Review and comparison of wetland impacts and mitigation requirements between New Jersey,USA, Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act

A review of wetland impacts authorized under the New Jersey Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act (FWPA) was conducted based on permitting data compiled for the period 1 July 1988 to 31 December 1993. Data regarding the acreage of wetlands impacted, location of impacts by drainage basin and watershed, and mitigation were analyzed. Wetland impacts authorized and mitigation under New Jersey's program were evaluated and compared with Section 404 information available for New Jersey and other regions of the United States.Under the FWPA, 3003 permits were issued authorizing impacts to 234.76 ha (602.27 acres) of wetlands and waters. Compensatory mitigation requirements for impacts associated with individual permits required the creation of 69.20 ha. (171.00 acres), and restoration of 16.49 ha (40.75 acres) of wetlands. Cumulative impacts by watershed were directly related to levels of development and population growth.The FWPA has resulted in an estimated 67% reduction [44.32 ha (109.47 acres) vs 136.26 ha (336.56 acres)] in annual wetland and water impacts when compared with Section 404 data for New Jersey. For mitigation, the slight increase in wetland acreage over acreage impacted is largely consistent with Section 404 data.Based on this evaluation, the FWPA has succeeded in reducing the level of wetland impacts in New Jersey. However, despite stringent regulation of activities in and around wetlands, New Jersey continues to experience approximately 32 ha (79 acres) of unmitigated wetland impacts annually. Our results suggest that additional efforts focusing on minimizing wetland impacts and increasing wetlands creation are needed to attain a goal of no net loss of freshwater wetlands.     

Wetland loss and substitution by the Section 404 permit program in southern California,USA

To test the effectiveness of the 404 permit program in preventing a net loss of wetland resources, 75 Section 404 projects permitted in the years 1987–1989 and located in a portion of southern California were evaluated. From this group of projects, 80.47 ha of wetlands were affected by Section 404 permits and the Army Corps of Engineers required 111.62 ha of wetland mitigation. To verify the successful completion of each mitigation project, all 75 project sites were visited and evaluated based on the amount of dead vegetation, growth and coverage, and the number of invasive species. Based on the field verification results, the actual amount of completed mitigation area was 77.33 ha, resulting in a net loss of 3.14 ha of wetland resources in the years 1987–1989. By comparing the types of wetlands lost to the types of wetlands mitigated, it is apparent that, in particular, freshwater wetlands are experiencing a disproportionately greater loss of area and that riparian woodland wetlands are most often used in mitigation efforts. The net result of these accumulated actions is an overall substitution of wetland types throughout the region. Results also indicate that, typically, large-scale mitigation projects are more successful compared to smaller projects and that successful compliance efforts are not evenly distributed throughout the region. We recommend that better monitoring, mitigation in-kind, mitigation banking, and planning on a regional or watershed scale could greatly improve the effectiveness of the Section 404 permitting program.     

Compensatory Stream and Wetland Mitigation in North Carolina: An Evaluation of Regulatory Success

Data from a probability sample were used to estimate wetland and stream mitigation success from 2007 to 2009 across North Carolina (NC). “Success” was defined as whether the mitigation site met regulatory requirements in place at the time of construction. Analytical results were weighted by both component counts and mitigation size. Overall mitigation success (including preservation) was estimated at 74 % (SE = 3 %) for wetlands and 75 % (SE = 4 %) for streams in NC. Compared to the results of previous studies, wetland mitigation success rates had increased since the mid-1990s. Differences between mitigation providers (mitigation banks, NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program’s design-bid-build and full-delivery programs, NC Department of Transportation and private permittee-responsible mitigation) were generally not significant although permittee-responsible mitigation yielded higher success rates in certain circumstances. Both wetland and stream preservation showed high rates of success and the stream enhancement success rate was significantly higher than that of stream restoration. Additional statistically significant differences when mitigation size was considered included: (1) the Piedmont yielded a lower stream mitigation success rate than other areas of the state, and (2) recently constructed wetland mitigation projects demonstrated a lower success rate than those built prior to 2002. Opportunities for improvement exist in the areas of regulatory record-keeping, understanding the relationship between post-construction establishment and long-term ecological trajectories of stream and wetland restoration projects, incorporation of numeric ecological metrics into mitigation monitoring and success criteria, and adaptation of stream mitigation designs to achieve greater success in the Piedmont.     

Losing Function Through Wetland Mitigation in Central Pennsylvania,USA

In the United States, the Clean Water Act requires mitigation for wetlands that are negatively impacted by dredging and filling activities. During the mitigation process, there generally is little effort to assess function for mitigation sites and function is usually inferred based on vegetative cover and acreage. In our study, hydrogeomorphic (HGM) functional assessment models were used to compare predicted and potential levels of functional capacity in created and natural reference wetlands. HGM models assess potential function by measurement of a suite of structural variables and these modeled functions can then be compared to those in natural, reference wetlands. The created wetlands were built in a floodplain setting of a valley in central Pennsylvania to replace natural ridge-side slope wetlands. Functional assessment models indicated that the created sites differed significantly from natural wetlands that represented the impacted sites for seven of the ten functions assessed. This was expected because the created wetlands were located in a different geomorphic setting than the impacted sites, which would affect the type and degree of functions that occur. However, functional differences were still observed when the created sites were compared with a second set of reference wetlands that were located in a similar geomorphic setting (floodplain). Most of the differences observed in both comparisons were related to unnatural hydrologic regimes and to the characteristics of the surrounding landscape. As a result, the created wetlands are not fulfilling the criteria for successful wetland mitigation.     

Determinants of Spatial and Temporal Patterns in Compensatory Wetland Mitigation

Development projects that impact wetlands commonly require compensatory mitigation, usually through creation or restoration of wetlands on or off the project site. Over the last decade, federal support has increased for third-party off-site mitigation methods. At the same time, regulators have lowered the minimum impact size that triggers the requirement for compensatory mitigation. Few studies have examined the aggregate impact of individual wetland mitigation projects. No previous study has compared the choice of mitigation method by regulatory agency or development size. We analyze 1058 locally and federally permitted wetland mitigation transactions in the Chicago region between 1993 and 2004. We show that decreasing mitigation thresholds have had striking effects on the methods and spatial distribution of wetland mitigation. In particular, the observed increase in mitigation bank use is driven largely by the needs of the smallest impacts. Conversely, throughout the time period studied, large developments have rarely used mitigation banking, and have been relatively unaffected by changing regulatory focus and banking industry growth. We surmise that small developments lack the scale economies necessary for feasible permittee responsible mitigation. Finally, we compare the rates at which compensation required by both county and federal regulators is performed across major watershed boundaries. We show that local regulations prohibiting cross-county mitigation lead to higher levels of cross- watershed mitigation than federal regulations without cross-county prohibitions. Our data suggest that local control over wetland mitigation may prioritize administrative boundaries over hydrologic function in the matter of selecting compensation sites.     

Section 404 wetland mitigation and permit success criteria in Pennsylvania,USA, 1986-1999

Twenty-three Section 404 permits in central Pennsylvania (covering a wetland age range of 1–14 years) were examined to determine the type of mitigation wetland permitted, how the sites were built, and what success criteria were used for evaluation. Most permits allowed for mitigation out-of-kind, either vegetatively or through hydrogeomorphic class. The mitigation process has resulted in a shift from impacted wetlands dominated by woody species to less vegetated mitigation wetlands, a trend that appears to be occurring nationwide. An estimate of the percent cover of emergent vegetation was the only success criterion specified in the majority of permits. About 60% of the mitigation wetlands were judged as meeting their originally defined success criteria, some after more than 10 years. The permit process appears to have resulted in a net gain of almost 0.05 ha of wetlands per mitigation project. However, due to the replacement of emergent, scrub–shrub, and forested wetlands with open water ponds or uplands, mitigation practices probably led to a net loss of vegetated wetlands.     

An Assessment of U.S. Stream Compensatory Mitigation Policy: Necessary Changes to Protect Ecosystem Functions and Services

Compensatory mitigation of impacted streams and wetlands has increased over the past two decades, with the associated industry spending over US$2.9 billion in aquatic restoration annually. Despite these expenditures, evaluations by the National Research Council and U.S. Government Accountability Office have provided evidence that compensatory mitigation practices are failing to protect aquatic resource functions and services, and vague federal policy and inadequate evaluation of compensatory mitigation projects are to blame. To address these weaknesses, an update to federal regulations on compensatory mitigation was released in 2008. Additionally, the 2012 Reissuance of Nationwide Permits, some of which affects compensatory stream mitigation, was recently published. Current policy, as reflected in these documents, still uses nonspecific language to direct compensatory stream mitigation leaving most implementation decisions to the local U.S. Army Corps of Engineers district. The majority of federal mitigation policy has focused on wetland compensation, with other aquatic resources receiving less attention (e.g., streams). In this article, weaknesses of current policy are discussed, as are suggested policy changes to minimize the loss of stream ecosystem functions and services. Compensatory mitigation policy should clearly define key terms, incorporate adaptive management procedures, and provide guidelines for determining mitigation costs and compensation ratio requirements.     

Community Structure and Quality After 10 Years in Two Central Ohio Mitigation Bank Wetlands

We evaluate two 10-year-old mitigation bank wetlands in central Ohio, one created and one with restored and enhanced components, by analysis of vegetation characteristics and by comparison of the year-10 vegetation and macroinvertebrate communities with reference wetlands. To assess different measures of wetland development, we compare the prevalence of native hydrophytes with an index of floristic quality and we evaluate the predictability of these parameters in year 10, given 5 years of data. Results show that the mitigation wetlands in this study meet vegetation performance criteria of native hydrophyte establishment by year 5 and maintain these characteristics through year 10. Species richness and floristic quality, as well as vegetative similarity with reference wetlands, differ among mitigation wetlands in year 1 and also in their rate of change during the first 10 years. The prevalence of native hydrophytes is reasonably predictable by year 10, but 5 years of monitoring is not sufficient to predict future trends of floristic quality in either the created or restored wetland. By year 10, macroinvertebrate taxa richness does not statistically differ among these wetlands, but mitigation wetlands differ from reference sites by tolerance index and by trophic guild dominance. The created wetland herbivore biomass is significantly smaller than its reference, whereas detritivore biomass is significantly greater in the created wetland and smaller in the restored wetland as compared with respective reference wetlands. These analyses illustrate differences in measures of wetland performance and contrast the monitoring duration necessary for legal compliance with the duration required for development of more complex indicators of ecosystem integrity.     

Does Wetland Location Matter When Managing Wetlands for Watershed‐Scale Flood and Drought Resilience?

Wetland protection and restoration strategies that are designed to promote hydrologic resilience do not incorporate the location of wetlands relative to the main stream network. This is primarily attributed to the lack of knowledge on the effects of wetland location on wetland hydrologic function (e.g., flood and drought mitigation). Here, we combined a watershed‐scale, surface–subsurface, fully distributed, physically based hydrologic model with historical, existing, and lost (drained) wetland maps in the Nose Creek watershed in the Prairie Pothole Region of North America to (1) estimate the hydrologic functions of lost wetlands and (2) estimate the hydrologic functions of wetlands located at different distances from the main stream network. Modeling results showed wetland loss altered streamflow, decreasing baseflow and increasing stream peakflow during the period of the precipitation events that led to major flooding in the watershed and downstream cities. In addition, we found that wetlands closer to the main stream network played a disproportionately important role in attenuating peakflow, while wetland location was not important for regulating baseflow. The findings of this study provide information for watershed managers that can help to prioritize wetland restoration efforts for flood or drought risk mitigation.     

Trends and patterns in section 404 permitting requiring compensatory mitigation in Oregon and Washington,USA

The effects of permitting decisions made under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for which compensatory mitigation was required were examined. Information was compiled on permits issued in Oregon (January 1977–January 1987) and Washington (1980–1986). Data on the type of project permitted, wetland impacted, and mitigation project were collected and analyzed. The records of the Portland and Seattle District Offices of the US Army Corps of Engineers and of Environmental Protection Agency Region X were the primary sources of information. The 58 permits issued during the years of concern in Oregon document impacts to 82 wetlands and the creation of 80. The total area of wetland impacted was 74 ha while 42 ha were created, resulting in a net loss of 32 ha or 43%. The 35 permits issued in Washington document impacts to 72 wetlands and the creation of 52. The total area of wetland impacted was 61 ha while 45 ha were created, resulting in a net loss of 16 ha or 26%. In both states, the number of permits requiring compensation increased with time. The area of the impacted and created wetlands tended to be ≤0.40 ha. Permitted activity occurred primarily west of the Cascade Mountains and in the vicinity of urban centers. Estuarine and palustrine wetlands were impacted and created most frequently. The wetland types created most often were not always the same as those impacted; therefore, local gains and losses of certain types occurred. In both states the greatest net loss in area was in freshwater marshes. This study illustrates how Section 404 permit data might be used in managing a regional wetland resource. However, because the data readily available were either incomplete or of poor quality, the process of gathering information was very labor intensive. Since similar analyses would be useful to resource managers and scientists from other areas, development of an up-to-date standardized data base is recommended.     

Modeling the Suitability of Potential Wetland Mitigation Sites with a Geographic Information System

Wetland mitigation is frequently required to compensate for unavoidable impacts to wetlands. Site conditions and landscape context are critical factors influencing the functions that created wetlands perform. We developed a spatial model and used a geographic information system (GIS) to identify suitable locations for wetland mitigation sites. The model used six variables to characterize site conditions: hydrology, soils, historic condition, vegetation cover, adjacent vegetation, and land use. For each variable, a set of suitability scores was developed that indicated the wetland establishment potential for different variable states. Composite suitability scores for individual points on the landscape were determined from the weighted geometric mean of suitability scores for each variable at each point. These composite scores were grouped into five classes and mapped as a wetland mitigation suitability surface with a GIS. Sites with high suitability scores were further evaluated using information on the feasibility of site modification and project cost. This modeling approach could be adapted by planners for use in identifying the suitability of locations as wetland mitigation sites at any site or region.     

Rapid Assessment of Urban Wetlands: Do Hydrogeomorphic Classification and Reference Criteria Work?

The Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) functional assessment method is predicated on the ability of hydrogeomorphic wetland classification and visual assessment of alteration to provide reference standards against which functions in individual wetlands can be evaluated. The effectiveness of this approach was tested by measuring nitrogen cycling functions in forested wetlands in an urbanized region in New Jersey, USA. Fourteen sites represented three HGM classes and were characterized as “least disturbed reference” or “non-reference” based on initial visual assessment. Water table levels and in situ rates of net nitrogen mineralization, net nitrification, and denitrification were measured over one year in each site. Hydrological alterations, resulting in consistently low or flashy water table levels, were not correlated with a priori designations as reference and non-reference. Although the flat-riverine wetland class had lower net nitrification and higher denitrification rates than riverine or mineral flat wetland classes, this difference was attributable to the lack of hydrologically-altered wetlands in the flat-riverine class, and thus more consistently wet conditions. Within all HGM classes, a classification based on the long-term hydrological record that separated sites with “normal,” saturated hydrology from those with “altered,” drier hydrology, clearly distinguished sites with different nitrogen cycling function. Based on these findings, current practices for designating reference standard sites to judge wetland functions, at least in urbanized regions, are ineffective and potentially misleading. At least one year of hydrological monitoring data is suggested to classify wetlands into groups that have different nutrient cycling functions, particularly in urban landscapes.     

Compliance with Wetland Mitigation Standards in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, USA

The United States has lost about half its wetland acreage since European settlement, and the effectiveness of current wetland mitigation policies is often questioned. In most states, federal wetland laws are overseen by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, but Michigan administers these laws through the state's Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). Our research provides insight into the effectiveness of the state's implementation of these laws. We examined wetland mitigation permit files issued in Michigan's Upper Peninsula between 2003 and 2006 to assess compliance with key MDEQ policies. Forty-six percent of files were out of compliance with monitoring report requirements, and forty-nine percent lacked required conservation easement documents. We also conducted site assessments of select compensatory wetland projects to determine compliance with MDEQ invasive plant species performance standards. Fifty-five percent were out of compliance. We found no relationship between invasive species noncompliance and past site monitoring, age of mitigation site, or proximity to roads. However, we found wetland restoration projects far more likely to be compliant with performance standards than wetland creation projects. We suggest policy changes and agency actions that could increase compliance with wetland restoration and mitigation goals.     

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF WETLAND RESTORATION ALONG THE ILLINOIS RIVER1

Creating and restoring wetland and riparian ecosystems between farms and adjacent streams and rivers in the Upper Mississippi River Basin would reduce nitrogen loads and hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico and increase local environmental benefits. Economic efficiency and economic impacts of the Hennepin and Hopper Lakes Restoration Project in Illinois were evaluated. The project converted 999 ha of cropland to bottomland forest, backwater lakes, and flood‐plain wetland habitat. Project benefits were estimated by summing the economic values of wetlands estimated in other studies. Project costs were estimated by the loss in the gross value of agricultural production from the conversion of corn and soybean acreage to wetlands. Estimated annual net benefit of wetland restoration in the project area amounted to US$1,827 per ha of restored wetland or US$1.83 million for the project area, indicating that the project is economically efficient. Impacts of the project on the regional economy were estimated (using IMPLAN) in terms of changes in total output, household income, and employment. The project is estimated to increase total output by US$2,028,576, household income by US$1,379,676, and employment by 56 persons, indicating that it has positive net economic impacts on the regional economy.     

Hydrologic analysis for coastal wetland restoration

Increasing recognition of the value of tidal wetlands has led to interest in how to restore and enhance areas that have been modified by human activity. The policy of recognizing restoration or enhancement as mitigation for destruction of other wetlands is controversial. Once policy questions are separated from technical questions, the steps in a successful project are straightforward A key element in the design of a successful project is quantitative hydraulic and hydrologic analysis of alternatives. Restoration projects at two sites in California used a combination of empirical geomorphic relationships, numerical modeling, and verification with field observations. Experience with these and other wetland restoration projects indicates the importance of longterm postproject monitoring, inspection, and maintenance     

Integrating objectives and scales for planning and implementing wetland restoration and creation in agricultural landscapes

Traditionally, wetland management strategies have focused on single familiar objectives, such as improving water quality, strengthening biodiversity, and providing flood control. Despite the relevant amount of studies focused on wetland creation or restoration with these and other objectives, still little is known on how to integrate objectives of wetland creation or restoration at different landscape scales. We have reviewed the literature to this aim, and based on the existing current knowledge, we propose a four step approach to take decisions in wetland creation or restoration planning. First, based on local needs and limitations we should elucidate what the wetland is needed for. Second, the scale at which wetland should be created or restored must be defined. Third, conflicts and compatibilities between creation or restoration objectives must then be carefully studied. Fourth, a creation or restoration strategy must be defined. The strategy can be either creating different unipurpose wetlands or multipurpose wetlands, or combinations of them at different landscape scales. In any case, in unipurpose wetland projects we recommend to pursue additional secondary objectives. Following these guidelines, restored and created wetlands would have more ecological functions, similar to natural wetlands, especially if spatial distribution in the landscape is considered. Restored and created wetlands could then provide an array of integrated environmental services adapted to local ecological and social needs.     

Use of created cattail (Typha) wetlands in mitigation strategies

In order to balance pressures for land-use development with protection of wetland resources, artificial wetlands have been constructed in an effort to replace lost ecosystems. Despite its regulatory appeal and prominent role in current mitigation strategies, it is unclear whether or not created systems actually compensate for lost wetland resources. Mitigation predictions that rely on artificial wetlands must be analyzed critically in terms of their efficacy. Destruction of wetlands due to burial by coal fly ash at a municipal landfill in Danvers, Massachusetts, USA, provided an opportunity to compare resulting growth of created cattail (Typha) marshes with natural wetland areas. Once the appropriate cattail species was identified for growth under disturbed landfill conditions, two types of artificial wetlands were constructed. The two systems differed in their hydrologic attributes: while one had a surface water flow characteristic of most cattail wetlands, the second system mimicked soil and water conditions found in naturally occurring floating cattail marshes. Comparison of plant growth measurements for two years from the artificial systems with published values for natural cattail marshes revealed similar structure and growth patterns. Experiments are now in progress to investigate the ability of created cattail marshes to remove and accumulate heavy metals from polluted landfill leachate. Research of the type reported here must be pursued aggressively in order to document the performance of artificial wetlands in terms of plant structure and wetland functions. Such research should allow us to start to evaluate whether artificial systems actually compensate for lost wetlands by performing similar functions and providing the concomitant public benefits.     

Policy Development for Biodiversity Offsets: A Review of Offset Frameworks

Biodiversity offsets seek to compensate for residual environmental impacts of planned developments after appropriate steps have been taken to avoid, minimize or restore impacts on site. Offsets are emerging as an increasingly employed mechanism for achieving net environmental benefits, with offset policies being advanced in a wide range of countries (i.e., United States, Australia, Brazil, Colombia, and South Africa). To support policy development for biodiversity offsets, we review a set of major offset policy frameworks—US wetlands mitigation, US conservation banking, EU Natura 2000, Australian offset policies in New South Wales, Victoria, and Western Australia, and Brazilian industrial and forest offsets. We compare how the frameworks define offset policy goals, approach the mitigation process, and address six key issues for implementing offsets: (1) equivalence of project impacts with offset gains; (2) location of the offset relative to the impact site; (3) “additionality” (a new contribution to conservation) and acceptable types of offsets; (4) timing of project impacts versus offset benefits; (5) offset duration and compliance; and (6) “currency” and mitigation replacement ratios. We find substantial policy commonalities that may serve as a sound basis for future development of biodiversity offsets policy. We also identify issues requiring further policy guidance, including how best to: (1) ensure conformance with the mitigation hierarchy; (2) identify the most environmentally preferable offsets within a landscape context; and (3) determine appropriate mitigation replacement ratios.     

Strategies for assessing the cumulative effects of wetland alteration on water quality

Assessment of cumulative impacts on wetlands can benefit by recognizing three fundamental wetland categories: basin, riverine, and fringe. The geomorphological settings of these categories have relevance for water quality.Basin, or depressional, wetlands are located in headwater areas, and capture runoff from small areas. Thus, they are normally sources of water with low elemental concentration. Although basin wetlands normally possess a high capacity for assimilating nutrients, there may be little opportunity for this to happen if the catchment area is small and little water flows through them.Riverine wetlands, in contrast, interface extensively with uplands. It has been demonstrated that both the capacity and the opportunity for altering water quality are high in riverine wetlands.Fringe wetlands are very small in comparison with the large bodies of water that flush them. Biogeochemical influences tend to be local, rather than having a measurable effect on the larger body of water. Consequently, the function of these wetlands for critical habitat may warrant protection from high nutrient levels and toxins, rather than expecting them to assume an assimilatory role.The relative proportion of these wetland types within a watershed, and their status relative to past impacts can be used to develop strategies for wetland protection. Past impacts on wetlands, however, are not likely to be clearly revealed in water quality records from monitoring studies, either because records are too short or because too many variables other than wetland impacts affect water quality. It is suggested that hydrologic records be used to reconstruct historical hydroperiods in wetlands for comparison with current, altered conditions. Changes in hydroperiod imply changes in wetland function, especially for biogeochemical processes in sediments. Hydroperiod is potentially a more sensitive index of wetland function than surface areas obtained from aerial photographs. Identification of forested wetlands through photointerpretation relies on vegetation that may remain intact for decades after drainage. Finally, the depositional environment of wetlands is a landscape characteristic that has not been carefully evaluated nor fully appreciated. Impacts that reverse depositional tendencies also may accelerate rates of change, causing wetlands to be large net exporters rather than modest net importers. Increases in rates as well as direction can cause stocks of materials, accumulated over centuries in wetland sediments, to be lost within decades, resulting in nutrient loading to downstream aquatic ecosystems.     

Diversity of hydric soils in North Carolina,USA

Hydric soils are used as supportive evidence for wetland delineations by federal and state agencies and by the private sector in North Carolina, USA. An analysis of hydric soil distribution and hydric soil characteristics was conducted with county soil surveys and soil taxonomy of the USA. Approximately 100 hydric soils have been used for soil mapping in North Carolina, and they represent seven of the ten soil orders in soil taxonomy. An estimated 23% (2.9 million ha) of the land surface area in North Carolina supports hydric soils. Approximately 96% of the known hydric soil acreage was found in the coastal plain of North Carolina. Over one-third of the soils were hydric Ultisols, which represented close to 10% of the land surface area. The other soil orders with extensive hydric soil acreage included Histosols, Inceptisols, and Entisols. The soil orders were separated into great groups of soil taxonomy to discuss soil profile characteristics. Landscape positions and associated wetland communities were also presented. In North Carolina, a statewide inventory of wetlands does not exist and soil surveys offer a resource for a first approximation of wetland boundaries.