Coastal Wetlands Initiative: Mid-Atlantic Review 1

Coastal Wetlands Initiative: 

Mid-Atlantic Review

EPA-843-R-10-005A

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 nontidal. 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 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 

Status and Trends 

of Wetlands 

IN THE CoasTal WaTErsHEds of THE EasTErN UNITEd sTaTEs

1998 to 2004

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: Mid-Atlantic Review 2

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 Mid-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 report.

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. 

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 is to facilitate dialogue among 

stakeholders who share a vested interest in coastal wetland 

resource protection such that continued local, regional, and 

national efforts to stem coastal wetland losses can be 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 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: 

* 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: Mid-Atlantic Review 3

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 

which are under the jurisdiction of Section 404 of the federal 

Clean Water Act (CWA) or similar state programs. When 

made available by the relevant agency, these data were provided in the CWR report. Due to database limitations, permit 

data provided by the Army Corps did not cover the same time 

frame as C-CAP (1996-2006) and therefore it was not possible to compare the magnitude of losses identified by each. 

See Appendices C and D for more information on the CWA 

Section 404 program and C-CAP, respectively.

3. Conduct stakeholder discussions.

EPA sought an entity to serve as the “host” of each review and

to help identify a broad range of local stakeholders to 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 

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: Mid-Atlantic Review

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 Mid-Atlantic review are summarized below, 

and are also presented in Tables 2 and 3 and the “Conclusion” 

section of this report.

•	 Major stressors:

» Development. 

» Limitations of regulations. 

» Coastal erosion and shoreline hardening.

•	 Major tools and strategies:

» The Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) tidal 

wetland inventory and assessment protocol, which 

systematically assesses coastal wetlands and measures 

incremental wetland losses over time.

» Regulatory program coordination and strengthening 

such as the Mid-Atlantic Wetlands Work Group and the 

Partnership for the Delaware Estuary.

» The VIMS Wetlands Data Viewer tool, used to collect 

information for regulators about the quality/condition of 

non-tidal wetlands in which development is proposed.

» Stabilizing shorelines by allowing landward migration 

of coastal wetlands through rolling easements or living 

shorelines.

•	 Major gaps:

» Additional funding for programs including monitoring 

and assessment.

» Improved collaboration between state and federal regulatory agencies and VIMS.

» Access to geographic information systems (GIS) tools and 

higher-resolution Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR).

» Increased public and stakeholder education and outreach.

4

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: Mid-Atlantic Review 5

Mid-Atlantic Review

The Mid-Atlantic region hosts a wide variety of coastal wetlands due to variations in climate, hydrology, soils, vegetation, 

and other factors. The gradual transition from fresh to salt 

water supports shrub and forested wetlands in the headwater 

areas, brackish marshes and tidal freshwater wetlands in the 

salt–freshwater transition zones, and salt marshes, mudflats, 

and beaches near the shore. In addition, many open water 

areas such as lakes and ponds are often regulated with wetlands within the focal watershed. Together, this network of 

coastal wetlands provides important ecosystem services and 

is vital to the health of commercially important fisheries 

resources and other sectors of the economy. Tidal wetlands 

in particular are likely to provide more ecosystem services 

than any other habitat type in the region (Partnership for the 

Delaware Estuary, 2008).

The first Mid-Atlantic watersheds chosen for the review were 

in the Delaware Estuary (Figure 3 and Figure 7), in the states 

of Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. The second review 

targeted the Pamunkey, Mattaponi, and York watersheds located 

along the York River in Virginia (Figure 3 and Figure 10). Based 

on previous work by the Interagency Coastal Wetlands Workgroup, the Delaware Estuary watershed was highlighted as an 

area experiencing significant coastal wetland loss. In contrast, the 

York River watershed (a tributary of the Chesapeake Bay) was 

selected because, despite the presence of stressors, wetland losses 

seemed disproportionately low. EPA chose to further examine 

this disparity, i.e., why losses were occurring in some areas, 

but not in others, in the presence of similar stressors. The focal 

watershed reviews were conducted to help compile and validate 

baseline information and provide a more in-depth understanding 

of what is happening on the ground.

Mid-Atlantic Coastal Wetland Stressors

Historically, coastal wetlands in the Mid-Atlantic region have 

been subject to losses due to the effects of a variety of stressors 

from activities such as commercial, residential, and industrial 

development and associated infrastructure and conversion for 

agricultural uses. Coastal wetlands have also been affected by 

dredging projects (e.g., deposition of dredge spoils in wetlands)and conversion of tidal wetlands to open water by construction of impoundments and sea level rise (Tiner, 1987). 

Data from NOAA’s C-CAP were used to estimate acreage 

losses of coastal wetlands for the Mid-Atlantic region from 

1996 to 2006 (see Appendix D for more information on the 

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 estimates, 

approximately 40,000 acres were lost in the Mid-Atlantic 

region during this 10-year period and half of all the wetland 

losses were attributed to conversion to agriculture (Figure 4). 

Almost 80 percent of these changes to agriculture occurred 

within the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

The literature reviewed (see Appendix B), as augmented by 

discussions with stakeholders, revealed the following wetland 

stressors: 

•	 Hydrologic alterations such as dredging, ditching, channelizing streams, mosquito control practices, stormwater 

runoff, impervious surfaces, and water supply withdrawals.

•	 Climate change and sea level rise exacerbate other stressors 

such as erosion, and can cause changes in salinity, sediment 

deficits, and conversion of vegetated wetlands to open water 

due to inundation (Figure 5 and Figure 6). 

Potomac

Susquehanna

.

Legend

Rivers

State Boundaries

Mattaponi

Pamunkey

York

Delaware Estuary Study Area

Coastal 8-digit HUCs

Mid-Atlantic States

States

Mid-Atlantic Study Area

0 10 20 30 40 5

Miles

Albers Equal-Area Projection

Source: ESRI Data & Maps; NRCS

Virginia

West

Virginia

Maryland

Washington,

D.C.

Pennsylvania

Delaware

New Jersey

New York

Figure 3. Mid-Atlantic focal watersheds. Source: ESRI, NRCS.

Developed

15%

Agriculture

48%

Open Water

27%

Bare Land

10%

.

Figure 4. Wetland loss and changes in land cover, 1996-2006: Mid-Atlantic. 

Source: NOAA, 2010b.
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: Mid-Atlantic Review 6

•	 Conversion and filling of wetlands and/or adjacent riparian 

or upland buffers through construction of residential and 

commercial development and associated infrastructure.

•	 Degraded ecosystems due to invasive species, salt marsh dieback, habitat fragmentation, and lack of buffers.

•	 Point and nonpoint source pollution and associated impacts 

such as eutrophication, and emerging contaminants such as 

pharmaceuticals.

•	 Hard structures along shorelines including seawalls, bulkheads, and other armoring exacerbate erosion and prevent 

wetland migration.

These stressors include both near-term and long-term issues, 

which will require a shift in response strategies. For example, 

impacts from residential and commercial development are 

an immediate issue, whereas climate change and sea level rise 

represent longer-term impacts. In this regard, the strategies 

employed to address these stressors must consider temporal 

variability. In fact, threats associated with sea level rise are 

receiving increased attention in the Mid-Atlantic region as 

a result of current (near-term) observations and longer-term 

projections. A recent report (CCSP, 2009) predicts that this 

region (as well as the Gulf Coast) will be particularly vulnerable to sea level rise over the next century. The Mid-Atlantic 

coast’s vulnerability is attributed to a sandy shoreline, a high 

rate of erosion, a “sediment-starved” coast, localized sinking 

of the land surface, and the geomorphology of the coastal 

plain and the continental shelf. Approximately 53 percent of 

the relative sea level rise within at least the lower Chesapeake 

Bay is due to subsidence, as described in the “Chesapeake 

Bay Land Subsidence and Sea Level Change” prepared for the 

Army Corps’ Norfolk District by VIMS (VIMS, 2010). Over 

one million acres of coastal wetlands are at risk of inundation 

assuming a one meter rise in sea level along the Mid-Atlantic 

coast (see Table 1). In Virginia, eighty-three percent of the 

acreage losses of estuarine wetlands in southeast Virginia have 

already been attributed to submergence, most likely due to 

rising sea level (Tiner et al., 2005). The Governor’s Commission on Climate Change (2008) expects sea level to rise 

between 2.3 and 5.2 feet over the next 100 years, which could 

inundate 50 to 80 percent of Virginia’s tidal wetlands.

Hardening (or armoring) of shorelines is another example of 

an activity that is prevalent throughout the region, and can 

lead to a host of short-term and long-term adverse effects. 

Armoring of the coast has been a major issue in the MidAtlantic states due to some of the same factors that render 

the area vulnerable to sea level rise. In Maryland, 28 percent 

of the shoreline has been armored (CCRM, 2004); in New 

Jersey, 43 percent of the developed shoreline has been hardened. In Virginia alone, 220 miles of shoreline were hardened 

between 1993 and 2004, with an average rate of 18 miles of 

hard structures permitted by regulatory agencies each year 

(Duhring, 2005).

Mid-Atlantic Tools and Strategies

In the Mid-Atlantic, multi-faceted programs use a variety of 

tools to address stressors through wetland assessment, protection, mitigation, and restoration. They include non-regulatory 

programs such as land protection incentives, land acquisition 

or conservation easements, public outreach and education, 

Figure 5. Areas where wetlands would be marginal or lost (i.e., converted 

to open water) under three sea level rise scenarios (in millimeters per year). 

Source: CCSP, 2009.

Figure 6. Eroding wetland. Source: Danielle Kreeger, Partnership for the 

Delaware Estuary.
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: Mid-Atlantic Review 7

training and technical assistance, monitoring, assessment, 

mapping, and restoration projects. A number of common regulatory tools are also used throughout the Mid-Atlantic region 

including permitting, compliance monitoring and assistance, 

site inspections, regulatory guidance, policies, enforcement, 

and wetlands compensatory mitigation requirements.

Wetland regulatory programs in the Mid-Atlantic region 

involve a combination of tools from both federal and state 

agencies. The Army Corps’ Regulatory Program, administered 

by staff employed by the New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, 

and Norfolk Districts, has a programmatic goal of no net loss 

of wetlands and generally requires compensatory mitigation 

for impacts authorized through its permits. Since the no net 

loss goal was established in 1990 (Executive Order 11990), 

the program has contributed to wetland protection in partnership with states that have legislation tailored to protect 

wetlands. “No net loss of wetlands” policies covering all 

jurisdictional wetlands (see Appendix C) have been adopted 

by EPA and all five of the coastal Mid-Atlantic states.

The Army Corps administers day-to-day federal regulation 

(including individual and general permit decisions), conducts 

or verifies jurisdictional determinations, develops policy and 

guidance, and enforces Section 404 provisions. EPA develops 

and interprets policy, guidance, and environmental criteria 

used in evaluating permit applications; 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; can elevate specific cases; and enforces Section 404 

provisions. EPA also provides funding, guidance, and training for a variety of wetland programs and works closely with 

the states through its regional offices and the National Estuary 

Program. Each state in this region has its own wetland laws 

and regulations that work in concert with Section 404, such as 

compensatory mitigation policies and/or guidance. 

An important strategic component of coastal wetland protection in the Mid-Atlantic region is the prevalence of regional 

partnerships, most notably the multi-state Chesapeake Bay 

Agreement and the Partnership for the Delaware Estuary (one 

of 28 National Estuary Programs). In addition, wetland monitoring and assessment tools are considered important aspects 

of the wetland protection programs in this region. Coordination occurs through the Mid-Atlantic Wetlands Workgroup, 

funded through a Wetland Program Development Grant 

from EPA to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 

Protection. The group consists of federal, state, and academic 

staff and scientists from Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, 

New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, 

and West Virginia. Collaboration also occurred to develop a 

Mid-Atlantic tidal wetland assessment method to assess the 

condition of coastal wetlands. The method was developed by 

the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, the Maryland Department of Natural 

Resources, and VIMS. 

The Partnership for the Delaware Estuary and VIMS are two 

examples of groups providing scientific support for improved 

decision-making in this region. Both groups have developed 

strong collaborative relationships as well as valuable coastal 

wetland resources intended for local, state, and federal agencies to draw upon for priority setting as well as policy making. 

CLEAN WATER ACT SECTION 404 PERMITS

Section 404 establishes a permit program to regulate 

the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters 

of the United States, including wetlands. An applicant 

must show that steps have been taken to avoid 

impacts to aquatic resources; that potential impacts 

have been minimized; and that compensation will 

be provided for all remaining unavoidable impacts. 

General permits can be issued on a nationwide, 

regional, or statewide basis for categories of activities 

that will have only minimal adverse effects. State 

Programmatic General Permits (SPGPs) are a type 

of general permit issued by the Army Corps and 

administered by a state agency. They are designed 

to improve the regulatory approval process for 

applicants, reduce unnecessary duplicative project 

evaluations, and promote more effective and efficient 

use of Army Corps’ resources.

Table 1. Land Within 1 Meter Above High Water 

Along the U.S. Mid-Atlantic Coast

State

Area

Dry Land 

(acres)

Non-tidal Wetlands 

(acres)

Tidal Wetlands

(acres)

NY 40,772 2,471 36,819

NJ 67,954 42,502 242,163

PA 5,391 741 1,483

DE 31,135 7,907 88,217

MD 110,950 30,147 275,770

DC 988 0 247

VA 90,193 36,572 400,064

Total 347,924 120,340 1,044,762

Coastal areas at risk of inundation due to sea level rise. Source: Titus et al., 2009.
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: Mid-Atlantic Review 8

Of particular note are strategies under development to address 

threats of coastal erosion, storm surges, and sea level rise. To 

address erosion and potential storm surges, Mid-Atlantic states 

have historically relied on shoreline hardening methods to 

stabilize vulnerable coastlines along both estuarine and oceanfacing shores. Alternative strategies are now being proposed 

and implemented for both ocean and estuarine shorelines. The 

banks of estuaries in particular are receiving much attention; 

in these areas nourishment rarely occurs and hardening is 

more common due to lower wave energy and other factors. 

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 and “living shorelines,” 

are gaining more traction (Titus, 1998; CCSP, 2009; EPA Climate Ready Estuaries website, 2010 http://www.epa.gov/climatereadyestuaries/). 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 mechanisms 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).

To address the impacts of climate change, the Partnership for 

the Delaware Estuary (PDE), which is participating in the 

Climate Ready Estuaries program, released a report called 

“Climate Change and the Delaware Estuary: Three Case 

Studies in Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation Planning.” These case studies looked at three key resources: tidal 

wetlands, drinking water, and bivalve shellfish. With technical 

assistance from experts, the Sea Level Affecting Marsh Model 

(SLAMM) was applied to project how the spatial extent of 

different coastal habitats will change as sea level rises. In addition to significant acreage losses, PDE expects to see shifts in 

community species composition, desiccation of marsh sediments, and change in habitat support. To address these vulnerabilities, the case study identified six management tactics 

as potential adaptation strategies for crucial infrastructure and 

tidal wetlands: watershed flow management; strategic retreat; 

structure setbacks; creation of buffer lands; living shorelines; 

and building dikes, bulkheads, and tide gates. 

Mid-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 coordination and collaboration between wetland 

regulators and stakeholders.

•	 Increasing resources (staffing and funding) to administer 

monitoring, assessment, and regulatory programs.

•	 Developing comprehensive and integrated databases using 

common temporal and geographic scales and standardized 

categorization methodologies.

•	 Increasing understanding of wetland condition, function, 

values, and emerging issues such as sediment budgets, sediment management strategies and climate change impacts. 

Tables 2 and 3 summarize key stressors, tools and strategies to 

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

the Mid-Atlantic region.
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: Mid-Atlantic Review 9

Table 2. Stressors, Tools and Strategies, and Gaps Identified by Participants During the Delaware Estuary CWR

Stressors Tools and Strategies Gaps and Needs

Limitations of regulations •	 Regulatory authority

•	 Collaboration

•	 Integrated mapping, monitoring, and data collection system

Cumulative impacts •	 Mapping

•	 Watershed-level wetland condition assessment

•	 Sustained funding to better understand wetland function and loss

•	 Integrated mapping, monitoring, and data collection system

•	 LiDAR mapping

•	 Coordination among states and NEPs to consistently and 

comprehensively track losses and condition changes

Hydrologic alterations •	 Watershed-level wetland condition assessment•	 Sustained funding to better understand wetland function and loss

•	 Better understanding of sediment budgets and natural processes

Shoreline hardening •	 Living shorelines •	 Better understanding of sediment budgets and natural processes

•	 Educate public and increase awareness

Mosquito control practices and 

salt marsh hay impoundments

•	 Watershed-level wetland condition assessment•	 Sustained funding to better understand wetland function and loss

•	 Better understanding of sediment budgets and natural processes

Climate change and sea level rise •	 Land acquisition

•	 Rolling easements

•	 Educate public and increase awareness

Table 3. Stressors, Tools and Strategies, and Gaps Identified by Participants During the York River CWR

Stressors Tools and Strategies Gaps and Needs

Limitations of regulations

•	 Inconsistencies in State 

Regulations

•	 Regulatory Exemptions

•	 Wetland monitoring and 

assessment

•	 Strong scientific support

•	 Restoration

•	 State and federal coordination 

•	 Improved collaboration between state agencies

•	 Consistent shoreline management plans

•	 Stronger federal enforcement presence

•	 GIS tools and LiDAR

Commercial and residential 

development

•	 Outreach and training •	 Consistent shoreline management plans

•	 Development restrictions

Shoreline hardening •	 Restoration

•	 Living shorelines 

•	 Nutrient management plans for all land uses

•	 Consistent shoreline management plans

Cumulative impacts •	 Wetland monitoring and 

assessment

•	 Restoration

•	 Improved collaboration between state agencies

•	 Centralized database tracking permits, wetland loss, and 

restoration

•	 GIS tools and LiDAR

Climate change impacts •	 Living shorelines •	 Consistent shoreline management plans
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: Mid-Atlantic Review 10

Focal Watershed Review: Delaware Estuary Watershed

Introduction

The Delaware Estuary watershed (HUCs 02040201, 

02040202, 02040203, 02040205, 02040206, 02040207)

covers 13,611 square miles and includes portions of New 

York, New Jersey, Delaware, and Pennsylvania, and a very 

small portion of Maryland. The tidal river, one of the largest freshwater tidal estuaries in the world, runs through the 

fourth-largest U.S. urban center. It supports the world’s 

largest freshwater port system, including the Port of Philadelphia, which generates more than $19 billion annually. 

The upper watershed is considered a relatively pristine recreational resource providing a portion of New York City’s 

drinking water supply. The lower estuary is noted for its 

biological richness, with waterfowl (boasting the secondhighest concentration of shorebirds in North America), 

fin and shellfish (oyster landings exceed $1.5 million), and 

the largest breeding population of horseshoe crabs on the 

planet. This resource gained distinction as home to one 

of the 28 National Estuary Programs—the only tri-state 

National Estuary Program (PDE, 2006).

Periodic evaluations of coastal wetlands (tidal and non-tidal) 

of the Delaware Estuary watershed are conducted by PDE. 

The State of the Delaware Estuary report (PDE, 2008) is a 

comprehensive assessment effort that tracks more than 20 

indicators of overall estuarine and watershed health. The 

report measures progress as well as challenges associated with 

implementing the Delaware Estuary Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan. For example, with respect to 

tidal marshes, the report concluded the following:

Much of our remaining wetlands appear to be considerably degraded and vulnerable to storms, erosion, 

and sea level rise. These marshes would normally move 

landward as sea levels rise. However, the “buffer” lands 

adjacent to them have long been developed in the 

Upper Estuary, and buffer loss in the Middle and Lower 

Estuary has escalated during the past decade. . . .

. . . A 1992 to 2001 land cover data comparison (for 

both tidal and non-tidal wetlands combined) showed 

wetlands loss throughout the estuary, except along 

the New Jersey side of Delaware Bay where extensive 

marsh restoration may have offset this trend. . . .

. . . Despite proactive laws protecting marshes, a growing awareness of their ecological value, and mounting 

restoration attention, marsh acreage and condition are 

still lost from human-caused impairments, land uses, 

and sea level rise. [See Figure 8]. Figure 8. Relative change in tidal wetland acreage, 1992–2001. 

Source: PDE, 2008.

Figure 7. Delaware Estuary focal watershed (cross-hatched area). 
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: Mid-Atlantic Review 11

Highlight: Analysis of Wetland Condition in the St. Jones River Watershed

Focal Watershed Review: Delaware Estuary Watershed (continued)

The Delaware Department of Natural Resources and 

Environmental Control (DNREC) Wetland Monitoring

and Assessment Program recently released the results of 

a detailed study to examine the condition of wetlands in

the St. Jones River watershed. The St. Jones River watershed drains 57,643 acres into the Delaware Bay Estuary. 

The study is part of a statewide effort by DNREC to 

assess the condition of wetlands on the watershed scale. 

The St. Jones study, summarized by Rogerson et al. 

(2010), examined both tidal and non-tidal wetland condition, changes in overall wetland acreage, and stressors 

responsible for wetland degradation. 

The study first looked at the change in wetland area in the 

watershed by comparing the 1992 Delaware state wetland 

inventory to historic wetland acreage based on hydric soils. 

Next, to assess the condition of wetlands and identify the 

prominent stressors, a rapid assessment method was applied 

to 32 headwater wetland sites, 29 riverine wetland sites, 

five depressional wetland sites, and 50 tidal wetland sites, 

randomly located on both private and public land. Indicators of condition and stressors related to plant community, 

hydrology, and wetland buffers were evaluated for each site. 

A probabilistic sampling design allowed for extrapolation of 

sample results to overall wetland condition in the watershed. 

Since European colonization, the St. Jones watershed has 

lost approximately 47 percent of its wetland resources. Of 

the wetlands remaining, 50 percent of the wetland area is 

considered minimally stressed while 16 percent is severely 

stressed. The condition of wetlands varied by wetland 

type: headwater wetlands scored a “B-,” riverine wetlands 

scored a “C-,” and tidal 

wetlands scored a “C.” 

Compared to the nearby 

Murderkill and Inland 

Bays watersheds, the 

condition of wetlands 

in the St. Jones River 

watershed was similar to 

the Murderkill watershed in the Delaware 

Estuary basin but has 

more minimally stressed 

wetlands and fewer 

severely stressed wetlands than the Inland 

Bays watershed.

This information will be used to guide Delaware’s protection and restoration efforts. Protection resources will be 

focused on the types of wetlands with the highest risk for 

loss and degradation, and restoration efforts will be targeted on wetlands with the highest restorative value. The 

results of this study can also be used as baseline information to monitor future changes in the watershed. In collaboration with the Delaware National Estuarine Reserve, 

DNREC will use the information from this report to 

educate citizens and decision-makers on the health and 

importance of wetlands and actions that they can take to 

improve the condition of wetlands in the watershed. The 

study recommendations included:

•	 Thoroughly tracking permitted impacts.

•	 Restoring and re-establishing degraded and fragmented 

flat wetlands to improve wetland services such as water 

quality, wildlife habitat, and native biodiversity.

•	 Improving tidal and non-tidal wetland buffer regulations.

•	 Collaborating with partners to enhance education and 

outreach efforts and share coastal wetland information 

with professionals and decision-makers. 

•	 Identifying restoration and protection priority areas.

•	 Ensuring that wetland functions are replaced before 

they may be destroyed or degraded by adopting assessment methods and monitoring results into the Army 

Corps’ review process and by strictly enforcing current 

guidelines. 

•	 Controlling invasive plants to improve wetland condition, promote native communities, and improve 

biodiversity. 
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: Mid-Atlantic Review 12

Data from NOAA’s C-CAP were used to estimate acreage losses of coastal wetlands for the Delaware Estuary (see Appendix D for more information on C-CAP 

methodology).

According to C-CAP estimates, the Delaware Estuary 

watershed lost approximately 7,500 acres of coastal wetlands between 1996 and 2006. This represented a loss of 

1.5 percent of all coastal wetlands present in 1996. Losses 

were fairly evenly split between freshwater (approximately 

52 percent) and saltwater (approximately 44 percent) 

wetlands, with some unconsolidated shore losses (approximately 4 percent). Wetland areas were lost to open water 

(approximately 47 percent), agriculture (approximately 28 

percent), and development (approximately 19 percent), 

with approximately 6 percent lost to bare land (Figure 9). 

More than 75 percent of all the saltwater marsh losses were 

to open water.

The C-CAP data are intended to provide a general indication of trends observed on a national level, and may 

be one of several important screening tools used in the 

identification of threatened areas, key stressors, and the 

identification and prioritization of conservation/restoration 

strategies. This “big picture” view is best supplemented by 

more detailed, field-based, state-level analysis. For example, 

C-CAP (consistent with many wetland mapping methodologies) only measures coastal wetland losses according 

to loss of wetland acreage. Some states are taking a more 

comprehensive approach and are beginning to measure 

both wetland acreage and condition. A notable example 

occurs within the state of Delaware and is described in 

the report “Condition of Wetlands in the St. Jones River 

Watershed” (Rogerson et al., 2010). This report determined 

the condition of both tidal and non-tidal wetlands and 

identified the presence of wetland stressors that are degrading wetlands. Wetland condition was measured using 15 

metrics representing habitat characteristics (e.g., plant 

composition, invasives); hydrology (e.g., ditching, draining, 

fill, stormwater inputs); and condition of the wetland buffer (e.g., extent and intensity of surrounding development, 

barriers to landward migration). The information will be 

used to inform and improve future protection and restoration activities for Delaware’s wetland resources.

Stressors

The following major coastal wetland stressors emerged 

from the Delaware Estuary watershed review:

•	 limitations of regulations. During discussions, stakeholders 

reported a lack of clarity in the field amongst regulators and 

the regulated community over what is considered federally 

regulated waters pursuant to CWA Section 404 caused by 

recent Supreme Court decisions (Rapanos v. United States, 547 

U.S. 715, 810 [2006]; see Appendix C). This lack of clear 

guidance was cited as contributing to losses to coastal wetland 

resources within this focal watershed. For example, Delaware 

state officials noted increasing losses in the last decade, particularly because the state has very little authority to protect nontidal wetlands. Although state efforts may be showing more 

acres of mitigation than losses, there is uncertainty about 

long-term sustainability and the condition and functioning 

of the mitigation sites. According to review participants, early 

mitigation failures have led to more focus on ensuring replication of hydrology, but the ability to replicate hydrology is still 

in the trial phase. It was also noted that there are regulatory 

barriers (e.g., terminology used in regulations) to the adoption 

of alternative shoreline stabilization methods such as those 

contained in “Living Shorelines” guidance (VIMS, 2009). 

•	 Cumulative impacts through incremental filling. 

Cumulative impacts are caused by a combination of small 

incremental stressors such as wetlands alterations below 

regulatory thresholds, cutting of vegetation, road crossings, 

and increased imperviousness. This was a recurring theme 

throughout the Delaware Estuary watershed. 

Focal Watershed Review: Delaware Estuary Watershed (continued)

Developed

19%

Agriculture

28%

Open Water

47%

Bare Land

6% .

Figure 9. Wetland loss and changes in land cover, 1996-2006: Delaware 

Estuary watershed. Source: NOAA, 2010b. 

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: Mid-Atlantic Review 13

A major concern is that small individual acreage losses are 

adding up to large impacts. For example, in Delaware the 

greatest wetland loss is occurring to non-tidal wetlands. 

These losses are often small losses (both permitted and 

unpermitted) that are being made on a site-by-site basis 

and not being put into a larger watershed or landscape 

context to understand the cumulative effects on ecosystem 

health and the reduction in the services the wetlands provide. Other states noted that incremental losses are occurring as older bulkheads are replaced with newer structures, 

and as landscaping (including lawns) encroaches into 

wetland and wetland buffer areas.

•	 Hydrologic alterations. Various natural and artificial factors 

have converged to modify the hydrology of the Delaware 

Estuary and its related hydrodynamics and sediment deposition patterns. For example, while dredging has historically 

resulted in direct wetland acreage loss via deposition (fill) 

of dredge materials into nearby marshes, the recurrence 

of channel deepening events (from an average pre-project 

depth of 18 feet to a deepening of 40 feet) has led to numerous secondary effects on important hydrologic parameters, 

including increased tidal range, increased shoreline erosion, 

and upstream intrusion of saline waters. These effects are 

exacerbated by sea level rise (Sutton et al., 1996). In addition, stormwater runoff and impervious surfaces alter the 

hydrology of both non-tidal and tidal wetlands by reducing 

natural recharge and increasing peak flooding.

•	 Shoreline hardening. Shoreline hardening impedes the 

ability of coastal wetlands to migrate landward in response 

to sea level rise. The State of the Delaware Estuary report 

(2008) tracks availability of tidal wetland buffers and notes 

that, in the lower estuary, buffers are lost and/or fragmented as agricultural lands are developed for residential 

and other uses. The report identified the Delaware side 

of the Delaware Bay as having the greatest potential for 

landward migration of tidal marshes, and therefore should 

be a priority for preservation. 

•	 Mosquito control practices. Historic mosquito control 

ditching and other mosquito control activities are considered a common stressor of coastal wetlands. Open water 

marsh management for mosquito control, intended to 

reduce pesticide use, may be acting as a stressor because 

of changes associated with hydrology and species composition. The creation of open water areas often reduces 

the amount of wetland vegetation (including wildlife 

habitat), and may have secondary impacts associated 

with disturbance including the introduction or spread of 

invasive species (Strait and Balletto, 2005).

•	 Salt marsh hay impoundments. The historic practice 

of diking and impounding salt marshes for hay production has isolated wetlands from the estuary. Participants 

indicated that this has reduced wetland productivity and 

other ecosystem functions, though we uncertain about 

the full range of impacts this isolation may have on sediment dynamics and species composition.

•	 Climate change and sea level rise. Climate change will 

lead to increasing frequency and intensity of storms, 

which affect coastal erosion, saltwater intrusion, and 

conversion of vegetated wetlands to open water (Kreeger 

et al., 2010a). Secondary impacts include marsh dieback/browning and changes in species composition due 

to changes in geomorphology, salinity, and temperature. These vegetation changes lead to a loss in wetland 

function.

•	 Pollution. Point and nonpoint sources of pollution from 

development and agriculture include stormwater runoff, 

wastewater discharges, and industrial discharges. Of particular concern are nutrients (e.g., nitrogen, phosphorous), 

bacteria, sediment, metals, organic compounds (e.g., pesticides), as well as emerging contaminants such as pharmaceuticals and endocrine disruptors (PDE, 2008).

•	 Invasive species. Disturbance (e.g., hydrologic alteration, 

land clearing) enables opportunistic species to invade 

and out-compete valuable endemic species. In particular, Phragmites (common reed) invasion is a significant 

stressor in this watershed, which participants believe is 

likely to spread as wetland disturbances increase.

•	

Focal Watershed Review: Delaware Estuary Watershed (continued)
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: Mid-Atlantic Review 14

Tools and Strategies 

There are currently a number of effective tools and strategies in use or under development in the Delaware Estuary 

watershed to address the above stressors. The focal watershed review highlighted the following: 

•	 Mapping. Accurate, current data and high-resolution 

wetland maps are essential tools to monitor and track 

changes in wetlands due to the above stressors. The state 

of Delaware, in partnership with USFWS and Virginia 

Tech, created wetland maps from aerial imagery in order 

to complete an analysis of wetland changes between 1992 

and 2007 (Tiner et al., 2011). The state of New Jersey 

also has high resolution wetland GIS data by county.

•	 Regulatory authority. Participants highlighted the 

importance of exploring the uses of existing state and 

federal regulations. For example, the implementation of 

TMDLs and the use of grants provided under CWA Section 319 can be used to improve wetland water quality.

•	 Collaboration. State and local agencies should collaborate in order to protect shared resources and reduce the 

adverse effects of the identified stressors through consistent regulation and outreach efforts. Inter-state collaboration can also be an effective tool, as shown by the efforts 

of the Partnership for the Delaware Estuary (PDE). 

•	 Land acquisition. Acquisition of land and/or securing 

protective easements are critical for protecting wetlands 

and the buffer areas around them, allowing landward 

migration of coastal wetlands due to sea level rise. 

Examples discussed in the review included USFWS land 

acquisition projects and wildlife management areas, 

which have protected large amounts of bay shore areas in 

New Jersey, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s use 

of Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) 

funds to purchase tidal wetland buffers. The state of 

Delaware and Gloucester County, New Jersey, both have 

active programs to purchase agricultural preservation 

easements on low-lying farmland (Craghan et al., 2010; 

Hudgens et al., 2010; Titus et al., 2009). 

•	 Public access. Along parts of the Delaware Estuary, New 

Jersey public access regulations require that access to and 

along the shore be enhanced and preserved whenever 

permits are issued for more than two homes or a commercial land use (CCSP, 2009). Public access is also a 

key component of redevelopment along the Pennsylvania 

shore. Although public access does not directly increase 

habitat, it does facilitate people’s enjoyment of the coastal 

environment, thereby enhancing public education and 

support for environmental quality.

•	 Monitoring and assessment. The PDE is leading a collaborative effort to establish the Mid-Atlantic Coastal 

Wetlands Assessment (MACWA). This large-scale, 

tri-state assessment will establish baseline conditions 

and new research methods to assist in decision making, 

priority setting, and future survey design in the region 

(Kreeger et al., 2010b).

What’s Needed? What’s Missing?

Despite the above array of tools and strategies to reduce 

stressors to coastal wetlands, there are still gaps that need to 

be addressed to enable more effective application of these 

tools and strategies in order to better protect and restore 

coastal wetlands:

•	 Sustained funds to understand wetland loss, including 

condition, function, and stressors, and also to implement outreach and incentive programs. Directed wetland 

development grants to focus on building state capacity and 

coordinating across geopolitical boundaries through NEPs.

•	 Better understanding of sediment budgets, hydrologic 

alterations, and their effects upon natural processes such 

as erosion and accretion. 

•	 An integrated mapping, monitoring, and data collection 

system to inform decision-making, set priorities, and 

track progress for applications such as the State of the 

Delaware Estuary report. 

•	 Improved National Wetland Inventory (NWI) mapping 

for quality baseline data at a higher resolution. LiDAR 

technology is especially needed for coastal mapping 

because of the dynamic conditions associated with coastal 

processes. 

•	 New tools to address emerging threats such as sea level 

rise and potential sediment deficits. Several states outside the Mid-Atlantic have rolling easement regulations 

to ensure that beaches migrate inland as sea level rises 

(CCSP, 2009).

•	 Increased state regulatory authority over non-tidal 

wetlands.

•	 Increased interagency collaboration and integration of 

tools/authorities/enforcement, especially bringing agencies together to prioritize wetland management.

•	 Good information to educate the public and increase 

awareness.

Focal Watershed Review: Delaware Estuary Watershed (continued)
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: Mid-Atlantic Review 15

Focal Watershed Review: York River Watershed, Virginia

Introduction

The Virginia coastal zone contains all 310,813 acres of 

Virginia’s tidal wetlands and 909,097 acres (approximately 

80 percent) of the state’s non-tidal wetlands. Most of the 

historical non-tidal losses are attributed to agriculture, 

while most of the historical tidal wetland losses have been 

caused by commercial and residential development along 

the shoreline, shoreline hardening (VA DEQ and VIMS, 

2001) and, potentially, sea level rise. 

At 2,669 square miles, the York is among the smallest of 

Virginia’s Chesapeake Bay watersheds. However, its population grew from 250,332 in 1994 to 372,488 in 2000, 

making it one of the Bay’s fastest-growing watersheds 

(Commonwealth of Virginia, 2005; VA DCR, 2008). The 

140-mile York River originates at West Point, where the 

Mattaponi and Pamunkey rivers converge, and continues to 

Yorktown where it drains into Chesapeake Bay. The watershed thus includes the drainage areas for the Pamunkey, 

Mattaponi, and York Rivers (Figure 10; HUCs 02080105, 

02080106, 02080107). Land use/land cover is predominantly rural, with approximately 73 percent forested, 19 

percent in agricultural use, and 8 percent designated as 

urban (VA DCR, 2008).

Based upon C-CAP results, the York River watershed 

lost approximately 900 acres of wetlands between 1996 

and 2006 (see Appendix D for more information on 

C-CAP methodology). This constituted a loss of 0.5 

percent of all of the wetlands present in 1996. The losses 

were associated primarily with freshwater wetlands 

(approximately 95 percent), with the majority being forested wetlands. Approximately 3 percent, or 30 acres, of 

salt marsh wetlands were lost during the same time period. 

The losses experienced were primarily due to conversion of 

land for agricultural uses, including both cultivated crops 

and pasture areas (approximately 60 percent), but there was 

also significant loss to open water (approximately 24 percent), development (approximately 12 percent), and some 

loss to bare land (approximately 4 percent) (Figure 11).

Stressors

Discussion at the review focused on key issues contributing to coastal wetland loss. Overall, it was observed that 

inconsistent regulation and regulatory exemptions may be 

the most common drivers of coastal wetland loss within the 

York River watershed, particularly with respect to agriculture and forestry practices within non-tidal wetlands. In 

addition, rapid urban development has been cited as being 

a key contributing factor. Stakeholders indicated these are 

the three most important stressors:

•	 Inconsistency in state regulations Several possible 

reasons for or examples of inconsistent regulation were 

noted:

» Participants felt that the existence of two separate 

wetland protection programs may hinder wetland 

protection due to inconsistent policies and jurisdictional determinations. Primary authority for issuing 

state non-tidal wetland permits rests with the Virginia 

Department of Environmental Quality (VA DEQ). 

Tidal wetland permits are the purview of the Virginia 

Marine Resources Commission (VMRC) under the 

Tidal Wetlands Act. Local wetland boards have the 

option of regulating their own tidal wetlands with 

Figure 10. York River watersheds.

Figure 11. Post-loss land use for coastal wetlands lost between 1996 and 2006: 

York River watershed. Source: NOAA, 2010b. 

Developed

12%

.

Agriculture

60%

Open Water

24%

Bare Land

4%
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: Mid-Atlantic Review 16

VMRC oversight (most wetland boards adopt the 

“model wetland zoning ordinance” set forth in Virginia 

Code Section 28.2-1302).

» Participants believed project proponents may be using 

the fact that they have obtained local building permits 

as entitlement to bypass “avoidance and minimization” 

requirements of state and federal wetland regulations.

» The Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act designates tidal 

wetlands and an adjoining 100 foot buffer as components of Resource Protection Areas (RPAs). Participants indicated that not all counties require wetland 

delineation before approving development plans near 

RPAs, and therefore may not be consistently limiting 

development within RPAs. Requiring delineations 

would also provide greater consistency with state/federal regulations.

» Participants did not believe there was political will for 

local wetland boards administering the Tidal Wetlands 

Act to require less damaging alternatives to shoreline 

hardening projects.

» Virginia’s wetland programs do not consistently require 

avoidance of wetland impacts, and instead settle for 

modest minimization and compensation schemes 

(Wetlands Watch, 2006).

•	 Regulatory exemptions. Examples include:

» Similar to CWA Section 404, Virginia wetland laws 

exempt certain activities from permit requirements, 

such as those related to existing agriculture and silviculture; construction and maintenance of farm or stock 

ponds; or farm roads, forest roads, and temporary 

roads for mining activities (subject to BMPs). Participants believed these exempt activities were a significant 

cause of wetland loss. For example, there is a belief 

among some participants that large wetland areas are 

being timbered and later converted to other uses, such 

as residential subdivisions. Speculative landowners 

may be taking advantage of a silviculture exemption to 

install permanent roads and bridges for access, remove 

trees, and then convert the land for development.

» Virginia also exempts from regulation “isolated wetlands of minimal ecological value,” which are defined 

as non-forested wetlands less than one-tenth of an acre 

located outside the 100 year floodplain and not containing endangered species habitat or other sensitive 

aquatic communities including vernal pools. In total, 

it is estimated that there are more than 180,000 acres 

of isolated wetlands statewide (Hershner et al., 2000). 

Participants believe exempted and unmitigated impacts 

have resulted in significant losses on a cumulative basis 

of isolated wetlands of “minimal ecological value.” 

•	 Commercial and residential development. Conversion of open space and agricultural lands to commercial and residential development is viewed as a major 

stressor in the York watershed. In addition to direct 

impacts associated with construction, this development 

requires supporting infrastructure along with its associated impacts (e.g., stormwater runoff from roads and 

impervious surfaces). Stormwater runoff was identified 

as a major stressor associated, generally, with growth and 

development.

As well as the “top three” listed above, other major stressors 

include:

•	 Shoreline erosion and shoreline hardening. Shoreline 

hardening is a major stressor in this watershed due to its 

adverse effects upon natural coastal processes, including 

sediment transport, water quality improvement, flood 

events, and wildlife habitat. As stated above, the Tidal 

Wetlands Act may not be working as well as it should 

because of pressures on local wetland boards. Armoring 

is a common response of coastal landowners to stabilize 

their waterfront properties in response to observed or 

anticipated erosion (Figure 12). This aggressive response 

may be exacerbated by the prospect of sea level rise (Titus 

et al., 2009). Approximately 11 percent of the York 

River’s shoreline has been armored and 7.5 percent of the 

York-Pamunkey-Mattaponi’s collective shoreline has been 

armored.

Focal Watershed Review: York River Watershed, Virginia (continued)

Figure 12. Armored shoreline. Source: VA CZM, n.d.

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: Mid-Atlantic Review 17

» Studies by VIMS have shown significant ecological 

impacts of shoreline hardening. In one study, the placement of erosion control structures on the shoreline 

was associated with reduced fish community integrity. 

Fish community integrity was lowest along bulkheaded 

shorelines. In another study, the benthic index of biological integrity was found to be significantly reduced 

in circumstances where more than 10 percent of the 

shoreline was developed. Reduction in benthic invertebrates is directly related to the health of the fisheries 

community (Bilkovic et al., 2006; Bilkovic and Roggero, 2008).

•	 Cumulative impacts. The Wetlands Program at VIMS 

maintains a database of state permitted tidal wetland 

losses in order to assess the cumulative impacts of these 

permits. According to this data, while 132 acres of tidal 

wetland fill were permitted by state permits between 

1993 and 2004, only 20.3 acres of compensatory wetland mitigation was required (Duhring, 2005). Eighty 

acres of this loss was the result of permits for erosion 

control structures. Additional, untracked losses occur due 

to exemption of impacts less than 1,000 square feet in 

isolated wetlands of minimal ecological value (Wetlands 

Watch, 2006).

In addition, participants cited general permits issued 

for non-tidal wetlands impacting less than a half acre 

as another possible source of cumulative wetland loss. 

Concerns were expressed that these areas were not consistently reviewed for impacts and mitigation. It should be 

noted, however, that the general permits in Virginia are 

designed to provide a streamlined process without reducing the level of protection.

•	 Climate change and subsidence impacts. Climate 

change impacts have been noted as a stressor, particularly 

in low-lying areas and may not be receiving adequate 

attention or public visibility. Effects of climate change 

may include sea level rise, more severe coastal storms, 

salt water intrusion, and climate change’s contribution 

and relationship to other stressors such as drought and 

increased demand for ground water withdrawals. These 

processes are expected to continue. It was noted that 

tectonic rebound of the earth’s crust upon melting of 

glaciers and subsidence from the Chesapeake Bay Impact 

Crater (VIMS, 2010) may be accounting for about a 

third of the sea level rise. Landward migration of coastal 

wetlands can reduce the magnitude of these impacts 

upon coastal populations and natural areas. 

Tools and Strategies

The discussion of tools and strategies revealed a rich array 

of coastal wetland protection and restoration programs, 

technological applications, and outreach initiatives, many 

of which are directly linked to addressing major stressors in 

the watershed. 

•	 Wetland monitoring and assessment strategy. In 2000, 

the Virginia legislature amended the State Water Control Law by authorizing VA DEQ to implement a state 

non-tidal wetland program in support of a “no net loss 

of wetlands” policy. The program augments the state’s 

401 certification of 404 permits and includes protection of isolated wetlands (except those smaller than 1/10 

acre). The range of responsibilities assigned to VA DEQ 

included a comprehensive monitoring and assessment 

strategy, which was adopted in 2005. VIMS, VA DEQ, 

and others are working in concert to implement the 

strategy by developing protocols and guidance and applying them in the field in order to answer the following 

questions (VA DEQ, 2005):

» What is the overall quality of wetlands? 

» To what extent is wetland quality changing over time?

» What are the wetland problem areas and areas needing 

attention?

» What level of protection is needed?

» How effective are wetland programs in protecting 

wetlands?

•	 Outreach and training. Coastal wetland education, outreach, and training programs are innovative and strategic, 

targeting diverse user groups such as realtors, contractors, and school children. Some training sessions can be 

funded to a limited extent by fines from violators, who 

may be required to (anonymously) attend the training 

program as part of their penalties.

•	 Roundtables. Watershed-based discussion forums, called 

roundtables (e.g., the York River and Small Coastal Basin 

Roundtable and the York River Use Conflict Roundtable), 

are useful for stakeholder problem-solving, natural resource 

education, and technical training. Roundtables generally 

involve a diversity of participants, and their activities address 

common water quality and water resource concerns. Each 

major watershed in Virginia has a watershed roundtable 

(see http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/sw/wsheds.htm). The York 

River and Small Coastal Basin Roundtable website can be 

found at http://www.yorkwatershed.org.

Focal Watershed Review: York River Watershed, Virginia (continued)
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: Mid-Atlantic Review 18

Focal Watershed Review: York River Watershed, Virginia (continued)

•	 Restoration. Consistent with the Chesapeake Bay 2000 

agreement, the state committed to aggressive wetland 

restoration goals. The wetland restoration program is a 

key component of the state’s no net loss policy. The state 

recently updated its wetland restoration goals, which now 

call for restoration of more than 70,000 acres statewide, 

including more than 26,000 in the York River watershed 

alone. Stakeholders viewed these goals with a certain 

degree of skepticism, and cited the lack of a statewide 

wetland restoration tracking database.

•	 Strong science base. A notable and productive partnership exists between the state’s wetland programs 

and VIMS. VIMS is legislatively mandated to provide 

scientific assistance to the Commonwealth of Virginia’s 

wetland regulatory and management programs, and has 

developed a number of assessment tools that have been 

implemented throughout the region. VIMS is a major 

asset for the state’s wetland programs. Among other 

duties, staff at the Center for Coastal Resources Management (CCRM) reviews all tidal permit applications in 

Virginia’s 22 tidewater counties, providing objective and 

scientific advice to permitting authorities.

Tool Highlight: living Shorelines

Among the many tools and strategies available in this watershed, “Living Shorelines” holds great promise in addressing 

shoreline hardening, and has the potential for transferability 

to other states and regions. Living Shorelines is a scientific 

methodology that allows users to choose the most appropriate 

means of shoreline stabilization (Figure 13), and is intended to 

help implement shoreline management plans. 

The Living Shorelines model and guidance developed by 

VIMS (see http://ccrm.vims.edu/livingshorelines) are used to 

determine the suitability of shoreline areas for various stabilization approaches, which range from no action to armoring, depending on a combination of risk factors. The model 

contains 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 Maryland Department of Natural Resources has been the 

primary user of this tool, having completed shoreline management plans for its entire Chesapeake Bay shoreline, but the 

tool is receiving the attention of coastal managers throughout 

the region. Maryland’s regulations require the use of the Living Shorelines model when permitting shoreline work. Local 

governments in Matthews County, Virginia, have piloted the 

tool, and local wetland boards are using the guidance. The 

state of Virginia is now considering ways to institutionalize 

this tool, such as training contractors and others who are in 

decision-making roles, providing incentives such as expedited/

streamlined permit processes for projects following Living 

Shorelines guidance, and coordinating among all regulatory 

programs to promote the guidance early on in the planning 

process (VIMS, 2009).

Tool Highlight: Non-Tidal Wetlands Condition 

Assessment—Wetlands Data Viewer

This online tool was developed to help VA DEQ meet its year 

2000 amendments to inland wetland laws. The data viewer 

helps determine the quality/condition of non-tidal wetlands. 

Wetlands are categorized as high, medium, and low value for 

habitat and for water quality. The Virginia DEQ uses the data 

viewer to assist in permit review, develop mitigation ratios, 

and guide responsible siting of development. No performance 

standards currently exist for conditioning (or denying) permits 

based on the value of the wetlands as indicated in the data 

viewer. The data viewer is available for use now in non-tidal 

wetlands (see http://ccrm.vims.edu/wetlands/nontidal_gis_

products/index.html). The tidal application is currently under 

development, with the York River watershed being the focus 

of initial assessment and mapping efforts.

Tool Highlight: Tidal Wetlands Inventory and 

Assessment Protocol

The “Development of a Tidal Wetlands Inventory and Assessment for the York River, Virginia Watershed” dataset (O’Brien 

et al., 2006) provides the basis for a Level I, II, and III wetland 

Figure 13. Newly planted marsh with fiber logs allowing plants to establish root system and stabilize shoreline. Source: VIMS, 2006.
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: Mid-Atlantic Review 19

Focal Watershed Review: York River Watershed, Virginia (continued)

assessment of the Mid-Atlantic region. As a prototype for this 

assessment, 2,188 tidal wetlands have been assessed in the 

York River watershed. The protocols developed under this 

study are transferable to other tidal watersheds in Virginia and 

beyond to other states of the Mid-Atlantic region. (For more 

information, see http://ccrm.vims.edu/gis_data_maps/interactive_maps/disclaimer_yorktidalwetlands.html.)

What’s Needed? What’s Missing?

Despite the above array of tools, stakeholders identified several 

gaps.

•	 Improved coordination between state and federal regulatory agencies will be necessary in order to ensure reductions 

in coastal wetland loss and protection of remaining coastal 

wetlands. A state-federal interagency group existed in the 

1980s but was dissolved because of lack of funding. Such an 

entity is needed to ensure a coordinated state-federal wetland protection program, and is a logical next step given the 

resources dedicated towards wetland inventory, assessments, 

and mapping within the state. 

•	 Improved collaboration between state agencies and 

VIMS, including more widely accepted use of their 

inventory, assessments, and mapping tools, is expected 

to benefit both permitting and enforcement programs 

through a more comprehensive and consistent approach. 

•	 A centralized state database and qualified support staff 

are needed to track wetland permitting, loss, and restoration to better identify where losses are occurring from the 

direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the stressors 

identified in this report. 

•	 Shoreline management plans are needed in Virginia to 

address coastal erosion and to respond to sea level rise. 

The state of Maryland has developed management plans 

for its shorelines and is developing statewide regulatory 

maps that will designate where property owners can use 

hard shore protection structures and those areas where 

only nonstructural and living shoreline approaches will 

be allowed. By contrast, Virginia has developed plans for 

some select locations.

•	 Coastal development needs to be designed to enable 

wetland migration and reduce the demand for shoreline hardening. Under its Critical Areas Act, the state of 

Maryland limits development to one home per 20 acres 

in most rural areas that were not developed prior to the 

mid-1980s. Two counties in the state of Delaware prohibit development in coastal floodplains (Hudgens et al., 

2010). Virginia, by contrast, has no statewide restrictions 

for development along Chesapeake Bay. 

•	 Stronger enforcement presence by state and federal agencies in tidal wetlands is needed to increase the effectiveness of regulatory programs. Participants at the York 

River watershed review suggested that a reduction in federal agency field presence is creating a “domino effect:” 

when there is a strong, effective federal agency presence 

in the field, there is a disincentive to violate the wetland 

regulatory requirements—but with a reduced field presence, this disincentive is not there.

•	 Access to GIS tools is needed by state and local officials 

for displaying wetland losses, inventory, stressors, and 

condition, and to provide greater opportunity for retention and dissemination of institutional knowledge. In 

addition, better-quality, high-resolution LiDAR data are 

needed to assist with accurately determining elevations 

and topography, particularly for low-lying areas. These 

are essential tools that should be shared between state 

and federal regulatory permitting and enforcement agencies in order to better assess and protect coastal wetlands.
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: Mid-Atlantic Review 20

Conclusion

The Mid-Atlantic coastal wetland review is the first 

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 continue to result in incremental 

direct and indirect impacts on coastal wetlands, and may 

lead to cumulatively significant adverse effects.

•	 Consistent coordination between state agencies, federal regulatory agencies, and non-regulatory programs 

is necessary in order to ensure persistent reductions in 

coastal wetland loss and to secure additional protections 

for remaining coastal wetlands. Further, stronger enforcement presence by state and federal regulatory and resource 

agencies is needed in order to increase the effectiveness of 

wetland protections.

•	 Coastal erosion, exacerbated by sea level rise, is a stressor 

that is likely to increase in the future and for which the 

region needs to develop new strategies such as allowing 

landward migration of coastal wetlands. 

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:

•	 Incremental wetland losses: The VIMS tidal wetland 

inventory and assessment protocol is tool that could be 

used to systematically assess coastal wetlands and measure 

incremental losses over time. 

•	 Regulatory program coordination and strengthening: Collaborative strategies such as the Mid-Atlantic Wetlands 

Work Group and the Partnership for the Delaware 

Estuary are excellent examples of ways to enhance the 

effectiveness of regulatory programs. In addition, the Wetlands Data Viewer tool, developed by VIMS, promises to 

provide regulators with critical information about wetlands 

in which development is proposed, allowing more protection to be applied for wetlands exhibiting high values.

•	 Strategies to address shoreline erosion: The region has two 

potentially transferable strategies; one is more conceptual in 

nature and the other is already being applied in the MidAtlantic region. The first is allowing landward migration 

of coastal wetlands in anticipation of sea level rise impacts, 

for example by implementing rolling easements. This 

strategy was highlighted in the Delaware watershed review. 

The second strategy is “Living Shorelines,” which is the 

preferred method for shoreline stabilization and is implemented throughout Maryland’s coastline and in other parts 

of this region (Figure 14). This tool, along with the permitting incentives being contemplated to implement it (e.g., 

streamlining permit review), has high potential for transferability to other coastal watersheds.

Key gaps were identified that need to be filled to reduce the 

stressors and more effectively use these tools and strategies. 

The most commonly cited among them included funding, monitoring and assessment data (both obtaining and 

managing the data), higher-resolution imagery and elevation 

data, increased interagency collaboration, improved state 

programs, and increased public/stakeholder outreach. 

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 Dr. Danielle Kreeger, science director 

for the Partnership for the Delaware Estuary, for hosting the 

Delaware watershed sessions and providing valuable information and assistance, and Pamela Mason of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Center for Coastal Resources Management, for helping coordinate and provide information for 

the York River watershed session. Without their support and 

contributions, these reviews would not have been possible.

Figure 14. PDE’s Delaware Estuary Living Shoreline Initiative pilot project at Matt’s 

Landing, New Jersey. Photo courtesy of PDE.

For more information on the 

Coastal Wetlands Initiative, contact:

Jennifer Linn

Linn.Jennifer@epa.gov

Nancy Laurson

Laurson.Nancy@epa.gov

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 field work 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.
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: Mid-Atlantic Review 21

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> 

ASWM. 2004. State wetland programs. <http://www.aswm.org/swp/statemainpage9.

htm> 

Bilkovic, D.M.. and M. Roggero. 2008. Effects of coastal development on nearshore 

estuarine nekton communities. Marine Ecology Progress Series 358: 27-39. 

Bilkovic, D.M., M. Roggero, C.H. Hershner, and K.H. Havens. 2006. Influence of land use on macrobenthic communities in nearshore estuarine habitats. 

Estuaries & Coasts 29(6B): 1185-1195. <http://ccrm.vims.edu/publications/pubs/

ESTU2006_29_6B_1185_1195.pdf> 

CCRM (Center for Coastal Resources Management). 2004. Maryland shoreline 

inventory. Comprehensive Coastal Inventory Program, Virginia Institute of Marine 

Science. <http://ccrm.vims.edu/gis_data_maps/shoreline_inventories/index.html> 

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. 

Commonwealth of Virginia. 2005. Chesapeake Bay nutrient and sediment reduction 

tributary strategy for the York River and Lower Coastal Basins. <http://www.naturalresources.virginia.gov/Initiatives/WaterQuality/FinalizedTribStrats/york.pdf> 

Craghan, M., J. Kassakian, D. Hudgens, and J.G. Titus. 2010. New Jersey. In: J.G. 

Titus and D. Hudgens (editors). The likelihood of shore protection along the Atlantic 

coast of the United States. Volume 1: Mid-Atlantic. Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Duhring, K. 2005. Annual Sumamry of Permitted Tidal Wetland Impacts - 2004. 

Spring 2005. The Virginia Wetlands Report. Vol. 20, No. 1 <http://ccrm.vims.edu/

publications/publications_topics/vwr/VWR%202005%20Spring.pdf>

Governor’s Commission on Climate Change. 2008. Final report: a climate change 

action plan. <http://ftp.deq.virginia.gov/export/sites/default/info/documents/climate/

CCC_Final_Report_draft_112808.pdf>

Hershner, C., K. Havens, L. Varnell, T. Rudnicky. 2000. Wetlands in Virginia. VIMS 

Center for Coastal Resources Management Special Report No. 00-1 <http://ccrm.

vims.edu/publications/pubs/wetva001.pdf>

Hudgens, D., J. Neumann, and J.G. Titus. 2010. Delaware. In: J.G. Titus and D. 

Hudgens (editors). The likelihood of shore protection along the Atlantic coast of the 

United States. Volume 1: Mid-Atlantic. Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

Kreeger, D. J. Adkins, P. Cole, R. Najjar, D. Velinsky, P. Conolly, and J. Kraeuter. 

2010a. Climate Change and the Delaware Estuary: Three Case STudies in Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation Planning. Partnership for the Delaware Estuary Report 

No. 10-01. 1-117 pp. Available at: http://www.delawareestuary.org/pdf/Climate/Climate%20Change%20and%20the%20Delaware%20Estuary_PDE-10-01.pdf

Kreeger, D., M. Maxwell-Doyle, C. Bason, A.D. Jacobs, T. Belton, D. Frizzera, 

D. Velinsky, A. Padeletti, and L. Whalen. 2010b. The Mid-Atlantic Wetland 

Assessment: Introduction and Progress. Available at: http://www.delawareestuary.org/

scienceandresearch/datasetsandreports/DEWetland2010Final.pdf

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 regional land cover. Data available: 

<http://www.csc.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/data/ccapregional/download.html> (Data 

analysis was performed for this report by NOAA personnel). 

O’Brien, D.L., T. Rudnicky, M.R. Berman, C.H. Hershner, and K. Havens. 2006. 

Development of a tidal wetlands inventory and assessment for York River, Virginia 

Watershed, Center for Coastal Resources Management, Virginia Institute of Marine 

Science, College of William and Mary. Final report: Wetland Program Development 

Grant #CD-973079-01, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3. 

Partnership for the Delaware Estuary. (PDE). 2008. State of the Delaware Estuary. 

Report #08-0. <http://www.delawareestuary.org/science_reports_partnership.asp> 

PDE. 2006. The Delaware Estuary: a watershed of distinction. Report #06-04. 

Rogerson, A.B., A.D. Jacobs, and A.M. Howard. 2010. Wetland condition of the St. 

Jones River Watershed. Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Watershed Assessment Section, Dover. 

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-Trends-of-Wetlands-in-the-Coastal-Watersheds-of-the-Eastern-UnitedStates-1998-to-2004.pdf> 

Strait, K., and J.H. Balletto. 2005. Wetland conservation and restoration along 

Delaware Bay: the edge effect. PSEG Services Corporation, Estuary Enhancement 

Program. 

Sutton, C.C., J.C. O’Herron II, and R.T. Zappalorti. 1996. The scientific characterization of the Delaware Estuary. The Delaware Estuary Program (DRBC Project No. 

321, HA File No 93.21). 

Tiner, R.W. 1987. Mid Atlantic wetlands—a disappearing natural treasure. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, Northeast Region. 

Tiner, R. W., M. A. Biddle, A. D. Jacobs, A. B. Regerson, and K. G. McGukin. 2011. 

Delware Wetlands: Status and Changes from 1992 to 2007. Cooperative National 

Wetlands Inventory Publication. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Northeast Region, 

Hadley, MA and the Delware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental 

Control, Dover, DE 35 pp.

Tiner, R.W., J.Q. Swords, and H.C. Bergquist. 2005. Recent trends in southeastern 

Virginia (1994-2000). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Northeast Region. 

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., D.E. Hudgens, D.L. Trescott, M. Craghan, W.H. Nuckols, C.H. Hershner, J.M. Kassakian, C.J. Linn, P.G. Merritt, T.M. McCue, J.F. O’Connell, J. Tanski, 

and J. Wang. 2009. State and local governments plan for development of most land 

vulnerable to rising sea level along the US Atlantic Coast. Environmental Research 

Letters 4: 044008. <http://papers.risingsea.net/ERL> 

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. 2009. Water resource policies and authorities 

incorporating sea-level change consideration in civil works programs. Circular No. 

1165-2-211. 

VA CZM (Virginia Coastal Zone Management Program). n.d. Living Shorelines...the 

natural approach to controlling shoreline erosion.<http://ccrm.vims.edu/livingshorelines/outreach_materials.html> 

VA CZM. 2005. 2006-2010 Virginia coastal needs assessment and strategies: coastal 

wetlands. <http://www.deq.virginia.gov/coastal/assess.html> 

VA DCR (Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation). 2008. York River 

watershed. <http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/waterways/the_problem/watersheds_and_

you/p_york_river.shtml> 

VA DCR. 2004. Watershed profile: York River watershed. <http://www.dcr.virginia.

gov/grassroots/index0204.shtml> 

VA DEQ. 2005. Commonwealth of Virginia’s wetland monitoring & assessment 

strategy. <http://www.epa.gov/reg3esd1/wetlands/pdf/va_wetland_strategy.pdf> 

VA DEQ and VIMS (Virginia Institute of Marine Science). 2001. State of Virginia’s 

coast. <http://www.deq.state.va.us/coastal/documents/state.pdf> 

References
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: Mid-Atlantic Review 22

VIMS. 2010. Chesapeake Bay Land Subsidence and Sea Level Change. U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers. <http://web.vims.edu/GreyLit/VIMS/sramsoe425.pdf>

VIMS. 2009. Living Shorelines. <http://ccrm.vims.edu/livingshorelines/index.html> 

VIMS. 2006. Living Shorelines. Rivers & Coast 1(2). <http://ccrm.vims.edu/publications/pubs/rivers&coast/vol1_no2_livingshorelines.pdf> 

VIMS. 1996. Wetlands and regional watershed management: a call for a holistic management strategy for Virginia’s watersheds. The Virginia Wetlands Report 11(3). 

Wetlands Watch. 2006. No net loss—a pledge unfulfilled. <http://www.wetlandswatch.org/issue_library/no_net_loss_white_paper.asp> 

References
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: Mid-Atlantic Review 23

Appendix A: Delaware Estuary Watershed and York River Watershed Participant Lists

MID-ATLANTIC FOCAL WATERSHED REVIEW PARTICIPANTS

Delaware Estuary Wetland Review Participants 

(June 2009)

Tom Belton, New Jersey Department of Environmental 

Protection

Dave Carter, Delaware Coastal Zone Program

John D’Agostino, New Jersey Coastal Zone Program

Martha Maxwell Doyle, Barnegat Bay National Estuary 

Program

Kathleen Drake, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 2

Dorina Frizzera, New Jersey Department of Environmental 

Protection

Heidi Hanlon, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

Kevin Hess, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 

Protection

Kevin Holcomb, USFWS

Amie Howell, U.S. EPA Region 3

Amy Jacobs, Delaware Division of Natural Resources and 

Environmental Control

Danielle Kreeger, Partnership for the Delaware Estuary

Angela Padeletti, Partnership for the Delaware Estuary

Irene Purdy, U.S. EPA Region 2

Sam Reynolds, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia 

District

Flavia Rutkosky, USFWS

Bill Shadel, American Littoral Society

Ralph Spagnolo, U.S. EPA Region 3

Eric Vowinkel, USGS

Nate Weston, Villanova University

York River Watershed Wetland Review Participants 

(September 2009)

Marcia Berman, Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences (VIMS)

Harry Berquist, VIMS

Donna Bilkovic, VIMS

David Byrd, USFWS

Sharon Connor, Hanover-Caroline Soil and Water Conservation District

Dave Davis, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality 

(DEQ)

Kirk Havens, VIMS

Michelle Henicheck, Virginia DEQ

Carl Hershner, VIMS

Lewie Lawrence, Middle Peninsula Planning District 

Commission

Pam Mason, VIMS

Shep Moon, Virginia DEQ, Coastal Zone Management 

Program

David O’Brien, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Marine Fisheries Service

Randy Owen, Virginia Marine Resources Commission

Walter Priest, NOAA

Scott Rae, Gloucester County

Willy Reay, VIMS

May Sligh, Virginia Department of Conservation and 

Recreation

Donald Smith, Virginia DEQ

Skip Stiles, Wetlands Watch
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: Mid-Atlantic Review 24

Appendix B: Background Documents

Document/Study Title Author (Date)

MID-ATLANTIC AND CHESAPEAKE BAY

Coastal Sensitivity to Sea-Level Rise: A Focus on the Mid-Atlantic RegionU.S. Climate Change Science Program (2009)

Mid-Atlantic Wetlands: A Disappearing Natural Treasure Tiner, R.W.—USFWS (1987)

Status and Recent Trends of Wetlands in Five Mid-Atlantic States: 

Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia

Tiner, R.W., and J.T. Finn—USFWS (1986)

Wetlands Status and Trends in the Conterminous United States: 

Mid-1970’s to Mid-1980’s

Dahl, T.E., and C.E. Johnson (1991)

Mid-Atlantic Wetlands State Profiles U.S. EPA (2009) (Web site)

State Wetland Programs ASWM (2004)

State Wetland Protection: Status, Trends, and Model Approaches; 

Appendix: State Profiles.

Environmental Law Institute (2008)

State Wetland Program Evaluation: Phase III Environmental Law Institute (2007)

Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Coastal Watersheds of the 

Eastern United States: 1998–2004

Stedman, S., and T.E. Dahl (2008)

State of the Beach Report Surfrider Foundation (2009)

Development Growth Outpacing Progress in Watershed Efforts 

to Restore Chesapeake Bay

Office of Inspector General (2007)

Draft Report on Chesapeake Bay Watershed Climate Change 

Impacts

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Department of 

Commerce (2009)

Sea-Level Rise and Coastal Habitats of the Chesapeake Bay: A 

Summary

National Wildlife Federation (2008)

Common Reed Phragmites Australis Occurrence and Adjacent 

Land Use Along Estuarine Shoreline in Chesapeake Bay

Chambers R.M., et al. (2008)

Chesapeake Bay Agreement—Preamble Chesapeake Bay Program (2000)

Effects of Coastal Development on Nearshore Estuarine Nekton 

Communities

Bilkovic, D.M., and M. Roggero (2008)

Influence of Land Use on Macrobenthic Communities in Nearshore Estuarine HabitatsBilkovic, D.M., M. Roggero, C.H. Hershner, and K.H. 

Havens (2006)

Recent Wetland Status and Trends in the Chesapeake Watershed 

(1982 to 1989)

Tiner, R.W.—USFWS (1994)
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: Mid-Atlantic Review 25

DELAWARE ESTUARY WATERSHED

Delaware Wetlands Conservation Strategy Delaware DNREC (2008)

Delaware Wetland Monitoring Strategy Delaware DNREC (2008)

Delaware Wetlands Reserve Program Delaware DNREC (Web site)

White Paper on the Status of Sudden Wetland Dieback in Saltmarshes of the Delaware Inland BayBason, C., et al., Delaware Center for the Inland Bays 

(2007)

The Delaware Estuary: Discover Its Secrets: Management Plan for 

the Delaware Estuary

Delaware Bay Estuary Project (1996)

The Delaware Estuary: A Watershed of Distinction (fact sheet) Partnership for the Delaware Estuary (2006)

State of the Delaware Estuary. Report #08-0 Partnership for the Delaware Estuary (2008)

Wetland Conservation and Restoration Along Delaware Bay: The 

Edge Effect

Strait, K., and J.H. Balletto (2005)

The Scientific Characterization of the Delaware Estuary. The 

Delaware Estuary Program (DRBC Project No. 321, HA File No 

93.21)

Sutton, C.C., J.C. O’Herron II, and R.T. Zappalorti 

(1996)

Wetland Trends in Delaware (1981/2 to 1992) Tiner, R.W., J. Swords, and S. Schaller—USFWS (1999)

Wetlands: Status and Recent Trends Tiner, R.W. (2001) (prepared for Delaware DNREC, 

Watershed Assessment Section, Division of Water 

Resources)

Maryland Climate Action Plan Final Report Maryland Commission on Climate Change, Maryland 

Department of the Environment (2008)

Wetlands of Maryland Tiner, R.W, and D.G. Burke—USFWS (1995)

The Garden State in the Green House—Climate Change Mitigation and Coastal Adaptation Strategies for New JerseyPrinceton University, Woodrow Wilson School of Public 

and International Affairs (2007)

Pennsylvania’s Wetlands: Current Status and Trends Tiner, R.W.—USFWS (1990) 

Wetlands of Pennsylvania’s Coastal Zone: Wetland Status, Preliminary Functional Assessment and Recent TrendsTiner, R.W., et al.—USFWS (2002)
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: Mid-Atlantic Review 26

YORK RIVER WATERSHED

Created Versus Natural Wetlands: Avian Communities in Virginia 

Salt Marshes

DesRochers, D.W., J.C. Keagy, and D.A. Cristol (2008)

Recent Wetland Trends in Southeastern Virginia: 1994–2000 Tiner, R.W.—USFWS (2005)

2007 Virginia Outdoors Plan (Appendix J) VA DEQ-DCR (2007)

2006–2010 Virginia Coastal Needs Assessment and Strategies 

(Enhancement Area Assessments)

VA DEQ-CZM (2005)

Zoning, Subdivision, and Site Planning: What Coastal Communities can do to Address Sea Level Rise (presentation)Chesapeake Bay Foundation (undated)

Invasive Species in Virginia—News and Events Commonwealth of Virginia (2008) (Web site)

Living Shores...The Natural Approach to Controlling Shoreline 

Erosion

VA DEQ-CZM

Virginia Invasive Species Management Plan VA DEQ-DCR, Natural Heritage Program (2005)

Virginia Coastal Zone Management Program—Coastal GEMS VA DEQ-CZM (2009)

Better Land Use Planning for Coastal Virginia VA DEQ-DCR (2005)

Bay-Friendly Shoreline Solutions Chesapeake Bay Foundation (Web site)

Coastal Manager’s Toolbox VIMS-CCRM (2004)

Local Wetlands Boards VA DEQ-DCR (2005)

Restoring Virginia’s Wetlands: A Citizen’s Toolkit VA DEQ and Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay (2005)

Salt-Tolerant Native Plants for Waterfront Landscapes: Outer 

Coastal Plain

VIMS-CCRM (Web site)

Assessing the Decision-Making Process in Wetlands Resource 

Management in Virginia

VIMS (2003)

Shoreline Erosion Problems? Think Green! VIMS/DEQ/VMRC (2002)

Refinement and Validation of a Multi-Level Assessment Method 

for Mid-Atlantic Tidal Wetlands

VIMS-CCRM (2007)

Recommendations for Implementing the Tidal Wetlands Mitigation-Compensation PolicyVIMS-CCRM (2005)

Integrated Shoreline Management and the Wetlands Board 

(presentation)

VIMS-CCRM (2008)

Enhancement Area Assessments: Wetlands (2006–2010 Coastal 

Needs Assessment)

VA DEQ-CZM (2005)

Technical Report: Stormwater BMPs in VA’s James River Basin: 

Assessment of Field Conditions and Programs

Center for Watershed Protection (2009)

Development of a Tidal Wetland Inventory Assessment for York 

River, Virginia Watershed

VIMS-CCRM (2006)

Technical Memorandum: Watershed Planning Needs Survey of 

Coastal Plain Communities

Center for Watershed Protection (2008)

Virginia Coastal Management Program—Chapter 6.6 VIMS (2008)

VA CZM Coastal Wetlands 309 Assessment VA DEQ-CZM (2005)
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: Mid-Atlantic Review 27

YORK RIVER WATERSHED (continued)

Commonwealth of Virginia’s Wetland Assessment and Monitoring StrategyVA DEQ (2005)

Financial and Technical Assistance Potential Sources for Voluntary Wetland Restoration Activities in VAAlliance for the Chesapeake Bay, DEQ (2004)

Local Watershed Management Planning in VA: A Community 

Water Quality Approach

DEQ-DCR (Web site)

State of Virginia’s Coast VA DEQ (2001)

Summary of Natural Resources/Shoreline Adaptation Strategy 

Recommendations of the VA Commission on Climate Change

Skip Stiles—VA Commission on Climate Change (2008)

Final Report: A Climate Change Action Plan Governor’s Commission on Climate Change (2008)

Virginia Coastal Zone Map DEQ-CZMP (Web site)

Draft Tidal Wetlands Guidelines VIMS-CCRM, NOAA (2008)

Laws of Virginia relating to the marine resources of the Commonwealth of VirginiaVIMS-CCRM (Web site)

The Virginia Wetlands Report (Fall 2006, Vol. 11, Num. 3) VA DEQ, VIMS (1996)

Chesapeake Bay Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Tributary 

Strategy for the York River and Lower Coastal Basins

Commonwealth of VA (Chesapeake Bay Program) 

(2005)

Grant Status Report: On-going Development of Non-tidal Wetland Inventory and Monitoring Strategy for VirginiaCommonwealth of VA (2009)

Virginia Wetlands Summary VA DEQ (undated)

Final Report: Vulnerability of shallow tidal water habitats in Virginia to climate changeVIMS-CCRM (2009)

VA Code Ch. 13 § 28 (local wetland ordinance development) Commonwealth of VA (1992)

Watershed Profile: York River Watershed VA DEQ-DCR (2004) (Web site)

Get the Facts, Wetlands in Virginia VA DEQ (2008)

No Net Loss—A Pledge Unfulfilled Wetlands Watch (2006)
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: Mid-Atlantic Review 28

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: Mid-Atlantic Review 29

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: Mid-Atlantic Review 30

 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: Mid-Atlantic Review 31

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/OBS79/31. U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: Mid-Atlantic Review 32

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: Mid-Atlantic Review 33

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: Mid-Atlantic Review 34

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: Mid-Atlantic Review 35

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: Mid-Atlantic Review 36

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: Mid-Atlantic Review 37

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: Mid-Atlantic Review 38

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: Mid-Atlantic Review 39

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: Mid-Atlantic Review 40

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: Mid-Atlantic Review 41

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: Mid-Atlantic Review 42

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: Mid-Atlantic Review 43

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: Mid-Atlantic Review 44

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