In 2018 Amy Almond, a DFP intern, worked on the project "Coastal Impoundment Mapping in the Southeast". An impoundment is defined as an area within which water levels are actively managed to benefit wetland-dependent wildlife.The goal was to create a comprehensive GIS map layer of impoundments within the Southern Atlantic Coastal Plain. Amy contacted managers of National Wildlife Refuges and state-managed lands within the range (NC, SC, GA, FL) for information about impoundments on their lands.The information provided by the project will help determine potential locations to manage for Black Rails or to work with partners to create new habitat. This information will also benefit other waterbirds and waterfowl since their habitat overlaps.In order to obtain the impoundment information, Amy emailed each of the land managers with a short data request. She asked them to send any GIS shapefiles they had of impounded areas on their lands and sent a Google Form questionnaire to ask specific questions about how they manage these areas, like primary species management, vegetation, and water depth.Most of the land managers responded to the Google Form we created to collect descriptive management data. Some folks sent an email or management plan document, which did not contain the same information as the Google Form.Total impoundments: 750Total impoundment acreage: 121,129.52Total impoundment hectares: 49,019.37Federal ImpoundmentsRefuge Complexes: 15Refuges: 63Impoundments: 329Acres: 63,977Hectares: 25,890.57 State ImpoundmentsStates: 4State-managed lands: 48Impoundments: 421Acres: 57,152.52Hectares: 23,128.8 North Carolina ImpoundmentsImpoundments: 143Acres: 19,699.88Hectares: 7,972.26 South Carolina ImpoundmentsImpoundments: 322Acres: 50,451.69Hectares: 20,597.08 Georgia ImpoundmentsImpoundments: 93Acres: 7,116.85Hectares: 2,880.08Florida ImpoundmentsImpoundments: 192Acres: 43,861.1Hectares: 17,749.96

Vegetation field plots at Congaree Swamp National Monument were visited, described, and documented in a digital database. The database consists of 2 parts - (1) Physical Descriptive Data, and (2) Species Listings.

The vegetation plots were used to describe the vegetation in and around Congaree Swamp National Monument and to assist in developing a final mapping classification system.

On June 30, 1983, Congaree Swamp National Monument became an International Biosphere Reserve. Congaree is noted for containing one of the last significant stands of old growth bottomland hardwood forest, over 11,000 acres in all. The Monument contains over 90 species of trees, 16 of which hold state records for size. Included in this list of records is a national record sweet gum with a basal circumference of nearly 20 feet.

Congaree Swamp National Monument is located approximately 15 miles southeast of Columbia, the state capitol of South Carolina. Old Bluff Highway (old Highway 48) lies just north of the Monument boundary. The eastern boundary is located just northwest of the confluence of the Congaree and Wateree Rivers. The Monument extends west to where Cedar Creek and Myers Creek join.

The methods used for the sampling and analysis of vegetation data and the development of the classification generally followed the standards Doutline in the Field Methods for Vegetation Mapping document "http://biology.usgs.gov/npsveg/fieldmethods/index.html" produced for the USGS-NPS Vegetation Mapping project. This process began with the development of a provisional list of twenty-five vegetation types from teh International Classification of Ecological Communities (ICEC) that were thought to have a high likelihood of being in the park based on an initial field visit on 13-14 June, 1996.

One hundred twenty-eight plots were sampled by two two-person field teams in July, August, and September of 1996. In a devation from the methodology outlined in the Field Methods document, initial sample points were selected in order to have plots in each of the aerial photograph signature types. The gradsect approach was rejected because there appeared to be no potential for stratifying sampling of the park based on slope, aspect, elevation, soil or other natural features due to a lack of available information. Furthermore, because of isolation from roads and trails of many portions of the park, it was deemed not feasible to use a transect to establish plot locations. After sampling, plots were tentatively assigned to the ICEC at the alliance level and our goal was to have at least five plots in each of the twenty-five provisional vegetation types. TIme limitations precluded the ability of the field teams to install ten plots in each of the expected vegetation types as recommended in the Field Methods document.

The information for the metadata came from "http://biology.usgs.gov/npsveg/cosw/metacoswfield.html"

Geospatial data is comprised of water, barren, shrubland, vegetation, wetlands and other selected map features.

The National Park Service (NPS), in conjunction with the Biological Resources Division (BRD) of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), has implemented a program to "develop a uniform hierarchical vegetation methodology" at a national level. The program will also create a geographic information system (GIS) database for the parks under its management. The purpose of the data is to document the state of vegetation within the NPS service area during the 1990's, thereby providing a baseline study for further analysis at the Regional or Service-wide level. The vegetation units of this map were determined through stereoscopic interpretation of aerial photographs supported by field sampling and ecological analysis. The vegetation boundaries were identified on the photographs by means of the photographic signatures and collateral information on slope, hydrology, geography, and vegetation in accordance with the Standardized National Vegetation Classification System (October 1995). The mapped vegetation reflects conditions that existed during the specific year and season that the aerial photographs were taken (April, 1996). There is an inherent margin of error in the use of aerial photography for vegetation delineation and classification.

 The purpose of this spatial data is to provide the National Park Service the
 necessary tools to manage the natural resources within this park system.
 Several parks, representing different regions, environmental conditions, and
 vegetation types, were chosen by BRD to be part of the prototype phase of the
 program. The initial goal of the prototype phase is to "develop, test, refine,
 and finalize the standards and protocols" to be used during the production
 phase of the project. This includes the development of a standardized
 vegetation classification system for each park and the establishment of
 photointerpretation, field, and accuracy assessment procedures. Congaree Swamp
 National Monument was designated as one of the prototype parks. Congaree Swamp
 National Monument, established in 1976, was designated as one of the prototypes
 within the National Park System. The park contains approximately 22,200 acres
 (34 square miles). Congaree Swamp National Monument is located approximately 15
 miles southeast of Columbia, the state capitol of South Carolina. The Congaree
 River, draining over 8,000 square miles of Piedmont land to the northwest,
 forms the southern border.

 On June 30, 1983, Congaree Swamp National Monument became an International
 Biosphere Reserve. Congaree is noted for containing one of the last significant
 stands of old growth bottomland hardwood forest, over 11,000 acres in all. The
 Monument contains over 90 species of trees, 16 of which hold state records for
 size. Included in this list of records is a national record sweet gum with a
 basal circumference of nearly 20 feet.

 Congaree Swamp National Monument is located approximately 15 miles southeast of
 Columbia, the state capitol of South Carolina. Old Bluff Highway (old Highway
 48) lies just north of the Monument boundary. The eastern boundary is located
 just northwest of the confluence of the Congaree and Wateree Rivers. The
 Monument extends west to where Cedar Creek and Myers Creek join.

 The normal process in vegetation mapping is to conduct an initial field
 reconnaissance, map the vegetation units through photointerpretation, and then
 conduct a field verification. The field reconnaissance visit serves two major
 functions. First, the photointerpreter keys the signature on the aerial photos
 to the vegetation on the ground at each signature site. Second, the
 photointerpreter becomes familiar with the flora, vegetation communities and
 local ecology that occur in the study area. Park and/or TNC field biologists
 that are familiar with the local vegetation and ecology of the park are present
 to help the photointerpreter understand these elements and their relationship
 with the geography of the park. Upon completion of the field reconnaissance,
 photo interpreters delineate vegetation units on mylar that overlay the 9x9
 aerial photos. This effort is conducted in accordance with the TNC vegetation
 classification and criteria for defining each community or alliance. The
 initial mapping is then followed by a field verification session, whose purpose
 is to verify that the vegetation units were mapped correctly. Any PI related
 questions are also addressed during the visit. The vegetation mapping at
 Congaree Swamp National Monument in general followed the normal mapping
 procedure as described in the above paragraph with two major exceptions: 1)
 Preliminary delineations for most of the park, including a set of Focused
 Transect overlays that were labeled with an initial PI signature commenced
 prior to the field reconnaissance visit. 2) A TNC classification did not exist
 at the time the initial delineations began. TNC ecologist and AIS photo
 interpreters worked together to develop an interim signature key which
 addressed what was known at the time. At that time, no comprehensive study
 containing plot data was available to create an interim classification.

 From the onset of the Vegetation Inventory and Mapping Program, a standardized
 program-wide mapping criteria has been used. The mapping criteria contains a
 set of documented working decision rules used to facilitate the maintenance of
 accuracy and consistency of the photointerpretation. This criteria assists the
 user in understanding the characteristics, definition and context for each
 vegetation community. The mapping criteria for Congaree Swamp National Monument
 was composed of four parts: The standardized program-wide general mapping
 criteria A park specific mapping criteria A working photo signature key The TNC
 classification, key and descriptions The following sections detail the mapping
 criteria used during the photointerpretation of Congaree Swamp. General Mapping
 Criteria The mapping criteria at Congaree Swamp are a modified version from
 previously mapped parks. The criteria differs primarily in that the height and
 density variables were not mapped at Congaree Swamp. Instead, two additional
 variables were addressed: pre-hurricane Hugo community types and areas of pine
 that have been logged since the time of the 1976 aerial photography. These two
 categories will be addressed in the Park Specific Mapping Criteria section of
 this report. Since forest densities within the Monument are nearly always
 greater than 60%, it served little or no purpose in addressing this element as
 a separate attribute in the database. In addition it was also determined that
 height categories are extremely difficult to map in the Monument due to
 variability of the tree emergent layer, and lack of any significant reference
 points that help in determining canopy heights. Alliance / Community
 Associations The assignment of alliance and community association to the
 vegetation is based on criteria formulated by the field effort and
 classification development. In the case of Congaree Swamp National Monument,
 TNC provided AIS with a tentative community classification in April 1998. A
 final vegetation classification, key, and descriptions of each alliance and
 community, was provided in October 1998. In addition, TNC provided AIS with
 detailed plot data showing how the communities were developed in the Monument.

 The information for the metadata came from
 "http://biology.usgs.gov/npsveg/cosw/metacoswspatial.html" and was converted to
 the NASA Directory Interchange Format.

In 2018 Amy Almond, a DFP intern, worked on the project "Coastal Impoundment Mapping in the Southeast". An impoundment is defined as an area within which water levels are actively managed to benefit wetland-dependent wildlife.The goal was to create a comprehensive GIS map layer of impoundments within the Southern Atlantic Coastal Plain. Amy contacted managers of National Wildlife Refuges and state-managed lands within the range (NC, SC, GA, FL) for information about impoundments on their lands.The information provided by the project will help determine potential locations to manage for Black Rails or to work with partners to create new habitat. This information will also benefit other waterbirds and waterfowl since their habitat overlaps.In order to obtain the impoundment information, Amy emailed each of the land managers with a short data request. She asked them to send any GIS shapefiles they had of impounded areas on their lands and sent a Google Form questionnaire to ask specific questions about how they manage these areas, like primary species management, vegetation, and water depth.Most of the land managers responded to the Google Form we created to collect descriptive management data. Some folks sent an email or management plan document, which did not contain the same information as the Google Form.Total impoundments: 750Total impoundment acreage: 121,129.52Total impoundment hectares: 49,019.37Federal ImpoundmentsRefuge Complexes: 15Refuges: 63Impoundments: 329Acres: 63,977Hectares: 25,890.57 State ImpoundmentsStates: 4State-managed lands: 48Impoundments: 421Acres: 57,152.52Hectares: 23,128.8 North Carolina ImpoundmentsImpoundments: 143Acres: 19,699.88Hectares: 7,972.26 South Carolina ImpoundmentsImpoundments: 322Acres: 50,451.69Hectares: 20,597.08 Georgia ImpoundmentsImpoundments: 93Acres: 7,116.85Hectares: 2,880.08Florida ImpoundmentsImpoundments: 192Acres: 43,861.1Hectares: 17,749.96

GIC created the habitat cores model using the National Land Cover Database (NLCD) 2019 land cover data (the most recent land cover available when this project began). The NLCD provides nation-wide data on land cover and land cover change at the Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM) 30-meter resolution (30 x 30 meter pixels of analysis) and is appropriate for mapping rural landscapes. To be considered a habitat core, the native landscape must encompass more than 100 acres of intact area. This acreage standard is based on studies evaluating the minimum acreage for terrestrial species to survive and thrive. For example, interior forest dwelling birds such as cerulean warblers need 100 acres of interior forest habitat for adequate foraging and nesting habitats. Large, intact forest cores are less impacted by disturbances and can better support area-sensitive and extinction-prone species because they retain larger populations, and their habitat is less likely to degrade through time (Ewers et al 2006).Forest fragments or woodlands less than 100 acres (known as patches) were also mapped to aid in identification of corridors or pathways for species to migrate across the landscape. These fragments, while not ideal habitat for larger species, can provide quality refugia for some species. Fragments can act also act as stepping stones, allowing species to move across the landscape while minimizing their exposure to predators and other disturbances. Such 2019 NLCD landcover types as forests and wetlands were then evaluated to determine their intactness by identifying features that fragment them, such as roads, buildings, transmission corridors, large rivers, and so on. These features bisect the landscape into smaller units (see maps). If an area is bisected too often, it does not contain a large enough habitat area to support interior nesting species and thus is too small to function as a habitat core. To ensure that there is enough interior habitat, GIC’s analysts first subtract (clip out) the outer edge for a distance of 300 feet to ensure that potentially disturbed area is not counted as interior habitat. Edge areas are more likely to contain invasive species, suffer from wind impacts leading to dryness and blowdowns, and opportunistic predators such as domestic cats and dogs. In the final map of intact habitats, this edge area is added back in, but does not count towards the 100-acre minimum core size.The next step in the process is to divide the acreage into quintiles or “natural breaks.” This sorts the cores by size, which is the most important element for contributing to species abundance – bigger landscapes can generally support more species. However, there are other landscape factors that contribute to species abundance such as surface waters. Thus, in addition to geometry and extent, habitat cores are ranked based additional environmental attributes. Assigning attributes to each core allows for the identification and prioritization of specific high-quality and high-value habitat during strategy development. Not all habitats will be protected and resources for management or conservation are usually limited. Ranking habitat cores by their quality allows land-use planners, agency officials, and landowners or site managers to prioritize specific landscapes that provide the highest value for species. The rankings use landscape-based environmental and ecological attributes. Examples of environmental attribute data used to rank cores include the number of wetlands found within a core; the presence of rare, threatened or endangered species; species richness; soil diversity; the length of stream miles; and topography. These factors all influence the diversity of plants, insects, animals and other biota within a forest or even a wetland core.

North Carolina has one of the largest and most productive estuarine systems in the United States. Its nearly 2.3 million acres of diverse coastal habitats support fisheries and wildlife, protect and provide socioeconomic benefits to coastal communities, facilitate military readiness, and foster cultural and spiritual values and traditions. Salt marshes provide a wide array of ecosystem services, including essential fish habitats, water quality enhancements, flood protection for adjacent communities, and climate mitigation by sequestering carbon. The North Carolina coast has approximately 220,000 acres of salt marshes, a critical component of one of the country’s largest remaining expanses of salt marsh. These coastal ecosystems can naturally migrate over time into low-lying areas such as forests, agricultural fields,developed areas or freshwater wetlands due to geomorphic processes or meteorologic events. Sea level rise is predicted to accelerate these transitions while artificial barriers and anthropogenic land use limit corridors for salt marsh migration, which can lead to potential loss of these critical wetland habitats and ecosystem services. The NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services was tasked with assessing impacts to salt marshes on the NC coast and mapping salt marsh migration corridors under various sea level rise scenarios. Marsh migration data was obtained through the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Sea Level Rise Viewer, an interactive screening tool designed to visualize the impacts of sea level rise across coastal areas in the United States. Using ArcGIS Pro, the Build Raster Attribute Table geoprocessing tool was used for the NOAA SLR Viewer .TIF files which contained the data for potential sea level rise at various scales. The raster data was added to a map and the Compute Change tool was used to calculate potential salt marsh migration corridors and sea level rise on the NC coast. This hosted map tile layer displays salt marsh migration corridors and open water changes at 5.0 feet of sea level rise. This web layer was created in response to Executive Order 305, which North Carolina Governor Cooper passed in February 2024, tasking DEQ and other state departments with various initiatives to increase knowledge of natural and working lands with the overarching goal of ecosystem protection.Importance of Small Wetlands - Carolina Wetlands Association North Carolina Salt Marsh Action Plan - North Carolina Coastal Federation, South Atlantic Salt Marsh Initiative For any inquiries, please contact the NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services Watershed Planning team.

North Carolina has one of the largest and most productive estuarine systems in the United States. Its nearly 2.3 million acres of diverse coastal habitats support fisheries and wildlife, protect and provide socioeconomic benefits to coastal communities, facilitate military readiness, and foster cultural and spiritual values and traditions. Salt marshes provide a wide array of ecosystem services, including essential fish habitats, water quality enhancements, flood protection for adjacent communities, and climate mitigation by sequestering carbon. The North Carolina coast has approximately 220,000 acres of salt marshes, a critical component of one of the country’s largest remaining expanses of salt marsh. These coastal ecosystems can naturally migrate over time into low-lying areas such as forests, agricultural fields,developed areas or freshwater wetlands due to geomorphic processes or meteorologic events. Sea level rise is predicted to accelerate these transitions while artificial barriers and anthropogenic land use limit corridors for salt marsh migration, which can lead to potential loss of these critical wetland habitats and ecosystem services. The NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services was tasked with assessing impacts to salt marshes on the NC coast and mapping salt marsh migration corridors under various sea level rise scenarios. Marsh migration data was obtained through the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Sea Level Rise Viewer, an interactive screening tool designed to visualize the impacts of sea level rise across coastal areas in the United States. Using ArcGIS Pro, the Build Raster Attribute Table geoprocessing tool was used for the NOAA SLR Viewer .TIF files which contained the data for potential sea level rise at various scales. The raster data was added to a map and the Compute Change tool was used to calculate potential salt marsh migration corridors and sea level rise on the NC coast. This hosted map tile layer displays salt marsh migration corridors and open water changes at 0.5 feet of sea level rise. This web layer was created in response to Executive Order 305, which North Carolina Governor Cooper passed in February 2024, tasking DEQ and other state departments with various initiatives to increase knowledge of natural and working lands with the overarching goal of ecosystem protection.Importance of Small Wetlands - Carolina Wetlands Association North Carolina Salt Marsh Action Plan - North Carolina Coastal Federation, South Atlantic Salt Marsh Initiative For any inquiries, please contact the NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services Watershed Planning team.

North Carolina has one of the largest and most productive estuarine systems in the United States. Its nearly 2.3 million acres of diverse coastal habitats support fisheries and wildlife, protect and provide socioeconomic benefits to coastal communities, facilitate military readiness, and foster cultural and spiritual values and traditions. Salt marshes provide a wide array of ecosystem services, including essential fish habitats, water quality enhancements, flood protection for adjacent communities, and climate mitigation by sequestering carbon. The North Carolina coast has approximately 220,000 acres of salt marshes, a critical component of one of the country’s largest remaining expanses of salt marsh. These coastal ecosystems can naturally migrate over time into low-lying areas such as forests, agricultural fields,developed areas or freshwater wetlands due to geomorphic processes or meteorologic events. Sea level rise is predicted to accelerate these transitions while artificial barriers and anthropogenic land use limit corridors for salt marsh migration, which can lead to potential loss of these critical wetland habitats and ecosystem services. The NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services was tasked with assessing impacts to salt marshes on the NC coast and mapping salt marsh migration corridors under various sea level rise scenarios. Marsh migration data was obtained through the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Sea Level Rise Viewer, an interactive screening tool designed to visualize the impacts of sea level rise across coastal areas in the United States. Using ArcGIS Pro, the Build Raster Attribute Table geoprocessing tool was used for the NOAA SLR Viewer .TIF files which contained the data for potential sea level rise at various scales. The raster data was added to a map and the Compute Change tool was used to calculate potential salt marsh migration corridors and sea level rise on the NC coast. This hosted map tile layer displays salt marsh migration corridors and open water changes at 3.0 feet of sea level rise. This web layer was created in response to Executive Order 305, which North Carolina Governor Cooper passed in February 2024, tasking DEQ and other state departments with various initiatives to increase knowledge of natural and working lands with the overarching goal of ecosystem protection.Importance of Small Wetlands - Carolina Wetlands Association North Carolina Salt Marsh Action Plan - North Carolina Coastal Federation, South Atlantic Salt Marsh Initiative For any inquiries, please contact the NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services Watershed Planning team.

Map of ACJV bird focus AreasThese are ALL BIRD FOCUS areas from BCR plans. These areas are now primarily used for NAWCA grantsPartners in the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture (ACJV) have identified 13 planning areas and 136 waterfowl specific focus areas. Through this process more than 45 million hectares (>113 million acres) are targeted for conservation actions that will benefit waterfowl and other wetland dependent wildlife. Members of the ACJV Waterfowl Technical Committee (now the Gamebird Technical Committee) were provided hard copy maps of areas thought to be important to migrating or wintering waterfowl showing existing wetland resources (available NWI data) and USGS DRG land use. Individuals were asked to modify previous focus area boundaries (unpublished). Where major changes were proposed, ACJV staff worked with committee members to provide the appropriate spatial data needed to delineate new focal areas. The update process took place between November 2003 and February 2005 with the exception of Puerto Rico. Minor revisions were accepted through June 2005. T. Jones and K. Luke worked with personnel from Puerto Rico's Department of Natural & Environmental Resources in 2006 and 2007 to revise waterfowl focus areas for the Commonwealth. These focus areas were meant to be interim products for the period 2005 - 2010. The first meeting of the South Atlantic Migratory Bird Initiative (SAMBI) occurred in June 1999. Biologists, managers, etc. from the five state area met to build the framework of SAMBI. Focus area maps for each major bird group by state were derived from expert opinion and drawn on to 1:250,000 topographic maps provided to the experts. These experts represented federal, state, and non-governmental organizations with expertise in each of the bird groups. The specific dates of the meeting where these maps were derived were June 22-23, 1999, and were held at the Webb Wildlife Center near Garnett, South Carolina. At this time, focus area maps for Florida and Virginia were not delineated, as the appropriate experts were not present at this meeting to do so. The maps delineated during this meeting were digitized by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s Coastal Program in the Charleston Ecological Services Office in Charleston, South Carolina. The focus area maps came to be known at “all bird” focus areas under the framework of the North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI) and SAMBI (the first attempt at BCR planning within the ACJV). The purpose of this first meeting was to initiate bird conservation planning for “all birds across all habitats” under the framework of NABCI. The Management Board of the ACJV had recently met in Orlando, Florida and voted unanimously for the ACJV to become an “all bird” Joint Venture and begin the process of integrated bird conservation planning, that is integrating all the planning efforts of major bird conservation initiatives currently under way in North America. Those currently under way in the south Atlantic region were Partners In Flight, United States Shorebird Conservation Plan, Waterbirds for the Americas, and the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. To develop “all bird” focus area maps for the South Atlantic Coastal Plain geographies of Virginia and Florida, ACJV staff traveled to and met with the appropriate bird experts to delineate similar areas for these states in 2004. In the exercise with Florida, nearshore and offshore focus areas were also delineated, something that the other states did not attempt. Additionally, as some states developed initiatives and produced focus areas for Northern Bobwhite and other early successional/grassland species, these maps were incorporated into the SAMBI Implementation Plan. In 2002, the South Carolina SAMBI Working Group recognized that some of their “all bird” focus areas were not consistent with other states in the SAMBI planning area and initiated an effort to revise focus areas to be consistent with other SAMBI states and to reflect new knowledge and data sources to assist in revising SAMBI “all bird” focus areas. This meeting occurred in 2007. No changes were made to the waterfowl focus area for South Carolina. However, changes were made to the landbird, shorebird, waterbird, and early successional/grassland bird focus areas. Again, new knowledge, better land cover data, and input from other bird conservation organizations were used to revise these maps. Data used were the latest from SE ReGap land cover data, and Audubon SC focus area maps were used for input into the revision. The landbird map was made into four maps from the initial one map, being broke out my four major habitat types: forested wetlands, open pine, maritime forest, and early successional/grassland. These new focus areas were digitized by GIS staff for the ACJV. The result was South Carolina having 7 “all bird” focus areas, one for shorebirds, waterbirds, and waterfowl, and four habitat based focus areas for landbirds. Discussions were held to determine if other states should use this process to update focus areas for their state. It was decided that states could pursue this with the assistance of the ACJV, but the ACJV’s Designing Sustainable Landscapes Project would most likely provide a priority surface for conservation for priority species in all the major bird groups, and therefore, decided not to expend additional effort to follow the process that South Carolina followed. Finally, the waterfowl focus areas in the SAMBI Implementation Plan are identical to those in the ACJV Waterfowl Implementation Plan (WIP). During the process of writing the ACJV WIP, adjustments were made to waterfowl focus areas for the SAMBI states. States had previously identified focus areas, but under new guidance for what a waterfowl focus area should be in the new ACJV WIP, adjustments were made in many states, including those in the SAMBI region.The development of continental bird conservation plans set the stage for implementation at smaller geographic scales and led to the development of implementation plans specific to species groups and BCRs. Within the New England/Mid-Atlantic Coast Bird Conservation Region (BCR 30), the Partners in Flight initiative, the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, the Waterbird Conservation of the Americas initiative, the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, and the Northern Bobwhite Conservation Initiative have identified bird conservation priorities by setting population goals at the either the continental, national, or regional scales. States have developed State Wildlife Action Plans that identify what needs to be done to conserve wildlife and the natural lands and waters where they live, including species management needs and priorities. The purpose of the BCR 30 Plan is to bring the common goals of these plans together into one format that can be used by state agencies, NGOs, and other bird conservation interests to coordinate and implement bird conservation activities. This plan merges material from numerous plans and workshops, including Partners in Flight physiographic plans and BCR 30 Plan, Atlantic Coast Joint Venture Waterfowl Implementation Plan, Northern Atlantic Shorebird conservation Plan, Mid-Atlantic New England Maritimes Regional Waterbird Plan, State Wildlife Action Plans, and the results of the BCR 30 Coordinated Monitoring Workshop and the December 2004 BCR 30 All-Bird Conservation Workshop (summary in Appendix F of BCR 30 Plan at: https://www.acjv.org/bcr30.htm).Data were derived from hand drawn maps, with focus areas delineated by 65 bird conservation experts, representing governmental and non-governmental organizations from the United States and Canada, at a workshop in Alexandria Bay, NY, April 17-19, 2001. The purpose of the workshop was to review the status of each of the migratory bird initiative plans developed at that point, in each country, in order to identify priority migratory bird species, and the priority habitats needed by these priority species, begin discussion on the process for setting population and habitat goals, and define new or revise existing focus areas for the Lower Great Lakes / St. Lawrence Plain Bird Conservation Region (i.e., BCR 13). The preliminary data were collated, presented, reviewed, and refined at another workshop, November 28-29 in Montreal, Quebec, attended by forty-five biologists from the U.S. and Canada, including some land managers who had not attended the previous workshop. Final maps were produced by Chuck Hayes of the ACJV, who worked with biologists in every state and province in BCR 13 to refine polygon shapes, sizes, and exact boundaries.

North Carolina has one of the largest and most productive estuarine systems in the United States. Its nearly 2.3 million acres of diverse coastal habitats support fisheries and wildlife, protect and provide socioeconomic benefits to coastal communities, facilitate military readiness, and foster cultural and spiritual values and traditions. Salt marshes provide a wide array of ecosystem services, including essential fish habitats, water quality enhancements, flood protection for adjacent communities, and climate mitigation by sequestering carbon. The North Carolina coast has approximately 220,000 acres of salt marshes, a critical component of one of the country’s largest remaining expanses of salt marsh. These coastal ecosystems can naturally migrate over time into low-lying areas such as forests, agricultural fields,developed areas or freshwater wetlands due to geomorphic processes or meteorologic events. Sea level rise is predicted to accelerate these transitions while artificial barriers and anthropogenic land use limit corridors for salt marsh migration, which can lead to potential loss of these critical wetland habitats and ecosystem services. The NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services was tasked with assessing impacts to salt marshes on the NC coast and mapping salt marsh migration corridors under various sea level rise scenarios. Marsh migration data was obtained through the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Sea Level Rise Viewer, an interactive screening tool designed to visualize the impacts of sea level rise across coastal areas in the United States. Using ArcGIS Pro, the Build Raster Attribute Table geoprocessing tool was used for the NOAA SLR Viewer .TIF files which contained the data for potential sea level rise at various scales. The raster data was added to a map and the Compute Change tool was used to calculate potential salt marsh migration corridors and sea level rise on the NC coast. This hosted map tile layer displays salt marsh migration corridors and open water changes at 1.0 feet of sea level rise. This web layer was created in response to Executive Order 305, which North Carolina Governor Cooper passed in February 2024, tasking DEQ and other state departments with various initiatives to increase knowledge of natural and working lands with the overarching goal of ecosystem protection.Importance of Small Wetlands - Carolina Wetlands Association North Carolina Salt Marsh Action Plan - North Carolina Coastal Federation, South Atlantic Salt Marsh Initiative For any inquiries, please contact the NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services Watershed Planning team.

Map of ACJV bird focus AreasThese are ALL BIRD FOCUS areas from BCR plans. These areas are now primarily used for NAWCA grantsPartners in the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture (ACJV) have identified 13 planning areas and 136 waterfowl specific focus areas. Through this process more than 45 million hectares (>113 million acres) are targeted for conservation actions that will benefit waterfowl and other wetland dependent wildlife. Members of the ACJV Waterfowl Technical Committee (now the Gamebird Technical Committee) were provided hard copy maps of areas thought to be important to migrating or wintering waterfowl showing existing wetland resources (available NWI data) and USGS DRG land use. Individuals were asked to modify previous focus area boundaries (unpublished). Where major changes were proposed, ACJV staff worked with committee members to provide the appropriate spatial data needed to delineate new focal areas. The update process took place between November 2003 and February 2005 with the exception of Puerto Rico. Minor revisions were accepted through June 2005. T. Jones and K. Luke worked with personnel from Puerto Rico's Department of Natural & Environmental Resources in 2006 and 2007 to revise waterfowl focus areas for the Commonwealth. These focus areas were meant to be interim products for the period 2005 - 2010. The first meeting of the South Atlantic Migratory Bird Initiative (SAMBI) occurred in June 1999. Biologists, managers, etc. from the five state area met to build the framework of SAMBI. Focus area maps for each major bird group by state were derived from expert opinion and drawn on to 1:250,000 topographic maps provided to the experts. These experts represented federal, state, and non-governmental organizations with expertise in each of the bird groups. The specific dates of the meeting where these maps were derived were June 22-23, 1999, and were held at the Webb Wildlife Center near Garnett, South Carolina. At this time, focus area maps for Florida and Virginia were not delineated, as the appropriate experts were not present at this meeting to do so. The maps delineated during this meeting were digitized by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s Coastal Program in the Charleston Ecological Services Office in Charleston, South Carolina. The focus area maps came to be known at “all bird” focus areas under the framework of the North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI) and SAMBI (the first attempt at BCR planning within the ACJV). The purpose of this first meeting was to initiate bird conservation planning for “all birds across all habitats” under the framework of NABCI. The Management Board of the ACJV had recently met in Orlando, Florida and voted unanimously for the ACJV to become an “all bird” Joint Venture and begin the process of integrated bird conservation planning, that is integrating all the planning efforts of major bird conservation initiatives currently under way in North America. Those currently under way in the south Atlantic region were Partners In Flight, United States Shorebird Conservation Plan, Waterbirds for the Americas, and the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. To develop “all bird” focus area maps for the South Atlantic Coastal Plain geographies of Virginia and Florida, ACJV staff traveled to and met with the appropriate bird experts to delineate similar areas for these states in 2004. In the exercise with Florida, nearshore and offshore focus areas were also delineated, something that the other states did not attempt. Additionally, as some states developed initiatives and produced focus areas for Northern Bobwhite and other early successional/grassland species, these maps were incorporated into the SAMBI Implementation Plan. In 2002, the South Carolina SAMBI Working Group recognized that some of their “all bird” focus areas were not consistent with other states in the SAMBI planning area and initiated an effort to revise focus areas to be consistent with other SAMBI states and to reflect new knowledge and data sources to assist in revising SAMBI “all bird” focus areas. This meeting occurred in 2007. No changes were made to the waterfowl focus area for South Carolina. However, changes were made to the landbird, shorebird, waterbird, and early successional/grassland bird focus areas. Again, new knowledge, better land cover data, and input from other bird conservation organizations were used to revise these maps. Data used were the latest from SE ReGap land cover data, and Audubon SC focus area maps were used for input into the revision. The landbird map was made into four maps from the initial one map, being broke out my four major habitat types: forested wetlands, open pine, maritime forest, and early successional/grassland. These new focus areas were digitized by GIS staff for the ACJV. The result was South Carolina having 7 “all bird” focus areas, one for shorebirds, waterbirds, and waterfowl, and four habitat based focus areas for landbirds. Discussions were held to determine if other states should use this process to update focus areas for their state. It was decided that states could pursue this with the assistance of the ACJV, but the ACJV’s Designing Sustainable Landscapes Project would most likely provide a priority surface for conservation for priority species in all the major bird groups, and therefore, decided not to expend additional effort to follow the process that South Carolina followed. Finally, the waterfowl focus areas in the SAMBI Implementation Plan are identical to those in the ACJV Waterfowl Implementation Plan (WIP). During the process of writing the ACJV WIP, adjustments were made to waterfowl focus areas for the SAMBI states. States had previously identified focus areas, but under new guidance for what a waterfowl focus area should be in the new ACJV WIP, adjustments were made in many states, including those in the SAMBI region.The development of continental bird conservation plans set the stage for implementation at smaller geographic scales and led to the development of implementation plans specific to species groups and BCRs. Within the New England/Mid-Atlantic Coast Bird Conservation Region (BCR 30), the Partners in Flight initiative, the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, the Waterbird Conservation of the Americas initiative, the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, and the Northern Bobwhite Conservation Initiative have identified bird conservation priorities by setting population goals at the either the continental, national, or regional scales. States have developed State Wildlife Action Plans that identify what needs to be done to conserve wildlife and the natural lands and waters where they live, including species management needs and priorities. The purpose of the BCR 30 Plan is to bring the common goals of these plans together into one format that can be used by state agencies, NGOs, and other bird conservation interests to coordinate and implement bird conservation activities. This plan merges material from numerous plans and workshops, including Partners in Flight physiographic plans and BCR 30 Plan, Atlantic Coast Joint Venture Waterfowl Implementation Plan, Northern Atlantic Shorebird conservation Plan, Mid-Atlantic New England Maritimes Regional Waterbird Plan, State Wildlife Action Plans, and the results of the BCR 30 Coordinated Monitoring Workshop and the December 2004 BCR 30 All-Bird Conservation Workshop (summary in Appendix F of BCR 30 Plan at: https://www.acjv.org/bcr30.htm).Data were derived from hand drawn maps, with focus areas delineated by 65 bird conservation experts, representing governmental and non-governmental organizations from the United States and Canada, at a workshop in Alexandria Bay, NY, April 17-19, 2001. The purpose of the workshop was to review the status of each of the migratory bird initiative plans developed at that point, in each country, in order to identify priority migratory bird species, and the priority habitats needed by these priority species, begin discussion on the process for setting population and habitat goals, and define new or revise existing focus areas for the Lower Great Lakes / St. Lawrence Plain Bird Conservation Region (i.e., BCR 13). The preliminary data were collated, presented, reviewed, and refined at another workshop, November 28-29 in Montreal, Quebec, attended by forty-five biologists from the U.S. and Canada, including some land managers who had not attended the previous workshop. Final maps were produced by Chuck Hayes of the ACJV, who worked with biologists in every state and province in BCR 13 to refine polygon shapes, sizes, and exact boundaries.

See full Data Guide here. Surface Water Quality Classifications Set:

This dataset is a line and a polygon feature-based layer compiled at 1:24,000 scale that includes water quality classification information for surface waters for all areas of the State of Connecticut. The Surface Water Quality Classifications and the Ground Water Quality Classifications are usually presented together as a depiction of water quality classifications in Connecticut. Water Quality Classifications, based on the adopted Water Quality Standards, establish designated uses for surface and ground waters and identify the criteria necessary to support those uses. This edition of the Surface Water Quality Classifications is based on the Water Quality Standards adopted on February 25, 2011. Surface Water means the waters of Long Island Sound, its harbors, embayments, tidal wetlands and creeks; rivers and streams, brooks, waterways, lakes, ponds, marshes, swamps, bogs, federal jurisdictional wetlands, and other natural or artificial, public or private, vernal or intermittent bodies of water, excluding groundwater. The surface waters includes the coastal waters as defined by Section 22a-93 of the Connecticut General Statutes and means those waters of Long Island Sound and its harbors, embayments, tidal rivers, streams and creeks, which contain a salinity concentration of at least five hundred parts per million under the low flow stream conditions as established by the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection. The Surface Water Quality Classes are AA, A, B, SA and SB. All surface waters not otherwise classified are considered as Class A if they are in Class GA Ground Water Quality Classifications areas. Class AA designated uses are: existing or proposed drinking water, fish and wildlife habitat, recreational use (maybe restricted), agricultural and industrial supply. Class A designated uses are: potential drinking water, fish and wildlife habitat, recreational use, agricultural and industrial supply. Class B designated uses are: fish and wildlife habitat, recreational use, agricultural and industrial supply and other legitimate uses including navigation. Class B* surface water is a subset of Class B waters and is identical in all ways to the designated uses, criteria and standards for Class B waters except for the restriction on direct discharges. Coastal water and marine classifications are SA and SB. Class SA designated uses are: marine fish, shellfish and wildlife habitat, shellfish harvesting for direct human consumption, recreation and other legitimate uses including navigation. Class SB designated uses are: marine fish, shellfish and wildlife habitat, shellfish harvesting for transfer to approved areas for purification prior to human consumption, recreation and other legitimate uses including navigation. There are three elements that make up the Water Quality Standards which is an important element in Connecticut's clean water program. The first of these is the Standards themselves. The Standards set an overall policy for management of water quality in accordance with the directive of Section 22a-426 of the Connecticut General Statutes. The policies can be simply summarized by saying that the Department of Environmental Protection shall: Protect surface and ground waters from degradation, Segregate waters used for drinking from those that play a role in waste assimilation, Restore surface waters that have been used for waste assimilation to conditions suitable for fishing and swimming, Restore degraded ground water to protect existing and designated uses, Provide a framework for establishing priorities for pollution abatement and State funding for clean up, Adopt standards that promote the State's economy in harmony with the environment. The second element is the Criteria, the descriptive and numerical standards that describe the allowable parameters and goals for the various water quality classifications. The final element is the Classification Maps which identify the relationship between designated uses and the applicable Standards and Criteria for each class of surface and ground water. Although federal law requires adoption of Water Quality Standards for surface waters, Water Quality Standards for ground waters are not subject to federal review and approval. Connecticut's Standards recognize that surface and ground waters are interrelated and address the issue of competing use of ground waters for drinking and for waste water assimilation. These Standards specifically identify ground water quality goals, designated uses and those measures necessary for protection of public and private drinking water supplies; the principal use of Connecticut ground waters. These three elements comprise the Water Quality Standards and are adopted using the public participation procedures contained in Section 22a-426 of the Connecticut General Statutes. The Standards, Criteria and Maps are reviewed and revised roughly every three years. Any change is considered a revision requiring public participation. The public participation process consists of public meetings held at various locations around the State, notification of all chief elected officials, notice in the Connecticut Law Journal and a public hearing. The Classification Maps are the subject of separate public hearings which are held for the adoption of the map covering each major drainage basin in the State. The Water Quality Standards and Criteria documents are available on the DEP website, www.ct.gov/dep. The Surface Water Quality Classifications is a line and polygon feature-based layer is based primarily on the Adopted Water Quality Classifications Map Sheets. The map sheets were hand-drawn at 1:50,000-scale in ink on Mylar which had been underprinted with a USGS topographic map base. The information collected and compiled by major drainage basin from 1986 to 1997. Ground Water Quality Classifications are defined separately in a data layer comprised of polygon features. The Ground and Surface Water Quality Classifications do not represent conditions at any one particular point in time. During the conversion from a manually maintained to a digitally maintained statewide data layer the Housatonic River and Southwest Coastal Basins information was updated. A revision to the Water Quality Standards adopted February 25, 2011. These revisions included eliminating surface water quality classes C, D, SC, SD and all the two tiered classifications. The two tiered classifications included a classification for the present condition and a second classification for the designated use. All the tiered classifications were changed to the designated use classification. For example, classes B/A and C/A were changed to class A. The geographic extent of each the classification was not changed. The publication date of the digital data reflects the official adoption date of the most recent Water Quality Classifications. Within the data layer the adoption dates are: Housatonic and Southwest Basins - March 1999, Connecticut and South Central Basins - February 1993, Thames and Southeast Basins - December 1986. Ground water quality classifications may be separately from the surface water quality classifications under specific circumstances. This data is updated.

Resilient Coastal SitesUsers can select their geography to access the data (Gulf of America, South Atlantic, Northeast)https://conservationgateway.org/ConservationByGeography/NorthAmerica/UnitedStates/edc/reportsdata/climate/CoastalResilience/Pages/default.aspx Report citations:Northeast: Anderson, M.G. and Barnett, A. 2017. Resilient Coastal Sites for Conservation in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic US. The Nature Conservancy, Eastern Conservation Science.South Atlantic: Anderson, M.G. and Barnett, A. 2019. Resilient Coastal Sites for Conservation in the South Atlantic US. The Nature Conservancy, Eastern Conservation Science. Resilient Sites: Terrestrial & Coastal integratedhttps://tnc.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=2b0ff2a8fb5340a5a5e91ff9c185aa1d Credit: Center for Resilient Conservation Science, The Nature ConservancyTo assess site resilience, we divided the coast into 1,232 individual sites centered around each tidal marsh or complex of tidal habitats. For each site, we estimated the amount of migration space available under four sea-level rise scenarios and we identified the amount of buffer area surrounding the whole tidal complex. We then examined the physical properties and condition characteristics of the site and its features using newly developed analyses as well as previously published and peer-reviewed datasets.Sites vary widely in the amount and suitability of migration space they provide. This is determined by the physical structure of the site and the intactness of processes that facilitate migration. A marsh hemmed in by rocky cliffs will eventually convert to open water, whereas a marsh bordered by low lying wetlands with ample migration space and a sufficient sediment supply will have the option of moving inland. As existing tidal marshes degrade or disappear, the amount of available high-quality migration space becomes an indicator of a site’s potential to support estuarine habitats in the future. The size and shape of a site’s migration space is dependent on the elevation, slope, and substrate of the adjacent land. The condition of the migration space also varies substantially among sites. For some tidal complexes, the migration space contains roads, houses, and other forms of hardened structures that resist conversion to tidal habitats, while the migration space of other complexes consists of intact and connected freshwater wetlands that could convert to tidal habitats.Our aim was to characterize each site’s migration space but not predict its future composition. Towards this end, we measured characteristics of the migration space related to its size, shape, volume, and condition, and we evaluated the options available to the tidal complex to rearrange and adjust to sea level rise. In the future, the area will likely support some combination of salt marsh, brackish marsh and tidal flat, but predictions concerning the abundance and spatial arrangement of the migration space’s future habitats are notoriously difficult to make because nature’s transitions are often non-linear and facilitated by pulses of disturbance and internal competition. For instance, in response to a 1.4 mm increase in the rate of SLR, the landward migration of low marsh cordgrass in some New York marshes appears to be displacing high marsh (Donnelly & Bertness 2001). Thus, our assumption was simply that a tidal complex with a large amount of high quality and heterogeneous migration space will have more options for adaptation, and will be more resilient, than a tidal complex with a small amount of degraded and homogenous migration space.To delineate migration space for the full project area, we requested the latest SLR Viewer (Marcy et al. 2011) marsh migration data, with no accretion rate, for all the NOAA geographic units within the project area, from NOAA (N. Herold, pers. comm., 2018). Specifically, we obtained data for the following states in the project area: Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. As accretion is very location-dependent, we chose not to use one of the three SLR Viewer accretion rates because they were flat rates applied across each geographic unit. For each geography, we combined four SLR scenarios (1.5’, 3’, 4’, and 6.5’) with the baseline scenario to identify pixels that changed from baseline. We only selected cells that transitioned to tidal habitats (unconsolidated shoreline, salt marsh, and transitional / brackish marsh) and not to open water or upland habitat. We combined the results from each of the geographies and projected to NAD83 Albers. The resultant migration space was then resampled to a 30-m grid and snapped to the NOAA 2010 C-CAP land cover grid (NOAA, 2017).The tidal complex grid and the migration space grid were combined to ensure that there were no overlapping pixels. While developed areas were not allowed to be future marsh in NOAA’s SLR Viewer marsh migration model, we still removed all roads and development, as represented in the original 30-m NOAA 2010 C-CAP land cover grid, from the migration space. We took this step as differences in spatial resolution between the underlying elevation and land cover datasets could occasionally result in small amounts of development in our resampled migration space. The remaining migration space was then spatially grouped into contiguous regions using an eight-neighbor rule that defined connected cells as those immediately to the right, left, above, or diagonal to each other. The region-grouped grid was converted to a polygon, and the SLR scenario represented by each migration space footprint was assigned to each polygon. Finally, the migration space scenario polygons that intersected any of the tidal complexes were selected.Because a single migration space polygon could be adjacent to and accessible to more than one tidal complex unit, each migration space polygon was linked to their respective tidal complex units with a unique ID by restructuring and aggregating the output from a one-to-many spatial join in ArcGIS. This linkage enabled the calculation of attributes for each tidal complex such as total migration space acreage, total number of migration space units, and the percent of the tidal complex perimeter that was immediately adjacent to migration space. Similar attributes were calculated for each migration space unit including total tidal complex acreage and number of tidal complex units.REFERENCESChaffee, C, Coastal policy analyst for the R.I. Coastal Resources Management Council. personal communication. April 4, 2017.Donnelly, J.P, & Bertness, M.D. 2001. Rapid shoreward encroachment of salt marshcordgrass in response to accelerated sea-level rise. PNAS 98(25) www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.251209298Herold, N. 2018. NOAA Sea Level Rise (SLR) Viewer marsh migration data (10-m), with no accretion rate, for all SLR scenarios from 0.5-ft. to 10.0-ft. for VA, NC, SC, GA, and FL. Personal communication Jan. 24, 2018.Lerner, J.A., Curson, D.R., Whitbeck, M., & Meyers, E.J., Blackwater 2100: A strategy for salt marsh persistence in an era of climate change. 2013. The Conservation Fund (Arlington, VA) and Audubon MD-DC (Baltimore, MD).Lucey, K. NH Coastal Program. Personal Communication. April 4, 2017.Maine Natural Areas Program. 2016. Coastal Resiliency Datasets, Schlawin, J and Puryear, K., project leads. https://www.maine.gov/dacf/mnap/assistance/coastal_resiliency.htmlMarcy, D., Herold, N., Waters, K., Brooks, W., Hadley, B., Pendleton, M., Schmid, K., Sutherland, M., Dragonov, K., McCombs, J., Ryan, S. 2011. New Mapping Tool and Techniques For Visualizing Sea Level Rise And Coastal Flooding Impacts. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Coastal Services Center. Originally published in the Proceedings of the 2011 Solutions to Coastal Disasters Conference, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), and reprinted with permission of ASCE(https://coast.noaa.gov/slr/).National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Office for Coastal Management. “VA_2010_CCAP_LAND_COVER,” “NC_2010_CCAP_LAND_COVER,” “SC_2010_CCAP_LAND_COVER,” “GA_2010_CCAP_LAND_COVER,” “FL_2010_CCAP_LAND_COVER”. Coastal Change Analysis Program (C-CAP) Regional Land Cover. Charleston, SC: NOAA Office for Coastal Management. Accessed September 2017 at https://.coast.noaa.gov/ccapftp.Schuerch, M.; Spencer, T.; Temmerman, S.; Kirwan, M L.; Wolff, C.; Linck, D.; McOwen, C.J.; Pickering, M.D.; Reef, R.; Vafeidis, A.T.; Hinkel J.; Nicholls, R.J.; and Sally Brown. 2018. Future response of global coastal wetlands to sea-level rise. Nature 561: 231-234.