Lutcher Moore Swamp, Louisiana PALUSTRINE FORESTED NANCY WEBB@ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This report is the result ofwork by many We would also like to thank the many people individuals within the U.S . Fish and Wildlife who shared their wetland photographs with us Service and others . Special thanks are extended including John Gahr, Wendel Metzen, Kevin to Dr. Donald Woodard, Director and his staff at Moorhead, John Oberheu, Larry Ditto, Louis the National Wetlands Inventory Center in St. Justice, George Gentry, Nora Murdock, and Petersburg, Florida; and to Mark Newcastle, others with the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Division of Printing in Washington, D.C .; Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission, to Keith Patterson and staff at Geonex-Martel, the United States Soil Conservation Service, and Inc . in St. Petersburg, Florida; to Eric Hughes the South Carolina Division of Tourism. and Robert Lord with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Atlanta, Georgia. Our very special appreciation is extended to Nancy Webb ofZachary, Louisiana, for providing We are especially grateful for the efforts of us with some ofthe most unusual and beautiful Thomas Gale, Gale Communications in St. Paul, wetland photographs we have seen . Minnesota, for editing, layout and other help in preparation of the final document. Cover photo: This report should be cited as follows: Okefenokee National Wildlife Refine, Florida Hefner, J.M., B .O . Wilen, T.E. Dahl and WE. Frayer. PALUSTRINE FORESTED 1994 . Southeast Wetlands; Status and Trends, Mid- GEORGE GENTRY© 1970's to Mid-1980's. U .S. Department of the Pane 2 photo: Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia. Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge, Florida 32 pages. PALUSTRINE FORESTED GEORGE GENTRY© For sale by the U.S . Government Printing Office Superintendent of Documents, Mail Stop : SSOP Washington, DC 20402-9328 ISBN 0-16-045537-5 Southeast WetlandsSTATUS AND TRENDS, MID-1970'S TO MID-1980'S J.M. Hefner U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Atlanta, Georgia B .O . Wilen U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Washington, D.C. T.E . Dahl U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service St. Petersburg, Florida W.E. Fraver Michigan Technological University Houghton, Michigan A 1994 Cooperative Publication by United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region Atlanta, Georgia \11-D S7-,, ;, J~ Fs 7Z w o e G/C\2 ~F2T qC P RO ' E United States Environmental Protection Agency Region IV Atlanta, Georgia Yellow Fringed-orchid PALUSTRINE EMERGENT NANCY WEBB© Contents Highlights........................................................................................................................................5 Executive Summary . .. .. .. ... ... .. .. .. .. ... ... .. .. ... .. .. ... .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .6 Introduction . ... ... .. .. .. .. ... .. ... .. .. ... .. .. .. ... ... .. ... ... .. .. ... ..8 Survey Methods . ... .. ... ... .. ... .. .. .. ... .. .. ... .. .. .. .. ... ... ... .10 Results Regional Status . .. ... ... .. .. .. ... ... .. .. ... .. ... ... .. .. ... ... .. .. ... ... .12 Regional Trends . ... ... .. ... .. .. ... .. .. .. ... .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. ... ... .13 State Analyses ... .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. ... ... .. .. .. ... ... .. .. ... .. .. ... .14 Discussion . .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. ... ... .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. ... .20 Conclusion. .. ... ... .. .. .. ... ... .. .. ... ... .. ... ... ... .. ... .. ... .. ..24 Literature Cited ... ... .. ... .. ... ... .. .. ... .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. ... ... .. ..26 Appendix A: Habitat Categories . .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. ... ... .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .27 Appendix B : Data Tables . ... ... .. .. ... ... .. ... ... ... .. ... ... .. .. .. ... .31 List of Figures 1 . Study area: Southeast Region of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service . ... .. ... .. ... .. .. .. .5 2. Map of the physical subdivisions ofthe Southeast. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... ... .7 3. Wetlands of the Southeast. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. ... ... .. .. .. .. ... .. ...12 4. Estuarine wetlands of the Southeast . .. ... ... .. .. ... ... .. .. ... ... ... .. ...12 5 . Palustrine wetlands ofthe Southeast . .. .. ... ... .. .. ... .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ...12 6 . Wetlands, deepwater habitats, and uplands of the Southeast . .. .. .. ... ... .. .. .. ..12 7 . Palustrine wetland gains and losses in the Southeast . ... ... .. .. .. ... ... .. ... ... 13 8 . Fate of palustrine forested wetland losses and conversions ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .13 9 . Wetland acreages, percentage of state landscapes and net losses, by state . .. .. ... ... .. .15 10 . Wetlands of the conterminous United States . .. .. ... .. .. .. ... ... .. .. .. .. ... ... .. .21 11 . Estuarine wetlands of the conterminous United States . .. ... ... ... ... .. .. .. .21 12 . Wetland losses in the conterminous United States .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .21 13 . Estuarine vegetated wetland losses in the conterminous United States . .. ... ... .. .. .. .. .21 14. Palustrine forested wetland losses and conversions in the conterminous United States .. ... ... .21 15. Wetland losses in the Gulf-Atlantic Coastal Flats compared to the rest of the U.S. .. .. .. .. .21 16. All wetlands in the Southeast: Average annual loss ... .. .. ... .. .. .. ... .. .. ... ... .22 17 . Palustrine forested wetlands in the Southeast: Annual average loss/conversion . .. .. ... ... ..22 18 . Palustrine forested wetland losses and conversions in the Southeast. .. ... .. ... .. .. ... .. 25 List of Tables Table t . Major wetland functions and values .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. ... ... .. .. .. .. 8-9 Table 2 . Distribution ofsample plots and mean dates of aerial photo coverage by state .. .. ... ... .10 Table 3 . Distribution of sample plots within physical subdivisions . .. ... ... .. ... ... ... .10 Table 4. Wetland, deepwater and upland habitat categories used in this study .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .11 Table 5 . States with large conversions from palustrine forested to palustrine emergent wetlands . .. .13 Table 6. Wetland trends for the Southeast states, mid--1970's to mid-1980's . .. .. ... ... .. ... 14 Highlights 0 Nearly half (47 percent or 48 .9 million acres) 0 Estuarine (saltwater) wetland acreages of the wetlands in the conterminous United remained stable throughout most of the region States are in the 10 states of the Southeast - except for coastal Louisiana, where substantial Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, losses were identified. Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee . Wetlands and Freshwater wetlands declined dramatically. deepwater habitats comprise 21 percent Forested wetlands such as bottomland of the region's area. hardwood swamps and cypress sloughs declined by 3 .1 million acres, with heaviest 0 Wetlands alone cover 16 percent of the losses in the Gulf-Atlantic Coastal Flats of region's area, compared to a 5-percent overall North Carolina and in the Mississippi Alluvial coverage in area for the lower 48 states. Plain in Arkansas, Mississippi and Louisiana. 0 From the mid-1970s to the mid-1980s, the North Carolina stood out among all average annual net loss ofwetlands in the southeastern states With an estimated loss of Southeast was 259,000 acres. Wetland losses 1 .2 million acres in palustrine forested and within the region accounted for 89 percent of scrub/shrub wetlands . Although the average the net national wetland losses for the period. annual net loss for all combined wetland types declined compared to earlier periods, the rate at which freshwater forested wetlands were lost and converted increased. Wetlands in the Wetland losses between conterminous mid-1970's and mid-1980's United States 89% in the Southeast 47% in the Southeast THE SOUTHEAST 103.3 million acres 2.6 million acres Left: Wood Ducks Figure 2. Study area : Southeast Region of the U .S . Fish and Wildlife Service LARRY R. DITTO Executive Summary The U.S . Fish and Wildlife Service prepares Changes were determined to be either natural or reports on the status and trends ofwetlands and human-induced. The wetland acreage estimate deepwater habitats ofthe conterminous United for the mid-1980's was subtracted from the States on a 10-year cycle, in accordance with the estimate for the mid-1970's and divided by the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 116 nine-year study period for an estimate of average U.S.C. 3931(a) l . annual net loss. The most recent report in the series (Dahl and Results show an estimated 51 .2 million acres of Johnson 1991) evaluated wetland trends for the wetlands in the 10 Southeast states in the mid- period from the mid-1970's to mid-1980's. 1970's. By the mid-1980's, wetlands were The national study design was such that region- reduced to 48 .9 million acres, including 44.6 specific - and in some cases state-specific - million acres of freshwater wetlands and 4 .3 information also could be developed. The million acres of estuarine wetlands. The net loss present report analyzes data collected for the within the region was more than 2 .3 million 10-state Southeast Region of the Fish and acres, making the average annual net loss Wildlife Service (Fig.l) . approximately 259,000 acres. Nearly all the losses were from freshwater wetlands. The design of this regional study consisted of a stratified random sample of 2,204 plots drawn In the mid-1980's, wetlands comprised 16 from the national sample of 3,629 plots . Aerial percent of the regional landscape . By contrast, photography from the mid-1970's