Marine Policy 43 (2014) 246–253

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Marine Policy

0308-59http://d

n CorrNationa20910, U

E-m

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol

Incorporating ecosystem services into the implementation of existingU.S. natural resource management regulations: Operationalizingcarbon sequestration and storage

Ariana E. Sutton-Grier a,c,n, Amber K. Moore b,d, Peter C. Wiley a, Peter E.T. Edwards a,d

a National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United Statesb National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United Statesc Earth Resources Technology, United Statesd I.M. Systems Group, Inc. United States

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 18 April 2013Received in revised form4 June 2013Accepted 7 June 2013Available online 1 July 2013

Keywords:Ecosystem servicesClean Water Act (CWA)Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)Natural Resources Damage Assessment(NRDA)Coastal blue carbon

7X/$ - see front matter & 2013 Elsevier Ltd. Ax.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.06.003

esponding author at: National Oceanic andl Ocean Service, 1305 East-West Highway, Rnited States. Tel.: +1 301 713 3074.ail address: ariana.suttongrier@gmail.com (A.E

a b s t r a c t

Many agencies and organizations, including in the United States federal government, are expressinginterest in the measurement and valuation of ecosystem services. Despite this interest, specific guidanceon whether and how to incorporate ecosystem services into federal activities remains scarce. Thisanalysis examines three regulations that are important parts of the National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration's mission to protect coastal and marine habitats: the Clean Water Act, the Coastal ZoneManagement Act, and the Natural Resources Damage Assessment process that is part of the Oil PollutionAct. Case studies of each reveal that it is possible to incorporate the carbon sequestered and stored incoastal habitats, or “carbon services,” into existing processes—consultative, regulatory, and mitigative—that are employed to implement these regulations. Specific examples illustrate how carbon servicescould be incorporated into the implementation of each federal regulation. The study concludes thatincorporating carbon services into the implementation of existing environmental regulations couldprovide increased protection or restoration of coastal habitats. Increased conservation outcomes couldresult from changing the way the federal government implements national policy and/or by stimulatingincreased investment in coastal habitat conservation through private carbon markets. These outcomeswould result in a “win-win” for both climate regulation and habitat conservation and would preserve notonly the carbon services, but also the many ecosystem services these habitats provide.

& 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

In 2000, the United Nations called for an assessment of theworld's ecosystems and the services they provide, and the rela-tionship between human health and ecosystem health. Thisassessment, called the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, detailsboth the progress of human development in the latter half of the20th century and the tremendous cost of that progress to naturalecosystems around the world. The report concludes that, if leftunchecked, the current problems with the way humans are usingup resources will result in significantly fewer benefits for futuregenerations [1]. In short, continued human health and well-beingare threatened by the current patterns of human use of ecosys-tems and all the benefits those ecosystems provide.

ll rights reserved.

Atmospheric Administration,m 13614, Silver Spring, MD

. Sutton-Grier).

This assessment spawned additional and widespread interestin the links between human health and well-being and healthyecosystems, and in the study and application of ecosystemservices, that is, the benefits humans get from healthy ecosystems.For example, the United States federal government is showing agrowing interest in better understanding, accounting for, andmanaging ecosystem services. A recent report to the presidentfrom the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technol-ogy (PCAST) clearly states that the economic and environmentaldimensions of human well-being are intertwined and critical; itconcludes that the federal government needs to address thedegradation of the nation's ecosystems and biodiversity (alsocalled environmental capital) in order to protect public health,safety, and economic activity [2]. The council specifically calls forthe federal government to play an essential role in protecting thenation's environmental capital by better valuing those services andusing that information to inform its planning and managementdecisions.

The National Ocean Policy that President Obama signed on July19, 2010 states that the oceans and coasts provide many benefits to

Fig. 1. Carbon sequestration and storage in a mangrove wetland.

A.E. Sutton-Grier et al. / Marine Policy 43 (2014) 246–253 247

the nation, including jobs and ecosystem services, and that “Amer-ica's stewardship of the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes isintrinsically linked to environmental sustainability, human healthand well-being, national prosperity, adaptation to climate and otherenvironmental changes, social justice, international diplomacy, andnational and homeland security” [3]. Human well-being includesfactors such as adaptation to climate change, social justice, and theability to find gainful employment. Again, the connection betweenhuman health and well-being and healthy ecosystems is clear. Theimportance of ecosystem-based management, where the full com-plement of interactions within an ecosystem including humaninteractions is recognized, is an important part of the National OceanPolicy. It is hoped that this holistic approach will maintain healthy,productive, and resilient coastal and marine ecosystems, ensuringthat these ecosystems can provide the services humans need andwant [4]. Thus, there is a recent increased federal interest inmeasuring, valuing, and ensuring the provision of ecosystem servicesto the American public.

1.1. NOAA and ecosystem services

Partly in response to this growing federal interest in ecosystemservices and partly because its leadership also sees the importanceof ecosystem services, the National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration (NOAA) has a strong interest in using an ecosystemservice framework to guide its actions and has a number ofactivities currently underway that relate to ecosystem services.For example, NOAA is defining research goals for its ecosystemresearch and is specifically examining how to better understandand predict ecosystem services as part of that research effort [5]. Inaddition, NOAA is helping to build the Marine Ecosystem ServicesPartnership (MESP), which seeks to build an online library ofstudies that have quantified the ecosystem services humans getfrom marine and coastal ecosystems [6].

Despite these activities, the exact process for implementing alarger-scale (NOAA-wide) ecosystem framework is not yet clear. Infact, even though there is a significant legal literature examiningattempts of agencies to incorporate ecosystem services thinking intodecision-making [7–10], very little detail has been offered in legalrules or standards for how any federal agencies should implementthe concept of ecosystem services in federal activities and imple-mentation of statutes or agency regulations [11]. In other words,NOAA, as well as many other organizations and government agen-cies, is still working to determine how best to operationalize theconcept of ecosystem services. This analysis focuses on a pilot effortunderway at NOAA to operationalize one specific ecosystem service,carbon storage and sequestration. The goal is to incorporate thecarbon services of habitats into the way NOAA does business,including the way the agency implements policies, makes decisions,conducts on-the-ground habitat protection and restoration, focusesscientific research efforts, and works with partners, which could thenset a precedent for other federal agencies to follow when applicable.

1.2. Background on coastal blue carbon

Blue carbon is the carbon sequestered (meaning taken up bybiological organisms) and stored in marine and coastal habitats(Fig. 1) [12]. Coastal blue carbon is the portion of blue carbon incoastal habitats, including mangroves, salt marshes, and seagrassbeds [13–15]. Coastal habitats play an important role in the globalcarbon cycle by sequestering large amounts of carbon annually[13–19]. Together these habitats cover a fairly small area of theplanet (between 336,700 and 1.15 million km2) [13]. This area onlyamounts to between 0.7% and 2.6% of the total global coverage offorests (43.7 million km2) and yet, due to their much higher ratesof annual sequestration, each of the coastal blue carbon habitats

sequester approximately equivalent amounts of carbon per year astemperate, tropical, or boreal forests [13]. These habitats alsorepresent a large stock of buried carbon in the soils that can bedecades to hundreds (or even thousands) of years old [16,20].When human activity disturbs or destroys these habitats, much ofthis carbon is released, leading to annual emissions that areequivalent to 3–19% of those from all deforestation occurringannually [20].

Despite the impressive rates of carbon sequestration and storagein coastal ecosystems, human activities are causing the rapiddegradation or destruction of these habitats worldwide. Coastalblue carbon habitats are being lost at unprecedented rates (between0.7% and 7% of total global area per year), with approximately one-third of salt marsh, seagrasses, and mangroves already converted toother land uses (including unsustainable aquaculture), decliningbecause of development or eutrophication, or converting to openwater due to sea-level rise and other factors [13]. When thesehabitats are degraded or lost, two carbon functions are lost: (1) theability to sequester carbon annually at high rates (sequestration)and (2) the long-term storage of carbon in the soils, which preventsthe addition of carbon to global carbon emissions [20]. Both of thesefunctions contribute carbon services—the control of greenhousegases in the atmosphere, which is an ecosystem service humansbenefit from and desire. In short, when disturbed or destroyed,these important natural carbon sinks become significant sources ofcarbon. But the high carbon sequestration and storage rates, and thepotentially high carbon emissions following habitat loss, suggestthat the protection and restoration of coastal habitats could play acritical role in mitigating anthropogenic climate change.

Given this potential, there is growing domestic and interna-tional consensus that recognizing the important role these coastalhabitats play in the global carbon cycle is a win-win situation thatwill not only contribute to climate mitigation efforts, but alsoprovide further incentives to conserve ecosystems on whichhumans depend for a wide variety of other valuable ecosystemservices. These direct and indirect services include providingnursery habitats [21] and therefore food security and income fromfisheries, storm protection [22,23], jobs from tourism and recrea-tional opportunities [24], resilience to climate change impactssuch as sea level rise, biodiversity maintenance, and water qualityimprovements [25].

1.3. History of coastal blue carbon efforts at NOAA

Coastal blue carbon attracted the interest among NOAA leader-ship during the fall of 2010, in large part because of updates

A.E. Sutton-Grier et al. / Marine Policy 43 (2014) 246–253248

presented to NOAA on work of partners, primarily ConservationInternational and Restore America's Estuaries, on their work onthis topic. These partner organizations saw the “win-win” benefitsof working to preserve coastal habitats both for their carbonservices and for the many other benefits humans get from theseecosystems [26,27]. Because part of NOAA's mission is to conserveand manage coastal and marine ecosystems and resources, includ-ing protecting and restoring habitats, these two nonprofit organi-zations were interested in what NOAA was doing to takeadvantage of the developing coastal blue carbon opportunities.The response of NOAA leadership was to request an analysis of thestate of coastal blue carbon science and policy. To complete thisanalysis, NOAA formed a small team that put together an initialanalysis of the state of the science and policy [28] and then draftedan internal work plan for how NOAA could best leverage itsresources and engage in blue carbon activities [29].

NOAA has taken a three-pronged approach to addressingcoastal blue carbon needs. The team has focused on the sciencegaps that need to be filled (see details of these gaps in [13,20]), thedeveloping international opportunities (including bilateral agree-ments and the team's work at the United Nations FrameworkConvention on Climate Change), and domestic policy opportu-nities. The analysis presented here details only this latter piece ofNOAA's efforts, focusing on domestic policy opportunities relatedto coastal blue carbon. This analysis examines the possibility ofincluding coastal blue carbon services in existing federal policiesby changing the way these policies are implemented to includecarbon services of habitats. This type of analysis has been calledfor by the International Blue Carbon Policy Working Group [30].These initial efforts to examine U.S. domestic policy opportunitiesmay spur additional examinations of both U.S. and other nations’opportunities to account for and value the carbon services ofhabitats in their policies and practices.

2. Methods

The NOAA Coastal Blue Carbon Team identified a numberof federal statutes, policies, and authorizations that require orpromote consideration of ecosystem services [28]. Therefore, theteam determined that coastal carbon services could reasonably beadded to environmental and ecosystem considerations alreadywell implemented by the federal agencies in the followingpolicies: the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); 404(b) compensatory mitigation requirements of the Clean WaterAct (CWA); Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA); NaturalResources Damage Assessment (NRDA) elements of the Compre-hensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act(CERCLA) and the Oil Pollution Act ( OPA); Endangered Species Act(ESA) Executive Order 13563; and the Water Resources Develop-ment Act with the Proposed Economic and Environmental Princi-ples and Guidelines (P&G) for Water and Related Land ResourceImplementation Studies.

A complementary report by the Nicholas Institute confirmedthese opportunities [31]. This analysis highlights the need forrecognition of “coastal carbon” services as important and valuableecosystem services and the role this could play in influencing theoutcomes of federal statutes and policies that affect coastalecosystems. The report also found that federal agencies routinelyconsider a range of ecosystem services in policy making andimplementation but that in general there is little or no explicitconsideration of coastal carbon services. And finally, the reportdetermined that carbon services could be incorporated into theimplementation of existing federal policies and that doing sowould increase the degree to which these policies consider thefull economic and ecological impacts of policy actions. The key

next steps outlined in the report recommended setting a pre-cedent by including coastal carbon functions in an economicimpact analysis (such as the analyses included in a NRDA) or anassessment by federal regulation.

Following recommendations from the Nicholas Institute report,the NOAA Coastal Blue Carbon Team decided to proceed withadditional exploratory analysis focusing on three policies: theCWA, the CZMA, and the NRDA process elements of the CERCLAand the OPA. The goal of this analysis was to determine the stepsneeded to incorporate carbon services into these federal policies,gaps in information for doing so, and a means for filling thosegaps. The case studies were used to assess how coastal blue carbonservices could potentially be incorporated into specific federalpolicies.

3. Blue carbon policy opportunities

3.1. Clean water Act (CWA) case study

This first case study examines how information on coastal bluecarbon storage and sequestration could better inform and facilitatethe goals of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, otherwiseknown as the Clean Water Act or CWA, specifically the 2008 U.S.Army Corps of Engineers/Environmental Protection Agency rule oncompensatory mitigation, issued pursuant to the EnvironmentalProtection Agency's CWA 404(b)(1) Guidelines. The CWA is theprincipal law governing pollution control and water quality of thenation's waterways. Its objective is to restore and maintain thechemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters[32]. The ideas presented below are based in part on personalconversations with a NOAA staff member of the NOAA FisheriesOffice of Habitat Conservation and on the authors’ thoroughanalysis of the CWA [33].

3.1.1. Section 404(b) compensatory mitigation requirementsThe CWA established the basic structure for regulating pollu-

tant discharges into U.S. waters and regulating the quality stan-dard for surface waters [34]. The CWA prohibits the discharge ofdredged or fill material into waters of the United States unless thedischarge is authorized through a permit issued by the Army Corpsof Engineers or approved state under Section 404 of the CWA.Section 404(b) compensatory mitigation requirements apply whenthere are unavoidable adverse impacts from the authorized dis-charge to wetlands, streams, and other aquatic resources [35]. Inthose cases, mitigation actions are required to replace the loss ofwetland and aquatic resource functions in the watershed; thesetypically include functions such as providing fish and wildlifehabitat, protecting and improving water quality, and reducingdamages associated with storm surges. Compensatory mitigationrefers to the “restoration, establishment, enhancement, or incertain circumstances preservation of wetlands, streams or otheraquatic resources for the purpose of offsetting unavoidableadverse impacts” [36]. The Army Corps of Engineers (or approvedstate authority) are responsible for determining the appropriateform and amount of compensatory mitigation required. Methodsof compensatory mitigation include the restoration of a wetland orother aquatic resource; establishment or creation of a wetland orother aquatic resource where a wetland did not previously exist;enhancement of wetland functions; and preservation or perma-nent protection of ecologically important wetlands or other aqua-tic resources. Compensatory mitigation for unavoidable wetlandimpacts may be accomplished through permittee-responsiblemitigation, mitigation banking, or in lieu fee mitigation [35,36].

The CWA applies to many more ecosystems than simply thecoastal habitats that are typically the focus of coastal blue carbon

A.E. Sutton-Grier et al. / Marine Policy 43 (2014) 246–253 249

efforts (salt marsh, mangroves, and seagrasses). This analysisfocuses on how CWA projects that impact salt marsh couldincorporate coastal blue carbon, but with the understanding thatcarbon is stored in all the ecosystems impacted by CWA mitiga-tion. It is difficult under the CWA to obtain permits to fill saltwaterwetlands, and therefore there are not a lot of coastal salt marshesimpacted by the CWA process [33]. However, by examining howthis would work for salt marsh habitats, it may then be possible toextend this analysis to include other types of wetland mitigationprojects in addition to salt marsh.

3.1.2. Coastal blue carbon opportunities in the CWAAlthough Section 404(b) of the CWA does not specifically

reference coastal blue carbon in its mitigation requirements, thisanalysis identified two specific potential opportunities for includ-ing it. Addressing the coastal blue carbon role, through thesemitigation requirements, will both contribute to climate mitiga-tion efforts and provide further incentives to conserve theseimportant ecosystems. First, in the rare case where a permit isgranted to fill or otherwise destroy a salt marsh, then compensa-tory mitigation will be necessary for the lost wetland functions ofthe salt marsh. In this case, the stored carbon in the wetland andthe carbon sequestration potential of the wetland could be addedas additional functions that would need to be mitigated. It wouldbe necessary to demonstrate the amount of carbon lost from thedestroyed salt marsh and then to determine how much marshwould need to be restored in order to mitigate the loss of carbon;in other words, it would be necessary to calculate the carbonsequestration and storage equivalency. Once this equivalency wascalculated, the Army Corps of Engineers could calculate thecompensation requirements for coastal blue carbon for thatparticular project. At this time, there is not an available methodfor calculating the carbon sequestration and storage equivalency,however, and more data on how much carbon a restored saltmarsh will take up and store each year is needed. In addition, inorder to understand the impact of not including coastal bluecarbon in CWA mitigation projects, it would be helpful to knowhow much carbon, if any, is being lost as a result of permits issued,and to know the disparity of the amount of carbon stored betweenfunctioning tidal wetlands and damaged wetlands. The SecondOrder Draft of the 2013 Supplemental to the 2006 Intergovern-mental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Guidelines for NationalGreenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands (the ‘Wetlands Supple-ment’) includes equations for helping to determine greenhousegas fluxes (in and out) of wetlands. When released, this guidance(currently under review) could be a good first step towardsdeveloping methods for quantifying carbon in wetlands.

A second method in which carbon sequestration and storagecould be incorporated into the CWA Section 404(b) mitigationrequirements more regularly would be through development of amitigation policy by a federal agency, such as NOAA, which wouldguide the agency's recommendations made through its mandates(e.g., the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Manage-ment Act for NOAA Fisheries). In order to develop a mitigationpolicy, the agency would need to have a clear problem statement,state what they intend to accomplish by developing the policy, anda description of the process that the agency intends to use [33]. If,for example, NOAA developed a mitigation policy that included theimportance of considering carbon services of habitats when doingmitigation projects, the agency could then share those recommen-dations with the Army Corps of Engineers for consideration whenmaking Section 404(b) consultations. Having such a mitigationpolicy would not guarantee that coastal blue carbon would beconsidered in all consultations, but rather would put the agencyon record as being conscious of and concerned about the potential

loss of carbon services through destruction of tidal wetlands. Inthis way, a mitigation policy would be a method for mainstream-ing (or socializing) the concept of valuing carbon services incoastal habitats within federal agencies, stakeholder groups, andcoastal communities. Even if coastal blue carbon was not includedin certain Section 404(b) consultations, a benefit of this approachwould be the general emphasis and importance given to valuingcarbon services by including it in a general mitigation policy.

In this analysis, the biggest limitation when developing amitigation policy that includes coastal blue carbon is the lack ofscientific information and understanding on the rates of carbonstorage across different tidal wetland types, and the recovery ofcarbon-regulating functions when these habitats are restored.Studies are underway to attempt to answer these questions,however, such as a coastal blue carbon project funded by NOAA'sNational Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS) ScienceCollaborative. This project, located in the Waquoit Bay NERRS, isfocused on developing a user-friendly ecosystem model of green-house gas emissions and carbon sequestration in tandem withfield experiments, in order to quantify the impacts of wetlandrestoration efforts and provide tools to guide policy and economicdecisions [37]. In addition, Kauffman and Donato [38] recentlypublished a working paper detailing how to measure carbonstocks in mangroves (for both soil and biomass). It would beuseful if similar methodologies for other habitat types (e.g., saltmarsh and seagrasses) were developed as well. Efforts such asthese can help fill these scientific gaps, which will allow themitigation policy to be as effective as possible at protecting coastalblue carbon systems. See Discussion section of this paper foradditional thoughts on these gaps.

3.2. Coastal zone management act case study

Management of coastal resources requires a framework thatmanages competing ecological, social, and economic values. Thislegislation establishes an overarching framework, recognizing asuite of societal values of coastal resources, and ultimately createsa process for making decisions to best balance competing uses ofthe coastal zone. This second case study examines information onsections of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) that mightinclude coastal blue carbon storage and sequestration. The CZMAprovides for management of U.S. coastal and Great Lakes resourcesthrough a balance of economic development and environmentalconservation. It is administered by NOAA's Office of Ocean andCoastal Resource Management (OCRM) and implemented by thecoastal state participants. The CZMA is a complex act that providesfor management through the Coastal Zone Management Programand for research through the National Estuarine Research ReserveSystem. Although no specific reference to coastal blue carbonexists in the CZMA, several areas have potential to include it intheir execution, including funding priorities, research opportu-nities, and management elements. The case study below detailsseveral appropriate CZMA sections and how information oncarbon storage and sequestration could inform and facilitate thegoals of the CZMA. These results are based (in part) on personalconversations with NOAA staff members of OCRM as well as theauthors' own analysis of the CZMA.

3.2.1. National estuarine research reservesSection 315 of the CZMA establishes the National Estuarine

Research Reserve System (NERRS). The NERRS protects more than1.3 million coastal and estuarine acres in 28 reserves located in 22states and Puerto Rico for purposes of long-term research,environmental monitoring, education, and stewardship.

A.E. Sutton-Grier et al. / Marine Policy 43 (2014) 246–253250

Section 315 is important for two reasons. First, it protectscoastal habitats that are important for carbon sequestration.Although coastal blue carbon is currently not a criterion fordesignation, this is an indirect benefit of the NERRS. The Secretaryof Commerce may designate an area as a National EstuarineResearch Reserve (NERR) if the “Governor of the coastal state inwhich the area is located nominates the area for that designation”and the law of the coastal state provides long-term protection forreserve resources to ensure a stable environment for research.Carbon services could be included in criteria in the decisionsregarding research priorities and conservation decisions.

Second, the research conducted within the NERRS can providethe information needed to prioritize protection, restoration, andenhancement and inform management decisions that take coastalblue carbon into account. An example of this is a coastal bluecarbon project funded by NOAA's NERRS Science Collaborative,which is examining the relationship between salt marshes, climatechange, and nitrogen pollution in the Waquoit Bay NERR. The goalsof this project are to generate science and tools that coastaldecision makers can use to manage nitrogen pollution, designeffective wetland protection and restoration projects, and createpolicy frameworks and economic incentives to reduce greenhousegases [37].

3.2.2. Coastal enhancement grantsSection 309 of the CZMA, Coastal Zone Enhancement Grants,

provides for grant funding to the states that must be spent oncoastal zone enhancement objectives. Two of these objectives arepertinent to coastal blue carbon:

1.

Protection, restoration, or enhancement of the existingcoastal wetlands base, or creation of new coastal wetlands,and

…

5.

Development and adoption of procedures to assess, con-sider, and control cumulative and secondary impacts ofcoastal growth and development, including the collectiveeffect of various individual uses or activities on coastalresources, such as coastal wetlands and fishery resources.

1 Private market vehicles, such as carbon markets, are established to mitigatethe growth in concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) by setting a quantitativelimit on the emissions of such gases. The acquisition of land could potentially beused as an offset for these limits.

Regarding objective 1, carbon sequestration potential couldrepresent one of the criteria used to prioritize wetlands forprotection, restoration, or enhancement. This would requireguidance on how to determine what coastal habitats are suitablefor carbon sequestration and how to compare habitats based onthis criterion. This could be accomplished through the process thatNOAA and its partners use each year to set priorities for Section309 grants. Coastal blue carbon could also be considered as one ofthe services impacted for objective 5, both in terms of the releaseof carbon to the atmosphere as a result of habitat lost todevelopment and the diminished, future sequestration potential.Hence, carbon services could be included in decisions about whattypes of projects are funded by these grants.

Coastal blue carbon considerations could also be used in theevaluation of these grants. Section 309 of the CZMA includessubsection (c), which describes the evaluation process for thesefunds and states, “The Secretary shall evaluate and rank Stateproposals for funding under this section, and make fundingawards based on those proposals, taking into account the criteriaestablished by the Secretary under subsection (d) of this section.”The criteria it references are found in subsection (d), which states,“…the Secretary shall promulgate regulations concerning coastalzone enhancement grants that establish (1) specific and detailedcriteria that must be addressed by a coastal state (including theState's priority needs for improvement as identified by the

Secretary after careful consultation with the State) as part of theState's development and implementation of coastal zone enhance-ment objectives” and “(3) other funding award criteria as arenecessary or appropriate to ensure that evaluations of proposals,and decisions to award funding, under this section are based onobjective standards applied fairly and equitably to those propo-sals.” These criteria could be a vehicle with which coastal bluecarbon is included in the work conducted with coastal enhance-ment grant money. One of the criteria for funding could be thatprojects include the study of carbon services.

3.2.3. Coastal and estuarine land conservation programThe Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program (CELCP)

was authorized through the Department of Commerce, Justice, andState Appropriations Act of 2002 (Public Law 107–77), and directedthe Secretary of Commerce to establish the program “for thepurpose of protecting important coastal and estuarine areas thathave significant conservation, recreation, ecological, historical, oraesthetic values, or that are threatened by conversion from theirnatural or recreational state to other uses,” giving priority to landsthat can be effectively managed and protected and that havesignificant ecological value. NOAA works with coastal states andterritories through the formal relationships established in its roleimplementing the CZMA.

To date, coastal blue carbon has not been a factor in CELCPdecisions; however, there have been discussions about protectinghabitats that provide for carbon sequestration in land acquisitionswith other federal acquisition programs. One of the issues thatmust be faced when considering the possible use of private marketvehicles1 for carbon is that lands acquired with federal funds maynot be used for market transaction in some cases, since thosetransactions may serve to benefit a small group of private entities.However, using the Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS) methodol-ogy for voluntary carbon markets, the use of federal lands or fundsfor wetland protection and restoration projects is not restricted, sofederal wetland projects can still potentially seek carbon credits ifthe projects meet the other VCS requirements [39]. In terms ofCELCP land acquisition, one way to incorporate coastal blue carbonis to include carbon sequestration and storage ability in the criteriaused for determining land acquisition decisions. However, becauseCELCP is currently unfunded, these criteria have not been revisedrecently.

Additionally, the CELCP program has developed a step-by-stepguide to assist CELCP applicants in considering potential climatechange effects on proposed actions or events that shape ecosys-tems. It states, “ecological processes—whether they are naturaldisturbances like fire or ongoing processes like nutrient cycling orcarbon sequestration—are the key to the development and imple-mentation of sustainable ecological management.”

3.3. Natural resources damage assessment (NRDA)

Section 1002(b)(2)(A) of the Oil Pollution Act (OPA) authorizesnatural resource trustees to assess damages for injury to, destruc-tion of, loss of, or use of natural resources. The purpose of an injuryassessment is to determine the nature of the damages in order toprovide the technical basis for evaluating and scaling restorationefforts. According to OPA, “Injury means an observable or measur-able adverse change in natural resource or impairment of a naturalresource service. Injury may occur directly or indirectly to a

A.E. Sutton-Grier et al. / Marine Policy 43 (2014) 246–253 251

natural resource and/or service. Injury incorporates the terms‘destruction,’ ‘loss,’ and ‘loss of use’ as provided in OPA.” [40].Injury can include adverse changes in the chemical or physicalquality or viability of a natural resource [40]. Potential categoriesof injuries include adverse changes in (1) survival growth andreproduction, (2) health, physiology, and biological condition,(3) ecological processes and functions, (4) physical and chemicalhabitat structure, or (5) services to the public. It is noteworthy thatthe definition of injury is broader than just injuries to biota.Injuries to nonliving natural resources and services may also beconsidered. Based on the points raised above, carbon servicescould be a valid candidate for inclusion as “lost” natural resourcefunctions (carbon storage) or as lost natural resource services(carbon sequestration). That is, lost carbon sequestration could becategorized as an injury to ecological processes and functions aswell as services to the public (climate regulation).

Recent damage assessment cases have focused on a range ofimpacts on natural resources, including losses of productivity,impacts on wildlife habitat, and effects on human uses of naturalresources. Estimation of impacts on submerged aquatic vegetation,for example, may incorporate the loss in regulating services suchas nutrient uptake. Each injury assessment determines both themagnitude of the injury (the habitat or resource services lost fromcontamination over a given area) and the time required forrecovery (the without contamination baseline), such that the finalcalculations tend to be in units like “service acre-years,” which arethen discounted to account for the passage of time.

Assessment of the ecological and ecosystem losses and esti-mates of losses to the public are often evaluated using bestprofessional judgment of experts in the relevant fields and isbased on any available data at the site and available studies in theliterature. This judgment will typically include multiple lines ofinjury evidence, such as loss of vegetative cover, decrease of foodsupply, or disruption of benthic community structure, and is alsooften based on injury to key indicator species. This means that forcarbon services to be included in the NRDA process, the develop-ment of a best professional judgment assessment of injuries tonatural resources would need to include the impacts to carbonservices, both the lost ability for carbon storage and the lostcarbon sequestration potential, as potential lines of evidence ofinjury to natural resources.

Lost natural resources could be measured in the amount ofstored carbon (in grams) that was released from the soil. The lostnatural resource service would be the amount of carbon seques-tration potential lost, and this would likely be measured in gramsper acre per year. Similar to other ecosystem attributes, estimatinglost carbon services would be data and site dependent. Differenttypes of wetlands sequester and store different amounts of carbon.For example, a smaller salt marsh (by area) may provide equiva-lent sequestration services when compared to a larger area ofriverine (freshwater) marsh vegetation. Although carbon servicesdo vary by site and ecosystem type, estimates of how much carbonis stored in salt marsh, seagrasses, and mangroves are available[13–15]. One could potentially use a form of modified carbonservices benefit transfer approach in the absence of primary datacollection. This is comparable to the benefit transfer methodcommonly used to estimate economic values for ecosystemservices by transferring available information from studies alreadycompleted in another location. A modified “carbon” benefitstransfer approach could be used to estimate the lost carbonservices in impacted areas with similar wetland habitat typesusing comparable carbon sequestration/storage information.

The next step in the NRDA process, once an injury assessmentis complete, is to determine the amount of restoration neededto recover the lost natural resources and services. Similar tothe injury assessment, the benefits to carbon storage and

sequestration from restoration may be included in a best profes-sional judgment assessment [41] as one of several potentialhabitat service gains from the habitat restoration (e.g., for a saltmarsh, perhaps in conjunction with additional nursery habitatprovided and productivity gained). For carbon services to beincluded, it would be important to determine how long it wouldtake a restored wetland to be able to both (1) rebuild the storedcarbon pool in the soil to account for the lost soil carbon and (2)re-establish the carbon sequestration ability of the vegetationcommunity. The type of information (described in steps 1 and2 above) would help to determine how much area would need tobe restored in order to regain the carbon storage-years and carbonsequestration-years that were lost from the injury. Data on howquickly carbon services are restored in different wetland types arerelatively sparse. This is therefore an important science data gapthat needs to be filled to facilitate the inclusion of carbon servicesin the NRDA process.

Evaluators must think about the credit side of the equation. Theultimate goal is to make the public whole, which means consider-ing the time after the injury during which services are lost(interim lost services). Carbon sequestration may add a layer ofcomplexity—in particular, the influence of time on the impacts ofglobal warming. This is likely to require the use of lower discountrates that reflect the longer “time preference” [42,43] aspect ofcarbon services. That is, carbon services and the impacts ofincreased levels of atmospheric CO2 are typically discussed indecadal cycles, for example 50, 100, and 150 year increments. Thisaffects calculations such as net present values of the price ofcarbon over an extended period of time, as opposed to typicaldiscount rates used for development projects or macroeconomicprojections. Another consideration is the expected updates to IPCCguidelines for estimating sequestration rates for differentwetland types.

There appears to be no need for changes or amendments orre-authorization of OPA or NRDA statutes and/or regulations inorder to facilitate the inclusion of coastal blue carbon as part of thedamage assessment process. In other words, the Acts as currentlywritten do not require any substantial changes in wording. Basedon the analysis presented here there does not appear to be anyrestrictions to using existing scientific approaches and derivedestimates of carbon services from the scientific literature (poten-tially in conjunction with field data) to estimate carbon servicelosses in key coastal habitats. These estimates would allow the lossof this ecosystem service to be included in the damage assessmentprocess and to inform best professional judgment of injuries tonatural resources when building a NRDA case. Additional data maybe needed to establish appropriate restoration guidelines for therecovery of the lost carbon services. It is noteworthy that highrates of carbon sequestration and storage in many coastal habitats,including carbon services in the NRDA process, could result inbetter estimation of injury to particular habitats. This couldtherefore result in more accurate assignment of losses and insome cases could result in increased estimates of injury, which inturn would lead to higher restoration requirements to recoverthose services. Therefore the public's losses would be appropri-ately compensated.

4. Discussion

In examining all three policy case studies for the feasibility ofincluding carbon storage and sequestration in the implementationof these policies, this study determined that no fundamental orsignificant changes in the way these policies are currently imple-mented would be required. Incorporating carbon services wouldonly mean including an additional attribute in the calculations of

A.E. Sutton-Grier et al. / Marine Policy 43 (2014) 246–253252

losses or injuries (in CWA or NRDA). Carbon services could also bewritten into funding priorities, research opportunities, and man-agement elements of the CZMA. Thus, the overall processes remainthe same; however, the inclusion of carbon services could result inchanges in the outcomes, particularly in terms of the assessmentof how much damage may have occurred or how much mitigationof lost natural resource services is necessary. This study alsodetermined that incorporating carbon services in federal policyimplementation would be an improvement by making the policiesmore comprehensive and economically efficient and by accountingfor the costs and benefits to society more accurately.

If federal agencies begin to include carbon services in decision-making and habitat management, this inclusion would signal thatthis carbon-regulating ecosystem service is important, thusencouraging private sector investment in both compliance andvoluntary carbon markets. Both of these markets are examples ofother methods of managing and mitigating carbon emissionscontributing to global climate change. In other words, includingcarbon services in federal policy implementation will send animportant policy signal to private sector interests to consider theinclusion of carbon ecosystem services in their business planning.This could in turn result in higher levels of participation in privatesector-driven carbon markets.

Some challenges must still be overcome, however, beforecarbon services can be incorporated into existing federal policyimplementation. In comparing the three case studies, one of themain challenges to incorporating carbon services is a lack ofunderstanding of the importance of these services in coastalhabitats. Until relatively recently, it was not well understood thatthese habitats were such significant carbon sinks [14,15], and theimportant carbon services of coastal habitats are still not broadlyrecognized by many natural resource managers and policy makers.In some cases it is a question of socialization of the value of carbonstorage and sequestration among key stakeholders and the widerpublic. Just as the broader concept of ecosystem services has beensocialized via articles and books that have caught the attention ofthe media and the public [10,11], so now must the carbon servicesof ecosystems gain popular understanding as well. This mightinvolve an outreach effort to ensure that those who have respon-sibility for the implementation of these policies are aware of thisvalue and incorporate it into the priorities identified in policyimplementation. The goal of such socialization efforts would be tomake it commonplace to talk about carbon services in habitats thesame way that it is currently commonplace to talk about impactsto other habitat services such as nutrient regulation, food sources,or vegetative cover. There is some very recent progress in terms ofthe socialization of carbon services. The new “Principles andRequirements for federal water projects” (P&G) that were releasedby the Council on Environmental Quality in March 2013, include“carbon storage” as one of the ecosystem services that could beincluded in evaluations of federal water resources projects [44].

To support the goal of socializing the concept of coastal bluecarbon and carbon services of habitats, science translation has a veryimportant role. Although the specific amount of carbon stored indifferent types of coastal habitats is still an active field of research,relatively good estimates exist of carbon sequestration rates andcarbon storage in wetland soils [13–15]. Yet much of this science hasbeen published in traditional scientific journals in language and dataformats that are not tailored for policy decision-making. The solutioncould be as straightforward as summarizing and rewording theresults of scientific studies so they are appropriate for managementapplications and calculations of losses or injuries. There is also a rolefor the incorporation of carbon services information into visual toolsfor planning and public information purposes.

That said, important gaps in the scientific understanding ofcarbon services in these habitats do exist, particularly regarding

the recovery of carbon-regulating functions (both annual seques-tration and long-term storage) when habitats are restored. Oneimportant gap in understanding of carbon dynamics in thesehabitats is how quickly the annual sequestration rate of vegetativecommunities is restored in a restored coastal marsh, seagrassmeadow, or mangrove. This will likely be a function of annualgrowth rates, total vegetative cover, and potentially hydrologicregimes in the restored habitats. It is also unclear, once a habitat isdisturbed, how long it would take for the amount of lost soilcarbon, which may have accumulated over decades or centuries, tobe restored to wetland soils. In particular, it would be useful toknow if there were ways to speed up carbon storage recovery or ifit would be necessary to wait decades or centuries to regain storedsoil carbon. These data are critical to properly assess the mitigationrequirements for both CWA impacts and NRDA restorationrequirements.

For carbon services to begin to be routinely incorporated intofederal policy implementation, we recommend that the next stepbe a pilot process. One NRDA assessment or one CWA mitigationconsultation conducted that incorporated carbon services wouldset a precedent for future consultations to follow. It is hoped thatthis analysis can help encourage and facilitate this next step, usingthe CWA, CZMA, or the NRDA process as a test implementation.

5. Conclusion

This analysis demonstrates that it is possible to incorporatecarbon services (storage and sequestration) into the existing policyframework, specifically NRDA, CWA and CZMA. This study deter-mined that as part of the existing consultative, regulatory, andmitigation processes, federal agencies already incorporate ecosys-tem functions and services such as food production, nutrientregulation, and vegetative cover. The conclusion then is that thereare no legislative barriers to include carbon regulation as anadditional ecosystem service that could be part of the above-mentioned processes.

The inclusion of carbon services will, however, rely onimproved scientific information on the rates of carbon removal(from the atmosphere) and emissions across different habitattypes under different conditions, as well as a better understandingof how quickly carbon storage and sequestration functions arerestored when habitats are restored. Notwithstanding these lim-itations, there is good potential for carbon services to be part ofthe common lexicon in NRDA, CWA, and CZMA. The feasibility ofincluding carbon language into the consultative, legal, andresearch agenda-setting activities of federal agencies can beenhanced through raising awareness and socialization of keystakeholders.

The planet faces several environmental challenges, includingrapid loss of habitats and biodiversity as well as changing climate.But better accounting for ecosystem services in decision methods,including cost benefit analyses and environmental impact assess-ments, should lead to more informed decisions about policyoptions and tradeoffs [11]. This paper posits that the incorporationof carbon services into the implementation of existing environ-mental policy could result in increased protection and restorationof coastal habitats through changes in the way the U.S. federalgovernment implements national policy. It also could send a policysignal to the private sector and thus lead to increased investmentin coastal habitat conservation through private carbon markets.Both of these outcomes would result in climate regulation benefitsand the preservation of the multiple ecosystem services that thesehabitats provide.

A.E. Sutton-Grier et al. / Marine Policy 43 (2014) 246–253 253

Acknowledgments

The views expressed here do not reflect the official position ofthe National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or the U.S.Department of Commerce. We thank the members of the NOAACoastal Blue Carbon Team who helped contribute to these ideasand the progress at NOAA on coastal blue carbon. We also thankSusan-Marie Stedman and Anthony Dvarskas for their policy helpin this manuscript. And we thank Josh Eagle, Jen Lechuga, andmembers of the Office of Habitat Conservation staff at NOAAfor their very helpful comments on an earlier version of thismanuscript.

References

[1] Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and human well-being:synthesis. Washington, D.C.: Island Press; 2005.

[2] President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. Report to thePresident sustaining environmental capital: protecting society and the econ-omy; 2011.

[3] President Obama. National Policy for the Stewardship of the Ocean, our Coasts,and the Great Lakes (National Ocean Policy). Executive Order 135472011.

[4] National Ocean Council. Draft National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan;2012.

[5] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Ecosystem researchscience challenge workshop: informing NOAA's ecosystem research agenda.Silver Spring, MD2011. p. 50.

[6] Personal Communication, Pendleton L. Mar Ecosyst Services Coord 2013.[7] Fischman RL. The EPA's NEPA duties and ecosystem services. Stanford Environ

Law J 2001;20:497–536.[8] Ruhl JB, Salzman J, Goodman I. Implementing a new ecosystem servies

mandate of the section 404 compensatory mitigation program – a catalystfor advancing science and policy. Stetson Law Rev 2009;38:251–72.

[9] Salzman J, Thompson Jr. BH, Daily GC. Protecting ecosystem services: science,economics, and law. Stanford Environ Law J 2001;20:309–33.

[10] Ruhl JB, Salzman J. The law and policy beginnings of ecosystem services. J LandUse Environ Law 2007;22:157–72.

[11] Ruhl J, Chapin III FS. Ecosystem services, ecosystem resilience, and resilience ofecosystem management policy. Vanderbuilt University Law School, Public Lawand Legal Theory; 2013.

[12] Nellemann C, Corcoran E, CDuarte CM, Valdes L, DeYoung C, Fonseca L, et al.Blue carbon. a rapid response assessment. In: Grid Arendal, editor, ProgrammeUNE, no 2009, ⟨www.grida⟩.

[13] McLeod E, Chmura GL, Bouillon S, Salm R, Bjork M, Duarte CM, et al. Ablueprint for blue carbon: toward an improved understanding of the role ofvegetated coastal habitats in sequestering CO2. Front Ecol Environ2011;9:552–60.

[14] Donato DC, Kauffman JB, Murdiyarso D, Kurnianto S, Stidham M, Kanninen M.Mangroves among the most carbon-rich forests in the tropics. Nat Geosci2011;4:293–7.

[15] Fourqurean JW, Duarte CM, Kennedy H, Marba N, Holmer M, Mateo MA, et al.Seagrass ecosystems as a globally significant carbon stock. Nat Geosci2012;5:505–9.

[16] Sifleet S, Pendleton L, Murray B State of the science of coastal blue carbon: asummary for policy makers. Nicholas Institute Report; 2011.

[17] Chmura GL, Anisfeld SC, Cahoon DR, Lynch JC. Global carbon sequestration intidal, saline wetland soils. Global Biogeochem Cycles 2003:17.

[18] Duarte CM, Marba N, Gacia E, Fourqurean JW, Beggins J, Barron C, et al.Seagrass community metabolism: assessing the carbon sink capacity ofseagrass meadows. Global Biogeochem Cycles 2010;24:1–8.

[19] Duarte CM, Middelburg JJ, Caraco N. Major role of marine vegetation on theoceanic carbon cycle. Biogeosciences 2005;2:1–8.

[20] Pendleton L, Donato DC, Murray BC, Crooks S, Jenkins WA, Sifleet S, et al.Estimating global blue carbon emissions from conversion and degradation ofvegetated coastal ecosystems. PLoS One 2012;7:e43542.

[21] Beck MW, Heck KL, Able KW, Childers DL, Eggleston DB, Gillanders BM, et al.The identification, conservation, and management of estuarine and marinenurseries for fish and invertebrates. Bioscience 2001;51:633–41.

[22] Costanza R, Perez-Maqueo O, Martinez ML, Sutton P, Anderson SJ, Mulder K.The value of coastal wetlands for hurricane protection. Ambio 2008;37:241–8.

[23] Shepard CC, Crain CM, Beck MW. The protective role of coastal marshes: asystematic review and meta-analysis. Plos One 2011:6.

[24] Secretariat of the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, World Tourism Organiza-tion (UNWTO). Destination wetlands: supporting sustainable tourism. Gland,Switzerland & Madrid, Spain; 2012.

[25] Zedler JB, Kercher S. Wetland resources: status, trends, ecosystem services,and restorability. Annu Rev Environ Resources 2005:39–74.

[26] Restore America's Estuaries. Findings of the National Blue Ribbon Panel on thedevelopment of a greenhouse gas offset protocol for tidal wetlands restorationand management: Action Plan to guide protocol development. Philip Williams& Associates L., Science Applications International Corporation; 2010.

[27] Conservation International. Climate Solutions: Blue Carbon; 2010.[28] Team NCBC. Opportunities to use carbon services to advance coastal habitat

conservation; 2011.[29] NOAA Coastal Blue Carbon Team. NOAA Coastal Blue Carbon Work Plan. 2012.[30] Herr D. Guidance for national blue carbon activities. Fast-tracking national

implementation in developing countries. In: Pidgeon E, editor. Washington, D.C.: IUCN & C.I.; 2012.

[31] Pendleton L, Gordon D, Murray B, Victor B, Griffis R, Sutton-Grier A, et al.Considering “coastal carbon” in existing U.S. federal statutes and policies.Durham, NC: The Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, DukeUniversity; 2012.

[32] United States Senate and House of Representatives. Clean Water Act of 1972 asamended through Public Law 92-500, the Federal Water Pollution Control ActAmendments. United States of America; 1972.

[33] Personal Communication Stedman S-M. Fishery Biologist with NOAA Fisheries'Office of Habitat Conservation; 2013.

[34] Environmental Protection Agency. Summary of the Clean Water Act; 2012.[35] United States Army Corps of Engineers and Environmental Protection Agency.

Compensatory mitigation for losses of aquatic resources, final rule. FederalRegister; 2008.

[36] Environmental Protection Agency. Wetlands compensatory mitigation.EPA-843-F-08-002; 2003.

[37] Bringing Wetlands to Market. Nitrogen and coastal blue carbon researchproject ⟨http://wbnerrwetlandscarbon.net/2012⟩.

[38] Kauffman JB, Donato DC. Protocols for the measurement, monitoring, andreporting of structure, biomass and carbon stocks in mangrove forests. Bogor,Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR); 2012.

[39] Voluntary Carbon Standard. VCS Program Guide, VCS Version 3; 2012.[40] United States Senate and House of Representatives. Oil Pollution Act of 1990;

1990.[41] French DP, Rines H, Gifford D, Keller A, Pavignano S, Brown G, et al. Primary

restoration: guidance document for natural resource damage assessmentunder the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. EG&G Washington Analytical ServicesCenter, Inc.; 1996.

[42] Tol RSJ. The social cost of carbon: trends, outliers and catastrophes economics:the open-access, Open-Assessment (E-Journal) 2008;2.

[43] Mendelsohn ROA Critique of the Stern Report. Regulation.29:42-6.[44] White House Council on Environmental Quality. Principles and requirements

for federal investments in water resources; 2013.