehensive state wetlands manage-
ment program authorized by state statute, called the Environ-
mental Resources Permit Program.
Watershed planning is beginning to be used as a tool in both
focal watersheds to control the impacts from development
and identify areas appropriate for mitigation. Galveston Bay,
which is part of EPA's National Estuaries Program, has its
own Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan
(CCMP) in place to guide conservation and restoration efforts
at the watershed scale.
All of the Gulf States except Florida are involved with the
federal Coastal Impact Assistance Program (CIAP), which is
managed by the U.S. Department of the Interior and autho-
rizes funds for conservation, protection, and preservation of
coastal areas, including wetlands. In addition, all the Gulf
States use a variety of land conservation programs, including
the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Wet-
lands Reserve Program and many active local and regional
land trusts. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, Mississippi
has undertaken a variety of projects funded by Congress to
improve coastal resilience (Mississippi Coastal Improvement
Program). This 1.4 billion dollar effort has become central to
coastal wetland restoration, protection, and creation in the
state. Wetland conservation has been an important compo-
nent of the efforts underway in Galveston, Texas, through
state and federal grants and the work of local land trusts.
Additionally, in both the Galveston and Mississippi focal
watersheds, sediment dredged from federal navigation projects
is being beneficially reused for wetland restoration and beach
nourishment.
Managers in both watersheds have used living shorelines as an
alternative to hardened structures (e.g., seawalls, revetments)
to protect shorelines and coastal wetlands from sea level
rise and storm-associated erosion. The Army Corps Mobile
District completed a living shoreline CWA Regional Gen-
eral Permit for the Alabama coast in 2012, and a Mississippi
Regional General Permit is being completed as of the date of
this publication.
The work of regional organizations like the Gulf of Mexico
Alliance will continue to improve coastal wetland manage-
ment across all the Gulf States as it conducts critical research
related to ecosystem services and establishes the groundwork
for regional coastal and marine planning.
Gulf of Mexico Gaps and Needs
Based on data collected from available sources, and discus-
sions with review participants, the following gaps and needs
were identified for the Galveston Bay and Mississippi Coastal
watersheds:
Outreach and education of both the public and decision-
makers, which will allow for more effective planning, con-
servation, and management at both the state and local level.
Resources (staffing and funding), which are needed to
administer regulatory programs, conduct monitoring and
assessment, and conduct effective outreach programs.
Widespread use and implementation of watershed-based
plans to enhance strategic wetland protection and selection
of mitigation sites.
Mapping and aerial photography of coastal areas, which
would aid in tracking losses and provide a tool to assist
enforcement efforts.
Consistent application of compensatory mitigation
approaches, which compensate for lost functions not only
within the watershed, but as close as practicable to the
impacts that are authorized.
Tables 1 and 2 summarize key stressors, tools and strategies to
address them, and gaps and needs for both focal watersheds in
the Gulf of Mexico region.
-------
Table 1. Stressors, Tools and Strategies, and Gaps Identified by Participants During the Galveston Bay CWR
Stressors
Tools and Strategies
Gaps and Needs
Coastal development
Nonpoint source pollution
Shoreline hardening
Compensatory mitigation
Watershed plans
Conservation easements
Property buyouts of repeatedly
flooded land
Total Maximum Daily Loads
(TMDLs)
Widespread land use planning
Widespread use of watershed plans
Outreach and education (for the public and local
decision-makers)
Detailed wetland mapping
Collaboration
Incentives for conservation
Mitigation monitoring
Limitations of regulations
Land management and
conservation programs
Research on hydrologic nexus
Rolling easements
Clarifying CWAjurisdiction (particularly by conducting scientific
studies on geographically isolated wetlands)
Integrated mapping, monitoring, and data collection system
(including accessible database of authorized wetland impacts/
mitigation, and other CWA Section 404 permit data)
Locating compensatory mitigation in the same watershed and
as close to the coast as the impacts that are authorized
State and/or local regulatory and incentive programs
Sustained funding for studies to better understand wetland
functions, values, and loss
Outreach and education
Stronger enforcement (including high-resolution aerial
photography to track losses and assist in enforcement)
Hydrologic alterations
Channelization
Dredging
Water withdrawal
Beneficial use of dredged material
Flood districts
Subsidence districts
Regional sediment management
plans
Increased collaboration
Reduction of regulatory barriers to beneficial use of dredged
material
Climate change and sea level rise
Living shorelines
Conservation (preservation and
restoration) funding
Modeling
Land use planning
Mapping and modeling
Outreach and education
-------
Table 2. Stressors,Tools and Strategies, and Gaps Identified by Participants During the Mississippi Sound Coastal CWR
Stressors
Coastal development
Interruption of fire regime
Nonpoint source pollution
Shoreline hardening
Cumulative impacts, including
Bulkheads
Docks and piers
Dredge spoil
Limitations of regulations
Agriculture and silviculture
Sea level rise, hurricanes, and
subsidence
Hydrologic modifications
Tools and Strategies
Watershed plans
Amended Gaming Control Act (to
address historic stressor)
Mitigation
Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Coastal preserves
Land Trust for MS Coastal Plain CIS-
based tool
Living shorelines nationwide
permit (NWP)
Watershed plans
Mississippi Coastal Improvement
Program (MsCIP)
State regulatory involvement (e.g.
Department of Marine Resources)
Education of local municipalities
Collaboration between agencies
BMPs
MsCIP
Beneficial use of dredged material
Beneficial use of dredged material
Gaps and Needs
Widespread land use planning
Education of the public and local officials
Living shorelines nationwide permit (a regional general permit
is already under development)
Detailed wetland maps and trends by watershed
Protection of non-jurisdictional wetlands
Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) implementation
Enforcement
Living shorelines nationwide permit
Education of the public and local officials
Watershed management
SAM Ps
-------
Focal Watershed Review: East and West Galveston Bay, Texas
Introduction
The Texas coast extends 367 linear miles from Louisiana to
Mexico. With over 3,300 miles of tidal shoreline (which
includes the outer coast, islands, sounds, bays, and creeks to
the head of tidewater), Texas hosts one of the most ecologi-
cally complex and biologically diverse regions in the Gulf.
The Texas coast is also home to more than one-third of the
state's population and about 70 percent of the state's indus-
trial base (Moulton et al., 1997). The Texas coastal region
includes three distinct areas distinguished by particular geo-
morphology, climatology, hydrology, and ecology: the upper,
mid, and lower coasts.
In the East and West Galveston Bay watersheds, extensive
salt marshes meet bays and lagoons protected by barrier
islands (Moulton et al., 1997). Counties within the smaller
West Galveston Bay watershed include Brazoria, Chambers,
Fort Bend, Galveston, and Harris. Counties located within
East Galveston Bay watershed are Chambers, Galveston, Jef-
ferson, and Liberty. Although these two watersheds were the
focus of the review, participants provided information and
comments regarding the larger Galveston Bay region, which
includes the metroplex of Houston and surrounding cities
and municipalities. The entire Galveston Bay watershed,
which extends up the Trinity River to the Dallas/Fort Worth
area, encompasses 27,000 square miles of land, and nearly
half of the population of Texas (Lester and Gonzalez, 2011).
The East and West Galveston Bay watersheds (Figure 4;
HUCs 12040202 and 12040204), as their names suggest,
drain into Galveston Bay. Galveston Bay is a subtropical,
bar-built estuary fed by two rivers, the San Jacinto and the
Trinity, and associated coastal streams and bayous (Lester
and Gonzalez, 2011). Habitats in the watersheds include
salt, brackish, and freshwater marshes, mudflats, submerged
aquatic vegetation (SAV) beds, oyster reefs, bottomland and
flatwood forests, scrub-shrub, and coastal prairies (EPA,
2007).
As of 2002, one-third of commercial fishing income and
half of recreational expenditures in the entire state of Texas
were from Galveston Bay (Lester and Gonzalez, 2002).
Brown shrimp, blue crab, red drum, spotted sea trout,
southern flounder, and Gulf menhaden are abundant here.
Oyster reefs are of particular ecological and economic sig-
nificance in Galveston Bay, which supports nearly 27,000
acres of oyster habitat and produces more oysters than any
single U.S. water body (Galveston Bay Foundation, 2010).
The Bay traditionally contained up to 80 percent of all
Coastal Wotland Review Watersheds
Galveston USGS s-digit HUCs
Figure 4. East and West Galveston Bay watersheds (cross-hatched areas).
Eastern oysters (worth approximately $10 million annu-
ally) harvested in Texas.1 Oyster reefs have been surveyed in
Galveston Bay since the 1950s, and comparative mapping
shows that habitat location and abundance has shifted over
time. When Hurricane Ike struck in 2008, it is estimated
that sediment deposition associated with the storm surge
covered about 60 percent of Galveston Bay's oyster reef
habitat. Commercial oyster fishery landings in Matagorda
Bay (located approximately 100 miles southwest of Galves-
ton Bay) exceeded Galveston Bay for the first time in his-
tory in 2011.
The Galveston Bay watershed provides habitat for an
impressive array of bird species, including great and snowy
egrets, reddish egrets, piping plovers, roseate spoonbills,
tricolored herons, and black skimmers. These include year-
round resident, migratory, and wintering species, many of
which are wetland dependent (Lester and Gonzalez, 2002;
Eubanks et al., 2006). Approximately 430 species of birds
overwinter, migrate, or reside here (Eubanks et al., 2006).
This area is regarded as one of the top birding spots in the
United States. Recreational fishing and bird watching con-
tribute to a robust ecotourism economy.
Despite the value of wetlands to fisheries (providing food,
shelter, breeding habitat, and pollutant removal) and the
economy, Texas has lost 52 percent of its original wetland
base (Mitsch and Gosselink, 1993). The Texas coastal
plain experienced a loss of approximately 200,000 acres of
wetlands between the mid-1950s and the early 1990s (from
4.1 million acres to 3-9 million acres). This loss equates to
For more information, see http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/wild/species/easternoyster/.
10
-------
Focal Watershed Review: East and West Galveston Bay, Texas (continued)
an average annual net loss of about 5,700 acres (Moulton
et al., 1997)- Of 3-9 million acres remaining in the early
1990s, about 85 percent were freshwater wetlands (3-3 mil-
lion acres) and about 15 percent were estuarine wetlands
(0.6 million acres). The most common types of wetlands
lost in Texas coastal areas during this time were freshwater
emergent and freshwater forested wetlands.
In examining historical wetland losses within the focal
watershed, a trend of continuing coastal wetland losses can
be gleaned from a number of studies conducted over a vari-
ety of time periods. Although the studies are not directly
comparable due to slightly different geographic scopes,
methodologies, and study objectives, a downward trend in
the areal extent of wetlands is nonetheless apparent. Going
back to the 1950s, one study found that from the 1950s
until 1989, there was a gross loss of more than 88,500 acres
of emergent wetlands in Galveston Bay, 5,700 acres (6
percent) of which were converted to urban uses (White et
al., 1993).
More recently, analysis of aerial imagery between 1992 and
2002 indicated that 9,124 acres of freshwater wetlands
and 2,913 acres of estuarine marsh in the lower Galveston
watershed alone were lost to development, which represents
an average overall wetland loss of approximately 1,200
acres annually (an average annual loss of 912 acres of fresh-
water wetlands and 291 acres of coastal wetlands). Most of
the wetlands lost in Galveston Bay watershed occurred in
Harris County (Jacob and Lopez, 2005; EPA, 2007).
In preparation for the East and West Galveston Bay
focal watershed review, the EPA coastal wetlands team
worked with the NOAA C-CAP to develop a general
characterization of recent wetland changes in the East
and West Galveston Bay watersheds. C-CAP examines
Figure 5. Wetland loss and changes in land cover, 1996-2006: East and
West Galveston Bay. Source: NOAA, 201 la.
overall land use change, including wetlands, for the coastal
regions of the United States. The program currently reports
changes in wetland acreage only and does not measure
change in wetland function. The C-CAP data were used to
ensure consistency across all focal watersheds when com-
paring wetland acreage loss.
Table 3 and the accompanying pie chart (Figure 5) display
C-CAP data for the areas of the two eight-digit hydrologi-
cal unit code (HUC 8) watersheds that were the focus of
the East and West Galveston Bay CWR (see Figure 4).
According to the C-CAP analysis, more than 11,900 acres
of wetlands were lost in this area between 1996 and 2006.
This trend suggests an average loss of nearly 1,200 acres
each year (similar to the results of the 19922002 analysis
referenced above). The vast majority (more than 10,000
Table 3. Losses of Wetland Types to Other Land Uses (Acres) from 1996 to 2006, HUC 12040202 and 12040204
Wetland Types*
Palustrine forested
Palustrine scrub
Palustrine emergent
Estuarine forested
Estuarine scrub
Estuarine emergent
Unconsolidated shore
Total
Developed
2,394.08
2,230.84
1,410.21
0.00
0.00
94.07
73.17
6,202.37
Agriculture
912.49
381.63
1,501.83
0.00
0.00
1.11
12.23
2,809.29
Bare Land
514.18
120.98
376.74
0.00
0.22
131.21
206.83
1,350.16
Open Water
209.72
86.29
721.45
0.00
0.00
58.71
493.27
1,569.44
Total
4,030.46
2,819.75
4,010.23
0.00
0.22
285.11
785.50
11,931.26
' See Appendix D for wetland classification descriptions. Source: NOAA, 201 la.
11
-------
Focal Watershed Review: East and West Galveston Bay, Texas (continued)
acres or 90 percent) of wetlands lost in the focal watersheds
were non-tidal, with woody freshwater wetlands (palustrine
forested and palustrine scrub) constituting 57 percent of
the total loss. The majority (63 percent) of overall wetland
loss during this time period was attributed to development
or conversion to bare land (which is often associated with,
or a precursor to development).
It should be noted that the information below is based
on the opinions and observations of participants, who
provided feedback on draft versions of this document and
supplemented statements with documentation, where
available.
Stressors
In preparation for the focal watershed review, the Coastal
Wetlands Team conducted a literature review to obtain a
high-level snapshot of the most common coastal wetland
stressors in the East and West Galveston Bay watersheds.
Discussion at the Galveston Bay CWR identified the fol-
lowing key contributors to coastal wetland acreage loss
and degradation and confirmed, as well as emphasized and
added to, the list of stressors identified during the literature
review:
Development (residential, commercial, infrastructure)
* Limitations of regulations
Hydrologic modifications (including oil and gas activi-
ties, dredging, groundwater pumping, sand and gravel
mining, freshwater diversions)
* Climate change, sea level rise, and coastal storms
Oil spills
Invasive species
Coastal development. Participants identified develop-
ment as one of the top three primary stressors to coastal
wetlands (particularly freshwater) in the focal watershed.
In particular, they noted the lack of growth planning and
controls in the greater Houston area (central Galveston Bay
watersheds), which, while not specifically included in the
geographic review area, were nonetheless of great concern
to participants in terms of local wetland loss attributable
to development (Figure 5). In addition to direct physi-
cal wetland alterations that result from filling and drain-
ing wetlands for development, increased development in
coastal watersheds leads to increased impervious surfaces
and associated hydrologic and water quality impacts
on wetlands and associated aquatic systems. Increased
impervious surfaces and traditional stormwater drainage
infrastructure result in increased runoff during rainstorms
(contributing to flooding) and (to a lesser extent, given
low permeability of soils) decreased groundwater recharge.
Groundwater recharge is needed to maintain water table
elevation in wetlands during dry months. In addition to
the hydrologic impacts of stormwater on wetlands, storm-
water runoff results in water quality impacts due to pollu-
tion from nutrients, metals, sediment, and bacteria. Other
development-related impacts to wetlands include increased
drinking water withdrawals, which can lower water table
elevation and impact wetland hydrology.
The impacts associated with population growth and the
associated impacts from development sprawl are most
pronounced in Harris County, which is part of the Hous-
tonSugar LandBaytown metropolitan area and is par-
tially located in West Galveston Bay watershed (see Figure
6). This county has experienced 20.3 percent growth (with
a current population of more than 4 million) from 2000 to
2010 (U.S. Census Bureau, 201 la). According to the Texas
State Demographer, the population in the HoustonSugar
Wetland Loss % "
0%-5%
6%-10%
11%-25%
26% -10%
B 41%-70%
j 71% -100%
Figure 6. Percent of total freshwater wetlands lost to development
(1992-2002), Lower Galveston Bay watershed (note that this area is broader
than that chosen as the review area). Source-Jacob and Lopez, 2005.
'12
-------
Focal Watershed Review: East and West Galveston Bay, Texas (continued)
LandBaytown area is expected to grow to 7-9 million
by 2035, an increase of approximately 3-2 million people
compared to the 2000 census count (Texas State Data
Center, 2008).
At the CWR, participants noted two other major impacts
that have resulted from growth and development pressures
in the watershed:
Shoreline hardening. Participants noted that shoreline
stabilization, which includes the construction of bulk-
heads, seawalls, and other artificial armoring structures
(Figure 7), has impacted coastal wetlands in Galveston
Bay. Impacts due to shoreline armoring include increases
in erosion along seawall-adjacent marshes from diverted
wave energy (Galveston Bay Foundation, n.d. [b]),
which often prompts adjacent property owners to sta-
bilize their shorelines, thereby creating a domino effect
along the shoreline. In addition to increasing erosion,
shoreline hardening impacts coastal wetlands in other
ways, including filling of wetlands behind the armor-
ing structure during construction and preventing inland
migration of coastal wetlands in response to sea level rise.
Hardening is also one factor contributing to decreases in
biodiversity and scouring impacts on SAV, which serves
as a critical nursery for fish and shellfish (Bilkovic et al.,
2006; Bilkovic and Roggero, 2008). Erosion-induced
scouring increases the depth of nearshore areas, thereby
preventing SAV recruitment and growth (Sime, 2005).
Figure 7. Galveston Seawall (2005). Source: Bob McMillan, Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
Nonpoint source pollution. Multiple nonpoint sources
of pollution, including runoff from impervious surfaces
(including residential lawns, parking lots and driveways),
oil runoff, septic systems, industrial runoff, and agri-
cultural runoff, decrease the quality of coastal wetland
habitats in the Galveston Bay watershed (EPA, 2007).
As population and development increase, so too do these
nonpoint sources of pollution.
Limitations of regulations. Federal, state, and local regu-
latory programs are essential tools for protecting coastal
wetlands. However, participants identified jurisdictional
limitations and implementation issues associated with
wetland regulations as being impediments to effective
protection. Additionally, participants felt that coordination
could be improved between all levels of government, which
could inform the development of an overarching policy to
manage wetlands in light of projected future changes to
coastal communities. While wetland regulation in Texas has
traditionally been the primary responsibility of the federal
agencies (Army Corps and EPA), state and local govern-
ments can use regulatory tools (including zoning, subdivi-
sion control, and water pollution regulations) to protect
wetlands. Participants thought that heightened awareness
of wetland laws among local officials could help steer devel-
opment away from wetland areas or, at the very least, notify
developers that compliance with wetland laws is an impor-
tant aspect of project siting and design. Participants also
expressed the opinion that tidal wetlands are more effec-
tively protected than non-tidal wetlands. This observation
is corroborated by C-CAP data, which show more than 90
percent of all wetland losses have occurred in freshwater
wetlands (see Table 3).
Changes affecting federal jurisdiction. A major issue
raised by participants at the review was a lack of clarity
regarding which wetlands are jurisdictional, particularly
those that are "isolated." Participants expressed the view
that the Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (SWANCC) and Rapanos v.
United States (Rapanos) Supreme Court decisions have
resulted in significant development of wetland areas
within the Galveston Bay watershed that were previ-
ously regulated under Section 404 of the CWA. The
participants believed that numerous acres of depres-
sional welands located throughout the watershed are at
Figure 8. Example of development in depressional wetlands. Photo courtesy
of Tom Dahl, USFWS.
13
-------
Focal Watershed Review: East and West Galveston Bay, Texas (continued)
high risk of development due to the potential for loss of
protection under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (see
Appendix C, Clean Water Act Jurisdiction).
State regulatory role. Some participants believe the state
of Texas and/or local regulatory agencies could improve
or create new regulatory programs to address wetland
impacts. For example, participants indicated that Texas
could use its 401 certification authority more effectively
to regulate development in or near wetlands. CWA Sec-
tion 401 allows states and tribes to condition or deny
federal permits (including CWA Section 404 permits)
that may adversely impact state water quality. A state
can increase its 401 certification authority by attaching
stricter conditions to its certifications and/or denying
projects with negative water quality impacts. The Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) is the
lead for most Section 401 certifications, and the Rail-
road Commission of Texas issues 401 certifications for
activities regarding oil and gas exploration, development,
and production operations. In 2001, to streamline the
permitting process and focus limited resources on the
most significant wetland impacts, TCEQ and the Army
Corps executed a Memorandum of Agreement establish-
ing tiered procedures for Section 401 certifications. Cur-
rently, developers of wetlands smaller than 3 acres (Tier I
projects) are not typically required to seek an individual
401 certification review as long as Best Management
Practices (BMPs) are included in their permit application
(TCEQ, 201 la). Some review participants considered
this minimal oversight to be a programmatic stressor to
coastal wetland protection (see additional information
under next bullet). Ecologically significant jurisdictional
wetlands such as pitcher plant bogs, bald cypress and
tupelo gum swamps, and mangrove marshes are not
eligible for Tier I processing and must be reviewed under
the more intensive Tier II process. Some participants also
believed the state could be doing more to protect wet-
lands that are not covered by the CWA (such as certain
isolated wetlands) through the development of state
regulations.
Incremental losses. Some participants thought the
tiered Section 401 certification process described above
could be leading to incremental wetland acreage losses
due to the large number of developments affecting less
than three acres of wetlands. Similarly, one participant
expressed concern that the use of CWA Section 404
nationwide permits (NWPs) may allow incremental wet-
land losses due to numerous small development activities,
each impacting jurisdictional wetlands without the ben-
efit of public notice/review and a compensatory mitiga-
tion plan. Army Corps noted however that NWPs are
only meant to permit projects that contribute no more
than minimal individual and cumulative adverse effects
on aquatic resources. Additionally, a number of NWPs
have conditions that require pre-construction notifica-
tion to the local Army Corps District and compensatory
mitigation.
Mitigation. Participants described a lack of mitigation
site monitoring as a stressor in Galveston Bay. Unavoid-
able wetland acreage losses permitted under CWA
Section 404 must be offset, to the extent appropriate
and practicable, through compensatory mitigation (in
order to prevent net wetland loss). However, participants
expressed concern that mitigation is occurring outside
the watershed where the impact occurs and therefore not
truly replacing the loss. Additionally, some participants
felt that uncompensated loss may be occurring when mit-
igation is not properly carried out and, therefore, addi-
tional monitoring and enforcement is needed. Note that
compensatory mitigation requirements are designed to
replace wetland functions, and therefore may not result
in a one-to-one replacement of lost wetland acreage.
Unauthorized wetland loss. Participants believed that
illegal wetland fills may be occurring in the Galveston
Bay watersheds due to lack of enforcement and a lack of
knowledge on the developers' part. However, a portion of
these fills may be occurring in wetlands outside the juris-
diction of the Clean Water Act or as a result of exempt
activities, and therefore do not require authorization
under CWA Section 404.
Rolling easement litigation. Review participants noted
that a Texas Supreme Court decision and ongoing litiga-
tion call into question the use of rolling easements to
protect public beaches (see the "Tools and Strategies"
section for a description of rolling easements), allowing
them to potentially remain developed private property,
and subject to armoring and other structures (ASWM,
2010). Results of the court decisions will potentially
limit the ability to use rolling easements (in Galveston
Bay and perhaps within the entire Gulf region) as a tool
for protecting public interests in these dynamic coastal
shorelines, which include important coastal habitats.
14
-------
Focal Watershed Review: East and West Galveston Bay, Texas (continued)
Highlight: Clean Water Act Jurisdiction and Evidence of Surface Connectivity for
Texas Gulf Coastal Depressional Wetlands
Within the Galveston Bay watershed, there are wetlands
for which the applicability of CWA protections has been
difficult to determine. EPA and the Army Corps are
responsible for issuing regulations and guidance regarding
CWA jurisdiction, such as which wetlands are federally
protected under the scope of the Act. In April 2011,
EPA and the Army Corps announced the release of the
"Draft Guidance Identifying Waters Protected by the
Clean Water Act" for public comment and review. The
draft guidance clarifies which waters are protected by the
CWA and implements the Supreme Court's decisions in
Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and Rapanos v. United States. These
two court decisions have created uncertainty over which
waters are protected by the CWA. Once final, the EPA/
Army Corps guidance will replace previous guidance and
provide more certainty and clarity to facilitate accurate
field determinations.
The draft guidance includes several clarifications to cur-
rent guidance documents:
It clarifies "adjacent" wetlands as including ones in
physical proximity to jurisdictional waters or ones with
an unbroken surface or shallow sub-surface hydrologic
connection.
" It clarifies that all wetlands within a wetland mosaic
should be considered collectively when determining
adjacency.
" It continues to include adjacent wetlands as per se juris-
dictional where they are adjacent to either a traditional
navigable water (TNW) or interstate water or where
they abut a relatively permanent tributary of a TNW or
interstate water.
It continues to classify wetlands adjacent to non-rela-
tively permanent tributaries as jurisdictional where they
have a significant nexus to a TNW or interstate water.
It clarifies that non-adjacent wetlands are jurisdictional
where they individually have a significant physical,
chemical, or biological nexus to a TNW water or inter-
state water.
It clarifies that groups of waters (e.g., tributaries, adja-
cent wetlands, other waters) can be considered holisti-
cally on the watershed scale when evaluating significant
nexus, rather than at a stream reach level.
Even with this EPA/Army Corps draft guidance for
how to interpret recent Supreme Court cases, federal
jurisdiction for certain waters, including wetlands, would
need to be determined on a case-by-case basis to identify
whether or not they have a significant nexus to a TNW
or interstate water. To learn more about the guidance,
visit http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/
CWAwaters.cfm.
There has been ongoing research in Texas to address the
nature of wetlands that became non-jurisdictional as a
result of the court decisions. A recent study concluded
that there are considerable hydrologic connections
between certain Texas upper coast depressional wetlands
and Galveston Bay and other navigable waters (Wilcox et
al., 2011). The study quantified surface discharge char-
acteristics of a wetland complex in the Armand Bayou
Nature Preserve, southeast of Houston, on the Texas Gulf
of Mexico Coastal Plain. It was found that surface runoff
from the wetlands, although intermittent, occurred
regularly and accounted for more than 17 percent of
watershed precipitation over the 45-month study period.
The wetland complex has a direct surface connection via a
stream outlet to a tributary of Armand Bayou, a tradi-
tional navigable water. Due to this stream connection to
Armand Bayou, the authors of this study have suggested
that these wetlands should be considered "adjacent" wet-
lands, and thus could potentially be regulated under fed-
eral regulations, requiring a significant nexus evaluation.
The results from the study are contrary to the "widespread
perception that depressional wetlands on the Texas Gulf
Coast are hydrologically isolated" (Wilcox et al., 2011).
While exertion of federal jurisdiction upon wetlands must
be determined on a case-by-case basis, field-based stud-
ies provide vital scientific support for these case-by-case
determinations.
Figure 9. League City: example of a non-jurisdictional depressional-
pimple-mound wetland complex surrounded by residential development.
Source: USWFS.
15
-------
Focal Watershed Review: East and West Galveston Bay, Texas (continued)
Hydrologic modifications. Hydrologic modifications
include the direct and indirect impacts associated with
a number of activities, including freshwater diversions,
channelizing streams to improve drainage, groundwater
withdrawals, as well as extraction of other resources such as
sand and gravel, gas, and oil. These activities can result in
subsidence, as well as alterations of salinity and flow levels.
Hydrologic modifications leading to saltwater intrusion can
alter freshwater and forested wetlands and change wetland
types. Some studies suggest that "many, and perhaps most,
of Galveston Bay's fringing wetlands have been lost to
human-induced subsidence, with no corresponding migra-
tion of wetlands landward because of the abrupt slopes
surrounding most of the Bay" (Jacob and Showalter, 2008).
Alterations in freshwater flows. Reduced freshwater
inflows occur as a result of groundwater pumping and
surface water diversions. Participants indicated that a
reduction in freshwater flows has affected the San Jacinto
and Trinity River deltas and riparian wetlands by alter-
ing the salinity levels of the Bay. Increased salinities of
freshwater and brackish wetlands allow invasive species
to spread and flourish. This population shift can deci-
mate native species, including commercially valuable
ones such as oysters (Galveston Bay Foundation, n.d. [a]).
Increased salinities can also result in major shifts in
wetland types to more saline conditions, with potential
ecological consequences such as loss of cypress swamp
in the Trinity delta. This in turn causes refuge and land
managers to opt for structural marsh management, which
can restrict access to the marshes for transient marine
species and may actually accelerate marsh loss over time
(R. Swafford, personal communication, May 16, 2012).
Decreased freshwater inflow can also alter the wetland
ecosystem by exposing anaerobic soils. Over time,
upland plants will out-compete wetlands plants in these
altered soil conditions (Texas GLO, 2010a). Conversely,
increased flows from diversions and runoff can also be
a problem. Inundation can alter a wetland, changing it
into an open water habitat that cannot support wet-
land vegetation. An example is the Addicks Reservoir in
Harris County, which is inundated by a combination of
natural flows and stormwater runoff, and has controlled
releases that affect vegetation downstream in Buffalo
Bayou (HCFCD, n.d.[a]).
Alterations in sediment. Sediment budgets play a
large role in wetland formation and maintenance. Both
increased and decreased flow regimes can lead to changes
in sediment budgets and the loss of coastal wetland area.
Hydrologic modifications, such as dams, can decrease
water flow and restrict sediment and nutrient deposition
that normally replenishes and helps to maintain a thick
organic soil layeressential for healthy wetlands. A study
on the sediment budgets in the Trinity River indicated
that sediment restriction from Livingston Dam has been
offset by erosion in the lower coastal plain, which main-
tains supply to the Bay (Phillips et al., 2004). However,
this restriction may lead to coastal wetland acreage loss,
since increased sediment supply will be needed to match
the rate of sea level rise (Lester and Gonzalez, 2011).
Conversely, alterations such as dredging and channeliza-
tion can increase flow velocity, scouring, and erosion of
adjacent wetlands. The response to erosion in Galveston
Bay has been development of armored shorelines, which
prevent wetlands from migrating inland (Lester and
Gonzalez, 2011). In the Galveston Bay area, alterations
to water circulation and sediment flows caused by the
Houston Ship Channel, the Texas City Dike, and coastal
highways have reduced sediment deposition in West
Galveston Bay (Lester and Gonzalez, 2011).
Flood management practices. Flood management proj-
ects implemented by entities such as the Harris County
Flood Control District are designed to improve drainage
and prevent flooding, but participants noted that these
projects can also significantly impact natural riparian
systems. To improve conveyance of water, channels are
widened, deepened, and cleared of vegetation. Deten-
tion basins are often built adjacent to channels to allow
for storage of stormwater. These types of alteration can
significantly affect hydrologic regimes, which in turn
have direct and indirect effects on wetlands. Additionally,
participants noted that herbicides are applied to control
riparian vegetation along these modified channels and
mosquitoes are treated aerially in some locations, which
could have significant effects on wetland habitat.
Dredging. Dredging for navigation, which creates deeper
and more distinct channels, can change sediment deposi-
tion patterns, increase erosion (where increases in flow
velocity occur), and change the freshwater/saltwater
regime. In addition, the dredged material needs to be
disposed of and, depending on the method of disposal,
can either negatively or positively impact coastal habi-
tats. Participants noted the Houston Ship Channel as
an example of dredging impacts that have significantly
changed Bay circulation and salinity (Lester and Gon-
zalez, 2011). Additionally, sediment in certain areas of
the Houston Ship Channel has been shown to contain
hazardous chemicals, such as PCBs, dioxin, DDT, and
heavy metals (EPA, 2007; Lester and Gonzalez, 2011).
16
-------
Focal Watershed Review: East and West Galveston Bay, Texas (continued)
There are areas of the Houston Ship Channel where sedi-
ments are not contaminated, as well as other navigation
channels that are not contaminated. These sediments,
when dredged, can be used for beneficial purposesfor
example, enhancing existing resource areas by restoring
wetlands, islands, and beaches.
Sand and gravel excavation. Review participants com-
mented that sand and gravel mining operations occurring
within floodplains outside of the state-owned riverbed
(e.g., West and East forks of the San Jacinto River) result
in direct loss of forested wetlands through excavation.
In addition, mining operations can lead to the suspen-
sion of fine sediments in adjacent water, which reduces
water clarity and can cover wetlands, indirectly resulting
in acreage loss. The sand and gravel excavation itself is
not a regulated activity in Texas. However, any related
deposition of sediments into nearby waters of the United
States requires a National Pollutant Discharge Elimina-
tion System (NPDES) permit from TCEQ and/or a
CWA Section 404 dredge and fill permit from the Army
Corps. TCEQ found that about half of mining facilities
it investigated in the state were operating without a dis-
charge permit in 2004, and a number were not meeting
permit requirements such as implementation of BMPs
and monitoring (TCEQ, 2004). Participants believed a
CWA Section 404 exemption related to sand and gravel
mining may be leading mining operators to believe they
do not need a permit, though this exemption is actually
for a narrowly defined set of activities.2
Groundwater pumping. Groundwater pumping is partly
responsible for the subsidence experienced in Galveston
Bay over the last 100 years (Texas GLO, 2010a). Subsid-
ence can affect wetland habitats by drowning vegetation,
increasing the frequency of saltwater inundation events,
and modifying drainage patterns (Coplin and Galloway,
n.d.). Participants noted that groundwater withdrawals
have decreased significantly around the Bay, but there
are still areas, such as Jersey Village, that experience
subsidence from groundwater withdrawals (Lester and
Gonzalez, 2002; Engelkemeir et al., 2010). The rate of
subsidence of the land around the Bay as a whole has
decreased due to an increased use of surface water for
municipal, agricultural, and industrial purposes (Texas
GLO, 2010a).
Oil and gas extraction. Oil and gas extraction historically
caused localized land subsidence in upper Galveston Bay
and the Bolivar Peninsula (Coplin and Galloway, n.d.).
Some participants described how subsurface extraction
led to more pronounced geologic faulting, specifically
on the Bolivar Peninsula. With increased faulting land
surface elevation dropped, and the marshes were left sus-
ceptible to inundation. Ten percent of the marsh habitat
on the peninsula was lost from the 1950s through 2002
(White et al., 2004). Fluids (both oil and water) are still
extracted from salt domes in the area, e.g., High Island.
These domes often have wetland areas associated with
them as the result of subsidence from faulting. Addition-
ally, oil and gas extraction can introduce new erosive
factors by removing established vegetative cover and
introducing unimpeded hydrologic flow (e.g., installation
of pipeline in an established marsh with a highly erosive
substrate).
Seismic exploration. Participants also identified impacts
of seismic exploration as an ongoing problem. They
observed a recent increase in frequency of these surveys
within the study watersheds. Exploration can involve
intersecting marshes with access roads, leading to frag-
mentation of the wetlands and a decrease in water and
nutrient circulation and flow. The side cast borehole
material covers vegetation and leads to marsh conver-
sion. Three-dimensional seismic exploration is covered
under a CWA Section 404 NWP and does not require
pre-consultation with the Army Corps unless the activity
is planned in a tidal area. Although Section 404 permit-
ting for many survey activities is covered by NWP 6,
a regional condition to the permit in the Army Corps'
Galveston District requires that a permittee submit a pre-
construction notification if three-dimensional seismic test
discharges are to occur in the coastal zone.3
Climate change and sea level rise. Effects of climate
change include inundation of coastal wetlands due to sea
level rise, unpredictable or episodic nature of extremes
The exemption pertains to discharge of dredged or fill material incidental to the emergency removal of sandbars, gravel bars, or other similar block-
ages that are formed during flood flows or other events, where such blockages close or constrict previously existing drainage ways and, if not promptly
removed, would result in damage to or loss of existing crops or would impair or prevent the plowing, seeding, harvesting, or cultivating of crops on land
in established use for crop production. Such removal does not include enlarging or extending the dimensions of, or changing the bottom elevations of,
the affected drainage way as it existed before the formation of the blockage. Removal must be accomplished within a year of the discovery of such block-
ages in order to be eligible for exemption.
For more information, see http://www.swf.usace.army.mil/pubdata/environ/regulatory/handouts/nwp%20rgnl%20cnd%20for%20tx.pdf.
17
-------
Focal Watershed Review: East and West Galveston Bay, Texas (continued)
in weather, and an impact on wetlands from increasing
intensity and frequency of storm events (e.g., sediment and
debris deposition). Related threats such as changes in pre-
cipitation patterns, timing and delivery of water and sedi-
ments, increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide, and higher
temperatures also affect wetlands (Scavia et al., 2002).
Sea level rise. Galveston Bay experienced a 0.6 meter rise
in relative sea level in the 20th century (Yoskowitz et al.,
2009). Land subsidence in the Galveston Bay watershed
is likely to increase the impact of sea level rise. The most
severe effects of sea level rise are predicted to occur in the
East and West Bays and the Trinity River Delta where the
greatest amount of marsh and swamp erosion is predicted
to occur (Warren Pinnacle Consulting, Inc., 2011 a).
Limited estuarine marsh migration opportunities. Estu-
arine marshes can migrate inland as sea level rises, which
can help sustain coastal wetlands and provide a buffer for
inland properties. However, as global sea levels rises, it is
unclear to what extent coastal marshes will move inland
due to the location and quantity of development land-
ward of the marshes (Warren Pinnacle Consulting, Inc.,
201 la). Shoreline hardening can prevent wetlands from
migrating and therefore result in loss of wetland area
due to inundation and erosion. A study of sea level rise
in Galveston Bay, commissioned by the Harte Research
Institute in 2010, shows a significant portion of the
Galveston Bay shoreline would be inundated during a
100-year storm given a projected increase in sea level of
approximately 0.69 meters (2.3 feet; based on the IPCC
A1F1 scenario) (see Figure 10).
Impacts to black mangrove. Galveston Island is cur-
rently the northern limit for the black mangrove spe-
cies due to its strict temperature requirements, a quality
which makes it a good indicator of climate change.
Increasing temperatures are allowing black mangrove to
become more established in Louisiana, and the range
of black mangrove is expected to expand northward in
Texas as well. Additionally, inundation from increased
hurricanes and from sea level rise will expose mangroves
to changes in salinity and increased erosion (Montagna et
al.,2011).
Hurricanes and storms. Storms have caused damage
to Galveston's coastal wetlands and resulted in coastal
erosion that is exacerbated by prevailing winds, chan-
nelization, and ship traffic. Hurricane Ike (September
13, 2008) hit the coast east of Galveston Bay, causing
a 5-meter storm surge, which traveled up to 10 miles
Figure 10. Land inundation given a 0.69 meter rise in sea level and a 100-year
flood. Source: Yoskowitz et al., 2009.
inland (USGS, 2009). In addition to causing erosion,
storm surges inundate freshwater wetlands with saline
water, which can destroy a significant amount of fresh-
water vegetation (Lester and Gonzalez, 2011). If, as
predicted, the intensity of such storms increases due to
climate change (USGCRP, 2009), wetland loss associated
with hurricanes can be expected to increase.
Oil spills. Oil spills can negatively impact coastal wet-
lands and associated wildlife by coating the substrate and
introducing toxins into the environment (Ober, 2010;
Whigham et al., 2010). Although wetlands can recover
from these spills, their ability to recover can be hindered by
compounding stressors such as sea level rise and subsidence
(Whigham etal., 2010).
Number of SpilK Reported
Total Volume of Spills Reported
Figure 11. Number and volume of oil spills reported annually by the Texas
General Land Office in the Lower Galveston Bay watershed, 1998-2010.
Source: Gonzalez and Lester, 2012; Texas GLO, 2010b.
18
-------
Focal Watershed Review: East and West Galveston Bay, Texas (continued)
Participants noted that while oil spill data reported to the
Texas General Lands Office (GLO) are available, there
are probably more spills than are reported. Between 1998
and 2010, there were a total of 3,954 oil spills and over
431,000 gallons released in the Lower Galveston Bay
watershed as reported by the Texas GLO with a trend of
reduced spill incidents and volume over time (See Figure
11).
Invasive species. Participants described invasive vegetation
as an important cause of coastal wetland functional loss
in the review watersheds. Impacts include loss of species
diversity, structural changes in the vegetation community,
changes in nutrient cycling, and habitat changes. Partici-
pants noted that Chinese tallow tree (Triadica sebifera)
is a species of particular concern since it has moved into
freshwater marsh areas in great numbers within the Galves-
ton Bay area. In addition, its spread has been documented
throughout the upper Texas coast and down through other
portions of the central coast (TexasInvasives.Org, 2011).
A Houston urban forestry study using 2000 LANDSAT
satellite data and 2002 field data showed that the Chi-
nese tallow tree is the single most common species in the
region, and represents a greater percentage of trees in the
Houston area than all oak species combined (Nowak et
al., 2005). The spread of such an aggressive species is a
concern because it outcompetes native plants and can be
a main cause of coastal wetland functional loss. Invasive
vegetation can also cause changes in the types of fish and
wildlife species present because of the changes in the type
and abundance of food and shelter that the wetland vegeta-
tion provides. Deep-rooted sedge (Cyperus entrerianus) was
noted as a plant that was once rare but now outcompetes
native vegetation. Giant salvinia, water lettuce, and water
hyacinth were mentioned as other examples of invasive
vegetation impacting wetlands, along with invasive animals
such as nutria and grass carp.
Funding at cross-purposes. Review participants noted
some controversy around NRCS funding of projects that
may result in unintentional wetland loss. Participants
mentioned an instance where NRCS funded the Galveston
County Consolidated Drainage District to remove downed
trees from riparian zones of Dickson Bayou. Some par-
ticipants viewed this activity as destruction of the ripar-
ian zone vegetation; others believed it restored the area to
something closer to its natural state. Chambers County
also funded similar riparian zone clearing activities along
Double Bayou.
Tools and Strategies
In response to wetland losses, Texas uses several regula-
tory and non-regulatory programs to manage, protect
and restore coastal wetlands. It primarily relies on Section
404 of the federal CWA (which regulates dredge and fill
projects in waters of the United States) to protect its coastal
and inland wetlands (see Appendix C for an explanation
of CWA Section 404 authority and scope). In addition,
TCEQ administers the state's Section 401 Certification
Program. The program's goal is to ensure that activities
requiring a federal permit (including CWA Section 404
permits) undergo state review for compliance with Texas'
water quality standards. Since 1995, TCEQ has adopted a
"no net loss" policy for preserving wetland functions and
values, which is included in its water quality standards and
mitigation policies. TCEQ is the lead state agency adminis-
tering the Section 401 program; the Railroad Commission
of Texas is responsible for overseeing oil and gas exploration
activities, including issuance of Section 401 certifications
for oil and gas development projects in wetlands.4
The Texas Coastal Management Program (CMP), within
the Texas GLO, helps manage the state's coastal resources
through interagency coordination and private/public
partnerships. CMP activities include providing data on
the health of Gulf waters, reviewing federal actions to
ensure consistency with the state's CMP, and awarding
grants (approximately $2.2 million annually) for protection
and restoration of coastal resources. The Texas Parks and
Wildlife Code requires that a State Wetlands Conserva-
tion Plan be developed for coastal wetlands (state-owned
coastal wetlands exclude most non-tidal wetlands; see
Texas Natural Resources Code §33-203). Among other
things, the plan must establish a no net loss goal, inventory
coastal wetlands, and guide mitigation policies and long-
range navigational dredging and disposal plans. The plan
for state-owned coastal wetlands was drafted in 1994 and
approved in 1997 (Texas Parks and Wildlife, 1997).
In addition to these overarching tools and strategies, a
number of effective tools and strategies exist or are under
development in the Galveston Bay watersheds to address
the stressors discussed in the section above.
For more information, see http://www.tceq.texas.gov/nav/permits/water_qual.html.
19
-------
Focal Watershed Review: East and West Galveston Bay, Texas (continued)
Tools to address coastal development.
Compensatory mitigation for wetland impacts. In
order to receive a CWA Section 404 permit, develop-
ers and other applicants must compensate as appropri-
ate and practicable for jurisdictional wetland loss that
cannot be avoided. Compensatory mitigation in Texas,
as required under the Army Corps CWA Section 404
program and TCEQ's CWA Section 401 certification
program, is determined based on functional assessments
or ratios as appropriate. Compensatory mitigation may
occur through permittee-responsible on-site or off-site
mitigation, mitigation banks, or in-lieu fee programs.
For example, the Texas Department of Transportation
(TxDOT) developed three wetland mitigation banks
the Anderson Tract with 2,243 acres, the Coastal Bot-
tomlands Bank with 3,552 acres, and the Blue Elbow
Swamp with 3,343 acresin order to increase efficiency,
to create long term ecological stability, and to site mitiga-
tion projects in high quality areas (FHWA, 2011).
Watershed plans. Participants were enthusiastic about
the potential to use watershed plans as a strategic tool
for prioritizing problems and developing solutions to
watershed-scale stressors. Participants particularly focused
on the fact that these plans can serve to identify the loca-
tion and type of projects that should be prioritized when
there is a need for a compensatory wetland mitigation
project within a given watershed. Watershed plans can be
carefully designed to ensure that mitigation actions will
address stressors that are currently degrading the aquatic
resource and will sustain or improve the condition of
aquatic resources in the watershed. Several participants
were surprised and interested to learn that, according
to the federal Compensatory Mitigation Rule (Federal
RegisterVoL 73, No. 70, April 10, 2008), watershed
plans, where available, are to be considered as a factor
in the Army Corps' mitigation decisions (once deemed
appropriate by the Army Corps' District Engineer). They
indicated that additional watershed plans should be
developed to help guide mitigation decisions and noted
that the Watershed Resources Assessment Team, a multi-
agency state-federal partnership, may be able to help
provide baseline information to inform watershed plan
development. In the absence of a watershed plan, the
Rule states that a watershed-based approach should still
be used to determine appropriate compensatory mitiga-
tion for wetland impacts.
Highlight: Accomplishments of the
Galveston Bay Estuary Program, 1995-2012
The Galveston Bay Estuary Program has made sig-
nificant progress in improving water quality, restoring
wetlands, protecting unique habitats, and educating the
public. Those achievements included:
Restoring and protecting approximately 20,615 acres of
wetlands and coastal habitats.
Using dredged material to restore more than 2,500
o o '
acres of wetlands and coastal habitats.
Cultivating up to a half million wetland plants annually
for wetlands restoration projects.
Forming the Galveston Bay Freshwater Inflows Group
to develop management strategies to balance the
multiple uses of the estuary, the Invasive Species Work
Group to help manage invasive species management in
the Bay, and the West Bay Initiative to target conserva-
tion opportunities in the West Bay Watershed.
Implementing BMPs for conservation landscaping,
vegetative buffers, and stormwater management, and
conducting workshops with local governments and
developers on sustainable development practices.
Conducting over 350 presentations and exhibits for
schools, local community events, and workshops and
conferences, reaching nearly 25,000 adults and students
since 1995-
Dedicating $10 million to resource conservation
and education projects, leveraging an estimated $82
million.
» Comprehensive Conservation and Management
Plans. One of the most significant watershed manage-
ment plans for the area is the Galveston Bay Estuary
Program's CCMP The Galveston Bay Estuary Program,
part of EPA's National Estuary Program, is implement-
ing their CCMP, which guides the conservation and
restoration of the estuary based on scientific research.
The CCMP contains actions to acquire, manage, and
protect wetlands, calling for improved coordination
among the agencies involved in their management. It
also includes measures to halt declines in coastal habi-
tat quantity and quality, maximizing beneficial uses
of dredged materials. In addition to and in support
of the CCMP, the Galveston Bay Estuary Program, in
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: Gulf of Mexico Review
20
-------
Focal Watershed Review: East and West Galveston Bay, Texas (continued)
cooperation with TCEQ and the Houston Advanced
Research Center, is undertaking a number of impor-
tant initiatives to monitor, assess, and improve the
health of the estuarine system, including publication of
the "State of the Bay" report and a "Status and Trends"
report, which included a number of indicators of the
Bay's overall health.5
» The Armand Bayou and Dickinson Bayou watershed
plans. The Armand Bayou Watershed Working Group,
which was organized by the Texas Coastal Watershed
Program in partnership with private organizations
and the Texas Sea Grant program, was responsible for
developing the Armand Bayou watershed plan. The
plan examines the current state of the watershed, cur-
rent management programs, and tools and strategies
used to improve the ecological health of the watershed,
including identification of habitat that could be desig-
nated as mitigation areas.
Total Maximum Daily Loads. The CWA requires states
to identify any waterbody that does not meet the water
quality standards necessary to support its designated uses,
and to create Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)
for these waters. ATMDL is a calculation of the total
amount of pollutant a waterbody can receive while still
meeting water quality standards for the designated use
of that waterbody, and how this budget will be divided
between point and nonpoint sources. A state develops an
implementation plan with strategies to meet the TMDL
goal, which consists of both regulatory and non-regula-
tory programs. In 2009, TCEQ created fecal coliform
TMDLs to meet water quality standards (for oyster water
use) in six sub-bays of Galveston Bay. Fecal coliform, a
type of bacteria, is an indicator of human and animal
waste that can enter the Bay via wastewater discharges,
stormwater runoff from urban areas, and other sources.
TCEQ and the Galveston Bay Foundation have created a
working group that develops and implements reduction
measures such as public education campaigns, wastewater
treatment facility improvements, and bans on boat dis-
charges into the bay (Galveston Bay Foundation, 2012).
This implementation plan contains strategies to mini-
mize the impact that developed area has on surrounding
resources.
Property buyouts. Buyout programs are administered by
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
and funded by five different Hazard Mitigation Assis-
tance Programs. Buyouts permanently keep land from
s For more information, see http://www.gbep.state.tx.us.
redevelopment; land that is purchased with grant funds
must remain as open space, recreational space, or man-
aged wetlands. The Federal Hazard Mitigation Grant
Program has a buyout program for municipalities, trig-
gered by events such as natural disasters. Using FEMA
funding, the Harris County Flood Control District
implements buyouts for flood damage reduction pro-
grams (HCFCD, n.d.[b]). In 2009, Galveston County
offered a property buyout and elevation program to
specific flood-prone unincorporated areas in connection
with Hurricane Ike. More than 700 parcels of land were
bought out for more than $70 million through this grant
program (T Leugemors, personal communication, Beck
Disaster Recovery, Inc., 2011).
Tools to address the limitations of regulations.
Research associated with federal jurisdiction. Some
recent research in Texas has been directed toward iden-
tifying hydrologic connections between geographically
isolated wetlands and navigable or interstate waters
(Forbes et al., 2010; Wilcox et al., 2011). Participants felt
that these types of studies can provide a scientific basis
for establishing federal protection for some "isolated"
wetlands whose jurisdictional status was made uncertain
by Supreme Court decisions.
Land management and conservation programs. Some
participants stated that existing regulations alone are
insufficient to protect wetlands and that wetland acqui-
sition and conservation programs are essential to slow
coastal wetland loss. Land conservation was cited as one
of the most effective strategies for protecting coastal
wetlands in Texas. Special valuations, conservation ease-
ments, and the work of land trusts are all examples of
programs designed to achieve this type of protection.
Special valuation allows for landowners to pay property
taxes based on significantly below market values. Texas
offers special valuations for agricultural and open space
lands, which can give landowners an incentive to main-
tain wetlands and other open areas rather than develop-
ing them (Dudensing and Jones, 2010).
» Wetlands Reserve Program. NRCS administers
conservation easement programs and works with
individual landowners and governing bodies, including
the Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program, the
Grassland Reserve Program (GRP), and the Wetlands
Reserve Program (WRP). These programs provide assis-
tance for enhancing, creating, or maintaining wetlands,
21
-------
Focal Watershed Review: East and West Galveston Bay, Texas (continued)
riparian areas, and adjacent areas. The WRP is attrac-
tive to landowners along the upper Texas Coast because
the program offers meaningful incentives and addi-
tional funds for wetland enhancements. In the Galves-
ton Bay area, NRCS will pay up to $2,000 per acre for
a perpetual easement in GRP. Lifetime easements and
enhancements offer larger financial reimbursements
than shorter easements.
» The bottomland hardwood forests of the upper Texas
coast, known as the Columbia Bottomlands, occupy
72,000 hectares and provide critical stopover habitat
for approximately 29 million migrant birds. A portion
of the bottomlands has been protected through a land
acquisition and conservation program administered
by the USFWS, state agencies, and non-governmental
partners. The Columbia Bottomlands Conservation
Plan emphasizes cooperation with local conservation
partners to promote private conservation efforts (Rosen
et al., 2008). NRCS designated funds for the protec-
tion of the property with a conservation easement
through the WRP (The Conservation Fund, 2012).
» Land use planning. Land use planning can be used
to proactively address coastal wetland conservation. It
facilitates the identification of high-value wetlands and
priority areas for protection. Review participants noted
that widespread land use planning will require more
broad-based public and political support than currently
exists in Texas, where limited land use regulation and
private property rights are highly valued.
Although this tool is not often used in Texas, some
Texas cities could serve as models for planning in the
Galveston Bay area. For example, Denton has spe-
cific rules protecting environmentally sensitive areas,
including riparian areas. Austin has the Balcones
Canyonlands Preserve, created as a community-based
solution to protect habitat of endangered species
threatened by a planned development in western Travis
County (USFWS, 1996). And, though it is not strictly
a land use plan, the Chambers County Greenprint
Plan is a proactive attempt for the county (which is
located in Galveston Bay) to establish conservation
goals, while still promoting community develop-
ment. This plan includes several maps related to land
conservation priorities that recognize the importance
of preserving coastal wetlands and their functions for
6 For more information, see http://www.h-gac.com/go/eco-logical.
7 For more information, see http://www.galvbay.org/conservationjandtrust.html.
8 For more information, see http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/land.
both the ecosystem's health and the county's economy
(The Trust for Public Land, 2009).
Eco-Logical habitat map. The Houston-Galveston
Area Council and Texas Sea Grant created an online
interactive tool, based on a Federal Highway Adminis-
tration project that provides ecosystem information for
proposed transportation projects. The tool can identify
quality habitat areas greater than 100 acres in size,
which is useful for identifying areas of environmental
concern and potential conflict during the transporta-
tion planning process.6 One participant noted that it
could also be useful for identifying high-quality mitiga-
tion sites.
Conservation organizations. Local land trusts and
conservation organizations also contribute significantly
to wetlands conservation through easements. The
Bayou Land Conservancy has protected 188 acres of
wetlands in its 544 acres of preserves and easements
in the study watersheds. Similarly, the Galveston Bay
Foundation holds conservation easements in the water-
shed, in addition to 3,000 acres of land that it owns
outright.7
Conservation grants. There are a variety of opportuni-
ties to apply for conservation grants, including funds
to protect wetlands, through various state and fed-
eral agencies. Some non-governmental organizations
(NGOs) also provide funding streams through grants.
Some conservation grants available for wetland conser-
vation include:
The Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Pro-
gram, administered by NOAA and the Texas GLO,
offers funding for up to three projects per year at a
maximum of $3 million per project. This funding is
available to state and local governments to acquire
coastal and estuarine lands considered important for
their ecological, conservation, recreational, historical,
or aesthetic value. Lands and conservation easements
acquired with the program's funds are protected in
perpetuity.8
National Coastal Wetland Grant Program, adminis-
tered by USFWS, offers funding to support state-
led wetland conservation and restoration projects.
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and the
Texas GLO have engaged multiple local partners to
22
-------
Focal Watershed Review: East and West Galveston Bay, Texas (continued)
receive funding for a substantial number of projects
in Galveston Bay that have received regional and
national recognition.
The Coastal Erosion Planning and Response Act
(CEPRA) program, administered by the Texas GLO,
implements coastal erosion projects and studies to
reduce the effects of and understand coastal ero-
sion processes. When funding is appropriated, the
CEPRA program provides funding on a biannual
basis toward projects such as dune restorations, habi-
tat protection, and beneficial uses of dredged materi-
als for habitat restoration. Since 2000, CEPRA has
received $62 million in state funding and another
$62 million in matching funds to implement more
than 200 coastal erosion projects.9
The Coastal Impact Assistance Program (CIAP) is a
federal program funded through royalties collected
from offshore oil and gas leases. CIAP funds are
specifically made available to areas that have been
impacted by offshore exploration and development.
Projects for the conservation, protection, or restora-
tion of coastal areas, including wetlands, are one cat-
egory of activities funded by CIAP in Texas. In 2010,
the state received an allocation of $35 million.10
» Rolling easements. Rolling easements, where land
ownership boundaries migrate inland in response
to natural events such as sea level rise, are a tool for
protecting coastal wetlands. These easements ensure
that beaches and vegetated dunes remain in public
ownership, protect them from private development,
and offer wetlands the opportunity to migrate inland
with changing shorelines. The authority to implement
rolling easements in Texas dates back to passage of the
Texas Open Beaches Act (TOBA) in 1959- The Act
was derived from common law "which recognized that
Gulf beaches have been used by the public since 'time
immemorial' and that barrier islands are constantly
shifting" (Jacob and Showalter, 2007). TOBA requires
maintenance of a rolling easement along Galveston
Bay (and along most of the Texas Gulf shoreline) to
protect public access to state-owned beaches. The state
of Texas owns the shoreline that lies below mean high
tide, which includes the intertidal zone and the beaches
that lie therein. TOBA prohibits construction of any
structures on private property that would interfere
with the normal coastal shoreline's dynamic processes
and would therefore impede public access should the
beach shift inland. This restriction applies to buildings,
which means that businesses and residences need to
be removed or relocated if the shoreline changes to the
extent that those buildings become an impediment to
public access to the beach. The Texas courts and gov-
ernment are currently revising and refining how rolling
easements apply to the coast (Titus, 2011).
Tools to address impacts of hydrologic
modifications.
Beneficial use of dredged materials. Sediment that is
dredged from waterways within the watershed, such as
from the Houston Ship Channel, can be used for coastal
marsh restoration and creation projects (Figure 12). The
Beneficial Use Group, formed in the early 1990s by the
Army Corps, evaluates the possible beneficial uses of
dredged material from Houston-Galveston Bay. Though
dredged material from the Houston Ship Channel has
been used for marsh restoration, review participants
noted that there are additional opportunities to use sedi-
ments from around the Bay for more widespread coastal
Figure 12. Dredged material was used to restore Goat Island, seen here in an
intermediate stage of restoration. Photo courtesy of Beneficial Use Group.
9 For more information, see http://www.glo.texas.gov/what-we-do/caring-for-the-coast/coastal-erosion/index.html and http://www.glo.texas.gov/
what-we-do/caring-for-the-coast/grants-funding/index.html.
10 For more information, see http://www.glo.texas.gov/what-we-do/caring-for-the-coast/grants-funding/ciap/index.html.
23
-------
Focal Watershed Review: East and West Galveston Bay, Texas (continued)
wetlands restoration projects. Since 1995, navigational
dredge material has been used to restore over 2,000 acres
of wetlands and 500 acres of seagrass (GBEP, 2009, as
cited in Lester and Gonzalez, 2011). As a result of the
discharge of sediments on seagrass beds in West Bay
in December 2011 and January 2012 and subsequent
comments about this practice from recreational fisher-
men, the Galveston Bay Foundation, and state and local
resource agencies, the Army Corps Galveston District is
forming an interagency coordination team to better assess
and review dredged material management before projects
are initiated.
Regional sediment management plans. The Gulf of
Mexico Foundation (GMF) and Gulf of Mexico Alli-
ance (GOMA) Habitat Conservation and Restoration
Team have completed a draft of the first regional sedi-
ment management plan for West Galveston Bay. The
plan includes information on sediment sources and how
sediment moves through the system, and 24 regional
sediment management recommendations that would
support sustainable restoration projects. The draft plan is
currently under review and will be finalized in 2012.
Flow standards. Minimum flow standards can help
prevent water diversions from resulting in coastal wet-
land loss. TCEQ adopted environmental flow standards
for Galveston Bay in April 2011 (TCEQ, 201 Ib). These
standards outline minimum outflow levels for the San
Jacinto and Trinity rivers. The Galveston Bay Founda-
tion is concerned, however, that the new standards are
not protective enough and create a stress on the estuarine
ecosystem by limiting the freshwater flow into the Bay
to levels that are too low for oysters and other organ-
isms. They believe standards should allow for greater
freshwater influx, should include standards for the other
tributarieswhich make up 18 percent of flows into the
Bayand should account for seasonal flow requirements
(Galveston Bay Foundation, n.d. [a]).
Use of wetlands for stormwater management and flood
damage prevention. The Harris County Flood Control
District (HCFCD) uses constructed wetlands to filter
stormwater runoff and to provide flood control value
within watersheds. HCFCD's Greens Bayou Wetland
Mitigation Bank is a 1,400-acre wetland site that com-
bines wetland creation and natural stormwater runoff
treatment (HCFCD, 201 Ob). Additionally, the Army
Corps is partnering with the HCFCD on Project Brays,
a major flood damage reduction project (Figure 13). This
project will use marsh creation as one strategy to reduce
the risks associated with flooding in this heavily urban-
ized watershed (HCFCD, 2010a).
Subsidence districts. The establishment of the Harris
Galveston Subsidence District in 1975 restricted the rates
of groundwater pumping in Harris and Chambers Coun-
ties. The goal of the district is to ensure that withdraw-
als do not exceed recharge rates. This district could be a
model for other coastal areas with subsidence impacts.
Tools to address climate change and sea level rise.
Living shorelines. This management practice addresses
shoreline erosion through the strategic placement of
vegetation, stone, sand, and other structural and organic
materials along the shore, creating a natural buffer that
can help protect coastal development from flooding
Figure 13. Designed to reduce the risk of flooding, the Brays Bayou Flood
Damage Reduction Project includes wetland creation to collect stormwater
and improve water quality. Photo courtesy of HCFCD.
Figure 14. Galveston Island living shoreline. Source: Galveston Bay
Foundation, n.d(b).
-------
Focal Watershed Review: East and West Galveston Bay, Texas (continued)
Figure 15. SLAMM for Galveston Bay. Initial conditions in 2004 (left) and under the 1 meter rise by 2100 scenario. Source: Warren Pinnacle Consulting, Inc., 20} la.
due to sea level rise (Figure 14). Living shorelines are a
specific type of green infrastructure; they are considered
to be a viable alternative to traditional shoreline stabili-
zation techniques, which employ engineered structures
such as seawalls, groins, and bulkheads. Participants
indicated that incentives are needed to make green
infrastructure and planning a priority. According to some
participants, the use of living shorelines is not a common
practice in Galveston Bay. Developers and their engi-
neers have yet to embrace this design change, since they
are familiar with more traditional shoreline armoring
methods.
Modeling and habitat studies. In 2010 and 2011, The
Nature Conservancy and Warren Pinnacle Consulting,
Inc., applied the Sea Level Affecting Marshes Model
6 (SLAMM) to assess the impacts of sea level rise on
the marshes and other coastal habitats in Galveston
Bay. Maps produced by the assessment show the effects
predicted from specific sea level rise projections (see
Figure 15). For example, the models predict a 67 percent
loss of brackish (irregularly flooded) marsh area and an
84 percent loss of tidal swamp area under a projected 1
meter of sea level rise by 2100.n The data and maps pro-
duced by this SLAMM assessment can be used as a tool
to inform managers of where sea level rise is expected to
have particular effects on coastal marshes and improve
decision-making (Warren Pinnacle Consulting Inc.,
201 la). In addition, a study has been proposed that will
complement the Galveston Bay Estuary Program's Status
and Trends Report on wetlands by examining wetlands
habitat changes from 1989 (published in a 1993 study)
through 2009 using SLAMM outputs. The study will
have a 50-year outlook.
Other tools to address coastal wetlands stressors.
Ecosystem services valuation. The GMF/GOMA
habitat team commissioned the Harte Research Institute
(HRI) to conduct an analysis of how ecosystem services
from marshes in Galveston Bay might be affected by
sea level rise. The project will use the outputs from the
SLAMM modeling project assessing sea level rise impacts
to Galveston Bay marshes.
Revised shoreline classifications. Texas GLO funded
Texas A&M University and the HRI to work on a
shoreline-mapping project of the upper Texas coast. The
project will provide up-to-date, shoreline type classifi-
cations in the Environmental Sensitivity Index (ESI)
ranking system, improving the accuracy and resolution
1-meter scenario was selected based on recommendation of a SLAMM model contact who believed this was a likely scenario for the watershed.
25
-------
Focal Watershed Review: East and West Galveston Bay, Texas (continued)
of the ESI data in the Texas GLO Oil Spill Planning and
Response Atlas. The up-to-date shoreline classifications
may also be used for shoreline change analysis and can be
a tool for identifying changes in coastal wetland habitats,
areas where erosion may be increasing, and areas that
might be at greatest risk from sea level rise.
What's Needed? What's Missing?
Despite the array of tools and strategies for addressing
stressors to coastal wetlands in the East and West Galves-
ton Bay watersheds, participants identified several gaps
in resources and programs, both regulatory and non-
regulatory. They expressed the need to address these gaps to
enable more effective application of tools and strategies to
protect and restore the watersheds' wetlands.
Improve planning to control impacts of coastal
development.
Land use planning. Participants noted that the Galveston
Bay watersheds lack an overarching policy for managing
natural resources in light of expected population growth
and development, and that a comprehensive strategy is
needed to successfully address growth-related impacts.
Review participants felt that land use plans could better
guide development to minimize impacts on wetlands.
In particular, land use planning at the watershed scale
would most benefit wetland protection. Mechanisms to
support such development and implementation of plans
are lacking.
Local and county involvement in wetland protection.
Participants noted the importance of conserving and/
or protecting depressional wetlands and suggested that
municipalities and counties could play a role in regulat-
ing these wetlands. For instance, local authorities could
ensure that CWA Section 404 permits are received, as
needed, before local building permits are issued or to
place restrictions on activities in buffer areas around
wetlands.
Green infrastructure. Review participants noted the need
for better tools to encourage the use of green infra-
structure, which can provide shoreline protection while
minimizing impacts on adjacent habitats. As noted in the
"Tools and Strategies" section, the development commu-
nity is not very familiar with living shorelines methods.
Examples and visual demonstrations would raise aware-
ness in the development community and encourage these
practices.
Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. The Texas
State Soil and Water Conservation Board administers
the Texas Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution Control
Program. Like other Gulf of Mexico states, though, Texas
has not received full approval from NOAA and EPA for
its program.
Strengthen wetland regulatory programs.
Enforcement. Review participants mentioned the need
for the following additional tools to strengthen enforce-
ment of wetlands protection regulations:
Press coverage on wetland enforcement cases to increase
the effectiveness of enforcement as a deterrence mecha-
nism and thereby reduce illegal wetland fill activities.
» While it is not a replacement for on-site investiga-
tions, increased use of available aerial photography may
enhance enforcement by detecting changes in wetlands
that may not easily be accessed from the ground.
» Expansion of the use of field-level agreements, such
as those between TxDOT, EPA, and the Army Corps,
to improve efficiency of enforcement activities and to
include local and state agencies as well. Pursuant to a
1989 Memorandum of Agreement between EPA and
the Army Corps, the two agencies share the responsi-
bility for enforcement of the CWA Section 404 pro-
gram, and the EPA takes the lead on particular unau-
thorized activities, such as those that are completed by
knowing, willful, and flagrant violators.
Clarifying CWA jurisdiction. Participants noted a lack
of on-the-ground field staff to verify the jurisdictional
status of wetlands on a case-by-case basis. Studies of
hydrologic connectivity of so-called isolated depressional
wetlands can be used to aid jurisdictional determinations,
and could possibly result in more positive jurisdictional
determinations and protection of depressional wetlands.
While some hydrologic studies already exist, participants
noted that additional studies are needed to clarify the
hydrologic connectivity of geographically isolated wet-
lands, and better inform jurisdictional determinations.
Increasing compliance. Participants thought that project
proponents that received local and/or county building
permits, but failed to file for wetland permits, have filled
jurisdictional wetlands without authorization. Increased
education of landowners and those issuing the building
permits could improve compliance with federal wetland
regulations.
26
-------
Focal Watershed Review: East and West Galveston Bay, Texas (continued)
Increased transparency of CWA Section 404 permit-
ting. According to participants, it is currently difficult
for those outside the permitting process to get informa-
tion about CWA Section 404 permits and compensatory
mitigation. State and local managers believe this infor-
mation would allow them to more effectively track and
document wetlands acreage loss and causes of the loss,
as well as increase public participation. Although there
is a public notice process during the development of all
general permits and during the evaluation of each stan-
dard individual permit application, participants noted
that a Freedom of Information Act request is needed to
obtain detailed information on permit analysis (such
as hydrologic calculations), statements of findings, and
final permit conditions. Participants also believed that
determinations regarding cumulative impacts of multiple
permit actions are not transparent and that increased
transparency and information availability could lead to
better tracking of wetland loss, increased compliance,
and targeted enforcement.
A national-level spatial database, ORM2, has been used
by all Army Corps Districts since July 2007- Districts
had various degrees of success in converting pre-2007
data from many legacy systems; the Corps continues
to refine the granularity and accuracy of the impact
and mitigation data and has made significant advances
since June 2009- Review participants suggested that all
pertinent agenciessuch as the Army Corps, EPA, and
USFWSshould share one Section 404 permit track-
ing database, which should provide for applications to
be submitted online and made publically accessible.
They also suggested a mechanism for spatial tracking and
assessment of permits (via GIS-based software) as part of
this centralized system.
It was noted that the Army Corps' new Regulatory In
Lieu Fee and Bank Information Tracking System (RIB-
ITS),12 provides improved transparency for mitigation by
allowing public access to information on mitigation bank-
ing and in-lieu fee programs across the country. Further,
the Corps and USFWS signed an interagency agreement
on the use of RIBITS in August 2010, and under this
agreement, RIBITS has been modified to also include
information on FWS conservation banking activities.
Permit coordination. Participants expressed a desire
for more coordination between agencies participating
in the permitting process. Previously, the Texas Coastal
Coordination Council had established a Permit Service
Center and, through a pilot program, offered applicants
the opportunity to take advantage of a joint permitting
process, where a coordinated permit application could be
submitted for a combination of state and federal wet-
lands permits. Permits eligible for the joint process were:
TCEQ Section 401 certifications, Army Corps CWA
Section 404 permits, and permits issued by the Texas
Parks and Wildlife Department. The purpose of the joint
permit application process was to better streamline and
coordinate the wetland permitting process. The Coastal
Coordination Council was phased out on August 30,
2011, and its powers were transferred to the Texas GLO
and TCEQ. Regardless of whether this pilot program
continues, participants suggested that before the issu-
ance of local construction permits, applicants should
be required to show they have consulted with the Army
Corps to determine whether a CWA Section 404 permit
is required.
Compensatory mitigation. Review participants noted
that the Compensatory Mitigation Rule (see Appendix
C) establishes a preference for mitigation projects that
focus on wetland restoration rather than preservation.
However, they expressed a desire for more preservation of
existing freshwater wetlands in circumstances where pres-
ervation may be preferred to restoration, such as when
encroachment is likely to occur on high-quality wetlands
or when the wetland function may be particularly dif-
ficult to restore (e.g., forested wetlands).
Participants expressed concern about mitigation occur-
ring out-of-area and out-of-kind (i.e., a different type of
wetland than the one impacted), and thought that stra-
tegic regional mitigation planning would maximize the
effectiveness of mitigation by expediting the construc-
tion process and strengthening the quality of mitigation
projects. The Galveston District and the Interagency
Review Team are reviewing two mitigation banks that are
proposed to provide compensatory mitigation credits for
authorized losses of waters in this watershed and a water-
shed approach will be incorporated into the development
of those banking instruments.
State programs. Noting that current federal laws do
not protect isolated wetlands, some participants felt this
gap could be filled by adopting state wetland protection
regulations, or by implementing incentive programs
to encourage the avoidance of isolated wetlands. Some
For more information, see https://rsgis.crrel.usace.army.mil/ribits/f?p=107:2:3644572573481910::NO:RP:P27_BUTTON_KEY:9.
27
-------
Focal Watershed Review: East and West Galveston Bay, Texas (continued)
participants also noted a need forTCEQto implement
a more rigorous CWA Section 401 certification process.
This could include the development of stricter water
quality standards, which could give the state a stronger
basis on which to review and approve, condition, or deny
federal permits that result in a discharge to state waters,
including wetlands.
Cumulative impacts. Participants suggested that the
CWA Section 404 permit process could benefit from
increased permit data availability and increased time
for permit review in order to better address cumula-
tive impacts. The Army Corps, however, indicated that
cumulative effects are appropriately evaluated pursuant to
the National Environmental Policy Act under the current
permit process.
Provide additional funding and collaboration for
wetland programs (regulatory and non-regulatory).
Lack of funding. Participants noted the lack of resources
(both funding and staff) to adequately administer and
enforce wetland laws, implement and fund more wetland
restoration programs, and provide education and techni-
cal assistance to raise awareness and support for wetlands
protection. An increase in CWA Section 401 certification
fees would make more dedicated funds available to sup-
port coastal wetland restoration and protection activities;
however, state legislation would be necessary to change
the fee structure.
» Conservation funding. There is no state funding
specifically and solely for conservation of coastal
wetlands. Review participants noted that the current
state legislature has shown little interest in supporting
conservation despite public interest. Dedicated state
funding for wetland conservation would allow Texas to
compete more effectively for federal funds by providing
non-federal match.
» Flood control coordination. Participants commented
that flood control districts currently have limited
authority to prevent hydrologic alterations that affect
coastal wetlands. Cities have planning and zoning
authority but are not required to comply with district
plans (for example, League City allows development in
the floodway and is not obligated to consider the Har-
ris County Flood Control District plans). Participants
felt that state funding should be tied to requirements
that cities comply with flood control district plans.
However, some participants noted that flood control
districts can also cause hydrologic alterations that
negatively impact wetlands and suggested that munici-
pal floodplain administrators could be better informed
about the coastal wetland impacts of specific hydro-
modification projects through more frequent interac-
tion with wetland managers.
» NGO and government cooperation. Review partici-
pants mentioned that the Houston area does not have
enough engagement and cooperation between govern-
ment agencies and NGOs, and that competition for
funding between agencies and NGOs, rather than
cooperation, can be problematic.
Develop tools for climate change and sea level rise.
Sea level rise tools. Participants mentioned a need to
develop better tools to translate scientific knowledge
regarding wetland loss (both area and function) to
decision-makers and resource managers. Visualization
and mapping tools that show expected sea level rise
levels would be valuable. Active training about how to
use available tools is also needed. In terms of regulation,
some participants recommended revising the CWA Sec-
tion 404 program to require consideration of the effects
of sea level rise on coastal wetlands when evaluating
permit applications. The Compensatory Mitigation Rule
(Federal RegisterVol 73, No. 70, April 10, 2008) recog-
nizes the importance of considering sea level rise when
siting and designing mitigation projects. This would be
of significance to the entire nation, but especially the
Gulf coast.
Other gaps and needs to address multiple wetland
stressors.
Wetland mapping. The National Wetland Inventory
(NWI) is a web-based tool that the public can use to
obtain information on wetland locations. Review par-
ticipants mentioned that the NWI GIS database is a
valuable tool, but has limitations such as the coarse scale
of available imagery, difficulty detecting some wetland
types, and the possibility that some imagery is out of
date. To help address these limitations, users can cross-
reference NWI data with other information, such as
the NOAA C-CAP data, USDA soil surveys, and local
wetland mapping data (if available). For the purposes of
jurisdictional determinations under CWA Section 404,
the Army Corps has the legal authority to verify wetland
delineations and finalize wetland determinations.
Beneficial use of sediment. There are regulatory barri-
ers to beneficial use of dredged material; requirements
28
-------
Focal Watershed Review: East and West Galveston Bay, Texas (continued)
to dispose of material in the least costly manner (the
federal standard for determining disposal options) do
not account for environmental costs and benefits. The
Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Task Force has identi-
fied this issue in its Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration
Strategy (EPA, 2011) and the Gulf of Mexico Alliance
has also identified beneficial reuse as a priority (Gulf of
Mexico Alliance, 2010).
Monitoring. Review participants mentioned that
expanded wetlands monitoring is a tool that can be used
to better evaluate wetland function at mitigation and
restoration sites. For example, participants suggested
WRP sites could be monitored on a longer-term basis to
identify changes in function. It was also suggested that
third party monitoring by certified experts could bolster
local, state, or federal agency monitoring.
Ecosystem valuation information. Review participants
indicated that effectively communicating quantifiable
information related to the economic value of services that
are provided by natural systems would allow decision-
makers to make more informed choices and examine
trade-offs of development or other projects. For example,
quantifying the lost benefits associated with channelizing
streams in terms of impacts on fish and wildlife habitat
and the subsequent diminution of recreational, aesthetic,
and commercial valuescould serve to demonstrate that
wetlands are vital economic resources (Engle, 2011).
Education and incentives. Review participants felt there
is a need for more educational programs that focus on
state and local decision-makers and property owners,
since public education and outreach currently tends to
focus solely on students in K-12 schools. In addition,
there is a need to provide incentives, such as tax breaks,
for private landowners in order to increase the likelihood
that wetlands are preserved.
Habitat assessment gaps. It is difficult to determine the
functions and services of wetlands, particularly in urban
watersheds. Participants believed there is a need for more
guidance regarding what wildlife and habitat characteris-
tics should be assessed, particularly in heavily developed
watersheds. There is a nationwide tool that assesses the
threat to fish habitat nationwide, compiled through the
National Fish Habitat Action Plan13 that may provide
helpful data. EPA also conducts a national coastal condi-
tion report, including coastal wetlands, which could be
helpful.14
: For more information, see http://www.fishhabitat.org.
14 For more information, see http://water.epa.gov/type/oceb/assessmonitor/nccr,
29
-------
Focal Watershed Review: Mississippi Coastal Watershed, Mississippi
Introduction
Mississippi's coast is characterized by a hot, humid climate;
silty and sandy soils; fire-dependent habitat types; and expo-
sure to large-scale storm events (MDWFP, 2005)- The region
was never glaciated and therefore boasts a diversity of plant
and animal species, placing Mississippi among the top 10
states for endemic species of reptiles, amphibians, butter-
flies, and mammals (MDEQ, 2008). The state's coastal area
includes 758 square miles of large estuaries, small bays, tidal
rivers, creeks, and bayous. Open-water estuarine systems
support patches of SAV and the intertidal zone hosts fringe
oyster reefs (Peterson et al., 2007). Four barrier islands help
maintain the unique ecology of the Sound while also provid-
ing the coast with a first line of defense against hurricanes
and storms. Sandy beaches, maritime forests, saltwater marsh
complexes, freshwater ponds, and sea grass beds all provide
habitat to numerous endangered and threatened species
(MDMR, n.d.).
Farther inland are a wide variety of marsh types, including
almost 70,000 acres of salt and brackish marshes, and salt
pannes (shallow depressions with high salt concentrations)
(MDWFP, 2005). Over 100 coastal estuarine ponds, total-
ing almost 4,000 acres, add to Mississippi's coastal diversity.
Moving away from the immediate coast, a variety of tidal
and non-tidal wetland habitats such as wet pine savannas,
cypress swamps, freshwater marshes, and maritime forests
can be found (Peterson et al., 2007; MDMR, 1999).
Mississippi's commercial fishing industry is the second
largest in the five Gulf States (by pounds landed), and the
aquaculture industry is the most valuable in the nation
(NMFS, 201 Ib; USDA, 2009). Wetlands and estuaries
are worth millions of dollars to the Mississippi commercial
fishing industry, which generated more than $375 million
in the last 10 years (NMFS, 201 Ib). Harvests of estuarine-
dependent shrimp alone account for more than half of Mis-
sissippi's commercial fishing revenues during the same period
(NMFS, 201 Ib). Continued loss of coastal wetlandssuch
as salt marsheson which healthy fisheries and shellfisher-
ies depend will have large economic impacts on Mississippi
coastal communities.
The majority of salt marshes in Mississippi occur at the
terminuses of the Pearl and Pascagoula Rivers, at the far
western and eastern edges of the Mississippi coastal plain.
Overall, Mississippi has lost nearly 60 percent of historic
wetland acreage, which prior to the 1800s was estimated to
cover nearly 10 million acres. Approximately 9,000 acres
of salt marsh alone were lost to open water, development,
Figure 16. Sandhill Crane National Refuge, Gautier, Mississippi. Source: USFWS.
and other non-wetland uses between the 1950s and the
1990s (Schmidt, 2001). Wet pine savannas are a particularly
endangered ecosystem in coastal Mississippi and the entire
Gulf Coastal Plain, where less than approximately 5 percent
of the original acreage remains (MDWF, 2005). A number
of factors, including suppression of the natural fire regime,
urbanization, and silvicultural practices, have all contributed
to the loss of this wetland type.
The Mississippi Coastal watershed was selected for review
because it is one of the watersheds along the Gulf of Mexico
coast that experienced a high amount of wetland acreage loss
between 1998 and 2004 (T. Dahl, unpublished data from
the USFWS Status and Trends program) and because the
watershed contains a diversity of saltwater and freshwater
wetland types. Coastal wetlands in this area provide numer-
ous ecosystem services, such as support for commercial and
recreational fisheries, wildlife habitat, flood control, and
filtration of excess sediments and pollutants.
This focal watershed spans the majority of the state's 369-
mile tidal shoreline and three counties (Hancock, Harrison,
and Jackson) (Figure 17; MDEQ, 2010; HUG 03170009).
It contains several rivers (Jourdan, Wolf, Biloxi, Bayou la
Batre, and the Fowl Rivers) as well as three major bays (Bay
of St. Louis, Back Bay of Biloxi, and Grand Bay). The initial
study area was revised slightly to match the boundaries of
the USGS hydrologic unit (03170009), which includes the
Grand Bay shoreline (Figure 18).
Palustrine forested wetland was the most prevalent wetland
class in the watershed in 2006, covering nearly 178,000
acres (63 percent of the total acres of wetland area) and
16 percent of the watershed's land area (NOAA, 201 la).
Estuarine wetland classes covered nearly 50,000 acres, or
30
-------
Focal Watershed Review: Mississippi Coastal Watershed, Mississippi (continued)
r*v
Figure 17. Mississippi Coastal watershed (cross-hatched). Source: USGS.
about 35 percent of the wetland area and 4.5 percent of
the watershed. Specific coastal wetland types found in the
watershed include wet pine savannas, salt marshes, salt
pannes, and bayous.
Figure 18. Grand Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve. Source: USFW(P.R.
Hoar, NOAA/NESDIS/NCDDC).
In preparation for the focal watershed review, data from the
NOAA Coastal Change Analysis Program (C-CAP) were
summarized to illustrate recent wetland changes that have
occurred within the Mississippi Coastal watershed between
1996 and 2006. The C-CAP program uses remote sens-
ing data to detect land use change in the coastal regions of
the United States. "Wetland" is one of the categories used
in the reporting of results. The data set reports changes
in acreage only and does not measure changes in wetland
function. C-CAP data were used in order to be consistent
across all regions when comparing wetland loss.
According to the C-CAP analysis, 4,474 acres of wetlands
were lost (e.g., converted to non-wetland categories) in this
watershed between 1996 and 2006 (an average of nearly
450 acres per year). The vast majority (about 88 percent)
of losses occurred in freshwater wetlands. Seventy-four
percent of the wetland acres lost, or 3,283 acres, were
forested freshwater wetlands. C-CAP data indicate that the
most acres were lost in conversion of wetlands to develop-
ment (36 percent), followed closely by losses to agriculture
(27 percent) including pastureland.
Other wetland acreage losses (25 percent) are attributed
to loss of wetlands to bare land (which is often associated
with, or a precursor to, development), with the remaining
12 percent of all coastal wetlands lost to open water, which
could be a result of a number of factors such as sea level
rise, subsidence, erosion, and/or channelization.
The post-change land use of wetlands lost and the types of
wetlands lost according to C-CAP data are shown in Figure
19 and Table 4, respectively.
Wetland loss can be authorized under federal and state
regulatory programs, which require avoidance and minimi-
zation of impacts as well as compensation for lost wetland
functions through compensatory mitigation. The Army
Corps tracks wetland losses and mitigation authorized by
the CWA Section 404. However, the wetland loss tracked
by the Army Corps is only a subset of the loss tracked
by C-CAP because: (1) wetland loss under C-CAP may
include loss of wetlands that are not subject to CWA
regulation (see the discussion of jurisdictional waters in
Appendix C), (2) wetland loss under C-CAP may include
loss due to types of activities that are not subject to CWA
regulation (e.g., natural processes or unregulated activities;
see Appendix C), and (3) wetland loss under C-CAP may
include losses for which a landowner should have sought
CWA authorization, but did not.
Figure 19. Wetland loss and changes in land cover, 1996-2006: Mississippi
Coastal Watershed. Source: NOAA, 20} la.
31
-------
Focal Watershed Review: Mississippi Coastal Watershed, Mississippi (continued)
Table 4. Losses of Wetland Types to Other Land Uses (Acres) from 1996 to 2006, HUC 03170009
Wetland Types*
Palustrine forested
Palustrine scrub
Palustrine emergent
Estuarine forested
Estuarine scrub
Estuarine emergent
Unconsolidated shore
Total
Developed
1,278.99
61.83
54.93
0.00
5.34
125.65
64.49
1,591.24
Agriculture/
Pasture
1,172.69
31.36
18.90
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.00
1,224.95
Bare Land
572.22
221.28
31.14
0.00
0.00
0.67
291.78
1,117.09
Open Water
259.31
17.79
239.74
0.00
0.00
20.46
4.23
541.53
Total
3,283.22
332.26
344.71
0.00
5.34
146.78
362.50
4,474.81
* See Appendix D for wetland classification descriptions. Source: NOAA, 201 la.
Permitting data provided by the Army Corps Mobile Dis-
trict indicate 1,222 acres of wetland fill were permitted in
the CWR focal watershed between 2006 and 2011 (Army
Corps, personal communication, 2011). Those records
represent the data entered or converted into the ORM2
database from 2006 to November 17, 2011, for HUC
03170009- During this time there were two database
changes (ORM1 and ORM2) and several refinements to
the data collected. The first major change, in June 2009,
further expanded the fields collected for impact and miti-
gation data entry; the second change, in October 2010,
was made to ensure that mandatory data elements were
being entered. The Army Corps has worked diligently over
the past several years to improve data entry. Training and
documentation has increased consistency and accuracy of
data entered, and database modifications have improved
the overall quality and quantity of data collected. The
2009 impact data changes allow for more granularity in
quantifying impacts. When reporting totals, the Army
Corps reports on permanent impacts (determined from the
duration field), the impact activity, types of discharges of
dredged or fill material, and fill associated with excavation.
It should be noted that the information below is based
on the opinions and observations of participants, who
provided feedback on draft versions of this document and
supplemented statements with documentation, where
available.
Stressors
As the C-CAP data indicate, the Mississippi Coastal
watershed has lost coastal wetlands due to natural and
anthropogenic stressors. Workshop participants provided
information on what they believed to be some of the
underlying causes of that loss, based on their experience
as wetland managers and regulators. Although this review
focused on one watershed, some of the stressors, tools, and
gaps discussed included those observed in all three coastal
counties and were not strictly limited to the Mississippi
Coastal watershed alone.
The top stressors voted on by the review participants were:
Development (including nonpoint source pollution and
interruption of fire regimes)
Shoreline hardening
Cumulative impacts
Limitations of regulations to address development
Coastal development. Between 1930 and 1973, 8,170
acres of coastal marshes were filled for industrial and
residential uses (MDMR, 1999). Since passage of the Mis-
sissippi Coastal Wetlands Protection Law in 1973, coastal
wetland loss has slowed dramatically (MDMR, 1999).
Participants mentioned the Mississippi Gaming Control
Act (1990), which legalized dockside gambling, as a catalyst
for the construction of casinos along the coast. The gaming
industry spurred new housing construction, commercial
development, and associated infrastructure, which in turn
caused impacts to coastal wetlands. The Gaming Control
Act was amended after Hurricane Katrina (2005) to allow
for casinos to be built within 800 feet of the mean high-
water line; the majority of casinos rebuilt were concentrated
along the Sound. Since Hurricane Katrina, no impacts to
wetlands have occurred as a result of casino development
along the Mississippi coast. Prior to that and dating back
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: Gulf of Mexico Review
32
-------
Focal Watershed Review: Mississippi Coastal Watershed, Mississippi (continued)
to the early 1990s, less than 20 acres of wetland fill has
occurred as a result of casino development along the Mis-
sissippi coast, which was required to be mitigated at a mini-
mum of a 3:1 ratio, either on site or at a nearby location.
Review participants reported that development is the single
most significant coastal wetlands stressor currently in the
focal watershed. This stressor was also the largest cause
of coastal wetland acreage loss according to C-CAP data
(36 percent of the loss from 1996 to 2006), corroborating
participants' impressions. Participants believed that recent
development and rebuilding pressures (Mississippi coastal
counties' combined populations in 2010 had rebounded
to 2.2 percent higher than pre-Katrina levels [U.S. Census
Bureau, 20 lib]) have been directed toward wetlands that
are outside the jurisdiction of the federal regulatory pro-
gram (Section 404). This assumption has not been verified
by any studies, and so it remains uncertain whether, and
to what extent, losses might be occurring in wetlands that
are not currently regulated under state or federal wetland
regulatory programs.
Review participants identified specific secondary aspects of
development that threaten coastal wetlands:
Post-Katrina development. The region experienced
large increases in insurance premiums after Hurricane
Katrina, which participants thought may have discour-
aged redevelopment in favor of new development. They
also speculated that housing development post-Katrina
was associated with potential illegal wetland fills for
these expedited projects. Concerns were expressed that
these projects were hastily constructed due to social and
economic pressures to rebuild after the storm. The Army
Corps confirmed that minor violations did occur, though
some small fills may have been authorized through
general permits such as the nationwide permits. New
housing construction over the past 20 years in Missis-
sippi peaked in 2006, exceeding 1,400 privately owned
single units, as compared to about 1,200 in both 2004
and 2007 (Figure 20).
Nonpoint source pollution and stormwater runoff.
In addition to direct loss of wetlands for development
purposes, participants mentioned several indirect impacts
from increases in development, including increases
in runoff and associated pollutants from impervious
surfaces. Discharges from urban (as well as agricul-
tural) runoff contain nutrients, sediments, pesticides,
and other contaminants that degrade water quality.
Increased stormwater runoff can also negatively affect
FRED
Figure 20. Housing starts data with peak in 2006, a year after Hurricane Katrina
made landfall. Source: Census Bureau, 2011b.
the hydrology of rivers, streams and their associated
floodplains by making streamflows more "flashy" (higher
velocity and peak flows during rainstorm events), as well
as lower flows during dry periods. The lack of natural
flooding regimes inhibits sediment delivery to coastal
wetlands, and renders the depth of wetland substrate
(and hence wetland elevation) difficult to maintain.
Loss of natural fire regimes. Several participants
observed that the majority of coastal wetlands in the
three coastal counties are wet pine savanna, an ecosys-
tem that requires fire for regeneration and maintenance.
Wildfire control practices interfere with natural fire
regimes, and encroaching residential and commercial
development can make prescribed burning more difficult
and less likely to occur. Without fire, the understory
of the pine savanna thickens and the excess vegetation
increases evapotranspiration rates. The higher num-
ber of stems per acre due to underbrush was thought
to have similar effects on the ecosystem as ditching,
Figure 21. Prescribed burn in the Sandhill Crane National Wildlife Refuge.
Source: USFWS.
33
-------
Focal Watershed Review: Mississippi Coastal Watershed, Mississippi (continued)
and participants thought this might cause transition
of wetlands into marginally wet forests, making some
areas potentially more attractive for silviculture or other
activities.
Pine plantation closures. In the 1930s, paper compa-
nies bought large tracts of wetlands along the Pasca-
goula River to establish pine plantations. When these
plantations are closed, large tracts of land are available
for potential development. In 2002, International
Paper Company's Moss Point Plant sold 50,000 (out of
200,000 available) acres of forested land in southern Mis-
sissippi to a private development company with plans to
subdivide the land (Peterson, 2002). At the time, county
officials and environmental interests were concerned
about new development leading to pollution from septic
tanks and sediment erosion from construction sites.
Additionally, pine plantation closures are the primary
source of large tracts of lands purchased for mitigation
banking on the coast. While the Pascagoula River is not
in the study area for this report, it is adjacent; convert-
ing this land from forestry to development could have
indirect effects in the study area.
Shoreline hardening. Participants noted that approxi-
mately three-quarters of the Mississippi Sound shoreline
was armored with seawalls and bulkheads by the 1930s.
Seawalls and bulkheads occur mostly along sheltered (inte-
rior) shorelines and riverine areas as opposed to along the
oceanfront. Gulf Hills was noted as an example of a resi-
dential development where seawalls and bulkheads are used
along interior shorelines (Figure 22). Participants pointed
out that as part of the seawall or bulkhead construction,
wetland areas were filled behind the armoring to stabilize
the slope and provide firm foundation for the structures.
Shoreline hardening may also exacerbate coastal erosion
of adjacent shoreline and prevent landward migration of
coastal wetlands. One participant noted that seawalls and
bulkheads might restrict the movement of endangered
species, such as the Alabama red-bellied turtle. A majority
of the remaining coastal wetland systems in the state are
in the far east and far west, where shorelines have not been
hardened to any great extent.
Cumulative impacts. The many stressors acting on the
coastal wetlands of the Mississippi Coastal watershed are
most significant when considered cumulatively, rather than
individually. Workshop participants focused on bulkheads
as a prominent example of cumulative impacts in the Mis-
sissippi Coastal watershed: a single bulkhead's impact may
seem small, but rarely do single bulkheads occur without
neighboring property owners armoring their own shore-
lines. Once large areas of shoreline are armored, systemic
ecological effects become evident. Several studies provided
by participants (Peterson et al., 2000; Hendon et al., 2000,
2001) indicated that stretches of armored shorelines in
Mississippi have experienced reduced abundance of com-
mercially and economically viable fish species. Partyka and
Peterson (2008) found that epifaunal and nekton richness
was greater along unrestricted shorelines as compared to
armored shorelines, and Hendon et al. (2001) found that
alteration to the marsh edge habitats in the Back Bay/Davis
Bayou estuary may adversely affect larval abundance and
Figure 22. Gulf Hills, an example of a subdivision with extensive bulkheading. Photo courtesy of Martina McPherson, ERG.
34
-------
Focal Watershed Review: Mississippi Coastal Watershed, Mississippi (continued)
distribution of gobies, the most abundant fish found in
these habitats. Thus, a single bulkhead can have impacts far
beyond the small stretch of shoreline it armors. Other small
alterations that can have large cumulative impacts include
docks, piers, and dredge spoil from channel maintenance
(Peterson and Lowe, 2009). Peterson and Lowe (2009)
found that cumulative impacts are problematic because
they are not immediately noted and build up over time to
produce more substantial impacts.
Limitations of regulations. The regulations that guide
implementation of CWA Section 404 and the Missis-
sippi Coastal Wetlands Act are limited with respect to the
wetlands under their jurisdiction and the activities that
are subject to regulation. Neither the federal nor the state
regulations comprehensively protect all wetlands from all
adverse impacts. The Mississippi Coastal Wetlands Protec-
tion Act (Mississippi Code §49-27-71) protects public tidal
wetlands and submerged water-bottoms. The Mississippi
Department of Marine Resources (MDMR) is responsible
for reviewing permits for all regulated activities that affect
coastal wetlands in the three coastal counties (Jackson,
Harrison, and Hancock). However, the Act's jurisdic-
tion is narrowly limited to just public tidal wetlands and
submerged water bottoms. With respect to federal wetland
regulations (CWA Section 404), participants noted that
recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions (Rapanos v. United
States, 547 U.S. 715, 810 [2006]; see Appendix C) have
impacted jurisdictional status and are contributing to the
loss of coastal wetlands by allowing development in unreg-
ulated wetland areas such as certain isolated wetlands. In
some states, state regulations have been able to fill the gaps
in federal wetland protection, but participants expressed
concern that the limited scope of CWA jurisdiction is not
addressed by the Mississippi Coastal Wetland Act.
Agriculture and silviculture. According to data provided
by NOAA C-CAP program, approximately one-third of
the 4,500 acres of wetlands lost between 1996 and 2006 in
the focal watershed was converted to upland agricultural
land uses. Participants stated that row crops, which are
typically thought of as "agriculture," were not common in
the study area, so the substantial percentage of losses to
agriculture in the study area created some initial confusion
for participants. However, the C-CAP land use category of
"agriculture" includes pasture as well as row crops. Partici-
pants confirmed that pasturelands did exist in the study
area. Participants also stated that silviculture is a significant
economic activity in the area.
Pasture. More than 80 percent of the total area mapped
by C-CAP as "agriculture" was also classified as pasture.
Non-agricultural features such as lawns in low-density
developments are often captured in this category;
therefore some of the wetland acreage losses attributed
to agriculture may actually be wetland losses to lawns in
low-density development.
Silviculture bedding. The potential for silvicultural
practices to convert wetlands to uplands is a controversial
issue in Mississippi, especially the practice of bedding for
pine plantations. There was some debate among partici-
pants on that practice, and whether it leads to loss of
wetland function.
Bedding involves creating raised mounds of soil where
trees can be planted without the roots being threatened
by saturation. The high water table along the Mississippi
coast makes this practice not only common but neces-
sary for pine plantation success. Participants mentioned
that the timber industry's bedding in wetlands along the
coast could have hydrological implications. Some voiced
concern that when rows are placed perpendicular to
topographic contours, water can be drained and wetlands
can be converted to uplands and thus lose jurisdictional
status.
In contrast, participants from the Army Corps indicated
that, to their knowledge, jurisdictional wetlands have
never been lost to uplands due to silviculture bed-
ding practices, despite some inhibited hydrology of the
bedded rows. It was suggested that soil borrow areas
tend to remain wet while narrow bedded areas become
uplandsnot enough, overall, to change the jurisdic-
tional status of the wetland area. A joint Army Corps
EPA memorandum on BMPs for the establishment of
pine plantations in the Southeast (Army Corps and EPA,
1995) specifies that BMPs must at least "maintain the
natural contour of the site and ensure that activities do
not immediately or gradually convert the wetland to a
non-wetland." If mechanical silvicultural site preparation
is conducted in accordance with the voluntary BMPs, a
CWA Section 404 permit is not required.
Although plausible that bedding practices could result
in some hydrologic alterations, the extent to which these
practices result in wetland loss remains unclear. The
BMPs mentioned above only apply to forested wetlands
seasonally flooded or wetter, leaving wetlands that have
saturated soils but are not flooded vulnerable to practices
not in line with the BMPs. The potential hydrologic
effects of bedding aside, silviculture can degrade the
35
-------
Focal Watershed Review: Mississippi Coastal Watershed, Mississippi (continued)
quality of wetland habitats by converting open pine prai-
rie savanna or bottomland hardwood to pine forest.
Misunderstanding agriculture exemptions. Wetland
losses to agriculture could be occurring because landown-
ers believe their activity is covered by an exemption from
regulatory requirements. There seemed to be some confu-
sion among review participants regarding agricultural
exemptions (what types of activities are exempt and what
types require a permit), which may indicate a similar lack
of clarity for landowners and the general public. Section
404(f)(l)(a) of the Clean Water Act provides exemp-
tions for "normal farming, silviculture, and ranching
activities such as plowing, seeding, cultivating, minor
drainage, harvesting for the production of food, fiber,
and forest products, or upland soil and water conserva-
tion practices." Other agricultural activities that result in
a discharge of dredged or fill material into jurisdictional
wetlands require authorization, and CWA Section 404(f)
(2) specifies that even exempt activities require a permit
if the activity has "as its purpose bringing an area of the
navigable waters into a use to which it was not previously
subject" and "where the flow or circulation of navigable
waters may be impaired or the reach of such waters be
reduced." In addition to wetlands lost through misun-
derstandings about agricultural exemptions, participants
suggested that some landowners engage in farming/sil-
viculture practices in wetlands with the intent of drying
out the wetlands, thinking they can later develop them
without obtaining a CWA Section 404 permit. In such
cases, these activities would require authorization under
CWA Section 404.
Small impacts. A few participants mentioned that small
agriculture/silviculture parcel ownership might lead to
incremental, easily overlooked modifications of wetlands
because these landowners are more apt to modify wet-
lands without being noticed, compared to larger opera-
tions making more obvious modifications. However, it is
also likely that small wetland losses would be authorized
under a general permit such as the nationwide permits or
may have been exempt.
Hydrologic modifications. The estuarine wetlands of
coastal Mississippi depend on a continuous sediment
supply for their maintenance and growth (Gulf of Mexico
Restoration Task Force, 2011). Hydrologic modifications
of rivers that drain into this coastal area may have contrib-
uted to decreases in sediment transport. Participants also
cited construction of transportation infrastructure over the
last century along the coast (Highway 90, Interstate 10,
and railways) as a historical wetland stressor, and signifi-
cant improvements to this infrastructure after Hurricane
Katrina as a recent stressor. Dredging (and specifically
channelization for navigational purposes) was cited as a his-
toric stressor that became less prevalent once Mississippi's
Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) adopted
CWA Section 401 certification regulations in 1982 (and
amended most recently in 2010).
Sea level rise and storm events. Sea level rise and the
increasing intensity and frequency of storm events
(USGCRP, 2009) can present major threats to coastal
wetlands in the Gulf of Mexico. The region is already
vulnerable to destructive storms and hurricanes, which
have contributed to substantial erosion of coastal marshes.
Over the past 70 years, the average rate of erosion in
Hancock County marshes has been 3-9 meters per year
(Manlove et al., 2002). In 2005, Hurricane Katrina's storm
surge reached a height of 28 feet just east of the Bay of
St. Louis (Hancock County, Mississippi) and extended 6
miles inland, up to 12 miles inland along bays and rivers
(Knabb et al., 2005). The Interagency Performance Evalu-
ation Task Force study conducted after Hurricane Katrina
(2009) found that the coastal area from the Mississippi
River to east of Mobile Bay is twice as likely to experience
a moderate-to-severe hurricane than the coast of Texas or
the Florida Panhandle. In addition to flooding and wind
damage, wetland stressors in the aftermath of large storms
include the presence of storm debris and the spread of
invasive species. Because of Mississippi's high water table
and low elevation, a rising sea level could increase the area's
vulnerability to storm effects. Mean sea level measured at
the eastern edge of the Mississippi Coastal watershed is
shown in Figure 23-
Participants noted that hurricanes and coastal flooding
could lead to wetland creation in natural systems; however,
in developed systems such as those in coastal Mississippi,
these events are more apt to change coastal wetlands to
open water. In some instances, storms can transport too
much sediment into the tidal environment, causing smoth-
ering of the vegetation, as was the case with Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita. It was estimated that storm-delivered
material from Hurricanes Rita and Katrina was far greater
than sediment introduced by overbank flow and other
inland sources (Turner et al., 2006). During these storm
events, 131 million metric tons of sediment and massive
amounts of debris from built structures were deposited into
wetlands (Turner et al., 2006). Participants were concerned
that there may be instances after storms where wetlands
36
-------
Focal Watershed Review: Mississippi Coastal Watershed, Mississippi (continued)
Dauphin Island, AL 2.9S +/- 0.37 mmJyr
O.K-
-0.6C- 1 1 1
19QD.O 181QJO 1S2S.O I3MJC l&IC.D ISSD.0 ItfOlJt 147C 0 1S8D.O IBMf MOCG 3110,5
Figure 23. Mean sea level trend measured at Dauphin Island, AL. Source:NOAA.
may be erroneously delineated as non-wetlands due to the
deposition of thick layers of mud.
Long-term natural stressors. Although most of the review
participants' discussion focused on more recent stressors
caused by human influences, they also noted that natu-
ral stressors have been acting on the area for thousands
of years. For example, one participant commented that
freshwater inflows to coastal wetlands have fluctuated
over the last 6,000 years due to the changing course of the
Escatawpa River. Over the last 50 years, five hurricanes of
HI to H5 intensity have made landfall along the Mis-
sissippi coast and the Alabama coast east of Mobile Bay
(NOAA, 201 Ib). The area is prone to hurricanes and tropi-
cal storms, which cause flooding and exacerbate coastal
erosion.
Tools and Strategies
A number of tools and strategies exist or are under devel-
opment in the Mississippi Coastal watershed to address
the above stressors, both regulatory and non-regulatory. In
Mississippi, the MDMR and MDEQwork together to reg-
ulate wetlands, relying on water quality certification under
Section 401 of the federal CWA. The MDMR reviews any
Section 404 permit applications and Section 401 certi-
fication requests for projects located in the three coastal
counties, where the Mississippi Coastal Wetlands Protec-
tion Act applies to public tidal wetlands and submerged
water bottoms. Currently, the Coastal Preserves program
and Mississippi Coastal Improvement Program (MsCIP)
are responsible for much of the restoration and preserva-
tion of coastal wetlands in the state. Workshop participants
Figure 24. Grand Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve. Source: USFWS (P.R. Hoar, NOAA/NESDIS/NCDDC).
37
-------
Focal Watershed Review: Mississippi Coastal Watershed, Mississippi (continued)
highlighted local participation, enforcement, and restora-
tion as the most important strategies for addressing ongo-
ing coastal wetland loss.
Tools to address limitations of regulations.
Local participation and education. Participants agreed
that local participation and education are critically
important for raising local awareness and involvement;
these tools are currently used, to varying degrees and
with varying success, to address coastal wetland stressors
in the focal watershed. Some work is being conducted
to raise awareness of wetland issues and to solicit part-
nerships with local officials and the public to provide
information about which activities require a permit. In
several communities, this outreach includes bi-annual
community sessions hosted by MDMR where planners,
developers, MDMR, the Army Corps, USFWS, MDEQ,
and other agencies are invited to talk about their roles in
the permitting process. Also during these sessions, the
Coastal Preserves Program gives an informative presenta-
tion on wetlands and why they are important. Partici-
pants thought that this type of outreach was valuable in
facilitating inter-agency collaboration and coordination,
and could improve wetland protection by expanding
information sharing and communication among officials.
Municipalities have primary authority related to land use
planning and development, giving them a unique oppor-
tunity to guide coastal resource protection. Pass Christian
was noted as an example of a city that coordinates with
MDMR to ensure that building permit applicants have
sought other appropriate permits (e.g., wetland permits)
prior to construction. They also contact the appropri-
ate resource agencies if they are uncertain about how
to proceed on a specific proposed project. Participants
estimated that approximately 10 municipalities exist in
the watershed, and agreed that expanding the type of
close coordination that occurs with Pass Christian to all
municipalities in the watershed would benefit wetland
conservation efforts. Smart Coast15 was also mentioned
as an educational resource that is effective in fostering
local coastal wetlands protection through smart growth
practices.
Enforcement. Participants stressed the importance of a
strong enforcement presence to ensure compliance with
state and federal wetlands regulations and to ensure that
people conducting activities within jurisdictional wetland
areas apply for all necessary permits.
Collaboration. Participants mentioned the value of
co-locating federal agencies with state agencies, and in
particular, voiced a desire for a stronger NOAA presence.
The Army Corps established a field office, co-located
with the MDMR, following Hurricane Katrina in late
2005- This allowed for a joint effort in the post-Katrina
recovery effort. Since then, the Army Corps continues to
maintain the Biloxi field office to support a collaborative
relationship with the MDMR, as well as other agen-
cies, and provide closer contact for stakeholders and the
regulated public along the Mississippi Coast. The "Roles
and Responsibilities" section of Appendix C describes the
coastal wetland protection roles of agencies in more detail.
Tools to address coastal development.
Participants discussed wetland mitigation as a tool that can
offset wetland losses, citing a number of programs in place
to ensure that it is effective. They discussed these programs,
pointing to some examples and mentioning improvements
that might be considered.
Wetland compensatory mitigation. Under regulations
established by the Army Corps (33 CFR 325 and 332)
and EPA (40 CFR 230), compensatory mitigation is
defined as "the restoration (re-establishment or rehabilita-
tion), establishment (creation), enhancement, and/or in
certain circumstances preservation of aquatic resources
for the purposes of offsetting unavoidable adverse
impacts which remain after all appropriate and practi-
cable avoidance and minimization had been achieved."
The Army Corps implements a watershed-based
approach to compensatory mitigation, which is defined
in part as: "an analytical process for making compensa-
tory mitigation decisions that support the sustainability
or improvement of aquatic resources in a watershed.
It involves consideration of watershed needs, and how
locations and types of compensatory mitigation projects
address those needs" (see 33 CFR 332.2 for complete
definition).
The National Research Council (2001) recommended
a watershed approach to compensatory mitigation as a
better way to achieve compensation for wetland losses
Smart Coast, an organization supporting sustainable development, is helping move the Gulf region toward a regional long-range comprehensive plan
that balances growth with the need to protect important ecological resources. For more information, visit http://smartcoast.org.
38
-------
Focal Watershed Review: Mississippi Coastal Watershed, Mississippi (continued)
than the previous automatic preference for on-site and
in-kind compensatory mitigation. This recommendation
is a cornerstone of the joint Army Corps/EPA mitigation
rule promulgated in 2008.
Mitigation banks. The Mobile District Mitigation
Banking Interagency Review Team (IRT) oversees 11
commercial mitigation banks, two private Mississippi
Department of Transportation (MDOT) mitigation
banks, and three private single-client mitigation banks
in the six Mississippi coastal counties. The majority (65
percent) of the acres in these banks has undergone (or
will undergo) a type of restoration called "rehabilitation,"
which involves altering an existing degraded wetland
area to increase its function but not increasing total
wetland acreage. The next largest category (21 percent) is
"enhancement," which also involves increasing function
but not acreage (RIBITS, 2011). Within the Mississippi
Coastal watershed, there are more than 13,000 acres
of wetlands being managed within 15 mitigation sites.
Mitigation banks are required to demonstrate to the IRT
that the bank has achieved measurable ecologically based
success criteria in order to receive marketable mitigation
credits. Of these wetlands being managed for wetland
credits, approximately 90 percent are being managed
for pine savanna wetland restoration, approximately 8
percent for bottomland hardwood enhancement, and 2
percent for bottomland hardwood and emergent marsh
preservation.
In-lieu fee programs. The Army Corps, as chair of the
IRT, is working with other federal and state agencies to
evaluate three in-lieu fee proposals in the Turkey Creek
sub-watershed. Cumulatively, the three sites cover nearly
171 acres of wetlands. Review participants mentioned
Turkey Creek as a good example of both a watershed
management approach and an in-lieu fee program in
the focal watershed. The Land Trust for Mississippi
Coastal Plain (LTMCP), a local non-profit organiza-
tion, manages the 171-credit project.16 The creek itself
is an impaired water bodyas identified on the CWA
Section 303(d) listwith flooding issues in a heavily
urbanized area (LTMCP, 2006). Additionally, the creek
has important historical and cultural value to the local
population, whom review participants noted as having a
strong appreciation of the value of wetlands. The active
and engaged community fought to pass a local ordinance
to require that impacts within the Turkey Creek water-
shed are mitigated within the watershed. While the Army
do), they still support it. Participants noted Turkey Creek
as a good example of how engaged stakeholders using
available tools and data can address wetland loss.
Location of compensatory mitigation with respect to
impacts. Some participants expressed concern about mit-
igation occurring outside the watershed where impacts
are incurred. It was thought that this out-of-watershed
mitigation could be resulting in a significant net loss
of wetlands in coastal Mississippi. The Army Corps
responded that its approach to mitigation in coastal
Mississippi has changed within the last five years. The
service area (the geographic area within which impacts
are mitigated) for the initial mitigation banks consisted
of the six coastal counties (Hancock, Harrison, Jackson,
Pearl River, Stone, and George), an area that includes all
or part of four watersheds as defined by USGS eight-digit
HUCs. This service area was based on the mitigation
banker's project feasibility analysis and the needs of the
CWA Section 404 permit program. As new banks were
approved, they were assigned the same mitigation area
as the older banks in order to be competitive. However,
pursuant to the 2008 federal mitigation regulations (33
CFR 332.3), the Army Corps has begun to incorporate
a watershed-based approach to compensatory mitiga-
tion decisions, which includes the requirement that
"compensation for impacts to aquatic resources in coastal
watersheds (watersheds that include a tidal water body),
should also be located in a coastal watershed where prac-
ticable" (33 CFR 332.3(b)(l). The Mississippi Coastal
watershed comprises about half of the area of the six
coastal counties in Mississippi. According to the Army
Corps, few, if any, projects on the coast currently miti-
gate outside the watershed.
Watershed management. MDEQ manages watersheds
in collaboration with stakeholders to address water
quality issues, holding meetings with agencies such as
MDOT and local non-profit organizations. LTMCP
applied for and received grant funds from EPA to begin
working with communities in six local watersheds to
build local partnerships. Turkey Creek (within the focal
watershed) and Red Creek (which borders the focal
watershed) were the first partnerships established by
LTMCP. Each of these partnerships has formed a com-
munity group that follows the action plan developed by
the community. Both groups have been awarded grants
to implement their plans for wetland restoration and
environmental education (LTMCP, n.d.).
Corps cannot enforce the ordinance (the city and county
The Turkey Creek mitigation banking instrument is based upon the formula that an acre of wetland equals one wetland credit.
39
-------
Focal Watershed Review: Mississippi Coastal Watershed, Mississippi (continued)
Conservation easements. A conservation easement is
a legally enforceable agreement between a landowner
and government agency to protect land so that it can
be maintained in its natural condition. Conservation
easements have been used in coastal Mississippi, includ-
ing along the Wolf River, one of two freshwater sources
flowing into the Bay of St. Louis, an impaired water
body. The Wolf River Basin contains several sources of
nonpoint source pollution, including wildlife, livestock,
and urban development (MDEQ, 2000). Several state
programs and organizations have focused conservation
activities in the Wolf River Watershed, including an
easement donation by International Paper in September
1999 to the Wolf River Conservation Society (the Society
was started in 1998 to conserve, manage, and protect the
Wolf River and its watershed). The 950-acre easement
requires BMPs such as permanently limiting tree cutting
and prohibiting development along both sides of the
river, creating a 15-mile-long by 300-foot-wide buffer
zone (Southeast Watershed Forum, 2000).
Decision-support tools. Participants noted two impor-
tant decision-support tools that could be useful in man-
aging and protecting wetlands:
» Conservation Legacy Tool. LTMCP is a non-profit
organization based in Biloxi that works to establish a
long-term system of conservation that reflects regional
priorities. In collaboration with almost two-dozen state
agencies, federal agencies, and non-profits, LTMCP
is developing a GIS-based tool to rank land based on
its conservation priorities. In the future, the tool will
be used to develop conservation plans (targeting areas,
verifying conservation value), to substantiate grant
requests and donations by city and county govern-
ments (comprehensive planning, development prioriti-
zation), and to inform mitigation efforts.
» Low Impact Development Implementation Assess-
ment (LIDIA). The Northern Gulf Institute has devel-
oped a tool to examine the costs of implementing
stormwater BMPs. LIDIA began as a tool to assess the
water quality impacts of large industrial and com-
mercial sites (Wilkerson et al., 2010). From there, it
evolved into a simple tool (based on Excel and a public
domain mapping tool) that could inform the design
industry about water quality/quantity benefits of
implementing BMPs on new or retrofitted projects. It
considers site and land use data, hydrological outputs,
pollutant removal effectiveness of BMPs, installation
cost, and maintenance cost (Wilkerson et al., 2011).
Recently, the tool has been linked to Map Windows, a
public domain mapping system. Unfortunately, com-
pletion of additional project stages has been delayed by
lack of funding.
Tools to address shoreline hardening, sea level rise,
and storms.
Preservation. Both non-profit organizations and public
agencies work to preserve wetland habitats along the
coast of Mississippi:
» Coastal Preserves Program. The MDMR Coastal Pre-
serves Program provides effective stewardship of Mis-
sissippi's sensitive coastal areas. The Coastal Preserves
Program is designed to set preservation priorities,
acquire additional sensitive coastal wetland habitats,
and ensure that the ecological health of these selected
areas is maintained through appropriate resource pro-
tection and coordinated management efforts. Twenty
sites containing 72,000 acres have been designated as
Coastal Preserves. These preserves are mostly estuarine
tidal marsh, but they also include freshwater marsh,
freshwater swamp, wet pine savanna, and upland and
island habitats (Figure 25). The state-owned portions
of these preserves (currently about 36,000 acres) are
being restored and managed as natural areas. The Mis-
sissippi Secretary of State's Office is an active partner in
the Coastal Preserves Program through an established
cooperative agreement whereby both agencies agree to
"effectively preserve, conserve, restore, and otherwise
manage selected coastal wetland ecosystems, associated
uplands and tidelands."
» Grand Bay National
Estuarine Research
Reserve. The Reserve,
established in 1999,
includes approxi-
mately 18,000 acres,
75 percent of which
is within the Grand
Bay National Wildlife
Refuge (established in
1992) and the Grand
Bay Savanna Coastal
Preserve. A majority of
the Reserve is in Ala-
bama, but its western
edges fall within the
study watershed. The
Figure 25. The Hancock County Coastal
Preserve. Photo courtesy of MDMR.
40
-------
Focal Watershed Review: Mississippi Coastal Watershed, Mississippi (continued)
area is contained entirely within The Nature Conser-
vancy's Grand Bay Savanna project area, a bioreserve
containing 31 rare and "imperiled" species and 20
natural community types (TNC, 2011). The core area
of the reserve consists of approximately 12,800 acres of
estuarine tidal marsh, tidal creeks, or bayous; shallow,
open-water habitats; oyster reefs; seagrass beds; mari-
time forests; salt flats; sandy beaches; and shell mid-
dens (Grand BayNERR, 2011). The Reserve's broad
range of wetland habitats provides the ideal setting for
numerous research projects and educational programs
(Grand Bay NERR, 2011). The Sea Level Affecting
Marshes Model (SLAMM) was recently applied to
the Grand Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve,
and it was determined the salt pannes will be the most
impacted wetland type under all simulated sea level rise
scenarios (Warren Pinnacle Consulting, Inc., 20lib).
Increased coastal resilience. Several tools and strategies
are being used and developed in the Mississippi Coastal
watershed to improve the coast's ability to respond to
rising seas and hurricanes. Additionally, beneficial use
of dredged material can be used for habitat restoration,
which can improve coastal resilience.
» Mississippi Coastal Improvement Program (MsCIP).
MsCIP was created in response to the damage and
destruction incurred during the 2005 hurricane season.
Projects funded by MsCIP have increased the coast's
resilience to storms. Types of funded projects include
beneficial use of dredge material, living shorelines, and
property buyouts. MsCIP incorporates several different
strategies and tools to address coastal resiliency along
the Mississippi coast in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina
and Rita. The unprecedented damage and destruction
caused by these hurricanes led Congress to autho-
rize and fund 15 short-term projects (approximately
$108 million) to address hurricane and storm dam-
age reduction, salt water intrusion, shoreline erosion,
and fish and wildlife preservation. The subsequent
comprehensive plan (approximately $1.4 billion) has
been submitted to Congress and $439 million has
been authorized and appropriated for comprehensive
barrier island and ecosystem restoration aspects of the
plan. The Army Corps was authorized to develop cost-
effective plans along the coast with the involvement of
state and municipal officials. The planning process was
and continues to be a highly collaborative effort. For
example, staffs from USFWS and the National Park
Service are co-located in the Army Corps office, and
the MsCIP team works closely with USGS. To date, 10
projects have been fully completed and five have been
transferred to local sponsors, who are responsible for
future operation and maintenance (the remainder are
scheduled to be finished in 2012). Projects included
shoreline restoration, living shorelines, restoration of
existing hardened structures (seawalls), land acquisi-
tion, and beneficial use of sediment. When completed,
the projects will restore approximately 30,000 acres of
natural landscape.
Living shorelines for coastal Mississippi. The Army
Corps Mobile District completed a Living Shorelines
Regional General Permit (LSGP) for the Alabama coast
as part of its 2012 General Permit Program for Minor
Structures and Activities, and is currently completing a
LSGP for Mississippi. Living shorelines provide for the
long-term protection, restoration, and enhancement of
both stable and degraded shorelines, which are sub-
jected to a variety of high-energy forces. Living shore-
lines use plants, stone, sand fill, and other organic or
natural materials to stabilize shores. The Army Corps
Mobile District took this living shorelines concept and
expanded it to include structural and non-structural
alternatives, applicable for use over a range of fresh-
water to marine ecosystems, useable not only by the
private landowner but also for larger acreages targeted
for restoration and creation.
Figure 26. Cypress Swamp, Mississippi. Source: USFW.
41
-------
Focal Watershed Review: Mississippi Coastal Watershed, Mississippi (continued)
The LSGP promotes the preservation, protection, and
restoration of dunes, beaches, wetlands, submerged
aquatic vegetation, protection and propagation of
essential fish habitat, shoreline restoration, and nour-
ishment. The LSGP is targeted for use in areas sub-
jected to scour, erosion, sloughing, high energy wave
action, storm damage, and other similar areas that are
in need of renourishment or restoration, with focus on
a minimalistic, naturalized approach with limited or
temporary structural enhancement in order to achieve
a self-sustaining, stabilized shoreline, in lieu of the
traditional seawall or bulkhead revetments. The devel-
opment of a general permit makes the use of living
shorelines a more viable and attractive option because
it allows applicants to proceed with work under a
streamlined general permit process, rather than going
through individual permit procedures.
As of the printing of this report, issuance of the Mis-
sissippi Coastal living shorelines regional permit is
pending final evaluation by and in coordination with
multiple state and federal agencies.
Beneficial use of dredged material. Deer Island (Fig-
ure 27), an MDMR Coastal Preserves site, is located
in Harrison County, at the mouth of Biloxi Bay. The
4-mile-long, 400-acre island is a mainland remnant,
so it is technically not a barrier island, though it does
provide some storm protection to the city of Biloxi
(NOAA, 2010c). The island once contained a beach
and dune system, a salt marsh area, and a maritime
forest, but suffered severe damage from the 2005 hur-
ricane season (Army Corps, 2009). Dredged material
from Biloxi Harbor maintenance was used before
the hurricanes of 2005 to restore the eastern tip of
the island, which had been rapidly eroding. The fill
placement and marsh planting was a successful use of
dredged material and the restored marsh was one of the
few areas of the island that survived Hurricane Katrina.
Additional restoration of Deer Island, including fill
of the western breach and restoration of the southern
shoreline with subsequent vegetation planting on the
breach fill, was completed in early 2012 using congres-
sionally authorized funding to the Army Corps.
The use of dredged material for coastal restoration
projects was mandated through Mississippi House
Figure 27. Deer Island, 2012. Photo provided by Susan Rees, Army Corps.
Bill 1440 (March 2010), and the state reactivated the
Beneficial Use of Dredged Material Group in 2008.
The Group is focused on finding opportunities to use
dredged material in restoration activities and beach
restoration.
Tools to address agriculture, including silviculture.
BMPs. In order to promote silvicultural practices that are
in compliance with CWA Section 319, Mississippi has
developed a BMP handbook recommending standards,
methods, and specifications for forest resource managers
and landowners (MFC, 2008). The BMPs implemented
in Mississippi include streamside management zones;
best practices for skid trails and haul roads, forest har-
vesting, site preparation, and tree planting; and artificial
re-vegetation of disturbed forest sites. The state has also
developed a "Stormwater Management Toolbox" consist-
ing of guidance for coastal communities and counties
on how to select BMPs and implement management
programs to reduce the impacts of Stormwater runoff
(MDMR, 2003).
42
-------
Focal Watershed Review: Mississippi Coastal Watershed, Mississippi (continued)
Highlight: Buyouts.
One of the MsCIP sites visited during the review field trip was the community of Pecan, Jackson County, near the
Mississippi-Alabama state line. Approximately 29 families were living on over 200 acres of low-lying land (Figure 28).
The state, working with Jackson County and FEMA, had identified the community as vulnerable following Hurricane
Georges and had initiated a hazard mitigation grant program (HMGP) to acquire repetitively damaged properties from
willing sellers. The authorization of the MsCIP Interim Projects provided funding to purchase all the properties within
the Pecan communities from the willing sellers andin cooperation with the state, Jackson County, and FEMAthe
MsCIP took over the responsibility for this area, with the HMGP funds being applied to other repetitively damaged
areas. To date the MsCIP has purchased 165 acres (43 different tracts) and relocated 16 families at a cost of $6.2 mil-
lion. Restoration efforts under the MsCIP Comprehensive Plan have been authorized to return the area to the natural
wet pine savannah landscape. These activities are scheduled to begin in 2012.
Figure 28. Former residences in the Pecan community that were purchased
using MsCIP funds. Photo courtesy of Susan Rees, Army Corps Mobile District,
MsCIP Program.
What's Needed? What's Missing?
Despite the array of tools and strategies available to address
stressors to coastal wetlands in the Mississippi Coastal
watershed, participants identified several gaps in resources
and existing programs that, if addressed, would enable
more effective protection and restoration of the watersheds'
wetlands.
Increase resources for enforcement and compliance.
Additional Staffing. The majority of participants agreed
that lack of resources for enforcement and compliance
efforts was the largest obstacle in preventing unauthor-
ized loss of wetlands in the watershed (definitive informa-
tion on how much of the wetland loss is unauthorized is
needed to verify this conclusion). The state of Mississippi
currently maintains three full-time positions to cover the
entire CWA Section 401 certification program, which
covers 82 counties. All Army Corps Mobile District
coastal team project managers have expertise in enforce-
ment and are responsible for compliance, but only a
few are primarily tasked with enforcement. Workshop
participants believed that increased funding for state and
federal regulators would allow for a greater field presence
to deter illegal activities. (For more information on EPA
and the Army Corps' enforcement roles and responsibili-
ties, see Appendix C.)
However, the Army Corps does not believe additional
resources are needed to deter illegal activities. The Corps
has specific performance metrics related to resolution of
non-compliance actions and unauthorized activities, and
typically meets or exceeds those targets. Data for fiscal
year 2011 show that the Army Corps Mobile District
conducted compliance inspections on 22 percent of
issued Individual Permits (IPs) and 19 percent of verified
General Permits (GPs) (Army Corps Mobile District,
2011). This is in excess of the metrics that require 10
percent on IPs and 5 percent on GPs. They also exceeded
performance criteria for resolution of unauthorized and
non-compliance actions. The Corps believes these data
suggest they have a sufficient field presence to prevent
unauthorized actions.
« Aerial photography. Participants also mentioned that
periodic aerial photography would be very helpful in
compliance and enforcement efforts, and that it would
benefit the state wetlands program if the fines they col-
lected could be deposited into a dedicated fund restricted
to enforcement or other wetlands-related monitoring/
data collection efforts.
Increase public/local government education and
engagement.
Land use planning. Participants felt strongly that local
government should take a more active role in managing
development and protecting wetlands through land use
planning. They indicated that local communities should
develop master plans that embrace smart growth con-
cepts, set watershed-based wetland loss thresholds, and be
firm about limiting development in sensitive areas. They
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: Gulf of Mexico Review
43
-------
Focal Watershed Review: Mississippi Coastal Watershed, Mississippi (continued)
further contended that municipalities need to be edu-
cated about the authority they have to enforce building
permits, and be willing to exercise that authority instead
of expecting the state to do it.
Dissemination of information and lessons learned.
Participants also felt the public has not learned some
important lessons from Hurricane Katrina, such as
the idea that allowing coastal wetlands to stay in their
natural state performing flood control functions is valu-
able ecologically and for society. They added that there
needs to be a "paradigm shift" when it comes to what
waterfront property owners value. Participants stated
that living shorelines need to be embraced as the best
option for addressing sea-level rise, erosion, and flood-
ing. Additionally, participants felt that landowners need
to be more informed about actions they take that affect
adjacent or nearby wetlands and which actions require
wetlands permits. (There may be a false perception that,
having received a building permit, a developer needs no
further permits for additional activities undertaken by
the landowner.) One participant suggested providing
available wetland maps to municipal building inspectors
as a tool to inform both the inspectors and the landown-
ers about locations were wetland permits may be required
for development projects.
Strengthen watershed-based management.
Require smaller-scale watershed-based mitigation. The
Army Corps/EPA watershed approach to compensatory
mitigation often results in a determination that on-site,
in-kind mitigation is not the most environmentally
preferable option and may not offset authorized losses
of waters. Nonetheless, participants expressed a strong
preference for compensatory mitigation to occur as close
to the wetland impact as possible, to prevent a net loss of
wetland functions and values in areas closest to the coast.
Using smaller watersheds as the context for mitigation
decisions may help in retaining wetland functions closer
to the area of impact.
Increase watershed management teams. Participants
agreed that watershed management teams are valuable
collaborative groups that are underutilized in coastal
areas in general and in the Mississippi Coastal watershed
in particular. Participants thought that organizing addi-
tional watershed management teams would be a major
step toward more comprehensive watershed management
and more effective protection and management of
wetlands.
Develop and implement special area management
plans (SAMP). The Coastal Zone Management Act
encourages the use of SAMPs to provide for increased
specificity in protecting natural resources, reasonable
coastal economic growth, and improved predictability
in government decision-making. SAMPs are detailed
watershed management plans that guide development
in a defined geographic area. They generally guide
development by making environmentally sensitive areas
more difficult to develop. In Mississippi, SAMPs could
strengthen the coastal wetlands program by integrating
its activities into an overall management plan. Currently,
the coastal program only covers a fairly narrow portion
of coastal wetlands (as defined by state statute). A SAMP
was developed for the Port of Pascagoula in the 1980s
and continues to guide development in that portion of
Jackson County. MDMR indicated that it would be sup-
portive of developing more SAMPs, but does not have
the capacity to be involved due to limited resources.
Other gaps and needs to address multiple wetland
stressors.
Increase monitoring. Participants noted that there is
currently no long-term geospatially based ecological
monitoring in the focal watershed or across the Gulf.
These data and ecological history are needed to improve
restoration, mitigation, and land use planning efforts.
Louisiana's Coastwide Reference Monitoring System was
cited as a model of what is needed; participants suggested
that the Gulf of Mexico Alliance should be used as a
vehicle for developing models, other tools, and collecting
relevant data. Other ideas included developing a cumula-
tive impact analysis tool for regulatory decision-making
and a tool to model water quality impacts from filling
wetlands.
MsCIP. Participants noted a gap in the full implementa-
tion of the MsCIP. Although funds have been provided
for a portion of the program (e.g., $439 million for
barrier island and ecosystem restoration), a critical aspect
of the program remains unauthorized and unfunded. An
additional $800 million would allow for the acquisition
of approximately 2,000 parcels from willing sellers within
the high hazard area of the coast. These lands would be
subsequently returned to their natural landscape.
44
-------
Conclusion
The Gulf of Mexico coastal wetland review is the fourth
and last in a series that the Coastal Wetlands Team con-
ducted. The Gulf region reviews have given federal agen-
cies a greater understanding of coastal wetland loss in the
region, including important insights into the causes of
these losses. Several common themes have emerged from
the Gulf region focal watershed reviews:
Development pressure was the primary stressor of concern
to participants in both watersheds. This includes both
direct impacts (filling) and indirect impacts (stormwater
runoff, shoreline armoring, etc.).
The limitations of regulations and lack of accurate char-
acterization of coastal wetland losses (through mapping,
centralized databases) are important issues that hinder the
protection of coastal wetlands.
o In Galveston Bay and the Mississippi Coast, recent
Supreme Court decisions (Rapanos and SWANCC) have
had significant impacts on coastal wetland loss, specifically
limiting federal protection for certain isolated, freshwater
wetlands under CWA Section 404.
The impact of sea level rise, storms, and other climate
change issues was raised in both focal watershed reviews as
a stressor of concern; participants noted that more infor-
mation is needed to assess the impacts of climate change.
* Subsidence attributed to oil and groundwater extrac-
tionnoted as a significant issue in the pasthas become
less of a threat to coastal wetlands due to decreases in
extraction activities and new management approaches.
A number of tools and strategies were suggested that could
effectively address the major stressors discussed on the previ-
ous pages, and could be transferred to other watersheds and
regions:
» Beneficial use of dredged material is a restoration strat-
egy being employed successfully in the Galveston Bay and
Mississippi Coastal watersheds.
* "Watershed planning has been used in both watersheds
to protect wetlands and manage growth. Along with
land use planning, participants believed, this strategy
could improve development practices across the Gulf, but
continued education and outreach to the public and local
municipalities will be needed to increase the strategy's
popularity.
In both watersheds there was strong support for conserva-
tion of existing coastal wetlands through direct purchase
of land or through conservation easements as a primary
strategy that guarantees preservation of coastal wetland
acreage.
* Although not a common strategy, property buyouts have
been used to remove properties from flood-prone areas in
both watersheds.
The development of a regional living shorelines permit
by the Mobile Army Corps District will allow "soft" solu-
tions to shoreline erosion to become more viable alterna-
tives to shoreline hardening by streamlining the permit-
ting process.
The participants identified key gaps that need to be filled
to reduce the stressors and more effectively use these tools
and strategies. Most commonly, they cited the following:
* Outreach and education for both the public and local/
regional decision-makers to enhance effective planning,
conservation, and management of wetlands.
Additional resources to increase monitoring and assess-
ment, compliance and enforcement efforts, and outreach
programs.
Widespread use and implementation of watershed-
based plans and land use planning.
* Clarifying CWA jurisdiction and conducting studies
on isolated wetlands (in Texas in particular).
Mapping and aerial photography of coastal areas to aid
in accurately tracking losses and assisting enforcement
efforts.
Enhancing state and/or local programs for wetland
protection.
Using smaller watersheds to guide the siting of compen-
satory mitigation so it occurs closer to the impact.
Oversight of silvicultural practices is needed, beyond
current BMPs.
45
-------
Acknowledgments
Many people contributed to the Galveston review, from
preparation to participation and thoughtful review and
comment on notes of the meeting and the draft report. All
participants provided a congenial and well-informed discus-
sion. We would like to thank all of the participants who took
time out of their busy schedules to contribute their valu-
able knowledge, ideas, and feedback. In particular, we wish
to thank Scott Jones from the Galveston Bay Foundation,
Steven Johnston and Helen Drummond of the Galveston
Bay Estuary Program/TCEQ, John Furry of Army Corps
Headquarters, Carolyn Murphy of the Army Corps Galves-
ton District, and John Jacob of the Texas AgriLife Extension
Service/Texas Sea Grant.
Many people contributed to the Mississippi Sound review
effort. We would like to thank all of the participants who
took time out of their busy schedules to provide us with
this valuable feedback. In particular, we wish to thank Willa
Brantley (MDMR) and Florence Watson (MDEQ) for
organizing, hosting, and providing transportation for the
CWR field trip; Chris Boyd (Mississippi Alabama Sea Grant
Consortium, MSU Coastal Research Extension Center) for
his help with CWR planning and providing the facility space
to host the CWR; and staff from the Army Corps of Engi-
neers for their help in providing information and leading the
field trip. Many of these people presented at the CWR and
provided data and extensive feedback on this report. We also
thank Paul Necaise of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
Judy Steckler of the Land Trust for the Mississippi Coastal
Plain for providing valuable feedback on the report and for
presenting at the CWR.
For more information on the
Coastal Wetlands Initiative, contact:
Jennifer Linn
Linn.Jennifer@epa.gov
Nancy Laurson
Laurson.Nancy@epa.gov
Susan-Marie Stedman
Susan.Stedman@noaa.gov
Janine Harris
Janine.Harris@noaa.gov
DISCLAIMER: The work reported in this document was funded by the U,S, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
underwork Assignment B-04 of Contract No, EP-C-09-020 (through its Office of Coastal Protection Division) and
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) under Contract No, EAJ33C-0090CQ-0034 to Eastern
Research Group, Inc EPA and NOAA manacied and collaborated in the assessment described herein. This document is
not based on new research or field work conducted by the Agency or its contractor, it contains leadiiy available existing
information and that provided by stakeholders. This document will be subjected to the Agency's review. Neither the U.S.
government nor any of its employees, contractors, subcontractors, or their employees make any warrant, expressed or
implied, or assume responsibility for any third party's use of, or the results of, such use of any information, product, or
process discussed in this report, or represents that its use by such party would not infringe on privately owned rights.
Any opinions expressed in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Agency;
therefore, no official endorsement should be inferred. Any mention of trade names or commercial products does not
constitute endorsement or recommendation foi use
46
-------
References
Army Corps (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2009. Mississippi Coastal Improve-
ments Program (MsCIP), Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson Counties, Mississippi
comprehensive plan and programmatic environmental impact statement.
Army Corps and EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1995. Memoran-
dum: Application of Best Management Practices to mechanical silvicultural site prepa-
ration activities for the establishment of pine plantations in the Southeast.
Army Corps Mobile District. 2011. 404 certification data provided by Mobile Corps
District.
ASWM (Association of State Wetland Managers). 2010. The complete wetlander:
beach nourishment in Texasno gains, only losses,
ASWM. 2009. Recommendations for a national wetlands and climate change
initiative,
Barras, J.A. 2006. Land area change in coastal Louisiana after the 2005 hurricanesa
series of three maps: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 06-1274.
Bellrose, EC, and N.M. Trudeau. 1988. Wetlands and their relationship to migrating
and winter populations of waterfowl. Volume I: Portland, Oregon. Timber Press.
Bilkovic, D.M., and M. Roggero. 2008. Effects of coastal development on nearshore
estuarine nekton communities. Marine Ecology Progress Series 358: 2739.
Bilkovic, D.M., M. Roggero, C.H. Hershner, and K.H. Havens. 2006. Influence
of land use on macrobenthic communities in nearshore estuarine habitats. Estu-
aries & Coasts 29(6B): 11851195.
The Conservation Fund. 2012. A vanishing ecosystem southwest of
Houston gains protection,
Coplin, L.S., and D. Galloway, n.d. Managing coastal subsidence. Report prepared
for USGS.
Couvillion, B.R, J.A. Barras, G.D. Steyer, W Sleavin, M. Fischer, H. Beck, N.
Trahan, B. Griffin, and D. Heckman. 2011. Land area change in coastal Louisiana
from 1932 to 2010. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 3164, scale
1:265,000. 12 p. pamphlet.
Day, J.W, Jr., D.F. Boesch, E.J. Clairain, G.P Kemp, S.B. Laska, WJ. Mitsch, K.
Orth, H. Mashriqui, D.J. Reed, L.Shabman, CA. Simenstad, B.J. Streever, R.R. Twil-
ley, C.C. Watson, J.T Wells, and D.F. Whigham. 2007. Restoration of the Mississippi
delta: lessons from hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Science 315: 1679-1684.
Day, J.W, Jr., G.P. Shaffer, LD. Britsch, D.J. Reed, S.R. Hawes, and D. Cahoon.
2000. Pattern and process of land loss in the Mississippi delta: a spatial and temporal
analysis of wetland habitat change. Estuaries 23: 425438.
Deepwater Horizon Natural Resource Trustees. 2012. Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill
Phase I Early Restoration Plan and Environmental Assessment.
Dudensing, R.M., and L.L. Jones. 2010. Agriculture taxes in Texas.
Engelkemeir, R., S.D. Khan, and K. Burke. 2010. Surface deformation in Houston,
Texas using GPS. Tectonophysics 490(1-2): 47.
Engle, V. 2011. Estimating the provision of ecosystem services by Gulf of Mexico
coastal wetlands. Wetlands 31(1): 179-193.
ELI (Environmental Law Institute). 2008. State wetland protection: status, trends, &
model approaches.
EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2011. Gulf of Mexico
Regional Ecosystem Restoration Strategy,
EPA. 2007. Chapter 5: Gulf of Mexico National Estuary Program coastal con-
dition, Galveston Bay Estuary Program. In: National Estuary Program coastal
condition report. EPA-842-B-06-001.
EPA. 1987. Saving Louisiana's coastal wetlands,
Eubanks,TL., R.A. Behrstock, and R.J. Weeks. 2006. Birdlife of Houston, Galveston,
and the upper Texas coast. Texas A&M University Press, p. 328.
FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 2011. Results of the FHWA domestic
scan of successful wetland mitigation programs,
Federal Register. 2008. Rules and regulations. 73(70): 19671-19674.
Forbes, M., R Doyle, A. Clapp, J. Yelderman, N. Enwright, and B. Hunter, 2010.
Final report. Freshwater Wetland Functional Assessment Study.
GBEP (Galveston Bay Estuary Program). 2009. Charting the course to 2015: Galves-
ton Bay Strategic Action Plan. Houston, Texas,
Galveston Bay Foundation. 2012. Public meeting on bacteria levels in the upper Gulf
Coast. January 18, 2012.
Galveston Bay Foundation. 2010. Upper Gulf Coast oyster waters total maximum
daily load (TMDL) implementation plan.
Galveston Bay Foundation. n.d.(a). Environmental flows,
Galveston Bay Foundation. n.d.(b). Living shorelines: a natural approach for erosion
control.
Gonzalez, L.A., and L.J. Lester. 2012. Galveston Bay Status and Trends Project:
oil spills. The Woodlands, TX: Houston Advanced Research Center.
Grand Bay NERR (The Grand Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve). 2011.
Grand Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve,
Gulf of Mexico Alliance. 2010. Beneficial use of dredged sediment & the federal stan-
dard: issues of concern and recommendations for action by the Alliance management
team,
Gulf of Mexico Restoration Task Force. 2011. Gulf of Mexico regional ecosystem
restoration strategy,
HCFCD (Harris County Flood Control District). 2010a. Brays Bayou watershed.
HCFCD. 2010b. Capital improvement projects,
HCFCD. n.d.(a). Addicks Reservoir watershed,
HCFCD. n.d.(b). Capital Improvement Program,
Hendon, J.R., M.S. Peterson, and B. H. Comyns. 2001. Seasonal distribution of
gobiids along estuarine marsh-edge habitats: assessing the effect of habitat alteration.
Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute, pp. 428441.
47
-------
References
Hendon, J.R., M.S. Peterson, and B.H. Comyns. 2000. Spatio-temporal distribu-
tion of larval Gobiosoma bosc in waters adjacent to natural and altered marsh-edge
habitats of Mississippi coastal waters. Bulletin of Marine Science 66: 143-156.
Interagency Performance Evaluation Task Force. 2009. Performance evaluation of the
New Orleans and Southeast Louisiana Hurricane Protection Systemfinal report.
Jacob, J.S., and R. Lopez. 2005. Freshwater, non-tidal wetland loss lower Galveston
Bay watershed 19922002: a rapid assessment method using GIS and aerial photog-
raphy. Webster, TX 73 pp. Report No. 582-3-53336 for the Galveston Bay Estuary
Program,
Jacob, J.S., and S. Showalter. 2008. The resilient coast: policy frameworks for adapt-
ing the wetlands to climate change and growth in coastal areas of the U.S. Gulf of
Mexico,
Knabb, R.D., J.R Rhome, and D.P Brown. 2005. Tropical cyclone report Hurricane
Katrina. National Hurricane Center, Miami, Florida,
Ko, J.Y, and J.W. Day. 2004. Wetlands: impacts of energy development in the Missis-
sippi Delta,
Lellis-Dibble, KA, K.E. McGlynn, andT.E. Bigford. 2008 Estuarine Fish and Shell-
fish Species in U.S. Commercial and Recreational Fisheries: Economic Value as an
Incentive to Protect and Restore Estuarine Habitat. U.S. Dept. Commerce, NOAA
Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-90, 94p.
Lester, L.J., and L.A. Gonzalez, eds. 2011. The state of the Bay: a characterization of
the Galveston Bay ecosystem. 3rd edition. TCEQ Galveston Bay Estuary Program,
Houston, Texas.
Lester, L.J., and L.A. Gonzalez. 2002. The state of the Bay: a characterization of the
Galveston Bay ecosystem. 2nd edition. GBEP T-7. Webster, TX: TCEQ Galveston
Bay Estuary Program,
Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force. 2010. The
2009 evaluation report to the U.S. Congress on the effectiveness of Coastal Wetlands
Planning, Protection and Restoration Act projects,
Louisiana Sea Grant. 2010. Wetland restoration with sediment conveyance: an
experimental approach to reduce uncertainties in attaining successful restoration.
LTMCP (Land Trust for the Mississippi Coastal Plain). 2006. Watershed implemen-
tation plan Turkey Creek, City of Gulfport, Harrison County, MS.
LTMCP. n.d. Building watershed support through partnerships,
Manlove, C.A., B.C. Wilson, and C.G. Esslinger. 2002. North American waterfowl
management plan.
Martin, J.F., M.L. White, E. Reyes, G.P. Kemp, H. Mashriqui, and J.W. Day, Jr.
2000. Evaluation of coastal management plans with a spatial model: Mississippi
Delta, Louisiana, USA. Environmental Management 26: 117129.
MDEQ (Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality). 2010. State of Missis-
sippi Water Quality Assessment 2010 Section 305(b) report.
MDEQ. 2008. Mississippi coastal streams basin citizens' guide,
MDEQ. 2007. Wetlands protection,
MDEQ. 2000. Phase one fecal coliformTMDL for Wolf River,
MDMR (Mississippi Department of Marine Resources). 2003. Stormwater manage-
ment toolbox.
MDMR. 1999. Mississippi's coastal wetlands,
MDMR. n.d. Mississippi GEMS,
MDWFP (Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries & Parks). 2005. Mississippi's
comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy.
MFC (Mississippi Forestry Commission). 2008. Mississippi's Best Management
Practices,
Mitsch, WJ.,andJ.G. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands. 2nd edition. New York: Van
Nostrand Reinhold.
Montagna, PA., J. Brenner, J. Gibeaut, and S. Morehead. 2011. Chapter 4: coastal
impacts. In: J. Schmandt, J. Clarkson, and G.R. North, eds. The impact of global
warming on Texas. 2nd edition. University of Texas Press.
Moulton, D.W, T.E. Dahl, and D.M. Dall. 1997. Texas coastal wetlands.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 201 la. Fisheries of the United States
2010. NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service Office of Science and Technology.
NMFS. 20 lib. Annual commercial landing statistics,
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 201 la. Coastal Change
Analysis Program. Data available: . (Data analysis was performed for this report by
NOAA personnel).
NOAA. 20lib. Historical hurricane tracks.
NOAA. 2010a. Programmatic framework for considering climate change impacts in
coastal habitat restoration, land acquisition, and facility development investments.
NOAA. 201 Ob. Mississippi restoration focuses on Deer Island and beneficial use.
Coastal Management News 5(2): 12.
National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for wetland losses under the Clean
Water Act. 322pp.
Nowak, D., D. Hitchcock, M. Merritt, and P Smith. 2005. Houston's regional forest:
structure, functions, values. College Station, TX: Texas Forest Service. 28 pp.
Ober, H.K. 2010. Effects of oil spills on marine and coastal wildlife. Department of
Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of Florida,
-------
References
Partyka, M.L., and M.S. Peterson 2008. Habitat quality and salt-marsh species assem-
blages along an anthropogenic estuarine landscape. Journal of Coastal Research 24(6):
1570-1581.
Peterson, P. 2002. Mississippi land rush: 50,000 acres to be developed. Chicago
Tribune. November 10. Peterson, M.S.,
and M.R. Lowe. 2009. Implications of cumulative impacts to estuarine and marine
habitat quality for fish and invertebrate resources. Reviews in Fisheries Science 17(4):
505-523.
Peterson, M.S., G.L. Waggy, and M.S. Woodrey eds. 2007. Grand Bay National
Estuarine Research Reserve: an ecological characterization. Moss Point, MS: Grand
Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve. 268 pp.
Peterson, M.S., B.H. Comyns, J.R. Hendon, PJ. Bond, and G.A. Duff. 2000. Habi-
tat use by early life-history stages of fishes and crustaceans along a changing estuarine
landscape: differences between natural and altered shoreline sites. Wetlands Ecology
and Management 8: 209-219.
Phillips, J.D., M.C. Slattery and Z.A. Musselman. 2004. Dam-to-delta sediment
inputs and storage in the lowerTrinity River, Texas. Geomorphology 62(12): 1734.
RIB ITS (Regulatory In-lieu fee and Bank Information Tracking System). 2011.
Welcome to RIBITS.
Rosen, D.J., D. De Steven, and M.L. Lange. 2008. Conservation strategies and veg-
etation characterization in the Columbia Bottomlands, an under-recognized southern
floodplain forest formation. Natural Areas Journal 28: 74-82.
Scavia, D., J.C. Field, D.F. Boesch, R.W Buddemeier, V. Burkett, D.R. Cayman,
M. Fogarty MA. Harwell, R.W. Howarth, C. Mason, D.J. Reed.TC. Royer, A.H.
Sallenger, and J. Titus. 2002. Climate change impacts on U.S. coastal and marine
ecosystems. Estuaries 25(2): 149-164.
Schmidt, K. 2001. Coastal change in Mississippi: a review of 18501999 data.
Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality,
Sime, P. 2005. St. Lucie Estuary and Indian Lagoon conceptual ecological model.
Wetlands 25(4): 898-907.
Stedman, S.M., and T.E. Dahl. 2008. Status and trends of wetlands in coastal
watersheds of the eastern United States 1998 to 2004.
TCEQ (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality). 201 la. 401 certification
reviews,
TCEQ. 201 Ib. Environmental flows rulemaking.
TCEQ. 2004. Clear Streams Initiative: report on investigation/enforcement phase.
Texas GLO (Texas General Lands Office). 2010a. Texas Coastal Management Pro-
gram Section 309 assessment and strategies report 2006-2010.
Texas GLO. 201 Ob. Galveston Bay oil spill data: 1998-2009. Austin, TX Texas
General Land Office, Oil Spill Prevention & Response Program.
Texaslnvasives.org. 2011. Invasives database. Searched for Triadica sebifera.
Texas Parks and Wildlife. 1997. Texas wetlands conservation plan,
Texas State Data Center. 2009. 2008 methodology for Texas population projections.
Titus, J.G. 2011. Rolling easements: climate ready estuaries. EPA-430-R-11-001.
TNC (The Nature Conservancy). 2011. Grand Bay savanna landscape conservation
area,
The Trust for Public Land. 2009. Chambers County GreenPrint for growth and con-
servation.
Turner, R.E.,J.J. Baustian, E.M. Swenson, andJ.S. Spicer. 2006. Wetland sedimenta-
tion from Hurricanes Katrinaand Rita. Science 314(5798): 449-452.
Twilley R.R. 2007. Coastal wetlands & global climate change: Gulf Coast wetland
sustainability in a changing climate.
Twilley, R.R., E.J. Barron, H.L. Gholz, MA. Harwell, R.L. Miller, D.J. Reed, J.B.
Rose, E.H. Siemann, R.G. Wetzel, and R.J. Zimmerman. 2001. Confronting climate
change in the Gulf Coast region: prospects for sustaining our ecological heritage.
Cambridge, MA, and Washington, DC: Union of Concerned Scientists and Ecologi-
cal Society of America.
U.S. Census Bureau. 201 la. Harris County, Texas, State and county quick facts.
U.S. Census Bureau. 201 Ib. 2010 Census,
U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. Coastline population trends in the United States:
1960-2008.
USDA (United States Department of Agriculture). 2009. 2007 census of agriculture.
USFWS (U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service). 2012. Listing
and occurrences for each state.
USFWS. 2006. National survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation.
USFWS. 1996. Final environmental impact statement/habitat conservation plan for
proposed issuance of a permit to allow incidental take of the golden-cheeked warbler,
black-capped vireo, and six karst invertebrates in Travis County. City of Austin &
Travis County, Texas.
USGCRP (U.S. Global Change Research Program). 2009. Global climate change
impacts in the United States,
Warren Pinnacle Consulting, Inc. 201 la. Application of the Sea-Level Affecting
Marshes Model (SLAMM 6) to Galveston Bay. Prepared for The Nature Conservancy
and the Gulf of Mexico Initiative.
49
-------
References
Warren Pinnacle Consulting, Inc. 20 lib. S LAMM analysis of Grand Bay NERR and
environs,
Whigham, D.E, S.W. Broome, C.J. Richardson, R.L. Simpson, and L.M. Smith.
2010. The Deepwater Horizon disaster and wetlands. Statement from the Environ-
mental Concerns Committee. Society of Wetland Scientists,
White, WA., T.A. Tremblay, R.L. Waldinger, and T.R. Calnan. 2004. Sta-
tus and trends of wetland and aquatic habitats on barrier islands, Upper
Texas Coast, Galveston and Christmas Bays,
White, WA., T.A. Tremblay, E.G. Wermund, Jr., and L.R. Handley. 1993. Trends
and status of wetland and aquatic habitats in the Galveston Bay system, Texas. Galves-
ton Bay National Estuary Program Publication GBNEP-31. Webster, TX.
Wilcox, B.P, D.D. Dean, J.S. Jacob, and A. Sipocz. 2011. Evidence of surface
connectivity for Texas Gulf Coast depressional wetlands. Wetlands DOI 10.1007/
s!3157-011-0163-x
Wilkerson, G.W, T Schauwecker, W Gallo, J. Martin, W McAnally and G. Salazar-
Mejia. 2011. Developing a tool for assessing cost effective Best Management Practices
for resilient communities. Presentation at the 2011 Northern Gulf Institute Annual
Conference, May 2011, Mobile, AL.
Wilkerson, G.W, WH. McAnally, J.L. Martin, J A. Ballweber, K.C. Pevey, J. Diaz-
Ramirez, and A. Moore. 2010. Latis: a spatial decision support system to assess low-
impact site development strategies. Advances in Civil Engineering. 18 p.
Yoskowitz, D.W, J. Gibeaut, and A. McKenzie. 2009. The socio-economic impact of
sea level rise in the Galveston Bay region. Report prepared for Environmental Defense
Fund,
50
-------
Appendix A: Participant Lists
GALVESTON BAY
Scott Alford, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
John Blaha, Coastal Conservation Association Texas
Bruce Bodson, Bayou Land Conservancy
Helen Drummond, Galveston Bay Estuary Program/Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality
Dave Evans, U.S. EPA
John Furry, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Lisa Gonzalez, Houston Advanced Research Center
Eric Hall, KBR (Water and Environmental Services)
Janine Harris, NOAA
Nate Herold, NOAA
Jim Herrington, U.S. EPA
John Jacob, Texas AgriLife Extension Service/Texas Sea Grant
Steven Johnston, Galveston Bay Estuary Program/Texas Com-
mission on Environmental Quality
Scott Jones, Galveston Bay Foundation
Dan Keesee, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
Rose Kwok, U.S. EPA
Nancy Laurson, U.S. EPA
Brittany Lee, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
Jim Lester, Houston Advanced Research Center
Jennifer Linn, U.S. EPA
Timothy Love, Galveston Bay Foundation
Brandt Mannchen, Houston Sierra Club
Grace Martinez, Galveston Sierra Club
Kimberly McLaughlin, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Carolyn Murphy, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Lili Murphy, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
Erin Piper, NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service
Sue Reilly, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
Gail Rothe, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
Linda Shead, Shead Conservation Solutions (Texas Rivers and
Bay Partners)
Marissa Sipocz, Texas AgriLife Extension Service/Texas
Sea Grant
Mike Smith, Gulf of Mexico Foundation
Bernice Smith, U.S. EPA
Susan-Marie Stedman, NOAA
Sharron Stewart, Galveston Bay Foundation
Thomas Tremblay, University of Texas at Austin
Jeff Wellman, KBR (Water and Environmental Services)
Charlotte Wells, Galveston Baykeeper
George Willcox, Chambers-Liberty Counties
Navigation District
51
-------
Appendix A: Participant Lists
WESTERN MISSISSIPPI SOUND
Matthew Anderson, USGS
Veronica Beech, NOAA
Gerard Boos, U.S. EPA/Gulf of Mexico Alliance
John Bowie, U.S. EPA/Gulf of Mexico Alliance
Chris Boyd, Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant
Willa Brantley, Mississippi Department of Marine Resources
Colleen Charles, USGS
Alyssa Dausman, USGS
Tom Doyle, USGS
Maryellen Farmer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Tyree Harrington, USDA
Sharon Hodge, Northern Gulf Institute
Jenny Jacobson, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Sonya Jones, USGS
Julien Lartigue, NOAA
Grant Larsen, Mississippi Department of Marine Resources
Craig Littekan, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Mike Malsom, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Ryan Moody, Dauphin Island Sea Lab
Paul Necaise, USFWS/Gulf of Mexico Alliance
Kaaren Neumann, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Mark Peterson, University of Southern Mississippi
Rhonda Price, Mississippi Department of Marine Resources
George Ramseur, Mississippi Department of Marine
Resources/Gulf of Mexico Alliance
Susan Rees, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
David Ruple, Grand Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve
Munther Sahawneh, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Judy Steckler, Land Trust for the Mississippi Coastal Plain
Greg Steyer, USGS
Mark Thompson, NOAA
Phil Turnipseed, USGS
Florance Watson, Mississippi Department of
Environmental Quality
Scott Wilson, USGS
52
-------
Appendix B: Document List
Document/Study Title
Author (Date)
GULF OF MEXICO AND EAST AND WEST GALVESTON BAY
Wetlands Reserve Program
State of Alabama Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation
Program
Water Quality in Alabama 2004-2005
Coastal Wetlands of Alabama
Historical and Projected Coastal Louisiana Land Changes:
1978-2050
Results of the FHWA Domestic Scan of Successful Wetland Miti-
gation Programs
Barrier Island Plan Phase I: Evaluation and Recommendation of
the Barrier Shoreline Feasibility Study Final Report
Wetlands Losses in the United States, 1780's to 1980s
Not All "Isolated" Wetlands Are Isolated: Evidence of Significant
Nexus for Coastal Freshwater Wetlands
Mitigation Banking as an Endangered Species Conservation Tool
State Wetland Program Evaluation: Phase III
State Profile: State Wetland Protection: Status, Trends, & Model
Approach
National Coastal Condition Report II, Chapter 5: Gulf of Mexico
Coastal Condition
National Estuary Program Coastal Condition Report, Chapter
5: Gulf of Mexico National Estuary Program Coastal Condition,
Galveston Bay Estuary Program
Wetlands Education Materials
Final Report: Freshwater Wetland Functional Assessment Study
Freshwater Wetland Functional Assessment Study (Draft Final
Report)
The Forever Wild Land Trust: An Interim Report to the Citizens
of Alabama 1992 Through 2009
Living Shorelines: A Natural Approach to Erosion Control
Galveston Bay Plan
Bay Briefings: Shoreline Management
Bay Briefings: Habitat Protection
ADCNR (2008)
ADCNR (2005)
Alabama Cooperative Extension System (2006)
Auburn University Marine Extension and Research Cen-
ter Sea Grant Extension (1996)
Barras et al. [National Wetlands Research Center] (2004)
Center for Transportation and the Environment, North
Carolina State University (2005)
CWPPRA(1997)
Dahl,TE. (1990)
Dean, D., B. Wilcox, J. Jacob, and A. Sipocz (2011)
Environmental Defense (1999)
Environmental Law Institute (2007)
Environmental Law Institute (2008)
EPA (2005)
EPA (2007)
EPA (20 10)
Forbes, M., R. Doyle, A. Clapp, J. Yelderman, N.
Enwright, and B. Hunter (2010)
Forbes, M., R. Doyle, J. Yelderman, A. Clapp, N.
Enwright, B. Hunter (2010)
Forever Wild Land Trust (2009)
Galveston Bay Foundation (n.d.)
GBEP (1994)
GBEP (2006)
GBEP (2006)
53
-------
Appendix B: Document List
GULF OF MEXICO AND EAST AND WEST GALVESTON BAY (continued)
Bay Briefings: Species Protection
The Lower Galveston Bay Watershed: Potential Oil Spill Impacts
(Presentation)
Our Estuary
Protecting Coastal Wetlands
Gulf of Mexico Alliance White Paper Restoration of Coastal Wet-
lands/Estuarine Ecosystems
Gulf of Mexico Alliance: Restoration of Coastal Wetlands and
Estuarine Ecosystems
Wetland Importance
Habitat Loss (Website)
A Guide to Protecting Wetlands in the Gulf of Mexico
Vulnerability of Coastal Wetlands in the Southeastern United
States: Climate Change Research Results, 1992-1997, Chapter
1: Overview of Coastal Wetland Global Climate Change Research
Southeast Wetlands Status and Trends, Mid-1970's to Mid-1980s
Use of LIDAR in Wetland Delineation on Galveston Island, TX
The Resilient Coast: Policy Frameworks for Adapting the Wet-
lands to Climate Change and Growth in the Coastal Areas of the
U.S. Gulf of Mexico
Freshwater, Non-tidal Wetland Loss Lower Galveston Bay Water-
shed 1992-2002: A Rapid Assessment Method Using CIS and
Aerial Photography
Wetlands: Impact of Energy Development in the Mississippi
Delta
Historical Trends in Wetlands Loss and Efforts to Intervene
State of the Bay (3rd Edition)
Galveston Bay Status and Trends Project
The State of the Bay (2nd edition)
SONRIS
Coastal Preserves Bureau Management Plan (MI)
Wetland Restoration with Sediment Conveyance: An Experimen-
tal Approach to Reduce Uncertainties in Attaining Successful
Restoration
GBEP (2006)
Gonzalez, L., and J. Lester (2010)
Grand Bay Natural Estuarine Research Reserve
Grant, D. (2003)
Gulf of Mexico Alliance (2005)
Gulf of Mexico Alliance (n.d.)
Gulf Restoration Network (2010)
Gulf Restoration Network (n.d.)
Gulf Restoration Network (2004)
Guntenspergen, G.R., B. A. Vairin, and V. Burkett
(USGS-NWRC) (1998)
Hefner, J.M., B.O. Wilen, T.E. Dahl, and WE. Prayer
[USFWS] (1994)
Henry, R.J., and L.A. Gonzalez (n.d.)
Jacob, J.S., and S. Showalter (2008)
Jacob, J.S., and R. Lopez (2005)
Ko, J., and J.W Day (2004)
Leininger, T., and P. Hamel (2007)
Lester, L.J., and L.A. Gonzalez (2011)
Lester, L.J., and L.A. Gonzalez (2006)
Lester, L.J., and L.A. Gonzalez, eds. (2002)
Louisiana Department of Natural Resources
MOOT (2008)
Mendelssohn, I., and S. Graham (2010)
54
-------
Appendix B: Document List
GULF OF MEXICO AND EAST AND WEST GALVESTON BAY (continued)
Coastal Wetlands of Alabama
Wetlands: Status and Trends, Mid-1950s to Early 1990s
Louisiana Wetlands Reserve Program
Mississippi Wetlands Reserve Program
Cumulative Acres Enrolled as of 2008
Definition of High Resolution (Lidar) Northern Gulf Coast
Geomorphology
Final Evaluation Findings: Alabama Coastal Area Management
Program, December 2003 Through November 2007
Beneficial Use of Dredge Material in Coastal Mississippi
Evaluation Findings for the Louisiana Coastal Resources Program
March 2002 through March 2005
NWRC Education and Outreach
Gulf of Mexico Research Plan
Wetlands, Fisheries, & Economics in the Gulf of Mexico
Status and Trends of Wetlands in Coastal Watersheds of the East-
ern United States 1998 to 2004
Potential Consequences of Saltwater Intrusion Associated with
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita
Galveston Bay Status & Trends Project 2004-2006
Voluntary Implementation of Forestry BMPs in East Texas
Texas State Wetlands Conservation Plan
Seagrass conservation plan for Texas
Maps of Land Vulnerable to Sea Level Rise: Modeled Elevations
Along the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf Coasts
Wetland Loss in the Northern Gulf of Mexico; Multiple Working
Hypotheses
Coastal Wetlands and Global Climate Change: Gulf Coast Wet-
land Sustainability in a Changing Climate
Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material (Website)
EPA Region 6 CWPPRA (Website)
Wetland Losses in the United States: Scope, Causes, Impacts, and
Future Prospects USGCRP Seminar 7
Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Consortium
Moulton, D.W, T.E. Dahl, and D.M. Dall (1997)
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Natural Resources Conservation Service (2008)
Nayegandhi, A. [USGS] (2010)
NOAA (2008)
NOAA (2005)
NOAA (2005)
NWRC (2010)
Sempier, S.H., K. Havens, R. Stickney, C. Wilson, and
D.L. Swann (2009)
Stedman, S. and J. Hanson, NMFS
Stedman, S. and T E. Dahl (2008)
Steyer, G.D., B.C. Perez, S. Piazza, and G. Suir
TCEQ (2006)
Texas Forest Service (2008)
Texas Parks and Wildlife (1997)
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (1999)
Titus, J., and C. Richman (2001)
Turner, R.E. (1997)
Twilley, R.R. (LSU), and Pew Center on Global Climate
Change (2007)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (accessed 2010)
U.S. EPA (2008)
USGCRP (1997)
55
-------
Appendix B: Document List
GULF OF MEXICO AND EAST AND WEST GALVESTON BAY (continued)
Louisiana Fact Sheet
Pre-Storm and Post-Storm 3D Lidar Topography: Bolivar Penin-
sula, TX (Website)
Galveston Bay: Estuarine and Marine Habitat Change Analysis
Status and Trends of Wetland and Aquatic Habitats in the Galves-
ton Bay System, Texas
Coastline Population Trends in the United States: 1960-2008
Socio-Economic Impact of Relative Sea Level Rise in Galveston
Bay (Presentation)
Coastal Louisiana: Attempting to Restore an Ecosystem
CRS Report to Congress, Coastal Louisiana: Attempting to
Restore an Ecosystem
Wetlands Reserve Program
USGS (1999)
USGS (2008)
Webb, J.W (2006)
White, WA., T.A. Tremblay, E.G. Wermund, Jr., and
L.R. Handley(1993)
Wilson, S.G., andT R. Fischetti (2010)
Yoskowitz, D.W, J. Gibeaut, and A. McKenzie (2010)
Zinn, J. (2004)
Zinn, J. [Congressional Research Service] (2004)
ADCNR (2008)
MISSISSIPPI COASTAL WATERSHED
Mississippi
State of the Beach: State Report: Mississippi
Wetland Mitigation Banking Study
State Wetland Protection: Status, Trends, & Model Approaches
NOAA Restoration Center
Beyond Recovery: Moving the Gulf Toward a Sustainable Future
Our Estuary (Website)
Coastal Mississippi-Alabama Initiative Area
Resource Database for Gulf of Mexico Research
Estuaries Are Nursery for Gulf's Seafood
Mississippi
Wetlands Protection
Coastal Management and Planning (Website)
Mississippi's Coastal Wetlands
Coastal Wetland Protection Act
Coastal Preserves Bureau Management Plan
Association of State Wetland Managers (2006)
Beachapedia(2011)
Environmental Law Institute
Environmental Law Institute (2008)
Fish America Foundation (2008)
Gordon et al. (2011)
Grand Bay Natural Estuarine Research Reserve
Gulf Coast Joint Venture (2005)
GulfBase(2011)
Harman (2003)
MASGLP
MDEQ (2007)
MDMR
MDMR(1999)
MDMR (2003)
MOOT (September 2008)
56
-------
Appendix B: Document List
MISSISSIPPI COASTAL WATERSHED (continued)
Mississippi's Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy
Through a Fish's Eye: The Status of Fish Habitats in the United
States 20 10
Mississippi Wetlands Reserve Program
What's at Stake: The Economic Value of the Gulf of Mexico's
Ocean Resources
Mississippi's Coastal Program
Evaluation Findings for Mississippi Coastal Management Pro-
gram from January 2002 to December 2004
Beneficial Use of Dredge Material in Coastal Mississippi
Assessment of Coastal Water Resources and Watershed Condi-
tions at Gulf Islands National Seashore (Florida and Mississippi)
Clean Water Act Status: Mississippi Coastal Watershed
Historical Trends in Wetlands Loss and Efforts to Intervene
Conservation Partnerships
Imperial Palace Casino Donates $1 Million to Coastal
Preservation
SLAMM Analysis of Grand Bay NERR and Environs
DMR Reminds Boaters That Motorized Vehicles Are Prohibited
by Law in Mississippi Coastal Preserves
Coastal Wetlands & Global Climate Change: Gulf Coast Wetland
Sustainability in a Changing Climate
Mississippi Delta
MDWFP (2009)
National Fish Habitat Board (2010)
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Natural Resources Defense Council (2010)
NOAA(2010)
NOAA (2005)
NOAA (2005)
NPS (2005)
Scorecard (2005)
Ted Leininger and Paul Hamel (2007)
The Nature Conservancy
The Nature Conservancy (2010)
The Nature Conservancy and the Gulf of Mexico Initia-
tive (2011)
Thompson (2010)
Twilley (2007)
Union of Concerned Scientists (2009)
57
-------
Appendix C: Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
Overview: Section 404 of the Clean Water Act establishes a
permit program to regulate the discharge of dredged or fill
material into waters of the United States, including wetlands.
Activities in waters of the United States regulated under this
program include fill for associated with development, water
resource projects (such as dams and levees that are not part of
the construction of federal projects specifically authorized by
Congress), infrastructure development (such as highways and
airports) and mining projects.
Under a rule promulgated pursuant to Section 404(b)(l) of
the Clean Water Act, no discharge of dredged or fill material
may be permitted if: (1) a practicable alternative exists that
is less damaging to the aquatic environment so long as that
alternative does not have other significant adverse environ-
mental consequences or (2) the nation's waters would be
significantly degraded. Section 404 permitting ensures that
dredge and fill projects only proceed if an applicant first has
shown that steps have been taken to avoid impacts to wet-
lands, streams, and other aquatic resources; that potential
impacts have been minimized; and only after the first two
measures have been taken that compensation is provided
for all remaining unavoidable impacts.
Permits: Proposed activities are regulated through a permit
review process. An individual permit is required for projects
with more than minimal adverse effects. Individual permits
are reviewed by the Army Corps, which evaluates applications
under a public interest review, as well as the environmental
criteria set forth in the Section 404(b)(l) Guidelines promul-
gated by EPA in conjunction with the Army Corps. How-
ever, for most discharges that will have only minimal adverse
effects, a general permit may be suitable. General permits are
issued on a nationwide, regional, or state basis for particular
categories of activities. The general permit process eliminates
individual review and allows certain activities to proceed with
little or no delay, provided that the general, regional, and any
special conditions for the general permit are met. For exam-
ple, minor road activities, utility line backfill, and bedding
are activities that can be considered for a general permit. For
more information, see: http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guid-
ance/cwa/dredgdis/ and http://www.usace.army.mil/
Missions/CivilWorks/RegulatoryProgramandPermits.aspx.
Jurisdiction: Though a number of activities may impact
the nation's waters, Section 404 applies to dredge and fill
activities only (Section 402 of the Clean Water Act regu-
lates point source discharges of pollutants into waters of the
United States). Additionally, the Clean Water Act only applies
to "waters of the United States." EPA and the Army Corps
have issued regulatory definitions of "waters of the United
States" to include waters that are: traditionally navigable;
interstate; could affect interstate commerce if used, degraded,
or destroyed; territorial seas; impoundments of jurisdictional
waters; tributaries of jurisdictional waters; and wetlands adja-
cent to jurisdictional waters. The agencies' regulatory defini-
tion of "waters of the United States" provides exclusions for
waste treatment systems and prior converted cropland. U.S.
Supreme Court decisions in Solid Waste Agency of Northern
Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Rapanos v.
United States and subsequent agency guidance have provided
further interpretation of which waterbodies are protected by
the Clean Water Act. For the most recent guidance on Clean
Water Act geographic jurisdiction, see: http://water.epa.gov/
lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/CWAwaters.cfm. Lastly, the
regulatory definition of wetlands, "areas that are inundated
or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and
duration sufficient to support, and that under normal cir-
cumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically
adapted for life in saturated soil conditions," may exclude
some areas which are defined as wetlands for other purposes
(e.g., under the Cowardin classification system).
Exemptions: In general, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
requires permits for the discharge of dredged or fill mate-
rial into waters of the United States, including wetlands.
However, certain activities are exempt from permit require-
ments under Section 404(f). These include dredge and fill
activities related to established (ongoing) farming, silvicul-
ture, or ranching practices; certain temporary activities; and
certain maintenance activities (e.g., of drainage ditches, farm
ponds, or stock ponds). The exemptions are limited in their
application. For example, a permit must be obtained for an
activity whose purpose is to convert an area of the waters of
the United States into a use to which it was not previously
subject, where the flow or circulation of waters of the United
States may be impaired, or the reach of such waters reduced
(33 CFR 323-4). Some projects are also required to imple-
ment Best Management Practices in order to remain exempt.
See http://water.epa.gov/type/wetlands/outreach/fact20.cfm
for more information regarding Section 404 exemptions.
Mitigation: Compensatory mitigation involves actions taken
to offset unavoidable adverse impacts to wetlands, streams,
and other aquatic resources authorized by Section 404 per-
mits and other Department of the Army permits. Compen-
satory mitigation can be carried out through four methods:
the restoration of a previously existing or degraded wetland
or other aquatic site, the enhancement of an existing aquatic
site's functions, the establishment (i.e., creation) of a new
aquatic site, or the preservation of an existing aquatic site. For
impacts authorized under Section 404, compensatory mitiga-
tion is not considered until after all appropriate and practi-
cable steps have been taken to first avoid and then minimize
58
-------
Appendix C: Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
adverse impacts to the aquatic ecosystem. For more informa-
tion, see: http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/
wetlandsmitigation_index.cfm.
Compensatory Mitigation Rule: In 2008, the Army Corps
and EPA issued regulations governing compensatory
mitigation for activities authorized by permits issued by the
Department of the Army (see http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/
guidance/wetlands/upload/2008_04_10_wetlands_wet-
lands_mitigation_final_rule_4_10_08.pdf). The regulations
establish performance standards and criteria for the use of
permittee-responsible compensatory mitigation, mitigation
banks, and in-lieu programs to improve the quality and
success of compensatory mitigation projects for permitted
activities. This rule improves the planning, implementation,
and management of compensatory mitigation projects by
emphasizing a watershed approach in selecting compensa-
tory mitigation project locations, requiring measurable,
enforceable ecological performance standards and regular
monitoring for all types of compensation, and specify-
ing the components of a complete compensatory mitiga-
tion plan, including assurances of long-term protection of
compensation sites, financial assurances, and identification
of the parties responsible for specific project tasks. Since a
mitigation bank must have an approved mitigation plan
and other assurance in place before any of its credits can be
used to offset impacts, this rule establishes a preference for
the use of mitigation bank credits, which reduces some of
the risks and uncertainties associated with compensatory
mitigation.
Mitigation Bank: Mitigation banking involves off-site
compensation activities generally conducted by a third-
party mitigation bank sponsor. A mitigation bank is a site,
or suite of sites, where aquatic resources (e.g., wetlands,
streams, riparian areas) are restored, established, enhanced,
and/or preserved for the purpose of providing compensa-
tory mitigation for impacts authorized by Department
of the Army permits. In general, a mitigation bank sells
compensatory mitigation credits to permittees to meet
their requirements for compensatory mitigation. The value
of these "credits" is determined by quantifying the aquatic
resource functions or acres restored or created. The bank
sponsor is ultimately responsible for the success of the
project.
In-lieu Fee Mitigation: In-lieu fee mitigation involves off-
site compensation activities generally conducted by a third
party in-lieu fee program sponsor. Through an in-lieu fee
program, a governmental or non-profit natural resources
management entity collects funds from multiple permittees
in order to pool the financial resources necessary to build
and maintain the mitigation site or suite of sites. The in-lieu
fee sponsor is responsible for the success of the mitigation.
In-lieu fee mitigation typically occurs after the permitted
impacts.
Permittee-Responsible Mitigation: Permittee-responsible
mitigation is the restoration, establishment, enhancement,
or preservation of aquatic resources undertaken by a per-
mittee in order to compensate for impacts resulting from
a specific project. The permittee performs the mitigation
after the permit is issued and is ultimately responsible for
implementation and success of the mitigation. Permittee-
responsible mitigation may occur at the site of the per-
mitted impacts or at an off-site location within the same
watershed.
Roles & Responsibilities:
Federal Agencies: The roles and responsibilities of the
federal resource agencies differ in scope. The Army Corps
administers the day-to-day aspects of the program, makes
individual and general permit decisions, and makes deter-
minations regarding the extent and location of jurisdic-
tional waters of the United States. The Army Corps and
EPA jointly develop policy and guidance, such as the
environmental criteria used in evaluating permit applica-
tions. EPA determines the scope of geographic jurisdiction
and applicability of exemptions; approves and oversees state
and tribal assumption; reviews and comments on individual
permit applications; has authority to prohibit, deny, or
restrict the use of any defined area as a disposal site; and can
elevate specific cases under Section 404(q). In addition to
jointly implementing the Section 404 program, EPA and
the Army Corps share Section 404 enforcement authority,
which is delineated in a 1989 Memorandum of Agreement.
The Army Corps acts as the lead enforcement agency for all
violations of Corps-issued permits. The Army Corps also
acts as the lead enforcement agency for unpermitted dis-
charge violations that do not meet the criteria for forward-
ing to EPA. EPA acts as the lead enforcement agency when
an unpermitted activity involves repeat violator(s), flagrant
violation(s), where EPA requests a class of cases or a par-
ticular case, or the Army Corps recommends that an EPA
administrative penalty action may be warranted.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and NOAA's
National Marine Fisheries Service evaluate impacts on fish
and wildlife of all new federal projects and federally permit-
ted projects, including projects subject to the requirements
of Section 404 (pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Coordi-
nation Act), and can elevate specific cases or policy issues
pursuant to Section 404(q).
59
-------
Appendix C: Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
States and Tribes: States and tribes also have a role in Sec-
tion 404 decisions, through state program general permits,
water quality certification, or program assumption. Under
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, a federal agency may
not issue a permit or license for an activity that may result
in a discharge to waters of the United States until the state
or tribe where the discharge would originate has granted or
waived Section 401 certification. Pursuant to Section 401,
a state or tribe may grant, grant with conditions, deny or
waive 401 certification. States and tribes make their deci-
sions to deny, certify, or condition permits or licenses based
in part on the proposed project's compliance with EPA-
approved water quality standards. Through 401 certifica-
tions, states and tribes can limit dredge and fill activities or
require additional protective requirements.
State programmatic general permits (SPGPs) may be issued
by the Army Corps in coordination with states or tribes to
allow a state or tribe to review Section 404 permit applica-
tions and verify activities without additional Army Corps
review, provided the activities have no more than minimal
adverse effects individually and cumulatively. SPGPs are
often limited to specific activities, geographic areas, resource
types, and/or sizes of impacts and can provide a more
streamlined permitting process for these activities.
In addition, the Clean Water Act gives states and tribes the
option of assuming administration of the federal Section
404 permit program in certain waters within state or tribal
jurisdiction. State/tribal assumed programs must be at least
as comprehensive as the federal program.
Furthermore, more than a dozen states have developed their
own permit programs, which they operate in coordination
with the federal program. In some cases, state programs may
protect a greater number of aquatic resources than fall under
federal jurisdiction as waters of the United States. States
may also have their own wetland mitigation, enforcement,
and monitoring programs.
Data & Information:
Public Notice: The Army Corps issues public notices to alert
the public to new applications for Section 404 permits.
Contained in this notice is a project description including
the location, the activity, the estimated impacted acres, and
details on the conceptual mitigation plan. Subsequent to
the release of a public notice, the Army Corps initiates a
comment period, usually lasting about 30 days, where the
public can submit written comments or request a public
hearing. Public notices are posted on the website of the issu-
ing Army Corps District.
Permits: Permit records can be used to summarize and track
wetland losses and gains in an area of interest, and to con-
firm the compliance of a particular dredge and fill project.
For this reason, final Section 404 permit information is
stored in a database operated by the Army Corps ("Opera-
tion and Maintenance Information Business Link Regula-
tory Module 2," or ORM2). ORM2 has been in operation
since 2007- Some states with permit programs operate
similar databases which can supplement federal permit
information.
Mitigation: The "Regulatory In-lieu fee and Bank Infor-
mation Tracking System" (RIBITS) is an online database
developed by the Army Corps with support from EPA and
USFWS to provide better information on mitigation and
conservation banking and in-lieu fee programs across the
country. RIBITS allows users to access information on the
types and numbers of mitigation and conservation bank
and in-lieu fee program sites, associated documents, mitiga-
tion credit availability, service areas, as well as information
on national and local policies and procedures that affect
mitigation and conservation bank and in-lieu fee program
development and operation. For access, see: http://geo.
usace.army.mil/ribits.
-------
Appendix D: NOAA Coastal Change Analysis Program
The Coastal Change Analysis Program (C-CAP) produces
a nationally standardized database of land cover and land
change information for the coastal regions of the United
States. C-CAP products provide inventories of coastal inter-
tidal areas, wetlands, and adjacent uplands, with the goal of
monitoring these habitats by updating the land cover maps
every five years.
C-CAP products are developed using multiple dates of Land-
sat (30-meter resolution) imagery and consist of raster based
land cover maps for each date of analysis, as well as a file that
highlights what changes have occurred between these dates
and where the changes were located. C-CAP land cover is
produced through documented, repeatable procedures using
standard data sources, and includes extensive field sampling,
validation, and standard quality control review procedures. It
provides the "coastal expression" of the National Land Cover
Database, a contribution to the Earth Cover layer of the
National Spatial Data Infrastructure.
C-CAP data sets are not jurisdictional or intended for use in
litigation. While efforts have been made to ensure that these
data are accurate and reliable within the limits of current
technology, NOAA cannot assume liability for any damages
or misrepresentations caused by inaccuracies in the data, or as
a result of the data to be used on a particular system. NOAA
makes no warranty, expressed or implied, nor does the fact of
distribution constitute such a warranty.
The intended use is in identifying regional landscape patterns
and major functional niches (habitat), and for environmental
impact assessment, urban planning, and zoning applica-
tions. C-CAP data will not identify individual species. This
is a national and regional data set that should be used only
as a screening tool for very local or site specific management
decisions. Small features and changes should be verified with a
higher resolution data source.
C-CAP Wetland Classifications
Wetlands are areas dominated by saturated soils and often
standing water. Their vegetation is adapted to withstand
long-term immersion and saturated, oxygen-depleted soils.
Wetlands are divided into two salinity regimes: palustrine for
freshwater wetlands and estuarine for saltwater wetlands; they
are further divided into forested, shrub/scrub, and emer-
gent wetlands. Unconsolidated shores are also included as
wetlands.
Palustrine forested wetland: Includes all tidal and non-tidal
wetlands dominated by woody vegetation at least 5 meters
in height, as well as all such wetlands in tidal areas in which
salinity due to ocean-derived salts is below 0.5 percent. Total
vegetation coverage is greater than 20 percent.
Characteristic species: Tupelo (Nyssa), cottonwood (Populus
deltoides), bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), American elm
(Ulmus americana), ash (Fraxinus), and tamarack.
Palustrine scrub/shrub wetland: Includes all tidal and non-
tidal wetlands dominated by woody vegetation less than 5
meters in height, as well as all such wetlands in tidal areas in
which salinity due to ocean-derived salts is below 0.5 per-
cent. Total vegetation coverage is greater than 20 percent.
The species present could be true shrubs, young trees and
shrubs, or trees that are small or stunted due to environmental
conditions.1
Characteristic species: Alders (Alnus spp.), willows (Salix spp.),
buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentals), red osier dogwood
(Cornus stolonifera), honeycup (Zenobia pulverenta), spirea
(Spiraea douglassii), bog birch (Betulapumila), and young
trees such as red maple (Acer rubrum) and black spruce (Picea
mariana).
Palustrine emergent wetland (persistent): Includes all tidal
and non-tidal wetlands dominated by persistent emergent
vascular plants, emergent mosses, or lichens, as well as all such
wetlands in tidal areas in which salinity due to ocean-derived
salts is below 0.5 percent. Plants generally remain standing
until the next growing season. Total vegetation cover is greater
than 80 percent.
Characteristic species: Cattails (Typha spp.), sedges (Carex spp.),
bulrushes (Scirpus spp.), rushes (Juncus spp.), saw grass (Cla-
jamaicaense), and reed (Phragmites australis).
Estuarine forested wetland: Includes all tidal wetlands domi-
nated by woody vegetation at least 5 meters in height, and all
such wetlands that occur in tidal areas in which salinity due
to ocean-derived salts is equal to or greater than 0.5 percent.
Total vegetation coverage is greater than 20 percent.
Characteristic species: red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle), black
mangrove (Avicennia germinans), and white mangrove (Lan-
guncularia racemosa).
1 Reference: Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, E C. Golet, and E. T. Laroe. 1979.
Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-
79/31. U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.
61
-------
Appendix D: NOAA Coastal Change Analysis Program
Estuarine scrub/shrub wetland: Includes all tidal wetlands
dominated by woody vegetation less than 5 meters in height,
and all such wetlands that occur in tidal areas in which salin-
ity due to ocean-derived salts is equal to or greater than 0.5
percent. Total vegetation coverage is greater than 20 percent.
Characteristic species: Sea-myrtle (Baccharis halimifolia) and
marsh elder (Ivafrutescens).
Estuarine emergent wetland: Includes all tidal wetlands
dominated by erect, rooted, herbaceous hydrophytes (exclud-
ing mosses and lichens), and all such wetlands that occur in
tidal areas in which salinity due to ocean-derived salts is at
least 0.5 percent and that are present for most of the growing
season in most years. Perennial plants usually dominate these
wetlands. Total vegetation cover is greater than 80 percent.
Characteristic species: Cordgrass (Spartina spp.), needlerush
(Juncus roemerianus), narrow-leaved cattail (Typha angus-
tifolia), southern wild rice (Zizaniopsis miliacea), common
pickleweed (Salicornia virginica), sea blite (Suaeda californica),
and arrow grass (Triglochin martimum).
Unconsolidated shore: Unconsolidated material such as silt,
sand, or gravel that is subject to inundation and redistribu-
tion due to the action of water. Characterized by substrates
lacking vegetation except for pioneering plants that become
established during brief periods when growing conditions
are favorable. Erosion and deposition by waves and currents
produce a number of landforms representing this class.
Characteristic land cover features: Beaches, bars, and flats.
Barren land: Barren areas of bedrock, desert pavement, scarps,
talus, slides, volcanic material, glacial debris, sand dunes, strip
mines, gravel pits, and other accumulations of earth material.
Generally, vegetation accounts for less than 10 percent of total
cover.
Characteristic land cover features: Quarries, strip mines, gravel
pits, dunes, beaches above the high-water line, sandy areas
other than beaches, deserts and arid riverbeds, and exposed
rock.
Open water: All areas of open water, generally with less than
25 percent cover of vegetation or soil.
Characteristic land cover features: Lakes, rivers, reservoirs,
streams, ponds, and ocean.
Palustrine aquatic bed: Includes tidal and non-tidal wetlands
and deepwater habitats in which salinity due to ocean-derived
salts is below 0.5 percent and which are dominated by plants
that grow and form a continuous cover principally on or at
the surface of the water. These include algal mats, detached
floating mats, and rooted vascular plant assemblages. Total
vegetation cover is greater than 80 percent.
Characteristic vascular species: Pondweed, horned pondweed
(Zannichellia palustris), ditch grass (Ruppia), wild celery,
waterweed (Elodea), riverweed (Podostemum ceratophyllum),
water lilies (Nymphea, Nuphar), floating-leaf pondweed (Pota-
mogeton natans), water shield (Brasenia schreberi), and water
smartweed (Polygonum amphibium).
Floating surface species: Duckweeds (Lemna, Spirodela), water
lettuce (Pista stratiotes), water hyacinth (Eichhornia crasspies),
water nut (Trapa natans), water fern (Salvinia spp.), and mos-
quito ferns (Azolla).
Floating below-surface species: Bladderworts (Utricularia),
coontails (Ceratophyllum), and watermeals (Wolffia).
Estuarine aquatic bed: Includes tidal wetlands and deepwater
habitats in which salinity due to ocean-derived salts is equal
to or greater than 0.5 percent and which are dominated by
plants that grow and form a continuous cover principally on
or at the surface of the water. These include algal mats, kelp
beds, and rooted vascular plant assemblages. Total vegetation
cover is greater than 80 percent.
Characteristic species: Kelp (Macrocystis and Laminaria), rock-
weeds (FucusandAscophyllum), red algae (Laurencia), green
algae (Halimeda and Penicillus, Caulerpa, Enteromorpha and
Ulva), stonewort (Chara), turtle grass (Thalassia testudinum),
shoal grass (Halodule wrightii), manatee grasses (Cymodo-
ceafiliformis), widgeon grass (Ruppia maritime), sea grasses
(Halophila spp.), and wild celery (Vallisneria americana).
62
-------
Appendix E: Federal Agency Programs That Support Coastal Wetland Protection,
Restoration, and Management
AGENCY
PROGRAM
DESCRIPTION
EPA
Clean Water
State Revolving
Fund
(CWSRF)
CWSRF programs fund water quality protection projects for wastewater treatment, non-point
source pollution control, and watershed and estuary management via low-interest loans. SRF
fundable projects include wetland protection and restoration, as well as creation of constructed
wetlands for stormwater or wastewater treatment (which can include adequate capacity to ensure
habitat values as well as treatment of effluents).
http://water.epa.gov/gran ts_funding/cwf/cwsrf_index.cfm
EPA
Ecological
Research
Program
The Ecological Research Program in EPA's Office of Research and Development is studying
ecosystem services to gain a better understanding of how to enhance, protect, and restore the
services of nature. Scientists are providing the methods, models, and tools needed by policy
decision-makers to make clear how our choices affect the type, quality, and magnitude of the
services we receive from ecosystems. The primary objective in the wetland research focus area is
to document the range and quantity of wetland services and determine how their position on
the landscape alters the provision of ecosystem services.
http://www.epa.gov/research/npd/ecoresearch-intro.htm
EPA
Five Star
Challenge
Grants
Program
The purpose of the program is to support community-based efforts to restore wetlands, river
streams/corridors, and coastal habitat; build diverse partnerships within the community; and
foster local stewardship of resources through education, outreach, and training activities.
http://www.nfwf.org/fivestar/
EPA
National
Estuary
Program
(NEP)
This program works to restore and maintain the water quality and ecological integrity of estuar-
ies of national significance. EPA provides funding and technical assistance to NEPs to create and
implement a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) to address problems
facing their estuary and surrounding watershed. NEPs involve community members and other
key federal, state, and local partners/stakeholders to articulate goals and actions to address the
wide range of issues in their CCMP. Key CCMP focus areas include protecting and restoring
habitats such as wetlands. There are 28 NEPs along the coasts each guided by a director and
staff.
http://water.epa.gov/type/oceb/nep/index.cfm
EPA
Nonpoint
Source
Management
Grants
(Section 319
Grants)
Nonpoint source management grants support states, territories, and Indian tribes with a wide
variety of activities including technical assistance, financial assistance, education, training,
technology transfer, demonstration projects, and monitoring to assess the success of specific
nonpoint source implementation projects, some of which include coastal wetland restoration
projects. A state/territory/tribe's Nonpoint Source Management Program serves as the basis for
how funds are spent.
http://www.epa. gov/owow_keep/NPS/cwact.html
63
-------
Appendix E: Federal Agency Programs That Support Coastal Wetland Protection,
Restoration, and Management
AGENCY
PROGRAM
DESCRIPTION
EPA
Wetlands
Program
Development
Grants
(WPDG)
The Wetlands Program Development Grants give eligible applicants an opportunity to conduct
projects that promote the coordination and acceleration of research, investigations, experiments,
training, demonstrations, surveys, and studies relating to the causes, effects, extent, prevention,
reduction, and elimination of water pollution. While WPDGs can be used by recipients to build
and refine any element of a comprehensive wetland program, priority will be given to fund-
ing projects that address the three priority areas identified by EPA: developing a comprehensive
monitoring and assessment program; improving the effectiveness of compensatory mitigation;
and refining the protection of vulnerable wetlands and aquatic resources. States, tribes, local gov-
ernments, interstate associations, intertribal consortia, and national nonprofit, non-governmental
organizations are eligible to apply.
http://water.epa.gov/ gran ts_funding/wetlands/grantguidelines/index.cfm
FHWA
Project Funds
All federal highway projects require mitigation for unavoidable wetland impacts. FHWA mitiga-
tion regulations require a net gain of wetland acres for new project impacts as well as retroactive
for past project impacts.
FHWA
Surface
Transportation
Environment
and Planning
Cooperative
Research
Program
(STEP)
STEP is a federally administered research program authorized in the "Safe, Accountable, Flex-
ible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users" (SAFETEA-LU). It improves the
understanding of the relationship between surface transportation, environment and planning.
STEP implements a national research agenda reflecting national priorities based on input and
feedback from partners and stakeholders. STEP funds identify, address, and reassess national
research priorities for environment, planning and realty, and develop tools to support these
areas. STEP environmental emphasis areas include air quality and global climate change; and
water/wetlands/vegetation/wildlife habitat/brownfields.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/step/
FHWA
Transportation
Enhancements
Transportation Enhancement (TE) activities offer funding opportunities to help expand trans-
portation choices and enhance the transportation experience through 12 eligible TE activities
related to surface transportation, including landscaping and scenic beautification and environ-
mental mitigation.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/te/
FWS
Coastal Barrier
Resources
Act (CBRA)/
Coastal Barrier
Resources
System (CBRS)
CBRA discourages development on 3-1 million acres of coastal barrier and associated aquatic
habitat by prohibiting most federal expenditures (e.g., flood insurance, road construction, new
channel dredging). These areas are designated on maps adopted by Congress as the John H.
Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System. In addition to providing a level of protection to 3-1
million acres, CBRA is estimated to have saved taxpayers over $1 billion.
FWS
Coastal
Program
Voluntary partnership program to protect, restore, and enhance priority coastal habitat that
benefits federal trust species on public and private lands. It provides technical and financial assis-
tance through partnerships with federal, state, local governments; tribes; organizations; academic
institutions; and private landowners. The program is delivered through a network of field staff in
23 priority coastal watersheds around the country. Assistance instruments are primarily coopera-
tive agreements but grant agreements and wildlife extension agreements are also used. Decisions
regarding partnerships are made at the landscape level. Since 1994, the Coastal Program has
executed over 2,000 agreements to restore 295,000 acres of coastal habitat and 1,700 stream
miles, and protect close to 2 million acres of coastal habitat.
http://www.fws.gov/coastal
-------
Appendix E: Federal Agency Programs That Support Coastal Wetland Protection,
Restoration, and Management
AGENCY
PROGRAM
DESCRIPTION
FWS
Cooperative
Endangered
Species
Conservation
Fund
The Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund (CESCF; Section 6 of the Endangered
Species Act) is the component of the FWS Endangered Species program that provides grant
funding to states and territories for species and habitat conservation actions on non-federal
lands, including habitat acquisition, conservation planning, habitat restoration, status surveys,
captive propagation and reintroduction, research, and education. Many of these grants involve
coastal areas and wetland habitat.
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/grants/grant-programs.html
FWS
Endangered
Species
Conservation
Grants
Provides financial assistance to states and territories to implement conservation projects for listed
species and at-risk species. Funded activities include habitat restoration, species status surveys,
public education and outreach, captive propagation and reintroduction, nesting surveys, genetic
studies, and development of management plans.
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/grants/grant-programs.html
FWS
Endangered
Species
HCP Land
Acquisition
Grants
Provides funding to states and territories to acquire land associated with approved Habitat
Conservation Plans (HCP). Grants do not fund the mitigation required of an HCP permittee;
instead, they support conservation actions by the state or local governments that complement
mitigation.
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/grants/grant-programs.html
FWS
Endangered
Species
Program
The Endangered Species Program conserves imperiled plant and animal species and the ecosys-
tems upon which they depend, while promoting the voluntary conservation of other vulnerable
wildlife and their habitat. The program strives to ensure a strong scientific basis for decisions
on threatened and endangered species, facilitate large-scale planning to accommodate land use
and wildlife habitat, and promote innovative public/private partnerships. Components of the
program include technical assistance, outreach and education, grant assistance, and regulatory
actions. Many activities involve efforts to conserve coastal areas and wetlands provide impor-
tant habitat for threatened or endangered species, species at risk of becoming threatened or
endangered.
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/
FWS
Endangered
Species
Recovery Land
Acquisition
Grants
Provides funds to states and territories for acquisition of habitat for endangered and threatened
species in support of draft and approved recovery plans. Acquisition of habitat to secure long-
term protection is often an essential element of a comprehensive recovery effort for a listed
species.
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/grants/grant-programs.html
FWS
Migratory Bird
Conservation
Fund
Provides the DOI with financing for the acquisition of migratory bird habitat, including wet-
lands. Decisions regarding purchases of land and water areas by FWS are made by the Migratory
Bird Conservation Commission based on recommendations from the Service. The Small Wet-
land Program allows the proceeds from the sale of Federal Duck Stamps to be used to protect
waterfowl habitat in perpetuity through fee-title acquisition or easement. The habitat protected
consists of small wetlands, and surrounding grassland habitat in the Prairie Pothole Region.
Since its creation 50 years ago, the program has protected nearly 3 million acres of habitat.
http://www.fws.gov/duckstamps/Conservation/mbcc.htm
65
-------
Appendix E: Federal Agency Programs That Support Coastal Wetland Protection,
Restoration, and Management
AGENCY
PROGRAM
DESCRIPTION
FWS
National
Coastal
Wetlands
Conservation
Grant Program
Authorized by the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act of 1990. Co-
administered by the Coastal Program and the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program.
Annually provides grants of up to $1 million to coastal states, including Great Lakes states, to
acquire and restore coastal wetlands. Coastal states are eligible applicants. Program requires cost
share of between 50 and 75 percent of the grant request depending on whether the state has an
open-space conservation program. Ineligible activities include planning, research, monitoring,
and construction or repair of structures for recreational purposes. A national ranking panel made
up of FWS biologists recommends a list of projects for funding to the Director.
http://www.fws.gov/coastal/CoastalGrants/
FWS
National
Fish Passage
Program
Voluntary program that provides technical and financial assistance to fish passage barrier removal
or bypass projects. The goal of the program is to restore native fishes and other aquatic species to
self-sustaining levels by reconnecting habitat that has been fragmented by barriers. Project appli-
cations are reviewed and prioritized on a regional basis. Financial assistance is delivered through
the regional and local Fish and Wildlife Conservation Offices. The program strives to achieve a
50 percent match overall, including in-kind contributions. Non-federal funds are typically lever-
aged at a 3:1 ratio. The program uses the National Fish Passage Decision Support System, which
catalogues fish passage barriers nationally. Fish passage projects are not eligible for funding if
they are eligible for any federal or state compensatory mitigation or if fish passage is a condition
provided by existing federal or state regulatory programs. Since 1999, the program has worked
with over 700 different partners to remove 749 barriers, and reopen 11,249 miles of river and
80,556 acres to fish passage, benefitting over 85 federal trust fish and other aquatic species.
http://www.fws.gov/fisheries/fwco/fishpassage
FWS
National
Wetlands
Inventory
(NWI)
Provides information on the characteristics, extent, and status of U.S. wetlands and deepwater
habitats and other wildlife habitats. NWI produces periodic reports on the status and trends of
wetlands in the conterminous U.S., which is used for policymaking, assessment, and monitor-
ing. NWI has developed a series of topical maps to show wetlands and deepwater habitats. This
geospatial information is used by Congress; federal, state, and local agencies; academic institu-
tions; and the private sector to inform natural resource planning, management, and project de-
velopment. The NWI website provides a portal to the Wetlands Geodatabase and the Wetlands
Mapper, which provide technological tools that allow the integration of large relational databases
with spatial information and map-like displays. The Service's wetland data forms a layer of the
National Spatial Data Infrastructure.
http://www.fws.gov/nwi
FWS
National
Wildlife
Refuge System
(NWRS)
180 of the 552 refuges in the NWRS manage 121 million acres of marine or coastal habitat.
Approximately one-quarter of the 150 million-acre NWRS consists of wetlands. The NWRS
protects, restores, maintains, and conducts research on these wetlands. The NWRS sustains wet-
lands to support healthy populations of federal trust species, including threatened and endan-
gered species, migratory birds, interjurisdictional fish, some marine mammals, and many plants.
Wetlands in the NWRS provide opportunities for research and outdoor recreational pursuits for
the American public.
http://www.fws.gov/refuges
-------
Appendix E: Federal Agency Programs That Support Coastal Wetland Protection,
Restoration, and Management
AGENCY
PROGRAM
DESCRIPTION
FWS
Natural
Resource
Damage
Assessment
and
Restoration
Program
(NRDAR)
The NRDAR program restores wetland acres that have been harmed by the release of contami-
nants from hazardous waste sites, and oil and chemical spills. Where possible, FWS partners
with other federal agencies, other FWS programs, states, tribes, or non-governmental organiza-
tions to enlarge these restoration efforts, which enhances the value of the restoration to fish and
wildlife. In FY 2009, the NRDAR program was responsible for the restoration and enhancement
of over 23,000 wetland acres and for the protection of nearly 41,000 wetland acres. In addition,
the program restored or enhanced 186 riparian stream miles and managed or protected 383
riparian stream miles. The Division of Environmental Quality provides approximately $1.5 mil-
lion in toxicology, ecology, and habitat restoration expertise to EPA and other federal and state
partners to minimize impacts to wetlands dur-ing the cleanup of contaminated areas.
http://www.fws.gov/contaminants/Issues/Restoration.cfm
FWS
North
American
Waterfowl
Management
PlanJoint
Ventures
Collaborative, regionally based partnership of U.S. and Canadian agencies, nonprofit organiza-
tions, corporations, tribes, or individuals that conserves habitat for priority bird species within
a specific geographic area. Designed to achieve the regional conservation goals identified in
the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. 18 habitat joint ventures and three species
specific joint ventures. Activities include biological planning, conservation design, and prioritiza-
tion; project development and implementation; monitoring, evaluation, applied research; com-
munications, education, and outreach; funding support for projects. To date, joint ventures have
invested $4.5 billion to conserve 15-7 million acres of waterfowl habitat.
http://www.fws.gov/birdhabitat/nawmp
FWS
North
American
Wetlands
Conservation
Grants
(NAWCA)
Supports activities under the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, an international
agreement that provides a strategy for the long-term protection of wetlands and associated
upland habitats needed by waterfowl and other wetland-associated migratory birds in North
America. Provides competitive grants to non-governmental organizations, states, local govern-
ments, tribes, and individuals to carry out wetland conservation projects in the United States,
Canada, and Mexico for the benefit of wetland-associated migratory birds and other wildlife.
Projects must provide long-term protection, restoration, and enhancement of wetlands and
associated upland habitats. Mexican partnerships may also develop training, educational, and
management programs and conduct sustainable-use studies. Standard grants: From FY 1990
to June 2010, some 3,850 partners in 1,518 projects have received more than $1.03 billion in
grants. They have contributed another $2.06 billion in matching funds to affect 25-5 million
acres of habitat and $1.14 billion in non-matching funds to affect 230,900 acres of habitat.
Small grants: From FY1990 to FY 2009, some 1,160 partners in 455 projects have received
more than $22.9 million in grants. They have contributed another $101 million in match-
ing funds to affect 172,600 acres of habitat and $57-4 million in non-matching funds to affect
7,400 acres of habitat.
http://www.fws.gov/birdhabitat/Grants/NAWCA
FWS
Partners for
Fish and
Wildlife
Program
Voluntary partnership program to restore and enhance priority fish and wildlife habitat on
private lands. Provides technical and financial assistance through partnerships with landowners.
Delivered through locally based field biologists in each state. Assistance instruments are primar-
ily cooperative agreements. Decisions regarding partnerships are made at the landscape level.
Since 1987 the Program has worked with over 42,000 private landowners and restored 975,000
acres of wetlands, 3,000,000 acres of uplands, and 8,700 miles of stream habitat. Statutory
authority: Partners for Fish and Wildlife Act of 2006.
http: //www. fws. gov/partners
67
-------
Appendix E: Federal Agency Programs That Support Coastal Wetland Protection,
Restoration, and Management
AGENCY
PROGRAM
DESCRIPTION
NOAA
Coastal and
Estuarine Land
Conservation
Program
(CELCP)
CELCP, part of the Coastal Zone Management Program, was established in 2002 to protect
coastal and estuarine lands considered important for their ecological, conservation, recreational,
historical or aesthetic values. The NOAA Ocean Service program provides state and local govern-
ments with matching funds to purchase significant coastal and estuarine lands, or conservation
easements on such lands, from willing sellers. Lands or conservation easements acquired with
CELCP funds are protected in perpetuity so that they may be enjoyed by future generations.
http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/land/welcome.html
NOAA
Coastal Zone
Management
Program
The Coastal Zone Management Program supports state planning and programs to protect
coastal resources, including wetlands. The NOAA Ocean Service program is a voluntary part-
nership between the federal government and U.S. coastal and Great Lakes states that takes a
comprehensive approach to coastal resource management by balancing the often competing
and occasionally conflicting demands of coastal resources use, economic development, and
conservation.
http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/programs/czm.html
NOAA
Coastal Zone
Enhancement
Program
(CZARA
Section 309)
The Coastal Zone Enhancement Program, a part of the NOAA Ocean Service Coastal Zone
Management Program, is designed to encourage states and territories to develop program
changes in one or more of the nine coastal zone enhancement areas of national significance,
including wetlands. Every five years, state coastal management programs conduct self-assess-
ments of their programs' activities within the nine enhancement areas to help target the Section
309 funds toward program needs.
http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/enhanc.html
NOAA
Coastal Zone
Nonpoint
Pollution
Program
(CZARA
Section 6217)
The Coastal Zone Nonpoint Pollution Program, a part of the NOAA Ocean Service Coastal Zone
Management Program, establishes a set of management measures for states to use in controlling
polluted runoff from six main sources, including wetlands and vegetated shorelines. State policies
and actions to develop coastal nonpoint pollution control programs ensure implementation of the
program at the state level.
http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/nonpoint/welcome.html
NOAA
Community-
based Restora-
tion Program
The Community-based Restoration Program, a part of the NOAA Fisheries Habitat Conserva-
tion Program, invests funding and technical expertise in high-priority habitat restoration proj-
ects that instill strong conservation values and engage citizens in hands-on activities. Through
the program, NOAA, its partners, and thousands of volunteers are actively restoring coastal,
marine, and migratory fish habitat across the nation, http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/restoration/
programs/crp.html
NOAA
Damage
Assessment,
Remediation,
and
Restoration
Program
(DARRP)
The NOAA Ocean Service Damage Assessment, Remediation, and Restoration Program collabo-
rates with other agencies, industry, and citizens to protect and restore coastal and marine resources
threatened or injured by oil spills, releases of hazardous substances, and vessel groundings. The
program provides permanent expertise within NOAA to assess and restore natural resources
injured by release of oil and hazardous substances, as well as by physical impacts such as vessel
groundings in National Marine Sanctuaries.
http://www.darrp.noaa.gov/
-------
Appendix E: Federal Agency Programs That Support Coastal Wetland Protection,
Restoration, and Management
AGENCY
PROGRAM
DESCRIPTION
NOAA
Essential Fish
Habitat (EFH)
provisions of
the Magnuson-
Stevens Act
Marine fish depend on healthy habitats to survive and reproduce. Throughout their lives fish use
many types of habitats including seagrass, salt marsh, coral reefs, kelp forests, and rocky inter-
tidal areas among others. Various activities on land and in the water constantly threaten to alter,
damage, or destroy these habitats. NOAA Fisheries, regional Fishery Management Councils, and
federal and state agencies work together to address these threats by identifying EFH for each
federally managed fish species and developing conservation measures to protect and enhance
these habitats.
http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/index.html
NOAA
Great Lakes
Habitat
Restoration
Program
The Great Lakes Habitat Restoration Program, a part of the NOAA Fisheries Habitat Conserva-
tion Program, plans, implements, and funds coastal habitat restoration projects throughout the
Great Lakes region. The program works to protect and restore coastal habitats through recovery
of damages from natural resource damage claims, which are used to implement community-
based restoration efforts. Much of NOAA's work in the region is focused on supporting commu-
nity-identified restoration priorities in Areas of Concern, environmentally degraded areas within
the Great Lakes basin.
http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/restoration/programs/greatlakes.html
NOAA
Habitat
Conservation
Program
The Habitat Conservation Program, composed of the Habitat Protection Division, a Restoration
Center, and the Chesapeake Bay Office, protects, restores, and promotes stewardship of coastal
and marine habitat to support our nation's fisheries and preserve our coastal communities for
future generations. The Program carries out various management and research efforts to develop
national and regional policies, programs, and science to conserve wetlands.
http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/index.html
NOAA
National
Estuarine
Research
Reserve System
(NERRS)
The NERRS is a network of 28 areas representing different biogeographic regions of the United
States that are protected for long-term research, water-quality monitoring, education, and coastal
stewardship. Established by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, the reserve
system is a partnership program between NOAA and the coastal states. NOAA's Ocean Service
provides funding, national guidance, and technical assistance. Each reserve is managed on a daily
basis by a lead state agency or university, with input from local partners. Reserve staff work with
local communities and regional groups to address natural resource management issues, such as
non-point source pollution, habitat restoration and invasive species. Through integrated research
and education, the reserves help communities develop strategies to deal successfully with these
coastal resource issues.
http://www.nerrs.noaa.gov/
NOAA
Pacific Coastal
Salmon
Recovery Fund
(PCSRF)
The PCSRF was established by Congress in FY 2000 to protect, restore, and conserve Pacific
salmon and steelhead populations and their habitats. Under the PCSRF, NOAA Fisheries man-
ages a program to provide funding to states and tribes of the Pacific Coast region.
http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/PCSRF/Index.cfm
Army
Corps
Clean Water
Act 404
Program
Army Corps manages the nation's wetlands through a regulatory program requiring permits for
the discharge of dredged and fill material into jurisdictional water of the United States. This
important regulatory program helps maintain the wetland base so other federal programs can
achieve gains. EPA shares regulatory responsibility with Army Corps under this program.
-------
Appendix E: Federal Agency Programs That Support Coastal Wetland Protection,
Restoration, and Management
AGENCY
PROGRAM
DESCRIPTION
Army
Corps
Continuing
Authorities
Program
(CAP)
Standing Authorities to study/build water resource projects for specific purposes and with speci-
fied federal spending limits and cost share requirement. CAP project funding varies by program
and purpose. There are 10 commonly referenced nationwide programs. Three of these specifi-
cally involve ecosystem improvement: the 206 Program is for aquatic ecosystem restoration, the
1135 Program is for project modifications for improvement of the environment, and the 204
Program is for beneficial uses of dredged material. There are also several geographically restricted
Regional Programs that relate to environmental infrastructure projects.
Army
Corps
Engineer
Research and
Development
Center
(ERDC)
The Wetlands Research and Technology Center (WRTC) consolidates administrative, techno-
logical, and research skills in the area of wetland science and engineering that are available at
the ERDC. The ERDC has long been recognized as a center for wetland expertise, conducting
extensive environmental research in wetland systems. The WRTC provides a single point of
contact for wetland research and development, guidance, support, and technology transfer. The
WRTC provides access to an array of technical specialists and interdisciplinary teams in research
areas that emphasize the interrelationships of biological, physical, and chemical environments
in order to provide fundamental understanding of ecological processes and dynamics in wetland
ecosystems. The WRTC serves the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, other Department of Defense
agencies, other government agencies, academia, industry and the general public.
http://el.erdc.usace. army.mil/wetlands/wetlands. html#wrtc
Army
Corps
General
Investigations
Studies for project authorization that are undertaken in response to either a study-specific
authority or a general authority; these are typically larger, complex projects. The reconnaissance
phase is 100 percent federally funded, the feasibility phase is cost-shared 50/50, the preconstruc-
tion engineering and design phase is cost-shared 75/25, and the construction/ implementation
for Ecosystem Restoration Projects is cost-shared 65/35- The maximum cost limit per project is
set for each phase. Major projects include the Florida Everglades Restoration, the Upper Mis-
sissippi River Restoration, the Louisiana Coastal Area project, the Missouri River Recovery, and
the Lower Columbia River and Tillamook Bay Ecosystem Restoration.
USDA
FSA
Conservation
Reserve
Program
(CRP)
CRP provides technical and financial assistance to eligible farmers and ranchers to address soil,
water, and related natural resource concerns on their lands in an environmentally beneficial and
cost-effective manner. The program is funded through the Commodity Credit Corporation.
CRP is administered by the Farm Service Agency (FSA), with NRCS providing technical land
eligibility determinations, conservation planning and practice implementation. CRP reduces soil
erosion, protects the nation's ability to produce food and fiber, reduces sedimentation in streams
and lakes, improves water quality, establishes wildlife habitat, and enhances forest and wetland
resources. It encourages farmers to convert highly erodible cropland or other environmentally
sensitive acreage to vegetative cover, such as tame or native grasses, wildlife plantings, trees,
filterstrips, or riparian buffers. Farmers receive an annual rental payment for the term of the
multi-year contract. Cost sharing is provided to establish the vegetative cover practices.
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/crp/
70
-------
Appendix E: Federal Agency Programs That Support Coastal Wetland Protection,
Restoration, and Management
AGENCY
PROGRAM
DESCRIPTION
USDA
NRCS
Conservation
Technical
Assistance
Program
(CTA)
Through conservation technical assistance, NRCS and its partners help land users address oppor-
tunities, concerns, and problems related to the use of natural resources and make sound natural
resource management decisions on private, tribal, and other non-federal lands. This assistance
may be in the form of resource assessment, practice design, resource monitoring, or follow-
up of installed practices. Although the CTA program does not include financial or cost-share
assistance, clients may develop conservation plans, which may serve as a springboard for those
interested in participating in USDA financial assistance programs. CTA planning can also serve
as a door to financial assistance and easement conservation programs provided by other federal,
state, and local programs.
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/cta/
USDA
NRCS
Emergency
Watershed
Protection
Program
(EWP)
The purpose of the Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) program is to undertake emergency
measures, including the purchase of flood plain easements for runoff retardation and soil erosion
prevention to safeguard lives and property from floods, drought, and the products of erosion on
any watershed whenever fire, flood, or any other natural occurrence is causing or has caused a
sudden impairment of the watershed.
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/financial/ewp
USDA
NRCS
Environmental
Quality
Incentives
Program
(EQIP)
EQIP provides a voluntary conservation program for farmers, ranchers, and owners of private,
non-industrial forest land that promotes agricultural production, forest management, and envi-
ronmental quality as compatible national goals. EQIP offers financial and technical assistance to
help eligible producers install or implement conservation practices on eligible agricultural land.
EQIP offers contracts with a minimum term that ends one year after the implementation of
the last scheduled practice(s) and a maximum term of 10 years. Owners of land in agricultural
production or persons who are engaged in livestock or agricultural production on eligible land
may participate in the EQIP program. Program practices and activities are carried out according
to a plan of operations, developed in conjunction with the producer, that identifies the appropri-
ate conservation practice or measures needed to address identified natural resource concerns. The
practices are subject to NRCS technical standards adapted for local conditions. EQIP may pro-
vide payments up to 75 percent of the estimated incurred costs and income foregone of certain
conservation practices and conservation activity plans.
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/financial/eqip
USDA
NRCS
Farm and
Ranchlands
Protection
Program
(FRPP)
FRPP provides matching funds to help purchase development rights to keep productive farm
and ranchland in agricultural uses. Working through existing programs, USDA part-ners with
state, tribal, or local governments and non-governmental organizations to acquire conservation
easements or other interests in land from landowners. USDA provides up to 50 percent of the
fair market easement value of the conservation easement. To qualify, farmland must be part of
a pending offer from a state, tribe, or local farmland protection program; be privately owned;
have a conservation plan for highly erodible land; be large enough to sustain agricultural pro-
duction; be accessible to markets for what the land produces; have adequate infrastructure and
agricultural support services; and have surrounding parcels of land that can support long-term
agricultural production. Depending on funding availability, proposals must be submitted by the
eligible entities to the appropriate NRCS State Office during the application window.
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/easements/farmranch
71
-------
Appendix E: Federal Agency Programs That Support Coastal Wetland Protection,
Restoration, and Management
AGENCY
PROGRAM
DESCRIPTION
USDA
NRCS
Grasslands
Reserve
Program
(GRP)
GRP is a voluntary conservation program that emphasizes support for working grazing opera-
tions, enhancement of plant and animal biodiversity, and protection of grassland under threat of
conversion to other uses. Participants voluntarily limit future development and cropping uses of
the land while retaining the right to conduct common grazing practices and operations related
to the production of forage and seeding, subject to certain restrictions during nesting seasons of
bird species that are in significant decline or are protected under federal or state law. A grazing
management plan is required for participants.
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/easements/grassland
USDA
NRCS
Swampbuster
The Highly Erodible Land Conservation and Wetland Conservation Compliance provisions
(Swampbuster) were introduced in the 1985 Farm Bill, with amendments in 1990, 1996, and
2002. The purpose of the provisions is to remove certain incentives to produce agricultural
commodities on converted wetlands or highly erodible land, unless the highly erodible land
is protected from excessive soil erosion. It withholds federal farm program benefits from any
person who converts a wetland by clearing, drainage, dredging, leveling, or any other means for
the purpose of making agricultural commodity production possible, or who plants a commodity
on a converted wetland.
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailfull/national/programs/alphabetical/
camr/?&cid=stelprdbl043554
USDA
NRCS
Wetlands
Reserve
Enhancement
Program
(WREP)
WREP is a voluntary conservation program which is a component of WRP Under WREP,
NRCS enters into agreements with eligible partners (states and local units of government,
Indian tribes, and non-governmental organizations) to help enhance conservation outcomes on
wetlands and adjacent lands. WREP targets and leverages resources to carry out high-priority
wetland protection, restoration, and enhancement activities and improve wildlife habitat. Once
NRCS selects a partner's proposal, landowners within the selected project area may submit an
application directly to NRCS for participation in WRP.
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/easements/wetlands
USDA
NRCS
Wetlands
Reserve
Program
(WRP)
This voluntary program restores and protects wetlands on private lands to cost-effectively maxi-
mize wildlife benefits and wetland functions and values that have been degraded or impacted
as a result of the production of food and fiber. Since 1992, WRP has restored approximately
2.2 million acres on 11,758 properties. WRP enrollment options include permanent easement,
30-year easement, restoration agreement, 30-year contract on tribal lands, and reserve grazing
rights pilot. The perpetual easement option pays landowners 100 percent of the WRP easement
value and 100 percent of the costs to restore the wetlands and associated habitats on the land.
The 30-year easement and 30-year contracts options provide 75 percent of the easement values
and restoration costs. The restoration agreement only option provides 75 percent of the restora-
tion costs and requires the restored habitat to be maintained for a period of 10 years.
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/easements/wetlands
USDA
NRCS
Wildlife
Habitat
Incentives
Program
(WHIP)
WHIP is a voluntary program for conservation-minded landowners who want to develop and
improve wildlife habitat on agricultural land, nonindustrial private forest land, and Indian land.
NRCS administers WHIP to provide both technical assistance and up to 75 percent cost-share
assistance to establish and improve fish and wildlife habitat. WHIP cost-share agreements
between NRCS and the participant generally last from one year after the last conservation prac-
tice is implemented but not more than 10 years from the date the agreement is signed.
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/financial/whip
72
-------
Appendix E: Federal Agency Programs That Support Coastal Wetland Protection,
Restoration, and Management
AGENCY
PROGRAM
DESCRIPTION
uses
National
Wetlands
Research
Center
The National Wetlands Research Center is a source and clearinghouse of science information
about wetlands in the United States and the world for fellow agencies, private entities, academia,
and the public at large. Staff members obtain and provide this information by performing
original scientific research and developing research results into literature and technological tools.
They then disseminate that information through a variety of means. The Center solves wetland-
related problems and conducts status and trends inventories of wetland habitats, evaluates
wetland problems, and conducts field and laboratory research on wetland issues. Center research
includes a broad array of projects on wetland ecology, values, management, restoration and
creation, plus research on the ecology of a wide variety of plant and animal species and commu-
nities that are found in wetlands.
http: //www. nwrc. usgs. gov/
USGS
Other
scientific
research
USGS also conducts scientific studies on other areas related to wetland health, including carbon
sequestration, long shore transport processes, water level fluctuations, climate change, and sea
level rise.
http://www.usgs.gov/
EPA/
FWS/
NOAA/
USDA/
Army
Corps
Coastal
Wetlands
Planning,
Protection and
Restoration
Act (CWP
PRA)
CWPPRA is funded by the Aquatic Resources Trust Fund, which was established in 1990 and
is authorized until 2019- The fund is created from excise taxes on fishing equipment and on
motorboat and small engine fuels. The Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restora-
tion Task Force receives 70 percent of the funds; the North American Wetlands Conservation
Act Program and the National Wetlands Conservation Grant Program receive 15 percent each.
Funding distributed to the Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task
Force is used to design and construct projects to preserve, re-establish, and enhance Louisiana's
coastal landscape.
http://www.lacoast.gov/new/About/Default.aspx http://www.fws.gov/birdhabitat/Grants/
NAWCA/index.shtm http://www.fws.gov/coastal/coastalgrants/
EPA/
FWS/
NOAA/
USDA/
Army
Corps
Estuary
Restoration
Act (ERA)
The purpose of ERA is to promote the restoration of estuary habitat; to provide federal assistance
for estuary habitat restoration projects; to develop a national Estuary Habitat Restoration Strat-
egy for creating and maintaining effective partnerships within the federal government and with
the private sector; and to develop and enhance monitoring, data sharing, and research capabili-
ties. Under ERA, NOAA developed and maintains a restoration project database, the National
Estuaries Restoration Inventory, and established standards for restoration monitoring.
http: //www. era. noaa. gov/
73
------- |