Coastal Wetlands Initiative: South Atlantic Review 1

Coastal Wetlands Initiative: 

South Atlantic Review

EPA-843-R-10-005B

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 infrastructure and supporting the tourism, hunting, and fishing sectors 

of the economy. 

There are a number of threats to coastal areas, in particular 

wetland habitats. The most significant threats include conversion 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 initiative. 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 published frameworks to guide how they will consider impacts 

of climate change and sea level rise as they implement restoration activities, including those in coastal wetlands (Army 

Corps, 2009; NOAA, 2010a). 

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 Eastern United States 

alone between 1998 and 2004 (Stedman and Dahl, 2008). This 

amounts to an average net decrease of 59,000 acres each year. 

The vast majority of the loss (82 percent) occurred in freshwater wetlands, both tidal and non-tidal. Nearly 60 percent of the 

total loss of coastal freshwater wetlands is attributed to “other 

development,” which includes 

conversion of wetlands to 

unknown or undetermined land 

uses (Figure 1). There were also 

losses of saltwater tidal wetlands 

to open water (deeper than 

2 meters), particularly in the 

Mid-Atlantic region. The 2008 

NOAA and USFWS Status and 

Trends report did not examine 

the loss of wetland condition or 

function. 

In response to these reports, 

EPA established a two-part Coastal Wetlands Initiative. The 

first part is the Coastal Wetlands Team, which is a joint effort 

between EPA’s Wetlands Division and the Oceans and Coastal 

Protection Division. The team’s goals are: 1) confirming 

wetland loss and better 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 of these 

Status and Trends 

of Wetlands 

IN THE CoasTal Wa

1998 to 2004

TErsHEds of THE EasTErN UNITEd sTaTEs

Agriculture

3.6%

Deepwater

14.5%

Intertidal

Wetlands

0.05%

Urban and Rural

Development

22.4%

Other 

Development

59.45%

Figure 1. Wetland loss and changes in land cover, 1998-2004: Atlantic, Gulf of 

Mexico, and Great Lakes. Source: Stedman and Dahl, 2008.
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: South Atlantic Review 2

Coastal Wetland Reviews (CWRs), the team identified 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 South 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 on-site discussions, and 

providing input on the reports.

EPA Coastal Wetland Regional Reviews 

EPA conducted these CWRs to identify and better understand 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 

information to reflect this concern where appropriate. EPA 

coordinated with the Interagency Coastal Wetlands Workgroup and stakeholders to gather information on available 

tools and strategies used to address wetland function and 

condition within the region(s) of interest. The CWRs and the 

subsequent regional reports will not be used to evaluate specific wetland assessment tools or methodologies, but rather to 

describe which tools are being used and discuss participants’ 

views on their experiences and relative success with such tools. 

The purpose of the CWRs was to facilitate dialogue among 

stakeholders who share a vested interest in coastal wetland 

resource protection such that continued local, regional, and 

national efforts to stem coastal wetland losses can be increasingly 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 considered a final assessment of the study area. Instead, each review 

should be considered a baseline reconnaissance to aid in moving 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 documentation (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 

Consistent with other federal 

agencies, EPA is defining “coastal 

wetlands” as saltwater and 

freshwater wetlands* within HUC-8 

watersheds that drain to the Atlantic, 

Pacific, or Gulf of Mexico. “Coastal 

wetland loss” is defined as “a decline 

in the areal extent and/or ecological 

integrity** of wetlands in coastal 

watersheds” (Figure 2). 

Figure 2. Coastal wetlands regions identified in 

EPA’s Coastal Wetlands Initiative.

* 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.
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: South Atlantic Review 3

within specific focal watersheds. Instead, it can serve as a starting point for identifying priority stressors, tools and strategies 

to address them, and key information and data gaps that need 

to be filled in order to reduce wetland loss in the future.

The process for the CWRs was intended to be flexible and 

encouraged participation from a diverse and representative 

group of stakeholders in each of the focal watersheds. Four 

steps were followed for each CWR: 

1. Identify focal watersheds.

USFWS identified candidate watersheds for the CWRs based 

on observed wetland loss in the USFWS/NOAA Status and 

Trends report. These are generally areas where the most 

wetland loss has occurred, due to development, other human 

actions, or where losses were attributed to inundation or other 

coastal processes. 

The Coastal Wetlands Team further refined this larger candidate watershed to focus in on specific eight-digit HUC watersheds (“HUC 8 watersheds”). The focal watersheds selected for 

analysis are based on existing wetland conditions assessments, 

available data, a variety of efforts to protect and restore coastal 

wetlands, and the willingness of local stakeholders to participate. 

The HUC 8 watersheds identified may correspond directly to 

National Estuary Program (NEP) study areas (the geographic 

boundary in which the NEPs work to improve estuary 

health). In other words, the CWRs often occur in the same 

watersheds as the NEP study areas or a sub-set thereof.

NEPs provide an effective mechanism to assist the CWRs 

in a few important ways. They consist of broad-based stakeholder groups that work in close partnership to protect and 

restore habitats in their study area. These groups represent a 

wide range of interests and expertise at local, state, and federal 

levels (e.g., general public, state natural resource agencies, 

academics, local governments, watershed groups). EPA 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 management 

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 condition 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 gathered 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 stakeholders discussions. In addition, to estimate coastal wetlands 

loss, the Coastal Wetlands Team consulted with NOAA’s 

Coastal Change Analysis Program (C-CAP), which uses satellite imagery to measure land cover change in coastal areas. The 

Team also requested permit data from the Army Corps and 

state agencies, where applicable, in order to quantify authorized losses and associated mitigation gains for wetlands 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.

National Estuary Programs (NEPs) are already 

employing a variety of efforts to protect and 

restore wetlands. NEPs can assist by: 1) convening the appropriate stakeholders to participate in 

the CWRs, 2) providing scientific data on wetland 

conditions in their study areas, and 3) providing 

a strong platform and scientific understanding to 

support the CWRs.
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: South Atlantic Review 4

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 participate 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 representatives. Invitee lists were collected from the organization 

hosting the event, as well as suggestions from the Interagency 

Coastal Workgroup (which includes their regional representatives).

The Coastal Wetlands Team convened a stakeholder forum 

of the invitees in each selected focal watershed. These one- or 

two-day facilitated dialogues provided additional insights about 

on-the-ground (existing) condition of coastal wetlands within 

the focal watershed and growing pressures within the region; i.e., 

issues often best identified by those with the most vested interest 

in the outcome of such efforts. Attendees were asked to provide 

information on threats to coastal wetlands (including reduction 

in acreage as well as function and conditions) and tools and 

techniques used locally to reduce or reverse wetland loss. The 

term “stressor” was not defined for participants in advance of 

the reviews. While stressors are traditionally limited to “physical, 

chemical, or 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 degradation of coastal wetlands. While state 

and federal regulatory programs are tools for wetland protection, 

limits to regulation are captured in the report under the “Stressors” sections in accordance with commonly expressed stakeholder input. EPA acted as a neutral facilitator and captured the 

discussion in meeting notes. While there may be disagreements 

among parties 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 firsthand view of local stressors or approaches being employed to 

address wetland loss in that watershed. Collection and analysis 

of raw field data is outside the scope of these field visits.

4. Assemble a coastal wetland regional review summary.

Once the notes from the stakeholder discussions were vetted 

with the participants, they were combined with the available 

data collected in Step 2 to form the basis of a regional report. 

Although these reports are not exhaustive and only reflect 

readily available, existing documentation and the viewpoints of 

participating stakeholders, EPA believes they are a good indicator or snapshot of wetland issues in the focal watersheds.

The results of the South Atlantic review are summarized 

below, and are also presented in Tables 1 and 2 and the 

“Conclusion” section of this report.

•	 Major stressors:

» Development. 

» Hydrologic alterations.

» Limitations of regulations. 

» Sea level rise and climate change.

•	 Major tools and strategies:

» Wetland mitigation banking programs. 

» Restoration of impounded or converted wetlands. 

» Integrated management practices with the potential for 

multiple benefits.

» State wetlands regulatory programs.

» Voluntary programs.

•	 Major gaps:

» Adequate staffing and wetlands program funding.

» Lack of accurate coastal wetland loss characterization/

evaluation.

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?
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: South Atlantic Review 5

» A complete and centralized repository or database of 

wetland-related data and metrics to enable comparison of 

data for the tracking of wetland impacts.

» Methods to streamline permitting and document wetland 

impacts outside of wetland regulatory programs.

» Information regarding predicted climate change impacts 

on coastal wetlands. 

» Improved collaboration between state and federal regulatory agencies and external partners.

» Increased public and stakeholder education and outreach.

South Atlantic Review

The South Atlantic region stretches from North Carolina to the 

southern tip of the Atlantic-facing coast of Florida. Within this 

region, two focal watersheds were chosen by the Interagency 

Workgroup for review: the Indian River Lagoon Estuary watershed in Florida and the Middle and Lower Neuse River watersheds within the Albemarle-Pamlico Sound in North Carolina 

(Figure 3). Both of these watersheds are within the geographic 

scope of National Estuary Programs and enjoy an active and 

engaged constituency. These watersheds are also important 

from an ecological perspective, have a rich array of tools and 

strategies employed to protect and restore their coastal wetland 

resources, and serve as good examples of the region.

The South Atlantic region has the highest wetland density of 

the entire East Coast (Stedman and Dahl, 2008) (Figure 4) and 

hosts a variety of coastal wetlands not found in other parts of 

the United States, including pocosins, Carolina bay wetlands, 

cypress swamps, and mangrove forests (Dahl, 1999). These 

coastal wetlands are vital to maintaining the health of coastal 

and marine ecosystems supporting vibrant commercial and 

recreational fishing industries, as well as coastal tourism and 

recreation industries. Commercially important species, including shrimp, flounder, blue crab, and menhaden are highly 

dependent on the wetlands of this region (Lellis-Dibble et al., 

2008). From 2000 to 2008, commercial landings in the South 

Atlantic totaled almost $1.5 billion, with estuarine-dependent 

species accounting for a majority of that total (NMFS, 2010). 

When considered individually, each state in the South Atlantic 

region contributes uniquely to this ecological diversity. For 

example, although Florida has lost more wetland acres than 

any other state, it is still home to more than 10 percent of the 

remaining wetlands in the conterminous United States—more 

than 11 million acres (EPA, 1996). Georgia contains the shortest coastline in the South Atlantic region, yet it is home to over 

one-third of the Atlantic coast’s remaining coastal marshland 

(GA DNR and NOAA, 1997). The coastal wetlands of South 

Carolina provide critical nursery habitat for many commercially 

important species, such as shrimp and blue crab (Boylan and 

Wenner, 1993; Wenner et al., 1990). North Carolina boasts 

the very rich and diverse Albemarle-Pamlico sound, the second 

largest lagoonal estuary in the United States, on which over 

90 percent of commercial fisheries landings in North Carolina 

depend (Street et al., 2005).

South Atlantic Coastal Wetland Stressors

Historically, coastal wetland losses in this region have been 

primarily due to forestry, agriculture, and hydrologic modifications (ditching, draining, and diversions) for mosquito control 

Figure 3. South Atlantic focal watersheds.

Figure 4. South Atlantic estimated coastal wetland density. Source: Stedman 

and Dahl, 2008.
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: South Atlantic Review 6

impoundments and flood control. While agriculture and 

forestry remain significant stressors on coastal wetlands, recent 

losses are increasingly due to development pressures along the 

coast. Among the four South Atlantic states, Florida and North 

Carolina have experienced the greatest wetland losses. Florida 

lost 46 percent of its wetlands and North Carolina lost almost 

half (49 percent) of its total wetlands by the 1980s (Mitsch and 

Gosselink, 1993). A USFWS study (1999) of South Carolina’s 

wetlands showed an average annual net loss of nearly 3,000 

acres from 1982 to 1989. Most of these wetland losses occurred

in freshwater forested wetlands, and most were due to forestry 

(31 percent), agriculture (28 percent) and urbanization (22 

percent). The remaining 19 percent of losses were attributed to 

conversion to open water and rural development (Dahl, 1999). 

A status and trends study of Florida (Dahl, 2005) showed an 

average annual loss of 5,000 acres of wetlands from 1985 to 

1996 (compared to an average annual loss of 26,000 acres the 

previous decade), the vast majority of which have occurred in 

freshwater wetlands. Only about 500 acres of intertidal wetlands were lost during the study’s 1985–1996 period. Overall, 

losses were attributed to agriculture (28 percent), rural development (44 percent) and urbanization (28 percent).

The above data show that although the rate of wetland acreage loss is slowing, losses nonetheless continue to occur and 

the majority of the losses occur in freshwater wetlands. For 

the purpose of this report, it is important to examine all types 

of coastal wetland losses occurring within the watershed. This 

includes both freshwater and saltwater, and tidal and non-tidal 

wetlands. 

In addition to data available in studies, data from NOAA’s 

C-CAP were used to estimate acreage losses of coastal wetlands for the South Atlantic Region from 1996 to 2006 (see 

Appendix D for more information on C-CAP methodology). 

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 

measure 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, approximately 128,000 

acres were lost in the region during the 

10-year period, for an annual average 

loss of approximately 12,800 acres. The

majority (72 percent) of all the wetland

losses were attributed to conversion to 

agriculture and development (Figure 

5). Almost 33 percent of changes to 

developed land for the region occurred 

in Biscayne Bay, Florida, where nearly 

17,000 acres were converted during the study period.

Based on the literature reviewed (Appendix B), several wetland stressors were identified in the region:

•	 Hydrologic alterations, including ditching and diking for 

mosquito control and flood control diversions.

•	 Residential and commercial development.

•	 Infrastructure impacts, including stormwater and water 

withdrawals.

•	 Agricultural and forestry practices.

•	 Sea level rise leading to conversion of wetlands to open 

water; salt-water intrusion and changes in salinity.

•	 Storm events causing shoreline and beach erosion.

•	 Invasive vegetation.

In both of the focal watershed reviews, hydrologic alterations 

were identified as major stressors. 

These alterations come in the form 

of draining for mosquito control, 

agriculture, and forestry, as well 

as impoundments for waterfowl, 

mosquito control, and flood control. 

Studies in North Carolina (Poulter 

et al., 2008) identified ditching of 

wetlands as possible conduits for 

saltwater intrusion, especially with rising sea levels. In Florida, much of the 

state’s salt marsh was impounded by 

the early 1970s to control mosquito 

populations (Brockmeyer et al., 1997). 

More recently, Florida has begun to 

restore the natural hydrology of these 

impoundments and has implemented 

integrated management practices 

to optimize the wetlands’ multiple 

Figure 5. Wetland loss and changes in land cover, 1996-2006: South Atlantic 

Region. Source: NOAA, 2010b.

Developed

40%

Agriculture

32%

Bare Land

14%

Open Water

14%
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: South Atlantic Review 7

human and ecological benefits, including fishing, invasive vegetation control, birding, mosquito control, and flood control. 

Coastal development was cited as another dominant stressor 

in the South Atlantic region. Over the past few decades, the 

region has become a destination for job-seekers and retirees, 

thereby increasing demand for residential development and 

associated commercial and recreational uses. From 1995 to 

2000, Georgia, Florida, and South Carolina experienced the 

highest levels of in-migration in the United States (Franklin, 

2003). From 1980 to 2003, the coastal population density in 

the region increased by 70 percent, and while the economic 

downturn has recently occurred, regional growth is expected 

to continue. Coastal development was identified in both focal 

watershed reviews as a serious threat to coastal wetlands due to 

impacts from residential and commercial development, associated recreational development (e.g., golf courses, marinas), and 

infrastructure such as shoreline armoring, roads, and utilities.

South Atlantic Tools and Strategies 

The South Atlantic states manage the above stressors on coastal 

wetlands using a range of tools and strategies. Regulatory 

programs in the region include local, state, and federal wetland 

permitting programs, which include mitigation requirements, 

compliance monitoring, and enforcement. Also important are 

non-regulatory programs: land acquisition and conservation, 

public education and outreach, and wetland restoration, monitoring, assessment, and mapping. 

The four South Atlantic states use their regulatory tools in 

slightly different ways. Wetland mitigation is an example of 

a regulatory tool that has been used in different capacities 

across the South Atlantic region. North Carolina and Florida 

have state-level wetland mitigation programs with established 

methods and protocol for addressing wetland impacts. Florida 

focuses on wetland function in its mitigation program, while 

North Carolina tracks wetland impacts in terms of acreage 

(though it is moving toward a functional wetland assessment 

methodology). North Carolina’s Ecosystem Enhancement 

Program provides in-lieu fee mitigation and has been recognized as one of the most innovative government programs in 

the country due to its proactive, watershed-based approach. A 

number of mitigation banks are also present in North Carolina. South Carolina and Georgia address mitigation on a 

case-by-case basis, working closely with the Army Corps. 

Of particular note are strategies under development within 

the region to address threats of coastal erosion, storm surges, 

and sea level rise. In order for the region to begin addressing 

projections for sea level rise over the next century, alternatives to hardening such as conservation or rolling easements 

are gaining more traction (Titus, 1998; CCSP, 2009; Climate 

Ready Estuaries website, 2010). Allowing wetlands to migrate 

inland is a method of sea level rise adaptation, which ensures 

that coastal wetlands are maintained. Inland migration of wetlands can be accomplished through setbacks, density restrictions, and land acquisition. Regulatory rolling easements refer 

to a broad range of legal mechanism used to prevent property 

owners from armoring their shoreline while allowing other 

uses of the property. Rolling easements work by automatically 

moving or “rolling” the restriction landward with rising sea 

level. This allows sediment transport to move inland and wetlands to migrate naturally. Rolling easements prevent armoring of the shoreline regardless of how threatened the structure 

is by rising sea level. If erosion threatens the structure, the 

owner has two choices: either relocate the building or allow it 

to succumb to the encroaching sea (Titus, 1998). EPA’s Climate Ready Estuaries program has developed a “Rolling Easements Primer” which identifies regulatory and non regulatory 

options for implementing rolling easements (Titus, 2011).

The use of natural approaches to shoreline protection is growing in popularity in the South Atlantic states, particularly in 

North Carolina. Instead of constructing seawalls and other hard 

structures to prevent erosion of estuarine and ocean shores, 

states and nonprofit organizations are encouraging the use 

of “Living Shorelines.” This science-based method evaluates 

the erosion potential of a given shoreline area and employs a 

combination of the most environmentally compatible materials to maximize stability and the natural buffering capacity of 

vegetated shorelines. It has been promoted as an effective way 

to protect against the effects of sea level rise and storm events 
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: South Atlantic Review 8

and restore water quality and wildlife habitat (NCCF, 2004). 

South Atlantic Gaps and Needs

In addition to identifying tools and strategies, the Coastal 

Wetlands Team gathered baseline information related to needs 

and gaps to improve coastal wetland protection in this region. 

In general, there appeared to be a need for:

•	 Increasing resources (staffing and funding) to administer 

regulatory programs, conduct monitoring and assessment, 

ensure accurate wetland mapping, and conduct effective 

outreach programs.

•	 Developing a comprehensive, central repository for wetland-related data as well as a common set of metrics to 

allow standardization and comparison of data.

•	 Evaluating regulatory programs to determine and address 

gaps in protection while identifying ways to streamline the 

permitting process.

Tables 1 and 2 summarize key stressors, tools, and strategies 

to address them, and gaps and needs for both focal watersheds 

in the South Atlantic region:

Stressors Tools	and	Strategies Gaps	and	Needs

Hydrologic modifications •	 Mosquito impoundment restoration •	 Data and data management tools (ecological 

services data, rapid assessment methods, central 

database, predictive tools, etc.)

Population growth and coastal 

development

•	 Low-impact development and stormwater 

retrofits

•	 Local ordinances (buffers, smart growth, etc.)

•	 Consistent wetland regulation interpretation

•	 Evaluate permitting rules

Wetland mitigation limitations •	 Mitigation banking and mitigation assessment •	 Additional research and training on functional 

method wetland assessment methodologies

•	 Unified Mitigation Assessment Method

Invasive vegetation •	 Invasive species control programs, including •	 Transfer invasive species management programs 

volunteer-based efforts to private lands

Climate change and sea level rise •	 Coordination between agencies •	 Funding and staff

•	 Collaboration between governmental and nongovernmental groups

•	 Rolling easements

Table 1. Stressors, Tools and Strategies, and Gaps Identified by Participants During the Indian River Lagoon CWR

Stressors Tools	and	Strategies Gaps	and	Needs

Limitations of regulations •	 Interagency collaboration •	 Funding and staff

•	 Monitoring, assessment, and mapping •	 Central repository for wetland information and 

data

Population growth and coastal 

development

•	 Low-impact development •	 Marketing and incentives for living shorelines and 

low-impact development

Cumulative Impacts •	 Monitoring, assessment, mapping •	 Central repository for wetland information and 

data

Forestry impacts •	 Forestry best management practices •	 Monitoring all wetland restoration projects; 

examine whether forestry practices are changing 

drainage patterns and altering wetlands 

Agricultural impacts •	 Restoration of prior converted croplands •	 Nutrient management plans for all land uses

•	 Watershed-based nutrient management strategies

Climate change and sea level rise •	 Living shorelines •	 Higher-resolution mapping

•	 Public education and outreach

Table 2. Stressors, Tools and Strategies, and Gaps Identified by Participants During the Lower and Middle Neuse CWR
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: South Atlantic Review 9

Focal Watershed Review: Indian River Lagoon, Florida

Introduction

The Indian River Lagoon (HUCs 03080201, 03080202, 

03080103) is a low-lying estuarine system along the Atlantic coast of Florida. Three sub-watersheds make up the 

greater Indian River Lagoon watershed: the Cape Canaveral 

watershed, the Daytona–St. Augustine watershed, and the 

Vero Beach watershed (Figure 6). These three watersheds 

straddle about 200 miles of Florida’s east coast, from the 

southern boundary of Duval County, south to Jupiter Inlet 

in Palm Beach County. The estuary system contains three 

water bodies: Mosquito Lagoon, Banana River, and Indian 

River Lagoon.

The Indian River Lagoon is the most diverse estuary in 

America, with over 4,300 species of plants and animals, 

including over 50 federally endangered or threatened species (SJRWMD, 2007). Nearly one-third of the nation’s 

endangered manatee population depends on the lagoon 

(SJRWMD, 2007). It should come as no surprise that this 

incredible natural resource was designated as an estuary 

of national importance in 1990 and admitted into the 

National Estuary Program (NEP). 

In preparation for the focal watershed review, the EPA 

Coastal Wetlands Team worked with the NOAA Coastal 

Change Analysis Program (C-CAP) to develop a general 

characterization of wetland changes in the Indian River 

Lagoon watersheds between 1996 and 2006.

The NOAA C-CAP program examines overall land use 

change, including wetlands, for the coastal regions of the 

United States. The C-CAP tool was used in order to be 

consistent across focal watersheds when comparing wetland 

loss. The data set currently reports changes in wetland acreage only and does not measure changes in wetland function.

Table 3 and the accompanying pie chart displaying 

NOAA’s C-CAP1

 data (Figure 7) are based on the area of 

the three 8-digit HUCs that were the focus of the coastal 

wetland review in the Indian River Lagoon watersheds. 

According to the C-CAP analysis, the vast majority (over 

12,000 acres or about 90 percent) of wetlands lost in the 

focal watersheds between 1996 and 2006 were non-tidal, 

with the greatest impacts occurring from conversion of 

wetlands to development. 

Stressors

The Indian River Lagoon watershed is a prime example 

of an area that has undergone significant anthropogenic 

manipulation over the years. The watershed has experienced and continues to experience a variety of stressors that 

contribute to loss of coastal wetlands. Discussion at the 

Indian River CWR focused on the following key contributors to coastal wetland loss and confirmed, as well as 

added to, the list of stressors identified during the literature 

review.

Figure 6. Indian River Lagoon watersheds. Data Source: NOAA.

Developed

15%

Agriculture

48%

Bare Land

10%

Open Water

27%

Figure 7: Wetland loss and changes in land cover, 1996-2006: Indian 

River Lagoon watersheds. Source: NOAA, 2010b.

1 A more detailed description of the C-CAP data set is available in Appendix D.
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: South Atlantic Review 10

Hydrologic modifications. Mosquito control impoundments are an example of a historical stressor (see the 

“Highlight” box on the next page) that has significantly 

affected coastal wetlands in the Indian River Lagoon watersheds. Past mosquito control practices involved the use of 

large excavators called draglines to cut ditches through the 

marshes (Figure 8). These dragline ditches were intended 

to interrupt the life cycles of mosquitoes, but also had 

the unintended consequence of significantly altering the 

wetland ecosystem. Mosquito control projects impounded 

nearly 70 percent of coastal wetlands, affecting more than 

40,000 acres of salt marsh and mangrove habitat in the 

Indian River Lagoon watershed (Rey and Kain, 1989). 

These impoundments resulted in severe impairment of the 

condition and function of the affected coastal wetlands, 

resulting in loss of habitat, invasion of non-native species, 

and decline in ecological productivity. Recognition of these 

negative impacts has resulted in the restoration of over 70 

percent of the historical mosquito control impoundments, 

and progress is being made on restoring or managing 

remaining impoundments. 

Population growth and coastal development. Population 

growth and associated development have been dramatic in 

Florida, causing major changes to the landscape and natural 

ecosystems. Participants identified coastal development as 

an over-arching stressor that is the root cause of most other 

stressors in the watershed. CWR participants observed that 

large-scale private development projects, as well as public 

projects, are having significant impacts on coastal wetlands. 

Increasing development in coastal areas results in water 

quality and hydrologic impacts from stormwater runoff; 

altered hydrology and salinity levels from drinking water 

withdrawals and flood control projects; increases in boating and fishing pressure; and the direct physical alteration 

of the coastal wetland ecosystem, including impacts to fish 

communities, shoreline habitats, and benthic communities.

•	 Shoreline hardening. Shoreline stabilization using seawalls and other man-made structures can have significant 

impacts on coastal wetlands. Shoreline hardening results 

in loss of wildlife habitat, reduced water quality, and 

further erosion of adjacent coastal wetlands. Shoreline 

hardening also prevents inland migration of wetlands 

and directly impacts submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) 

by changing wave energies and water depths thereby 

decreasing SAV recruitment and growth (Sime, 2005). 

•	 Water management projects. According to participants, 

the water release schedule of Lake Okeechobee has significant impacts on Indian River Lagoon. The ecology of 

the St. Lucie Estuary, which feeds into the Indian River 

Lagoon, is negatively affected by the water discharged 

from Lake Okeechobee, which is managed for competing 

objectives including fisheries, recreation, flood control, 

potable water, and irrigation. Regulated releases from 

the lake cause water quality degradation during the dry 

season, when approximately 80 percent of the flow comes 

Focal Watershed Review: Indian River Lagoon, Florida (continued)

Wetland	Types* Developed Agriculture Bare	Land Open	Water Total

Palustrine forested 5,392.86 1,617.48 1,654.84 270.43 8,935.61

Palustrine scrub 752.81 70.72 411.43 78.51 1,313.46

Palustrine emergent 773.71 401.87 114.76 669.41 1,959.74

Estuarine forested 3.78 32.47 1.33 37.58

Estuarine scrub 5.56 0.67 9.12 33.58 48.93

Estuarine emergent 318.91 6.00 5.34 284.22** 614.48

Unconsolidated shore 19.13 744.36 29.13 792.62

Total 7,266.76 2,096.74 2,972.31 1,366.62 13,702.42

Table 3. Change in Wetland Land Use Type (Acres) From 1996 to 2006, HUCs 03080201, 03080202, and 03080103

Source: NOAA, 2010b.

* See Appendix D for wetland classification descriptions.

** The estuarine emergent losses to open water are actually a misclassification in one of the dates of C-CAP data and should be ignored (they are unconsolidated bottom 

areas that were called marsh in one data and water in another).

It should be noted that the information below is based on 

the opinions and observations of participants, who provided 

feedback on draft versions of this document and supplemented 

statements with documentation, where available.
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: South Atlantic Review 11

from the lake and 20 percent comes from the Indian 

River Lagoon watershed (during the wet season the flow 

distribution between these two sources is about equal).

» Human manipulation of water resources alters the 

natural variation in water levels. Since many species 

have adapted to the naturally occurring wet and dry 

seasons, artificial changes to the hydrologic regime 

can negatively impact wildlife that relies on the water 

body for feeding, nesting, and habitat. Hydrologic 

modifications can also negatively impact emergent and 

submerged vegetation and can create opportunities for 

invasive vegetation to compete against indigenous species. During the dry years, negative ecological impacts 

include changes in the vegetation community and soil 

oxidization. 

»

•	 Stormwater runoff. Discharges from urban (as well 

as agricultural) runoff contain nutrients, sediments, 

pesticides, and other contaminants that degrade water 

quality. These discharges can result in changes in turbidity, changes in salinity, smothering of benthic organisms, changes to aquatic food webs, changes in wetland 

composition, and eutrophication (FL DEP, 2010; Sime, 

2005). These changes have both direct and indirect 

impacts on coastal wetland condition and function. It 

is difficult to precisely determine the impact of runoff 

on coastal wetlands, and to address each source, because 

runoff is a diffuse, nonpoint source of pollution.

Highlight: Historical Context of Mosquito Control in Indian River Lagoon

Mosquito control in Florida began 

with the spraying of DDT in Brevard 

County in 1943. Ten years later, DDTresistant mosquitoes presented a 

new problem and the County, with 

over 50,000 acres of high marsh 

available to breeding mosquitoes, 

began flooding high marshes to 

prevent the deposition of larvae. By 

the 1960s, mosquitoes were posing 

a threat to NASA operations at Cape 

Canaveral and an agreement with 

County Mosquito Control allowed 

for mosquito control on over 11,500 

acres. The following decades saw 

many of the dikes breached due to 

lack of maintenance or a purposeful 

return to the natural flow. In 1989, 

192 impoundments covering nearly 

40,000 acres remained in use. Over 

two-thirds of the impoundments were in Merritt Island National Wildlife Sanctuary (26,923 acres), which surrounds the Kennedy 

Space Center. The remaining impoundments were distributed between Brevard (3527), Indian River (2,769), Volusia (1,578), Martin 

(625), and Flagler (300) counties. By 1989, 81 percent of these acres were public lands (Patterson, 2004).

Figure 8. Historical mosquito control practice of using draglines to cut ditches through marsh areas. 

Source: Volusia County Mosquito Control.

Focal Watershed Review: Indian River Lagoon, Florida (continued)
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: South Atlantic Review 12

Limitations of wetland mitigation. While generally embracing the concept of wetland mitigation and wetland banking (see Appendix C), CWR participants voiced differing 

opinions about the effectiveness of mitigation in assuring 

no net loss of wetlands.

•	 The Florida mitigation program emphasizes wetland 

function. Therefore, several acres of low-quality wetlands 

could be mitigated with a few acres of higher-quality wetlands within a mitigation bank. Some participants fear 

that insufficient data are available to adequately assess the 

functional value of a wetland area. The lack of adequate 

data makes it difficult to determine appropriate compensatory mitigation for balancing the loss of wetland area 

against the gain in the function of coastal wetlands.2

 

•	 Concern was expressed over the lack of effective mitigation requirements for isolated wetlands, which, as of 

November 2010, were protected throughout the state. 

However, some private, single-family residences may alter 

an isolated wetland without any mitigation if designed 

and constructed in accordance with the noticed general 

environmental resource permits (Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 62-341.475[1][f]).3

 When the state 

processes individual permits for activities in isolated wetlands less than a half-acre in size, evaluation criteria are 

limited to effects on water quality (FL DEP and Northwest Florida Water Management District, 2010, Section 

10.2.2.1). These potential small, unmitigated acreage 

losses of isolated wetlands can add up to significant losses 

over time.

Invasive vegetation. Although participants attending the 

review agreed that invasive species are currently one of 

the best-managed stressors in the Indian River Lagoon 

watersheds, invasive vegetation continues to be a main 

cause of coastal wetland functional loss, requiring continued vigilance and attention. These losses are associated 

with loss of species diversity, structural changes in the 

vegetation community, changes in nutrient cycling, and 

habitat changes along the coast. The degree of infestation 

is proportional to the impact that invasive vegetation can 

have on coastal wetlands. For example, in the Indian River 

Lagoon, broad-leaved paper bark (Melaleuca quinquenervia) 

has minimal impacts at low levels of coverage (10 to 25 

percent), but at higher coverage levels (65 percent), negative impacts increase greatly. Some participants suggested 

that developers or private landowners may have an incentive to allow invasive infiltration into wetlands, since infiltration means loss of function, which means less mitigation 

required for development in the wetland area. 

Climate change and sea level rise. The impacts of climate 

change are already becoming apparent in the Indian River 

Lagoon watersheds and these impacts will be compounded by 

the presence of historical and current stressors. Some of the 

issues likely to be exacerbated by climate change and sea level 

rise include erosion, salt water intrusion, changes in salinity 

regimes, and changes in species composition and distribution. 

Sea level rise and increasing intensity and frequency of storm 

events are two projected threats to coastal wetlands. However, other impacts such as changes in precipitation patterns, 

timing and delivery of water and sediments, increases in 

atmospheric carbon dioxide, and higher temperatures could 

also affect these resources (Scavia et al., 2002). The extent of 

these impacts on coastal wetlands will depend on their ability 

to adapt to change and the degree to which human activities 

impair these natural adaptive capacities (Scavia et al., 2002). 

For example, inland migration is one means wetlands have 

of adapting to rising sea levels. However, shoreline hardening 

can prevent wetlands from migrating and therefore results in 

acreage loss of wetlands due to inundation. Wetland response 

to climate change and sea level rise will vary and will depend 

upon the interactions of various processes and the magnitude 

of the changes. 

•	 Storm frequency and intensity. Climate change will 

impact the frequency and intensity of storm events in the 

future. One potential result of more frequent and intense 

storms is worsening of sand overwash after hurricanes, 

which leads to smothering of mangrove wetlands. Storms 

also put low-salinity wetlands at risk, causing salt burn 

from salt water intrusion, and eroding organic marsh 

substrates (Scavia et al., 2002). 

•	 Sea level rise. Sea level rise is another stressor for Florida 

coastal wetlands including those in the Indian River 

Lagoon. Research suggests that over the past 70 years the 

sea level has risen approximately nine inches in Florida, 

contributing to coastal erosion and inundation (Hauserman, 2006). In addition, sea level rise contributes to 

change in wetland type (e.g., conversion of high marsh 

to high-low marsh hybrid). Florida’s coastal wetlands 

will be highly susceptible to sea level rise in the future, 

2 The Army Corps’ Jacksonville District contends that, under Section 404 permitting regulations, an appropriate level of mitigation is required.

3 Prior to 2010, the Northwest Water Management District (managing the Florida “Panhandle”) did not claim jurisdiction over isolated wetlands that were not connected 

via wetlands, surface waters, or manmade waterbodies to other waters (see Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 62-340, for detailed definition). 

Focal Watershed Review: Indian River Lagoon, Florida (continued)
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: South Atlantic Review 13

which is predicted to range from 7 to 23 inches in the 

next century (IPCC, 2007). A sea level rise of 15 inches 

would inundate approximately 50 percent of salt marsh 

and 84 percent of tidal flats statewide. In the Indian 

River Lagoon watersheds, a 15-inch rise would lead to 

a loss of 49 percent of the area’s ocean beach and an 11 

percent loss of hardwood swamp (Glick and Clough, 

2006; Figure 9). 

Tools and Strategies

A number of effective tools and strategies exist or are under 

development in the Indian River Lagoon watersheds to 

address the above stressors. The focal watershed session 

highlighted the following:

Tools for restoring natural hydrology of altered coastal

wetlands. As mentioned in the “Stressors” section, hydrologic modifications in the Indian River Lagoon watersheds 

have occurred for over 50 years. Review participants mentioned ongoing strategies to move away from historical 

practices and manage mosquito control projects for 

multiple benefits:

•	 Integrated management practices. St. Lucie County is 

applying integrated management practices to restore 

previously impounded wetlands and manage them for 

multiples uses (see the “Highlight” box).

These practices are being implemented to restore 

and enhance wetland function and manage mosquito 

control projects for multiple uses by attempting to 

restore more natural hydrology. Participants submitted studies that investigate how impounded mangrove 

swamps compare to open mangrove swamps. While 

there is not uniform agreement regarding the wetland 

values of “managed” mangroves, the restoration methods for reconnecting formerly impounded coastal 

wetlands are generally viewed as a positive restoration 

strategy (Harrington and Harrington, 1961, 1982; 

Middleton et al., 2008; Rey et al., 2009; McKee et 

al., 2009).

•	 Dragline ditch wetland restoration. In addition to 

management of impounded wetlands, efforts are 

underway to fully restore previously impacted 

wetlands in Volusia County. The USFWS National 

Coastal Wetlands Grant Program awarded the 

County half a million dollars in 2009 to restore 600 

acres of dragline ditch wetlands. Volusia County 

Mosquito Control is responsible for implementing 

Highlight: St. Lucie County Mosquito 

Impoundment Integrated Management

Current mosquito control practices still rely on impoundments, but 

incorporate more adaptive management strategies to help manage areas for multiple uses. St. Lucie County’s Mosquito Control 

District has won several state and national awards for its management approach. The county contains approximately 4,000 acres of 

coastal mosquito impoundments and 41 miles of dikes and perimeter canals. Unlike historical impoundments, these impoundments 

are open to natural tides most of the year but are kept flooded 

(partly closed, with constant water exchange) during the summer 

breeding season to minimize the amount of exposed mud available for mosquito egg laying, a procedure known as rotational 

impoundment management (http://www.stlucieco.gov/mosquito/). The Mosquito Control District’s land acquisition/mitigation/

donation program is a critical component of its impoundment 

management effort and 

has included acquisition 

of Bear Point Sanctuary, Vitolo Family Park, 

Blind Creek Park (ocean 

to river), Ocean Bay, 

Queens Island, Kings 

Island, Indrio Blueway, 

Harbor Branch Preserve, 

and Wildcat Cove. Bear 

Point is also a stateand federal-approved 

mitigation bank that has 

been selling credits since 

2005. 

Figure 10. Bear Point impoundment 

and mitigation bank, Ft. Pierce, Florida. 

Source: Google Maps.

Focal Watershed Review: Indian River Lagoon, Florida (continued)

Projected Effects of a 15-inch Rise in Sea Level for Indian River Lagoon by 2100

♦ 49% loss of ocean beach

♦ 15% loss of dry land

♦ 11% loss of hardwood swamp

♦ Significant increase of saltmarsh, 

brackish marsh and tidal flats.

“An Unfavorable Tide,” National Wildlife Federation and Florida Wildlife Federation, June 2006

Figure 9. Projected effects of sea level rise in Indian River Lagoon. Source: 

Glick and Clough, 2006.
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: South Atlantic Review 14

the project and is using amphibious low-bearing weight 

machinery particularly suited for working in submerged 

areas. Phase I of the project is currently underway; in 

early 2010, approximately 120 acres of formerly ditched 

wetlands were restored (SJRWMD, 2010). Dragline 

ditch restoration sites throughout the St. Johns River 

Water Management District have been monitored by the 

University of Central Florida over the last several years 

for signs of native vegetation and restored wetland 

functions (SJRWMD, 2010).

Tools to address stormwater. Both regulatory and non-regulatory programs addressing stormwater were mentioned 

during the review. Low-impact development (LID) standards and Florida’s draft stormwater rules are two noteworthy regulatory tools. Non-regulatory programs include:

•	 Retrofitting. Retrofitting stormwater outfalls by redesigning them or in stalling pollution control devices helps 

implement Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for 

restoring water quality. Counties are using grant monies 

to implement stormwater retrofits. The Army Corps has 

also allowed retrofitting stormwater outfalls as part of its 

mitigation for submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) to 

help reduce toxins, hydrocarbons, and sediment discharging into SAV beds in the Indian River Lagoon. These 

pollutant reductions can lead to better coastal wetland 

condition and function by improving water quality.

•	 Best management practices (BMPs). BMPs to improve 

stormwater quality include silt fencing, turbidity barriers, staked hay bales, vegetated swales, and infiltration 

methods. Improved stormwater management, including retrofitting existing infrastructure, helps maintain 

wetland hydrology and helps reduce pollutant loading to 

wetlands, thereby improving their overall function.

•	 Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP).

As part of the CERP, the IRL-South Restoration Project is designed to reverse some of the damage inflicted 

by stormwater runoff and unnaturally large freshwater 

discharges into the lagoon. Project features include water 

storage reservoirs, stormwater treatment areas, natural 

storage and water treatment areas, diversions of existing 

watershed flows (from reservoirs and stormwater treatment areas) and muck remediation (U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, 2010).

Tools to address population growth and development.

Review participants noted several regulatory programs they 

viewed as successful: 

•	 Local ordinances. Some counties have enacted their own 

wetland minimum standards, and some cities/towns 

within those counties have as stringent or more stringent 

ordinances in place. For example, mitigation for wetland 

acreage losses may be required at the county level even if 

federal and state governments do not.

•	 Buffers. Some counties are using buffer requirements in 

order to protect sensitive aquatic areas. For example, St. 

Lucie and Volusia Counties have established minimum 

25 foot buffer areas around wetlands. Also in Volusia 

County, aquatic preserves, Outstanding Florida Waters, 

and Natural Resource Management Areas have minimum 

buffers of 50 feet to provide even greater protection for 

these specially designated areas. 

•	 Smart growth. Volusia County uses smart growth principles and incentives to cluster development away from 

sensitive natural areas such as wetlands. St. Lucie County 

has been a leader in sustainable development. The County 

passed a bond referendum in 1994 to acquire and manage 

environmentally significant lands and has protected over 

7,000 acres to date. The County has also implemented a 

variety of sustainable land use programs and policies. The 

2002 update of the County’s Comprehensive Plan incorporated smart growth policies and, in 2006, the County 

approved new regulations for sustainable development in 

the North County area, called Towns, Villages and the 

Countryside (TVC). The TVC overlay district incorporates development criteria consistent with smart growth 

and sustainable development practices, including transectbased neighborhood planning with grid transportation 

Figure 11. This illustration shows how previously diked wetlands are reconnected to the estuary by constructing a system of culverts, pumps, and spillways to regulate flow between the wetlands and receiving waters. Flow is 

monitored and regulated to optimize management for multiple uses, including mosquito control. Source: University of Texas, Center for Space Research.

Focal Watershed Review: Indian River Lagoon, Florida (continued)
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: South Atlantic Review 15

networks, interconnected greenways and blueways, and 

LID standards. Plans for development of a new village 

must identify specific transect zones ranging from urban 

cores at the center of the village to countryside around 

the perimeter (St. Lucie County Land Development 

Code, 2006). Although these types of ordinances do not 

target wetlands, there are potentially indirect benefits for 

wetlands by having lower nutrient loads in the runoff as a 

result of these planning principles. For more information, 

see http://www.stlucieco.gov/gogreen/greenprint.htm.

•	 Environmental Resources Permit (ERP) program.

Florida’s state wetlands protection laws are implemented 

through the ERP program. While the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) issues certain 

permits, most state wetland permitting is done by Water 

Management Districts. Key components of the ERP 

program include wetland mitigation requirements, a 

statewide system of wetland banks, and a compliance 

program, discussed below.

•	 Wetland mitigation. Despite the critiques of mitigation 

noted in the “Stressors” section, participants also recognized that mitigation can be a tool for protecting coastal 

wetlands and articulated some of the strengths of the program. In their experience, preservation, restoration, and 

enhancement are the most common forms of mitigation 

in Florida, and creation is the least common type used to 

satisfy the Florida DEP’s mitigation requirements. Statefederal coordination on mitigation requirements is strong 

between ERP and the federal 404 program. Mitigation 

banks are the Army Corps’ preferred form of mitigation 

because they are generally considered environmentally 

preferable. Mitigation banks cover large areas and they 

have lower risk and uncertainty than mitigation for which 

permittees are responsible. Additionally, restoration and 

enhancement are preferred over creation due to their 

higher success rate compared to creation.

» Participants felt that mitigation banks, which are widespread throughout Florida (Figure 12), tend to receive 

more compliance/enforcement oversight than other 

wetlands mitigation projects because of their high 

public visibility. 

» The Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method 

(UMAM) is a statewide method to determine the 

amount of mitigation required to offset wetland 

impacts. The method includes formulas for determining the loss of function of a wetland (e.g., for fish and 

wildlife habitat) that would result from a proposed 

impact, and includes formulas for calculating how 

much proposed mitigation would be needed to offset 

the impacts.

» “Ecological lift” is a term that is used to describe 

improved wetland function when rehabilitation steps 

are undertaken (see Florida Administrative Code, 

Chapter 62-345). Ecological lift can be quantified and 

given credit toward a mitigation project. Some participants cited it as an innovative way to improve wetland 

function, providing incentives for wetland management activities such as invasive species removal. 

•	 Compliance. Participants identified compliance and enforcement programs as important tools with insufficient resources 

(see the “What’s Needed? What’s Missing?” section). Budget 

and staffing resources have always been an issue for the 

enforcement program, but with increasing budget cuts concerns were expressed that the limitations of enforcement and 

compliance programs will worsen. 

» Compliance concerns were expressed regarding wetlands 

protected via conservation easements. One specific area 

of concern noted by participants was that easement 

landowners commonly believe they can clear, fill, and 

mow on their property, resulting in numerous violations.

Figure 12. Florida wetland mitigation bank sites. Source: FL DEP, 2010.

Focal Watershed Review: Indian River Lagoon, Florida (continued)
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: South Atlantic Review 16

» Wetland mitigation proposals for mitigation banks 

and in-lieu-fee programs (see Appendix C) go through 

a state/federal mitigation review (by the Interagency 

Review Team) and are held to standards laid out in the 

Federal Mitigation Rule.4

 Mitigation banks must have 

an “instrument” approved by the Interagency Review 

Team that lays out exactly what milestones must be 

achieved in order to receive credits. There is a monetary 

consequence for noncompliance (outside civil penalties 

for traditional noncompliance). Because Army Corps 

and state staff are very limited, they must be highly 

selective in choosing sites to spend time on to get the 

biggest environmental return for their effort; mitigation banks provide that.

•	 Coordination. Coordinating permitting and compliance 

was cited as an important tool that allows for shared 

expertise and a more efficient regulatory process. 

 Example of interagency compliance coordination:

» Compliance with Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Conservation consultation requirements. The MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

requires National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 

and regional Fishery Management Councils to identify and protect important marine and anadromous 

fish habitat. Rules finalized in 2002 (50 CFR Sections 

600.805–600.930) establish procedures to promote the 

protection of EFH through interagency coordination. 

Federal agencies are required to consult with NMFS 

regarding projects that fund, permit, or implement 

activities that may adversely affect EFH. Consultations 

are required for federally funded projects or projects 

requiring a federal permit. A standard operating plan 

establishes a process for collecting pre- and postconstruction information to determine if EFH conservation recommendations provided by NMFS and 

implemented by federal action agencies have resulted 

in sufficient protection of EFH. EFH conservation recommendations are evaluated to develop the knowledge 

necessary to improve the conservation recommendations. 

 Examples of interagency permitting coordination:

» The Efficient Transportation Decision-Making Team is a 

group of individuals located across Florida state agencies 

brought together by the Florida Department of Transportation to work on transportation projects. The team, 

throughout the planning and permitting process, pays 

attention to potential environmental consequences. The 

team’s efforts lead to a more streamlined permitting process with fewer consequences for the natural environment. 

» The South Florida Water Management District’s (SFWMD’s) Water Resources Advisory Commission serves as 

an advisory body to the SFWMD Governing Board and 

the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force to 

improve public participation and decision-making about 

water resources in the region (http://www.sfwmd.gov). 

Tools to address invasive vegetation. Managed lands 

such as state and local parks have invasive species control 

programs in place that monitor and employ mitigation 

strategies to control the spread of invasive plants.

•	 Nationwide Permit 27. The Army Corps is an active 

partner in programs to address invasive vegetation. The 

Army Corps uses Nationwide Permit 27 for wetland 

restoration, which streamlines the permitting process for 

invasive vegetation removal projects.5

•	 USFWS wetland grant program. In 2006, and again in 

2008, funding was provided by this program (authorized 

under the North American Wetlands Conservation Act) 

to eradicate the Brazilian pepper tree from prime migratory bird habitat in the Indian River Lagoon, portions of 

the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge, and Sebastian Inlet State Park. The project includes 20 acres of 

mangroves and 15 acres of other coastal wetlands in the 

lagoon. As part of the project, 3,000 red mangrove saplings will be planted along the shoreline of the lagoon 

4 73 FR 19670, April 10, 2008. Available at http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=feccbc52d45dabc8c29c8ad4e50f0dea&rgn=div5&view=text&no

de=33:3.0.1.1.39&idno=33.

5 Nationwide Permit 27 includes activities associated with the restoration, enhancement, and establishment of tidal and non-tidal wetlands and riparian areas and 

the restoration and enhancement of non-tidal streams and other non-tidal open waters, provided those activities result in net increases in aquatic resource functions and services. Activities authorized by this nationwide permit include, but are not limited to: the removal of accumulated sediments; the installation, removal, 

and maintenance of small water control structures, dikes, and berms; the installation of current deflectors; the enhancement, restoration, or establishment of riffle 

and pool stream structure; the placement of in-stream habitat structures; modifications of the stream bed and/or banks to restore or establish stream meanders; 

the backfilling of artificial channels and drainage ditches; the removal of existing drainage structures; the construction of small nesting islands; the construction of 

open water areas; the construction of oyster habitat over unvegetated bottom in tidal waters; shellfish seeding; activities needed to reestablish vegetation, including plowing or disking for seed bed preparation and the planting of appropriate wetland species; mechanized land clearing to remove non- native invasive, exotic, 

or nuisance vegetation; and other related activities. Only native plant species should be planted at the site.

Focal Watershed Review: Indian River Lagoon, Florida (continued)
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: South Atlantic Review 17

(http://www.fws.gov/birdhabitat/Grants/NAWCA/Small/).

•	 Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council (FLEPPC). This interagency team identifies invasive plants and develops strategies for eradication. Some plants are prohibited by the 

state for sale and distribution. Local governments may also 

use the FLEPPC list to prohibit, exempt, or otherwise regulate the installment or removal or FLEPPC-listed plants. 

Pest plants identified and categorized (by invasive properties) by the FLEPPC are used in the regulatory arena (e.g., 

the presence of these plants determines wetland function 

in UMAM scoring and their removal is considered mitigation for addressing wetland function loss).

Tools to address multiple wetland stressors.

•	 Land acquisition and conservation. Protection of coastal 

wetlands by acquiring wetland areas was noted as a successful tool. Two notable programs were mentioned: 

» The USFWS National Coastal Wetlands Grant Program provides funding for projects benefitting fish and 

wildlife in coastal habitats (see, for example, “Tools for 

restoring natural hydrology of altered coastal wetlands”).

» The Florida Forever Program (operated by the Florida 

DEP) has acquired more than 650,000 acres since the 

program’s inception in 2001, including 276,070 acres of 

functional wetlands. The Florida state legislature allocates funds to Florida Forever, which then distributes the 

money to various state agencies and programs to purchase 

public lands. For example, the St. Johns River Water Management District has purchased nearly 53,000 acres of 

environmentally sensitive land, including coastal wetlands 

within the Indian River Lagoon watershed (http://www.

sjrwmd.com/itsyourlagoon/).

•	 Public education. Review participants felt that educating 

the public was an important strategy in fostering volunteerism and individual actions to protect wetland resources. 

Wetland education occurs through school programs and 

living shoreline workshops. Some highlights include:

» School environmental programs to raise awareness.

Volusia County targets K–12 students through the 

St. John’s River Water Management District Legacy 

Program. There are 18 schools currently participating: 

seven elementary, six middle, and five high schools 

reaching 4,200 students per year.

» Living shorelines workshops. Workshops sponsored 

by NOAA and USFWS have been held in Port Orange 

and Volusia County. These workshops were intended to 

aid in development of standard permit plans for living 

shoreline approaches, which contractors currently view 

as more difficult to permit than seawall construction. 

•	 Volunteer programs. Volusia County and the Indian 

River Lagoon National Estuary Program—as well as 

other entities—are conducting a very impressive and 

wide range of volunteer efforts in the Indian River 

Lagoon watersheds. Volunteers participate in invasive 

species removal, water quality sampling and monitoring, 

and restoration activities including:

» The Brevard County Pepper-Busting Campaign (i.e., 

removal of Brazilian pepper trees).

» Volusia County’s adopt-an-estuary program, which will 

include voluntary monitoring of estuarine wetlands 

(program is currently in development). 

•	 Collaboration. Participants felt that one of the Indian 

River Lagoon’s most remarkable assets is the very strong 

culture of collaboration between all levels of government and non-governmental entities. This collaborative 

culture has been a large contributor to successful coastal 

wetland protection and has given rise to numerous 

volunteer groups working hand-in-hand with government agency staff. Positive, long-term working relationships are a distinctive characteristic of the Indian River 

Highlight: Volusia County’s CIA

Volusia County has a volunteer-based invasive plant removal team 

called the Counter Invasive Agents (CIA). The program educates the 

public on how to remove exotic species through pilot plant-removal 

projects in local parks. These projects then allow the public to transfer 

their exotic plant-removing techniques to their own backyards. 

Interested members of the public can sign up on Volusia County’s 

website: http://volusia.org/environmental/environet/cia/default.htm.

Focal Watershed Review: Indian River Lagoon, Florida (continued)
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: South Atlantic Review 18

Lagoon watershed. Strong partnerships have fostered a 

shared work ethic and strong professional network. Many 

people have been working together in the area for over 

30 years, which has led to a very strong community spirit 

centered on protection of the Indian River Lagoon. Some 

examples of successful collaboration include:

» National Estuary Program. The Indian River Lagoon 

National Estuary Program (NEP) was mentioned as a 

good example of the many interagency collaboration 

efforts underway in the lagoon (see the “Highlight” 

box). The NEP is currently working with the city of 

Satellite Beach (in Brevard County) to assess municipal vulnerability to sea level rise and identify critical 

municipal assets, with results to date summarized in a 

report by RWParkinson Consulting (2010). The work 

is being funded by a $25,000 grant from EPA’s Climate 

Ready Estuaries Program (EPA, 2009).

» Planning. State and local authorities collaborate through 

existing programs and planning groups (the Surface 

Water Improvement and Management Program, the 

Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan, 

and Aquatic Resources Plans) to ensure that the plans are 

compatible and implementable by all involved agencies.

» Florida Coordinating Council on Mosquito Control.

The Council is composed of academics, district representatives, and local/state/federal officials. The technical advisory committee meets quarterly, conducts site 

visits, and develops adaptive management strategies for 

specific wetlands through multi-agency participation.

What’s Needed? What’s Missing? 

Despite the above array of tools and strategies to address 

stressors to coastal wetlands in the Indian River Lagoon 

watersheds, participants identified several gaps 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 watersheds’ wetlands. Most 

gaps applied to all coastal wetland programs.

Gaps in data sharing and information on ecological

services. A shared, comprehensive database would bolster existing collaboration efforts between state agencies, 

federal agencies, and the public. It would provide information needed to identify key issues and help managers 

address them in a systematic, science-based approach. The 

data would serve to track wetland changes, identify specific stressors, and evaluate program success. Participants 

noted that it would be very helpful to have a specific tool 

to measure, classify, and assess coastal wetlands in order 

to gain a better understanding of how they are being 

impacted.

•	 A statewide database is needed with a GIS interface in 

order to spatially assess cumulative wetland impacts. 

Information should include state and federal permitting 

data, mitigation sites, water quality data, hydrologic data, 

etc. Such a centralized wetland information system would 

allow watershed-based monitoring of wetland status and 

trends to help set priorities for wetland protection and 

restoration. The system would enable an assessment of 

wetland acreage loss/gain, wetland function, and wetland 

restoration. Water quality data, TMDLs of pollutants, 

and NPDES information on surface water discharge 

Focal Watershed Review: Indian River Lagoon, Florida (continued)

Highlight: Indian River Lagoon NEP Partnerships

Indian River Lagoon NEP Wetland-Related Efforts 

10,468.32 Acres Protected and Restored 2007–2009

Tidal Wetland

3424.28

Mangrove - 489.67

Soft Bottom/mud - 231

Barrier Island - 530.94

Forested Wetland

5716.09

Riparian - 76.34

NEP works with many partners on impounded wetland restoration, 

drag-line ditched wetland restoration and shoreline and fringing 

mangrove restoration, including:

• St. John’s River Water Management District

• Volusia County Mosquito Control USFWS/Merritt Island National Wildlife 

Refuge

• National Park Service/Canaveral National Seashore

• St. Lucie County Mosquito Control

• Brevard County Mosquito Control

• Indian River County Mosquito Control

• F lorida Department of Environmental Protection—

S.E. Aquatic Preserve Program

Source: SJRWMD, 2011
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: South Atlantic Review 19

permits could support better assessments of water quality 

impacts on wetland function, and a better understanding of the effects of agricultural and urban runoff and the 

effectiveness of mitigation and restoration efforts. 

•	 This system could build on a University of Miami/DEP 

pilot database for central and southeast Florida, which 

will include permit information and wetland loss data. 

The pilot should be evaluated to identify and resolve 

issues over transferability, data entry responsibilities and 

details on QA/QC process. Ideally, the system would 

be developed with a format that could be shared among 

agencies to aid in interagency collaboration.

•	 Participants identified the need for more information on 

ecological services provided by wetlands to enable more 

accurate assessments of project impacts. 

» Functional assessment techniques should be based on 

adequate science to quantify ecological functions.

» Rapid assessment methodology (uniform and replicable) should be developed and implemented for field 

assessment.

» Predictive tools based on ecological function of wetlands could facilitate assessment of stormwater management systems, mosquito impoundment projects, 

and shoreline hardening; evaluate the impact of nutrients on flora and fauna; perform economic valuation of 

wetlands; and support statewide ecological goods and 

services survey (potentially scaled down to regional/

local level).

Gaps	in	resources	to	protect	coastal	wetlands. Both personnel and funding are needed to address the loss of coastal 

wetlands and employ strategies to protect and restore them.

•	 Staff. Review attendees were concerned about limited regulatory staff resources. Limited regulatory staff 

resources make enforcement of permit conditions and 

enforcement of unpermitted actions difficult. 

•	 Funding. Additional monies are needed for education and outreach to target youth and land developers. 

Research money for evaluating techniques to help determine best practices is also lacking. Another important 

source of funding, the state Wetland Grant Program, has 

not been increased despite growing demands, contributing to further resource limitations. 

Gaps	in	coordinating	federal,	state,	and	local	wetland	

regulations. Participants felt that federal, state, and local 

governments should more closely coordinate wetland regulations to avoid redundancy and ensure consistent interpretation. Each level of government has similar project review 

processes, but different rules, policies, and regulations. This 

may result in redundant processes and different outcomes 

for permit applicants.

Gaps	in	evaluating	permitting	rules. Review of the Florida 

DEP’s ERP rules would allow state officials to evaluate 

program effectiveness and help determine ways of making 

sure that best practices are being implemented. For example, it would be important to ensure that rules are designed 

to permit new, innovative techniques such as progressive 

Focal Watershed Review: Indian River Lagoon, Florida (continued)
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: South Atlantic Review 20

stormwater management projects and living shorelines 

projects. Other suggestions for improved permitting 

included:

•	 Holding periodic meetings between state, federal, and 

county officials to share information and strengthen relationships. This would help to expand upon the collaboration and coordination efforts that are already noted as 

important tools (see the “Tools and Strategies” section).

•	 Creating a step-by-step process for integrated permitting 

that would enable simultaneous review of all permits 

needed for a project to ensure cross-program coordination and avoid the pressure some agencies feel when 

impacts not allowable under their regulations have been 

approved under previously obtained permits.

•	 More cross-training for wetland assessment should occur 

between federal, state, and local agencies to improve 

consistency in how the UMAM is used.

Gaps in wetland mitigation. More information and 

research is needed on the relationship between wetland 

function and acreage in order to ensure that sufficient mitigation is being done to compensate for wetland losses. 

•	 Mitigation banks. Concerns were expressed that the 

widespread availability of mitigation banks may provide a 

disincentive to “avoid and minimize” impacts. Some participants questioned how agencies determine sufficient 

“avoidance and minimization,” prior to allowing the 

use of wetland mitigation banking credits. Stakeholders 

presented this as a concern despite the recognition that, 

regardless of the presence or absence of any permitteeresponsible or third party mitigation option(s), pursuant 

to the CWA 404(b)(1) guidelines, impacts must first be 

avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable before compensation for unavoidable impacts is considered. In accordance with the Compensatory Mitigation Rule (see Appendix C), mitigation banks are the first 

mitigation alternative in the preference hierarchy because 

banks, along with in-lieu-fee programs, usually involve 

consolidation of compensatory mitigation projects where 

ecologically appropriate, reduce temporal losses of functions, and reduce uncertainty about project success.

•	 Effectiveness. Participants questioned whether the 

performance of mitigation sites was being adequately 

assessed to determine full compensation of function and 

value. In addition, within this region no mitigation is 

required for certain activities that generate losses of SAV, 

an important fisheries habitat composed of underwater 

plants often found in the intertidal zone adjacent to 

coastal wetlands.

•	 Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method. Despite being 

a practical tool to address mitigation, some have suggested that UMAM needs to be improved to increase its 

effectiveness in protecting wetlands. Some participants 

provided literature (Costanza et al., 1997; Brown and 

Lant, 1999; Robertson, 2003) supporting their concerns 

about UMAM’s reliability in fully characterizing wetland 

function, calculating mitigation accurately, and ensuring that tradeoffs truly result in no net loss of wetlands. 

Specific concerns:

» Although SFWMD holds UMAM training and workshops, UMAM has not been peer-reviewed or validated 

as a model.

» The potential for onsite “ecological lift” (the degree of 

wetland improvement in function) is not adequately 

assessed. Some participants voiced reservations about 

allowing ecological lift as compensation for loss of acreage 

because it is difficult to determine the added functional 

or qualitative value compared to quantitative areal loss.

» While Chapter 62-345 of the Florida Administrative 

Code has guidelines for scoring wetland mitigation, 

professional judgment is often used in determining the 

scores. Small variations in scoring could result in less 

mitigation. Concerns were expressed that applicants 

might be “gaming the system” by trying to under-assess 

the value and functions of impact areas and over-assess 

the value and function of the mitigation areas, to 

reduce mitigation requirements. However, it was also 

noted that the project manager reviewing the project 

has the final say in the scoring, not the applicant.

Gaps in transferring strategies from public to private land

to increase effectiveness of invasive species management.

Invasive species control strategies need to be applied on private as well as public land. Currently, most of the invasive 

plant programs are implanted on public lands, and participants cited the need to transfer those successful public land 

management practices to the private sector for more effective, comprehensive invasive species control throughout 

the watershed. More programs like Volusia County’s CIA 

will help increase the awareness of the public in removing 

exotic species from their own properties (see the “Tools and 

Strategies” section).

Focal Watershed Review: Indian River Lagoon, Florida (continued)
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: South Atlantic Review 21

Focal Watershed Review: Middle and Lower Neuse River Watershed

Introduction

North Carolina’s approximately 5,000 miles of estuarine 

shoreline and over 300 miles of ocean shoreline are host to 

a variety of wetland types—marsh, swamps, forested wetlands and pocosins, to name a few. Unfortunately, North 

Carolina has lost 50 percent of its original 11.1 million 

acres of wetlands. Between 1950 and 1980, wetland conversion6

 in the North Carolina coastal plain was due largely 

to forestry (52.8 percent of total area altered), followed by 

agriculture (42.2 percent) and development, such as urbanization (5 percent) (Cashin et al., 1992). Despite these 

losses, the majority of the remaining wetland is located in 

the coastal plain (Dorney et al., 2004; Street et al., 2005).

The northern portion of North Carolina’s coastal zone is 

distinguished by a long strand of barrier islands (the Outer 

Banks). With only a few inlets, these barrier islands have 

created the largest lagoonal estuarine system in the United 

States (EPA, 2007). The coastal wetlands in the region are 

a critical resource for the state’s commercial fishing, recreational fishing, and tourism industries. Jobs and businesses 

in the region depend on a healthy coastal wetland ecosystem. 

The Neuse is one of six river basins that drain into the Albemarle-Pamlico Sound (Figure 13). The Neuse River, which 

flows 250 miles starting in the North Carolina Piedmont, 

has experienced water quality degradation over the last few 

decades due to a variety of factors, including agricultural 

runoff. By the mid-1980s, the Neuse estuary saw an increase 

in excessive levels of nutrients, harmful algal blooms, low 

oxygen levels, fish kills, and other symptoms of stress in the 

aquatic biota (NC DWQ, n.d.). In the mid-1990s, expansions of concentrated animal feeding operations contributed 

further to nutrient loading in the river. More recently, the 

explosion of development in the Piedmont and innercoastal areas has exacerbated already serious water quality 

issues. This combination of stressors prompted American 

Rivers to name the Neuse one of the nation’s 10 most 

endangered rivers in 2007 (American Rivers, 2007). 

In preparation for the focal watershed review, the EPA 

Coastal Wetlands Team worked with the North Carolina 

Division of Water Quality (NC DWQ) and NOAA C-CAP 

to develop a general characterization of wetland changes in 

the Middle and Lower Neuse over the past 10 or so years, as 

reported by both agencies. NOAA C-CAP examines overall 

land use change, including wetlands, for the coastal regions 

of the United States. The NC DWQ program tracks sitespecific impacts to wetlands regulated under the 401 Water 

Quality Certification program, which is closely coordinated 

with the 404 permitting program administered by the 

Army Corps. Because of differences in scale, timeframe, and 

geographical boundaries, the two data sets are not directly 

comparable. NOAA C-CAP does not differentiate between 

permitted wetland losses and losses occurring outside the 

permitting programs. It provides a general, “high-level” 

snapshot of the nature and scope of wetlands changes from 

an analysis of 30-meter-resolution imagery from Landsat (a 

form of remote sensing). NC DWQ tracks the extent of wetland losses that are permitted and mitigated through the state 

wetland permitting program, which requires at least 1:1 mitigation, and most commonly 2:1 mitigation. Both state and 

federal data sets currently report changes in wetland acreage 

only and do not measure changes in wetland function.

Table 4 displays Middle and Lower Neuse (HUCs 

03020202, 03020204) wetland impacts and mitigation data 

for 2000 to 2009 provided by NC DWQ. The data were 

assembled using county boundaries and therefore do not 

reflect the focal watershed review area exactly. The calculations do not include impacts associated with 404 nationwide permits (NWP) 12, 27, and 33, or any impacts that 

may be occurring outside the regulatory programs.7

 The 

Figure 13. Albemarle-Pamlico Sound and the mid- and lower Neuse River 

watersheds (cross-hatched).

6 For purposes of the CWR effort, conversion is defined to not only include those scenarios where wetlands are converted to non-wetlands, but also scenarios where 

conversion takes place from one wetland type to another wetland type.

7 The Army Corps’ Wilmington District tracks all permits, and documents Clean Water Act Section 404 violations as well as all compensatory mitigation by wetland type 

using the Corps’ Operation and Maintenance business information link, Regulatory Module (ORM) system. A preliminary review of Army Corps’ Wilmington District data 

shows that in 2000–2004 approximately 60 acres of mostly non-riparian wetlands were impacted within the counties containing the Neuse River study area. Approximately 135 acres of wetland mitigation was required to compensate for these impacts.
“Total Compensatory Mitigation” values include total 

wetland acres preserved, enhanced, created, and restored. 

The numbers for the Middle and Lower Neuse reveal the 

majority of mitigation in the last decade has been in the 

form of restoration and creation as compared to preservation and enhancement. Based on these numbers, there has 

been a small net gain in wetland acres in the study area 

from 2000 to 2009. The total number of acres mitigated is 

higher than the total number of acres impacted because the

state’s mitigation ratios for preservation and enhancement 

are higher than those for restoration and creation (e.g., the 

ratio of acres preserved to acres impacted is 5:1). 

Table 5 and the accompanying pie chart displaying NOAA’s 

C-CAP8 data (Figure 14) are based on the area of the two 

8-digit HUCs that were the focus of the CWR in the Middle and Lower Neuse watersheds. According to the C-CAP 

analysis, over 98 percent of wetlands lost in the focal watersheds between 1996 and 2006 were non-tidal, with the 

greatest impacts occurring from conversion to agriculture.9

As mentioned earlier, however, there are several factors 

making the NC DWQ and NOAA wetland impact data 

difficult to compare. This type of variation represents one 

of the biggest challenges for understanding and addressing 

coastal wetland loss. Determining the scope of quantitative 

and qualitative wetland loss is valuable information that 

Table 4. Lower and Middle Neuse Impacts and Mitigation

Calendar	

Year

Impacts	

(acres)

Total		

Compensatory	

Mitigation		

(acres)

Compensatory	

Mitigation:	

Restoration	and	

Creation	(acres)

2000 2.182 0 0

2001 6.335 8.25 8.25

2002 17.215 7.88 7.88

2003 16.646 81.14 66.98

2004 5.475 9.88 9.88

2005 3.754 2.70 2.70

2006 6.113 6.85 6.85

2007 3.403 6.06 6.06

2008 41.392 55.67 55.67

2009 11.665 14.8 7.4629

Total 114.18 193.23 171.7329

Developed

16%

Agriculture

41% Bare Land

11%

Open Water

32%

Focal Watershed Review: Middle and Lower Neuse River Watershed (continued)

Figure 14: Wetland loss and changes in 

land cover, 1996-2006: Middle and Lower 

Neuse watersheds. Source: NOAA, 2010b.

Source: NC DWQ.

Coastal Wetlands Initiative: South Atlantic Review 22

Table 5. Change in Wetland Land Use Type (Acres) From 1996 to 2006, HUCs 03020202, 03020204

Wetland	types* Developed Agriculture Bare	land Open	water Total

Palustrine forested 364.95 889.58 207.72 409.87 1,872.12

Palustrine scrub 13.79 80.28 35.81 58.93 188.81

Palustrine emergent 4.23 21.35 17.12 259.98 302.68

Estuarine scrub 0 0 0 0 0

Estuarine emergent 0 0 0.44 0 0.44

Unconsolidated shore 0.44 6.45 34.69 41.59

Total 382.96 991.66 267.54 763.48 2,405.65

Source: NOAA, 2010b.

* See Appendix D for wetland classification descriptions.

8 A more detailed description of the C-CAP data set is available in Appendix D.

9 According to the Army Corps’ Wilmington District, converting wetland areas to agricultural production would require a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit. Over the past 10 

years, no major permits (greater than 1 acre) have been issued for conversion of wetlands to agricultural production within the Neuse River study area.
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: South Atlantic Review 23

can inform and potentially improve 

decision-making. While both data sets 

acknowledge wetland loss, the differences between the two highlight the 

difficulty in obtaining and comparing 

high-quality wetland data sets when 

data is collected for different reasons 

using different parameters. These two 

datasets, although not directly comparable, help identify where more 

information and data may be needed, 

and helps to inform the discussion with 

participants about these data challenges 

and about losses that may be occurring 

outside the purview of permitting programs.

Stressors

Participants at the review discussed key issues contributing 

to coastal wetland loss. They focused on the following key 

issues contributing to coastal wetland loss and confirmed, 

as well as added, to the stressors identified during the 

literature review. The two most important coastal stressors 

identified by participants during the review are listed first, 

followed by (in no particular order) other top stressors. 

Increased	coastal	development.	From 2000 to 2010, the 

population in North Carolina increased by 18.5 percent 

(U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). In coastal communities, 

seasonal populations increased by more than 50 percent 

from 1990-2000. Over that same timeframe populations 

in the Neuse River Basin increased by 40 percent (Street et 

al., 2005).

•	 Residential development. Population growth in the area has 

driven the demand for residential development. In addition to residential development projects, there are associated development activities that contribute to acreage losses 

and/or degradation of coastal wetlands such as shoreline 

armoring for storm/erosion protection, increased boating 

activity and boating infrastructure, shopping centers, and 

golf courses.

•	 Small wetland impacts. Several review participants 

expressed the view that unauthorized private land conversion of less than 1/10th of an acre were occurring and 

would continue to lead to larger cumulative impacts 

unless detected and regulated. Impacts of less than 

1/10th of an acre are covered by nationwide permit #18 

and are regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water 

Act.10 However, the Army Corps noted that for wetland 

losses of 1/10th acre or less that require pre-construction 

notification their District Engineer may determine on 

a case-by-case basis that compensatory mitigation is 

required to ensure that the activity results in minimal 

adverse effects on the aquatic environment. According 

to the Army Corps’ Wilmington District, of 45 general 

permits issued in the Lower and Middle Neuse watersheds in 2006–2008, approximately 30 were for impacts 

less than 1/10th of an acre (amounting to a total impact 

of approximately 1.7 acres, and approximately 8 acres 

mitigated). 

•	 Shoreline hardening. Shoreline stabilization structures 

such as seawalls and bulkheads are permitted along the 

estuarine shoreline in North Carolina. Mapping efforts 

in 2007 identified over 30 percent of the shoreline of 

the Neuse River as hardened via bulkhead, rip-rap, or a 

combination (Figure 15; Corbett et al., 2008). Hardened 

structures along the shore may exacerbate erosion and 

prevent landward migration of coastal wetlands. 

10 Additionally activities covered under this nationwide permit are limited to 25 cubic yards (cy) of material below the ordinary high water mark or high tide line. 

It should be noted that the information 

below is based on the opinions and 

observations of participants, who provided feedback on draft versions of this 

document and supplemented statements 

with documentation, where available.

Focal Watershed Review: Middle and Lower Neuse River Watershed (continued)

Figure 15. Map of shoreline hardening along the trunk of the Neuse River Estuary in December 2007. 

Source: Corbett et al., 2008.
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: South Atlantic Review 24

•	 Limited areas for mitigation sites. Some areas (e.g., upper 

Piedmont HUCs of the Cape Fear basin) may be difficult 

to identify suitable watershed-based mitigation sites. 

There are a number of factors that contribute to this 

difficulty in locating suitable mitigation sites, including 

terrain, soils, or overdevelopment. This could be a 

problem in the Neuse watershed in the future, should 

development pressures continue to increase.

Limitations	of	regulations.	Issues regarding jurisdiction as 

well as non-compliance due to lack of consistent enforcement were identified by participants as stressors.

•	 Jurisdiction. A number of jurisdictional issues may be 

contributing to coastal wetland loss: 

» Field delineations of non-tidal wetlands performed by 

private consultants are valid for five years. Concerns 

were expressed about the accuracy and consistency 

of some of those delineations and the possibility that 

wetland areas may be underestimated. It was noted, 

however, that the Army Corps regularly conducts field 

checks of the delineations done by private consultants 

before signing off on the delineations.11 Stakeholders 

suggested that they had a higher level of confidence in 

the accuracy of tidal wetlands delineations. 

» Participants at the Neuse River Coastal Wetland 

Review noted that the Army Corps is constrained by 

jurisdictional limitations imposed by the Rapanos 

Supreme Court decision. However, although the Army 

Corps’ Wilmington District would agree that the 

“burden” of documenting jurisdiction has increased, 

they see no evidence that the Rapanos decision has 

significantly changed exerted limits of waters of the 

United States within the area of review. It was further 

noted by other Neuse River CWR participants, that 

few sites have been determined not subject to Clean 

Water Act Section 404 jurisdiction and, in most 

instances, North Carolina’s isolated wetland rule would 

provide NC DWQ with jurisdiction over these wetlands. 

•	 Enforcement. Some review participants believed that 

low and infrequently collected penalties for violations of 

wetland regulations were contributing to noncompliance 

by not deterring violators.12

Cumulative	impacts. Concern was expressed that small, 

incremental wetland impacts may be untracked and difficult to characterize. They may result from inaccurate 

wetland delineations, unauthorized wetland impacts, or 

water quality degradation of wetlands. These small, disparate impacts result in substantial cumulative acreage losses 

when considered in total.

Agricultural	impacts.	In addition to the historic filling and 

draining of wetlands for agricultural uses, ongoing and 

expanding agricultural activities can impact the function 

and condition of coastal wetlands by increasing nutrient 

and sediment input. Review participants identified row 

crops, livestock, and poultry as having impacts on wetlands 

in the Neuse watershed.

•	 Nutrient runoff. Despite reductions in nitrogen loads 

mandated by the Neuse River Basin Water Quality 

Plan, it was noted that water quality data so far do 

not indicate any significant decrease in actual nutrient 

levels in the estuary. This is the case despite the agricultural community’s approximate 45 percent reduction 

in nitrogen loss from cropland and pastureland (NC 

DWQ, 2009). Additionally, the Neuse River TMDL 

estimated the nitrogen impact of over 500 hog farms 

at zero, yet there has been an increase of leachate and 

airborne nitrogen into the estuary (Burkholder et al., 

2007). This type of divergent information exemplifies 

the challenges of determining impacts from nonpoint 

sources of pollution.

•	 Ditching. Ditching is a method to drain wetlands for 

Focal Watershed Review: Middle and Lower Neuse River Watershed (continued)

11 Based on a review by the Army Corps’ Wilmington District on their delineation data, the District has verified approximately 50-75% of their wetland delineations during 

the 2000-2010 timeframe.

12 According to the Army Corps’ Wilmington District, typically enforcement actions are resolved either by after-the-fact (ATF) permitting, restoration, or a combination of 

the two. If the unauthorized activity is permitted ATF, all appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation should be provided. In the case of restoration, the District 

typically requires a detailed restoration plan and monitoring of the area.
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: South Atlantic Review 25

agriculture and development. Along the coast, ditches 

may act as conduits for saltwater intrusion, in particular 

during storms and with rising sea levels. Saltwater intrusion has been shown to have a potentially negative effect 

on regeneration of marshes (Middleton, 2009). 

•	 Poultry. Comparison of poultry production information 

from NC Agriculture Statistics for individual counties 

in the Neuse River Basin from 1996 to 2006 indicates 

that turkey production has decreased from 27,200,000 

to 19,230,000, broiler production has increased from 

77,000,000 to 80,700,000, and other poultry (layers, 

etc.) has decreased from 3,820,000 to 3,005,700 (personal communication, Vernon Cox, NC Department of 

Agriculture and Consumer Services). Review participants 

expressed concern over the lack of information on farm 

location and the potential for these farms to be located 

adjacent to wetlands where runoff could lead to water 

quality degradation and impaired wetland function.

Forestry	impacts.	Participants had differing opinions 

about the impacts of forestry practices on wetlands. Some 

believed that forestry exemptions and the lack of enforceable BMPs were contributing to impacts to coastal wetland. Others disputed this claim, citing the lack of current 

wetlands mapping and land use data. 

•	 Stream crossings. Skid trail stream crossings have been 

documented as the most frequent forestry activity triggering a violation of North Carolina’s Forest Practices 

Guidelines Related to Water Quality (Figure 16). 

•	 Minor drainage. Minor drainage is an allowable forestry 

activity that is exempted from permitting under Section 

404(f) of the Clean Water Act. However, participants 

still had questions as to what constitutes “minor” drainage versus more significant drainage.

•	 Harvesting methods and timing. In recent years, concerns have arisen about the timing of timber harvests 

in certain wetland areas, related to the availability of 

natural seed or stump sprouts to regenerate the harvested 

wetland in a relatively short period of time after harvest. 

Additionally, some review participants believed that 

skidders used for harvesting can create small ditches in 

the landscape, which, when subject to forces of erosion, 

can widen ditches into channels that can drain wetlands. 

Another issue was raised about harvesting determinations: the difficulty of establishing the appropriate 

setback rules. Harvesting setback rules for tidal areas are 

determined at the high-water mark, a difficult criterion 

in a tidal estuary. In non-tidal areas (largely freshwater), 

the setback mark may be set at the lowest (dry period) 

mark which allows for wetland harvesting of cypress and 

tupelo species.

Climate	change	impacts.	Although not yet attracting a 

great deal of attention, participants noted that studies have 

shown that coastal wetlands are likely to be seriously altered 

by predicted rates of sea level rise (Figure 17).

Figure 16. Data on statewide Forest Practices Guidelines (FPG) violations, 

1999–2009. Source: NC DFR, 2009.

Figure 17. Dark blue shading represents land that is predicted to be under 

water with a 1-meter rise in sea level, expected in 65 to 200 years. Source: 

Poulter et al., 2009.

Focal Watershed Review: Middle and Lower Neuse River Watershed (continued)
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: South Atlantic Review 26

Tools and Strategies

A number of effective tools and strategies exist or are under 

development in the Middle and Lower Neuse watersheds 

to address the above stressors. The focal watershed session 

identified the following as “tools and strategies.”

Tools	to	address	coastal	development	impacts.

•	 Living shorelines. Living shorelines is a management 

practice that addresses shoreline erosion through the 

strategic placement of vegetation, stone, sand, and other 

structural and organic materials (see Figure 18). The 

living shorelines methodology considers parameters such 

as fetch, water depth, vegetation, height of bank, and 

existing erosion condition, and produces the most 

effective shoreline stabilization method given a site’s 

characteristics. The Division of Coastal Management 

(NC DCM) provides guidance on implementing living 

shorelines projects and has hosted training workshops 

and site visits to promote the practice. The North 

Carolina Division of Soil and Water provides a cost-share 

of up to 70 percent for living shoreline projects along the 

estuarine shore. Despite the potential of living shorelines, 

several limitations have slowed more widespread utilization of this technique. The state of North Carolina has 

had a ban on the construction of permanent erosion 

control structures since 2003 (House Bill 1028/S.L. 

2003-427). However, in 2011, the state passed Senate 

Bill 110/S.L. 2011-387, which allows the Coastal 

Resources Commission to permit the construction of 

four terminal groins along the coastline.

•	 Permitting. Though not currently in practice, participants believe streamlined permitting would encourage 

increased use of living shorelines. The permitting system 

is more streamlined for hardened structures such as 

bulkheads and seawalls as compared to living shoreline 

alternatives. A Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) 

General Permit exists for rock sills (rock or oyster shell 

sills are often part of living shorelines projects in order to 

protect marsh plantings), but for some applications, the 

Army Corps’ Wilmington District requires an individual 

permit for case-specific review. Primary concerns of the 

District that warrant requiring case-specific reviews for 

these activities include potential impacts to public safety 

and navigation, potential impacts to EFH, and impacts 

to submerged aquatic vegetation and shallow water habitat. In contrast, installing a bulkhead or seawall along 

the estuarine shore can be approved with a significantly 

less-intensive general permit review. 

•	 Education. Public and contractor education is an important part of a living shorelines strategy; however, there 

are social issues that are also important to consider in the 

education strategy. For example, it was noted that some 

landowners prefer the “clean” look of a bulkhead. Landowner decisions are also strongly influenced by whether 

neighbors have already installed bulkheads, leading to 

continuation of the practice. 

•	 Mapping. NC DCM is tracking estuarine shoreline status 

and is in the process of mapping hardened structures.

Focal Watershed Review: Middle and Lower Neuse River Watershed (continued)

Figure 18. Example of living shoreline, Beaufort, N.C. (Photo Courtesy of Arleen O’Donnell, ERG)
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: South Atlantic Review 27

•	 Low-impact development. LID, similar to living shorelines, presents an alternative approach to traditional 

stormwater management practices that can reduce 

impacts on wetlands from development by simulating 

more natural hydrology of a particular site. LID methods include grassed swales and other vegetated features 

(instead of culverts), pervious pavement, infiltration 

devices, reducing impervious surfaces, and recharging 

as much on-site stormwater as possible. Stormwater 

permitting requirements have become more stringent, 

and BMPs to manage stormwater in accordance with 

these requirements have led to LID. Local communities 

(e.g., the city of Wilmington, Brunswick County, New 

Hanover County) have adopted LID resolutions. 

 To promote LID and other means of sustainable development, the North Carolina Division of Soil and Water 

has an award program for sustainable building, and the 

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission is working on developing a wildlife-friendly green development 

certification. Some participants felt that the economic 

base of an area will determine how viable green development programs will be. Sustainable development is 

happening more and more on the coast, but not broadly 

within the Neuse Basin yet. Craven County has adopted 

a “Green Craven” development protocol in order to promote better development and planning practices. 

Tools	to	increase	effectiveness	of	regulatory	programs.	

•	 Interagency collaboration. Participants in the review 

felt that collaboration is particularly strong among NC 

DCM, the Division of Marine Fisheries, the Army Corps, 

and NC DWQ on the Coastal Habitat Protection Plan. 

Other collaboration occurs through an interagency review 

team, which reviews Ecosystem Enhancement Program 

projects and other mitigation projects. Project development teams are used for projects that require an Environmental Impact Statement such as beach renourishment 

projects. Reviewers believed that the Army Corps’ Wilmington District, NC DWQ, NC DCM, Division of Land 

Resources, Division of Forest Resources, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) have good 

working relationships and knowledge of one another’s 

programs, which allows for a high level of cooperation in 

alerting the appropriate agency to unauthorized activities as well as collaboration on some enforcement matters 

where multiple agencies have jurisdiction.

•	 Monitoring, assessment, and mapping.

» Wetlands Assessment Method. This rapid assessment 

method, when implemented, will allow a functional 

assessment on any impacted wetland so that mitigation 

can be based on function in addition to areal extent. 

Information on the method is available at http://portal.

ncdenr.org/web/wq/swp/ws/pdu/ncwam.

» National assessment. The state is working with EPA 

on a national wetland condition assessment to help 

determine coastal wetland indicators. Several sample 

plots throughout the state will be used to develop the 

national protocol. The same methodology may be used 

on mitigation sites in the future. 

» Impact mitigation mapping. NC DWQ will be undertaking a mapping project documenting Section 401 

and 404 permitted impacts and mitigation, as well as 

Ecosystem Enhancement Program mitigation statewide. The maps generated will aid the state in determining where mitigation and impacts are occurring 

(e.g., rural or urban areas) and whether mitigation is 

actually accounting for impacts within each watershed.

» Determination of the success of mitigation. NC 

DWQ is completing a study on the success rates of 

wetland and stream mitigation based on a statewide, 

random sample. Once this study is complete, these 

data will be used to improve wetland mitigation practices in the state.

Focal Watershed Review: Middle and Lower Neuse River Watershed (continued)
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: South Atlantic Review 28

» North Carolina Coastal Region 

Evaluation of Wetland Significance 

(NC-CREWS). The wetland functional assessment model used by NC 

DCM assesses the function of wetlands on a watershed basis.

Tools	to	address	agricultural	impacts.

•	 Wetland restoration. Review participants 

identified a growing focus on restoring 

prior converted croplands back to their 

original wetland state as a good example 

of strategies to address agricultural 

impacts to coastal wetlands in general 

and for improving water quality in the 

estuary, in particular. Restoration efforts 

in the Neuse have emphasized recreating 

wetland function in addition to acreage 

(see the “Highlight” box at right).

•	 Funding. An important component of 

all restoration efforts is securing funding 

for the project. Some examples of funding sources used in the Neuse watersheds 

are the Farm Bill and Conservation 

Reserve Enhancement Program. Farm 

Bill funds the Wetlands Reserve Program 

to pay for acquisition, easements, and 

restoration of prior converted lands. 

Conservation Reserve Enhancement 

Program money is also available for prior 

converted land restoration within the 

Albemarle-Pamlico Estuary river basins.

Tools	to	address	forestry	impacts.

•	 Forest Practices Guidelines. The North 

Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1989 regulates the impact 

of forestry on water quality through 

the development of “Forest Practices 

Guidelines (FPGs) Related to Water 

Quality.” The FPGs are nine mandatory performance standards outlined in 

North Carolina Administrative Code 

regulations, which went into effect in 

1990. The FPGs are most effectively 

met through the implementation of 

BMPs (Figure 20). The state’s Forestry 

Best Management Practices Manual 

to Protect Water Quality, amended in 

Focal Watershed Review: Middle and Lower Neuse River Watershed (continued)

Highlight: North River Farms

North River Farms is a 6,000-acre restoration site in Carteret County, managed by 

the North Carolina Coastal Federation (NCCF) (Figure 19). It is one of several largescale restoration sites in the state. Negotiations over the property began in 1998, 

when NCCF acquired 1991 acres at the rear of the property with the help of a $1 

million grant from the North Carolina Clean Water Management Trust Fund. At the 

time, approximately 808 acres were being used as farmland with the remainder 

designated prior converted cropland. Through a partnership with the Ecosystem 

Enhancement Program (see below for more on the Program) and North Carolina 

State University, as well as funding from EPA, NOAA, and USFWS, the entire area 

was restored at a cost of approximately $1,100 per acre. A few years later, in 2000, 

a private mitigation banking company (Restoration Systems LLC) purchased 400 

acres adjacent to the NCCF property while NCCF negotiated the purchase of 

the remaining farm acreage (3,568 acres) for around $1,400 per acre. NCCF was 

approached by 1804 Wildlife Partners, a private hunting club, for purchase of 1,400 

of the 3,568 acres. NCCF agreed in return for 1804 Wildlife Partners’ commitment to 

enroll the acres in NRCS’s Wetland Restoration Program (WRP). With the partnership in place, NCCF applied for, and was successful in receiving $3 million from the 

Clean Water Management Trust Fund to make the purchase in 2002. Part of the 

second acquisition included a farm lease on 2,100 of the acres through 2012 and 

NCCF has just begun mapping out the restoration strategy for the area. Meanwhile 

1804 Wildlife Partners has successfully enrolled in the WRP and completed restoration of its 1,400 acres. Restoration Systems has also enrolled in the WRP. In a few 

years’ time, the entire farm will be restored to wetlands (NCCF website; personal 

communication, Todd Miller).

The project has been supported financially by numerous agencies, partnerships, 

and organizations including the Clean Water Management Trust Fund, the Ecosystem Enhancement Program, NOAA’s Community-Based Restoration Program, 

Restore America’s Estuaries, the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, Fish 

America Foundation, the North Carolina Attorney General’s Office Environmental 

Enhancement Grant, USFWS, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, 1804 

Wildlife Partners, Restoration Systems, the North Carolina Coastal Land Trust, the 

North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, The Nature Conservancy, and Open 

Grounds Farm. North River Farms has also acted as a public education tool, helping 

the North Carolina coastal agricultural community gain a better understanding of 

restoration as an option for their land. 

Figure 19. North River Farms restoration project. Source: North Carolina Coastal Federation.
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: South Atlantic Review 29

September 2006, is available online at http://www.dfr.

nc.gov/water_quality/bmp_manual.htm. The Division 

of Forest Resources is the lead agency that monitors 

compliance with these regulations. Enforcement of 

FPG violations are administered by four state agencies, 

including the Division of Forest Resources, depending 

on the nature of the violation.

Recent monitoring and surveys of BMP implementation 

have indicated that BMP usage rates are currently in the 

mid-80-percent range along the coastal plain region of 

North Carolina and overall compliance with the FPG 

regulations exceed 97 percent (Raval, 2005). In addition, 

an ongoing watershed study is evaluating the effectiveness 

of forestry BMPs and the Neuse riparian buffer rule will 

add to the base of knowledge on how forestry practices 

may (or may not) influence water quality. Implementation and monitoring survey data are being updated. 

Future BMP surveys are planned as an ongoing assessment 

of forestry harvests and the usage of BMPs. (see “What’s 

Needed? What’s Missing?”).

•	 Mandatory riparian buffers. Forestry activities are 

additionally regulated within a 50-foot zone alongside 

designated streams, water channels, and bodies of water 

within the Neuse River basin in accordance with state 

regulations commonly called the “riparian buffer rules” 

(specifically Administrative Code 15A NCAC 02B 

.0233). These riparian buffer rules are supplemental 

to the required streamside management zone buffers 

as defined within the FPGs. The Neuse River riparian 

buffer rule went into effect in 2000. An ongoing pairedwatershed study in the upper Neuse River basin led by 

the Division of Forest Resources is currently evaluating 

the effectiveness of the riparian buffer rule for forest 

harvest activities.

•	 Stream crossings. Continued efforts to promote the use of 

portable bridge mats and thorough pre-harvest planning 

remain vital tools to educate and inform landowners, 

loggers, and timber buyers about the issues related to 

crossing streams.

Watershed-based	nutrient	and	sediment	management	

strategies.	North Carolina is a leader in watershed planning. The state wetland in-lieu fee program (the Ecosystem 

Enhancement Program) is watershed-based, and has a very 

high rate of compliance (99.76 percent for riparian wetlands, 98.64 percent for non-riparian wetlands, and 100 

percent for coastal marsh) (NC DENR, 2009). 

•	 Neuse River Management Strategy (1997) (Figure 21). 

The Neuse was the first river basin with mandatory 

point and nonpoint nitrogen reduction targets. The 

target was 30 percent nitrogen reduction from 1991 

to 1995. By 2007, a 39 percent reduction had been 

achieved at a cost of $12 million (EPA, 2005; Neuse 

Agricultural Basin Oversight Committee, 2007) through 

a combination of strategies including implementation of 

BMPs and installation of riparian buffer strips. Wetland 

buffers are particularly valuable for nutrient reduction. 

Researchers in North Carolina (Evans et al., 1996) have 

estimated that that movement of agricultural runoff 

through riparian wetlands reduced the nitrate-nitrogen 

content of the runoff nearly 85 percent annually. They 

Focal Watershed Review: Middle and Lower Neuse River Watershed (continued)

Figure 20. Photo of a forested wetland swamp in Craven County, six years 

after a clearcut timber harvest. The harvest was done in 2004 and was in 

compliance with FPGs and the Neuse riparian buffer rule. Photo: North Carolina 

Division of Forest Resources. 

Figure 21. Vegetated filter strips in the Neuse River Basin help trap sediments and decrease nitrogen loads to the river.
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: South Atlantic Review 30

also estimated that 85 to 90 percent of the sediment 

remained trapped in forested wetlands adjacent to the 

farm fields and never reached receiving waters. Partners 

involved in funding and implementing the strategy 

include EPA, NRCS, the North Carolina Department of 

Environment and Natural Resources (NC DENR), the 

North Carolina Farm Bureau, North Carolina Soil and 

Water Conservation, the Neuse River Foundation, and 

Duke University.

Public	education	and	outreach.	All participants noted 

public education and outreach as critical to the success of 

the coastal wetland protection program, components that 

complement and strengthen regulatory programs. They 

will become increasingly important in the future as ways to 

help inform the public about the impacts of climate change 

and sea level rise (see the “Stressors” and “What’s Needed? 

What’s Missing?” sections). Work by Carteret Catch, NC 

Sea Grant, Albemarle-Pamlico National Estuary Program, 

and National Estuarine Research Reserves (Rachel Carson, 

Currituck Banks, Zeke’s Island, Masonboro Island) was 

mentioned during the review as prime examples of effective 

public outreach.

•	 Sturgeon City. Located in Jacksonville, Sturgeon City 

is an environmental education center located in an old 

wastewater treatment plant that used to discharge into 

Wilson Bay, former habitat to the native sturgeon. Sturgeon City is working to restore habitat in Wilson Bay for 

the fish as well as host educational programs for youth 

and adults. 

•	 Carteret Catch. Carteret Catch is a marketing program 

developed to try and sustain the livelihood and heritage 

of the Carteret County fishing industry. The program 

educates the public on local seafood and helps market it 

to local restaurants, ensuring the continued existence of 

county fishermen.

Tools	to	address	impacts	of	sea	level	rise.	Although 

it has received little attention to date (see “Stressors,” 

above), a state sea level rise forum was held in January 

2010 where participants agreed on a rate of rise for decision-making purposes (1 meter by 2100). Participants 

in that forum also agreed that the most immediate need 

was education of the public because currently the science 

is ahead of public awareness. It is expected that more 

activity around this issue will occur within the coming 

months, as the public is made aware of the threats to 

coastal wetlands.

What’s Needed? What’s Missing?

The following major gaps and needs were identified by 

review participants:

Gaps	in	addressing	coastal	development	impacts.	

Although they noted public outreach as an important tool, 

participants acknowledged that more targeted audience 

outreach efforts are needed. A high priority should be targeting landowners to educate them about living shorelines, 

wetland functions and values, and wetland regulations to 

encourage compliance and better development practices. 

Outreach and education related to regulatory programs and 

planning should target developers, consultants, and property owners (especially home buyers). Direct interaction 

approaches, such as public tours of projects or sites, were 

viewed as most effective. Other examples included:

•	 Marketing of LID and living shorelines. No centralized effort currently exists for marketing LID, living 

shorelines, or sustainable development principles. The 

long-term economics of these practices could also help 

promote them. For example, living shoreline projects 

often have higher start-up costs compared to hardened 

structures, but in the long term they tend to last longer 

and have lower maintenance costs. 

•	 Incentives. More incentives need to be offered to sustain 

the types of voluntary programs mentioned in the “Tools 

and Strategies” section.

•	 Ecosystem services. Communication to the public regarding ecosystem services has been insufficient. While local 

outreach is important, statewide outreach is critical in 

order to emphasize the connectivity of ecosystems—i.e., 

getting the public to understand that impacts upstream 

can have negative ramifications in coastal areas.

•	 Dissemination. The university system should be used to 

help with research and disseminating information. For 

example, participants noted that USDA has already established a strong relationship with the university system and 

EPA and other federal agencies could consider using these 

or other channels for information dissemination. 

•	 Living shorelines. There is the potential for resolving 

issues with living shoreline permitting between Army 

Corps and state agencies. At the next nationwide permit 

reauthorization, there is an opportunity for EPA and 

other federal agencies working with the Corps to revisit 

the nationwide permits for bulkheads and to consider 

providing incentives for living shorelines methods.

Focal Watershed Review: Middle and Lower Neuse River Watershed (continued)
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: South Atlantic Review 31

Gaps	in	regulations.

•	 Stronger nutrient management plans/nutrient plans for 

other land uses. While significant progress was noted in 

the implementation of the Neuse nutrient management 

plan, participants thought that more aggressive reductions are necessary (including, possibly, revising TMDLs) 

to realize water quality improvements at the mouth of 

the river, and that controls are needed to comprehensively address all contaminant sources impacting the 

Neuse River Basin.

•	 LID retrofits. LID is being used in both developed areas 

(retrofitting) and new development, however participants 

noted that more needs to be done to promote retrofitting 

of existing development in order to realize more significant water quality benefits.

More	staffing.	Lack of sufficient staffing hinders the state’s 

ability to enforce and monitor wetland regulations and 

permit conditions.

•	 Enforcement. Reviewers were concerned that resource 

limitations translate into reduced field presence, compliance checks, and enforcement. Concern was expressed 

that NC DENR only has five or six wetland compliance 

and enforcement staff to cover the entire state. 

Gaps	in	addressing	forestry	and	agricultural	impacts.	Wetland impacts that fall outside of the wetland regulatory system complicate the determination of wetland impacts and 

acreage loss. Lack of current wetland mapping and land 

use data was cited as one current limitation to the ability to 

evaluate impacts of forestry and agricultural practices.

•	 Forestry. Additional documentation of what happens 

to areas that are clear-cut and how they regenerate is 

needed, as well as the impact of forestry practices on wetlands. Opportunities should be explored for developing 

online tools to provide public access to information such 

as aerial photos and other information and data regarding 

forestry activities. In addition, a more thorough compilation of data regarding the over 20 years of forestry site 

inspections would allow more analysis of trends observed 

regarding compliance. Sustained staffing is needed to 

continue the intensive BMP surveys and BMP effectiveness study. 

Monitoring wetland restoration and prior converted 

cropland. State oversight of wetland restoration is quite 

thorough, but monitoring of community-based wetland 

restoration projects should be improved. Participants 

also noted that improvements should be made in tracking of prior converted croplands. In some cases the land 

has reverted back to wetland communities, and exhibits 

wetland characteristics, but is still considered “prior converted” land (determination made by NRCS). A benefit 

of tracking prior converted cropland would help identify 

potential wetland restoration opportunities.

aps	in	data	and	mapping.

Water quality data. There are a lot of people collecting 

water quality data but no central repository for easily 

accessing and analyzing the data. Additionally, consistent 

data standards and protocols are needed for data collection and analysis. 

Mapping. Participants acknowledged that better mapping 

is needed to capture wetland loss. National Wetlands 

Inventory data were viewed as inadequate due to their 

low resolution. Newer LiDAR data have a higher resolution, with single pixels representing 30 to 100 square 

feet. Higher-resolution data create the potential for 

developing models to identify and classify wetlands and 

to develop statistical algorithms capable of detecting even 

small cumulative impact wetland areas. LiDAR will also 

provide an opportunity to more easily resolve jurisdictional issues and predict impacts from sea level rise. 

•

G

•

•

Focal Watershed Review: Middle and Lower Neuse River Watershed (continued)
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: South Atlantic Review 32

Conclusion

The South Atlantic coastal wetland review is the second 

in a series that the EPA Coastal Wetlands Team conducted. The team has been able to gain a greater understanding of coastal wetland loss in the region, including 

important insights into the causes of these losses. Several 

common themes have emerged from the focal watershed 

reviews:

•	 Development pressures are a growing concern for 

directly and indirectly causing coastal wetland acreage 

loss and degradation.

•	 Hydrologic alterations including water diversions, 

mosquito impoundments, and ditching and draining 

for agriculture and forestry are important historic and 

current stressors.

•	 The limitations of regulations and lack of accurate characterization of coastal wetland losses are important issues 

that hinder the protection of coastal wetlands.

•	 The impact of sea level rise and other climate change 

issues were raised in both focal watershed reviews as stressors of concern; participants noted that more information 

is needed to assess the impacts of climate change stressors. 

A number of tools and strategies were suggested that could 

effectively address the major stressors discussed on the previous pages, and could be transferred to other watersheds and 

regions:

•	 Both North Carolina and Florida have extensive wetland 

mitigation banking programs—Florida’s is based on 

functional mitigation, while North Carolina’s has been 

based on wetland area. North Carolina is moving toward 

a functional assessment methodology to supplement its 

existing program. 

•	 Restoring wetlands that were impounded or converted to 

other land uses is another practice that could be transferred 

to other regions with similar impacts. Significant projects 

are occurring in Florida and North Carolina to restore 

wetlands previously impounded for mosquito control or 

previously converted for agricultural use. These restoration efforts introduce integrated management practices 

that can result in multiple benefits to wetlands historically 

modified for a single purpose (e.g., mosquito control). 

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:

•	 Resources (staffing and funding) are needed to administer regulatory programs, conduct monitoring and assessment, ensure accurate wetland mapping, and conduct 

effective outreach programs.

•	 A comprehensive central repository or database for 

wetland-related data, as well as a common set of metrics to allow standardization and comparison of data, is 

needed to better track wetland impacts.

•	 An evaluation should be conducted to determine and 

address gaps in protection while identifying ways to 

streamline the permitting process and better document 

wetland impacts that occur outside wetland regulatory 

programs. Examples include assessing the effectiveness of 

forestry best management practices to minimize wetland 

impacts and assessing the effectiveness of mitigation 

programs. 

•	 While some information is available on predicted climate change impacts on coastal wetlands, it would be 

helpful to have a better sense of how to use new as well 

as existing information to set priorities for land acquisition, design restoration projects, and implement such 

practices as living shorelines. 

•	 Increased interagency and external partner collaboration and coordination is needed, as well as increased and 

targeted public/stakeholder outreach to increase overall 

awareness and effectiveness of coastal wetland protection.
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: South Atlantic Review 33

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 Troy Rice, Director of the Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program, 

for hosting the Indian River Lagoon watershed session and 

providing valuable information and assistance. Thanks also 

to Tammy Dabu, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jacksonville District; Jim David, St. Lucie County Mosquito 

Control Department; Eric Hughes, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency; and Donna Devlin, Florida Atlantic 

University, for providing valuable information. 

For the Neuse River coastal wetland review, we wish to 

thank Ron Sechler, Donald Field, and Carolyn Currin of 

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for 

hosting the Neuse River watershed session and Bill Crowell, Director of the Albermarle-Pamlico National Estuary 

Program, for providing participant lists and background 

information. Particular thanks go to Amanda Mueller and 

John Dorney, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, 

who provided wetland permitting information and data on 

the Neuse River watersheds. Thanks also to Jim Stanfill, 

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural 

Resources, Ecosystem Enhancement Program, for providing information on the state’s wetland mitigation program. 

Lastly, thanks go to Todd Miller of the North Carolina 

Coastal Federation for organizing the Neuse session field 

trip and providing valuable information included in this 

report. Without the support and contributions of these 

individuals, these reviews would not have been possible.

DISCLAIMER: The work reported in this document was funded by the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) under Work Assignment B-04 of Contract No. EP-C-09-020 to 

Eastern Research Group, Inc. EPA, through its Office of Coastal Protection Division, managed and collaborated in the assessment described herein. This document is not based on 

new research or fieldwork conducted by the Agency or its contractor. It contains readily 

available existing information and that provided by stakeholders. This document will be 

subjected to the Agency’s review. Neither the U.S. government nor any of its employees, 

contractors, subcontractors, or their employees make any warrant, expressed or implied, 

or assume responsibility for any third party’s use of, or the results of, such use of any 

information, product, or process discussed in this report, or represents that its use by 

such party would not infringe on privately owned rights. Any opinions expressed in this 

report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Agency; 

therefore, no official endorsement should be inferred. Any mention of trade names or 

commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

For more information on the 

Coastal Wetlands Initiative, contact:

Jennifer Linn

Linn.Jennifer@epa.gov

Nancy Laurson

Laurson.Nancy@epa.gov
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: South Atlantic Review 34

References

American Rivers. 2007. America’s most endangered rivers of 2007. 

<http://www.americanrivers.org/assets/pdfs/mer-past-reports/mer3_28_07c76c.pdf>

ASWM (Association of State Wetland Managers). 2009. Recommendations for a national wetlands and climate change initiative. <http://www.

aswm.org/calendar/wetlands2008/recommendations_2008_112008.

pdf>

Boylan, J.M., and E.L. Wenner. 1993. Settlement of brachyuran megalopae in a South Carolina, USA, estuary. Marine Ecology Progress Series 

97: 237-246. 

Brockmeyer Jr., R.E., J.R. Rey, R.W. Virnstein, R.G. Gilmore, and 

L. Earnest. 1997. Rehabilitation of impounded estuarine wetlands by 

hydrologic reconnection to the Indian River Lagoon, Florida (USA). 

Wetlands Ecology and Management 4: 93-109.

Brown, P.P., and C.L. Lant. 1999. The effect of wetland mitigation 

banking on the achievement of no-net-loss. Environmental Management 

23(3): 333-345.

Burkholder, J.M., B. Libra, P. Weyer, S. Heathcote, D. Kolpin, P.S. 

Thorne, and M. Wichman. 2007. Impacts of waste from concentrated 

animal feeding operations on water quality. Environmental Health 

Perspectives 115: 308-312.

Cashin, G.E., J.R. Dorney, and C.J. Richardson. 1992. Wetland alteration trends on the North Carolina coastal plain. Wetlands 12: 63-71. 

CCSP (Climate Change Science Program). 2009. Coastal sensitivity to 

sea-level rise: a focus on the mid-Atlantic region. A report by the U.S. 

Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global 

Change Research. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Corbett, D.R., J.P. Walsh, L. Cowart, S.R. Riggs, D.V. Ames, and S.J. 

Culver. 2008. Shoreline change within the Albemarle-Pamlico estuarine 

system, North Carolina. <http://www.coastal.geology.ecu.edu/NCCOHAZ/downloads/NC%20Estuarine%20Shoreline%20Change.pdf>

Costanza, R., R. d’Arge, R. de Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, 

K. Limburg, S. Naeem, R.V. O’Neill, J. Paruelo, R.G. Raskin, P. Sutton, 

and M. van den Belt. 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services 

and natural capital. Nature 387: 253-260.

Dahl, T. 2005. Florida’s wetlands: an update on status and trends 1985 

to 1996. <http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/_documents/gSandT/StateRegionalReports/FloridasWetlandsUpdateStatusTrends1985to1996.pdf>

Dahl, T. 1999. South Carolina’s wetlands: status and trends, 1982-1989. 

<http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/_documents/gSandT/StateRegionalReports/SouthCarolinaWetlandsStatusTrends1982to1989.pdf>

Dorney, J., D. Hugget, and R. Ferrell. 2004. State wetland programs: 

North Carolina. Association of State Wetland Managers. <http://www.

aswm.org/swp/northcarolina9.htm>

EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2009. Climate 

Ready Estuaries 2009 progress report. <http://www.epa.gov/climatereadyestuaries/downloads/2009-CRE-Progress-Report.pdf>

EPA. 2007. Chapter 4: Southeast National Estuary Program coastal 

condition, Albemarle-Pamlico National Estuary Program. In: National 

Estuary Program coastal condition report. <http://www.epa.gov/owow/

oceans/nepccr/index.html>

EPA. 2005. Section 319 Nonpoint Source Program success story: North 

Carolina. EPA 841-F-05-004A. <http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/success319/upload/2006_09_07_NPS_Success319_state_nc_neuse.pdf>

EPA. 1996. America’s wetlands. <http://www.epa.gov/wetlands/vital/toc.

html>

Evans, R., J.W. Gilliam, and J.P. Lilly. 1996. Wetlands and water quality, 

North Carolina Extension Service. Publication No AG 473-7.

FL DEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2010. 

Learn about your watershed: St. Lucie—Loxahatchee Rivers watershed. 

<http://www.protectingourwater.org/watersheds/map/st_lucie_loxahatchee/>

FL DEP and Northwest Florida Water Management District. 2010. 

Environmental Resource Permit applicant’s handbook, Volume I (general and environmental). <http://www.nwfwmd.state.fl.us/permits/erp/

erp_downloads/AH_General.pdf >

Franklin, R.S. 2003. Domestic migration across regions, divisions, and 

states: 1995- 2000. DOC, U.S. Census Bureau. <http://www.census.

gov/prod/2003pubs/censr-7.pdf>

GA DENR (Georgia Department of Natural Resources) and NOAA 

(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). Coastal management program and final Environmental Impact Statement. On file with 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Coastal Resources Division.

Glick, P., and J. Clough. 2006. An unfavorable tide: global warming, 

coastal habitats and sport fishing in Florida. National Wildlife Federation and Florida Wildlife Federation. <http://www.nwf.org/News-andMagazines/Media-Center/Faces-of-NWF/~/media/PDFs/Global%20

Warming/Reports/AnUnfavorableTideReport.ashx>

Harrington, R.W., Jr., and E.S. Harrington. 1982. Effects on fishes and 

their forage organisms of impounding a Florida salt marsh to prevent 

breeding by salt marsh mosquitoes. Bulletin of Marine Science 32: 523-

531.

Harrington, R.W., and E.S. Harrington. 1961. Food selection among 

fishes invading a high subtropical salt marsh: from onset of flooding 

through the progress of a mosquito brood. Ecology 42: 646-666.

Hauserman, J. 2006. Florida’s coastal and ocean future. Natural 

Resources Defense Council. <http://www.nrdc.org/water/oceans/florida/

flfuture.pdf>

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007. Summary for policymakers: Contribution of working group I to the fourth 

assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 

<http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf>

Lellis-Dibble, K.A., K.E. McGlynn, and T.E. Bigford. 2008. Estuarine 

fish and shellfish species in U.S. commercial and recreational fisheries: 

economic value as an incentive to protect and restore estuarine habitat. 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-90. <http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/pdf/publications_general_estuarinefishshellfish.pdf>

McKee, K.L., B.A. Middleton, C.E. Proffitt, and D.J. Devlin. 2009. 

Perspectives on mosquito impoundments in eastern Florida, USA: Reply 

to Rey et al. Marine Ecology Progress Series 389: 301-306

Middleton, B.A. 2009. Regeneration of coastal marsh vegetation 

impacted by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Wetlands 29(1): 54-65.
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: South Atlantic Review 35

Middleton, B., D. Devlin, E. Proffitt, K. McKee, and K.F. Getini. 2008. 

Characteristics of mangrove swamps managed for mosquito control in 

eastern Florida, USA. Marine Ecology Progress Series 371: 117-129.

Mitsch, W.J., and J.G. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands. Second edition. Van 

Nostrand Reinhold.

NCCF (North Carolina Coastal Federation). 2004. Living Shorelines 

Project. <http://www.nccoast.org/Restoration/LivShore>

NC DENR (North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural 

Resources). 2009. Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 2009 annual 

report. <http://www.nceep.net/news/annualreport/2009/EEP-annualreport (2009)_web.pdf>

NC DWQ (North Carolina Division of Water Quality). 2009. Final 

Neuse River basin wide water quality plan. <http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/

basinwide/Neuse/2008/NeuseRiverBasinPlanDRAFT.htm>

Neuse Agricultural Basin Oversight Committee. 2007. Annual progress 

report on the Neuse agricultural rule (15A NCAC 2B .0238).

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2010. Commercial landings 

data. <http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/commercial/index.html>

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2010a. 

Programmatic framework for considering climate change impacts in 

coastal habitat restoration, land acquisition, and facility development 

investments.

NOAA. 2010b. Coastal Change Analysis Program. Data available: 

http://www.csc.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/data/ccapregional/download.html. 

(Data analysis was performed for this report by NOAA personnel).

Patterson, G. 2004. Mosquito impoundments and missiles: the Indian 

River mosquito wars. Indian River Journal III(1). 

Poulter, B., R.L. Feldman, M.M. Brinson, B.P. Horton, M.K. Orbach, 

S.H. Pearsall, E. Reyes, S.R. Riggs, and J.C. Whitehead. 2009. Sea level 

rise research and dialogue in North Carolina: creating windows for 

policy change. Ocean and Coastal Management 52(3-4): 147-153.

Poulter, B., J.L. Goodall, and P.N. Halpin. 2008. Applications of 

network analysis for adaptive management of artificial drainage systems 

in landscapes vulnerable to sea level rise. Journal of Hydrology 357: 

207-217.

Raval, S. 2005. Final report for the North Carolina Forestry BMP 

implementation survey 2000-2003. Publication Number FMNPS-0205. North Carolina Division of Forest Resources.

Rey, J.R. and T. Kain. 1989. A guide to the salt marsh impoundments of 

Florida. University of Florida, Florida Medical Entomology Laboratory.

Rey, J.R., S.M. O’Connell, D.B. Carlson, and R.E. Brockmeyer. 2009. 

Comment: characteristics of mangrove swamps managed for mosquito 

control in eastern Florida, USA: a re-examination. Marine Ecology 

Progress Series 389: 295-300.

Robertson, M.M. 2003. The neoliberalization of ecosystem services: 

wetland mitigation banking and problems in environmental governance. 

Geoforum 35(3): 361-373.

RWParkinson Consulting. 2010. Municipal adaptation to sea-level rise: 

City of Satellite Beach, Florida. <http://satellitebeachfl.org/Documents/

Sea%20Level%20Rise%20-%20CRE%20Report%2007-18-10.pdf>

Scavia, D., J.C. Field, D.F. Boesch, R.W. Buddemeir, V. Burkett, 

D.R. Cayan, M. Fogarty, M.A. Harwell, R.W. Howarth, C. Mason, 

D.J. Reed, T.C. Royer, A.H. Sallenger, and J.G. Titus. 2002. Climate 

change impacts on U.S. coastal and marine ecosystems. Estuaries 25(2): 

149-164. <http://www.springerlink.com/content/v07168r234685087/

fulltext.pdf>

Sime, P. 2005. St. Lucie Estuary and the Indian River Lagoon conceptual ecological model. Wetlands 25(4): 898-907.

St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD). 2011. Indian 

River Lagoon National Estuary Program. <http://floridaswater.com/

itsyourlagoon/>

SJRWMD. 2010. Restoring our coastal wetlands. <http://www.floridaswater.com/coastalrestoration/>

SJRWMD. 2007. Indian River Lagoon: introduction to a national 

treasure. Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program. <http://www.

sjrwmd.com/itsyourlagoon/pdfs/IRL_Natural_Treasure_book.pdf>

St. Lucie County Land Development Code. 2006. Town, villages, and 

countryside overlay district. Ordinance 06-017. <http://www.spikowski.

com/StLucieLDRrevisions-Ordinance06-017-AsAdopted.pdf>

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 Fisheries Service, and U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service. <http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Documents/Status-and-Trendsof-Wetlands-in-the-Coastal-Watersheds-of-the-Eastern-United-States1998-to-2004.pdf>

Street, M.W., A.S. Deaton, W.S. Chappell, and P.D. Mooreside. 2005. 

North Carolina coastal habitat protection plan. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Marine 

Fisheries.

Titus, J.G. 1998. Rising seas, coastal erosion, and the takings clause: 

How to save wetlands and beaches without hurting property owners. 

Maryland Law Review 57(1). 

Titus, J.G. 2011. Rolling Easements Primer. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency <http://www.epa.gov/cre/downloads/ 

rollingeasementsprimer.pdf>

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Indian River Lagoon—south. 

<http://www.evergladesplan.org/docs/fs_irls_feb_2010.pdf>

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2009. Water resource policies and 

authorities incorporating sea-level change consideration in civil works 

programs. Circular No. 1165-2-211.

Wenner, E.L., J. Archambault, and J. Boylan. 1990. Recruitment of 

fishes and decapod crustaceans into nursery habitats. In: R. Van Dolah, 

P. H. Wendt, and E. L. Wenner (eds.). A physical and ecological characterization of the Charleston Harbor estuarine system. Final report to SC 

Coastal Council.
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: South Atlantic Review 36

Appendix A: Lower and Middle Neuse River Watershed and Indian River Lagoon Participant Lists

SOUTH ATLANTIC FOCAL WATERSHED REVIEW PARTICIPANTS

Lower and Middle Neuse Participants

Larry Baldwin, Lower Neuse Riverkeeper

Gail Bledsoe, N.C. Division of Forest Resources

Mark Brinson, East Carolina University

Dean Carpenter, Albemarle-Pamlico National Estuary 

Program (APNEP)

Colleen Charles, USGS

Lisa Cowert, NOAA

Vernon Cox, N.C. Department of Agriculture 

and Consumer Services

Carolyn Currin, NOAA

Thomas Dahl, USFWS

Molly Ellwood, N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission

Donald Field, NOAA

Tom Gerow, N.C. Division of Forest Resources

John Jacobson, Neuse Riverkeeper Foundation

Jimmy Johnson, representing Bill Crowell, APNEP

David Jones, N.C. Division of Forest Resources

Sarah King, N.C. Clean Water Management Trust Fund

Scott McLendon, Army Corps, Wilmington District

Todd Miller, North Carolina Coastal Federation

Amanda Mueller, representing John Dorney 

N.C. Division of Water Quality 

Jessie O’Neal, N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries

Charles Peterson, University of North Carolina

Gloria Putnam, North Carolina Sea Grant, 

N.C. State University

Dennis Register, N.C. Division of Forest Resources, 

New Bern District Water Quality Forester

Lisa Schiavinato, North Carolina Sea Grant

Ron Sechler, NOAA

Susan Marie Stedman, NOAA

Jack Thigpen, North Carolina Sea Grant, 

N.C. State University

Christina Voss, University of North Carolina

Tom Walker, Army Corps, Wilmington District

Loren Wehmeyer, USGS North Carolina Water Science 

Center

Indian River Lagoon Participants

Linda Anderson, FL Department of Transportation (DOT)

Jeff Beal, FL Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

Tara Boujoulian, Volusia County

Ronald Brockmeyer, St. Johns River Water Management District 

Tony Cabbedge, St. Johns County

Tamy Dabu, Army Corps Jacksonville District

Jim David, St. Lucie County Mosquito Control

Jennifer Derby, US EPA

Donna Devlin, Florida Atlantic University

Jessica Dostal, FL Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

Kimberly Eisele, FL DEP

Warren Falls, ORCA

Aphidalin Fancon, City of Titusville

Erin Gawera, USFWS Jacksonville

Rick Gleeson, Guana Tolomato Matanzas NERR

Steve Gornak, FL Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

Kurtis Gregg, South Florida Water Management District

Boyd Gunsalus, South Florida Water Management District

David Gunter, Indian River Farms WCD

Paul Haydt, St. Johns River Water Management District

Hannah Hernandez, FL DOT D5

Kathy Hill, St. Johns River Water Management District 

- IRL Program

Brandon Howard, NOAA Fisheries WPB

Stan Howarter, USFWS/Merritt Island NWR

Eric Hughes, US EPA

Charles Kelso, USFWS

Drew Kendall, US EPA Region 4

Linda Knoeck, Army Corps Palm Beach

Nicole Love, FL DEP/CAMA/Guana Tolomato Matanzas NERR

Nicole Martin, FL DEP

Beth McMillen, Marine Resources Council

Mark Mercadante, NASA

Sean Meehan, NOAA

Erik Neugaard, RS&H/FL DOT D4

Bruce Peery, Indian River Mosquito Control District

Lynne Phillips, NASA

Lisa Prather, FL DEP

Troy Rice, IRL NEP 

John Shaffer, NASA

Erik Shilling, National Council for Air and Stream 

Improvement, Inc.

Lauren Staly, FL DEP

Susan-Marie Stedman, NOAA

John Tucker, St. Lucie County

Georgia Zerin, Volusia County
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: South Atlantic Review 37

Appendix B: Background Documents

Document/Study Title Author (Date)

FLORIDA AND INDIAN RIVER LAGOON

Independent Scientific Review of the Indian River Lagoon – 

South 

Bartell, S.M., J.J. Burns, D.G. Fontane, W.H. McAnally, 

L.H. Motz, R.R. Twilley (2004)

Rehabilitation of Impounded Estuarine Wetlands by Hydrologic 

Reconnection to the Indian River Lagoon, Florida (USA)

Brockmeyer, R.E., J.R. Rey, R.W. Virnstein, R.G. 

Gilmore, L. Earnest (1997)

Fact Sheet: Florida Waters Clean Water Network (Undated)

Florida’s Wetlands: An Update on Status and Trends 1985 to 

1996 Dahl, Thomas USFWS, (2005)

Emerging Issues in Wetland Loss Mitigation Duke University, Nicholas School, Tamara Hill (2006)

State Wetland Program Evaluation: Phase II Environmental Law Institute (2003)

Measuring the Benefits of Federal Wetland Programs, Scodari, P. (Environmental Law Institute) (1997)

National Estuary Program Coastal Condition Report - Chapter 4: 

Southeast National Estuary Program Coastal Condition, Indian 

River Lagoon National Estuary Program

EPA OWOW (2007)

Threats to Wetlands Fact Sheet EPA OWOW (2001)

Florida Coastal and Ocean Policy Report Card Florida Coastal and Ocean Coalition (2009)

Florida Numeric Nutrient Criteria History and Status FLDEP (2009)

Environmental Resource Permitting (ERP) and Sovereign Submerged Lands (SSL) Rules - Statewide Stormwater Treatment 

Rule Development Background

FLDEP (2008)

Summary of the Wetland and Other Surface Water Regulatory 

and Proprietary Programs in FL

FLDEP (2007)

CZMA Section 319 Final Assessment and Strategies FY 2006 – 

2010

FLDEP, FL Coastal Management Program (2006)

FACT Florida Assessment of Coastal Trends 2000 FLDEP, FL Coastal Management Program (2000)

Florida State of the Coast Report 1998 FLDEP, FL Coastal Management Program (Prepared by: 

Apalachee Regional Planning Council 1998)

Indian River - Malabar to Vero Beach Aquatic Preserve FLDEP (Undated)

Preparing for a Sea of Change in Florida – A Strategy to Cope 

with the Impacts of Global Warming on the State’s Coastal and 

Marine Systems

Florida Ocean and Coastal Commission (2008)

Florida Numeric Nutrient Criteria History and Status Summary FLDEP (2009)

Florida’s Aquatic Preserves – Protecting Our Most Valued Resources: A Program OverviewFLDEP, Office of Coastal and Aquatic Managed Areas 

(2006)
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: South Atlantic Review 38

Document/Study Title Author (Date)

FLORIDA AND INDIAN RIVER LAGOON

Florida’s Aquatic Preserves – Management Review Process website FLDEP Office of Coastal and Aquatic Managed Areas 

(Undated)

1990 Coastal Population in Florida – A Report to Florida’s 

Coastal Managers

FL State University, Institute of Science and Public Affairs (1998)

South Atlantic Regional Research Project: Developing Research 

Priorities: Process and Partnerships and South Atlantic Regional 

Research Plan

Alber and Laporte, GA Coastal Research Council, 

(2009)

Marsh Dieback Workshop Proceedings GA Coastal Research Council (2004)

U.S. Ocean Policy Report Card 2007 Joint Ocean Commission Initiative (2007)

Sea Level Rise and Coastal Impacts - Presentation Leatherman, S., International Hurricane Center, Florida 

International University (Date unknown)

Shoreline Protection Program [website] Marine Resources Council (2007)

Restoration of Coastal Wetlands in Southeastern Florida Milano, G.R., Miami-Dade Department of Environmental Resources (1999)

The Nature Conservancy Indian River Lagoon Preserve Overview Nature Conservancy (Undated)

Minimum Flows and Levels Method of the St. Johns River Water 

Management District, Florida, USA

Neubauer, C.P., G.B. Hall, E.F. Lowe, C.P. Robison, 

R.B. Hupalo, L. W. Keenan (2008)

Indian River Lagoon Newsletter Quarterly Update SJWMD (Quarterly 2007, 2008, 2009)

Mapping the Distribution and Abundance of Macroalgae in the 

Indian River Lagoon

SJWMD, Prepared by Nova Southeast University 

Oceanographic Center (2009)

Mapping the Distribution and Vertical Extent of Muck in the 

Indian River Lagoon

SJWMD, Prepared by Nova Southeast University 

Oceanographic Center (2009)

The Canal 1 Rediversion Project (Fact sheet) SJWMD (2009)

Update to the Indian River Lagoon CCMP SJWMD Indian River Lagoon NEP (2008)

Petition to Designate Florida Outstanding Waters – Matanzas 

River Basin

SJWMD Memorandum From Tara Boonstra, Assistant 

General Counsel (2008)

Indian River Lagoon Economic Assessment and Update SJWD (2008)

Indian River Lagoon – An Introduction to a National Treasure SJWMD (2007)

Indian River Lagoon Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) PlanSJWMD and SFWMD (2002)

Historical Imagery Inventory and Sea Grass Assessment Indian 

River Lagoon

SJWMD, Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program, Prepared by Woodward Clyde Consultants, Marshall McCully Associates and Natural Systems Analysts, 

Inc, (1994)

Loading Assessment of the Indian River Lagoon SJWMD, Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program, Prepared by Woodward Clyde Consultants, Marshall McCully Associates and Natural Systems Analysts, 

Inc, (1994)
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: South Atlantic Review 39

Document/Study Title Author (Date)

FLORIDA AND INDIAN RIVER LAGOON

Non-Governmental and Governmental Programs for the Indian 

River Lagoon

SJWMD, Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program, Prepared by Woodward Clyde Consultants, Marshall McCully Associates and Natural Systems Analysts, 

Inc, (1994)

Status and Trends Summary for the Indian River Lagoon SJWMD, Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program, Prepared by Woodward Clyde Consultants, Marshall McCully Associates and Natural Systems Analysts, 

Inc, (1994)

Indian River Lagoon CCMP SJWMD Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program, 2008 Update (2008)

St. John’s River District Water Management Plan SWJMD (2005)

Aquatic Grasses Fact Sheet SJWMD (2003)

Minimum Flows and Levels Fact Sheet SJWMD (2001)

Maps of Lands Vulnerable to Sea Level Rise: Modeled Elevations 

along the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf Coasts

Titus, J. G. and C. Richman (originally published in 

Climate Research (2001)

Coastal Wetlands of the Indian River Lagoon University of Florida - IFAS (2009)

Florida’s Wetland Threats and Loss University of Florida IFAS Extension 

Florida’s Wetlands – Education Programs University of Florida IFAS Extension (Undated)

Final Report: Coastal Wetland Indicators Morris, J. T. et al., University of South Carolina, Marine 

Biological Laboratory (2006)

Indian River Lagoon - South (Fact sheet) Army Corps (2008)

Central and Southern Florida Project Indian River Lagoon – 

South Final Integrated Project Implementation Report and Environmental Impact Statement

Army Corps Jacksonville District and South Florida 

Water Management District (2004)

Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan List of Projects Army Corps and SFWMD (2010)

Historical Trends in Wetlands Loss and Efforts to Intervene (Presentation)US Forest Service T. Leininger and P. Hamel (2007)

Southern Forest Resource Assessment US Forest Service Southern Region (2003)

South Carolina’s Wetlands: Status and Trends, 1982-1989 USFWS (1999)

Wetlands Inventory Status and Trends [website] USFWS (Undated)

Florida’s Wetlands Fact Sheet US Geological Survey Marine and Coastal Geology 

Program (1996)

Global Climate Impacts in the US; Regional Climate Impacts in 

Southeast US

USGCRP (2009)

Wetland Losses in the US: Scope, Causes, Impacts, and Future 

Prospects 

USGCRP Seminar (1997)
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: South Atlantic Review 40

Document/Study Title Author (Date)

MIDDLE AND LOWER NEUSE RIVER WATERSHEDS

Critical Areas Chapter Pamlico Sound Summary Adams, D. (NC State Univ.) et al. 

Revised Framework for Mitigation Review in NC - April 22, 

2008 Army Corps (2008)

Wetlands Mitigation Map Army Corps (2010)

Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement for the Neuse River Basin, North Carolina Army Corps (2005)

An Estuary of National Significance [website] Albemarle-Pamlico National Estuary Program (2009)

Soundings Newsletter Albemarle-Pamlico National Estuary Program (January, 

2009)

Soundings Newsletter Albemarle-Pamlico National Estuary Program (July, 

2009)

Work Plan for the Cooperative Agreement Between The US 

Environmental Protection Agency and NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources – Albemarle-Pamlico Estuary Albemarle-Pamlico National Estuary Program (2008)

Program October 1, 2009 – September 30, 2010

Albemarle-Pamlico National Estuary Program Outreach and 

Communication Strategy 2008-2010 Albemarle-Pamlico National Estuary Program (Undated)

Clean Water for the 21st Century – Fact Sheet Albemarle-Pamlico National Estuary Program (Undated)

Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine System – Technical Analysis of 

Status and Trends Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Program (1991)

Proceedings of the Workshop on Remote Sensing and GIS for 

Use in Managing AP Sound Albemarle-Pamlico National Estuary Program (1987)

Recommendation for Appropriate Shoreline Stabilization Meth- Bendell, B.M et al. 

ods for the Different North Carolina Estuarine Shoreline Types

Impacts of Global Climate Change on North Carolina’s Coastal Bin O, et al. (2007)

Economy Poster

Hydrology and nutrient gradients in North Carolina peatlands Bridgham, S. D., and C.J., Richardson (1993)

Global climate change and sea-level rise: estimating the potential Cahoon, D.R., J.W. Day, R.S. Young and D.J. Reed 

for submergence of coastal wetlands (1998)

Factors affecting coastal wetland loss and restoration: synthesis of Cahoon, D.R. (2007)

U.S. Geological Survey science for the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem 

and implications for environmental management

Wetland alteration trends on the North Carolina coastal plain Cashin, G. E., J. R. Dorney, and C.J. Richardson (1992)

Coastal Sensitivity to Sea-Level Rise: A Focus on the Mid-Atlan- Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) (2009)

tic Region. A report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research

The Ecology of Albemarle Sound, North Carolina: An Estuarine Copeland, B.J., R.G. Hodson, S.R. Riggs, and J.E. EasProfile ley, Jr, (1983)

Albemarle-Pamlico Summary Copeland, B.J. NC State University (Undated)
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: South Atlantic Review 41

Document/Study Title Author (Date)

MIDDLE AND LOWER NEUSE RIVER WATERSHEDS

Shoreline change within the Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Sys- Corbett, D.R., et al. 

tem, North Carolina. East Carolina University

Survey of State Freshwater Wetland Protection Programs Christy, D. (Undated)

Rapid shoreward encroachment of salt marsh cordgrass in re- Donnelly, J.P. and M.D. Bertness (2001)

sponse to accelerated sea-level rise

State Wetland Programs: North Carolina Dorney, J., D. Hugget, and R. Ferrell (2004)

The puzzle of global sea level rise Douglas, B.C. and E.R. Peltier (2002)

Coastal Pollution from Septic Tank Drainfields Duda, A.M. and K.D. Cromartie (1982)

Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 Emanuel, K. (2005)

years

State Wetland Program Evaluation: Phase I Environmental Law Institute (2005)

Section 319 Nonpoint Source Program Success Story: North EPA, Office of Water (2006)

Carolina

Wetland Program Development Grants (WPDGs) Case Studies EPA (undated)

National Estuary Program Coastal Condition Report, Chapter 4: EPA (2007)

Southeast National Estuary Program Coastal Condition, Albemarle-Pamlico National Estuary Program

Ecosystem Enhancement Program Update Presentation at the Gilmore, W. 2007

10th Annual Mitigation and conservation Banking Conference

Water-Quality Trends in the Neuse River Basin, North Carolina, Harned, D. (2003)

1974-2003

Water-quality trends and basin activities and characteristics for Harned D., and M.S. Davenport (1990)

the Albemarle-Pamlico estuarine system, North Carolina and 

Duke set to give N.C. coast $1 million Henderson, B. (March 3, 2009)

Summary for policymakers: Contribution of working group I to IPCC (2007)

the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change

Stormwater Success Along the Neuse Loughner, L. (Nov-Dec 2004)

A coupled geomorphic and ecological model of tidal marsh evolu- Kirwan, M.L. and A.B. Murray (2007)

tion

North Carolina statistical data [Web site] Log in to North Carolina (2009)

Water-Quality Assessment of the Albemarle-Pamlico Drainage McMahon, G. and O. Lloyd (1995)

Basin, North Carolina and Virginia – Environmental Setting and 

Water-Quality Issues

Response of wetlands to rising sea level in the lower coastal plain Moorehead, K.K. and M.M. Brinson (1995)

of North Carolina

Presentation of NC Coastal Wetland Regulations Moye, D.
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: South Atlantic Review 42

Document/Study Title Author (Date)

MIDDLE AND LOWER NEUSE RIVER WATERSHEDS

Billion Dollar Climate and Weather Related Disasters (1980-

2009)

National Climatic Data Center (2009)

Make a Tide Prediction, State and Region Listing: North CarolinaNOAA (2008)

Barrier Island Ecology of Cape Lookout National Seashore and 

Vicinity, North Carolina

NPS (2004)

Annual Progress Report on the Neuse Agricultural Rule Neuse Agricultural Basin Oversight Committee (2007)

Living Shorelines Project [Web site] & Living Shorelines Fact 

Sheet

North Carolina Coastal Federation (2004)

NC Clean Water Management Trust Fund Fact Sheet North Carolina Coastal Federation (2004)

North River Farms Fact Sheet North Carolina Coastal Federation (2004)

State of the Coast Report 2009 North Carolina Coastal Federation (2009)

Beaufort County Joint CAMA Land Use Plan 2006 Update North Carolina Coastal Management Program (2008)

Agricultural Statistics - Summary of Commodities by County 

[website]

North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (2009)

Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 2009 Annual Report NC DENR (2009)

Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 2009 Quarterly Report AprilJune 2009NC DENR (2009)

North Carolina Coastal Region Evaluation of Wetland SignificanceNC DCM (1999)

Guide to the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program’s NCDENR (2001)

Wetlands: Restoration [website] NC DCM (2008)

Summary of DCM’s Wetland Mapping Products NC DCM (2003)

A Guide to Implementing Neuse River Basin and Tar-Pamlico 

River Basin Riparian Buffer Rules for Forest Management Activities

NC DFR (2009)

Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality Plan NC DWQ (2009)

Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality Plan Executive Summary NC DWQ (2009)

NC Wetland Assessment Method – A new world for wetland 

permitting and mitigation - Presentation

NC DWQ (2009)

Nonpoint Source Management Program: Tar-Pamlico Nutrient 

Strategy [website]

NC DWQ (2009)

Isolated Wetlands Permitting Effective April 1 2003 North Carolina General Assembly (2003)

15A NCAC Subchapter 7H- State Guidelines for Areas of Environmental Concern section .0100 – Introduction and General North Carolina General Assembly (1974)

Comments
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: South Atlantic Review 43

Document/Study Title Author (Date)

MIDDLE AND LOWER NEUSE RIVER WATERSHEDS

SECTION .0200 – The Estuarine and Oceans System Manage- North Carolina General Assembly (1998)

ment Program

SECTION .1300 – Discharges to Isolated Wetlands and Isolated North Carolina General Assembly (2003)

Waters

Developing a Management Strategy for North Carolina’s Coastal NC Ocean Policy Steering Committee (2009)

Ocean: Draft Report for Public Comment

Executive Order 122 – Establishment of a Program Office in Sup- Governor Easley, State of North Carolina (2007)

port of the Albemarle-Pamlico NEP

Neuse Riverkeepers Annual Meeting Report 2009 Neuse Riverkeeper (2009)

Neuse River Stressors NRDC (1998)

Rivernotes August 2007 NRF (2007)

Rivernotes Fall 2009 NRF (2009)

Agriculture Riparian Buffers Osmond, D.L. (Undated)

Agriculture and the Neuse River Basin Osmond, D.L., D. Hardy, L.H. Johnson, W.G. Lord, 

R.H. Pleasants, M.E. Regans (Undated)

Kinematic Constraints on Glacier Contributions to 21st-Century Pfeffer, W.T. (2008)

Sea-Level Rise

Sea Level Rise Research and Dialogue in North Carolina: Creat- Poulter, B, et al. (2009)

ing Windows for Policy Change

Applications of network analysis for adaptive management of Poulter, B., J.L. Goodall, P.N. Halpin (2008)

artificial drainage systems in landscapes vulnerable to sea level rise

Raster modeling of coastal flooding from sea-level rise Poulter, B. and P.N. Halpin (2007)

North Carolina’s Coasts in Crisis: A Vision for the Future Riggs, S.R. et al. 

Effect of Storms on Barrier Island Dynamics, Core Banks, Cape Riggs, S.R. and D.V. Ames (2007)

Lookout National Seashore, North Carolina

Drowning the North Carolina Coast: Sea-level Rise and Estuarine Riggs, S.R. and D.V. Ames (2003)

Dynamics

Influence of inherited geologic framework on barrier shoreface Riggs, S.R., W.J. Cleary and S.W. Snyder (1995)

morphology and dynamics

Habitat Connections: Wetlands, Fisheries and Economics Stedman, S. and J. Hanson (Undated)

Wetland development trends in coastal North Carolina, USA, Stockton, M., B. and C.J. Richardson (1987)

from 1970 to 1984

North Carolina Coastal Habitat Protection Plan Street, M.W., A.S. Deaton, W.S. Chappell and P.D. 

Mooreside (2005)

Wetlands Protection in the Face of Sea-level Rise: Developing a Stiles, S. (2008)

Local Land Use Tool Kit – Presentation

State of the Beach Report – North Carolina Surfrider website (Undated)

DCM wetland mapping in coastal North Carolina Sutter, L. (1999)
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: South Atlantic Review 44

Document/Study Title Author (Date)

MIDDLE AND LOWER NEUSE RIVER WATERSHEDS

Greenhouse effect, sea level rise, and coastal wetlands (EPA 230- Titus, J.G. (ed.) (1988)

05-86-013)

Maps of land vulnerable to sea level rise: modeled elevations along Titus, J.G. and C. Richman (2001)

the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf Coasts

Maps of Lands Close to Sea Level along the Middle Atlantic Titus J.G. and J. Wang (2008)

Coast of the United States: An Elevation Data Set to Use While 

Waiting for LIDAR. Section 1.1 in: Background Documents 

Supporting Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.1.

Coastal Wetlands and Coastal Change USGS (1997)

Environmental Injustice in North Carolina’s Hog Industry Wing, S., D. Cole and G. Grant (2000)

Model for Geospatial Vegetation, Impervious Surfaces, Soils, and Cooperative Institute for Coastal and Estuarine EnvironTopographic Analysis (VISSTA) mental Technology (CICEET) (2008)
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: South Atlantic Review 45

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 environmental 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 wetlands, 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 promulgated by EPA in conjunction with the Army Corps. However, 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 example, 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/guidance/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 regulates point source discharges of pollutants into waters of the 

United States). Additionally, the Clean Water Act only applies 

to “waters of the United States.” EPA and the Army Corps 

have issued regulatory definitions of “waters of the United 

States” to include waters that are: traditionally navigable; 

interstate; could affect interstate commerce if used, degraded, 

or destroyed; territorial seas; impoundments of jurisdictional 

waters; tributaries of jurisdictional waters; and wetlands adjacent to jurisdictional waters. The agencies’ regulatory definition 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 circumstances 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 material into waters of the United States, including wetlands. 

However, certain activities are exempt from permit requirements under Section 404(f). These include dredge and fill 

activities related to established (ongoing) farming, silviculture, 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 implement 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 permits and other Department of the Army permits. Compensatory 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 mitigation is not considered until after all appropriate and practicable steps have been taken to first avoid and then minimize 
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: South Atlantic Review 46

adverse impacts to the aquatic ecosystem. For more information, 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_wetlands_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 compensatory mitigation project locations, requiring measurable, 

enforceable ecological performance standards and regular 

monitoring for all types of compensation, and specifying the components of a complete compensatory mitigation 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 thirdparty 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 compensatory mitigation for impacts authorized by Department 

of the Army permits. In general, a mitigation bank sells 

compensatory mitigation credits to permittees to meet 

their requirements for compensatory mitigation. The value 

of these “credits” is determined by quantifying the aquatic 

resource functions or acres restored or created. The bank 

sponsor is ultimately responsible for the success of the project.

 In-lieu Fee Mitigation: In-lieu fee mitigation involves offsite 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 permittee 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. Permitteeresponsible mitigation may occur at the site of the permitted 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 determinations regarding the extent and location of jurisdictional waters of the United States. The Army Corps and 

EPA jointly develop policy and guidance, such as the 

environmental criteria used in evaluating permit applications. 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 discharge violations that do not meet the criteria for forwarding 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 particular 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 permitted projects, including projects subject to the requirements 

of Section 404 (pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act), and can elevate specific cases or policy issues 

pursuant to Section 404(q).

Appendix C: Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: South Atlantic Review 47

 States and Tribes: States and tribes also have a role in Section 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 decisions to deny, certify, or condition permits or licenses based 

in part on the proposed project’s compliance with EPAapproved water quality standards. Through 401 certifications, 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 applications 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 issuing Army Corps District.

 Permits: Permit records can be used to summarize and track 

wetland losses and gains in an area of interest, and to confirm 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 (“Operation and Maintenance Information Business Link Regulatory Module 2,” or ORM2). ORM2 has been in operation 

since 2007. Some states with permit programs operate similar databases which can supplement federal permit information.

 Mitigation: The “Regulatory In-lieu fee and Bank Information 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, mitigation credit availability, service areas, as well as information 

on national and local policies and procedures that affect 

mitigation and conservation bank and in-lieu fee program 

development and operation. For access, see: http://geo.

usace.army.mil/ribits..

Appendix C: Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: South Atlantic Review 48

Appendix D: NOAA Coastal Change Analysis Program

The Coastal Change Analysis Program (C-CAP) produces 

a nationally standardized database of land cover and land 

change information for the coastal regions of the United 

States. C-CAP products provide inventories of coastal intertidal 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 Landsat (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 applications. 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 wetlands. 

Palustrine forested wetland: Includes all tidal and non-tidal 

wetlands dominated by woody vegetation at least 5 meters 

in height, as well as all such wetlands in tidal areas in which 

salinity due to ocean-derived salts is below 0.5 percent. Total 

vegetation coverage is greater than 20 percent.

Characteristic species: Tupelo (Nyssa), cottonwood (Populus 

deltoides), bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), American elm 

(Ulmus americana), ash (Fraxinus), and tamarack. 

Palustrine scrub/shrub wetland: Includes all tidal and nontidal 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 species present could be true shrubs, young trees and shrubs, or 

trees that are small or stunted due to environmental conditions.1

Characteristic species: Alders (Alnus spp.), willows (Salix spp.), 

buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), red osier dogwood 

(Cornus stolonifera), honeycup (Zenobia pulverenta), spirea 

(Spiraea douglassii), bog birch (Betula pumila), 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 (Cladium jamaicaense), and reed (Phragmites australis).

Estuarine forested wetland: Includes all tidal wetlands dominated by woody vegetation at least 5 meters in height, and all 

such wetlands that occur in tidal areas in which salinity due 

to ocean-derived salts is equal to or greater than 0.5 percent. 

Total vegetation coverage is greater than 20 percent.

Characteristic species: red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle), black 

mangrove (Avicennia germinans), and white mangrove (Languncularia racemosa). 

1 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: South Atlantic Review 49

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 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: Sea-myrtle (Baccharis halimifolia) and 

marsh elder (Iva frutescens). 

Estuarine emergent wetland: Includes all tidal wetlands 

dominated by erect, rooted, herbaceous hydrophytes (excluding 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 angustifolia), 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 redistribution 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 (Potamogeton 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 mosquito 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), rockweeds (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 (Cymodocea filiformis), widgeon grass (Ruppia maritime), sea grasses

(Halophila spp.), and wild celery (Vallisneria americana).

Appendix D: NOAA Coastal Change Analysis Program
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: South Atlantic Review 50

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, nonpoint source pollution control, and watershed and estuary management via low-interest 

loans. SRF fundable projects include wetland protection and restoration, as well as creation of constructed wetlands for stormwater or wastewater treatment (which can include 

adequate capacity to ensure habitat values as well as treatment of effluents). 

http://water.epa.gov/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 magnitude of the services we receive from ecosystems. The primary objective in the wetland 

research focus area is to document the range and quantity of wetland services and determine how their position on the landscape alters the provision of ecosystem services. 

http://www.epa.gov/research/npd/ecoresearch-intro.htm 

EPA Five Star 

Challenge 

Grants 

Program 

The purpose of the program is to support community-based efforts to restore wetlands, 

river streams/corridors, and coastal habitat; build diverse partnerships within the community; and foster local stewardship of resources through education, outreach, and training 

activities. 

http://www.nfwf.org/fivestar/ 

EPA National 

Estuary 

Program 

(NEP) 

This program works to restore and maintain the water quality and ecological integrity of 

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 community members and other key federal, state, and local partners/stakeholders to articulate 

goals and actions to address the wide range of issues in their CCMP. Key CCMP focus 

areas include protecting and restoring habitats such as wetlands. There are 28 NEPs along 

the coasts each guided by a director and staff. 

http://water.epa.gov/type/oceb/nep/index.cfm 

EPA Nonpoint 

Source 

Management 

Grants (Section 

319 Grants) 

Nonpoint source management grants support states, territories, and Indian tribes with 

a wide variety of activities including technical assistance, financial assistance, education, 

training, technology transfer, demonstration projects, and monitoring to assess the success 

of specific nonpoint source implementation projects, some of which include coastal wetland restoration projects. A state/territory/tribe’s Nonpoint Source Management Program 

serves as the basis for how funds are spent. 

http://www.epa.gov/owow_keep/NPS/cwact.html 
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: South Atlantic Review 51

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, environment and planning. STEP implements a national research agenda reflecting national priorities based on input and feedback from partners and stakeholders. STEP funds identify, 

address, and reassess national research priorities for environment, planning and realty, and 

develop tools to support these areas. STEP environmental emphasis areas include air quality and global climate change; and water/wetlands/vegetation/wildlife habitat/brownfields. 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/step/ 

FHWA Transportation 

Enhancements 

Transportation Enhancement (TE) activities offer funding opportunities to help expand 

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 construction, new channel dredging). These areas are designated on maps adopted by Congress 

as the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System. In addition to providing a level of 

protection to 3.1 million acres, CBRA is estimated to have saved taxpayers over $1 billion. 

FWS Coastal 

Program 

Voluntary partnership program to protect, restore, and enhance priority coastal habitat that 

benefits federal trust species on public and private lands. It provides technical and financial 

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 

Appendix E: Federal Agency Programs That Support Coastal Wetland Protection, 

Restoration, and Management
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: South Atlantic Review 52

AGENCY PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

FWS Cooperative 

Endangered 

Species 

Conservation 

Fund 

The Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund (CESCF; Section 6 of the 

Endangered Species Act) is the component of the FWS Endangered Species program that 

provides grant funding to states and territories for species and habitat conservation actions 

on non-federal lands, including habitat acquisition, conservation planning, habitat restoration, status surveys, captive propagation and reintroduction, research, and education. 

Many of these grants involve coastal areas and wetland habitat. 

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/grants/grant-programs.html 

FWS Endangered 

Species 

Conservation 

Grants 

Provides financial assistance to states and territories to implement conservation projects for 

listed species and at-risk species. Funded activities include habitat restoration, species status 

surveys, public education and outreach, captive propagation and reintroduction, nesting 

surveys, genetic studies, and development of management plans. 

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/grants/grant-programs.html 

FWS Endangered 

Species 

HCP Land 

Acquisition 

Grants 

Provides funding to states and territories to acquire land associated with approved Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP). Grants do not fund the mitigation required of an HCP 

permittee; instead, they support conservation actions by the state or local governments that 

complement mitigation. 

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/grants/grant-programs.html 

FWS Endangered 

Species 

Program 

The Endangered Species Program conserves imperiled plant and animal species and the 

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 partnerships. Components of the program include technical assistance, outreach and education, grant assistance, and regulatory actions. Many activities involve efforts to conserve 

coastal areas and wetlands provide 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 threatened species in support of draft and approved recovery plans. Acquisition of habitat to 

secure long-term protection is often an essential element of a comprehensive recovery effort 

for a listed species. 

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/grants/grant-programs.html 

FWS Migratory Bird 

Conservation 

Fund 

Provides the DOI with financing for the acquisition of migratory bird habitat, including 

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
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: South Atlantic Review 53

AGENCY PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

FWS National 

Coastal 

Wetlands 

Conservation 

Grant Program 

Authorized by the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act of 1990. 

Co-administered by the Coastal Program and the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration 

Program. Annually provides grants of up to $1 million to coastal states, including Great 

Lakes states, to acquire and restore coastal wetlands. Coastal states are eligible applicants. 

Program requires cost share of between 50 and 75 percent of the grant request depending 

on whether the state has an open-space conservation program. Ineligible activities include 

planning, research, monitoring, and construction or repair of structures for recreational 

purposes. A national ranking panel made up of FWS biologists recommends a list of projects for funding to the Director. 

http://www.fws.gov/coastal/CoastalGrants/ 

FWS National 

Fish Passage 

Program 

Voluntary program that provides technical and financial assistance to fish passage barrier 

removal or bypass projects. The goal of the program is to restore native fishes and other 

aquatic species to self-sustaining levels by reconnecting habitat that has been fragmented 

by barriers. Project applications are reviewed and prioritized on a regional basis. Financial assistance is delivered through the regional and local Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Offices. The program strives to achieve a 50 percent match overall, including in-kind 

contributions. Non-federal funds are typically leveraged at a 3:1 ratio. The program uses 

the National Fish Passage Decision Support System, which catalogues fish passage barriers nationally. Fish passage projects are not eligible for funding if they are eligible for any 

federal or state compensatory mitigation or if fish passage is a condition provided by existing federal or state regulatory programs. Since 1999, the program has worked with over 

700 different partners to remove 749 barriers, and reopen 11,249 miles of river and 80,556 

acres to fish passage, benefitting over 85 federal trust fish and other aquatic species. 

http://www.fws.gov/fisheries/fwco/fishpassage 

FWS National 

Wetlands 

Inventory 

(NWI) 

Provides information on the characteristics, extent, and status of U.S. wetlands and deepwater habitats and other wildlife habitats. NWI produces periodic reports on the status and 

trends of wetlands in the conterminous U.S., which is used for policymaking, assessment, 

and monitoring. NWI has developed a series of topical maps to show wetlands and deepwater habitats. This geospatial information is used by Congress; federal, state, and local 

agencies; academic institutions; and the private sector to inform natural resource planning, 

management, and project development. The NWI website provides a portal to the Wetlands Geodatabase and the Wetlands Mapper, which provide technological tools that allow 

the integration of large relational databases with spatial information and map-like displays. 

The Service’s wetland data forms a layer of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure. 

http://www.fws.gov/nwi 

FWS National 

Wildlife 

Refuge System 

(NWRS) 

180 of the 552 refuges in the NWRS manage 121 million acres of marine or coastal 

habitat. Approximately one-quarter of the 150 million-acre NWRS consists of wetlands. 

The NWRS protects, restores, maintains, and conducts research on these wetlands. The 

NWRS sustains 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 

Appendix E: Federal Agency Programs That Support Coastal Wetland Protection, 

Restoration, and Management
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: South Atlantic Review 54

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 contaminants from hazardous waste sites, and oil and chemical spills. Where possible, FWS 

partners with other federal agencies, other FWS programs, states, tribes, or non-governmental 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 during 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 organizations, corporations, tribes, or individuals that conserves habitat for priority bird species 

within a specific geographic area. Designed to achieve the regional conservation goals identified in the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. 18 habitat joint ventures and 

three species specific joint ventures. Activities include biological planning, conservation 

design, and prioritization; project development and implementation; monitoring, evaluation, 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 international agreement that provides a strategy for the long-term protection of wetlands and associated upland habitats needed by waterfowl and other wetland-associated migratory birds 

in North America. Provides competitive grants to non-governmental organizations, states, 

local 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 enhancement of wetlands and associated upland habitats. Mexican partnerships may also develop 

training, educational, and management programs and conduct sustainable-use studies. 

Standard grants: From FY 1990 to June 2010, some 3,850 partners in 1,518 projects have 

received more than $1.03 billion in grants. They have contributed another $2.06 billion in 

matching funds to affect 25.5 million acres of habitat and $1.14 billion in non-matching 

funds to affect 230,900 acres of habitat. Small grants: From FY1990 to FY 2009, some 

1,160 partners in 455 projects have received more than $22.9 million in grants. They have 

contributed another $101 million in 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/Grants/NAWCA 

Appendix E: Federal Agency Programs That Support Coastal Wetland Protection, 

Restoration, and Management
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: South Atlantic Review 55

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 landowners. Delivered through locally based field biologists in each state. Assistance instruments are primarily cooperative agreements. Decisions regarding partnerships are made at 

the landscape level. Since 1987 the Program has worked with over 42,000 private landowners and restored 975,000 acres of wetlands, 3,000,000 acres of uplands, and 8,700 miles of 

stream habitat. Statutory authority: Partners for Fish and Wildlife Act of 2006. 

http://www.fws.gov/partners 

NOAA Coastal and 

Estuarine Land 

Conservation 

Program 

(CELCP) 

CELCP, part of the Coastal Zone Management Program, was established in 2002 to protect coastal and estuarine lands considered important for their ecological, conservation, recreational, historical or aesthetic values. The NOAA Ocean Service program provides state 

and local 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 development, and conservation. 

http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/programs/czm.html 

NOAA Coastal Zone 

Enhancement 

Program 

(CZARA 

Section 309) 

The Coastal Zone Enhancement Program, a part of the NOAA Ocean Service Coastal 

Zone Management Program, is designed to encourage states and territories to develop 

program changes in one or more of the nine coastal zone enhancement areas of national 

significance, including wetlands. Every five years, state coastal management programs 

conduct self-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 Communitybased Restoration Program The Community-based Restoration Program, a part of the NOAA Fisheries Habitat Conservation Program, invests funding and technical expertise in high-priority habitat restoration projects that instill strong conservation values and engage citizens in hands-on activities. Through the program, NOAA, its partners, and thousands of volunteers are actively 

restoring coastal, marine, and migratory fish habitat across the nation. http://www.habitat.

noaa.gov/restoration/programs/crp.html 

Appendix E: Federal Agency Programs That Support Coastal Wetland Protection, 

Restoration, and Management
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: South Atlantic Review 56

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 MagnusonStevens 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 Management Councils, and federal and state agencies work together to address these threats 

by identifying EFH for each federally managed fish species and developing conservation 

measures to protect and enhance these habitats. 

http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/index.html 

NOAA Great Lakes 

Habitat 

Restoration 

Program 

The Great Lakes Habitat Restoration Program, a part of the NOAA Fisheries Habitat 

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 Restoration Center, and the Chesapeake Bay Office, protects, restores, and promotes stewardship of coastal and marine habitat to support our nation’s fisheries and preserve our coastal 

communities for future generations. The Program carries out various management and 

research efforts to develop national and regional policies, programs, and science to conserve 

wetlands. 

http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/index.html 

NOAA National 

Estuarine 

Research 

Reserve System 

(NERRS) 

The NERRS is a network of 28 areas representing different biogeographic regions of the 

United States that are protected for long-term research, water-quality monitoring, education, and coastal stewardship. Established by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, 

as amended, the reserve system is a partnership program between NOAA and the coastal 

states. NOAA’s Ocean Service provides funding, national guidance, and technical assistance. Each reserve is managed on a daily basis by a lead state agency or university, with 

input from local partners. Reserve staff work with local communities and regional groups 

to address natural resource management issues, such as non-point source pollution, habitat 

restoration and invasive species. Through integrated research and education, the reserves 

help communities develop strategies to deal successfully with these coastal resource issues. 

http://www.nerrs.noaa.gov/ 

Appendix E: Federal Agency Programs That Support Coastal Wetland Protection, 

Restoration, and Management
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: South Atlantic Review 57

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 permits for the discharge of dredged and fill material into jurisdictional water of the United 

States. This important regulatory program helps maintain the wetland base so other federal 

programs can achieve gains. EPA shares regulatory responsibility with Army Corps under 

this program. 

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 ecosystem restoration, the 1135 Program is for project modifications for improvement of the 

environment, and the 204 Program is for beneficial uses of dredged material. There are also 

several geographically restricted Regional Programs that relate to environmental infrastructure projects. 

Army Corps Engineer 

Research and 

Development 

Center 

(ERDC) 

The Wetlands Research and Technology Center (WRTC) consolidates administrative, 

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 expertise, conducting extensive environmental research in wetland systems. The WRTC provides 

a single point of contact for wetland research and development, guidance, support, and 

technology transfer. The WRTC provides access to an array of technical specialists and 

interdisciplinary teams in research areas that emphasize the interrelationships of biological, physical, and chemical environments in order to provide fundamental understanding 

of ecological processes and dynamics in wetland ecosystems. The WRTC serves the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, other Department of Defense agencies, other government agencies, academia, industry and the general public. 

http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/wetlands/wetlands.html#wrtc 

Army Corps General 

Investigations 

Studies for project authorization that are undertaken in response to either a study-specific 

authority or a general authority; these are typically larger, complex projects. The reconnaissance phase is 100 percent federally funded, the feasibility phase is cost-shared 50/50, the 

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 Ecosystem Restoration. 

Appendix E: Federal Agency Programs That Support Coastal Wetland Protection, 

Restoration, and Management
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: South Atlantic Review 58

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 buffers. Farmers receive an annual rental payment for the term of the multi-year contract. Cost 

sharing is provided to establish the vegetative cover practices. 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/crp/ 

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 assistance programs. CTA planning can also serve as a door to financial assistance and easement 

conservation programs provided by other federal, state, and local programs. 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/cta/ 

USDA 

NRCS 

Emergency 

Watershed 

Protection 

Program 

(EWP) 

The purpose of the Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) program is to undertake 

emergency measures, including the purchase of flood plain easements for runoff retardation 

and soil erosion prevention to safeguard lives and property from floods, drought, and the 

products of erosion on any watershed whenever fire, flood, or any other natural occurrence 

is causing or has caused a sudden impairment of the watershed. 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/financial/ewp 

USDA 

NRCS 

Environmental 

Quality 

Incentives 

Program 

(EQIP) 

EQIP provides a voluntary conservation program for farmers, ranchers, and owners of 

private, non-industrial forest land that promotes agricultural production, forest management, and 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. Program 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 

Appendix E: Federal Agency Programs That Support Coastal Wetland Protection, 

Restoration, and Management
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: South Atlantic Review 59

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 partners 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 produces; have adequate infrastructure and agricultural support services; and have surrounding 

parcels of land that can support long-term agricultural production. Depending on funding 

availability, proposals must be submitted by the eligible entities to the appropriate NRCS 

State Office during the application window. 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/easements/farmranch 

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 development and cropping uses of the land while retaining the right to conduct common grazing 

practices and operations related to the production of forage and seeding, subject to certain 

restrictions during nesting seasons of bird species that are in significant decline or are protected under federal or state law. A grazing management plan is required for participants. 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/easements/grassland 

USDA

NRCS

Swampbuster The Highly Erodible Land Conservation and Wetland Conservation Compliance provisions (Swampbuster) were introduced in the 1985 Farm Bill, with amendments in 1990, 

1996, and 2002. The purpose of the provisions is to remove certain incentives to produce 

agricultural commodities on converted wetlands or highly erodible land, unless the highly 

erodible land is protected from excessive soil erosion. It withholds federal farm program 

benefits from any person who converts a wetland by clearing, drainage, dredging, leveling, 

or any other means for the purpose of making agricultural commodity production possible, 

or who plants a commodity on a converted wetland. 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailfull/national/programs/alphabetical/

camr/?&cid=stelprdb1043554

USDA 

NRCS 

Wetlands 

Reserve 

Enhancement 

Program 

(WREP) 

WREP is a voluntary conservation program which is a component of WRP. Under WREP, 

NRCS enters into agreements with eligible partners (states and local units of government, Indian tribes, and non-governmental organizations) to help enhance conservation 

outcomes on wetlands and adjacent lands. WREP targets and leverages resources to carry 

out high-priority wetland protection, restoration, and enhancement activities and improve 

wildlife habitat. Once NRCS selects a partner’s proposal, landowners within the selected 

project area may submit an application directly to NRCS for participation in WRP. 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/easements/wetlands 

Appendix E: Federal Agency Programs That Support Coastal Wetland Protection, 

Restoration, and Management
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: South Atlantic Review 60

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 

USGS National 

Wetlands 

Research 

Center 

The National Wetlands Research Center is a source and clearinghouse of science information about wetlands in the United States and the world for fellow agencies, private entities, 

academia, and the public at large. Staff members obtain and provide this information by 

performing original scientific research and developing research results into literature and 

technological tools. They then disseminate that information through a variety of means. 

The Center solves wetland-related problems and conducts status and trends inventories of 

wetland habitats, evaluates wetland problems, and conducts field and laboratory research 

on wetland issues. Center research includes a broad array of projects on wetland ecology, 

values, management, restoration and creation, plus research on the ecology of a wide variety of plant and animal species and communities that are found in wetlands. 

http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/ 

USGS Other 

scientific 

research 

USGS also conducts scientific studies on other areas related to wetland health, including carbon sequestration, long shore transport processes, water level fluctuations, climate 

change, and sea level rise. 

http://www.usgs.gov/ 

Appendix E: Federal Agency Programs That Support Coastal Wetland Protection, 

Restoration, and Management
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: South Atlantic Review 61

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 Wetlands Conservation Act Program and the National Wetlands Conservation Grant Program 

receive 15 percent each. Funding distributed to the Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force is used to design and construct projects to preserve, 

re-establish, and enhance Louisiana’s coastal landscape. 

http://www.lacoast.gov/new/About/Default.aspx http://www.fws.gov/birdhabitat/Grants/

NAWCA/index.shtm http://www.fws.gov/coastal/coastalgrants/ 

EPA/ 

FWS/ 

NOAA/ 

USDA/ 

Army Corps 

Estuary 

Restoration 

Act (ERA) 

The purpose of ERA is to promote the restoration of estuary habitat; to provide federal 

assistance for estuary habitat restoration projects; to develop a national Estuary Habitat 

Restoration 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 restoration project database, the National Estuaries Restoration Inventory, and established 

standards for restoration monitoring. 

http://www.era.noaa.gov/ 

Appendix E: Federal Agency Programs That Support Coastal Wetland Protection, 

Restoration, and Management