Coastal Wetlands Initiative: Gulf of Mexico Review 1

Coastal Wetlands Initiative:

Gulf of Mexico Review

EPA-843-R-10-005D

National Picture

Coastal wetlands provide important ecosystem services that are vital to the health and well-being of our nation. They 

serve as buffers, protecting coastal areas from storm damage 

and sea level rise. They are vital to the health of commercially 

and recreationally important fisheries resources, providing 

food and essential fish and shellfish habitat. Wetlands also 

serve as nesting and foraging habitat for birds and other 

wildlife. As “living filters,” wetlands improve water quality by 

removing pollutants, nutrients, and sediments. Furthermore, 

coastal wetlands provide direct value to people in other ways, 

such as minimizing erosion of upland, protecting property 

and infrastructure and supporting the tourism, hunting, and 

fishing sectors of the economy.

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

wetland habitats. The most significant threats include conversion of wetlands to other land uses and climate change, in 

particular, sea level rise and increases in hurricane intensity 

and frequency. In some regions, wetlands are being converted 

to open water due to land subsidence.

Numerous recent reports have examined coastal wetland loss 

and potential strategies to address threats like climate change. 

The Association of State Wetland Managers (ASWM, 2009) 

recommended a national wetland and climate change initiative. The report contains measures to reduce impacts and 

adapt coastal/estuarine wetlands to climate change. The U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps) and the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) both published frameworks to guide how they will consider impacts 

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

Corps, 2009; NOAA, 2010a).

NOAA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) analyzed the status and trends of wetland acreage along the Atlantic Coast, Gulf of Mexico, and the Great Lakes to provide an 

estimate of losses or gains that occurred in those coastal watersheds. Their report, released in 2008, found that 361,000 acres 

of coastal wetlands were lost in the Eastern United States alone 

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

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

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

of the total loss of coastal freshwater wetlands is attributed to 

“other development,” which includes conversion of wetlands 

to unknown or undetermined 

land uses (Figure 1). There were 

also losses of saltwater tidal 

wetlands to open water (deeper 

than 2 meters), particularly in 

the Mid-Atlantic region. The 

2008 NOAA and USFWS 

Status and Trends report did 

not examine the loss of wetland 

condition or function.

In response to these reports, 

EPA established a two-part 

Coastal Wetlands Initiative. 

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

effort between NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Office of Habitat Conservation and EPA’s Wetlands Division 

and the Oceans and Coastal Protection Division. The team’s 

goals are: 1) confirming wetland loss and better 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 

Status and Trends 

of Wetlands 

IN THE CoasTal WaTErsHEds of THE EasTErN UNITEd sTaTEs

1998 to 2004

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

Mexico, and Great Lakes. Source: Stedman and Dahl, 2008.

Agriculture

3.6%

Deepwater

14.5%

Intertidal

Wetlands

0.05%

Urban and Rural

Development

22.4%

Other 

Development

59.45%
2

coastal wetland loss; and assessed whether successful strategies 

can be replicated elsewhere. The information from the reviews 

could be used to help inform policy decisions, influence 

program direction, and develop projects to reduce or reverse 

coastal wetland loss nationally. The results of these CWRs are 

provided in a report distributed to the respective participants, 

and will also be posted on EPA’s and NOAA’s websites. This 

document is the CWR report for the Gulf of Mexico region.

The second part of the Coastal Wetlands Initiative is the 

federal Interagency Coastal Wetlands Workgroup, which is 

composed of members from EPA, NOAA, USFWS, the U.S. 

Geological Survey, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, the Army Corps, 

and the Federal Highway Administration. The Interagency 

Coastal Wetlands Workgroup serves in an advisory capacity 

to the Coastal Wetlands Team by helping to identify CWR 

watersheds, participating in the CWR on-site discussions, and 

providing input on the reports.

Coastal Wetland Regional Reviews

EPA and NOAA conducted these CWRs to identify and better understand the stressors on coastal wetlands and the strategies needed to protect and restore them. The 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 

and NOAA recognize that it is an issue in many watersheds 

and included qualitative information to reflect this concern 

where appropriate. EPA and NOAA coordinated with the 

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. Participants were afforded 

an opportunity to comment on CWR notes and draft reports 

in order to provide the broadest perspective possible. The 

Coastal Wetlands Team supplemented these perspectives with 

documentation (e.g., relevant references, citations), but it was 

not possible to do so for every comment provided. Thus, the 

information presented in this report cannot be considered 

the definitive and most comprehensive presentation of issues 

within the region or within specific focal watersheds. Instead, 

it can serve as a starting point for identifying priority stressors, 

Consistent with other federal 

agencies, EPA is defining “coastal 

wetlands” as saltwater and 

freshwater wetlands* within HUC-8 

watersheds that drain to the Atlantic, 

Pacific, or Gulf of Mexico. “Coastal 

wetland loss” is defined as “a decline 

in the areal extent and/or ecological 

integrity** of wetlands in coastal 

watersheds.” (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Coastal wetlands regions identified in 

EPA’s Coastal Wetlands Initiative. 

* For the purposes of this initiative, “wetlands” means those areas meeting the definition of wetlands in: Cowardin, L., et al. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater 

Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS 79/31. 131 pp.

** EPA recognizes that there are limited quantifiable data currently available regarding loss of wetland ecological integrity.
3

tools and strategies to address them, and key information and 

data gaps that need to be filled in order to reduce wetland loss 

in the future.

The process for the CWRs was intended to be flexible and 

encouraged participation from a diverse and representative 

group of stakeholders in each of the focal watersheds. Four 

steps were followed for each CWR:

1. Identify focal watersheds.

USFWS identified candidate watersheds for the CWRs based 

on observed wetland loss in the USFWS/NOAA Status and 

Trends report. These are generally areas where the most 

wetland loss has occurred, due to development, other human 

actions, or where losses were attributed to inundation or other 

coastal processes.

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

for analysis are based on existing wetland conditions assessments, available data, a variety of efforts to protect and restore 

coastal wetlands, and the willingness of local stakeholders to 

participate.

The HUC 8 watersheds identified may correspond directly to 

National Estuary Program (NEP) study areas (the geographic 

boundary in which the NEPs work to improve estuary 

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

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

NEPs provide an effective mechanism to assist the CWRs 

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

restore habitats in their study area. These groups represent a 

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

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

academics, local governments, watershed groups). EPA and 

NOAA use 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 and NOAA 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 

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.
broad cross-section of business, environmental, academic, and 

government representatives. Invitee lists were collected from 

the organization hosting the event, as well as suggestions from 

the Interagency Coastal Workgroup (which includes their 

regional representatives).

The Coastal Wetlands Team convened a stakeholder forum 

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

two-day facilitated dialogues provided additional insights 

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

within the focal watershed and growing pressures within the 

region; i.e., issues often best identified by those with the most 

vested interest in the outcome of such efforts. Attendees were 

asked to provide information on threats to coastal wetlands 

(including reduction in acreage as well as function and 

conditions) and tools and techniques used locally to reduce 

or reverse wetland loss. The term “stressor” was not defined 

for participants in advance of the reviews. While stressors 

are traditionally limited to “physical, chemical, or biological entities, or processes that adversely affect the ecological 

condition of a natural ecosystem” stakeholders in every CWR 

also identified programmatic issues as stressors related to loss 

or degradation of coastal wetlands. While state and federal 

regulatory programs are tools for wetland protection, limits 

to regulation are captured in the report under the “Stressors” 

sections in accordance with commonly expressed stakeholder 

input. A neutral facilitator captured the discussion in meeting notes. While there may be disagreements among parties 

regarding the validity of the data presented or provided, EPA 

and NOAA considered all documented sources of information and recognized that reference documents would not be 

available for all points raised by participants in the discussion.

To coincide with the stakeholder discussions, site visits were 

scheduled to nearby wetland protection, restoration, or mitigation projects when feasible. This enabled EPA and NOAA 

to obtain a firsthand view of local stressors or approaches 

being employed to address wetland loss in that watershed. 

Collection and analysis of raw field data is outside the scope 

of these field visits.

4. Assemble a coastal wetland regional review 

summary.

Once the notes from the stakeholder discussions were vetted 

with the participants, they were combined with the available 

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

Although these reports are not exhaustive and only reflect 

readily available, existing documentation and the viewpoints 

of participating stakeholders, EPA and NOAA believe they 

are a good indicator or snapshot of wetland issues in the focal 

watersheds.

The results of the Gulf of Mexico review are summarized 

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

“Conclusion” section of this report:

•	 Major stressors:

» Development pressure and its associated impacts (stormwater runoff, shoreline armoring).

» Hurricanes and storms.

» Hydrologic modifications (channelization, diversion, and 

dredging).

» Resource extraction (groundwater, oil, and gas).

» Limited estuarine marsh retreat opportunities in the face 

of sea level rise.

» Subsidence, which was noted as a significant issue in the 

past, but has become less pronounced today.

•	 Major tools and strategies:

» Beneficial use of dredged material to restore wetlands.

» Watershed-based planning for wetlands protection, mitigation, and restoration.

» Conservation of existing coastal wetlands through direct 

purchase of land or through conservation easements. 

» Property buyouts to remove buildings from flood-prone 

areas and restore the floodplain to its natural state.

» The development of a CWA regional general permit for 

living shorelines. 

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?
5

•	 Major gaps:

» Outreach and education of both the public and local/

regional decision-makers. 

» Resources (staffing and funding) for regulatory programs, 

monitoring and assessment, and outreach.

» Widespread use and implementation of watershed-based 

plans and land use planning.

» Clarifying CWA jurisdiction and applying results from 

new studies to isolated wetlands protection (in Texas in 

particular).

» High-resolution aerial photography and mapping of 

coastal areas to accurately characterize coastal wetland 

losses and to assist in enforcement.

» Accessible database of authorized wetlands impacts/mitigation to compare total losses to authorized losses.

» Watershed-based mitigation and customized mitigation 

approaches based on the wetland type impacted.

Gulf of Mexico Review

The Gulf of Mexico coastline stretches approximately 1,631 

miles from the tip of the Gulf-facing coast of Florida west to 

the border of Texas and Mexico. The Gulf of Mexico region 

is home to a diverse array of coastal wetlands, from Florida’s 

freshwater Everglades to Texas’s estuarine marshes. The coastal 

watersheds in the region contain 15.6 million acres of wetlands (Stedman and Dahl, 2008). Within this region, the 

Interagency Coastal Wetlands Workgroup chose two areas for 

review: the East and West Galveston Bay watersheds in Texas 

(HUC 12040202 and 12040204) and the Mississippi Coastal 

watershed (HUC 03170009) in Mississippi and Alabama (see 

Figures 4 and 17).

The Gulf of Mexico’s coastal wetlands are an important economic resource, a critical habitat to a variety of species, and 

a means of shoreline protection from storms and hurricanes. 

Numerous rare and endangered bird species depend on the 

freshwater marshes in Florida, Louisiana, and Texas. Some 

species, such as the endangered whooping crane, use these 

coastal marshes as their sole wintering ground (Twilley et al., 

2001). Almost 70 percent of waterfowl migrating along the 

Central and Mississippi flyways winter in the coastal marshes 

of Louisiana, including the gadwall, green-winged teal, northern shoveler, and snow goose (Bellrose and Trudeau, 1988; 

as cited in Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and 

Restoration Task Force, 2010). Alabama contains the second 

largest number of federally threatened and endangered species 

in the contiguous United States (many of which are found in 

the coastal watersheds), including the Alabama beach mouse, 

American alligator, piping plover, Alabama red-bellied turtle, 

and Gulf sturgeon (ELI, 2008; USFWS, 2012).

A diverse assemblage of fish 

relies on coastal wetlands as 

nursery areas and as habitats 

to feed and reproduce. Brown 

shrimp, blue crab, red drum, 

spotted sea trout, southern 

flounder, and Gulf menhaden 

are just a few of the species 

that rely on Gulf coastal habitats. Many of these species are 

economically significant for 

the area. Commercial fishing 

is a billion dollar industry for 

some states, and 97 percent 

(by weight) of the fish and shellfish caught by U.S. fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico are dependent on estuaries and 

wetlands at some point in their life cycle (Lellis-Dibble et al., 

2008). In 2010 alone, ports in the Gulf region took in more 

than $639 million worth of commercial fish and shellfish, or 

14 percent of total national catch value (NMFS, 2011a). The 

Gulf region led in oyster and shrimp production, with 55 

percent of the national total of oyster meat coming from the 

region and 68 percent of the national total of shrimp brought 

to shore for sale. Recreational fishing is an important component of the Gulf region coastal economy as well. Recreational 

fishing expenditures in the five Gulf States total almost $9.5 

billion, with Florida and Texas ranked as the states with the 

most anglers and highest recreational fishing-related expenditures (USFWS, 2006). These expenditures include money 

spent on travel, lodging, food, equipment, and other related 

expenses such as licenses and permits for recreational fishing.

The unique combination of regional and global climate factors in the Gulf region increases the importance of coastal 

wetlands. Hurricanes and tropical storms, which are prevalent 

in this region, erode shorelines and cause flooding and wind 

damage to properties and infrastructure. Climate models predict an increased frequency and intensity of hurricanes in the 

Atlantic as ocean temperatures rise (UGSCRP, 2009). Wetlands can lessen hurricane damage by reducing wind energy 

and buffering the impacts of storm surge (Twilley, 2007). 
6

Often, artificial hydrologic modifications impede the ability of wetlands to migrate inland and abate flooding. Levees, 

dams, and dikes change the source, quality, or quantity of 

water and sediment that is available to coastal ecosystems, 

which restricts the ability of coastal wetlands to survive (Day 

et al., 2000, 2007; Martin et al., 2000; EPA, 1987).

Gulf of Mexico Wetland Stressors

The Gulf States have suffered a high amount of coastal wetland 

loss over the last century, threatening the wildlife, economy, 

and resilience of the entire Gulf coastal region. Land loss in 

coastal Louisiana has been studied most intensively; a recent 

report by the U.S. Geological Survey (Couvillion et al., 2011) 

documented 1,833 square miles (1.2 million acres) of land loss 

from 1932 to 2010, and a more recent annual loss from 1985 

to 2010 of 10,605 acres per year. A majority of the land loss 

tracked in this report is tidal wetlands. Studies also exist for 

other states, including Mississippi and Texas, where the CWR 

focal watersheds are located. Before the 1800s, Mississippi 

had nearly 10 million acres of wetlands. Nearly 60 percent of 

that acreage has since been lost, including 10,000 acres of salt 

and brackish marshes (MDEQ, 2007). Wetlands in the Texas 

coastal plain decreased by 200,000 acres between the mid1950s and the early 1990s. The greatest losses were of freshwater emergent and forested wetlands (Moulton et al., 1997).

Using the remote sensing and mapping methodology of 

NOAA’s Coastal Change Analysis Program (C-CAP), losses 

of wetlands in the Gulf of Mexico coastal watersheds from 

1996 to 2006 were estimated at approximately 256,100 acres, 

or an annual average loss of approximately 25,610 acres. This 

methodology measures only changes in wetland acreage and 

does not measure change in wetland function (see Appendix 

D for more information on C-CAP methodology). Conversion to open water accounted for more than a third of those 

losses, while about 40 percent of the loss was attributed to 

development and bare land (often a precursor to development), and another 25 percent was attributed to agriculture 

(which includes pasture) (Figure 3).

Numerous stressors contribute to coastal wetland acreage 

and functional loss in the Gulf region. Some of the common 

stressors mentioned in the literature (see Appendix B) are 

listed below:

•	 Coastal development resulting in upland conversion, nonpoint and point source pollution, and shoreline hardening.

•	 Hurricanes and storms.

•	 Hydrologic modifications, including channelization, surface 

water diversions, and dredging.

•	 Agriculture and silviculture practices.

•	 Resource extraction, including groundwater pumping and 

oil and gas extraction.

•	 Limited estuarine marsh retreat opportunities in the face of 

sea level rise.

•	 Invasive species.

Rapid population growth is one of the catalysts for stressors on the Gulf region’s coastal wetlands. The population of 

coastal counties in the Gulf region has increased 150 percent 

from 1960 to 2008, and in 2010 Texas was identified as the 

state with the fifth fastest growing population (U.S. Census 

Bureau, 2010). Review participants identified the limited 

ability of existing regulations to address the projected increase 

in coastal development as an associated stressor. While many 

activities may not be regulated by the federal government, 

state and/or local governments could develop and implement 

regulations to address these impacts.

Storms and hurricanes are another stressor causing coastal 

wetland acreage loss in the Gulf region. Hurricanes Katrina 

and Rita affected coastal Louisiana and surrounding areas in 

August 2005, and Hurricane Ike struck the coast of Galveston, Texas, in September 2008. These storms caused heavy 

damage and flooding along the coast, including damage to 

coastal wetlands. Coastal Louisiana lost approximately 200 

square miles of coastal wetlands between October 2004 and 

October 2005, although it should be noted that this includes 

some transitory loss which is likely to be recovered within a 

few growing seasons (Barras, 2006).

In both of the Gulf region focal watersheds, hydrologic alterations were noted as another major stressor causing wetland 

losses. One of the limiting variables associated with wetland growth is consistent inflow of sediment and nutrients; 

however, natural riverine input to most of the Gulf of Mexico 

has been impacted by artificial flood controls, resulting in a 

decrease in the sediment and nutrients needed for wetlands 

Figure 3. Wetland loss and changes in land use, 1996-2006: Gulf of Mexico. 

Source: NOAA, 2011a.

Bare Land

14%

Open Water

34%

Developed

27%

Agriculture

25%
7

to survive (Ko and Day, 2004). The movement and deposition of sediment can be impeded by a variety of flood control 

mechanisms (Louisiana Sea Grant, 2010). These structures 

can also restrict freshwater flow, which in turn can allow toxic 

metals and organics to accumulate. In addition, the creation 

of channels and canals, often the result of activity by the gas 

and oil industry, can lead to saltwater intrusion, which can 

destroy freshwater marshes (Ko and Day, 2004).

Oil and gas extraction were also identified as stressors in the literature. Oil spills can occur as a result of that activity. In 2010, 

the Deepwater Horizon spill released the equivalent of almost 5 

million barrels of oil into the Gulf marine and coastal environment. While the impacts from the spill have not been fully 

assessed, the damage done to ecologically, commercially, and 

recreationally valuable habitats and species is clearly extensive. 

The spill resulted in the oiling of over 1,000 miles of shoreline, 

including 400 miles of intertidal marsh in Louisiana, and a 

countless number of marine species in the spill’s path (Deepwater Horizon Natural Resource Trustees, 2012).

Gulf of Mexico Tools and Strategies

Constituencies in the Galveston Bay and Mississippi Coastal 

watersheds are working with available tools and strategies to 

manage and conserve coastal wetlands and improve coastal 

resilience. The Gulf States manage coastal wetlands stressors 

using both regulatory and non-regulatory tools and strategies.

Various state-level regulatory activities complement federal 

wetland protection offered by the CWA Section 404 program 

(see Appendix C for more information on CWA Section 404). 

Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama have varying degrees of 

state regulation of wetlands in the coastal zone (e.g., Louisiana’s Coastal Use Permit, Mississippi’s Coastal Wetlands 

Protection Act, and Alabama’s Coastal Area Management Program). Florida has a comprehensive state wetlands management program authorized by state statute, called the Environmental Resources Permit Program.

Watershed planning is beginning to be used as a tool in both 

focal watersheds to control the impacts from development 

and identify areas appropriate for mitigation. Galveston Bay, 

which is part of EPA’s National Estuaries Program, has its 

own Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan 

(CCMP) in place to guide conservation and restoration efforts 

at the watershed scale.

All of the Gulf States except Florida are involved with the 

federal Coastal Impact Assistance Program (CIAP), which is 

managed by the U.S. Department of the Interior and authorizes funds for conservation, protection, and preservation of 

coastal areas, including wetlands. In addition, all the Gulf 

States use a variety of land conservation programs, including 

the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Wetlands Reserve Program and many active local and regional 

land trusts. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, Mississippi 

has undertaken a variety of projects funded by Congress to 

improve coastal resilience (Mississippi Coastal Improvement 

Program). This 1.4 billion dollar effort has become central to 

coastal wetland restoration, protection, and creation in the 

state. Wetland conservation has been an important component of the efforts underway in Galveston, Texas, through 

state and federal grants and the work of local land trusts. 

Additionally, in both the Galveston and Mississippi focal 

watersheds, sediment dredged from federal navigation projects 

is being beneficially reused for wetland restoration and beach 

nourishment.

Managers in both watersheds have used living shorelines as an 

alternative to hardened structures (e.g., seawalls, revetments) 

to protect shorelines and coastal wetlands from sea level 

rise and storm-associated erosion. The Army Corps Mobile 

District completed a living shoreline CWA Regional General Permit for the Alabama coast in 2012, and a Mississippi 

Regional General Permit is being completed as of the date of 

this publication.

The work of regional organizations like the Gulf of Mexico 

Alliance will continue to improve coastal wetland management across all the Gulf States as it conducts critical research 

related to ecosystem services and establishes the groundwork 

for regional coastal and marine planning.

Gulf of Mexico Gaps and Needs

Based on data collected from available sources, and discussions with review participants, the following gaps and needs 

were identified for the Galveston Bay and Mississippi Coastal 

watersheds:

•	 Outreach and education of both the public and decisionmakers, which will allow for more effective planning, conservation, and management at both the state and local level. 

•	 Resources (staffing and funding), which are needed to 

administer regulatory programs, conduct monitoring and 

assessment, and conduct effective outreach programs.

•	 Widespread use and implementation of watershed-based 

plans to enhance strategic wetland protection and selection 

of mitigation sites.

•	 Mapping and aerial photography of coastal areas, which 

would aid in tracking losses and provide a tool to assist 

enforcement efforts.

•	 Consistent application of compensatory mitigation 

approaches, which compensate for lost functions not only 

within the watershed, but as close as practicable to the 

impacts that are authorized.

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

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

the Gulf of Mexico region.
8

Table 1. Stressors, Tools and Strategies, and Gaps Identified by Participants During the Galveston Bay CWR

Stressors Tools and Strategies Gaps and Needs

Coastal development •	 Compensatory mitigation •	 Widespread land use planning

•	 Nonpoint source pollution •	 Watershed plans •	 Widespread use of watershed plans

•	 Shoreline hardening •	 Conservation easements

•	 Property buyouts of repeatedly 

flooded land

•	 Total Maximum Daily Loads 

(TMDLs)

•	 Outreach and education (for the public and local 

decision-makers)

•	 Detailed wetland mapping

•	 Collaboration

•	 Incentives for conservation

•	 Mitigation monitoring

Limitations of regulations •	 Land management and 

conservation programs

•	 Research on hydrologic nexus

•	 Rolling easements

•	 Clarifying CWA jurisdiction (particularly by conducting scientific 

studies on geographically isolated wetlands)

•	 Integrated mapping, monitoring, and data collection system 

(including accessible database of authorized wetland impacts/

mitigation, and other CWA Section 404 permit data)

•	 Locating compensatory mitigation in the same watershed and 

as close to the coast as the impacts that are authorized

•	 State and/or local regulatory and incentive programs

•	 Sustained funding for studies to better understand wetland 

functions, values, and loss

•	 Outreach and education

•	 Stronger enforcement (including high-resolution aerial 

photography to track losses and assist in enforcement)

Hydrologic alterations •	 Beneficial use of dredged material •	 Increased collaboration

•	 Channelization •	 Flood districts •	 Reduction of regulatory barriers to beneficial use of dredged 

•	 Dredging •	 Subsidence districts material

•	 Water withdrawal •	 Regional sediment management 

plans

Climate change and sea level rise •	 Living shorelines

•	 Conservation (preservation and 

restoration) funding

•	 Modeling

•	 Land use planning

•	 Mapping and modeling

•	 Outreach and education
9

Table 2. Stressors, Tools and Strategies, and Gaps Identified by Participants During the Mississippi Sound Coastal CWR

Stressors Tools and Strategies Gaps and Needs

Coastal development •	 Watershed plans •	 Widespread land use planning

•	 Interruption of fire regime

•	 Nonpoint source pollution

•	 Amended Gaming Control Act (to 

address historic stressor)

•	 Mitigation

•	 Education of the public and local officials 

•	 Best Management Practices (BMPs)

•	 Coastal preserves

•	 Land Trust for MS Coastal Plain GISbased tool

Shoreline hardening •	 Living shorelines nationwide 

permit (NWP)

•	 Living shorelines nationwide permit (a regional general permit 

is already under development)

Cumulative impacts, including •	 Watershed plans •	 Detailed wetland maps and trends by watershed

•	 Bulkheads

•	 Docks and piers

•	 Mississippi Coastal Improvement 

Program (MsCIP)

•	 Dredge spoil

Limitations of regulations •	 State regulatory involvement (e.g. 

Department of Marine Resources)

•	 Education of local municipalities

•	 Protection of non-jurisdictional wetlands

•	 Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) implementation

•	 Collaboration between agencies

Agriculture and silviculture •	 BMPs •	 Enforcement

Sea level rise, hurricanes, and 

subsidence

•	 MsCIP

•	 Beneficial use of dredged material

•	 Living shorelines nationwide permit 

•	 Education of the public and local officials

Hydrologic modifications •	 Beneficial use of dredged material •	 Watershed management

•	 SAMPs
10

Focal Watershed Review: East and West Galveston Bay, Texas

Introduction

The Texas coast extends 367 linear miles from Louisiana to 

Mexico. With over 3,300 miles of tidal shoreline (which 

includes the outer coast, islands, sounds, bays, and creeks to 

the head of tidewater), Texas hosts one of the most ecologically complex and biologically diverse regions in the Gulf. 

The Texas coast is also home to more than one-third of the 

state’s population and about 70 percent of the state’s industrial base (Moulton et al., 1997). The Texas coastal region 

includes three distinct areas distinguished by particular geomorphology, climatology, hydrology, and ecology: the upper, 

mid, and lower coasts.

In the East and West Galveston Bay watersheds, extensive 

salt marshes meet bays and lagoons protected by barrier 

islands (Moulton et al., 1997). Counties within the smaller 

West Galveston Bay watershed include Brazoria, Chambers, 

Fort Bend, Galveston, and Harris. Counties located within 

East Galveston Bay watershed are Chambers, Galveston, Jefferson, and Liberty. Although these two watersheds were the 

focus of the review, participants provided information and 

comments regarding the larger Galveston Bay region, which 

includes the metroplex of Houston and surrounding cities 

and municipalities. The entire Galveston Bay watershed, 

which extends up the Trinity River to the Dallas/Fort Worth 

area, encompasses 27,000 square miles of land, and nearly 

half of the population of Texas (Lester and Gonzalez, 2011).

The East and West Galveston Bay watersheds (Figure 4; 

HUCs 12040202 and 12040204), as their names suggest, 

drain into Galveston Bay. Galveston Bay is a subtropical, 

bar-built estuary fed by two rivers, the San Jacinto and the 

Trinity, and associated coastal streams and bayous (Lester 

and Gonzalez, 2011). Habitats in the watersheds include 

salt, brackish, and freshwater marshes, mudflats, submerged 

aquatic vegetation (SAV) beds, oyster reefs, bottomland and 

flatwood forests, scrub-shrub, and coastal prairies (EPA, 

2007).

As of 2002, one-third of commercial fishing income and 

half of recreational expenditures in the entire state of Texas 

were from Galveston Bay (Lester and Gonzalez, 2002). 

Brown shrimp, blue crab, red drum, spotted sea trout, 

southern flounder, and Gulf menhaden are abundant here. 

Oyster reefs are of particular ecological and economic significance in Galveston Bay, which supports nearly 27,000 

acres of oyster habitat and produces more oysters than any 

single U.S. water body (Galveston Bay Foundation, 2010). 

The Bay traditionally contained up to 80 percent of all 

Eastern oysters (worth approximately $10 million annually) harvested in Texas.1

 Oyster reefs have been surveyed in 

Galveston Bay since the 1950s, and comparative mapping 

shows that habitat location and abundance has shifted over 

time. When Hurricane Ike struck in 2008, it is estimated 

that sediment deposition associated with the storm surge 

covered about 60 percent of Galveston Bay’s oyster reef 

habitat. Commercial oyster fishery landings in Matagorda 

Bay (located approximately 100 miles southwest of Galveston Bay) exceeded Galveston Bay for the first time in history in 2011.

The Galveston Bay watershed provides habitat for an 

impressive array of bird species, including great and snowy 

egrets, reddish egrets, piping plovers, roseate spoonbills, 

tricolored herons, and black skimmers. These include yearround resident, migratory, and wintering species, many of 

which are wetland dependent (Lester and Gonzalez, 2002; 

Eubanks et al., 2006). Approximately 430 species of birds 

overwinter, migrate, or reside here (Eubanks et al., 2006). 

This area is regarded as one of the top birding spots in the 

United States. Recreational fishing and bird watching contribute to a robust ecotourism economy.

Despite the value of wetlands to fisheries (providing food, 

shelter, breeding habitat, and pollutant removal) and the 

economy, Texas has lost 52 percent of its original wetland 

base (Mitsch and Gosselink, 1993). The Texas coastal 

plain experienced a loss of approximately 200,000 acres of 

wetlands between the mid-1950s and the early 1990s (from 

4.1 million acres to 3.9 million acres). This loss equates to 

Figure 4. East and West Galveston Bay watersheds (cross-hatched areas). 

1

 For more information, see http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/wild/species/easternoyster/.
11

an average annual net loss of about 5,700 acres (Moulton 

et al., 1997). Of 3.9 million acres remaining in the early 

1990s, about 85 percent were freshwater wetlands (3.3 million acres) and about 15 percent were estuarine wetlands 

(0.6 million acres). The most common types of wetlands 

lost in Texas coastal areas during this time were freshwater 

emergent and freshwater forested wetlands.

In examining historical wetland losses within the focal 

watershed, a trend of continuing coastal wetland losses can 

be gleaned from a number of studies conducted over a variety of time periods. Although the studies are not directly 

comparable due to slightly different geographic scopes, 

methodologies, and study objectives, a downward trend in 

the areal extent of wetlands is nonetheless apparent. Going 

back to the 1950s, one study found that from the 1950s 

until 1989, there was a gross loss of more than 88,500 acres 

of emergent wetlands in Galveston Bay, 5,700 acres (6 

percent) of which were converted to urban uses (White et 

al., 1993).

More recently, analysis of aerial imagery between 1992 and 

2002 indicated that 9,124 acres of freshwater wetlands 

and 2,913 acres of estuarine marsh in the lower Galveston 

watershed alone were lost to development, which represents 

an average overall wetland loss of approximately 1,200 

acres annually (an average annual loss of 912 acres of freshwater wetlands and 291 acres of coastal wetlands). Most of 

the wetlands lost in Galveston Bay watershed occurred in 

Harris County (Jacob and Lopez, 2005; EPA, 2007).

In preparation for the East and West Galveston Bay 

focal watershed review, the EPA coastal wetlands team 

worked with the NOAA C-CAP to develop a general 

characterization of recent wetland changes in the East 

and West Galveston Bay watersheds. C-CAP examines 

overall land use change, including wetlands, for the coastal 

regions of the United States. The program currently reports 

changes in wetland acreage only and does not measure 

change in wetland function. The C-CAP data were used to 

ensure consistency across all focal watersheds when comparing wetland acreage loss.

Table 3 and the accompanying pie chart (Figure 5) display 

C-CAP data for the areas of the two eight-digit hydrological unit code (HUC 8) watersheds that were the focus of 

the East and West Galveston Bay CWR (see Figure 4). 

According to the C-CAP analysis, more than 11,900 acres 

of wetlands were lost in this area between 1996 and 2006. 

This trend suggests an average loss of nearly 1,200 acres 

each year (similar to the results of the 1992–2002 analysis 

referenced above). The vast majority (more than 10,000 

Focal Watershed Review: East and West Galveston Bay, Texas (continued)

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

West Galveston Bay. Source: NOAA, 2011a.

Bare Land

11%

Developed

52% Agriculture

24%

Open

Water

13%

Table 3. Losses of Wetland Types to Other Land Uses (Acres) from 1996 to 2006, HUC 12040202 and 12040204

Wetland Types* Developed Agriculture Bare Land Open Water Total

Palustrine forested 2,394.08 912.49 514.18 209.72 4,030.46

Palustrine scrub 2,230.84 381.63 120.98 86.29 2,819.75

Palustrine emergent 1,410.21 1,501.83 376.74 721.45 4,010.23

Estuarine forested 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Estuarine scrub 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.22

Estuarine emergent 94.07 1.11 131.21 58.71 285.11

Unconsolidated shore 73.17 12.23 206.83 493.27 785.50

Total 6,202.37 2,809.29 1,350.16 1,569.44 11,931.26

* See Appendix D for wetland classification descriptions. Source: NOAA, 2011a.
12

impervious surfaces and traditional stormwater drainage 

infrastructure result in increased runoff during rainstorms 

(contributing to flooding) and (to a lesser extent, given 

low permeability of soils) decreased groundwater recharge. 

Groundwater recharge is needed to maintain water table 

elevation in wetlands during dry months. In addition to 

the hydrologic impacts of stormwater on wetlands, stormwater runoff results in water quality impacts due to pollution from nutrients, metals, sediment, and bacteria. Other 

development-related impacts to wetlands include increased 

drinking water withdrawals, which can lower water table 

elevation and impact wetland hydrology.

The impacts associated with population growth and the 

associated impacts from development sprawl are most 

pronounced in Harris County, which is part of the Houston–Sugar Land–Baytown metropolitan area and is partially located in West Galveston Bay watershed (see Figure 

6). This county has experienced 20.3 percent growth (with 

a current population of more than 4 million) from 2000 to 

2010 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011a). According to the Texas 

State Demographer, the population in the Houston–Sugar 

Focal Watershed Review: East and West Galveston Bay, Texas (continued)

Figure 6. Percent of total freshwater wetlands lost to development 

(1992–2002), Lower Galveston Bay watershed (note that this area is broader 

than that chosen as the review area). Source: Jacob and Lopez, 2005.

acres or 90 percent) of wetlands lost in the focal watersheds 

were non-tidal, with woody freshwater wetlands (palustrine 

forested and palustrine scrub) constituting 57 percent of 

the total loss. The majority (63 percent) of overall wetland 

loss during this time period was attributed to development 

or conversion to bare land (which is often associated with, 

or a precursor to development).

It should be noted that the information below is based 

on the opinions and observations of participants, who 

provided feedback on draft versions of this document and 

supplemented statements with documentation, where 

available.

Stressors

In preparation for the focal watershed review, the Coastal 

Wetlands Team conducted a literature review to obtain a 

high-level snapshot of the most common coastal wetland 

stressors in the East and West Galveston Bay watersheds.

Discussion at the Galveston Bay CWR identified the following key contributors to coastal wetland acreage loss 

and degradation and confirmed, as well as emphasized and 

added to, the list of stressors identified during the literature 

review:

•	 Development (residential, commercial, infrastructure)

•	 Limitations of regulations

•	 Hydrologic modifications (including oil and gas activities, dredging, groundwater pumping, sand and gravel 

mining, freshwater diversions)

•	 Climate change, sea level rise, and coastal storms

•	 Oil spills

•	 Invasive species 

Coastal development. Participants identified development as one of the top three primary stressors to coastal 

wetlands (particularly freshwater) in the focal watershed. 

In particular, they noted the lack of growth planning and 

controls in the greater Houston area (central Galveston Bay 

watersheds), which, while not specifically included in the 

geographic review area, were nonetheless of great concern 

to participants in terms of local wetland loss attributable 

to development (Figure 5). In addition to direct physical wetland alterations that result from filling and draining wetlands for development, increased development in 

coastal watersheds leads to increased impervious surfaces 

and associated hydrologic and water quality impacts 

on wetlands and associated aquatic systems. Increased 
13

Land–Baytown area is expected to grow to 7.9 million 

by 2035, an increase of approximately 3.2 million people 

compared to the 2000 census count (Texas State Data 

Center, 2008).

At the CWR, participants noted two other major impacts 

that have resulted from growth and development pressures 

in the watershed:

•	 Shoreline hardening. Participants noted that shoreline 

stabilization, which includes the construction of bulkheads, seawalls, and other artificial armoring structures 

(Figure 7), has impacted coastal wetlands in Galveston 

Bay. Impacts due to shoreline armoring include increases 

in erosion along seawall-adjacent marshes from diverted 

wave energy (Galveston Bay Foundation, n.d.[b]), 

which often prompts adjacent property owners to stabilize their shorelines, thereby creating a domino effect 

along the shoreline. In addition to increasing erosion, 

shoreline hardening impacts coastal wetlands in other 

ways, including filling of wetlands behind the armoring structure during construction and preventing inland 

migration of coastal wetlands in response to sea level rise. 

Hardening is also one factor contributing to decreases in 

biodiversity and scouring impacts on SAV, which serves 

as a critical nursery for fish and shellfish (Bilkovic et al., 

2006; Bilkovic and Roggero, 2008). Erosion-induced 

scouring increases the depth of nearshore areas, thereby 

preventing SAV recruitment and growth (Sime, 2005). 

•	 Nonpoint source pollution. Multiple nonpoint sources 

of pollution, including runoff from impervious surfaces 

(including residential lawns, parking lots and driveways), 

oil runoff, septic systems, industrial runoff, and agricultural runoff, decrease the quality of coastal wetland 

habitats in the Galveston Bay watershed (EPA, 2007). 

As population and development increase, so too do these 

nonpoint sources of pollution.

Limitations of regulations. Federal, state, and local regulatory programs are essential tools for protecting coastal 

wetlands. However, participants identified jurisdictional 

limitations and implementation issues associated with 

wetland regulations as being impediments to effective 

protection. Additionally, participants felt that coordination 

could be improved between all levels of government, which 

could inform the development of an overarching policy to 

manage wetlands in light of projected future changes to 

coastal communities. While wetland regulation in Texas has 

traditionally been the primary responsibility of the federal 

agencies (Army Corps and EPA), state and local governments can use regulatory tools (including zoning, subdivision control, and water pollution regulations) to protect 

wetlands. Participants thought that heightened awareness 

of wetland laws among local officials could help steer development away from wetland areas or, at the very least, notify 

developers that compliance with wetland laws is an important aspect of project siting and design. Participants also 

expressed the opinion that tidal wetlands are more effectively protected than non-tidal wetlands. This observation 

is corroborated by C-CAP data, which show more than 90 

percent of all wetland losses have occurred in freshwater 

wetlands (see Table 3).

•	 Changes affecting federal jurisdiction. A major issue 

raised by participants at the review was a lack of clarity 

regarding which wetlands are jurisdictional, particularly 

those that are “isolated.” Participants expressed the view 

that the Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (SWANCC) and Rapanos v. 

United States (Rapanos) Supreme Court decisions have 

resulted in significant development of wetland areas 

within the Galveston Bay watershed that were previously regulated under Section 404 of the CWA. The 

participants believed that numerous acres of depressional welands located throughout the watershed are at 

Focal Watershed Review: East and West Galveston Bay, Texas (continued)

Figure 7. Galveston Seawall (2005). Source: Bob McMillan, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency.

Figure 8. Example of development in depressional wetlands. Photo courtesy 

of Tom Dahl, USFWS.
14

Focal Watershed Review: East and West Galveston Bay, Texas (continued)

high risk of development due to the potential for loss of 

protection under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (see 

Appendix C, Clean Water Act Jurisdiction).

•	 State regulatory role. Some participants believe the state 

of Texas and/or local regulatory agencies could improve 

or create new regulatory programs to address wetland 

impacts. For example, participants indicated that Texas 

could use its 401 certification authority more effectively 

to regulate development in or near wetlands. CWA Section 401 allows states and tribes to condition or deny 

federal permits (including CWA Section 404 permits) 

that may adversely impact state water quality. A state 

can increase its 401 certification authority by attaching 

stricter conditions to its certifications and/or denying 

projects with negative water quality impacts. The Texas 

Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) is the 

lead for most Section 401 certifications, and the Railroad Commission of Texas issues 401 certifications for 

activities regarding oil and gas exploration, development, 

and production operations. In 2001, to streamline the 

permitting process and focus limited resources on the 

most significant wetland impacts, TCEQ and the Army 

Corps executed a Memorandum of Agreement establishing tiered procedures for Section 401 certifications. Currently, developers of wetlands smaller than 3 acres (Tier I 

projects) are not typically required to seek an individual 

401 certification review as long as Best Management 

Practices (BMPs) are included in their permit application 

(TCEQ, 2011a). Some review participants considered 

this minimal oversight to be a programmatic stressor to 

coastal wetland protection (see additional information 

under next bullet). Ecologically significant jurisdictional 

wetlands such as pitcher plant bogs, bald cypress and 

tupelo gum swamps, and mangrove marshes are not 

eligible for Tier I processing and must be reviewed under 

the more intensive Tier II process. Some participants also 

believed the state could be doing more to protect wetlands that are not covered by the CWA (such as certain 

isolated wetlands) through the development of state 

regulations.

•	 Incremental losses. Some participants thought the 

tiered Section 401 certification process described above 

could be leading to incremental wetland acreage losses 

due to the large number of developments affecting less 

than three acres of wetlands. Similarly, one participant 

expressed concern that the use of CWA Section 404 

nationwide permits (NWPs) may allow incremental wetland losses due to numerous small development activities, 

each impacting jurisdictional wetlands without the benefit of public notice/review and a compensatory mitigation plan. Army Corps noted however that NWPs are 

only meant to permit projects that contribute no more 

than minimal individual and cumulative adverse effects 

on aquatic resources. Additionally, a number of NWPs 

have conditions that require pre-construction notification to the local Army Corps District and compensatory 

mitigation.

•	 Mitigation. Participants described a lack of mitigation 

site monitoring as a stressor in Galveston Bay. Unavoidable wetland acreage losses permitted under CWA 

Section 404 must be offset, to the extent appropriate 

and practicable, through compensatory mitigation (in 

order to prevent net wetland loss). However, participants 

expressed concern that mitigation is occurring outside 

the watershed where the impact occurs and therefore not 

truly replacing the loss. Additionally, some participants 

felt that uncompensated loss may be occurring when mitigation is not properly carried out and, therefore, additional monitoring and enforcement is needed. Note that 

compensatory mitigation requirements are designed to 

replace wetland functions, and therefore may not result 

in a one-to-one replacement of lost wetland acreage. 

•	 Unauthorized wetland loss. Participants believed that 

illegal wetland fills may be occurring in the Galveston 

Bay watersheds due to lack of enforcement and a lack of 

knowledge on the developers’ part. However, a portion of 

these fills may be occurring in wetlands outside the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act or as a result of exempt 

activities, and therefore do not require authorization 

under CWA Section 404.

•	 Rolling easement litigation. Review participants noted 

that a Texas Supreme Court decision and ongoing litigation call into question the use of rolling easements to 

protect public beaches (see the “Tools and Strategies” 

section for a description of rolling easements), allowing 

them to potentially remain developed private property, 

and subject to armoring and other structures (ASWM, 

2010). Results of the court decisions will potentially 

limit the ability to use rolling easements (in Galveston 

Bay and perhaps within the entire Gulf region) as a tool 

for protecting public interests in these dynamic coastal 

shorelines, which include important coastal habitats.
15

Focal Watershed Review: East and West Galveston Bay, Texas (continued)

Highlight: Clean Water Act Jurisdiction and Evidence of Surface Connectivity for 

Texas Gulf Coastal Depressional Wetlands

Within the Galveston Bay watershed, there are wetlands 

for which the applicability of CWA protections has been 

difficult to determine. EPA and the Army Corps are 

responsible for issuing regulations and guidance regarding 

CWA jurisdiction, such as which wetlands are federally 

protected under the scope of the Act. In April 2011, 

EPA and the Army Corps announced the release of the 

“Draft Guidance Identifying Waters Protected by the 

Clean Water Act” for public comment and review. The 

draft guidance clarifies which waters are protected by the 

CWA and implements the Supreme Court’s decisions in 

Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers and Rapanos v. United States. These 

two court decisions have created uncertainty over which 

waters are protected by the CWA. Once final, the EPA/

Army Corps guidance will replace previous guidance and 

provide more certainty and clarity to facilitate accurate 

field determinations.

The draft guidance includes several clarifications to current guidance documents:

•	 It clarifies “adjacent” wetlands as including ones in 

physical proximity to jurisdictional waters or ones with 

an unbroken surface or shallow sub-surface hydrologic 

connection.

•	 It clarifies that all wetlands within a wetland mosaic 

should be considered collectively when determining 

adjacency.

•	 It continues to include adjacent wetlands as per se jurisdictional where they are adjacent to either a traditional 

navigable water (TNW) or interstate water or where 

they abut a relatively permanent tributary of a TNW or 

interstate water. 

•	 It continues to classify wetlands adjacent to non-relatively permanent tributaries as jurisdictional where they 

have a significant nexus to a TNW or interstate water.

•	 It clarifies that non-adjacent wetlands are jurisdictional 

where they individually have a significant physical, 

chemical, or biological nexus to a TNW water or interstate water.

•	 It clarifies that groups of waters (e.g., tributaries, adjacent wetlands, other waters) can be considered holistically on the watershed scale when evaluating significant 

nexus, rather than at a stream reach level.

Even with this EPA/Army Corps draft guidance for 

how to interpret recent Supreme Court cases, federal 

jurisdiction for certain waters, including wetlands, would 

need to be determined on a case-by-case basis to identify 

whether or not they have a significant nexus to a TNW 

or interstate water. To learn more about the guidance, 

visit http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/

CWAwaters.cfm.

There has been ongoing research in Texas to address the 

nature of wetlands that became non-jurisdictional as a 

result of the court decisions. A recent study concluded 

that there are considerable hydrologic connections 

between certain Texas upper coast depressional wetlands 

and Galveston Bay and other navigable waters (Wilcox et 

al., 2011). The study quantified surface discharge characteristics of a wetland complex in the Armand Bayou 

Nature Preserve, southeast of Houston, on the Texas Gulf 

of Mexico Coastal Plain. It was found that surface runoff 

from the wetlands, although intermittent, occurred 

regularly and accounted for more than 17 percent of 

watershed precipitation over the 45-month study period. 

The wetland complex has a direct surface connection via a 

stream outlet to a tributary of Armand Bayou, a traditional navigable water. Due to this stream connection to 

Armand Bayou, the authors of this study have suggested 

that these wetlands should be considered “adjacent” wetlands, and thus could potentially be regulated under federal regulations, requiring a significant nexus evaluation. 

The results from the study are contrary to the “widespread 

perception that depressional wetlands on the Texas Gulf 

Coast are hydrologically isolated” (Wilcox et al., 2011). 

While exertion of federal jurisdiction upon wetlands must 

be determined on a case-by-case basis, field-based studies provide vital scientific support for these case-by-case 

determinations.

Figure 9. League City: example of a non-jurisdictional depressionalpimple-mound wetland complex surrounded by residential development. 

Source: USWFS.
16

Hydrologic modifications. Hydrologic modifications 

include the direct and indirect impacts associated with 

a number of activities, including freshwater diversions, 

channelizing streams to improve drainage, groundwater 

withdrawals, as well as extraction of other resources such as 

sand and gravel, gas, and oil. These activities can result in 

subsidence, as well as alterations of salinity and flow levels. 

Hydrologic modifications leading to saltwater intrusion can 

alter freshwater and forested wetlands and change wetland 

types. Some studies suggest that “many, and perhaps most, 

of Galveston Bay’s fringing wetlands have been lost to 

human-induced subsidence, with no corresponding migration of wetlands landward because of the abrupt slopes 

surrounding most of the Bay” (Jacob and Showalter, 2008).

•	 Alterations in freshwater flows. Reduced freshwater 

inflows occur as a result of groundwater pumping and 

surface water diversions. Participants indicated that a 

reduction in freshwater flows has affected the San Jacinto 

and Trinity River deltas and riparian wetlands by altering the salinity levels of the Bay. Increased salinities of 

freshwater and brackish wetlands allow invasive species 

to spread and flourish. This population shift can decimate native species, including commercially valuable 

ones such as oysters (Galveston Bay Foundation, n.d.[a]). 

Increased salinities can also result in major shifts in 

wetland types to more saline conditions, with potential 

ecological consequences such as loss of cypress swamp 

in the Trinity delta. This in turn causes refuge and land 

managers to opt for structural marsh management, which 

can restrict access to the marshes for transient marine 

species and may actually accelerate marsh loss over time 

(R. Swafford, personal communication, May 16, 2012). 

Decreased freshwater inflow can also alter the wetland 

ecosystem by exposing anaerobic soils. Over time, 

upland plants will out-compete wetlands plants in these 

altered soil conditions (Texas GLO, 2010a). Conversely, 

increased flows from diversions and runoff can also be 

a problem. Inundation can alter a wetland, changing it 

into an open water habitat that cannot support wetland vegetation. An example is the Addicks Reservoir in 

Harris County, which is inundated by a combination of 

natural flows and stormwater runoff, and has controlled 

releases that affect vegetation downstream in Buffalo 

Bayou (HCFCD, n.d.[a]).

•	 Alterations in sediment. Sediment budgets play a 

large role in wetland formation and maintenance. Both 

increased and decreased flow regimes can lead to changes 

in sediment budgets and the loss of coastal wetland area. 

Hydrologic modifications, such as dams, can decrease 

water flow and restrict sediment and nutrient deposition 

that normally replenishes and helps to maintain a thick 

organic soil layer—essential for healthy wetlands. A study 

on the sediment budgets in the Trinity River indicated 

that sediment restriction from Livingston Dam has been 

offset by erosion in the lower coastal plain, which maintains supply to the Bay (Phillips et al., 2004). However, 

this restriction may lead to coastal wetland acreage loss, 

since increased sediment supply will be needed to match 

the rate of sea level rise (Lester and Gonzalez, 2011). 

Conversely, alterations such as dredging and channelization can increase flow velocity, scouring, and erosion of 

adjacent wetlands. The response to erosion in Galveston 

Bay has been development of armored shorelines, which 

prevent wetlands from migrating inland (Lester and 

Gonzalez, 2011). In the Galveston Bay area, alterations 

to water circulation and sediment flows caused by the 

Houston Ship Channel, the Texas City Dike, and coastal 

highways have reduced sediment deposition in West 

Galveston Bay (Lester and Gonzalez, 2011).

•	 Flood management practices. Flood management projects implemented by entities such as the Harris County 

Flood Control District are designed to improve drainage 

and prevent flooding, but participants noted that these 

projects can also significantly impact natural riparian 

systems. To improve conveyance of water, channels are 

widened, deepened, and cleared of vegetation. Detention basins are often built adjacent to channels to allow 

for storage of stormwater. These types of alteration can 

significantly affect hydrologic regimes, which in turn 

have direct and indirect effects on wetlands. Additionally, 

participants noted that herbicides are applied to control 

riparian vegetation along these modified channels and 

mosquitoes are treated aerially in some locations, which 

could have significant effects on wetland habitat.

•	 Dredging. Dredging for navigation, which creates deeper 

and more distinct channels, can change sediment deposition patterns, increase erosion (where increases in flow 

velocity occur), and change the freshwater/saltwater 

regime. In addition, the dredged material needs to be 

disposed of and, depending on the method of disposal, 

can either negatively or positively impact coastal habitats. Participants noted the Houston Ship Channel as 

an example of dredging impacts that have significantly 

changed Bay circulation and salinity (Lester and Gonzalez, 2011). Additionally, sediment in certain areas of 

the Houston Ship Channel has been shown to contain 

hazardous chemicals, such as PCBs, dioxin, DDT, and 

heavy metals (EPA, 2007; Lester and Gonzalez, 2011). 

Focal Watershed Review: East and West Galveston Bay, Texas (continued)
17

Focal Watershed Review: East and West Galveston Bay, Texas (continued)

There are areas of the Houston Ship Channel where sediments are not contaminated, as well as other navigation 

channels that are not contaminated. These sediments, 

when dredged, can be used for beneficial purposes—for 

example, enhancing existing resource areas by restoring 

wetlands, islands, and beaches.

•	 Sand and gravel excavation. Review participants commented that sand and gravel mining operations occurring 

within floodplains outside of the state-owned riverbed 

(e.g., West and East forks of the San Jacinto River) result 

in direct loss of forested wetlands through excavation. 

In addition, mining operations can lead to the suspension of fine sediments in adjacent water, which reduces 

water clarity and can cover wetlands, indirectly resulting 

in acreage loss. The sand and gravel excavation itself is 

not a regulated activity in Texas. However, any related 

deposition of sediments into nearby waters of the United 

States requires a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from TCEQ and/or a 

CWA Section 404 dredge and fill permit from the Army 

Corps. TCEQ found that about half of mining facilities 

it investigated in the state were operating without a discharge permit in 2004, and a number were not meeting 

permit requirements such as implementation of BMPs 

and monitoring (TCEQ, 2004). Participants believed a 

CWA Section 404 exemption related to sand and gravel 

mining may be leading mining operators to believe they 

do not need a permit, though this exemption is actually 

for a narrowly defined set of activities.2

•	 Groundwater pumping. Groundwater pumping is partly 

responsible for the subsidence experienced in Galveston 

Bay over the last 100 years (Texas GLO, 2010a). Subsidence can affect wetland habitats by drowning vegetation, 

increasing the frequency of saltwater inundation events, 

and modifying drainage patterns (Coplin and Galloway, 

n.d.). Participants noted that groundwater withdrawals 

have decreased significantly around the Bay, but there 

are still areas, such as Jersey Village, that experience 

subsidence from groundwater withdrawals (Lester and 

Gonzalez, 2002; Engelkemeir et al., 2010). The rate of 

subsidence of the land around the Bay as a whole has 

decreased due to an increased use of surface water for 

municipal, agricultural, and industrial purposes (Texas 

GLO, 2010a).

•	 Oil and gas extraction. Oil and gas extraction historically 

caused localized land subsidence in upper Galveston Bay 

and the Bolivar Peninsula (Coplin and Galloway, n.d.). 

Some participants described how subsurface extraction 

led to more pronounced geologic faulting, specifically 

on the Bolivar Peninsula. With increased faulting land 

surface elevation dropped, and the marshes were left susceptible to inundation. Ten percent of the marsh habitat 

on the peninsula was lost from the 1950s through 2002 

(White et al., 2004). Fluids (both oil and water) are still 

extracted from salt domes in the area, e.g., High Island. 

These domes often have wetland areas associated with 

them as the result of subsidence from faulting. Additionally, oil and gas extraction can introduce new erosive 

factors by removing established vegetative cover and 

introducing unimpeded hydrologic flow (e.g., installation 

of pipeline in an established marsh with a highly erosive 

substrate). 

•	 Seismic exploration. Participants also identified impacts 

of seismic exploration as an ongoing problem. They 

observed a recent increase in frequency of these surveys 

within the study watersheds. Exploration can involve 

intersecting marshes with access roads, leading to fragmentation of the wetlands and a decrease in water and 

nutrient circulation and flow. The side cast borehole 

material covers vegetation and leads to marsh conversion. Three-dimensional seismic exploration is covered 

under a CWA Section 404 NWP and does not require 

pre-consultation with the Army Corps unless the activity 

is planned in a tidal area. Although Section 404 permitting for many survey activities is covered by NWP 6, 

a regional condition to the permit in the Army Corps’ 

Galveston District requires that a permittee submit a preconstruction notification if three-dimensional seismic test 

discharges are to occur in the coastal zone.3

Climate change and sea level rise. Effects of climate 

change include inundation of coastal wetlands due to sea 

level rise, unpredictable or episodic nature of extremes 

2

 The exemption pertains to discharge of dredged or fill material incidental to the emergency removal of sandbars, gravel bars, or other similar blockages that are formed during flood flows or other events, where such blockages close or constrict previously existing drainage ways and, if not promptly 

removed, would result in damage to or loss of existing crops or would impair or prevent the plowing, seeding, harvesting, or cultivating of crops on land 

in established use for crop production. Such removal does not include enlarging or extending the dimensions of, or changing the bottom elevations of, 

the affected drainage way as it existed before the formation of the blockage. Removal must be accomplished within a year of the discovery of such blockages in order to be eligible for exemption.

3

 For more information, see http://www.swf.usace.army.mil/pubdata/environ/regulatory/handouts/nwp%20rgnl%20cnd%20for%20tx.pdf.
18

Focal Watershed Review: East and West Galveston Bay, Texas (continued)

in weather, and an impact on wetlands from increasing 

intensity and frequency of storm events (e.g., sediment and 

debris deposition). Related threats such as changes in precipitation patterns, timing and delivery of water and sediments, increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide, and higher 

temperatures also affect wetlands (Scavia et al., 2002).

•	 Sea level rise. Galveston Bay experienced a 0.6 meter rise 

in relative sea level in the 20th century (Yoskowitz et al., 

2009). Land subsidence in the Galveston Bay watershed 

is likely to increase the impact of sea level rise. The most 

severe effects of sea level rise are predicted to occur in the 

East and West Bays and the Trinity River Delta where the 

greatest amount of marsh and swamp erosion is predicted 

to occur (Warren Pinnacle Consulting, Inc., 2011a).

•	 Limited estuarine marsh migration opportunities. Estuarine marshes can migrate inland as sea level rises, which 

can help sustain coastal wetlands and provide a buffer for 

inland properties. However, as global sea levels rises, it is 

unclear to what extent coastal marshes will move inland 

due to the location and quantity of development landward of the marshes (Warren Pinnacle Consulting, Inc., 

2011a). Shoreline hardening can prevent wetlands from 

migrating and therefore result in loss of wetland area 

due to inundation and erosion. A study of sea level rise 

in Galveston Bay, commissioned by the Harte Research 

Institute in 2010, shows a significant portion of the 

Galveston Bay shoreline would be inundated during a 

100-year storm given a projected increase in sea level of 

approximately 0.69 meters (2.3 feet; based on the IPCC 

A1F1 scenario) (see Figure 10).

•	 Impacts to black mangrove. Galveston Island is currently the northern limit for the black mangrove species due to its strict temperature requirements, a quality 

which makes it a good indicator of climate change. 

Increasing temperatures are allowing black mangrove to 

become more established in Louisiana, and the range 

of black mangrove is expected to expand northward in 

Texas as well. Additionally, inundation from increased 

hurricanes and from sea level rise will expose mangroves 

to changes in salinity and increased erosion (Montagna et 

al., 2011).

•	 Hurricanes and storms. Storms have caused damage 

to Galveston’s coastal wetlands and resulted in coastal 

erosion that is exacerbated by prevailing winds, channelization, and ship traffic. Hurricane Ike (September 

13, 2008) hit the coast east of Galveston Bay, causing 

a 5-meter storm surge, which traveled up to 10 miles 

inland (USGS, 2009). In addition to causing erosion, 

storm surges inundate freshwater wetlands with saline 

water, which can destroy a significant amount of freshwater vegetation (Lester and Gonzalez, 2011). If, as 

predicted, the intensity of such storms increases due to 

climate change (USGCRP, 2009), wetland loss associated 

with hurricanes can be expected to increase.

Oil spills. Oil spills can negatively impact coastal wetlands and associated wildlife by coating the substrate and 

introducing toxins into the environment (Ober, 2010; 

Whigham et al., 2010). Although wetlands can recover 

from these spills, their ability to recover can be hindered by 

compounding stressors such as sea level rise and subsidence 

(Whigham et al., 2010).

Figure 10. Land inundation given a 0.69 meter rise in sea level and a 100-year 

flood. Source: Yoskowitz et al., 2009.

Figure 11. Number and volume of oil spills reported annually by the Texas 

General Land Office in the Lower Galveston Bay watershed, 1998–2010. 

Source: Gonzalez and Lester, 2012; Texas GLO, 2010b.
19

Focal Watershed Review: East and West Galveston Bay, Texas (continued)

Participants noted that while oil spill data reported to the 

Texas General Lands Office (GLO) are available, there 

are probably more spills than are reported. Between 1998 

and 2010, there were a total of 3,954 oil spills and over 

431,000 gallons released in the Lower Galveston Bay 

watershed as reported by the Texas GLO with a trend of 

reduced spill incidents and volume over time (See Figure 

11).

Invasive species. Participants described invasive vegetation 

as an important cause of coastal wetland functional loss 

in the review watersheds. Impacts include loss of species 

diversity, structural changes in the vegetation community, 

changes in nutrient cycling, and habitat changes. Participants noted that Chinese tallow tree (Triadica sebifera) 

is a species of particular concern since it has moved into 

freshwater marsh areas in great numbers within the Galveston Bay area. In addition, its spread has been documented 

throughout the upper Texas coast and down through other 

portions of the central coast (TexasInvasives.Org, 2011). 

A Houston urban forestry study using 2000 LANDSAT 

satellite data and 2002 field data showed that the Chinese tallow tree is the single most common species in the 

region, and represents a greater percentage of trees in the 

Houston area than all oak species combined (Nowak et 

al., 2005). The spread of such an aggressive species is a 

concern because it outcompetes native plants and can be 

a main cause of coastal wetland functional loss. Invasive 

vegetation can also cause changes in the types of fish and 

wildlife species present because of the changes in the type 

and abundance of food and shelter that the wetland vegetation provides. Deep-rooted sedge (Cyperus entrerianus) was 

noted as a plant that was once rare but now outcompetes 

native vegetation. Giant salvinia, water lettuce, and water 

hyacinth were mentioned as other examples of invasive 

vegetation impacting wetlands, along with invasive animals 

such as nutria and grass carp.

Funding at cross-purposes. Review participants noted 

some controversy around NRCS funding of projects that 

may result in unintentional wetland loss. Participants 

mentioned an instance where NRCS funded the Galveston 

County Consolidated Drainage District to remove downed 

trees from riparian zones of Dickson Bayou. Some participants viewed this activity as destruction of the riparian zone vegetation; others believed it restored the area to 

something closer to its natural state. Chambers County 

also funded similar riparian zone clearing activities along 

Double Bayou.

Tools and Strategies

In response to wetland losses, Texas uses several regulatory and non-regulatory programs to manage, protect 

and restore coastal wetlands. It primarily relies on Section 

404 of the federal CWA (which regulates dredge and fill 

projects in waters of the United States) to protect its coastal 

and inland wetlands (see Appendix C for an explanation 

of CWA Section 404 authority and scope). In addition, 

TCEQ administers the state’s Section 401 Certification 

Program. The program’s goal is to ensure that activities 

requiring a federal permit (including CWA Section 404 

permits) undergo state review for compliance with Texas’ 

water quality standards. Since 1995, TCEQ has adopted a 

“no net loss” policy for preserving wetland functions and 

values, which is included in its water quality standards and 

mitigation policies. TCEQ is the lead state agency administering the Section 401 program; the Railroad Commission 

of Texas is responsible for overseeing oil and gas exploration 

activities, including issuance of Section 401 certifications 

for oil and gas development projects in wetlands.4

The Texas Coastal Management Program (CMP), within 

the Texas GLO, helps manage the state’s coastal resources 

through interagency coordination and private/public 

partnerships. CMP activities include providing data on 

the health of Gulf waters, reviewing federal actions to 

ensure consistency with the state’s CMP, and awarding 

grants (approximately $2.2 million annually) for protection 

and restoration of coastal resources. The Texas Parks and 

Wildlife Code requires that a State Wetlands Conservation Plan be developed for coastal wetlands (state-owned 

coastal wetlands exclude most non-tidal wetlands; see 

Texas Natural Resources Code §33.203). Among other 

things, the plan must establish a no net loss goal, inventory 

coastal wetlands, and guide mitigation policies and longrange navigational dredging and disposal plans. The plan 

for state-owned coastal wetlands was drafted in 1994 and 

approved in 1997 (Texas Parks and Wildlife, 1997).

In addition to these overarching tools and strategies, a 

number of effective tools and strategies exist or are under 

development in the Galveston Bay watersheds to address 

the stressors discussed in the section above.

4

 For more information, see http://www.tceq.texas.gov/nav/permits/water_qual.html.
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: Gulf of Mexico Review 20

Focal Watershed Review: East and West Galveston Bay, Texas (continued)

Tools to address coastal development.

•	 Compensatory mitigation for wetland impacts. In 

order to receive a CWA Section 404 permit, developers and other applicants must compensate as appropriate and practicable for jurisdictional wetland loss that 

cannot be avoided. Compensatory mitigation in Texas, 

as required under the Army Corps CWA Section 404 

program and TCEQ’s CWA Section 401 certification 

program, is determined based on functional assessments 

or ratios as appropriate. Compensatory mitigation may 

occur through permittee-responsible on-site or off-site 

mitigation, mitigation banks, or in-lieu fee programs. 

For example, the Texas Department of Transportation 

(TxDOT) developed three wetland mitigation banks—

the Anderson Tract with 2,243 acres, the Coastal Bottomlands Bank with 3,552 acres, and the Blue Elbow 

Swamp with 3,343 acres—in order to increase efficiency, 

to create long term ecological stability, and to site mitigation projects in high quality areas (FHWA, 2011).

•	 Watershed plans. Participants were enthusiastic about 

the potential to use watershed plans as a strategic tool 

for prioritizing problems and developing solutions to 

watershed-scale stressors. Participants particularly focused 

on the fact that these plans can serve to identify the location and type of projects that should be prioritized when 

there is a need for a compensatory wetland mitigation 

project within a given watershed. Watershed plans can be 

carefully designed to ensure that mitigation actions will 

address stressors that are currently degrading the aquatic 

resource and will sustain or improve the condition of 

aquatic resources in the watershed. Several participants 

were surprised and interested to learn that, according 

to the federal Compensatory Mitigation Rule (Federal 

Register Vol. 73, No. 70, April 10, 2008), watershed 

plans, where available, are to be considered as a factor 

in the Army Corps’ mitigation decisions (once deemed 

appropriate by the Army Corps’ District Engineer). They 

indicated that additional watershed plans should be 

developed to help guide mitigation decisions and noted 

that the Watershed Resources Assessment Team, a multiagency state-federal partnership, may be able to help 

provide baseline information to inform watershed plan 

development. In the absence of a watershed plan, the 

Rule states that a watershed-based approach should still 

be used to determine appropriate compensatory mitigation for wetland impacts.

Highlight: Accomplishments of the 

Galveston Bay Estuary Program, 1995–2012

The Galveston Bay Estuary Program has made significant progress in improving water quality, restoring 

wetlands, protecting unique habitats, and educating the 

public. Those achievements included:

•	 Restoring and protecting approximately 20,615 acres of 

wetlands and coastal habitats.

•	 Using dredged material to restore more than 2,500 

acres of wetlands and coastal habitats.

•	 Cultivating up to a half million wetland plants annually 

for wetlands restoration projects.

•	 Forming the Galveston Bay Freshwater Inflows Group 

to develop management strategies to balance the 

multiple uses of the estuary, the Invasive Species Work 

Group to help manage invasive species management in 

the Bay, and the West Bay Initiative to target conservation opportunities in the West Bay Watershed.

•	 Implementing BMPs for conservation landscaping, 

vegetative buffers, and stormwater management, and 

conducting workshops with local governments and 

developers on sustainable development practices.

•	 Conducting over 350 presentations and exhibits for 

schools, local community events, and workshops and 

conferences, reaching nearly 25,000 adults and students 

since 1995.

•	 Dedicating $10 million to resource conservation 

and education projects, leveraging an estimated $82 

million.

» Comprehensive Conservation and Management 

Plans. One of the most significant watershed management plans for the area is the Galveston Bay Estuary 

Program’s CCMP. The Galveston Bay Estuary Program, 

part of EPA’s National Estuary Program, is implementing their CCMP, which guides the conservation and 

restoration of the estuary based on scientific research. 

The CCMP contains actions to acquire, manage, and 

protect wetlands, calling for improved coordination 

among the agencies involved in their management. It 

also includes measures to halt declines in coastal habitat quantity and quality, maximizing beneficial uses 

of dredged materials. In addition to and in support 

of the CCMP, the Galveston Bay Estuary Program, in 
21

Focal Watershed Review: East and West Galveston Bay, Texas (continued)

cooperation with TCEQ and the Houston Advanced 

Research Center, is undertaking a number of important initiatives to monitor, assess, and improve the 

health of the estuarine system, including publication of 

the “State of the Bay” report and a “Status and Trends” 

report, which included a number of indicators of the 

Bay’s overall health.5

» The Armand Bayou and Dickinson Bayou watershed 

plans. The Armand Bayou Watershed Working Group, 

which was organized by the Texas Coastal Watershed 

Program in partnership with private organizations 

and the Texas Sea Grant program, was responsible for 

developing the Armand Bayou watershed plan. The 

plan examines the current state of the watershed, current management programs, and tools and strategies 

used to improve the ecological health of the watershed, 

including identification of habitat that could be designated as mitigation areas.

•	 Total Maximum Daily Loads. The CWA requires states 

to identify any waterbody that does not meet the water 

quality standards necessary to support its designated uses, 

and to create Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) 

for these waters. A TMDL is a calculation of the total 

amount of pollutant a waterbody can receive while still 

meeting water quality standards for the designated use 

of that waterbody, and how this budget will be divided 

between point and nonpoint sources. A state develops an 

implementation plan with strategies to meet the TMDL 

goal, which consists of both regulatory and non-regulatory programs. In 2009, TCEQ created fecal coliform 

TMDLs to meet water quality standards (for oyster water 

use) in six sub-bays of Galveston Bay. Fecal coliform, a 

type of bacteria, is an indicator of human and animal 

waste that can enter the Bay via wastewater discharges, 

stormwater runoff from urban areas, and other sources. 

TCEQ and the Galveston Bay Foundation have created a 

working group that develops and implements reduction 

measures such as public education campaigns, wastewater 

treatment facility improvements, and bans on boat discharges into the bay (Galveston Bay Foundation, 2012). 

This implementation plan contains strategies to minimize the impact that developed area has on surrounding 

resources.

•	 Property buyouts. Buyout programs are administered by 

the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 

and funded by five different Hazard Mitigation Assistance Programs. Buyouts permanently keep land from 

redevelopment; land that is purchased with grant funds 

must remain as open space, recreational space, or managed wetlands. The Federal Hazard Mitigation Grant 

Program has a buyout program for municipalities, triggered by events such as natural disasters. Using FEMA 

funding, the Harris County Flood Control District 

implements buyouts for flood damage reduction programs (HCFCD, n.d.[b]). In 2009, Galveston County 

offered a property buyout and elevation program to 

specific flood-prone unincorporated areas in connection 

with Hurricane Ike. More than 700 parcels of land were 

bought out for more than $70 million through this grant 

program (T. Leugemors, personal communication, Beck 

Disaster Recovery, Inc., 2011).

Tools to address the limitations of regulations.

•	 Research associated with federal jurisdiction. Some 

recent research in Texas has been directed toward identifying hydrologic connections between geographically 

isolated wetlands and navigable or interstate waters 

(Forbes et al., 2010; Wilcox et al., 2011). Participants felt 

that these types of studies can provide a scientific basis 

for establishing federal protection for some “isolated” 

wetlands whose jurisdictional status was made uncertain 

by Supreme Court decisions.

•	 Land management and conservation programs. Some 

participants stated that existing regulations alone are 

insufficient to protect wetlands and that wetland acquisition and conservation programs are essential to slow 

coastal wetland loss. Land conservation was cited as one 

of the most effective strategies for protecting coastal 

wetlands in Texas. Special valuations, conservation easements, and the work of land trusts are all examples of 

programs designed to achieve this type of protection. 

Special valuation allows for landowners to pay property 

taxes based on significantly below market values. Texas 

offers special valuations for agricultural and open space 

lands, which can give landowners an incentive to maintain wetlands and other open areas rather than developing them (Dudensing and Jones, 2010).

» Wetlands Reserve Program. NRCS administers 

conservation easement programs and works with 

individual landowners and governing bodies, including 

the Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program, the 

Grassland Reserve Program (GRP), and the Wetlands 

Reserve Program (WRP). These programs provide assistance for enhancing, creating, or maintaining wetlands, 

5

 For more information, see http://www.gbep.state.tx.us.
22

Focal Watershed Review: East and West Galveston Bay, Texas (continued)

riparian areas, and adjacent areas. The WRP is attractive to landowners along the upper Texas Coast because 

the program offers meaningful incentives and additional funds for wetland enhancements. In the Galveston Bay area, NRCS will pay up to $2,000 per acre for 

a perpetual easement in GRP. Lifetime easements and 

enhancements offer larger financial reimbursements 

than shorter easements. 

» The bottomland hardwood forests of the upper Texas 

coast, known as the Columbia Bottomlands, occupy 

72,000 hectares and provide critical stopover habitat 

for approximately 29 million migrant birds. A portion 

of the bottomlands has been protected through a land 

acquisition and conservation program administered 

by the USFWS, state agencies, and non-governmental 

partners. The Columbia Bottomlands Conservation 

Plan emphasizes cooperation with local conservation 

partners to promote private conservation efforts (Rosen 

et al., 2008). NRCS designated funds for the protection of the property with a conservation easement 

through the WRP (The Conservation Fund, 2012).

» Land use planning. Land use planning can be used 

to proactively address coastal wetland conservation. It 

facilitates the identification of high-value wetlands and 

priority areas for protection. Review participants noted 

that widespread land use planning will require more 

broad-based public and political support than currently 

exists in Texas, where limited land use regulation and 

private property rights are highly valued.

Although this tool is not often used in Texas, some 

Texas cities could serve as models for planning in the 

Galveston Bay area. For example, Denton has specific rules protecting environmentally sensitive areas, 

including riparian areas. Austin has the Balcones 

Canyonlands Preserve, created as a community-based 

solution to protect habitat of endangered species 

threatened by a planned development in western Travis 

County (USFWS, 1996). And, though it is not strictly 

a land use plan, the Chambers County Greenprint 

Plan is a proactive attempt for the county (which is 

located in Galveston Bay) to establish conservation 

goals, while still promoting community development. This plan includes several maps related to land 

conservation priorities that recognize the importance 

of preserving coastal wetlands and their functions for 

both the ecosystem’s health and the county’s economy 

(The Trust for Public Land, 2009).

» Eco-Logical habitat map. The Houston-Galveston 

Area Council and Texas Sea Grant created an online 

interactive tool, based on a Federal Highway Administration project that provides ecosystem information for 

proposed transportation projects. The tool can identify 

quality habitat areas greater than 100 acres in size, 

which is useful for identifying areas of environmental 

concern and potential conflict during the transportation planning process.6

 One participant noted that it 

could also be useful for identifying high-quality mitigation sites.

» Conservation organizations. Local land trusts and 

conservation organizations also contribute significantly 

to wetlands conservation through easements. The 

Bayou Land Conservancy has protected 188 acres of 

wetlands in its 544 acres of preserves and easements 

in the study watersheds. Similarly, the Galveston Bay 

Foundation holds conservation easements in the watershed, in addition to 3,000 acres of land that it owns 

outright.7

» Conservation grants. There are a variety of opportunities to apply for conservation grants, including funds 

to protect wetlands, through various state and federal agencies. Some non-governmental organizations 

(NGOs) also provide funding streams through grants. 

Some conservation grants available for wetland conservation include:

•	 The Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program, administered by NOAA and the Texas GLO, 

offers funding for up to three projects per year at a 

maximum of $3 million per project. This funding is 

available to state and local governments to acquire 

coastal and estuarine lands considered important for 

their ecological, conservation, recreational, historical, 

or aesthetic value. Lands and conservation easements 

acquired with the program’s funds are protected in 

perpetuity.8

•	 National Coastal Wetland Grant Program, administered by USFWS, offers funding to support stateled wetland conservation and restoration projects. 

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and the 

Texas GLO have engaged multiple local partners to 

6

 For more information, see http://www.h-gac.com/go/eco-logical.

7

 For more information, see http://www.galvbay.org/conservation_landtrust.html.

8

 For more information, see http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/land.
23

Focal Watershed Review: East and West Galveston Bay, Texas (continued)

receive funding for a substantial number of projects 

in Galveston Bay that have received regional and 

national recognition.

•	 The Coastal Erosion Planning and Response Act 

(CEPRA) program, administered by the Texas GLO, 

implements coastal erosion projects and studies to 

reduce the effects of and understand coastal erosion processes. When funding is appropriated, the 

CEPRA program provides funding on a biannual 

basis toward projects such as dune restorations, habitat protection, and beneficial uses of dredged materials for habitat restoration. Since 2000, CEPRA has 

received $62 million in state funding and another 

$62 million in matching funds to implement more 

than 200 coastal erosion projects.9

•	 The Coastal Impact Assistance Program (CIAP) is a 

federal program funded through royalties collected 

from offshore oil and gas leases. CIAP funds are 

specifically made available to areas that have been 

impacted by offshore exploration and development. 

Projects for the conservation, protection, or restoration of coastal areas, including wetlands, are one category of activities funded by CIAP in Texas. In 2010, 

the state received an allocation of $35 million.10

» Rolling easements. Rolling easements, where land 

ownership boundaries migrate inland in response 

to natural events such as sea level rise, are a tool for 

protecting coastal wetlands. These easements ensure 

that beaches and vegetated dunes remain in public 

ownership, protect them from private development, 

and offer wetlands the opportunity to migrate inland 

with changing shorelines. The authority to implement 

rolling easements in Texas dates back to passage of the 

Texas Open Beaches Act (TOBA) in 1959. The Act 

was derived from common law “which recognized that 

Gulf beaches have been used by the public since ‘time 

immemorial’ and that barrier islands are constantly 

shifting” (Jacob and Showalter, 2007). TOBA requires 

maintenance of a rolling easement along Galveston 

Bay (and along most of the Texas Gulf shoreline) to 

protect public access to state-owned beaches. The state 

of Texas owns the shoreline that lies below mean high 

tide, which includes the intertidal zone and the beaches 

that lie therein. TOBA prohibits construction of any 

structures on private property that would interfere 

with the normal coastal shoreline’s dynamic processes 

and would therefore impede public access should the 

beach shift inland. This restriction applies to buildings, 

which means that businesses and residences need to 

be removed or relocated if the shoreline changes to the 

extent that those buildings become an impediment to 

public access to the beach. The Texas courts and government are currently revising and refining how rolling 

easements apply to the coast (Titus, 2011).

Tools to address impacts of hydrologic 

modifications. 

•	 Beneficial use of dredged materials. Sediment that is 

dredged from waterways within the watershed, such as 

from the Houston Ship Channel, can be used for coastal 

marsh restoration and creation projects (Figure 12). The 

Beneficial Use Group, formed in the early 1990s by the 

Army Corps, evaluates the possible beneficial uses of 

dredged material from Houston-Galveston Bay. Though 

dredged material from the Houston Ship Channel has 

been used for marsh restoration, review participants 

noted that there are additional opportunities to use sediments from around the Bay for more widespread coastal 

Figure 12. Dredged material was used to restore Goat Island, seen here in an 

intermediate stage of restoration. Photo courtesy of Beneficial Use Group.

9

 For more information, see http://www.glo.texas.gov/what-we-do/caring-for-the-coast/coastal-erosion/index.html and http://www.glo.texas.gov/ 

what-we-do/caring-for-the-coast/grants-funding/index.html.

10 For more information, see http://www.glo.texas.gov/what-we-do/caring-for-the-coast/grants-funding/ciap/index.html.
24

Focal Watershed Review: East and West Galveston Bay, Texas (continued)

wetlands restoration projects. Since 1995, navigational 

dredge material has been used to restore over 2,000 acres 

of wetlands and 500 acres of seagrass (GBEP, 2009, as 

cited in Lester and Gonzalez, 2011). As a result of the 

discharge of sediments on seagrass beds in West Bay 

in December 2011 and January 2012 and subsequent 

comments about this practice from recreational fishermen, the Galveston Bay Foundation, and state and local 

resource agencies, the Army Corps Galveston District is 

forming an interagency coordination team to better assess 

and review dredged material management before projects 

are initiated.

•	 Regional sediment management plans. The Gulf of 

Mexico Foundation (GMF) and Gulf of Mexico Alliance (GOMA) Habitat Conservation and Restoration 

Team have completed a draft of the first regional sediment management plan for West Galveston Bay. The 

plan includes information on sediment sources and how 

sediment moves through the system, and 24 regional 

sediment management recommendations that would 

support sustainable restoration projects. The draft plan is 

currently under review and will be finalized in 2012.

•	 Flow standards. Minimum flow standards can help 

prevent water diversions from resulting in coastal wetland loss. TCEQ adopted environmental flow standards 

for Galveston Bay in April 2011 (TCEQ, 2011b). These 

standards outline minimum outflow levels for the San 

Jacinto and Trinity rivers. The Galveston Bay Foundation is concerned, however, that the new standards are 

not protective enough and create a stress on the estuarine 

ecosystem by limiting the freshwater flow into the Bay 

to levels that are too low for oysters and other organisms. They believe standards should allow for greater 

freshwater influx, should include standards for the other 

tributaries—which make up 18 percent of flows into the 

Bay—and should account for seasonal flow requirements 

(Galveston Bay Foundation, n.d.[a]).

•	 Use of wetlands for stormwater management and flood 

damage prevention. The Harris County Flood Control 

District (HCFCD) uses constructed wetlands to filter 

stormwater runoff and to provide flood control value 

within watersheds. HCFCD’s Greens Bayou Wetland 

Mitigation Bank is a 1,400-acre wetland site that combines wetland creation and natural stormwater runoff 

treatment (HCFCD, 2010b). Additionally, the Army 

Corps is partnering with the HCFCD on Project Brays, 

a major flood damage reduction project (Figure 13). This 

project will use marsh creation as one strategy to reduce 

the risks associated with flooding in this heavily urbanized watershed (HCFCD, 2010a).

•	 Subsidence districts. The establishment of the Harris 

Galveston Subsidence District in 1975 restricted the rates 

of groundwater pumping in Harris and Chambers Counties. The goal of the district is to ensure that withdrawals do not exceed recharge rates. This district could be a 

model for other coastal areas with subsidence impacts.

Figure 13. Designed to reduce the risk of flooding, the Brays Bayou Flood 

Damage Reduction Project includes wetland creation to collect stormwater 

and improve water quality. Photo courtesy of HCFCD.

Figure 14. Galveston Island living shoreline. Source: Galveston Bay

Foundation, n.d.(b).

Tools to address climate change and sea level rise.

•	 Living shorelines. This management practice addresses 

shoreline erosion through the strategic placement of 

vegetation, stone, sand, and other structural and organic 

materials along the shore, creating a natural buffer that 

can help protect coastal development from flooding 
25

Focal Watershed Review: East and West Galveston Bay, Texas (continued)

due to sea level rise (Figure 14). Living shorelines are a 

specific type of green infrastructure; they are considered 

to be a viable alternative to traditional shoreline stabilization techniques, which employ engineered structures 

such as seawalls, groins, and bulkheads. Participants 

indicated that incentives are needed to make green 

infrastructure and planning a priority. According to some 

participants, the use of living shorelines is not a common 

practice in Galveston Bay. Developers and their engineers have yet to embrace this design change, since they 

are familiar with more traditional shoreline armoring 

methods.

•	 Modeling and habitat studies. In 2010 and 2011, The 

Nature Conservancy and Warren Pinnacle Consulting, 

Inc., applied the Sea Level Affecting Marshes Model 

6 (SLAMM) to assess the impacts of sea level rise on 

the marshes and other coastal habitats in Galveston 

Bay. Maps produced by the assessment show the effects 

predicted from specific sea level rise projections (see 

Figure 15). For example, the models predict a 67 percent 

loss of brackish (irregularly flooded) marsh area and an 

84 percent loss of tidal swamp area under a projected 1 

meter of sea level rise by 2100.11 The data and maps produced by this SLAMM assessment can be used as a tool 

to inform managers of where sea level rise is expected to 

have particular effects on coastal marshes and improve 

decision-making (Warren Pinnacle Consulting Inc., 

2011a). In addition, a study has been proposed that will 

complement the Galveston Bay Estuary Program’s Status 

and Trends Report on wetlands by examining wetlands 

habitat changes from 1989 (published in a 1993 study) 

through 2009 using SLAMM outputs. The study will 

have a 50-year outlook.

11 1-meter scenario was selected based on recommendation of a SLAMM model contact who believed this was a likely scenario for the watershed.

Figure 15. SLAMM for Galveston Bay. Initial conditions in 2004 (left) and under the 1 meter rise by 2100 scenario. Source: Warren Pinnacle Consulting, Inc., 2011a.

Other tools to address coastal wetlands stressors.

•	 Ecosystem services valuation. The GMF/GOMA 

habitat team commissioned the Harte Research Institute 

(HRI) to conduct an analysis of how ecosystem services 

from marshes in Galveston Bay might be affected by 

sea level rise. The project will use the outputs from the 

SLAMM modeling project assessing sea level rise impacts 

to Galveston Bay marshes.

•	 Revised shoreline classifications. Texas GLO funded 

Texas A&M University and the HRI to work on a 

shoreline-mapping project of the upper Texas coast. The 

project will provide up-to-date, shoreline type classifications in the Environmental Sensitivity Index (ESI) 

ranking system, improving the accuracy and resolution 
26

Focal Watershed Review: East and West Galveston Bay, Texas (continued)

of the ESI data in the Texas GLO Oil Spill Planning and 

Response Atlas. The up-to-date shoreline classifications 

may also be used for shoreline change analysis and can be 

a tool for identifying changes in coastal wetland habitats, 

areas where erosion may be increasing, and areas that 

might be at greatest risk from sea level rise.

What’s Needed? What’s Missing?

Despite the array of tools and strategies for addressing 

stressors to coastal wetlands in the East and West Galveston Bay watersheds, participants identified several gaps 

in resources and programs, both regulatory and nonregulatory. They expressed the need to address these gaps to 

enable more effective application of tools and strategies to 

protect and restore the watersheds’ wetlands.

Improve planning to control impacts of coastal 

development.

•	 Land use planning. Participants noted that the Galveston 

Bay watersheds lack an overarching policy for managing 

natural resources in light of expected population growth 

and development, and that a comprehensive strategy is 

needed to successfully address growth-related impacts. 

Review participants felt that land use plans could better 

guide development to minimize impacts on wetlands. 

In particular, land use planning at the watershed scale 

would most benefit wetland protection. Mechanisms to 

support such development and implementation of plans 

are lacking.

•	 Local and county involvement in wetland protection.

Participants noted the importance of conserving and/

or protecting depressional wetlands and suggested that 

municipalities and counties could play a role in regulating these wetlands. For instance, local authorities could 

ensure that CWA Section 404 permits are received, as 

needed, before local building permits are issued or to 

place restrictions on activities in buffer areas around 

wetlands.

•	 Green infrastructure. Review participants noted the need 

for better tools to encourage the use of green infrastructure, which can provide shoreline protection while 

minimizing impacts on adjacent habitats. As noted in the 

“Tools and Strategies” section, the development community is not very familiar with living shorelines methods. 

Examples and visual demonstrations would raise awareness in the development community and encourage these 

practices.

•	 Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. The Texas 

State Soil and Water Conservation Board administers 

the Texas Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution Control 

Program. Like other Gulf of Mexico states, though, Texas 

has not received full approval from NOAA and EPA for 

its program.

Strengthen wetland regulatory programs.

•	 Enforcement. Review participants mentioned the need 

for the following additional tools to strengthen enforcement of wetlands protection regulations:

» Press coverage on wetland enforcement cases to increase 

the effectiveness of enforcement as a deterrence mechanism and thereby reduce illegal wetland fill activities.

» While it is not a replacement for on-site investigations, increased use of available aerial photography may 

enhance enforcement by detecting changes in wetlands 

that may not easily be accessed from the ground.

» Expansion of the use of field-level agreements, such 

as those between TxDOT, EPA, and the Army Corps, 

to improve efficiency of enforcement activities and to 

include local and state agencies as well. Pursuant to a 

1989 Memorandum of Agreement between EPA and 

the Army Corps, the two agencies share the responsibility for enforcement of the CWA Section 404 program, and the EPA takes the lead on particular unauthorized activities, such as those that are completed by 

knowing, willful, and flagrant violators.

•	 Clarifying CWA jurisdiction. Participants noted a lack 

of on-the-ground field staff to verify the jurisdictional 

status of wetlands on a case-by-case basis. Studies of 

hydrologic connectivity of so-called isolated depressional 

wetlands can be used to aid jurisdictional determinations, 

and could possibly result in more positive jurisdictional 

determinations and protection of depressional wetlands. 

While some hydrologic studies already exist, participants 

noted that additional studies are needed to clarify the 

hydrologic connectivity of geographically isolated wetlands, and better inform jurisdictional determinations.

•	 Increasing compliance. Participants thought that project 

proponents that received local and/or county building 

permits, but failed to file for wetland permits, have filled 

jurisdictional wetlands without authorization. Increased 

education of landowners and those issuing the building 

permits could improve compliance with federal wetland 

regulations.
27

Focal Watershed Review: East and West Galveston Bay, Texas (continued)

•	 Increased transparency of CWA Section 404 permitting. According to participants, it is currently difficult 

for those outside the permitting process to get information about CWA Section 404 permits and compensatory 

mitigation. State and local managers believe this information would allow them to more effectively track and 

document wetlands acreage loss and causes of the loss, 

as well as increase public participation. Although there 

is a public notice process during the development of all 

general permits and during the evaluation of each standard individual permit application, participants noted 

that a Freedom of Information Act request is needed to 

obtain detailed information on permit analysis (such 

as hydrologic calculations), statements of findings, and 

final permit conditions. Participants also believed that 

determinations regarding cumulative impacts of multiple 

permit actions are not transparent and that increased 

transparency and information availability could lead to 

better tracking of wetland loss, increased compliance, 

and targeted enforcement.

A national-level spatial database, ORM2, has been used 

by all Army Corps Districts since July 2007. Districts 

had various degrees of success in converting pre-2007 

data from many legacy systems; the Corps continues 

to refine the granularity and accuracy of the impact 

and mitigation data and has made significant advances 

since June 2009. Review participants suggested that all 

pertinent agencies—such as the Army Corps, EPA, and 

USFWS—should share one Section 404 permit tracking database, which should provide for applications to 

be submitted online and made publically accessible. 

They also suggested a mechanism for spatial tracking and 

assessment of permits (via GIS-based software) as part of 

this centralized system.

It was noted that the Army Corps’ new Regulatory In 

Lieu Fee and Bank Information Tracking System (RIBITS),12 provides improved transparency for mitigation by 

allowing public access to information on mitigation banking and in-lieu fee programs across the country. Further, 

the Corps and USFWS signed an interagency agreement 

on the use of RIBITS in August 2010, and under this 

agreement, RIBITS has been modified to also include 

information on FWS conservation banking activities.

•	 Permit coordination. Participants expressed a desire 

for more coordination between agencies participating 

in the permitting process. Previously, the Texas Coastal 

Coordination Council had established a Permit Service 

Center and, through a pilot program, offered applicants 

the opportunity to take advantage of a joint permitting 

process, where a coordinated permit application could be 

submitted for a combination of state and federal wetlands permits. Permits eligible for the joint process were: 

TCEQ Section 401 certifications, Army Corps CWA 

Section 404 permits, and permits issued by the Texas 

Parks and Wildlife Department. The purpose of the joint 

permit application process was to better streamline and 

coordinate the wetland permitting process. The Coastal 

Coordination Council was phased out on August 30, 

2011, and its powers were transferred to the Texas GLO 

and TCEQ. Regardless of whether this pilot program 

continues, participants suggested that before the issuance of local construction permits, applicants should 

be required to show they have consulted with the Army 

Corps to determine whether a CWA Section 404 permit 

is required.

Participants expressed concern about mitigation occurring out-of-area and out-of-kind (i.e., a different type of 

wetland than the one impacted), and thought that strategic regional mitigation planning would maximize the 

effectiveness of mitigation by expediting the construction process and strengthening the quality of mitigation 

projects. The Galveston District and the Interagency 

Review Team are reviewing two mitigation banks that are 

proposed to provide compensatory mitigation credits for 

authorized losses of waters in this watershed and a watershed approach will be incorporated into the development 

of those banking instruments.

•	 State programs. Noting that current federal laws do 

not protect isolated wetlands, some participants felt this 

gap could be filled by adopting state wetland protection 

regulations, or by implementing incentive programs 

to encourage the avoidance of isolated wetlands. Some 

•	 Compensatory mitigation. Review participants noted 

that the Compensatory Mitigation Rule (see Appendix 

C) establishes a preference for mitigation projects that 

focus on wetland restoration rather than preservation. 

However, they expressed a desire for more preservation of 

existing freshwater wetlands in circumstances where preservation may be preferred to restoration, such as when 

encroachment is likely to occur on high-quality wetlands 

or when the wetland function may be particularly difficult to restore (e.g., forested wetlands).

12 For more information, see https://rsgis.crrel.usace.army.mil/ribits/f?p=107:2:3644572573481910::NO:RP:P27_BUTTON_KEY:9.
28

Focal Watershed Review: East and West Galveston Bay, Texas (continued)

participants also noted a need for TCEQ to implement 

a more rigorous CWA Section 401 certification process. 

This could include the development of stricter water 

quality standards, which could give the state a stronger 

basis on which to review and approve, condition, or deny 

federal permits that result in a discharge to state waters, 

including wetlands.

•	 Cumulative impacts. Participants suggested that the 

CWA Section 404 permit process could benefit from 

increased permit data availability and increased time 

for permit review in order to better address cumulative impacts. The Army Corps, however, indicated that 

cumulative effects are appropriately evaluated pursuant to 

the National Environmental Policy Act under the current 

permit process.

Provide additional funding and collaboration for 

wetland programs (regulatory and non-regulatory).

•	 Lack of funding. Participants noted the lack of resources 

(both funding and staff) to adequately administer and 

enforce wetland laws, implement and fund more wetland 

restoration programs, and provide education and technical assistance to raise awareness and support for wetlands 

protection. An increase in CWA Section 401 certification 

fees would make more dedicated funds available to support coastal wetland restoration and protection activities; 

however, state legislation would be necessary to change 

the fee structure.

» Conservation funding. There is no state funding 

specifically and solely for conservation of coastal 

wetlands. Review participants noted that the current 

state legislature has shown little interest in supporting 

conservation despite public interest. Dedicated state 

funding for wetland conservation would allow Texas to 

compete more effectively for federal funds by providing 

non-federal match.

» Flood control coordination. Participants commented 

that flood control districts currently have limited 

authority to prevent hydrologic alterations that affect 

coastal wetlands. Cities have planning and zoning 

authority but are not required to comply with district 

plans (for example, League City allows development in 

the floodway and is not obligated to consider the Harris County Flood Control District plans). Participants 

felt that state funding should be tied to requirements 

that cities comply with flood control district plans. 

However, some participants noted that flood control 

districts can also cause hydrologic alterations that 

negatively impact wetlands and suggested that municipal floodplain administrators could be better informed 

about the coastal wetland impacts of specific hydromodification projects through more frequent interaction with wetland managers.

» NGO and government cooperation. Review participants mentioned that the Houston area does not have 

enough engagement and cooperation between government agencies and NGOs, and that competition for 

funding between agencies and NGOs, rather than 

cooperation, can be problematic.

Develop tools for climate change and sea level rise.

•	 Sea level rise tools. Participants mentioned a need to 

develop better tools to translate scientific knowledge 

regarding wetland loss (both area and function) to 

decision-makers and resource managers. Visualization 

and mapping tools that show expected sea level rise 

levels would be valuable. Active training about how to 

use available tools is also needed. In terms of regulation, 

some participants recommended revising the CWA Section 404 program to require consideration of the effects 

of sea level rise on coastal wetlands when evaluating 

permit applications. The Compensatory Mitigation Rule 

(Federal Register Vol. 73, No. 70, April 10, 2008) recognizes the importance of considering sea level rise when 

siting and designing mitigation projects. This would be 

of significance to the entire nation, but especially the 

Gulf coast.

Other gaps and needs to address multiple wetland 

stressors.

•	 Wetland mapping. The National Wetland Inventory 

(NWI) is a web-based tool that the public can use to 

obtain information on wetland locations. Review participants mentioned that the NWI GIS database is a 

valuable tool, but has limitations such as the coarse scale 

of available imagery, difficulty detecting some wetland 

types, and the possibility that some imagery is out of 

date. To help address these limitations, users can crossreference NWI data with other information, such as 

the NOAA C-CAP data, USDA soil surveys, and local 

wetland mapping data (if available). For the purposes of 

jurisdictional determinations under CWA Section 404, 

the Army Corps has the legal authority to verify wetland 

delineations and finalize wetland determinations.

•	 Beneficial use of sediment. There are regulatory barriers to beneficial use of dredged material; requirements 
29

Focal Watershed Review: East and West Galveston Bay, Texas (continued)

to dispose of material in the least costly manner (the 

federal standard for determining disposal options) do 

not account for environmental costs and benefits. The 

Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Task Force has identified this issue in its Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration 

Strategy (EPA, 2011) and the Gulf of Mexico Alliance 

has also identified beneficial reuse as a priority (Gulf of 

Mexico Alliance, 2010).

•	 Monitoring. Review participants mentioned that 

expanded wetlands monitoring is a tool that can be used 

to better evaluate wetland function at mitigation and 

restoration sites. For example, participants suggested 

WRP sites could be monitored on a longer-term basis to 

identify changes in function. It was also suggested that 

third party monitoring by certified experts could bolster 

local, state, or federal agency monitoring.

•	 Ecosystem valuation information. Review participants 

indicated that effectively communicating quantifiable 

information related to the economic value of services that 

are provided by natural systems would allow decisionmakers to make more informed choices and examine 

trade-offs of development or other projects. For example, 

quantifying the lost benefits associated with channelizing 

streams in terms of impacts on fish and wildlife habitat—

and the subsequent diminution of recreational, aesthetic, 

and commercial values—could serve to demonstrate that 

wetlands are vital economic resources (Engle, 2011).

•	 Education and incentives. Review participants felt there 

is a need for more educational programs that focus on 

state and local decision-makers and property owners, 

since public education and outreach currently tends to 

focus solely on students in K-12 schools. In addition, 

there is a need to provide incentives, such as tax breaks, 

for private landowners in order to increase the likelihood 

that wetlands are preserved.

•	 Habitat assessment gaps. It is difficult to determine the 

functions and services of wetlands, particularly in urban 

watersheds. Participants believed there is a need for more 

guidance regarding what wildlife and habitat characteristics should be assessed, particularly in heavily developed 

watersheds. There is a nationwide tool that assesses the 

threat to fish habitat nationwide, compiled through the 

National Fish Habitat Action Plan13 that may provide 

helpful data. EPA also conducts a national coastal condition report, including coastal wetlands, which could be 

helpful.14

13 For more information, see http://www.fishhabitat.org.

14 For more information, see http://water.epa.gov/type/oceb/assessmonitor/nccr/index.cfm.
30

Focal Watershed Review: Mississippi Coastal Watershed, Mississippi 

Figure 16. Sandhill Crane National Refuge, Gautier, Mississippi. Source: USFWS.

Introduction

Mississippi’s coast is characterized by a hot, humid climate; 

silty and sandy soils; fire-dependent habitat types; and exposure to large-scale storm events (MDWFP, 2005). The region 

was never glaciated and therefore boasts a diversity of plant 

and animal species, placing Mississippi among the top 10 

states for endemic species of reptiles, amphibians, butterflies, and mammals (MDEQ, 2008). The state’s coastal area 

includes 758 square miles of large estuaries, small bays, tidal 

rivers, creeks, and bayous. Open-water estuarine systems 

support patches of SAV and the intertidal zone hosts fringe 

oyster reefs (Peterson et al., 2007). Four barrier islands help 

maintain the unique ecology of the Sound while also providing the coast with a first line of defense against hurricanes 

and storms. Sandy beaches, maritime forests, saltwater marsh 

complexes, freshwater ponds, and sea grass beds all provide 

habitat to numerous endangered and threatened species 

(MDMR, n.d.).

Farther inland are a wide variety of marsh types, including 

almost 70,000 acres of salt and brackish marshes, and salt 

pannes (shallow depressions with high salt concentrations) 

(MDWFP, 2005). Over 100 coastal estuarine ponds, totaling almost 4,000 acres, add to Mississippi’s coastal diversity. 

Moving away from the immediate coast, a variety of tidal 

and non-tidal wetland habitats such as wet pine savannas, 

cypress swamps, freshwater marshes, and maritime forests 

can be found (Peterson et al., 2007; MDMR, 1999).

Mississippi’s commercial fishing industry is the second 

largest in the five Gulf States (by pounds landed), and the 

aquaculture industry is the most valuable in the nation 

(NMFS, 2011b; USDA, 2009). Wetlands and estuaries 

are worth millions of dollars to the Mississippi commercial 

fishing industry, which generated more than $375 million 

in the last 10 years (NMFS, 2011b). Harvests of estuarinedependent shrimp alone account for more than half of Mississippi’s commercial fishing revenues during the same period 

(NMFS, 2011b). Continued loss of coastal wetlands—such 

as salt marshes—on which healthy fisheries and shellfisheries depend will have large economic impacts on Mississippi 

coastal communities.

The majority of salt marshes in Mississippi occur at the 

terminuses of the Pearl and Pascagoula Rivers, at the far 

western and eastern edges of the Mississippi coastal plain. 

Overall, Mississippi has lost nearly 60 percent of historic 

wetland acreage, which prior to the 1800s was estimated to 

cover nearly 10 million acres. Approximately 9,000 acres 

of salt marsh alone were lost to open water, development, 

and other non-wetland uses between the 1950s and the 

1990s (Schmidt, 2001). Wet pine savannas are a particularly 

endangered ecosystem in coastal Mississippi and the entire 

Gulf Coastal Plain, where less than approximately 5 percent 

of the original acreage remains (MDWF, 2005). A number 

of factors, including suppression of the natural fire regime, 

urbanization, and silvicultural practices, have all contributed 

to the loss of this wetland type.

The Mississippi Coastal watershed was selected for review 

because it is one of the watersheds along the Gulf of Mexico 

coast that experienced a high amount of wetland acreage loss 

between 1998 and 2004 (T. Dahl, unpublished data from 

the USFWS Status and Trends program) and because the 

watershed contains a diversity of saltwater and freshwater 

wetland types. Coastal wetlands in this area provide numerous ecosystem services, such as support for commercial and 

recreational fisheries, wildlife habitat, flood control, and 

filtration of excess sediments and pollutants.

This focal watershed spans the majority of the state’s 369-

mile tidal shoreline and three counties (Hancock, Harrison, 

and Jackson) (Figure 17; MDEQ, 2010; HUC 03170009). 

It contains several rivers (Jourdan, Wolf, Biloxi, Bayou la 

Batre, and the Fowl Rivers) as well as three major bays (Bay 

of St. Louis, Back Bay of Biloxi, and Grand Bay). The initial 

study area was revised slightly to match the boundaries of 

the USGS hydrologic unit (03170009), which includes the 

Grand Bay shoreline (Figure 18).

Palustrine forested wetland was the most prevalent wetland 

class in the watershed in 2006, covering nearly 178,000 

acres (63 percent of the total acres of wetland area) and 

16 percent of the watershed’s land area (NOAA, 2011a). 

Estuarine wetland classes covered nearly 50,000 acres, or 
31

Focal Watershed Review: Mississippi Coastal Watershed, Mississippi (continued)

about 35 percent of the wetland area and 4.5 percent of 

the watershed. Specific coastal wetland types found in the 

watershed include wet pine savannas, salt marshes, salt 

pannes, and bayous.

Figure 17. Mississippi Coastal watershed (cross-hatched). Source: USGS.

Figure 18. Grand Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve. Source: USFW (P.R. 

Hoar, NOAA/NESDIS/NCDDC).

In preparation for the focal watershed review, data from the 

NOAA Coastal Change Analysis Program (C-CAP) were 

summarized to illustrate recent wetland changes that have 

occurred within the Mississippi Coastal watershed between 

1996 and 2006. The C-CAP program uses remote sensing data to detect land use change in the coastal regions of 

the United States. “Wetland” is one of the categories used 

in the reporting of results. The data set reports changes 

in acreage only and does not measure changes in wetland 

function. C-CAP data were used in order to be consistent 

across all regions when comparing wetland loss.

According to the C-CAP analysis, 4,474 acres of wetlands 

were lost (e.g., converted to non-wetland categories) in this 

watershed between 1996 and 2006 (an average of nearly 

450 acres per year). The vast majority (about 88 percent) 

of losses occurred in freshwater wetlands. Seventy-four 

percent of the wetland acres lost, or 3,283 acres, were 

forested freshwater wetlands. C-CAP data indicate that the 

most acres were lost in conversion of wetlands to development (36 percent), followed closely by losses to agriculture 

(27 percent) including pastureland.

Other wetland acreage losses (25 percent) are attributed 

to loss of wetlands to bare land (which is often associated 

with, or a precursor to, development), with the remaining 

12 percent of all coastal wetlands lost to open water, which 

could be a result of a number of factors such as sea level 

rise, subsidence, erosion, and/or channelization.

The post-change land use of wetlands lost and the types of 

wetlands lost according to C-CAP data are shown in Figure 

19 and Table 4, respectively.

Wetland loss can be authorized under federal and state 

regulatory programs, which require avoidance and minimization of impacts as well as compensation for lost wetland 

functions through compensatory mitigation. The Army 

Corps tracks wetland losses and mitigation authorized by 

the CWA Section 404. However, the wetland loss tracked 

by the Army Corps is only a subset of the loss tracked 

by C-CAP because: (1) wetland loss under C-CAP may 

include loss of wetlands that are not subject to CWA 

regulation (see the discussion of jurisdictional waters in 

Appendix C), (2) wetland loss under C-CAP may include 

loss due to types of activities that are not subject to CWA 

regulation (e.g., natural processes or unregulated activities; 

see Appendix C), and (3) wetland loss under C-CAP may 

include losses for which a landowner should have sought 

CWA authorization, but did not.

Figure 19. Wetland loss and changes in land cover, 1996-2006: Mississippi 

Coastal Watershed. Source: NOAA, 2011a.

Bare Land

25%

Developed

36%

Agriculture

27%

Open

Water

12%
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: Gulf of Mexico Review 32

Focal Watershed Review: Mississippi Coastal Watershed, Mississippi (continued)

Permitting data provided by the Army Corps Mobile District indicate 1,222 acres of wetland fill were permitted in 

the CWR focal watershed between 2006 and 2011(Army 

Corps, personal communication, 2011). Those records 

represent the data entered or converted into the ORM2 

database from 2006 to November 17, 2011, for HUC 

03170009. During this time there were two database 

changes (ORM1 and ORM2) and several refinements to 

the data collected. The first major change, in June 2009, 

further expanded the fields collected for impact and mitigation data entry; the second change, in October 2010, 

was made to ensure that mandatory data elements were 

being entered. The Army Corps has worked diligently over 

the past several years to improve data entry. Training and 

documentation has increased consistency and accuracy of 

data entered, and database modifications have improved 

the overall quality and quantity of data collected. The 

2009 impact data changes allow for more granularity in 

quantifying impacts. When reporting totals, the Army 

Corps reports on permanent impacts (determined from the 

duration field), the impact activity, types of discharges of 

dredged or fill material, and fill associated with excavation.

It should be noted that the information below is based 

on the opinions and observations of participants, who 

provided feedback on draft versions of this document and 

supplemented statements with documentation, where 

available.

Table 4. Losses of Wetland Types to Other Land Uses (Acres) from 1996 to 2006, HUC 03170009 

Wetland Types* Developed Agriculture/

Pasture

Bare Land Open Water Total

Palustrine forested 1,278.99 1,172.69 572.22 259.31 3,283.22

Palustrine scrub 61.83 31.36 221.28 17.79 332.26

Palustrine emergent 54.93 18.90 31.14 239.74 344.71

Estuarine forested 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Estuarine scrub 5.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.34

Estuarine emergent 125.65 0.00 0.67 20.46 146.78

Unconsolidated shore 64.49 2.00 291.78 4.23 362.50

Total 1,591.24 1,224.95 1,117.09 541.53 4,474.81

* See Appendix D for wetland classification descriptions. Source: NOAA, 2011a.

Stressors

As the C-CAP data indicate, the Mississippi Coastal 

watershed has lost coastal wetlands due to natural and 

anthropogenic stressors. Workshop participants provided 

information on what they believed to be some of the 

underlying causes of that loss, based on their experience 

as wetland managers and regulators. Although this review 

focused on one watershed, some of the stressors, tools, and 

gaps discussed included those observed in all three coastal 

counties and were not strictly limited to the Mississippi 

Coastal watershed alone.

The top stressors voted on by the review participants were:

•	 Development (including nonpoint source pollution and 

interruption of fire regimes)

•	 Shoreline hardening 

•	 Cumulative impacts

•	 Limitations of regulations to address development

Coastal development. Between 1930 and 1973, 8,170 

acres of coastal marshes were filled for industrial and 

residential uses (MDMR, 1999). Since passage of the Mississippi Coastal Wetlands Protection Law in 1973, coastal 

wetland loss has slowed dramatically (MDMR, 1999). 

Participants mentioned the Mississippi Gaming Control 

Act (1990), which legalized dockside gambling, as a catalyst 

for the construction of casinos along the coast. The gaming 

industry spurred new housing construction, commercial 

development, and associated infrastructure, which in turn 

caused impacts to coastal wetlands. The Gaming Control 

Act was amended after Hurricane Katrina (2005) to allow 

for casinos to be built within 800 feet of the mean highwater line; the majority of casinos rebuilt were concentrated 

along the Sound. Since Hurricane Katrina, no impacts to 

wetlands have occurred as a result of casino development 

along the Mississippi coast. Prior to that and dating back 
33

Focal Watershed Review: Mississippi Coastal Watershed, Mississippi (continued)

to the early 1990s, less than 20 acres of wetland fill has 

occurred as a result of casino development along the Mississippi coast, which was required to be mitigated at a minimum of a 3:1 ratio, either on site or at a nearby location.

Review participants reported that development is the single 

most significant coastal wetlands stressor currently in the 

focal watershed. This stressor was also the largest cause 

of coastal wetland acreage loss according to C-CAP data 

(36 percent of the loss from 1996 to 2006), corroborating 

participants’ impressions. Participants believed that recent 

development and rebuilding pressures (Mississippi coastal 

counties’ combined populations in 2010 had rebounded 

to 2.2 percent higher than pre-Katrina levels [U.S. Census 

Bureau, 2011b]) have been directed toward wetlands that 

are outside the jurisdiction of the federal regulatory program (Section 404). This assumption has not been verified 

by any studies, and so it remains uncertain whether, and 

to what extent, losses might be occurring in wetlands that 

are not currently regulated under state or federal wetland 

regulatory programs.

Review participants identified specific secondary aspects of 

development that threaten coastal wetlands:

•	 Post-Katrina development. The region experienced 

large increases in insurance premiums after Hurricane 

Katrina, which participants thought may have discouraged redevelopment in favor of new development. They 

also speculated that housing development post-Katrina 

was associated with potential illegal wetland fills for 

these expedited projects. Concerns were expressed that 

these projects were hastily constructed due to social and 

economic pressures to rebuild after the storm. The Army 

Corps confirmed that minor violations did occur, though 

some small fills may have been authorized through 

general permits such as the nationwide permits. New 

housing construction over the past 20 years in Mississippi peaked in 2006, exceeding 1,400 privately owned 

single units, as compared to about 1,200 in both 2004 

and 2007 (Figure 20).

•	 Nonpoint source pollution and stormwater runoff.

In addition to direct loss of wetlands for development 

purposes, participants mentioned several indirect impacts 

from increases in development, including increases 

in runoff and associated pollutants from impervious 

surfaces. Discharges from urban (as well as agricultural) runoff contain nutrients, sediments, pesticides, 

and other contaminants that degrade water quality. 

Increased stormwater runoff can also negatively affect 

the hydrology of rivers, streams and their associated 

floodplains by making streamflows more “flashy” (higher 

velocity and peak flows during rainstorm events), as well 

as lower flows during dry periods. The lack of natural 

flooding regimes inhibits sediment delivery to coastal 

wetlands, and renders the depth of wetland substrate 

(and hence wetland elevation) difficult to maintain.

Figure 20. Housing starts data with peak in 2006, a year after Hurricane Katrina 

made landfall. Source: Census Bureau, 2011b.

Figure 21. Prescribed burn in the Sandhill Crane National Wildlife Refuge. 

Source: USFWS.

•	 Loss of natural fire regimes. Several participants 

observed that the majority of coastal wetlands in the 

three coastal counties are wet pine savanna, an ecosystem that requires fire for regeneration and maintenance. 

Wildfire control practices interfere with natural fire 

regimes, and encroaching residential and commercial 

development can make prescribed burning more difficult 

and less likely to occur. Without fire, the understory 

of the pine savanna thickens and the excess vegetation 

increases evapotranspiration rates. The higher number of stems per acre due to underbrush was thought 

to have similar effects on the ecosystem as ditching, 
34

Focal Watershed Review: Mississippi Coastal Watershed, Mississippi (continued)

and participants thought this might cause transition 

of wetlands into marginally wet forests, making some 

areas potentially more attractive for silviculture or other 

activities.

•	 Pine plantation closures. In the 1930s, paper companies bought large tracts of wetlands along the Pascagoula River to establish pine plantations. When these 

plantations are closed, large tracts of land are available 

for potential development. In 2002, International 

Paper Company’s Moss Point Plant sold 50,000 (out of 

200,000 available) acres of forested land in southern Mississippi to a private development company with plans to 

subdivide the land (Peterson, 2002). At the time, county 

officials and environmental interests were concerned 

about new development leading to pollution from septic 

tanks and sediment erosion from construction sites. 

Additionally, pine plantation closures are the primary 

source of large tracts of lands purchased for mitigation 

banking on the coast. While the Pascagoula River is not 

in the study area for this report, it is adjacent; converting this land from forestry to development could have 

indirect effects in the study area.

Shoreline hardening. Participants noted that approximately three-quarters of the Mississippi Sound shoreline 

was armored with seawalls and bulkheads by the 1930s. 

Seawalls and bulkheads occur mostly along sheltered (interior) shorelines and riverine areas as opposed to along the 

oceanfront. Gulf Hills was noted as an example of a residential development where seawalls and bulkheads are used 

along interior shorelines (Figure 22). Participants pointed 

out that as part of the seawall or bulkhead construction, 

wetland areas were filled behind the armoring to stabilize 

the slope and provide firm foundation for the structures. 

Shoreline hardening may also exacerbate coastal erosion 

of adjacent shoreline and prevent landward migration of 

coastal wetlands. One participant noted that seawalls and 

bulkheads might restrict the movement of endangered 

species, such as the Alabama red-bellied turtle. A majority 

of the remaining coastal wetland systems in the state are 

in the far east and far west, where shorelines have not been 

hardened to any great extent.

Figure 22. Gulf Hills, an example of a subdivision with extensive bulkheading. Photo courtesy of Martina McPherson, ERG.

Cumulative impacts. The many stressors acting on the 

coastal wetlands of the Mississippi Coastal watershed are 

most significant when considered cumulatively, rather than 

individually. Workshop participants focused on bulkheads 

as a prominent example of cumulative impacts in the Mississippi Coastal watershed: a single bulkhead’s impact may 

seem small, but rarely do single bulkheads occur without 

neighboring property owners armoring their own shorelines. Once large areas of shoreline are armored, systemic 

ecological effects become evident. Several studies provided 

by participants (Peterson et al., 2000; Hendon et al., 2000, 

2001) indicated that stretches of armored shorelines in 

Mississippi have experienced reduced abundance of commercially and economically viable fish species. Partyka and 

Peterson (2008) found that epifaunal and nekton richness 

was greater along unrestricted shorelines as compared to 

armored shorelines, and Hendon et al. (2001) found that 

alteration to the marsh edge habitats in the Back Bay/Davis 

Bayou estuary may adversely affect larval abundance and 
35

Focal Watershed Review: Mississippi Coastal Watershed, Mississippi (continued)

distribution of gobies, the most abundant fish found in 

these habitats. Thus, a single bulkhead can have impacts far 

beyond the small stretch of shoreline it armors. Other small 

alterations that can have large cumulative impacts include 

docks, piers, and dredge spoil from channel maintenance 

(Peterson and Lowe, 2009). Peterson and Lowe (2009) 

found that cumulative impacts are problematic because 

they are not immediately noted and build up over time to 

produce more substantial impacts.

Limitations of regulations. The regulations that guide 

implementation of CWA Section 404 and the Mississippi Coastal Wetlands Act are limited with respect to the 

wetlands under their jurisdiction and the activities that 

are subject to regulation. Neither the federal nor the state 

regulations comprehensively protect all wetlands from all 

adverse impacts. The Mississippi Coastal Wetlands Protection Act (Mississippi Code §49-27-71) protects public tidal 

wetlands and submerged water-bottoms. The Mississippi 

Department of Marine Resources (MDMR) is responsible 

for reviewing permits for all regulated activities that affect 

coastal wetlands in the three coastal counties (Jackson, 

Harrison, and Hancock). However, the Act’s jurisdiction is narrowly limited to just public tidal wetlands and 

submerged water bottoms. With respect to federal wetland 

regulations (CWA Section 404), participants noted that 

recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions (Rapanos v. United 

States, 547 U.S. 715, 810 [2006]; see Appendix C) have 

impacted jurisdictional status and are contributing to the 

loss of coastal wetlands by allowing development in unregulated wetland areas such as certain isolated wetlands. In 

some states, state regulations have been able to fill the gaps 

in federal wetland protection, but participants expressed 

concern that the limited scope of CWA jurisdiction is not 

addressed by the Mississippi Coastal Wetland Act.

Agriculture and silviculture. According to data provided 

by NOAA C-CAP program, approximately one-third of 

the 4,500 acres of wetlands lost between 1996 and 2006 in 

the focal watershed was converted to upland agricultural 

land uses. Participants stated that row crops, which are 

typically thought of as “agriculture,” were not common in 

the study area, so the substantial percentage of losses to 

agriculture in the study area created some initial confusion 

for participants. However, the C-CAP land use category of 

“agriculture” includes pasture as well as row crops. Participants confirmed that pasturelands did exist in the study 

area. Participants also stated that silviculture is a significant 

economic activity in the area.

•	 Pasture. More than 80 percent of the total area mapped 

by C-CAP as “agriculture” was also classified as pasture. 

Non-agricultural features such as lawns in low-density 

developments are often captured in this category; 

therefore some of the wetland acreage losses attributed 

to agriculture may actually be wetland losses to lawns in 

low-density development.

•	 Silviculture bedding. The potential for silvicultural 

practices to convert wetlands to uplands is a controversial 

issue in Mississippi, especially the practice of bedding for 

pine plantations. There was some debate among participants on that practice, and whether it leads to loss of 

wetland function.

Bedding involves creating raised mounds of soil where 

trees can be planted without the roots being threatened 

by saturation. The high water table along the Mississippi 

coast makes this practice not only common but necessary for pine plantation success. Participants mentioned 

that the timber industry’s bedding in wetlands along the 

coast could have hydrological implications. Some voiced 

concern that when rows are placed perpendicular to 

topographic contours, water can be drained and wetlands 

can be converted to uplands and thus lose jurisdictional 

status.

In contrast, participants from the Army Corps indicated 

that, to their knowledge, jurisdictional wetlands have 

never been lost to uplands due to silviculture bedding practices, despite some inhibited hydrology of the 

bedded rows. It was suggested that soil borrow areas 

tend to remain wet while narrow bedded areas become 

uplands—not enough, overall, to change the jurisdictional status of the wetland area. A joint Army Corps–

EPA memorandum on BMPs for the establishment of 

pine plantations in the Southeast (Army Corps and EPA, 

1995) specifies that BMPs must at least “maintain the 

natural contour of the site and ensure that activities do 

not immediately or gradually convert the wetland to a 

non-wetland.” If mechanical silvicultural site preparation 

is conducted in accordance with the voluntary BMPs, a 

CWA Section 404 permit is not required.

Although plausible that bedding practices could result 

in some hydrologic alterations, the extent to which these 

practices result in wetland loss remains unclear. The 

BMPs mentioned above only apply to forested wetlands 

seasonally flooded or wetter, leaving wetlands that have 

saturated soils but are not flooded vulnerable to practices 

not in line with the BMPs. The potential hydrologic 

effects of bedding aside, silviculture can degrade the 
36

Focal Watershed Review: Mississippi Coastal Watershed, Mississippi (continued)

quality of wetland habitats by converting open pine prairie savanna or bottomland hardwood to pine forest.

•	 Misunderstanding agriculture exemptions. Wetland 

losses to agriculture could be occurring because landowners believe their activity is covered by an exemption from 

regulatory requirements. There seemed to be some confusion among review participants regarding agricultural 

exemptions (what types of activities are exempt and what 

types require a permit), which may indicate a similar lack 

of clarity for landowners and the general public. Section 

404(f)(1)(a) of the Clean Water Act provides exemptions for “normal farming, silviculture, and ranching 

activities such as plowing, seeding, cultivating, minor 

drainage, harvesting for the production of food, fiber, 

and forest products, or upland soil and water conservation practices.” Other agricultural activities that result in 

a discharge of dredged or fill material into jurisdictional 

wetlands require authorization, and CWA Section 404(f)

(2) specifies that even exempt activities require a permit 

if the activity has “as its purpose bringing an area of the 

navigable waters into a use to which it was not previously 

subject” and “where the flow or circulation of navigable 

waters may be impaired or the reach of such waters be 

reduced.” In addition to wetlands lost through misunderstandings about agricultural exemptions, participants 

suggested that some landowners engage in farming/silviculture practices in wetlands with the intent of drying 

out the wetlands, thinking they can later develop them 

without obtaining a CWA Section 404 permit. In such 

cases, these activities would require authorization under 

CWA Section 404.

•	 Small impacts. A few participants mentioned that small 

agriculture/silviculture parcel ownership might lead to 

incremental, easily overlooked modifications of wetlands 

because these landowners are more apt to modify wetlands without being noticed, compared to larger operations making more obvious modifications. However, it is 

also likely that small wetland losses would be authorized 

under a general permit such as the nationwide permits or 

may have been exempt.

Hydrologic modifications. The estuarine wetlands of 

coastal Mississippi depend on a continuous sediment 

supply for their maintenance and growth (Gulf of Mexico 

Restoration Task Force, 2011). Hydrologic modifications 

of rivers that drain into this coastal area may have contributed to decreases in sediment transport. Participants also 

cited construction of transportation infrastructure over the 

last century along the coast (Highway 90, Interstate 10, 

and railways) as a historical wetland stressor, and significant improvements to this infrastructure after Hurricane 

Katrina as a recent stressor. Dredging (and specifically 

channelization for navigational purposes) was cited as a historic stressor that became less prevalent once Mississippi’s 

Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) adopted 

CWA Section 401 certification regulations in 1982 (and 

amended most recently in 2010).

Sea level rise and storm events. Sea level rise and the 

increasing intensity and frequency of storm events 

(USGCRP, 2009) can present major threats to coastal 

wetlands in the Gulf of Mexico. The region is already 

vulnerable to destructive storms and hurricanes, which 

have contributed to substantial erosion of coastal marshes. 

Over the past 70 years, the average rate of erosion in 

Hancock County marshes has been 3.9 meters per year 

(Manlove et al., 2002). In 2005, Hurricane Katrina’s storm 

surge reached a height of 28 feet just east of the Bay of 

St. Louis (Hancock County, Mississippi) and extended 6 

miles inland, up to 12 miles inland along bays and rivers 

(Knabb et al., 2005). The Interagency Performance Evaluation Task Force study conducted after Hurricane Katrina 

(2009) found that the coastal area from the Mississippi 

River to east of Mobile Bay is twice as likely to experience 

a moderate-to-severe hurricane than the coast of Texas or 

the Florida Panhandle. In addition to flooding and wind 

damage, wetland stressors in the aftermath of large storms 

include the presence of storm debris and the spread of 

invasive species. Because of Mississippi’s high water table 

and low elevation, a rising sea level could increase the area’s 

vulnerability to storm effects. Mean sea level measured at 

the eastern edge of the Mississippi Coastal watershed is 

shown in Figure 23.

Participants noted that hurricanes and coastal flooding 

could lead to wetland creation in natural systems; however, 

in developed systems such as those in coastal Mississippi, 

these events are more apt to change coastal wetlands to 

open water. In some instances, storms can transport too 

much sediment into the tidal environment, causing smothering of the vegetation, as was the case with Hurricanes 

Katrina and Rita. It was estimated that storm-delivered 

material from Hurricanes Rita and Katrina was far greater 

than sediment introduced by overbank flow and other 

inland sources (Turner et al., 2006). During these storm 

events, 131 million metric tons of sediment and massive 

amounts of debris from built structures were deposited into 

wetlands (Turner et al., 2006). Participants were concerned 

that there may be instances after storms where wetlands 
37

Focal Watershed Review: Mississippi Coastal Watershed, Mississippi (continued)

may be erroneously delineated as non-wetlands due to the 

deposition of thick layers of mud.

Long-term natural stressors. Although most of the review 

participants’ discussion focused on more recent stressors 

caused by human influences, they also noted that natural stressors have been acting on the area for thousands 

of years. For example, one participant commented that 

freshwater inflows to coastal wetlands have fluctuated 

over the last 6,000 years due to the changing course of the 

Escatawpa River. Over the last 50 years, five hurricanes of 

H1 to H5 intensity have made landfall along the Mississippi coast and the Alabama coast east of Mobile Bay 

(NOAA, 2011b). The area is prone to hurricanes and tropical storms, which cause flooding and exacerbate coastal 

erosion.

Figure 23. Mean sea level trend measured at Dauphin Island, AL. Source: NOAA.

Figure 24. Grand Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve. Source: USFWS (P.R. Hoar, NOAA/NESDIS/NCDDC).

Tools and Strategies

A number of tools and strategies exist or are under development in the Mississippi Coastal watershed to address 

the above stressors, both regulatory and non-regulatory. In 

Mississippi, the MDMR and MDEQ work together to regulate wetlands, relying on water quality certification under 

Section 401 of the federal CWA. The MDMR reviews any 

Section 404 permit applications and Section 401 certification requests for projects located in the three coastal 

counties, where the Mississippi Coastal Wetlands Protection Act applies to public tidal wetlands and submerged 

water bottoms. Currently, the Coastal Preserves program 

and Mississippi Coastal Improvement Program (MsCIP) 

are responsible for much of the restoration and preservation of coastal wetlands in the state. Workshop participants 
38

Focal Watershed Review: Mississippi Coastal Watershed, Mississippi (continued)

highlighted local participation, enforcement, and restoration as the most important strategies for addressing ongoing coastal wetland loss.

Tools to address limitations of regulations.

•	 Local participation and education. Participants agreed 

that local participation and education are critically 

important for raising local awareness and involvement; 

these tools are currently used, to varying degrees and 

with varying success, to address coastal wetland stressors 

in the focal watershed. Some work is being conducted 

to raise awareness of wetland issues and to solicit partnerships with local officials and the public to provide 

information about which activities require a permit. In 

several communities, this outreach includes bi-annual 

community sessions hosted by MDMR where planners, 

developers, MDMR, the Army Corps, USFWS, MDEQ, 

and other agencies are invited to talk about their roles in 

the permitting process. Also during these sessions, the 

Coastal Preserves Program gives an informative presentation on wetlands and why they are important. Participants thought that this type of outreach was valuable in 

facilitating inter-agency collaboration and coordination, 

and could improve wetland protection by expanding 

information sharing and communication among officials.

Municipalities have primary authority related to land use 

planning and development, giving them a unique opportunity to guide coastal resource protection. Pass Christian 

was noted as an example of a city that coordinates with 

MDMR to ensure that building permit applicants have 

sought other appropriate permits (e.g., wetland permits) 

prior to construction. They also contact the appropriate resource agencies if they are uncertain about how 

to proceed on a specific proposed project. Participants 

estimated that approximately 10 municipalities exist in 

the watershed, and agreed that expanding the type of 

close coordination that occurs with Pass Christian to all 

municipalities in the watershed would benefit wetland 

conservation efforts. Smart Coast15 was also mentioned 

as an educational resource that is effective in fostering 

local coastal wetlands protection through smart growth 

practices.

•	 Enforcement. Participants stressed the importance of a 

strong enforcement presence to ensure compliance with 

state and federal wetlands regulations and to ensure that 

people conducting activities within jurisdictional wetland 

areas apply for all necessary permits.

•	 Collaboration. Participants mentioned the value of 

co-locating federal agencies with state agencies, and in 

particular, voiced a desire for a stronger NOAA presence. 

The Army Corps established a field office, co-located 

with the MDMR, following Hurricane Katrina in late 

2005. This allowed for a joint effort in the post-Katrina 

recovery effort. Since then, the Army Corps continues to 

maintain the Biloxi field office to support a collaborative 

relationship with the MDMR, as well as other agencies, and provide closer contact for stakeholders and the 

regulated public along the Mississippi Coast. The “Roles 

and Responsibilities” section of Appendix C describes the 

coastal wetland protection roles of agencies in more detail.

15 Smart Coast, an organization supporting sustainable development, is helping move the Gulf region toward a regional long-range comprehensive plan 

that balances growth with the need to protect important ecological resources. For more information, visit http://smartcoast.org.

Tools to address coastal development.

Participants discussed wetland mitigation as a tool that can 

offset wetland losses, citing a number of programs in place 

to ensure that it is effective. They discussed these programs, 

pointing to some examples and mentioning improvements 

that might be considered.

•	 Wetland compensatory mitigation. Under regulations 

established by the Army Corps (33 CFR 325 and 332) 

and EPA (40 CFR 230), compensatory mitigation is 

defined as “the restoration (re-establishment or rehabilitation), establishment (creation), enhancement, and/or in 

certain circumstances preservation of aquatic resources 

for the purposes of offsetting unavoidable adverse 

impacts which remain after all appropriate and practicable avoidance and minimization had been achieved.” 

The Army Corps implements a watershed-based 

approach to compensatory mitigation, which is defined 

in part as: “an analytical process for making compensatory mitigation decisions that support the sustainability 

or improvement of aquatic resources in a watershed. 

It involves consideration of watershed needs, and how 

locations and types of compensatory mitigation projects 

address those needs” (see 33 CFR 332.2 for complete 

definition).

The National Research Council (2001) recommended 

a watershed approach to compensatory mitigation as a 

better way to achieve compensation for wetland losses 
39

Focal Watershed Review: Mississippi Coastal Watershed, Mississippi (continued)

than the previous automatic preference for on-site and 

in-kind compensatory mitigation. This recommendation 

is a cornerstone of the joint Army Corps/EPA mitigation 

rule promulgated in 2008.

•	 Mitigation banks. The Mobile District Mitigation 

Banking Interagency Review Team (IRT) oversees 11 

commercial mitigation banks, two private Mississippi 

Department of Transportation (MDOT) mitigation 

banks, and three private single-client mitigation banks 

in the six Mississippi coastal counties. The majority (65 

percent) of the acres in these banks has undergone (or 

will undergo) a type of restoration called “rehabilitation,” 

which involves altering an existing degraded wetland 

area to increase its function but not increasing total 

wetland acreage. The next largest category (21 percent) is 

“enhancement,” which also involves increasing function 

but not acreage (RIBITS, 2011). Within the Mississippi 

Coastal watershed, there are more than 13,000 acres 

of wetlands being managed within 15 mitigation sites. 

Mitigation banks are required to demonstrate to the IRT 

that the bank has achieved measurable ecologically based 

success criteria in order to receive marketable mitigation 

credits. Of these wetlands being managed for wetland 

credits, approximately 90 percent are being managed 

for pine savanna wetland restoration, approximately 8 

percent for bottomland hardwood enhancement, and 2 

percent for bottomland hardwood and emergent marsh 

preservation.

•	 In-lieu fee programs. The Army Corps, as chair of the 

IRT, is working with other federal and state agencies to 

evaluate three in-lieu fee proposals in the Turkey Creek 

sub-watershed. Cumulatively, the three sites cover nearly 

171 acres of wetlands. Review participants mentioned 

Turkey Creek as a good example of both a watershed 

management approach and an in-lieu fee program in 

the focal watershed. The Land Trust for Mississippi 

Coastal Plain (LTMCP), a local non-profit organization, manages the 171-credit project.16 The creek itself 

is an impaired water body—as identified on the CWA 

Section 303(d) list—with flooding issues in a heavily 

urbanized area (LTMCP, 2006). Additionally, the creek 

has important historical and cultural value to the local 

population, whom review participants noted as having a 

strong appreciation of the value of wetlands. The active 

and engaged community fought to pass a local ordinance 

to require that impacts within the Turkey Creek watershed are mitigated within the watershed. While the Army 

Corps cannot enforce the ordinance (the city and county 

do), they still support it. Participants noted Turkey Creek 

as a good example of how engaged stakeholders using 

available tools and data can address wetland loss.

•	 Location of compensatory mitigation with respect to 

impacts. Some participants expressed concern about mitigation occurring outside the watershed where impacts 

are incurred. It was thought that this out-of-watershed 

mitigation could be resulting in a significant net loss 

of wetlands in coastal Mississippi. The Army Corps 

responded that its approach to mitigation in coastal 

Mississippi has changed within the last five years. The 

service area (the geographic area within which impacts 

are mitigated) for the initial mitigation banks consisted 

of the six coastal counties (Hancock, Harrison, Jackson, 

Pearl River, Stone, and George), an area that includes all 

or part of four watersheds as defined by USGS eight-digit 

HUCs. This service area was based on the mitigation 

banker’s project feasibility analysis and the needs of the 

CWA Section 404 permit program. As new banks were 

approved, they were assigned the same mitigation area 

as the older banks in order to be competitive. However, 

pursuant to the 2008 federal mitigation regulations (33 

CFR 332.3), the Army Corps has begun to incorporate 

a watershed-based approach to compensatory mitigation decisions, which includes the requirement that 

‘‘compensation for impacts to aquatic resources in coastal 

watersheds (watersheds that include a tidal water body), 

should also be located in a coastal watershed where practicable” (33 CFR 332.3(b)(1). The Mississippi Coastal 

watershed comprises about half of the area of the six 

coastal counties in Mississippi. According to the Army 

Corps, few, if any, projects on the coast currently mitigate outside the watershed.

•	 Watershed management. MDEQ manages watersheds 

in collaboration with stakeholders to address water 

quality issues, holding meetings with agencies such as 

MDOT and local non-profit organizations. LTMCP 

applied for and received grant funds from EPA to begin 

working with communities in six local watersheds to 

build local partnerships. Turkey Creek (within the focal 

watershed) and Red Creek (which borders the focal 

watershed) were the first partnerships established by 

LTMCP. Each of these partnerships has formed a community group that follows the action plan developed by 

the community. Both groups have been awarded grants 

to implement their plans for wetland restoration and 

environmental education (LTMCP, n.d.).

16 The Turkey Creek mitigation banking instrument is based upon the formula that an acre of wetland equals one wetland credit. 
40

Focal Watershed Review: Mississippi Coastal Watershed, Mississippi (continued)

•	 Conservation easements. A conservation easement is 

a legally enforceable agreement between a landowner 

and government agency to protect land so that it can 

be maintained in its natural condition. Conservation 

easements have been used in coastal Mississippi, including along the Wolf River, one of two freshwater sources 

flowing into the Bay of St. Louis, an impaired water 

body. The Wolf River Basin contains several sources of 

nonpoint source pollution, including wildlife, livestock, 

and urban development (MDEQ, 2000). Several state 

programs and organizations have focused conservation 

activities in the Wolf River Watershed, including an 

easement donation by International Paper in September 

1999 to the Wolf River Conservation Society (the Society 

was started in 1998 to conserve, manage, and protect the 

Wolf River and its watershed). The 950-acre easement 

requires BMPs such as permanently limiting tree cutting 

and prohibiting development along both sides of the 

river, creating a 15-mile-long by 300-foot-wide buffer 

zone (Southeast Watershed Forum, 2000).

•	 Decision-support tools. Participants noted two important decision-support tools that could be useful in managing and protecting wetlands:

» Conservation Legacy Tool. LTMCP is a non-profit 

organization based in Biloxi that works to establish a 

long-term system of conservation that reflects regional 

priorities. In collaboration with almost two-dozen state 

agencies, federal agencies, and non-profits, LTMCP 

is developing a GIS-based tool to rank land based on 

its conservation priorities. In the future, the tool will 

be used to develop conservation plans (targeting areas, 

verifying conservation value), to substantiate grant 

requests and donations by city and county governments (comprehensive planning, development prioritization), and to inform mitigation efforts.

» Low Impact Development Implementation Assessment (LIDIA). The Northern Gulf Institute has developed a tool to examine the costs of implementing 

stormwater BMPs. LIDIA began as a tool to assess the 

water quality impacts of large industrial and commercial sites (Wilkerson et al., 2010). From there, it 

evolved into a simple tool (based on Excel and a public 

domain mapping tool) that could inform the design 

industry about water quality/quantity benefits of 

implementing BMPs on new or retrofitted projects. It 

considers site and land use data, hydrological outputs, 

pollutant removal effectiveness of BMPs, installation 

cost, and maintenance cost (Wilkerson et al., 2011). 

Recently, the tool has been linked to Map Windows, a 

public domain mapping system. Unfortunately, completion of additional project stages has been delayed by 

lack of funding.

Tools to address shoreline hardening, sea level rise, 

and storms.

•	 Preservation. Both non-profit organizations and public 

agencies work to preserve wetland habitats along the 

coast of Mississippi:

» Coastal Preserves Program. The MDMR Coastal Preserves Program provides effective stewardship of Mississippi’s sensitive coastal areas. The Coastal Preserves 

Program is designed to set preservation priorities, 

acquire additional sensitive coastal wetland habitats, 

and ensure that the ecological health of these selected 

areas is maintained through appropriate resource protection and coordinated management efforts. Twenty 

sites containing 72,000 acres have been designated as 

Coastal Preserves. These preserves are mostly estuarine 

tidal marsh, but they also include freshwater marsh, 

freshwater swamp, wet pine savanna, and upland and 

island habitats (Figure 25). The state-owned portions 

of these preserves (currently about 36,000 acres) are 

being restored and managed as natural areas. The Mississippi Secretary of State’s Office is an active partner in 

the Coastal Preserves Program through an established 

cooperative agreement whereby both agencies agree to 

“effectively preserve, conserve, restore, and otherwise 

manage selected coastal wetland ecosystems, associated 

uplands and tidelands.”

» Grand Bay National 

Estuarine Research 

Reserve. The Reserve, 

established in 1999, 

includes approximately 18,000 acres, 

75 percent of which 

is within the Grand 

Bay National Wildlife 

Refuge (established in 

1992) and the Grand 

Bay Savanna Coastal 

Preserve. A majority of 

the Reserve is in Alabama, but its western 

edges fall within the 

study watershed. The 

Figure 25. The Hancock County Coastal 

Preserve. Photo courtesy of MDMR.
41

Focal Watershed Review: Mississippi Coastal Watershed, Mississippi (continued)

area is contained entirely within The Nature Conservancy’s Grand Bay Savanna project area, a bioreserve 

containing 31 rare and “imperiled” species and 20 

natural community types (TNC, 2011). The core area 

of the reserve consists of approximately 12,800 acres of 

estuarine tidal marsh, tidal creeks, or bayous; shallow, 

open-water habitats; oyster reefs; seagrass beds; maritime forests; salt flats; sandy beaches; and shell middens (Grand Bay NERR, 2011). The Reserve’s broad 

range of wetland habitats provides the ideal setting for 

numerous research projects and educational programs 

(Grand Bay NERR, 2011). The Sea Level Affecting 

Marshes Model (SLAMM) was recently applied to 

the Grand Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, 

and it was determined the salt pannes will be the most 

impacted wetland type under all simulated sea level rise 

scenarios (Warren Pinnacle Consulting, Inc., 2011b).

•	 Increased coastal resilience. Several tools and strategies 

are being used and developed in the Mississippi Coastal 

watershed to improve the coast’s ability to respond to 

rising seas and hurricanes. Additionally, beneficial use 

of dredged material can be used for habitat restoration, 

which can improve coastal resilience.

» Mississippi Coastal Improvement Program (MsCIP). 

MsCIP was created in response to the damage and 

destruction incurred during the 2005 hurricane season. 

Projects funded by MsCIP have increased the coast’s 

resilience to storms. Types of funded projects include 

beneficial use of dredge material, living shorelines, and 

property buyouts. MsCIP incorporates several different 

strategies and tools to address coastal resiliency along 

the Mississippi coast in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina 

and Rita. The unprecedented damage and destruction 

caused by these hurricanes led Congress to authorize and fund 15 short-term projects (approximately 

$108 million) to address hurricane and storm damage reduction, salt water intrusion, shoreline erosion, 

and fish and wildlife preservation. The subsequent 

comprehensive plan (approximately $1.4 billion) has 

been submitted to Congress and $439 million has 

been authorized and appropriated for comprehensive 

barrier island and ecosystem restoration aspects of the 

plan. The Army Corps was authorized to develop costeffective plans along the coast with the involvement of 

state and municipal officials. The planning process was 

and continues to be a highly collaborative effort. For 

example, staffs from USFWS and the National Park 

Service are co-located in the Army Corps office, and 

the MsCIP team works closely with USGS. To date, 10 

projects have been fully completed and five have been 

transferred to local sponsors, who are responsible for 

future operation and maintenance (the remainder are 

scheduled to be finished in 2012). Projects included 

shoreline restoration, living shorelines, restoration of 

existing hardened structures (seawalls), land acquisition, and beneficial use of sediment. When completed, 

the projects will restore approximately 30,000 acres of 

natural landscape.

» Living shorelines for coastal Mississippi. The Army 

Corps Mobile District completed a Living Shorelines 

Regional General Permit (LSGP) for the Alabama coast 

as part of its 2012 General Permit Program for Minor 

Structures and Activities, and is currently completing a 

LSGP for Mississippi. Living shorelines provide for the 

long-term protection, restoration, and enhancement of 

both stable and degraded shorelines, which are subjected to a variety of high-energy forces. Living shorelines use plants, stone, sand fill, and other organic or 

natural materials to stabilize shores. The Army Corps 

Mobile District took this living shorelines concept and 

expanded it to include structural and non-structural 

alternatives, applicable for use over a range of freshwater to marine ecosystems, useable not only by the 

private landowner but also for larger acreages targeted 

for restoration and creation. 

Figure 26. Cypress Swamp, Mississippi. Source: USFW.
42

Focal Watershed Review: Mississippi Coastal Watershed, Mississippi (continued)

The LSGP promotes the preservation, protection, and 

restoration of dunes, beaches, wetlands, submerged 

aquatic vegetation, protection and propagation of 

essential fish habitat, shoreline restoration, and nourishment. The LSGP is targeted for use in areas subjected to scour, erosion, sloughing, high energy wave 

action, storm damage, and other similar areas that are 

in need of renourishment or restoration, with focus on 

a minimalistic, naturalized approach with limited or 

temporary structural enhancement in order to achieve 

a self-sustaining, stabilized shoreline, in lieu of the 

traditional seawall or bulkhead revetments. The development of a general permit makes the use of living 

shorelines a more viable and attractive option because 

it allows applicants to proceed with work under a 

streamlined general permit process, rather than going 

through individual permit procedures.

As of the printing of this report, issuance of the Mississippi Coastal living shorelines regional permit is 

pending final evaluation by and in coordination with 

multiple state and federal agencies.

» Beneficial use of dredged material. Deer Island (Figure 27), an MDMR Coastal Preserves site, is located 

in Harrison County, at the mouth of Biloxi Bay. The 

4-mile-long, 400-acre island is a mainland remnant, 

so it is technically not a barrier island, though it does 

provide some storm protection to the city of Biloxi 

(NOAA, 2010c). The island once contained a beach 

and dune system, a salt marsh area, and a maritime 

forest, but suffered severe damage from the 2005 hurricane season (Army Corps, 2009). Dredged material 

from Biloxi Harbor maintenance was used before 

the hurricanes of 2005 to restore the eastern tip of 

the island, which had been rapidly eroding. The fill 

placement and marsh planting was a successful use of 

dredged material and the restored marsh was one of the 

few areas of the island that survived Hurricane Katrina. 

Additional restoration of Deer Island, including fill 

of the western breach and restoration of the southern 

shoreline with subsequent vegetation planting on the 

breach fill, was completed in early 2012 using congressionally authorized funding to the Army Corps.

The use of dredged material for coastal restoration 

projects was mandated through Mississippi House 

Bill 1440 (March 2010), and the state reactivated the 

Beneficial Use of Dredged Material Group in 2008. 

The Group is focused on finding opportunities to use 

dredged material in restoration activities and beach 

restoration.

Tools to address agriculture, including silviculture.

•	 BMPs. In order to promote silvicultural practices that are 

in compliance with CWA Section 319, Mississippi has 

developed a BMP handbook recommending standards, 

methods, and specifications for forest resource managers 

and landowners (MFC, 2008). The BMPs implemented 

in Mississippi include streamside management zones; 

best practices for skid trails and haul roads, forest harvesting, site preparation, and tree planting; and artificial 

re-vegetation of disturbed forest sites. The state has also 

developed a “Stormwater Management Toolbox” consisting of guidance for coastal communities and counties 

on how to select BMPs and implement management 

programs to reduce the impacts of stormwater runoff 

(MDMR, 2003).

Figure 27. Deer Island, 2012. Photo provided by Susan Rees, Army Corps.
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: Gulf of Mexico Review 43

Focal Watershed Review: Mississippi Coastal Watershed, Mississippi (continued)

• Aerial photography. Participants also mentioned that 

periodic aerial photography would be very helpful in 

compliance and enforcement efforts, and that it would 

benefit the state wetlands program if the fines they collected could be deposited into a dedicated fund restricted 

to enforcement or other wetlands-related monitoring/

data collection efforts.

Increase public/local government education and 

engagement.

•	 Land use planning. Participants felt strongly that local 

government should take a more active role in managing 

development and protecting wetlands through land use 

planning. They indicated that local communities should 

develop master plans that embrace smart growth concepts, set watershed-based wetland loss thresholds, and be 

firm about limiting development in sensitive areas. They 

Highlight: Buyouts.

One of the MsCIP sites visited during the review field trip was the community of Pecan, Jackson County, near the 

Mississippi-Alabama state line. Approximately 29 families were living on over 200 acres of low-lying land (Figure 28). 

The state, working with Jackson County and FEMA, had identified the community as vulnerable following Hurricane 

Georges and had initiated a hazard mitigation grant program (HMGP) to acquire repetitively damaged properties from 

willing sellers. The authorization of the MsCIP Interim Projects provided funding to purchase all the properties within 

the Pecan communities from the willing sellers and—in cooperation with the state, Jackson County, and FEMA—the 

MsCIP took over the responsibility for this area, with the HMGP funds being applied to other repetitively damaged 

areas. To date the MsCIP has purchased 165 acres (43 different tracts) and relocated 16 families at a cost of $6.2 million. Restoration efforts under the MsCIP Comprehensive Plan have been authorized to return the area to the natural 

wet pine savannah landscape. These activities are scheduled to begin in 2012.

Figure 28. Former residences in the Pecan community that were purchased 

using MsCIP funds. Photo courtesy of Susan Rees, Army Corps Mobile District, 

MsCIP Program.

What’s Needed? What’s Missing?

Despite the array of tools and strategies available to address 

stressors to coastal wetlands in the Mississippi Coastal 

watershed, participants identified several gaps in resources 

and existing programs that, if addressed, would enable 

more effective protection and restoration of the watersheds’ 

wetlands.

Increase resources for enforcement and compliance. 

•	 Additional staffing. The majority of participants agreed 

that lack of resources for enforcement and compliance 

efforts was the largest obstacle in preventing unauthorized loss of wetlands in the watershed (definitive information on how much of the wetland loss is unauthorized is 

needed to verify this conclusion). The state of Mississippi 

currently maintains three full-time positions to cover the 

entire CWA Section 401 certification program, which 

covers 82 counties. All Army Corps Mobile District 

coastal team project managers have expertise in enforcement and are responsible for compliance, but only a 

few are primarily tasked with enforcement. Workshop 

participants believed that increased funding for state and 

federal regulators would allow for a greater field presence 

to deter illegal activities. (For more information on EPA 

and the Army Corps’ enforcement roles and responsibilities, see Appendix C.)

However, the Army Corps does not believe additional 

resources are needed to deter illegal activities. The Corps 

has specific performance metrics related to resolution of 

non-compliance actions and unauthorized activities, and 

typically meets or exceeds those targets. Data for fiscal 

year 2011 show that the Army Corps Mobile District 

conducted compliance inspections on 22 percent of 

issued Individual Permits (IPs) and 19 percent of verified 

General Permits (GPs) (Army Corps Mobile District, 

2011). This is in excess of the metrics that require 10 

percent on IPs and 5 percent on GPs. They also exceeded 

performance criteria for resolution of unauthorized and 

non-compliance actions. The Corps believes these data 

suggest they have a sufficient field presence to prevent 

unauthorized actions.
44

Focal Watershed Review: Mississippi Coastal Watershed, Mississippi (continued)

further contended that municipalities need to be educated about the authority they have to enforce building 

permits, and be willing to exercise that authority instead 

of expecting the state to do it.

•	 Dissemination of information and lessons learned.

Participants also felt the public has not learned some 

important lessons from Hurricane Katrina, such as 

the idea that allowing coastal wetlands to stay in their 

natural state performing flood control functions is valuable ecologically and for society. They added that there 

needs to be a “paradigm shift” when it comes to what 

waterfront property owners value. Participants stated 

that living shorelines need to be embraced as the best 

option for addressing sea-level rise, erosion, and flooding. Additionally, participants felt that landowners need 

to be more informed about actions they take that affect 

adjacent or nearby wetlands and which actions require 

wetlands permits. (There may be a false perception that, 

having received a building permit, a developer needs no 

further permits for additional activities undertaken by 

the landowner.) One participant suggested providing 

available wetland maps to municipal building inspectors 

as a tool to inform both the inspectors and the landowners about locations were wetland permits may be required 

for development projects.

Strengthen watershed-based management.

•	 Require smaller-scale watershed-based mitigation. The 

Army Corps/EPA watershed approach to compensatory 

mitigation often results in a determination that on-site, 

in-kind mitigation is not the most environmentally 

preferable option and may not offset authorized losses 

of waters. Nonetheless, participants expressed a strong 

preference for compensatory mitigation to occur as close 

to the wetland impact as possible, to prevent a net loss of 

wetland functions and values in areas closest to the coast. 

Using smaller watersheds as the context for mitigation 

decisions may help in retaining wetland functions closer 

to the area of impact.

•	 Increase watershed management teams. Participants 

agreed that watershed management teams are valuable 

collaborative groups that are underutilized in coastal 

areas in general and in the Mississippi Coastal watershed 

in particular. Participants thought that organizing additional watershed management teams would be a major 

step toward more comprehensive watershed management 

and more effective protection and management of 

wetlands.

•	 Develop and implement special area management 

plans (SAMP). The Coastal Zone Management Act 

encourages the use of SAMPs to provide for increased 

specificity in protecting natural resources, reasonable 

coastal economic growth, and improved predictability 

in government decision-making. SAMPs are detailed 

watershed management plans that guide development 

in a defined geographic area. They generally guide 

development by making environmentally sensitive areas 

more difficult to develop. In Mississippi, SAMPs could 

strengthen the coastal wetlands program by integrating 

its activities into an overall management plan. Currently, 

the coastal program only covers a fairly narrow portion 

of coastal wetlands (as defined by state statute). A SAMP 

was developed for the Port of Pascagoula in the 1980s 

and continues to guide development in that portion of 

Jackson County. MDMR indicated that it would be supportive of developing more SAMPs, but does not have 

the capacity to be involved due to limited resources.

Other gaps and needs to address multiple wetland 

stressors.

•	 Increase monitoring. Participants noted that there is 

currently no long-term geospatially based ecological 

monitoring in the focal watershed or across the Gulf. 

These data and ecological history are needed to improve 

restoration, mitigation, and land use planning efforts. 

Louisiana’s Coastwide Reference Monitoring System was 

cited as a model of what is needed; participants suggested 

that the Gulf of Mexico Alliance should be used as a 

vehicle for developing models, other tools, and collecting 

relevant data. Other ideas included developing a cumulative impact analysis tool for regulatory decision-making 

and a tool to model water quality impacts from filling 

wetlands.

•	 MsCIP. Participants noted a gap in the full implementation of the MsCIP. Although funds have been provided 

for a portion of the program (e.g., $439 million for 

barrier island and ecosystem restoration), a critical aspect 

of the program remains unauthorized and unfunded. An 

additional $800 million would allow for the acquisition 

of approximately 2,000 parcels from willing sellers within 

the high hazard area of the coast. These lands would be 

subsequently returned to their natural landscape.
45

Conclusion

The Gulf of Mexico coastal wetland review is the fourth 

and last in a series that the Coastal Wetlands Team conducted. The Gulf region reviews have given federal agencies a greater understanding of coastal wetland loss in the 

region, including important insights into the causes of 

these losses. Several common themes have emerged from 

the Gulf region focal watershed reviews:

•	 Development pressure was the primary stressor of concern 

to participants in both watersheds. This includes both 

direct impacts (filling) and indirect impacts (stormwater 

runoff, shoreline armoring, etc.). 

•	 The limitations of regulations and lack of accurate characterization of coastal wetland losses (through mapping, 

centralized databases) are important issues that hinder the 

protection of coastal wetlands.

•	 In Galveston Bay and the Mississippi Coast, recent 

Supreme Court decisions (Rapanos and SWANCC) have 

had significant impacts on coastal wetland loss, specifically 

limiting federal protection for certain isolated, freshwater 

wetlands under CWA Section 404.

•	 The impact of sea level rise, storms, and other climate 

change issues was raised in both focal watershed reviews as 

a stressor of concern; participants noted that more information is needed to assess the impacts of climate change.

•	 Subsidence attributed to oil and groundwater extraction—noted as a significant issue in the past—has become 

less of a threat to coastal wetlands due to decreases in 

extraction activities and new management approaches. 

A number of tools and strategies were suggested that could 

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

regions:

•	 Beneficial use of dredged material is a restoration strategy being employed successfully in the Galveston Bay and 

Mississippi Coastal watersheds.

•	 Watershed planning has been used in both watersheds 

to protect wetlands and manage growth. Along with 

land use planning, participants believed, this strategy 

could improve development practices across the Gulf, but 

continued education and outreach to the public and local 

municipalities will be needed to increase the strategy’s 

popularity.

•	 In both watersheds there was strong support for conservation of existing coastal wetlands through direct purchase 

of land or through conservation easements as a primary 

strategy that guarantees preservation of coastal wetland 

acreage.

•	 Although not a common strategy, property buyouts have 

been used to remove properties from flood-prone areas in 

both watersheds.

•	 The development of a regional living shorelines permit

by the Mobile Army Corps District will allow “soft” solutions to shoreline erosion to become more viable alternatives to shoreline hardening by streamlining the permitting process.

The participants identified key gaps that need to be filled 

to reduce the stressors and more effectively use these tools 

and strategies. Most commonly, they cited the following:

•	 Outreach and education for both the public and local/

regional decision-makers to enhance effective planning, 

conservation, and management of wetlands.

•	 Additional resources to increase monitoring and assessment, compliance and enforcement efforts, and outreach 

programs.

•	 Widespread use and implementation of watershedbased plans and land use planning.

•	 Clarifying CWA jurisdiction and conducting studies 

on isolated wetlands (in Texas in particular).

•	 Mapping and aerial photography of coastal areas to aid 

in accurately tracking losses and assisting enforcement 

efforts.

•	 Enhancing state and/or local programs for wetland 

protection.

•	 Using smaller watersheds to guide the siting of compensatory mitigation so it occurs closer to the impact.

•	 Oversight of silvicultural practices is needed, beyond 

current BMPs.
46

Acknowledgments

Many people contributed to the Galveston review, from 

preparation to participation and thoughtful review and 

comment on notes of the meeting and the draft report. All 

participants provided a congenial and well-informed discussion. We would like to thank all of the participants who took 

time out of their busy schedules to contribute their valuable knowledge, ideas, and feedback. In particular, we wish 

to thank Scott Jones from the Galveston Bay Foundation, 

Steven Johnston and Helen Drummond of the Galveston 

Bay Estuary Program/TCEQ, John Furry of Army Corps 

Headquarters, Carolyn Murphy of the Army Corps Galveston District, and John Jacob of the Texas AgriLife Extension 

Service/Texas Sea Grant.

Many people contributed to the Mississippi Sound review 

effort. We would like to thank all of the participants who 

took time out of their busy schedules to provide us with 

this valuable feedback. In particular, we wish to thank Willa 

Brantley (MDMR) and Florence Watson (MDEQ) for 

organizing, hosting, and providing transportation for the 

CWR field trip; Chris Boyd (Mississippi Alabama Sea Grant 

Consortium, MSU Coastal Research Extension Center) for 

his help with CWR planning and providing the facility space 

to host the CWR; and staff from the Army Corps of Engineers for their help in providing information and leading the 

field trip. Many of these people presented at the CWR and 

provided data and extensive feedback on this report. We also 

thank Paul Necaise of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 

Judy Steckler of the Land Trust for the Mississippi Coastal 

Plain for providing valuable feedback on the report and for 

presenting at the CWR.

For more information on the 

Coastal Wetlands Initiative, contact:

Jennifer Linn 

Linn.Jennifer@epa.gov 

Susan-Marie Stedman 

Susan.Stedman@noaa.gov 

Nancy Laurson 

Laurson.Nancy@epa.gov 

Janine Harris 

Janine.Harris@noaa.gov t

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 (through its Office of Coastal Protection Division) and 

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) under Contract No. EAJ33C-0090CQ-0034 to Eastern 

Research Group, Inc. EPA and NOAA 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; 

herefore, no official endorsement should be inferred. Any mention of trade names or commercial products does not 

constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
47

References

Army Corps (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2009. Mississippi Coastal Improvements Program (MsCIP), Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson Counties, Mississippi 

comprehensive plan and programmatic environmental impact statement. <http://

www.mscip.usace.army.mil>

Army Corps and EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1995. Memorandum: Application of Best Management Practices to mechanical silvicultural site preparation activities for the establishment of pine plantations in the Southeast. <http://

water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/silv2.cfm>

Army Corps Mobile District. 2011. 404 certification data provided by Mobile Corps 

District.

ASWM (Association of State Wetland Managers). 2010. The complete wetlander: 

beach nourishment in Texas—no gains, only losses. <http://aswm.org/wordpress/

the-compleat-wetlander-beach-nourishment-in-texas-no-gains-only-losses/>

ASWM. 2009. Recommendations for a national wetlands and climate change 

initiative. <http://www.aswm.org/calendar/wetlands2008/recommendations_2008

_112008.pdf>

Barras, J.A. 2006. Land area change in coastal Louisiana after the 2005 hurricanes—a 

series of three maps: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 06-1274. <http://pubs.

usgs.gov/of/2006/1274/>

Bellrose, F.C., and N.M. Trudeau. 1988. Wetlands and their relationship to migrating 

and winter populations of waterfowl. Volume I: Portland, Oregon. Timber Press.

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

estuarine nekton communities. Marine Ecology Progress Series 358: 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>

The Conservation Fund. 2012. A vanishing ecosystem southwest of 

Houston gains protection. <http://www.conservationfund.org/news/

texas-san-bernard-national-wildlife-refuge>

Coplin, L.S., and D. Galloway. n.d. Managing coastal subsidence. Report prepared 

for USGS. <http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/circ1182/pdf/07Houston.pdf>

Couvillion, B.R., J.A. Barras, G.D. Steyer, W. Sleavin, M. Fischer, H. Beck, N. 

Trahan, B. Griffin, and D. Heckman. 2011. Land area change in coastal Louisiana 

from 1932 to 2010. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 3164, scale 

1:265,000. 12 p. pamphlet.

Day, J.W., Jr., D.F. Boesch, E.J. Clairain, G.P. Kemp, S.B. Laska, W.J. Mitsch, K. 

Orth, H. Mashriqui, D.J. Reed, L.Shabman, C.A. Simenstad, B.J. Streever, R.R. Twilley, C.C. Watson, J.T. Wells, and D.F. Whigham. 2007. Restoration of the Mississippi 

delta: lessons from hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Science 315: 1679–1684.

Day, J.W., Jr., G.P. Shaffer, L.D. Britsch, D.J. Reed, S.R. Hawes, and D. Cahoon. 

2000. Pattern and process of land loss in the Mississippi delta: a spatial and temporal 

analysis of wetland habitat change. Estuaries 23: 425–438.

Deepwater Horizon Natural Resource Trustees. 2012. Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill 

Phase I Early Restoration Plan and Environmental Assessment. <http://www.

gulfspillrestoration.noaa.gov/wp-content/uploads/Final-ERP-EA-041812.pdf>

Dudensing, R.M., and L.L. Jones. 2010. Agriculture taxes in Texas. <http://agecoext.

tamu.edu/fileadmin/RuralCommunities/Ag_Taxes_in_TX_Working.pdf>

Engelkemeir, R., S.D. Khan, and K. Burke. 2010. Surface deformation in Houston, 

Texas using GPS. Tectonophysics 490(1–2): 47.

Engle, V. 2011. Estimating the provision of ecosystem services by Gulf of Mexico 

coastal wetlands. Wetlands 31(1): 179–193.

ELI (Environmental Law Institute). 2008. State wetland protection: status, trends, & 

model approaches. <http://www.eli.org/pdf/core_states/Alabama.pdf>

EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2011. Gulf of Mexico 

Regional Ecosystem Restoration Strategy. <http://www.epa.gov/gcertf/pdfs/

GulfCoastReport_Full_12-04_508-1.pdf>

EPA. 2007. Chapter 5: Gulf of Mexico National Estuary Program coastal condition, Galveston Bay Estuary Program. In: National Estuary Program coastal 

condition report. EPA-842-B-06-001. <http://water.epa.gov/type/oceb/nep/

upload/2007_05_09_oceans_nepccr_pdf_nepccr_nepccr_gom_partg.pdf>

EPA. 1987. Saving Louisiana’s coastal wetlands. <http://epa.gov/climatechange/

effects/downloads/louisiana.pdf>

Eubanks, T.L., R.A. Behrstock, and R.J. Weeks. 2006. Birdlife of Houston, Galveston, 

and the upper Texas coast. Texas A&M University Press. p. 328.

FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 2011. Results of the FHWA domestic 

scan of successful wetland mitigation programs. <http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.

gov/ecosystems/scanrpt/tx.asp>

Federal Register. 2008. Rules and regulations. 73(70): 19671–19674.

Forbes, M., R. Doyle, A. Clapp, J. Yelderman, N. Enwright, and B. Hunter, 2010. 

Final report. Freshwater Wetland Functional Assessment Study. <http://www.baylor.

edu/content/services/ document.php/119417.pdf>

GBEP (Galveston Bay Estuary Program). 2009. Charting the course to 2015: Galveston Bay Strategic Action Plan. Houston, Texas. <http://www.tceq.texas.gov/

publications/gi/gi-385.html>

Galveston Bay Foundation. 2012. Public meeting on bacteria levels in the upper Gulf 

Coast. January 18, 2012. <http://galvbay.org/docs/TMDL/1-18-12_GBF_public%20

meeting%20presentation.pdf>

Galveston Bay Foundation. 2010. Upper Gulf Coast oyster waters total maximum 

daily load (TMDL) implementation plan. <http://www.galvbay.org/advocacy_

tmdl.html>

Galveston Bay Foundation. n.d.(a). Environmental flows. <http://www.galvbay.org/

advocacy_inflows.html>

Galveston Bay Foundation. n.d.(b). Living shorelines: a natural approach for erosion 

control. <http://www.galvbay.org/docs/LS_alternative.pdf>

Gonzalez, L.A., and L.J. Lester. 2012. Galveston Bay Status and Trends Project: 

oil spills. The Woodlands, TX: Houston Advanced Research Center. <http://www.

galvbaydata.org/WaterSediment/OilSpills/tabid/218/Default.aspx>

Grand Bay NERR (The Grand Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve). 2011. 

Grand Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve. <http://grandbaynerr.org/>

Gulf of Mexico Alliance. 2010. Beneficial use of dredged sediment & the federal standard: issues of concern and recommendations for action by the Alliance management 

team. <http://www.gulfmex.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/2010_goma_hcrt_

federal_standard_issues_recommendations.pdf>

Gulf of Mexico Restoration Task Force. 2011. Gulf of Mexico regional ecosystem 

restoration strategy. <http://www.epa.gov/gulfcoasttaskforce/pdfs/

gcertfStrategy10052011.pdf>

HCFCD (Harris County Flood Control District). 2010a. Brays Bayou watershed. 

<http://www.hcfcd.org/l_braysbayou.html>

HCFCD. 2010b. Capital improvement projects. <http://www.hcfcd.org/cip.html>

HCFCD. n.d.(a). Addicks Reservoir watershed. <http://www.hcfcd.org/

L_addicksreservoir.html>

HCFCD. n.d.(b). Capital Improvement Program. <http://www.hcfcd.org/cip.html>

Hendon, J.R., M.S. Peterson, and B. H. Comyns. 2001. Seasonal distribution of 

gobiids along estuarine marsh-edge habitats: assessing the effect of habitat alteration. 

Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute. pp. 428–441.
48

References

Hendon, J.R., M.S. Peterson, and B.H. Comyns. 2000. Spatio-temporal distribution of larval Gobiosoma bosc in waters adjacent to natural and altered marsh-edge 

habitats of Mississippi coastal waters. Bulletin of Marine Science 66: 143–156.

Interagency Performance Evaluation Task Force. 2009. Performance evaluation of the 

New Orleans and Southeast Louisiana Hurricane Protection System—final report. 

<https://ipet.wes.army.mil/>

Jacob, J.S., and R. Lopez. 2005. Freshwater, non-tidal wetland loss lower Galveston 

Bay watershed 1992–2002: a rapid assessment method using GIS and aerial photography. Webster, TX. 73 pp. Report No. 582-3-53336 for the Galveston Bay Estuary 

Program. <http://www.urban-nature.org/publications/documents/

WetlandLoss-FinalReportLowRes.pdf>

Jacob, J.S., and S. Showalter. 2008. The resilient coast: policy frameworks for adapting the wetlands to climate change and growth in coastal areas of the U.S. Gulf of 

Mexico. <http://www.urban-nature.org/publications/documents/

ResilentCoastWetlands-sm.pdf>

Knabb, R.D., J.R. Rhome, and D.P. Brown. 2005. Tropical cyclone report Hurricane 

Katrina. National Hurricane Center, Miami, Florida. <http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/

TCR-AL122005_Katrina.pdf>

Ko, J.Y., and J.W. Day. 2004. Wetlands: impacts of energy development in the Mississippi Delta. <http://www.lsu.edu/cei/research_projects/Wetlands_final.pdf>

Lellis-Dibble, K.A., K.E. McGlynn, and T.E. Bigford. 2008 Estuarine Fish and Shellfish Species in U.S. Commercial and Recreational Fisheries: Economic Value as an 

Incentive to Protect and Restore Estuarine Habitat. U.S. Dept. Commerce, NOAA 

Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-90, 94p.

Lester, L.J., and L.A. Gonzalez, eds. 2011. The state of the Bay: a characterization of 

the Galveston Bay ecosystem. 3rd edition. TCEQ Galveston Bay Estuary Program, 

Houston, Texas. <http://www.galvbaydata.org/StateoftheBay/tabid/1846/

Default.aspx>

Lester, L.J., and L.A. Gonzalez. 2002. The state of the Bay: a characterization of the 

Galveston Bay ecosystem. 2nd edition. GBEP T-7. Webster, TX: TCEQ Galveston 

Bay Estuary Program. <http://gbic.tamug.edu/sobdoc/sob2/sob2page.html>

Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force. 2010. The 

2009 evaluation report to the U.S. Congress on the effectiveness of Coastal Wetlands 

Planning, Protection and Restoration Act projects. <http://lacoast.gov/reports/

rtc/2009RTC.pdf>

Louisiana Sea Grant. 2010. Wetland restoration with sediment conveyance: an 

experimental approach to reduce uncertainties in attaining successful restoration. 

<http://appl003.lsu.edu/seagrant/collaresh.nsf/DisplayProjectDetail?OpenAgent&R/

MMR-32>

LTMCP (Land Trust for the Mississippi Coastal Plain). 2006. Watershed implementation plan Turkey Creek, City of Gulfport, Harrison County, MS. <http://www.

ltmcp.org/admin/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/final.TurkeyCreek.WIP.pdf>

LTMCP. n.d. Building watershed support through partnerships. <http://www.ltmcp.

org/watershed-partnerships/>

Manlove, C.A., B.C. Wilson, and C.G. Esslinger. 2002. North American waterfowl 

management plan. <http://www.gcjv.org/docs/CoastalMSpub.pdf>

Martin, J.F., M.L. White, E. Reyes, G.P. Kemp, H. Mashriqui, and J.W. Day, Jr. 

2000. Evaluation of coastal management plans with a spatial model: Mississippi 

Delta, Louisiana, USA. Environmental Management 26: 117–129.

MDEQ (Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality). 2010. State of Mississippi Water Quality Assessment 2010 Section 305(b) report. <http://www.deq.state.

ms.us/mdeq.nsf/pdf/FS_MS_2010_305_b_report/$File/MS_2010_305_b__Report.

pdf?OpenElement>

MDEQ. 2008. Mississippi coastal streams basin citizens’ guide. <http://www.deq.

state.ms.us/MDEQ.nsf/pdf/WMB_CoastalCitizenGuide112008/$File/Coastal%20

St%20Cit%20Guide.pdf?OpenElement>

MDEQ. 2007. Wetlands protection. <http://www.deq.state.ms.us/mdeq.nsf/page/

WQCB_Steam_Wetland_Alteration03>

MDEQ. 2000. Phase one fecal coliform TMDL for Wolf River. <http://www.deq.

state.ms.us/mdeq.nsf/pdf/TWB_WolfCreekDc00/$File/CoastalSBWolfCreekDc00.

pdf?OpenElement>

MDMR (Mississippi Department of Marine Resources). 2003. Stormwater management toolbox. <http://www.dmr.state.ms.us/CMP/Storm/Stormwater-Mgttoolbox.htm>

MDMR. 1999. Mississippi’s coastal wetlands. <http://www.dmr.state.ms.us/

publications/mississippi-coastal-wetlands.pdf>

MDMR. n.d. Mississippi GEMS. <http://www.dmr.ms.gov/mississippi-gems>

MDWFP (Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries & Parks). 2005. Mississippi’s 

comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy. <http://www.mdwfp.com/homeLinks/

More/Final/Chapter%204.%20Habitat%20Type%2014.pdf>

MFC (Mississippi Forestry Commission). 2008. Mississippi’s Best Management 

Practices. <http://www.mfc.state.ms.us/pdf/mgt/wq/entire_bmp_2008-7-24.pdf>

Mitsch, W.J., and J.G. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands. 2nd edition. New York: Van 

Nostrand Reinhold.

Montagna, P.A., J. Brenner, J. Gibeaut, and S. Morehead. 2011. Chapter 4: coastal 

impacts. In: J. Schmandt, J. Clarkson, and G.R. North, eds. The impact of global 

warming on Texas. 2nd edition. University of Texas Press. <http://www.texasclimate.

org/Books/ImpactofGlobalWarmingonTexas/tabid/481/Default.aspx>

Moulton, D.W., T.E. Dahl, and D.M. Dall. 1997. Texas coastal wetlands. <http://

library.fws.gov/Wetlands/TexasWetlands.pdf>

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2011a. Fisheries of the United States 

2010. NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service Office of Science and Technology.

NMFS. 2011b. Annual commercial landing statistics. <http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/

st1/commercial/>

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2011a. Coastal Change 

Analysis Program. Data available: <http://www.csc.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/data/

ccapregional/download.html>. (Data analysis was performed for this report by 

NOAA personnel).

NOAA. 2011b. Historical hurricane tracks. <http://www.csc.noaa.gov/hurricanes/#>

NOAA. 2010a. Programmatic framework for considering climate change impacts in 

coastal habitat restoration, land acquisition, and facility development investments.

NOAA. 2010b. Mississippi restoration focuses on Deer Island and beneficial use. 

Coastal Management News 5(2): 1–2. <http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/news/

docs/czmnewsapr10.pdf>

National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for wetland losses under the Clean 

Water Act. 322 pp.

Nowak, D., D. Hitchcock, M. Merritt, and P. Smith. 2005. Houston’s regional forest: 

structure, functions, values. College Station, TX: Texas Forest Service. 28 pp. <http://

files.harc.edu/Sites/HoustonRegionalForest/HoustonRegionalForestReport.pdf>

Ober, H.K. 2010. Effects of oil spills on marine and coastal wildlife. Department of 

Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of Florida. <http://www.wec.ufl.edu/

Effects%20of%20oil%20spills%20on%20wildlife.pdf>
49

Partyka, M.L., and M.S. Peterson 2008. Habitat quality and salt-marsh species assemblages along an anthropogenic estuarine landscape. Journal of Coastal Research 24(6): 

1570–1581. <http://www.usm.edu/gcrl/cv/peterson.mark/docs/Partyka%20&%20

Peterson%20final%20proofs%20coas_24_412_1570_1581.pdf>

Peterson, P. 2002. Mississippi land rush: 50,000 acres to be developed. Chicago 

Tribune. November 10. <http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2002-11-10/business/0211100098_1_land-sale-international-paper-septic-tanks>Peterson, M.S., 

and M.R. Lowe. 2009. Implications of cumulative impacts to estuarine and marine 

habitat quality for fish and invertebrate resources. Reviews in Fisheries Science 17(4): 

505–523.

Peterson, M.S., G.L. Waggy, and M.S. Woodrey, eds. 2007. Grand Bay National 

Estuarine Research Reserve: an ecological characterization. Moss Point, MS: Grand 

Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve. 268 pp.

Peterson, M.S., B.H. Comyns, J.R. Hendon, P.J. Bond, and G.A. Duff. 2000. Habitat use by early life-history stages of fishes and crustaceans along a changing estuarine 

landscape: differences between natural and altered shoreline sites. Wetlands Ecology 

and Management 8: 209–219.

Phillips, J.D., M.C. Slattery, and Z.A. Musselman. 2004. Dam-to-delta sediment 

inputs and storage in the lower Trinity River, Texas. Geomorphology 62(1–2): 17–34.

RIBITS (Regulatory In-lieu fee and Bank Information Tracking System). 2011. 

Welcome to RIBITS. <http://geo.usace.army.mil/ribits/index.html>

Rosen, D.J., D. De Steven, and M.L. Lange. 2008. Conservation strategies and vegetation characterization in the Columbia Bottomlands, an under-recognized southern 

floodplain forest formation. Natural Areas Journal 28: 74–82.

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

M. Fogarty, M.A. Harwell, R.W. Howarth, C. Mason, D.J. Reed, T.C. Royer, A.H. 

Sallenger, and J. Titus. 2002. Climate change impacts on U.S. coastal and marine 

ecosystems. Estuaries 25(2): 149–164.

Schmidt, K. 2001. Coastal change in Mississippi: a review of 1850–1999 data.

Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality. <http://geology.deq.state.ms.us/

coastal/NOAA_DATA/Publications/Presentations/Coastwide/

CoastwideHistoricalChange.pdf>

Southeast Watershed Forum. 2000. 15-mile conservation easement to protect Wolf 

River. Southeast Watershed Forum 2(3): 1. <http://www.southeastwaterforum.org/

pdf/newsletters/SEWF_Fall1999.pdf>

Sime, P. 2005. St. Lucie Estuary and Indian Lagoon conceptual ecological model. 

Wetlands 25(4): 898–907.

Stedman, S.M., and T.E. Dahl. 2008. Status and trends of wetlands in coastal

watersheds of the eastern United States 1998 to 2004. <http://www.fws.gov/

wetlands/_documents/gSandT/NationalReports/StatusTrendsWetlandsCoastal

WatershedsEasternUS1998to2004.pdf>

TCEQ (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality). 2011a. 401 certification 

reviews. <http://www.tceq.texas.gov/waterquality/assessment/401certification/401cert

ification_definition.html>

TCEQ. 2011b. Environmental flows rulemaking. <http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/

permitting/water_supply/water_rights/eflows/rulemaking>

TCEQ. 2004. Clear Streams Initiative: report on investigation/enforcement phase. 

<http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/assets/public/comm_exec/pubs/as/196.pdf>

Texas GLO (Texas General Lands Office). 2010a. Texas Coastal Management Program Section 309 assessment and strategies report 2006–2010. <http://www.masgc.

org/gmrp/plans/TX%20GLO1.pdf>

Texas GLO. 2010b. Galveston Bay oil spill data: 1998–2009. Austin, TX: Texas 

General Land Office, Oil Spill Prevention & Response Program.

TexasInvasives.org. 2011. Invasives database. Searched for Triadica sebifera. <http://

www.texasinvasives.org/observations/mapping.php?search=Go&species=TRSE6>

Texas Parks and Wildlife. 1997. Texas wetlands conservation plan. <http://www.tpwd.

state.tx.us/publications/pwdpubs/media/pwd_pl_r2000_0005.pdf>

Texas State Data Center. 2009. 2008 methodology for Texas population projections. 

<http://txsdc.utsa.edu/cgi-bin/prj2008totnum.cgi>

Titus, J.G. 2011. Rolling easements: climate ready estuaries. EPA-430-R-11-001. 

<http://www.epa.gov/cre/downloads/rollingeasementsprimer.pdf>

TNC (The Nature Conservancy). 2011. Grand Bay savanna landscape conservation 

area. <http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/

alabama/placesweprotect/grand-bay-savanna-landscape.xml>

The Trust for Public Land. 2009. Chambers County GreenPrint for growth and conservation. <http://cloud.tpl.org/pubs/convis_tx_chambercountyGreenprint.pdf>

Turner, R.E., J.J. Baustian, E.M. Swenson, and J.S. Spicer. 2006. Wetland sedimentation from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Science 314(5798): 449–452.

Twilley, R.R. 2007. Coastal wetlands & global climate change: Gulf Coast wetland 

sustainability in a changing climate. <http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/

Regional-Impacts-Gulf.pdf>

Twilley, R.R., E.J. Barron, H.L. Gholz, M.A. Harwell, R.L. Miller, D.J. Reed, J.B. 

Rose, E.H. Siemann, R.G. Wetzel, and R.J. Zimmerman. 2001. Confronting climate 

change in the Gulf Coast region: prospects for sustaining our ecological heritage. 

Cambridge, MA, and Washington, DC: Union of Concerned Scientists and Ecological Society of America. <http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/

gulfcoast.pdf>

U.S. Census Bureau. 2011a. Harris County, Texas, State and county quick facts. 

<http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48/48201.html>

U.S. Census Bureau. 2011b. 2010 Census. <http://2010.census.gov>

U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. Coastline population trends in the United States: 

1960–2008. <http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p25-1139.pdf>

USDA (United States Department of Agriculture). 2009. 2007 census of agriculture. 

<http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/usv1.pdf>

USFWS (U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service). 2012. Listing 

and occurrences for each state. <http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/

StateListingAndOccurrence.do?state=CT>

USFWS. 2006. National survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation. 

<http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/fhw06-nat.pdf>

USFWS. 1996. Final environmental impact statement/habitat conservation plan for 

proposed issuance of a permit to allow incidental take of the golden-cheeked warbler, 

black-capped vireo, and six karst invertebrates in Travis County. City of Austin & 

Travis County, Texas. <http://www.co.travis.tx.us/TNR/bccp/pdfs/Habitat_

Conservation_Plan_Final_Environment_Impact_Statement.pdf>

USGCRP (U.S. Global Change Research Program). 2009. Global climate change 

impacts in the United States. <http://www.globalchange.gov/images/cir/pdf/

National.pdf>

USGS (United States Geological Survey). 2009. Hurricane Ike: observations and 

analysis of coastal change. <http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1061/pdf/

ofr2009-1061.pdf>

Warren Pinnacle Consulting, Inc. 2011a. Application of the Sea-Level Affecting 

Marshes Model (SLAMM 6) to Galveston Bay. Prepared for The Nature Conservancy 

and the Gulf of Mexico Initiative.

References
50

Warren Pinnacle Consulting, Inc. 2011b. SLAMM analysis of Grand Bay NERR and 

environs. <http://www.gulfmex.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/HCRT_Grand_

Bay_report_4-22-2011.pdf>

Whigham, D.F., S.W. Broome, C.J. Richardson, R.L. Simpson, and L.M. Smith. 

2010. The Deepwater Horizon disaster and wetlands. Statement from the Environmental Concerns Committee. Society of Wetland Scientists. <http://www.sws.org/

docs/SWS_OilEffectsOnWetlands.pdf>

White, W.A., T.A. Tremblay, R.L. Waldinger, and T.R. Calnan. 2004. Status and trends of wetland and aquatic habitats on barrier islands, Upper 

Texas Coast, Galveston and Christmas Bays. <http://www.glo.texas.gov/

what-we-do/caring-for-the-coast/_documents/environmental-protection/

protecting-wetlands/s-and-t-upper-coast>

White, W.A., T.A. Tremblay, E.G. Wermund, Jr., and L.R. Handley. 1993. Trends 

and status of wetland and aquatic habitats in the Galveston Bay system, Texas. Galveston Bay National Estuary Program Publication GBNEP-31. Webster, TX. <http://

gbic.tamug.edu/gbeppubs/23/gdnep_23_199-209.pdf>

Wilcox, B.P., D.D. Dean, J.S. Jacob, and A. Sipocz. 2011. Evidence of surface 

connectivity for Texas Gulf Coast depressional wetlands. Wetlands DOI 10.1007/

s13157-011-0163-x <http://essm.tamu.edu/media/45630/evidence-of-surfaceconnectivity-for-texas-gulf-coast-depressional-wetlands.pdf>

Wilkerson, G.W., T. Schauwecker, W. Gallo, J. Martin, W. McAnally, and G. SalazarMejia. 2011. Developing a tool for assessing cost effective Best Management Practices 

for resilient communities. Presentation at the 2011 Northern Gulf Institute Annual 

Conference, May 2011, Mobile, AL.

Wilkerson, G.W., W.H. McAnally, J.L. Martin, J.A. Ballweber, K.C. Pevey, J. DiazRamirez, and A. Moore. 2010. Latis: a spatial decision support system to assess lowimpact site development strategies. Advances in Civil Engineering. 18 p.

Yoskowitz, D.W., J. Gibeaut, and A. McKenzie. 2009. The socio-economic impact of 

sea level rise in the Galveston Bay region. Report prepared for Environmental Defense 

Fund. <http://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/9901_EDF_Sea_Level_Rise_Report.pdf>

References
51

Appendix A: Participant Lists

GALvESTON BAy

Scott Alford, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service

John Blaha, Coastal Conservation Association Texas

Bruce Bodson, Bayou Land Conservancy

Helen Drummond, Galveston Bay Estuary Program/Texas 

Commission on Environmental Quality

Dave Evans, U.S. EPA

John Furry, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Lisa Gonzalez, Houston Advanced Research Center

Eric Hall, KBR (Water and Environmental Services)

Janine Harris, NOAA

Nate Herold, NOAA

Jim Herrington, U.S. EPA

John Jacob, Texas AgriLife Extension Service/Texas Sea Grant

Steven Johnston, Galveston Bay Estuary Program/Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Scott Jones, Galveston Bay Foundation

Dan Keesee, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service

Rose Kwok, U.S. EPA

Nancy Laurson, U.S. EPA

Brittany Lee, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Jim Lester, Houston Advanced Research Center

Jennifer Linn, U.S. EPA

Timothy Love, Galveston Bay Foundation

Brandt Mannchen, Houston Sierra Club

Grace Martinez, Galveston Sierra Club

Kimberly McLaughlin, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Carolyn Murphy, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Lili Murphy, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Erin Piper, NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service

Sue Reilly, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Gail Rothe, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Linda Shead, Shead Conservation Solutions (Texas Rivers and 

Bay Partners)

Marissa Sipocz, Texas AgriLife Extension Service/Texas 

Sea Grant

Mike Smith, Gulf of Mexico Foundation

Bernice Smith, U.S. EPA

Susan-Marie Stedman, NOAA

Sharron Stewart, Galveston Bay Foundation

Thomas Tremblay, University of Texas at Austin

Jeff Wellman, KBR (Water and Environmental Services)

Charlotte Wells, Galveston Baykeeper

George Willcox, Chambers-Liberty Counties 

Navigation District
52

Appendix A: Participant Lists

WESTERN MISSISSIPPI SOUND

Matthew Anderson, USGS

Veronica Beech, NOAA

Gerard Boos, U.S. EPA/Gulf of Mexico Alliance

John Bowie, U.S. EPA/Gulf of Mexico Alliance

Chris Boyd, Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant

Willa Brantley, Mississippi Department of Marine Resources

Colleen Charles, USGS

Alyssa Dausman, USGS

Tom Doyle, USGS

Maryellen Farmer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Tyree Harrington, USDA

Sharon Hodge, Northern Gulf Institute 

Jenny Jacobson, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Sonya Jones, USGS

Julien Lartigue, NOAA

Grant Larsen, Mississippi Department of Marine Resources

Craig Littekan, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Mike Malsom, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Ryan Moody, Dauphin Island Sea Lab

Paul Necaise, USFWS/Gulf of Mexico Alliance

Kaaren Neumann, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Mark Peterson, University of Southern Mississippi

Rhonda Price, Mississippi Department of Marine Resources

George Ramseur, Mississippi Department of Marine 

Resources/Gulf of Mexico Alliance

Susan Rees, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

David Ruple, Grand Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve

Munther Sahawneh, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Judy Steckler, Land Trust for the Mississippi Coastal Plain

Greg Steyer, USGS 

Mark Thompson, NOAA

Phil Turnipseed, USGS 

Florance Watson, Mississippi Department of 

Environmental Quality

Scott Wilson, USGS
53

Appendix B: Document List

Document/Study Title Author (Date)

GULF OF MExICO AND EAST AND WEST GALvESTON BAy

Wetlands Reserve Program ADCNR (2008)

State of Alabama Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation 

Program

ADCNR (2005) 

Water Quality in Alabama 2004–2005 Alabama Cooperative Extension System (2006) 

Coastal Wetlands of Alabama Auburn University Marine Extension and Research Center—Sea Grant Extension (1996)

Historical and Projected Coastal Louisiana Land Changes: 

1978–2050

Barras et al. [National Wetlands Research Center] (2004)

Results of the FHWA Domestic Scan of Successful Wetland Mitigation ProgramsCenter for Transportation and the Environment, North 

Carolina State University (2005)

Barrier Island Plan—Phase I: Evaluation and Recommendation of 

the Barrier Shoreline Feasibility Study—Final Report

CWPPRA (1997)

Wetlands Losses in the United States, 1780’s to 1980’s Dahl, T.E. (1990)

Not All “Isolated” Wetlands Are Isolated: Evidence of Significant 

Nexus for Coastal Freshwater Wetlands

Dean, D., B. Wilcox, J. Jacob, and A. Sipocz (2011) 

Mitigation Banking as an Endangered Species Conservation Tool Environmental Defense (1999) 

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

State Profile: State Wetland Protection: Status, Trends, & Model 

Approach

Environmental Law Institute (2008)

National Coastal Condition Report II, Chapter 5: Gulf of Mexico 

Coastal Condition

EPA (2005)

National Estuary Program Coastal Condition Report, Chapter 

5: Gulf of Mexico National Estuary Program Coastal Condition, 

Galveston Bay Estuary Program

EPA (2007)

Wetlands Education Materials EPA (2010) 

Final Report: Freshwater Wetland Functional Assessment Study Forbes, M., R. Doyle, A. Clapp, J. Yelderman, N. 

Enwright, and B. Hunter (2010)

Freshwater Wetland Functional Assessment Study (Draft Final 

Report)

Forbes, M., R. Doyle, J. Yelderman, A. Clapp, N. 

Enwright, B. Hunter (2010)

The Forever Wild Land Trust: An Interim Report to the Citizens 

of Alabama—1992 Through 2009

Forever Wild Land Trust (2009)

Living Shorelines: A Natural Approach to Erosion Control Galveston Bay Foundation (n.d.)

Galveston Bay Plan GBEP (1994)

Bay Briefings: Shoreline Management GBEP (2006)

Bay Briefings: Habitat Protection GBEP (2006)
54

GULF OF MExICO AND EAST AND WEST GALvESTON BAy (continued)

Bay Briefings: Species Protection GBEP (2006)

The Lower Galveston Bay Watershed: Potential Oil Spill Impacts 

(Presentation)

Gonzalez, L., and J. Lester (2010)

Our Estuary Grand Bay Natural Estuarine Research Reserve

Protecting Coastal Wetlands Grant, D. (2003)

Gulf of Mexico Alliance White Paper Restoration of Coastal Wetlands/Estuarine EcosystemsGulf of Mexico Alliance (2005) 

Gulf of Mexico Alliance: Restoration of Coastal Wetlands and 

Estuarine Ecosystems

Gulf of Mexico Alliance (n.d.)

Wetland Importance Gulf Restoration Network (2010)

Habitat Loss (Website) Gulf Restoration Network (n.d.)

A Guide to Protecting Wetlands in the Gulf of Mexico Gulf Restoration Network (2004)

Vulnerability of Coastal Wetlands in the Southeastern United 

States: Climate Change Research Results, 1992–1997, Chapter 

1: Overview of Coastal Wetland Global Climate Change Research

Guntenspergen, G.R., B. A. Vairin, and V. Burkett 

(USGS-NWRC) (1998)

Southeast Wetlands Status and Trends, Mid-1970’s to Mid-1980’s Hefner, J.M., B.O. Wilen, T.E. Dahl, and W.E. Frayer 

[USFWS] (1994)

Use of LIDAR in Wetland Delineation on Galveston Island, TX Henry, R.J., and L.A. Gonzalez (n.d.)

The Resilient Coast: Policy Frameworks for Adapting the Wetlands to Climate Change and Growth in the Coastal Areas of the 

U.S. Gulf of Mexico

 Jacob, J.S., and S. Showalter (2008)

Freshwater, Non-tidal Wetland Loss Lower Galveston Bay Watershed 1992–2002: A Rapid Assessment Method Using GIS and 

Aerial Photography

Jacob, J.S., and R. Lopez (2005)

Wetlands: Impact of Energy Development in the Mississippi 

Delta 

Ko, J., and J.W. Day (2004) 

Historical Trends in Wetlands Loss and Efforts to Intervene Leininger, T., and P. Hamel (2007)

State of the Bay (3rd Edition) Lester, L.J., and L.A. Gonzalez (2011)

Galveston Bay Status and Trends Project Lester, L.J., and L.A. Gonzalez (2006)

The State of the Bay (2nd edition) Lester, L.J., and L.A. Gonzalez, eds. (2002)

SONRIS Louisiana Department of Natural Resources

Coastal Preserves Bureau Management Plan (MI) MDOT (2008)

Wetland Restoration with Sediment Conveyance: An Experimental Approach to Reduce Uncertainties in Attaining Successful 

Restoration

Mendelssohn, I., and S. Graham (2010) 

Appendix B: Document List
55

GULF OF MExICO AND EAST AND WEST GALvESTON BAy (continued)

Coastal Wetlands of Alabama Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Consortium 

Wetlands: Status and Trends, Mid-1950s to Early 1990s Moulton, D.W., T.E. Dahl, and D.M. Dall (1997)

Louisiana Wetlands Reserve Program Natural Resources Conservation Service

Mississippi Wetlands Reserve Program Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Cumulative Acres Enrolled as of 2008 Natural Resources Conservation Service (2008)

Definition of High Resolution (Lidar) Northern Gulf Coast 

Geomorphology 

Nayegandhi, A. [USGS] (2010) 

Final Evaluation Findings: Alabama Coastal Area Management 

Program, December 2003 Through November 2007

NOAA (2008)

Beneficial Use of Dredge Material in Coastal Mississippi NOAA (2005)

Evaluation Findings for the Louisiana Coastal Resources Program 

March 2002 through March 2005

NOAA (2005) 

NWRC Education and Outreach NWRC (2010)

Gulf of Mexico Research Plan Sempier, S.H., K. Havens, R. Stickney, C. Wilson, and 

D.L. Swann (2009) 

Wetlands, Fisheries, & Economics in the Gulf of Mexico Stedman, S. and J. Hanson, NMFS

Status and Trends of Wetlands in Coastal Watersheds of the Eastern United States 1998 to 2004Stedman, S. and T. E. Dahl (2008)

Potential Consequences of Saltwater Intrusion Associated with 

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita

Steyer, G.D., B.C. Perez, S. Piazza, and G. Suir

Galveston Bay Status & Trends Project 2004–2006 TCEQ (2006)

Voluntary Implementation of Forestry BMPs in East Texas Texas Forest Service (2008)

Texas State Wetlands Conservation Plan Texas Parks and Wildlife (1997)

Seagrass conservation plan for Texas Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (1999)

Maps of Land Vulnerable to Sea Level Rise: Modeled Elevations 

Along the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf Coasts

Titus, J., and C. Richman (2001)

Wetland Loss in the Northern Gulf of Mexico; Multiple Working 

Hypotheses

Turner, R.E. (1997)

Coastal Wetlands and Global Climate Change: Gulf Coast Wetland Sustainability in a Changing ClimateTwilley, R.R. (LSU), and Pew Center on Global Climate 

Change (2007)

Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material (Website) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (accessed 2010)

EPA Region 6 CWPPRA (Website) U.S. EPA (2008)

Wetland Losses in the United States: Scope, Causes, Impacts, and 

Future Prospects—USGCRP Seminar 7

USGCRP (1997)

Appendix B: Document List
56

GULF OF MExICO AND EAST AND WEST GALvESTON BAy (continued)

Louisiana Fact Sheet USGS (1999)

Pre-Storm and Post-Storm 3D Lidar Topography: Bolivar Peninsula, TX (Website)USGS (2008)

Galveston Bay: Estuarine and Marine Habitat Change Analysis Webb, J.W. (2006)

Status and Trends of Wetland and Aquatic Habitats in the Galveston Bay System, Texas White, W.A., T.A. Tremblay, E.G. Wermund, Jr., and 

L.R. Handley (1993)

Coastline Population Trends in the United States: 1960–2008 Wilson, S.G., and T. R. Fischetti (2010)

Socio-Economic Impact of Relative Sea Level Rise in Galveston 

Bay (Presentation)

Yoskowitz, D.W., J. Gibeaut, and A. McKenzie (2010)

Coastal Louisiana: Attempting to Restore an Ecosystem Zinn, J. (2004) 

CRS Report to Congress, Coastal Louisiana: Attempting to 

Restore an Ecosystem

Zinn, J. [Congressional Research Service] (2004)

Wetlands Reserve Program ADCNR (2008)

MISSISSIPPI COASTAL WATERSHED

Mississippi Association of State Wetland Managers (2006)

State of the Beach: State Report: Mississippi Beachapedia (2011)

Wetland Mitigation Banking Study Environmental Law Institute

State Wetland Protection: Status, Trends, & Model Approaches Environmental Law Institute (2008)

NOAA Restoration Center Fish America Foundation (2008)

Beyond Recovery: Moving the Gulf Toward a Sustainable Future Gordon et al. (2011)

Our Estuary (Website) Grand Bay Natural Estuarine Research Reserve

Coastal Mississippi-Alabama Initiative Area Gulf Coast Joint Venture (2005)

Resource Database for Gulf of Mexico Research GulfBase (2011)

Estuaries Are Nursery for Gulf's Seafood Harman (2003)

Mississippi MASGLP

Wetlands Protection MDEQ (2007)

Coastal Management and Planning (Website) MDMR

Mississippi's Coastal Wetlands MDMR (1999)

Coastal Wetland Protection Act MDMR (2003)

Coastal Preserves Bureau Management Plan MDOT (September 2008)

Appendix B: Document List
57

MISSISSIPPI COASTAL WATERSHED (continued)

Mississippi’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy MDWFP (2009)

Through a Fish’s Eye: The Status of Fish Habitats in the United National Fish Habitat Board (2010)

States 2010 

Mississippi Wetlands Reserve Program Natural Resources Conservation Service 

What’s at Stake: The Economic Value of the Gulf of Mexico’s Natural Resources Defense Council (2010)

Ocean Resources

Mississippi's Coastal Program NOAA (2010)

Evaluation Findings for Mississippi Coastal Management Pro- NOAA (2005)

gram from January 2002 to December 2004

Beneficial Use of Dredge Material in Coastal Mississippi NOAA (2005)

Assessment of Coastal Water Resources and Watershed Condi- NPS (2005)

tions at Gulf Islands National Seashore (Florida and Mississippi)

Clean Water Act Status: Mississippi Coastal Watershed Scorecard (2005)

Historical Trends in Wetlands Loss and Efforts to Intervene Ted Leininger and Paul Hamel (2007)

Conservation Partnerships The Nature Conservancy

Imperial Palace Casino Donates $1 Million to Coastal The Nature Conservancy (2010)

Preservation 

SLAMM Analysis of Grand Bay NERR and Environs The Nature Conservancy and the Gulf of Mexico Initiative (2011)

DMR Reminds Boaters That Motorized Vehicles Are Prohibited Thompson (2010)

by Law in Mississippi Coastal Preserves

Coastal Wetlands & Global Climate Change: Gulf Coast Wetland Twilley (2007)

Sustainability in a Changing Climate 

Mississippi Delta Union of Concerned Scientists (2009)

Appendix B: Document List
58

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 
59

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. F ish 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
60

 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
61

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.
62

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
63

Appendix E: Federal Agency Programs That Support Coastal Wetland Protection, 

Restoration, and Management

AGENCy PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

EPA Clean Water 

State Revolving 

Fund 

(CWSRF) 

CWSRF programs fund water quality protection projects for wastewater treatment, non-point 

source pollution control, and watershed and estuary management via low-interest loans. SRF 

fundable projects include wetland protection and restoration, as well as creation of constructed 

wetlands for stormwater or wastewater treatment (which can include adequate capacity to ensure 

habitat values as well as treatment of effluents). 

http://water.epa.gov/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 
64

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
65

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 longterm 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
66

AGENCy PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

FWS National 

Coastal 

Wetlands 

Conservation 

Grant Program 

Authorized by the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act of 1990. Coadministered 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
67

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 dur-ing the cleanup of contaminated areas. 

http://www.fws.gov/contaminants/Issues/Restoration.cfm 

FWS North 

American 

Waterfowl 

Management 

Plan—Joint 

Ventures 

Collaborative, regionally based partnership of U.S. and Canadian agencies, nonprofit 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 

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 

Appendix E: Federal Agency Programs That Support Coastal Wetland Protection, 

Restoration, and Management
68

AGENCy PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

NOAA Coastal and 

Estuarine Land 

Conservation 

Program 

(CELCP) 

CELCP, part of the Coastal Zone Management Program, was established in 2002 to protect 

coastal and estuarine lands considered important for their ecological, conservation, recreational, 

historical or aesthetic values. The NOAA Ocean Service program provides state and local 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 

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/ 

Appendix E: Federal Agency Programs That Support Coastal Wetland Protection, 

Restoration, and Management
69

AGENCy PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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 communitybased 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/ 

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. 

Appendix E: Federal Agency Programs That Support Coastal Wetland Protection, 

Restoration, and Management
70

AGENCy PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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. 

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/ 

Appendix E: Federal Agency Programs That Support Coastal Wetland Protection, 

Restoration, and Management
71

AGENCy PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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 followup 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 

USDA 

NRCS 

Farm and 

Ranchlands 

Protection 

Program 

(FRPP) 

FRPP provides matching funds to help purchase development rights to keep productive farm 

and ranchland in agricultural uses. Working through existing programs, USDA part-ners with 

state, tribal, or local governments and non-governmental organizations to acquire conservation 

easements or other interests in land from landowners. USDA provides up to 50 percent of the 

fair market easement value of the conservation easement. To qualify, farmland must be part of 

a pending offer from a state, tribe, or local farmland protection program; be privately owned; 

have a conservation plan for highly erodible land; be large enough to sustain agricultural production; be accessible to markets for what the land 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 

Appendix E: Federal Agency Programs That Support Coastal Wetland Protection, 

Restoration, and Management
72

AGENCy PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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 

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 

Appendix E: Federal Agency Programs That Support Coastal Wetland Protection, 

Restoration, and Management
73

AGENCy PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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 wetlandrelated 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/ 

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