Coastal Wetlands Initiative
North Atlantic Review
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
1 iPA-8#M-!0H®5C -
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 infrastruc-
ture 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, 2010).
NOAA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
analyzed the status and trends of wetland acreage along
the Atlantic coast, Gulf of Mexico, and the Great Lakes to
provide an estimate of losses or gains that occurred in those
coastal watersheds. Their report, released in 2008, found
that 361,000 acres of coastal wetlands were lost in the east-
ern 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 freshwater wetlands, both tidal and non-
tidal. Nearly 60 percent of the total loss of coastal freshwater
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review?
wetlands is attributed to "other
development," which includes
conversion of wetlands 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 Wet-
lands Team, which is a joint effort between EPA's Wetlands
Division and the Oceans and Coastal Protection Division.
The team's goals are: 1) confirming wetland loss and bet-
ter understanding 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
Agriculture
.3.6%
Deepwater
14.5%
Other
Development
59.45%
Intel tidal
.Wetlands
0.05%
Urban and Rural
Development
22.4%
Figure 1. Wetland lossand changes in landiofeer, 1998-2004; Atlantic, Gulf of
Mexico,and Great Lakes. Source: StedmanmdSahi, 2008.
-------
Allan tic
Ocean
Map Key
Like,
flfl North Atlantic
HI \&d-Atl&nt3c
¦ Soulk Atlantic
Hi Golf of Mexico
I I Scales
GfdfefMearc
Coastal Wetlands Review Regions
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).
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
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 website. This document is
the CWR report for the North Atlantic 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 EPA's Coastal Wetlands Team by helping to identify CWR
watersheds, participating in the CWR onsite discussions, and
providing input on the reports.
EPA Coastal Wetland Regional Reviews
EPA conducted these CWRs to identify and better under-
stand the stressors on coastal wetlands and the strategies
needed to protect and restore them. EPA's Coastal Wetlands
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 quantifiable data
on functional loss are limited in availability, EPA recognizes
that it is an issue in many watersheds and included qualitative
Figure 2. Co3staT;Wetlands regions identified in EPA's
C®Stal \fifeflands Imtuttw
information to reflect this concern where appropriate. EPA
coordinated with the Interagency Coastal Wetlands Work-
group 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 spe-
cific 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 and
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
discussions with stakeholder groups. EPA affords participants
an opportunity to comment on CWR notes and draft reports
in order to provide the broadest perspective possible. EPA also
endeavors to supplement these perspectives with documenta-
tion (e.g., relevant references, citations), but it is 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 start-
ing point for identifying priority stressors, tools and strategies
* 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 Deepwater
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.
-------
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 subset 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., the general public, state natural resource agencies,
academics, local governments, watershed groups). EPA uses
stakeholder lists from the NEPs along with contacts provided
by the Interagency Coastal Wetlands Workgroup 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
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 autho-
rized losses and associated mitigation gains for wetlands 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 provided 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 possible 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 sought an entity to serve as the "host" of each review and
to help identify a broad range of local stakeholders to par-
ticipate in the discussions. The host organization (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 broad cross-section of
business, environmental, academic, and government repre-
sentatives. Invitee lists were collected from the organization
NEPs are already employing a variety of efforts to
protect and restore wetlands. NEPs can assist by: 1)
convening the appropriate stakeholders to partici-
pate in the CWRs, 2) providing scientific data on wet-
land conditions in their study areas, and 3) providing
a strong platform and scientific understanding to
support the CWRs. |
-------
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 protection
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?
hosting the event, as well as suggestions from the Interagency
Coastal Workgroup (which includes their regional representa-
tives).
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 condi-
tions) 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 tra-
ditionally limited to "physical, chemical, or biological 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 degrada-
tion 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. EPA
acted as a neutral facilitator and captured the discussion in
meeting notes. While there may be disagreements among par-
ties regarding the validity of the data presented or provided,
EPA considered all documented sources of information. EPA
also recognized that: reference documents will not be available
for all points raised by participants in the discussion.
To coincide with the stakeholder discussions, EPA scheduled
a visit to nearby wetland protection, restoration, or mitigation
projects when feasible. This enabled EPA to obtain a first-
hand view of local stressors or approaches being employed to
address wetland loss in that watershed. Collection and analysis
of raw field data was 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 believes they are a good
indicator or snapshot of wetland issues in the focal watersheds.
The results of the North Atlantic review are summarized
below, and are also presented in Table 1 and the "Conclusion"
section of this report.
• Major stressors:
» Continued development pressure.
» Hydrologic alterations, most notably tidal restrictions.
» Cranberry bog activities.
» Other wetland losses occurring outside the regulatory
system (e.g., exemptions, illegal activity).
» Lack of adequate monitoring and enforcement of wetland
mitigation requirements.
• Major tools and strategies:
» Massachusetts' Wetlands Loss Mapping Project, which is
effective at assessing, enforcing, and deterring losses that
occur outside the regulatory programs. Approximately two-
thirds less wetland loss has occurred since the project began.
» The Conservation Assessment and Prioritization System
(CAPS) and site-level assessment method (SLAM) mod-
els, which are effective tools for evaluating the ecological
function and value of wetlands. The combination of area
and functional loss tools will provide the ability to com-
prehensively assess wetland status and trends.
» Removing dams and tidal restrictions—a key strategy for
restoring coastal wetlands. Massachusetts' Dam Removal
Guidance could be a model for other states.
» State regulations that are stronger than federal wetland
regulations, and local wetland bylaws that are more
stringent than state wetland regulations; both are key to
effective wetland protection in Massachusetts.
• Major gaps:
» Additional training of conservation commissioners to
ensure that state regulations and local bylaws are under-
stood and properly enforced.
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review?
4
-------
» A complete and centralized repository of wetland maps
and permitting data.
» Development of additional site-level assessment methods
for wetland community types currently not assessed.
» Streamlining restoration permitting for tidal restriction
removal projects.
North Atlantic Review
From the rugged bluffs of the Maine coastline to the vast
expanses of salt marshes in Massachusetts, the North Atlan-
tic region (Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode
Island, Connecticut, and New York) is home to a sinuous net-
work of estuaries, embayments, and salt ponds. The region's
8,700 miles of coastline are home to a wide variety of coastal
wetland habitats due in part to its tidal range. South of Cape
Cod, tides fluctuate only a few feet, but tidal range increases
dramatically toward the Maine/Canada border. For example,
in Narragansett Bay Rhode Island, tides range only 3.5 feet,
whereas in Passamaquoddy Bay Maine, tides range up to 28
feet. Tides have significant impacts on the coastline, helping
form vast mud flats, salt marshes, and sand bars. Common
wetland types across the North Atlantic shoreline include salt
marshes, forested and shrub/scrub swamps, bogs, and wet
meadows. Freshwater wooded swamps,, including red maple,
hemlock, northern cedar and Atlantic white cedar, are the
most common type of wetland in this region (EPA, n.d.).
Most salt marshes in the North Atlantic region can be found
along the shorelines of Maine and Massachusetts. Maine
contains the most wetlands of any state in the Northeast; one-
quarter of Maine's land area is wetland. There are over 5 mil-
lion acres of freshwater wetlands and approximately 150,000
acres of tidal wetlands along Maine's coast (Maine DEP, 1996;
ELI, 2008). New Hampshire has the region's shortest coast-
line, which contains approximately 8,000 acres of estuarine
wetlands, less than 3 percent of all wetlands statewide (Tiner,
2007). Coastal wetlands in the North Atlantic region provide
productive nurseries for commercial and recreational finfish; a
variety of shellfish, including soft shell clams, m ussels, quahogs,
scallops, and oysters; and abundant populations of anadromous
fish, including alewife, herring, smelt, brook trout, and stur-
geon. They also provide important habitat for breeding, migra-
tory, and wintering waterfowl, and vital habitat for nationally
threatened and endangered species, including the northern
red-bellied cooter, roseate tern, piping plover, and bog turtle.
For hundreds of years, people in the North Atlantic region
have relied on marsh-dependent fish species for their liveli-
hood. For example, Narragansett Bay is home to more than
60 species of fish and shellfish and produces an average of 1.5
million pounds of quahogs each year (1994—2004), with a
landed value of $7.5 million (EPA, 2008). Additionally, more
than 200 species of birds depend on the bay's habitats (ANEP,
Figure 3. Reeky coast,at Bass Harbor Head Light, Acadia National Park, Maine,
Sawee: iANImage QndWeoUbtaiy.
2001). One of the region's largest estuaries with an area of
1,320 square miles, Long Island Sound is home to over 200
finfish species and 50 species that spawn in the estuary (Long
Island Sound Study, 2011). The activities that take place on
and along the Sound—boating, fishing, tourism, and swim-
ming—contribute an estimated $5.5 billion per year to the
regional economy (CTDEP, 2011). In Massachusetts, the
estuarine-dependent win ter flounder commercial fishery was
valued at over $7.25 million the last three years, more than all
other commercial winter flounder landings across the Atlantic
combined (NMFS, 2011). The North Atlantic has a lower
density of wetlands than other parts of the United States, such
as the southeastern and Gulf of Mexico regions. However, two
North Atlantic watersheds have a high density of wetlands:
the Piscataqua River/Great Bay estuary and the Lower Penob-
scot watershed in Maine (see Figure 4).
Estimated Wetland Density
Low
Medium
High
Very High
Low: <10%, Medium: 10.1-17.6%, High: 17.7-32.5%, and Very High: >32.6%.
Figure 4 North Atlarvticiestimated'ooastal wetland density, 'Souks: Siedrnafimd
Dah!)2W8.
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review?
5
-------
North Atlantic Coastal Wetland Stressors
The impact of human development and agriculture and the
subsequent acreage loss of coastal wetlands to upland due to
drainage and fill over the last 400 years has been, and contin-
ues to be, the greatest contributor to coastal wetland losses in
the North Atlantic region.
Historically, an overwhelming percentage of salt marshes
throughout the northeastern United States were ditched for
mosquito control purposes, and to a lesser extent for salt hay
farming (Tyrrell, 2005; Taylor, 2008). Peat was historically
excavated as a source of fuel, and later vast areas of salt marsh
were filled for seaport development. For example, between
1630 and 1890, the city of Boston more than doubled its land
area by filling over 1,000 acres (80 percent) of its salt marshes
(Seasholes, 2003). Other historical stressors on wetlands in
coastal watersheds include filling for agriculture and forestry
uses. Except for cranberry bogs, which remain concentrated
in southeastern Massachusetts, conversion from wetland to
agricultural and forestry land uses has largely been replaced by
residential and commercial development conversions.
The North Atlantic region is the most densely populated
area in the nation. According to the U.S. Census (2000),
Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Massachusetts are ranked
second, third, and fourth for population density in the United
States, respectively. More than 8 million people live in the
Long Island Sound watershed alone. The North Atlantic
region continues to experience annual coastal wetland losses
despite strong regulatory and non-regulatory wetland pro-
tection efforts. Although wetland laws and regulations have
significantly slowed wetland loss, EPA Region 1 recently
estimated that approximately 250 acres of wetlands are lost or
altered each year in each of the New England states for a total
of 1,500 acres lost per year (EPA, 2002).
Numerous stressors contribute to coastal wetland loss in
North Atlantic states. Some of the most common stressors
mentioned in the literature are listed below:
• Development, including residential, commercial, infrastruc-
ture (roads, sewers, pipelines), and sand and gravel opera-
tions.
• Agriculture (alteration for agricultural use, nutrient runoff).
• Hydrologic alterations including dams, tidal restrictions
(e.g., culverts), water withdrawals, and dredging.
• Invasive vegetation.
• Point and non-point pollution including sewage and storm-
water runoff.
• Climate change (sea level rise, increased storm frequency
and intensity).
In addition to data available in studies, data from NOAA's
C-CAP were used to estimate acreage losses of coastal wet-
lands for the North Atlantic region from 1996 to 2006 (see
Appendix D for more information on C-CAP methodol-
ogy). C-CAP examines overall land use change, including
wetlands (excluding submerged aquatic vegetation), for the
coastal regions of the United States. The data set currently
reports changes in wetland acreage only and does not mea-
sure change in wetland function. The C-CAP data was used
in order to be consistent across all regions when comparing
wetland loss. According to C-CAP estimates, approximately
852 acres were lost in the region during the 10-year period,
for an annual average loss of approximately 96 acres. The
causes of the wetland losses were essentially split among four
categories: agriculture, development, conversion to open
water, and conversion to upland for unknown purposes (bare
land) (Figure 5). Army Corps' permitting data available for
the New England states from 2006 through 2009 indicates
that a total of 399 acres of wetland impacts (379 acres non-
tidal and 20 acres tidal) were authorized, an approximately
100 acre annual average loss. Differences in loss rates between
C-CAP and Army Corps permit data are expected because 1)
they cover different time periods, 2) Army Corps permits only
cover wetlands protected by the CWA (see Appendix C for
information on CWA jurisdiction), and 3) C-CAP identifies
both authorized and unauthorized wetland impacts.
Sprawling development patterns are an increasing concern in
the region (Figure 6). This type of development requires the
expansion of infrastructure and impervious surfaces, often
resulting in increased stormwater runoff, incremental filling
-------
Open Water
21%
Developed
27%
Agriculture
24%
of wetlands, and fragmentation of wetland habitat. A study
conducted in 2002 showed a dramatic increase in the amount
of land consumed per person between 1982 and 1997 (Wallace,
2002). Massachusetts was found to be developing land at 7.2
times the rate of population growth, the highest ratio in New
England. In a region with a relatively stable population, the pat-
terns of development are as important to coastal wetlands as raw
population numbers, if not more important (Wallace, 2002).
In addition to wetland losses caused by direct alterations such
as filling, hydrologic modifications have contributed to wet-
land acreage loss and habitat alteration. Hydrologic alterations
include dams, culverts, channelization, and dredging. While
the vast majority of dams were constructed long ago in this
region, they continue to have impacts on coastal wetlands.
(CTDEP, 2010; Maine DEP, 2005; NHCP, 2002; NYDEC,
2010). For example, 5,400 large dams have been built in
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, and
New Jersey as well as thousands of low head dams and water
control structures that currently restrict flow and prevent fish
migration (USFWS, 2009).
Sea level rise is also a concern in the region—especially loss
of salt marsh acreage, an issue of particular concern in Maine,
which contains more salt marsh (19,500 acres) than any other
North Atlantic state (Jacobson et at., 1987). Mean sea level rise
trends range from 0.6 feet per 100 years in Portland, Maine, to
0.91 feet per 100 years in Montauk, New York, and have been
steadily increasing over the last 60 years (NOAA, 201 lb).
Figure 5. Wetland loss and changes in land eoS6r, T986-200& North Atlantic
region. Smme: HBAA C-CAB 201 la.
coastal wetlands using a range of tools and strategies. Regula-
tory programs in the region are the primary wetland protec-
tion strategy, and include local and state wetland permitting
programs, which typically exceed federal permitting require-
ments and include mapping, mitigation, compliance moni-
toring, and enforcement. Wetland assessment techniques are
under development in the region through the New England
Biological Assessment of Wetlands Workgroup. This group,
which coordinates with the national Biological Assessment of
Wetlands Workgroup, is composed of state and federal wet-
land managers and scientists. In addition, coastal restoration
programs are actively underway in all North Atlantic states.
North Atlantic Tools and Strategies
The North Atlantic states manage the above stressors on
10.0%
0.0%
/I
i
1
_
1
II
II
¦
I
n n
¦
r
¦ Ml
mm IT - ^
New Hamp.
State
~ Pop. Growth, 1982-1997 ¦Developed Land Growth, 1982-1997
Figure 6. Change in rate.of population and developed land in New England (1982-1WM. Source: Walfem 2002.
The North Atlantic region in general, and Massachusetts in
particular, were leaders in wetland protection in the United
States. With the passage of the Jones Act in 1963, Massa-
chusetts became the first state in the
nation to regulate activities in coastal
wetlands; two years later legisla-
tion extended protection to inland
wetlands. In 1972, these laws were
combined into the Massachusetts
Wetlands Protection Act (Massachu-
setts General Laws, Chapter 131,
Section 40) and broadened to protect
additional resource areas, includ-
ing 100-year floodplains, isolated
wetlands, beaches, dunes, and banks.
Other states followed suit. Today,
all of the North Atlantic states have
state wetland protection laws and
regulations protecting tidal as well as
non-tidal coastal and inland wet-
lands. They also play a role in the
CWA Section 404 program under
the purview of State Programmatic
-------
General Permits issued by the Army Corps (See Appendix C).
Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island all
have state-level "no net loss of wetlands" policies or regula-
tory provisions in place (ELI, 2008; ASWM, 2009). Mitiga-
tion banking in this region is limited. Most states focus on
primarily mitigating losses on site (ELI, 2008). However, the
Maine Department of Transportation is operating under an
umbrella wetland mitigation banking program and Maine,
New Hampshire, and Vermont have active in-lieu-fee (ILF)
mitigation programs. In addition, in 2008, the Massachusetts
Department of Fish and Game signed an agreement with the
Army Corps for a limited ILF program focusing on essential
fish habitat.
The region's states have a legislative history of granting local
governments their own regulatory authority or "home rule."
In 1957, Massachusetts passed the first law in the country
allowing the establishment of community-based conserva-
tion commissions to protect local natural resources, including
wetlands (Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40, Section
8c). Other states In the Northeast adopted similar enabling
legislation shortly thereafter. Home rule can be tailored to the
needs of an individual community and often includes wetland
protection requirements that are stronger than state and fed-
eral wetland laws. Thus, many communities in North Atlantic
states have adopted wetland bylaws to provide extra protec-
tion for their wetland resources.
Massachusetts, Connecticut,
New Hampshire, and Rhode
Island have enabled municipal
conservation commissions to
protect natural resources to
varying degrees (ELI, 2008). In
Massachusetts, local conserva-
tion commissions are primarily
responsible for implementation
of state wetland regulations.
The conservation commissions
review projects and issue wet-
land permits for both fresh-
water and tidal wetlands (ELI,
2008), and 195 communities
(out of 351) have adopted local
wetland bylaws that are typi-
cally more stringent than state
regulations (MACC, 2006). In
Connecticut, municipal inland
wetland commissions serve
this role for non-tidal wetlands
(Connecticut General Statutes,
Chapter 440) while the state
Department of Environmental
Protection implements the tidal
ATLANTIC OCEAN
Figure 7. Watersheds of Natfena! Estuaries: Programs in the North
Atlantic region. SoiMte; U.S. EPANatjmallMt^le^Pto^m.
wetland permit program (CTDEP, 2009).
The North Atlantic region hosts numerous federal, regional,
and state agency programs that protect, restore, and conserve
coastal wetlands. This includes eight NEPs (Figure 7), five
National Estuary Research Reserve System sites, and interstate
agencies like the New England Interstate Water Pollution
Control Commission (which includes all six New England
states plus New York). This region is also home to numerous
watershed organizations and the Association of State Wetland
Managers, which provides information and assistance to state
wetland program managers nationwide.
Restoration efforts in Northeast states have focused on salt
marsh and dune restoration and on the removal or renova-
tion of hydrologic modifications such as dams and culverts.
In New Hampshire, the U.S. Department of Agricultures
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), along
with various private and nonprofit groups, restored 35 salt
marshes in 12 years for a total of 700 acres, primarily through
the removal of tidal restrictions (NHCP, 2002). The Con-
necticut DEP (CTDEP) has completed more than 70 tidal
projects, which have restored 1,700 acres of tidal wetlands
(CTDEP, 2010). The Gulf of Maine Coastal Program (2011)
established by USFWS, restores and improves the biological
productivity of salt marshes. In the last decade, they have car-
ried out 75 projects and restored
2,560 acres of coastal wetlands. In
December 2010, with the com-
pletion of a salt marsh restoration
project in the town of Brewster
on Cape Cod, Massachusetts
celebrated 1,000 acres of wetland
restoration projects across the
state. The Massachusetts Depart-
ment of Fish and Game's Division
of Ecological Restoration (DER)
has overseen more than 62 resto-
ration projects since 1998.
The Wetlands Reserve Program
(administered by NRCS) is
actively involved in protecting
wetlands in the North Atlantic
region. It is a voluntary pro-
gram that offers landowners the
opportunity to protect, restore,
and enhance wetlands on their
property with technical and
financial support from NRCS.
NRCS seeks to achieve the great-
est wetland functions and values,
along with optimum wildlife
habitat, through easements and
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review?
8
-------
restoration projects (NRCS, 2011).
North Atlantic Gaps and Needs
Hie small geographic area of the North Atlantic region has
afforded it the opportunity to effectively incorporate aerial
imagery into state regulatory programs. Wetland mapping
based on high-resolution aerial imagery has been critical
to successful enforcement in Massachusetts in particular.
Wetland inventory efforts have also occurred in New York
(NYDEC, 2010). In Rhode Island, the Army Corps used
aerial photos and geographic information systems (GIS) to
assess degraded or filled coastal wetlands between 1999 and
2008. As part of the project, over 13,000 acres of wetlands
were mapped (Army Corps, 2008). GIS databases are used
in several other North Atlantic states to track permitting and
wetland impacts (NOAA, 2006).
In summary, tools and strategies identified by the Coastal
Wetlands Team for the North Atlantic Region include:
• Strong state and local regulations.
Use of aerial imagery to produce wetland maps for monitor-
ing wetland acreage loss and compliance with wetland laws.
Local wetland protection.
• Wetland restoration, including removal or renovations of
tidal restrictions and dams.
• Partnerships (e.g., watershed associations, New England
Biological Assessment of Wetlands Workgroup, the Cor-
porate Wetlands Restoration Partnership, NEPs, NRCS'
Wetlands Reserve Program).
In addition to identifying coastal wetland stressors and the
tools and strategies to address them in the North Atlantic
region, the Coastal Wetlands Team gathered baseline informa-
tion related to needs and gaps. In general, there appeared to
be a need for:
• High-resolution aerial imagery coverage for entire region
that can be used to produce wetland maps.
• Tools and strategies to help states adapt to wetlands threats
from climate change impacts.
• Increase in resources (staffing and funding at both the state
and local levels) to administer regulatory programs, con-
duct monitoring and assessment, ensure accurate wetland
mapping, and conduct effective outreach programs to
homeowners, real estate agents, developers, conservation
commissions, etc.
• A comprehensive wetland permitting, mitigation, and res-
toration database, with a GIS interface, to enable permitted
wetland acreage losses to be compared to aerial imagery.
• Local conservation commission training, standardization
of procedures, record-keeping, and other local capacity-
building to more effectively conserve coastal wetlands at the
local level.
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review?
-------
Focal Watershed Review: Cape Cod Watershed
Introduction
Compared to the other regions surveyed in the 2008 Status
and Trends report, the North Atlantic region experienced
the least amount of wetland loss from 1998 to 2004 (T.
Dahl, personal communication, 2010). Nonetheless, losses
continue to occur as the result of a variety of stressors as
discussed above. The Cape Cod watershed (Figure 8),
located in southeastern Massachusetts (HUC 01090002),
was selected for the North Atlantic focal watershed review
by the Interagency Coastal Wetlands Workgroup for several
reasons. First, it appeared that effective tools and strategies
were being employed to address wetland loss, including
collection and organization of up-to-date wetland acre-
age loss maps developed by Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection (MassDEP). Secondly, compared
to the rest of the state, this watershed has a high percentage
of wetlands and a relatively high rate of wetland loss. Lastly,
there are two National Estuary Programs, Massachusetts
Bays (MassBays NEP) and Buzzards Bay (BBNEP) in this
watershed, as well as several active watershed groups with
broad-based memberships that are engaged in a number of
projects and programs to protect coastal wetlands.
The focal review watershed (Figure 8) includes the Eliza-
beth Islands, the islands of Nantucket and Martha's Vine-
yard, and the entire Cape Cod peninsula. The watershed
drains into Buzzards Bay, Cape Cod Bay, Nantucket
Sound, and Martha's Vineyard Sound. The area contains a
variety of habitats, including pine barrens, bogs, wet mead-
ows, wooded/shrub swamps, salt marshes, sand beaches,
and coastal dunes. It is a dynamic landscape that has been
altered over the years by erosion and accretion associated
with wind, waves, and storm events. The area continues
to experience population growth; the Cape Cod peninsula
and nearby islands led the state in housing development
between 2000 and 2005. Barnstable County, which encom-
passes the entire Cape Cod peninsula, was ranked the high-
est in population growth out of all Massachusetts counties
from 1930 to 1980 (Cape Cod Commission, 2008). The
unique natural surroundings continue to make the water-
shed a popular location to live, work, visit, and retire.
Coastal wetlands of the watershed support numerous
fish species (e.g., river herring, smelt, shad, trout), which
were formerly important components of commercial and
sustenance fishing in Massachusetts. Several of these species
have faced declining populations due to loss of habitat and/
or migration obstacles such as dams (MassBays NEP, 2010).
Additionally, several of the top commercial fishing landings
I
K 7r
CAPE COD Watershed
HUC 8
SJs,
ft
Lj^JM Jk
/ i
Figure 8. TheCape Cod HUC 8 watershed displayed With town boundaries!
Soum: MqssDEBW 0.
Figure 9. A piping plover next ttaa sign forbidding beachgoers from driving
offroad vehicles near the plover's nesting grounds. Courtesy Scott Hecker,
in value are species that spend some portion of their life
cycle in estuaries (e.g., flounder, herring, haddock, clam)
(NMFS, 2011). Beyond supporting fisheries, the coastal
wetlands of southeastern Massachusetts are home to several
federally protected endangered and threatened species,
including the roseate tern and piping plover, state-protected
species such as the diamondback terrapin, and 19 species of
native orchids (MA Department of Fish and Game, 2008).
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review?
10
-------
Focal Watershed Review: Cape Cod Watershed (continued)
Coastal Bank
Bluff or Sea Cliff,
0.8%
Coastal Beach, ,_Deep Marsh,
6.0% Open Water,
0.9%
Salt Marsh, 0.1%
Shallow Marsh
Meadow or Fen,
8.8%
_Shrub Swamp,
8.6%
, Wooded Swamp
Coniferous, 2.2%
Wooded Swamp
Mixed Trees,
35.4%
Wooded Swamp
Deciduous, 36.9%
Figure 10, Wetland loss by wetland type, 2005-2009;
total loss of 28.87 acres. Data source:MassDEP, 2010.
Transportation
Infrastructure,
0.5%
Other, 5.9%
Agriculture
Clearing
Unknown
Reason, 7.1%
Commercial
Development
Figure 11. Wetland loss by change type, 2005-2009.
Data source: MassDEP, 2010.
MassDEP has been systematically photographing and map-
ping wetland change since the early 1990s using 1:5,000
scale color infrared aerial photography These maps have
allowed the Department to quantify acreage losses and
enforce illegal fills. Data provided by MassDEP for the
focal watershed review indicate that freshwater decidu-
ous wooded swamp has been the wetland type lost at
the greatest rate (Figure 10) recently as well as in the last
decade. Cranberry bog activity and residential development
have been the main source (53.3 percent) of wetland loss
between 2006 and 2009 (Figure 11).
According to MassDEP (MassDEP, 2005), the vast major-
ity of the wetland acreage losses statewide have been less
than a half acre in size, and nearly 60 percent of the losses
between 1990 and 2001 occurred outside the state regula-
tory system (illegal or exempt activities). While investiga-
tions are still underway, it is likely, based on past experi-
ence, that a portion of the losses seen in this watershed
continue to be unpermitted. While Massachusetts' data
indicates a loss of 28.87 acres of wetlands within this water-
shed from 2005-2009, according to the available Army
Corps' permitting data for the state of Massachusetts, the
Table 1 Stressors, Tools and Strategies, and Gaps Identified by Participants During the Cape Cod Watershed CWR
Stressors
Tools and Strategies
Gaps and Needs
Coastal watershed
development
• Low impact development (LID)
• Local zoning/wetland bylaws
• Education and outreach (Circuit Riders)
• Watershed-based management
• Mitigation
• Additional outreach to homeowners
• More education and training of conservation com-
missions
Agriculture
• Enforcement
• High-resolution aerial imagery and mapping
• Mitigation
• Training on farm plan and local bylaws
• Strengthen exemption oversight and additional guid-
ance to clarify exemptions
Unregulated
alteration
• Enforcement
• High-resolution mapping
• Training of conservation commissions
• Education and outreach
• Local jurisdiction mapping
• More education and training of conservation com-
missions
• More enforcement publicity and higher penalties
Hydrologic
modifications
• High-resolution mapping
• Restoration/priority setting through assessments and
modeling
• Streamlined restoration process
• Tidal restriction restoration prioritization
• Funding
Nutrient
enrichment
• LID
• Watershed-based management
• Point source data in CAPS
• Funding
• More publicity and higher penalties
Water withdrawals
• Watershed-based management
• Assess impacts on coastal wetlands
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review
11
-------
Focal Watershed Review: Cape Cod Watershed (continued)
total permitted wetland impacts were 21.2 acres (16 acres
of non-tidal and 5-2 acres of tidal wetlands) between 2006
and 2009. The MassDEP dataset differs from CWA Section
404 permit data because it covers a different time frame,
and because it captures unauthorized losses and losses out-
side CWA jurisdiction (see Appendix C).
Table 1 summarizes key stressors, tools, and strategies to
address them and remaining gaps and needs for the focal
watershed review conducted for this region in southeastern
Massachusetts.
Stressors
The coastal wetlands of the Cape Cod watershed in south-
eastern Massachusetts, like coastal wetlands across much
of the North Atlantic region, have experienced anthropo-
genic manipulation for hundreds of years. Discussion at
the CWR identified five primary contributors to coastal
wetland loss:
Development
Hydrologic modifications
• Agriculture
• Unregulated wetland loss
• Nutrient enrichment
Coastal watershed development. Almost one-third of
Massachusetts' residents live in coastal communities (Mass
CZM, 2004). Although the Cape Cod watershed has seen
a slight decrease in population density since 2000, land
development has continued to impact coastal wetlands.
• Land conversion to residential/commercial development
(Figure 12). In addition to the demand for these land
uses, local zoning requirements can sometimes promote
sprawl and increase pressure on wetlands. Setbacks from
lot lines, streets, and other setback requirements (e.g.,
septic systems, onsite wells) can push development toward
wetland areas, particularly at the rear of land parcels.
Local Zoning bylaws can also promote sprawl develop-
ment by requiring large lots and wide road frontage.
• infrastructure. Participants noted that bridges, roadway
crossings, railroads can modify coastal wetland hydrology,
increase stormwater runoff, increase erosion and sedimen-
tation, and impede wildlife movement.
• Stormwater runoff. Stormwater runoff is directly con-
nected to coastal development. Over 10 percent of the
Note 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.
land area in southeastern Massachusetts is impervious
surface (Massachusetts Bays Program, 2010), which
results in changes to wetland hydrology. Stormwater run-
off also carries pollutants into wetlands and water bodies,
including nutrients, sediment, metals, and bacteria.
Hydrologic modifications. These modifications include
tidal restrictions (usually affecting estuarine wetlands)
and dams (usually affecting freshwater wetland systems).
Flooding and sediment accumulation commonly occurs
upstream of the restrictions, while water flows are reduced
to wetlands downstream of the restriction. Changes in
plant community can occur due to the changes in hydrol-
ogy, which can create opportunities for invasive species to
establish and spread.
• Tidal restrictions Engineering structures such as roads,
railroads, berms, dikes, and tide gates cause hydrological
change to coastal wetlands by reducing maximum flood-
ing levels and lowering salinity (Cape Cod Commission,
2001). Reductions in water levels and salinity may lead
Figure 12. Map ofCape Cod land conversion, displaying thelargeamount of
residential development in the area over a 40-year period. Source; Woods Hole
Re search Cen ter, 19M
Conversion of Land Cover
on Cape Cod, MA
from 1951 to 1990
TT>e Woods Hole Research Center
Sources: Ma&sGIS, 1996; Resource Mapping Project. UMass • Amherst, 1995.
L-uid Govt) Comwttd to:
NoChut(«
| Rttuknlul
| Commtrculflii&ftru]
UtVui Open
j RfcCttjlJOK.il
| Wute Dtspofil
| Tt*nt ./BonuvUnr;
Mmut£
I Golf
Open Lind
| Fortft
| Woody P«muua)
CjoplaafPutaM
| Cianbtiry Bog
j Mann*
Water/Wrtlaad
I Ocean
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review?
12
-------
Focal Watershed Review: Cape Cod Watershed (continued)
to replacement of native vegetation with more toler-
ant invasive species. Additionally, tidal restrictions are
responsible for fragmenting wetland ecosystems, which
reduces their capacity to store floodwaters (Cape Cod
Commission, 2001).
• Dams. There are over 3,000 dams in Massachusetts
(Figure 13; MassDEP, 2007). Dams impede water
flow, decrease oxygen levels, obstruct movement of silt
and nutrients, and change river bottom characteristics
(MA EEA, 2007). Dams alter the natural flow patterns
according to which plants and animals have evolved. For
example, the reproductive cycles of many aquatic organ-
isms are timed according to naturally occurring annual
flood cycles. Dam construction also impedes migration
of anadromous fish populations, preventing them from
spawning, dramatically reducing their numbers. By
reducing flow velocity and creating relatively stagnant
bodies of water, dams can change the wetland habitat
from riverine to more of a lacustrine environment, and
organisms adapt or die out according to their tolerance
to such changes. Dams also cause increases in water
temperature, threatening the survival of highly desir-
able coldwater fisheries, such as brook trout (MassDEP,
2007). Although more dams have been removed in
Massachusetts than any other Northeast state (MA EEA,
2011), and many more have been slated for removal,
participants noted that dam removal projects may gain
some attention due to increasing interest in hydropower
as a form of renewable energy.
Agriculture. Massachusetts ranks second in the country for
cranberry production, and the majority ol the states cran-
berry bogs are located in southeastern Massachusetts.
• Direct impacts. Cranberry bog farming has been a major
cause of wetland alteration in southeastern Massachu-
setts, responsible for approximately 21.6 percent of all
impacts between 2005 and 2009 (Figure 11), down from
nearly 50 percent of all losses from 1993 to 2005 (Mass-
DEP, 2010). According to MassDEP, direct wetland
impacts due to cranberry bog activity typically involve
conversion of wooded or shrub swamp to cultivated bog
and the incremental filling of wetlands when squaring-off
bogs (a term in MassDEP's wetlands regulations (CMR
10.04(c)(1)(d)), which refers to straightening irregular
boundaries). The Army Corps has not issued any permits
for cranberry bog expansions recently (they cite a decline
in the industry). However, it is also possible that losses
have continued due to unauthorized activities.
Massachusetts Dams
Figure 13. U * B ¦ i 3,000 dams in Massachusetts. Sowce:MA IIA,,2(Wt
• Indirect impacts. Fertilizers used in cranberry production
contain nitrogen, a key nutrient needed for cranberry
growth. Nitrogen dissolves into the bog irrigation water
and enters streams and wetlands as the water leaves the
bog. Different types of bogs have different nitrogen
loading rates. A small percentage of bogs in southeastern
Massachusetts are "flow-through" bogs, which are not
physically separated from streams or rivers. Unlike other
bogs, which are separated from water bodies by berms or
roads and often have adjacent recovery ponds to collect
runoff, flow-through bogs release the greatest amount
of nitrogen compared to more modern bog systems
that implement practices such as laser leveling, auto-
mated irrigation systems, and tailwater recovery systems
(BBNEP, 2010a).
» The Massachusetts Estuary Project's nutrient loading
model assumed that the annual net loading rate of
nitrogen from cranberry bogs is about 20.5 pounds of
nitrogen per acre of bog. This compares to an aver-
age of 15 pounds annually per septic system, about 5
pounds per acre of residential lawn, and about 13.5
pounds per acre of impervious surface, including
roads, driveways and parking lots (BBNEP, 2009).
Thus, communities working to address eutrophication
are looking carefully at all sources, and fertilizer from
cranberry bogs can be a significant one.
Unregulated alteration. In 2005, the State of Massachu-
setts determined that 59 percent of wetland alterations in
the MassDEP's Southeast Region (including the CWR
watershed) were due to unpermitted/illegal fills (MassDEP,
2005). These illegal fills were identified with MassDEP
wetland loss maps. The amount of wetland acreage loss
has significantly decreased compared to the first round of
aerial photography in the 1990s, presumably as a result of
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review?
13
-------
Focal Watershed Review: Cape Cod Watershed (continued)
deterrence. MassDEP aggressively imposes fines against
violators, publicizes the enforcement actions, and requires
restoration and/or mitigation. MassDEP is in the process of
field checking the most recent (2006—2009) data and, as of
the publication date of this report, has not yet determined
what percentage of the losses are attributable to illegal fills,
exempt activity, or are permitted losses.
Nutrient enrichment. Estuaries are particularly susceptible
to nutrient enrichment from fertilized lawns, septic sys-
tems, and other sources due to low flushing rates. Nutrients
discharged to the aquatic environment can lead to eutro-
phication and overall decline in ecosystem health, includ-
ing loss of eelgrass (important nurseries for bay scallops),
fisheries habitat and spawning grounds, and shellfish beds
(Massachusetts Estuaries Project, n.d.). Major sources of
nutrients in the watershed include septic systems, agricul-
ture, and runoff from lawns and impervious surfaces.
• Septic systems Much of the developed land within
the Cape Cod watershed is not sewered and residences,
as well as some commercial sites, rely on onsite septic
systems to dispose of wastewater to the ground. Septic
systems, each of which contains a holding tank (where
solids settle) and a leach field (which disperses the efflu-
ent into the ground, typically along trenches), are major
nutrient sources, even when they are properly installed,
maintained, and inspected on a regular basis. The sub-
surface geology of southeastern Massachusetts consists
of sand and gravel deposits, through which water flows
quickly with little pollution attenuation. As noted above,
the average septic system discharges 15 pounds of nitro-
gen annually. Collectively, these systems, especially where
they are concentrated on small lots near coastal water
resources, can contribute significantly to eutrophication.
• Agriculture Participants believe the main agricultural
concern in southeastern Massachusetts is discharges from
currently operating cranberry bogs and retired bogs.
• Lawns, Excessive fertilizer usage on residential and com-
mercial lawns and golf courses leads to nutrient runoff
during storms. More widespread use of lawn and land-
scaping companies may be resulting in more fertilizer
applied to lawns, but participants noted that commercial
applicators might actually have better practices than
individual homeowners since businesses have a financial
incentive not to over-apply.
, r-f , 'I ^
~ ~ -A 4 y WA REHA wiWare-wn ^ ,
Major Buzzards Bay Embayments f _
and Impaired {303d list) Waters > -
K ~:i = "Spared (303d list) wateis ^
' Cove
.tporlRh
West Br
MAR: V ri- - --1
V. . V. Red
matmpojsett Pocasat* V, " &ocm
ECPond ^ Harbor
^ TJ, Harbot," Squeteague
J
— Mattapo&ett
Hartxy _ ,r
Bay West Falrr
t
FALMOUTH
Quissel !
Harbo^^p
Figure 14. Major Buzzards Bay erribaymenTsand impaired waters Source:
BBNEPMWc.
Other stressors:
• Water withdrawals, Drinking water and irrigation water
are largely supplied by groundwater wells in the Cape
Cod watershed that tap into sand and gravel buried val-
ley aquifers. These aquifers are hydrologically connected
to surface waters. Groundwater withdrawals, especially
during summer and early fall when water tables are
typically at their lowest, can reduce streamflow and lake
levels, and can affect wetlands that border them by lower-
ing the water table and drying out soils.
» Coastal plain ponds, which occur in kettle-hole
depressions throughout southeastern Massachusetts,
naturally fluctuate and are inhabited by unique and
diverse plant and animal communities. The Massa-
chusetts Natural Heritage Program has listed over 40
plant and animal species that occur predominantly in
coastal plain ponds, including a number of very rare
and quite striking wildflowers. Groundwater withdraw-
als may interfere with natural pond fluctuations and be
detrimental to the distribution and presence of natu-
rally occurring shoreline vegetation. In particular, Mary
Dunn Pond, located in the Cape Cod watershed, has
been the subject of concern as well as scientific study.
McHorney and Neill (2007) investigated how changes
to water levels caused by water withdrawals affect the
distribution and persistence of shoreline plants.
» Participants noted that since 1999, a combination of
municipal water withdrawals, cranberry bog diver-
sions, and drought has led to the Mattapoisett River
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review?
14
-------
Focal Watershed Review: Cape Cod Watershed (continued)
in Buzzards Bay running dry on several occasions. In
2007, over one thousand feet of the river were dry
The reduced flow causes impacts to riparian habitats,
including border-
ing wetlands. These
municipal withdraw-
als are all within
sub-watersheds of the
Buzzards Bay water-
shed, so the state's
Interbasin Transfer
Act (1984) does
not apply (BBNEP,
2010a).
• Riparian alterations.
The Rivers Protection
Act (1996) established 200-foot riverfront protection
areas around most perennial rivers and streams in the
state. Many riverfronts were already historically devel-
oped, however, which altered riparian corridors.
• Boating. There are impacts to eelgrass beds from recre-
ational boating and fishing in Buzzards Bay and other
areas of the focal watershed. Boats and particular fishing
methods may damage eelgrass beds directly (via propel-
lers, moorings, etc.) and indirectly by stirring up sedi-
ment that blocks sunlight (Costa, 1988, n.d.). The Mass
Bays National Estuarine Program is conducting a project
to replace conventional moorings with helical anchors
and elastic ropes to begin to address some of the stress
put on eelgrass from boaters (Baker and Evans, 2010).
Tools and Strategies
A wide array of regulatory and non-regulatory tools and strate-
gies for addressing each of the five top stressors were discussed.
State regulatory programs. The Massachusetts Wetlands
Protection Act (Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 131,
Section 40, I960) was the first wetland protection law in
the country. It protects banks, freshwater wetlands, coastal
wetlands, beaches, dunes, tidal flats, marshes or swamps
bordering on the ocean, any estuary, creeks, rivers, streams,
ponds, lakes, and certified vernal pools. The act has broad
jurisdiction, including land subject to flooding (100-year
floodplains), the riverfront area (added by the Rivers Pro-
tection Act, 1996), and land underwater bodies.
The act is the backbone of wetland regulation in Massachu-
setts. It cites eight statutory interests for which protection
of wetlands is critically important: public and private water
supply, groundwater protection, prevention of pollution,
prevention of flooding, prevention of storm damage, wild-
life habitat, fisheries, and
shellfisheries. Under the
act, no one may "remove,
fill, dredge, or alter" wet-
lands without obtaining a
permit, called an "Order
of Conditions." The act's
regulations also apply to
activities in the "buffer
zone" of any vegetated
wetland, measured 100
feet from the edge of the
wetland. Jurisdiction also
extends to river corridors
within 200 feet of nearly all (except in the most heavily
urbanized areas) perennial rivers and streams.
Participants noted the following critical aspects of the state
regulatory program that are needed to address all of the
primary stressors:
• Wetland mapping and permit database (see "mapping
and assessment"). MassDEP uses a permit-tracking
database to crosswalk wetland acreage losses observed on
aerial ortho-photographs to actual permitted losses noted
in the wetland permit database. Any losses not tracked in
the database are immediately flagged as potentially illegal
alterations, which can then be investigated. All per-
mit applications (called "Notices of Intent") have been
entered into the database; with a few exceptions, though,
only applications filed since the system was completed
(i.e., late 2008) have been geolocated.
• Mitigation Any amount of vegetated wetland alteration
must be mitigated according to mitigation requirements,
with a few exceptions (i.e., exemptions, limited projects).
The state regulations require at least 1:1 replication (on
site and in kind) for permitted wetland impacts. A ratio
greater than 1:1 is required for variances. (Note: this pol-
icy differs from the federal mitigation rule. See Appendix
C.) No wetland mitigation banking is allowed (except for
one pilot mitigation bank authorized by special legisla-
tion in one watershed of the state) due to concerns about
how to fully account for and ensure replacement of all
wetland functions, and concerns that banking could
facilitate circumvention of the avoid-minimize-mitigate
protocol. Wetland impacts and associated mitigation are
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review?
15
-------
Focal Watershed Review: Cape Cod Watershed (continued)
allowed only after demonstration is made that project
impacts cannot be further minimized.
» The maximum allowable alteration of bordering veg-
etated wetland is 5,000 square feet, unless the project
qualifies for a variance (i.e., it must serve a proper pub-
lic purpose, an alternatives analysis must be completed
to demonstrate the absence of viable alternatives, and
impacts must be fully mitigated). Zero alteration of salt
marshes is allowed and a "no adverse impact" standard
applies to any alteration of a coastal dune. The perfor-
mance standard for salt marshes states: "A proposed
project in a salt marsh, in lands within 100 feet of
a salt marsh, or in a body of water adjacent to a salt
marsh shall not destroy any portion of the salt marsh.
Alteration in growth, distribution and composition
of vegetation shall be considered in evaluating adverse
effects on productivity."
(310 CMR 10.32(2))
» Conservation commissions are supposed to issue
Certificates of Compliance that certify a project has
been successfully mitigated according to the engi-
neering plans, calculations, and Order of Condi-
tions. However, MassDEP estimates that less than
half of all Certificates of Compliance are issued due
to lack of staff resources needed to conduct inspec-
tions (see "What's Needed, What's Missing?").
Wetland restoration: removing tidal restrictions.
The Massachusetts Division of Ecological Restoration
(MADER) is responsible for wetland and river restora-
tion projects in the state. It and its partners facilitate
projects, including dam removal and culvert replace-
ment, with the goal of restoring aquatic habitats and eco-
systems across the state (MA DER, 2011). DER serves as
a facilitator for wetland restoration projects by bringing
together partners, identifying sites, providing technical
assistance, and securing funding. Through January 2010,.
DER has completed 62 coastal wetland projects, restor-
ing over 800 acres (MA DER, 2011). See the "Eel River
Headwaters Restoration Project" highlight box for an
example of a DER project currently underway.
• Cape Cod Atlas of Tidally Restricted Salt Marshes.
The Atlas was designed for use by municipalities, state
and federal agencies, and other organizations and indi-
viduals seeking to prioritize and undertake salt marsh
restoration projects (Cape Cod Commission, 2001).
Dam removals. Since dam removal projects can help
improve flood management and overall natural capacity
of rivers, they are routinely permitted under the Wet-
lands Protection Act. Because of the number of dams
slated for removal and the number of groups interested
in seeking permits to remove them, MassDEP developed
a guide for permitting dam removals. The guide clarifies
and streamlines the regulatory review process so that the
wetland regulations are not an impediment to projects
that will benefit wetland and riparian ecology (MA EEA,
2007).
Removing or renovating tidal restrictions. A culvert is a
channel or drain that is installed under an embankment,
roadway, railroad, or recreational trail, usually to drain
water from one side of the embankment to the other.
Culverts are most often constructed of corrugated metal
Highlight: Eel River Headwaters Restoration Project.
Once completed, this collaborative restoration effort in
Plymouth, Massachusetts, will restore approximately 40 acres
offormer cranberry bogs to wetlands, including two miles of
stream channel. The project requires a variety of restoration
techniques including dam removal, culvert replacements,
habitat creation (e.g., stream channel construction, native
plantings) and habitat enhancement. The American eel and
river herring, in particular, will benefit from improved passage
and habitat. Additionally, restoration activities will improve
resiliency of the
local ecosystem
and offer additional
recreational oppor-
tunities to local
residents. Almost
$2 million has
been raised for the
project, the majority
from a U.S. Fish and
Wildlife grant. Proj-
ect partners include
the Town of Plym-
outh, USFWS, NRCS,
DER, MassDEP, The
Nature Conservancy,
American Rivers,
and the Corporate
Wetlands Restora-
tion Partnership.
Images af Eel River before restoration (top)
a n d't o date. Sour q?. MA: DER, 201$,
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review?
16
-------
Focal Watershed Review: Cape Cod Watershed (continued)
downstream divided the salt marsh and constricted
water flow into Cape Cod Bay. In 2006, NOAA
awarded the Town of Brewster and local and state
partners $1.65 million of Recovery Act funds to
begin the restoration of 20 acres of salt marsh and
3,000 feet of stream habitat. Once completed, the
project will allow herring greater access to nearly
400 acres of prime spawning habitat and hopefully
encourage re-establishment of native marsh grasses.?
Local wetland protection: bylaws and conservation
commissions In 1957, the Conservation Commission Act
(Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40, Section 8C)
authorized municipalities in Massachusetts to establish
conservation commissions through a vote of the local legis-
lative body. These conservation commissions, consisting of
volunteers who live in the community, administer the state
Wetlands Protection Act (over 6,000 Orders of Conditions
annually) and also enforce local wetland protection bylaws,
among other duties. About one-third of all communities in
Massachusetts have adopted local wetland bylaws that are
more stringent than Massachusetts' wetland laws/regula-
tions.
pipe or pre-cast concrete (box culverts). If improperly
sized or installed at the wrong elevation, culverts can
impede tidal flows. If not installed properly, they restrict
natural flows in tidal (as well as non-tidal) wetlands, lead-
ing to changes in hydrology, salinity, and plant composi-
tion (often allowing invasive species such as Phragmites
to become established and spread). Once restrictions
are removed or corrected, vegetation and wildlife can
return to their natural state (Cape Cod Commission,
2001). Participants noted that removing tidal restrictions
addresses both sea level rise (by allowing wetlands to
migrate inland) as well as invasive species (by eliminating
conditions conducive to their spread).
» Winsegansett Marsh, in the southwestern part of the
focal watershed, is one of many marshes affected by
a transportation infrastructure project. A road and
several footpaths divided the 30-acre marsh. To restore
it, four small culverts were replaced with larger ones.
Once tidal flow to the upper marsh improved, salinity
increased, causing invasive species to die off. According
to a survey by the Buzzards Bay NEP and local vol-
unteers, within just three years of project completion,
the native salt marsh grass Spartina patens increased
from 20 percent to 32 percent of vegetation coverage
(BBNEP, 2007).
» Partners for Fish and Wildlife's Dam Removal and Res-
toration Program is a collaborative USFWS program
that works with private landowners, conservation orga-
nizations, and state and federal agencies. The Program
seeks to identify, prioritize, and provide funding for the
removal or renovation of selected barriers. In con-
junction with dam removals or culvert replacements,
stream channels are being restored with the appropri-
ate physical dimensions, bed features, and instream
habitat. Completed projects benefit a variety of fish,
including diadromous Atlantic salmon, American shad,
alewife, blue-backed herring, and American eel, as well
as resident species, including brook trout, land-locked
Atlantic salmon, freshwater mussels, and other non-
game aquatic species,1
- One example of a Partners restoration project is
the Stony Brook project in Brewster, Cape Cod.
Stony Brook supports a large coastal wetland and
nearly 400 acres of habitat for river herring and
American eels. Roads, culverts, and a former mill site
1 fainjgBinfom3ftQij||BHtig//wwwi«
-------
Focal Watershed Review: Cape Cod Watershed (continued)
• The Town of Marshfield, located in the northern part of
the Cape Cod watershed, has bylaws in place that are more
stringent than the states Wetlands Protection Act. The
success of these bylaws is attributed to a 20-year history
of well-informed and well-educated local commissioners
who have worked to maintain a high retention rate and
mentor new members (see the "What's Needed? What's
Missing?" section, which notes high turnover among con-
servation commissioners as an issue of concern). Review
participants confirmed that the town regulations are very
effective and have been tested through litigation. They
further noted that it is important to keep the town counsel
well informed, seek legal advice when needed, and quickly
notify town counsel of any potential challenges.
• The Town of Falmouth worked with the Buzzards Bay
NEP to update their wetland regulations in the late
1990s. The process required 14 meetings over two years.
The town next made major updates in the late 2000s.3
Resource areas protected include: ".. .any freshwater or
coastal wetland; marshes; wet meadows; bogs; swamps;
Locus Map
• fa -1 Restriction Site
Wetland
Ocean
Pond or Lake
Local Road
Major Route
A/ Stream
/V Railroad
— TOWN OF —
FALMOUTH
Location of Selected
Salt Marsh Restrictions
lhJ» map wu pfQtfuQMl by Cup® Cod Gnmnrnsinii
cii»36Q.csra/?custld=FAl:38S:.
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review?
18
-------
Focal Watershed Review: Cape Cod Watershed (continued)
vernal pools; banks; reservoirs; lakes; ponds; streams;
creeks; beaches; dunes; estuaries; oceans; lands under
water bodies; lands subject to flooding or inundation
by groundwater or surface water; lands subject to tidal
action, coastal storm flowage or flooding; lands within
one hundred (100) feet of any of the aforesaid resource
areas" (Section 235-2, "Jurisdiction," amended AFTM
11-18-1996, Article 61, approved 4-30-1997).
Mapping and assessment The mapping of wetlands in
Massachusetts is considered advanced for both the region
and the nation. Massachusetts systematically and regularly
collects data on coastal wetland acreage losses occurring
outside of the regulatory system (see the "Wetland Loss
Mapping and Enforcement" highlight box).
• Unregulated fills, Once aerial photography has been
completed and interpreted, the next step is to categorize
and prioritize wetland losses that are observed and refer
them to one of MassDEP's four regional offices for fol-
low-up (Note: MassDEP contacts EPA to investigate any
suspected Section 404 violations). Further investigation
requires researching permitting databases to see if any
of the observed fills have been permitted. If no permit
information is found in the state permitting database,
MassDEP contacts the local conservation commission
to see if they are aware of the activity (local Orders of
Conditions are sent to MassDEP). MassDEP then con-
ducts a site visit and proceeds as it would with any other
suspected illegal wetland activity. MassDEP had funding
for one year to compare mapped wetlands to local permit
records and was able to quickly identify suspected areas
of unpermitted fills. Since exemptions are not reflected
in state or town records, a site visit is required to confirm
whether an unpermitted fill is exempt or illegal.
• Deterrence, Enforcement cases were published in news-
papers in an effort to alert and deter others who may have
intended to alter wetlands without a permit. Recently,
publicity has slowed because the majority of illegal fills
are less than half an acre in size. Some communities have
developed their own detailed wetland maps, which have
helped inform commissions of all wetland resources
within the community and have helped developers avoid
wetland areas when designing development plans.
• Data management Wetland mapping itself does not
reveal whether a wetland alteration is permitted or
unpermitted. The ability to connect map information to
Highlight: Wetland Loss Mapping and Enforcement
MassDEP has mapped wetlands across the entire state and, in
conjunction with permitting databases, has developed a well-
respected, highly credible system for tracking wetlands and
conducting enforcement against illegal fills.
Land coyer changes detected by comparing aerial maps from
1993 and 2000 led MassDEP to pursue criminal investigation
into cases where large wetland areas had been filled or altered
without a permit In 2004, MassDEP determined that approxi-
mately 59 percent of wetland loss across the entire state was
due to illegal fill (MassDEP, 2005), Starting in 2004, MassDEP
began to map each municipality in order to identify illegal
large-scale alterations (BBNEP, n.d.). Between 2003 and 2010
over $3 million in penalties from illegal tills have been collected
and 62 acres of wetlands have been restored. The production of
statewide wetland maps from digital imagery cost about $85
per square mile and took about four years to complete.
The Wetlands LossMapping Project isa major component ofthe
state's wetland protection program In 2010, however, enforcement
of wetland loss cases decreased to the lowest number since the
program began. This could be attributed to a number of factors,
including fewer cases warranting enforcement (suggesting deter-
rence of illegal tills) and state resource constraints limiting site visits
needed to ground-truth mapping and pursue enforcement cases.
These deep marshes (left) in WSitport, Massachflsffts, near Charlotte
White Road Were f I led i n for homes and lawns (rig ht). Source: fiSSSf fiA
permit data (both state and federal permitting databases)
is critical to making mapping a useful enforcement tool.
» Wetland Information Resource (WIRe) is MassDEP's
data management system, which integrates permitting
and enforcement records with wetland acreage loss
maps and other GIS maps,4 The integration of wetland
maps and permitting databases was made possible by a
three-year, $600,000 EPA grant.
4 For morelnformation on WIRe, see http://vwvw.migs.f f^deg/water^repure^wiremaa.htm,
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review?
19
-------
Focal Watershed Review: Cape Cod Watershed (continued)
• Local mapping. The Town of Acushnet, Massachusetts,
received a $7,500 grant from the Buzzards Bay NEP in
2008 to hire a consultant to digitize wetland boundaries
for parcels where the conservation commission has con-
sidered a permit application during the past five years.
This will allow the town to provide accurate information
on wetland boundaries to homeowners, realtors, and
developers. The conservation commission is requiring
that all future site plan submissions be in digital format
to facilitate routine updates of their wetland boundary
maps (Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy & Envi-
ronmental Affairs, 2008).
Training/education. Although many communities have more
stringent wetland protection bylaws than the state, enforcement
of these bylaws, as well as enforcement of the state Wetlands
Protection Act (which is also the responsibility of local conser-
vation commissions), can be hampered if conservation com-
mission members are not properly trained and educated. There
are no educational or training requirements to be a conserva-
tion commissioner, although the Massachusetts Association
of Conservation Commissions (MACC), the Massachusetts
Audubon Society, the Massachusetts Association of Wetlands
Scientists, and other groups offer several effective training
programs, including reading engineering blueprints, under-
standing stormwater runoff models, writing effective Orders of
Conditions, and delineating wetland boundaries in the field.
• Guidance documents. Guidance documents are a very
important tool to local conservation commissions. Coastal
Wetland Review participants mentioned that the state
guidance documents on dam removal (Dam Removal and
the Wetland Regulations, 2007, and Dam Removal in Mas-
sachusetts, 2007) are very effective. MACC has produced
a conservation commission manual and model wetland
bylaws. MACC also offers regular training sessions and
workshops for conservation commissioners, including
an annual meeting every March that attracts more than
1,000 attendees, the largest annual environmental gather-
ing in the state. In addition to MACC's guidance and
training, MassDEP has an active technical assistance
and training program to help conservation commissions
understand and implement state wetland regulations.
For example, MassDEP produced a wetland mitigation
(replication) manual in 2002. The manual is primarily
intended for conservation commissions, MassDEP staff,
and consultants. It provides specifications (hydrology,
soils, slope, and vegetation) for designing and monitor-
ing successful wetland replication projects. The intent of
the guide is to improve mitigation success and ensure that
these projects function as designed (MassDEP, 2002).
» Participants generally thought that how-to manuals and
guidance documents were very important and MassDEP
should produce more of them. It was also noted that they
could be more user-friendly, concise, and aimed at the
educational level of most conservation commissioners.
Delineation Wetland mapping is an effective tool to ensure
that permits do not allow alteration of wetlands that were
inadvertently excluded from protection due to mapping
errors, to help identify where illicit fill may be occurring, to
support enforcement actions, and to discourage potential
future violations. Knowing how to identify wetland bound-
aries in the field requires knowledge of plant identification,
soil interpretation, and other delineation methods. Wetland
delineation can be particularly challenging during the win-
ter months, when the ground is frozen and covered with
snow. This requires education and training of local officials.
» The MassDEP wetland conservancy maps, though
detailed, are at a scale of 1:5,000 feet, and show only
the larger core wetlands. They do not show all Wet-
lands Protection Act jurisdictional boundaries, and for
permitting, wetlands are always delineated based on
Before and after photographs of dam removal in sffmpCfj&en, MA Pfft fDvermtVi
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review?
20
-------
Focal Watershed Review: Cape Cod Watershed (continued)
field surveys and soil evaluations. A participant noted
one example of a particular area slated for development
that, upon examination, turned out to be 90 percent
wetland when jurisdictional lines were determined on
site, compared to 50 percent wetlands as determined
from the map that was provided.
» Marginal wetlands (such as wetland areas within a wide
transition zone from wetland to upland and intermittent
headwater streams) are more difficult to delineate without
an onsite inspection and in-depth training. The MACC
conducts wetland delineation courses but they are
optional, and not all conservation commissioners attend.
Wetland circuit riders. MassDEP's Wetland Circuit Rider
Program has been a very popular program for conserva-
tion commissioners because it offers personalized service
between local commissions and state wetland profes-
sionals. The idea for wetland circuit riders came from
the days when judges used to "ride circuit" from town to
town. Understanding that unpaid conservation com-
missions are the state s front lines of wetland protection,
and that fewer wetland permits are appealed if they are
properly drafted (about 10 percent of all local Orders
are appealed to MassDEP), MassDEP obtained fund-
ing from the Massachusetts Environmental Trust to hire
circuit riders for each of its four regional offices. The
circuit riders are available for phone consultation, but
also attend evening commission meetings to assist com-
missioners in understanding and administering the state
wetland regulations. Some towns have formed regional
commission meetings, where the circuit riders can
address several towns all experiencing the same problems.
In the western part of the state in particular, where many
smaller towns cannot afford to hire staff, circuit riders
are highly valued for their technical assistance. Unfortu-
nately, budget cuts have reduced the number of circuit
riders to only three statewide.
Developer pays. Participants mentioned some town
bylaws require the developer to pay the conservation com-
mission to hire its own wetland consultant to help review
and condition development plans to protect wetlands.
Consultant fees are usually based on total project costs.
» For example, a Falmouth bylaw states: "The Com-
mission, at its discretion, is authorized to require the
posting of a consultation fee by an Applicant. This fee
shall be used to hire an independent, expert consultant
to investigate the site for the proposed project and to
examine the Plans or other information submitted by
the Applicant to assist the Commission in evaluating
potential adverse impacts upon a Resource area by the
proposed project. This fee will be required in those
cases where the complexity of the activity, the difficulty
in determining the threat to the Resource areas or
the size of the request or project involves and requires
more information and analysis than can reasonably
be supplied to the Commission without independent
technical professional assistance" (Falmouth Wetland
Regulations, 10.09, "Fees").
• Hotlines. MACC has a hotline and Web forum to help
connect conservation commissioners to experts.
Collaborative partnerships. Collaborative partnerships are
strong and active throughout Massachusetts. The Massa-
chusetts Estuary Project, Cape Cod Commission, Compact
of Cape Cod Land Trusts, Partners for Fish and Wildlife
(mentioned above), local land trusts, watershed associations,
Provincetown Center for Coastal Studies, Buzzards Bay
Coalition, National Estuary Programs (MassBays and Buz-
zards Bay) and National Estuary Research Reserve (Waqu°it
Bay), Massachusetts Audubon Society (with 12 wildlife
sanctuaries in the watershed), Association for the Preserva-
tion of Cape Cod, Woods Hole Oceanograpbic Institution,
Cape Cod Cranberry Growers and Cape Cod Cranberry
Experiment Station, University of Massachusetts (UMass)
(with campuses in Dartmouth and New Bedford), and
many other organizations have a strong presence in the Cape
Cod watershed and challenge each other to better under-
stand and more effectively protect the coastal wetlands.
• National Estuary Program. The Buzzards Bay and Mas-
sachusetts Bays NEPs are actively engaged with their
partners to protect and restore coastal wetlands in the
Cape Cod watershed. Each NEP provides technical
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review?
21
-------
Focal Watershed Review: Cape Cod Watershed (continued)
support to local towns and partners in a variety of ways.
For example, the Buzzards Bay NEP has trained area con-
servation commissions and new conservation agents in
coastal wetland protection. The MassBays NEP has been
actively involved in monitoring coastal wetland condi-
tions and particularly addressing invasive wetland plants.
Both programs have helped their partners develop grant
applications for funding major land restoration projects.
• The NRCS helps cranberry farmers comply with wetland
regulations. Through the development and implementa-
tion of farm plans , the NRCS helps give farmers a road-
map for improving production while managing the natural
resource base that supports their operation in compliance
with applicable wetland regulations (NRCS, 2008a). Plans
have helped identify wetland impacts from cranberry
operations and aided farmers in voluntarily restoring them.
Participants cited the Southeastern Regional Wetland
Restoration Team as a newly formed group that is an
excellent example of interagency collaboration. It was
formed to better coordinate restoration project reviews.
The team consists of state and federal agency officials
(MassDEP DER, Massachusetts Division of Marine
Fisheries, NEPs, Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone
Management as needed, EPA Region 1, and the Army
Corps' New England District). This review process can
help facilitate a streamlined permitting process and iden-
tify any issues early in the process so redesign can occur
before major investments have been made.
Strategies for nutrient removal. Watershed-based manage-
ment and TMDLs (Total Maximum Daily Loads) were a
few of the many tools and strategies discussed by review
participants.
• The Massachusetts Watershed-Based Plan (WBP). EPA
issued new guidelines in 2003 promoting the use of
CWA Section 319 funding for developing and imple-
menting Watershed-Based Plans to protect unimpaired
waters and restore impaired waters. MassDEP's approach
has been to develop the WBP statewide. WBP is an
interactive, Web-based tool that presents sub-watershed
information in a format that will enhance the develop-
ment and implementation of projects that restore water
quality and beneficial uses in the state.5
• Massachusetts Estuaries Project. This is a collaborative
effort between MassDEP and University of Massachu-
setts' School of Marine Science and Technology to pro-
vide water quality, nutrient loading, and hydrodynamic
information for 89 estuaries in southeastern Massachu-
setts. This information will be combined using a linked
watershed/estuary model that will predict the water qual-
ity changes that will result from land use management
decisions.
• TMDLs. MassDEP has developed aTMDL strategy that
prioritizes all listed water bodies, establishes TMDLs for
degraded waters, and plans for implementation of best
management practices to clean up polluted water bodies.6
Overarching strategy in the state is to develop nitrogen
TMDLs for coastal waters and phosphorous TMDLs for
coastal ponds.
» The Buzzards Bay NEP developed a TMDL strategy—
contained in the 1991 Buzzards Bay Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plan—to manage
anthropogenic nitrogen inputs to coastal embayments.
This work set the stage for DEP to adopt TMDLs
based on more elaborate models more than a decade
later. Today, a major focus of the Buzzards Bay NEP
is helping municipalities comply with recommended
nitrogen loading limits.
What's Needed? What's Missing?
Despite the above-described array of tools and strategies
for addressing stressors to coastal wetlands in southeast-
ern Massachusetts, participants identified several gaps
5 S#e the MasiachQsettsVVBP website: http://public.dep5tMe;Tia.usWMefsh«^/lntEaaspx.
6 S^e the MassschusettsTflDL website: http://wwwjr>ass,g®i'dep/water/fesources/OTid]fs.htm.
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review?
22
-------
Focal Watershed Review: Cape Cod Watershed (continued)
in resources and regulations. They expressed the need to
address these gaps to enable more effective application of
tools and strategies to protect and restore the watershed's
wetlands.
Increase deterrence. MassDEP's Wetlands Loss Mapping
Project and follow-up enforcement actions are designed to
be an effective deterrent to illegal wetland alterations, but
two gaps need to be filled to keep deterrence strong:
• Publicity, In the first few years of the Wetlands Loss
Mapping Project, some high-profile enforcement cases
received a lot of publicity through major media outlets
(television news, the Boston Globe, etc.). Participants
believed that such high-visibility reporting served as a
major deterrent and suggested that renewed publicity
of enforcement cases, even lower-profile cases in local
papers, could help act as a deterrent.
Highlight: Conservation Assessment and Prioritization System (CAPS)
CAPS is a landscape-level model that predicts ecological integrity based on GIS-driven metrics representing stressors on the landscape
(e.g., habitat loss, buffer zone impacts, road traffic intensity, non-native invasive plants) or resiliency (e.g., connectedness, aquatic
connectedness, and similarity), The output of CAPS is the Index of Ecological Integrity (IHI), a weighted combination of metric outputs
yielding a score ranging from 0 to 1 for each 30-square-meter point on the landscape for purposes of:
• Assessing wetland condition and better understanding the causes of stress.
• Reporting to EPA under Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act.
• Developing tiered or continuous aquatic life use models to better monitor resource improvement.
• Developing policy guidance and regulation.
In 2006, MassDEP adopted CAPS to identify potentially important wildlife habitat. High-quality habitat areas are defined as the top 40
percent of CAPS-identif ed sites.
Recently, CAPS metrics were developed to characterize coastal stressors, including tidal restrictions, tidal ditching, human disturbance,
and beach hardening, allowing for coastai IEI assessment.
As part of the Massachusetts wetland
monitoring and assessment effort, site-
level assessment methods (SLAMs) have
been developed for forested wetlands
and salt marshes. Additional SLAMs
will be developed if funding is avail-
able. Data collected in accordance with
the SLAMs are being used to correlate
site condition with the CAPS stressor
gradient to develop Indices of Biologi-
cal Integrity (IBIs). These I Bis represent
individual taxa or assemblages of taxa
that are most responsive to environmen-
tal degradation. Wetland assessment of
a site's biological condition relative to its
landscape context is then based on the
relationship between the CAPS IEI (i.e.,
constraints on biological condition from
the surrounding landscape) and IBI (i.e.,
actual condition of a site based on field
assessments).
CAPS data and maps can be found online at http://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/caps/caps.html.
Index of Ecological
Integrity
Integrity
metrics
The CAPS Analysis
Land cover
map
GISdata
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review?
-------
Focal Watershed Review: Cape Cod Watershed (continued)
• Higher penalties. Currently, penalties for wetland viola-
tions average between $5,000 and $15,000. Participants
felt that increased penalties would provide more effective
deterrence. In addition, participants felt some or all of
the penalties collected should be dedicated revenue to
support the wetland-mapping program, as opposed to
the state's general fund.
Improve data and mapping tools. Participants identi-
fied a number of data needs
and mapping tools needed
to improve coastal wetland
protection.
• Permitting databases.
Ability to access the Section
404 permit database would
be highly valuable to the
public as well as government
agencies, so they can cross-
check permits issued with
wetland losses identified on
MassDEP's maps. Partici-
pants noted this as critical to
tracking losses and suggested that more effort be put into
ensuring accessibility of the information. In addition,
MassDEP has a new and innovative wetland permit-
ting database called the WIRe. MassDEP developed
new electronic permit forms that will allow data to auto
populate the database. However, not all communities
in Massachusetts have been using the WIRe because of
performance problems that are plaguing the larger DEP
system. Those issues are currently being addressed and it
is anticipated that the WIRe database will be more fully
functional in the near future.
• Virtual site visits. Participants emphasized the importance
of site visits conducted by conservation commissions. It
was suggested that a tool be developed to enable virtual
site tours, considering that many commissioners are not
inclined to do field work, especially in winter conditions.
• Mapping.
» CAPS. CAPS and SLAMs continue to be developed for
coastal wetland ecosystems; however, there are currently
gaps in the metrics, including data on point sources
(sewer, septic, etc.) and toxic contamination zones.
» LiDAR. In the future, MassDEP should look into
partnering with USGS as they conduct LiDAR flights.
This could help gather and map wetland data at the
regional level. Additionally, successful restoration
revolves around good topography data that can be
developed from LiDAR.
• Tidal restrictions. Participants felt there was a need for
more research and data to assess impacts of tidal restric-
tions. Restrictions and associated indicators are difficult
to identify from aerial imagery and comprehensive assess-
ments are hampered by lack
of accurate digital elevation
models (DEMs). LiDAR data
would help improve DEMs
and subsequent modeling.
Improve wetland mitigation.
Mitigation is referred to as
"replication" in Massachu-
setts, because state regulations
require wetland mitigation to
replace the type of wetland
lost (onsite, in-kind mitiga-
tion). A study conducted on
replication success found over
50 percent of projects permitted between 1983 and 2004
were not in compliance with the mitigation requirements
in their permits for a number of reasons, including insuffi-
cient areal extent and lack of appropriate hydrology (Brown
and Veneman, 2001). More recently, the Army Corps' New
England District reported that, based on its compliance
inspections of activities permitted under CWA Section 404
(2007—2011), approximately 73 percent of all projects that
included compensatory mitigation requirements were in
compliance with the permit conditions. Replications can
fail for a variety of reasons, including lack of long-term
monitoring and maintenance as well as difficulty in holding
developers accountable once projects are complete and sub-
division lots are sold to individual owners. Mitigation sites
can be difficult to identify from aerial images because they
are either too small relative to the resolution of the imagery
or have not yet developed pronounced enough wetland
hydrology signatures to be detected remotely. Comprehen-
sive tracking requires site visits, such as those conducted
for the above examples, making enforcement of mitigation
requirements time-consuming.
On-site replication often results in loss of wetland function
because small, created wetlands rarely perform the variety of
functions that natural wetlands perform. The Army Corps'
New England District has been working with the state to
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review?
24
-------
Focal Watershed Review: Cape Cod Watershed (continued)
develop a broader watershed approach to compensatory miti-
gation that will encourage the strategic selection of mitigation
site locations and the implementation of mitigation plans that
are most likely to improve or sustain aquatic resource func-
tions in the watershed. Additional compensatory mitigation is
often required to comply with the requirements of the CWA
Section 404 program.
• Few Certificates of Compliance issued. According to the
Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, "No work shall
be undertaken until the Order has become final and then
has been recorded in the Registry of Deeds." However,
these orders are not always recorded at the Registry and
some towns do not have mechanisms to track the record-
ing. To release the recording of the order and clear the
property title, a Certificate of Compliance is required. If
the order was never recorded, a Certificate of Compli-
ance may never be sought. Certificates of Compliance are
supposed to involve a post-construction site inspection.
Without a process for conducting those inspections and
issuing Certificates of Compliance, it is not clear whether
or not projects are complying with all of the conditions
in the Orders of Conditions. A recommended process
is needed to ensure that project proponents file their
permits with the Registry of Deeds, which is the primary
incentive for filing a request for a Certificate of Compli-
ance. It was noted that some towns take responsibility
for filing the Order of Conditions with the Registry of
Deeds, and require filing fees from the applicant as part
of the permit application process.
• Lack of wetland replication monitoring guidance.
Although MassDEP issued guidance on how to design,
build, and monitor replication sites in 2002 (www.mass.
gov/dep/water/laws/replicat.pdf), participants mentioned
the need for more guidance to ensure success of wetland
replication. It was suggested that a bond be posted for
replication projects to ensure better long-term manage-
ment of projects. The bond could be released once the
replication site is fully functioning, upon issuance of the
Certificate of Compliance.
Strengthen exemption oversight. Participants were con-
cerned about confusion among both developers and local
conservation commissions over whether certain activities
are exempt from review and what level of review is required.
• Federal program categories. Participants indicated
that project proponents may not know the difference
between regulations for navigable (tidal) waters and
inland (non-tidal) waters. Projects filling less than 5,000
square feet of non-tidal wetlands typically qualify for the
Massachusetts General Permit under Category 1, which
does not require pre-construction notification or writ-
ten authorization. Participants expressed concern that
project proponents doing work in tidal wetlands may be
incorrectly assuming work is authorized under Category
1, when it actually requires a Category 2 permit applica-
tion and written authorization or an individual permit.
(See Appendix C for more information on individual vs.
general permits.)
• Agricultural exemptions. Consistent with the normal
farming activities exemption in Section 404, the Massa-
chusetts Wetlands Protection Act exempts work per-
formed for the normal maintenance or improvement of
land in agricultural use provided the land in agricultural
use retains its exemption status. (It is important to note
that exemptions are limited; not all agricultural activities
are exempt; and some exempt activities are subject to best
management practices.) It should also be noted that agri-
cultural exemptions for "normal farming" activities are
defined in the 404 regulations as "plowing, seeding, cul-
tivating, minor drainage and harvesting..." The exemp-
tion does not include conversion of wetlands to agri-
cultural use. Any expansion of the cranberry operation
would require a 404 permit. Participants suggested that
these regulations could be clarified by the development
of additional guidance and follow-up inspection and
enforcement where the guidance is not being followed.
Exemptions usually apply to minor impacts, but there
may be some lack of clarity about what is exempt and
what is not. There may also be uncertainty among grow-
ers about which wetlands areas are within jurisdiction.
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review?
25
-------
Focal Watershed Review: Cape Cod Watershed (continued)
In addition to clarifying exemptions, participants voiced
support for adding a provision in the state regulations
that would capture secondary impacts (e.g., erosion)
from exempt activities.
• Buffer zones. There is a lack of consistent protection for
the buffer zone (a 100-foot area bordering vegetated wet-
lands). Some conservation commissions make buffer areas
jurisdictional under local wetland bylaw authority, but
most do not have sufficient authority to protect buffers.
Increase education and training for local conservation
commissions. Commissions, for the most part, are com-
posed of citizens who need to be trained and educated on
wetland issues in order to effectively enforce town bylaws.
Review participants estimated that it takes new commission-
ers one to two years to "come up to speed" on town conser-
vation matters, which is often difficult to achieve with high
turnover rates. Given the degree of power the commissions
hold to protect wetlands within each municipality, it is criti-
cal to have a trained conservation commission staff to help
properly and effectively implement state and local wetland
laws, especially as wetland regulations become more com-
plex. Participants noted the increased efficiency of town-
state interactions regarding wetland cases when conservation
commissions have a professional conservation agent.
• Survey of conservation commissions reveals gaps and
needs. UMass Extension, in cooperation with MACC
and the Citizen Planners Training Collaborative, in
anticipation of developing a technology-based land-use
education program, surveyed almost 1,000 members
of local planning boards, zoning boards, and conserva-
tion commissions across the state. The response rate for
Figure 16 NRCS provided funding.to replafi? an undersized culvert with a
Massach usetts. Source: NRCS; 2008b.
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review?
conservation commissioners was over 60 percent. The
responses revealed some interesting challenges:
» 35 percent of conservation commissions have open seats
and 28 percent of those have two or more seats open.
» 46 percent of commissioners indicated difficulty in
finding people willing to serve.
» 15 percent reported that they have no members with
expertise or experience relevant for the technical review
of projects before their commissions.
» 15 percent reported that their commission has little
or no understanding of key Wetlands Protection Act
concepts and 11 percent reported they had little or no
understanding of enforcement options available under
the act.
» 27 percent of commissions report that they have little
or no access to staff" and rely on commission members
for technical review and ensuring that proposed proj-
ects meet the regulatory requirements of the Wetlands
Protection Act.
• Targeted training Review participants recommended
that several groups of people be provided with training
in addition to conservation commission members: town
attorneys, real estate agents, and selectmen were all noted
as potential audiences. Town attorneys usually have broad
knowledge due to the wide array of cases they litigate
but are often are not well versed in environmental laws.
Real estate agents are "on the front line" when it comes
to developing land and an effort to help them under-
stand the wetland regulations may help reduce illegal fill
box Culvert, restorlngSSScres of SesujtCfteksalt marsh in Dennis,
26
-------
Focal Watershed Review: Cape Cod Watershed (continued)
activity. Lastly, boards of selectmen are responsible for
appointing conservation commissioners and therefore
could benefit from a better understanding of the techni-
cal knowledge needed by those whom they appoint.
• User-friendly guidance documents. Participants men-
tioned several potential methods for training conserva-
tion commissioners including websites and webinars,
but noted that these online resources are not always
user-friendly. Some noted it would be very useful to have
a basic primer and/or summary guidance document that
a conservation commissioner could reference whenever
there is uncertainty about state regulations and how
federal regulations are triggered.
• Conservation agents, State regulators noted that towns
with local conservation agents (paid professional staff)
are more efficient and more likely to write effective and
defensible wetland permits than towns without paid staff.
• Streamline the restoration permitting process.
Participants agreed there is a need to streamline the entire
regulatory process for restoration. Massachusetts Wet-
lands Protection Act and 401 Water Quality Certification
regulations include provisions for expedited review of res-
toration projects (i.e., 310 CMR 10.32(6) and 314 CMR
9.06(8)), but permitting of restoration projects can be
delayed by flooding issues, sediment analysis, and com-
pletion of design components that were not final when
the permit application was filed. Additional recommen-
dations for streamlining permitting while maintaining the
same or better protection would be helpful. Restoration
grant funding often will not cover the cost of conducting
feasibility studies, which are required for permitting.
» As a part of this Coastal Wetland Review, EPA
Region 1 committed to convening key federal and
state agencies to make progress on streamlining
permitting for salt marsh restoration.
• Tidal restrictions. The analyses required for restoration
projects involving tidal restrictions are time-consuming
and costly (e.g., MassDEP verifies culvert engineer-
ing, NRCS needs approval/sign-off from abutting land
owners, and up to five separate wetland permits may be
required). The state's strict standards limiting salt marsh
alteration can also be a stumbling block, even though
restorations are usually designed to improve and increase
salt marsh habitat.
» Information and data for planned transportation
projects are not being shared with the public far
enough in advance. It would be helpful to know before
the design phase even begins whether tidal restrictions
will need to be addressed or if the project could provide
an opportunity for redesigning an existing tidal restric-
tion.
» The analyses needed to determine if there will be flood-
ing from a restoration project upstream of the structure
require a lot of time and money and typically attract a
high level of participation from abutting landowners
who perceive that their land may be more subject to
flooding after removal of a tidal restriction. This type
of analysis can often be more expensive than the cost of
removing the restriction. Transportation improvement
projects could more routinely include the opening of
numerous culverts if there were resources and expertise
available. Analyses become more complicated in the
headwaters of embayments and in tidally restricted salt
ponds, where there are not enough tidal gauges to get
accurate surface water elevations.
» Participants felt that the Federal Emergency Manage-
ment Agency (FEMA) should be more involved with
the tidal restriction restoration program. FEMA's
involvement would be beneficial in some of the larger
projects including retrofitting old tidal restrictions.
Flood zones in coastal areas in Massachusetts may need
to be remapped to consider restriction restorations.
» The threat of sea level rise complicates restoration
projects. The estimates the state is using now (1 to 3
feet by the end of the century) should be translated
to more specific projected increases along the coast so
that those elevations can be taken into account during
project design.
• Guidance document. There is a need for a guidance
document on removing tidal restriction, similar to the
existing guidance document created for dam removal. A
point of contact has been established at MassDEP to help
address tidal restriction issues, but a simple, step-by-step
process and suggested permit conditions would facilitate
review and approval of these projects.
» There is a need to have expertise available to help expe-
dite the hydrologic studies needed to properly evaluate
these projects and ensure there are not adverse effects
on the public.
• Bundling permits Larger restoration projects may present
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review
-------
Focal Watershed Review: Cape Cod Watershed (continued)
an opportunity to bundle restoration project permits
together for concurrent review and a consolidated set
of conditions. The Massachusetts Environmental Policy
Act has a special expedited review process for particular
restoration projects. This process might be used to jointly
develop all of the wetland permits required for a restora-
tion project.
» The Army Corps' general permits program has been
revised to include restoration activities in category 2
(optional individual permit) provided that they result
in net increases of function (Army Corps, 2010). Par-
ticipants suggested that the concept of a general permit
for restoration might be potentially transferable outside
of New England.
More cross-program integration. Participants made several
suggestions for improving cross-program integration.
• Regional collaboration Participants highlighted the need
for collaboration at all levels and with all available parties
to arrest the trend in acreage loss and degradation, espe-
cially in light of severe constraints on funding and staff
resources. As noted in the "Tools and Strategies" section,
participants felt that the Southeastern Regional Wetlands
Restoration Team is a good model for regional collabora-
tion. It would be useful to convene a group of this type
in the northeast regional office, which covers the Boston-
area coastline north to the New Hampshire border.
• Watershed-based management. The need for watershed-
based management approaches is made clear when water
diversions and withdrawals from rivers lead to fish kills
and other negative ecological impacts. There is a press-
ing need to consider the impact of upstream activities on
downstream resources and manage impacts more com-
prehensively. Participants felt that this approach would
need to be expressly authorized before communities and
agencies would begin to use it.
• Wastewater planning. Onsite septic systems and cess-
pools continue to be major sources of nutrient impacts
on coastal wetlands.
• Wetlands as best management practices. Debate is
currently underway within the Massachusetts Estuar-
ies Project to determine whether wetland attenuation of
pollution is a tool that should be used as part of aTMDL
implementation strategy.
» Wetlands play an important role in nutrient cycling, and
constructed wetlands might be able to attenuate pollution
without compromising natural wetland systems.' More
research is needed to fully understand the nutrient assimi-
lative capacity of constructed wetlands in New England
as well as the uptake capacity and associated impacts of
nutrients on restored wetland systems (i.e., those with
treatment cells or constructed wetlands built anterior to
entry of the discharge into the natural wetland).
• State revolving fund (SRF), Although participants
thought that coastal wetland restoration projects would
be eligible for SRF loans because of their potential to
improve water quality and habitat, it was noted that,
due to other demands for these funds, this would require
public and political support.
J5I
//*
:
v-
'y+y -*¦'
/V
7 Use of lakffiiSKams, ®et1ands,and otherwatersfor treatment of pollution is prohibited (40-CFR1313®jp§
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: NOrth Atlantic Review?
28
-------
Conclusion
The North Atlantic coastal wetland review is the third in
a series that the EPA Coastal Wetlands Team con-
ducted. The team has gained a greater understanding of
coastal wetland loss in the region, including important
insights into the causes of these losses. Several themes
emerged during the Cape Cod focal watershed review:
Development pressures are a growing concern for
directly and indirectly causing coastal wetland loss.
Hydrologic alterations, including dams and tidal restrictions
are also major stressors, for which concerted restoration
efforts are underway, though much remains to be done.
Agriculture, specifically cranberry bog activities, contin-
ues to be a major source of wetland conversion, although
the rate of loss due to this stressor is declining.
MassDEP's Wetlands Loss Mapping project has proven
to be an effective deterrent to wetland losses, and has
likely contributed to the approximately two-thirds less
wetland loss annually in recent years compared to when
the project first started.
Even with very stringent state and local wetland laws,
most of the wetland losses are occurring outside the
regulatory programs.
Wetland mitigation needs to be better monitored and
mitigation requirements need to be enforced at the local,
state and federal levels of government to avoid losses due
to ineffective or non-functional wetland mitigation.
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:
• Massachusetts is a leader in the nation for wetland map-
ping and assessment. While the states Wetlands Loss
Mapping Project is effective at assessing losses in the areal
extent of wetlands, the CAPS and SLAMs models allow
for evaluation of ecological function and biological values
of wetlands. In the future, when these tools are used in
combination with one another, Massachusetts will have the
ability to comprehensively assess the status and trends of
wetlands in the state including functionality of wetlands.
• Restoring wetlands that have been restricted by struc-
tures such as dams and tidal culverts is another practice
that could be transferred to other regions, with similar
beneficial impacts to coastal wetlands. Massachusetts^
Darn Removal Guidance could be a model for other
states, which can modify the guidance as appropriate to
address state-specific regulations.
• State and local regulatory protection of wetlands has
existed in Massachusetts and other states of the North
Atlantic for more than 50 years. Local conservation
commissions are responsible for ensuring that local
bylaws are followed and enforced. These commissions
have developed local tools and strategies that could be
transferable to other states that grant local environmen-
tal authority to their counties, cities, or towns.
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:
• Training of conservation commission members necessary in
order to ensure that local bylaws are understood and prop-
erly enforced. Training, aided by the Circuit Rider Program,
has been substantially reduced due to funding cuts.
• Updating the WIRe database with past permit data and
encouraging local communities to use the online system
will allow the state to have a robust central repository of
wetland maps and permit data.
• Development of additional SLAMs for wetland com-
munity types such as shrub swamp and emergent so that
all wetland types can be assessed in a scientifically sound
manner.
• Streamlining restoration permitting was identified as a
critical step to encouraging tidal restriction removal and
successful restoration projects. EPA Region 1 volunteered
to take the lead role in conducting such an effort together.
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review?
-------
Acknowledgments
Many people contributed to this 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 Charlie Costello,
Lealdon Langley, and Lisa Rhodes from MassDEP; Scott
Jackson from UMass Extension's Natural Resources and
Environmental Conservation Program; Joe Costa, John
Rockwell, and Tracy Warncke from Buzzards Bay NEP;
Dr. Andrew Solow and Mary Schumacher from Woods
Hole Oceanographic Institution; Sarah Brooke from Fal-
mouth DNR; Mel Cote, Regina Lyons, Matt Schweisberg,
Ed Reiner, and Maryjo Feuerbach from EPA Region 1,
and Jason Baker from Massachusetts Bays NEP.
For more information on the
Coastal Wetlands Initiative, contact:
Jennifer Linn
Linn.Jennifer@epa.gov
Nancy Laurson
Laurson.Nancy@epa.gov
DISCLAIMER: The vyork reported in this doeumentvsas funded by the U.S/Eoyironmental
Protection Ag.eneyfEPA) imderWotk Assignment !4efCQQB®t No. EP-QsP^GG It?
'Eastern Research Group, Inc, EPA, through its'OTRcBfifCoaslal Protection Division, man-
aged andicollaborated in theiassessmenrtescribed herein. This document is notbasgdon
new resprchor field vi/orfc conducted by theiAgencyror its contractor. It contains readily
available existing information and that provided by-stakeholders.This documen t will be
subjected to the Ag^cy's review- Neither the US government nor |ny of its employees,
contractors, subcontrac'tftrSi.QrthejremplQyfgs'makeany warrant,expressed 01; implied,
wassume i;esppnsibility for any third party's use ofcor the results of,such use,of any
information,'product '®r process discussed in this-report, or represents that its use by
such party would not infringepn privately ownedrights. Any opinionsiexpressed in this;
report ^re thossof the author® and do-not necessarily reflect the views of the Agency;
therefore, noofficiai endorsement should be inferred. Any mention of tradenames or
commercial products does notcanstitute for use.
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review?
30
-------
References
ANEP (Association of National Estuary Programs). 2001. Narragansett
Bay fact sheet,
ASWM (Association of State Wetland Managers). 2009. New Hamp-
shire. chttp://aswm.org/ swp/newhampshire9.htm>
Baker, J., andT. Evans. 2010. Use of "conservation moorings" as a
component of eelgrass restoration in two Massachusetts harbors, chttp://
www.chnep.org/Events/ANEP/ tech/Tech_Tue_825_B ake r. pdf>
Brown, S.C. and P.L.M. Veneman. 2001. Effectiveness of compensatory
wetland mitigation in Massachusetts. U.S.A. Wetlands 21(4): 508-518.
BBNEP (Buzzards Bay National Estuary Program). 2010a. Information
about Cranberry Bogs and the Environment.
BBNEP. 2010b. Mattapoisett River Valley water withdrawals, chttp://
www. buzzardsbay. org/ mattapoisett-river-valley.htm >
BBNEP. 2010c. Subwatershed Land Use and Nitrogen Loading, chttp://
www. buzzardsbay. org/buzzards-bay-sub watersheds-la nd-use .htm>
BBNEP. 2009. 2009 updates to the BBNEP nitrogen loading spread-
sheets. chttp://www.buzzardsbay.org/bbpnitro.htm>
BBNEP. 2007. Section 319 Nonpoint Source Program success story.
EPA 841 -F-07-001M. chttp://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/success319/
upload/2007_10_01 _NPS_Success319_state_ma_winsegansett.pdf>
BBNEP. n.d. Wetland losses in the Buzzards Bay watershed, chttp://
www. buzzardsbay. org/ wetla ndloss .h tm >
Cape Cod Commission. 2008. Cape trends: 2002-2008. chttp://www.
statscapecod.org/ media/documents/ CapeTrends.pdf>
Cape Cod Commission. 2001. Cape Cod atlas of tidally restricted salt
marshes, chttp://www.capecodcommission.org/tidalatlas/TidalAtlas-
FrontSection.pdf>
Connecticut College. Human impacts on tidal wetlands: history and
regulations, chttp://www.conncoll.edu/ccrec/greennet/arbo/publica-
tions/ 34/chp4b.htm>
CTDEP (Connecticut Department of Environmental Protec-
tion). 2011. Long Island Sound. chttp://www.ct.gov/dep/cwp/view.
asp ?a=2705&q=323790&depNav_G ID=1635%20>
CTDEP 2010. Connecticut coastal habitat restoration programs,
chttp://www. ct. gov/ dep/cwp/ view, asp ?a=2705&q=323538&depNav_
GID= 1622&depNav=| >
CTDEP 2009. Coastal permits: an environmental permitting fact sheet,
chttp://www. ct. gov/ dep/cwp/ view, asp ?a=2709&q=324180&depNav_
GID=1643>
Costa, J.E. 1988. Distribution, production, and historical changes in
abundance of eelgrass (Zostera marina L.) in southeastern MA. Ph. D.
Thesis, Boston University.
Costa, J.E. n.d. Eelgrass in Buzzards Bay. chttp://www.buzzardsbay.org/
eelgrass. htm>
ELI (Environmental Law Institute). 2008. State wetland protection:
status, trends, & model approaches, chttp://www.eli.org/pdf/core_states/
Maine.pdf>
EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2008. National
coastal condition report III. chttp://water.epa.gov/type/oceb/assessmoni-
tor/ upload/2008_12_09_oceans_nccr3_chapter9_narra_bay.pdf>
EPA. 2002. State of the New England environment report.
EPA. n.d. Wetland types, chttp://www.epa.gov/gmpo/education/pdfs/
WorldBackyard2 .pdf>
Gulf of Maine Coastal Program. 2011. Restore habitat. chttp://www.
fws.gov/ northeast/gulfofmaine/projects/restore_wetlands.htm >
Jacobson, H.A., G.L. Jacobson, and J.T. Kelley. 1987. Distribution and
abundance of tidal marshes along the coast of Maine. Estuaries 10 (2):
126-131.
Long Island Sound Study. 2011. Long Island Sound — By the Numbers,
chttp://longislandsoundstudy.net/about-the-sound/by-the-numbers/ >
Maine DEP (Maine Department of Environmental Protection). 2005.
Maine's wetlands, chttp://www.maine.gov/dep/blwq/wetlands/>
Maine DEP. 1996. Maine's wetlands: their functions and values, chttp://
www.maine.gov/ dep/blwq/ docstand/ipwetfv2.htm>
Massachusetts Association of Conservation Commissions (MACC).
2006. Communities with non-zoning wetlands bylaw 2006. chttp://
www.maccweb.org/ documents/2006bylaws .pdf>
Massachusetts Bays Program. 2010. State of the bays, chttp://www.mass,
gov/ envir/massbays/pdf/ sob2010/201 Osob .pdf>
Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program (Mass CZM). 2004.
Waves of Change, chttp://www.mass.gov/czm/oceanmanagement/
waves_of_change/pdf/ trdemogecon.pdf>
MassDEP (Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection).
2010. Wetland loss data provided by Charlie Costello, MassDEP.
MassDEP. 2007. Dam removal and the wetland regulations, chttp://
www.mass.gov/ dep/water/resources/dampol.pdf>
MassDEP. 2005. Wetlands Change Mapping Project: wetlands—results
for 2005. chttp://www.mass.gov/dep/water/priorities/wetO5.htm>
MassDEP. 2002. Massachusetts inland wetland replication guide,
chttp://www. mass.gov/dep/water/laws/ replicat.pdf>
Massachusetts Department of Fish and Game, Division of Ecological
Restoration (MA DER). 2011. Estuarine programs and projects, chttp://
www.mass.gov/ dfwele/der/wrp / index, htm >
MA DER. 2010. DER active habitat restoration priority projects,
chttp://www. mass.gov/ dfwele/der/ der_maps/pp_map.htm>
MA DFG (Massachusetts Department of Fish and Game, Division of
Fisheries and Wildlife). 2008. Massachusetts list of endangered, threat-
ened and special concern species, chttp://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dfw/
nhesp/species_info/mesa_list/ mesa_list.htm>
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review
31
-------
Massachusetts Estuaries Project, n.d. Southeastern Massachusetts
Embayments Restoration, chttp://www.oceanscience.net/estuaries/high-
lights. htm>
Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
(MA EEA). 2011. Massachusetts leads the Northeast in dam removal/
river restoration projects.
MA EEA. 2007. Dam Removal in Massachusetts,
McHorney, R.M., and C. Neill. 2007. Alteration of water levels in a
Massachusetts coastal plain pond subject to municipal ground water
withdrawals. Wetlands 27(2): 366-380.
NHCP (New Hampshire Coastal Program). 2002. Salt marshes: restor-
ing New Hampshire's coastal wetlands,
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2011. Commercial landings
data.
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. 2011b. Sea levels online,
NOAA 2010. Programmatic framework for considering climate change
impacts in coastal habitat restoration, land acquisition, and facility
development investments.
NOAA. 2006. Maine coastal plan,
NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2011. Wetlands
Reserve Program,
NRCS. 2008a. Guide to the 2008 Farm Bill conservation programs
in Massachusetts,
NRCS. 2008b. Federal, state and local partners celebrate restoration of
Sesuit Creek saltmarsh, Dennis,
NYDEC (New York Department of Environmental Conservation).
2010. Tidal wetlands,
Seasholes, N. 2003. Gaining ground: A history of landmaking in Bos-
ton. MIT Press.
Stedman, S., and T.E. Dahl. 2008. Status and trends of wetlands in the
coastal watersheds of the eastern United States: 1998-2004. National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisher-
ies Service, and U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service.
Taylor, P.H. 2008. Salt marshes in the Gulf of Maine: human impacts,
habitat restoration, and long-term change analysis. Gulf of Maine Coun-
cil on the Marine Environment.
Tiner, R.W. 2007. New Hampshire wetlands and waters: results of the
National Wetland Inventory. NWI Technical Report. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Northeast Region,
Titus, J. G. 2011. Rolling Easements Primer. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Tyrrell, M.C. 2005. Gulf of Maine marine habitat primer. Gulf of
Maine Council on the Marine Environment.
USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 2009. Fish passage
in the Southern New England-New York Bight Coastal Program area.
U.S. Army Corps (United States Army Corps of Engineers). 2010.
Department of Army general permit for the Commonwealth of Mas-
sachusetts.
U.S. Army Corps. 2009. Water resource policies and authorities incor-
porating sea-level change consideration in civil works programs. Circular
No. 1165-2-211.
U.S. Army Corps. 2008. Rhode Island Coastal Wetlands Inventory
report.
Wallace, A.F. 2002. A scan of smart growth issues in New England. Pre-
pared for the Funders Network for Smart Growth and Livable Commu-
nities.
-------
Appendix A: Southeastern Massachusetts Participants
Jay Baker, Massachusetts Bays Program
Sarah Brooks, Falmouth DNR
Lou Chiarella, NOAA NMFS/NR
Joe Costa, Buzzards Bay NEP
Charlie Costello, MassDEP
Dave DeLorenzo, MassDEP
Lisa Berry Engler, Massachusetts DOT
Laurell Farinon, Town of Rochester
Maryjo Feuerbach, EPA
David Gould, Town of Plymouth
Scott Jackson, UMass Extension
Liz Kouloheras, MassDEP
Lealdon Langley, MassDEP
Regina Lyons, EPA
Alex Mansfield, Jones River Watershed Association
Jo Ann Muramoto, Association to Preserve Cape Cod
Jim O'Connell, Coastal Advisory Services
Michael O'Reilly, Town of Dartmouth
Margherita Pryor, EPA
Ed Reiner, EPA
Jack Reynolds, Town of Westport
Lisa Rhodes, MassDEP
Beth Schreier, NRCS
Matt Schweisberg, EPA
Bernie Taber, NRCS
Andy Walsh, Cape Cod Commission
Jay Wennemer, Town of Marshfield
Betsy White, WRWA
Bill Wilen, USFWS
Merilee Woodworth, Town of Acushnet
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review
-------
Appendix B: Background Documents
Document Title
Author/Agency (Year)
CONNECTICUT
Connecticut Coastal Habitat Restoration Programs
CTDEP (2010)
Connecticut
Association of State Wetland Managers (2004)
State Wetland Protection: Status, Trends, and Model Approaches
Environmental Law Institute (2008)
Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program in Connecticut
Private Landowner Network (2006)
Human Impacts on Tidal Wetlands: History and Regulations
Connecticut College (1997)
Brief History
Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officers
Coastal America 10 Year Report
Coastal America Partnership (2001)
Education
CT River Coastal Conservation District
Connecticut Sea Grant
Connecticut Sea Grant (2009)
Tidal Wetland Restoration
CTDEP (2010)
Twenty-Five Years of Tidal Wetland Restoration in Connecticut
Ron Rozsa (2005)
Ocean and Coastal Management in Connecticut
NOAA (2010)
Final Evaluation Findings Connecticut Coastal Management Pro-
gram: April 2003 through August 2006
NOAA (2007)
MAINE
Maine's Wetlands
MDEP (2005)
State Wetland Protection: Status, Trends, and Model Approaches
Environmental Law Institute (2008)
Gulf of Maine Coastal Program
U.S. FWS
Maine's Coastal Wetlands
Alison Ward (1999)
S.O.S. Maine: Save Our Shores
S.O.S. Maine (2010)
Protecting Coastal Wetlands
Dave Grant (2003)
Kennebec Estuary Project
The Nature Conservancy (2010)
Maine Coastal Plan
NOAA (2006)
Beginning With Habitat
Beginning With Habitat (2003)
Land For Maine's Future
ME SPO (2006)
Wetland Volunteer Monitoring Programs
EPA (2009)
Online Educational Materials
Maine Geological Survey (2009)
Workshops and Classes
Maine Association ofWetland Scientists (2010)
Salt Marshes in the Gulf of Maine: Human Impacts, Habitat
Restoration, and Long-term Change Analysis
Taylor (2008)
Gulf of Main Marine Habitat Primer
Tyrell (2005)
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review
34
-------
Document Title
Author/Agency (Year)
NEW HAMPSHIRE
New Hampshire
Association of State Wetland Managers (2009)
Salt Marshes: Restoring New Hampshire's Coastal Wetlands
New Hampshire Coastal Program (2002)
A Land Conservation Plan for New Hampshire's Coastal Watershed
The Nature Conservancy (2010)
Environmental Monitoring
Piscataqua Region Estuaries Partnership (2008)
State Wetland Protection: Status, Trends, and Model Approaches
Environmental Law Institute (2008)
Coastal Program
NHDES
NEWYORK
Tidal Wetlands
NYDEC (2010)
New York Wetlands Reserve Program
NRCS
New York City Wetlands: Regulatory Gaps and Other Threats
Plan NYC (2009)
Wetlands At Risk
Sierra Club (2005)
New York
Association of State Wetland Managers (2004)
State Wetland Protection: Status, Trends, and Model Approaches
Environmental Law Institute (2008)
Exploring the Estuary: a Teacher's Guide to the New York New
Jersey Estuary Region
Harbor Estuary Program (2009)
Focus On.. .Education
New York Sea Grant
Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program
NYS DOS (2004)
Ocean and Coastal Management in New York
NOAA (2010)
New York City Wetlands:
Regulatory Gaps and Other Threats
Plan NYC (2009)
Common Questions: Local Government Wetland Protection Programs
Jon Kusler
Wetlands Status and Trend Analysis of New York State Mid 1980's
to Mid 1990's
Huffman & Associates (2000)
Target Ecosystem Characteristics for the Hudson Raritan Estuary:
Technical Guidance for Developing a Comprehensive Ecosystem
Restoration Plan
Bain, Lodge, Suszkowski, Matuszeski (2007)
RHODE ISLAND
State Wetland Protection: Status, Trends, and Model Approaches
Environmental Law Institute (2008)
Rhode Island
Surfrider Foundation (2010)
Climate Change and Sea Level Rise
RICRMP (2008)
Rhode Island
U.S. FWS (2001)
Background & Origins of Restoration
Rhode Island Habitat Restoration
Ocean and Coastal Management in Rhode Island
NOAA (2010)
Rhode Island's Salt Pond Region: A Special Area Management
Program
RICRMP (1999)
Rhode Island Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Plan
RICRMP (2005)
Rhode Island Salt Pond Special Area Management Plan - Case Study
Coastal Portal (2009)
Rhode Island Coastal Wetland Inventory Report
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2008)
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review
35
-------
Document Title
Author/Agency (Year)
MASSACHUSETTS
State Wetland Protection: Status, Trends, and Model Approaches
Environmental Law Institute (2008)
Protecting Wetlands in Massachusetts
MassDEP
Wetland Loss Maps
MassDEP
Eelgrass
MassDEP
100 Years of Estuarine Marsh Trends in Massachusetts (1893 to
1995): Boston Harbor, Cape Cod, Nantucket, Martha's Vineyard,
and the Elizabeth Islands
Carlisle et al. (2006)
Potential Impacts of Sea-Level Rise in Massachusetts
Giese (1997)
A Model of Natural and Man-Induced Changes in Open Freshwa-
ter Wetlands on the Massachusetts Coastal Plain
Larson, Mueller, and MacConnell (1980)
Environmental Stress and Recovery: The Geochemical Record of
Human Disturbance in New Bedford Harbor and Apponagasett
Bay, Massachusetts (USA)
James S. Latimer, Warren S. Boothman, Carol E.
Pesch, Gail L. Chmura, Vera Pospelova, Saro Jayara-
man (2003)
Survey of Potential Marsh Dieback Sites in Coastal Massachusetts
Smith and Carullo (2007)
Cape Code Salt Marsh Assessment Project: Developing Measures of
Conditions
Mass CZM (2004)
Massachusetts Estuaries Project: Linked Watershed-Embayment
Model to Determine Critical Nitrogen Loading Thresholds for
Three Bays, Barnstable, Massachusetts
Howes et al. (2006)
Long Term Consequences of Residual Petroleum on Salt Marsh
Grass
Culbertson et al. (2008)
Introduction to the Special Issue: Natural and Anthropogenic Influ-
ences on the Mount Hope Bay Ecosystem
Rodney A. Rountree and Daniel G. MacDonald
(2006)
Chapter 3: Northeast National Estuary Program Coastal Condition,
Massachusetts Bays Program
EPA (2007)
Sea Level Rise Implications: An Action Plan for Buzzards Bay
IEP, Inc.
Estuarine and Marine Habitat From: The Massachusetts Ocean
Task Force Technical Report
Mass CZM (2004)
Charting the Course: A Blueprint for the Future of Aquatic Habitat
Restoration in Massachusetts
Mass CZM (2008)
Wetland Losses in the Buzzards Bay Watershed
Buzzards Bay
Buzzards Bay
EPA (2010)
Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan: The 1991
CCMP
Buzzards Bay (1991)
Managing anthropogenic nitrogen inputs to coastal embayments:
Technical basis and evaluation of a management strategy adopted
for Buzzards Bay
Costa et al. (1999)
Buzzards Bay: Its Watershed, Living Resources, and Governance
Buzzards Bay National Estuary Program (2010)
Managing Nitrogen Sensitive Embayments
Buzzards Bay
Massachusetts Wetland Monitoring Assessment Project
Lisa Rhodes (2010)
Development of a Comprehensive State Monitoring and Assess-
ment Program for Wetlands in Massachusetts
Jackson, McGarigal, Portante, and Compton (2010)
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review
36
-------
Document Title
Author/Agency (Year)
Coastal Wetland Resource Areas Under the Wetlands Protection Act
MassDEP
Massachusetts Wetland Monitoring and Assessment
MassDEP
Massachusetts Wetland Monitoring and Assessment Prepared for
the Integrated List of Waters (305(b)) Report
Lisa Rhodes (2009)
The Wetlands Protection Act: Fundamentals, Process, and Procedures
MassDEP (2005)
Recent Wetland Trends in Southeastern Massachusetts
Tiner and Zinny (1998)
Wetlands of Cape Cod and the Islands, Massachusetts:
Tiner (2010)
Results of the National Wetlands Inventory and Landscape-level
Functional Assessment
State of the Bays Report 2004
Massachusetts Bays Program
Massachusetts Year 2008 Integrated List of Waters
Division ofWatershed Management
Final Listing of the Condition of Massachusetts' Waters Pursuant to
Sections 303(d) and 305(b) of the Clean Water Act
Watershed Planning Program
Worcester, Massachusetts (2008)
National Estuary Program: Massachusetts Bays Program Factsheet
Massachusetts Bays Program
MassDEP Wetlands Inventory Maps 329826 and 333826
MassDEP (1993 and 2005)
NEW ENGLAND
Human Impact on Narragansett Bay
Thomas E. Kutcher
NOAA/USFWS Join Report on Coastal Wetland Trends 1998-2004
Stedman and Dahl (2008)
Coastal Wetland Trends in the Narragansett Bay Estuary During
the 20th Century
Tiner et al. (2004)
Rapid Shoreward Encroachment of Salt Marsh Cordgrass in Re-
sponse to Accelerated Sea-Level Rise
Donnelly and Bertness (2001)
Denitrification in Fringing Salt Marshes of Narragansett Bay,
Rhode Island, USA
Davis, J.L. et al. (2004)
Current of Change: Environmental Status and Trends of the Nar-
ragansett Bay Region
Narragansett Bay Estuary Program (2009)
Relationships of Nitrogen Loading, Residential Development, and Phys-
ical Characteristics with Plant Structure in New England Salt Marshes
Wigand et al. (2003)
Chapter 3: Northeast National Estuary Program Coastal Condition,
Narragansett Bay Estuary Program
EPA (2007)
A Scan of Smart Growth Issues in New England
Wallace (2002)
Status and Trends of the Nation's Biological Resources—Northeast
USGS, Porter, Hill
Regional Assessment:
Wetland Geographic Information Systems Data Available
New England Interstate Water Pollution Control
Commission (2006)
in the New England States and New York
Monitoring Nitrogen and indicators of Nitrogen loading to support
management action in Buzzards Bay
Costa, J.E., Howes, B.L, Giblin, A.E., and Valiela, I
(1992)
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review
-------
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)(1) 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)(1) 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;
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review
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
38
-------
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 proj-
ect.
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).
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review
39
-------
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 simi-
lar databases which can supplement federal permit informa-
tion.
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.
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review
40
-------
Appendix D: NOAA Coastal Change Analysis Program
Hie 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 emergent
wetlands. Unconsolidated shores are also included as wet-
lands.
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 percent.
Total vegetation coverage is greater than 20 percent. The spe-
cies present could be true shrubs, young trees and shrubs, or
trees that are small or stunted due to environmental condi-
tions.1
Characteristic species: ders (Alnus spp.), willows (Salix spp.),
buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), 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-
dium 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 (Rhiwphora mangle), black
mangrove (Avicennia germinans), and white mangrove (Lan-
guncularia racemosa).
Reference: Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter. F. 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.
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review
41
-------
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 (Iva frutescens).
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 (Fucus and Ascophyllum), 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-
cea fliformis), widgeon grass (Ruppia maritime), sea grasses
(Halophila spp.), and wild celery (Vallisneria americana).
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review
42
-------
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 cre-
ation 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/ grants_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 mag-
nitude 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 deter-
mine 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 commu-
nity; 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
estuaries 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 com-
munity 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 wet-
land 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
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review
43
-------
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 funding 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 governments, interstate associations, intertribal
consortia, and national nonprofit, non-governmental organizations are eligible to apply.
http://water.epa.gov/grants_funding/wetlands/grantguidelines/index.cfm
FHWA
Project Funds
All federal highway projects require mitigation for unavoidable wetland impacts. FHWA
mitigation 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,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users" (SAFETEA-LU). It
improves the understanding of the relationship between surface transportation, environ-
ment and planning. STEP implements a national research agenda reflecting national pri-
orities 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 qual-
ity 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
transportation choices and enhance the transportation experience through 12 eligible TE
activities related to surface transportation, including landscaping and scenic beautification
and environmental 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 con-
struction, 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
assistance 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 cooperative 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
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review
/ .
44
-------
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 resto-
ration, 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 Habi-
tat 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
ecosystems 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 part-
nerships. Components of the program include technical assistance, outreach and educa-
tion, grant assistance, and regulatory actions. Many activities involve efforts to conserve
coastal areas and wetlands provide important 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 threat-
ened 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
wetlands. 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 Wetland 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
-------
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 proj-
ects 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 applications are reviewed and prioritized on a regional basis. Finan-
cial 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 leveraged at a 3:1 ratio. The program uses
the National Fish Passage Decision Support System, which catalogues fish passage barri-
ers 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 exist-
ing 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 deep-
water 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 monitoring. NWI has developed a series of topical maps to show wetlands and deep-
water habitats. This geospatial information is used by Congress; federal, state, and local
agencies; academic institutions; and the private sector to inform natural resource planning,
management, and project development. The NWI website provides a portal to the Wet-
lands 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 wetlands to support healthy populations of federal trust species, including
threatened and endangered 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
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review
46
-------
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 con-
taminants from hazardous waste sites, and oil and chemical spills. Where possible, FWS
partners with other federal agencies, other FWS programs, states, tribes, or non-govern-
mental organizations 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 million 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
Plan—Joint
Ventures
Collaborative, regionally based partnership of U.S. and Canadian agencies, nonprofit orga-
nizations, corporations, tribes, or individuals that conserves habitat for priority bird species
within a specific geographic area. Designed to achieve the regional conservation goals iden-
tified in the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. 18 habitat joint ventures and
three species specific joint ventures. Activities include biological planning, conservation
design, and prioritization; project development and implementation; monitoring, evalu-
ation, applied research; communications, 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 interna-
tional agreement that provides a strategy for the long-term protection of wetlands and asso-
ciated upland habitats needed by waterfowl and other wetland-associated migratory birds
in North America. Provides competitive grants to non-governmental organizations, states,
local governments, 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 enhance-
ment 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 matching 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/Gran ts/NAO^CA
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review
-------
Appendix E: Federal Agency Programs That Support Coastal Wetland Protection,
Restoration, and Management
AGENCY
PROGRAM
DESCRIPTION
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 land-
owners. Delivered through locally based field biologists in each state. Assistance instru-
ments are primarily cooperative agreements. Decisions regarding partnerships are made at
the landscape level. Since 1987 the Program has worked with over 42,000 private landown-
ers 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/ p artners
NOAA
Coastal and
Estuarine Land
Conservation
Program
(CELCP)
CELCP, part of the Coastal Zone Management Program, was established in 2002 to pro-
tect coastal and estuarine lands considered important for their ecological, conservation, rec-
reational, historical or aesthetic values. The NOAA Ocean Service program provides state
and local governments 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
partnership 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 devel-
opment, 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-assessments 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 Con-
servation Program, invests funding and technical expertise in high-priority habitat restora-
tion projects that instill strong conservation values and engage citizens in hands-on activi-
ties. 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
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review
-------
Appendix E: Federal Agency Programs That Support Coastal Wetland Protection,
Restoration, and Management
AGENCY
PROGRAM
DESCRIPTION
NOAA
Damage
Assessment,
Remediation,
and
Restoration
Program
(DARRP)
The NOAA Ocean Service Damage Assessment, Remediation, and Restoration Program
collaborates 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/
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 intertidal areas among others. Various activities on land and in the water constantly
threaten to alter, damage, or destroy these habitats. NOAA Fisheries, regional Fishery Man-
agement 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
Conservation 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 community-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 Res-
toration Center, and the Chesapeake Bay Office, protects, restores, and promotes steward-
ship 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, educa-
tion, 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 assis-
tance. 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/
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review
49
-------
Appendix E: Federal Agency Programs That Support Coastal Wetland Protection,
Restoration, and Management
AGENCY
PROGRAM
DESCRIPTION
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 manages 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 per-
mits 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.
Army Corps
Continuing
Authorities
Program (CAP)
Standing Authorities to study/build water resource projects for specific purposes and with
specified 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 specifically involve ecosystem improvement: the 206 Program is for aquatic ecosys-
tem 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 infrastruc-
ture projects.
Army Corps
Engineer
Research and
Development
Center
(ERDC)
The Wetlands Research and Technology Center (WRTC) consolidates administrative,
technological, 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 exper-
tise, 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 biologi-
cal, 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 agen-
cies, 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 reconnais-
sance phase is 100 percent federally funded, the feasibility phase is cost-shared 50/50, the
preconstruction 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 Mississippi River Restoration, the Louisiana Coastal Area project,
the Missouri River Recovery, and the Lower Columbia River and Tillamook Bay Ecosys-
tem Restoration.
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review
50
-------
Appendix E: Federal Agency Programs That Support Coastal Wetland Protection,
Restoration, and Management
AGENCY
PROGRAM
DESCRIPTION
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 buf-
fers. 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/
USDA
NRCS
Conservation
Technical
Assistance
Program
(CTA)
Through conservation technical assistance, NRCS and its partners help land users address
opportunities, 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 assis-
tance 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/eta/
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 manage-
ment, and environmental 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. Pro-
gram practices and activities are carried out according to a plan of operations, developed
in conjunction with the producer, that identifies the appropriate 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 provide 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
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review
51
-------
Appendix E: Federal Agency Programs That Support Coastal Wetland Protection,
Restoration, and Management
AGENCY
PROGRAM
DESCRIPTION
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 production; be accessible to markets for what the land pro-
duces; 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
USDA
NRCS
Grasslands
Reserve
Program
(GRP)
GRP is a voluntary conservation program that emphasizes support for working grazing
operations, enhancement of plant and animal biodiversity, and protection of grassland
under threat of conversion to other uses. Participants voluntarily limit future develop-
ment 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 pro-
tected 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 provi-
sions (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=stelprdb 1043554
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 govern-
ment, 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
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review
52
-------
Appendix E: Federal Agency Programs That Support Coastal Wetland Protection,
Restoration, and Management
AGENCY
PROGRAM
DESCRIPTION
USDA
NRCS
Wetlands
Reserve
Program
(WRP)
This voluntary program restores and protects wetlands on private lands to cost-effectively
maximize 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 restoration 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 practice 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
uses
National
Wetlands
Research
Center
The National Wetlands Research Center is a source and clearinghouse of science informa-
tion 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 vari-
ety of plant and animal species and communities that are found in wetlands.
http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/
uses
Other
scientific
research
USGS also conducts scientific studies on other areas related to wetland health, includ-
ing carbon sequestration, long shore transport processes, water level fluctuations, climate
change, and sea level rise.
http://www.usgs.gov/
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review
53
-------
Appendix E: Federal Agency Programs That Support Coastal Wetland Protection,
Restoration, and Management
AGENCY
PROGRAM
DESCRIPTION
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 Restoration Task Force receives 70 percent of the funds; the North American Wet-
lands Conservation Act Program and the National Wetlands Conservation Grant Program
receive 15 percent each. Funding distributed to the Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conser-
vation 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 Strategy 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 capabilities. Under ERA, NOAA developed and maintains a res-
toration project database, the National Estuaries Restoration Inventory, and established
standards for restoration monitoring.
http://www. era. no aa. gov/
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review
/ .
54
------- |