Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review 1

EPA-843-R-10-005C

Coastal Wetlands Initiative: 

North Atlantic Review

National Picture 

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

serve as buffers, protecting coastal areas from storm damage 

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

and recreationally important fisheries resources, providing 

food and essential fish and shellfish habitat. Wetlands also 

serve as nesting and foraging habitat for birds and other 

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

removing pollutants, nutrients, and sediments. Furthermore, 

coastal wetlands provide direct value to people in other ways, 

such as minimizing erosion of upland, protecting infrastructure and supporting the tourism, hunting, and fishing sectors 

of the economy.

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

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

particular, sea level rise and increases in hurricane intensity 

and frequency. In some regions wetlands are being converted 

to open water due to land subsidence.

Numerous recent reports have examined coastal wetland loss 

and potential strategies to address threats like climate change. 

The Association of State Wetland Managers (ASWM, 2009) 

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

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

Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps) and the National 

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

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

Corps, 2009; NOAA, 2010).

NOAA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

analyzed the status and trends of wetland acreage along 

the Atlantic coast, Gulf of Mexico, and the Great Lakes to 

provide an estimate of losses or gains that occurred in those 

coastal watersheds. Their report, released in 2008, found 

that 361,000 acres of coastal wetlands were lost in the eastern United States alone between 1998 and 2004 (Stedman 

and Dahl, 2008). This amounts to an average net decrease 

of 59,000 acres each year. The vast majority of the loss (82 

percent) occurred in freshwater wetlands, both tidal and nontidal. Nearly 60 percent of the total loss of coastal freshwater 

wetlands is attributed to “other 

development,” which includes 

conversion of wetlands to 

unknown or undetermined land 

uses (Figure 1). There were also 

losses of saltwater tidal wetlands 

to open water (deeper than 2 

meters), particularly in the MidAtlantic region. The 2008 NOAA 

and USFWS Status and Trends 

report did not examine the loss 

of wetland condition or function.

In response to these reports, EPA established a two-part 

Coastal Wetlands Initiative. The first part is the Coastal Wetlands Team, which is a joint effort between EPA’s Wetlands 

Division and the Oceans and Coastal Protection Division. 

The team’s goals are: 1) confirming wetland loss and better understanding contributing stressors; 2) identifying and 

disseminating tools, strategies, policies, and information to 

protect and restore coastal wetland resources; and 3) raising 

awareness of the functions and values of coastal wetlands, 

threats to these resources, and opportunities to protect and 

restore coastal wetlands.

To achieve its goals, the Coastal Wetlands Team met with 

stakeholders in the Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, Gulf of 

Mexico, and North Atlantic Regions (see Figure 2). For each 

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%
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review 2

of these Coastal Wetland Reviews (CWRs), the team identified key stressors; examined regulatory and voluntary efforts at 

the federal, regional, state, and local level to reduce or reverse 

coastal wetland loss; and assessed whether successful strategies 

can be replicated elsewhere. The information from the reviews 

could be used to help inform policy decisions, influence 

program direction, and develop projects to reduce or reverse 

coastal wetland loss nationally. The results of these CWRs are 

provided in a report distributed to the respective participants, 

and will also be posted on EPA’s website. This document is 

the CWR report for the North Atlantic region.

The second part of the Coastal Wetlands Initiative is the 

federal Interagency Coastal Wetlands Workgroup, which is 

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

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

Natural Resources Conservation Service, the Army Corps, 

and the Federal Highway Administration. The Interagency 

Coastal Wetlands Workgroup serves in an advisory capacity 

to EPA’s Coastal Wetlands Team by helping to identify CWR 

watersheds, participating in the CWR onsite discussions, and 

providing input on the reports.

EPA Coastal Wetland Regional Reviews

EPA conducted these CWRs to identify and better understand the stressors on coastal wetlands and the strategies 

needed to protect and restore them. EPA’s Coastal Wetlands 

Team is interested in identifying the cause(s) of losses in the 

areal extent of wetlands, as well as examining losses in wetland 

function and/or ecological integrity. Though quantifiable data 

on functional loss are limited in availability, EPA recognizes 

that it is an issue in many watersheds and included qualitative 

information to reflect this concern where appropriate. EPA 

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

tools and strategies used to address wetland function and 

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

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

describe which tools are being used and discuss participants’ 

views on their experiences and relative success with such tools.

The purpose of the CWRs is to facilitate dialogue among 

stakeholders who share a vested interest in coastal wetland and 

resource protection such that continued local, regional, and 

national efforts to stem coastal wetland losses can be increasingly effective. They are not considered a commitment of 

future resources to address issues identified during the review 

process. Each CWR is intended to provide information on a 

particular focal watershed or region and should not be considered a final assessment of the study area. Instead, each review 

should be considered a baseline reconnaissance to aid in moving the entire Coastal Wetlands Initiative forward.

This report contains points raised during the course of the 

discussions with stakeholder groups. EPA affords participants 

an opportunity to comment on CWR notes and draft reports 

in order to provide the broadest perspective possible. EPA also 

endeavors to supplement these perspectives with documentation (e.g., relevant references, citations), but it is not possible 

to do so for every comment provided. Thus, the information 

presented in this report cannot be considered the definitive and 

most comprehensive presentation of issues within the region or 

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

Consistent with other federal 

agencies, EPA is defining “coastal 

wetlands” as saltwater and 

freshwater wetlands* within HUC-8 

watersheds that drain to the Atlantic, 

Pacific, or Gulf of Mexico. “Coastal 

wetland loss” is defined as “a decline 

in the areal extent and/or ecological 

integrity** of wetlands in coastal 

watersheds” (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Coastal wetlands regions identified in EPA’s 

Coastal Wetlands Initiative.

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

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

** EPA recognizes that there are limited quantifiable data currently available regarding loss of wetland ecological integrity.
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review 3

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 subset 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., the general public, state natural resource agencies, 

academics, local governments, watershed groups). EPA uses 

stakeholder lists from the NEPs along with contacts provided 

by the Interagency Coastal Wetlands Workgroup to invite 

participants to attend the CWRs.

NEPs and their partners create and implement a management plan that is based on scientific characterization of the 

study area, and contains actions to address habitat loss and 

modification. This characterization is a collection of scientific 

information that includes an assessment of extent and condition of habitats such as wetlands. These data can help provide 

key information for the CWR assessments and reports.

2. Conduct a review of current, readily available information.

For the selected review area, the Coastal Wetlands Team gathered more specific existing information on coastal wetland 

loss, stressors contributing to coastal wetland loss, tools and 

strategies used to protect and restore coastal wetlands, and 

key information gaps that, if addressed, could help reverse 

the trend of wetland loss. Information was gathered from the 

Internet, reports provided by the “host” organization, and 

CWR invitees or participants in advance of the local stakeholders discussions. In addition, to estimate coastal wetlands 

loss, the Coastal Wetlands Team consulted with NOAA’s 

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

Team also requested permit data from the Army Corps and 

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

the jurisdiction of Section 404 of the federal Clean Water 

Act (CWA) or similar state programs. When made available 

by the relevant agency, these data were provided in the CWR 

report. Due to database limitations, permit data provided by 

the Army Corps did not cover the same time frame as C-CAP 

(1996-2006) and therefore it was not possible to compare the 

magnitude of losses identified by each. See Appendices C and 

D for more information on the CWA Section 404 program 

and C-CAP, respectively.

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.

3. Conduct stakeholder discussions.

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

to help identify a broad range of local stakeholders to participate in the discussions. The host organization (such as an 

NEP) helped to arrange the meeting logistics and used their 

partnerships to invite all the appropriate participants to that 

dialogue. Invited participants included a broad cross-section of 

business, environmental, academic, and government representatives. Invitee lists were collected from the organization 
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review 4

hosting the event, as well as suggestions from the Interagency 

Coastal Workgroup (which includes their regional representatives).

The Coastal Wetlands Team convened a stakeholder forum 

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

two-day facilitated dialogues provided additional insights 

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

within the focal watershed and growing pressures within the 

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

vested interest in the outcome of such efforts. Attendees were 

asked to provide information on threats to coastal wetlands 

(including reduction in acreage as well as function and conditions) and tools and techniques used locally to reduce or 

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

participants in advance of the reviews. While stressors are traditionally limited to “physical, chemical, or biological entities, 

or processes that adversely affect the ecological condition of a 

natural ecosystem” stakeholders in every CWR also identified 

programmatic issues as stressors related to loss or degradation of coastal wetlands. While state and federal regulatory 

programs are tools for wetland protection, limits to regulation 

are captured in the report under the “Stressors” sections in 

accordance with commonly expressed stakeholder input. EPA 

acted as a neutral facilitator and captured the discussion in 

meeting notes. While there may be disagreements among parties regarding the validity of the data presented or provided, 

EPA considered all documented sources of information. EPA 

also recognized that reference documents will not be available 

for all points raised by participants in the discussion.

To coincide with the stakeholder discussions, EPA scheduled 

a visit to nearby wetland protection, restoration, or mitigation 

projects when feasible. This enabled EPA to obtain a firsthand view of local stressors or approaches being employed to 

address wetland loss in that watershed. Collection and analysis 

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

4. Assemble a coastal wetland regional review summary.

Once the notes from the stakeholder discussions were vetted 

with the participants, they were combined with the available 

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

Although these reports are not exhaustive and only reflect 

readily available, existing documentation and the viewpoints 

of participating stakeholders, EPA believes they are a good 

indicator or snapshot of wetland issues in the focal watersheds.

The results of the North Atlantic review are summarized 

below, and are also presented in Table 1 and the “Conclusion” 

section of this report.

•	 Major stressors:

» Continued development pressure.

» Hydrologic alterations, most notably tidal restrictions.

» Cranberry bog activities.

» Other wetland losses occurring outside the regulatory 

system (e.g., exemptions, illegal activity).

» Lack of adequate monitoring and enforcement of wetland 

mitigation requirements.

•	 Major tools and strategies:

» Massachusetts’ Wetlands Loss Mapping Project, which is 

effective at assessing, enforcing, and deterring losses that 

occur outside the regulatory programs. Approximately twothirds less wetland loss has occurred since the project began.

» The Conservation Assessment and Prioritization System 

(CAPS) and site-level assessment method (SLAM) models, which are effective tools for evaluating the ecological 

function and value of wetlands. The combination of area 

and functional loss tools will provide the ability to comprehensively assess wetland status and trends.

» Removing dams and tidal restrictions—a key strategy for 

restoring coastal wetlands. Massachusetts’ Dam Removal 

Guidance could be a model for other states.

» State regulations that are stronger than federal wetland 

regulations, and local wetland bylaws that are more 

stringent than state wetland regulations; both are key to 

effective wetland protection in Massachusetts.

•	 Major gaps:

» Additional training of conservation commissioners to 

ensure that state regulations and local bylaws are understood and properly enforced. 

Questions posed during stakeholder discussions:

1. What are the root causes of coastal wetland loss in your area? 

Are there differences between fresh and saltwater stressors? 

Which are the top three stressors?

2. What are the current regulatory and non-regulatory protection 

and restoration tools being used to adapt to or mitigate wetland 

loss in your area?

3. What are the successful strategies being employed to protect 

and restore coastal wetlands in your area?

4. What information gaps would be most helpful to address loss, 

and how can these gaps be addressed?
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review 5

» A complete and centralized repository of wetland maps 

and permitting data.

» Development of additional site-level assessment methods 

for wetland community types currently not assessed.

» Streamlining restoration permitting for tidal restriction 

removal projects.

North Atlantic Review

From the rugged bluffs of the Maine coastline to the vast 

expanses of salt marshes in Massachusetts, the North Atlantic region (Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode 

Island, Connecticut, and New York) is home to a sinuous network of estuaries, embayments, and salt ponds. The region’s 

8,700 miles of coastline are home to a wide variety of coastal 

wetland habitats due in part to its tidal range. South of Cape 

Cod, tides fluctuate only a few feet, but tidal range increases 

dramatically toward the Maine/Canada border. For example, 

in Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island, tides range only 3.5 feet, 

whereas in Passamaquoddy Bay, Maine, tides range up to 28 

feet. Tides have significant impacts on the coastline, helping 

form vast mud flats, salt marshes, and sand bars. Common 

wetland types across the North Atlantic shoreline include salt 

marshes, forested and shrub/scrub swamps, bogs, and wet 

meadows. Freshwater wooded swamps, including red maple, 

hemlock, northern cedar and Atlantic white cedar, are the 

most common type of wetland in this region (EPA, n.d.).

Most salt marshes in the North Atlantic region can be found 

along the shorelines of Maine and Massachusetts. Maine 

contains the most wetlands of any state in the Northeast; onequarter of Maine’s land area is wetland. There are over 5 million acres of freshwater wetlands and approximately 150,000 

acres of tidal wetlands along Maine’s coast (Maine DEP, 1996; 

ELI, 2008). New Hampshire has the region’s shortest coastline, which contains approximately 8,000 acres of estuarine 

wetlands, less than 3 percent of all wetlands statewide (Tiner, 

2007). Coastal wetlands in the North Atlantic region provide 

productive nurseries for commercial and recreational finfish; a 

variety of shellfish, including soft shell clams, mussels, quahogs, 

scallops, and oysters; and abundant populations of anadromous 

fish, including alewife, herring, smelt, brook trout, and sturgeon. They also provide important habitat for breeding, migratory, and wintering waterfowl, and vital habitat for nationally 

threatened and endangered species, including the northern 

red-bellied cooter, roseate tern, piping plover, and bog turtle.

For hundreds of years, people in the North Atlantic region 

have relied on marsh-dependent fish species for their livelihood. For example, Narragansett Bay is home to more than 

60 species of fish and shellfish and produces an average of 1.5 

million pounds of quahogs each year (1994–2004), with a 

landed value of $7.5 million (EPA, 2008). Additionally, more 

than 200 species of birds depend on the bay’s habitats (ANEP, 

2001). One of the region’s largest estuaries with an area of 

1,320 square miles, Long Island Sound is home to over 200 

finfish species and 50 species that spawn in the estuary (Long 

Island Sound Study, 2011). The activities that take place on 

and along the Sound—boating, fishing, tourism, and swimming—contribute an estimated $5.5 billion per year to the 

regional economy (CTDEP, 2011). In Massachusetts, the 

estuarine-dependent winter flounder commercial fishery was 

valued at over $7.25 million the last three years, more than all 

other commercial winter flounder landings across the Atlantic 

combined (NMFS, 2011). The North Atlantic has a lower 

density of wetlands than other parts of the United States, such 

as the southeastern and Gulf of Mexico regions. However, two 

North Atlantic watersheds have a high density of wetlands: 

the Piscataqua River/Great Bay estuary and the Lower Penobscot watershed in Maine (see Figure 4).

Figure 3. Rocky coast at Bass Harbor Head Light, Acadia National Park, Maine. 

Source: IAN Image and Video Library.

Figure 4. North Atlantic estimated coastal wetland density. Source: Stedman and 

Dahl, 2008.
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review 6

North Atlantic Coastal Wetland Stressors 

The impact of human development and agriculture and the 

subsequent acreage loss of coastal wetlands to upland due to 

drainage and fill over the last 400 years has been, and continues to be, the greatest contributor to coastal wetland losses in 

the North Atlantic region.

Historically, an overwhelming percentage of salt marshes 

throughout the northeastern United States were ditched for 

mosquito control purposes, and to a lesser extent for salt hay 

farming (Tyrrell, 2005; Taylor, 2008). Peat was historically 

excavated as a source of fuel, and later vast areas of salt marsh 

were filled for seaport development. For example, between 

1630 and 1890, the city of Boston more than doubled its land 

area by filling over 1,000 acres (80 percent) of its salt marshes 

(Seasholes, 2003). Other historical stressors on wetlands in 

coastal watersheds include filling for agriculture and forestry 

uses. Except for cranberry bogs, which remain concentrated 

in southeastern Massachusetts, conversion from wetland to 

agricultural and forestry land uses has largely been replaced by 

residential and commercial development conversions. 

The North Atlantic region is the most densely populated 

area in the nation. According to the U.S. Census (2000), 

Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Massachusetts are ranked 

second, third, and fourth for population density in the United 

States, respectively. More than 8 million people live in the 

Long Island Sound watershed alone. The North Atlantic 

region continues to experience annual coastal wetland losses 

despite strong regulatory and non-regulatory wetland protection efforts. Although wetland laws and regulations have 

significantly slowed wetland loss, EPA Region 1 recently 

estimated that approximately 250 acres of wetlands are lost or 

altered each year in each of the New England states for a total 

of 1,500 acres lost per year (EPA, 2002).

Numerous stressors contribute to coastal wetland loss in 

North Atlantic states. Some of the most common stressors 

mentioned in the literature are listed below:

•	 Development, including residential, commercial, infrastructure (roads, sewers, pipelines), and sand and gravel operations.

•	 Agriculture (alteration for agricultural use, nutrient runoff).

•	 Hydrologic alterations including dams, tidal restrictions 

(e.g., culverts), water withdrawals, and dredging.

•	 Invasive vegetation. 

•	 Point and non-point pollution including sewage and stormwater runoff.

•	 Climate change (sea level rise, increased storm frequency 

and intensity).

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

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

Appendix D for more information on C-CAP methodology). C-CAP examines overall land use change, including 

wetlands (excluding submerged aquatic vegetation), for the 

coastal regions of the United States. The data set currently 

reports changes in wetland acreage only and does not measure change in wetland function. The C-CAP data was used 

in order to be consistent across all regions when comparing 

wetland loss. According to C-CAP estimates, approximately 

852 acres were lost in the region during the 10-year period, 

for an annual average loss of approximately 96 acres. The 

causes of the wetland losses were essentially split among four 

categories: agriculture, development, conversion to open 

water, and conversion to upland for unknown purposes (bare 

land) (Figure 5). Army Corps’ permitting data available for 

the New England states from 2006 through 2009 indicates 

that a total of 399 acres of wetland impacts (379 acres nontidal and 20 acres tidal) were authorized, an approximately 

100 acre annual average loss. Differences in loss rates between 

C-CAP and Army Corps permit data are expected because 1) 

they cover different time periods, 2) Army Corps permits only 

cover wetlands protected by the CWA (see Appendix C for 

information on CWA jurisdiction), and 3) C-CAP identifies 

both authorized and unauthorized wetland impacts.

Sprawling development patterns are an increasing concern in 

the region (Figure 6). This type of development requires the 

expansion of infrastructure and impervious surfaces, often 

resulting in increased stormwater runoff, incremental filling 
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review 7

of wetlands, and fragmentation of wetland habitat. A study 

conducted in 2002 showed a dramatic increase in the amount 

of land consumed per person between 1982 and 1997 (Wallace, 

2002). Massachusetts was found to be developing land at 7.2 

times the rate of population growth, the highest ratio in New 

England. In a region with a relatively stable population, the patterns of development are as important to coastal wetlands as raw 

population numbers, if not more important (Wallace, 2002).

In addition to wetland losses caused by direct alterations such 

as filling, hydrologic modifications have contributed to wetland acreage loss and habitat alteration. Hydrologic alterations 

include dams, culverts, channelization, and dredging. While 

the vast majority of dams were constructed long ago in this 

region, they continue to have impacts on coastal wetlands. 

(CTDEP, 2010; Maine DEP, 2005; NHCP, 2002; NYDEC, 

2010). For example, 5,400 large dams have been built in 

Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, and 

New Jersey as well as thousands of low head dams and water 

control structures that currently restrict flow and prevent fish 

migration (USFWS, 2009).

Sea level rise is also a concern in the region—especially loss 

of salt marsh acreage, an issue of particular concern in Maine, 

which contains more salt marsh (19,500 acres) than any other 

North Atlantic state (Jacobson et al., 1987). Mean sea level rise 

trends range from 0.6 feet per 100 years in Portland, Maine, to 

0.91 feet per 100 years in Montauk, New York, and have been 

steadily increasing over the last 60 years (NOAA, 2011b).

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

region. Source: NOAA C-CAP, 2011a.

Developed

27% Agriculture

24%

Bare Land

28%

Open Water

21%

Figure 6. Change in rate of population and developed land in New England (1982-1997). Source: Wallace, 2002.

North Atlantic Tools and Strategies

The North Atlantic states manage the above stressors on 

coastal wetlands using a range of tools and strategies. Regulatory programs in the region are the primary wetland protection strategy, and include local and state wetland permitting 

programs, which typically exceed federal permitting requirements and include mapping, mitigation, compliance monitoring, and enforcement. Wetland assessment techniques are 

under development in the region through the New England 

Biological Assessment of Wetlands Workgroup. This group, 

which coordinates with the national Biological Assessment of 

Wetlands Workgroup, is composed of state and federal wetland managers and scientists. In addition, coastal restoration 

programs are actively underway in all North Atlantic states.

The North Atlantic region in general, and Massachusetts in 

particular, were leaders in wetland protection in the United 

States. With the passage of the Jones Act in 1963, Massachusetts became the first state in the 

nation to regulate activities in coastal 

wetlands; two years later legislation extended protection to inland 

wetlands. In 1972, these laws were 

combined into the Massachusetts 

Wetlands Protection Act (Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 131, 

Section 40) and broadened to protect 

additional resource areas, including 100-year floodplains, isolated 

wetlands, beaches, dunes, and banks. 

Other states followed suit. Today, 

all of the North Atlantic states have 

state wetland protection laws and 

regulations protecting tidal as well as 

non-tidal coastal and inland wetlands. They also play a role in the 

CWA Section 404 program under 

the purview of State Programmatic 
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review 8

General Permits issued by the Army Corps (See Appendix C). 

Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island all 

have state-level “no net loss of wetlands” policies or regulatory provisions in place (ELI, 2008; ASWM, 2009). Mitigation banking in this region is limited. Most states focus on 

primarily mitigating losses on site (ELI, 2008). However, the 

Maine Department of Transportation is operating under an 

umbrella wetland mitigation banking program and Maine, 

New Hampshire, and Vermont have active in-lieu-fee (ILF) 

mitigation programs. In addition, in 2008, the Massachusetts 

Department of Fish and Game signed an agreement with the 

Army Corps for a limited ILF program focusing on essential 

fish habitat.

The region’s states have a legislative history of granting local 

governments their own regulatory authority or “home rule.” 

In 1957, Massachusetts passed the first law in the country 

allowing the establishment of community-based conservation commissions to protect local natural resources, including 

wetlands (Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40, Section 

8c). Other states in the Northeast adopted similar enabling 

legislation shortly thereafter. Home rule can be tailored to the 

needs of an individual community and often includes wetland 

protection requirements that are stronger than state and federal wetland laws. Thus, many communities in North Atlantic 

states have adopted wetland bylaws to provide extra protection for their wetland resources. 

Massachusetts, Connecticut, 

New Hampshire, and Rhode 

Island have enabled municipal 

conservation commissions to 

protect natural resources to 

varying degrees (ELI, 2008). In 

Massachusetts, local conservation commissions are primarily 

responsible for implementation 

of state wetland regulations. 

The conservation commissions 

review projects and issue wetland permits for both freshwater and tidal wetlands (ELI, 

2008), and 195 communities 

(out of 351) have adopted local 

wetland bylaws that are typically more stringent than state 

regulations (MACC, 2006). In 

Connecticut, municipal inland 

wetland commissions serve 

this role for non-tidal wetlands 

(Connecticut General Statutes, 

Chapter 440) while the state 

Department of Environmental 

Protection implements the tidal 

wetland permit program (CTDEP, 2009).

The North Atlantic region hosts numerous federal, regional, 

and state agency programs that protect, restore, and conserve 

coastal wetlands. This includes eight NEPs (Figure 7), five 

National Estuary Research Reserve System sites, and interstate 

agencies like the New England Interstate Water Pollution 

Control Commission (which includes all six New England 

states plus New York). This region is also home to numerous 

watershed organizations and the Association of State Wetland 

Managers, which provides information and assistance to state 

wetland program managers nationwide.

Restoration efforts in Northeast states have focused on salt 

marsh and dune restoration and on the removal or renovation of hydrologic modifications such as dams and culverts. 

In New Hampshire, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), along 

with various private and nonprofit groups, restored 35 salt 

marshes in 12 years for a total of 700 acres, primarily through 

the removal of tidal restrictions (NHCP, 2002). The Connecticut DEP (CTDEP) has completed more than 70 tidal 

projects, which have restored 1,700 acres of tidal wetlands 

(CTDEP, 2010). The Gulf of Maine Coastal Program (2011) 

established by USFWS, restores and improves the biological 

productivity of salt marshes. In the last decade, they have carried out 75 projects and restored 

2,560 acres of coastal wetlands. In 

December 2010, with the completion of a salt marsh restoration 

project in the town of Brewster 

on Cape Cod, Massachusetts 

celebrated 1,000 acres of wetland 

restoration projects across the 

state. The Massachusetts Department of Fish and Game’s Division 

of Ecological Restoration (DER) 

has overseen more than 62 restoration projects since 1998.

The Wetlands Reserve Program 

(administered by NRCS) is 

actively involved in protecting 

wetlands in the North Atlantic 

region. It is a voluntary program that offers landowners the 

opportunity to protect, restore, 

and enhance wetlands on their 

property with technical and 

financial support from NRCS. 

NRCS seeks to achieve the greatest wetland functions and values, 

along with optimum wildlife 

habitat, through easements and 

Figure 7. Watersheds of National Estuaries Programs in the North 

Atlantic region. Source: U.S. EPA, National Estuaries Program.
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review 9

restoration projects (NRCS, 2011).

The small geographic area of the North Atlantic region has 

afforded it the opportunity to effectively incorporate aerial 

imagery into state regulatory programs. Wetland mapping 

based on high-resolution aerial imagery has been critical 

to successful enforcement in Massachusetts in particular. 

Wetland inventory efforts have also occurred in New York 

(NYDEC, 2010). In Rhode Island, the Army Corps used 

aerial photos and geographic information systems (GIS) to 

assess degraded or filled coastal wetlands between 1999 and 

2008. As part of the project, over 13,000 acres of wetlands 

were mapped (Army Corps, 2008). GIS databases are used 

in several other North Atlantic states to track permitting and 

wetland impacts (NOAA, 2006).

In summary, tools and strategies identified by the Coastal 

Wetlands Team for the North Atlantic Region include:

•	 Strong state and local regulations.

•	 Use of aerial imagery to produce wetland maps for monitoring wetland acreage loss and compliance with wetland laws. 

•	 Local wetland protection.

•	 Wetland restoration, including removal or renovations of 

tidal restrictions and dams.

•	 Partnerships (e.g., watershed associations, New England 

Biological Assessment of Wetlands Workgroup, the Corporate Wetlands Restoration Partnership, NEPs, NRCS’ 

Wetlands Reserve Program). 

North Atlantic Gaps and Needs

In addition to identifying coastal wetland stressors and the 

tools and strategies to address them in the North Atlantic 

region, the Coastal Wetlands Team gathered baseline information related to needs and gaps. In general, there appeared to 

be a need for:

•	 High-resolution aerial imagery coverage for entire region 

that can be used to produce wetland maps.

•	 Tools and strategies to help states adapt to wetlands threats 

from climate change impacts.

•	 Increase in resources (staffing and funding at both the state 

and local levels) to administer regulatory programs, conduct monitoring and assessment, ensure accurate wetland 

mapping, and conduct effective outreach programs to 

homeowners, real estate agents, developers, conservation 

commissions, etc.

•	 A comprehensive wetland permitting, mitigation, and restoration database, with a GIS interface, to enable permitted 

wetland acreage losses to be compared to aerial imagery.

•	 Local conservation commission training, standardization 

of procedures, record-keeping, and other local capacitybuilding to more effectively conserve coastal wetlands at the 

local level.
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review 10

Focal Watershed Review: Cape Cod Watershed

Introduction

Compared to the other regions surveyed in the 2008 Status 

and Trends report, the North Atlantic region experienced 

the least amount of wetland loss from 1998 to 2004 (T. 

Dahl, personal communication, 2010). Nonetheless, losses 

continue to occur as the result of a variety of stressors as 

discussed above. The Cape Cod watershed (Figure 8), 

located in southeastern Massachusetts (HUC 01090002), 

was selected for the North Atlantic focal watershed review 

by the Interagency Coastal Wetlands Workgroup for several 

reasons. First, it appeared that effective tools and strategies 

were being employed to address wetland loss, including 

collection and organization of up-to-date wetland acreage loss maps developed by Massachusetts Department of 

Environmental Protection (MassDEP). Secondly, compared 

to the rest of the state, this watershed has a high percentage 

of wetlands and a relatively high rate of wetland loss. Lastly, 

there are two National Estuary Programs, Massachusetts 

Bays (MassBays NEP) and Buzzards Bay (BBNEP) in this 

watershed, as well as several active watershed groups with 

broad-based memberships that are engaged in a number of 

projects and programs to protect coastal wetlands.

The focal review watershed (Figure 8) includes the Elizabeth Islands, the islands of Nantucket and Martha’s Vineyard, and the entire Cape Cod peninsula. The watershed 

drains into Buzzards Bay, Cape Cod Bay, Nantucket 

Sound, and Martha’s Vineyard Sound. The area contains a 

variety of habitats, including pine barrens, bogs, wet meadows, wooded/shrub swamps, salt marshes, sand beaches, 

and coastal dunes. It is a dynamic landscape that has been 

altered over the years by erosion and accretion associated 

with wind, waves, and storm events. The area continues 

to experience population growth; the Cape Cod peninsula 

and nearby islands led the state in housing development 

between 2000 and 2005. Barnstable County, which encompasses the entire Cape Cod peninsula, was ranked the highest in population growth out of all Massachusetts counties 

from 1930 to 1980 (Cape Cod Commission, 2008). The 

unique natural surroundings continue to make the watershed a popular location to live, work, visit, and retire.

Coastal wetlands of the watershed support numerous 

fish species (e.g., river herring, smelt, shad, trout), which 

were formerly important components of commercial and 

sustenance fishing in Massachusetts. Several of these species 

have faced declining populations due to loss of habitat and/

or migration obstacles such as dams (MassBays NEP, 2010). 

Additionally, several of the top commercial fishing landings 

in value are species that spend some portion of their life 

cycle in estuaries (e.g., flounder, herring, haddock, clam) 

(NMFS, 2011). Beyond supporting fisheries, the coastal 

wetlands of southeastern Massachusetts are home to several 

federally protected endangered and threatened species, 

including the roseate tern and piping plover, state-protected 

species such as the diamondback terrapin, and 19 species of 

native orchids (MA Department of Fish and Game, 2008).

Figure 8. The Cape Cod HUC 8 watershed displayed with town boundaries. 

Source: MassDEP, 2010.

Figure 9. A piping plover next to a sign forbidding beachgoers from driving 

offroad vehicles near the plover’s nesting grounds. Courtesy Scott Hecker, 

Massachusetts Audubon Society.
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review 11

Focal Watershed Review: Cape Cod Watershed (continued)

MassDEP has been systematically photographing and mapping wetland change since the early 1990s using 1:5,000 

scale color infrared aerial photography. These maps have 

allowed the Department to quantify acreage losses and 

enforce illegal fills. Data provided by MassDEP for the 

focal watershed review indicate that freshwater deciduous wooded swamp has been the wetland type lost at 

the greatest rate (Figure 10) recently as well as in the last 

decade. Cranberry bog activity and residential development 

have been the main source (53.3 percent) of wetland loss 

between 2006 and 2009 (Figure 11).

According to MassDEP (MassDEP, 2005), the vast majority of the wetland acreage losses statewide have been less 

than a half acre in size, and nearly 60 percent of the losses 

between 1990 and 2001 occurred outside the state regulatory system (illegal or exempt activities). While investigations are still underway, it is likely, based on past experience, that a portion of the losses seen in this watershed 

continue to be unpermitted. While Massachusetts’ data 

indicates a loss of 28.87 acres of wetlands within this watershed from 2005-2009, according to the available Army 

Corps’ permitting data for the state of Massachusetts, the 

Table 1. Stressors, Tools and Strategies, and Gaps Identified by Participants During the Cape Cod Watershed CWR

Stressors Tools and Strategies Gaps and Needs

Coastal watershed 

development

•	 Low impact development (LID)

•	 Local zoning/wetland bylaws

•	 Education and outreach (Circuit Riders)

•	 Watershed-based management

•	 Mitigation

•	 Additional outreach to homeowners

•	 More education and training of conservation commissions

Agriculture •	 Enforcement

•	 High-resolution aerial imagery and mapping

•	 Mitigation

•	 Training on farm plan and local bylaws

•	 Strengthen exemption oversight and additional guidance to clarify exemptions

Unregulated 

alteration

•	 Enforcement

•	 High-resolution mapping

•	 Training of conservation commissions

•	 Education and outreach

•	 Local jurisdiction mapping

•	 More education and training of conservation commissions

•	 More enforcement publicity and higher penalties

Hydrologic 

modifications

•	 High-resolution mapping

•	 Restoration/priority setting through assessments and

modeling

•	 Streamlined restoration process

•	 Tidal restriction restoration prioritization

•	 Funding

Nutrient 

enrichment

•	 LID

•	 Watershed-based management

•	 Point source data in CAPS

•	 Funding

•	 More publicity and higher penalties

Water withdrawals •	 Watershed-based management •	 Assess impacts on coastal wetlands

Figure 10. Wetland loss by wetland type, 2005–2009; 

total loss of 28.87 acres. Data source: MassDEP, 2010.

New�Road,�

16.3% Other,�5.9%

Coastal�Beach,� Deep�Marsh,�

Coastal�Bank� 0.4% 6.0% Open�Water,�

Bluff�or�Sea�Cliff,�

0.8%

0.9%

Salt�Marsh,�0.1%

Shallow�Marsh�

Meadow�or�Fen,�

8.8%

Wooded�Swamp� Shrub�Swamp,�

Mixed�Trees,� 8.6%

35.4%

Wooded�Swamp�

Coniferous,�2.2%

Wooded�Swamp�

Deciduous,�36.9%

Figure 11. Wetland loss by change type, 2005–2009. 

Data source: MassDEP, 2010.

Agriculture,�

8.6%

Transportation�

Infrastructure,� Clearing�

Unknown�

Reason,�7.1%

Commercial� Residential�

0.5%

Development,�

8.3% Development,�

31.7%

Cranberry�Bog�

Activity,�21.6%

New�Road,�

16.3% Other,�5.9%

Coastal�Beach,� Deep�Marsh,�

Coastal�Bank� 0.4% 6.0% Open�Water,�

Bluff�or�Sea�Cliff,�

0.8%

0.9%

Salt�Marsh,�0.1%

Shallow�Marsh�

Meadow�or�Fen,�

8.8%

Wooded�Swamp� Shrub�Swamp,�

Mixed�Trees,� 8.6%

35.4%

Wooded�Swamp�

Coniferous,�2.2%

Wooded�Swamp�

Deciduous,�36.9%
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review 12

Focal Watershed Review: Cape Cod Watershed (continued)

total permitted wetland impacts were 21.2 acres (16 acres 

of non-tidal and 5.2 acres of tidal wetlands) between 2006 

and 2009. The MassDEP dataset differs from CWA Section 

404 permit data because it covers a different time frame, 

and because it captures unauthorized losses and losses outside CWA jurisdiction (see Appendix C). 

Table 1 summarizes key stressors, tools, and strategies to 

address them and remaining gaps and needs for the focal 

watershed review conducted for this region in southeastern 

Massachusetts.

Stressors 

The coastal wetlands of the Cape Cod watershed in southeastern Massachusetts, like coastal wetlands across much 

of the North Atlantic region, have experienced anthropogenic manipulation for hundreds of years. Discussion at 

the CWR identified five primary contributors to coastal 

wetland loss:

•	 Development

•	 Hydrologic modifications

•	 Agriculture

•	 Unregulated wetland loss

•	 Nutrient enrichment

Coastal watershed development. Almost one-third of 

Massachusetts’ residents live in coastal communities (Mass 

CZM, 2004). Although the Cape Cod watershed has seen 

a slight decrease in population density since 2000, land 

development has continued to impact coastal wetlands.

•	 Land conversion to residential/commercial development

(Figure 12). In addition to the demand for these land 

uses, local zoning requirements can sometimes promote 

sprawl and increase pressure on wetlands. Setbacks from 

lot lines, streets, and other setback requirements (e.g., 

septic systems, onsite wells) can push development toward 

wetland areas, particularly at the rear of land parcels. 

Local zoning bylaws can also promote sprawl development by requiring large lots and wide road frontage.

•	 Infrastructure. Participants noted that bridges, roadway 

crossings, railroads can modify coastal wetland hydrology, 

increase stormwater runoff, increase erosion and sedimentation, and impede wildlife movement. 

•	 Stormwater runoff. Stormwater runoff is directly connected to coastal development. Over 10 percent of the 

land area in southeastern Massachusetts is impervious 

surface (Massachusetts Bays Program, 2010), which 

results in changes to wetland hydrology. Stormwater runoff also carries pollutants into wetlands and water bodies, 

including nutrients, sediment, metals, and bacteria.

Hydrologic modifications. These modifications include 

tidal restrictions (usually affecting estuarine wetlands) 

and dams (usually affecting freshwater wetland systems). 

Flooding and sediment accumulation commonly occurs 

upstream of the restrictions, while water flows are reduced 

to wetlands downstream of the restriction. Changes in 

plant community can occur due to the changes in hydrology, which can create opportunities for invasive species to 

establish and spread.

•	 Tidal restrictions. Engineering structures such as roads, 

railroads, berms, dikes, and tide gates cause hydrological 

change to coastal wetlands by reducing maximum flooding levels and lowering salinity (Cape Cod Commission, 

2001). Reductions in water levels and salinity may lead 

Note that the information below is based on the opinions and 

observations of participants, who provided feedback on draft 

versions of this document and supplemented statements with 

documentation, where available.

Figure 12. Map of Cape Cod land conversion, displaying the large amount of 

residential development in the area over a 40-year period. Source: Woods Hole 

Research Center, 1999.
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review 13

Focal Watershed Review: Cape Cod Watershed (continued)

to replacement of native vegetation with more tolerant invasive species. Additionally, tidal restrictions are 

responsible for fragmenting wetland ecosystems, which 

reduces their capacity to store floodwaters (Cape Cod 

Commission, 2001). 

•	 Dams. There are over 3,000 dams in Massachusetts 

(Figure 13; MassDEP, 2007). Dams impede water 

flow, decrease oxygen levels, obstruct movement of silt 

and nutrients, and change river bottom characteristics 

(MA EEA, 2007). Dams alter the natural flow patterns 

according to which plants and animals have evolved. For 

example, the reproductive cycles of many aquatic organisms are timed according to naturally occurring annual 

flood cycles. Dam construction also impedes migration 

of anadromous fish populations, preventing them from 

spawning, dramatically reducing their numbers. By 

reducing flow velocity and creating relatively stagnant 

bodies of water, dams can change the wetland habitat 

from riverine to more of a lacustrine environment, and 

organisms adapt or die out according to their tolerance 

to such changes. Dams also cause increases in water 

temperature, threatening the survival of highly desirable coldwater fisheries, such as brook trout (MassDEP, 

2007). Although more dams have been removed in 

Massachusetts than any other Northeast state (MA EEA, 

2011), and many more have been slated for removal, 

participants noted that dam removal projects may gain 

some attention due to increasing interest in hydropower 

as a form of renewable energy.

Agriculture. Massachusetts ranks second in the country for 

cranberry production, and the majority of the state’s cranberry bogs are located in southeastern Massachusetts.

•	 Direct impacts. Cranberry bog farming has been a major 

cause of wetland alteration in southeastern Massachusetts, responsible for approximately 21.6 percent of all 

impacts between 2005 and 2009 (Figure 11), down from 

nearly 50 percent of all losses from 1993 to 2005 (MassDEP, 2010). According to MassDEP, direct wetland 

impacts due to cranberry bog activity typically involve 

conversion of wooded or shrub swamp to cultivated bog 

and the incremental filling of wetlands when squaring-off 

bogs (a term in MassDEP’s wetlands regulations (CMR 

10.04(c)(1)(d)), which refers to straightening irregular 

boundaries). The Army Corps has not issued any permits 

for cranberry bog expansions recently (they cite a decline 

in the industry). However, it is also possible that losses 

have continued due to unauthorized activities.

•	 Indirect impacts. Fertilizers used in cranberry production 

contain nitrogen, a key nutrient needed for cranberry 

growth. Nitrogen dissolves into the bog irrigation water 

and enters streams and wetlands as the water leaves the 

bog. Different types of bogs have different nitrogen 

loading rates. A small percentage of bogs in southeastern 

Massachusetts are “flow-through” bogs, which are not 

physically separated from streams or rivers. Unlike other 

bogs, which are separated from water bodies by berms or 

roads and often have adjacent recovery ponds to collect 

runoff, flow-through bogs release the greatest amount 

of nitrogen compared to more modern bog systems 

that implement practices such as laser leveling, automated irrigation systems, and tailwater recovery systems 

(BBNEP, 2010a).

» The Massachusetts Estuary Project’s nutrient loading 

model assumed that the annual net loading rate of 

nitrogen from cranberry bogs is about 20.5 pounds of 

nitrogen per acre of bog. This compares to an average of 15 pounds annually per septic system, about 5 

pounds per acre of residential lawn, and about 13.5 

pounds per acre of impervious surface, including 

roads, driveways and parking lots (BBNEP, 2009). 

Thus, communities working to address eutrophication 

are looking carefully at all sources, and fertilizer from 

cranberry bogs can be a significant one.

Unregulated alteration. In 2005, the State of Massachusetts determined that 59 percent of wetland alterations in 

the MassDEP’s Southeast Region (including the CWR 

watershed) were due to unpermitted/illegal fills (MassDEP, 

2005). These illegal fills were identified with MassDEP 

wetland loss maps. The amount of wetland acreage loss 

has significantly decreased compared to the first round of 

aerial photography in the 1990s, presumably as a result of 

Figure 13. There are over 3,000 dams in Massachusetts. Source: MA EEA, 2007.
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review 14

Focal Watershed Review: Cape Cod Watershed (continued)

deterrence. MassDEP aggressively imposes fines against 

violators, publicizes the enforcement actions, and requires 

restoration and/or mitigation. MassDEP is in the process of 

field checking the most recent (2006–2009) data and, as of 

the publication date of this report, has not yet determined 

what percentage of the losses are attributable to illegal fills, 

exempt activity, or are permitted losses. 

Nutrient enrichment. Estuaries are particularly susceptible 

to nutrient enrichment from fertilized lawns, septic systems, and other sources due to low flushing rates. Nutrients 

discharged to the aquatic environment can lead to eutrophication and overall decline in ecosystem health, including loss of eelgrass (important nurseries for bay scallops), 

fisheries habitat and spawning grounds, and shellfish beds 

(Massachusetts Estuaries Project, n.d.). Major sources of 

nutrients in the watershed include septic systems, agriculture, and runoff from lawns and impervious surfaces.

•	 Septic systems. Much of the developed land within 

the Cape Cod watershed is not sewered and residences, 

as well as some commercial sites, rely on onsite septic 

systems to dispose of wastewater to the ground. Septic 

systems, each of which contains a holding tank (where 

solids settle) and a leach field (which disperses the effluent into the ground, typically along trenches), are major 

nutrient sources, even when they are properly installed, 

maintained, and inspected on a regular basis. The subsurface geology of southeastern Massachusetts consists 

of sand and gravel deposits, through which water flows 

quickly with little pollution attenuation. As noted above, 

the average septic system discharges 15 pounds of nitrogen annually. Collectively, these systems, especially where 

they are concentrated on small lots near coastal water 

resources, can contribute significantly to eutrophication.

•	 Agriculture. Participants believe the main agricultural 

concern in southeastern Massachusetts is discharges from 

currently operating cranberry bogs and retired bogs.

•	 Lawns. Excessive fertilizer usage on residential and commercial lawns and golf courses leads to nutrient runoff 

during storms. More widespread use of lawn and landscaping companies may be resulting in more fertilizer 

applied to lawns, but participants noted that commercial 

applicators might actually have better practices than 

individual homeowners since businesses have a financial 

incentive not to over-apply.

Other stressors:

•	 Water withdrawals. Drinking water and irrigation water 

are largely supplied by groundwater wells in the Cape 

Cod watershed that tap into sand and gravel buried valley aquifers. These aquifers are hydrologically connected 

to surface waters. Groundwater withdrawals, especially 

during summer and early fall when water tables are 

typically at their lowest, can reduce streamflow and lake 

levels, and can affect wetlands that border them by lowering the water table and drying out soils.

» Coastal plain ponds, which occur in kettle-hole 

depressions throughout southeastern Massachusetts, 

naturally fluctuate and are inhabited by unique and 

diverse plant and animal communities. The Massachusetts Natural Heritage Program has listed over 40 

plant and animal species that occur predominantly in 

coastal plain ponds, including a number of very rare 

and quite striking wildflowers. Groundwater withdrawals may interfere with natural pond fluctuations and be 

detrimental to the distribution and presence of naturally occurring shoreline vegetation. In particular, Mary 

Dunn Pond, located in the Cape Cod watershed, has 

been the subject of concern as well as scientific study. 

McHorney and Neill (2007) investigated how changes 

to water levels caused by water withdrawals affect the 

distribution and persistence of shoreline plants.

» Participants noted that since 1999, a combination of 

municipal water withdrawals, cranberry bog diversions, and drought has led to the Mattapoisett River 

Figure 14. Major Buzzards Bay embayments and impaired waters. Source:

BBNEP, 2010c.
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review 15

Focal Watershed Review: Cape Cod Watershed (continued)

in Buzzards Bay running dry on several occasions. In 

2007, over one thousand feet of the river were dry. 

The reduced flow causes impacts to riparian habitats, 

including bordering wetlands. These 

municipal withdrawals are all within 

sub-watersheds of the 

Buzzards Bay watershed, so the state’s 

Interbasin Transfer 

Act (1984) does 

not apply (BBNEP, 

2010a).

•	 Riparian alterations.

The Rivers Protection 

Act (1996) established 200-foot riverfront protection 

areas around most perennial rivers and streams in the 

state. Many riverfronts were already historically developed, however, which altered riparian corridors. 

•	 Boating. There are impacts to eelgrass beds from recreational boating and fishing in Buzzards Bay and other 

areas of the focal watershed. Boats and particular fishing 

methods may damage eelgrass beds directly (via propellers, moorings, etc.) and indirectly by stirring up sediment that blocks sunlight (Costa, 1988, n.d.). The Mass 

Bays National Estuarine Program is conducting a project 

to replace conventional moorings with helical anchors 

and elastic ropes to begin to address some of the stress 

put on eelgrass from boaters (Baker and Evans, 2010).

Tools and Strategies

A wide array of regulatory and non-regulatory tools and strategies for addressing each of the five top stressors were discussed. 

State regulatory programs. The Massachusetts Wetlands 

Protection Act (Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 131, 

Section 40, 1960) was the first wetland protection law in 

the country. It protects banks, freshwater wetlands, coastal 

wetlands, beaches, dunes, tidal flats, marshes or swamps 

bordering on the ocean, any estuary, creeks, rivers, streams, 

ponds, lakes, and certified vernal pools. The act has broad 

jurisdiction, including land subject to flooding (100-year 

floodplains), the riverfront area (added by the Rivers Protection Act, 1996), and land under water bodies.

The act is the backbone of wetland regulation in Massachusetts. It cites eight statutory interests for which protection 

of wetlands is critically important: public and private water 

supply, groundwater protection, prevention of pollution, 

prevention of flooding, prevention of storm damage, wildlife habitat, fisheries, and 

shellfisheries. Under the 

act, no one may “remove, 

fill, dredge, or alter” wetlands without obtaining a 

permit, called an “Order 

of Conditions.” The act’s 

regulations also apply to 

activities in the “buffer 

zone” of any vegetated 

wetland, measured 100 

feet from the edge of the 

wetland. Jurisdiction also 

extends to river corridors 

within 200 feet of nearly all (except in the most heavily 

urbanized areas) perennial rivers and streams.

Participants noted the following critical aspects of the state 

regulatory program that are needed to address all of the 

primary stressors:

•	 Wetland mapping and permit database (see “mapping 

and assessment”). MassDEP uses a permit-tracking 

database to crosswalk wetland acreage losses observed on 

aerial ortho-photographs to actual permitted losses noted 

in the wetland permit database. Any losses not tracked in 

the database are immediately flagged as potentially illegal 

alterations, which can then be investigated. All permit applications (called “Notices of Intent”) have been 

entered into the database; with a few exceptions, though, 

only applications filed since the system was completed 

(i.e., late 2008) have been geolocated.

•	 Mitigation. Any amount of vegetated wetland alteration 

must be mitigated according to mitigation requirements, 

with a few exceptions (i.e., exemptions, limited projects). 

The state regulations require at least 1:1 replication (on 

site and in kind) for permitted wetland impacts. A ratio 

greater than 1:1 is required for variances. (Note: this policy differs from the federal mitigation rule. See Appendix 

C.) No wetland mitigation banking is allowed (except for 

one pilot mitigation bank authorized by special legislation in one watershed of the state) due to concerns about 

how to fully account for and ensure replacement of all 

wetland functions, and concerns that banking could 

facilitate circumvention of the avoid-minimize-mitigate 

protocol. Wetland impacts and associated mitigation are 
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review 16

Focal Watershed Review: Cape Cod Watershed (continued)

allowed only after demonstration is made that project 

impacts cannot be further minimized.

» The maximum allowable alteration of bordering vegetated wetland is 5,000 square feet, unless the project 

qualifies for a variance (i.e., it must serve a proper public purpose, an alternatives analysis must be completed 

to demonstrate the absence of viable alternatives, and 

impacts must be fully mitigated). Zero alteration of salt 

marshes is allowed and a “no adverse impact” standard 

applies to any alteration of a coastal dune. The performance standard for salt marshes states: “A proposed 

project in a salt marsh, in lands within 100 feet of 

a salt marsh, or in a body of water adjacent to a salt 

marsh shall not destroy any portion of the salt marsh. 

Alteration in growth, distribution and composition 

of vegetation shall be considered in evaluating adverse 

effects on productivity.”

(310 CMR 10.32(2))

» Conservation commissions are supposed to issue 

Certificates of Compliance that certify a project has 

been successfully mitigated according to the engineering plans, calculations, and Order of Conditions. However, MassDEP estimates that less than 

half of all Certificates of Compliance are issued due 

to lack of staff resources needed to conduct inspections (see “What’s Needed, What’s Missing?”).

Wetland restoration: removing tidal restrictions.

The Massachusetts Division of Ecological Restoration 

(MADER) is responsible for wetland and river restoration projects in the state. It and its partners facilitate 

projects, including dam removal and culvert replacement, with the goal of restoring aquatic habitats and ecosystems across the state (MA DER, 2011). DER serves as 

a facilitator for wetland restoration projects by bringing 

together partners, identifying sites, providing technical 

assistance, and securing funding. Through January 2010, 

DER has completed 62 coastal wetland projects, restoring over 800 acres (MA DER, 2011). See the “Eel River 

Headwaters Restoration Project” highlight box for an 

example of a DER project currently underway.

•	 Cape Cod Atlas of Tidally Restricted Salt Marshes.

The Atlas was designed for use by municipalities, state 

and federal agencies, and other organizations and individuals seeking to prioritize and undertake salt marsh 

restoration projects (Cape Cod Commission, 2001).

•	

•	 Dam	removals. Since dam removal projects can help 

improve flood management and overall natural capacity 

of rivers, they are routinely permitted under the Wetlands Protection Act. Because of the number of dams 

slated for removal and the number of groups interested 

in seeking permits to remove them, MassDEP developed 

a guide for permitting dam removals. The guide clarifies 

and streamlines the regulatory review process so that the 

wetland regulations are not an impediment to projects 

that will benefit wetland and riparian ecology (MA EEA, 

2007).

•	 Removing	or	renovating	tidal	restrictions. A culvert is a 

channel or drain that is installed under an embankment, 

roadway, railroad, or recreational trail, usually to drain 

water from one side of the embankment to the other. 

Culverts are most often constructed of corrugated metal 

Highlight: Eel River Headwaters Restoration Project. 

Once completed, this collaborative restoration effort in 

Plymouth, Massachusetts, will restore approximately 40 acres 

of former cranberry bogs to wetlands, including two miles of 

stream	channel.	The	project	requires	a	variety	of	restoration	

techniques	including	dam	removal,	culvert	replacements,	

habitat creation (e.g., stream channel construction, native 

plantings) and habitat enhancement. The American eel and 

river herring, in particular, will benefit from improved passage 

and habitat. Additionally, restoration activities will improve 

resiliency of the 

local ecosystem 

and offer additional 

recreational opportunities to local 

residents. Almost 

$2 million has 

been raised for the 

project,	the	majority	

from	a	U.S.	Fish	and	

Wildlife	grant.	Project partners include 

the Town of Plymouth,	USFWS,	NRCS,	

DER,	MassDEP,	The	

Nature Conservancy, 

American Rivers, 

and the Corporate 

Wetlands Restoration Partnership.

Images of Eel River before restoration (top) 

and to date. Source: MA DER, 2010.
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review 17

Focal Watershed Review: Cape Cod Watershed (continued)

pipe or pre-cast concrete (box culverts). If improperly 

sized or installed at the wrong elevation, culverts can 

impede tidal flows. If not installed properly, they restrict 

natural flows in tidal (as well as non-tidal) wetlands, leading to changes in hydrology, salinity, and plant composition (often allowing invasive species such as Phragmites 

to become established and spread). Once restrictions 

are removed or corrected, vegetation and wildlife can 

return to their natural state (Cape Cod Commission, 

2001). Participants noted that removing tidal restrictions 

addresses both sea level rise (by allowing wetlands to 

migrate inland) as well as invasive species (by eliminating 

conditions conducive to their spread).

» Winsegansett Marsh, in the southwestern part of the 

focal watershed, is one of many marshes affected by 

a transportation infrastructure project. A road and 

several footpaths divided the 30-acre marsh. To restore 

it, four small culverts were replaced with larger ones. 

Once tidal flow to the upper marsh improved, salinity 

increased, causing invasive species to die off. According 

to a survey by the Buzzards Bay NEP and local volunteers, within just three years of project completion, 

the native salt marsh grass Spartina patens increased 

from 20 percent to 32 percent of vegetation coverage 

(BBNEP, 2007).

» Partners for Fish and Wildlife’s Dam Removal and Restoration Program is a collaborative USFWS program 

that works with private landowners, conservation organizations, and state and federal agencies. The Program 

seeks to identify, prioritize, and provide funding for the 

removal or renovation of selected barriers. In conjunction with dam removals or culvert replacements, 

stream channels are being restored with the appropriate physical dimensions, bed features, and instream 

habitat. Completed projects benefit a variety of fish, 

including diadromous Atlantic salmon, American shad, 

alewife, blue-backed herring, and American eel, as well 

as resident species, including brook trout, land-locked 

Atlantic salmon, freshwater mussels, and other nongame aquatic species.1

– One example of a Partners restoration project is 

the Stony Brook project in Brewster, Cape Cod. 

Stony Brook supports a large coastal wetland and 

nearly 400 acres of habitat for river herring and 

American eels. Roads, culverts, and a former mill site 

downstream divided the salt marsh and constricted 

water flow into Cape Cod Bay. In 2006, NOAA 

awarded the Town of Brewster and local and state 

partners $1.65 million of Recovery Act funds to 

begin the restoration of 20 acres of salt marsh and 

3,000 feet of stream habitat. Once completed, the 

project will allow herring greater access to nearly 

400 acres of prime spawning habitat and hopefully 

encourage re-establishment of native marsh grasses.2 

Local wetland protection: bylaws and conservation 

commissions. In 1957, the Conservation Commission Act 

(Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40, Section 8C) 

authorized municipalities in Massachusetts to establish 

conservation commissions through a vote of the local legislative body. These conservation commissions, consisting of 

volunteers who live in the community, administer the state 

Wetlands Protection Act (over 6,000 Orders of Conditions 

annually) and also enforce local wetland protection bylaws, 

among other duties. About one-third of all communities in 

Massachusetts have adopted local wetland bylaws that are 

more stringent than Massachusetts’ wetland laws/regulations. 

1	 For more information, see http://www.fws.gov/newengland/Partners-Restoration-Dam_Removal_and_River_Restoration.htm.

2	 See http://www.town.brewster.ma.us/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=841:stony-brook-salt-marsh-restoration&catid=72:natural-resources-ashellfish&Itemid=98.
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review 18

Focal Watershed Review: Cape Cod Watershed (continued)

•	 The Town of Marshfield, located in the northern part of 

the Cape Cod watershed, has bylaws in place that are more 

stringent than the state’s Wetlands Protection Act. The 

success of these bylaws is attributed to a 20-year history 

of well-informed and well-educated local commissioners 

who have worked to maintain a high retention rate and 

mentor new members (see the “What’s Needed? What’s 

Missing?” section, which notes high turnover among conservation commissioners as an issue of concern). Review 

participants confirmed that the town regulations are very 

effective and have been tested through litigation. They 

further noted that it is important to keep the town counsel 

well informed, seek legal advice when needed, and quickly 

notify town counsel of any potential challenges.

•	 The Town of Falmouth worked with the Buzzards Bay 

NEP to update their wetland regulations in the late 

1990s. The process required 14 meetings over two years. 

The town next made major updates in the late 2000s.3

Resource areas protected include: “...any freshwater or 

coastal wetland; marshes; wet meadows; bogs; swamps; 

3	 Current regulations are available at http://www.ecode360.com/?custId=FA1385.

Figure 15. Location of tidal restrictions in Falmouth, Massachusetts. Source: Cape Cod Commission, 2001.
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review 19

Focal Watershed Review: Cape Cod Watershed (continued)

vernal pools; banks; reservoirs; lakes; ponds; streams; 

creeks; beaches; dunes; estuaries; oceans; lands under 

water bodies; lands subject to flooding or inundation 

by groundwater or surface water; lands subject to tidal 

action, coastal storm flowage or flooding; lands within 

one hundred (100) feet of any of the aforesaid resource 

areas” (Section 235-2, “Jurisdiction,” amended AFTM 

11-18-1996, Article 61, approved 4-30-1997). 

Mapping and assessment. The mapping of wetlands in 

Massachusetts is considered advanced for both the region 

and the nation. Massachusetts systematically and regularly 

collects data on coastal wetland acreage losses occurring 

outside of the regulatory system (see the “Wetland Loss 

Mapping and Enforcement” highlight box). 

•	 Unregulated fills. Once aerial photography has been 

completed and interpreted, the next step is to categorize 

and prioritize wetland losses that are observed and refer 

them to one of MassDEP’s four regional offices for follow-up (Note: MassDEP contacts EPA to investigate any 

suspected Section 404 violations). Further investigation 

requires researching permitting databases to see if any 

of the observed fills have been permitted. If no permit 

information is found in the state permitting database, 

MassDEP contacts the local conservation commission 

to see if they are aware of the activity (local Orders of 

Conditions are sent to MassDEP). MassDEP then conducts a site visit and proceeds as it would with any other 

suspected illegal wetland activity. MassDEP had funding 

for one year to compare mapped wetlands to local permit 

records and was able to quickly identify suspected areas 

of unpermitted fills. Since exemptions are not reflected 

in state or town records, a site visit is required to confirm 

whether an unpermitted fill is exempt or illegal.

•	 Deterrence. Enforcement cases were published in newspapers in an effort to alert and deter others who may have 

intended to alter wetlands without a permit. Recently, 

publicity has slowed because the majority of illegal fills 

are less than half an acre in size. Some communities have 

developed their own detailed wetland maps, which have 

helped inform commissions of all wetland resources 

within the community and have helped developers avoid 

wetland areas when designing development plans.

•	 Data management. Wetland mapping itself does not 

reveal whether a wetland alteration is permitted or 

unpermitted. The ability to connect map information to 

permit data (both state and federal permitting databases) 

is critical to making mapping a useful enforcement tool.

» Wetland Information Resource (WIRe) is MassDEP’s 

data management system, which integrates permitting 

and enforcement records with wetland acreage loss 

maps and other GIS maps.4 The integration of wetland 

maps and permitting databases was made possible by a 

three-year, $600,000 EPA grant.

Highlight: Wetland Loss Mapping and Enforcement

MassDEP has mapped wetlands across the entire state and, in

conjunction with permitting databases, has developed a wellrespected, highly credible system for tracking wetlands and 

conducting enforcement against illegal fills. 

Land cover changes detected by comparing aerial maps from 

1993 and 2000 led MassDEP to pursue criminal investigation

into cases where large wetland areas had been filled or altered 

without a permit. In 2004, MassDEP determined that approximately 59 percent of wetland loss across the entire state was 

due to illegal fill (MassDEP, 2005). Starting in 2004, MassDEP

began to map each municipality in order to identify illegal 

large-scale alterations (BBNEP, n.d.). Between 2003 and 2010 

over $3 million in penalties from illegal fills have been collected 

and 62 acres of wetlands have been restored. The production of 

statewide wetland maps from digital imagery cost about $85 

per square mile and took about four years to complete.

TheWetlands Loss Mapping Project is a majorcomponent of the

state’s wetland protection program. In 2010, however, enforcement 

of wetland loss cases decreased to the lowest number since the 

program began. This could be attributed to a number of factors, 

including fewer cases warranting enforcement (suggesting deterrence of illegal fills) and state resource constraints limiting site visits 

needed to ground-truth mapping and pursue enforcement cases.

These deep marshes (left) in Westport, Massachusetts, near Charlotte 

White Road were filled in for homes and lawns (right). Source: BBNEP, n.d.

4	 For more information on WIRe, see http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/resources/wiremacc.htm.
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review 20

Focal Watershed Review: Cape Cod Watershed (continued)

•	 Local mapping. The Town of Acushnet, Massachusetts, 

received a $7,500 grant from the Buzzards Bay NEP in 

2008 to hire a consultant to digitize wetland boundaries 

for parcels where the conservation commission has considered a permit application during the past five years. 

This will allow the town to provide accurate information 

on wetland boundaries to homeowners, realtors, and 

developers. The conservation commission is requiring 

that all future site plan submissions be in digital format 

to facilitate routine updates of their wetland boundary 

maps (Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy & Environmental Affairs, 2008).

Training/education. Although many communities have more 

stringent wetland protection bylaws than the state, enforcement 

of these bylaws, as well as enforcement of the state Wetlands 

Protection Act (which is also the responsibility of local conservation commissions), can be hampered if conservation commission members are not properly trained and educated. There 

are no educational or training requirements to be a conservation commissioner, although the Massachusetts Association 

of Conservation Commissions (MACC), the Massachusetts 

Audubon Society, the Massachusetts Association of Wetlands 

Scientists, and other groups offer several effective training 

programs, including reading engineering blueprints, understanding stormwater runoff models, writing effective Orders of 

Conditions, and delineating wetland boundaries in the field.

•	 Guidance documents. Guidance documents are a very 

important tool to local conservation commissions. Coastal 

Wetland Review participants mentioned that the state 

guidance documents on dam removal (Dam Removal and 

the Wetland Regulations, 2007, and Dam Removal in Massachusetts, 2007) are very effective. MACC has produced 

a conservation commission manual and model wetland 

bylaws. MACC also offers regular training sessions and 

workshops for conservation commissioners, including 

an annual meeting every March that attracts more than 

1,000 attendees, the largest annual environmental gathering in the state. In addition to MACC’s guidance and 

training, MassDEP has an active technical assistance 

and training program to help conservation commissions 

understand and implement state wetland regulations. 

For example, MassDEP produced a wetland mitigation 

(replication) manual in 2002. The manual is primarily 

intended for conservation commissions, MassDEP staff, 

and consultants. It provides specifications (hydrology, 

soils, slope, and vegetation) for designing and monitoring successful wetland replication projects. The intent of 

the guide is to improve mitigation success and ensure that 

these projects function as designed (MassDEP, 2002). 

» Participants generally thought that how-to manuals and 

guidance documents were very important and MassDEP 

should produce more of them. It was also noted that they 

could be more user-friendly, concise, and aimed at the 

educational level of most conservation commissioners.

•	 Delineation. Wetland mapping is an effective tool to ensure 

that permits do not allow alteration of wetlands that were 

inadvertently excluded from protection due to mapping 

errors, to help identify where illicit fill may be occurring, to 

support enforcement actions, and to discourage potential 

future violations. Knowing how to identify wetland boundaries in the field requires knowledge of plant identification, 

soil interpretation, and other delineation methods. Wetland 

delineation can be particularly challenging during the winter months, when the ground is frozen and covered with 

snow. This requires education and training of local officials.

» The MassDEP wetland conservancy maps, though 

detailed, are at a scale of 1:5,000 feet, and show only 

the larger core wetlands. They do not show all Wetlands Protection Act jurisdictional boundaries, and for 

permitting, wetlands are always delineated based on 

Before and after photographs of dam removal in Massachusetts. Courtesy of Russ Cohen, MA DER. Riverways Program.
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review 21

field surveys and soil evaluations. A participant noted 

one example of a particular area slated for development 

that, upon examination, turned out to be 90 percent 

wetland when jurisdictional lines were determined on 

site, compared to 50 percent wetlands as determined 

from the map that was provided. 

» Marginal wetlands (such as wetland areas within a wide 

transition zone from wetland to upland and intermittent 

headwater streams) are more difficult to delineate without 

an onsite inspection and in-depth training. The MACC 

conducts wetland delineation courses but they are 

optional, and not all conservation commissioners attend.

•	 Wetland circuit riders. MassDEP’s Wetland Circuit Rider 

Program has been a very popular program for conservation commissioners because it offers personalized service 

between local commissions and state wetland professionals. The idea for wetland circuit riders came from 

the days when judges used to “ride circuit” from town to 

town. Understanding that unpaid conservation commissions are the state’s front lines of wetland protection, 

and that fewer wetland permits are appealed if they are 

properly drafted (about 10 percent of all local Orders 

are appealed to MassDEP), MassDEP obtained funding from the Massachusetts Environmental Trust to hire 

circuit riders for each of its four regional offices. The 

circuit riders are available for phone consultation, but 

also attend evening commission meetings to assist commissioners in understanding and administering the state 

wetland regulations. Some towns have formed regional 

commission meetings, where the circuit riders can 

address several towns all experiencing the same problems. 

In the western part of the state in particular, where many 

smaller towns cannot afford to hire staff, circuit riders 

are highly valued for their technical assistance. Unfortunately, budget cuts have reduced the number of circuit 

riders to only three statewide.

•	 Developer pays. Participants mentioned some town 

bylaws require the developer to pay the conservation commission to hire its own wetland consultant to help review 

and condition development plans to protect wetlands. 

Consultant fees are usually based on total project costs.

» For example, a Falmouth bylaw states: “The Commission, at its discretion, is authorized to require the 

posting of a consultation fee by an Applicant. This fee 

shall be used to hire an independent, expert consultant 

to investigate the site for the proposed project and to 

examine the Plans or other information submitted by 

the Applicant to assist the Commission in evaluating 

potential adverse impacts upon a Resource area by the 

proposed project. This fee will be required in those 

cases where the complexity of the activity, the difficulty 

in determining the threat to the Resource areas or 

the size of the request or project involves and requires 

more information and analysis than can reasonably 

be supplied to the Commission without independent 

technical professional assistance” (Falmouth Wetland 

Regulations, 10.09, “Fees”).

•	 Hotlines. MACC has a hotline and Web forum to help 

connect conservation commissioners to experts.

Collaborative partnerships. Collaborative partnerships are 

strong and active throughout Massachusetts. The Massachusetts Estuary Project, Cape Cod Commission, Compact 

of Cape Cod Land Trusts, Partners for Fish and Wildlife 

(mentioned above), local land trusts, watershed associations, 

Provincetown Center for Coastal Studies, Buzzards Bay 

Coalition, National Estuary Programs (MassBays and Buzzards Bay) and National Estuary Research Reserve (Waquoit 

Bay), Massachusetts Audubon Society (with 12 wildlife 

sanctuaries in the watershed), Association for the Preservation of Cape Cod, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 

Cape Cod Cranberry Growers and Cape Cod Cranberry 

Experiment Station, University of Massachusetts (UMass) 

(with campuses in Dartmouth and New Bedford), and 

many other organizations have a strong presence in the Cape 

Cod watershed and challenge each other to better understand and more effectively protect the coastal wetlands. 

•	 National Estuary Program. The Buzzards Bay and Massachusetts Bays NEPs are actively engaged with their 

partners to protect and restore coastal wetlands in the 

Cape Cod watershed. Each NEP provides technical 

Focal Watershed Review: Cape Cod Watershed (continued)
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review 22

Focal Watershed Review: Cape Cod Watershed (continued)

support to local towns and partners in a variety of ways. 

For example, the Buzzards Bay NEP has trained area conservation commissions and new conservation agents in 

coastal wetland protection. The MassBays NEP has been 

actively involved in monitoring coastal wetland conditions and particularly addressing invasive wetland plants. 

Both programs have helped their partners develop grant 

applications for funding major land restoration projects.

•	 The NRCS helps cranberry farmers comply with wetland 

regulations. Through the development and implementation of farm plans, the NRCS helps give farmers a roadmap for improving production while managing the natural 

resource base that supports their operation in compliance 

with applicable wetland regulations (NRCS, 2008a). Plans 

have helped identify wetland impacts from cranberry 

operations and aided farmers in voluntarily restoring them. 

•	 Participants cited the Southeastern Regional Wetland 

Restoration Team as a newly formed group that is an 

excellent example of interagency collaboration. It was 

formed to better coordinate restoration project reviews. 

The team consists of state and federal agency officials 

(MassDEP, DER, Massachusetts Division of Marine 

Fisheries, NEPs, Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone 

Management as needed, EPA Region 1, and the Army 

Corps’ New England District). This review process can 

help facilitate a streamlined permitting process and identify any issues early in the process so redesign can occur 

before major investments have been made.

Strategies for nutrient removal. Watershed-based management and TMDLs (Total Maximum Daily Loads) were a 

few of the many tools and strategies discussed by review 

participants.

•	 The Massachusetts Watershed-Based Plan (WBP). EPA 

issued new guidelines in 2003 promoting the use of 

CWA Section 319 funding for developing and implementing Watershed-Based Plans to protect unimpaired 

waters and restore impaired waters. MassDEP’s approach 

has been to develop the WBP statewide. WBP is an 

interactive, Web-based tool that presents sub-watershed 

information in a format that will enhance the development and implementation of projects that restore water 

quality and beneficial uses in the state.5

•	 Massachusetts Estuaries Project. This is a collaborative 

effort between MassDEP and University of Massachusetts’ School of Marine Science and Technology to provide water quality, nutrient loading, and hydrodynamic 

information for 89 estuaries in southeastern Massachusetts. This information will be combined using a linked 

watershed/estuary model that will predict the water quality changes that will result from land use management 

decisions.

•	 TMDLs. MassDEP has developed a TMDL strategy that 

prioritizes all listed water bodies, establishes TMDLs for 

degraded waters, and plans for implementation of best 

management practices to clean up polluted water bodies.6

Overarching strategy in the state is to develop nitrogen 

TMDLs for coastal waters and phosphorous TMDLs for 

coastal ponds.

» The Buzzards Bay NEP developed a TMDL strategy—

contained in the 1991 Buzzards Bay Comprehensive 

Conservation and Management Plan—to manage 

anthropogenic nitrogen inputs to coastal embayments. 

This work set the stage for DEP to adopt TMDLs 

based on more elaborate models more than a decade 

later. Today, a major focus of the Buzzards Bay NEP 

is helping municipalities comply with recommended 

nitrogen loading limits.

What’s Needed? What’s Missing?

Despite the above-described array of tools and strategies 

for addressing stressors to coastal wetlands in southeastern Massachusetts, participants identified several gaps 

5	 See the Massachusetts WBP website: http://public.dep.state.ma.us/Watershed/Intro.aspx.

6	 See the Massachusetts TMDL website: http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/resources/tmdlfs.htm.
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review 23

Focal Watershed Review: Cape Cod Watershed (continued)

in resources and regulations. They expressed the need to 

address these gaps to enable more effective application of 

tools and strategies to protect and restore the watershed’s 

wetlands.

Increase deterrence. MassDEP’s Wetlands Loss Mapping 

Project and follow-up enforcement actions are designed to 

be an effective deterrent to illegal wetland alterations, but 

two gaps need to be filled to keep deterrence strong:

•	 Publicity. In the first few years of the Wetlands Loss 

Mapping Project, some high-profile enforcement cases 

received a lot of publicity through major media outlets 

(television news, the Boston Globe, etc.). Participants 

believed that such high-visibility reporting served as a 

major deterrent and suggested that renewed publicity 

of enforcement cases, even lower-profile cases in local 

papers, could help act as a deterrent.

Highlight: Conservation Assessment and Prioritization System (CAPS)

CAPS is a landscape-level model that predicts ecological integrity based on GIS-driven metrics representing stressors on the landscape

(e.g., habitat loss, buffer zone impacts, road traffic intensity, non-native invasive plants) or resiliency (e.g., connectedness, aquatic

connectedness, and similarity). The output of CAPS is the Index of Ecological Integrity (IEI), a weighted combination of metric outputs

yielding a score ranging from 0 to 1 for each 30-square-meter point on the landscape for purposes of:

•	 Assessing wetland condition and better understanding the causes of stress.

•	 Reporting to EPA under Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act.

•	 Developing tiered or continuous aquatic life use models to better monitor resource improvement.

•	 Developing policy guidance and regulation.

In 2006, MassDEP adopted CAPS to identify potentially important wildlife habitat. High-quality habitat areas are defined as the top 40

percent of CAPS-identified sites.

Recently, CAPS metrics were developed to characterize coastal stressors, including tidal restrictions, tidal ditching, human disturbance,

and beach hardening, allowing for coastal IEI assessment.

As part of the Massachusetts wetland 

monitoring and assessment effort, sitelevel assessment methods (SLAMs) have

been developed for forested wetlands 

and salt marshes. Additional SLAMs

will be developed if funding is available. Data collected in accordance with

the SLAMs are being used to correlate

site condition with the CAPS stressor

gradient to develop Indices of Biological Integrity (IBIs). These IBIs represent 

individual taxa or assemblages of taxa 

that are most responsive to environmental degradation. Wetland assessment of 

a site’s biological condition relative to its 

landscape context is then based on the 

relationship between the CAPS IEI (i.e.,

constraints on biological condition from 

the surrounding landscape) and IBI (i.e., 

actual condition of a site based on field 

assessments). 

CAPS data and maps can be found online at http://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/caps/caps.html.
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review 24

Focal Watershed Review: Cape Cod Watershed (continued)

•	 Higher penalties. Currently, penalties for wetland violations average between $5,000 and $15,000. Participants 

felt that increased penalties would provide more effective 

deterrence. In addition, participants felt some or all of 

the penalties collected should be dedicated revenue to 

support the wetland-mapping program, as opposed to 

the state’s general fund. 

Improve data and mapping tools. Participants identified a number of data needs 

and mapping tools needed 

to improve coastal wetland 

protection.

•	 Permitting databases.

Ability to access the Section 

404 permit database would 

be highly valuable to the 

public as well as government 

agencies, so they can crosscheck permits issued with 

wetland losses identified on 

MassDEP’s maps. Participants noted this as critical to 

tracking losses and suggested that more effort be put into 

ensuring accessibility of the information. In addition, 

MassDEP has a new and innovative wetland permitting database called the WIRe. MassDEP developed 

new electronic permit forms that will allow data to auto 

populate the database. However, not all communities 

in Massachusetts have been using the WIRe because of 

performance problems that are plaguing the larger DEP 

system. Those issues are currently being addressed and it 

is anticipated that the WIRe database will be more fully 

functional in the near future.

•	 Virtual site visits. Participants emphasized the importance 

of site visits conducted by conservation commissions. It 

was suggested that a tool be developed to enable virtual 

site tours, considering that many commissioners are not 

inclined to do field work, especially in winter conditions.

•	 Mapping.

» CAPS. CAPS and SLAMs continue to be developed for 

coastal wetland ecosystems; however, there are currently 

gaps in the metrics, including data on point sources 

(sewer, septic, etc.) and toxic contamination zones.

» LiDAR. In the future, MassDEP should look into 

partnering with USGS as they conduct LiDAR flights. 

This could help gather and map wetland data at the 

regional level. Additionally, successful restoration 

revolves around good topography data that can be 

developed from LiDAR.

•	 Tidal restrictions. Participants felt there was a need for 

more research and data to assess impacts of tidal restrictions. Restrictions and associated indicators are difficult 

to identify from aerial imagery and comprehensive assessments are hampered by lack 

of accurate digital elevation 

models (DEMs). LiDAR data 

would help improve DEMs 

and subsequent modeling.

Improve wetland mitigation.

Mitigation is referred to as 

“replication” in Massachusetts, because state regulations 

require wetland mitigation to 

replace the type of wetland 

lost (onsite, in-kind mitigation). A study conducted on 

replication success found over 

50 percent of projects permitted between 1983 and 2004 

were not in compliance with the mitigation requirements 

in their permits for a number of reasons, including insufficient areal extent and lack of appropriate hydrology (Brown 

and Veneman, 2001). More recently, the Army Corps’ New 

England District reported that, based on its compliance 

inspections of activities permitted under CWA Section 404 

(2007–2011), approximately 73 percent of all projects that 

included compensatory mitigation requirements were in 

compliance with the permit conditions. Replications can 

fail for a variety of reasons, including lack of long-term 

monitoring and maintenance as well as difficulty in holding 

developers accountable once projects are complete and subdivision lots are sold to individual owners. Mitigation sites 

can be difficult to identify from aerial images because they 

are either too small relative to the resolution of the imagery 

or have not yet developed pronounced enough wetland 

hydrology signatures to be detected remotely. Comprehensive tracking requires site visits, such as those conducted 

for the above examples, making enforcement of mitigation 

requirements time-consuming.

On-site replication often results in loss of wetland function 

because small, created wetlands rarely perform the variety of 

functions that natural wetlands perform. The Army Corps’ 

New England District has been working with the state to 
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review 25

Focal Watershed Review: Cape Cod Watershed (continued)

develop a broader watershed approach to compensatory mitigation that will encourage the strategic selection of mitigation 

site locations and the implementation of mitigation plans that 

are most likely to improve or sustain aquatic resource functions in the watershed. Additional compensatory mitigation is 

often required to comply with the requirements of the CWA 

Section 404 program. 

•	 Few Certificates of Compliance issued. According to the 

Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, “No work shall 

be undertaken until the Order has become final and then 

has been recorded in the Registry of Deeds.” However, 

these orders are not always recorded at the Registry and 

some towns do not have mechanisms to track the recording. To release the recording of the order and clear the 

property title, a Certificate of Compliance is required. If 

the order was never recorded, a Certificate of Compliance may never be sought. Certificates of Compliance are 

supposed to involve a post-construction site inspection. 

Without a process for conducting those inspections and 

issuing Certificates of Compliance, it is not clear whether 

or not projects are complying with all of the conditions 

in the Orders of Conditions. A recommended process 

is needed to ensure that project proponents file their 

permits with the Registry of Deeds, which is the primary 

incentive for filing a request for a Certificate of Compliance. It was noted that some towns take responsibility 

for filing the Order of Conditions with the Registry of 

Deeds, and require filing fees from the applicant as part 

of the permit application process.

•	 Lack of wetland replication monitoring guidance.

Although MassDEP issued guidance on how to design, 

build, and monitor replication sites in 2002 (www.mass.

gov/dep/water/laws/replicat.pdf), participants mentioned 

the need for more guidance to ensure success of wetland 

replication. It was suggested that a bond be posted for 

replication projects to ensure better long-term management of projects. The bond could be released once the 

replication site is fully functioning, upon issuance of the 

Certificate of Compliance.

Strengthen exemption oversight. Participants were concerned about confusion among both developers and local 

conservation commissions over whether certain activities 

are exempt from review and what level of review is required. 

•	 Federal program categories. Participants indicated 

that project proponents may not know the difference 

between regulations for navigable (tidal) waters and 

inland (non-tidal) waters. Projects filling less than 5,000 

square feet of non-tidal wetlands typically qualify for the 

Massachusetts General Permit under Category 1, which 

does not require pre-construction notification or written authorization. Participants expressed concern that 

project proponents doing work in tidal wetlands may be 

incorrectly assuming work is authorized under Category 

1, when it actually requires a Category 2 permit application and written authorization or an individual permit. 

(See Appendix C for more information on individual vs. 

general permits.)

•	 Agricultural exemptions. Consistent with the normal 

farming activities exemption in Section 404, the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act exempts work performed for the normal maintenance or improvement of 

land in agricultural use provided the land in agricultural 

use retains its exemption status. (It is important to note 

that exemptions are limited; not all agricultural activities 

are exempt; and some exempt activities are subject to best 

management practices.) It should also be noted that agricultural exemptions for “normal farming” activities are 

defined in the 404 regulations as “plowing, seeding, cultivating, minor drainage and harvesting...” The exemption does not include conversion of wetlands to agricultural use. Any expansion of the cranberry operation 

would require a 404 permit. Participants suggested that 

these regulations could be clarified by the development 

of additional guidance and follow-up inspection and 

enforcement where the guidance is not being followed. 

Exemptions usually apply to minor impacts, but there 

may be some lack of clarity about what is exempt and 

what is not. There may also be uncertainty among growers about which wetlands areas are within jurisdiction. 
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review 26

Focal Watershed Review: Cape Cod Watershed (continued)

In addition to clarifying exemptions, participants voiced 

support for adding a provision in the state regulations 

that would capture secondary impacts (e.g., erosion) 

from exempt activities.

•	 Buffer zones. There is a lack of consistent protection for 

the buffer zone (a 100-foot area bordering vegetated wetlands). Some conservation commissions make buffer areas 

jurisdictional under local wetland bylaw authority, but 

most do not have sufficient authority to protect buffers.

Increase education and training for local conservation 

commissions. Commissions, for the most part, are composed of citizens who need to be trained and educated on 

wetland issues in order to effectively enforce town bylaws. 

Review participants estimated that it takes new commissioners one to two years to “come up to speed” on town conservation matters, which is often difficult to achieve with high 

turnover rates. Given the degree of power the commissions 

hold to protect wetlands within each municipality, it is critical to have a trained conservation commission staff to help 

properly and effectively implement state and local wetland 

laws, especially as wetland regulations become more complex. Participants noted the increased efficiency of townstate interactions regarding wetland cases when conservation 

commissions have a professional conservation agent.

•	 Survey of conservation commissions reveals gaps and

needs. UMass Extension, in cooperation with MACC 

and the Citizen Planners Training Collaborative, in 

anticipation of developing a technology-based land-use 

education program, surveyed almost 1,000 members 

of local planning boards, zoning boards, and conservation commissions across the state. The response rate for 

conservation commissioners was over 60 percent. The 

responses revealed some interesting challenges:

» 35 percent of conservation commissions have open seats 

and 28 percent of those have two or more seats open.

» 46 percent of commissioners indicated difficulty in 

finding people willing to serve.

» 15 percent reported that they have no members with 

expertise or experience relevant for the technical review 

of projects before their commissions.

» 15 percent reported that their commission has little 

or no understanding of key Wetlands Protection Act 

concepts and 11 percent reported they had little or no 

understanding of enforcement options available under 

the act.

» 27 percent of commissions report that they have little 

or no access to staff and rely on commission members 

for technical review and ensuring that proposed projects meet the regulatory requirements of the Wetlands 

Protection Act.

•	 Targeted training. Review participants recommended 

that several groups of people be provided with training 

in addition to conservation commission members: town 

attorneys, real estate agents, and selectmen were all noted 

as potential audiences. Town attorneys usually have broad 

knowledge due to the wide array of cases they litigate 

but are often are not well versed in environmental laws. 

Real estate agents are “on the front line” when it comes 

to developing land and an effort to help them understand the wetland regulations may help reduce illegal fill 

Figure 16. NRCS provided funding to replace an undersized culvert with a new box culvert, restoring 65 acres of Sesuit Creek salt marsh in Dennis,

Massachusetts. Source: NRCS, 2008b.
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review 27

Focal Watershed Review: Cape Cod Watershed (continued)

activity. Lastly, boards of selectmen are responsible for 

appointing conservation commissioners and therefore 

could benefit from a better understanding of the technical knowledge needed by those whom they appoint.

•	 User-friendly guidance documents. Participants mentioned several potential methods for training conservation commissioners including websites and webinars, 

but noted that these online resources are not always 

user-friendly. Some noted it would be very useful to have 

a basic primer and/or summary guidance document that 

a conservation commissioner could reference whenever 

there is uncertainty about state regulations and how 

federal regulations are triggered.

•	 Conservation agents. State regulators noted that towns 

with local conservation agents (paid professional staff) 

are more efficient and more likely to write effective and 

defensible wetland permits than towns without paid staff.

•	 Streamline the restoration permitting process.

Participants agreed there is a need to streamline the entire 

regulatory process for restoration. Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act and 401 Water Quality Certification 

regulations include provisions for expedited review of restoration projects (i.e., 310 CMR 10.32(6) and 314 CMR 

9.06(8)), but permitting of restoration projects can be 

delayed by flooding issues, sediment analysis, and completion of design components that were not final when 

the permit application was filed. Additional recommendations for streamlining permitting while maintaining the 

same or better protection would be helpful. Restoration 

grant funding often will not cover the cost of conducting 

feasibility studies, which are required for permitting.

» As a part of this Coastal Wetland Review, EPA 

Region 1 committed to convening key federal and 

state agencies to make progress on streamlining 

permitting for salt marsh restoration.

•	 Tidal restrictions. The analyses required for restoration 

projects involving tidal restrictions are time-consuming 

and costly (e.g., MassDEP verifies culvert engineering, NRCS needs approval/sign-off from abutting land 

owners, and up to five separate wetland permits may be 

required). The state’s strict standards limiting salt marsh 

alteration can also be a stumbling block, even though 

restorations are usually designed to improve and increase 

salt marsh habitat.

» Information and data for planned transportation 

projects are not being shared with the public far 

enough in advance. It would be helpful to know before 

the design phase even begins whether tidal restrictions 

will need to be addressed or if the project could provide 

an opportunity for redesigning an existing tidal restriction.

» The analyses needed to determine if there will be flooding from a restoration project upstream of the structure 

require a lot of time and money and typically attract a 

high level of participation from abutting landowners 

who perceive that their land may be more subject to 

flooding after removal of a tidal restriction. This type 

of analysis can often be more expensive than the cost of 

removing the restriction. Transportation improvement 

projects could more routinely include the opening of 

numerous culverts if there were resources and expertise 

available. Analyses become more complicated in the 

headwaters of embayments and in tidally restricted salt 

ponds, where there are not enough tidal gauges to get 

accurate surface water elevations.

» Participants felt that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) should be more involved with 

the tidal restriction restoration program. FEMA’s 

involvement would be beneficial in some of the larger 

projects including retrofitting old tidal restrictions. 

Flood zones in coastal areas in Massachusetts may need 

to be remapped to consider restriction restorations.

» The threat of sea level rise complicates restoration 

projects. The estimates the state is using now (1 to 3 

feet by the end of the century) should be translated 

to more specific projected increases along the coast so 

that those elevations can be taken into account during 

project design.

•	 Guidance document. There is a need for a guidance 

document on removing tidal restriction, similar to the 

existing guidance document created for dam removal. A 

point of contact has been established at MassDEP to help 

address tidal restriction issues, but a simple, step-by-step 

process and suggested permit conditions would facilitate 

review and approval of these projects.

» There is a need to have expertise available to help expedite the hydrologic studies needed to properly evaluate 

these projects and ensure there are not adverse effects 

on the public. 

•	 Bundling permits. Larger restoration projects may present 
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review 28

Focal Watershed Review: Cape Cod Watershed (continued)

an opportunity to bundle restoration project permits 

together for concurrent review and a consolidated set 

of conditions. The Massachusetts Environmental Policy 

Act has a special expedited review process for particular 

restoration projects. This process might be used to jointly 

develop all of the wetland permits required for a restoration project.

» The Army Corps’ general permits program has been 

revised to include restoration activities in category 2 

(optional individual permit) provided that they result 

in net increases of function (Army Corps, 2010). Participants suggested that the concept of a general permit 

for restoration might be potentially transferable outside 

of New England.

More cross-program integration. Participants made several 

suggestions for improving cross-program integration.

•	 Regional collaboration. Participants highlighted the need 

for collaboration at all levels and with all available parties 

to arrest the trend in acreage loss and degradation, especially in light of severe constraints on funding and staff 

resources. As noted in the “Tools and Strategies” section, 

participants felt that the Southeastern Regional Wetlands 

Restoration Team is a good model for regional collaboration. It would be useful to convene a group of this type 

in the northeast regional office, which covers the Bostonarea coastline north to the New Hampshire border.

•	 Watershed-based management. The need for watershedbased management approaches is made clear when water 

diversions and withdrawals from rivers lead to fish kills 

and other negative ecological impacts. There is a pressing need to consider the impact of upstream activities on 

downstream resources and manage impacts more comprehensively. Participants felt that this approach would 

need to be expressly authorized before communities and 

agencies would begin to use it. 

•	 Wastewater planning. Onsite septic systems and cesspools continue to be major sources of nutrient impacts 

on coastal wetlands. 

•	 Wetlands as best management practices. Debate is 

currently underway within the Massachusetts Estuaries Project to determine whether wetland attenuation of 

pollution is a tool that should be used as part of a TMDL 

implementation strategy.

» Wetlands play an important role in nutrient cycling, and 

constructed wetlands might be able to attenuate pollution 

without compromising natural wetland systems.7 More 

research is needed to fully understand the nutrient assimilative capacity of constructed wetlands in New England 

as well as the uptake capacity and associated impacts of 

nutrients on restored wetland systems (i.e., those with 

treatment cells or constructed wetlands built anterior to 

entry of the discharge into the natural wetland).

•	 State revolving fund (SRF). Although participants 

thought that coastal wetland restoration projects would 

be eligible for SRF loans because of their potential to 

improve water quality and habitat, it was noted that, 

due to other demands for these funds, this would require 

public and political support.

7	 Use of lakes, streams, wetlands, and other waters for treatment of pollution is prohibited (40 CFR 131.10(a))
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review 29

Conclusion

The North Atlantic coastal wetland review is the third in 

a series that the EPA Coastal Wetlands Team conducted. The team has gained a greater understanding of 

coastal wetland loss in the region, including important 

insights into the causes of these losses. Several themes 

emerged during the Cape Cod focal watershed review:

•	 Development pressures are a growing concern for 

directly and indirectly causing coastal wetland loss.

•	 Hydrologic alterations, including dams and tidal restrictions 

are also major stressors, for which concerted restoration 

efforts are underway, though much remains to be done.

•	 Agriculture, specifically cranberry bog activities, continues to be a major source of wetland conversion, although 

the rate of loss due to this stressor is declining.

•	 MassDEP’s Wetlands Loss Mapping project has proven 

to be an effective deterrent to wetland losses, and has 

likely contributed to the approximately two-thirds less 

wetland loss annually in recent years compared to when 

the project first started.

•	 Even with very stringent state and local wetland laws, 

most of the wetland losses are occurring outside the 

regulatory programs.

•	 Wetland mitigation needs to be better monitored and 

mitigation requirements need to be enforced at the local, 

state and federal levels of government to avoid losses due 

to ineffective or non-functional wetland mitigation.

A number of tools and strategies were suggested that could 

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

regions:

•	 Massachusetts is a leader in the nation for wetland mapping and assessment. While the state’s Wetlands Loss 

Mapping Project is effective at assessing losses in the areal 

extent of wetlands, the CAPS and SLAMs models allow 

for evaluation of ecological function and biological values 

of wetlands. In the future, when these tools are used in 

combination with one another, Massachusetts will have the 

ability to comprehensively assess the status and trends of 

wetlands in the state including functionality of wetlands.

•	 Restoring wetlands that have been restricted by structures such as dams and tidal culverts is another practice 

that could be transferred to other regions, with similar 

beneficial impacts to coastal wetlands. Massachusetts’s 

Dam Removal Guidance could be a model for other 

states, which can modify the guidance as appropriate to 

address state-specific regulations. 

•	 State and local regulatory protection of wetlands has 

existed in Massachusetts and other states of the North 

Atlantic for more than 50 years. Local conservation 

commissions are responsible for ensuring that local 

bylaws are followed and enforced. These commissions 

have developed local tools and strategies that could be 

transferable to other states that grant local environmental authority to their counties, cities, or towns.

The participants identified key gaps that need to be filled 

to reduce the stressors and more effectively use these tools 

and strategies. Most commonly, they cited the following:

•	 Training of conservation commission members necessary in 

order to ensure that local bylaws are understood and properly enforced. Training, aided by the Circuit Rider Program, 

has been substantially reduced due to funding cuts.

•	 Updating the WIRe database with past permit data and 

encouraging local communities to use the online system 

will allow the state to have a robust central repository of 

wetland maps and permit data.

•	 Development of additional SLAMs for wetland community types such as shrub swamp and emergent so that 

all wetland types can be assessed in a scientifically sound 

manner. 

•	 Streamlining restoration permitting was identified as a 

critical step to encouraging tidal restriction removal and 

successful restoration projects. EPA Region 1 volunteered 

to take the lead role in conducting such an effort together.
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review 30

Acknowledgments

Many people contributed to this effort. We would like 

to thank all of the participants who took time out 

of their busy schedules to provide us with this valuable 

feedback. In particular, we wish to thank Charlie Costello, 

Lealdon Langley, and Lisa Rhodes from MassDEP; Scott 

Jackson from UMass Extension’s Natural Resources and 

Environmental Conservation Program; Joe Costa, John 

Rockwell, and Tracy Warncke from Buzzards Bay NEP; 

Dr. Andrew Solow and Mary Schumacher from Woods 

Hole Oceanographic Institution; Sarah Brooke from Falmouth DNR; Mel Cote, Regina Lyons, Matt Schweisberg, 

Ed Reiner, and MaryJo Feuerbach from EPA Region 1, 

and Jason Baker from Massachusetts Bays NEP.

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

Protection Agency (EPA) under Work Assignment B-4 of Contract No. EP-C-09-020 to 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

For more information on the 

Coastal Wetlands Initiative, contact:

Jennifer Linn

Linn.Jennifer@epa.gov

Nancy Laurson

Laurson.Nancy@epa.gov
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review 31

References

ANEP (Association of National Estuary Programs). 2001. Narragansett 

Bay fact sheet. <http://www.nationalestuaries.org/publications/factcards/

pdf/narragansett.PDF>

ASWM (Association of State Wetland Managers). 2009. New Hampshire. <http://aswm.org/swp/newhampshire9.htm>

Baker, J., and T. Evans. 2010. Use of “conservation moorings” as a 

component of eelgrass restoration in two Massachusetts harbors. <http://

www.chnep.org/Events/ANEP/tech/Tech_Tue_825_Baker.pdf>

Brown, S.C. and P.L.M. Veneman. 2001. Effectiveness of compensatory 

wetland mitigation in Massachusetts. U.S.A. Wetlands 21(4): 508-518.

BBNEP (Buzzards Bay National Estuary Program). 2010a. Information 

about Cranberry Bogs and the Environment. <http://www.buzzardsbay.

org/craninfo.htm>

BBNEP. 2010b. Mattapoisett River Valley water withdrawals. <http://

www.buzzardsbay.org/mattapoisett-river-valley.htm>

BBNEP. 2010c. Subwatershed Land Use and Nitrogen Loading. <http://

www.buzzardsbay.org/buzzards-bay-subwatersheds-land-use.htm>

BBNEP. 2009. 2009 updates to the BBNEP nitrogen loading spreadsheets. <http://www.buzzardsbay.org/bbpnitro.htm>

BBNEP. 2007. Section 319 Nonpoint Source Program success story. 

EPA 841-F-07-001M. <http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/success319/

upload/2007_10_01_NPS_Success319_state_ma_winsegansett.pdf>

BBNEP. n.d. Wetland losses in the Buzzards Bay watershed. <http://

www.buzzardsbay.org/wetlandloss.htm>

Cape Cod Commission. 2008. Cape trends: 2002-2008. <http://www.

statscapecod.org/media/documents/CapeTrends.pdf>

Cape Cod Commission. 2001. Cape Cod atlas of tidally restricted salt 

marshes. <http://www.capecodcommission.org/tidalatlas/TidalAtlasFrontSection.pdf>

Connecticut College. Human impacts on tidal wetlands: history and 

regulations. <http://www.conncoll.edu/ccrec/greennet/arbo/publications/34/chp4b.htm>

CTDEP (Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection). 2011. Long Island Sound. <http://www.ct.gov/dep/cwp/view.

asp?a=2705&q=323790&depNav_GID=1635%20>

CTDEP 2010. Connecticut coastal habitat restoration programs. 

<http://www.ct.gov/dep/cwp/view.asp?a=2705&q=323538&depNav_

GID=1622&depNav=|>

CTDEP 2009. Coastal permits: an environmental permitting fact sheet. 

<http://www.ct.gov/dep/cwp/view.asp?a=2709&q=324180&depNav_

GID=1643> 

Costa, J.E. 1988. Distribution, production, and historical changes in 

abundance of eelgrass (Zostera marina L.) in southeastern MA. Ph. D. 

Thesis, Boston University.

Costa, J.E. n.d. Eelgrass in Buzzards Bay. <http://www.buzzardsbay.org/

eelgrass.htm> 

ELI (Environmental Law Institute). 2008. State wetland protection: 

status, trends, & model approaches. <http://www.eli.org/pdf/core_states/

Maine.pdf>

EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2008. National 

coastal condition report III. <http://water.epa.gov/type/oceb/assessmonitor/upload/2008_12_09_oceans_nccr3_chapter9_narra_bay.pdf>

EPA. 2002. State of the New England environment report. 

EPA. n.d. Wetland types. <http://www.epa.gov/gmpo/education/pdfs/

WorldBackyard2.pdf>

Gulf of Maine Coastal Program. 2011. Restore habitat. <http://www.

fws.gov/northeast/gulfofmaine/projects/restore_wetlands.htm>

Jacobson, H.A., G.L. Jacobson, and J.T. Kelley. 1987. Distribution and 

abundance of tidal marshes along the coast of Maine. Estuaries 10 (2): 

126-131.

Long Island Sound Study. 2011. Long Island Sound – By the Numbers. 

<http://longislandsoundstudy.net/about-the-sound/by-the-numbers/>

Maine DEP (Maine Department of Environmental Protection). 2005. 

Maine’s wetlands. <http://www.maine.gov/dep/blwq/wetlands/>

Maine DEP. 1996. Maine’s wetlands: their functions and values. <http://

www.maine.gov/dep/blwq/docstand/ipwetfv2.htm>

Massachusetts Association of Conservation Commissions (MACC). 

2006. Communities with non-zoning wetlands bylaw 2006. <http://

www.maccweb.org/documents/2006bylaws.pdf>

Massachusetts Bays Program. 2010. State of the bays. <http://www.mass.

gov/envir/massbays/pdf/sob2010/2010sob.pdf>

Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program (Mass CZM). 2004. 

Waves of Change. <http://www.mass.gov/czm/oceanmanagement/

waves_of_change/pdf/trdemogecon.pdf>

MassDEP (Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection). 

2010. Wetland loss data provided by Charlie Costello, MassDEP.

MassDEP. 2007. Dam removal and the wetland regulations. <http://

www.mass.gov/dep/water/resources/dampol.pdf>

MassDEP. 2005. Wetlands Change Mapping Project: wetlands—results 

for 2005. <http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/priorities/wet05.htm>

MassDEP. 2002. Massachusetts inland wetland replication guide. 

<http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/laws/replicat.pdf>

Massachusetts Department of Fish and Game, Division of Ecological 

Restoration (MA DER). 2011. Estuarine programs and projects. <http://

www.mass.gov/dfwele/der/wrp/index.htm>

MA DER. 2010. DER active habitat restoration priority projects. 

<http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/der/der_maps/pp_map.htm>

MA DFG (Massachusetts Department of Fish and Game, Division of 

Fisheries and Wildlife). 2008. Massachusetts list of endangered, threatened and special concern species. <http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dfw/

nhesp/species_info/mesa_list/mesa_list.htm>
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review 32

Massachusetts Estuaries Project. n.d. Southeastern Massachusetts 

Embayments Restoration. <http://www.oceanscience.net/estuaries/highlights.htm>

Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs 

(MA EEA). 2011. Massachusetts leads the Northeast in dam removal/

river restoration projects. <http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=eoeeapressrelease&L=1&L0=Home&sid=Eoeea&b=pressrelease&f=110302-PRMA-Dam-Removal-Leader&csid=Eoeea>

MA EEA. 2007. Dam Removal in Massachusetts. <http://www.mass.

gov/Eoeea/docs/eea/water/damremoval_guidance.pdf> 

McHorney, R.M., and C. Neill. 2007. Alteration of water levels in a 

Massachusetts coastal plain pond subject to municipal ground water 

withdrawals. Wetlands 27(2): 366-380.

NHCP (New Hampshire Coastal Program). 2002. Salt marshes: restoring New Hampshire’s coastal wetlands. <http://des.nh.gov/organization/

divisions/water/wmb/coastal/restoration/documents/saltmarsh_restoration.pdf>

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2011. Commercial landings 

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

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. Sea levels online. <http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/

sltrends/sltrends.html>

NOAA 2010. Programmatic framework for considering climate change 

impacts in coastal habitat restoration, land acquisition, and facility 

development investments.

NOAA. 2006. Maine coastal plan. <http://www.maine.gov/spo/coastal/

downloads/coastalplans/McPlan_2006.pdf>

NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2011. Wetlands 

Reserve Program. <http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/wrp/>

NRCS. 2008a. Guide to the 2008 Farm Bill conservation programs 

in Massachusetts. <http://www.ma.nrcs.usda.gov/news/publications/

Farm_Bill_Mass_Guide_small.pdf>

NRCS. 2008b. Federal, state and local partners celebrate restoration of 

Sesuit Creek saltmarsh, Dennis. <http://www.ma.nrcs.usda.gov/news/

news_Sesuit_Creek_WRP_event_2008.html>

NYDEC (New York Department of Environmental Conservation). 

2010. Tidal wetlands. <http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/4940.html>

Seasholes, N. 2003. Gaining ground: A history of landmaking in Boston. MIT Press.

Stedman, S., and T.E. Dahl. 2008. Status and trends of wetlands in the 

coastal watersheds of the eastern United States: 1998-2004. National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, and U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

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

Taylor, P.H. 2008. Salt marshes in the Gulf of Maine: human impacts, 

habitat restoration, and long-term change analysis. Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment.

Tiner, R.W. 2007. New Hampshire wetlands and waters: results of the 

National Wetland Inventory. NWI Technical Report. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Northeast Region. <http://library.fws.gov/wetlands/

NH07.pdf>

Titus, J. G. 2011. Rolling Easements Primer. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency <http://www.epa.gov/cre/downloads/rollingeasementsprimer.pdf>

Tyrrell, M.C. 2005. Gulf of Maine marine habitat primer. Gulf of 

Maine Council on the Marine Environment. <http://www.gulfofmaine.

org/habitatprimer/>

USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 2009. Fish passage 

in the Southern New England-New York Bight Coastal Program area. 

<http://www.fws.gov/r5snep/Documents/fish_passage.pdf>

U.S. Army Corps (United States Army Corps of Engineers). 2010. 

Department of Army general permit for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. <http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/reg/Permits/MA_GP.pdf>

U.S. Army Corps. 2009. Water resource policies and authorities incorporating sea-level change consideration in civil works programs. Circular 

No. 1165-2-211.

U.S. Army Corps. 2008. Rhode Island Coastal Wetlands Inventory 

report. <http://www.crmc.ri.gov/habitatrestoration/RI_Coastal_Wetlands_Inventory_2008.pdf>

Wallace, A.F. 2002. A scan of smart growth issues in New England. Prepared for the Funders Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities. <http://www.newenglandfutures.org/d/nescansmartgrowth.pdf>
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review 33

Appendix A: Southeastern Massachusetts Participants

Jay Baker, Massachusetts Bays Program

Sarah Brooks, Falmouth DNR

Lou Chiarella, NOAA NMFS/NR

Joe Costa, Buzzards Bay NEP

Charlie Costello, MassDEP

Dave DeLorenzo, MassDEP

Lisa Berry Engler, Massachusetts DOT

Laurell Farinon, Town of Rochester

MaryJo Feuerbach, EPA

David Gould, Town of Plymouth

Scott Jackson, UMass Extension

Liz Kouloheras, MassDEP

Lealdon Langley, MassDEP

Regina Lyons, EPA

Alex Mansfield, Jones River Watershed Association

Jo Ann Muramoto, Association to Preserve Cape Cod

Jim O’Connell, Coastal Advisory Services

Michael O’Reilly, Town of Dartmouth

Margherita Pryor, EPA

Ed Reiner, EPA

Jack Reynolds, Town of Westport

Lisa Rhodes, MassDEP

Beth Schreier, NRCS

Matt Schweisberg, EPA

Bernie Taber, NRCS

Andy Walsh, Cape Cod Commission

Jay Wennemer, Town of Marshfield

Betsy White, WRWA

Bill Wilen, USFWS

Merilee Woodworth, Town of Acushnet
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review 34

Appendix B: Background Documents

Document Title Author/Agency (Year)

CONNECTICUT

Connecticut Coastal Habitat Restoration Programs CTDEP (2010)

Connecticut Association of State Wetland Managers (2004)

State Wetland Protection: Status, Trends, and Model Approaches Environmental Law Institute (2008)

Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program in Connecticut Private Landowner Network (2006)

Human Impacts on Tidal Wetlands: History and Regulations Connecticut College (1997)

Brief History Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officers 

Coastal America 10 Year Report Coastal America Partnership (2001)

Education CT River Coastal Conservation District 

Connecticut Sea Grant Connecticut Sea Grant (2009)

Tidal Wetland Restoration CTDEP (2010)

Twenty-Five Years of Tidal Wetland Restoration in Connecticut Ron Rozsa (2005)

Ocean and Coastal Management in Connecticut NOAA (2010)

Final Evaluation Findings Connecticut Coastal Management Program: April 2003 through August 2006NOAA (2007)

MAINE

Maine's Wetlands MDEP (2005)

State Wetland Protection: Status, Trends, and Model Approaches Environmental Law Institute (2008)

Gulf of Maine Coastal Program U.S. FWS 

Maine's Coastal Wetlands Alison Ward (1999)

S.O.S. Maine: Save Our Shores S.O.S. Maine (2010)

Protecting Coastal Wetlands Dave Grant (2003)

Kennebec Estuary Project The Nature Conservancy (2010)

Maine Coastal Plan NOAA (2006)

Beginning With Habitat Beginning With Habitat (2003)

Land For Maine's Future ME SPO (2006)

Wetland Volunteer Monitoring Programs EPA (2009)

Online Educational Materials Maine Geological Survey (2009)

Workshops and Classes Maine Association of Wetland Scientists (2010)

Salt Marshes in the Gulf of Maine: Human Impacts, Habitat 

Restoration, and Long-term Change Analysis

Taylor (2008)

Gulf of Main Marine Habitat Primer Tyrell (2005)
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review 35

Document Title Author/Agency (Year)

NEW HAMPSHIRE

New Hampshire Association of State Wetland Managers (2009)

Salt Marshes: Restoring New Hampshire's Coastal Wetlands New Hampshire Coastal Program (2002)

A Land Conservation Plan for New Hampshire's Coastal Watershed The Nature Conservancy (2010)

Environmental Monitoring Piscataqua Region Estuaries Partnership (2008)

State Wetland Protection: Status, Trends, and Model Approaches Environmental Law Institute (2008)

Coastal Program NHDES 

NEW YORK

Tidal Wetlands NYDEC (2010)

New York Wetlands Reserve Program NRCS

New York City Wetlands: Regulatory Gaps and Other Threats Plan NYC (2009)

Wetlands At Risk Sierra Club (2005)

New York Association of State Wetland Managers (2004)

State Wetland Protection: Status, Trends, and Model Approaches Environmental Law Institute (2008)

Exploring the Estuary: a Teacher’s Guide to the New York New 

Jersey Estuary Region

Harbor Estuary Program (2009)

Focus On...Education New York Sea Grant 

Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program NYS DOS (2004)

Ocean and Coastal Management in New York NOAA (2010)

New York City Wetlands: 

Regulatory Gaps and Other Threats

Plan NYC (2009)

Common Questions: Local Government Wetland Protection Programs Jon Kusler 

Wetlands Status and Trend Analysis of New York State Mid 1980's 

to Mid 1990's

Huffman & Associates (2000)

Target Ecosystem Characteristics for the Hudson Raritan Estuary:

Technical Guidance for Developing a Comprehensive Ecosystem 

Restoration Plan

Bain, Lodge, Suszkowski, Matuszeski (2007)

RHODE ISLAND

State Wetland Protection: Status, Trends, and Model Approaches Environmental Law Institute (2008)

Rhode Island Surfrider Foundation (2010)

Climate Change and Sea Level Rise RICRMP (2008)

Rhode Island U.S. FWS (2001)

Background & Origins of Restoration Rhode Island Habitat Restoration

Ocean and Coastal Management in Rhode Island NOAA (2010)

Rhode Island's Salt Pond Region: A Special Area Management 

Program

RICRMP (1999)

Rhode Island Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Plan RICRMP (2005)

Rhode Island Salt Pond Special Area Management Plan - Case Study Coastal Portal (2009)

Rhode Island Coastal Wetland Inventory Report U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2008)
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review 36

Document Title Author/Agency (Year)

MASSACHUSETTS

State Wetland Protection: Status, Trends, and Model Approaches Environmental Law Institute (2008)

Protecting Wetlands in Massachusetts MassDEP

Wetland Loss Maps MassDEP

Eelgrass MassDEP

100 Years of Estuarine Marsh Trends in Massachusetts (1893 to 

1995): Boston Harbor, Cape Cod, Nantucket, Martha’s Vineyard, 

and the Elizabeth Islands 

Carlisle et al. (2006)

Potential Impacts of Sea-Level Rise in Massachusetts Giese (1997)

A Model of Natural and Man-Induced Changes in Open Freshwater Wetlands on the Massachusetts Coastal Plain Larson, Mueller, and MacConnell (1980)

Environmental Stress and Recovery: The Geochemical Record of 

Human Disturbance in New Bedford Harbor and Apponagasett 

Bay, Massachusetts (USA)

James S. Latimer, Warren S. Boothman, Carol E. 

Pesch, Gail L. Chmura, Vera Pospelova, Saro Jayaraman (2003)

Survey of Potential Marsh Dieback Sites in Coastal Massachusetts Smith and Carullo (2007)

Cape Code Salt Marsh Assessment Project: Developing Measures of 

Conditions 

Mass CZM (2004)

Massachusetts Estuaries Project: Linked Watershed-Embayment 

Model to Determine Critical Nitrogen Loading Thresholds for 

Three Bays, Barnstable, Massachusetts

Howes et al. (2006)

Long Term Consequences of Residual Petroleum on Salt Marsh 

Grass

Culbertson et al. (2008)

Introduction to the Special Issue: Natural and Anthropogenic Influences on the Mount Hope Bay EcosystemRodney A. Rountree and Daniel G. MacDonald 

(2006)

Chapter 3: Northeast National Estuary Program Coastal Condition, 

Massachusetts Bays Program

EPA (2007)

Sea Level Rise Implications: An Action Plan for Buzzards Bay IEP, Inc. 

Estuarine and Marine Habitat From: The Massachusetts Ocean 

Task Force Technical Report

Mass CZM (2004)

Charting the Course: A Blueprint for the Future of Aquatic Habitat 

Restoration in Massachusetts

Mass CZM (2008)

Wetland Losses in the Buzzards Bay Watershed Buzzards Bay

Buzzards Bay EPA (2010)

Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan: The 1991 

CCMP

Buzzards Bay (1991)

Managing anthropogenic nitrogen inputs to coastal embayments: 

Technical basis and evaluation of a management strategy adopted 

for Buzzards Bay.

Costa et al. (1999)

Buzzards Bay: Its Watershed, Living Resources, and Governance Buzzards Bay National Estuary Program (2010)

Managing Nitrogen Sensitive Embayments Buzzards Bay

Massachusetts Wetland Monitoring Assessment Project Lisa Rhodes (2010)

Development of a Comprehensive State Monitoring and Assessment Program for Wetlands in MassachusettsJackson, McGarigal, Portante, and Compton (2010)
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review 37

Document Title Author/Agency (Year)

Coastal Wetland Resource Areas Under the Wetlands Protection Act MassDEP 

Massachusetts Wetland Monitoring and Assessment MassDEP

Massachusetts Wetland Monitoring and Assessment Prepared for 

the Integrated List of Waters (305(b)) Report

Lisa Rhodes (2009)

The Wetlands Protection Act: Fundamentals, Process, and Procedures MassDEP (2005)

Recent Wetland Trends in Southeastern Massachusetts Tiner and Zinny (1998)

Wetlands of Cape Cod and the Islands, Massachusetts:

Results of the National Wetlands Inventory and Landscape-level

Functional Assessment

Tiner (2010)

State of the Bays Report 2004 Massachusetts Bays Program

Massachusetts Year 2008 Integrated List of Waters

Final Listing of the Condition of Massachusetts’ Waters Pursuant to 

Sections 303(d) and 305(b) of the Clean Water Act

Division of Watershed Management

Watershed Planning Program

Worcester, Massachusetts (2008)

National Estuary Program: Massachusetts Bays Program Factsheet Massachusetts Bays Program

MassDEP Wetlands Inventory Maps 329826 and 333826 MassDEP (1993 and 2005)

NEW ENGLAND

Human Impact on Narragansett Bay Thomas E. Kutcher

NOAA/USFWS Join Report on Coastal Wetland Trends 1998-2004 Stedman and Dahl (2008)

Coastal Wetland Trends in the Narragansett Bay Estuary During 

the 20th Century

Tiner et al. (2004)

Rapid Shoreward Encroachment of Salt Marsh Cordgrass in Response to Accelerated Sea-Level RiseDonnelly and Bertness (2001)

Denitrification in Fringing Salt Marshes of Narragansett Bay, 

Rhode Island, USA

Davis, J.L. et al. (2004)

Current of Change: Environmental Status and Trends of the Narragansett Bay RegionNarragansett Bay Estuary Program (2009)

Relationships of Nitrogen Loading, Residential Development, and Physical Characteristics with Plant Structure in New England Salt MarshesWigand et al. (2003)

Chapter 3: Northeast National Estuary Program Coastal Condition, 

Narragansett Bay Estuary Program

EPA (2007)

A Scan of Smart Growth Issues in New England Wallace (2002)

Status and Trends of the Nation's Biological Resources--Northeast USGS, Porter, Hill 

Regional Assessment:

Wetland Geographic Information Systems Data Available

in the New England States and New York

New England Interstate Water Pollution Control 

Commission (2006)

Monitoring Nitrogen and indicators of Nitrogen loading to support 

management action in Buzzards Bay

Costa, J.E., Howes, B.L, Giblin, A.E., and Valiela, I 

(1992)
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review 38

Appendix C: Section 404 of the Clean Water Act

Overview: Section 404 of the Clean Water Act establishes a 

permit program to regulate the discharge of dredged or fill 

material into waters of the United States, including wetlands. 

Activities in waters of the United States regulated under this 

program include fill for associated with development, water 

resource projects (such as dams and levees that are not part of 

the construction of federal projects specifically authorized by 

Congress), infrastructure development (such as highways and 

airports) and mining projects.

Under a rule promulgated pursuant to Section 404(b)(1) of 

the Clean Water Act, no discharge of dredged or fill material 

may be permitted if: (1) a practicable alternative exists that 

is less damaging to the aquatic environment so long as that 

alternative does not have other significant adverse environmental consequences or (2) the nation’s waters would be 

significantly degraded. Section 404 permitting ensures that 

dredge and fill projects only proceed if an applicant first has 

shown that steps have been taken to avoid impacts to wetlands, streams, and other aquatic resources; that potential 

impacts have been minimized; and — only after the first two 

measures have been taken — that compensation is provided 

for all remaining unavoidable impacts.

Permits: Proposed activities are regulated through a permit 

review process. An individual permit is required for projects 

with more than minimal adverse effects. Individual permits 

are reviewed by the Army Corps, which evaluates applications 

under a public interest review, as well as the environmental 

criteria set forth in the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines promulgated by EPA in conjunction with the Army Corps. However, for most discharges that will have only minimal adverse 

effects, a general permit may be suitable. General permits are 

issued on a nationwide, regional, or state basis for particular 

categories of activities. The general permit process eliminates 

individual review and allows certain activities to proceed with 

little or no delay, provided that the general, regional, and any 

special conditions for the general permit are met. For example, minor road activities, utility line backfill, and bedding 

are activities that can be considered for a general permit. For 

more information, see: http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/cwa/dredgdis/ and http://www.usace.army.mil/

Missions/CivilWorks/RegulatoryProgramandPermits.aspx.

Jurisdiction: Though a number of activities may impact 

the nation’s waters, Section 404 applies to dredge and fill 

activities only (Section 402 of the Clean Water Act regulates point source discharges of pollutants into waters of the 

United States). Additionally, the Clean Water Act only applies 

to “waters of the United States.” EPA and the Army Corps 

have issued regulatory definitions of “waters of the United 

States” to include waters that are: traditionally navigable; 

interstate; could affect interstate commerce if used, degraded, 

or destroyed; territorial seas; impoundments of jurisdictional 

waters; tributaries of jurisdictional waters; and wetlands adjacent to jurisdictional waters. The agencies’ regulatory definition of “waters of the United States” provides exclusions for 

waste treatment systems and prior converted cropland. U.S. 

Supreme Court decisions in Solid Waste Agency of Northern 

Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Rapanos v. 

United States and subsequent agency guidance have provided 

further interpretation of which waterbodies are protected by 

the Clean Water Act. For the most recent guidance on Clean 

Water Act geographic jurisdiction, see: http://water.epa.gov/

lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/CWAwaters.cfm. Lastly, the 

regulatory definition of wetlands, “areas that are inundated 

or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and 

duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically 

adapted for life in saturated soil conditions,” may exclude 

some areas which are defined as wetlands for other purposes 

(e.g., under the Cowardin classification system).

Exemptions: In general, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act 

requires permits for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands. 

However, certain activities are exempt from permit requirements under Section 404(f). These include dredge and fill 

activities related to established (ongoing) farming, silviculture, or ranching practices; certain temporary activities; and 

certain maintenance activities (e.g., of drainage ditches, farm 

ponds, or stock ponds). The exemptions are limited in their 

application. For example, a permit must be obtained for an 

activity whose purpose is to convert an area of the waters of 

the United States into a use to which it was not previously 

subject, where the flow or circulation of waters of the United 

States may be impaired, or the reach of such waters reduced 

(33 CFR 323.4). Some projects are also required to implement Best Management Practices in order to remain exempt. 

See http://water.epa.gov/type/wetlands/outreach/fact20.cfm 

for more information regarding Section 404 exemptions.

Mitigation: Compensatory mitigation involves actions taken 

to offset unavoidable adverse impacts to wetlands, streams, 

and other aquatic resources authorized by Section 404 permits and other Department of the Army permits. Compensatory mitigation can be carried out through four methods: 

the restoration of a previously existing or degraded wetland 

or other aquatic site, the enhancement of an existing aquatic 

site’s functions, the establishment (i.e., creation) of a new 

aquatic site, or the preservation of an existing aquatic site. For 

impacts authorized under Section 404, compensatory mitigation is not considered until after all appropriate and practicable steps have been taken to first avoid and then minimize 
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review 39

adverse impacts to the aquatic ecosystem. For more information, see: http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/

wetlandsmitigation_index.cfm.

 Compensatory Mitigation Rule: In 2008, the Army Corps 

and EPA issued regulations governing compensatory 

mitigation for activities authorized by permits issued by the 

Department of the Army (see http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/

guidance/wetlands/upload/2008_04_10_wetlands_wetlands_mitigation_final_rule_4_10_08.pdf). The regulations 

establish performance standards and criteria for the use of 

permittee-responsible compensatory mitigation, mitigation 

banks, and in-lieu programs to improve the quality and 

success of compensatory mitigation projects for permitted 

activities. This rule improves the planning, implementation, 

and management of compensatory mitigation projects by 

emphasizing a watershed approach in selecting compensatory mitigation project locations, requiring measurable, 

enforceable ecological performance standards and regular 

monitoring for all types of compensation, and specifying the components of a complete compensatory mitigation plan, including assurances of long-term protection of 

compensation sites, financial assurances, and identification 

of the parties responsible for specific project tasks. Since a 

mitigation bank must have an approved mitigation plan 

and other assurance in place before any of its credits can be 

used to offset impacts, this rule establishes a preference for 

the use of mitigation bank credits, which reduces some of 

the risks and uncertainties associated with compensatory 

mitigation.

Mitigation Bank: Mitigation banking involves off-site 

compensation activities generally conducted by a thirdparty mitigation bank sponsor. A mitigation bank is a site, 

or suite of sites, where aquatic resources (e.g., wetlands, 

streams, riparian areas) are restored, established, enhanced, 

and/or preserved for the purpose of providing compensatory mitigation for impacts authorized by Department 

of the Army permits. In general, a mitigation bank sells 

compensatory mitigation credits to permittees to meet 

their requirements for compensatory mitigation. The value 

of these “credits” is determined by quantifying the aquatic 

resource functions or acres restored or created. The bank 

sponsor is ultimately responsible for the success of the project.

 In-lieu Fee Mitigation: In-lieu fee mitigation involves offsite compensation activities generally conducted by a third 

party in-lieu fee program sponsor. Through an in-lieu fee 

program, a governmental or non-profit natural resources 

management entity collects funds from multiple permittees 

in order to pool the financial resources necessary to build 

and maintain the mitigation site or suite of sites. The in-lieu 

fee sponsor is responsible for the success of the mitigation. 

In-lieu fee mitigation typically occurs after the permitted 

impacts. 

 Permittee-Responsible Mitigation: Permittee-responsible 

mitigation is the restoration, establishment, enhancement, 

or preservation of aquatic resources undertaken by a permittee in order to compensate for impacts resulting from 

a specific project. The permittee performs the mitigation 

after the permit is issued and is ultimately responsible for 

implementation and success of the mitigation. Permitteeresponsible mitigation may occur at the site of the permitted impacts or at an off-site location within the same 

watershed.

Roles & Responsibilities:

 Federal Agencies: The roles and responsibilities of the 

federal resource agencies differ in scope. The Army Corps 

administers the day-to-day aspects of the program, makes 

individual and general permit decisions, and makes determinations regarding the extent and location of jurisdictional waters of the United States. The Army Corps and 

EPA jointly develop policy and guidance, such as the 

environmental criteria used in evaluating permit applications. EPA determines the scope of geographic jurisdiction 

and applicability of exemptions; approves and oversees state 

and tribal assumption; reviews and comments on individual 

permit applications; has authority to prohibit, deny, or 

restrict the use of any defined area as a disposal site; and can 

elevate specific cases under Section 404(q). In addition to 

jointly implementing the Section 404 program, EPA and 

the Army Corps share Section 404 enforcement authority, 

which is delineated in a 1989 Memorandum of Agreement. 

The Army Corps acts as the lead enforcement agency for all 

violations of Corps-issued permits. The Army Corps also 

acts as the lead enforcement agency for unpermitted discharge violations that do not meet the criteria for forwarding to EPA. EPA acts as the lead enforcement agency when 

an unpermitted activity involves repeat violator(s), flagrant 

violation(s), where EPA requests a class of cases or a particular case, or the Army Corps recommends that an EPA 

administrative penalty action may be warranted.

 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and NOAA’s 

National Marine Fisheries Service evaluate impacts on fish 

and wildlife of all new federal projects and federally permitted projects, including projects subject to the requirements 

of Section 404 (pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act), and can elevate specific cases or policy issues 

pursuant to Section 404(q).

Appendix C: Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review 40

 States and Tribes: States and tribes also have a role in Section 404 decisions, through state program general permits, 

water quality certification, or program assumption. Under 

Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, a federal agency may 

not issue a permit or license for an activity that may result 

in a discharge to waters of the United States until the state 

or tribe where the discharge would originate has granted or 

waived Section 401 certification. Pursuant to Section 401, 

a state or tribe may grant, grant with conditions, deny or 

waive 401 certification. States and tribes make their decisions to deny, certify, or condition permits or licenses based 

in part on the proposed project’s compliance with EPAapproved water quality standards. Through 401 certifications, states and tribes can limit dredge and fill activities or 

require additional protective requirements. 

State programmatic general permits (SPGPs) may be issued 

by the Army Corps in coordination with states or tribes to 

allow a state or tribe to review Section 404 permit applications and verify activities without additional Army Corps 

review, provided the activities have no more than minimal 

adverse effects individually and cumulatively. SPGPs are 

often limited to specific activities, geographic areas, resource 

types, and/or sizes of impacts and can provide a more 

streamlined permitting process for these activities. 

In addition, the Clean Water Act gives states and tribes the 

option of assuming administration of the federal Section 

404 permit program in certain waters within state or tribal 

jurisdiction. State/tribal assumed programs must be at least 

as comprehensive as the federal program. 

Furthermore, more than a dozen states have developed their 

own permit programs, which they operate in coordination 

with the federal program. In some cases, state programs may 

protect a greater number of aquatic resources than fall under 

federal jurisdiction as waters of the United States. States 

may also have their own wetland mitigation, enforcement, 

and monitoring programs.

Data & Information:

 Public Notice: The Army Corps issues public notices to alert 

the public to new applications for Section 404 permits. 

Contained in this notice is a project description including 

the location, the activity, the estimated impacted acres, and 

details on the conceptual mitigation plan. Subsequent to 

the release of a public notice, the Army Corps initiates a 

comment period, usually lasting about 30 days, where the 

public can submit written comments or request a public 

hearing. Public notices are posted on the website of the issuing Army Corps District.

 Permits: Permit records can be used to summarize and track 

wetland losses and gains in an area of interest, and to confirm the compliance of a particular dredge and fill project. 

For this reason, final Section 404 permit information is 

stored in a database operated by the Army Corps (“Operation and Maintenance Information Business Link Regulatory Module 2,” or ORM2). ORM2 has been in operation 

since 2007. Some states with permit programs operate similar databases which can supplement federal permit information.

 Mitigation: The “Regulatory In-lieu fee and Bank Information Tracking System” (RIBITS) is an online database 

developed by the Army Corps with support from EPA and 

USFWS to provide better information on mitigation and 

conservation banking and in-lieu fee programs across the 

country. RIBITS allows users to access information on the 

types and numbers of mitigation and conservation bank 

and in-lieu fee program sites, associated documents, mitigation credit availability, service areas, as well as information 

on national and local policies and procedures that affect 

mitigation and conservation bank and in-lieu fee program 

development and operation. For access, see: http://geo.

usace.army.mil/ribits.

Appendix C: Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review 41

Appendix D: NOAA Coastal Change Analysis Program

The Coastal Change Analysis Program (C-CAP) produces 

a nationally standardized database of land cover and land 

change information for the coastal regions of the United 

States. C-CAP products provide inventories of coastal intertidal areas, wetlands, and adjacent uplands, with the goal of 

monitoring these habitats by updating the land cover maps 

every five years. 

C-CAP products are developed using multiple dates of Landsat (30-meter resolution) imagery and consist of raster based 

land cover maps for each date of analysis, as well as a file that 

highlights what changes have occurred between these dates 

and where the changes were located. C-CAP land cover is 

produced through documented, repeatable procedures using 

standard data sources, and includes extensive field sampling, 

validation, and standard quality control review procedures. It 

provides the “coastal expression” of the National Land Cover 

Database, a contribution to the Earth Cover layer of the 

National Spatial Data Infrastructure. 

C-CAP data sets are not jurisdictional or intended for use in 

litigation. While efforts have been made to ensure that these 

data are accurate and reliable within the limits of current 

technology, NOAA cannot assume liability for any damages 

or misrepresentations caused by inaccuracies in the data, or as 

a result of the data to be used on a particular system. NOAA 

makes no warranty, expressed or implied, nor does the fact of 

distribution constitute such a warranty. 

The intended use is in identifying regional landscape patterns 

and major functional niches (habitat), and for environmental 

impact assessment, urban planning, and zoning applications. C-CAP data will not identify individual species. This 

is a national and regional data set that should be used only 

as a screening tool for very local or site specific management 

decisions. Small features and changes should be verified with a 

higher resolution data source. 

C-CAP Wetland Classifications 

Wetlands are areas dominated by saturated soils and often 

standing water. Their vegetation is adapted to withstand 

long-term immersion and saturated, oxygen-depleted soils. 

Wetlands are divided into two salinity regimes: palustrine for 

freshwater wetlands and estuarine for saltwater wetlands; they 

are further divided into forested, shrub/scrub, and emergent 

wetlands. Unconsolidated shores are also included as wetlands. 

Palustrine forested wetland: Includes all tidal and non-tidal 

wetlands dominated by woody vegetation at least 5 meters 

in height, as well as all such wetlands in tidal areas in which 

salinity due to ocean-derived salts is below 0.5 percent. Total 

vegetation coverage is greater than 20 percent.

Characteristic species: Tupelo (Nyssa), cottonwood (Populus 

deltoides), bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), American elm 

(Ulmus americana), ash (Fraxinus), and tamarack. 

Palustrine scrub/shrub wetland: Includes all tidal and nontidal wetlands dominated by woody vegetation less than 5 

meters in height, as well as all such wetlands in tidal areas in 

which salinity due to ocean-derived salts is below 0.5 percent. 

Total vegetation coverage is greater than 20 percent. The species present could be true shrubs, young trees and shrubs, or 

trees that are small or stunted due to environmental conditions.1

Characteristic species: Alders (Alnus spp.), willows (Salix spp.), 

buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), red osier dogwood 

(Cornus stolonifera), honeycup (Zenobia pulverenta), spirea 

(Spiraea douglassii), bog birch (Betula pumila), and young 

trees such as red maple (Acer rubrum) and black spruce (Picea 

mariana).

Palustrine emergent wetland (persistent): Includes all tidal 

and non-tidal wetlands dominated by persistent emergent 

vascular plants, emergent mosses, or lichens, as well as all such 

wetlands in tidal areas in which salinity due to ocean-derived 

salts is below 0.5 percent. Plants generally remain standing 

until the next growing season. Total vegetation cover is greater 

than 80 percent.

Characteristic species: Cattails (Typha spp.), sedges (Carex spp.), 

bulrushes (Scirpus spp.), rushes (Juncus spp.), saw grass (Cladium jamaicaense), and reed (Phragmites australis).

Estuarine forested wetland: Includes all tidal wetlands dominated by woody vegetation at least 5 meters in height, and all 

such wetlands that occur in tidal areas in which salinity due 

to ocean-derived salts is equal to or greater than 0.5 percent. 

Total vegetation coverage is greater than 20 percent.

Characteristic species: red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle), black 

mangrove (Avicennia germinans), and white mangrove (Languncularia racemosa). 

1 Reference: Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. Laroe. 1979. 

Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/

OBS-79/31. U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review 42

Estuarine scrub/shrub wetland: Includes all tidal wetlands 

dominated by woody vegetation less than 5 meters in height, 

and all such wetlands that occur in tidal areas in which salinity due to ocean-derived salts is equal to or greater than 0.5 

percent. Total vegetation coverage is greater than 20 percent.

Characteristic species: Sea-myrtle (Baccharis halimifolia) and 

marsh elder (Iva frutescens). 

Estuarine emergent wetland: Includes all tidal wetlands 

dominated by erect, rooted, herbaceous hydrophytes (excluding mosses and lichens), and all such wetlands that occur in 

tidal areas in which salinity due to ocean-derived salts is at 

least 0.5 percent and that are present for most of the growing 

season in most years. Perennial plants usually dominate these 

wetlands. Total vegetation cover is greater than 80 percent.

Characteristic species: Cordgrass (Spartina spp.), needlerush 

(Juncus roemerianus), narrow-leaved cattail (Typha angustifolia), southern wild rice (Zizaniopsis miliacea), common 

pickleweed (Salicornia virginica), sea blite (Suaeda californica),

and arrow grass (Triglochin martimum). 

Unconsolidated shore: Unconsolidated material such as silt, 

sand, or gravel that is subject to inundation and redistribution due to the action of water. Characterized by substrates 

lacking vegetation except for pioneering plants that become 

established during brief periods when growing conditions 

are favorable. Erosion and deposition by waves and currents 

produce a number of landforms representing this class.

Characteristic land cover features: Beaches, bars, and flats. 

Barren land: Barren areas of bedrock, desert pavement, scarps, 

talus, slides, volcanic material, glacial debris, sand dunes, strip 

mines, gravel pits, and other accumulations of earth material. 

Generally, vegetation accounts for less than 10 percent of total 

cover.

Characteristic land cover features: Quarries, strip mines, gravel 

pits, dunes, beaches above the high-water line, sandy areas 

other than beaches, deserts and arid riverbeds, and exposed 

rock. 

Open water: All areas of open water, generally with less than 

25 percent cover of vegetation or soil. 

Characteristic land cover features: Lakes, rivers, reservoirs, 

streams, ponds, and ocean. 

Palustrine aquatic bed: Includes tidal and non-tidal wetlands 

and deepwater habitats in which salinity due to ocean-derived 

salts is below 0.5 percent and which are dominated by plants 

that grow and form a continuous cover principally on or at 

the surface of the water. These include algal mats, detached 

floating mats, and rooted vascular plant assemblages. Total 

vegetation cover is greater than 80 percent.

Characteristic vascular species: Pondweed, horned pondweed 

(Zannichellia palustris), ditch grass (Ruppia), wild celery, 

waterweed (Elodea), riverweed (Podostemum ceratophyllum), 

water lilies (Nymphea, Nuphar), floating-leaf pondweed (Potamogeton natans), water shield (Brasenia schreberi), and water 

smartweed (Polygonum amphibium).

Floating surface species: Duckweeds (Lemna, Spirodela), water 

lettuce (Pista stratiotes), water hyacinth (Eichhornia crasspies),

water nut (Trapa natans), water fern (Salvinia spp.), and mosquito ferns (Azolla).

Floating below-surface species: Bladderworts (Utricularia), 

coontails (Ceratophyllum), and watermeals (Wolffia). 

Estuarine aquatic bed: Includes tidal wetlands and deepwater 

habitats in which salinity due to ocean-derived salts is equal 

to or greater than 0.5 percent and which are dominated by 

plants that grow and form a continuous cover principally on 

or at the surface of the water. These include algal mats, kelp 

beds, and rooted vascular plant assemblages. Total vegetation 

cover is greater than 80 percent.

Characteristic species: Kelp (Macrocystis and Laminaria), rockweeds (Fucus and Ascophyllum), red algae (Laurencia), green 

algae (Halimeda and Penicillus, Caulerpa, Enteromorpha and 

Ulva), stonewort (Chara), turtle grass (Thalassia testudinum), 

shoal grass (Halodule wrightii), manatee grasses (Cymodocea filiformis), widgeon grass (Ruppia maritime), sea grasses

(Halophila spp.), and wild celery (Vallisneria americana).

Appendix D: NOAA Coastal Change Analysis Program
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review 43

Appendix E: Federal Agency Programs That Support Coastal Wetland Protection, 

Restoration, and Management

AGENCY PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

EPA Clean Water 

State Revolving 

Fund 

(CWSRF) 

CWSRF programs fund water quality protection projects for wastewater treatment, nonpoint source pollution control, and watershed and estuary management via low-interest 

loans. SRF fundable projects include wetland protection and restoration, as well as creation of constructed wetlands for stormwater or wastewater treatment (which can include 

adequate capacity to ensure habitat values as well as treatment of effluents). 

http://water.epa.gov/grants_funding/cwf/cwsrf_index.cfm 

EPA Ecological 

Research 

Program 

The Ecological Research Program in EPA’s Office of Research and Development is studying 

ecosystem services to gain a better understanding of how to enhance, protect, and restore 

the services of nature. Scientists are providing the methods, models, and tools needed by 

policy decision-makers to make clear how our choices affect the type, quality, and magnitude of the services we receive from ecosystems. The primary objective in the wetland 

research focus area is to document the range and quantity of wetland services and determine how their position on the landscape alters the provision of ecosystem services. 

http://www.epa.gov/research/npd/ecoresearch-intro.htm 

EPA Five Star 

Challenge 

Grants 

Program 

The purpose of the program is to support community-based efforts to restore wetlands, 

river streams/corridors, and coastal habitat; build diverse partnerships within the community; and foster local stewardship of resources through education, outreach, and training 

activities. 

http://www.nfwf.org/fivestar/ 

EPA National 

Estuary 

Program 

(NEP) 

This program works to restore and maintain the water quality and ecological integrity of 

estuaries of national significance. EPA provides funding and technical assistance to NEPs 

to create and implement a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) 

to address problems facing their estuary and surrounding watershed. NEPs involve community members and other key federal, state, and local partners/stakeholders to articulate 

goals and actions to address the wide range of issues in their CCMP. Key CCMP focus 

areas include protecting and restoring habitats such as wetlands. There are 28 NEPs along 

the coasts each guided by a director and staff. 

http://water.epa.gov/type/oceb/nep/index.cfm 

EPA Nonpoint 

Source 

Management 

Grants (Section 

319 Grants) 

Nonpoint source management grants support states, territories, and Indian tribes with 

a wide variety of activities including technical assistance, financial assistance, education, 

training, technology transfer, demonstration projects, and monitoring to assess the success 

of specific nonpoint source implementation projects, some of which include coastal wetland restoration projects. A state/territory/tribe’s Nonpoint Source Management Program 

serves as the basis for how funds are spent. 

http://www.epa.gov/owow_keep/NPS/cwact.html 
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review 44

AGENCY PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

EPA Wetlands 

Program 

Development 

Grants 

(WPDG) 

The Wetlands Program Development Grants give eligible applicants an opportunity to 

conduct projects that promote the coordination and acceleration of research, investigations, 

experiments, training, demonstrations, surveys, and studies relating to the causes, effects, 

extent, prevention, reduction, and elimination of water pollution. While WPDGs can be 

used by recipients to build and refine any element of a comprehensive wetland program, 

priority will be given to funding projects that address the three priority areas identified by 

EPA: developing a comprehensive monitoring and assessment program; improving the 

effectiveness of compensatory mitigation; and refining the protection of vulnerable wetlands 

and aquatic resources. States, tribes, local governments, interstate associations, intertribal 

consortia, and national nonprofit, non-governmental organizations are eligible to apply. 

http://water.epa.gov/grants_funding/wetlands/grantguidelines/index.cfm 

FHWA Project Funds All federal highway projects require mitigation for unavoidable wetland impacts. FHWA 

mitigation regulations require a net gain of wetland acres for new project impacts as well as 

retroactive for past project impacts. 

FHWA Surface 

Transportation 

Environment 

and Planning 

Cooperative 

Research 

Program 

(STEP) 

STEP is a federally administered research program authorized in the “Safe, Accountable, 

Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users” (SAFETEA-LU). It 

improves the understanding of the relationship between surface transportation, environment and planning. STEP implements a national research agenda reflecting national priorities based on input and feedback from partners and stakeholders. STEP funds identify, 

address, and reassess national research priorities for environment, planning and realty, and 

develop tools to support these areas. STEP environmental emphasis areas include air quality and global climate change; and water/wetlands/vegetation/wildlife habitat/brownfields. 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/step/ 

FHWA Transportation 

Enhancements 

Transportation Enhancement (TE) activities offer funding opportunities to help expand 

transportation choices and enhance the transportation experience through 12 eligible TE 

activities related to surface transportation, including landscaping and scenic beautification 

and environmental mitigation. 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/te/ 

FWS Coastal Barrier 

Resources 

Act (CBRA)/ 

Coastal Barrier 

Resources 

System (CBRS) 

CBRA discourages development on 3.1 million acres of coastal barrier and associated 

aquatic habitat by prohibiting most federal expenditures (e.g., flood insurance, road construction, new channel dredging). These areas are designated on maps adopted by Congress 

as the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System. In addition to providing a level of 

protection to 3.1 million acres, CBRA is estimated to have saved taxpayers over $1 billion. 

FWS Coastal 

Program 

Voluntary partnership program to protect, restore, and enhance priority coastal habitat that 

benefits federal trust species on public and private lands. It provides technical and financial 

assistance through partnerships with federal, state, local governments; tribes; organizations; 

academic institutions; and private landowners. The program is delivered through a network 

of field staff in 23 priority coastal watersheds around the country. Assistance instruments are 

primarily cooperative agreements but grant agreements and wildlife extension agreements 

are also used. Decisions regarding partnerships are made at the landscape level. Since 1994, 

the Coastal Program has executed over 2,000 agreements to restore 295,000 acres of coastal 

habitat and 1,700 stream miles, and protect close to 2 million acres of coastal habitat. 

http://www.fws.gov/coastal 

Appendix E: Federal Agency Programs That Support Coastal Wetland Protection, 

Restoration, and Management
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review 45

AGENCY PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

FWS Cooperative 

Endangered 

Species 

Conservation 

Fund 

The Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund (CESCF; Section 6 of the 

Endangered Species Act) is the component of the FWS Endangered Species program that 

provides grant funding to states and territories for species and habitat conservation actions 

on non-federal lands, including habitat acquisition, conservation planning, habitat restoration, status surveys, captive propagation and reintroduction, research, and education. 

Many of these grants involve coastal areas and wetland habitat. 

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/grants/grant-programs.html 

FWS Endangered 

Species 

Conservation 

Grants 

Provides financial assistance to states and territories to implement conservation projects for 

listed species and at-risk species. Funded activities include habitat restoration, species status 

surveys, public education and outreach, captive propagation and reintroduction, nesting 

surveys, genetic studies, and development of management plans. 

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/grants/grant-programs.html 

FWS Endangered 

Species 

HCP Land 

Acquisition 

Grants 

Provides funding to states and territories to acquire land associated with approved Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP). Grants do not fund the mitigation required of an HCP 

permittee; instead, they support conservation actions by the state or local governments that 

complement mitigation. 

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/grants/grant-programs.html 

FWS Endangered 

Species 

Program 

The Endangered Species Program conserves imperiled plant and animal species and the 

ecosystems upon which they depend, while promoting the voluntary conservation of other 

vulnerable wildlife and their habitat. The program strives to ensure a strong scientific 

basis for decisions on threatened and endangered species, facilitate large-scale planning to 

accommodate land use and wildlife habitat, and promote innovative public/private partnerships. Components of the program include technical assistance, outreach and education, grant assistance, and regulatory actions. Many activities involve efforts to conserve 

coastal areas and wetlands provide important habitat for threatened or endangered species, 

species at risk of becoming threatened or endangered. 

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/ 

FWS Endangered 

Species 

Recovery Land 

Acquisition 

Grants 

Provides funds to states and territories for acquisition of habitat for endangered and threatened species in support of draft and approved recovery plans. Acquisition of habitat to 

secure long-term protection is often an essential element of a comprehensive recovery effort 

for a listed species. 

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/grants/grant-programs.html 

FWS Migratory Bird 

Conservation 

Fund 

Provides the DOI with financing for the acquisition of migratory bird habitat, including 

wetlands. Decisions regarding purchases of land and water areas by FWS are made by the 

Migratory Bird Conservation Commission based on recommendations from the Service. 

The Small Wetland Program allows the proceeds from the sale of Federal Duck Stamps to 

be used to protect waterfowl habitat in perpetuity through fee-title acquisition or easement. 

The habitat protected consists of small wetlands, and surrounding grassland habitat in the 

Prairie Pothole Region. Since its creation 50 years ago, the program has protected nearly 3 

million acres of habitat. 

http://www.fws.gov/duckstamps/Conservation/mbcc.htm 

Appendix E: Federal Agency Programs That Support Coastal Wetland Protection, 

Restoration, and Management
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review 46

AGENCY PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

FWS National 

Coastal 

Wetlands 

Conservation 

Grant Program 

Authorized by the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act of 1990. 

Co-administered by the Coastal Program and the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration 

Program. Annually provides grants of up to $1 million to coastal states, including Great 

Lakes states, to acquire and restore coastal wetlands. Coastal states are eligible applicants. 

Program requires cost share of between 50 and 75 percent of the grant request depending 

on whether the state has an open-space conservation program. Ineligible activities include 

planning, research, monitoring, and construction or repair of structures for recreational 

purposes. A national ranking panel made up of FWS biologists recommends a list of projects for funding to the Director. 

http://www.fws.gov/coastal/CoastalGrants/ 

FWS National 

Fish Passage 

Program 

Voluntary program that provides technical and financial assistance to fish passage barrier 

removal or bypass projects. The goal of the program is to restore native fishes and other 

aquatic species to self-sustaining levels by reconnecting habitat that has been fragmented 

by barriers. Project applications are reviewed and prioritized on a regional basis. Financial assistance is delivered through the regional and local Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Offices. The program strives to achieve a 50 percent match overall, including in-kind 

contributions. Non-federal funds are typically leveraged at a 3:1 ratio. The program uses 

the National Fish Passage Decision Support System, which catalogues fish passage barriers nationally. Fish passage projects are not eligible for funding if they are eligible for any 

federal or state compensatory mitigation or if fish passage is a condition provided by existing federal or state regulatory programs. Since 1999, the program has worked with over 

700 different partners to remove 749 barriers, and reopen 11,249 miles of river and 80,556 

acres to fish passage, benefitting over 85 federal trust fish and other aquatic species. 

http://www.fws.gov/fisheries/fwco/fishpassage 

FWS National 

Wetlands 

Inventory 

(NWI) 

Provides information on the characteristics, extent, and status of U.S. wetlands and deepwater habitats and other wildlife habitats. NWI produces periodic reports on the status and 

trends of wetlands in the conterminous U.S., which is used for policymaking, assessment, 

and monitoring. NWI has developed a series of topical maps to show wetlands and deepwater habitats. This geospatial information is used by Congress; federal, state, and local 

agencies; academic institutions; and the private sector to inform natural resource planning, 

management, and project development. The NWI website provides a portal to the Wetlands Geodatabase and the Wetlands Mapper, which provide technological tools that allow 

the integration of large relational databases with spatial information and map-like displays. 

The Service’s wetland data forms a layer of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure. 

http://www.fws.gov/nwi 

FWS National 

Wildlife 

Refuge System 

(NWRS) 

180 of the 552 refuges in the NWRS manage 121 million acres of marine or coastal 

habitat. Approximately one-quarter of the 150 million-acre NWRS consists of wetlands. 

The NWRS protects, restores, maintains, and conducts research on these wetlands. The 

NWRS sustains wetlands to support healthy populations of federal trust species, including 

threatened and endangered species, migratory birds, interjurisdictional fish, some marine 

mammals, and many plants. Wetlands in the NWRS provide opportunities for research 

and outdoor recreational pursuits for the American public. 

http://www.fws.gov/refuges 

Appendix E: Federal Agency Programs That Support Coastal Wetland Protection, 

Restoration, and Management
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review 47

AGENCY PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

FWS Natural 

Resource 

Damage 

Assessment and 

Restoration 

Program 

(NRDAR) 

The NRDAR program restores wetland acres that have been harmed by the release of contaminants from hazardous waste sites, and oil and chemical spills. Where possible, FWS 

partners with other federal agencies, other FWS programs, states, tribes, or non-governmental organizations to enlarge these restoration efforts, which enhances the value of the 

restoration to fish and wildlife. In FY 2009, the NRDAR program was responsible for the 

restoration and enhancement of over 23,000 wetland acres and for the protection of nearly 

41,000 wetland acres. In addition, the program restored or enhanced 186 riparian stream 

miles and managed or protected 383 riparian stream miles. The Division of Environmental 

Quality provides approximately $1.5 million in toxicology, ecology, and habitat restoration 

expertise to EPA and other federal and state partners to minimize impacts to wetlands during the cleanup of contaminated areas. 

http://www.fws.gov/contaminants/Issues/Restoration.cfm 

FWS North 

American 

Waterfowl 

Management 

Plan—Joint 

Ventures 

Collaborative, regionally based partnership of U.S. and Canadian agencies, nonprofit organizations, corporations, tribes, or individuals that conserves habitat for priority bird species 

within a specific geographic area. Designed to achieve the regional conservation goals identified in the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. 18 habitat joint ventures and 

three species specific joint ventures. Activities include biological planning, conservation 

design, and prioritization; project development and implementation; monitoring, evaluation, applied research; communications, education, and outreach; funding support for 

projects. To date, joint ventures have invested $4.5 billion to conserve 15.7 million acres of 

waterfowl habitat. 

http://www.fws.gov/birdhabitat/nawmp 

FWS North 

American 

Wetlands 

Conservation 

Grants 

(NAWCA) 

Supports activities under the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, an international agreement that provides a strategy for the long-term protection of wetlands and associated upland habitats needed by waterfowl and other wetland-associated migratory birds 

in North America. Provides competitive grants to non-governmental organizations, states, 

local governments, tribes, and individuals to carry out wetland conservation projects in the 

United States, Canada, and Mexico for the benefit of wetland-associated migratory birds 

and other wildlife. Projects must provide long-term protection, restoration, and enhancement of wetlands and associated upland habitats. Mexican partnerships may also develop 

training, educational, and management programs and conduct sustainable-use studies. 

Standard grants: From FY 1990 to June 2010, some 3,850 partners in 1,518 projects have 

received more than $1.03 billion in grants. They have contributed another $2.06 billion in 

matching funds to affect 25.5 million acres of habitat and $1.14 billion in non-matching 

funds to affect 230,900 acres of habitat. Small grants: From FY1990 to FY 2009, some 

1,160 partners in 455 projects have received more than $22.9 million in grants. They have 

contributed another $101 million in matching funds to affect 172,600 acres of habitat and 

$57.4 million in non-matching funds to affect 7,400 acres of habitat. 

http://www.fws.gov/birdhabitat/Grants/NAWCA 

Appendix E: Federal Agency Programs That Support Coastal Wetland Protection, 

Restoration, and Management
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review 48

AGENCY PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

FWS Partners for 

Fish and 

Wildlife 

Program 

Voluntary partnership program to restore and enhance priority fish and wildlife habitat on 

private lands. Provides technical and financial assistance through partnerships with landowners. Delivered through locally based field biologists in each state. Assistance instruments are primarily cooperative agreements. Decisions regarding partnerships are made at 

the landscape level. Since 1987 the Program has worked with over 42,000 private landowners and restored 975,000 acres of wetlands, 3,000,000 acres of uplands, and 8,700 miles of 

stream habitat. Statutory authority: Partners for Fish and Wildlife Act of 2006. 

http://www.fws.gov/partners 

NOAA Coastal and 

Estuarine Land 

Conservation 

Program 

(CELCP) 

CELCP, part of the Coastal Zone Management Program, was established in 2002 to protect coastal and estuarine lands considered important for their ecological, conservation, recreational, historical or aesthetic values. The NOAA Ocean Service program provides state 

and local governments with matching funds to purchase significant coastal and estuarine 

lands, or conservation easements on such lands, from willing sellers. Lands or conservation 

easements acquired with CELCP funds are protected in perpetuity so that they may be 

enjoyed by future generations. 

http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/land/welcome.html 

NOAA Coastal Zone 

Management 

Program 

The Coastal Zone Management Program supports state planning and programs to protect 

coastal resources, including wetlands. The NOAA Ocean Service program is a voluntary 

partnership between the federal government and U.S. coastal and Great Lakes states that 

takes a comprehensive approach to coastal resource management by balancing the often 

competing and occasionally conflicting demands of coastal resources use, economic development, and conservation. 

http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/programs/czm.html 

NOAA Coastal Zone 

Enhancement 

Program 

(CZARA 

Section 309) 

The Coastal Zone Enhancement Program, a part of the NOAA Ocean Service Coastal 

Zone Management Program, is designed to encourage states and territories to develop 

program changes in one or more of the nine coastal zone enhancement areas of national 

significance, including wetlands. Every five years, state coastal management programs 

conduct self-assessments of their programs’ activities within the nine enhancement areas to 

help target the Section 309 funds toward program needs. 

http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/enhanc.html 

NOAA Coastal Zone 

Nonpoint 

Pollution 

Program 

(CZARA 

Section 6217) 

The Coastal Zone Nonpoint Pollution Program, a part of the NOAA Ocean Service Coastal 

Zone Management Program, establishes a set of management measures for states to use 

in controlling polluted runoff from six main sources, including wetlands and vegetated 

shorelines. State policies and actions to develop coastal nonpoint pollution control programs 

ensure implementation of the program at the state level. 

http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/nonpoint/welcome.html 

NOAA Communitybased Restoration Program The Community-based Restoration Program, a part of the NOAA Fisheries Habitat Conservation Program, invests funding and technical expertise in high-priority habitat restoration projects that instill strong conservation values and engage citizens in hands-on activities. Through the program, NOAA, its partners, and thousands of volunteers are actively 

restoring coastal, marine, and migratory fish habitat across the nation. http://www.habitat.

noaa.gov/restoration/programs/crp.html 

Appendix E: Federal Agency Programs That Support Coastal Wetland Protection, 

Restoration, and Management
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review 49

AGENCY PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

NOAA Damage 

Assessment, 

Remediation, 

and 

Restoration 

Program 

(DARRP) 

The NOAA Ocean Service Damage Assessment, Remediation, and Restoration Program 

collaborates with other agencies, industry, and citizens to protect and restore coastal and 

marine resources threatened or injured by oil spills, releases of hazardous substances, and 

vessel groundings. The program provides permanent expertise within NOAA to assess and 

restore natural resources injured by release of oil and hazardous substances, as well as by 

physical impacts such as vessel groundings in National Marine Sanctuaries. 

http://www.darrp.noaa.gov/ 

NOAA Essential Fish 

Habitat (EFH) 

provisions of 

the MagnusonStevens Act 

Marine fish depend on healthy habitats to survive and reproduce. Throughout their lives 

fish use many types of habitats including seagrass, salt marsh, coral reefs, kelp forests, and 

rocky intertidal areas among others. Various activities on land and in the water constantly 

threaten to alter, damage, or destroy these habitats. NOAA Fisheries, regional Fishery Management Councils, and federal and state agencies work together to address these threats 

by identifying EFH for each federally managed fish species and developing conservation 

measures to protect and enhance these habitats. 

http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/index.html 

NOAA Great Lakes 

Habitat 

Restoration 

Program 

The Great Lakes Habitat Restoration Program, a part of the NOAA Fisheries Habitat 

Conservation Program, plans, implements, and funds coastal habitat restoration projects 

throughout the Great Lakes region. The program works to protect and restore coastal 

habitats through recovery of damages from natural resource damage claims, which are used 

to implement community-based restoration efforts. Much of NOAA’s work in the region 

is focused on supporting community-identified restoration priorities in Areas of Concern, 

environmentally degraded areas within the Great Lakes basin. 

http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/restoration/programs/greatlakes.html 

NOAA Habitat 

Conservation 

Program 

The Habitat Conservation Program, composed of the Habitat Protection Division, a Restoration Center, and the Chesapeake Bay Office, protects, restores, and promotes stewardship of coastal and marine habitat to support our nation’s fisheries and preserve our coastal 

communities for future generations. The Program carries out various management and 

research efforts to develop national and regional policies, programs, and science to conserve 

wetlands. 

http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/index.html 

NOAA National 

Estuarine 

Research 

Reserve System 

(NERRS) 

The NERRS is a network of 28 areas representing different biogeographic regions of the 

United States that are protected for long-term research, water-quality monitoring, education, and coastal stewardship. Established by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, 

as amended, the reserve system is a partnership program between NOAA and the coastal 

states. NOAA’s Ocean Service provides funding, national guidance, and technical assistance. Each reserve is managed on a daily basis by a lead state agency or university, with 

input from local partners. Reserve staff work with local communities and regional groups 

to address natural resource management issues, such as non-point source pollution, habitat 

restoration and invasive species. Through integrated research and education, the reserves 

help communities develop strategies to deal successfully with these coastal resource issues. 

http://www.nerrs.noaa.gov/ 

Appendix E: Federal Agency Programs That Support Coastal Wetland Protection, 

Restoration, and Management
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review 50

AGENCY PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

NOAA Pacific Coastal 

Salmon 

Recovery Fund 

(PCSRF) 

The PCSRF was established by Congress in FY 2000 to protect, restore, and conserve 

Pacific salmon and steelhead populations and their habitats. Under the PCSRF, NOAA 

Fisheries manages a program to provide funding to states and tribes of the Pacific Coast 

region. 

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/PCSRF/Index.cfm 

Army Corps Clean Water 

Act 404 

Program 

Army Corps manages the nation’s wetlands through a regulatory program requiring permits for the discharge of dredged and fill material into jurisdictional water of the United 

States. This important regulatory program helps maintain the wetland base so other federal 

programs can achieve gains. EPA shares regulatory responsibility with Army Corps under 

this program. 

Army Corps Continuing 

Authorities 

Program (CAP) 

Standing Authorities to study/build water resource projects for specific purposes and with 

specified federal spending limits and cost share requirement. CAP project funding varies by 

program and purpose. There are 10 commonly referenced nationwide programs. Three of 

these specifically involve ecosystem improvement: the 206 Program is for aquatic ecosystem restoration, the 1135 Program is for project modifications for improvement of the 

environment, and the 204 Program is for beneficial uses of dredged material. There are also 

several geographically restricted Regional Programs that relate to environmental infrastructure projects. 

Army Corps Engineer 

Research and 

Development 

Center 

(ERDC) 

The Wetlands Research and Technology Center (WRTC) consolidates administrative, 

technological, and research skills in the area of wetland science and engineering that are 

available at the ERDC. The ERDC has long been recognized as a center for wetland expertise, conducting extensive environmental research in wetland systems. The WRTC provides 

a single point of contact for wetland research and development, guidance, support, and 

technology transfer. The WRTC provides access to an array of technical specialists and 

interdisciplinary teams in research areas that emphasize the interrelationships of biological, physical, and chemical environments in order to provide fundamental understanding 

of ecological processes and dynamics in wetland ecosystems. The WRTC serves the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, other Department of Defense agencies, other government agencies, academia, industry and the general public. 

http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/wetlands/wetlands.html#wrtc 

Army Corps General 

Investigations 

Studies for project authorization that are undertaken in response to either a study-specific 

authority or a general authority; these are typically larger, complex projects. The reconnaissance phase is 100 percent federally funded, the feasibility phase is cost-shared 50/50, the 

preconstruction engineering and design phase is cost-shared 75/25, and the construction/ 

implementation for Ecosystem Restoration Projects is cost-shared 65/35. The maximum 

cost limit per project is set for each phase. Major projects include the Florida Everglades 

Restoration, the Upper Mississippi River Restoration, the Louisiana Coastal Area project, 

the Missouri River Recovery, and the Lower Columbia River and Tillamook Bay Ecosystem Restoration. 

Appendix E: Federal Agency Programs That Support Coastal Wetland Protection, 

Restoration, and Management
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review 51

AGENCY PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

USDA 

FSA 

Conservation 

Reserve 

Program (CRP) 

CRP provides technical and financial assistance to eligible farmers and ranchers to address 

soil, water, and related natural resource concerns on their lands in an environmentally 

beneficial and cost-effective manner. The program is funded through the Commodity 

Credit Corporation. CRP is administered by the Farm Service Agency (FSA), with NRCS 

providing technical land eligibility determinations, conservation planning and practice 

implementation. CRP reduces soil erosion, protects the nation’s ability to produce food 

and fiber, reduces sedimentation in streams and lakes, improves water quality, establishes 

wildlife habitat, and enhances forest and wetland resources. It encourages farmers to 

convert highly erodible cropland or other environmentally sensitive acreage to vegetative 

cover, such as tame or native grasses, wildlife plantings, trees, filterstrips, or riparian buffers. Farmers receive an annual rental payment for the term of the multi-year contract. Cost 

sharing is provided to establish the vegetative cover practices. 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/crp/ 

USDA 

NRCS 

Conservation 

Technical 

Assistance 

Program 

(CTA) 

Through conservation technical assistance, NRCS and its partners help land users address 

opportunities, concerns, and problems related to the use of natural resources and make 

sound natural resource management decisions on private, tribal, and other non-federal 

lands. This assistance may be in the form of resource assessment, practice design, resource 

monitoring, or follow-up of installed practices. Although the CTA program does not 

include financial or cost-share assistance, clients may develop conservation plans, which 

may serve as a springboard for those interested in participating in USDA financial assistance programs. CTA planning can also serve as a door to financial assistance and easement 

conservation programs provided by other federal, state, and local programs. 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/cta/ 

USDA 

NRCS 

Emergency 

Watershed 

Protection 

Program 

(EWP) 

The purpose of the Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) program is to undertake 

emergency measures, including the purchase of flood plain easements for runoff retardation 

and soil erosion prevention to safeguard lives and property from floods, drought, and the 

products of erosion on any watershed whenever fire, flood, or any other natural occurrence 

is causing or has caused a sudden impairment of the watershed. 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/financial/ewp 

USDA 

NRCS 

Environmental 

Quality 

Incentives 

Program 

(EQIP) 

EQIP provides a voluntary conservation program for farmers, ranchers, and owners of 

private, non-industrial forest land that promotes agricultural production, forest management, and environmental quality as compatible national goals. EQIP offers financial and 

technical assistance to help eligible producers install or implement conservation practices 

on eligible agricultural land. EQIP offers contracts with a minimum term that ends one 

year after the implementation of the last scheduled practice(s) and a maximum term of 10 

years. Owners of land in agricultural production or persons who are engaged in livestock 

or agricultural production on eligible land may participate in the EQIP program. Program practices and activities are carried out according to a plan of operations, developed 

in conjunction with the producer, that identifies the appropriate conservation practice or 

measures needed to address identified natural resource concerns. The practices are subject 

to NRCS technical standards adapted for local conditions. EQIP may provide payments up 

to 75 percent of the estimated incurred costs and income foregone of certain conservation 

practices and conservation activity plans. 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/financial/eqip 

Appendix E: Federal Agency Programs That Support Coastal Wetland Protection, 

Restoration, and Management
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review 52

AGENCY PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

USDA 

NRCS 

Farm and 

Ranchlands 

Protection 

Program 

(FRPP) 

FRPP provides matching funds to help purchase development rights to keep productive 

farm and ranchland in agricultural uses. Working through existing programs, USDA partners with state, tribal, or local governments and non-governmental organizations to acquire 

conservation easements or other interests in land from landowners. USDA provides up 

to 50 percent of the fair market easement value of the conservation easement. To qualify, 

farmland must be part of a pending offer from a state, tribe, or local farmland protection 

program; be privately owned; have a conservation plan for highly erodible land; be large 

enough to sustain agricultural production; be accessible to markets for what the land produces; have adequate infrastructure and agricultural support services; and have surrounding 

parcels of land that can support long-term agricultural production. Depending on funding 

availability, proposals must be submitted by the eligible entities to the appropriate NRCS 

State Office during the application window. 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/easements/farmranch 

USDA 

NRCS 

Grasslands 

Reserve 

Program 

(GRP) 

GRP is a voluntary conservation program that emphasizes support for working grazing 

operations, enhancement of plant and animal biodiversity, and protection of grassland 

under threat of conversion to other uses. Participants voluntarily limit future development and cropping uses of the land while retaining the right to conduct common grazing 

practices and operations related to the production of forage and seeding, subject to certain 

restrictions during nesting seasons of bird species that are in significant decline or are protected under federal or state law. A grazing management plan is required for participants. 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/easements/grassland 

USDA 

NRCS

Swampbuster The Highly Erodible Land Conservation and Wetland Conservation Compliance provisions (Swampbuster) were introduced in the 1985 Farm Bill, with amendments in 1990, 

1996, and 2002. The purpose of the provisions is to remove certain incentives to produce 

agricultural commodities on converted wetlands or highly erodible land, unless the highly 

erodible land is protected from excessive soil erosion. It withholds federal farm program 

benefits from any person who converts a wetland by clearing, drainage, dredging, leveling, 

or any other means for the purpose of making agricultural commodity production possible, 

or who plants a commodity on a converted wetland. 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailfull/national/programs/alphabetical/

camr/?&cid=stelprdb1043554

USDA 

NRCS 

Wetlands 

Reserve 

Enhancement 

Program 

(WREP) 

WREP is a voluntary conservation program which is a component of WRP. Under WREP, 

NRCS enters into agreements with eligible partners (states and local units of government, Indian tribes, and non-governmental organizations) to help enhance conservation 

outcomes on wetlands and adjacent lands. WREP targets and leverages resources to carry 

out high-priority wetland protection, restoration, and enhancement activities and improve 

wildlife habitat. Once NRCS selects a partner’s proposal, landowners within the selected 

project area may submit an application directly to NRCS for participation in WRP. 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/easements/wetlands 

Appendix E: Federal Agency Programs That Support Coastal Wetland Protection, 

Restoration, and Management
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review 53

AGENCY PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

USDA 

NRCS 

Wetlands 

Reserve 

Program 

(WRP) 

This voluntary program restores and protects wetlands on private lands to cost-effectively 

maximize wildlife benefits and wetland functions and values that have been degraded or 

impacted as a result of the production of food and fiber. Since 1992, WRP has restored 

approximately 2.2 million acres on 11,758 properties. WRP enrollment options include 

permanent easement, 30-year easement, restoration agreement, 30-year contract on tribal 

lands, and reserve grazing rights pilot. The perpetual easement option pays landowners 100 

percent of the WRP easement value and 100 percent of the costs to restore the wetlands 

and associated habitats on the land. The 30-year easement and 30-year contracts options 

provide 75 percent of the easement values and restoration costs. The restoration agreement 

only option provides 75 percent of the restoration costs and requires the restored habitat to 

be maintained for a period of 10 years. 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/easements/wetlands 

USDA 

NRCS 

Wildlife 

Habitat 

Incentives 

Program 

(WHIP) 

WHIP is a voluntary program for conservation-minded landowners who want to develop 

and improve wildlife habitat on agricultural land, nonindustrial private forest land, and 

Indian land. NRCS administers WHIP to provide both technical assistance and up to 75 

percent cost-share assistance to establish and improve fish and wildlife habitat. WHIP 

cost-share agreements between NRCS and the participant generally last from one year after 

the last conservation practice is implemented but not more than 10 years from the date the 

agreement is signed. 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/financial/whip 

USGS National 

Wetlands 

Research 

Center 

The National Wetlands Research Center is a source and clearinghouse of science information about wetlands in the United States and the world for fellow agencies, private entities, 

academia, and the public at large. Staff members obtain and provide this information by 

performing original scientific research and developing research results into literature and 

technological tools. They then disseminate that information through a variety of means. 

The Center solves wetland-related problems and conducts status and trends inventories of 

wetland habitats, evaluates wetland problems, and conducts field and laboratory research 

on wetland issues. Center research includes a broad array of projects on wetland ecology, 

values, management, restoration and creation, plus research on the ecology of a wide variety of plant and animal species and communities that are found in wetlands. 

http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/ 

USGS Other 

scientific 

research 

USGS also conducts scientific studies on other areas related to wetland health, including carbon sequestration, long shore transport processes, water level fluctuations, climate 

change, and sea level rise. 

http://www.usgs.gov/ 

Appendix E: Federal Agency Programs That Support Coastal Wetland Protection, 

Restoration, and Management
Coastal Wetlands Initiative: North Atlantic Review 54

AGENCY PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

EPA/ 

FWS/ 

NOAA/ 

USDA/ 

Army Corps 

Coastal 

Wetlands 

Planning, 

Protection and 

Restoration 

Act (CWP

PRA) 

CWPPRA is funded by the Aquatic Resources Trust Fund, which was established in 1990 

and is authorized until 2019. The fund is created from excise taxes on fishing equipment 

and on motorboat and small engine fuels. The Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation 

and Restoration Task Force receives 70 percent of the funds; the North American Wetlands Conservation Act Program and the National Wetlands Conservation Grant Program 

receive 15 percent each. Funding distributed to the Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force is used to design and construct projects to preserve, 

re-establish, and enhance Louisiana’s coastal landscape. 

http://www.lacoast.gov/new/About/Default.aspx http://www.fws.gov/birdhabitat/Grants/

NAWCA/index.shtm http://www.fws.gov/coastal/coastalgrants/ 

EPA/ 

FWS/ 

NOAA/ 

USDA/ 

Army Corps 

Estuary 

Restoration 

Act (ERA) 

The purpose of ERA is to promote the restoration of estuary habitat; to provide federal 

assistance for estuary habitat restoration projects; to develop a national Estuary Habitat 

Restoration Strategy for creating and maintaining effective partnerships within the federal 

government and with the private sector; and to develop and enhance monitoring, data 

sharing, and research capabilities. Under ERA, NOAA developed and maintains a restoration project database, the National Estuaries Restoration Inventory, and established 

standards for restoration monitoring. 

http://www.era.noaa.gov/ 

Appendix E: Federal Agency Programs That Support Coastal Wetland Protection, 

Restoration, and Management