2005 C O ASTAL HABITAT PR OT ECTION PLAN



## CHAPTER 5. WETLANDS

Wetlands are widely recog n ized as habitats vital to fisheries production in North Carolina and elsewhere (Mitsch and Gosselink 1993; Graff and Middleton 2 003). This chapter defines and describes wetland

habitats foun d in coastal North Carolina and docum en ts their current distribution, ecological role, biological function, current status, trends, threats, and manage ment needs.

Coastal wetlands border vital nursery a reas and

serv e as the primary buffe r between land and water-based impacts.

5.1. DESCRIPTION AN D DIST RIB U TION

Definition

Wetlands are wet are as co mmonly referred to as swa m p s or m a rsh es. Wetlands, as defined b y federal regulations [ 40 CFR 230. 3( t)] and EMC rules [ 15A NC AC 2B .020 2(71)]

, are “...areas that are inundated or saturated by an accu m u lation of surfa ce or groundwater at a fr e quenc y and duration sufficient to support, and t h at under nor mal circu mst ances do support, a preval ence of vegetation t y picall y adapted for

life in saturated soil condit i ons.” The b oundar y betw een wetlands and deepwater habitat (i.e., subm erged aquatic vegetation) is defin e d as the m a x i m u m dept h where rooted em ergent veg e tation (i.e., marsh grasses) can be found - ge nerally <6ft ( 2 m ) belo w mean low water during the growing season (Figure 5.1). T h e EMC and federal regulator y definitions in clude nonti d al freshwater wetlands not subject to

CRC rules. The CRC refer s to coastal w e tlands as “marshlands,” defined as “an y salt m a rsh or other marsh subject to regular or occasional flooding by t i de s, including wind tides (whether or not the tide

waters reach t h e marshland areas through natural or a r tificial watercourses), provided this sha ll not

include hurric a ne or tropical storm tides” [ G .S. 113-229(n)(3)] . The CHPP will focus prim arily on

wetlands that are connected to coastal water bodies by surface water of sufficient depth to all o w fish

utilization. These “connect ed” wetlands are hereby termed “riparian wetlands” because they border

streams and other water bodies.

Chapter 5 - Wetlands 3112005 C O ASTAL HABITAT PR OT ECTION PLAN

Figure 5.1

. Graphic depiction of the c onceptual bo undaries am o ng riparian w e tlands, uplan ds, and deepwater habitats.

Desc ription

Riparian wetl ands can be differentiated into fo ur broa d wetland classes based on their landscape position

within draina ge networks (hy d rogeom orphology ): est uarine, riverine, headwater, and flat/depr essional (Sutter 199 9).

• Estuarine wetlands are generally fou n d along t h e margins of estuaries and sounds. Estuarin e wetlands include salt/brackish marsh, est uari ne shrub/ scrub and estuarine forests.

• Riverine wetlands are those in which hydrology is determ ined or heavily influe nced b y pr oxi mity to a perennial strea m of any size. Overbank flow fro m the strea m exe r ts considerable influence on the

h y drol og y of larger streams. Riverine wetlands includ e freshwa ter marshes, bottom l and hard wood forest, and riverine swamp forest.

• Headwater wetlands exist in the upperm ost reaches of lo cal watersheds upstream of perennial streams. Headwater sy stems may conta i n channels with interm ittent flow, but the prim ary sources of water input are precipitation, overland r u noff, and gro undwater discharge rather than overbank flow

from a stream.

• Flat/depressi onal wetlands are generall y not in direct proxim ity to surface w a ter

. While the y are isolated from or hy dr ologically disconne cted fro m surface water, the hydrol ogy of depressional wetlands is prim arily determined b y gro undwater discharge, overland run o ff, an d precipitatio n. Flat/depressi onal wetlands include pocosins, pine flats, depressional swam p forest, hardwood flats,

mariti me sw a m p fore sts, a nd som e man aged pineland s. They are also referred t o as non-riparian

wetlands.

While fish occupy riverine and estuarine wetlands (Map 5.1a-d) duri ng perio d s of regular inund ation,

headwater an d flat/depress ional wetlands (Map 5.2) are generally n o t directl y uti lized b y fish. However,

there are so me exceptions. The pocosin s adjacent to the Alligator and Northeast Cape Fear riv e rs have

surface drain a ge to coastal waters (Brin s on 1991). Ho wever, the pri m ary focus of this chapter is the riparian wetla nds found in estua rine and riverine sy stems.

Chapter 5 - Wetlands 3122005 C O ASTAL HABITAT PR OT ECTION PLAN

Estuarine wet l ands

• Salt/brackish marsh is defined b y DCM using the CAMA defin ition for coast al wetlands.

Salt/brackish marsh is ther efore defined by the plant species it contains: sm ooth cordgrass, black needlerush, glasswort, salt grass, se a lavender, bulrus h , saw grass, cattail, salt- m eadow grass, and salt reed-grass [G .S. 113-229(n)(3) ]

.

• Estuarine forested wetla nds are subject to occasional flooding by tides, including wind tides (whether or not the tide waters reach the marshla nd areas through natural or artificial wat e rcourses).

Exam ples include pine-d o m inated co mm unities w ith rushes in the understor y or fringe swamp

co mm unities, such as those that occur along large bac k barrier estuaries like Alb e m a rle and Pam lico

sounds. Estuarine forested wetlands are co mm on in upper estuarine sections of coastal rivers.

• Estuarine sh rub/scrub is any shr ub/scrub dom i nated community s ubject to occasional floodi ng by tides, includi ng wind ti des (whether or not the ti de waters reach the m a rshland areas through natural

or artificial w a tercourse s). Typical species include wa x m y rtle and eastern red c e d ar. Exam ple s include areas along the sound shorelines of barrier islands.

Riverine wetlands

• Freshwate r marshe s are defined by D C M as herbaceous areas th at are flooded for extended periods during the gr owing season. Included ar e m a rshes wit h in lake s y stems, managed i m poundm ents, so m e Carolina Bays, and other non-tidal m a rshes (i.e ., marshes which do not fall int o t h e salt/brackish marsh category ) . Ty pical co mm unities include speci es of sedges, millets, rushes and grasses that are not specified in the coastal wetlands regulati ons. Also included are giant cane, arrowhead, pickerelweed, arrow aru m
, and smartw ee d. Such m a rs hes occur in the coastal wa ters of the Trent River near New Bern and along parts of the Ca pe Fear and Northeast Cape Fear rivers.

• Bottomland hardwood forests and riverine s w amp forests ar e generally forested, or occasionally shrub/scrub, co mm unities usually occurring in floo dplains, that are se m i -per man ently to seasonally

flooded. Bott om land hard wood forests contain m o stly oaks (overcup, water, laurel, swam p, chestnut), sweet gum , green ash, cottonwoods, willows , river birch, and occasionall y pi nes, while

riverine swa m p fore sts co ntain generally cypress, black gum , wat e r tupelo, green ash and red maple.

These swam p s occur throughout the sh oreline areas of coastal rivers.

Headwater wetlands

• Headwater s w amps are wooded, ri verine sy stem s al ong sm all, interm ittent tributary streams.
Headwater swam ps include hardw ood-dom i nated communities with soil that is m o ist m o st of the

y ear. Channe ls receive thei r water fro m overl and flow and rarely ov erflow their banks.

Flat/depressi onal wetlands

• Non-riverine swamp fore sts are very poorly drained, non-riverine forested, or occasionally shrub/scrub, co mm unities which ar e semi-permanently to tem porar ily fl ooded. T y pical species

include c y press, black gum, water tupelo, gr een ash and red m a ple ( S utter 1999).

• Pocosins are palustrine shrub/scrub comm unities (i.e., non-estuarin e shrub/scrub) dom inated by evergreen shrubs, often m i xed with po n d or lo blol ly pines. Pocosins ty pically occur on saturated, acid, nutrient poor, sand y o r peaty soils; usually rem o ved from larg e streams, an d subject to p e riodic

burnin g

.

• Wet forest ed flats are poorly drained interstrea m flat s not associat ed with rivers or estuaries. They are seasonally saturated by hig h water table or poor d r ainage. Species vary greatly but often i n clude

sweet gu m an d red m a ple. This category includ es some hardwood fl ats, pine flats, and pine plantations.

• Maritime Sw amp Forests are forested c o mmunities c h aracteriz ed b y stunted gr owth due to t h e

stress es i m po sed by its proxim ity to salt spray from the ocean. Typical vegetation includes live oak, red cedar, red maple, and swam p tupelo.

Chapter 5 - Wetlands 3132005 C O ASTAL HABITAT PR OT ECTION PLAN

Habitat requirem ents

Estuarine wet l ands

Salt/brackish marsh plants grow at salinities fro m 0.5 to >35 ppt ( W iegart and Freeman 1990). Withi n this salinity range, salt m a r s h plants persist in lo w-energy protected areas where t h e rate of sedi m ent building (accretion) exceeds the rate of sedi m ent loss (through erosion) or subsidence (Mitsch and Gosselink 1993). Inorganic sedi m ents a r e deposited by river currents, tidal creeks and ocean overwash on and adjacent to the m a rsh platform (Wiegert a nd Freeman 1990; Mitsch and Gosselink 1993). Deposition

from sedi m en t-laden creek water c a uses side levees of higher elevation (low m a rs h) and coarser particle

size than the sedi m ents in the mar sh interior (high m a rsh).

Erosion and s e di m e ntation are natural processe s that c a n result in changing distributions of m a rsh vegetation. T h e rate of erosion is depen d ent on sh oreline orientatio n, fetch, water depth, bank height,

sedi m ent co mposition of ba nk, shoreline vegetation, presence of offs hore vegetation, and boat wakes (Riggs 200 1). In general, all of the Albe marle-P a m li c o estuarine syste m
, which is a drowned river

sy stem , is in a state of shoreline recessio n (Riggs and Am es 2003). South of Bo gue Sou nd, e s tuarine erosion is severe only in po rtions of dr o w ned river es tuaries such a s the Cape Fe ar, New, and White Oak rivers, and along t h e ICW and navi gatio nal channels. The rem a ining narrow, sh allow estuaries are generally not eroding, as the m a r s hes an d flats vertica lly accrete s e diment to keep up with rising sea level. Riggs (2001) mapped the shoreline ty pe s and shoreline area s where erosion was noticeable. Shoreline

erosion rates have been esti m ated for portions of the c o ast by various studies including Stirewalt and Ingram (1974), USDA Soil Conservation Service (1975), Hartness and Pearson (1977), Riggs et al. (1978), and H a rdaway (1980). Their results are su mmarized and co m p ared in Riggs (2001). These

studies are he lpful in indic a ting where major erosion problem s ar e occurring.

The zonation of vegetation in salt/br ackish m a rsh is largely determ in ed by variations of salinit y and drainage of sedim ent porewater (Wiegert and Freem a n 1990). Por e water salinity in the levee s tends to

re m a in si mila r to that of adjacent estuari ne waters be c a use of the frequent exchange of water and better internal drainage (due to coarser sedi m e n t) than the m o re isolated high m a rsh. P o rewaters of the short cordgrass zone often are hypersaline during tim es of warm , dry weather, high rates of evapotranspiration,

and m i ni mal water exchan ge. In the high m a rsh, prec ipitation (and groundwater occasionally ) create s salinities that may be low enough to support shrubs a nd ot her plant s intolerant of high salinitie s (wax

m y rtle, groundsel-tree, and marsh elder). Som e spe c ie s are re stricte d in the low marsh bec a us e of high porewater sal init y
, frequent inundation, and high-sul fi de porewaters associat ed with frequent i nundation. Consequentl y , there is greater species richness in th e high m a rsh because of the less stressful conditi ons.

Riverine wetlands

The development of tidal freshwat e r marshes is si mi lar to that of s a lt/brackish marsh. Fresh water marshes have a higher num ber of plant s p ecies than thei r salt/brackish counterpart due to l o wer salinity in

freshwat e r areas (Mitsch and Gosselink 1993; SAFMC 1998a ). Ti dal freshwater marshes can also be

divided i n to l o w and hig h zones. Species in low mar shes are m o r e fleshy and su cculent (e.g., arrowheads, pickerel weed , wild rice) than those in the high m a rsh (e.g., cattails, reeds). Co mpetition and i nundation frequency and duration are am ong the most im portant factors determining the pr esence and zonation of

tidal freshwat e r m a rsh, although variation in salinit y a l ong stream margins reduces the nu m b er of species (Odum et al. 1984). Tidal freshwater marsh plants are usually m o re sensitive to toxic levels of soluble iron, m a nganese, or sulfide com pounds that can accu m u l a te in tidal freshwater marsh soils and can be excluded by levels of these substances that have little effect on typical salt/bracki s h marsh species (Odu m et al. 1984).

The plant co mmunity i n n ontidal (inlan d) freshwater marshes is very sim ilar to its tidal count erpart. However, the hy drology of nonti d al wetlands is m o re variable than tidal wetlands that receive regular

Chapter 5 - Wetlands 3142005 C O ASTAL HABITAT PR OT ECTION PLAN

inundati on. Water levels in inland m a rshes are determined b y the type of water bod y in whic h the y occur. Water levels i n isolated marshes within a sm a ll watershed are controlled m o re by the balance of precipitation and evapotranspiration tha n an y t hi ng el se (Mitsch an d Gosselink 1 993).

Riverine swam p forests typically occur along low l y i ng m a rgins of rivers and lakes where they receive seasonal flooding (Wharton et al. 1982). Fish use of f l ooded ri verine forested wetlands depends on the

tim ing and du ration of in un dation. T h e frequency a n d magnitude of floodi ng i n swam p forests depends

on the land us e charact eristi cs of the wate rshed, ba nk h e ight, the deg r ee of stream channelization, and

tidal influenc e. Depth and duration of fl oodin g dete r m ine whether an area is bottom l and hardwood forest

or swam p forest. Bottom l and hardwoo d and swam p forest wetlan d s are generally irregularl y to seasonally flooded (Sutter 1999). Ov erbank flooding and surface and groundwat er discharge are likely

sources of inundation in ri verine swam p forests (Whart on et al. 1982). The sourc e of inundation varies

with the t y pe of river or str e am . Wetlan d s adj acent to large rivers receive overbank flow from flood pulses or tidal flows, whereas w a ter lev e l in s m all blackwate r tributaries is influenced m o re by

groun dwater discharge and local precipitation (Wharto n et al. 198 2). For exam ple, the water budget of a

s m all blackw a ter stre a m ( C reeping Swa m p) in coast al North Carolina showed that water loss consisted of 61% evapotranspiration, followed by bas e flow (20%), overland runo ff (17%) and seepage to groundwater (2%) (Winner and Simm on s 1977). The relatively low input fr om overland flow allows the m a instem

river to have m o r e influence on small blackwater str e a ms at high river flows. When the mainst e m channel is low, water level in blackwater streams is controlled m o re by local pr ecipitation. T h e sporadic

inundati on of swam p s bord e ring blackwater streams allows tem porary use b y op portunistic fis h at high

mainste m river flows.

Headw a ter s w a m ps

The requirements of headwater swam ps are sim i lar to sm all tributary st ream s referenced above. The main

difference between riverine forested wetlands and head water wetl ands is their po sition in the watershed: headwater wetlands are the highest h ydro l ogic poi nts i n the watershed.

Distribution

By 1994, the DCM had used GIS technol ogy t o m a p and classify w e tlands in the 20 coastal counties using Nationa l Wetland Inv e ntor y (NWI) maps, Natu ral Resource Conservation S e rvice digital soils

maps, sat ellite i m agery (1988, 1994), and hydrograp hy m a ps as so urce data (Sutter 1999). Analy ses showed there were a total o f 1.3 and 2.2 million acres of riparian and non-riparian wetlands, respectively

, in the CHPP manage ment area of those counties. The clas sificatio n error for wetlands was ap proxim a tely 11% (Shull 1 999), m a king the total figur e for wetlands acreage in coastal North Carolina between 3.1 and

3.9 m illion acres.

Riparian wetlands covered 7% of the land area in co astal river basins of North Carolina in 1 9 9 4 , and

riverine forested wetlands was the m o st abundant class of the three riparian wetland classes (T able 5.1). Riparian wetlands are not d i stributed evenl y am ong CHPP m a nagement units (MUs) (Map 5.1a-d). The Cape Fear M U contained the largest are a of ripa rian wetlands, followed b y the Neuse and Albem a rle (Figure 5.2). The greatest proporti ons o f estuarine wetlands were in Core-Bogu e, Southern E s tuaries, and

Pam lico MUs, whereas the Roanoke, Cape Fear, and Neuse had the highest proportion of riverine wetlands (Figure 5.2). T h e greatest percentage of total la nd cover i n riparian wetlands was in the

Southern Est u aries MU (1 3%), where t h e dom in ant wetland type was salt/brackish m a rsh (Table 5.1).

Salt/brackish marsh

• The total area of salt/brackish marsh in coastal North Carolina was 198, 168 acres in 1994, whi c h

co m p rised 17% of all riparian wetland types.

• The greatest acreage (63,601 acres) of salt/b rackish marsh was in the Pam lico MU.

• Salt/brackish marsh occurs in all the CHPP manag ement units except the Chowan, Roanoke, a n d

Chapter 5 - Wetlands 3152005 C O ASTAL HABITAT PR OT ECTION PLAN

Table 5.1. Total acreage of riparian wetland t y p es b y CHPP m a n a gem e nt unit. [ S ource: DCM wetland mapping data (current as of 199 4).]Salt/BrackishMarshEstuarine ForestEstuarineShrub/ScrubFreshwater MarshBottomlandHardwoodRiverine SwampForest

Al be m a r l e 4 4

, 75 8 2 3 1 8

, 27 9 4 ,8 97 8,8 9 0 1 4 0 ,5 01 2,2 0 0 11 .3

Ca pe Fe a r 9

, 64 0 1 8 3 6 3 13 ,4 43 4 0 ,0 18 2 1 1 ,8 88 5,6 0 6 4.9

C h ow an 0 0 0 1,02 8 2 4

, 86 8 7 4

, 97 4 2 ,14 3 11 .8

C o re-B ogu e 2 2,2 7 4 5 7 4 ,0 48 32 5 9 4 1 3

, 76 8 1 ,69 6 9.7

N e use 1 4,3 8 6 2 6 1 ,3 67 3,87 8 6 8

, 17 5 146 ,40 0 9

, 28 3 7.0

N e w / Wh i t e O a k 9 ,1 43 71 2,2 4 2 6 6 5 7

, 13 4 2 2

, 22 9 1 ,53 0 8.5

P a mlico 6 3,6 0 1 3 03 8,8 0 2 4 ,10 5 25 4 6 1 6 61 1 5.5

R o ano k e 0 0 0 1,88 8 3 7

, 78 8 123 ,04 5 2

, 47 7 7.4

S

. e s tuaries 2 1,9 9 6 6 6 1 ,1 15 30 2 1 ,38 7 9

, 00 2 8 2 4 13 .2

Ta r / Pa m l i c o 1 2

, 37 0 1 9 3 1

, 65 8 2 ,2 72 3 8 ,1 27 9 7 ,2 58 4,7 8 9 5.8

T o tal 1 9 8 ,1 68 9 6 5 2 7,8 7 4 3 2,80 3 227 ,58 2 829 ,68 1 31 ,15 9 6

. 9

% of w e t l an d t y pe s 1 4.7 0 .1 2.1 2 .4 1 6 .9 6 1

. 5 2 .3 n a % of to tal

land a rea E s tua r in e R iver ine

Man a gem e nt U n it R i pa rian Wetlan dsHeadwater swamps

Coastal Oc ea n.

Estuarine shrub/scrub

• There was a total of 27 ,87 4 acres of estu a rine shrub/scrub habitat in North Carolin a in 199 4, wh ich

co m p rised 2% of riparian wetland area s (Table 5.1).

• The greatest acre a ge (8,279) of estuarine shr ub/scrub habitat was in the Albema rle MU.

• Estuarine shrub/scrub habi tat is not presen t in the Chowan and Roanoke MUs.

Estuarine forests

• There was a total of 965 acres of estuari ne forest in the CHPP manage m ent ar ea, com p rising less than 1% of the riparian wetland s (Table 5.1).

• The greatest acreage of est uarine forested wetlands was in the Albemarle and Pamlico MUs (231 and 303 acres, respectively )

.

• Estuarine forest wetlands are not present in t h e Cho w an and Roanoke MUs.

Freshwater marsh

• Freshwater m a rsh covered a total area of 32,803 acr es in 1994 and com p ris e d 2% of these riparian wetlands (Table 5.1).

• The greatest acre a ge (13,443) of freshwater marsh w as in the Cape Fear MU.

• Freshwater m a rsh occurred in all CHPP MUs except t h e Coastal O cean.

Chapter 5 - Wetlands 3162005 C O ASTAL HABITAT PR OT ECTION PLAN

0 50, 00 0 100, 00 0 150, 00 0 200, 00 0 250, 00 0 300, 00 0

Al

b

e m

a r l e

Ca p e F

ear Ch o w

a n

C

o re -B

o g u e Ne u se

Ne

w / W

h i t e Oa

k Pa m l i c o

R o a n oke

S
. e st

u ar i e s

Ta

r / Pa

m l i c oacres Ri v

e r i

n

e w e tl a n

d s

H ead w a t e r S w a m p

E s t u ar i n

e w e t l a n

ds

Figure 5.2. Relative am o unt and proportion of t h ese riparian wetland classes among CHPP managem ent units. [ S ource: DCM wetland m a ppi ng data (current as of 1994).]

Bottom l and hardwood and riverine swam p forests

• The com b ine d total acreage of botto m l and hardwoo d forest and riv e rine swamp forest in 199 4 was 1,05 7,26 3, w h ich com p rised 78% of all ripari an wetlands in the C H PP m a nagement area (Table 5.1).

• The greatest area (251,906 acres) of bottom l and hard w ood and ri v e rine swamp forest was in the Cape Fear MU (Ta b le 5.1).

• Bottom l and hardwood fore sts occur in all MUs except the Coastal Ocean.

Headw a ter s w a m ps

• The total area of headwater swa m p s in the CH PP manage m ent ar ea in 1994 was 31,159 acres, which

co m p rised 2% of all riparian wetlands (Table 5.1).

• The greatest acreage of headwater swam p s was in th e Neuse (9,283 acres), Cap e Fear (5,606 acres),

and Tar-Pam lico MUs (4,789 acres).

• Headw a ter w e tlands occur in all CHPP MUs except t h e Coastal O cean.

5.2. ECOLOGIC AL R O LE AN D FU NCTIONS

Wetlands are well known f o r the ecologi cal services t h ey provide. Wetland services i m prove t h e qualit y of adjacent habitats with their capacity for water c ontrol and filtration. The y can also protect upland

habitats from erosion. Wetlands pla y a vital role in pr ovidin g abu n d ant foo d and cover for juv e nile and

adult finfish a nd shellfish. Suppor t and docum entatio n of these important functions are provi ded in this

section.

Chapter 5 - Wetlands 3172005 C O ASTAL HABITAT PR OT ECTION PLAN

Ecosyst em e nhancement

The flood co ntrol and wat e r qualit y ben e fits of wetla nds have been extensivel y studied (Mitsch and

Gosselink 19 93). B y spre ading and slo w ing floo d wate rs, wetl ands decrea se flo oding in adja cent upland

areas and downstream areas. Some wet l ands can stor e flood waters and slowly release it to surface and groundwater sy stems during periods of l o w flow (Mitsch and Gosselink 1993). Bottom l and hardwood forest along t h e Mississippi River before European settle m e nt stored floodwater equivalent to about 60 day s of river discharge. The storage ca pacity of th ese wetlands today has been reduced to about 12 da y s (Mitsch and Gosselink 1993). Conse quentl y , floodi ng has increased along the lower Mississippi River. Mitsch and Gosselink (199 3) concl uded that wetlands reduce downstrea m flooding m o st effectively with (1) increasing wetland area, (2) increasing distance of wetland downstream

, (3) i n creasing size of flood, (4) increasing proxim ity to upstrea m w e t l ands, and (5) decreasing upstrea m stor a g e such as res e rvoirs.

An im portant water quality benefit of wetlands is their abilit y to f o ster settlement from sedi m e nt-laden water, resulting in depositi on of suspen d e d solids (i no rganic sedim ent and or gani c m a tter) am o ng the vegetation ( M itsch and Gosselink 199 3 ) . Under favor able conditi ons, toxic che m icals and nu trients (especially ph osphorus) are also retained in som e we tlands due to ad sorption t o sediment particles (Wolfe and Rice 1972; Mitsch and Gosselink 1993). Root ed vegetation stabilizes unconsolidated sediment, reducing erosion and t u rbi d it y in ad jacent aquatic habitats. Along er oding estu a rine shorelines, wetlands also provide an im portant buffer against wave-induced turb ulence (Riggs 200 1). The bufferin g effect of wetland vegetation im proves water clarity for subm erged vegetatio n and bent hic algae (Mitsc h and Gosselink 1993) while also reducing se diment add itions necessary for creation of new shallow water habitat (Rogers and Skrabal 200 1) . Con sequently, bo th wetland a nd no n-wetland shorelines p l ay an im portant rol e in maintaining the fu nctio n of the estuarine sy stem

. Maintainin g a nat ural pro portion and relative position of wetland and non-wetl and shorelines w ill be a vital component of habitat re storation

and man age ment.

Another water qualit y bene fit of wetlands stems fro m their low-ox ygen soil (anaerobic or redu cing). Anaerobic soils play a vital role in the ni trogen c y cl e by transform i ng amm onia and nitrate (organic waste product or fertilizer) into ni trogen gas (denitrifica tion) (Mitsch and Gosselink 1993). In agricultural watersheds receiving fertilizer-enric hed runoff, denitri f ication pla y s a im portant role in the wor l d’s nitrogen balance (Mitsch and Gosselink 1993). Nitro g en cy cli ng is im portant to fisheries because high

concentrations of nitrate can be toxic t o f i sh, and nitr o g en over-enri c h m ent can result in algal bloom s and hy poxia that contribute to stress and fish kills. Ev en m oder a te hy poxia can result in death of benthic

invertebrates (Diaz and Rosenburg 19 95 ; Tay l or and Eggleston 2 0 00; Sagasti et al. 200 1), a major food

source for crabs and dem e rsal fish (Tay l o r and Eg gl eston 2 000). T e m porary and perm anent retention of nutrients, such as phosphor us, are facilitated by pa rticle deposition and buria l as well as formation of organic matte r in the sediment by roots and rh izom es ( M itsch and Gosselink 1993). Forested (strea mside) wetlands in agricultural drainages have been shown t o rem ove approxim a tely 8 0 % of the phosph orus and 9 0 % of th e nitrogen fro m the water (<http://www.epa.gov/owo w /wetlands/facts/fact3.html>, Ju ly 2 0 0 1 ). Stream h eadwaters are the site of

m o st active u p take and retention of nutr i ents in ri verine sy stem s (Peterson et al. 2001). A stu d y of denitrification in a headwater creek (Culvert Creek, North Carolina ) found that marsh vegetation had t h e greatest potential for denitri f ication, compared to m a rsh sediment and flashboard r i sers (water control structures) (<http://www2.ncsu.edu/n csu/CIL/WRRI/reports/report317. htm l >, 2 003). T h e com b ination of

nutrient u p tak e and retention m a kes head water wetlan d s very im portant in contro lling n u trient enrich m e nt
downstream

.

Mitsch and Gosselink (1993) concluded that nutri ents are probabl y stored in salt/brackish marshes fringing estuaries with li m i ted water circulation (i.e

., back barrier so unds), whereas wetl ands in funnelshaped (trunk) estuaries ex port m o re nutrients. There is also evidence that salt/b rackish m a rshes act as a

source of nutr i ents during t h e growing s eason and a si nk in winter a nd sprin g (W oodwell et al. 197 9).

Co m p ared to plant uptake, however, lea k age of n itrogen from a G e orgia salt marsh was s m a ll (Haines

Chapter 5 - Wetlands 3182005 C O ASTAL HABITAT PR OT ECTION PLAN

1979). Nitrogen uptake in salt/brackish marsh is, on average, so m e what less than that in freshwater

marshe s (Mitsch and Gosselink 1993). The nutrients are also released by erosio n and decomposition of wetland vegetation. Retention and co ntrolled releas e of particles, toxic che m ical s and nutrients can im prove water qualit y d o wnstream . Therefore, if bot t o m l and hard wood forests or headwater swam p s are lost upstream, the potential for erosion, f l oodin g , sed i mentation, algal bloom s, and fish kil l s increases

downstream

.

Productivity

Because of the abundant suppl y of water, nutrients , and sunlight, w e tland plan t communities can be one

of the m o st biologicall y pr o ductive ecosystems in th e world (Teal 1962; Teal and Teal 1969; Mitsch and

Gosselink 19 93; SAFMC 1998a). S o me of the hig h pr imary pro d u ction (creation of organic co m pounds through photosynthesis) of wetland vegetation is transferred to adj acent aquatic habitats via detritus and microalgae (P eterson and Howarth 1987; Wiegert a nd Freeman 1990; Mitsch and Gosselink 1993).
However, we tland plant species vary in their rate of deco m position, with leafy

, su cculent, low vegetation

deco m posing the quickest and wood y, h i gh vegeta tion the slowest (Mitsch and Gosselink 1993). Therefore, production fro m vegetation in wood y, for ested wetlands is converted m o re slowly into detritus than vegetation in m a rsh wetlands with leafy

, succul e nt vegetation. Inu ndated wetland plants also exude dissolved org a nic substances contributin g to epip h y tic growth on their ste ms and leaves (Mits c h and

Gosselink 19 93).

Salt/brackish marsh growth in the low m a rsh is li m ited by self-shading, where other habitat requirements

are met, wher eas growth in the high m a r s h can be affe ct ed by a num b er of factors, including high salinity, sulfides, scarcity of iron, and lack of nit r oge n (Wiegert and Freem a n 1990). Accounting for ph y t o p lankt o n in the water colum n and algae on the sedim ent surface, productivi t y of low m a rsh ( Spartina alte rniflora ) in a Georgia tidal creek was 1,539 g carbo n/ m 2 /y r while p r oduction in t h e high

marsh was so mewhat lower (about 1, 35 0 g carbon/m 2 /y r) (Wiegert and Freem a n 199 0). In N o rth Carolina, Stroud (1976) reported som e what higher salt/brackish marsh production in low marsh (1660 g carbon/m 2 /y r) , but m u ch lo wer productio n in the high marsh (750 g carbon/m 2 /y r) . In both Nor t h Carolina and Georgia, above groun d pr oduction was about 2 0 % greater than below-groun d pr oduction (Mitsch and Gosselink 19 93).

Prim ary production in salt/brackish marshes is convert ed into fish pr oduction through several pathway s

. Using sulfur, carbon, and nitrogen isotopes to trace or ganic matter flow in the salt marsh estuaries of Sapelo Island, Georgia, Peterson and Howarth (1987) found two m a jor sources of organic m a tt er used in fish producti o n : Sp artina (detritus) and algae. The relative im portan ce of each so urce is deter m ined by the feeding mode, size, location, and tr ophic position of the m a rsh and estuarine consumers (P eterson and Howarth 1987). For example, benthic microalgae pr obably support herbivorous snails, wher eas detritus supports sheepshead m i nnows, m u mmichogs, and thei r prey . Attached algae can be foun d on t h e marsh grass itself, the intertidal mudflats, and the shallo w subtidal bottom near the m a r s h. Pinckne y and Zingm ark (1993) com p ared producti on r a tes of benthic m i cr oalgae in various b o t t om ty pes in an estuarine

sy stem (North Inlet, South Carolina). Short S partina marsh accounted for the gr eatest am ount of microalgal productivit y (4 4.6%) in the s y stem

, followed b y intertid al m udflats (22%), tall Spar tina ma r s h (18%), and sh allow subtidal bottom (<1 m mean low water) (13%). Sand flats accounted for onl y 3% of

the total annu al m i croalgal produc tio n (P inckne y and Zingm ark 1993).

Productivit y i n riverine for ested wetlands in North Ca rolina has been reported to be m u ch lower than in salt/brackish marsh, representing about 523-677 g carbon/m 2 / y r of leaf and twig litter (Brinson 1977;

Mulhollan d 1 979). Howev e r, the total p r oduction of f

o rested wetlands m a y be similar to that of

salt/brackish marsh when stem growth and below gr ound producti on are taken into account. The export

of detritus fro m these riverine forested wetlands can be significant (Mitsch and Gosselink 1993).

Mulhollan d and Kuenzler (1979) f oun d t h at organic export was hig h er from river basins containing m o re deepwater swam ps than other riparian h a bitats. From a Louisiana swa m p forest, Day et al. (1977)

Chapter 5 - Wetlands 3192005 C O ASTAL HABITAT PR OT ECTION PLAN

measured an export rate of 10.4 g carbo n/m 2 /y r. By contrast, salt/ brackish mars h es can have an organic export rate as high as 1 00 g carbon/m 2 /y r (Wiegert e t al. 198 1). H o wever, export rates in swam p forest

can vary greatly with subm ersion regime and tem p er at ure. For example, higher te m p eratures ( a llowing

faster deco mposition) and frequent inundation increase the export r a te of tidal swam p forest s in tidal fresh

waters of the Cape Fear River.

Fish utilization

It is estim ated that over 95 % of the finfish and shellfish species co mme rcially harvested in the United

States ar e wet l and-depende nt (Feierabend and Zela nzy 19 87). Wet l ands pr ovi de num erous ecological

services to co astal fishes ( T able 5.2). For exa m ple, one of the m o s t im portant c h aracteristi cs of riparian

wetlands are t h eir com b inat ion of shallow water and thick vegetation, which pr o v ides nursery habitat for young fish. The use of wetlands by finfish and she llfish is presented first, followed by documentation of specific funct i ons for selected species.

Salt/brackish marsh

Finfish and s h ellfish using salt/brackish marsh fall in t o several categories based on location a nd tim ing of

use. Year-ro und residents of the m a rsh include small forage species such as killifish, m u mmichogs, sheepshead minnows, gobi es, grass shri m p , bay anchovi es, and sil v ersides (SAFMC 1998a). Transient species inclu d e those spawning near the m a rsh, but i nhabiting deeper channels (i.e., river herring), and those spawned in deeper waters using marsh ha bitat as nursery or f o raging areas. Am ong transient species, so me prefer the edge of salt/brackish marsh (i.e., red drum, flounder) wh ile others are found near marsh edge on un vegetated bottom (i .e., spot, croaker). Som e species are not found in t h e m a rsh, but

derive substantial food res ources fro m the marsh plan ts as detritus (i.e., m e nhad e n; Lewis an d Peters 1994) or from microalgae produced on the marsh surface. Of fish ery species in North Carolina, penaeid

shrim p and red drum are co nsidered critically lin ked t o m a rsh edge habitat (SAFMC 1998a) 59

.

Freshwater marsh

Fishery and forage fish inhabiting tidal a nd non- tidal freshwate r m a rshes include large m outh bass, bluegill, warm outh, black crappie, chain pickerel , southern flounder, white perch, m u mmichog, ba y anchovy

, inland silversides, river herrings, striped bass, and sturgeon (Mitsch and Gosselink 1993). The

nature and de gree of associ ation with freshwater mar s h habitat depend on the species. For exa m ple, striped bass and river herri ng are not onl y abundant along m a rsh ed ge, but also i n open water areas adjacent to the m a r s h edge. Bluegill, bla c k crappi e, largem outh bass, and war m o u th are found al m o st exclusively near shoreline structures suc h as m a rsh gr ass. Mosquitofish are an im portant fora ge species

and a “m osquito control agent” closely associated wi t h freshwater marsh habitat (Odum et al. 1984).

59 More info rmation on salt/br ackis h marsh can b e found in the Nurser y function section of this chap ter.

Chapter 5 - Wetlands 3202005 C O ASTAL HABITAT PR OT ECTION PLAN

Table 5.2. Partial listing of fish and t h eir use of wet l and habitat in coastal North Carolina.

* Scien tifi c n a m e s list e d in Appendix I. Names in bold font are species whose relativ e abund a nces have b een repo rted in th e

liter a tur e as bei n g gener a ll y high er in wet l ands th an in oth e r ha bit a ts. Not e that l a c k of bold ing do e s not im pl y non

- s elec tive use of the hab itat, ju st a lack of infor mation.

1 Sources: Whar ton et al. 1982; O dum et al. 1984; Wiegert and Freeman 1990; Mits ch and Gosselin k 1993; Micheli and Peterson

1999; Minello 1 999; NOAA 2001.

2 Existing com m e rci a l o r r ecre a ti onal f i sher y. Fisher y and non-fis h er y s p ec ies are als o im portan t a s pre y

. 3 V=Viable, R=Recover i ng, C=Concern, O=Overfished, U=Unknown (DMF 2003a)

4 Fisher y species under h a rvest moratorium Nu rser y F o r ag in g R efuge S p a w n in g C o rrid o r

American eel X X X X
Sturg e on s p p. X X X X X 4 O

River herrin g (al e w i fe & bl u e b a ck

herrin g ) X X X X X X O

- Alb e m a r l e So und,

U-Cen t ral/Sou th ern

S t ri p e d ba s s X X X X X V

- A l be m a rl e S o un d,

Atlan tic Ocean , OCentr a l/So u t h er n

Atlantic ran g i a clam X X X X

B a nded k illif ish X X X X
Bay anch ov y X X X

B l u e cra b X X X X X C

Co bia X X X X

Gr a ss shr i m p X X X X

Mu m m i c h o g X X X X

Na k e d g oby X X X X

R e d dr um X X X X X R

Sh eep s h ead m i nn ow X X X X

Silver sides X X X Sp otted seatrout X X X X X V

A t la nt ic cro ak er X X X X X C

Atlantic men h ad en X X X X V

Sh rim p X X X X X V

Sou t h ern flou nd er X X X X X O
Sp ot X X X X X V
Striped m u llet X X X X X C

Black s ea b a s s X X X X X O - sou t h of Hatteras

, V- n o r t h of H a t t e ra s

Pi nf i s h X X X X X

Su m m er floun d e r X X X X X V MARI NE SPAWNI NG, LOW- HIGH SALI NITY NUR SERY

MARI NE SPAWNI NG, H I GH SALIN I TY NU R S ERY W e tl an d Fu n c ti on s 1

St o c k St a t us 3

A NADR OMOUS AND CATADR O M O U S FI SH

ESTUARINE AND INLET S P A WNING AND NUR SERY Fi s h er y 2 S p ecies *

Bottom l and hardwood and riverine swam p forest

There is a strong relations hip between fishery yields and forested river floodplains (Mitsch and Gosselink 1993). A stu d y o n the Su wanee River floodplain (Fl o rida/Georgia) found that fi sh producti on was m u ch greater in floodplain slo u g h s than in t h e main river (Holder et al. 1970). A similar stud y of f i sh standing

stock on river flood plains i n North Carol i na has not be en conducted. Fish use of r i verine forested wetlands is generally restricted to periods of seasona l inundati on, w h ich occurs m o stly during winter and

Chapter 5 - Wetlands 3212005 C O ASTAL HABITAT PR OT ECTION PLAN

spring. By c ontrast, riverine wetlands below Lock and Da m #1 on the Cape Fear River receiv e regular

tidal inundati on (C. Hackney

, UNC-W, pers. co m
., 2003). Seasonal flooding in riparian forested

wetlands also increases the producti vit y of riverine s y stems by connecting the mainstem river w i t h

abundant org a nic m a terial found on f o rested floodplai ns (Wharton 1982; Junk et al. 198 9). F o r exam p l e

num erous stu d ies have shown a correlati on between sunfish and large m outh bass spawning succes s and

the tim ing and extent of fl oodplain inundation (Whart on et al. 1982). In North C a rolina, seaso nal high water in riverine sy stem s g e nerally occurs fro m winter to spring. Summer conditions (falling water levels, increa sing tem p er at ures, and low dissolved oxygen) exclude m o st fish from fore s t e d w e t l a n d s areas. Only fish adapted to low oxygen conditions continue to inha bit wetland areas as long as the y contain water (i.e., bowfin, gar, m u d m in nows, killifis h; Wharton et al. 1982). A study on fish u s e o f creek floodpl ains in North Carolina documented sever al co mm on species using channels in th e f l o o d p (Walker 1984 ). Those species included several small sunfish species, redfin pick erel, bowfin, brown bullheads, redear sunfish, pum pkinseed, bluegill sunfis h, green sunfish, and sm all f o r a g e s p e c i e s ( e

. g

. , shiners, darters, killifish, a nd cray fish)

. Estuar ine-dependent species found on ri v e r f l o o d p l a i n s i n c l u d e hickor y shad, blueback her r ing (Wharto n et al. 198 2), and alewife (SAFMC 199 8a). The tida l swam p forests in the Cape Fear e s t u ary are also inhabited by blue crabs and other transient estuarine species ( C Hackney

, UNC-W, pers. com ., 2003). t h e

,

l a i n

.

l a t / d e p r e s s i onal wetlands F

d w e t l a n d s ( i

. e

. , p o c o s i n s along the Alli gator and Nor t heast Cape F ear rivers)

t u r e

e d

p e c i f

i c b i o l o g i c a l f u n c t i o n s Fish use of normally isolat e depends on m a ny factors. A stud y cond ucted on th e Savannah Riv e r floodplain found that fish use was

lim ited to wetlands that dri e d infrequentl y , were m o st connected to interm i t t e n t w a t e r b o d i e s
, a n d h a d a n elevation closest to the nearest permanent water body ( S nodgrass et al. 1996) . Pocosins that are located directly adjac e nt to salt/brackish marsh or other ri parian wetlands are potential fish habitat. Bi otic

interactions and characteris tics of the we tlands had relatively less influence on fish comm unity s t r u c than the wetland’ s landscape position. The study also noted that only widesp read, colonizing species

were correlat ed with landscape position, suggesting m o re co m p licat i n g f a c t o r s c o n t r o l l i n g c o l o n i z a t i o n rates (i.e., variation in water level m o re related to local rainfall than overflow). As sea level c o n t i n u e s t o rise and low-l y ing pocosins near coastal North Caroli na waters transform into marshes, they w i l l b e c o m e more important as primary nursery area s fo r estuarine-dependent fish (Brinson 1991). Therefore, a similar study should be con ducted in Nor t h Carolina t o determine what pocosin a r e a s a r e a c t u a l l y u s by fish, and t h e contributi on of t hose fi sh to overall production in the estuary.

S

Nursery

T h e l a r g e e x p a n s e s o f s h a l l o w water and thick vege tation found i n r i parian wetlands provide abundant

i s h

.

a l t /

b r

a c k i s h m a r s h food and cover for larval, juvenile and s mall orga nisms (Graff an d Middleton 2003). Nursery h a b i t a t i s not only provided by the dense stru ctures, but also b y the shallow depth of water itself, which provides refuge from a quatic fish predators (revie w in Ro zas a nd Odum 1987). The aversion to shallow water

am ong large, deep-bodied aquatic predators is a co mm on behavior, which indire ctly p r o t e c t s s m a l l e r f

S

w s o f t b o t t o m and shell hash areas they border, salt/brackish marshes along the

e s

.

i e s Along with t h e s h a l l o North Carolin a coast are probabl y t h e most recognizab le nursery h a b i t a t f o r e s t u a r i n e

- d e p e n d e n t s p e c i The majority of Prim ary and Secondar y Nursery Areas designated b y the MFC a r e located in soft bott o m

areas surrounded by salt/brackish m a r s h. Even th ough salinity and transport mechanism s ar e the key ph y s ical factors affecting the species co mposition i n n u r sery habitats in Pam lico Sound and its t r i b u t a r (Ross and Epperly 19 85; N oble and Mo n r oe 1991 ; Ro ss 2003), m a rsh wetlands are a vital co mponent of estuarine nursery habi tat. Minello et al. (2003) conc l uded that the relative nursery value of salt marshes

in Atlantic coast estuari es a ppears to be higher th an o p e n water, but lower than submerged aquatic

Chapter 5 - Wetlands 3222005 C O ASTAL HABITAT PR OT ECTION PLAN

vegetation.

M o s t o f t h e j uveniles of fi shery species found in salt/ brackish marsh nurseries were spawned offshore

i n

t o

a e t

h i s

c c o r d i n g t o DMF’s juven ile abundance survey da ta, the dom inant species in high salinit y m a rshes

d

d

o f

u r i n g s p r i n g thro ugh fall , brackish marshes in the Al bem a rle-Pamlico estuary are dom inated b y j uvenile

h

,

s

)

s t u d y in G a lveston Bay

, Texas, found that juven ile brown shrimp, white shri m p , blue crab , spotted

o

p
,

l f

a b i t a t t y pes derived from salt/brackish marsh (i.e., peat blocks) can also provi de i m portant nursery

y during winter. The larvae were transported through i n le ts and into estuarine wat e r s w h e r e t h e y s e t t l e d the upper (lo w salinity ) or lowerm ost (high salinit y ) re aches of estu a rine creek sy stems (Ross 2 003). T h e peak of juvenile settlement generally occurs in spring through early summer, alt hough the pe ak is

correlated m o re with water tem p erature ( R oss a nd Epperly 1985). Settlement in upper reaches i s particularly b e neficial to spot and croak e r, where growth and survi vorship ar e e n h a n c e d c o m p a r e d lower reaches (Ross 2003). If m ovemen t to general regions of t h e estuary is largely p a s s i v e ( P i e t r a f e s al. 1986; Pietrafesa and Janowitz 1988), the viabilit y of spot and cr oaker stoc ks could be reduced by hy drody nam i c conditions r esulting in m o re settlement to lower regions of the est uary ( R o s s 2 0 0 3 )

. T settlement pattern could also occur in other estuarine-d ependent species.

A behind the Outer Banks and Core Sound include pinfish, pink shrim p , black se a b a s s
, g a g
, p i g f i s h

, r e drum , gulf flo under, and su mmer flound er (Noble and Monroe 1 9 9 1 ). However, the prim ary nursery habitat in the se areas is su bmerged aquatic vegetation. Juvenile s pot, br own sh rim p , striped m u l l e t

, a n southern flo u nder are abundant along t h e western shores of Pam lico and Core so unds and t h e i r t r i b u t a r i e s (Epperl y and Ross 1986; N oble and Mo n r oe 1991) . In the Newport River estuary , juvenile sou t hern

flounder sho w ed a distinct preference fo r marsh edge habitat over o t her habitats, but o n l y d u ri ng fall (Walsh et al. 1999). The j uvenile south e rn flounder we re m o st abundant i n m o re turbid, upp e r r e g i o n s the estuary

.

D

Atlantic m e n h aden, striped m u llet (Epperly and Ross 198 6), silver sides, anchovies (Nelson et al. 199 1)

and m o re demersal species such as Atlantic croake r, brown shrimp, blue crab, and southern flounder (Noble and Monroe 1991). In higher salinity m a r s hes of the Pa m lico Sound, s p o t t e d s e a t r o u t

, w e a k f i s silver perch, and red drum are also abundant (Noble and Mo nroe 1 991). Ju venil e red drum reach their highest abundance in brackish marsh (Ta g atz and Du d l ey 196 1; Nelson et al. 199 1; C. Peterson, UNCCH, pers. com ., 2003). Fi sh use of low salinity ( b r ackish) m a rsh habitat in estuaries of North Carolina was studied by Rozas and Hackney (1984), who found a com b ina tion of freshwater and est u a r i n e s p e c i e in low-salinity, intertidal c r eeks. The most abunda nt species were spot, grass shri m p , bay anchovy, and

Atlantic m e n h aden. The y also reported three sea sona l peaks in abundance in low salinity m a rshes: (1) spring peak with influx of juvenile spot , Atlantic m e nhaden, Atlantic croaker, and southern f l o u n d e r ; ( 2

su mmer peak of grass shrim p ; and (3) fall peak of bay anchovies and grass shrim p

.

A seatrout, and southern flounder were m o st abundant al ong salt/brackish m a rsh edge habitat com p a r e d t
inner m a rsh, shell bottom

, SAV, and shallow, non- ve g e tated bottom (Minello 19 9 9 ). In an othe r Texas
estuary , low marsh supported higher abundances of brow n shrimp, blue crabs, daggerblade grass shri m white shrim p , and striped m u llet, although there w as little difference between low and high m a rsh for

white shri m p and striped mullet (Rozas and Zimmerman 2000) . Resident estuarine species, su c h a s g u killifish and s h eepshead m i nnow, were m o st abundant in hi gh m a rsh.

H habitat for certain species. Peat blocks are genera lly f ound along er oding m a r s h s h o r e l i n e s
, w h e r e t h e serve as fir m substrate for the attach m e nt of sessile i nvertebrates and refuge for juvenile blue crabs in

western Pamlico Soun d (D. Eggleston, NCSU, pers. co m ., 2001). Szedlm ay er and Able (19 9 6 ) foun d that, in a New Jersey estuary , j uvenile black seab ass were m o re abundant in sponge-peat habitats (associat ed with eroding marsh) co m p ared to eelgrass beds, upper e s tuary

, subtidal creeks, marsh channels, and open ba y are as.

Chapter 5 - Wetlands 3232005 C O ASTAL HABITAT PR OT ECTION PLAN

F r e s h w a t e r m a r s h

g t h e u s e a n d s i g n i f i c a n c e o f f r e s h wate r marsh for larval and juvenile fis h in North

i n

o t t o m l a n d h a r d

w o o d and riverine swamp forest S t u d i e s d o c u m e n t i n Carolina are l acking. Freshwater marsh es co m p ris e onl y a ver y small portion of riparian wetlands in

coastal North Carolina. A study conduct e d in Virgin ia found that la rvae and juve n i l e f i s h r e p r e s e n t e d

79% and 59 % of the total num ber of fish collected at tidal freshwater and salt marsh site s, respectively (Yozzo and Smith 1997)

. McIvor a nd Odum (1987) found reduced preda tion b y l a r g e c a r n i v o r o u s f i s h the shallow water (<3ft or <1 m ) of fresh water tidal creeks, possibly due to unfa vorable water qualit y
, t h e phy s ical constraints of shallow water, an d/or increase d predation from predatory birds (i.e., he rons).

B

ous and resident fresh water species along

h e

d

o r a g i n g Forested wetl ands are i m p o rtant nurser y areas for anadrom

coastal rivers and creeks in North Carolina (Wharton et al. 1982; DMF 2000c). Forested wetl a n d s a r e also im portant for som e transient estuarine species (i.e ., spot, croak e r, southern fl ounder, blue c r a b ) i n t lower Cape F ear River (M allin et al. 2001c; C. Hackney

, UNC-W, pers. co m ., 2003). T h e ti ming and

extent of floo ding are critical to fish use of bott o m l an d hardwood and riverine s w am p forest. L a r v a l a n juvenile river herring have been collected near floode d riverine wetlands in Nort h Carolina (DMF 200 0 c )

. Studies of larval fish abun dance and div e rsity o n Mississippi River flood plains suggested that nearly 5 0 % of fish species inhabiting t h e river used the fl oodplain as a nursery (Gallagher 1979). Unchannelized sections of the Missouri River produced 2 to 2

. 5 tim es m o r e fish than channelized sections (Gr o e n a n d

Sch m ulbach 1978). In general, ve getated shoreline inundation dur i ng spring and early s u m m e r h a s b e e n correlated wit h increased year-cl ass str e ngth of larg em outh bass, s unfish, and yellow perch (Nelson and Walburg 19 7 7 ; Strange et al. 1982; Plos key 198 6).

F

i s h m a r s h S a l t /

b r

a c k

e e d d i r e c t l y on livi ng plant tissu e in salt/brackish m a rsh (i.e., periwinkle), and their

n

a r s h

e t r i t a l a n d b a c t e r i a l p r o d u c t i o n f r o m salt/brackish mars h exhibit so me of the hig h est recorded values per

n a i l s
,

0 0

n e i b

h a s b e e n e s t i m a t e d t h a t 4 5 % o f s a l t m a rsh producti o n is exported to the estuarine sy stem in the form of

m p F e w a q u a t i c s p e c i e s f productivi t y i s very l o w com p ared to that of de tritivores and consumers of m i croalgae (Wiegert and

Freeman 199 0; Steel 199 1; SAFMC 199 8a). However, biotic inter actions with primary cons u m e r s c a result in degr adation or los s of wetlands. R ecent study results from the southeastern United States suggest that blue crab predation on plant-eating sn ails may prevent the sna il from o v e r g r a z i n g t h e m grass (Silli m a n and Bertness 2002).

D unit area of any ecosy stem in the world (Wiegert and Evans 1967)

. Slow-m oving or sessile species residing in salt/brackish marsh and cont ributing to se c ondar y production include fiddler crabs, m u d s

am phipods, oy sters, clam s, and ribbed m u ssels (Wie gert and Freem a n 1990). Based on data from Georgia m a rshes, biom ass of these resident species ex ceeded 15 g carbon/m 2 , and consisted of 8 0

- 2 fiddler crabs, 400-7 00 peri winkle snails or m ud sn ails, and 7-8 m u ssels (Wiegert and Freem a n 1990).

The resident estuarine fish es (i.e., killifish, grass shrim p , sheepshead m i nnow) are an i m portant link

between estu a rine producti on and transi ent predator y f i s h p o p u l a t i o n s ( W i e g e r t a n d F r e e m a n 1 9 9 0 ; K 1997). Salt-brackish m a rsh edge also provides im portant feeding areas for blue crabs, red drum, flounder, seatrout and other large predators sear ching the edge of com p lex structure near deeper water, as illustrated by greater predation on gra ss shri m p wit h increasing depth in shall o w-estuarine water (Cl a rk et al. 2003).

I t detritus, dissolved organic matter, and transient nekt on (i.e., grass shrim p and killifish; Teal 1962). The

biom ass of secondar y production going i n and out wi t h the tide (fis h , shrim p ) is less well known than resident speci es biomass (Kneib and Wagner 1994)

. Th e exported production of br own and w h i t e s h r i is probabl y t h e best known and m o st significant to coastal fisheries (Turner 197 7; Wiegert and Freeman 1990). The e s tim a ted y i eld of shrim p from North Caro lina was 107 lb per acre of intertidal veg e tated

Chapter 5 - Wetlands 3242005 C O ASTAL HABITAT PR OT ECTION PLAN

bottom (Turner 1977), whe r e intertidal vegetation included “salt m a rsh macrophytes, Spartina spp. [ a n
Juncus spp..” However, recent research suggests that wetlands vary greatly i n the i r role as exporters or

im porters of organic matter (Wiegert and Freem a n 1990). Th is variation could b e the result of variable

erosion or de position rates am ong seaso ns or wetland areas. d ]

r e s h w a t e r m a r s h F

a c k i s h m a r s h

, m o st l i ving vegeta tion in freshwater m a rshes can be m o re readily

t h e r

u t i s

h e d e t r i t u s t h a t r e m a ins i n the m a r s h provides f ood for meio- and macrobenthic co mm unities consisting

outh

o t t o m l a n d h a r d

w o o d and riverine swamp forest Co m p a r e d t o s a l t / b r consumed by insects, cray fish, m u skrat s , wate rfowl, an d carp (Mitsch and Gosselink 1993; SA F M C 1998a). How e ver, herbivory is still m i n o r in freshwa ter m a r s h e s ( M i t s c h a n d G o s s e l i n k 1 9 9 3 )

. T o g e with ph y t opla nkton and be nthic algae, o r ganic ma tter from the emergent vegetation is the sour ce of primary production in freshwater marsh es. The export of this pr od uction (in the form of particulate detritus) to ot her sy stems is less underst ood t h an that of salt m a rsh es (Mitsch an d Gosselink 1993), b probabl y sim i larly affected b y the rates of erosion and water exchan ge between wetlands and o p en water

sy stems. Bec a use many freshwater mar shes in No rth Carolina generally occur in slow-m oving, backwater areas, export of detritus is probabl y less significant com p ared to salt marshes.

T

of nematode worm s, chironom id fly lar v ae, m y sids, snails, and am phipods (Odum e t a l

. 1 9 8 4 ; M i t s c h a n d Gosselink 1993; SAFMC 1998a). The macrobenthic co mmunity

, in turn, provi d es abundant food for

s m all fish, grass shri m p , cr ay fish, crabs, and waterfo w l . Large fish feeding within the m a r s h include chain pickerel, bowfin, an d gars (Odum et al. 1984). Many other l a rge, aquatic predators (i.e., largem bass, crappie) feed along the edge of freshwater mar sh es where there is deep wat e r nearby for refuge (Odum et al. 1984).

B

a n i c m a tter, m u ch of it is n o t r a pidl y con v erted into

i a l

,

a d u l t

,

e f

u g e Although rive rine forests contain vast st o r e s o f o r g particulate organic matter for sec ondary production ( M itsch and Gosselink 1993) because wo ody m a t e r and leaves break down m o re slowly tha n succulent ve getation in marshes. In spite of this, ri verine forested wetlands still produce abundant inverteb rate food, such as cope pods, ost r acods, am p h i p o d s isopods, ol igochaetes, flat worm s, cray fish, and terr estrial insects (Wharton et al. 1982; Mitsch and Gosselink 1993). Fish spe c ies and life s t ages adapted fo r feeding i n riverine swam p f o r e s t s i n c l u d e

m o squitofish, gar, bowfin, carp and chain pickerel , along with earl y life stages of many ot her species (Wharton et al. 1982; Mits ch and Gosselink 1993). Other species, such as largem o u t h b a s s a n d c a t f i s h are opportuni stic predators within the fl ooded forest.

R

s m al l aquatic organism s find refuge from predators and adverse we ather conditions on and

and

a t i n A d u l t o r

am ong the dense leaf cano p ies found i n salt/brackis h and freshwater marshes (M i t s c h a n d G o s s e l i n k 1993; SAFMC 1998a; Graff and Middle t on 2003). Many sm all resi dent species, such as grass shri m p killifish, reside within em ergent stands of vege tation (P attilo et al. 1997; SAFMC 1998a; Mi nello 1999;

Rozas and Zimme r man 2000). A recent study on pre d a tion risk and pre y distribution in shallow-water

estuarine habitats found tha t predation on grass shri m p increased wit h increasing depth during the da y
, and decreased across all depths at night (Clark et al . 2003). The st udy’s results highli ght t h e i m p o r t a n c e of a refuge from predation during the da y tim e and a relaxation of p r edation at ni ght. Large, s o mewhat

less m obile organism s also find refuge i n the ve getation. For example, Micheli and Peterson ( 1999)

found that adult blue crabs utilized m a rsh edge habita t in preference to unvegeta t e d

, o p e n w a t e r h a b i t a North Carolina estuary , presu m a bly as refuge from p r edation. 60

60 The refug e fun ction of marshes f or juven ile specie s is discussed i n the nurser y fun c tion sect ion.

Chapter 5 - Wetlands 3252005 C O ASTAL HABITAT PR OT ECTION PLAN

T h e s t r u c t u r e p r o v i d e d b y f r eshwater m a rsh vegetati on and forested wetland margins prov ide s excellent

p a w n i n g refuge for sunfish, crappie, large m outh bass, and other a m bush predators, as w e ll as slow- m o v i n g b e n t h i c invertebrates (e.g., cray fish). Numerous studies ha ve docum ented the vegetate d habitat preference of largem outh bass, bluegill, and other freshwater am bush predators (review in Savino and Stein 1989).

S

su rface for att ach m e nt of e ggs. The com b ination of

t

h e s t r u c t u r a l c o m p lexity of marsh veget a tion and intertidal subm ersion regim e i n salt/brackish m a rsh

e s
,

t a t

o r r i d o r a n d connectivit y The ste m s and leaves of wetland vegetation provide a egg-lay i ng structures, abundant food and relative scar c ity of predators (Power et a l . 1995) in se asonally

flooded wetlands m a kes them an ideal spawning area. River herring are an im p o r t a n t c o a s t a l s p e c i e s t h a spawn adhesive eggs in flo oded swam ps, oxb ows, and along stream edges (Wharton et al. 19 8 2 ; DMF 2000c). S p awning of ri ver herring in N o rth Carolin a occurs during elevated spring flows fro m March throug h Ma y in small tributaries (DMF 2000c).

T provide spawning habitat for forage species such as k illifish (including m u mm i c h o g s )

, s i l v e r s i d e s
, g o b i and grass shrim p ( A nderson 1985; Pa ttilo et al. 1997). The num ber of species sp awning in salt marsh

habitat is low com p ared to the num ber of estuarine species spawning offshore and in deep cha n n e l h a b i (Table 2.3). Nevertheless, many of the species sp awning i n wetlands are also im portant food items for transient fishery species.

C

a n d p r oximity to open w a ter are im po rtant influenc es on the distr i butio n of

e d

s

l i a n d

u n c t i o n a l s i g n i f

i c a n c e

d s w a s i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o D C M’s North Carolina Coastal Region Evaluation of

a

i n t

i t a t Within the m a r s h

, e l e v a t i o n fish. Rozas and Odum (1987) found t h at shallow wa t e r and greater distance from deep water t y picall y meant lower abundance of large predatory fish (Rozas a nd Odum 1987). Marsh edge is also m o r e u t i l i z when adjacen t to SAV or shell beds where s mall orga nis m s can tak e refuge at low tide (Rozas and Odum 1987; Irlandi and Crawford 1997; Micheli and Peterson 1998). I n creased utilizati on is possible because

s m all organis ms need to move only a short distance to return to the m a r s h at high tide. Rozas and Odum (1987) com p ared fish and shellfish densities in tidal creeks with and without adja cent SAV beds. The y found that gr ass shri m p num b e rs greatly declined wh en artificial SAV was rem o ved from a ti dal creek. However, fish num bers (mostly m u mmichogs and ba nded killifish) were not significantly reduced. The results suggest a higher relative i m portance of we tland vegetation near SAV be ds for grass shrim p

. Irlandi and C r awford (199 7) foun d that pinfish were m o re than twice as abundant in i n t e r t i d a l m a r s h e adjacent to SAV beds than in m a r s hes a d jacent to com p l e tely unvegetated bottom

. The m o ve m e nt of pinfish between the intertidal m a rsh and subtidal grass beds could provide an im portant link in the

transfer of secondar y production from the marsh to ad j a c e n t a q u a t i c h a b i t a t s
, a n d v i c e v e r s a

. M i c h e Peterson (1998) found that marsh edge provides corri dor function by facilitating the access of blue crabs

to oy ster reefs and enhancing the intensity of pred ation on sm aller macroinverte b rates. Isolat ed oy ster reefs had higher densities of those smal ler m a croinvertebrates. These studies sh ow the importance of considering optimal locations for SAV a nd wetland restoration/creation projects.

F

Functional va l u e o f w e t l a n Wetland Significance (N C- CREWS), which is a GIS wetland functional asses s ment m odel. T h e prim a r y objective of the NC-CRE WS wetland functional assess ment is to provide users with inform a tion about

the relative e c ological im p o rtance of we tlands for use in planning a nd the overall manage ment of wetlands. Thirty -eight separate w e tland functions were used to evaluate each ma p p e d w e t l a n d a r e within the 20 coastal counties. Each wetl and is given a rating of “Ex ceptional”, “Substantial”, or

“Benefici a l” Functional Si gnificance. The overall ra ting was based on individual r a t i n g s f o r n o n p o source function, floodwater cleansing, landscape a nd watershed att r ibutes, surface runoff storage, floodwater storage, shoreline stabilization, terrestrial wildlife habitat functions

, a n d a q u a t i c l i f e h a b functions (Su tter 1999). NC-CREWS provides an excellent rating sy stem , but it was not specifically

Chapter 5 - Wetlands 3262005 C O ASTAL HABITAT PR OT ECTION PLAN

developed to locate the best habitat for c o astal fish eries. Wetland p r operties such as prim ary pr o d u c t i o structural com p lexity

, dep t h and subm ersion regim e were not included in t h is particular m o d e l

. H o w e v e r
, the ‘aquatic life habitat fun c tions’ com ponent of CRE WS provi des an area within which coastal fish

habitat can be found . The a quatic life habitat func tion of NC-CREWS includes anadrom o u s f i s h

, o t h fish species, and am phibian/invertebrate habitat (Sutter 1999)

. n
,

e r

y well to riparian and non-riparian habitat categories used

e

s

i g u r e 5

. 3

. R e s u l t s f r o m N o rth Carolina Coastal Region Evaluatio n of Wetland S i gnificance (NC-CREWS)

E NDS

t a t u s o f w e t l a n d h a b i t a t

n m a de of the original exte nt of North C a rolina’s wetlands. The DWQ and

l The NC-CREWS categories corresponded fairl in CHPPs. Riparian wetlands included the following DCM wetlan d t y pes: salt/brackish m a r s h

, f r e s h w a t e r marsh, estuarine shrub/scrub, b o ttom l and hardwood

, r i verine swamp forest, headwater swam p, and

estuarine forest. Most inta ct riparian wetlands were rated “Exceptional” in funct i on (Fig ure 5. 3 )

. T h majority of n on-riparian wetlands were rated as “Substa ntial.” There were virtually no ripari a n w e t l a n d in the “Beneficial” signific a nce cat egory. The signific ance of ripari an wetlands f u rther justifies the need to enhance their protection

.

0 200, 000 400, 000 600, 000 800, 000 1, 000, 000 1, 200, 000acres N on- r i pa r i a n

Ri

p a ri a n

N on- r i pa r i a n 356, 747 8 77, 052 34, 170

Ri

p ar i a n 463, 479 1 94, 594 87 E x c e p t i ona l S ubs t a nt i a l B e n e f i c i

a l

F in CAMA counties grou ped b y CHPP ri parian and no n-riparian wetland categories. [ S ource: DCM wetlands data (current as of 199 4) ]

5.3. STATUS AND TR

S

V a r i o u s e s t i m a t e s h a v e b e e North Carolina Water Resources Resear ch Institute sta ff have exam i n ed hy dric soils from the p u b l i s h e d

and draft count y soil surve y s (DWQ 2000a). These studies esti m at e that North Carolina had about 7. 2

million acres of wetlands prior to Eur o pean colonization. Of that original extent

, 9 5 % w a s i n t h e C o a s t a Plains. In an other stud y
, Dahl (1990) e s tim a ted th at b y the m i d-1980s, o n l y ab out o n e-half of North

Carolina’ s original wetlands re mained. The trend in wetland loss for North Carolina m i rrors n a t i o n a l

Chapter 5 - Wetlands 3272005 C O ASTAL HABITAT PR OT ECTION PLAN

trends (Dahl 1990).

A c c o r d i n g t o DWQ (2000a), approxim a tely 66% of No rth Carolina ’ s orig inal wetland extent r e m a ins and

h e

a b l e 5

. 3

. North Carolina wetland acr eage esti mate s

. [ S ource: NC Division of Water Quality 30 5(b)

1 Based on des c riptio ns of native veg e tation found on h y dric soils fro m SCS county soil survey s f rom the 1950s.

h e D C M w e tlands ty pes use three m odi fiers to indicat e hum an disturbance: 1) p a rtially draine d, 2)

”

dric

s i n g t h e D C M m odifiers for hum an disturbance, m o re non-riparian wetlands have been lost t h an

d t y pes,

l a n d 83% of its ori g inal salt marsh, bottom l and hardwood

, and swam p forest (Table 5.3). However, the 83% figure is onl y a rough estimate because the DWQ st udy did not disti nguish between depressional and

riverine swam p forest. Pocosins have suffered even greater losse s (48% re m a i n ing from t h e 1 9 5 0 s )

. T figures also do not account for wetland losses aft e r 1993. T h e am ount for rem a ining wetlands in North Carolina will be updated la ter in this chap ter with m o re recent permit statistics.

T report (DWQ 200 0a)]

2 Based on orig i nal extent of pin e sav a nnahs. O r ig ina l

Ext e nt 1 1990' s C h a n g e %

rem a i ning

P i ne s a vannah 3 ,643, 000 28,000 -3,615,000 1%

P o cos i n 1 ,366,000 655,000 -711,000 48%

W e t pi ne fl at wood 0 2,212,000 2 2,212,000

B o t t o ml and hardwood 1, 481,000 1,207,000 -274,000 81%

S a l t mars h 209,000 183,000 -26,000 88%

S w amp fores t 476,000 413,000 -63,000 87%

TOTAL 7 ,175,000 4, 706,000 -2,469,000 66% Non-ri pari an

Rip a r i a n Wet l a nd t W e tl an d Acreage

yp e

T cutover, or 3) cleared. These m odifiers were not m e ant to account for all wetlands m o d i f i e d o r “ l o s t

. The inclusion of m odifiers was si m p ly a way to sh ow how some of the wetlands rem a ining tod a y have been degraded or m odified (M. Lopazanski, DCM, pers. co m ., 2003). According to U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service’s National Wetlands Inventor y m a ps, partially dra i n e d w e t l a n d s a r e
, o r h a v e b e e n
, partially ditched/drained. Cutover wetlands ar e wetl and areas in which satellit e i m agery from 1994 indicates a lack of vegetation where it was present in 1988. Cleared wetlands are areas containing h y soils for which satellite imagery indi cated a lack of vegetation in bo th 1988 and 1994. Cutover wetlands

have likel y retained wetland h ydrolo g y a nd soil char acteristics, whil e clear ed and drained wetla nds are probabl y no l onger functio nal wetlands.

U riparian wetlands. As of 1 994, 98, 773 a nd 3 87,4 98 a c res of riparian and n on-rip a rian wetland s, respectively

, were mapped as degraded or m odified (Tables 5.4 and 5.5). Am o ng riparian w e t l a n riverine swam p forests were m o st often m a pped as m odified by drainage, foll owed by salt/brackish marshes, and bottom l and hardwood fore sts (Table 5.4 and Maps 5. 1a-d). A qua n t i f i a b l e t r e n d i n w e t degradation i s apparent for cutove r wetlands. During 198 8-199 4, t h e rates of cutover for ripa rian and non-riparian wetlands were 2,919 an d 6

, 719 acres/y e ar , respectively (DCM, un pub. data). Althoug h wetland hy drology and soil are m a intain ed in th ese areas, the trees will take y ears to recover.

Chapter 5 - Wetlands 3282005 C O ASTAL HABITAT PR OT ECTION PLAN

T a b l e 5

. 4

. Acres of m o d i fied riparian wetland types in coastal are a . [Source: D C M wetland mapping

a b l e 5

. 5

. Acres of non- riparian wetland t ypes im p act ed in 1994 in coastal areas. [ S ource: DCM wetland

i t h i n D W Q c o a s t a l r i v e r basins, Clean Water Act section 401-permitted wetla n d im pact s over a period

i t

d (current as of 1994).]

Ri par i an

w e t l andsBottomlandHardwoodEstuarineForestEstuarineShrub/ScrubFreshwaterMarshHeadwaterSwampRiverineSwamp ForestSalt/BrackishMarshTotal area

C l eared 1 4,183 0 318 822 2,985 8,308

Cutover 2 7,840 5 535 2,853 6,280 17,513

Dr a i ne d 1 13,548 19 2,195 2,550 2,583 22,715 29,242 72,852

TO TAL 25,571 24 3,048 2,550 6,258 31,980 29,242 98,673

1 Unknown t i m e peri od of i m pact ; current as of 1994

2 Impact ed from 1988-1994

T mapping (current as of 199 4).]

Nonriparian

w e t l andsDepressionalSwamp ForestHardwood FlatMaritime ForestPine FlatPocosinTotal area

C l eared 1 3,755 8,091 142 4,610 1,986 18,584

Cutover 2 5,686 13,388 138 15,748 5,356 40,316

Dr a i ne d 1 61,830 70,536 17 95,933 100,282 328,598

T O T A L 71,271 92,015 297 116,291 107,624 387,498

1 Unknown t i m e peri od of i m pact ; current as of 1994

2 Impact ed from 1988-1994

W of four fiscal y ears (1997-2001) i ndicate a pot ential conversion of 3, 817 wetland acres to non-wetland uses (Figure 5.4). Losses in fiscal y ears 1999/2000 a nd 2000/ 2001 were rel a tively small co mpared to

1997/ 1998 and 1998/1999. Th e relatively large losses in those earlier y ears resulted from two large projects (Buckhorn Reservoir in Wilson Count y and Gl obal Transpark in Lenoi r Count y )

. H o w e v e r
, should be not ed that section 401 water qualit y certif ications (from DWQ) precede section 404 perm its (from the U.S

. Ar m y Corps of Engi neers or COE) that may never be issued. In addition, som e per m i t t e i m pacts never occur. There were an additional 11,5 8 0 acres of pocosin wetland (non-riparian) lost after repeal of the federal Tulloch Rule 61 . However, m o st of this acreage h a d its h y drol o g y restored th r o u g h a n intensive state and federal enforcem ent effort. Th ere are also an unknown n u m b er of wetland acres lost each y ear from unauthorized projects and small project s not requiring confirm a ti on by DWQ. Thus, the

61 See “Land use and wetland conv ersi on” sectio n f or more information

Chapter 5 - Wetlands 3292005 C O ASTAL HABITAT PR OT ECTION PLAN

am ount of impacted wetlan d acres may b e underestim ated . The DWQ is working to resolve the issue of tracking unau t horized and cu m u lative, small im pacts (DWQ 2000a).

12 48

. 1 1 20 19

. 1 7

1 38. 46 20 3. 9 1 20 7. 4 2

0 50 0 10 00 15 00 20 00 25 00

19 97 / 1 99 8 1 99 8 / 19 9 9 19 99 / 2 00 0 2 00 0/ 20 01 20 0 1 / 2 0 0 2Acres

i g u r e 5

. 4

. Total DWQ 401 Perm itted Wetland Im p acts (acres) d u ring 1997-2002 i n the seven Coastal

d

a d d i t i o n t o c o n v e r s i o n c a used directly by hum a ns
, wetlands are also being los t to erosion re sulting

t
0 1

,

i o n
,

t a t u s o f a s s o c i a t e d f i s h e r y s t o c k s

r e l a t i v e a bundan ce in wetlands (Table 5.2), two are Overfished,

o f F river basins (excluding the Lum b er Rive r basin). Note: These data are for per m a n e n t w e t l a n loss and do n o t include im pacts fro m CAMA, Corps of Engi neers Nationwide Perm its 12 and 33, and C o rp s of Engineer s Regional General Pe rm it 030 since the se im p acts are tem porary o r are i m pacts t o water (e.g., drainage).

I n from sea leve l rise and shoreline hardening (Riggs 2001) . Based on a recent study of 2 1 f i e l d s i t e s a n d then extrapol ated to the entire length of estuari ne shoreline in northeastern North Carolina, annual wetland losses are approximately 802 a c res/y ear, m o st of which are m a inland brackish m a r s h h a b i t a (Riggs and Ames 2003). When the cum u l a tive effects of perm itt ed wetlands im p acts fro m 1 9 9 7 t o 2 0

unperm itted wetland im pacts (after repeal of Tulloch Rule), estimated coastal erosion loss from 1993 to

2001 , and t o t a l estimated wetland losses prior to 199 3 (DWQ 200 0a) are added together, the t o t a l l o s s o f wetlands in DWQ coastal river basins could be as m u ch as 2,491 ,51 5 acres (1993-2002). This total

esti mated wet l and loss still leaves 65% of the esti m at ed origi n al extent of wetlands in North C a r o l i n a (DWQ 2000a). However, this figure doe s not account fo r wetlands gained through restoration or c r e a t either by natural processes or restoration/creation effort. It also doe s not account for losses between 1993

and 199 7 that were not attributable to ero s ion.

S

Of the ten fishery stocks w ith hig h e r three are Concern, one is Recovering, an d four are Viable. There are an approximately equal num b e r Viable and Concern stocks showing some preferen ce for wetland habitat. The two wetland-enhanced 62

62 Wetland- enhan c ed species are th ose showing so me documented preferen c e for w e tland hab i tat.

Chapter 5 - Wetlands 3302005 C O ASTAL HABITAT PR OT ECTION PLAN

stocks listed as Overfished were river herring (ale wife and blueback herring in Albem a rle Sound) and

southern flo u nder. Wetland-enhanced species of Concer n included blue crab, striped m u l l e t

, a n d A t l a n croaker. t i c

g u r e 5

. 5

. P e r c e n t o f w e t l and-enhanced fish stocks classified a s O v erfished, Concern, Recovering, or

h i l e m o st o f the concern over declining fish st ocks has focused on overfishin g, habitat loss and

o l v e

e t l a n d r e s t o r

a t i o n

n d n eed for alternative polluti o n control m e thods prom pted restoration/ creation

co m p ensator y m itigation is to replace w e tland functio ns that are lost through permitted i m pact s to 63 The one Recovering species wa s red drum

. The Viable s p ecies w e re s potted seatrout, spot,

su mmer flounder, and shrim p

.

Vi a b l e
40%

R e c ove r i ng
10% C onc e r n

30% O v e rfi s h e d

20%



### ri

v

e r h e rri n

g

so u t h

e rn f

l o u n

d e r

A t l a n t i c cr oake r

bl

u

e cr ab

s t

r i pe d m u

l l et s pot t e d s e a t r o u t

s pot

su

m

m

e r

f

l o u n

d e r

Sh r i m

p

R

e d dr u

m

F i

Viable in the 2003 North C a rolina Division of Marine Fisheries stock status report (DMF 2003a).

W degradation can also prevent recovery or make a stoc k m o re susceptible to overfishing. F o r exam ple,

im passable obstructions of m i gratory corridors to sp a w ning gro u n d s can prevent stock recovery d e s p i t e fishing restrictions. In othe r case s, regional reduc tions or loss of one habitat can make a stock m o r e susceptible to overfishing by reducing t h e diversity or total am ount of suitable habitat available. A strategy for enhancing fisheries, as required by the Fisheries R e form Ac t o f 1 9 9 7

, m u s t t h e r e f

o r e i n v both habit a t protection/enhancement an d prevention/ reduction of overfishing

.

W

T h e l o s s o f w e t l a n d s a efforts beginn ing in the late 198 0s and early 19 90s (Mi t sch and Gosselink 19 93). A c t u a l r e s t o r a t i o n o f

wetlands is acco m p lished through com p ensatory m itig ation and voluntar y initiat i ves. The pur pose of

63 A more detailed evaluation of w e tland-enhan ced species and thei r status can be fo und in the Chapter 6 (i.e., nurser y area statisti cs).

Chapter 5 - Wetlands 3312005 C O ASTAL HABITAT PR OT ECTION PLAN

wetlands (W RP 2002). M a ny wetland r estoration pro j ect s involve sim p ly restori ng the natural h y dro l o condition, while others include greater design considerations. Depending on t h e purpose of restoration/creation, design considerations include h ydroperiod, nu trient/polluta nt loadin g rates, seasonal

flood pulses, flow patterns, water retenti on tim es (M it sch and Gosselink 1993), a nd/or soil t y

While there have been m a n y successful projects i m ple m ented nati o n w i d e
, t h e r e h a v e b e e n f a i l u r e s g i c

pe.

t t r i b u t e d t o l ack of proper h y drol og y (Mitsch and Gosselink 199 3 ) . More recent studies in North

t o o d a r e a s

e t l a n d s R e s t o r a t i o n P r o g ram a Carolina found that m itigat ion sites restored by the N.C. Depart m e n t o f T r a n s p o r t a t i o n ( D O T ) r e l i e d

m u ch on hydrologic criteria, leading to re duced surviv orship of planted seedlings in som e exca v a t e with non-wetl and soil (Rheinhardt and B r inson 2 002). The y also fo und t h at reference sites were rarely

utilized in m e asuring the success of resto r ation. Presentl y
, all DOT m onitoring i s stopped after perm it

conditions are satisfied. With these considerations in m i nd, it will be difficult to determ ine g a ins in

wetland acre a g e. Rheinhardt and Brinson ( 2002) encouraged long-term monitoring of restoration projects using success c r it eria based on hydrology, s o il, and vegetation characteristic s a t e s t a b l i s h e d refer ence sit e s.

North Carolin a W

o g r am (EEP) was established in Jul y 2003 as an

t e c t th e State’s wetlands and waterway s. The Ecosy s tem

o c i a t e d

t i o n
,

a n d

pr ojects

,

o f

t e n r e q u i r e d with the issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification and/ or The North Carolina Ecos y s tem E n h a n c e m e n t P r innovati ve pr ogram t o r e s t o r e
, e n h a n c e
, a n d p r o Enhancem ent Program co m b ines an existing wetla nds restoration initiative by t h e Depart ment o f

Environm ent and Natural Resources (Wetlands Restoration Progr a m ) with ongoing efforts by the N.C. Department of Transportation to offset u n avoi dable environm ental i m p acts fro m t r ansportationinfrastructure im provements. The U. S. Arm y Corps of Engi neers join ed as a sponsor in t h e h i storic agreement. The m i ssion of the EEP is to restore, e nhance, preserve a n d p r o t e c t t h e f u n c t i o n s a s s with wetlands, strea ms and riparian areas , including but not lim ited to those necessary f o r t h e r e s t o r a maintenance and protection of water quality and ripa ri an habitats throughout North Carolina ’ s 17 river

basins 64 . To acco m p lish this m i ssion, the WRP works cl osely with the DWQ and other resource agencies

to identif y watersheds (14-digit h ydrol o g ic units) in e ach river basin that exhib it both t h e need and

opport unit y f o r restoration. These areas are called “T argeted Local Watersheds” and receive priorit y for WRP planning and restoration pr oject funds. Based pri m arily on w a ter quality

, h a b i t a t

, l a n d c o v e r
, public comment, staff identify “Targete d Local Watershe ds” that a r e believed to be the best areas for the

program to im plement wetland, stream , and riparian r estoration projects, and nu trient reduction pro j e c t s

. The goal is to concentrate m u ltiple projects within s mall wat e rsheds to address real wat e r s h e d d e g r a d a t i o n

sy m p toms ins t ead of isolated problem ar eas s catter e d m o r e broadly across a basi n or larger watershed.

This focus works toward i m plementing long-term watershed restor ation and pr ot ection benefits. The WRP encourages other govern m ent entities and fundi ng organizations to consider im plementing

watershed an d habitat im provement projects within these are as a s well as maxi m ize st ate, fe deral and local funding sources based on m u ltiple watershed pla nning objecti v es. Multiple com p lement a ry focused in small watersheds will provide the greatest ecological benefit to North Carolina’s streams, rivers, lakes, estuaries, and wetlands. This a pproach also helps m a xim i ze program funds and programmati c benefits, creating an envir onm ent for partnership and collabora tion am o n g v a r i o u s s t a t e federal and local program s.

Co m p ensatory m itigation 65 i s

64 More informati o n on EEP webs ite (www.nceep .net).

65 The d a t a pr esen ted in th is sec tio n are based on th e Divisi on of W a ter Quali t y ’s Wetl ands/401 Unit ’s Water Qua lit y

n d stre am s losses that ar e au thoriz e d through the issuanc e of a 401

c a n issue

p a cts Certifi c a tion D a t a base. This d a ta base tr acks we tl a n d a Water Qua lit y C e rtif ica tion

. Issuance of a 401 Water Quali t y C e rt ific ation is r e qui r ed befo re the C o rps of Engin eer s a Section 404 Permit author izing th e f ill or alteration of wetlands and/or streams. Although in the majority of cases the i m authorized b y th e 401 Water Qualit y C e rtification are consistent with th e impacts authorized b y the Section 404 Per m it, th e amount of impact au thorized b y the Section 404 P e rmit may b e les s than that au tho r ized b y the 4 0 1 Water Quality C e rtif ication and, in som e cas es, a Sec tion 404 Perm it m a y n e v e r be issued. In addition

, the aut h orized im pac t s m a y no t o ccur d uring th i s

Chapter 5 - Wetlands 3322005 C O ASTAL HABITAT PR OT ECTION PLAN

Section 404 p e rm it to im pact wetlands. However, not all project impacts are mitigated with th e creation

or restoration of wetlands. Based on com p ensator y mitigation requirements, perm ittees may choose to

conduct the c o m p ensatory mitigation the mselves, requ est to m a ke a pay m ent to the DENR Wet l ands

Trust Fund f o r Com p ensatory Mitigation, or purch ase credits from private m itigation banks (if t h e i m pacts occur within their mitigation service area). D onation of land for wetlands restoration or creation

also satisfies wetland m itigation require ments [ E MC rule 15A NCAC 02R .0403 (e)(1-2)] . L a nd

donations preserving wetlands do not sat isfy t h e rule. Land acquisit i on for preservation should also be an option for wetlands mitigation. How ever, the amo unt of land pr eserved should be more than the area impacted because the preservation will not offset the adverse impa ct. Preservati on of high quality lands is an option t o m e et co m p ensatory m itigation needs i n advance of expected i m pacts during the Ecosy s tem
Enhance m ent Program ’ s Transition Period (July 2003- July 2005). Preservation sites ar e intended to supplement achieving compliance with co m p ensatory m itigation requirem e nts.

The WRP is required b y st atute to repor t on b o th com p ensatory an d non-com p ensatory (i.e., n onregulator y ) restoration wor k acco m p lished in North C a rolina annually. In fiscal y ear 2001-2002, eight yone 401 Water Quality Cert ifications issued statewide required wetland or stream mitigation. Of those, 69% were satisfied through pay m ent to t h e Wetlands Trust Fund. Co m p ensatory m itigation requirem e nts
for 7% were satisfied throu gh pa y m ent to privat e m itigation ban k s, while the remaining 2 3 % conducted

co m p ensatory m itigation on-site. The am ount of com p ensatory mitigation in North Carolina coastal river basins during fiscal y ears 1999-2002 wa s approxi m a t e ly 650 acres (WRP 2000, 2001, 2002) ( T able 5.6). During that s a m e time period, there were 550 acres of wetlands impacted in coastal river basins 66 . There

is also so m e voluntar y creation or restoration of wetlands. During fiscal y ears 1999-2002, 17.25 acres of

wetlands wer e voluntarily restored or created in coast al river basins throug h no n -regulator y restoration practices (i.e.

, North Caroli na Coastal Federation proje c ts funded by Clean Water Managem e nt Trust Fund).

Table 5.6. The am ount (acres) of co mpensatory m itigation and non-regulator y gains (volunt a ry restoration/enhancem ent) i n coastal river b asins from 1999- 2002. ( S ources: WRP 2000, 2001,

and 200 2)

F i scal year Non

- reg ulato r y G a in s

Restoration/ Creatio n Co m p e n s a t o r y mitigation Tot a l

19 99/2 000 9.2 5 150. 40 1 59.6 5

20 00/2 001 2.0 0 288. 60 2 90.6 0

20 01/2 002 6.0 0 195. 65 2 01.6 5

TO TA L 17.2 5 634. 65 6 51.9 0

The WRP evaluates the co sts of restorat ion pr ojects on an annual basis. These costs can vary based on

site conditions and restoration m e thods. Based on tw o riparian wetland projects in fiscal y ear 2001- 2002,

the cost of restoration in 20 02 was $20,0 00-25, 000 /acre (WRP 2002 ). The cost in cludes site identification, site acquisition, pr oject design, constr uc tion m a nagement, site restoration, p o st m onitoring, and long-term manage m e n t. The cost of restoring 4.11 acres of coastal wetlan d s in 2002 was even higher at $101, 148/a c re. 67

66

s a t o r y m itiga tion as a con d ition o f th e 401 Water Quali t y Ce rtifi c a tion, th ough the y m a y r e sult in a substa ntial loss of

67

a n d s / >

. F o r ad ditional informatio n conc erning the WRP, visit

fis cal ye ar and i n s o m e cas es m a y never oc cur. T h e DW Q is incr e a s i ng i t s effor t s t o m o nitor and tr ack the im pacts t h at actu a l l y

occur. The total number of wetlands impacted in clud es i m pacts of les s th an one a c re

. Im pacts of l e s s tha n one acr e do no t requ ire

com p e n wetland resources (WRP 2002).

For additional informa tion regar d ing 401/404 co mpensator y mitigatio n requir ements, visit DWQ’s website at <http://h2o .enr

. s t a t e

. n c

. u s / n c w e t l <http://h2o .enr .state.nc.us/wrp/>.

Chapter 5 - Wetlands 3332005 C O ASTAL HABITAT PR OT ECTION PLAN

The rate of wetland loss docu m e nted by 401 perm it re cords does not account for functional equivalency, which is the replacement of full ecologi cal functions specific to a wetland type. Currentl y , w e tlands losses and gains are tracked on an acre-for-acre basi s. The wetland type lost is not alway s m iti gated by

the creation of a si m ilar wetland t y pe. I n fact, there is little consideration for m a i n taining a nat u ral m i x of wetland types on the landscape. Rheinhardt and Brins on (2002) recomme nded the tracking of restoration efforts by rive r basin and hydrogeomorphic class so t hat restoration can maintain a balanced distribution of classes on the landscape

. For exam ple, the loss of riverine wetlands in the Ne use River basin shoul d

be m itigat ed by the creation or restoration of ri verine wetlands in the Neuse Riv e r basin. The new Ecosy s tem E nhance m ent Program is tr acking restoration efforts associated wit h Depart m e nt of Transportation projects. 68

Other initiatives

Federal, state, local, and pri v ate organizations and i ndi viduals conduct voluntar y i n itiatives. The Wetlands Reserve Program of the Fo od, Agriculture, C onservation, and Trade Act of 199 0 aut horized the U.S. Depart ment of Agriculture (USDA) to purchase easements fro m l a ndowners who agree to protect or

restore wetl a nds. The goal of USDA’ s Pilot Wetlands Res e rve Progra m wa s to restore one m i llion acres

of cultivated crops to wetlands by 1995 (Bal es and Newco m b 1996). The USDA pay s 75% of the

restoration cost to landown e rs, and NRCS and FWS a ssi st in co m p leting the restoration plans. As of

2001 , there were m o re than 6,50 0 restoration pr oj ects nationwide th at enco m p assed nearly 1,0 75,0 00 acres (NRCS 2002). B y 1992, there were about 15,0 00 acres of cultivated land enrolled in the North Carolina prog ram (Bales an d Newco m b 1996). B y 2 0 02, total prog ram enrollm e nt in North Carolina had exceeded 26,000 acres (NRCS 2003). Project costs vary t h roughout the countr y. In 2001, t h e average cost of purchasing and restoring a perm a n ent ease men t was approximately $1,200 per acre. The average cost of purch asing and restoring a 3 0

- y e a r easemen t was around $770 per acre. Restoration cost-share agreements, which do not include easement acquisi t i on costs, averaged around $450 per acre (NRCS 2003).

The Conservation Reserve Enhance m ent Program (C REP) is another state/f e der a l program in tended to

im prove not onl y wetlands , but also o t h e r riparian hab itats in Nort h Carolina. The program is focused on

im paired water bodies in t h e Chowan, Neuse, and Tar-P am lico river basins, and the Jordan Lake area (all Nutrient Sensitive Waters). The progra m can pay up to $50,000 per person, per fiscal y ear to replace marginal agricultural land with forested riparian bu ffers, grassed fil t er strips or wetlands. For the enrollment of 100, 000 acres in North Carolina, fede ral and state obl igations over a 15- y ear period are approxim a tely $275 and $54 m illi on, respectively (<http://www.fsa.usda.gov/cr pstorpt/CREP/default

.htm >, April 2003). Durin g 19 99-20 03, 19,0 81 acres were enrolled in this pr ogra m in North Carolina (calculated from USDA website, April 2003). Howeve r, the prop o r tion of t h is acreage in wetland

restoration or creation was not reported. 69

In addition to the program s discussed above, other st ate programs involved in t h e restoration of wetlands include DWQ’s 31 9 Pro g ram
, Clean Water Manage ment Trust Fun d

, and the Divi sion of Water Resources’ Grant Program (WRP 2002). 70

68 See “Recent tr ends” subsection unde r “Land use and w e tland con v ersi on” b e low f o r more information.

69 More info rmation on th e CR EP progra m can be f ound on th e US DA’s website (<http://www.fsa.usda.gov /dafp/cepd/crpinfo.htm>).

70 Information on these progr ams is provided on the WRP website (<http://h2o.enr.state. nc.us/wrp/ind e x.htm>)

.

Chapter 5 - Wetlands 3342005 C O ASTAL HABITAT PR OT ECTION PLAN

Existing management mea sures

Legislation and regulator y program s

Alteration or destruction of wetlands are currently regulated by federal and state agencies. Nu merous federal regulations and i n centives a ffecting wetlands were included in the River and Harbors Act of 1899;

the Clean Water Act of 197 2 (and its amendments); the Food Securi ty Act of 19 8 5 ; the Foo d

, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 199 0; the E m ergency Wetlands Res our ces Act of 1986; and the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (Bales and Newco m b 1996).

The River and Harbors Ac t gives the COE the authority to regulate certain acti v ities in navigable waters.

These activiti es include some that can dam a ge or dest roy wetlands such as diking, deepening, filling, excavating, and placement of structures. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act r e quires that the COE regulate the discharge of dredge or fill material into wetland areas. Per m it applications are reviewed by

the U.S. Envi ronm ental Protection Agency (EPA) an d U.S. Fish a nd Wildlife Service (FWS)

. The Corps can deny the per m it based on FWS or NMFS reco mmenda tion. Sta t es wer e given the authority to approve, appl y conditi ons t o , or den y 4 0 4 perm its by Section 401 o f the Clean Water Act. The authorit y is applied in North Carolina by DWQ with th e 401 Water Quality Certification program

.

While issuance or denial of Section 404 perm its ar e the m o st widel y used federal manage ment tools protecting wetlands, m o st farm ing, ranching, and silvi c ulture activiti es are exe m p t from such per m its (Bales and Newco m b 1996). These exem ptions were reduced by the “Swam p b u ster” provisions of the

Food Securit y Act of 1985 and its amendments. “Swa m pbuster” p r ovisions disc ourage (through financial disincentives) the draining, filling, or other alterations of wetlands for agricultural use. However, there

are exe m ptio ns from the disincentiv es if the far m er ag rees to restor e the altered wetland or some other

wetland area converted to agriculture. Cutover we tlands im pacts between 1988 and 19 94 are likel y the

result of silvi c ulture operations.

There are also section 404 and 401 gene ral perm its issued for proje c ts causing minim a l individual and

cu m u lative e nvironm ental i m pacts. The se per m its are im portant be cause the acti v ities they cover do not require wetland restoration

. The m o st frequentl y used , but no lo nge r issued, 404 general perm it is

Nationwide Per m it 26, which applied to wetland fills less than 10 acres in size. T h is perm it had the following general conditions: (1) the wetland m u st be lo cated adjacent to a stream and above he adwaters, or (2) the wetland m u st be isolated (equivalent to flat/depressional hy drogeom o r phic class). Nationwide

Per m it 26 probably contributed prim aril y to loss of flat/depressional wetlands noted earlier in the Status

and Trends section. Som e other activities cove red und er federal gen e ral perm its i n clude:

• Fish and wildlife harvesting,

• Surve y activit ies,

• Minor road crossings,

• Modifications of existing marinas,

• Maintenance dredging of e x isting basins

,

• Boat ram p s with no discharge to wetlands, and

• Cleanup of hazardous and toxic waste.

The Emergen c y Wetlands Resources Ac t of 1986 requir ed states to address wetl and protection in their

Co m p rehensive Outdoor R ecreation Plans in orde r t o qualif y for fe deral funding . Other wetland protection inc e ntives were provided b y t h e Coastal Zone Manage ment Act, whic h required coastal stat es to adopt coast al zone m a nagem e nt program s in orde r to be eligible f o r federal funding an d technical

assist ance. A s a result, the Coastal Resources Co mmi ssion (CRC) was subsequently established in North

Carolina. The DCM was l a ter est ablished as the opera tional ar m of the CRC. Rules prom ulgated by the CRC apply t o North Carolina’s 20 coastal counties.

Within coastal counties, the CRC fo rbids projects that can violate water quality st andards of estuarine

Chapter 5 - Wetlands 3352005 C O ASTAL HABITAT PR OT ECTION PLAN

resources, including coastal wetlands [CRC rule 15A NCAC 07H . 0207] . The CRC rules also state that activities directly im pacting wetlands shall not have significant adverse i m p acts. The CRC prohibits disposal of fil l in coastal wetlands and d r edging ac tivi ties in all but the m o st narrow fringing wetlands
[ C RC rule 15A NCAC 07H .0208 ( b ) ( 1 ) (A, C)]

. Furtherm ore, CRC rules require that bul kheads and riprap be constructed landward of coast al wetland ar eas. However, CRC and EMC rules allow bulkhead backfilling of sm all, fresh water wetlan d s landward of coastal wet l ands followi ng the size threshold criteria for perm itting wetland im pact s 71

, resulting in a cu m u lative loss of wetlands that m i ght provide for

marsh m i grati on with sea level rise. To minimize these losses, all but the most miniscule of wetland impacts shoul d be subject t o permitting.

Encouraged by the progress of wetland regulations, “N o Net Loss” policies were developed by the federal

governm e nt in the late 198 0s (W iebe and Heim lich 1995). B u t de sp ite their achievem ents, wetland regulations are still considered by the public a “tak ing” of propert y that should be discontinue d or financially co m p ensate the landowner. T h e central pr oblem of wetland pro t ection rem a ins how to protect wetlands for public benefit when the majorit y of co nv erted or rem a ining wetland s are privately owned. These factors have led to increasing reli ance on la nd acquisition and direct incentives for protecting

rem a ining wetlands. Increasing public a w areness of wetlands benefits (i.e., reducing flood le vels, velocities, and dam a g e ) encourages grea ter acc ep tance of wetland regulations, as well as volun tary
actions.

State and federal regulatory designation s

Several state regulator y de signations pr ovide additi o n al protection of wetlands, such as are a designations

for:

• Estuarine Sho r eline Areas of Envir onm ental Concern [ C RC rule 15A NCAC 07H .0205- 207] ;

• Nutrient Sensitive Waters [ E MC rule 15A NCAC 02B .0101(e)(3) ] ;

• Pri m ary Nursery Areas [ M FC rule 15A NCAC 03N .0102(a)] ;

• Shellfishing Waters [ E MC rule 15A NCAC 02B .0101( d)(3) ] ;

• High Qualit y Waters [ E MC rule 15A NCAC 02B .0101(e)(5) ] ;

• Outstanding Resource Waters [ E MC rule 15A NCAC 02B .0101(e)(4) ]

.

The CRC-designated Estuarine Shoreline Area of E nvironm ental C oncern (AECs) extends landward 75

feet fro m the high water mark along estuarine shore lines, upstream to the line separating Coastal and

Inland Fishin g Waters (Figure 2.6 i n Ch apter 2). The Estuarine Shoreline AEC increases to 575 feet along shoreli n es of EMC-designated Outstanding Re s ource Waters. Any devel opm ent planned within

this area m u st obtain a Coa s tal Are a Ma nage m e nt Act (CAMA) per m it. Hard surfaces, such as buildings, paved parkin g lots and r o ads, m u st cover no m o re th an 30% (25% along ORWs) of the pro j ect area within

the Area of Environm ental Concern, unl ess the de vel opm ent incorporates an innovative desi gn that provides stormwat er protection equal to or exceeding the protection of the 30% lim it ation. However, certain activities (i.e., agriculture and sil v iculture) not invol ving excav ation or fi lling of coast al wetlands

are exe m pt fr om a CAMA per m it. The Coastal Shoreline AEC, which includes estuarine and public trust shorelines to the upstream extent of navi gable wa ters, also includes a 30-foot buff e r fro m high t i de

elevation in which only water-depende nt uses are all o wed. However, the vegetation in this buffer does

not have to b e natural, and it can be m o wed. There are exem ptions allowing no n-water dependent

structures wit h in 30 feet of the high water m a rk. For exam ple, the full buffer is not required i f it would preclude the place ment of residential str u ctures on a lot, parcel, or tract that was platted before June 1,

71 Projects impacting less th an 1 / 3 acre of we tl and within 50 fe et of the high wate r l i n e ar e exem pt fr om 401 water qu alit y

cert i fic a tions , as well as proj ects i m pacting les s th an 1 acr e wi th in 150 feet of th e h i gh water line [EMC rule 15A NCAC 02H .0506 (c)(2)]

. There is no minim u m area cri t er ia for mitigation when dealing with desi gnated uniq ue wet l ands [ E MC rule 15A NCAC 02H .0506(e)] . However

, unique wetla nds will lik ely not b e design ated on pr ivate lands without th e approval of the

land owner

.

Chapter 5 - Wetlands 3362005 C O ASTAL HABITAT PR OT ECTION PLAN

1999 (if certain criteria are met) [ C RC rule 15A NCAC 7H .020 9 ( e )(1)] . There are also exem ptions for lots platted before June 1, 1999 or surrounded by exis ting develop ment [CRC rule 15A NCAC 07H .0209 (e)(2)(A) ]

.

Along Nutrie nt Sensitive Waters in the Tar-Pam lico and Neuse river basins, the EMC has established a

buffer width of 50 feet dir ectly adjacent to interm ittent stream s, perennial streams, lakes, ponds, and estuaries, excluding wetlands [ E MC rule 15A NCAC 02B .0233 ( 3 ) ] . The first 30 feet of the buffer (Zone 1) m u st be virtuall y un distu r bed natural v e getation. However, within the 20 CAMA counties, Zone 1 is

measured from the l a ndward edge of coastal wetlands [ E MC rule 15A NCAC 02B .0233 (4)( a)(iii)]

. The

zone of un disturbed natural vege tation could t h erefore include so me freshwater wetlands not covered

under CRC rules. The second 20 feet of the buffer (Z one 2) can be m o wed grass and/or harve s table trees.

While the buf fer rules for Nutrient Sensitive Wate rs provide m o re protection for wetlands than CRC buffer rules, there are man y exem ptions [ E MC rule 15A NCAC 02B .0233 (6)]

. Most of the e x em ptions (over 35 i n all) are for infrastructure associated with developm ent (e.g., utilit y li nes, drainage ditches, roads/bridges).

Waters desig n ated as PNA s by the MFC are given add itional consi d eration of i m p acts by DCM prior to issuing devel opm ent perm its. Onl y m a intenance dredging is allow e d, a nd on l y within existin g basins and channels. There are no other special req u ire m ents on water-depend e nt, development-relat e d activities in

wetlands surroundi ng PNA s (i.e., bulk h eads, piers). Ho wever, all designated P NAs and SA waters are

classifi ed HQW and receive additional protection from discharge and deve lopment under EMC and CRC rules. Rules dealing with approved She llfishing Wat e rs protect wetlands b y pr ohibiti ng new marina

construction that could result in loss of so m e fringi ng wetlands and increased boat traffic and associat ed

i m pacts [ C R C rule 15A NCAC 07H .0208 (b)(5)(E)]

.

All coastal ar eas cl assifi ed as Outstanding Resource Wa ters al so have significant wetland coverage. Outstanding Resource Waters and their m o re stringent regulations [ E MC rule 15 A NCAC 02B .0225 (e)]

enco m p ass approxim a tely 6% of the riparian wetland ha bitat in coastal North Carolina, the m a jo rity of

which is salt/brackish marsh and riverine swam p fo rest. Those areas also cover 2% of non-ripa rian

wetlands. There is also a l a rger Are a of Envir onm ental Concern (extending 57 5 feet fro m mean high water) adjacent to ORW waters, within which ther e is a built-upon area li m it of 25% [ C RC rule 15A

NCAC 07H . 209 (g)] . The lim it on i m pervious surfaces could help prevent loss of wetlands within the

AEC. The effectiveness of ORW-related rules in pr otecting wetland s and ot her h abitats sho u l d be examined and changed as necessary

. Appropriate management strategi es shoul d be developed by the EMC, MFC and CRC to pr otect wetland areas designated as Strate gic Habitat A reas by the MFC.

The federal governm e nt protects wetlan d s b y designa ting them Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). The designation of EFH for coastal wetlands means severa l things. First, the regional fishery m a na ge m e nt
councils m u st identif y m e asures to conserve, restore, or enhance Essential Fish Habitat. They m u st al so

reco mmend actions that will m i ni m i ze t h e adverse ef fects of fishing on habitat. Most reco mmendations target federal agencies (i.e., Corps of Engineers or En vironm ental Protection Ag ency ) whose projects m a y affect fish ha bitat. Basical ly, any state or federal activ ity that coul d harm habitat for federally managed fish stocks is subject to review by NMFS (NOAA Fi sheries). Federally m a naged fish stocks include those occurring in federal waters (i.e., tuna, sharks, panaeid shri mp, red drum ). Coastal wetl ands are designated EFH for red drum and shri mp. Areas of EFH requiring the m o st protection are ter med Habitat

Area s of Particular Concer n (for m o re information see Chapter 8).

Land ownership and m a nagem e nt

In addition to regulatory de signati ons, wetlands also receive protect i on by virtue of ownership and management. Protected lands are owned and m a na ged b y federal, state, county, and m unicipal

governm e nts, as well as conservation or ganizations , o t her non profit organization s and land tru s t properties. These protected lands cover 217, 289 ac of riparian wetlands and 43 4, 746 ac of non-riparian

Chapter 5 - Wetlands 3372005 C O ASTAL HABITAT PR OT ECTION PLAN

wetlands, representing approxim a t e ly 16 and 26% of a ll riparian and non-riparian wetlands, respectively

, in coastal North Carolina. 72 Based on the am ount of 1994 wetlands within protect ed areas, 74% of

wetlands are not pr otected by land ownership, a lthough this am ount does not account f o r regul atory restrictions and area designations on lands not m a naged for conservation. It als o does not inc l ude lands with restoration cost-share agree ments in the Wetland Reserve Prog ra m

.

Within areas protected by conservation ownership and m a nag e m e n t , some wetla nds ty pes are m o r e represented t h an others. Of the riparian wetland ty pes, estuarine shrub/scrub, s a lt/brackish marsh, and

estuarine fore sts are the m o st protected (28-52%; see Table 5.7). The riparian freshwater wetl ands are relatively less protected (7- 28%). Am ong hydrogeom orphic categories, headwat e r wetlands receive the least protecti on (6%). Most headwater wetlands are out side of estuarine shoreline AECs, and thus are not protected by CRC use st andards. Projects i m pac ting these small w e tlands m a y often require only a

Table 5.7. The am ount and percentage of each wetlands t y pe in eastern North Carolina within protected

lands. Onl y undisturbed wetlands indicated on DCM GIS m a pping of t h e Coastal Plains are included. (S o u rce: CGIA’s BasinPro3 c overage, “Land Manage d f o r Conservation”)

W e t l an d c l as s Wet l and t y pe P r ot ected (ac) T o tal ( a c) % P r otected

Sa lt/B ra ckish Marsh 74 ,038 198,168 37 .36

Estua r ine S h rub/S c rub 14 ,417 27,874 51 .72

Estua r ine F o re st 274 965 28 .38

Freshwat er Ma rsh 9

, 091 32,803 27 .71

Bot t o m l a n d Ha rdwood 16 ,301 227,582 7

. 16

Riv e rine Swam p For e st 101, 400 829,681 12 .22

Hea d w a t e r Swam p 1

, 769 31,159 5

. 68

TO TA L RIPARIAN 217 ,289 1,348,232 1 6 .12

Po cosin 299, 225 507,117 59 .01

Ma ritime Sw amp F o rest 1

, 666 3,438 48 .46

Non-r i ver i n e Swam p For e st 101, 154 215,305 46 .98

Pin e F l at 74 ,912 296,591 25 .26

Har d wood Fl a t 15 ,041 165,077 9

. 11 Managed Pinelan d 58 ,943 954,336 6

. 18

TO TA L N O N

- R I PAR IAN 550 ,941 2,141,864 2 5 .72

768, 230 3

, 490,096 22 .01 TO TAL Non

- riparian Ri p a r i an

general perm it and no m iti gation, or the y m a y be exem pt fro m a perm it due to small size. Althoug h there are no accurate records on the ty pe of w e tlands i m pact ed by 401 Water Quality Certifications, headwater

wetlands are believed to b e one of the m o st heavily i m pacted wet l and ty pes (J. Dorney , DWQ, pers. co m

. , 2003). Due t o the relative threat to, a n d ecologica l i m portance of, headwater wetlands, they should

recei ve higher priority in wetland preservation/restoration efforts. 73

Statewide We tland and Stre a m s M a nage ment Strategy

In 199 7, DE NR received a grant from the EPA to de velop a com p rehensive, statewide plan to im prove and sim p lify North Carolin a’s wetland and stream pr otection polici es. The EPA provides fina ncial, technical, and planning assistance to stat es interest ed in developing statewide wet l and conservation plans. The EPA strongl y supports developm ent of statew ide wetland conservation plans because these plans

72 This informatio n was obtained b y overl ay ing DCM wetlands d a ta with “Land Ma naged for Conservation ” cov e rag e from BasinPro3 (software d e velop e d b y the North C a r o lina Ce nter for Geographic Info rm ation and Analy s is).

73 Wetland acquisition and conserv a tion programs are listed in Appendix J.

Chapter 5 - Wetlands 3382005 C O ASTAL HABITAT PR OT ECTION PLAN

give states a f r a m e w ork to protect, restore, and create wetlands in an effective and efficient m a nner.

The objective of this strategy was to ide n tif y opport u nities to m a k e wetland, stream , and riparian buffer protection programs and conservation approaches work m o re ef fici ently and effectively in North

Carolina. In 1999 , a stakeholder Advis o r y Comm ittee was convened to develo p the strategy. The m a jor stakeholder groups represented on t h e Advisor y Com m ittee include: agriculture, forestry , envi ronm ental groups, academics, industry, developm ent, private consulting, local governm e nt, the COE, EPA, the

Natural Re sources Conser vation Servic e, and North Carolina depart m e nts of Environm ent and Natural
Resources, Tr ansportation, Agriculture, and Commerc e . Through a series of both private and public meetings, the co mm ittee identified eight priorit y issu e s that were fu rther investigated by a smaller

Technical W o rk Group in May 2000. These priorit y i ssues have been published in the Statewide Wetland

and Stream Managem e nt Strategy (<htt p ://h2o.enr.st a te.nc.us /ncwetlands/about. h tm>, 2004) and are

shown below:

• Unique wetlands – Exam ine the regulatory aut horit y o f the EMC and DWQ for u n ique wetlands, develop policy interpretations for definitions, and develop a list of candidate site s or a process to
determ ine potential sites.

• Wetland and stream mitigation – Develop flexible wetland a nd stream mitigation options.

• Local govern ment roles – Exam ine the involvem e nt of local govern ments in wetland management/protection an d develop pot ential m echan ism s to encourage involve ment.

• Wetland preservation – Inventory existing wetland preservation act ivities in North Carolina, develop wetland preservation goals, and exam ine mechanism s to encourage invol vem e nt.

• Wetland mapping – Exam ine existing an d planned we tland m a pping efforts, determ ine need for

additional and im proved mapping, explore mechan is ms to carry out new mapping efforts, and

exa m ine the r o le of Geographic Inform at ion Sy stem s i n wetland and strea m man age m ent.

• Environm ental education – Exam ine ex isting wetland and st ream education pro g ram s and activities, deter m ine need f o r additional e ducation opportunities, and recommen d new and

im proved edu cation activities.

• Regulatory structure and process – Examine the 401 Water Quality Certification Program ’s strengths and weaknes ses, develop options to address weaknes ses, and develop options for

clarification.

Net loss

During 19 99- 2002 , 65 1.9 0 acres of wetlands were created or restored in coastal river basins. Over that

same tim e period, there ha ve been 549. 79 acres of permitted wetlan d s im pacts (F igure 5.4) an d an estimated 2,406 acres of coastal wetland lost to erosio n (802 ac/y r x 3 y r). S o the rate of wetland

creation/resto r ation would appear to surpass the rate of loss from direct hum an causes. How e ver, the total

perm itted i m pacts do not i n clude the cum u l a tive i m pact of very s mall losses that go untracked by perm it

authorities. A study should be conducted to determine the cumulative impact of small wetland l o sses on the distributi on and abundance of wetland types in a watershed. The cumulative loss could then be

related to the nature and extent of development pressu re in the watershed in order to formulate a model predicting untracked losse s in oth er watersheds. But regardless of em pirical evi dence, small cumulative impacts may have a negati ve impact on fish habit a t. Rules should be modified t o reduce net loss of riparian wetlands from small cumulativ e dredge and fill projects (i.e., lower size threshold of wetland impacts that r e quire permit or mitigatio n )

.

5.4. THREA T S AND MA NAGEMEN T NEEDS

Physical thre ats

Becaus e phy s i cal alteration s primarily im p act w e tlands, land use changes associ ated with population growth are the primary cause of wetland habitat loss today (Dahl 2000). Large-scale draining and ditching are prevalent agricultural im pact s, whereas deforestation and f ill are asso ciated with si lviculture

Chapter 5 - Wetlands 3392005 C O ASTAL HABITAT PR OT ECTION PLAN

activities and upland developm ent. Shoreline stabiliz ation is prim arily a coastal phenom enon. Dredging

acce ss chann e ls for upland boat basins can destr oy wetlands, while bulkheading can increas e erosion along adjacent wetland shorelines. The direct effect s of land use changes and hydrologic m odifications on riparian wetlands are discussed in the following se ctions.

Land use and wetland alteration

Historical conversions

The major cause of wetland loss and de gradation has b een conversion to agricul t ure, silvicult u re and upland developm ent (including r o ad construction). In the late 1800s and early 1900s, the greatest losses

resulted fro m ditching and draining f o r agriculture. S e veral large agricultural dr ainage projects occurred during that pe riod (Heath 1975), resulting in an estim at ed 1 m illion miles of drainage ditches and canals throug hout th e Coastal Plains of North C a rolina (Wils on 1 962). M u ch of the lan d around the Albem a rlePa m lico estua ry was drained and m u st re main drained to acco mm od ate existing agriculture and forestry

. About o n e-thi r d of the l o ss of wetlands has occu rred since 1950 (Ba l es and Newcom b 1996). After 1950, conversion to managed forest and agriculture account ed for 53% and 42%, respectively

, of wetland losses (Bales and Newco m b 1996). Man y of t h e roads on t h e Albem a rle-Pam lico Pen i nsul a were constructed on top of sp oil p iles between canals to prevent floodi ng on th e roads. Ditching of wetlands or uplands is also

co mm on in ot her areas of t h e coast for flood control a nd drainage. In many urba nized coastal areas, ditches and swales are ty pi cally construc ted along ne i ghbor hoo d st reets. The ditches often connect and

drain into headwaters, which alters the natural hy dr ology of downstr eam sy stems (Pate and Jones 1981).

Many govern ment policies restrict ditching and draini ng of wetland s. Drainage of low-lying fa rm land

funded b y the USDA’s Natural Resources Conservati on Service (NRCS) and m o squito ditchi n g are no longer common practices. “Swam pbuster” provisions of the 1985 Farm Bill discouraged the practice of draining wetl ands for conversion to cropland. However, drainage channels for croplands are still maintained by drainage di stricts (DEHNR 1995a). Ex cept for a short perio d fr om 1998 to 2 000, t h ere have been no new large-scale we tland drainage projects since the mid-1970s (Chi cod Creek, Pitt and Beaufort counties, Tar-Pamlico MU). Prior to 1998

, ditching/ draining of wetlands was regulated b y the COE. At that time, ditchin g required a f e deral 404 pe rm it with a DWQ 401 certification, to en sure that water quality standards were not violated. When the f e deral court overturned the federal Tulloch rule in June 1998, the COE lost authorit y t o issue perm its for wetland ditching unless spoil was placed on adjacent wetl ands. As a re sult, thousands of acres of wetlands wer e drained, primarily in Brunswick, New Hanover, and Pender counties (J. Steenhuis, DWQ, pers. co m

. , 200 2). App r oxim a tely 9, 500 acres of

wetlands were im pacted in Brunswick Count y alone ( D WQ 1999), and a total of approxim a tely 11, 580

acres of w e tlands were i m p acted in the Coastal Plain. These losses are in addition to 401 Water Quality certification records. In Brunswick, New Hanover, Pender, and Onslow countie s, 24% of the ditching was reported as forestry -related, 6% as agriculture-re lated, and 70 % was done for developm ent or ot her purposes (J. Steenhuis, DWQ, pers. com ., 2002).

In 1999, t h e State of North Carolina determ ined that wetlands ditching and drai ning activitie s fall under

its authorit y
, constituting a n illegal activity if proper approval is not obtained. I n 1999, EMC adopted a wetland draining p o lic y to ensure that required wetland conditi ons are maintained (<http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwe tlands/ditch.htm l >, 1999). In add iti on, inspections were made of previousl y dit c hed wetlands to determ ine if the ditc hi ng was condu cted in a manner that violat ed wetland

standards. Where violation s occurred, propert y owne r s were required to restore the natural h ydrolog y throug h the fi lling of the di tches. Approximately 50% of the ditche d wetlands have been restored, 22% are likely n o t to be restored, and the statu s of th e rem a inder is undet e rm ined (J. Steenhuis, DWQ, pers.

co m ., 2002). Many of the r e m a ining ditches, alt hough not appearing to be vi olating water quality standards, continue to transport storm w ater into coastal water s

. Additional monitoring is needed to better

assess i m pacts where exten s ive areas of wetlands were drained. More DW Q staff are n eeded to inspect for complianc e with water quality st andards, includi ng wetland draining

.

Chapter 5 - Wetlands 3402005 C O ASTAL HABITAT PR OT ECTION PLAN

A violation of the Clean Water Act occu rs if any wetl and area benefiting water qualit y is conv erted to uplands, with out a perm it. The Corps of Engi neers and EPA signed a Mem o randum of Agreement describing the types of wetlands in which m e chanical forestry site preparation act ivities required a perm it (<http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/g uidance/silv2. htm l >, June 2004). T h e resulting l i st incl uded all riparian wetlands. Prior t o the mem o ran dum , for estry operations were exem pt from 401 or CAMA

per m its when the hy drology of the wetland area was maint ained. The forestry exe m ption can be an issue when there is dispute concerning how for estry operatio ns alter different wetlands types. Altering som e wetland types would have a negative im p act on downst r eam water q u alit y (i.e., ri parian wetlan d s), while altering other t y pes would have little effect on water qualit y (i.e., s o me isolated wetlands). If a forestry operation allo wed the exemption t o a lter a wetland benefiting water qualit y
, and l a ter sold the propert y t o

so m e one clai ming the site had become a n upland, the developm ent may have been exem pt fro m wate r qualit y perm its and m itigation requirem e nts. Th e Mem o randum of Agreement between the COE and EPA should prevent mechanical forestry operations fro m altering any riparian wetland without obtaining a 404 perm it or 401 Water Quality certif ication.

In a recent court case relat e d to the drainage activities during 1998- 2000, a developm ent co m p any claimed the forestry exemption when i t ditched and d r ained over 2 00 acres of wetlands in Onslow count y (N.C. Shellfish Growers As sociation and NCCF vs. Holly Ridge Associates; U.S. District Court for the

Eastern Distri ct of North Carolina, Easte r n Division, No. 02cv0 05 3). The ju dg e said the ditches and the

site itself w e r e all “point sources” of stor mwat er a nd sedi m ent pollution, and therefore required discharge

perm its under the Act – even if the activit ies were fo r forestry purposes. In a relat e d state case, an ad m i nistrative judge ruled there was no credible evid ence that the ditching an d drainage were for the purpose of fo restry . Holl y Ridge Associates was f ound in vi olation of the Clean Water Act for not obtaining a CAMA perm it, a 401 Water Quality Certif ication, and a n NPDES discharge perm it. Barring

succes sful appeal 74 , the latter case should prevent other land development and forestry com p anies fro m ditching or dr aining riparia n we tlands without NPDES perm its. Any ditching activity resulting in nonpoint source pollution in North Car o lina's ri vers and sounds s hould require an NPDES permit. The

EMC’s constraints on discharges in SA waters could then be extended to drainage projects, in addition to traditional point source discharges (i .e., wastewater treatment plants).

The cutover wetland acreage from 1988 to 1994, note d in the Status and Trends section (above), was

likel y the result of silvicul ture operations. The alte rations occurred in bot h forest ed riparian and no nriparian wetlands (17, 513 a nd 4 0 ,31 6 acres, respectively ; Tables 5.4 and 5.5) . Th e m a jority of alterations were to non-riparian forested wetlands. Using the rate of cutover i m p acts fro m 1988 to 1 994

, approxim a tely 21, 000 m o re acres of riverine forested wetland m a y have been impacted fro m 1994 t o 2003 . As lon g as wetland h y drol og y is maintained, this is a relatively m i nor issue. If uplan d developm ent replaced thes e cutover riparian wetlands

, there could have been a violation of the Clean

Water Act.

In addition to conversion t o upland development, agriculture, and silviculture, many wetlands were also

converted to deepwater habitat. Based on nationa l trends during t h e m i d-1970s, the m a jor so urce of

coastal wetland loss was conversion t o deep water habitat (e.g., b o a t basins, navigation chann e ls),

followed b y u p land develo pment (Hefner and Brow n 1985). The C RC currently prohibits dred ging throug h all b u t the m o st narrow fringin g m a rshes [ C RC rule 15A NCAC 07H .0208 (b)(1)( A)]

. Many acres of wetlands were dredged for t h e Intracoastal W a terway (193 0s), boat basi ns, and conne cting channels before dredge and fill and CRC rules were i m pl emented. The prim ary dredging activities still occurring within North Carolina’ s co astal waters ar e maintenance or im prove ment dredging of existing navigation channels (DEHNR 1995a). These project s have a relati ve ly m i nor effect on existing wetlands. However, small non-coastal wetlands, c ontiguous to c o astal wetlan d s, are still lost to the backfilling of

74 As of August 1 6 , 2004 , Holly R i dge Associ ates is appealing the court decision

.

Chapter 5 - Wetlands 3412005 C O ASTAL HABITAT PR OT ECTION PLAN

bulkheads.

Recent trends

To exam ine recent trends in wetland conversion, an a n aly s is of wet l and im pact sources was p e rform ed on approxim a tel y 6% of the t o tal num ber of 401 certif ication records from the DW Q database, covering a time period from 1997 to 2 003 (1 ,21 3 of 18,7 00 t o tal reco rds). The data were filtered to includ e onl y those records within CHPP manage men t units (based on geographic coordinates) having a date, project type (excludi ng wetland restoration/creation), and ar ea im pacted (DWQ, unpub . data). The analy s is is

unbiased tow a rd certain i m pact types assum ing the da ta represent a random subsam pl e. Im pact source categories for analy s is of 401 perm it records consist of the following:

 Water control includes the construction of im poundments, r eservoirs, ditches, canals, water in takes,

storm drains, storm w ater ponds, and other activities d esigned to alter water flows. Note: so me water control pr ojects are related to transportati on.

 Upland devel opment includes isolated ponds, resident ial lots, commerci al facilit ies, utilit y cables/pipelines, wastewater treat ment plants, schools, churches, and other activit ies converting wetland habitat to uplands or s upport i ng upland developm ent.

 Mining includes quarry and sand pit construction or e xpansion, and other m i ning sources.

 Agriculture/aquaculture activities includ e irrigation p onds, farm co nstruction, cl earing land fo r ani m al operat i ons, fish hatc heries, fish fa r m s, sp ray fields, and sim i l a r activities t h at disturb wetland

h y drol og y. Note: m o st agriculture ac tivities are exem pt fro m requiring 401 perm its.

 Transportatio n includes co nstruction of roads, highw ay s, bri dges, and culverts.

 Water-depen d ent development includes piers, docks, marinas, navigation channe ls, boat ram p s, shoreline stabilization structures, channel relocati on, and sim ilar act ivities and structures associ ated with waterway s.

W a t e r

- d e p e nde nt

de ve l opm e n

t

2%

W a t e r c o n t ro l

36%

U p l a nd

de ve l opm e n

t

28 % T r a n s por t a t i on

5% M i ni

ng

29%

A g r i cu l t u

r e/

aq

u acu l t u

r e

0% <1%

Figure 5.6. Sources of wetland im pact in eastern North Carolina. [ S ource: subset of DWQ Section 401 certification records (1997- 2003), with l o cation c oord i nates within CHPP m a nag e m e nt units.]

Chapter 5 - Wetlands 3422005 C O ASTAL HABITAT PR OT ECTION PLAN

The m o st recent trends (19 97-20 03) in wetland loss show water c ontrol projects as the m a jor source of

wetland im pacts (36% of im p acted acres) (Figure 5.6 ) , followed b y m i ning (29 % ) and uplan d developm ent (28%). The v ast m a jority o f m i ning im pacts occurred during a singl e project in 1 997 when PCS Phospha te was issued a perm it to destroy 1,2 68 a c res of wetlands in Beaufo rt Count y (U. S . District

Court for the Eastern Distri ct of North Carolina, Easte r n Division, No. 02cv0053). Activities least

im pacting wetlands include d agriculture/ a quaculture (<1%), transportation (5 %), and water-dependent developm ent (2%) (Figure 5.6).

Projects by N

. C. Department of Transportation acc ounted for 23% of perm itted wetlands im p acts during

1997- 2003, based on 11% of 18, 700 pe rmit records (DWQ, unpub. data). The DOT spends m o re than $80 m illion each y ear m iti gating the im pact of br idge s and other road crossings on wetlands ( Water

Resources R e search Institute News , March/April 200 3 ) , causing con s iderable delay s i n road co nstruction. In recognition of the probl em s resulting from thes e delay s , DOT, DENR, and COE have developed a

program to im prove effi ci ency and provide suffici ent m itigation, the Ecosy s tem Enhancem en t Program (EEP). The new program , established through an agreem ent am ong agencies, brings together mitigation

staff fro m the WRP and DOT under DENR’s um brella . The EEP will estimate potential wetland im pacts

very early in the roadway planning process ( Water Resources Resea rch Institute News , March/April 2003). Prior to m itigation, potential im pacts will be ev aluated in a watershed co ntext, having targeted priorit y areas for m itigation efforts. Functiona l assessment will be conducted pri o r to the permitting process for the transportation project. Priorities will be consistent with DWQ basinwide planning reports,

Coastal Habit a t Protection Plans, and Wetland Restoration Plans. Once in place, m itigation projects will

be m onitored to determ ine t h eir effec tive n ess in replicating wetland functions. Eventually, the EEP

should i n clude mitigation planning for upl and development and ot her approaches to habit a t enhancement, restoration, and preservation.

Shoreline stabilization

Shoreline stabilization is m odification of the natural shoreline to p r event or reduce landward m i gration of the shoreline. The purpose of shoreline stabilizati on is protection o f man-made structures and propert y
, including natural features. As shoreline devel opm ent increase s in conjunction with rising sea level,

waterfront structures will be threatened m o re often and propert y owners will likely have greater interest to protect their property

. Shoreline stabilization in estuarine areas generally utilizes hard stabilization techniques. Bulkheads are the pr imary hard stabilization structure

.

Construction of seawall s and jetties are primarily oce a nfront practices; they are discussed in the Soft

Bottom and Water Colu mn chapters (Chapters 2 and 6) . Soft stabilization includes beach bulldozing or beach nourishment, which are also discu ssed in the So ft bottom chapter (Chapter 6). This section will

discuss the extent of estuarine shoreline stabilization that has already occurred in North Carolina, i m pacts
of this activit y on ri parian wetlands, and managemen t needs to reduce or m i ni m i z e such i m pact s.

Physical and biolog ical eff ects

Hard stabilization techniques have fairly severe i m pact s on coastal habitat, including accelerat ed erosion,

loss of shallow intertidal bottom

, loss of fringing m a r s hes, increas e d scouring and turbidity in nearshore waters, and obstruction to fish m i gratio n where struct ures are perp endicular to the shoreline (Walton and Sensabaugh 1 979; Pil k e y a nd Wrig ht 19 89; Pilke y et al. 1998; Peterson et al. 20 00c). Two managed fishery species strongl y li n k ed to frin g in g m a rsh ar e p e naeid shrimp and red dr u m (SAFMC 1 998a).

Other i m portant estuarine-dependent fish species th at utilize wetlands duri ng lar v al and juvenile life stages include gag, snapper, Spanish m a ckerel, striped bass, and ri ver herring (SAFMC 1998a ). Degradation and loss of wetland hab itat from shoreli n e hardening i m pacts thes e species, a s w e ll as many others.

Bulkheads impact wetlands in several wa y s . During c onstruction, h eavy equi pm ent and backfil ling m a y

Chapter 5 - Wetlands 3432005 C O ASTAL HABITAT PR OT ECTION PLAN

destroy vegetation above t h e high water line (wetla nd and transitional wetland plants), where bulkhead

construction i s allowed. Along t h e CRC’s Estuarin e Shoreline AEC, a 30 foot buffer above the high

water line is e s tablished in which only water-depe nde nt uses are all o wed ([C RC rule 15A NCAC .07H

.020 9 ] provid es exceptions to the b u ffer requirem e nt ). Rather than allowing natural vegetation to recolonize the area, property owners generally plant landscape scru b s and lawn grasse s. These plants are

not as effecti v e at deterring erosion or reducing and c l eansing stormwat er as nat u ral vegetation. Increased

nutrients and toxins from fertilizers and pesticides used on t h e lawn enter the water with the runoff (Watts 1987). Bulkheads also prevent shoreward m i gration of fringi ng w e tlands as sea level rises, resulting in

eventual dro w ning and l o ss of existing wetlands (Titus 198 8).

McDougal et al. (1987) f o u nd that nearshore wave impact increases as the horizontal length of the

structure increases. Theref ore, the cum u lative effect o f m u ltiple, co ntiguous bulkheads has a greater

i m pact on adjacent natural shoreline habitat than the effect of individual structures that are spat ially distinct. Scouring action a t the toe of bulkheads results in deepening of the adjacent water, thus reducing

or elim inatin g intertidal ha bitat. Shallow water habit a t is also reduced b ecause t h e bulkhead structure prevents transport of sediment to ot her areas (Riggs 2001). The added turbulence at the base of bulkheads prevents vegetation from reestablishing after construc tion (Knutson 1977). Garbisch et al. (1973) showed that marsh vegetation waterward of bulkheads expe rienced a 63% m o rt ality post-construction due to

stress fro m in creased turbulence and scour. This loss of habitat reduces benthic food resources for juvenile, anadrom ous, estuarine-dependent, and su rf fish, as well as shore birds, which are highly dependent on shallow intertidal habitat f o r feeding (B y r ne 199 5; D M F 200 0a; Peterson et al. 2000c). T h e deepening also increases th e feeding efficiency of larg e piscivorous fish on sm all and juvenile fish that

occupy the shallow waters adj acent to the structure (Rozas 1987).

Several studies have documented lower relative abundance and diversity of in vertebrates and juvenile fish adjacent to bulkheaded shorelines co mpared to unaltered m a r s h, beach , or forested wetland habitats:

• Peterson et al. (200 0c): On the Gulf co ast , the m o st abundant spe c ies groups along unaltered marsh and beach shorelines (including habitat fo r penaeid shri m p , crabs, gobies, grass shri m p
, drum s sp ecies, and shad/h erring species) were least abundant alon g bul khead or rubble shorelines. In addition, di versity was lowest adjacent to bul kheads.

• By rne (1995) : In a Barnegat Bay lagoon, New Jersey , littoral fish and shrim p abundance were consistently a nd significantly lower at bulkheaded sites. The differences w e re at tributed to lower

levels of structural co m p lexit y , since S AV, m a crophy tic algae, sn ags, overhang i ng and submerged branches, and woody debris were abs e nt from the bulkheaded sites, but present at the

unaltered sites.

• Ellifrit et al. (1972): Fewer clam s ( Venerupis japo nica ) were prese nt near bulkheaded area s

co m p ared to natural areas. The difference was a ttributed to less favorable conditi ons for settling

and survival of cla m larva e

.

• Gilm ore and Trent (1974): For all gro u p s com b in ed, benthic organ i sm s were numerically and

volum etrically less abundant in bulkheaded canals than in natural marshes. Crustaceans were

over three times less abundant.

• Mock (1966): Brown and white shri m p abundance was 80% less i n front of a bulkheaded

shoreline com p ared to naturally vegetated shore line. The difference wa s attributed to lower

abundance of organic detri t us and benthic m a croinvertebrates, deep er water, and less intertidal vegetation.

• Bulkheads reduce or degrade spawning and nurser y habitat for anadrom ous fish (SAFMC 1998a; DMF 2000a). Cum u lative im pacts of bulkheads have been specifically cited as a contributi ng factor to the d ecline of chinook salm on on the Pacific coast (Tay lor 1999).

• O’Rear (1983 ) found that early larval riv e r herring in t h e tributaries of the Chowan sy stem were highly associated with the strea m edge a nd wate rs wit h m i ni m u m fl ow. Shoreline hardening

i m pacts the st rea m edge on which these larvae depend, and can acce lerate flow, thereby m a king

areas adjacen t to bulkheads less suitable for use by larval or juvenile anadro m ous fish.

Chapter 5 - Wetlands 3442005 C O ASTAL HABITAT PR OT ECTION PLAN

Most of the st udies on the b i ological im pact of bulkhe ads on fish an d their habitat were not conducted in North Carolina. However, a recent study by the W RC (Waters and Thom as 2001) exam ined im p acts of

bulkheads and other harde n ed shorelines (i.e., rock re vet m ents) on fish utilization in northeastern North

Carolina wate rs, particularly spawning s u ccess and juve nile recruitment of anadrom ous fish sp ecies. They f ound si gnificantl y lower abundance and species di versity of fi sh adjacent to bulkheads, com p ared to forested wetland shoreline and rip rap

. The stud y also foun d hig h er abundanc es of juvenile fish along rip-rap and n a tural shoreline than along bulk h eads, and a com p arable num ber of qualit y size gam e fish. The difference in juvenile abundance was attributed to bot h greater com p lexity o f rip-rap and natural shoreline, and their location near shallower wat e r. These results i ndicate a reduction in nurs e ry function along b u lkhe aded shorelines.

Vertical hard ened structures are also problematic for marine speci es that m ove between wat e r and land during their life cy cle. Along the estuarine shorelin e, bulkheads are a phy s ical barrier to anima l s such as

the eastern mud turtle, y e ll ow-bellied turtle, and nort h ern diam ondback terrapin (a species of “concern” in

North Carolin a) that live and feed in the marsh, but nest above the h i gh tide li ne (Ernst and Barbour 1972).

Cumulative effects

North Carolina’ s policies and rules for e s tuarine erosi on m a nagement allow land owners to pro t ect their

propert y from erosion, whil e attem p ting to m i nim i ze the i m pacts of e r osion control structures. Past and

current CRC rules have greatly reduced losses of wet l a nds and shallow bottom by restricting placement of

vertical struct ures in or seaward of coast al wetlands, and restricting backfilling of the associated landward wetlands. Although current ly used techni ques may eff ectively pr otect waterfront propert y
, im mediate and long-term impacts to wetlands often occ u r, and alte ration of sedim ent suppl y affects natural shoreline processes and wetland m i gration. In addition, bulk heads are so m e ti mes per m itted and constructed where an erosion pr oblem is not evident. The DCM is working towards perm itting stabilization methods onl y where an ide n tifiable erosion problem o ccurs. Better criteria to define an “erosion pro b lem” and aid in proper utilization of erosion control structures are needed and should be developed by the DCM and

CRC.

While a single bulkhead may have little effect on ad jacent habitat, the cum u lativ e i m pact of multiple

bulkheads alo ng estuaries can result in significant ha bi tat degradation. Between 1984 and 20 00 , DCM issued perm its to bulk h ead approxim a tely 45 7 m iles o f shoreline (1 1.7% of the e s tim a ted 3,900 m iles of estuarine shoreline). During this tim e period, th e am ount of bulk h eading perm itted annuall y a l ong t h e coast has ran g ed from eig h t to 91 m iles (Figure 5. 7). These num b e rs m u st be c onsidered with caution

since there may be data entry errors. In addition, the CAMA per m its include repairs, replace ments, or projects that may not have been done or com p leted. Nu m b ers app ear to increase sharply fr o m 1997 to 2000, probabl y due to the l a rge num ber of repairs following a series of damaging hurricanes (during 1996

– 19 99) and t o the strong econom y of th e m i d-1990s. The highest num ber of bulkhead perm its issued

annuall y occu rred in 19 99. The total amount of bul kh eading per co unt y has ranged from less than one

mile in Gates Count y t o 1 0 9 m iles in Beaufort Count y and 79 m iles in Dare Count y (Fig ure 5. 8). Beaufort, Dare, Carteret, and Currituck counties have the greatest total lengths of perm itted bulkheads. In these counties, the percent of hardened shorelin e along m a jor waterbodies ranges from roughl y 8% to

32%. Becaus e of the lim ita tions of the c u rrent da tabase on bulkheading, and the potential im pacts to habitat, particularly nursery areas, there is a need to m o re accuratel y assess where and how much of the

estuarine shoreline is hardened. With more accurate information, the level of impact to marine resourc es can be assess ed.

Chapter 5 - Wetlands 3452005 C O ASTAL HABITAT PR OT ECTION PLAN

Figure 5.7

. Linear m iles of bul kheadin g authorized b y Division o f Coastal Managem e nt permits annually,

1986- 200 0. ( S ource: DCM, unp ub. data) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10019841985198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000

Y earLinearmilesofshorelinepermitted forbulkheading

H e r t fo rd Be rt i e Ty

r r e l l W a s h i ngt on On sl o w Ca m d e n Pe n d e r Hy d e N e w H a nove r Cra v e n

Pe r q u i

m a n s C how a n P a s quot a nk P a m lic o Bru n s w i c k Cu rri

t u c k C a r t er et Da re Be a u fo rt

Ga t e s

0 2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0 100 120County

L i n ear m i l e s o f C R C p e r m i t t e d

b u l k h ead

Figure 5.8

. L i near m iles of bulk h eading authorized b y Division of Coastal Managem e nt perm its during

1986- 200 0. ( S ource: DCM, unp ub. data)

Chapter 5 - Wetlands 3462005 C O ASTAL HABITAT PR OT ECTION PLAN

A pilot stud y conducted b y DMF along approxim a tely seven m i les of estuarine shoreline in th e southern portion of the coast (Pages Creek and Intracoastal W a terway in New Hanover Count y ) foun d that approxim a tely 21% of the shoreline within the stu d y area was hard ened in 19 84. By 20 00, 37 % of the

shoreline in t h e same area was hardened . The m o st affected area of shoreline was along the IC W, where

boat wakes a nd greater fetch increase er osion proble ms; 54% of the area exa m i n ed was hardened. However, even along a prot ected creek (Pages Creek) with a wide marsh fringe and little obvi ous erosion,

38% of the sh oreline has been hardened. Al ong Yeopi m Creek, a tributar y of Alb e m a rle Sound

, approxim a tely 1% of the s horeline was hardened in 2 000. The methodol ogy use d for assessing shoreline hardening (examination of aerial phot og raphs) could be used for a larger portio n of the co ast to spati a lly delineate and quantify where and how m u ch of the shoreline is hardened.

Although CRC rules state t h at sloping ri prap or veget a tion, rather t h an vertical seawall s /bulkheads,

should be used where possible [ C RC rule 15A NC AC 07H .02 00 ( 7 )(E)] , bulkheads continue t o be constructed at a rate greater than that associat ed with alternative shoreline protective methods. Recognizing t h e extensive, and at tim es inappropria te, use of bulk h eads in North Carolina’s estuaries,

DCM m odified the perm itt ing process in 2001, requi ring a General Per m it for bulkhead construction less

than 500 line a r ft (rather than an exe m ption) and a Ma jor Perm it for those greater than 500 line a r ft. Also, in 2000, the Estuarine Shoreline Stabilization Subc om mittee w as established by the CRC to review the estuarine shoreline rule development process. A lthough not y e t adopted by the CRC, the Subco m m ittee developed a set of principl es and concepts to gu ide f u rther development of any shoreline stabilization rule changes:

Chapter 5 - Wetlands 3472005 C O ASTAL HABITAT PR OT ECTION PLAN

1) The State of North Carolina has the authorit y u nder CAMA and the Dredge and Fill Act to regulate place ment and installation of shoreline stabilization measure s. 2) Only propert y owners with dem onstrab le erosi on pro b lem s * m a y be eligible to obtain a permit to stabilize the shoreline. * CRC will define “erosion problem”. 3) Stabilization t echniques should be approp riate for site and erosion f o rces present. 4) Measure s wit h the least adverse environmental ef f ect s are preferr e d (General preferenc e for soft structures). 5) The goals of establishing standards for est uarine and public trust s horelines are: a) To safeguard and perpetuate the natural productivi t y a nd bi ological, econom ic and aesthetic values of natural ecological conditions of the estua rine sy stem (Protection of H a bitat and Water Quality ). b) To insure that the development or prese rvati on of the land and water resources o f the coastal a r ea proceed in a manner consi s tent with the capability of the land and water for development, use, and preservation based on ecological considera tions (Appropriate Develop m ent For Site). c) To insure the orderly and balanced use a nd pr eservation of our coa s tal resource s on behalf of the people of Nor t h Carolina and the natio n (Protecti on of Public Trust and Private Propert y Right s). 6) CRC will create development standards for stabilization technique/measures: a) Soft Measure s i) Grading and Planting ii) Wetland Planting b) Hard Measur es i) Bulkheads ii) Groins and Jetties iii) Breakwat e rs iv) Sills v) Revetments vi) Wave-boards (wooden breakwaters) c) Co m b inations 7) Stabilization mea sures shal l be located as far landwar d as feasible. 8) CRC will set standards for existing stabilization proje c ts: a) Allowing for ty i ng with exi s ting stabilization pr ojects and adjoini n g lots b) Allowing for hardened structures on constructed canal s and basins c) Allowing in kind/in place repair d) Allowing for in kind/in place replac e m e n t 9) Allow for larger footprint for riprap for achieved desi red slope (1 : 1 1⁄2). 10) CRC will attem p t to keep criteria and sta ndards sim p le to understand and im plement. 11) CRC will gather public input on t h e above principl es and provide guidance on the concepts prior to DCM developing draft rul e text.

In addition, a science-based panel, the Estuarine Bi ological and Physical Processes Work Group, was formed by DCM to develop reco mmendations for shorelin e stabilization rules that adequately take into

account and r e flect the dy n a m i c nature o f the estuarine sy stem (DCM 200 2). Th e approach th e group took was to e v aluate which erosion contr o l m e thods would be effective on vario u s shoreline types, considering t h e ecological functions of e ach shor eline type. Wetland shoreline categories included

swam p forest and m a rsh shorelines, and sedim ent banks with a marsh or swam p forest fringe. Erosion control options included vegetative planting, beach fi l l , marsh toe revet m ent, rock sill, wood or rock breakwater, g a bions, groi ns, riprap, and bulkheads. N on-vertical structures, such as rock sills, oy ster
reefs or mars h toe revetme n ts, where suitable for eros ion contr o l, can have m o re habitat advan t ages than

vertical struct ures, since they provide three di m e nsio nal structure and areas of refuge for fish and

invertebrates. A channel left between sil l s allows j uvenile fish acce ss to the i nner marsh. How e ver, even this structure can increas e erosion on adjacent shore lines, albeit m u ch less than on shorelines next to

Chapter 5 - Wetlands 3482005 C O ASTAL HABITAT PR OT ECTION PLAN

bulkheads. Marsh grass planting creates the least e r osi on along adjacent shorelines, but offers the least protection of propert y

. Advantages and disadvantag es of each effective erosion control m e thod were discussed and the preferred methods that m i ni m i ze i m pacts to the hydrological, biogeochem i cal, and ecological functions of each specific shoreline type we re ranked. For exa m ple, a d jacent to a high bluff with a sand fringe, a bul kh ead structure may be preferred over a rip -rap rock structure. However, along a low-ly i ng upl and with a marsh fringe, a wood or r o ck structure on t h e waterward edge of the marsh would be preferred over a wood or rock struct ure on the u p l a nd edge of t h e marsh, and bulk h eads would not be an appropriat e option. Thi s effort is still unde rway and needs review by the Estuarine Shoreline

Stabilization Subcomm ittee once co m p lete (DCM 2002).

The CRC should revise est uarine shoreline management ru les using best available scientific information, including the recommendations from the Estuarine Sh oreline Biological and Phy s ical Processes Work Group to min i mize impacts to nat ural sh oreline and n e arshore fish habita t functi ons. As part of the process of modifying shorel ine management rules, ac curate estuarine shoreline erosion rates are needed

to aid in identifying “erosion problems,” determ ining adequate shoreline setbacks, and determining appropriate e r osion control met hods where necessary. Wherever p o ssible, secti ons of estuari n e, nonvegetated shoreline with very little hard stabilization should remai n unaltered to provide “ne w ” sediment for shallow w a ter habitats (Riggs 20 01). Some consid era tion shoul d also be given to the type of material

used in rock structures bec ause o ysters more readily colonize oyster cultc h material or limes tone marl, than granite.

I m pervious surfaces

The increase of im pervious surface in coastal North C a rolina cause s loss and degradation of both riparian and non-riparian wetlands. Im p e rvious surfaces af fect wetlands indirectly by pr e v enting infiltration into

the soil and s h allow grou n d water tables, thus reduc in g discharge to certain grou ndwater-dependent wetlands. The increased peak flow in ur banized wa tersheds (Schueler 1994) can r esult in greater bank

erosion and c h annel incision in riparian wetlands loca ted near i m pe rvious surfaces and their associated drainage networks. 75

Channelization and ditchi n g

Channelization is the deepening and straightening of a natural stream or dredging of a new channel for the primary purpose of im proving drainage of adjacent lands (NC Sea Grant 1999). These activit ies can

affect the slo p e, depth, width and roughness of the ch annel, thus changing the dynam i c equilibrium of the

strea m (including associated wetlands). Channelized st rea ms ar e deeper, m o re v a riable in flow, and less variable in depth than natural strea ms (O rth and Wh ite 1993). Thes e differences affect pri mari l y smaller species and life stages usin g wetlands and shallow strea m margins, habitats that are reduced by

channelization. In m a ny c h annelized strea ms in the middle and lower Coastal Pla i n, storm flows are confined primarily to the main channel rather than passing through wetlands. Th is change greatly reduc es the natural beneficial functions of wetlands to filte r pollutants and r e gulate wa ter flow between uplands and coastal waters. In addition, t h e riparian zone (including the nat u ral wood y v e getation along the sides

of the stream ) is often rem o ved in the process of chann e lization (NRC 2002). Consequentl y , l o ading and

m ovement of sedim ent and other no npoi n t source pollu tant s are often greater in channelized streams than

in natural stream s, which can have negative effects on water quality a nd fish habi tat (White 1996; EPA 2001). Channelization also increases channel cro ss-section and flow capacity , t hus reducing the frequency of overbank flow events that allow fish acc ess to the wet l ands. The remaining wetlands exist

with an altere d hydrology

, rely ing m o re on overla nd flow from upland areas and groundwater discharge,

and/or o v erbank flow from unchanneli zed strea m s e gments nearby

.

75 Refer to Chapter 2 for more i nfo rmation on impervious surfaces.

Chapter 5 - Wetlands 3492005 C O ASTAL HABITAT PR OT ECTION PLAN

Although ne w channelization for fl ood control and d r ai nage has greatly decreased, the existin g alterations

continue to al ter flow and salinit y patterns. 76 Dechannelization of streams , restorati on of wetland hydrology, us e of alternati ve drainage t echniques, an d on-site BMPs are theref o re needed to maintain and restore wetlands, flows and sali nity patterns in dow nstream areas. In additi on, increased funding and educational outreach to farmers and other landow ners are needed for proj ects that rest ore natural stream and wetland fu nctio ns.

Dredging for navigation

Dredging im pacts wetlands indirectl y b y lim iting th e am ount of shallow water habitat available for

colonization. The spoil fro m dredging c a n also be used to create shallow water h a bitat. At a num ber of sites, the CO E has establis hed wetlands as part of th eir manage men t of dredge spoil islands; the spoil

islands in Pamlico Sound west of Oreg on Inlet are g ood exam ples. However, CRC rules generally require confining all dredging m a terial to an upl and area la ndward of regularly or irregul arly fl ooded marsh [ 15A NCAC 07H .0208] . In recent y ears, cooperative inte ragency pr ojects have resulted in som e beneficial uses of dredge m a te rials, s u ch as creatio n of m a rsh an d water bird nest sites.

Boating

The m o st detri m ental effect of boating on wetlands is probabl y l o ss of vegetation from wave action. T h e actual im pact of boat wakes on wetlands has not b een quantified (S AFMC 1998a ; Riggs 20 01) . Erosion

from boat traffic along the I n tracoastal W a terway a nd elsewhere is readily observable and is like l y responsible for substantial (or just locali zed) loss of fringing wetland habitat (Rig gs 200 1). Th e loss of fringing wetland can result in increased erosion of wa terfront prope rty along t h e Intracoastal Waterway

. As the human population of coastal Nort h Carolina in creas es, so wi ll the im pact of boater-induced wave

turbulence. The num ber of registered boats in North Carolina increased by 26% from 1990 to 2000 (see Figure 4.3 in Chapter 4). There is a need to amend WRC no wake z one authority to include consideration for erosion in strategic wetland areas . Currently, the issue of human saf ety is the only issue driving the WRC’s authority (habitat protec tion is not a consideration). There should also be increased public awareness of the impact of boat wakes on wetland shorelines.

Marinas, docks, and piers

Direct i m pact s to wetlands through m a ri na construc tion are m i ni mized since cur r ent CRC rules encourage

marina construction in upla nd basins. M a rinas, docks , and piers can im pact wetlands indirectl y b y shading and a ssociated boa t traffic. Shading results i n the loss of plant growth and vig o r ben eath the dock

structures. A study in South Carolina com p ared ste m densities of Spartina under docks with st em densities five meters away from docks (Sanger and Holla nd 2 002). The results of the stud y i n dicated an average reduction in stem density of 71% under the d o c ks. The stud y concluded t h at althoug h shading of Spartina by docks reduces ste m density

, the total im pa ct on wetland habitat was minor. It was esti m at ed

that b y t h e y ear 2010, onl y 0.02 t o 0. 24 % of the total salt m a rsh area in South C a rolina would be affected by dock shading. However, local effects in areas with many docks could be significant.

The num ber of pier general perm its issu ed in coastal North Carolin a has risen from about 250 in 19 90, t o about 8 00 in 2002 (DCM, unpu b. data; Figure 5.9). Additional n u m b e rs of large piers are also constructed every y ear t h roughout t h e coastal area. To m i nim i ze shading effects in North C a rolina, CRC rules require a dock height of three feet above wetland substrate, and a pier widt h of n o greater than six

feet. As in South Carolina

, the im pact o f dock a nd pi er shading on wetland vegetation on a coast-wide

basis m a y be minor at present, but the im p act will lik ely increase o v er time as more piers are constructed.

76 S ee Ch apt e r 2 s ect ion on chann e liz ation and dit c hing.

Chapter 5 - Wetlands 3502005 C O ASTAL HABITAT PR OT ECTION PLAN

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Ye a rNumber of CRC permits

Figure 5.9

. Annual n u m b er of CAMA general perm its issued b y the North Carolin a Division of Coastal Managem e nt for piers, 199 0-200 2. (So u r ce: DCM, unpub. data)

Water qualit y degradatio n

Excess nutrients can result in undesirable changes in the wetland plant community (Lamers et al. 2002)

. The effect of changes in th e plant communit y on fish use of wetlands is unkn own. However, the effect of

excess nutrients on fish use of wetlands could be pr oblem a ti c. Algal bloom s in and around emergent vegetation can cause very low dissolved oxy g en levels at night, resulting in fish kills (see Chap ter 2).

Another pote n tial issue regarding the water qualit y of wetlands (esp ecially freshwater marsh) is sulfate (SO 4 -2 ), a water-soluble, abundant f o rm of sulfur that co mm only oc curs in nature (e.g., soil an d m i nerals).

Elevated sulfate concentrat ions can enter surface w a te rs and eventually reach wetlands from a num ber of

man-made so urces, including: runoff from mining an d agriculture, i ndustrial waste discharge and

at m o spheric deposition (Lam ers et al. 2001; EPA 2002a; Lamers et al. 2002). Sulfates are u sed in a variety of industries, including, but not lim it ed to, m i ning, processing (e.g., wood pulp, m e tal finishing, leather), sewage treat m e nt, and m a nufact u ring (e.g., chem ical, dy e, glass, textile, soap, insecticide, fungicide) (Greenwood and Earnshaw 1984). Ap pro x imat ely 30% of sulfate in groun dwater may be from

the at m o sphere, while the rem a ining 70% is fro m or ganic processes (EPA 2002a ). In contrast, Moore (1991) report ed that greater than 45% of sulfates de tected in rivers originated from hu man activities. Dissolved or free sulfide ( H S
- ) can be highl y t oxic to rooted plants in freshwater wetlands where there is

an insufficient am ount of ir on (Fe). T ypi cally , sulf ate-reducing bacteria convert sulfate to h y dr ogen sulfide (H 2 S), py rite (FeS 2 ), or iron sulfide (FeS). Sulfate over-enrich m ent m a y cause HS - to accu m u lat e in sediments, and the subsequent toxicity leads to rooted plant comm unities co mposed of a few highly sulfur-tolerant species. The effect of the se chang es in plant comm u n ity structure on fish use of marsh

wetlands is unknown. Lamers et al. (2002) dem onstrated that FeS

x oxidation during desiccat ion, FeS

x

Chapter 5 - Wetlands 3512005 C O ASTAL HABITAT PR OT ECTION PLAN

oxidation due to nitrate pol lution, and at m o spheric su lfur (S) poll u ti on threatened the water quality of freshwater wetlands via eutrophication a nd HS

- accu m u l a tion. The degree of HS

- accu m u lati on did not

vary am ong wetland soil types with diff erent hum us profiles (Lamers et al. 2001). The susceptibility of freshwater wetlands to sul f

ate pollut i on should be eva luated i n coastal North C a rolina. Results should provide the measure of iron con centrations in wetland sediment necessary to evaluate susceptibility.

Introduced and nuisance species

A m a jor non-native species issue con cerning wetlands is the spread of Phragmite s specie s (common reed)

into salt/brackish m a rsh areas (Weinst e i n a nd Balletto 1999). Si nce the early 1900s, Phragmites australis has been replacing other salt/brackish marsh vegetation al ong t h e Atlantic coast at a rate of about 1% to

6% of the ma rsh surface pe r y ear (Weinstein and Balletto 1999). P h ragmites forms dense, m o noty p ic stands of vegetation that could alter fish use of the marsh. Recent resea rch co mparing fish us e of Phragmites and S partina marsh in New Jersey fou n d no distinct habitat preference am ong large fish and decapod crustaceans (e.g., shrim p ) (Able a nd Hagan 2000). On t h e other hand, Ph ragmites had a negative effect on larval and ju ven ile fish abundance (Able and Hagan 2000 ; Able et al. 200 3). A stud y in Connecticu t salt m a rshes found no diff erence betwee n use of reed-dom inated tidal marshes and t ypical tidal marsh vegetation b y m u mmichogs (Fell et al. 19 98).

Sea level ris e and storm events

Rising sea le vel is a m a jor threat to coastal wetlands i n North Carolina. Analy ses of data from tide gauge

stations in Ham p ton, Virginia, and Charleston, Sout h Carolina, from 1921 to 20 00 (Riggs 2 0 01), show

sea level risin g along t h e Atlantic coast by about 3.35 mm per y ear (1.1 ft per 100 y ears). Gauge data specific to N o rth Carolina are available only for 20 years, but suggest a slightly greater rate o f approxim a tel y 4.57 mm per y ear (1. 5 ft per 100 y ears). The com b i n ation of sea level rise and storm

events causes erosion of w e tlands at a rate of approxi mately 802 a c res/y ear (Riggs 20 01). T h e im portance of coastal erosion is further e m phasized by the relatively low am ount of perm itted coastal

wetland i m pacts fro m 1999 to 2002 (WR P 2001), compared to estimated erosio n losses. Com p ared to sea level rise, the rate of wetla nd building or accretion is slightly less, but of the same order of magnitude: approxim a tely 1.2 0 mm per y ear (Hackney and Clear y 198 7). Loss of wetlands from sea level rise is

exacerbat e d along steepl y s l oping shoreli n es or where wetland m i gration is other w ise restricted (i.e., where bulkheads are present). A recent study of sa lt marsh response to sea level rise in New England

found that lo w m a rsh vegetation ( Sp artina alternafl o ra ) was replacing hig h m a rsh vegetation ( Spartina

patens

, Distichlis spicata , a nd Juncus ge rardi ) (Donnelly and Bertness 2001). I f the rate of sea level rise increases significantly over the next century , m a ny low m a r s h areas in New England and elsewhere will

likel y drown (Donnell y and Bertness 2001). Buyers and owners of coastal property should be aware of

sea level ri se and t h e potential for loss of wetlands and property. Updated an d accurate coast-wide

estuarine erosion rates are needed for the CRC and EMC to determine adequate development guidelines and rules along the coast ( D CM 2002). Prioriti es for coastal wetland protection should also acknowledge sea level ri se, and protect gently slopi ng areas upland of coastal wet l ands to allow for

landward mi gration of co astal wetland s with sea level rise

.

Tropical storm surge events can degrade or erode low salinity wetlands by bri n ging i n hi gh s a linit y water, as well as flooding from rainfall. Freshwater specie s cannot tolerate high salinit y, while salt/brackish species cannot tolerate the freshwater flooding , resulti ng in a t o tal l o ss of wetland vegetation i n som e areas (Baldwi n and Mendel ssohn 1998). With rising s ea level, the im p act of storm events on dieback of

coastal w e tla nds can be substantial (Riggs 2001) . Loss of wetlands due to increasing salinity and

floodin g has been docum ented in Lo uisi ana estuaries (Webb 199 7). Loss of wetlands from sto r m surge events and erosion in North Caro lina (Riggs 2001) did not distingui sh losses due to vegetation dieback

from overall erosion. Vegetation dieback is im por tant because it co uld actually acceler ate eros ion of

coastal w e tla nds. Research is needed on site -specific erosion and accretion rates and their relationship

with sea level rise and storm events (Bri nson and Moor head 1989) . Specific research is also needed to

Chapter 5 - Wetlands 3522005 C O ASTAL HABITAT PR OT ECTION PLAN

determine processes that control the upper limits of pe at accumulation, w h ich i s the foundati on of coastal wetland development in the Albemarle-P a mlico system (Moorhe ad and Brinson 1995).

5.5. SUMMARY OF W ETLA NDS CHAP TER

Wetland habi tat is unique a m ong the coas tal fish habitats because it is not entirel y subm erged but occurs

in and abo v e the water. There are many different types of wetlands throug hout th e coast, many bordering the rivers and sounds, whil e others are hydrologically isolated. Whi l e each wetl and t ype is uni que, these different types provide similar ecological functions

. Wetlands are highl y effective and well recognized

for their value as a natural filter, trapping and filte ring poll u tants f r om upland runoff; as well as serving to

buffer the effects of floods b y storin g, s p reading, an d slowing stor mwater runoff. Like SAV, wetlands are highl y produc tive biologically, but because of their expansive coverage and biomass, produce m u ch m o re organic matter, which is br oken down and utilized by m u ltiple species adjacent to wetlands and

elsewher e . It has been esti mated that over 95% of the United States’ commerci a lly harvested finfish and

shellfish are wetland dependent. T h e com b ination of shallow water and thick v e getation pro v ides excellent nursery habi tat fo r juvenile fish . The m a jorit y of MFC-de signated Primary Nursery Area s consists of wetlands and adjacent shallow water and soft bottom

. Fish found commonly in or near

freshwat e r marshes and sw am ps include bluegill, large m outh bass, r i ver herring, and striped bass. In and adjacent to estuarine wetlands, killifish, spot, red drum , flounder, penaeid shrim p , striped mullet, pinfish, blue crab, and other species are abundant. In addit i on to suppl yin g food and acting as nursery habitat for

num erous species, riparian wetlands also provi de a relatively safe corridor for fish m oving among t h e other nearshore habitats.

It is esti m at e d that as m u c h as 40-50% of North Carolina’ s original wetland coverage has be en lost, primarily due to ditchi ng, c h annelization, and filling f o r agriculture and development. From t h e early

1800s t o the e a rly 1 9 0 0 s, agriculture accounted f o r th e m a jority of wetland losses. From about 195 0 to the 1990s, conversion to forestry and agriculture acco unted for 53% and 42% of wetland losses in North Carolina. Although the rat e of wetland loss has sl owed, losses continue to occur. Mitigation f o r

per m itted losses and voluntary restoration efforts in so me ar eas hav e partially offset so m e r ecent losses,

but the t ype o f wetland gained is of ten not equivalent to what was lost . Degradation and l o ss o f wetlands

can im pact many species, including over f ished stocks of river herring and so uthe rn floun der, as well as stocks designated with the Concern status such as blue crab and striped m u llet.

There are m u ltiple threats to wetland habitat toda y
, pr i m arily due t o phy s ical de struction and hy drol ogical alteration. Ditching and dr aining fo r developm ent, construction of ne w dam s
, mining activit y, and filling for new developm ent accounted for the majority of pe rm itted wetl and losses in recent y ears. Construction of roads, infr astructure, and water dependent-devel o p ment, includ ing dred ging for marinas and navi gation channels, als o results in smaller, site -s pecific losse s and contributes to cu m u lat i vely large wetland losses.

Estuarine shoreline stabilization causes gradual, long-term wetland loss by lim iting sedim ent i nputs
needed for maintenance an d expansion of wetlands, and b y blockin g landward m i gration as sea level

rises. Because wetlands ar e critical to a large num ber of fishery species, but have been greatly reduced in spatial coverage from their original extent, ongoi ng initiatives such as wetl and restoration, land acquisition and preservation, and agricul t ural cost-share BMPs need to be enhanced. There should also

be additional initiatives implem ented to protect and e nhance wetland habitat. The many fishery and water qualit y functions provided by wetlands make their preservation and restoration along North Carolina’s coast a high priority for protection of all coastal fish habitats.

Chapter 5 - Wetlands 3532005 C O ASTAL HABITAT PR OT ECTION PLAN

Chapter 5 - Wetlands 354ChowanRoanokeTar-PamlicoNeuseNAD83NCState PlaneOctober2003NEWS1001020Kilometers10010Miles

lo c a to r m a pLEGENDMap information were collected fromvariousfederal,state,and privateorganizations.Everyefforthas been made to ensurethe quality andaccuracyof thisinformation.CutoverDrainedIntactClearedDivision ofCoastalManagementWetlands(hydrogeomorphic classes)Riverine WetlandsEstuarine WetlandsDrained EstuarineWetlandsIntactWetlandsWaterBodiesManagement UnitsWesternBoundaryMap 5.1a.LocationofriparianwetlandareasderivedfrommapsproducedbyDCM(1994)inthe upperareasoftheRoanoke, Tar-Pamlico, Neuseand Chowanbasins.355

## This Page w a s Intentionally Left Blank

356AlbemarleChowanRoanokeTar-PamlicoPamlicoCoastalOceanCurrituckSoundAtlanticOceanNAD83NCStatePlaneOctober2003NEWS1001020Kilometers10010Miles

lo c a to r m a pLEGENDMap informationwerecollected fromvariousfederal,state,and privateorganizations.Everyefforthasbeenmadetoensurethe qualityandaccuracyofthisinformation.CutoverDrainedIntactClearedDivisionofCoastalManagementWetlands(hydrogeomorphicclasses)Riverine WetlandsEstuarine WetlandsDrained EstuarineWetlandsIntactWetlandsWater BodiesManagementUnitsMap5.1b.Locationofriparianwetland areasderivedfrommapsproducedbyDCM(1994)innortheasternNorth Carolina.357

## This Page w a s Intentionally Left Blank

358New/WhiteOakCoastal OceanSouthernEstuariesCapeFearNeuseAtlanticOceanNAD83NCState PlaneOctober2003NEWS1001020Kilometers10010Miles

lo c a t o r m a pLEGENDMap information were collected fromvariousfederal,state,andprivateorganizations.Everyefforthas beenmadetoensurethe qualityandaccuracyofthisinformation.CutoverDrainedIntactClearedDivisionofCoastalManagementWetlands(hydrogeomorphicclasses)RiverineWetlandsEstuarine WetlandsDrained EstuarineWetlandsIntactWetlandsWaterBodiesManagementUnitsWestern BoundaryMap5.1c.LocationofriparianwetlandareasderivedfrommapsproducedbyDCM(1994)insoutheasternNorth Carloina.359

## This Page w a s Intentionally Left Blank

360PamlicoCore/BogueSouthernEstuariesNew/WhiteOakNeuseTar/PamlicoCoastalOceanCapeLookoutAtlanticOceanCapeHatterasNAD83NCState PlaneOctober2003NEWS1001020Kilometers10010Miles

lo c a to r m a pLEGENDMap information were collected fromvariousfederal,state,and privateorganizations.Everyefforthas been made to ensurethe quality andaccuracyof thisinformation.CutoverDrainedIntactClearedDivisionofCoastalManagementWetlands(hydrogeomorphic classes)Riverine WetlandsEstuarine WetlandsDrained EstuarineWetlandsIntactWetlandsWater BodiesManagement UnitsMap 5.1d.Locationofriparianwetland areasderivedfrommapsproduced byDCM(1994)incentralcoastalareaofNorth Carolina.361

## This Page w a s Intentionally Left Blank

362AtlanticOceanAlbemarleSoundCapeHatterasPamlicoSoundCapeFearCapeLookoutManagementUnitsWaterbodiesNAD83NCStatePlaneApril 2003NEWS1001020 30 40 50 60Kilometers10010 20 30 40 50Miles Lo c a tor m a pLEGENDDivisionofCoastal ManagementWetlands(hydrogeomorphicclasses)ClearedDrainedIntactCutoverFlat/depressionalWetlandsMap informationwerecollectedfromvariousfederal,state,andprivate organizations.Everyefforthas beenmadeto ensurethe quality andaccuracyofthisinformation.Map 5.2.Location offlat/depressionalwetlandareasderivedfrommapsproducedbyDCM(1994).Coastal Habitat ProtectionPlan363

## This Page w a s Intentionally Left Blank

364