HIGH RISK GEOGRAPHIC AREAS
TARGETED FOR WETLANDS ADVANCE IDENTIFICATION
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION IV
WETLANDS PLANNING UNIT
-------
HIGH RISK GEOGRAPHIC AREAS TARGETED FOR
WETLANDS ADVANCE IDENTIFICATION IN
REGION IV
July, 1993
Wetlands Planning Unit
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland St., NE
Atlanta, Georgia
30365
-------
HIGH RISK GEOGRAPHIC AREAS TARGETED FOR
WETLANDS ADVANCE IDENTIFICATION IN REGION IV
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Table of Contents........................................ i
List of F igu,res . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .111
List of Appendices....................................... v
Section
Executi va Summary............................... vi
1.0
Introduction
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
2.0
Alabama
2.1
2.2
2.3
3.0
Florida
3.1
3.2
3.3
4.0
Georgia
4.1
4.2
4.3
5.0
Kentucky
5.1
5.2
5.3
Opening Discussion...................1-1
Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-2
History. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-4
Ob j ecti va. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-10
1.4.1 Data Collectio~............1-10
1.4.2 Data Assessment
and Prioritization.........1-13
Wetlands of Alabama..................2-1
Status of the Wetlands Resource......2-2
Target Geographic Areas..............2-2
Wetlands of Florida...................3-1
Status of the Wetlands Resource......3-5
Target Geographic Areas..............3-6
Wetlands of Georgia..................4-1
Status of the Wetlands Resource......4-2
Target Geographic Areas..............4-3
Wetlands of Kentucky.................5-1
Status of the Wetlands Resource......5-1
Target Geographic Areas..............5-2
i
-------
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
Mississippi
6.1
6.2
6.3
Wetlands of Mississippi..............6-1
Status of the Wetlands Resource......6-2
Target Geographic Areas..............6-2
North Carolina
7.1
7.2
7.3
Wetlands of North Carolina...........7-1
Status of the Wetlands Resource......7-3
Target Geographic Areas..............7-4
South Carolina
8.1
8.2
8.3
Tennessee
9.1
9.2
9.3
Wetlands of South Carolina...........8-1
Status of the Wetlands Resource......8-3
Target Geographic Areas..............8-4
Wetlands of Tennessee................9-1
Status of the Wetlands Resource......9-2
Target Geographic Areas..............9-2
Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-1
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11-1
ii
-------
Figure 2-1
Figure 2-2
Figure 2-3
Figure 2-4
Figure 2-5
Figure 2-6
Figure 2-7
Figure 2-8
Figure 2-9
Figure 3-1
Figure 3-2
Figure 3-3
Figure 3-4
Figure 3-5
Figure 3-6
Figure 3-7
Figure 3-8
Figure 3-9
Figure 3-10
Figure 3-11
Figure 3-12
Figure 3-13
Figure 3-14
Figure 3-15
Figure 3-16
Figure 3-17
Figure 3-18
Figure 3-19
Figure 3-20
Figure 4-1
Figure 4-2
Figure 4-3
Figure 4-4
Figure 4-5
Figure 4-6
Figure 4-7
Figure 4-8
Figure 4-9
Figure 4-10
Figure 5-1
Figure 6-1
Figure 6-2
Figure 6-3
Figure 6-4
Figure 6-5
Figure 6-6
LIST OF FIGURES
Target Areas in Alabama....................2-15
Bay Minette-Foley Growth Area..............2-16
Mobile Growth Area. . . . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 -1 7
Tuscaloosa Growth Area.....................2-18
Prattville-Montgomery Growth Area..........2-19
Athens-Huntsville Growth Area..............2-20
Decatur-Hartselle Growth Area..............2-21
Alabaster-Helena Growth Area...............2-22
Dothan Growth Area.........................2-23
Target Areas in Florida....................3-45
Orlando Growth Area........................3-46
Ft. Myers Growth Area......................3-47
Jacksonville Growth Area...................3-48
Bradenton Growth Area......................3-49
DaYtona Beach Growth Area..................3-50
Ocala-Bellview Growth Area.................3-51
Tampa-St. Petersburg Growth Area...........3-52
Port Salerno-Stuart Growth Area............3-53
Ft. Pierce-Port St. Lucie Growth Area......3-54
Vero Beach Growth Area.....................3-55
Pensacola Growth Area......................3-56
Tallahassee Growth Area....................3-57
Ft. Walton Beach Growth Area...............3-58
Dade-Broward-West Palm Growth Area.........3-59
Melbourne Growth Area......................3-60
Weeki Wachee River Growth Area.............3-61
Panama City Growth Area....................3-62
Gainesville Growth Area....................3-63
Florida Keys Growth Area...................3-64
Target Areas in Georgia....................4-19
Rincon Growth Area...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-20
Savannah Growth Area.......................4-21
Atlanta Growth Area........................4-22
Evans-Harlem Growth Area...................4-23
Warner Robins Growth Area..................4-24
Brunswick Growth Area......................4-25
Newnan Growth Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - 26
Carrollton Growth Area.....................4-27
Gracewood Growth Area......................4-28
Target Areas in Kentucky...................5-7
Target Areas in Mississippi................6-16
South Jackson County Growth Area...........6-17
Gulfport-Biloxi Growth Area................6-18
East Jackson Growth Area...................6-19
Madison Growth Area........................6-20
North Desoto Growth Area...................6-21
iii
-------
Figure 7-1
Figure 7-2
Figure 7-3
Figure 7-4
Figure 7-5
Figure 7-6
Figure 7-7
Figure 8-1
Figure 8-2
Figure B-3
Figure 8-4
Figure 8-5
Figure 8-6
Figure 8-7
Figure 8-8
Figure 8-9
Figure 9-1
Figure 9-2
Figure 9-3
Figure !J-4
Figure 9-5
Figure 10-1
Target Areas in North Carolina..............7-18
Jacksonville Growth Area....................7-19
New Bern Growth Area........................7-20
White Oak Township Growth Area..............7-21
Wilmington Growth Area......................7-22
Greenville Growth Area......................7-23
Durham Growth Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 7 - 24
Target Areas in South Carolina..............8-19
Myrtle Beach Growth Area....................8-20
Charleston Growth Area (Moncks Corner)......8-21
Charleston Growth Area (Mt. Pleasant).......8-22
Charleston Growth Area (Highway 61).........8-23
Bluff ton-Hilton Head Growth Area............8-24
Northeast Columbia-Pontiac Growth Area......8-25
Charleston Growth Area (James Island
Johns Island-Wadmalaw Island)..............8-26
Lexington-Irmo-West Columbia Growth Area....8-27
Target Areas in Tennessee...................9-12
Memphis Growth Area.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 -13
Murfreesboro Growth Area....................9-14
Clarksville Growth Area.....................9-15
Maryville-Alcoa Growth Area.................9-16
Summary of Number of Target Areas
in Each State............................. .10-4
iv
-------
Appendix A:
Appendix B:
Appendix C:
Appendix D:
Appendix E:
Appendix F:
LIST OF APPENDICES
Population and Growth Rate for Areas of Urban
Expansion in EPA Region IV from
Ganett-Fleming, 1991.
Part 1 -- Major Growth Areas (50,000 or more
by 2000)
Part 2 -- Minor Growth Areas (15,000 - 49,999
by 2000)
County Priority by State of Selected
Silvicultural Activities
County Priority by State of Selected
Agricultural Activities
Fish and Wildlife Service Priority Areas for
Each State
List of Individuals Contacted in Each State
For Recommendations on Threatened Wetlands
Responses from State and other Federal
Agencies on Endangered Wetlands Systems
v
-------
HIGH RISK GEOGRAPHIC AREAS TARGETED FOR
WETLANDS ADVANCE IDENTIFICATION IN REGION IV
EXECUTIVE SIDIHARY
Region IV of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has
developed a list of geographic areas within the eight
states in Region IV - Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,
Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee
- where valuable wetlands are at risk of impact from urban,
silviculture or agriculture expansion. These areas are to
be targeted for the Region's wetlands advance
identification (ADID) program. Information on valuable,
threatened wetland systems was compiled from Regional
information and from information collected from other
federal agencies, the states, local agencies and the
conservation community. U.S. Census Bureau population data
and local land use information from all eight states was
compiled and analyzed to develop a target list of urban
growth areas. Data on silvicultural activity was collected
primarily from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest
Service, and data on agricultural activity was collected
primarily from the U.S. Bureau of Census' 1987 Census of
Agriculture. The data on urban growth, silviculture
expansion and agriculture expansion was compiled with
contractor support. All other data was compiled, analyzed
and prioritized by Regional staff, and the report was
prepared by Regional staff.
The report provides a description of wetland systems and a
list of target geographic areas for each Region IV state.
Target geographic areas are grouped into one of four
categories based on priority for implementation of an ADID
study. These are:
Cateaory 1 areas are considered to be the highest
priority areas for wetlands planning within each
state. These are areas that are characterized by
significant urban growth located within or nearby
important wetlands areas which likely support
threatened and endangered species or critical habitat.
Cateaory 2 areas are the next highest priority for
planning studies in a state. These are wetland areas
that have the same characteristics as Category 1 except
that it is unlikely that the area supports threatened
or endangered species. The area must have an urban
growth center, and in addition, wetlands in the area
must support important recreation, commercial fishery
or wildlife uses.
Cateaory 3 areas are of less priority than Category 1
or 2 areas. These are areas experiencing urban growth
where wetlands compose a significant portion of the
vi
-------
Illndscape. These wetland areas, however, do not likely
Dupport threatened or endangered species, nor are they
bapo;c-tant for recreation, commercial fishing, or wildlife
m~agement. .
Cilteqgry 4 includes areas experiencing significant
s;Llviculture or agriculture expansion within the vicinity
o~ unportant wetlands which support threatened or
eadangered species or important recreation, commercial
f:Lshing, or wildlife management uses.
The ropoyt identifies 58 urban growth areas
waternheds across the Region where valuable
risk of development. These areas fall into
cate<1orif~s described below.
4~\ Category One urban growth areas
6 in
18 in
6 in
4 in
4 in
4 in
2 in
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
lC C~tegory Two urban growth areas
2 in
3 in
2 in
2 in
1 in
Alabama
Georgia
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
4 Category Three urban growth areas
1 in Mississippi
2 in South Carolina
1 in Tennessee
66 Category 4 areas
3 Counties in Alabama
18 Counties in Florida
20 Counties in Georgia
5 Watersheds in Kentucky
8 Counties in Mississippi
5 Counties in North Carolina
3 Counties in South Carolina
4 Counties in Tennessee
and 66 counties or
wetlands are at
the following
The Region currently has thirteen ADID studies underway.
of thefJe ADID studies are located in geographic areas
vii
Nine
-------
identified as Category One high priority areas in this report.
These nine ongoing studies are:
~abama - City of Huntsville
Florida - NE Shark River Slough, Dade County
Florida - West Broward County
Florida - St. John's Forest, Jacksonville
Florida - Rookery Bay, Naples/Ft. Myers
Florida - Florida Keys, Monroe County
Florida - SW BiscaYne Bay, Dade County
Georgia - Chatham Co./Savannah
Mississippi - Jackson/Pearl River
The list of priority areas identified in this report represents
a major source of information the Region will consider in
deciding to take on any future ADID studies. The decision to
implement an ADID will depend on many factors including local
support for the effort, the likelihood that the results will be
incorporated into land use plans, zoning or ordinance
restrictions, or the lack of existing local or state protection
for wetlands. The Region is limited in its ability to
implement ADID studies by existing financial and staff
resources.
viii
-------
1.0
1.1
Introduction
Opening Discussion
Wetlands advance identification (ADID) is a planning tool
authorized by the Clean Water Act (CWA) that can have
siqnificant beneficial results for the regulated community, the
CWA Section 404 regulatory agencies, local governments in their
land-use decision processes, and the public. These studies, if
properly planned and implemented, can provide valuable
information on the location of wetlands, the relative value of
those wetlands, and the likelihood that a Section 404 permit
could be issued for development in wetlands.
Although ADID studies potentially offer siqnificant benefits, a
relatively small number of ADID studies are implemented each
fiscal year in Region IV of the u.S. Environmental Protection
Agency because of the siqnificant human and financial resources
required to properly plan and implement a meaningful ADID
effort. This limitation on available resources demands that
areas selected for ADID study be those areas with siqnificant
wetlands resources which are at most risk of impact and
degradation. Because the ADID program is most effective at
controlling the risk associated with activities regulated by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, areas where siqnificant
wetlands resources are threatened from these types of
activities pose the best candidates for ADID study.
In order to help target those wetlands areas at most risk from
Section 404-type activities, the Region undertook an effort to
identify within each state in the Region areas where urban
development, agriculture expansion and silviculture expansion
are threatening valuable wetland systems. These areas were
then separated into four categories reflecting the priority of
the need for wetlands ADID study. The categorization found in
this document does not reflect a ranking of wetlands in a state
by ecological value, but rather, ranks areas first based on the
degree or extent of future impacts expected. This data is then
compared to information on the extent of wetlands in an area
and the importance of those wetlands in terms of threatened and
endangered species and other important commercial or
recreational uses.. The assessment was based on data and
information collected by the Region which was then compiled and
assessed using the siqnificant professional experience,
knowledge and judgement of the Region's wetlands staff.
This effort focuses on geographic areas that would benefit from
the Region's advance identification authority -- those areas
which are being impacted by regulated activities: urban growth
areas, silviculture expansion areas, and agriculture expansion
areas. The Region, however, is not limited to advance
identification as its only planning tool and could choose to
1-1
-------
undertake wetlands protection planning activities in areas not
neceDl3arily significantly impacted by regulated activities.
In an~icipation of producing the report, Regional discretionary
fundD w'ere allocated to the Region's National Environmental
policy Act (NEPA) contractor for the collection of information
on projected urban growth in the Region, and on the expansion
of silvirculture and agriculture in the Region. The product of
this ~ontract served as a fundamental element of the priority
assesament. The Region collected infor.mation on valuable
wetla1i1d >systems under threat of development from a number of
sources including internal infor.mation, data from the Fish and
Wildlife Service, state water quality agencies, state game and
fish IlgeAlcies, state planning and water resource agencies, and
conse:~ation groups. Extensive effort was dedicated to this
proje(ct :by the Region including the efforts of four staff
membe:rs and the Wetlands Planning Unit Supervisor.
The r(~sults of this effort will direct the wetlands planning
proqrmn to the highest risk areas of the Region where wetlands
advant;e .ldentification has the most potential to be beneficial
and e:rfective. The categorization produced in this document is
not iutended to be static over time. The Region is continuing
its e~foxts to develop and improve upon methodologies to
identify high risk areas and to target those areas for wetlands
planning activities.
1.2
Background
Region IV of the u.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
which includes the eight southeastern states of Alabama,
Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi; North Carolina, South
Carolina (I and Tennessee has approximately 33 percent of the all
wetlands-in the contiguous U.S., a total of approximately 35
millicm acxes. Wetlands are a significant landscape feature in
most of the states ~n the Region. In Florida, South Carolina,
Nor~h Ca~olina, Georgia and Mississippi wetlands compose 14 to
33 per.cent of the total land area as the average for the state
as a who~e. In certain parts of these states, typically the
coast~l areas where the majority of growth is occurring,
wetland~ commonly compose 40 to 60 percent or more of the
landscape, and can go as high as 90 percent in areas like south
Florida ",here some of the fastest growing urban areas in the
nation e,rist. According to u.S. Army Corps of Engineers data,
in Region IV in 1989 and 1990 an average of 36,000 individual,
qener&lq and nationwide Section 404 permits were processed each
year. This accounted for 31 percent of all Corps actions in
the n~tiono Twenty percent of these actions (7381) were
individual permit applications. Clearly this level of permit
activity indicates that wetlands in many parts of Region IV are
being threatened and are at risk from impacts associated with
Section 404 activities.
1-2
-------
The present and ongoing Section 404 permit activity clearly
demands a significant and important regulatory effort on the
part of the Region to assure that permits issued by the Corps
comply with the environmental regulations, and that appropriate
enforcement activities are properly implemented. In fiscal
year 1991, approximately 60 percent of the Region's wetlands
staff were dedicated to these regulatory and enforcement
responsibilities. .
The wetlands regulatory arena, an important and essential
component in controlling wetlands losses in the region, is
typically a difficult and oftentimes contentious process.
Landowners or developers who have invested financial resources
into development design and planning are not easily convinced
to significantly modify these plans to accommodate wetlands
concerns. If information were made available on the location
of wetlands including a categorization of those wetlands that
described the likelihood of obtaining a Section 404 permit, the
regulated community and the federal regulatory agencies could
significantly benefit. The wetlands advance identification
process authorizes EPA to produce such information.
In early 1989, the Region made a decision to allocate some of
the wetland program staff to undertaking a program of wetlands
advance planning. In fiscal year 1991, 40 percent of the
wetlands staff were dedicated to these types of activities
including wetlands advance identification and public outreach
and education. Wetlands advance identification is authorized
by the Section 404 Clean Water Act regulations. (See Section
230.80.) In Advance Identification (ADID), the Region selects
geographic areas where valuable wetland resources are at risk
from regulated activities. An interagency cooperative study is
then conducted of selected geographic areas which includes
identification and mapping of jurisdictional wetlands;
assessment of wetlands functions and values from field
information: categorization of wetlands as high, moderate or
low value based on overall functions and values; and, finally
designation of wetlands areas as either "generally unsuitable
for development" or "potential future development site". In
some cases, an intermediate designation of "case by case" may
be applied. The Technical Summary Document and associated
designation maps produced at the conclusion of the study are
held by EPA and the u.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and
referred to when making Section 404 permit decisions for
projects located in the study area. The final ADID Technical
Summary Document provides the regulated community with an
indication of the likelihood of receiving a Section 404 permit.
The regulations require that EPA obtain the cooperation of the
Corps on all ADID projects. In addition to the Corps, the
participation of other federal, state and local agencies is
encouraged and frequently supported with EPA financial
support. In addition to the Corps, the u.S. Fish and Wildlife
1-3
-------
Service is another major federal participant. Other federal
agencies that may be involved on a case by case basis are the
Soil Conservation Service,. the National Marine Fisheries
Service, the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the
Tennessee Valley Authority. The state is always consulted as a
review agency, and in some cases, serves as a major participant
in condu,cting the study. In most ADID studies, the local '
government is encouraged to cooperate as a major participant,
and serves as the local sponsor for the study. The Region is
finding through experience that ADID studies are most
successful where there is a local sponsor. In the more recent
ADIDs, ~ignificant effort and financial commitment has been
dedicated to securing the cooperation of a local agency. Some
ADID studies, however, cross local jurisdictional boundaries,
and a~~ not well suited to the local-sponsor concept.
The R9gion's original strategy for selecting geographic areas
for a~ ADID study was largely based on the program experience
and e=ological judgement of program staff regarding regional
probl~m areas where proposed development posed significant risk
to valuable wetlands systems. In conducting this
identification of target areas, the Region found that the
inititStl selections of high risk areas based on professional
judgp..ment were quite accurate. Eleven of the 14 ADID studies
completed or underway are indicated by the results of this
repor~ tv be Category One high risk areas. The three ADID
areas not identified as a priority by this document are
considerl3d to be appropriate candidates for wetlands planning
as e~9lained in the Section 10 Summary.
As tho w~tlands planning program evolved over the last couple
of yea.rs, public knowledge of the ADID program expanded, and
the RHgil)n began to receive requests to conduct ADID studies in
various locations across the Region from individuals, local
governments, corporations, and. conservation/environmental
groupo. It was becoming more and more difficult for the Region
to evnlUtlte the merit of these proposals without more
information and a strategy based on risks by which to follow.
It Waf! at: this point that a decision was made by the Region to
collect and evaluate data on risks to the wetlands resource
posed by Section 404-type activities.
1.3
History
As of July 1993, the Region has thirteen ADID projects
underway. Eight of these should be completed by December
1993. The study areas for these projects range typically from
30 square miles up to 150 square miles. Four of the projects
to be completed in 1993 are located in Florida as are two of
the remaining ADID projects. Of the Region IV states, Florida
is considered the highest priority for wetlands planning
activities. This state has one of the fastest growth rates in
1-4
-------
the nation, and its landscape is approximately 33 percent
wetlands. The State estimates that approximately 700 to 1000
people per day move into Florida. This combination of high
growth and extensive, valuable wetlands systems led the. Region
to focus significant planning activity and resources on wetland
systems in Florida. Planning projects in other states have
been selected on a case by case basis depending on the merits
of each individual proposal. As of July 1993, two planning
projects are underway in Georgia and one planning project is
underway in Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, and
South Carolina. Below is a brief discussion of each planning
project including the initiating factors and a general
description of the project.
Plannina Pro1ects in Alabama:
Huntsville Area ADID -- The City of Huntsville requested
assistance in mapping and assessing the value of their
wetlands. Huntsville is one of the fastest growing cities
in Alabama and is surrounded by predominantly agricultural
land. The City was willing to serve as a local sponsor
for the ADID, and in September, 1991, a grant of $72,000
was awarded to the City to assist them in conducting a
wetlands ADID with the participation of the Region. ADID
results are expected to be integrated into the City's land
use plan. The study area is approximately 117 square
miles. The study will incorporate the use of Geographic
Information System (GIS) data bases for producing mapping
products. Expected completion date for the project is
December, 1993.
Planning Proiects in Georaia:
Central Dougherty Plain ADID -- A local conservation
organization, Swamp of Toa, Inc., requested the Region to
take action to protect this large freshwater swamp area
from further degradation. The ADID was initiated in the
spring of 1990. The study area is 400,000 acres including
extensive bottomland hardwood wetland drainage areas with
intervening uplands and numerous limestone sinkhole ponds
and depressional wetlands. The area is located near
Albany, Georgia and has been impacted to some extent by
illegal filling activity in the area; however, the impacts
to the Swamp appear to be mostly related to hydrologic
modifications (upstream surface water and ground-water
agricultural withdrawals) and silviculture harvesting.
The Region made a decision to undertake this study because
the swamp complex is unique, and of highly significant
wildlife value. The expectations for the ADID are to
enhance the local community's knowledge and understanding
of the value of their local wetland resource, and to
encourage state acquisition of this valuable wetland
area. Expected completion date is June 1994.
1-5
-------
~orth Chatham County ADID -- The Chatham C~unty/City of
~avi!nnah Metropolitan Planning Commission (MPC) requested
gPA assistance in categorizing their wetlands as to high,
Ulod(~rate and low value. The request for this support came
:In :cesponse to the Federal Wetlands Delineation Manual
uhi(::h created significant concern in Coastal Georgia by
:lncluding pine flatwoods in 404 jurisdiction. Prior to
the 1989 Manual, the Corps had not been identifying pine
~~la.twoods as wetlands. Under the 1989 Manual,
Jurisdiction on the coast increased from approximately 40
perf::ent to approximately 60 to 70 percent of the
~Landscape . In an attempt to help the communi ty resolve
their wetland concerns, EPA and the Corps initiated the
ACID in the winter of 1991 to assist the MPC in conducting
nn l\DID of a 63 square-mile tract as a demonstration
project for all of Coastal Georgia. The project area
!ncludes large acreages of marsh, swamp, and wet pine
flatwoods. The U.S. Soil Conservation Service and U.S.
1:'ish and Wildlife Service are cooperating federal agencies
ussisting EPA and COE with this ADID. In September, 1991,
liPA awarded the MPC a grant of $70,000. With these funds,
El tochnical wetland consultant was retained to serve as
t:he MPC' s representative on the study team with EPA, the
Corps II and the Fish and Wildlife Service. The study will
incorporate the use of GIS technology to produce mapping
products and assessment of data. Savannah is the second
fas1:est growing city in the State of Georgia, and the ADID
1s ~xpected to significantly benefit the 404 regulatory
proc:ess for EPA, the COE and the community. Expected
~ompletion data for the study is March, 1994.
Planning pro1ects in Florida:
Kortheast Shark River Slough ADID -- This project was
init.iated in the first quarter of 1989 in response to
concerns regarding continued urban and agricultural
encz'oachment and conversion of wetlands in the East
Everglades area of the Dade County. The study area is 125
square miles located adjacent to the Everglades National
Park (ENP). Approximately 93 percent of the study area
has been designated as "unsuitable for the disposal of
fill material" based on the value of the wetlands
resource. This same area has recently been authorized for
a~quisition by the federal government for inclusion into
the ENPo A relatively small portion of the area, an 8.5
square mile residential area, is designated as
.';ca.se-by-case review area". Completion date for this ADID
i~'August, 1993.
W~st Broward County ADID -- This study was initiated in
t~e first quarter of 1989 in response to concerns
r(~ga,l:'ding urban encroachment into the East Everglades in
wostern Broward County. The study area is 50 square miles
1-6
-------
of land between Interstate 75 and the boundaries of the
Water Conservation Areas. The hydrology of study area has
been signficantly altered by man through ditching and
diking, and in some areas, urban development. The study
was conducted with the Corps and with the Broward County
Planning Department. Approximately 20% of the study area
has been determined to be "generally unsuitable for
development", 27% designated as "case-by-case review" and
53% designated as "suitable for development with
appropriate wetland mitigation". The Technical Summary
Document is being completed in cooperation with COE. The
public notice presenting the proposed final designations
was issued in August, 1991 with a public meeting held in
Broward County in September, 1991. Expected completion
date is September, 1993.
St. Johns Forest ADID -- This ADID was undertaken at
the request of a developer to provide comprehensive
planning for approximately 28 square miles of land
containing 6000 acres of wetlands in St. Johns County.
The study, initiated in the last quarter of 1989, was
conducted by EPA with the assistance of wetland
consultants provided by the developer. The ADID will
provide a plan for how the goal of "no net loss" will be
met. Expected completion date is September, 1993.
Southwest Biscayne Bay ADID -- Dade County requested EPA
assistance in categorizing wetlands adjacent to BiscaYne
Bay that were under pressure for development. The 23,000
acre study area includes 13,000 acres of coastal wetlands,
predominantly mangrove wetland communities, adjacent to
BiscaYne Bay National Park. In some parts of the study
area the natural communities have been invaded by exotic
species. Dade County Department of Environmental
Management is performing the study with EPA technical
assistance and direction. Grant funds totalling $35,000
were provided to Dade County to assist them in the
effort. The project incorporated GIS technology. Field
work and the Draft Technical Summary Document are
complete. Approximately 80% of the ADID wetlands will be
designated as "generally unsuitable for development", 10%
as "case-by-case review", and 10% as "suitable for
development with appropriate mitigation". Expected
completion data is December, 1993, with a public meeting
scheduled to be held in Miami in October, 1993.
Florida Keys ADID -- In early 1989, EPA and the COE
initiated plans to perform an ADID in the Keys. In
October 1990, Monroe County offered to serve as the local
sponsor in classifying and categorizing the wetlands of
the Keys from Key Largo to Key West (all islands connected
to Highway 1). This includes approximately 32,000 acres
of wetlands. Monroe County has received grant funding
1-7
-------
totalling $85,000 from EPA to assist them in participating
in the study. NASA, the u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service,
and several state agencies have agreed to cooperate with
EPA. and COE on this ADID. This study will complement
activities underway as part of the Keys' recent
designation as a marine sanctuary. The study will
incorporate GIS technology for data assessment and mapping
products. ADID results are expected to be incorporated
into the County's land use plan. Expected completion date
is March, 1994. .
Rookery Bay ADID -- The Nature Conservancy and Audubon
Society petitioned the Administrator and requested that
BPA. conduct an ADID in the area surrounding the Rookery
B~y National Estuarine Preserve in order to protect the
integrity of this highly valuable resource. The Preserve
is State owned; however, the integrity of the preserve is
highly dependent on the upper watershed which is in
;private ownership. Naples and Collier County are the
fastest growing areas of the State where expanding
development is impacting more and more wetlands. The
.initial technical scoping meeting was held in February of
1991. Field work began in September of 1991. EPA
~xpanded the study area boundaries to incorporate most of
<'he watershed for the preserve including approximately 140
!3qu3re miles. The State Department of Natural Resources
is oerving as the principal local sponsor with a grant of
$119,000 for the study. The study will incoporate GIS
~echnology for data assessment and mapping products.
1~xpected completion date is June, 1994.
Planning, Pr01ects in Kentucky:
t1es.t Kentucky Coalfield ADID -- In January of 1989, EPA
and the State of Kentucky began an ADID in a portion of
~he western Kentucky coalfield region including four
counties: Butler, Ohio, Hopkins, and Muhlenberg. The
X'egion has been mined since 1829 with significant
his~orical loss of wetlands due to strip mining and
farming. Permits for expansion of coal mines threaten
hundreds of acres of bottomland hardwoods. The study is
intended to identify those wetlands that are highly
valuable and that should be avoided by mining operations.
All field information has been collected, and assessment
of the data is underway. Expected completion date is
December, 1993.
PlannjJlq" Proiects ~n Mississippi:
Pearl River/Jackson ADID -- In January 1989, an ADID was
j,nit:iated in Jackson, Mississippi along the floodplain of
the Pearl River. The study area encompasses approximately
90 square miles. The ADID was initiated in response to
1-8
-------
concerns about floodplain development, recurrent flooding
problems, and loss of highly valuable, high quality
bottomland hardwood forests in a state where over 60
percent of the bottomland forests have been destroyed,
primarily for agricultural uses. The project is a
cooperative effort between EPA, the Fish and Wildlife
Service, and the State. The study is incorporating the
use of GIS technology for wetlands mapping and
assessment. The Draft Technical Summary Document is being
written by the u.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Public
meetings have been held with all local governments
concerned. Expected completion date is December, 1993.
Plannina Projects in North Carolina:
Carteret County ADID -- In 1990 EPA decided to undertake
an ADID in the North Carolina Coastal Plain to identify
pocosin areas that should be protected from development.
The size of the area hampered progress and it was decided
to narrow the project boundaries to be wholly within the
boundaries of the Albemarle-pamlico Estuarine Study
(APES), and to include all wetlands within a single
county. Carteret County was chosen in 1992 as the
prototype for an effort to develop techniques that are
transferrable for assessing wetlands in other counties.
The North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (DCM) is
the state sponsor for this ADID. Results of the ADID will
be used to facilitate development by DCM of a State
Wetlands Conservation Plan, and will be available for
incorporation into future County Land Use Plans. The APES
study data, such as vegetative cover mapping from EOSAT
satellite data and digitization of SCS soils maps will
greatly facilitate the technical analyses to be
performed. Expected completion date is August, 1994.
Planning Projects in South Carolina:
Carolina Bays of the South Carolina Coastal Plain --
Research information collected and assessed by the State
of South Carolina Heritage Trust Program (SCHTP) indicates
that of the 2651 carolina bay freshwater wetlands in South
Carolina, 80 percent have been disturbed and 20 percent
have been completely altered. EPA is working with the
COE, the SCHTP, and the Savannah River Ecology Lab to
conduct an ADID study to identify the highest quality bay
wetlands. Approximately 10% of the most well-preserved
bays will be identified as unsuitable for filling. The
South Carolina Land Resources Conservation Commission is
assisting the ADID by incorporating results of the ADID
into GIS format. Expected completion date is September,
1993.
1-9
-------
1.4
Objective
Befor(~ u:lldertaking additional ADIDs, the Region concluded that
an ef:~or-t was necessary to identify wetland systems in the
Regio~1 t;u-eatened by activities regulated under Section 404.
Those areas would then be prioritized for future planning
activ:tti(!s. The objective is to develop a state by state list
of geographic areas where wetlands advance planning would be
effective in reducing risk and would benefit the public and the
wetlmids resource. The effort was initiated by first
colleGtL'lg information to assist in prioritizing areas for
ADID~
1.4.11.
Data Collection
In anticipation of prioritizing areas for ADID, the Region
colle::c;ted a variety of information from a number of sources
that nerved as the raw material from which the prioritization
was doveloped. These data sources include: 1) Identification
of LElud-TJse Expansion Areas in Region IV by Gannett-Fleming,
Inc., February 1991; 2) Regional Wetlands Concept Plan,
Soutnoast. Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, August 1990;
3) cz:()SS program coordination with EPA Region IV programs; and
4) surveys of state programs in each of the eight Region IV
statefl. Each of the data sources is discussed in more detail
below 0
Identification of Land-Use EXDansion Areas in Reqion IV bv
Ganne,!:t-Pleminq. Inc.. Februarv 1991
In Apr.il of 1990 the Region contracted with Gannett-Fleming
(GF), t~1f~ Region's NEPA contractor, to evaluate information
from ~ll eight Region IV states on urban, silviculture and
agric1.al t.ure expansion in the Region. GF produced a report
entitled "Identification of Land-Use Expansion Areas in Region
IV" (F'ebl:1lary, 1991). The report provides a state by state
prioriti2:ed list of the urban growth centers, and counties
which arE! experiencing silviculture expansion, and counties
experi.encing agriculture expansion. The GF report makes no
attempt to prioritize expansion areas based on an analysis of
the wetl~nds resources in the states. The contract was
intended to provide the prioritization of expansion areas in
terms of the intensity of the areal expansion. It was the
Region's plan to take this information and apply the Regional
staff's expertise on the wetlands resources of the region to
the infozmation produced by GF in targeting areas for future
ADID.
Urban E)~ansion: In the analysis of urban growth, population
was the primary criterion to identify and select urban
expansion. areas. Population data was obtained for 1970, 1980"
1990, and 1995. GF also calculated projections to the year
2000. GroWth areas with a population of 50,000 or more by the
1-10
-------
year 1995 were prioritized separately from those with a smaller
population. Municipal areas with a population less than 15,000
were not considered in the analysis. The growth centers were
prioritized using three criteria: (1) projected growth; (2)
population density; and (3) land area. The assumption in the
prioritization is that a population with a high growth rate and
low density over a large area can have greater repercussions on
wetlands due to potential sprawl than a concentrated population
center characterized by low growth rate and high density over a
small area. For each state, GF produced two separate
prioritized lists of municipal areas, one for areas with a
projected population of 50,000 or more by the year 2000 and one
for areas between 15,000 and 49,999 by year 2000. The
summarized data of urban growth areas in the Region can be
found in Appendix A.
Silviculture Expansion: Silvicultural activity is defined as
harvesting and managing of timberland. The ranking of
silviculture activity was based on information and data for the
past 10 years obtained principally from the USDA Forest Service
Experiment Stations. An attempt was made to project
silviculture activity to the next 10 years, but data upon which
to base the projection was found to not exist. Research
focused on bottomland forest types as the best indicator of
impacts on wetlands. Data considered in the analysis included
acres of timberland harvested, total timberland acreage, board
foot removals of bottomland sawtimber, and as a mitigating
factor, board foot growth of bottomland sawtimber. To narrow
down the number of counties in each state to be prioritized,
the analysis considered only those with 10,000 or more acres of
lowland hardwood timberland harvested, or 10 million or more
boardfeet of bottomland sawtimber removed, or 40,000 or more
acres of total bottomland timberland. Counties were ranked
based on the extent of acreage harvested or remaining for
possible harvest, and on quantity of sawtimber removed. Data
for acreage harvested and sawtimber removed are for a ten year
period that varies from state to state. For each state a
prioritized list of counties was produced. These data are
listed in Appendix B.
Aariculture Exoansion: The ranking of agriculture activity was
based on information and data for the past 10 years obtained
principally from the U.S. Bureau of Census' 1987 Census of
Agriculture. Data from 1982 and 1987 were considered in the
analysis including farmland acreage, crop productivity,
cropland acreage, rice farming acreage, and number of catfish
produced (as a surrogate indicator for conversion to catfish
ponds). Calculations were performed to analyze the data.
Change and percent change were determined in farmland acreage,
cropland acreage, harvested cropland acreage, and rice farming
per county. Percentage of cropland harvested and percent
change in percentage of cropland harvested were also
calculated. For each state, counties were prioritized based on
1-11
-------
changes in cropland acreage, and changes in farmland acreage.
The e:JRtent of acreage in cropland was the primary ranking
facto!: si.nce cropland is more likely to have a greater impact
on wetlands. Farmlands include pastureland, grazing land,
woodl~ndf and wasteland, which may not indicate significant
impact; on wetlands. For each state, a prioritized list of
countles was produced. These data are listed in Appendix C.
Summa!~ Maps, figures and tables from the GF report are
included in this report for reference. The GF report is
lengthy Clnd includes numerous multicolor maps which copy
poorly. For this reason, it is not attached as an appendix but
is availtilile for review in the Regional office.
Reaional Wetlands ConceDt Plan, Southeast Reaion, u.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. Auaust 1990
In August of 1990 the u.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast
Region released a report that provides a state by state list of
411 ecologically significant wetland areas comprising 5.7
million acres considered to be valuable and under threat from
future development. The report provides information including
general location, approximate acreage, types of impacts, and a
comment ciliout the ecological significance of the site.
The Reg.ional Concept Plan was authorized by the Emergency
Wetlands Resources Act of 1986. The purpose of the document is
to identify wetland sites for potential acquisition by the
Servi~e or states through the Land and Water Conservation
Fund. The prioritization is based on three criteria: (1)
histo!:ic loss of the wetland type, (2) threat of future loss,
and (3) the wetlands functions and values. The wetlands sites
identified may never be acquired by the Service or other
agenciesr the wetland areas identified in the report serve as a
"feeder list" of potential acquisition areas in that they are
eligible for funding through the Land and Water Conservation
Fund.
The Plan included a generalized small scale location map for
each lis1;ed wetland area. The maps were not adequate for the
Region's purpose. The Southeast Fish and Wildlife Service
office was visited on several occasions to obtain useable
location maps for sites located within the Region's eight
states. This information was then evaluated by the Region in
combination with other information.
Tables of proposed priority areas from the Concept Plan are
incluaed as Appendix D. The Concept Plan is a lengthy
document, and, for this reason, the full report is not attached
as an appendix. It is available from the u.s. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Regional Office, R.B. Russell Federal
Building, 75 Spring Street, S.W., Suite 1276, Atlanta, Georgia
30303.
1-12
-------
3.
Cross Proaram Coordination
The Region coordinated with other Region IV EPA programs in
collecting information regarding endangered wetland systems.
The Coastal Program was requested to provide information on
coastal areas where wetland losses are contributing to water
quality and ecological problems. The Non-Point Source Program
was surveyed for recommendations of geographic areas of high
priority to the Non-Point Source Program that could benefit
from wetlands advance identification. The Region's proposed
targeted geographi~ initiatives were also considered in the
analysis.
State proaram and other Federal Aaencv Surveys
Each state was surveyed for recommendations of endangered
wetland systems. Numerous. contacts were made with each state
including both phone calls and letters. State agencies
contacted included the Section 401 program, and the Wetlands
Bureau in the State of Florida. The Fish, Game, and Wildlife
programs and the Heritage Program in most states were also
surveyed. In Florida, the five Water Management Districts were
surveyed as were the Regional Planning Councils. The district
offices as well as the central office of the state agencies
received the request for assistance. In states where
silviculture activities are significant, the state forestry
and/or federal Forest Service office was also contacted. In
addition, the district offices of the Corps of Engineers, the
Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Naitonal Marine Fisheries
Service were also surveyed for recommendations of endangered
wetland systems. All information was compiled and assessed by
EPA program staff. The state and federal agency contacts were
provided a draft copy of the final report and requested to
provide comments. Significant revisions to the report were
incorporated into the final document in response to comments
received. The list of contacts surveyed is included as
Appendix E.
1.4.2
Data Assessment and Prioritization
Information on urban growth, silviculture expansion and
agriculture expansion was reviewed in conjunction with
information on extent of wetlands in the landscape, and
important wetland characteristics identified by EPA, the state
or other federal agency contacts. Important wetland areas
identified by EPA, state, or other federal agencies not falling
within counties or urban areas identified by Gannett-Fleming as
growth or expansion areas were disregarded in the priority
analysis. For this reason, the prioritization in this document
does not reflect a ranking of wetlands in a state by ecological
value. Many important wetland areas may exist in a state that
are not identified by this effort because these areas are not
at the present time experiencing significant impacts related
1-13
-------
to urbaJI1 growth or economic development. This effort is
limitud to identifying those areas where advance identification
may bu bemeficial by helping to affect the Section 404
decisionumaking process.
It sh~ulcl be noted also that wetlands impacts associated with
agriCtllture or silviculture activities may not always amount to
loss ~f n11 wetland functioning. For example, if best
manaqEJment practices are implemented, a farmed wetland or
clearcut wetland forest tract will still retain its original
hydroloqiLc characteristics, even though the area ceases for the
most par1: to function as wildlife habitat. In the case of
timbel~ harvesting in wetlands, habitat functions will
eventtlal:.y return if wetland hardwoods are allowed regrowth.
However, in portions of some States in the Region, replanting
of pine :Ln wetland clearcut forests is an increasingly
prevalen1: activity. This replacement of diverse natural stands
with n predominant pine culture greatly reduces habitat value
for most species of wildlife until wetland hardwood
regenerat:ion is allowed to occur (Gosselink, et. al., 1990).
Wetland ;JDpacts associated with industrial activity other than
agriCtllture or silviculture such as mining were not assessed in
this effort. It is known that in some areas of the Region
minin9 }9c)ses significant risk to wetlands such as phosphate
minin9 and rock mining in Florida and coal mining in Kentucky.
These impacts and risks are well known to the Region and could
serve and have served as the basis for advance planning
activities even though these areas are not listed as target
areas under this effort.
Develf)'p!nEmt of Taraet Urban Growth Areas:
For e~ch state, the urban growth areas impacting significant
wetlard I:esources were compiled as one list for ACID
consic~eJCation. (The population data for the major and minor
civil divisions for each state can be found in Appendix A.)
The d~tel~ination of whether a major growth area impacts
significant wetlands resources was based on a review of the
Natio~al Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps for the area, and on
information about important wetland areas received from state
and other federal agencies. The determination of whether a
minor growth area impacts significant wetlands was based on the
physiographic region in which the growth center is located, and
the p:t'ojE!cted increase in population between 1990 and 2000.
Threatened and endangered species and commercial and/or
recreational importance of wetlands are factored into the
categori~ation system discussed below. Urban growth areas were
segregated by Ganett-Fleming on the basis of population.
Urban growth areas proposed to have a population of 50,000 or
more hy the year 2000 are considered major growth centers;
urban areias proposed to have a population between
1-14
-------
15,000 and 49,999 by the year 2000 are considered as minor
growth areas. Communities with less than 15,000 people by the
year 2000 were not considered in this analysis. In all states
but Florida both major and minor growth centers were considered
in the analysis. In Florida, the list of major growth centers
is so lengthy that a decision was made to focus the attention
of the analysis on the major centers. (In many cases, a number
of minor growth centers compose the major centers. Where this
occurred, these minor growth centers are included as part of
the analysis of Florida.)
Urban growth areas affecting wetland resources were listed for
potential ADID based on the categorization below. All major
growth areas were listed and minor growth areas affecting
significant wetlands were also listed depending on the
projected increase in population from the year 1990 to the year
2000, and depending on the physiographic province of the minor
growth center.
For Florida, the following growth centers were listed for
consideration for ADID:
o
All major growth centers affecting significant
wetlands.
For all Region IV states except Florida (AL, GA, KY, MS, NC,
SC, and TN) the following growth centers were listed for
consideration for ADID:
o
All major growth centers affecting significant
wetlands.
o
Minor growth centers located in the coastal region
where the population is projected to increase by 5000
or more people, 500 people per year. (It was assumed
that a relatively small increase in population can
have a significant impact near the coast where
wetlands compose approximately 60 to 80 percent of
the landscape under the 1989 wetlands jurisdictional
manual.)
Minor growth centers located in the coastal plain
region of a state where the population is projected
to increase by 7500 or more people, 750 people per
year. (It was assumed that the coastal plain
landscape, having more uplands than the coast, can
accommodate a larger population expansion before
potential wetlands impacts justify consideration for
the ADID.)
o
o
Minor growth centers located in the mountain region
of a state where the population is projected to
increase by 7500 or more people, 750 people per
1-15
-------
o
year. (It was assumed that wetlands compose a
significantly smaller portion of the landscape than
in the coast or coastal plain, probably around 5 to
10 percent. The wetlands, however, are located in
the valleys where the population tends to
concentrate. This warrants consideration for ADID at
a relatively low population increase.)
Minor growth centers located in the Piedmont region
of a state where the population is projected to
increase by 10,000 or more people, 1000 people per
year. (It was assumed that wetlands compose a
relatively small portion of the landscape in the
Piedmont, approximately 20 to 25 percent, and that
much of the Piedmont is relatively flat, and offers
considerable opportunity for development in uplands
rather than in wetlands. An ADID will be considered
only if a relatively significant increase in
population is projected to
occur. )
DevelJ}pment of Silviculture and Aariculture Taraet Areas:
Counties with significant wetlands resources where
silvic:ul~ural and/or agricultural activities are anticipated to
expand by 500 acres or more were also listed for ADID
consideration. The Gannett-Fleming data served predominantly
as tho basis for the listing of these counties. (Appendix B is
a sumllary of data on silviculture expansion by state and
county. Appendix C is a summary of data on agriculture
expanuion by state and county.)
SuPPor~iI~Information:
Infor.mation on threatened and endangered species and critical
habitc1ts was collected from the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Data (lnd information on important wetland areas was compiled
from t:he Fish and Wildlife Service Priority Wetlands
Consel:vai;ion Plan, and from information provided by state and
other federal agencies.
Cateaori2ation of the Taraet Areas:
The w:ban growth areas and counties were grouped into one of
four categories based on the general description provided
below. ~~he ecological judgement and knowledge of wetlands
systems in each state was applied by EPA staff in the
cateqori~ation process. The categorization process gives more
priorlty to areas impacted by urban growth primarily because
these activities can be effectively managed by the Section 404
permit. process. In contrast, the Section 404 program has
limited authority over silviculture and agriculture
activities. Some of these activities are exempted from
1-16
-------
regulation. Conversion of naturally vegetated wetlands to
agricultural uses and silvicultural uses is considered a
significant risk. The available agricultural and silvicultural
data, however, is based on past activity, and is weak in terms
of projecting areas of future risk. For this reason, the
agricultural and silvicultural areas are given a lesser
priority than the urban growth areas. ADID studies may be
appropriate in agricultural and silvicultural areas under
certain scenarios, and for this reason they are included in the
ranking process.
Cateaorv 1 areas are considered to be the highest
priority areas for wetlands planning within each state.
These are areas that are characterized by significant
urban growth located within or nearby important wetlands
areas which likely support threatened and endangered
species or critical habitat.
Cateaorv 2 areas are the next highest priority for
planning studies in a state. These are wetland areas that
have the same characteristics as Category 1 except that it
is unlikely that the area supports threatened or
endangered species. The area must have an urban growth
center, and in addition, wetlands in the area must support
important recreation, commercial fishery or wildlife uses.
Cateaorv 3 areas are of less prio~ity than Category 1 or
2 areas. These are areas experiencing urban growth where
wetlands compose a significant portion of the landscape.
These wetland areas, however, do not likely support
threatened or endangered species, nor are they important
for recreation, commercial fishing, or wildlife
management.
Cateaorv 4 includes areas experiencing significant
silviculture or agriculture expansion within the vicinity
of important wetlands which support threatened or
endangered species or important recreation, commercial
fishing, or wildlife management uses.
Two growth areas are included as Category One target areas that
did not meet the criteria established in the ranking process.
These growth areas were listed based on comments received from
state and federal review agenices, and on corroborating
information and data known to the Region. These areas are
specifically identified in the appropriate state chapter and an
explanation for the listing is provided.
The decision to undertake future wetlands advance
identification studies will not be strictly guided by the
categorization system. A number of factors are involved in any
decision to undertake planning projects. Foremost among these
is a local sponsor's willingness to participate, the sponsor's
1-17
-------
commitment to the effort as demonstrated by matching funds or
other types of support, and the ultimate objective of the
planning study as expressed by the local sponsor. The Region
is more likely to undertake a planning study in a lower
cateqory area if a local sponsor demonstrates a sincere
willingness to follow-up the planning study with a local
wetland protection ordinance. The Region is also more likely
to undertake a planning study where the effort is more
comprehensive in terms of its objectives such as development of
a local comprehensive management plan for wetlands. The Region
must also take into consideration the existing local or state
land-use controls or the lack of those controls for protecting
wetlands. Areas where existing land-use controls for
protecting wetlands are weak or non-existent will rate as a
higher priority for implementation of an ADID. Any decision to
undertake future ADIDs is highly dependent on the Region's
availability of financial and staff resources.
1-18
-------
2.0
2.1
Alabama
Wetlands of Alabama
There are approximately 32.5 million acres of land in the State
of Alabama. Wetlands once occupied almost 7.6 million acres, or
23.3 percent of the State's surface area. By the 1980's,
wetlands accounted for 11.5 percent of the landscape or 3.8
million acres (Dahl 1990). The significant wetland types in
Alabama are coastal wetlands, river swamps and floodplains, and
isolated inland wetlands. .
Coastal Wetlands The coastal wetlands of Alabama are
principally salt marshes. This wetland type resides in the
transition zone between the marine environment and freshwater
rivers where low tidal amplitudes and low frequency of
inundation produce less flooding stress on plants than along
other shorelines. Species composition in these area is similar
to tidal marsh systems of other states such as Florida and
Georgia, but dominance is shifted from smooth cordgrass to black
needlerush (Stout 1985). Other dominants are dependent upon
landscape position, salinity, and hydroperiod, and include
saltwort, glasswort, salt grass, and salt shrub.
Due to its short coastline, the extent of coastal wetlands in
the Alabama is relatively low compared to most other coastal
states. Although the total number of acres is low, the
comparative value of these system is correspondingly high. For
example, these salt marshes serve as the nursery area for almost
all of the state's economically important species of fish and
shellfish. In 1986, Alabama commercial fishermen harvested $64
million dollars worth of seafood, with marine recreation
fishermen spending over $75 million on fishing trips and
equipment (Wagner et.al., 1990). Other wildlife utilize these
.habitats as well, including threatened and endangered species,
and migratory birds.
River Swamps and Floodplains These wetlands systems occur
along the river drainages and can form extensive bottomland
hardwood forests, or can occur as narrow zones of wetlands in
cleared agricultural areas. Some Alabama floodplain wetlands
have been lost through the construction of river impoundments.
Variations in water chemistry, topography, and the extent of
wetlands in the headwater area create several different forms of
this wetland type, including blackwater, alluvial, and
springfed. Dominant vegetation in these areas is comparable to
those found in other southeastern rivers (see Section 3.1).
Typical functions and values are associated with these areas,
including wildlife habitat, protection from downstream flooding,
and water quality improvement.
2-1
-------
Isolated Inland Wetlands The State of Alabama contains many
different types of hydrologically isolated wetlands, principally
due to underlying limestone formations which occur throughout
the State. Significant wetland resources in this category
include bogs, cypress domes, prairies, and freshwater marshes.
A major function attributed to these systems is their role in
providing wildlife refugia in areas under intensive agricultural
management, and by providing habitat diversity in an
upland-dc)minated landscape (Mount 1975).
2.2
Status of the Wetland Resource
Trend studies conducted by the u.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
indicate that Alabama lost about 10 percent of its interior
wetlands during the period 1956 through 1979. Primary causes
for wetland destruction or functional loss were conversion to
agriculture and silviculture, and reservoir construction and
inundation. Coastal estuarine wetlands experienced a 35 percent
reduction in the same period, and encompassed about 120,000
acres in 1979. Most of the loss of coastal wetlands was due to
residential and commercial development (USFWS 1990).
National Wetland Inventory data for the 1980's indicate that
wetlands now occupy 11.5 percent of the land area (a~ost 3.8
million acres). This represents a 50 percent reduction in the
State's original wetlands inventory. Threats to the wetland
resource take many different forms, chief among them being
continued agricultural conversion and silvicultural management
practices which replace diverse hardwoods with monocultures.
Urbanizat:ion in localized areas of the State continues,
principally in existing population growth areas and within the
lower coastal counties in the Mobile-Tensaw delta region.
2.3
TARGET AREAS IN ALABAMA
See Fiqu~e 2-1 for the generalized location of all identified
target areas in Alabama. All figures for Alabama can be found
at the end of the Alabama section.
SUKMARY OF TARGET AREAS
Cateqory One
Bay Minet;te-Foley Growth Area
Mobile Growth Area
Tuscaloosa Growth Area
2-2
-------
Prattville-Montgomery Growth Area
Athens-Huntsville Growth Area
Decatur-Hartselle Growth Area
Alabaster-Helena Growth Area
Category Two
Dothan Growth Area
Cateaorv Three
None
Cateaorv Four
Perry County
Covington County
Clarke County
CATEGORY ONE
Category One includes urban growth areas located within or
nearby significant expanses of wetlands which likely support
threatened or endangered species. The geographic areas are not
listed in any specific order of priority.
1.
Bay H1nette-Foley Growth Area - Baldwin County (Figure'
2-2)
Ecoloaical Importance
Baldwin County is one of two coastal counties in Alabama. It is
located on the east side of Mobile Bay, and borders the Gulf of
Mexico on the south and Florida on the east. Because of its
relatively extensive amount of coastline and the presence of the
Tensaw, Mobile, and Alabama Rivers along its western border, it
contains the most extensive and some of the most vital wetland
acreage in the state. The Mobile-Tensaw River delta alone
accounts for more than 50 percent of the coastal zone tidal
marshes and a large part of the remaining forested wetlands in
the state.
The forested wetlands are composed principally of bottomland
hardwoods such as cypress and tupelo, and the coastal wetlands
are principally salt marshes. Marine and freshwater grass beds
are vital components of the coastal areas as well. These types
of wetlands provide water quality improvement through retention
of sediments, nutrients, and other pollutants; they also help
minimize erosion, and provide areas for outdoor recreation and
education. The wetlands in the Mobile-Tensaw River delta area
2-3
-------
CATEGORY ONE ( cant. )
provide water for several small municipalities, and dilute a
multitudg of industrial and commercial effluents. Coastal
wetla:lld.s reduce shoreline damage caused by storms.
High value fish and wildlife habitat occurs here due to the
mixin~ of fresh and salt water. The sloughs, streams, and tidal
creekG provide access for fish and wildlife to and from the
SWamp!3 and estuarine marshes. Over 90 percent of the fish and
shelltish associated with Alabama's commercial and sport fishery
producti~n are dependent on coastal wetland habitat for at least
a pOr'1:.iorl of their life cycles. These species include mullet,
floul~der, speckled seatrout, redfish, blue crab, and shrimp. An
abundimcg of wildlife is present, including raccoon, marsh
rabbi~, alligator, wading birds, diamondback terrapin, and
mink 0 Migratory waterfowl such as the mallard and wood duck
feed in, some areas. A number of endangered and threatened
speci(~s also inhabit these wetland areas including the Alabama
beach mouse, red-bellied turtle, and Arctic peregrine falcon
(seafmnally) .
Threa'ts
The BQY ~~nette-Foley urban growth area is the second fastest
growing lnetropolitan area in Alabama. It encompasses the towns
of Bay Kinette, Daphne, Fairhope, and Foley, which are
experiencing rapid growth due to their proximity to Mobile (all
are 'tJ:tth.ln 35 miles). The 1990 population of 75,600 is
projef:ted to increase by 21 percent to 91,400 over a ten year
period. The Bay Minette, Foley, and Daphne divisions were
ranked by Gannett Fleming first, second, and third out of 43
Alabm~a cities that possess growth patterns which may adversely
affect w~tlands.
Resio1Emtial, commercial, and industrial development account for
the bulk of wetland loss and degradation in Baldwin County.
Marinn and qolf course development in the Gulf Shores area poses
signi):icant threats to wetlands and water quality. Major oil
and"gHs exploration has occurred in Mobile Bay and the
Mobil~-Tensaw River delta and future additional exploratory and
production dredge and fill operations are probable. Development
along the eastern shore of Mobile Bay and around Perdido Bay are
serions concerns, as is disposal into bottomland swamps of
dredgod f!laterial needed to maintain coastal navigation channels.
Intemlivt! forestry practices are of concern as well. Baldwin
County in ranked second of 27 counties experiencing
silvicul1:ural expansion in the state. Between 1972 and 1982,
appro]~imately 12 percent of the bottomland hardwood in the
county was removed. Where best management practices are not
implemen1:ed, logging can result in increased erosion and
sedimuntation into Mobile Bay. However, temporally disrupted
habit@t (while forest regeneration is occurring) for many fish
2-4
-------
CATEGORY ONE (cant.)
and wildlife species is often the major impact caused by timber
harvesting in wetlands.
Areas of concern in Baldwin County include the Mobile-Tensaw
River delta, Little Point Clear, and Oyster Bay (USFWS).
2.
Mobile Growth Area - Mobile County (Figure 2-3)
Ecological Importance
Mobile County is located on the west side of Mobile Bay. The
Gulf of Mexico lies to the south and Mississippi to the west.
The Mobile River and Mobile Bay on its eastern border contain
extensive associated wetlands composed of bottomland hardwood
swamp in the river delta area, and salt marsh along the coastal
margin. Wetland areas on the Gulf of Mexico include salt marsh
and Gulf Coast savannah.
Wetland resources of Mobile County are similar to those of
Baldwin County. Wetlands in Mobile County provide water quality
enhancement, reduce the effects of erosion and storm surges, and
provide areas for outdoor recreation. Wetlands of the
Mobile-Tensaw River delta supply water to small municipalities
and dilute a multitude of industrial and commercial effluents.
High value fish and wildlife habitat occurs here due to the
mixing of fresh and salt water. Sloughs, streams, and tidal
creeks provide access to and from the forested swamps and
estuarine marshes, which is vital for breeding and foraging for
certain species. Commercially and recreationally important fish
species include catfish, trout, redfish, and flounder. Mobile
County provides habitat for the alligator, eastern brown
pelican, and several species of migratory waterfowl such as the
scaup and redhead duck. Endangered and threatened species
utilizing the area include the Mississippi sandhill crane,
red-bellied turtle, and Arctic peregrine falcon (seasonally)~
Threats
The Mobile urban growth area encompasses the cities of Mobile,
Grand Bay, and Tanner Williams, with a combined 1990 population
of 338,000. The projected 2000 population is 392,000, or an
increase of 16 percent. It is the third fastest growing area in
the state. Out of 43 Alabama cities whose growth patterns may
adversely affect wetlands, Grand Bay and Tanner Williams were
ranked fourth and seventh, respectively, by Gannett
Fleming.
2-5
-------
~GORY ONE (cont.)
Residlontial, commercial, and industrial growth are the biggest
thre~t.s to wetlands in Mobile County. Oil and gas exploration
and production in Mobile Bay and the Mobile-Tensaw River delta
cau~e bmninent"threats; disposal into wetlands of dredged
materiLal from maintenance of navigation channels is also a
serioBs c:oncern.
In addition, Mobile County ranks third of 27 counties in the
state expanding logging activities in bottomland hardwood
fores~s. Much of this activity is associated with private
non~irr!dul;try landowners; therefore, lower overall compliance
with hes':. management practices for silviculture may occur.
TimJ'oex' harvesting activities and associated potential impacts
are comparable to those in adjacent Baldwin County (Bay
Minett.e-Foley Growth Area).
Areas of concern in the Mobile urban growth area include the
Mobilo-Tc:msaw River delta (USFWS), Grand Bay Savannah (USFWS),
and the San Isabel Marsh (Alabama Conservancy).
3.
T@s~aloosa Growth Area - Tuscaloosa County (Figure 2-4)
Ecolojjical ImDortance
TuscSl:"ooBa County is located in the west central part of the
sta~ev approximately 50 miles southwest of Birmingham. Wetlands
in the 'ruscaloosa growth area are associated with the Black
Warrior River, which runs through the center of the county from
nor~h to south. This area is in the Coastal Plain Physiographic
Provi.nce of the state.
BottoI1land hardwood forests are the primary type of wetland
associated with the Black Warrior and Sipsee Rivers and their
tribu;taries. Due to the geology of the region, the floodplains
adjac{mt to these systems are generally fairly narrow in the
northern half of the county above Tuscaloosa and up to several
miles wide in the southern half below Tuscaloosa. They provide
flood protection and enhancement of water quality for downstream
areas 0 Lake Tuscaloosa, which feeds the Black Warrior River
north of the City of Tuscaloosa, supplies water for the city and
surZ'otlnd;~ng communities.
These riverine wetlands provide migration corridors, and
foraqlng and breeding habitat for several recreationally
import;ant species of fish and wildlife including deer, turkey,
furbenrersq largemouth bass, and sunfish. In addition, the
endange:cHd red cockaded woodpecker is likely to be found in the
area.
2-6
-------
CATEGORY ONE (cant.)
Threats
The City of Tuscaloosa is expected to undergo a 7 percent
increase in population between 1990 and 2000, from approximately
114,000 to 122,000 people. Impacts to area wetlands are
anticipated to originate from a variety of sources.
Residential and commercial growth may impact wetlands in the
area in several ways, including lakefront and riverfront
development, and development along the Interstate 20/59
corridor. Moody Swamp f;louth of town is under significant
development pressure at the present time. Industrial growth,
namely coal-bed methane drilling, is a major threat to wetlands
along the Black Warrior River.
In addition, Tuscaloosa County was ranked by Gannett Fleming in
the top ten counties in the state according to both agricultural
expansion and silvicultural expansion based on available data
(see Appendices B and C). Much of the agricultural expansion is
in the form of catfish farming; Tuscaloosa County led the state
in catfish produced in 1987, and growth'of this industry is
expected to continue. Catfish farming has the potential to
significantly damage wetlands through the construction of stock
ponds, which may alter the hydrology of the area. The county is
also in the procurement area of a major corporate paper
producer. Therefore, increased removal of wetland hardwoods may
occur over the next decade.
1.
Prattville-Hontgomery Growth Area - Autauga/Montgomery
Counties (Figure 2-5)
Ecoloaical Importance
Autauga and Montgomery Counties are located in Alabama's Coastal
Plain near the confluence of the Coosa, Tallapoosa, and Alabama
Rivers. Wetlands in the area are largely associated with the
Alabama River. and its tributaries. The relatively wide
floodplains consist primarily of hardwood swamp forests and
serve to enhance water quality through the retention of
pollutants. They also attenuate downstream floodflows and
reduce erosion. About half of the City of Montgomery depends on
the Tallapoosa River for its water supply. The city disposes of
its wastewater into the Alabama River.
Important recreational and commercial species utilizing these
riverine corridor wetlands include deer, turkey, gray squirrel,
wood duck, largemouth bass, and sunfish. The endangered Alabama
canebrake pitcher plant is found in the wetlands of Autauga
County.
2-7
-------
CATE~RY ONE (cant.)
Threa'~5
The P:,r-at"tville-Montgomery growth area is the fifth fastest
grow!:119 urban area in the state. It is expected to grow in
popull"ltion by 9 percent between 1990 and 2000, from a population
of ap;?roximately 223,000 to 243,000 people. Most of this growth
is pr(oje'c:ted for prattville (12 percent), with Montgomery
proje(~ti:[lg a 5 percent increase.
Residcmtial and cODDDercial expansion is the main threat to area
wetla.nds. Autauga Creek, which flows through Prattville
southc~as't: into the Alabama River, can be expected to be impacted
by th:Ls expansion. The expansion of Montgomery is primarily to
the east and northeast, which may cause additional impacts to
the TnJ.lli!poosa River. Industrial development, particularly
along th(~ Alabama and Coosa Rivers, is also a potential threat
to we'Gla:1ds in the area. Sand and gravel mining operations and
improper treatment of industrial wastewater are examples of
indus~rial activities that may adversely affect wetlands in the
area.
In this growth area, the Bear Creek Swamp west of Prattville is
one ~?ea of concern (USFWS).
2.
Athsns-Huntsville Growth Area - Madison/Limestone Counties
(Figure 2-6)
Ecalonicill Importance
This ~reil encompasses the western half of Madison County and the
eastel.'n half of Limestone County in extreme northern Alabama.
The m~jority of wetlands here drain into the Tennessee River and
its tributaries and are dominated by hardwood species such as
tupelo, c)akg and sweetgum. There are several significant tracts
of tupelo gum swamp in the area. Several major creeks are
sprin~ fed and support highly productive wetland systems. In
the northern sections of the counties, lime sinks are numerous
and provide habitat for a variety of plants and animals.
Functions of these wetlands include water quality enhancement
for the 'l'ennessee River and its tributaries, floodflow
attenuati.on, and desynchronization of downstream floodflow
:releases.
Significant wildlife and recreational values are provided by
many of the wetlands in the two counties. Those near the
Tenneasee River adjacent to Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge are
habita~ for large numbers of migratory waterfowl. Raccoon,
frog, turkey, crappie, bass, sunfish, catfish, and mussel are
species of recreational and cODDDercial importance found in
Madison and Limestone County wetlands. Critical habitat for the
~hrea~~ned slackwater darter is found here, and two endangered
species of mussel live in this region of the Tennessee River.
2-8
-------
CATEGORY ONE (cant.)
Threats
The Athens-Huntsville growth area is expected to increase in
population by 10 percent between 1990 and 2000. The 1990
population was approximately 228,000 people; the 2000 population
is projected at approximately 251,000 people. This is the
fourth fastest growing urban area in Alabama.
Though historically wetlands have been converted to farmland in
Alabama, farmland acreage has been increasingly converted to
urban use over the past twenty years in this county. As a
result, residential and commercial growth are expected to cause
the greatest impacts to area wetlands. Residential growth on
the south and west sides of Huntsville has already impacted some
wetlands in and around the city, as has creek channelization
inside the city limits. A major golf course planned near the
southern edge of the city is anticipated to create significant
commercial development impacting adjacent wetlands. Proposed
airport expansion threaten wetlands adjacent to the Wheeler
NWR. In addition, historic lack of use of best management
practices has resulted in degradation of wetlands in Limestone
and Madison Counties through alteration of the hydrology and
introduction of pollutants.
BYrd Spring Swamp and wetlands adjacent to Wheeler NWR have been
identified as areas of concern by USFWS. Currently, EPA is
conducting an ADID project in the Athens-Huntsville Growth Area.
3.
Decatur-Hartselle Growth Area - Morgan County (Figure 2-7)
Ecoloaical Importance
Morgan County is in north central Alabama, and shares many of
the same natural features as Madison and Limestone Counties to
the north, with most of its wetlands being associated with the
Tennessee River and its tributaries, though several isolated
systems are also present. The predominant wetland type is
bottomland hardwood forest. Wetlands in the area perform the
functions of water quality maintenance, flood storage, and
desYnchronization of downstream floodflow releases.
Significant fish and wildlife resources are provided by the
wetlands in Morgan County, particularly those near the Tennessee
River and Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge, which is habitat for
large numbers of migratory waterfowl. Species of recreational
and commercial importance in Morgan County include turkey,
raccoon, wood duck, crappie, bass, sunfish, catfish, and
mussel. Two species of endangered mussel inhabit this section
of the Tennessee River, and an endangered plant, the leafy
2-9
-------
CATEGORY. ONE (cant.)
prairie~clover, grows in Morgan County.
Threa.t:s
The Deca't:ur-Hartselle growth area is the seventh fastest growing
urban arHa in the state. The 1990 population of 74,200 is
expect:ed to reach 84,800 by the year 2000, a 14 percent
incrense 0 Wi th the Huntsville-Athens growth area located about
twenty miles away, and Interstate 65 passing adjacent to Decatur
and ErHrtnelle, wetlands in Morgan County are expected to be
impact:ed by urban development.
Much devHlopment has occurred in the City of Decatur, and is
expect:ed to continue. Commercial and residential development,
creek channelization, and road construction are the major
impact:s 1:0 wetlands in and around Decatur. Expansion of the
same t:YJPH is currently occurring at a slower rate in the City of
Hartsf~lle. The relatively flat topography and wide floodplains
in th{~ Decatur vicinity support important wetland acreage that
is pot:en't:ially threatened by urban development, especially those
areas associated with Flint Creek, Baker Creek, and Clark Spring
Branch. Industrial expansion along the Tennessee River could
also adversely impact adjacent wetlands.
Wetlands adjacent to Wheeler NWR have been identified as areas
of conce:>:n by USFWS.
5.
~abaster-Helena Division Growth Area - Shelby County
(Figure 2-8)
Ecolo~Jlcal Importance
This ~rea is located at the southwestern edge of the Appalachian
Ridge and Valley Physiographic Province where it meets the
Coast~l Plain. Most wetlands here are located along riverine
.corricloJt'£i, in fairly narrow floodplains of the Cahaba River and
its tr.ibutaries. The predominant wetland type is hardwood
forested. These wetlands provide water quality improvement,
flood and erosion damage protection, and outdoor recreation and
educat,ion areas. The Cahaba River is the last undammed major
river in the state. It is an Alabama Exceptional Water and has
been proposed for national Wild and Scenic River designation.
Forage, breeding, and migration habitat is provided by these
wetla~ds. Fish and wildlife species of recreational importance
that inhabit these areas include turkey, rabbit, raccoon, deer,
bass, and bream. The area is also important as migratory
2-10
-------
CATEGORY ONE (cont.)
waterfowl habitat. Two species of fish found in the Cahaba
River system, the Cahaba shiner and gold line darter, have been
proposed as federally listed endangered species. The endangered
red cockaded woodpecker may occur incidentally in the area as
well.
Threats
The Alabaster-Helena area is the fastest growing urban area in
Alabama. Its 1990 population of 57,000 is expected to reach
80,000 by the year 2000, a 41 percent increase. Most of this
growth is due to the southward expansion of Birmingham, the
largest city in the state.
Much of this growth is residential and commercial. Expansion of
Helena is mainly westward, toward the Cahaba River. Interstate
65 is in close proximity to both cities, and development outward
from the Interstate is expected to continue. Airport expansion
. threatens several hundred acres known as the Forrest Crim Swamp,
a disjunct tupelo forest that has been identified as an area of
concern by USFWS.
Industry, particularly coal-bed methane drilling, threatens the
Cahaba River system in the form of discharges into and physical
disruption of its wetlands. Wastewater treatment plants and
surface mining operations also create adverse impacts to these
riverine wetlands.
CATEGORY TWO
Category Two includes urban areas located within or nearby
significant expanses of wetlands that support important
commercial or recreational uses. The geographic areas are not
listed in any specific order of priority.
4.
Dothan Division Growth Area - Houston County (Figure 2-9)
Ecoloaical Importance
Houston County is located in the extreme southeastern corner of
Alabama in the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province. Wetlands
are composed primarily of bottomland hardwoods, with pine
forests occurring more frequently near the upper margins of the
wetland area. Cypress swamps are common in this area. The
riverine systems of Little Choctawhatchee River, Big Creek, and
Omussee Creek support wetlands in and around the City of
Dothan. These floodplains are relatively narrow and well
defined. They provide enhancement of water quality through
retention of nutrients, sediment, and pollutants, and also
2-11
-------
CATEQPRYTWO (cont.)
store floodwaters and desynchronize downstream floodflow
relecwes .
These wei:lands provide travel corridors and migratory routes for
a nunU)er of wetland dependent species. In addition, they
provide ,raluable fish and wildlife foraging and breeding
habitat. Species utilizing this habitat include deer, wood
duck, fu~bearers, largemouth, bass, and sunfish.
Threats
Dothcu~ in 'the sixth fastest growing urban area in Alabama. A
populution increase of 10 percent is projected between the years
1990 Cind 2000, or an increase from 73,000 to 80,000 people.
Houston County is also the second fastest agriculturally
expandin9 county in the state. In 1987, approximately 7,800
acres of land were converted to cropland in the county.
Resid£mt:~al and commercial development are the major threats to
wetland:a in the Dothan area. Most of this expansion is to the
west und northwest, though some expansion is also occurring to
the south of the city. The main wetland systems expected to be
impac't:ed by this growth are those adjacent to Beaver Creek, Rock
Creek, and the Little Choctawhatchee River.
Agrictllt.ural conversion has the potential to cause serious
degrac\at5.on of wetlands t1u::ough alteration of hydrology, and
introc~ction of sediments, nutrients, and other pollutants.
the pastt environmentally insensitive farming practices have
contrj,bu1:ed to the degradation of area wetlands.
In
CATEGORY THREE
Category Three includes urban growth areas located within or
nearby si.gnificant expanses of wetlands.
There are no. Category Three areas for the Sta~e of Alabama.
CATEGORY FOUR
CategDry Four includes areas experiencing significant
silviculture or agriculture expansion within or nearby wetlands
that likely support threatened or endangered species, or
important ~ommercial or recreational uses. The geographic areas
are not listed in any specific order. (See Figure 2-1 for the
location of counties identified as Category Four areas.)
2-12
-------
CATEGORY FOUR, cont
1.
Perry County
Ecoloqical Importance
Perry County is in central Alabama and contains wetlands
pr~arily associated with the Cahaba River system. These are
dominated by bottomland hardwoods, though some significant marsh
area is present. The county is in the Coastal Plain and
floodplains may be up to several miles wide. These areas serve
to enhance water quality for the river and its tributaries,
attenuate floodflow, and desYnchronize downstream floodflow
releases.
Recreationally ~portant fish and wildlife species utilizing
. these areas include, turkey, wood duck, furbearers, waterfowl,
bass, and sunfish. These species are dependent on wetland areas
for foraging and breeding, and for migration corridors. The
Talladega National Forest covers approx~ately one third. of the
county, and its wetlands provide a significant habitat for these
species.
Threats
Perry County is in the procurement area of a major corporate
paper producer and expansion of silvicultural activity,
pr~arily in the form of clearcut logging by individual and
corporate interests, may ~pact wetland resources.
Dobine Creek and Oakmulgee Swamp have been identified by USFWS
as areas of concern in Perry County.
2.
Covington County
Ecoloqical Importance
Covington County is located in the extreme southern portion of
Alabama in the Coastal Plain. Wetland resources are
predominantly bottomland hardwood forests and freshwater
marshes. Several large tracts of cypress-tupelo swamp exist in
the southern portion of the county. Extensive floodplains drain
into the Yellow, Pea, and Conecuh Rivers in the county. These
areas provide water quality ~provement, flood attenuation, and
desYnchronization of downstream floodflows to surrounding
areas.
These wetlands serve as travel corridors and migratory routes
for wetland dependent species. Also, they provide valuable
foraging and breeding habitat. The threatened eastern indigo
snake and Red Hills salamander are found in these areas.
Important recreational species of fish and wildlife utilizing
these areas include deer, furbearers, bass, and sunfish. The
Conecuh National Forest covers
2-13
-------
CATEGORY FOUR (cant.)
appro~imdtely one quarter of the county, and its wetlands are
signi~icant habitat for many of these species.
Threal'4s
Developm@nt pressure from forestry interests is considered to be
the b:tggest threat to wetland functioning in Covington County at
this ~ime. In 1982, less than 50,000 acres of bottomland timber
remaified. From 1972 to 1982, approximately 6,000 acres of
bottoml~~d timber were harvested.
3.
Clarke County
EcolOtlici!l Importance
Clarko Cf)Unty is located in southwestern Alabama and is bounded
on th(~ east and west by the Alabama and Tombigbee Rivers,
respeetively. Associated wetlands are predominantly bottomland
hardwood forests. The extensive floodplains located here are
highly functional, providing flood storage and water quality
impro,rement for adjacent and downstream areas including the
Mobilo-T(:!nsaw River Delta.
Siqni~icant habitat for fish and wildlife is provided by these
riveru and their tributaries. Waterfowl, deer, gray squirrel,
bass, and other species of recreational importance are found in
these w~~lands, which provide them with forage, breeding, and
cover habitat. The threatened eastern indigo snake is likely to
be fonnd in the area as well.
Threat;s
Clark~ County is experiencing a significant increase in timber
harvefJting II primarily in the form of clearcut logging. The
county ranks fourth out of 27 counties in the state experiencing
silvicul1:ural expansion. One major paper mill is located in the
county, and another is on the Alabama River over the county
line. The highest concentration of major paper mills in the
state occurs in southwestern Alabama.
An increasing percentage of wetland hardwood is expected to be
harvested from the county as pine resources decline in the
regio~. Where best management practices are not implemented,
harvesting activities may result in erosion and increased
sediment loading into wetlands. Clearcutting may degrade or
temporally disrupt habitat for wetland dependent wildlife.
2-14
-------
AL-\BAlvlA
Pigure 2-1
. 'rARGB'1' AREAS 0' .AI..\».JCA
1tBY .
CATEGORY TWO
CATEGORY ONE
8.
Dothan Growth Area
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Bay Minette-Foley Growth Area
Mobile Growth Area
Tuscaloosa Growth Area
Prattville-Montgomery Growth Area
Athens-Huntsville Growth Area
Decatur-Hartselle Growth Area
Alabaster-Helena Growth Area
CATEGORY THREE - none
CATEGORY FOUR
9.
10.
11.
Perry County
Covington County
Clarke County
U.S EPA ~eadquarrers library
Mall code 3404T
120WO Pen~sYlvania Avenue NW
aShrngton, DC 20460
202-566-0556
2-15
-------
.-~ .-..--- ---
'-.".
~:2Plt;- .
.,.-..',:~ ,
-~:~~fiPr
"".
.,
Figure 2-2
Bay Minette-Foley Growth Area
Category One
2-16
-------
, ,
~. . '51 :::n~t~'1 ':!J.~"""""
<'-"1:~~~~'~J~~-.~j '.
" 8.~~ L..8Mre~ ~It;h.""'" ; .:.~I ;. .' ~ ".
". Md..'t p.''''''--:-~
-------
Figure 2-4
Tuscaloosa Growth Area
Category One
2-18
-------
Figure 2-5
Prattville-Montgomery Growth Area
Category One
2-19
-------
N,C E
Figure 2-6
Athens-Huntsville Growth Area
Category One
2-20
-------
Figure 2-7
Decatur-Hartselle Growth Area
Category One
2-21
-------
Figure 2-8
Alabaster-Helena Growth Area
Category One
2-22
-------
\
...\
1
\ .
Figure 2-9
Dothan Growth Area
Category Two
2-23
-------
3.0
3.1
Plorida
Wetlands of Plorida
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services' National Wetlands
Inventory program estimates that over 20.3 million acres of
wetlands once existed in Florida (Dahl 1990). This represents
approximately 54 percent of the state's total land area, the
highest percentage of any of the eight southeastern states in
Region IV EPA. The most recent inventory of wetlands in the
State (1980's data) places this figure at about 11 million
acres or 32 percent of Florida's landscape. Despite wetland
losses, Florida still possesses the most wetland acreage of any
state in the contiguous U.S. Due to its unique
geomorphological origin and persisting climatological
conditions, Florida's physical environment includes an
extensive inventory of aquatic habitats including: over 7,700
lakes; approximately 10,500 miles of rivers and streams; a
marine coastline of 1,170 miles; and over 2.1 million acres of
estuarine open waters and gulf coast areas (Seaman 1985).
The determinants of wetlands in Florida are principally
hydroperiod, nutrient inputs, and periodicity of fire. Florida
contains both abundance and diversity of wetland habitats.
Florida's significant wetland resources include: cypress ponds,
strands, and prairies, river swamps and floodplains, other
freshwater forested wetlands, freshwater marshes, wet prairies,
salt marshes, mangrove swamps, and other estuarine wetlands.
Cypress Ponds Cypress ponds are found throughout Florida and
may occur in remarkably high densities. They range in size
from less than one to more than several hundred acres. Cypress
ponds are typically hydrologically isolated from flowing water
systems. Also called cypress domes, these wetlands develop in
depressions within larger watersheds and may have a
characteristic rounded shape, perhaps because of the slow
dissolving of underlying limestone over years of acid water
percolation. Typical dominant plants include pond cypress and
swamp black gum. Cypress domes drain internally, overflowing
only in very wet periods. They usually contain some permanent
standing water in their center, and are therefore especially
attractive to waterfowl and other vertebrates. Cypress ponds
are important breeding areas for insects, salamanders, and
frogs -- cornerstones of the aquatic food web.
Cypress Strands These systems are actually diffuse
freshwater streams. Although strands are found in most areas
of Florida, the best known strands - Fakahatchee Strand and
Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary - are in southern Florida.
Characteristic tree species include pond cypress, bald cypress,
and in the subcanopy, red maple, sweet bay, red bay, pop ash,
and pond apple. Strands usually form where the watershed is
3-1
-------
large enough to accumulate runoff, allowing water to flow
slowly over the landscape in undefined patterns. Because fire
is typically absent in strands, this wetland system develops a
complex assemblage of ferns, bromeliads, orchids, and vines.
This structural complexity affords breeding sites, feeding
areas, and refuges for a great number of variety of birds and
mAmmals.
Cypress Prairies This wetland class is concentrated in
southwestern Florida, the best known example being the Big
Cypress National Preserve. Cypress prairies are classified
principally by the presence of extensive stands of dwarf
cypress. They contain other cypress species, but it appears
that a short hydroperiod and nutrient inputs which are derived
primarily from rainfall are the reasons cypress trees fail to
obtain the size they reach in strands and ponds. Further, the
nutrient-poor soils support only sparse marsh vegetation,
therefore the fauna and flora diversity of cypress prairies is
comparatively lower than strands or ponds.
River SWamps and FloodplainS These wetlands are common
throughout the state, but vary according to the type of river
(alluvial, blackwater, spring-fed), its flow, and its water
quality. They are extremely complex and variable, both
hydrologically and biologically. Alluvial rivers, such as the
Apalachicola and the Choctawhatchee, are found only in
northwest Florida. River Swamps and Floodplains typically have
broad, flat floodplains that have distinct vegetative
associations stratified by depth of water and fluctuation of
water level as well as with duration of inundation. The lower,
more flood-prone zones of river swamps and floodplains are
collectively known as bottomland hardwoods. They are among the
most important and diverse wildlife habitats in Florida and are
a direct result of the flow of water. During h~gh water, water
moves rapidly carrying large amounts of sediment along with
quantities of organic debris. As the river flows over its
banks, it loses speed and the material is redistributed over
the floodplain. This deposition of nutrients supports the
systems's high productivity.
On spring-fed river floodplains, plants and animals are adapted
to more nearly constant water levels and seepage with
vegetation changes resulting from slight and very localized
changes in ground elevation. These clear, alkaline systems
rise from subterranean limestone aquifers. Examples of this
type of system include the St. Marks, Chipola, Wakulla, and
Wacissa. Some spring-fed systems, such as the Weeki Wachee,
have direct outlets to the ocean or gulf, thus providing a
remarkable mixture of both freshwater and saltwater species in
a relatively small area. Blackwater river systems are the most
predominant riverine wetland type in Florida. This river class
typically originates within the Coastal Plain and receives
3-2
-------
most of its water from local rainfall and groundwater seepage.
These rivers characteristically possess narrower and less
pronounced floodplains and lower sediment loads than alluvial
streams. Although clear, blackwater rivers are usually highly
colored due to leached and decomposing organic matter derived
from swamp drainages. Black gum, cypress, ash, and red maple
are common tree species in blackwater rivers. The Ochlockonee
and Santa Fe Rivers are considered blackwater.
River swamps and floodplain wetlands are considered the most
biologically rich wetland systems in Florida. A myriad of
plants and animals occupy these habitats to satisfy all or most
of their life requisites, including endangered species, and
commercially and recreationally important animals and fish.
Other Freshwater Forested Wetlands This group of wetlands
includes rare vegetative associations which may nonetheless be
locally common due to unique geomorphological phenomena. Such
geographically restricted wetlands include: bay swamps, scrub
bogs, and hydric hammocks. Bay swamps are dominated by one or
two species of evergreen bay trees and occur in peat-forming
depressions. Shrub bogs, comprised of dense masses of shrubby
evergreen species, are typically associated with the
seepage-derived bay swamps. Hydric hammocks consists primarily
of red cedar and cabbage palm. These systems are locally
abundant along the Gulf Coast, lower St. Johns' River, and
spring runs of the Wakulla and Wacissa rivers.
Freshwater Marshes In peninsular Florida, freshwater marshes
are extensive. The Everglades are the most striking example of
a freshwater marsh in the state. Critical to the health of
this community is water fluctuation and periodic fire to
release nutrients back to the soil. Other extensive freshwater
marshes include the St. Johns River marsh, and the Kissimmee
River drainage basin. Freshwater marshes are also common
throughout the state along the margins of lakes and of
streams. Varied assemblages of grasses, sedges, and rushes
characterize this wetland type.
Fres~water marshes serve as a filter system for rivers and
lakes. This protects the rivers and lakes from eutrophication
and provides the marsh with nutrients that are used in primary
production. Marshes will retain water during drought and large
marshes also help slow down water flows at flood times. These
systems provide habitat for important recreational wildlife
species such as wading birds, waterfowl, and mammals. Many
endangered plants and animals species occur as well.
3-3
-------
Wet Fralxies Wet prairies are typically drier for longer
periods than freshwater marshes. Wet prairies support a
variety of plants including both herbaceous and woody species
such as spike rush, beak rush, St. John's wort, and panic
grasses. These systems usually occupy a higher landscape
positio~ than marshes, and form transition zones between upland
and aquc,tic systems. Wet prairies are very important to many
Florida species of amphibians and reptiles, since these systems
exhibit both wet and dry conditions.
Mangroue Swamps Mangrove swamps exist in many tropical
areas, and Florida contains some of the most extensive mangrove
forests in the northern hemisphere. Florida's mangrove zone
extends along the west coast as far as Cedar Key, and along the
east coast to the vicinity of St. Augustine. . The presence of
mangroves is indicative of a saline environment; natural stands
never occur without saltwater intrusion. Although there is
tremendous variation in the composition of mangrove forests, in
Florida different types of mangroves tend to occur in distinct
zones based on micro-elevational differences. Typically, red
mangroves occur in the most seaward area, then white, and black
mangroves occur landward. Buttonwoods also occur in the upper
tidal reaches of the mangrove swamp. The habitat value of
mangrDve swamps is well documented. These areas are rich
breeding. grounds for commercially and recreationally important
fish and shellfish, and they also protect the land from tidal
erosifon.
Salt ;~shes Salt marshes occur north of the mangrove zones
and EHY ,also occur interspersed within mangroves. Many salt
marSh(3S are dominated by a single plant species such as
cordg;~ase or black rush, although the species composition of a
particular area depends on tidal inundation and water
salin:tty. On low energy coastlines and estuaries, the salt
marsh functions as a transition zone from terrestrial to
oceanic life. Nutrients, sediments, and detritus from upland
systems (ire redistributed by tidal action, making this wetland
one o:E t]ie most productive natural ecological systems. A large
numbe;;: o:E invertebrates, which make up a rich food supply for
many Ilarsh and estuarine animals, are found in salt marshes.
Birds 0 including rails, egrets, terns, and gulls, are
espec;Lally abundant in salt marshes.
Other Es~uarine Wetlands These wetland systems include those
which are continuously submerged, or partially exposed and
floodtod by tides. Some wetland types of this class do not
have vequtation (mud flats and sand bars), while others are
consicle~ed aquatic beds (e.g., seagrass meadows). All of these
wetlands share an important habitat function by providing food
and cover to many commercially and recreationally important
3-4
-------
finfish and shellfish species. Further, because of their high
primary production these wetlands support other estuarine and
nearshore systems via the export of nutrients and detritus.
3.2
Status of the Wetland Resource
Although Florida has a large existing inventory of wetlands
compared to the other southeastern states (over 11 million
acres), there is intense competition for land uses due to rapid
urbanization (especially along the coasts) and expansion of
agricultural areas in the southern-half of the peninsula.
Recent population trends indicate that population migration
from the northeastern and northcentral portions of the United
States to Florida and other southeastern coastal states will
continue to the turn of the century.
The most recent U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service data indicate
Florida's wetland acreage at 11,038,300 acres in the
mid-1980's. This wetland acreage covers approximately 32
percent of the State's total land area, a significant drop from
an original landscape of 54 percent wetlands. A comparison of
data from the mid-1970's to the mid-1980's indicates that the
rate of annual conversion of wetlands to non-wetlands for the
10-year period averaged 26,000 acres per year. This is a
decline from an earlier annual loss rate of 72,000 acres per
year between the mid-1960's to mid-1970's (Frayer and Hefner
1990). . Virtually all of the net loss is attributable to
conversion of wetlands to agriculture or to urban expansion.
Due to demographic and land use patterns, the loss of wetland
acreage was not equally distributed across either wetland class
or area of the state. Wetlands were at most risk where
existing urban growth areas continue to expand or where
silvicultural and/or agriculture production is increasing. For
Florida, these areas correspond to virtually all the coastal
,counties, and the entire southern half of the Florida peninsula
below a hypothetical line extending from Tampa through Orlando
to Melbourne.
Land-use trend analysis on the pattern of wetlands losses in
the lower peninsular area of Florida reveals a two-step.
process. First, population growth spurs the conversion of
productive agricultural and pasture lands to urban uses.
Agriculture, in turn, moves into previously uncultivated areas
such as wetlands. Agriculture also continues to convert
wetlands of southern Florida to citrus and winter vegetables
through a southward migration which has occurred in response to
a series of killing freezes in north Florida, and the
development of citrus trees capable of surviving in wet soil
and moisture conditions.
3-5
-------
3.3
TARGET GEOGRAPHIC AREAS IN FLORIDA
See Figure 3-1 for the generalized location of all identified
target areas in Florida. All figures for Florida can be found
at the end of the Florida section.
SUHHARY OF TARGET AREAS
Categor}' One
Orlando Growth Area
Ft. Myers Growth Area
Jacksonville Growth Area
Bradenton Growth Area
Daytona Growth Area
Ocala-Bellview Growth Area
Tampa-St. Petersburg Growth Area
Port Salerno-Stuart Growth Area
Ft. Pierce-Port St. Lucie Growth Area
Vero Beach Growth Area
Pensacola Growth Area
Tallahassee Growth Area
Ft. Walton Beach Growth Area
Dade-Broward-West Palm Beach Growth Area
Melbourne Growth Area
Weeki Wachee River Growth Area
Panama City Growth Area
Gainesville Growth Area
Florida :Keys Growth Area
Catea0D! Two
None
Cateaory Three
None
Category Four
Madison County
Taylor County
Dixie County
Levy County
Gadsden County
Wal ton C()unty
Gulf County
Jefferson County
Wakulla County
3-6
-------
Cateaorv Four
Citrus County
Putnam County
Lake County
Lafayette County
Nassau County
Okeechobee County
Glades County
Highlands County
DeSoto County
CATEGORY ONE
Category One includes urban growth areas located within or
nearby significant expanses of wetlands which likely support
threatened or endangered species. The geographic areas are not
listed in any specific order of priority.
1.
Orlando Growth Area - Orange, Osceola, Seminole, Polk,
and Vol usia Counties (Figure 3-2)
Ecoloaical Importance
Wetland types in the Orlando growth area are diverse and
include river swamps and floodplains, hydric hammocks,
freshwater marshes, and cypress swamps. Among the values of
these wetlands are recharge of the Floridan Aquifer, water
quality improvement, flood attenuation, and provision for a
wide variety of wildlife habitats due to the great diversity of
natural communities present.
Many threatened and endangered species occur in conjunction
with the wetlands in the Orlando growth area. The wood stork,
bald eagle, and red cockaded woodpecker are some of the
federally listed species known to inhabit the various wetland
systems. Some regionally significant bird rookeries exist in
the forested wetlands in this area, including state listed
species of special concern (egrets, herons, and ibises). The
occurrence of recreationally important species is highly likely
within the Orlando Growth Area. Numerous hunting and fishing
areas exist throughout, with the most sought-after wetland
dependent game species being white-tailed deer, largemouth
bass, bream, wild turkey, and wild hog.
Threats
Rapid urban and residential development around Orlando and
smaller cities in the five counties make the biological,
geological, and hydrological resources of these wetlands highly
3-7
-------
CATE~DRY ONE (cent.)
SUSCE:Jptible to degradation. The Orlando metropolitan area is
the fastest growing in the State, with a growth rate projected
at about; 39 percent for the next decade (1990-2000). The
estinlatE!d population of this area was 98,000 in 1980, and is
expec;ted to reach almost 2 million by 2000. Much of the growth
in this area is due to the expansion of Orlando northward into
Semir..olE! County and southward into portions of Osceola and Polk
Countie~. Silvicultural activity in Osceola and Polk Counties
is iI:\cJC'~asing as well, and in several areas timber harvesting
impac;ts wetlands.
Completion of a perimeter, limited-access expressway will
faci1.it~te urban sprawl to areas of Seminole and Osceola
countieEI. Further, significant roadway expansions are planned
for E.rellS in the vicinity of the resort areas (Walt Disney
World'., Sea World, and others). Nine Developments of Regional
Impact (ORIs) are currently proposed along the Interstate 4
corridol' between S.R. 528 and the Osceola/Polk County border.
Ancillary and support developments along major transportation
corridc)rs (U. S. 17, U. S. 92, U~ S. 441, and County Road 15) will
cause habitat fragmentation and degradation of wetlands within
the uppe!r drainage creeks and sloughs of the Kissimmee
RiveIJEV'erglades watershed.
Silv'iculture operations also impact wetlands via elimination of
mature trees, cavity nesting sites, and specific life history
requirements of a variety of ecologically important birds,
mammals, and reptiles. Orange County's inventory of forested
wetland resources in 1987 indicates that the County contains
almost 90,000 acres of bottomland hardwoods; Polk County
contains 137,000 acres; Osceola County contains 112,000 acres;
and Volusia County contains 163,000 acres of bottomland
hardwood timber. Extraction of this timber resource is
especially intense in Volusia County. Collectively, the
Orlandc) Growth Area has and is likely to continue to experience
the Inost intense timber harvesting of wetlands in the state, as
Volusia County ranks second in the extent of timber extracted,
Polk County ranks third, Osceola County ranks fourth, and
Orange County ranks eighth in the amount of board-feet of
timber :removed compared to the existing inventory.
Specific wetland areas that have been identified as Category
One priority for possible future ADID projects in the Orlando
Growth Area are as follows:
a) .
St. Johns River Watershed
The St. Johns River flows along the eastern borders of Orange
and Saminole Counties. The drainage basin of the river is
approximately 23,000 square kilometers and it is the longest
3-8'
-------
CATEGORY ONE (cont.)
river (512 kilometers) completely within the State. Areas of
localized concern for wetland losses in the St. Johns River
watershed for the Orlando Growth Area include the Little
Econlockhatchee, Econlockhatchee, Soldier Creek, Wekiwa River,
Cow Creek, Deep Creek, and Little Wekiva River.
Local efforts at protection of the wetland and floodplain
systems of the Econlockhatchee and Wekiva Rivers have been
generally successful in preventing continued degradation of the
wetlands by urban development. However, the Little
Econlockhatchee River has historically functioned as a major
drainage conduit for stormwater runoff in developed areas of
Orange County, as have Soldier Creek and Howell Creek for
Seminole County. Remnant forested systems exist in their
drainages, offering some wildlife and water quality functions.
Several large hammock systems associated with Lake Jessup
(Soldier Creek/Howell Creek drainages) offer ecologically
valuable areas for rare wildlife and are under intensive
development pressure. The drainage of the Little Wekiva River,
a spring-fed run in Orange County, is also under development
pressure and has experienced habitat fragmentation due to
roads, industrial discharges, and residential/commercial
development within its floodplains and wetlands.
b) .
Kissimmee River/Everglades Watershed
The counties of Orange, Osceola, and Polk contain the
northernmost component of the Kissimmee River/Everglades
system. The Kissimmee River basin drains most of Osceola and
Polk Counties and southwest Orange County. Interstate 4 also
passes through this area from Orlando southwest through Polk
County toward Tampa. There are numerous lakes in the region
and several large adjacent wetland areas. Walt Disney World, a
major tourist attraction between Orlando and Kissimmee,
encompasses some valuable wetland areas.
Areas of Concern in the Kissimmee River/Everglades Watershed
include Reedy Creek Swamp in Osceola County and Lake Marion
Creek in Polk County. Reedy Creek is an extensive mixed
hardwood/ cypress swamp. Lake Marion Creek is composed mainly
of riverine hardwood swamp and is important as a recharge area
for the Floridan Aquifer. Several threatened and endangered
species are also present in the area.
2.
Ft. Hyers-Naples Growth Area - Lee and Collier Counties
(Figure 3-3)
Ecoloaical Importance
Wetlands in the Ft. Myers-Naples Growth Area are extremely
3-9
-------
CATEUOIU' ONE (cant.)
producti.ve. System types are predominantly bay/estuarine,
mangrove swamp, freshwater marsh, cypress swamp, slough and
prairie, and saltwater marsh. There are several large
conti.guous tracts of freshwater wetlands that provide vital
hydrological connections to Everglades National Park and other
signi.fic:ant natural areas. Many of these wetlands are
excellent natural areas in themselves, containing a great
diversit:y of plant and animal species.
Lee and Collier Counties provide critical habitat for several
endange]~ed animal species including the Florida panther, West
Indian manatee, and Cape Sable sparrow. The area supports
numeroue\ colonial waterbird species, including the largest
nesting colony of the endangered wood storks found in Florida.
Roseate spoonbills, white ibises, and great blue herons also
nest in the forested wetlands of the Ft. Myers-Naples Growth
Area. The mangrove swamps and nearshore estuarine wetlands
provide habitat to commercially and recreationally important
shellfi~h and finfish, including the red drum, spotted
seatrout, shrimp, oyster, clam, and snook.
The ecological character and unique resources within many of
these wetland systems are extremely sensitive and are
vulnerable to a variety of activities. The estuarine systems
and mangrove swamps may be impacted by dredging and filling
nearby or upstream. Freshwater systems are impacted by
agricultural activities and residential development in adjacent
upland a.reas.
Threat~
The Ft. Myers-Naples growth area is expected to experience a
population increase of 37 percent in the next decade, from a
population of about 391,000 in 1990 to almost 536,000 by 2000.
This area is the second fastest growing area in Florida.
Coastal population growth will tend toward in-fill of existing
developed areas because strict local and state mangrove
protection laws typically prohibit large acreages of wetlands
from ccmversion to non-wetlands. However, several barrier
islandB are proposed sites for intensive residential
development, and recent problems with dredge and fill
applic&tions in the area illustrate the need for attention to
the iS8ues surrounding these valuable wetland systems.
Threats to the western components of the Everglades Watershed
include the continued expansion of agriculture (principally
winter vegetables). Vast areas of low intensity, unimproved
prairie lands in the eastern portions of Collier, Hendry, Lee,
and Glades Counties are to be converted into citrus production
in ths next ten years. Wetlands in these area are likely to be
diked and utilized as water detention areas during wet weather,
3-10
-------
CATEGORY ONE (cont.)
significantly altering their natural hydrology. Plans for
alligator farming and other types of aquaculture have also been
proposed for these wetland systems.
Urban expansion from nearby coastal communities is also a
threat to wetlands in the Everglades Watershed. Large,
previously- platted residential subdivisions will continue to
be improved for the influx of new residents. Some of these
platted, but largely undeveloped, subdivisions have minimally
impacted large wetland areas by the construction of drainage
systems which have now failed, such as Lehigh Acres and Golden
Gate Estates. Many of the undeveloped lots are expected to be
steadily transformed into developed lands.
Wetland areas that have been identified as Category One
priority for possible future ADID projects in the Ft. Myers
Growth Area are:
a) .
Everglades Watershed
This is a vast freshwater system covering south Florida. Urban
development along the west coast of Florida, and agricultural
encroachment into interior wetlands have impacted portions of
this extensive watershed. This area contains vast
interconnected wetland systems that are hydrologically
important to such natural areas as Big Cypress National
Preserve and Everglades National Park.
Some important areas of concern in the Ft. Myers Growth Area
are the Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed (CREW) and
Fakahatchee Strand. The CREW area is in northwest Collier and
southern Lee Counties and is believed to be critical to the
continued survival of the Florida panther. The area has
traditionally been used for agriculture, though there is a
threat of residential development in adjacent areas.
Fakahatchee Strand is strand swamp dominated by cypress trees,
and is a unique area supporting many rare species, including
several endangered animal species. It is particularly
important to the estuarine ecosystem of the Ten Thousand
Islands area.
b) .
Estuarine Systems
The bay/estuarine systems on Florida's southwest coast have
experienced significant impacts from urban and residential
uses. These systems are productive and are composed of
mangrove and salt marsh wetlands. Shallow aquatic habitats
such as seagrass meadows, mud flats, and oyster bars are also
abundant.
3-11
-------
CATEGORY ONE (cont.)
Since these natural resources offer attractive recreational
oppor~unities and the prospects of water views in residential
developments, the competition for development in and around the
estuCl:dn(~ wetlands is extremely intense. Most of the
POPUllltion growth for the Ft. Myers-Naples Growth Area will
occur wi't:hin several miles of the coast.
Curre~tly, EPA is conducting an ADID project in the area
surrounding the Rookery Bay National Estuarine Preserve in this
Growth At"ea.
3.
Jacksonville Growth Area - Duval, Clay, and St. Johns
eou:llties (Figure 3-4)
Ecolog!£al Importance
The JI:lcksonville Growth Area falls wi thin the St. Johns River
water!3hed. Wetland types in this region of Florida include
coastal i5alt marsh, river swamps and floodplains, and isolated
fores~ed and marsh wetlands. Important tributaries include
Black Creek, Julington Creek, Pottsburg Creek, Trout River, and
Cedar Swamp Creek. The St. Johns River proper contains only
fringing aquatic bed vegetation, and mixed hardwood swamps.
Most of "C.he
signi~icant river swamps occur on its tributaries (Julington
Creeko Cunningham Creek, Little Black Creek). Significant salt
marsh~s are found north of the City of Jacksonville where the
St. John~ River empties into the Atlantic ocean (Sisters Creek
and Pt!blr> Creek area). The proximity of saltwater,
trans;~tional, and freshwater wetland environments creates
produc:tbTe and diverse wildlife communi ties.
The St.. ,rohns River is critical habitat for the West Indian
manatee. Several Qther endangered species such as the bald
eagle and shortnose sturgeon inhabit the area. The marshes and
tidaL~y-:Lnfluenced portions of the river provide spawning area
for ~ vaxiety of recreationally and commercially important fish
al\d wIldlife. Migratory waterfowl utilize these marshes for
resting and forage during the fall and spring migration
seasons. Significant recreational fisheries operations occur
in the lower St. Johns River area. Largemouth bass, white
crapp:~e, and sunfish are sought-after game and commercial
specios. Seasonal migrations of recreational saltwater fish
take place near the mouth of the St. Johns River.
Threa~:s
Located in extreme northeast Florida, the Jacksonville Growth
3-12
-------
CATEGORY ONE (cant.)
Area is the third fastest growing urban area in the State.
Population in the Jacksonville Growth Area is expected to reach
one million by the year 2000. This represents a 23 percent
increase from the 1990 population estimate of about 812,000
residents. Urban growth is most rapid in northwest St. Johns
County and in Clay County in the areas surrounding metropolitan
Jacksonville. Most of the large scale developments occur
within existing transportation corridors (I-95, I-10, U.S. 17,
and U.S. 1). Many isolated wetland systems are threatened by
urban expansion which is occurring between the coastal area and
the metropolitan area. As these suburbs expand, wetland losses
are likely to occur in such places as Big Island Swamp and
Cedar Swamp. The proposed expansion of the "Jaxport"
facilities at Blount Island near the mouth of the St. Johns
River also may impact area wetlands.
EPA is currently near completion of the St. Johns Forest ADID
in the Jacksonville Growth Area.
Wetland areas that have been identified as Category One
priority for possible future ADID projects in the Jacksonville
Growth Area include:
a) .
Tributaries of the St. Johns River
An example of important wetlands which are tributaries of the
lower St. Johns River is the Black Creek watershed. This area
is an expanding urban area where residential sites are highly
valued. Several wetlands drain into the creek and botanically-
rich seepage slopes occur above the creek. Sandhill
communities are the predominant upland type.
Other tributaries of the lower St. Johns River Watershed that
are likely to experience wetland losses from urban expansion
include Little Black Creek, Julington and Durbin Creeks, and
the McGirts-Ortega River. Others, including Trout River and
Broward River, have already experienced significant wetland and
riparian habitat losses due to development and point and
non-point source pollution discharges.
b) .
Pablo Creek/Intracoastal Waterway System
This area of the Jacksonville metropolitan growth center is
likely to experience significant urbanization within the next
ten years. The area stretches from St. Augustine north to
Jacksonville Beach. Residential subdivision lots with water
access will be the predominant land use in the area, replacing
some estuarine and freshwater wetlands. Dredge and fill finger
canals, septic tanks, and servicing transportation networks can
also be expected to degrade or eliminate wetlands in this area.
3-13
-------
CATE~DRY ONE (cont.)
4.
:Bradenton Growth Area - Manatee, Sarasota, and Charlotte
Counties (Figure 3-5)
EcolQ1]lcal Importance
Wetla:!ld communities found in this area include hardwood
hammo~:k:s, wet prairies, coastal mangrove swamps, riverine
swamp3 and floodplains, and salt marshes. These wetland
syste~5 are especially productive since most either drain
direc'~ly into or are adjacent to the ecologically rich Gulf of
Mexico. Most of the river systems in the Bradenton Growth Area
are considered blackwater rivers, the upper reaches generally
consi~ting of forested hardwood swamps. Lower reaches adjacent
to the Gulf of Mexico consist of freshwater, brackish, and
saltwat.er marsh vegetation, with interspersed hammocks.
Ecologically these wetlands provide an abundance and variety of
habitat for marine, estuarine, and freshwater wetland dependent
specxGs. Threatened and endangered species, including those
speci~s in status review, are likely to occur within the area.
Occur:rencces of the West Indian manatee, bald eagle, wood stork,
piping plover, roseate spoonbill, brown pelican, clapper rail,
and eastcern indigo snake are confirmed for the wetlands of the
Brade::1to:n Growth Area. The river systems, water supply'
impou:Eldmcents, and nearshore estuarine systems all provide ample
oppor'J:.unities for recreational angling.
This arera of Florida is generally considered water-poor.
Signi:ficant groundwater resources are not available for potable
uses v therefore most communities utilize freshwater
impoundments or rivers for drinking water. Wetlands support
the availability of drinking water by acting as sponges,
gradulllly releasing water throughout the year. Wetlands in the
Bradento:rl Growth Area also perform filtering and toxics
reten~io~ functions, thereby enhancing the quality of fresh
water!:! found in the area.
Threats
The B~adGnton Growth Area is the ninth fastest growing area in
Florida. The 1970 population estimate of approximately 195,000
has gl~OWJ(l to over 420,000 in 1990. In the next decade, the
Bradento~ Growth Area will experience an estimated 28 percent
increiise in population, to about 540,000 people by 2000.
Growth will be focused within a few miles of'the coastal areas
and &long the major riverine systems. Growth patterns of
ancil~ary support services such as roads and commercial
devel()p:rn~nts will parallel the population centers.
Agricultural operations, principally tomatoes and other winter
vegetables, are expanding in Manatee County. Citrus and other
3-14
-------
CATEGORY ONE (cont.)
agricultural products will threaten wetlands in the eastern
portions of all of the counties in the Bradenton Growth Area.
Sod farming and intensive hay and feed production also exist.
Active phosphate mining is also a continued threat to the
riverine and prairie wetlands of the region. Significant
phosphate holdings and previously permitted mines exist in
Manatee River drainage area, and upper Myakka River areas.
Wetland areas that have been identified as Category One
priority for possible future ADID projects in the Bradenton
Growth Area include:
a) .
Upper Charlotte Harbor
The Charlotte Harbor system is in Charlotte and Lee Counties
between Port Charlotte and Ft. Myers. It encompasses
approximately 200 square miles and contains over 200 miles of
shoreline consisting predominantly of mangrove swamp and salt
marsh. Port Charlotte in Charlotte County is the fastest
growing city in the Bradenton Growth Area, expected to grow 50
percent in the next decade. Charlotte Harbor is one area of
concern and is considered to be one of the most productive
bay/estuarine systems in Florida. These wetlands directly
influence the water quality of Charlotte Harbor. Most of the
fringing wetlands in the undeveloped areas of the estuary have
already been purchased by the State of Florida and are being
managed in their natural state.
Other areas, particularly the Cape Haze, Placida, and upper
Gasparilla Sound contain significant wetland systems in platted
subdivisions. Residential developments in this area were
initially planned in the early 1960's and are therefore usually
exempt from the stringent growth management regulations in
place for current development. These areas represent a unique
challenge to resource managers since development has been
approved in some areas that are primarily jurisdictional
wetlands. Identification of important wetland systems as these
future population centers develop is essential for proper
resource management.
b) .
Braden River Watershed
Another specific wetland area of interest is the Braden River
drainage. The Braden River is the drinking water source for
the majority of the citizens of the City of Bradenton, and is
expected to be the major potable source for most of Manatee
County. The area is also undergoing intensive conversion to
suburban uses, replacing upland forests and riparian areas with
residential and commercial uses.
3-15
-------
CATEGORY ONE (cont.)
5.
De~tona Beach Growth Area - Vol usia County (Figure 3-6)
Ecological Importance
Wetlancl communities found in the Daytona Beach Growth Area
include brackish and freshwater marshes, extensive hardwood
swamps, and small creeks containing hammock and other forested
wetlands. Wetlands in this growth area are generally abundant
both :close to the Atlantic Ocean and in the interior, but
localized areas have been significantly eliminated or degraded
by discharge of wastewater effluent, cattle production
(non-point source runoff), and residential waterfront
developments. Other areas, mostly located in the interior,
have and continue to be subjected to intensive forestry
prac",ices.
Wetla,j101 values and functions in this growth area are similar to
others found in Florida. Large expanses of freshwater forested
and h9rbaceous wetlands of the interior (Haw Creek, Tiger Bay)
offe~ important wildlife habitat for game and non-game species
such as wild turkey, colonial wading birds, and white-tailed
deer. Species that are endangered, threatened, and of special
concern are abundant in all wetlands of the Daytona Beach
Growth Area, and include the endangered West Indian manatee and
bald eagle in the coastal areas. Interior wetlands support
populations of black bears, eastern indigo snakes, and wood
stor1ta. Recreational opportunities also exist in the wetlands
found here; popular canoeing and fishing areas are locally
importan-t. The Halifax River (Intracoastal Waterway) provides
habitat to a variety of finfish which are popular with
saltw.lter anglers.
Threa'":s.
The Daytona Beach Growth Area is expected to grow from its
curreJllt :f)opulation of about 200,000 to over 260,000 by the year
2000. This projected 31 percent increase is the twelfth
fastel3t in the State of Florida. New population centers in
this area. will probably emerge in and around the cities of Port
Orang(~ a:nd Ormond Beach. Generally, growth patterns will
follow other areas of Florida, that is, concentrated within
several miles of the coast with emphasis on waterfront
prope7:'ties.
Speci~ic wetland areas that have been identified in the Daytona
Beach Grf)wth Area as Category One priority for possible future
ADID projects include:
a) .
Hal.lfax River
This area represents the coastal beaches and the brackish water
3-16
-------
CATEGORY ONE (cont.)
lagoonal areas of the growth area. Extensive dredge and fill
developments are not as likely due to relatively strong local
regulations, but in~fill of older subdivisions is likely.
Creek front property and adjacent wetlands are also under
threat, principally in those larger creeks where extensive
navigational improvements will not be needed (Spruce Creek and
Tomoka River).
b) .
Interior Wetland Systems
Large single-owner tracts of managed forested wetlands exist in
western portions of the growth area. As timber operations
intensify, conversions of mixed hardwood wetlands to
pine-dominated stands are likely. Areas north of u.S. 92
appear to be particularly vulnerable.
Along major transportation corridors such as I-4 and S.R. 44,
localized areas of commercial development are being built
and/or planned. Land uses such as these may facilitate wetland
losses and fragmentation of existing strands and sloughs.
Subsequent disruption of wildlife population, hunting and
fishing opportunities, and potential decrease in the
availability of freshwater supplies to coastal areas is
possible.
6.
Ocala-Bellview Growth Area - Marion County (Figure 3-7)
Ecoloaical Importance
Wetlands of this growth area are generally associated with
aquatic features like rivers and lakes. Few isolated wetlands
occur here due to the underlying, deeply drained, sandy soils.
Freshwater marshes, spring-fed rivers. and runs, and river
swamps are the typical wetland habitats. Sinkhole wetlands
also dominate in some areas of the region.
The relative rarity of wetlands in this region of Florida
greatly enhances their importance and function.
Wetland-dependent wildlife species are especially vulnerable to
the localized loss or disruption of wetland functions.
Cumulative losses in certain areas can be catastrophic to
specialized animals such as amphibians and reptiles which
require wetlands for a portion of their lifecycle. Occurrences
of threatened, endangered, or species under review status in
the Ocala-Bellview growth area are high, and include the bald
eagle, black bear, and wood stork. Red cockaded woodpeckers,
herons and ibises have been sighted here as well. Ample
outdoor hunting and fishing areas exist, with the adjacent
Oklawaha river a popular recreational destination.
Threats
The Ocala-Bellview Growth Area is a popular retirement area.
3-17
-------
CATEGORY ONE (cont.)
Its population is anticipated to increase by about 66,000
people i:n the next decade, from 148,000 to 214,000. This
corresponds to a 45 percent growth rate, the sixth fastest in
Florida. . Subsequently the influx of new residents creates the
need for support services (commercial, transportation,
governmental). Stress and loss of the natural resource
inventory, including wetlands, results.
Wetland areas that have been identified in the Ocala-Bellview
Growth Area as Category One priority for possible future ADID
project.s include:
a).
Oklawaha River
The Oklawaha River basin contains the
wetland system. Though afforded some
Outstanding Florida Water, increasing
pressure threatens the Oklawaha River
wetlands.
area's most significant
protection as an
urban development
and its associated
7.
Tampa-St. Petersburg Growth Area - Hillsborough, Pasco,
and Pinellas Co. (Figure 3-8)
Ecological ImDortance
Wetland habitats in this region include coastal and interior
hammocks, cypress swamps, river swamps and floodplains, and
estuarine wetlands of the Tampa Bay estuary. Large areas of
wetlands occur in most areas of the region, but are
concentrated along major river drainages.
The rive:c swamps and floodplains offer important habitat to a
myriad of recreationally and ecologically valuable wildlife
species. Black bears, wood storks, red cockaded woodpeckers,
and numerous colonial nesting waterbirds occur here. Wetlands
in this :cegion are important hydrologic features of the
landscape, contributing to the availability of potable water
supplies and the maintainence of. streamflow.
Threats
Wetlands in the tri-county area are subject to development
pressure as coastal growth increases. Ancillary services
associated with the coastal growth also threaten wetlands. The
total population of this growth area is expected to exceed 2.26
million by the year 2000. This represents a 27 percent
increase from the 1990 population of 1.8 million (seventh
fastest growing area in the State).
3-18
-------
CATEGORY ONE (cont.)
Water quality degradation and eutrophication of estuarine
wetlands of Tampa Bay and nearshore areas is anticipated to
continue until non-point source controls are implemented.
Wetlands are also threatened by excessive groundwater pumping.
This has historically occurred in localized areas of the region
where water table drawdown has effectively drained wetland
habitats. Silviculture and to a lesser extent agriculture,
operations also threaten wetlands. Where best management
practices are not employed, silviculture operations can degrade
water quality. Conversion of wetland hardwood systems to pine
plantations impacts wildlife habitat. Silviculture activities
are concentrated in eastern Pasco County in the Withlacoochee
River, the Big Cypress and Cabbage Swamp areas, and in
Hillsborough County in the Hillsborough River drainage area.
Wetland areas that have been identified in the Tampa-St.
Petersburg growth area as Category One priority for possible
future ADID projects include:
a) .
Little Manatee River
This riverine system with its associated wetlands is perhaps
the least impacted riverine system of any on the lower
southwestern coast of Florida. Considered a blackwater river,
the Little Manatee drains a large area of predominantly
forested wetlands in southern Hillsborough County and provides
critical habitat for the West Indian manatee. Development
pressures have generally failed to reach this area, but as
transportation networks improve which facilitate an easy
commute to Tampa proper, this area is a likely future growth
area for the region.
b) .
Anclote/Pithlachascotee River Watershed
This extensive forested floodplain system drains the majority
of Pasco County. Rapid urbanization in this watershed is
likely as retirement communities and suburbs develop to serve
the growing Tampa metropolitan area. This watershed also
contains recharge areas of the Floridan aquifer, the principal
source of potable water for the Tampa-St. Petersburg Growth
Area.
c) .
Alafia River Watershed
This river contains important phosphate deposits and much of
the upper watershed is under permits for extraction. The lower
reaches, including the main tributaries (Buckhorn Creek, Bell
Creek, and Fishhawk and Little Fishhawk Creeks) are all under
intensive development pressures as residential land uses expand
in eastern Hillsborough County. These areas serve as important
wildlife corridors and habitat for a multitude of wetland
dependent plants and animals.
3-19
-------
CATEGORY' ONE (cont.)
8.
Port Salerno-Stuart Growth Area - Martin County
(I-'igure 3-9)
Ecological Im~ortance
The wetlands of Martin County consist of both estuarine and
freshwater types, including salt marshes, mangroves, freshwater
marshes, prairies, and palustrine forested wetlands. Wetlands
exist throughout this growth area, but the s~gnificant wetland
resources appear to be concentrated in the St. Lucie River
drainage, and internally drained sloughs and prairies in the
western portion of Martin County.
The wetlands of the Port Salerno-Stuart Growth Area provide
habitat to such species as the wood stork, brown pelican, least
tern, threatened loggerhead sea turtle, and endangered West
Indian manatee. They provide flood protection to coastal
development, and filter urban runoff and agricultural pollution
from upland areas. Significant recreational facilities within
the wetlands and beaches of the region provide the public with
canoeing, fishing, and nature study opportunities.
Threa ts.
The Port Salerno-Stuart Growth Area grew 130 percent between
1980 and 1990, from 55,000 to almost 110,000. Estimates for
the next decade indicate that the population will expand by
another 54,000 people (to almost 164,000) by the year 2000.
Further, this growth area is sandwiched between two sprawling
population centers, Melbourne to the north and West Palm Beach
to the south. Recreational and retirement living are
attractive lifestyles in this growth center, facilitating
extensive waterfront development.
Cattle ranching, sod farming, and citrus production dominate
the agriculture activities in the area. These operations can
cause localized disruptions in natural drainage patterns, and
contribute pesticides, herbicides, and nutrients to surface
water as a result of improper management practices.
9.
Ft.. Pierce-Port St. Lucie Growth Area - St. Lucie County
(Figure 3-10)
Ecoloqic.!l ImDortance
The significant wetlands of this growth area are the Indian
River estuarine/lagoonal system, and the upper watershed of the
St. John:; River. The area's wetlands are fairly extensive, but
have historically been impacted by citrus production and
coastal development.
3-20
-------
CATEGORY ONE (cont.)
The North Fork of the St. Lucie River is a major surface water
feature of the landscape in this growth area. Recreationally
important estuarine and freshwater finfish occur in these
waters.
The area known as the "Savannahs", an extensive complex of
herbaceous wetlands occupying depressional areas between old
dune ridges, offers unique habitat for wading birds and many
rare plant species. The upper reaches of the St. Johns marshes
provide water storage functions, nutrient assimilation and
retention, and maintenance of streamflow for the St. Johns
river itself.
Threats
The population of the Fort Pierce-Port St. Lucie Growth Area is
projected to grow by almost 35,000 between 1990 and 2000. This
growth represents a 47 percent increase in the area (from
166,000 to 201,000) and is the eleventh fastest growing area in
the State of Florida. These residential developments and
associated commercial uses threaten the integrity of the Indian
River estuarine wetlands, and the riverine wetlands of the St.
Lucie Watershed. Untreated stormwater runoff may degrade these
areas as more development occurs in these watersheds.
10.
Vero Beach Growth Area - Indian River County (Figure
3-11)
Ecoloqical Importance
The major wetlands found in this county include those
associated with the Indian River lagoon system, riverine
wetlands of Sebastian Creek, and the extensive freshwater
marshes and hammocks of the St. Johns River floodplain.
Functional wetland systems have been virtually eliminated in
the central portion of this growth area. However, significant
examples of estuarine-fringing mangrove swamps and salt marshes
exist on the Indian River.
The floodplain marshes of the St. Johns River have recently
afforded a federally endangered species, the Everglades snail
kite, with breeding and foraging habitat. Wading birds,
including the wood stork, great blue heron, and white ibis
exploit these areas as well. These wetlands also provide
important recreational areas, especially for airboating,
fishing, and nature study. The Indian River lagoonal system is
a complex of habitats which offers refugia to such endangered
species as the West Indian manatee and to commercially
important species such as blue crab, mullet, and shrimp.
3-21
-------
CATEGORY' ONE (cant.)
Threa tE.
This is the fourteenth fastest growing region in the State of
Florida, with an anticipated 34 percent increase in population
by the y'ear 2000 (from 86,000 in 1990 to about 115,000).
Waterfrcnt development and encroachment into the sensitive
wetlands of Sebastian Creek are likely.
Continued agricultural and ranching operations which do not
implement best management practices are expected to degrade or
eliminate functional wetlands. Also, as a result of diversion
of runoff due to development, some wetland systems are acting
as sediKent and water storage areas, disrupting the natural
vege'tative structure and impacting local wildlife populations.
11.
PeJ1..sacola Growth Area - Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties
(Figure 3-12)
Ecological Importance
Estuarine and riverine wetlands predominate in the Pensacola
Growth Area. The shallow bays, nearshore habitats, and salt
marshss of Pensacola/Escambia Bay, perdido Bay and Santa Rosa
Sound &re special wetland features of the landscape. The
botto:mland hardwoods and mixed forested swamps of the
Black~ater, Yellow, Escambia, and Perdido Rivers are important
wetlands as well.
The estuarine wetlands serve as nursery areas for various
shrim:9, crab, oyster, and clam species of economic importance.
These we'tlands buffer storm tides and surges, as well as
provide some flood protection benefits to upland areas.
Endangered species have been documented in the major riverine
systems rDf the Pensacola Growth Area. Wood storks and numerous
plant species are the most notable. These bottomlands.offer
opportunities for hunters, fishermen, and other active and
passive recreational users.
Threats
The land uses of Pensacola are predominately residential, with
the forest industry the major rural employer. The population
of the Pensacola Growth Area is expected to increase from
242,000 in 1990 to approximately 280,000 by the year 2000.
This ::-ep:resents a 15 percent increase and is the 15th fastest
growing area in Florida. The area's timber industry is
expected to significantly expand the production and intensity
of their operations in the next decade.
3-22
-------
CATEGORY ONE (cont.)
12.
Tallahassee Growth Area - Leon County (Figure 3-13)
Ecoloaical ImDortance
River swamps and floodplain systems are the most prevalent
wetland type, although lake-fringing wetlands and hardwood
sloughs also occur in the Tallahassee Growth Area. Most of the
river drainages are primarily mixed forested wetland, but the
headwater areas are generally spring-fed.
The Ochlockonee, St. Marks, and Wakulla Rivers provide ample
wildlife habitat for a variety of game species, including
white-tailed deer and wild turkey. They represent an important
freshwater fisheries resource as well. Other functions include
flood flow alteration and water quality enhancement. Numerous
wetlands throughout the Tallahassee Growth Area - in state
parks, national wildlife refuges, and national forests -
provide recreation to the citizens of the area. Populations of
threatened and endangered species occur in most wetlands of
this growth area, with wading birds, sandhill cranes, and
raptors being most visible. r
Threats
The population of Tallahassee and the surrounding communities
was 136,000 in 1990. It is estimated that in the next decade
this growth area will increase by 20 percent, to approximately
163,000 by the year 2000. Urban expansion is likely to be
concentrated around the various lake and slough systems of the
region, and within the major river corridors proximate to
transportation routes. Timber operations comprise the major
land uses outside the population centers, and many operations
are likely to convert floodplain wetlands into pine
plantations.
13.
Ft. Walton Beach Growth Area - Okaloosa County
(Figure 3-14)
Ecoloaical ImDortance
The estuarine wetlands of Choctawhatchee Bay, including salt
marshes, seagrass beds, and other aquatic sites, are the
important features of this growth area. Extensive bottomland
hardwoods in the river drainages (Choctawhatchee and Alaqua)
are the notable freshwater wetlands.
Salt marshes of the Ft. Walton Beach Growth Area are vitally
important to a variety of commercial finfish and shellfish
species. Many endangered species of plants and animals,
including the wood stork, sandhill crane, and bald eagle occur
in the wetlands in the growth area. The bottomland hardwood
3-23
U.S EPA Headquarters Library
Mail code 3404T
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20460
202-566-0556
-------
CATEGORY ONE ( cont. )
and ~iver swamps of the area provide many wetland functions,
including wildlife habitat, public hunting opportunities,
waterfowl flyways, and water quality enhancement functions.
Threi!'Cs
Popul~tion growth of the Ft. Walton Beach Growth Area is fueled
by tha adjacent Eglin Air Force Base and the tourist trade.
The population is expected to grow by 28 percent in the next
decad9, from about 84,000 in 1990 to over 107,000 by the year
2000.
Forest industries own vast wetland acreage in the interior of
this growth area, as well as the upper reaches of most of the
rivers in this section of Florida. Improper management and
drai~age practices may affect wetland functioning.
14.
D&de-Broward-West Palm Growth Area - Dade, Broward, and
Palm Beach Counties (Figure 3-15)
Ecolo9i&al Importance
Wetlands in this growth area include portions of the Everglades
complax, estuarine wetlands such as Lake Worth, and extensive
forested/prairie wetlands (Loxahatchee Slough). Historically,
wetlands occupied the majority of the landscape in this section
of Fl~rida, but population growth and associated urban
devel~pment has significantly altered the original extent and
function of the wetlands in the Dade-Broward-West Palm Growth
Area.
The 3smi-tropical wetlands systems of the tri-county area offer
impo~tant habitat functions to a wide variety of species, such
as tha white ibis, roseate spoonbill, brown pelican, and
endan~ered wood stork. A number of endangered plant species
are also present here, including the crenulate lead-plant,
Garber's spurge, and tiny polygala. Wetlands also function in
this growth area as ground-water recharge areas, ensuring
potable water supplies to the local population centers.
Estuarine systems of the area function as nursery areas for
popuLar sport fishes, shrimp, crabs, and other seafood of
econo:l1ic importance.
Threat.s
Wetla:nd\s of this growth area are under intensive development
pressure. Privately-owned wetlands which are currently
functional and valuable are becoming quite rare in this area of
the S'tate. Pressure for their conversion to development or
agri(:nllture is apparent regardless of the proximity to the
coastal areas. Exotic invasion by such plant species as
Brazilia'n pepper and melaleuca, and eutrophication by excessive
3-24
-------
CATEGORY ONE (cant.)
nutrients from agricultural areas and urban stormwater runoff
all compromise the functionality of wetland systems in southern
Florida.
EPA has five ADID projects completed or currently underway in
the Dade-Broward-West Palm Growth Area: (1) the Bird
Drive/East Everglades Special Area Management Plan; (2) the
Northeast Shark River Slough ADID; (3) the West Broward County
ADID; (4) the Southwest BiscaYne Bay ADID; and (5) the Florida
Keys ADID.
Wetland areas that have been identified in the Dade-
Broward-West Palm Growth Area as Category One priority for
possible future ADID projects include:
a) .
Lake Worth Watershed
This is an important estuarine lagoonal complex in West Palm
Beach County. The mangrove swamps, riverine marshes, and
aquatic bed habitats are home to a variety of wildlife. The
Lake Worth wetlands function as a refuge for these animals in a
very intensively developed section of Florida, and provide an
important recreational area for the citizens of southeastern
Florida. Urbanization continues in the basin, with
eutrophication from urban runoff being the principal threat to
the ecosystem. Recreational over-use of the area is likely as
the population continues to expand in Palm Beach County and
adjacent areas.
b) .
Loxahatchee Slough
Another important wildlife area in Palm Beach County is the
Loxahatchee Slough area which contains extensive stands of
sawgrass, tropical hammocks, and pond apple sloughs.
Urbanization is anticipated to spread westward into this area
in the next decade, so proper land use planning is essential to
maintain the integrity of this system.
c) .
Wetlands surrounding the John Lloyd State Recreation Area
This area encompasses some of the last privately-owned mangrove
swamps and tropical hammocks in Broward County. This heavily
used area is a popular weekend destination for residents, and
contains significant wildlife habitat and populations of
waterbirds and reptiles endemic to southern Florida. In
addition, these wetlands support critical habitat for several
federally listed species. Land use pressures are
extraordinarily intense due to the scarcity of waterfront
property remaining undeveloped and the demand for coastal and
freshwater recreation opportunities.
3-25
-------
CATEGORY ONE (cont.)
d) .
H()Jr"estead Area
This area is surrounded by palustrine and estuarine wetlands.
The i~terface of these palustrine and estuarine wetlands
represents one of the largest of the few remaining natural
areaa in. south Florida where these wetlands are adjacent to one
another and where the unique habitat created at that interface
exists.
The wetlands around the community of Homestead offer habitat to
a variety of south Florida species, including the endangered
wood st:ork. The tropical hammocks of the area also provide
critlcCll habitat to other listed and non-listed species of
special concern as identified by State and Federal wildlife
agencies.
Residential and commercial development expanding south from the
metropolitan Dade County area will likely envelop this area in
the next decade. Also, the area surrounding the city is
heavily devoted to agricultural uses, namely citrus and
vegetable crops, and grazing. Other significant and
potentially intensive uses in the area include a Metro-Dade
County landfill and a nuclear power plant on the coast. Proper
growth management techniques must be employed to ensure the
continued functionality of wetlands found in the Homestead
Area.
15.
::!!eJlbourne Growth Area - Brevard County (Figure 3-16)
Ecological Importance
The extent and composition of wetlands in the Melbourne Growth
Area are strongly influenced by their proximity to the major
surface water features, the St. Johns River floodplain and the
Indij):!1 River Lagoon complex. Mangrove swamps, seagrass
meadows, salt marshes, freshwater swamps and freshwater marshes
all occur in this growth area.
Many 'thrsatened and endangered species utilize the habitats of
Breva:cd County, including estuarine and marine species such as
the WGst Indian manatee, and loggerhead sea turtles.
Populati'ons of bald eagle, wood stork, least tern, black bear,
and rp-d cockaded woodpecker also occur here. The area has
several significant national wildlife' refuges, offering
extenl3ive wetland habitats for migratory waterfowl and
songbirds, as well as non-game species such as herons, ibis,
osprey, ~nd brown pelicans. Both the Indian River Lagoon
system a~d St. Johns River floodplain wetlands provide
important nursery areas for recreational and commercial species
of fififiah and shellfish.
This area of the State is considered water-poor.
Most of the
3-26
-------
CATEGORY ONE (cant.)
population centers rely upon surface water supplies from Lake
Washington, and shallow well fields to satisfy their potable
water needs. Subsequently, wetlands assume even greater
importance in the Melbourne Growth Area, as they act as filters
and absorption areas for toxics, nutrients, and sediment. These
water quality enhancement functions supplement their water
storage functions.
Threats
Collectively, the cities of Cocoa, Rockledge, Indialantic,
Melbourne, Titusville, and Palm Bay have experienced a 77
percent increase in population between 1980 and 1990 (215,000 to
331,000). Projected population growth for the next decade will
approach 36 percent; the total for the Melbourne growth area is
expected to exceed 450,000 by 2000. This area has the fifth
fastest growth rate in the State of Florida.
Rapid urbanization and continued or intensified agricultural
production (principally sod and cattle ranching) will result in
some wetland loss. Population gains will occur generally east
of Interstate 95, with wetlands associated with the barrier
islands east of the Lagoon especially vulnerable to
development. The lower portion of the Melbourne Growth area is
also experiencing citrus and vegetable crop expansions.
Reduction in freshwater marsh acreage or function is likely due
to increased hydroperiod and/or eutrophication.
Wetland areas that have been identified in the Melbourne Growth
Area as Category One priority for possible future ADID projects
include:
a) .
Indian River Lagoon
This estuarine system forms the most extensive wetland complex
of the Melbourne Growth Area. The brackish and freshwater
wetland habitats are lost via waterfront developments, or
through
functional disruption by excessive stormwater inputs, toxics, or
nutrient runoff. Associated creeks and slough systems, such as
Sykes Creek, the Eau Gallie River, and Turkey Creek have
historically been impacted by the discharge of wastewater
effluent. Careful planning for proper ecosystem management of
the Lagoon and its supporting wetlands is essential in this area
of high population growth.
b) .
St. Johns River floodplain
The Melbourne Growth Area contains a vast freshwater marsh
system associated with the St. Johns River. Past farming and
ranching drainage practices have significantly altered the
extent and function of these wetland resources. Development
3-27
-------
CATEGOR1' ONE (cont.)
plans for communities such as Palm Bay have historically ignored
the hnportance of wetland resources, and platting of individual
lots aometimes entirely includes jurisdictional wetlands.
Problsms with the integration of appropriate land use patterns
with the wetlands is readily apparent in these communities.
c) .
Lake Washington Watershed
Lake '~ashington is actually a component of the St. Johns River
syste:m, but it is considered a separate resource due to its
impo~t~nce as the principal water supply for the Melbourne
Growth Area. Exclusive residential subdivisions are encroaching
into the watershed, which creates the potential for degradation
of thQ wetlands and water quality. Lake Washington also
provides freshwater angling opportunities, and is a locally
popular recreation site. .
16.
~eeki Wachee River Growth Area - Hernando County
(Figure 3-17)
Ecological Importance
The wotlands within the drainage area of this relatively small
coastdl ,river include hydric hammock, mixed hardwood swamp, and
salt Inarsh. The growth area contains locally abundant but
isola~ed small lakes with fringing freshwater marshes, as well
as th(~ vast Chassahowitzka Swamp - a mixture of estuarine and
fresl~~ater forested and herbaceous wetlands.
The lakef3 and fringing wetland areas offer important feeding
habitlil\t t.o several state listed species of special concern such
as th(~ little blue heron, great egret, and white ibis. These
wetlands also provide nesting and cover areas to the
statec~lit;ted threatened Florida sandhill crane. The swamps and
fores~ed contiguous wetlands associated with the major drainages
in tho growth area provide habitat to the second largest
remaining colony in the State of the state-listed threatened
Florida black bear. Bald eagles, osprey, and various waterbirds
listed by either the state or federal agencies as rare or
endanqered occur here as well. A portion of the adjacent
Chassnhmiitzka Swamp is contained in a national wildlife
refugo. This facility is a popular recreational and hunting
area for the local population. Migratory ducks are especially
attrClc:ted to the shallow estuarine impoundments.
Threa,t:s
Specifll consideration of this growth area is warranted due to
the rflpid urbanization occuring in the basin. The area is
3-28
-------
CATEGORY ONE (cont.)
expected to grow over 71 percent in the next decade, from a
population of about 71,000 in 1990 to over 121,000 in the year
2000. The attraction of the nearby lakes and Gulf of Mexico
creates development pressures for water access or water-view
properties which typically contain extensive wetland habitats.
17.
Panama City Growth Area - Bay County (Figure 3-18)
Ecoloaical Importance
This growth area has extensive wetlands associated with the
large bay system and its associated river area. Considerable
expanses of isolated and slough forested wetlands also exist in
the Panama City growth area.
The tidal creeks and salt marshes of St. Andrews Bay are vitally
~ortant to a multitude of recreationally and commercially
oriented small businesses of the Panama City growth area. Known
populations of brown pelicans, least terns, endangered bald
eagles, and several species of shorebirds as the threatened
piping plover inhabit the beach and marsh systems of the Panama
City Growth Area. The large swamp system of the Econfina, Bayou
George, and Bear Creek drainages offer cover and food to
important game species such as the white-tailed deer and wild
turkey.
Threats
It is anticipated that between 1990 and 2000, the population of
the Panama City Growth Area will grow approximately 21 percent,
from 86,000 to 104,000. The growth area is especially dependent
upon the nearby Defense Department facility, as well as on
tourists attracted to the beaches. Localized urbanization
associated with these major employers will likely cause wetland
loss or degradation.
18.
Gainesville Growth Area - Alachua County (Figure 3-19) .
Ecoloaical Importance
The primary wetlands in the Gainesville Growth Area are the
prairie systems of the PaYnes prairie State Preserve, and the
numerous hydric and mesic hammocks dotting the landscape.
The ecological significance of the wetland prairie systems
includes wintering habitat for a large concentration of
endangered bald eagles (nesting pairs also occur in the growth
area). Additionally, nesting Florida sandhill cranes (state
3-29
-------
CATEGORY ONE (cont.)
listed as threatened) utilize the marshes and prairie systems.
The p:rai:cie systems and hammocks also provide flood control and
water quality enhancement benefits to the aquatic environments
of tho Gainesville growth area.
Threait.s.
The Gain(asville growth area is estimated to grow 17 percent
betwec3n 1990 and 2000. This represents an increase of
approKimately 24,000 citizens, from 138,000 to 162,000. Most of
the u~ba~ization is expected to occur in the north and northwest
portions of the growth area, away from the major prairie wetland
systmns. However, many of the significant mesic and hydric
hammock wetlands exist where this urbanization is developing.
19.
Wlorida Keys Growth Area - Monroe County (Figure 3-20)
The Flor,Lda Keys Growth Area was not identified as a target area
by thn categorization process described in this document, but is
being lil3ted as a "special" Category One area based on the
Region's knowledge of threats to wetlands in this area from
residtmt:lal and commercial development, and the value of
wetlands in this coastal ecological setting. The Florida Keys
has rucel'ltly been designated by the National Oceanic and
Atmos}?he:dc Administration (NOAA) as a marine sanctuary,
provicUn(1 further documentation of the ecological value of this
uniquo ic;land and reef complex.
The F:orida Keys was omitted as a target area by the criteria
estab~>ished in the ranking process because none of the three
civil di"isions in the Keys - the Upper Keys, the Middle Keys,
and the r.lower Keys - is considered to be a major civil
division. A decision was made by the Region at the beginning of
the ranking process to only consider major growth areas in the
State of Florida based on the size of the State and the number
of areas that would need evaluation if ,all civil divisions were
to be considered. In the case of the Florida Keys, the combined
year 2000 population of the minor growth areas is estimated at
87,456 an increase of approximately 16,000 people over the next
ten y~arG. The Region considers this population increase to be
highly significant given the small landmass of the Keys, the
exteDsive nature of wetlands in the Keys, and the wildlife and
aquatIc habitat functions and values provided by these
wetlandan This area is, therefore, being listed as a Category
One. area 0
EcoloQical Importance
Wetland types in the Florida Keys are recognized both nationally
3-30
-------
CATEGORY ONE (cant.)
and internationally as being both ecologically valuable and
unique in North America. The subtropical climate of the Keys
enables unique West Indian type vegetation to extend northward
along the 120 mile long series of islands, reaching the
northernmost extent of its geographic range in adjacent south
Dade County. Offshore on the Atlantic Ocean side of the Keys,
the largest living coral reef in the United States shelters a
vast array of invertebrate and fish species, providing the basis
for annual multi-million dollar sports and commercial fishing
and SCUBA diving industries. On the Gulf side of the Keys in
Florida Bay, vast acreages of shallow water lush seagrass
meadows provide optimal habitat for a large array of
ecologically significant shore and wading bird species
populations as well as a diverse assemblage of commercially
valuable fish and crustacean species. Onshore wetland types
range from productive mangrove communities nearshore to large
acreages of high marsh and transitional buttonwood mangrove
communities in a landward direction. Unique freshwater
herbaceous wetlands are found in the lower Keys in the Big Pine
Key and Sugarloaf Key areas.
The Florida Keys contain approximately 33,000 acres of vegetated
wetlands, of which over 18,000 acres are in private ownership.
About 70 percent of the wetlands found in the Keys are located
in the lower Keys due to the low-lying geologic characteristic
of the "lower" Keys between the cities of Marathon and Key
West. Keys wetlands provide perform valuable ecological
functions such as providing shoreline stabilization and
hydrological buffering during storm and hurricane events.
Wetlands-associated siltation control, nutrient/toxicant uptake
and other water purification functions are crucial to the
maintainence of clear nearshore waters required to allow growth
and maintenance of ecologically vital seagrass meadows and coral
reef ecosYtems.
Many threatened anp endangered plant and animal species are
dependent on Keys wetland habitats. The West Indian manatee,
Keys raccoon, Key deer, Lower Keys rabbit, silver rice rat, bald
eagle, peregrine falcon, white crowned pigeon, wood stork, brown
pelican, American crocodile, American alligator, eastern indigo
snake, striped mud turtle, Florida ribbon snake, and mangrove
terrapin are all state and/or federal threatened or endangered
species which utilize Keys wetlands and are dependent on
maintenance of these wetland habitats for continued survival. A
host of additional wetland dependent mammals, birds, reptiles,
amphibians and fish have been documented as utilizing Keys
wetlands during some portion of their lifecycles.
Threats
The major threat to Keys wetlands is associated with continued
intense residential development throughout the Keys. The major
3-31
-------
CATEGOUY ONE (cont.)
growth areas in the Keys are located in the Key Largo-
PlantatIon, Marathon and Big Pine Key areas. Continued
development of marinas and commercial areas also contribute to
the development pressure on Keys wetlands. Secondary impacts
from "pIecemeal" residential development such as improper trash
disposal, vegetative clearing and harrassment of endangered
animal species are also significant. An example of these
resourc:e conflicts can be found on Big Pine Key where continued
residential development has resulted in a serious threat to the
continued existence to the Key deer which has the limited home
range of Big Pine, No Name, and Sugarloaf Keys.
In recognition of the significant wetland management challenge
in the Florida Keys, Region IV in cooperation with several state
and federal resource agencies has initiated the Florida Keys
ADID project. The Florida Keys ADID project is scheduled for
completion in August 1993.
CATEGORY" TWO
Category Two includes urban areas located within or nearby
signifi.cant expanses of wetlands that support important
commercial or recreational uses.
There are no Category Two growth areas in the State of Florida.
CATEGORY THREE
Category Three includes urban growth areas located within or
nearby significant expanses of wetlands.
. There are no Category Three growth areas in the State of
Florida..
CATEGORY FOUR
Category Four includes areas experiencing significant
silvicul'ture or agriculture expansion within or nearby wetlands
that likely support threatened or endangered species, or
important commercial or recreational uses. The geographic areas
are not listed in any order of priority. (See Figure 3-1 for
the location of counties identified as Category Four areas.)
1.
Madison County
Ecoloaical Importance
The majority of wetlands in this northwest Florida County are
3-32
-------
CATEGORY FOUR. (cont.)
associated with the Suwannee River and Aucilla River
watersheds. These mixed bottomland hardwood forests and mixed
riverine swamps also occur in an area known as Hixtown Swamp,
which includes cypress swamps and freshwater marshes as well.
The vast wetlands within the county are known to harbor the
Florida black bear, a species listed by the State as threatened.
Large wetland-dependent raptors, including the bald eagle,
osprey, and red-tailed hawk occur in the riverine swamps.
Economically important private hunt clubs utilize the wetland
swamps of the County. Recreational canoeing and fishing are
also popular activities in the riverine wetlands.
Threats
The upper portion of the county contains few contiguous wetland
systems outside of the river corridors. Large forest industry
holdings occur in the Hixtown Swamp and upper reaches of the San
Pedro Bay hardwood/hammock system, which eventually flows into
the Gulf of Mexico via the Steinhatchee River drainage.
Threats to the aquatic systems may occur where best management
practices are not employed by the forestry industry. Also,
timber harvesting impacts wildlife habitat on a temporal basis.
2.
Taylor County
Ecological Importance
Taylor County is one of the largest counties in the panhandle of
Florida and contains some of the State's largest and relatively
intact examples of mixed hardwood swamps and riverine systems
such as San Pedro Bay. The County's border with the Gulf of
Mexico contains some of the largest expanses of tidal and
saltwater marshes in Florida. Isolated systems such as
freshwater marshes and sloughs also occur here.
Due to their size and complexity, these mixed forested systems
in Taylor County provide extensive habitat to many important
game and non-game plants and animals. Bobcat, raccoon,
white-tailed deer, wild hog, wild turkey, and duck are
economically important species in this region of Florida.
Freshwater fishing within the riverine systems of the County
also provides revenues to local merchants.
The swamps provide nesting habitat to bald eagles, river otters,
and several species of turtles listed by the State as of special
concern or threatened. The hammock systems and coastal areas
also are vital stopping areas for migratory songbirds and
waterfowl as well.
3-33
-------
CATEGOR!,. FOUR (cont.)
Threats
The rtlral aspects of Taylor County are not likely to change
significlmtly in the next decade. Timber and agriculture are
the mE!jo]~ industries and little urbanization is expected. Very
intenuivo forestry operations occur in Taylor County. Average
annual tJunber removal rates are the highest in Florida.
Clearcutting is the usual method of harvest for bottomlands in
this ersa of Florida, which can disrupt wildlife feeding and
migra1~ioJ). patterns, and can be detrimental to water quality of
downst:reilJIl areas where best management practices are not
employed~
3.
nixie County
Ecolo!~cal Importance
Dixie County wetlands are similar to those found in Taylor
County - tidal marshes, mixed hardwood swamps, coastal hammocks,
and cypress swamps being prevalent in the County.
Of 6pE~cial concern in this County is the lower Suwannee River
systeIil, il complex braided river with large acreages of
bottomland hardwoods and cypresses. A significant amount of
hunting (public and private) occurs within the wetland systems,
with white~tailed deer and duck being the most sought-after
species. Federal or state-listed threatened and endangered
species Buch as the bald eagle, black bear, and eastern indigo
snake occur here as well.
Threats
Dixie County is expected to experience some urbanization along
the b{!nkB of the Suwannee River. Agricultural development in
the form of dairy operations may cause wetland loss or
deterloration. Of greater importance, however, to wetlands in
Dixie County are potential impacts resulting from harvesting of
bottomland timber if best management practices are not
impleIllen1~ed .
4.
I.e~, County
Ecoloqical Importance
This County contains large acreages of wetlands, including
forest:ed coastal hammocks, interior hydric hammocks, mixed
riverine swamps and floodplain forest, and prairie/lake
complE}xeo .
The dominant features of the landscape of this County are the
coast,£ll hammocks and salt marshes associated with the coastal
3-34
-------
CATEGORY FOUR (cont.)
zone. Virtually the entire county west of County Road 337 is
within this watershed (Waccasassa River, Magee Run, Tenmile
Creek, Devils Hammock). Occurrences of several state and
federally listed endangered species such as the Suwannee cooter
and bald eagle have been documented in the wetlands of this
County.
Important finfish and shellfish species inhabit these coastal
wetlands. Anglers and hunters are also attracted to the large
populations of wetland-dependent game species such as the wood
duck, largemouth bass, and raccoon.
Threats
Levy County is adjacent to the Ocala-Bellview growth area, and
contains some urbanization in upland areas of the eastern
portion of the County. Localized developments associated with
fishing camps and existing urban areas may impact wetlands, but
the most significant potential impact to the wetlands in Levy
County is timber harvesting.
5.
Gadsden County
Ecoloaical Importance
Gadsden County contains significant wetland resources. Wetlands
are generally associated with aquatic systems such as rivers and
creeks, but large acreages of cypress swamp and freshwater
marshes exist which are hydrologically isolated.
Wetlands in Gadsden County provide water quality enhancement for
downstream areas. They also provide wildlife habitat areas,
particularly for species of recreational importance. Several'
significant wading bird rookeries are found in the forested
wetlands of Gadsden County, as are nesting populations of state-
listed threatened species including the Florida sandhill crane
and least tern.
Threats
Immediately east of Gadsden County is the Tallahassee Growth
Area, thus some urbanization in the eastern portion of the
County may occur in the next decade. Existing population
centers such as Quincy are not expected to grow at the rapid
pace of other areas of Florida but still constitute a threat to
the County's wetlands inventory. Forestry operations in the
Apalachicola River and Ochlockonee River basins will likely be
the predominant threats to the integrity of the wetlands.
3-35
-------
CATEGORY FOUR (cont.)
6.
Walton County
Ecological Importance
The wetlands of Walton County include riverine swamps and
floodplains, lake-fringing marshes and swamps, and estuarine
marshes. The upper reaches of many important surface water
features such as the Shoal, Yellow, and Alaqua Rivers contain
significant forested wetland resources. Topsail Hill on the
coast c:ontains two large, pristine coastal dune lakes.
The primary functions of the forested wetlands of Walton County
are the maintenance of flow of the adjacent river systems.
These wetlands also provide cover and food to a variety of both
wetland and aquatic species, many of which are important
economically. Freshwater fish such as bass, bream and catfish
are numerous, as are white-tailed deer and wild hog. Turtles
and other reptiles such as the American alligator inhabit these
river swamps. The estuarine wetlands contain several
outstanding natural communities. Areas such as Topsail Hill
support the endangered red cockaded woodpecker and
Choctawhatchee beach mouse.
Threats.
The Walton County coastal areas contain important estuarine and
freshwater habitats. Significant coastal developments of the
Ft. Walton Beach Growth Area will probably facilitate similar
land development in Walton County. With much of the coastal
zone owned by the State, only localized areas will be
intensively developed.
Forestry has historically been the major industry in Walton
County, and should remain so in the next decade. Much of the
wetland timber extracted appeared to be small landowners'
holdings, a factor which generally signifies less frequent use
of best management practices. .
7. Gulf County
Ecoloaical Importance
Gulf County contains a diverse landscape of both wetlands and
uplands from beaches to coastal marshes to bottomland
hardwoods. Significant water features of the County include the
Jackson River drainage (Intracoastal Waterway), Brothers River
(associated with the Appalachicola River), and Wetappo Creek
which drains into St. Andrews Bay. .
The rive~ swamps and floodplains offer important habitat to a
myriad of recreationally and ecologically valuable wildlife
species. The state-threatened Florida black bear, red cockaded
3-36
-------
CATEGORY FOUR (cont.)
woodpecker, and numerous colonial nesting waterbirds occur
here. Wetlands in this region are important hydrologic features
of the landscape, contributing to the flood protection and the
maintainence of streamflow.
Threats
Extensive logging operations are currently being conducted in
the Jackson River watershed. As these complex hardwood
assemblages are cut out and replaced with even-aged stands, many
of the important wildlife values of these wetlands can be
degraded or lost for many years. Forest nesting birds and
insect-loving migratory songbirds in particular can be affected
by clearcutting and loss of habitat.
8.
Jefferson County
Ecoloaical Importance
Spring-fed runs, mixed hardwood swamps, blackwater rivers, and
cypress swamps are significant wetland systems in Jefferson
County. The County also contains important salt marshes within
the existing St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge.
Many of the wetlands offer vital wildlife habitat to a variety
of shellfish and finfish species endemic to the wetlands,
including bass, crappie, and catfish in the freshwater reaches,
and red drum, spotted seatrout, and mullet in the estuarine
wetlands. The bottomland hardwoods of the County support
sustainable populations of furbearers, waterfowl, and game
mammals such as the white-tailed deer.
Threats
The predominant impact on the wetlands of Jefferson County is
localized clearcutting for the extraction of timber within the
forested wetlands, particularly in the upper reaches of the
watersheds of the Wacissa River.
9.
Wakulla County
Ecoloaical Importance
The wetlands of Wakulla County are vegetatively similar to those
found in Jefferson and nearby Leon Counties. Significant to
this area are several large magnitude springs such as the
Wakulla and St. Marks. The majority of the ecologically
important wetlands are located in the St. Marks National
Wildlife Refuge, as well as portions of the Appalachicola
National Forest found in Wakulla County.
3-37
-------
CATEGORY POUR (cant.)
Threatel1E!d and endangered species known to utilize the wetlands
of th~ County include the brown pelican, red cockaded
woodpEJckE!ru wood stork, and bald eagle. The West Indian manatee
can also be found during the winter within the relatively warm
waters of the major springs in the County. Populations of
waterfol4J. and migratory songbirds have been sited in the
wetlands within the Wildlife Refuge. Hydrologically, the rivers
and swamps discharge freshwater into tidal areas, maintaining
opttm~l 6alinity and nutrient conditions for a thriving
estuarine environment.
Threats
Forestry operations are currently harvesting areas within the
floodplains of the St. Marks River and in isolated and
contigumls cypress-gum swamps in the eastern portion of the
County. These operations will impact the wildlife habitat
functloni.ng of these wetlands.
10.
Citrus County
EcoloCiical Importance
ExpansivE! freshwater marsh/lake systems, bottomland hardwood
forestsd and coastal marshes characterize the wetlands of Citrus
County.
The wetlands of Citrus County provide important water and
wetland related recreational opportunities, including canoeing,
hunti~gu fishing, and nature study. The nearby Chassahowitzka
National Wildlife Refuge, and Withlacoochee State Forest, as
well as the Tsala Apopka Lake complex contain extraordinary
aquatic resources and offer groundwater re~harge, wildlife
cover, floodflow protection, and endangered species habitat.
Threats
Flood control activities and the desire for waterfront
development have impacted the wetland resources of Citrus
County. Coastal development is not expected to be a significant
threat d~e to stringent growth management laws, but many
wetlands are currently under silviculture management, including
clearcutting and selective timbering.
11.
Putnam County
BcoloaicB.l Importance
River swamps and floodplain wetlands are extensive in Putnam
3-38
-------
CATEGORY FOUR (cant.)
County. Vast tracts of cypress swamps, mixed pine-hardwood
swamps, and freshwater marsh also occur.
River swamps and floodplains in Putnam County support
economically viable sport fisheries in the St. Johns River.
palatka is world-renowned for its largemouth bass fishing
tournaments.
Cypress swamps offer cover and food to many furbearers (otter,
bobcat, raccoon), and several wading bird rookery sites. Bald
eagles also exploit the fish resource of the St. Johns and its
associated wetlands.
Threats
Putnam County borders the rapidly-growing Jacksonville growth
area, therefore some suburban development is expected to occur
in the next decade, particularly in the north portion of the
County. In addition, the pulp and paper products industry are
likely to continue to impact wetlands.
12.
Lake County
Ecological Importance
Lake County contains spring-fed rivers, expansive mixed hardwood
swamps, the St. Johns River marshes and floodplain forests, and
lake-fringing wetlands. Lake County also encompasses the
largest inventory of lakes within the State, with over 1200
lakes greater than five acres in size.
The various lake-fringing swamps and marshes provide ample
foraging and breeding habitat to many species of wading birds,
the state-listed threatened sandhill crane, and others such as
the bald eagle and osprey. They also provide water supply and
aquifer recharge functions. The major contiguous wetlands
provide wildl~fe habitat to the Florida black bear and many
economically important game species.
Threats
Being adjacent to the Orlando Growth Area, significant pressure
from development is expected in the south and east portions of
Lake County, specifically along transportation corridors and
associated with the tourist industry sites in the region. Lake
County has much acreage actively managed for timber extraction,
and one of the largest timber inventories in the State, so there
is the potential for significant impact to the wetland resource
if wetland hardwoods are harvested.
3-39
-------
CATEGORY FOUR (cant.)
13.
Lafayette County
Ecologi.cal Importance
Wetlands of this panhandle County include lake-fringing marshes,
spring-fed runs, seepage bogs, and expansive mixed pine-hardwood
swamps. The Suwannee River corridor is another significant
wetland system in Lafayette County. The western two-thirds of
the County encompasses an area known collectively as the San
Pedro Bay wetland. This is a large sheetflow wetland which
forms the headwaters of the Steinhatchee River and also includes
signifi.cant cypress-hardwood swamps such as Mallory Swamp and
Wampee Ponds. Because of its size and structural complexity,
this wetland area is a locally popular hunting and fishing
resource. Significant populations of wading birds nest and
forage here, including the little blue heron (state listed
species of special concern) and endangered wood stork.
Threats
Agricultural operations are relatively intensive in this rural
County, with hay, watermelon, and corn being the primary crops.
Most of the agriculture is adjacent to the Suwannee River in the
eastern portion of the County, therefore cultivated areas which
have not been farmed using ecologically sound techniques may
contribute non-point source pollution loading to adjacent
waterbodies. Agricultural impacts are likely to remain the
greatest wetland threat, since according to the most recent
figures farmland acreage increased almost 38 percent between
1982 and 1987, from approximately 70,000 acres to almost 95,000
acres under cultivation. This was the largest increase of any
county in the State of Florida. Another likely threat to
wetlands of the area are new dairy farms. Many operations are
relocating to the Suwannee River watershed, and without proper
waste control technologies, could contribute to eutrophication
of wetlands and aquatic systems of the County.
14. .
Nassau County
Ecological Importance
Extensive river systems form the borders of Nassau County.
Being a coastal County, it also contains expansive salt marshes
and coastal hammocks. Interior wetlands include hardwood
hammocks, mixed cypress-hardwoods, and bottomland hardwood
sloughs.
The St. Marys and Nassau Rivers are notable wetland features of
Nassau County, providing important habitat areas to a variety of
3-40
-------
CATEGORY FOUR (cont - )
fish and wildlife resources. Cumberland Sound and the Amelia
River estuary including Nassau Sound additionally offer habitat
to estuarine-dependent species, including an economically
important blue crab and striped mullet industry. Shrimp and
popular recreational sport fish such as whiting, blue fish,
trout, and sheepsheads are abundant in these nearshore waters as
well. Endangered species include sea turtles, the West Indian
manatees, marine mammals, bald eagles, and wood storks. The
upper watersheds of these riverine systems in Nassau County are
important timbering resources.
Threats
Both agriculture and silviculture together form the economic
base of Nassau County, although intensive beachfront development
of Amelia Island also has' contributed to wetland loss and
degradation in the area. Expansion of the port of Fernandina is
a potential threat to adjacent wetlands. Currently Nassau
County contains almost 49,000 acres in agricultural production,
and experienced a 16.7 percent gain in harvested cropland
acreage between 1982 and 1987. With several large pulp mills in
the vicinity of the County, intensive extraction of the timber
resource is expected, especially the conversion of mixed
hardwood swamp margins to pine plantations.
15.-
Okeechobee County
Ecoloaical Importance
Large cypress sloughs and freshwater marshes
Okeechobee County's wetlands. The Kissimmee
and other feeder streams and sloughs to Lake
important wetland systems.
characterize
River floodplain
Okeechobee are also
The interspersed forested and herbaceous sloughs and marshes
within the Kissimmee River drainage are rich in wildlife and
fisheries resources. Various endangered species, such as the
Audubon's crested caracara, snail kite, and wood stork inhabit
the wetlands of Okeechobee County. These areas contribute
hydrologically to the Lake Okeechobee drainage, providing water
quality enhancement functions to the primary water supply area
for southern Florida.
Threats
Many extensive crop, dairy, and cattle operations are based in
Okeechobee County. Historical impacts from feedlot runoff and
improper management of the aquatic resource have resulted in
3-41
-------
CATEqDRY FOUR (cent.)
degradation of the water quality and other functions of the
wetla~ds in localized areas of the County. Channelization and
ditching of the wetlands of the County to facilitate drainage
and production is also widespread. Approximately 384,169 acres
of la~o1were classified as farmland in 1987, with about 65,000
acres in active cultivation. The intensity of many operations
has increased; Okeechobee County reported a 34 percent increase
in crDpland harvest rate during the period between 1982 and
1987. This is the largest increase of any County in the State
during that time period, reflecting an expansion of agriculture
activity.
16.
Glades County
Ecoloqical ImDortance
Glades County has one of the smallest land areas of any Florida
County, yet it contains some of the largest intact wetland
syste:~s in the State. Fisheating Creek is a notable example of
a sou'i:.hern blackwater river in Florida. Glades County also
share3 its eastern border with Lake Okeechobee, which contains
expansi.ve marshes and freshwater forested habitats.
The m~andering creeks and sloughs of Glades County are home to
many endangered species, including the bald eagle. The
endangerad snail kite also utilizes the freshwater marshes of
the Cou.nty. Many game species are abundant here, with wild
turkey baing the most sought-after game, along with freshwater
bass and white-tailed deer. Camping and passive outdoor
recreational activities such as canoeing are popular in the
area 0
Threa~s,
The CQu.nty currently contains a small amount of farmland in
cropG~ 30,000 acres of sugar cane; 10,000 acres of citrus
orcha::cds, and 2000 acres in vegetable production. The majority
of thc! 500,000 acres of the County is owned and utilized by one
owner 0 p'rimarily for beef production. Some intensification of
1and~use impacts are expected in the County in localized areas
placed under new cultivation for citrus production, eucalyptus
plantations, and row crops. It is likely that most of this area
is seasoDally to permanently inundated wetlands, thus some
erosign of the County's wetland inventory is probable.
17.
Itiqhlands County
Ecoloqical ImDortance
Highlands County occupies the lower-central portion of the
StateJ containing diverse topography and wetland types. Seepage
3-42
-------
CATEGORY FOUR (CaNT.)
bogs, shrub-scrub swamp, lake-fringing wetlands, cypress sloughs
and prairie, hammock, and freshwater marshes are among the
wetland classes found in Highlands County.
. The wetlands of Highlands County provide important habitat to
many recreationally and ecologically valuable wildlife species.
Black bears, wood storks, sandhill cranes, and numerous colonial
nesting waterbirds occur here. The endangered Florida panther
is also known to range into the habitats of the County.
Wetlands in this region are important hydrologic features of the
landscape, contributing to the availability of potable water
supplies and the maintainence of streamflow.
Threats
Citrus orchards, hay, and flower production are agricultural
land uses which pose some threat to the wetlands of Highlands
County. (Highlands County is the Caladium-producing capital of
the world.) Pasture uses are also the predominant form of
conversion of the herbaceous wetlands, facilitating vegetation
changes which affect wildlife utilization. Citrus production is
expected to increase by 80,000 acres by the year 2000. Overall,
land in farms between the years of 1982 and 1987 grew 8.0
percent, from about 383,000 acres to over 413,000 acres. Small
dairy farms will also likely expand, and continue to convert
wetlands into supporting uses for these operations.
18.
Desoto County
Ecoloaical Importance
The floodplain forests of the Peace River are the predominant
wetland type in the County, along with freshwater marshes and
sloughs.
The primary functions of the forested wetlands of Desoto County
are the maintenance of flow of the adjacent river systems. The
vast supporting swamps and floodplain fringing wetlands also
provide cover and food to a variety of both wetland and aquatic
species, many of which are important economically. Freshwater
fish such as bass, bream and catfish are numerous, as are
white-tailed deer and wild hog. Turtles and other reptiles,
such as the threatened American alligator inhabit these river
swamps.
The prairie Creek watershed is considered an important source of
potable water in southwestern Florida, as is the Peace River.
Wetlands provide filtering and assimilation functions for these
potable water sources.
3-43
-------
CATEGORY FOUR (cont.)
Thre~ts
The extent of lands in farms grew slightly between 1982 to 1987,
from 348,000 acres to 351,000 acres. However, areas in cropland
increased almost 10 percent, from 79,000 acres to 87,000 acres,
the fourth largest increase in the State for that period.
Conversion of wetlands to non-wetlands for agricultural purposes
should remain the largest threat to the wetlands of Desoto
County, although localized developments (principally
retiree-oriented) are expected to occur near existing urban
centers.
3-44
-------
FLORIDA
ltEy:
CATEGORY ONE
1. Orlando Growth Area
2. Ft. Myers Growth Area
3. Jacksonville Growth Area
4. Bradenton Growth Area
5 . Daytona Beach Growth Area
6. Ocala-Bellview Growth Area
7. Tampa-St. Petersburq Growth Area
8. Port Salerno Stuart Growth Area
9. Ft. Pierce Port St. Lucie Growth Area
10. Vero Beach Growth Area
11. Pensacola Growth Area
12. Tallahassee Growth Area
13. Ft. Walton Beach Growth Area
14. Dade-Broward-West Palm Growth Area
15. Melbourne Growth Area
16. Weeki Wachee River Growth Area
17. Panama City Growth Area
18. Gainesville Growth Area
19. Florida Keys Growth Area
CATEGORY TWO - none
CATEGORY THREE - none
CATEGORY FOUR
20. Taylor County
21. Dixie County
22. Levy County
23. Gadsden County
24. Walton County
25. Gulf County
26. Jefferson County
27. Wakulla County
28. Citrus County
29. Putnam County
30. Lake County
31. Lafayette County
32. Nassau County.
33. Okeechobee County
34. Glades County
35. Hiqhlands County
36. Desoto County
37. Madison County
3-45
4
19
/'
Piqure 3-1
TARGB'l' AREAS OP FLORIDA
-------
I "
I '-~:.--
-+- ~... ~. . ~ ,0,
J \ -: :- -' -J :'~ .
I . .. - -. - + - -:r"
I ~- -. L .-r---~'\
,...-- - i- 'J,: . '
,.. .. . 0... -
'r - ~ ~
L ~~--c~\- - - .
Figure 3-2
Orlando Growth Area
Category One
3- 46
-------
~-
~l:; 1~~
: <:~j~~C:;U
~~~1:;:~~i~~
~, ." -"" - t
.. .,:".. .r".,,:.-' ;.~
. .
,
~
" ..:.~
. ..
- ,
, .
-""'.-n - "---"
...,~..'.>t?£~~t~S~;;=:::~~i:>;==.
...
, '~:.'..:", .::.. '._'.'
'-', '~~-!'. ~ '
.- ".''': ,'" h-',
. " .- ~ ,:::"':-.::,. " ",.. " '
" .,,:. '';.,''
,. A:.
. .~"":
--
.-
Figure 3-3
Ft. Myers Growth Area
Category One
3-47
-------
Figure 3-4
Jacksonville Growth Area
Category One
3-48
-------
L' O'
~~ -
.f:
i::-:~~;'~
:'~L:"t~~,~oi~~~;
,,'1i >~i :\~).~"'- .>
Figure 3-5
Bradenton Growth Area
Category One
3-49
-------
i
i
I
..
.--.---.-..
. - -. --'.'.
: ~'
, -1
Figure 3-6
Daytona Beach Growth Area
Category One
3-50
-------
'.j
-
~-'>
i
I
~
,..
-'
Figure 3-7
Ocala-Bellview Growth Area
Category One
3-51
-------
"'
-,"-~
I::
'f-'.
Figure 3-8
Tampa-St.PetersburgGrowth Area
Category One
3-52
-------
,
I
I
i
, ~- ---. - -,I
.. ::=1
~ -' ...~ - 1
, - 04
" J-- - I
\:,~:
JJ., I
-y-~ :
-
.....
.~'
,
-,-' '~hLAKEtOKEECHom-
. ,...-...... -... ."..'
-' . I, .....,- ..
~ .
. - - I -
- - __0. ~,~.. I
......~--~ ~.
Figure 3-9
Port Salerno-Stuart Growth Area
Category One
3-53
-------
Figure 3.10
Ft. Pierce-Port S1. Lucie Growth Area
Category One
3- 54
-------
3.~ ,.
- .,......",:) ,,' "
," ~i~;.~.'.L
-, - T
L,3 ,- : .' '" '
I' " "f-'" -- \,
~-', r ~ .'-,. :.
..,. -.-t,-
, ... n
!
~ ,.
I{ . ..-......'
o ,3~, ' '
f::-'
66: ,''':34' -
, i
,
l .. 1
I 0' ,.. I
~or1 0",,,, ,,'
I ,-' I
; ,
. .
'0
Figure 3-11
Vero Beach Growth Area
Category One
3- 55
-------
"",':",':'.:,':'",:,,:, "" ..\' ",. :.
. '. . ..)".' .:"r,: :'",/.:'/.1 J~:;:« ~::
" '
..' :.. ~ ,
1°
" ", ;',,:',',,"0,:
"
,I
,-" ,
')- "'.',
J --"M.
, "
\ ' '/~, ,,'
'\.. : 1,
:,",\\ II
'I
\
\
Figure 3-12
Pensacola Growth Area
Category One
3-56
-------
;' i .,
:- -' JJ' _._.~ 10
.~.~., -....--::;'
r.!'>o'-~
....~..:....'''--' .
t
!
!
i
I
I
. !
. I
I
r
.!
& ...a L...a... 0- .
I.
..
T -
'..
- r
~
-;
o t .
- _.;.-<. .. j'-=-.. ~ -'~1:'~ -~--: ...., - ..... ~; '.;
Imti.. - -; w.. .. 'A" oK - - u - ..L...J1.
P"'. : - ... '~..' ~';"..'" ".~
1'~'.'\'':';'" ~
-- ---.---..-.--J .~.l.....-._.. i-'--\ \
~;~ - . -' .~ ~...,.
J - - ,.. . ~.
. ~(
. f .,
.. .
- ~ .~~\~
- i
, .
,..
...
Figure 3.13
Tallahassee Growth Area
Category One
3- 57
-------
-,--
87.
A
L
,A
B
0J.,
'T.."
~
z. 22
i~ ~ .fI:' ."M .S} NtC8W1ft8
;j ,~I "---r", ','
.:.;t..' 11 F.~:':'~\.
-- .~ ;a.r..... .t , ...t"" '. \'
'__'_h'~~';)"J ,- ,- "
~;;......-~ 'C",~~~~-",,~Q.~
,~, ~~ ..'- " f'o.8I9" ,1i;.~'" ,
;-;~AiI[) " ',' -,'Ji...,..~-'
2'
LI"I:
20
ran,..,
'"
."';(
.!"Y.!!-=!i!.€.._~A y
,,,'....tMt'..; . ~"='
'r'"
..,
..'-
""""
"',
1'1'
,...t. tto.. '
., ~ "'.''''1
L- .-~, --, .u_-; --. ~
, ~~I~.
Gr....OfI "8C~'.
....,....
Figure 3-14
Ft. Walton Beach Growth Area
Category One
3-58
-------
Figure 3-15
Dade-Broward-West Palm Growth Area
Category One
3-59
-------
Figure 3-16
Melbourne Growth Area
Category One
3-60
-------
','. .
.. ..
..
":h"'-:'"
..'.-.''''::'::
"".-".,'
. '';. .:..~:.
."..'...,".'"
Figure 3-17
Weeki Wachee River Growth Area
Category One
3-61
-------
.,""
. .
'~~8'
'. .. ;~ '
;.
c.';~-.'-~:'7....~.:.:t~::.;~;.:~~
,~ - ,
",.' ,
"
. '....
'-C':'
U>:""
.' ..
.
", ,
. .
~~
, ,~..,- .~' ,~','
..
"-"-.,
'.
. ..
,.'.
-, '.
".,
',' "",'p'p
'"1::
:.~ -::':.:: :..:::.:..~~~"": :.' 7
,''''', ", ,
;-;g1,'i:i~i\;';1('}!;";'\t~~1. ~~~
'.
",P, '
..'
'0fI~' .
'\ ,:
'..' , ,
'.~..'I
r-"'fI~-'('I.'.' ,
. .
',.,,,
.. ,P'
'.-
.'
.' ,-:,.'
"-,
,.
p,- .
,'p,
..
.,c.;.. so.. -
Figure 3-18
Panama City Growth Area
Category One
3-62
-------
'...'
".,'.
..
":
.::':s.:>~\
lli~t~~l;~j;. ..'..'....
. .~: ~v~1 :~S1:;'
Figure 3-19
Gainesville Growth Area
Category One
3-63
-------
w
I
0'1
oJ::>
Nat1 Key
OM' Refuge
..
... ..,
GrMI WNI8 Heron
N8I1 WIdIf8..." .
-L rf-l .
'..... .~. I
-; '.' I I
~: t:~
Figure 3-20
Florida Keys Growth Area
Category One
.1
!
,
I
I
i
j
-------
4.0
4.1
Georgia
wetlands of Georgia
Georgia is the largest state in the southeast region,
encompassing over 37.2 million surface acres. Historical
estimates of Georgia's wetlands inventory indicate that
wetlands once covered approximately 18.5 percent of its land
area (6.8 million acres). Recent (1980's) trend data puts
Georgia's wetland inventory at about 5.3 million acres (14
percent of its land surface area). Georgia contains some of
the most diverse geographic and landscape features of any
state, and includes the following physiographic provinces: .
Appalachian Plateau, Ridge and Valley, Blue Ridge, Piedmont,
Sandhills and Redhills, and Coastal Plain. Wetlands exist in
each of these provinces, but the general trend is of increasing
density and areal extent of wetlands as one proceeds from the
moUntains to the coast. Wharton (1978) identifies 39 different
types of wetlands in Georgia, including the following
significant wetland resource types: river swamps and
floodplains, springs, limes inks and sagponds, the Okefenokee
Swamp, and tidal marshes.
River swa11p8 and floodplains Common types of rivers in Georgia
are alluvial, blackwater, and spring-fed. These systems all
exhibit similar ecological characteristics to Florida's rivers
(Section 3.1). However, Georgia also has mountain rivers, a
type of river with distinctly different morphology, biology,
and water chemistry. This wetland type is found exclusively in
the Mountain Province of the State, principally in the Blue
Ridge where originate the headwaters of the Savannah,
Chattahoochee, Etowah, Toccoa, Jacks and Conasauga Rivers.
(Wharton 1978). Mountain rivers are characterized as having
cold, well-oxygenated waters which" course over a rocky"
substrate. Due to their steep elevational gradients, mountain
rivers typically contain a narrow floodplain forest, with
scenic gorges, cascades, waterfalls, and pools being more
characteristic habitats for these systems.
Springs This type of significant wetland exists throughout the
State, but most mountain and piedmont springs occur in the
Ridge and Valley Province in the northern half of the State,
and most coastal plain springs exist in the Dougherty Plain
province in southwest Georgia. Springs have multiple values
and functions, including archeological sites, local
recreational areas, and local water supply features. Coastal
Plain springs have extensive value in supplying water to
commercial, industrial and municipal users. Generally, springs
represent a unique and scarce wetland resource. They are pure,
emergent underground rivers, usually well mineralized, and
support a highly productive flora and fauna. The spring and
spring run below it and the adjacent forest exist together as
an ecological unit (Wharton 1978).
4-1
-------
L1aeeab (hgponda) Limesinks occur in Georgia where
underlying limestone rock or dolomite dissolves and collapses,
creating Cl'enerally round, permanent water wetlands. Where
Binks are common, the terrain is known as karst topography.
]tarst topagraphy is found in areas of southwest Georgia
~1Oougherty Plain province) and in northwest Georgia (where
limesinks are called sagponds). Fluctuating water levels
characterize these wetlands, facilitating many different
vegetativel asaociations. Water elm, mayhaw, water lilies,
butterwnrt, swamp black gum, spaghnum, buttonbush, and grasses
can be the dominants in this wetland class, depending upon the
depth and periodicity of standing water. Limesinks and
B3gponda have been reported as direct conduits to underground
aquifers 0 Others collect rainwater and act as reservoirs or
ponds, cre.ating the landscape diversity necessary for a
opectrum of plants and animal food chains in an otherwise
manotonou& terrain (Wharton 1978).
Otefenotee Sva.p This interior wetland system is actually a
complex ~osaic of wetland types within a 467,157-acre area in
ooutheastern Georgia. It is separated from other wetlands in
the State, receiving about 83 percent of its water from
rainfall and only 15 percent from surface water (USFWS 1990).
Wharton (1918) describes this resource as a bog swamp, because
it. is a hu.ge, acidic, peat-filled bay-lake. Due to its unique
oize and complexity, the Okefenokee Swamp represents a
significant wildlife and water resource to the State of
Georgia.
~idal Marah This wetland habitat type encompasses almost the
e~tire coastal area of Georgia. Further, Georgia contains
approximately 33 percent of the total acreage of tidal marshes
for the entire United States.. Dominant plants include smooth
cordgraas, giant cordgrass, saltwort, and many other plants.
The functions and values typical to this wetland type are
described in the South Carolina section on salt marshes
(Section 8.2).
G.2 Stlt.~~S of the Wetland Resource
Wetlands once covered approximately 18 percent of Georgia's
landscape, or approximately 6.8 million acres. The most recent
estimate for the extent of wetlands is approximately 5.3
millio~ ~cres. For the State, this represents a loss of about
23 percent of its inventory, the lowest percentage loss of any
S~ate i~ the Southeast. This 1.5 million acre loss, however,
ia the fourth largest loss of wetlands acres in the southeast.
During the 20-year period between the 1950's and 1970's,
Georgia lost some 146,000 acres, an average of 7,300 acres per
year. Dther estimates suggest that the rate of loss has
increaaa~ since 1970. Since Georgia's population will increase
by 2 nillion people in the next 20 years, wetlands will be lost
by the ~xpansion of
4-2
-------
currently urbanized areas. GDNR (1991) estimates that the
majority of the wetland impacts, however, will occur due to
drainage of swamps for conversion of hardwoods to pine, and
that drainage will be most prominent in the lower coastal
plain. Wetland habitat quality is normally significantly
impaired as a result of conversion of a species-diverse
.hardwood system to a system predominated by pine.
See Figure 4-1 for the generalized location of all identified
target areas in Georgia. All figures for Georgia can be found
at the end of the Georgia section.
4.3
SUlIIIARY OF DRGft AREAS
Cateaorv One
Rincon Growth Area
Savannah Growth Area
Atlanta Growth Area
Evans-Harlem Growth Area
Warner Robins Growth Area
Brunswick Growth Area
Cateaory Two
Newnan Growth Area
Carrollton Growth Area
Gracewood Growth Area
Cateaorv Three
None
Cateaorv Four
Burke, Screven, Bulloch, Jenkins, and Emanuel
Bryan and Liberty Counties
WaYne, Long, and McIntosh Counties
Brantley, Camden, Charlton, and Ware Counties
Clinch and Echols Counties
Washington County
Laurens, Wilkinson, and Wheeler Counties
Counties
CA'rBGORy ONB
Category One includes urban growth areas located within or
nearby significant expanses of wetlands which likely support
threatened or endangered species. The geographic areas are
4-3
-------
CATEGOUT on. (cont.)
not liuted in any specific order of priority.
1.
IUliJc
-------
CATBGORY ORB (cant.)
Most of the urban development is residential and commercial
development expanding southward and eastward from the city
along Highway 21 toward Savannah. The City of Savannah may
also impact wetlands in Effingham County as part of a
downstream municipal water supply project.
Areas of concern in Effingham County identified by GDNR and
USFWS include several Carolina Bays, and Bear Island adjacent
to the Savannah National Wildlife Refuge.
2.
SaVA1)"ah Growth Axea - Chatham County (Figure 4-3)
Ecological ImDortance
Chatham County is the northernmost county on Georgia's coast
and contains extensive wetland acreage. Two major rivers, the
Savannah and the Ogeechee, flow along the borders of Chatham
County and empty into the Atlantic Ocean. Wetlands in the
drainage basin of these rivers are palustrine forested inland,
changing to freshwater marsh, and finally estuarine marsh
vegetated predominantly with SDartina in the coastal areas
adjacent to Ossabaw Sound and Wassaw Sound.
The forested wetlands maintain water quality downstream by
filtering suspended sediments, nutrients, and pollutants. In
addition, attenuation of floodwaters by these floodplain
wetlands reduces the risk of downstream flooding in the
Savannah area. The estuarine marshes provide erosion control
and storm protection for the coastal area.
Productivity is high in these wetlands. Many species take
advantage of these areas to feed, nest, and breed. Migratory
waterfowl and neotropical birds use these wetlands, as well as
many species of recreationally and commercially important fish
and wildlife. Various pelagic species also frequent the area
due to the abundance of food. Endangered and threatened
species likely to occur in the area are the bald eagle, wood
stork, Arctic peregrine falcon (seasonally), piping plover,
shortnose sturgeon, and sea turtle. Species of recreational
and commercial importance include shrimp, clams, and striped
bass. These wetland hardwoods are also valuable as deer and
wood duck habitat.
Threats
The City of Savannah is the fastest growing urban area in the
state, and a major port city of the Southeast. The 1990
population of 204,000 is expected to increase by 16 percent to
4-5
-------
~!.QD (cant.)
236,000 by the year 2000. This will have significant impacts
OD sensitive coastal resources, primarily in the form of
xesidential, commercial, and industrial development in
wetlands. The direction of expansion of the City is toward the
northwest, into the northern third of the County. A new
dGvelopmont highway and industrial park are proposed for this
area, and urban expansion in Chatham and adjacent counties will
continue through the year 2000.
l!ulberry Grove on the west side of the Savannah River near Port
WGntworth ia an example of an area of concern that has been
identified, by USFWS in the Savannah urban growth area.
EPA is currently performing an ADID project in the Savannah
axea.
3.
Atlanta Growth Area - Fulton, DeKalb, Rockdale,
Newton, Clayton, Henry, Douglas, Cobb, Gwinnett, Cherokee,
Spalding, Fayette, Forsyth Counties (Figure 4-4)
1~colqgical Importance
The Ch~ttahoochee, Alcovy, Yellow, South, and Flint Rivers flow
through th.e Atlanta growth area in north central Georgia. This
area lies within the Piedmont physiographic province. Due to
the topographical features of the region, wetland systems in
the Piedmont are generally associated with rivers, streams, and
their tributaries, and usually exhibit narrow floodplains.
Wetlands adjacent to these rivers are palustrine forested,
dominated by pine-hardwood and bottomland hardwood habitat
types. Im.portant functions of this type of wetland include
a~tenuation of flood waters, which act to reduce downstream
floodiJrlg, and water quality maintenance through retention of
pollutants by wetland soils and vegetation. Tributaries of the
Chattahoochee River are of major importance to Atlanta's
drinking water supply. The north and west sides of
metropolitan Atlanta are drained by these tributary systems.
On the sast and south sides of Atlanta, the remaining rivers
and their. tributaries supply water to several communities.
These riparian wetlands provide travel corridors for wetland-
dependent species, and valuable fish and wildlife foraging and
bxeedimq habitat. Plant and animal species are diverse and
numerou~ in these wetlands. Recreational species include deer,
largemouth bass, redbreast sunfish (FWS), and trout (GDNR).
There are several endangered plant species in the metropolitan
Atlanta count~es, including the pool sprite, which occurs in
DouglasQ Henry, Dekalb, Newton, and Rockdale Counties, and
black-t3::;>ored quillwort, which occurs in Dekalb, Newton, and
Rockdal~ Counties.
4-6
-------
CA'lBGORY ONE (cant.)
Threats
The metropolitan Atlanta area is the largest urban area in the
State and the second fastest growing urban area. The
population is projected to increase from 2 million in 1990 to
2.7 million in 2000. Thirteen counties are included in this
growth area.
Overall, residential development along the rivers in the
metropolitan Atlanta area is the greatest threat to area
wetlands. Increasing urban development along the Chattahoochee
River system threatens the river's trout fishery and downstream
native fish populations, in addition to drinking water
supplies. Development along the Alcovy, Yellow, South, and
Flint River systems threatens water quality and fish
populations in Lake Jackson and the Middle Flint River (both of
which sustain considerable warmwater fisheries), and drinking
water supplies for the surrounding counties (GDNR). The
Towaliga River has been proposed as the site for several small
dams and a water supply reservoir to service Henry County.
Areas of concern in the metropolitan Atlanta area include the
Chattahoochee, Alcovy, Flint, Yellow, South, and Towaliga River
corridors, and Whitewater Creek as identified by GDNR.
4.
Bvana-Harlea Growth Area - Columbia County
(Figure 4-5)
Ecoloaical Importance
The Evans-Harlem urban growth area lies in the Savannah River
Basin north and west of Augusta on the southern edge of the
Piedmont Physiographic Province. Wetlands associated with the
Savannah River and its tributaries are composed mainly of
hardwoods. The forested floodplains are important for
providing desYnchronization of downstream floodwater
discharges, which reduces the risk of downstream flooding.
Water quality is maintained by uptake of particulates and
nutrients by wetland soils and vegetation.
These wetlands provide important habitat for a variety of
species including deer, turkey, duck, beaver, and otter. The
bottomland hardwood forests of Columbia County are vital as
breeding areas for many neo-tropical migratory bird species.
Two endangered plant species that are known to occur in
Columbia County are the mat-forming quillwort and relict
trillium. Commercial and recreational fishing are common in
this part of the Savannah River.
4-7
-------
CA~Y ORB (cant.)
Threatf!
The Ev~~ms'-Harlem urban growth area is the third fastest growing
area iil G~orgia. It is located north and west of Augusta in
Columb:ta County. Evans, located ten miles north of Augusta, is
the fcUJte:r growing city, with an expected population of 68,000
in the year 2000. This represents an increase of 46 percent
over the 1990 population. The combined rate of population
increcme for the Evans-Harlem growth area is 39 percent, from
62,100 to 86,700 people by the year 2000.
Urban tiev(~liDpment poses significant threats to wetlands in this
area. A i3ewage treatment plant has recently been constructed
near the confluence of the Savannah River and Uchee Creek to
~ccommoda~e future residential development in the area, which
is on t<;he northwest side of Evans. Industrial development
between Evans and Harlem north of Grovetown may impact wetlands
allong i,~he Uchee Creek and its tributaries. Residential
dlevelopmsl1t along this creek system is likely to be the most
signifiLcant threat to wetlands in this growth area. Also,
Inters~ate 20 crosses Uchee and Kiokee Creeks, and development
along fr:hia highway may be an additional source of impacts to
wetlands ilsaociated with these systems.
s.
Went~-Rob1na Growth Area - Houston County
~Figure 4-6)
EcolqgJ.cal Importance
The Wal~nel~-Robins area is located adjacent to Interstate
approxlma1~ely 95 miles south of Atlanta. It lies in the
Gulf Coastal Plain. Wetlands in the area are associated
the Ocn!uluee River and its tributaries. The Ocrilulgee
floodplain 1s several miles wide here and contains
predomd.nantly forested wetlands. These resources provide water
for Macon and other cities as well as floodflow attenuation and
water quaJ.it.y maintenance.
75
East
with
Significant biological communities are associated with these
wetlands. The endangered bald eagle, red cockaded woodpecker,
~nd shcr'tnose sturgeon utilize the area. Hunting and sport
fishing are important at some sites. Fish species present
includ~ largemouth bass, catfish, and sunfish. These species
~nd
others are dependent on these areas for use as travel
corridors, and forage and breeding habitat.
4-8
-------
CA'lBGORY ONB (cant.)
Threats
The Warner-Robins Division is located in Houston County about
15 miles south of Macon, near the borders of Bibb and Twiggs
Counties. The population in the year 2000 is projected by
Gannett Fleming to be approximately 80,000, or an increase of
11 percent over the 1990 population of 72,000.
The major imminent threat to this area is continuing urban
development and possible water development projects. The City
of Warner-Robins is expanding to the west toward Centerville,
which may impact the Sandy Run Creek area.
Areas of concern in the Warner-Robins growth area include the
Ocmulgee River and Echeconne Creek as identified by USFWS.
6.
BrwuIvick Growth Area - Glynn County
The Brunswick area was not identified as a target area by the
categorization process described in this document, but is being
listed as a "special" Category One area based on comments
received from reviewers in the State of Georgia and other
federal agencies. Infor.mation received by these agencies is
consistent with the Region's knowledge of threats to wetlands
in this area from urban development and the value of wetlands
in this coastal ecological setting.
The Brunswick area did not meet the population growth criteria
established in the ranking process which required that urban
areas in coastal environments increase in population by 5000
people or more by the year 2000 if the area was to be listed as
a target area. In the case of Brunswick, the population is
projected by Gannett-Fleming to increase by approximately 1600
people by year 2000. It is the Region's conclusion that based
on the highly extensive nature of wetlands in the landscape of
Brunswick and Glynn County, and the significant ecological
value of these wetlands, that this population growth is
significant and does threaten important wetlands. This
conclusion is corroborated by comments and recommendations
received from the State of Georgia Freshwater Wetlands Program
and from the Brunswick Field Office of the u.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service,.
Ecoloaical ImDortance
Glynn County, which is bordered by the Altamaha River to the
north and the Little Satilla River to the south, contains
extensive wetland acreage. Wetland types range from palustrine
4-9
-------
CA'RGORY Qlm 'cant.)
forested Ewamps predominantly associated with wide floodplains
along rivElrs to palustrine and estuarine marshes along the
coastal mBxgins. The forested wetlands provide flood storage
capacity and water quality enhancement, whereas the coastal
marsh are~s buffer storm surges and mitigate erosion impacts
for the Ci.ty of Brunswick and other areas.
Productivity is high in these wetlands. Many species take
advantage of these areas to feed, nest, and breed. Migratory
birds and waterfowl utilize these areas, as well as many
species of recreationally and commercially important fish and
wildlife 0 Striped mullet, southern flounder, crappie, and
catfish are some of the important fish species found in Glynn
County wet.land systems. Endangered and threatened species
found in t.he vicinity are the bald eagle, wood stork, and
various sea turtle species.
Threats.
Though thE] Brunswick area is not growing at a rapid rate, it is
the seconc~ largest coastal Georgia city, and also contains the
popular rE~sorts of Jekyll Island and St. Simons Island.
Residenti~l, commercial, and infrastructure development is
expected to pose threats to the wetlands of Glynn County.
Forests i~ the County are intensively managed for pine
productio~. Logging and conversion to pine plantations in
these wetland hardwoods can adversely impact wildlife habitat
and the water quality of these wetland resources if best
management, practices are not implemented.
CADGOaY HO
Category ~Vo includes urban growth areas located within or
nearby significant expanses of wetlands that support important
commercial or recreational uses. The geographic areas are not
listed in any specific order of priority.
Jl.
lIevnu, Growth Area - Coweta County
(Figure 4-7)
EcoloQ,ical Importance
Coweta County lies in the Piedmont physiographic province of
the state, in the Chattahoochee River basin. Wetlands are
associated with the river and are composed primarily of
bottomland hardwoods, which attenuate flood waters and
desynchrcmize downstream discharge in addition to providing
water quality maintenance through uptake of sediments,
nutrients, and other pollutants.
4-10
-------
CA'lBGORY '!'NO (cant.)
Though there is no known endangered species habitat in the
area, ~portant recreational species such as deer, waterfowl,
largemouth bass, and other sport fish utilize these riparian
wetlands for migration and for forage and breeding habitat.
Threats
The City of Newnan is located about 35 miles southwest of
Atlanta in Coweta County, adjacent to Interstate 85. A 29
percent increase in population by the year 2000 is projected by
Gannett Fleming, which represents an increase from 40,000 to
51,600 people. Newnan is the fourth fastest growing urban area
in Georgia. In addition, Coweta County borders the
metropolitan Atlanta area counties of Fulton and Fayette, and
growth is rapidly expanding toward these borders.
Impacts associated with urban development are expected to
affect wetlands in Coweta County. The majority of these
~pacts are anticipated to be due to residential development
along the Chattahoochee and its tributaries, although several
wetland areas inside the city l~its of Newnan may be ~pacted
by various types of urban development. Industrial expansion
along White Oak Creek east of Newnan is expected to ~pact
adjacent wetlands.
2.
Carrollton Growth Area - Carroll County (Figure 4-8)
Ecoloaical Importance
Carroll County is located in the Piedmont physiographic
province in western Georgia. It is drained by the
Chattahoochee and Tallapoosa Rivers. Bottomland hardwood
forests are the predominant wetland type associated with these
river systems. These wetlands provide water quality
enhancement, for. the Chattahoochee and Tallapoosa Rivers and
their tributaries as well as floodflow attenuation, and
desYnchronization of downstream floodflow releases
Though there are no known endangered species utilizing the
area, several rare, endemic, or undescribed species occur,
including the Tallapoosa and muscadine darters. Recreational
species such as deer, waterfowl, largemouth bass, and other
sport fish depend on these riparian wetlands for migratory
corridors, and for forage and breeding habitat.
Threats
The City of Carrollton in Carroll County is expected to
experience a 26 percent increase in population from 38,700 to
4-11
-------
C'MBG01Y (ftiO (cant.)
49,300 people between 1990 and 2000. Additionally, its eastern
border is adjacent to Douglas County in the Atlanta growth
area, (~d the City of Villa Rica near this border is
experi(~ncing rapid growth, which is expected to continue
throug:h the year 2000.
Most o:~ the growth having the potential to impact wetlands in
CarrolLR. County is anticipated to be residential growth along
the r.ibrer corridors surrounding the Cities of Carrollton and
Villa JUcia. Growth is also expected in the area between
CarrolltoD and Newnan in Coweta County to the southeast.
The Bu:Efalo Swamp identified by USFWS is an example of an area
of com::er:tl in the Carroll ton Growth Area.
31.
Grnc~fOOd Growth Area
- Richmond County (Figure 4-9)
Ecol~~l Importance
This aEea is in the Savannah River Basin of the Coastal Plain
physionraphic province near Augusta. Wetlands present are
associ.utsd with the River or its tributaries and are
predominantly bottomland hardwood forests, significant for
their nutJ:ient exchange with the Savannah River or connecting
creeks 0 ~rhey also serve to desynchronize downstream floodflow
and att;enuat.e floodwaters.
Habitat: and biological diversity are significant in these
wetlanrls as well. Wildlife species present include deer,
turkeyu ducks, beaver, otter, and possibly black bear. The
bottomla1lld areas are vital to neotropical migratory birds which
requir~ large isolated areas for breeding. Commercial and
recreational fishing occur in the Savannah River as well.
Threat!!,
Gracewood is less than ten miles south of Augusta, and is
-expectEd t:o grow in population by 35 percent from 26,000 to
36,000 by the year 2000.
Urban ~ev~lopment may cause significant .ilmpacts. Ongoing creek.
channeliz~tion for flood control purposes is occurring in
sraveral tz'ibutaries. Residential development along Spirit
Creek on thQ aouth side of Gracewood is expected to .ilmpact
adjacent wetlands.
Although forestry activities are not as intensive along this
portio~ of the Savannah River system as they are further south,
in the next decade harvesting of hardwoods in the wetland areas
4-12
-------
CATEGORY '1'NO (cant.)
around Augusta is likely to increase (pers. comm., Lynn Hooven,
Georgia Forestry Commission, 1991). Expected clearcutting of
wetland hardwoods is likely to impact species such as migratory
birds that utilize the area.
The Savannah River Swamp is an example of an area of concern in
Richmond County that has been identified by USFWS.
CABGORY mRBB
Category Three includes urban growth areas located within or
nearby significant expanses of wetlands. The geographic areas
are not listed in any specific order of priority.
There are no Category Three growth areas in the State of
Georgia.
CABGORY POUR
Category Four includes areas experiencing significant
silvicultural or agriculture expansion within or nearby
wetlands that likely support threatened or endangered species,
or important commercial or recreational uses. Thegeographic
areas are not listed in any specific order of priority. (See
Figure 4-1 for location of counties identified as Category Four
areas. )
1.
Burke/ScreveniBulloch/Jenk1ns/Blwmuel Counties - Ogeechee
River
Ecoloaical Imoortance
Burke, Screven, Bulloch, Jenkins, and Emanuel Counties are
located in the Coastal Plain of eastern Georgia. The Ogeechee
River runs along the border between Burke and Emanuel Counties,
through Jenkins County, and along the border between Screven
and Bulloch Counties. Most of this area is in the Ogeechee
River basin, with the exception of eastern Burke and Screven
Counties, and southwestern Emanuel County.
The Ogeechee River is a high quality blackwater ecosystem
containing excellent bottomland hardwood wetlands composed of
tupelo, sweet gum, water oak, and various other species. The
wide floodplains associated with this system provide water
storage and water quality enhancement.
Fish habitat and productivity along the river are among the
best of coastal Georgia streams. A diversity of wildlife is
present
4-13
-------
CA'lBGCmY -1'OUR (cont.)
in conjunc:tion with wetlands in these counties. These include
deero mink, bobcat, waterfowl, and osprey. The Middle Ogeechee
JRiver .i.s hOMe to the endangered shortnose sturgeon, bald eagle,
and ea~tern indigo snake. A large wood stork rookery exists in
cypres~ forested wetlands along the Ogeechee River in Jenkins
County. It is one of only six in the State and is the site of
wood sto~k research by the University of Georgia. In most of
~hese counties, wetlands provide critical off-river striped
~ass theJ~~l refuge in the form of large springs.
Threats!
ConverEion of hardwood to pine forest is anticipated to impact
~hese EiIecns 0 These counties are some of the most intensively
logged in the State with respect to wetland hardwoods. In
Bulloch CCJunty, the expansion of Ft. Stewart Military
Raserv~tion is expected to add secondary urban development
along the Ogeechee River. '
:t.
~~Liberty Counties - Canoochie and Ogeechee Rivers
Ecoloqical Importance
These two coastal counties are bordered by Chatham and
Effingham Counties on the north and McIntosh and Long Counties
om the south. There is significant wetland ,acreage in these
counti~6, ranging from bottomland hardwood forests to estuarine
marsh. These areas serve several important functions. They
act to store flood waters and thereby protect development
downstraam, , as well as maintaining water quality downstream.
The estuarine wetlands act as receiving waters for stormwater
runoff from surrounding uplands, and as storm buffers and
erosio~ protection for coastal developed areas.
The estuarine wetlands serve as nursery grounds for shrimp,
blue crab, and many marine fish species. Wood storks and
wading birds use these areas for feeding and rookeries.
Palustrine wetlands include those associated with the Canoochie
and Og(32chee Rivers. The Lower Ogeechee wetlands in Bryan
County 9~pport a valuable sport and commercial fishery and
abunda!i1~ wildlife including beaver, otter, raccoonu mink, deeru
and sev3ral varieties of turtle. These wetlands are also an
importa~t '~aterfowl wintering area and wood duck nesting area.
Threatq
Bryan a~d Liberty Counties are experiencing a moderate increase
4-14
-------
CA'RGORY POUR (cont.)
in logging activity, in particular, clearcutting of hardwoods
and replacement with pine plantations, that will probably
effect the quality of forested wetlands in these counties.
Areas on the Ogeechee River around and below Richmond Hill in
Bryan County are almost completely developed. This development
is likely to increase upriver. Hinesville, on the southern
boundary of Ft. Stewart Military Reservation in Liberty County,
is projected to increase in population from 38,000 to 42,000
people (a 10 percent increase) between 1990 and 2000.
3.
.ayne/Long/JlcIntoah Counties - Lower Al tamaha River
Ecoloaical ImDortance
Wayne, Long, and McIntosh Counties on the coastal and adjacent
Atlantic Coastal Plain physiographic provinces of southern
Georgia contain a large amount of wetland acreage, including
part of the Lower Altamaha River Swamp (the largest river swamp
ecosystem in the state), and several Carolina Bays. The lower
Altamaha River is of major importance in maintaining the
ecological balance along Georgia's coast due to the magnitude
of freshwater flow into the estuarine areas. Wetland hardwood
forests containing cypress,tupelo, gum, ash, and hickory are
extensive along the river.
The river is utilized by estuarine fish such striped mullet and
southern flounder, and sport fish such as striped bass,
crappie, catfish, and largemouth bass. The area is currently
used for hunting, fishing, and recreation. Wahoo Island and
Oldnor Island in McIntosh County are used as feeding areas by
wood storks and as a rookery for other wading birds. Other
endangered/threatened species are found in these counties,
including the bald eagle, several migratory bird species, and
the eastern indigo snake.
Threats
Wayne County is the most intensively logged county in this
area. Clearcutting of timber in the floodplains in these
counties will create significant impacts to wildlife feeding
and migration patterns. Wahoo and Oldnor Islands have been
proposed for residential and commercial development.
.~
Brantley/Caaden/CharltonlWare Counties
River, St. Marys River
- Lower Satilla
Ecoloaical ImDortance
Brantley, Camden, Charlton, and Ware Counties are located in
4-15
-------
~~Y )rQ'OR (cant.}
the e~~reme southeastern part of the State. Camden is a
coastal c(ounty, and the other three counties lie in the
Atlantic Coastal Plain. .Land in this four-county area drains
into the St. Mary's and Satilla Rivers, which have both been
propofmd ias Wild and Scenic Rivers. Wetlands are palustrine
forestDd, and to a lesser extent palustrine emergent and
estuar1ne emergent. The fore.sted floodplains of the St. Mary's
and SCl~illa Rivers serve. to attenuate floodwaters and improve
water
-------
CATEGORY POUR «cont.)
being palustrine scrub/shrub and riverine lower perennial
wetlands. These wetlands provide flood storage and water
quality functions for downstream areas.
The area provides habitat for the endangered bald eagle, wood
stork, and eastern indigo snake. Sport fishing is also'
popular. The Suwannee has been nominated as a Wild and Scenic
River. Other areas of concern include several Carolina Bays.
Threats
The most significant potential impact to this area is timber
removal that could affect habitat for important wildlife
species and cause non-point source pollution such as
sedimentation.
6.
Washington County - Ogeechee River
Ecoloaical Imoortance
Washington County is located in the east central part of the
State between Macon and Augusta in the southeastern region of
the Piedmont. There are several significant tracts of
floodplain swamp associated with the Ogeechee River in
Washington County. Water quality enhancement of the Ogeechee
River and flood storage are important functions of these
wetland areas.
Chalker Swamp near the City of Mitchell is known to support the
endangered shortnose sturgeon and is important habitat for
anadromous striped bass. Williamson Swamp north of
Sandersville supports the only remaining wildlife in an
intensively managed agricultural area. Hunting, sport fishing,
and nature watching are popular activities in these areas.
Threats
Expected conversion of forested wetlands to pine plantations
will probably impact the wildlife habitat value of the resource
in Washington County. Agricultural drainage impacts some
areas, resulting in degradation of water quality.
'I.
Law:ena, Wiltin8on, Wheeler Counties - Oconee River
Ecoloaical Imoortance
The Oconee River is part of the Altamaha River Basin. Laurens,
Wilkinson, and Wheeler Counties in the central part of the
State encompass almost the entire length of the river, from
4-17
-------
CHBGOnY 000 (cant.)
just Slouth of Hilledgeville to its confluence with the Altamaha
Iti vex.
Wetlan.ds fls60ciated with the river are predominantly bottomland
hardwood forested and provide maintenance of water quality
downat:E~eall1 and flood storage functions.
The Oconee River system provides habitat for wild turkey, deer,
quail, rabbit, bobcat, and waterfowl. This habitat is used by
mallards and wood ducks during fall migration. Bass and bream
fishil1lB oc:curs in the area. These and other species utilize
these ~iparian corridors along the Oconee and its tributaries
for migration, feeding, and breeding.
Threatfl
Intensive forest management is occurring in Laurens and
WilkinfJo!1l Counties which. is likely to impact the wetland
hardwocda adjacent to the river if best management practices
are not; ulplemented. Wilkinson County had the highest removal
rate of bott.omland sawtimber in the State during the period
1982~8U. Some sections of the river may be drained by private
landowneJr£1 also.
Where i.ndividual landowners harvest timber, the potential for
!1lon-poi.n't source pollution is greater due to less frequent use
of best DKinagement practices (Georgia Forestry Commission,
1991). .
4-18
-------
GEORGIA
Figure 4-1
TARGB'r AREAS OF G8QRGXA
UTI
CM'EGORY ONE
l.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Rincon Growth Area
Savannah Growth Area
Atlanta Growth Area
Evans-Harlem Growth Area
Warner Robins Growth Area
Brunswick Growth Area
CATEGORY TWO
7.
8.
9.
Carrollton Growth Area
Gracewood Growth Area
Newnan Growth Area
CATEGORY THREE - none
4-19
CATEGORY POUR
10. Bryan/Liberty Counties
11. Wayne/Long/McIntosh
Counties
12. Brantley/Camden/Charlton/
Ware Counties
13. Clinch/Echols Counties
14. Washington County
15. Laurens/Wilkinson/Wheeler
Counties
16. Burke/Screven/Bulloch/
Jenkins/Emanuel Counties
-------
Figure 4.2
Rincon Growth Area
Category One
4-20
-------
.
...
.
Figure 4-3
Savannah Growth Area
Category One
4-21
-------
Figure 4-4
Atlanta Growth Area
Category One
4-22
-------
.""!*..
...,
Figure 4-5
Evans-Harlem Growth Area
Category One
4-23.
-------
(.
Figure 4-6
Warner Robins Growth Area
Category One
4-24
-------
...
~
",
" ,
" ,
. ','
" ::~:7'.:;~:"':.:"::::'::~
"'14-
":-
'-,
Figure 4-7
Brunswick Growth Area
Category One
4-25
-------
'---
I
"
D. r~/:':,,<
. .. ~l".::~h:~~'
"':'~~."4':',- , ~'~~":"'-'" ,.q-....:' . ' ,
- i ' ,,.l . GraRtvtJf ,/. ,',
ICQl"~~- ~~_.
, - . ~ '
" "r--- Trlmbl' ' ,'" .
-- '
." /
,'\
'('
Figure 4-8
Newnan Growth Area
Category Two
4-26
-------
; ,,;' :
" ."'.'. !",.,
',' .\,':
',~::¥-;;F.: .
, '
, ,
, ,
. . : . ':~
, , " .
, '0'(/\
"< ,',' ,,' :', ',(J
. ..:!~'c.\~
, ,
, \.
, ' , ,0 FatrDla
"",::,,,.' ...".,
~
,::.£....~, :'~:': "~A~c":'
, .i~t~m.., \' J ,
.. ,',.!, -:--" " ., ":.~ :\.---." ,
, , ','~-,.." ,
I,
f "-"
. '. ", 't.,:. ~ . '
""".'..:...:
, ,,~,
, .
Figure 4-9 '
Carrollton Growth Area
Category Two
4-27
-------
~
... ('
.. .~
.:GteCCut
Figure 4-10
Gracewood Growth Area
Category Two
4-28
-------
5.0
5.1
Kentucky
Wetlands of Kentucky
The land area of Kentucky is the second-smallest in the region,
totalling only 25.5 million land acres. Dahl (1990) estimates
that wetlands once occupied 6.1 percent of the States'
landscape, or approximately 1.6 million acres. This acreage
figure represents the lowest wetlands inventory of any state in
Region IV. Today, Kentucky's current wetland inventory is
estimated at about 300,000 acres (1.2 percent of its land
area). The major wetland region in Kentucky consists of the
floodplains of the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers and their major
tributaries in the western portion of the State. The
significant wetland resources in Kentucky are the River Swamps
. and Floodplains.
River Swamps and Floodplains Bottomland hardwoods are the
most prevalent type of river swamp and floodplain system in
Kentucky. Extensive oak-gum-cypress and elm-ash-cottonwood
associations, as well as other wetland hardwood assemblages,
dominate these wetlands. These forests and their fauna comprise
remarkably productive riverine communities adapted to a
fluctuating water regime and maintained by a natural hydrology
of alternating annual wet and dry periods (Wharton, et. ale
1982). Functions of bottomland hardwoods include wildlife
habitat, fishing, hunting, passive recreational opportunities,
water quality enhancement functions, and timber resources.
5.2
Status of the Wetland Resource
As of 1977, approximately 930,000 acres (59 percent) of wetlands
in Kentucky had been drained for cropland, with an additional 20
percent devoted to pastureland. Bottomland hardwood forests in
the Mississippi Alluvial Plain declined most dramatically,
decreasing by 52 percent from 55,000 to 26,300 acres between
1957 and 1974 (USFWS 1990). Co~l mining also represen~s a
threat to the best remaining examples of bottomland hardwoods in
the State, since a significant portion are found in an area
known as the Western Kentucky Coal Field province. (Within the
approximately 2.9 million acre coal field area, approximately
114,000 acres of mostly bottomland hardwoods occur.)
Statewide, about 81 percent of Kentucky's original wetland
inventory have been lost (Dahl 1990). Wetlands occupy only 1.2
percent of the landscape (300,000 acres), the lowest acreage of
any of the southeastern states. Losses due to agricultural
conversions have likely stabilized or been reduced due to
commodity prices and changes in agricultural support programs.
Continued population growth of existing metropolitan areas in
Kentucky will encroach upon some wetlands, but it appears that
coal mining, silviculture, and agriculture remain the primary
causes of wetland loss in Kentucky.
5-1
-------
5.3
~T GEOGRAPHIC AREAS IN KENTUCKY
See Figure 5-1 for the generalized location of all identified
target areas in Kentucky. All figures for Kentucky can be found
at the end of the Kentucky section.
SUMMARY ()F TARGET AREAS
CateaoryOne
none
Cateao~ Two
none
Category Three
none
Cateaorv,Four
Western Goal field Unit
Pennyroyal Unit
CATEGORY ORE
Category One includes urban growth areas located within or
nearby significant expanses of wetlands which likely support
threatened or endangered species.
There are no Category One areas in the State of Kentucky.
CATEGORY TWO
Category Two includes,urban growth areas loc4ted within or
nearby si.gnificant expanses of wetlands that support important
commercial or recreational uses.
There are no Category Two areas in the State of Kentucky.
CATEGOR~ THREE
Category Three includes urban growth areas located within or
nearby fsignificant expanses of wetlands.
There are no Category Three areas in the State of Kentucky.
5-2
-------
CATEGORY FOUR
Category Four includes areas experiencing significant
silviculture or agriculture expansion within or nearby wetlands
that likely support threatened or endangered species, or
important commercial or recreational uses. The geographic areas
are not listed in any specific order of priority. (See Figure
5-1 for the location of watersheds identified as Category Four
areas. )
1.
western Coalfield Unit
1a.
Pond River watershed
lb.
Rough River watershed
1c.
Mud River watershed
1d.
Green River watershed
1e.
Tradewater River watershed
Ecological ImDortance:
This geographic region contains the counties of Union, Webster,
Hopkins, Muhlenberg, Butler, Edmonson, Hart, Grayson, Ohio,
McLean, Henderson, Daviess, Hancock, and portions of Christian,
Todd, Logan, Warren and Barren. Large river systems which drain
to the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers run through the western
coalfield unit. Associated with the Tradewater, Pond, Rough,
Mud and Green Rivers are extensive, isolated and contiguous
forested, shrub and bottomland swamps. Numerous sloughs,
streams and creeks provide access for fish and wildlife to and
from the swamps for breeding and travel routes. In addition to
breeding and migration habitat, these wetlands provide foraging
areas, refuge from predators and other disturbances, enhancement
of water quality through retention of sediments and reduction of
non-point source pollution, floodflow attenuation and
desYnchronization of stormwater runoff.
The rivers of this area support several species of endangered
mussels such as the pink mucket pearly, ring pink, rough pigtoe
pearly, fat pocketbook pearly, tuberculed-blossom pearly,
cracking pearly, white wartyback pearly, purple catspaw pearly,
eastern fanshell pearly, and orange-footed pearly mussels.
Moderate currents with low densities of fine and very fine
suspended particulates that are capable of precluding the
deposition of fine particle sediments are required for the
survival of most of these mussel species. As the larval stages
of such mussels attach themselves to the gills or fins of some
fishes, they are also extremely dependent on a healthy
population of host fishes for survival.
5-3
-------
CATB~RY POUR (cont.)
In addition to the mussels, the western coalfield unit supports
numerous species that are currently in status review for listing
as endangered or threatened. Such species include the
coppe~bally water snake, eastern sand darter, blue sucker,
longhnad darter, Kirtland's water snake, hellbender, other
musse;L species and several species of plants such as
catchf:ly's. Bald eagles and red-cockaded woodpeckers are also
found in the western coalfield unit. Recreationally and
cODmeEcially important species supported by the wetlands of the
weste~n r:oalfield unit include, but are not limited to,
white~ail deer, turkey, ducks, furbearers, catfish, crappie,
bass, tuxtles, frogs and migratory songbirds. These wetlands
are ~lso extremely important as stopover and foraging areas for
millions of waterfowl.
Thre6l1l:s
Althongh the western coalfield unit supports several minor urban
civil divisions, most are projected to reduce their populations
from the levels reported in 1990. As the western coalfield unit
is priUn~~ily rural with only a few minor civil divisions that
are entimated to lose residents, both agriculture and
silvieul1:ure are putting intense pressure on the remaining
wetl~nds resources of the area. It has been estimated that 40
to 50 pel~CeJ!1t of the wetlands which existed before the area was
settlnd had. been converted to other uses. In 1987,
appro1rimately 142,400 acres of bottomland timber existed in the
westEJIr.'n Goalfield unit. Also in 1987, the western coalfield
unit f.ncl:'eased its agricultural acreage by more than 70,000
acres 0 Historically, lack of use of best management practices
in faY.1D.ing and forestry has resulted in increased loading of
nutri.()ntn and sediment to the water column, which decreases the
produc~ti"ity and the habitat suitability of the receiving
aquatic habitat.
In adclition to agricultural and silvicultural impacts, the
region has experienced and continues to experience impacts from
surficial and subsurface coal mining. Surficial disturbances of
earth movement adversely affect the water quality of stream
segmsnts causing a reduction in the population of aquatic life,
and Cll'iCE~ration in composition and diversity and physical
elimination of aquatic life through erosion and increased
turbicHi tl'. Coal mining also physically eliminates wetlands from
the lEmcWcape and converts prime, unique, locally, and
regiorlally important farmland and recreational lands to other
uses, reducing the economic value of those resources.
Environmentally insensitive mining practices have reduced the
produ~tivity and habitat suitability of the receiving aquatic
habitElto
This are~ has been suggested for the implementation of an
advance identification by the Environmental Protection Agency,
Kentu~ky Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet
5-4
-------
CATEGORY FOUR (cont.)
and, in part, by the U.s. Fish and Wildlife Service through
their National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan. EPA, with
the cooperation of the State Division of Water, is presently
implementing an ADID in the Pond River Basin of the Western
Coalfield Unit.
2.
Pennyroyal Unit
2a.
Green River Watershed
Ecoloaical 1mDortance:
The portion of the Green River watershed that extends into the
Pennyroyal Unit of Kentucky contains the counties of Green,
Taylor and portions of Metcalfe, Adair, Casey, Lincoln, Larue,
and Hardin. Associated with the Green River are extensive,
isolated and contiguous forested, shrub and bottomland swamps.
Numerous sloughs, streams and creeks provide access for fish and
wildlife to and from the swamps for breeding and travel routes.
In addition to breeding and migration habitat, these wetlands
provide foraging areas, refuge from predators and other
disturbances, enhancement of water quality through retention of
sediments and reduction of non-point source pollution, floodflow
attenuation and desYnchronization of stormwater runoff.
The Green River supports several species of endangered mussels
such as the rough pigtoe pearly, fat pocketbook pearly,
tuberculed-blossom pearly, and eastern fanshell pearly mussels.
Moderate currents carrying low densities of fine and very fine
suspended particulates that are capable of precluding the
deposition of fine particle sediments are required for the
survival of most of these mussel species. As the larval stages
of such mussels attach themselves to the gills or fins of some
fishes, they are also extremely dependent on a healthy
population of host fishes for survival.
In addition to the mussels, the Pennyroyal Unit supports
numerous species that are currently in status review for listing
as endangered or threatened. Such species include the armored
and ornate rocksnails, eastern sand, crystal and longhead .
darters, hellbender, other mussel species and several species of
plants such as the Ozark least trillium. Bald eagles are also
found in the Pennyroyal Unit. Recreationally and commercially
important species supported by the wetlands of the Pennyroyal
unit include, but are not limited to, whitetail deer, turkey,
ducks, furbearers, catfish, crappie, bass, turtles, frogs and
migratory songbirds. These wetlands are also extremely
important as stopover and foraging areas for millions of
waterfowl.
5;"5
-------
CATEGORY FOUR (cont.)
Threats
Although the Pennyroyal unit supports several minor urban civil
divisions, most are projected to reduce their populations from
the levels reported in 1990. As the Pennyroyal Unit is
primarily rural with only a few minor civil divisions that are
estimated to lose residents, both agriculture and silviculture
are putting intense pressure on the remaining wetlands resources
of the area. It has been estimated that 40 to 50 percent of the
wetlands which existed before the area was settled had been
converted to other uses. In 1987, approximately 55,000 acres of
bottomland timber existed in the Pennyroyal Unit. Also in 1987,
the Pennyroyal Unit increased its agricultural acreage by more
than 104,700 acres. Historically, environmentally insensitive
farming and silviculture practices have contributed significant
loadings of sediment to the water column which decreases the
productivity and the habitat suitability of the receiving
aquatic habitat.
This areil has been suggested for the implementation of an
advance identification by the Environmental Protection Agency
and the Kentucky Natural Resources and Environmental Protection
Cabinet.
5-6
-------
KENTUCKY
<:J
Pigure 5-1
'J!ARGB'r ARUS OF DR'1'OCn
DTr
CATEGORY ONE - none
CATEGORY TWO - none
CATEGORY THREE - none
CATEGORY POUR
l.
2.
We. tern Coalfield Unit
PelUlyrOyal Uni t
5-7
-------
6.0
6.1
Kississippi
Wetlands of Kississippi
The State of Mississippi occupies approximately 30.3 million
surface acres. An estimate of the extent of original wetland
acreage in the State is approximately 9.9 million acres, or 32.7
percent of the State's landscape (Dahl 1990). Today, wetlands
occupy 13.4 percent of the State's land surface area (about 4.1
million acres). Within the State's physiographic provinces, the
highest concentration of wetlands occur in the counties
bordering the Mississippi River and its tributaries, and along
the coastal region of the State.
The significant wetland resources of the State of Mississippi
can be classified in three broad categories: 1) Lower
Mississippi River Alluvial Valley, 2) Tidal marshes, and 3)
Coastal Plain wetlands.
Lower Kississippi River ~luvial Valley (Mississippi Delta)
This represents a general category of wetland types, including
bottomland hardwoods, river swamps and floodplains, blackwater
river, gum-cypress swamp, cypress-tupelo swamp, backwater/oxbow,
slough, coastal bayhead, and wet hammocks. All of these systems
share a common geographic feature in that they occur in lower
drainages of the Mississippi River watershed. The enormous
complex of wetlands represents vitally important fish and
wildlife habitat, particularly for wintering and migratory
waterfowl, commercial fin and shellfish, and endangered and
threatened spec~es (Beccasio, et. al., 1983; Mettee, et. al.,
1987; Baker, 1991). They also provide extensive flood storage,
erosion control, outdoor recreation, and surface water supply
functions (USFWS 1990).
Tidal Marshes This wetland type occurs in the gulf coastal
area of Mississippi. As of 1984, Mississippi's coastal area
cQntained approximately 77,500 acres of tidal marsh habitat, of
which 99 percent were saline, brackish, and intermediate
marshes, and only one percent freshwater marshes (USFWS 1990).
Characteristic plant species found in tidal marshes of
Mississippi closely parallel those found in other southeastern
states. These wetlands provide important economic functions by
supporting a thriving seafood industry of shrimp, oysters, crabs
and other commercial fin and shell fish species, as well as a
saltwater sport fish industry. Tidal marshes are also
identified as a priority habitat in the North American Waterfowl
Management Plan.
Coastal Plain wetlands These wetlands collectively encompass
most of the river drainages outside of the Mississippi River
(e.g., pascagoula, Wolf, and Pearl), and those considered
isolated. These systems contain extensive stands of river
swamps and floodplains, some of the best representative habitats
found in the southeast. Other wetland types found in the
6-1
-------
coastul plain include herbaceous and shrub bogs. Vegetative
compor~nt.s have already been discussed in other state's
entriE)s. Found principally in headwater or hydrologically-
isolat~ed areas, these systems are scattered but nonetheless
repre.aent. a unique wetland resource of the State of
Missiflsippi. A primary function of these systems is habitat for
rare or endangered plants and animals.
6.2 S1;atus of the Wetland Resource
Host' of t.he historical wetland losses in the State of
KiSSj,f;sippi have been due to agricultural conversion,
partic:ulllrly in the Lower Mississippi River Alluvial Valley.
For e~~ple, for the period between 1937 to 1987, approximately
1.15 million acres of bottomland hardwoods had been converted to
agricultural production (USFWS 1990).
Industrial and urban development have the resulted in losses of
the tldal marsh inventory of the State. According the the
USFWSv o,rer 8,500 acres of coastal wetlands have been drained or
filled slnce 1937. Statewide, in the 1980's, wetlands occupied
only ;.3.4 percent of the landscape, a 59 percent loss of the
original inventory (Dahl, 1990). While it appears that
populntion pressure will be locally concentrated in existing
populntion centers and thus the State will not be subjected to
an urbaD sprawl phenomena similar to that occurring in the State
of Florida, conversion of wetlands to intensive agricultural and
silvic:ult.ural use will likely continue.
6.3
~~T GEOGRAPHIC AREAS IN MISSISSIPPI
See Flgw:e 6-1 for the generalized location of all identified
target~ areas in Mississippi. All figures for Mississippi can be
found at the end of the Mississippi section.
SODAIty OF TARGB'l' AREAS
CateQ'clIL One
Jackson County - South of 1-10
Har~iflo1l1 County - South of 1-10
Rankin County - East Jackson
Madison County - West Jackson
Categp~ Two
none
Catego£l. Three
North Devoto - Desoto County
6-2
-------
Cateaorv Four
Issaquena County - Steel Bayou
Tunica County - Tallahatchie/Coldwater River
Warren County - Yazoo and Big Black Rivers
Newton County - Headwaters Chunky and Pearl Rivers
Tallahatchie County - Tallahatchie River
Humphreys/Sunflower Counties - Yazoo and Sunflower
Sharkey County - Yazoo and Sunflower Rivers
Rivers
CATEGORY aD
Category One includes urban growth areas located within or
nearby significant expanses of wetlands which likely support
threatened or endangered species. The geographic areas are not
listed in any specific order of priority.
1.
Jackson County - South of Interstate 10 (Figure 6-2)
Ecoloaical Im~ortance:
The majority of this area lies within the floodplain of the
Pascagoula River system which drains to the Gulf of Mexico. The
wetlands of this area range from freshwater forested swamps,
marshes and pine savannahs to estuarine marsh. Numerous
sloughs, streams and braided tidal creeks provide access for
fish and wildlife to and from the swamps and estuarine marshes.
This area which lies in the mixing zone between fresh and salt
water provides important fish and wildlife breeding, foraging
and migratory habitat in addition to enhancing the water quality
of the Pascagoula River and the nearshore Gulf waters. These
wetlands also act as the receiving waters for stor.mwater runoff
from the surrounding uplands which provides a level of flood
protection for adjacent areas under develoPment.
Several threatened and endangered species are likely to occur in
the area. These species include the Mississippi sandhill crane,
brown pelican, red-cockaded woodpecker and yellow-blotched map
turtle. In addition, Jackson County also supports critical
habitat for the Mississippi sandhill crane. Other threatened
and endangered species that are likely to migrate into and
through the area or might occur incidentally include the pallid
sturgeon, bald eagle, Arctic peregrine falcon and eastern indigo
snake. Important recreational and commercial species supported
by the Pascagoula River and the surrounding wetland complexes
include, but are not limited to, whitetail deer, ducks and
furbearing animals such as nutria and muskrat. Marine and
estuarine recreationally and commercially important species
include, but are not limited to, shrimp, flounder, seatrout,
clams, oysters and red drum (redfish).
6-3
-------
CATEGaRV ORE (cont.)
Threats
This 6xe~ is currently undergoing significant urban expansion.
The m~jor threats causing wetland loss include residential
subdiVlision, golf course and other commercial development and
their asvociated infrastructure. A significant number of
forestry activities exist within the area, and the number of
harve~ted acres is expected to increase substantially over the
next t~en years. The south Jackson growth area currently
suppol,'ta a population of nearly 60,000 people. By the year
2000, the population is expected to exceed 66,000 people, an
average increase of 10 percent.
Under EPll'o state program grants, the Mississippi Bureau of
Marine Resources will be addressing, with the cooperation of
EPA, Corps and other agencies, the resources of this area under
the Coastal Mississippi Wetland Initiative. The goal of the
InitiG\ti"e is to identify wetlands in the coastal area of the
county and to conduct a functional analysis of those wetlands.
This project may evolve into an advance identification project.
Howev~r, the completion date for the Coastal Mississippi
Initi~tive is scheduled for September of 1993. This area has
been Euggested for the implementation of an advance
identification by the Mississippi Department of Environmental
Qualit~y, Mississippi Bureau of Marine Resources, and the Soil
Consel;va1~ion Service.
2.
Bruorison County - South of Interstate 10 (Figure 6-3)
Ecoloc~cal ImDortance:
ExtenEivEt SDartina and Juncus marshes surround the estuaries of
this ~rea while pine savannahs dominate the freshwater
ecosYBtems to the north. The Tchoutacabouffa River drains the
pine fJavunnahs into Biloxi Bay. The tidal influence on the
River creates an ideal habitat for cypress and tupelo and
prohibitfJ all but the hardiest pine trees from naturally
occuring in the floodplain. The swales which drain the
savannaIrUl serve as travel corridors for a variety of wildlife.
Numerous tidal creeks provide access to the extensive marshes
for a va):iety of recreationally and commercially important fish
and wildlife. These estuaries are important in the life cycles
of these organisms in that they provide breeding and refugia
cover and foraging areas for many trophic levels. Much like
Jackson County, the freshwater swamps and savannahs adjacent and
conne~terl to the Tchoutacabouffa River provide valuable fish and
wildlife foraging, breeding, and migratory habitat, water
quality enhancement, floodflow attenuation and desynchronization
of downstream flows.
6-4
-------
CATEGORY ORE (cont.)
Threatened and endangered species that are likely to occur in
the area include the American alligator, eastern indigo snake,
brown pelican and the red-cockaded woodpecker. Other species of
concern that are likely to migrate into and through the area or
might occur incidentally include the bald eagle, Arctic
peregrine falcon, Bachman's warbler and the piping plover.
Recreational and commercial species supported by the
Tchoutacabouffa River include,but are not limited to, whitetail
deer, ducks and fur bearing animals such as nutria and muskrat.
Marine ~d estuarine recreational and commercial species
include, but are not limited to, shrimp, seatrout, flounder,
clams, oysters and red drum (redfish).
Threats
This area is currently undergoing a conversion from the
historical impacts of silviculture and agriculture to
residential and commercial development. A substantial amount of
impact to wetlands is associated with the infrastructure
associated with residential and commercial development such as
roads, utility lines and flood protection. Harrison County
supports more than 40,000 acres of bottomland forests and
although it is not a major forest product producer the impacts
associated with silviculture activities are substantial if not
significant. Harrison County has shown a significant reduction
in agriculture since 1982 when more than 51,000 acres were in
farmland and cropland. By 1987, 50 percent of this acreage had
either been left fallow or converted to another use. Coastal
Harrison County supports a population exceeding 172,000
individuals. The Gulfport-Biloxi Growth Area supports almost 47
percent of the coastal population at approximately 81,000
people. By the year 2000, even though the coastal population is
not eXPected to increase significantly, the demographics are
eXPected to be reorganized with the Gulfport-Biloxi Growth Area
supporting more than 50 percent of the coastal population.
This area has been suggested for the implementation of an
advance identification by the Mississippi Department of
Environmental Quality, Soil Conservation Service and the
Environmental Protection Agency.
3.
Bast Jackson Growth Area - Rankin County (Figure 6-4)
Ecological ImDortance:
The wetlands of this area exist within the historical floodplain
of the Pearl River along tributaries, sloughs and remnant
6-5
-------
CATEOOR7 . Olm (cont.)
oxbowu. These areas are dominated by hardwoods simply because
they fire too wet to support stands of naturally occuring pines.
Pines !MY occur more frequently near the upper margins of these
wetlCUldl3 where the frequency and depth o.f inundation is
limited. The numerous natural drainages provide access for fish
and ot~h
-------
CATEGORY ONE (cant.)
acre ACID project covers riverine wetlands adjacent to the Pearl
River in Rankin and Hinds counties. The projected completion
date is June 1992. This area has been suggested for the
implementation of an advance identification by the Mississippi
Wildlife Federation.
4.
lladison Growth Area (Borth Jackson) - Madison County
(Figure 6-5)
Ecoloaical Imoortance:
This area is similar to the East Jackson Growth Area except that
it is west of the Pearl River. Again, the wetlands of this area
exist within the historical floodplain of the Pearl River along
tributaries, sloughs and remnant oxbows and are dominated by
hardwoods. These wetlands provide travel corridors and
migratory routes for wetland dependent species that have large
range requirements. In addition, these wetlands provide
valuable fish and wildlife foraging, breeding and migratory
habitat, water quality enhancement for the Pearl River and
tributaries, floodflow attenuation and desYnchronization of
downstream floodflow releases.
The threatened and endangered species, including those that are
proposed for listing and those that may .occur incidentally, are
similar to those species listed for Rankin County. The
recreationally and commercially important species that occur in
Madison County include all those that also occur in Rankin
County.
Threats
The threats to wetlands associated with this area west of the
Pearl River include those that are impacting wetlands east of
the Pearl River in Rankin County. The Madison Growth Area
currently supports an estimated population of 34,000 people.
This estimate is projected to increase by nearly 22,000
individuals to an estimated population of 56,000, a 64 percent
increase.
This area was suggested for the implementation of an advance
identification by the Mississippi Wildlife Federation. A
portion of this Growth Area is being covered by the Jackson
Metro - Pearl River ACID project.
6-7
-------
aTEooa'1{ TWO
Category Two includes urban areas located within or nearby
l3ignificant expanses of wetlands that support important
commerc1.a,l or recreational uses.
There are no Category Two areas in the State of Mississippi.
~OORV 'rIIRBE
Category Three includes urban growth areas located within or
nearby £Jignificant expanses of wetlands. The geographic areas
are not. listed in any specific order of priority.
1.
)J(Q)rt~. Desoto Growth Area - (south Memphis) Desoto County
(Figure 6-6)
~col09i~al Importance:
This area lies within the historical Mississippi River
floodplain. The wetlands supported here are primarily
bottomland hardwoods consisting of cypress, tupelo, oaks, and
8weetqwn. Shrub swamps are also present near oxbow lakes and
backwaters with the dominant species being willow and
buttombush. The numerous river tributaries, sloughs, oxbows,
and ba~kwaters of this area represent important habitat for
abundant fish and wildlife for breeding, foraging, migration and
refuge. These wetlands receive and attenuate stor.mwater runoff
from adjacent areas and desYnchronize downstream stor.mwater
relea6se which provides a measure of flood protection. These
wetlamne also enhance water quality by removing suspended
sediments and other pollutants from the water column.
The Am3rican alligator is the only federally threatened species
that m~y occur in the area. Catfish, carp, crappie, bass,
turkey, furbearers, deer and ducks are some of the important
commer~ial and recreational species found in the area.
'rhreat.~
HistorlcallYi many acres of wetlands have been converted to
agriculture. However, in recent years there has been an.
increa~e in the conversion of farmland acreage to other uses.
In recgnt years, this area has undergone a substantial shift to
urban dev@lopment rather than agriculture. Residential and
commer~ial development and associated infrastructure threaten
m!tlands through physical removal of the wetlands from the
landscape and the alteration of their hydrology. The Desoto
Growth Area currently supports a population estimate of over
48,500 pe(ople. This estimate is expected to increase by
approx:5.m.ately 15,800 people by the year 2000 to a population
estimn~e of 64,300 people, a 33 percent increase.
6-8
-------
CATEGORY POOR
Category Four includes areas experiencing significant
silviculture or agriculture expansion within or nearby wetlands
that likely support threatened or endangered species, or
important commercial or recreational uses. The geographic areas
are not listed in any specific order of priority. (See Figure
6-1 for the location of counties identified as Category Four
areas. )
1.
Issaquena County - Steel Bayou/Lower Yazoo River
Ecoloaical Imoortance:
This Mississippi Delta county supports substantial acreage of
riverine forests, bayous, oxbows, sloughs, forested swamps and
backwaters. These wetlands provide important habitat for fish
and wildlife breeding, foraging and migration. In addition,
these wetlands provide enhancement of water quality for the
Yazoo River and Steel Bayou, as well as floodflow attenuation
and desYnchronization of downstream floodflow releases which
result in a measure of flood protection.
The American alligator, a state and federally listed threatened
and endangered species is commonly found in the aquatic habitats
of the basin. Black bear have been known to inhabit the
bottomland hardwoods of this basin and bald eagles use the open
water areas. Many commercially and recreationally important
fish species are supported by these wetland and aquatic
habitats. Such species include, but are not limited to,
catfish, buffalo, gar, carp, crappie, bass and bream. Turtles
and frogs are also harvested from these wetlands. The wetlands
of the lower Mississippi valley are extremely important as
stopover and foraging areas for some half million waterfowl.
The hunting of whitetail deer, turkey and furbearers is integral
part of rural southern life. Although these species are
terrestrial organisms, they utilize bottomlands for refuge,
travel and foraging.
Threats
As Issaquena County is primarily rural with no major growth
areas, both agriculture and silviculture are putting intense
pressure on the remaining wetland resources of this area.
Between 1977 and 1987, the silviculture industry harvested
approximately 30 percent of the bottomland hardwoods in
Issaquena County. As the remaining stands of bottomland
hardwoods mature over the next 10 years, the number of harvested
acres is expected to increase substantially. Many of the
remaining wetlands habitats are being degraded by agricultural
conversion, non-point source pollution, sedimentation and
channelization. Issaquena County increased its agricultural
lands by 15,500 acres in 1987. Historically, lack of use of
best managements practices has contributed significant loadings
of sediment and nutrients to nearby aquatic resources.
6-9
-------
CATEGCRV FOUR (cont.)
In ad~itiong the wetlands of Issaquena County are being stressed
by fl~od control projects and channelization which eliminate
backw~tor flooding and the transfer of nutrients between the
water column and the wetlands.
This cxoa should be considered for the implementation of an
advance identification since it was listed by the u.s. Fish and
Wildlife Service in their National Wetlands Priority
Consel.vation Plan. .
2.
Ttmica County - Tallahatchie/Coldwater River
ECo~~CElI ImDortance:
This m,sflissippi Delta county supports a number of aquatic
habit~tB including main stem rivers, bayous, floodplain oxbow 0
lakes Q sloughs, swamps and backwaters. These wetlands provide
important habitat for fish and wildlife breeding, foraging and
. migration. In addition, these wetlands provide enhancement of
water qu~lity for the Tallahatchie/Coldwater River system, as
well ~s floodflow attenuation and desYnchronization of
downstrec~ floodflow releases which result in a measure of flood
prot.ec;tiano
The AJl.\elC'ican alligator, a state and federally listed threatened
and el',dangered species is commonly found in the aquatic habitats
of the bRsin. Bald eagles and peregrine falcons have been known
to US£) ~he open water areas of this basin. Many commercially
and r£JcJrE!ationally important fish species are supported by these
wetla~d and aquatic habitats. Such species include, but are not
limited tOg catfish, buffalo, gar, carp, crappie, bass and
bream. Turtles and frogs are also harvested from these
wetlar..da. The wetlands of the lower Mississippi valley are
.extreJeely important as stopover and foraging areas for some half
millien waterfowl. The hunting of whitetail deer, turkey and.
furbe~rers is integral part of rural southern life. Although
these species are terrestrial organisms, they utilize
bottomlands for refuge, travel and foraging.
Thre.,gt!.
As Tu~ica County is primarily rural with no major growth areas,
both ~glC'iculture and silviculture are putting intense pressure
on th£) ~Emwining wetland resources of this area. Between 1977
and 1~8', the silviculture industry harvested approximately 25
percefi\t c~f the bottomland hardwoods in Tunica County. As the
remai~ing stands of bottomland hardwoods mature over the next 10
years, the number of harvested acres is expected to increase
substC\J1tially. Many of the remaining wetlands habitat.s are
being degraded by .
6-10
-------
CATEGORY POOR (cont.)
agricultural conversion, non-point source pollution,
sedimentation and channelization. Tunica County increased its
agricultural lands by 24,000 acres in 1987. In addition, the
wetlands of Tunica County are being stressed by flood control
projects and channelization which eliminate backwater flooding
and the transfer of nutrients between the water column and the
wetlands.
3.
Warren County - Yazoo and Big Black Rivers
Ecoloaical ImDortance:
This Mississippi Delta county supports a number of aquatic
habitats including main stem rivers, bayous, floodplain oxbow
lakes, sloughs, swamps and backwaters. These wetlands provide
important habitat for fish and wildlife breeding, foraging and
migration. In addition, these wetlands provide enhancement of
water quality for the Yazoo and Big Black Rivers, as well as
floodflow attenuation and desYnchronization of downstream
floodflow releases which result in a measure of flood
protection.
The American alligator, a state and federally listed threatened
and endangered species is commonly found in the aquatic habitats
of the basin. Bald eagles and peregrine falcons have been known
to use the open water areas of this basin. In addition,
Hubricht's snail, a rare species, has been reported in the Big
Black River and scattered populations of the southern red belly
dace, a state listed endangered species, has been found in
streams near Vicksburg. Many commercially and recreationally
important fish species are supported by these wetland and
aquatic habitats. Such species include, but are not limited to,
catfish, buffalo, gar, carp, crappie, bass and bream. Turtles
and frogs are also harvested from these wetlands. The wetlands
of the lower Mississippi valley are extremely important as
stopover and foraging areas for some half million waterfowl.
The hunting of whitetail deer, turkey and furbearers is integral
part of rural southern life. Although these species are
terrestrial organisms, they utilize bottomlands for refuge,
travel and foraging.
Threats
Forestry activities are putting the most pressure on the
remaining wetland resources of this area. Between 1977 and
1987, the forestry industry harvested approximately 36 percent
of the bottomland hardwoods in the County. As the remaining
stands of bottomland hardwoods mature over the next 10 years,
the number of harvested acres is expected to increase
substantially. Many wetland habitats have been degraded by
agricultural conversion, non-point source pollution,
sedimentation and channelization.
6-11
-------
CATEGOR'{. POUR (cont.)
Distri.ct 3 Q a minor civil division located near Vicksburg, is
report.ed to be the only minor civil division that is estimated
to in~rease its current population estimate of nearly 21,700
individuclls to more than 26,000, an increase of 20 percent and
4,300 inctividuals. .
Thio ~ea should be considered for the implementation of an
advan~e identification since it was listed by the u.s. Fish and
Wildllfe Service in their National Wetlands Priority
Conse~vat.ion Plan.
4.
~n COunty - Headwaters of Chunky and Pearl Rivers
EcolooriCEll Imoortance
This COlmty supports a number of aquatic habitats including main
stem J:'iV'ers, bottomlands, sloughs and swamps. These wetlands
provi~e important habitat for fish and wildlife breeding,
foraglng and migration. In addition, these wetlands provide
~nhancaaent of water quality for the Chunky and Pearl Rivers, as
well as floodflow attenuation and desynchronization of
downstre6m floodflow releases which result in a measure of flood
protection.
The A'a'.erlcan alligator, a state and federally listed threatened
and e~darngered species, is commonly found in the aquatic
habitato of the basin. Bald eagles have been known to use the
open water areas of this basin. In addition, the Jackson
Prairie crayfish, a candidate species for federal threatened and
~ndan~ered listing, and the Louisiana black bear have been
reported in the County. Many commercially and recreationally
important. fish species are supported by these wetland and
aquatic habitats. Such species include, but are not limited to,
catfish" buffalo, gar, carp, crappie, bass and bream. Turtles
and frogs &re also harvested from these wetlands. The wetlands
of the Mississippi coastal plain are extremely important as
~topover and foraging areas for some half million waterfowl.
Specie3 popular with hunters such as whitetail deer, turkey and
furbearers utilize bottomlands for refuge, travel and foraging.
'l'hreata
As Newton County is primarily rural with no major growth areas,
ailviculture is the activity putting the most pressure on the
remaining wetland resources of this area. Between 1977 and
1987,
the forestry industry harvested approximately 27 percent of the
bottomlaIDd hardwoods in the county. As the remaining stands of
bottoluland hardwoods mature over the next 10 years, the number
of h~ested acres is expected to increase substantially. Many
wetland habitats have been degraded by agricultural conversion,
6-12
-------
CM'EGORY FOUR (cant.)
non-point source pollution, sedimentation and channelization.
Historically, many environmentally insensitive farming and
silviculture practices have contributed significant loadings of
sediment and nutrients to the water column which has decreased
the productivity of the receiving aquatic habitats.
5.
Tallahatcbie County - Tallahatchie River
Ecoloaical ImDortance:
This Mississippi Delta county supports a number of aquatic
habitats including main stem rivers, bayous, floodplain oxbow
lakes, sloughs, swamps and backwaters. These wetlands provide
important habitat for fish and wildlife breeding, foraging and
migration. In addition, these wetlands provide enhancement of
water quality for the Tallahatchie River, as well as floodflow
attenuation and desYnchronization of downstream floodflow
releases which result in a measure of flood protection.
The American alligator, a state and federally listed threatened
and endangered species is commonly found in the aquatic habitats
of the basin. Bald eagles have been known to use the open water
areas of this basin. Many commercially and recreationally
important fish species are supported by these wetland and
aquatic habitats. Such species include, but are not limited to,
catfish, buffalo, gar, carp, crappie, bass and bream. Turtles
and frogs are also harvested from these wetlands. The wetlands
of the lower Mississippi Valley are extremely important as
stopover and foraging areas for some half million waterfowl.
The hunting of whitetail deer, turkey and furbearers is integral
part of rural southern life. Although these species are
terrestrial organisms, they utilize bottomlands for refuge,
travel and foraging.
Threats
As Tallahatchie County is primarily rural with no major growth
areas, agriculture is the activity putting the most pressure on
the remaining wetland resources of this area. In 1987, the
agriculture industry increased its agricultural acreage by more
than 7,000 acres. Soybean and cotton are two of the major crops
harvested from converted wetlands. Many wetland habitats have
been degraded by agricultural conversion, non-point source
pollution, sedimentation and channelization.
This area should be considered for the implementation of an
advance identification since it was listed by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service in their National Wetlands Priority
Conservation Plan.
6-13
v.v trA heauquarrers Library
Mail code 3404T
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20460
202-566-0556
-------
CATEGORY POUR «cont.)
6.
Et~hreys, Sunflower Counties - Yazoo/Sunflower Rivers
Ecolonicnl Imoortance:
ThesEI Minsissippi Delta counties support a number of aquatic
hab1t~t~ i~cluding main stem rivers, bayous, floodplain oxbow
lakesy ~loughs, swamps and backwaters. These wetlands provide
importaJ!l1~ habitat for fish and, wildlife breeding, foraging and
migrit1~ion. In addition, these wetlands provide enhancement of
water quillity for the Yazoo-Sunflower River system, as well as
flood\fao\l attenuation and desynchronization of downstream
flood\flh, buffalo, gar, carp, crappie, bass and bream. Turtles
and fl:ogn are also harvested from these wetlands. The wetlands
of thu lc)wer Mississippi valley are extremely important as
stopower and foraging areas for some half million waterfowl.
The ht;n~ing of whitetail deer, turkey and furbearers is integral
part af J:ural southern life. Although these species are
terreutrial organisms, they utilize bottomlands for refuge,
travel and foraging.
Threa!,s
Agric~lt~~eD namely catfish farming, is putting the most
press~re on the remaining wetland resources of this area. Many
wetla~d habitats have been degraded by agricultural conversion,
non-point; source pollution, sedimentation and channelization.
Disch~ges from catfish ponds carry heavy loads of nutrients and
suspe~ded solids to the receiving waters. High nutrient, poor
water quElli ty discharges cause algal blooms, increased
turbi&it}', decreased light penetration, loss of submerged
veget~tion, decreased dissolved oxygen, and a reduction in
comme1:'ciLcllly and recreationally important fish and
invertebrates.
These axE)a~ ahould be considered for the implementation of an
advance identification since they were listed by the u.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service in their National Wetlands Priority
Conservation Plan.
6-14
-------
CATEGORY POOR (cant.)
7.
Sharkey County - Yazoo-Sunflower River System
Ecoloaical ImDortance:
This ~ssissippi Delta county supports a number of aquatic
habitats including main stem rivers, bayous, floodplain oxbow
lakes, sloughs, swamps and backwaters. These wetlands provide
important habitat for fish and wildlife breeding, foraging and
migration. In addition, these wetlands provide enhancement of
water quality for the Yazoo-Sunflower River system, as well as
floodflow attenuation and desynchronization of downstream
floodflow releases which result in a measure of flood
protection.
The American alligator, a state and federally listed threatened
and endangered species, is commonly found in the aquatic
habitats of the basin. Bald eagles and peregrine falcons have
been known to use the open water areas of this basin and the
Louisiana black bear has been reported in the bottomlands.
Pondberry, a federally listed endangered species, is reported to
be found in Sharkey County. Many commercially and
recreationally important fish species are supported by these
wetland and aquatic habitats. Such species include, but are not
limited to, catfish, buffalo, gar, carp, crappie, bass and
bream. Turtles and frogs are also harvested from these
wetlands. The wetlands of the lower ~ssissippi valley are
extremely important as stopover and foraging areas for some half
million waterfowl. Species popular with hunters such as
whitetail deer, turkey and furbearers utilize bottomlands for
refuge, travel and foraging.
Threats
Forestry activities are putting the most pressure on the
remaining wetland resources of this area. Between 1977 and
1987, forestry interests harvested 21 percent of available
bottomland hardwoods. As the remaining stands of bottomland
hardwoods mature over the next 10 years, the number of harvested
acres is expected to increase substantially. Many wetland
habitats have been degraded by agricultural conversion,
non-point source pollution, sedimentation and channelization.
Historically, environmentally insensitive farming practices have
contributed significant loadings of sediment and nutrients to
the water column which has decreased the productivity of the
receiving aquatic habitats.
This area should be considered for the implementation of an
advance identification since it was listed by the u.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service in their National Wetlands Priority
Conservation Plan.
6-15
-------
MISSISSIPPI
Pigure 6-1
TARGET AREAS OP MISSISSIPPI
1
1tBJr :
CATEGORY ONE
CA'l'EGORY POUR
l.
2.
3.
4.
S0u~h, Jackson County Growth Area
G111fport-Biloxi Growth Area
en8~ Jack80n Growth Area
UacU.8on Growth Mea
6. Issaquena County
7. 'l'unica County
8. Warren County
9. Newton County
10. 'l'allahatchie County
11. Humphreys-Sunflower Counties
12. Sharkey County
CATEGORY '!'WO -none
CATEGORY 'l'HREE
5 .0 Nurth Desoto Growth Area
6-16
-------
. ..,...:.::..
8
1
,
8
8
, ,. ,. ,
S 5
I
5
~
,
1-
~.
Figure 6-2
South Jackson County Growth Area
Category One
6-17
-------
Figure 6-3
Gulfport-Biloxi Growth Area
Category One
6-18
-------
\
I
Figure 6-4
East Jackson Growth Area
Category One
6-19
-------
'J "f ,,,,-,.., , ''\,. l ,I,j \ "' lJ'T"', --It' ,""" ~ \
'- .;/ >:.., , ", ',' .J#JI;\J ~~::' " ,- _t\/"--
A, "r::".('j-,hlli.~ ::J\,~ X' rJ," ': ,"""'-" ,.'1
~+/{"/:"~~' ""'\"'~i' ,j~k"\~lIMr\< L/",.,' ,.' -=:::.
,~ ~ .. ..;.......~ ' ="\ ~ .\M' \A',,:"JO .,. S ~ .l!:. y/
/~ '.. \ :?I 1'\ ~" , "tl~, . -~~ ..... ~ ~~ 'T ,/...-;
, \ " ,"\ ,.' ..., , I
~: "'{.i'.~~~'l," ,:,':~~",~~'Y-.f\
J~ \.1 " \ '\--'~U~~ / 1 ~
-'~-."~ ,),,~........- ,,', '~I\" ,~~j? ~..\' "
,',I ' L' , ",', ,: - -.. ' ' ',jO'~1\ ~<--L...oII '
r ,- ",$ ... /.I, ,~..I::'"
~_. --
~'"'' \.< ' V' " j:fJ[:0. ~;i.h t.
:<' ~ ~117 \: nrw.,:..a, \~
tI.l' ,,'If~.' ...-.,
~ '\ I \" '\ 1\ ':.~ ..~'L~~ I I t
~,I ~ ~' -~'\i~J ~t~ \\ ~ J Qt.. '1' ~ -\
~,"""- ~.! '.. "I l--- ~ ---.
4 ~ ~- ~~.~ ,~~ ~
--.-.L\ ~ 17. ~ .--Ao - \,-~
: .J-; ~~ ~~/SX~ .~ ", =.f ? 1
~V-'t ~~ ~~~~~ j ~ I ~---,-J
-'?'\;If), ~~v:;} lR""~-1~~J\N\1
:-;JiJP -r-/ ......~. ~ 1- X..l I
V "- '\~ ~- /.,J~ ~~/' /J I~\
/ '\.. ,,'''- -.... _If "" ~ \.
-)'" ',-" ~~........ - ~ -II .....
......... ----- \ - ~ 'L ----.~ ~ ( "
~ .;~~_jL_~ ~7 ---y f ,," ~ -~- -
i\ ~t ~',~'--~ ~1 ( -.,,~~ {~
\ -/ (f\\,\\\ - ~J : \ ~~wM.I.~
~-! ~~'!'"' I "-, -.. -"t{1r' ,}f , ~ ~ -
~ - "', ,;~'i 1 )('1 ~~
'\~ "', j N." ~S I M I ~~, - 5 I ~
P y\ ~. I ~ ~~ ~Lr I~ ~ 1. ../ ~ ~." ~ -..--
) ~ V..- ..... -.. .., ~.......w y", ZC ,/,'" 1. (t;\ 1','''/ A>"
...::. 11 '" ''\ I - ~ -s? ~ 'T'. 'l ~h
Figure 6-5
Madison Growth Area
Category One
6-20
-------
.,- ~TE
L~? ,.
,~ ".' ",,', ,."
.. .~ I ,'. ", ,..~,~c-.... -I...
I ,~ ....~~ .~~.". <4, ',.:>~,~:~ '
... "....;. , . "" .,. ."----.. '..'
'.:.~ ,{ l!L '~'. b~" '. ~,,~;r ....', ',: ~,1:,"",-"
~ /i~'t~;,..,:-. J'}~t~~~~, ~I:
~'~ 'c.r'$'. "., .. ~,I S~O.':.T>D.,:~er..:~., ~~.~
. \'-.v '.' :.~ ' ",'~ ',"\._'5::,',.~~ :'F~':>~
""'idI"I~' ,l<: .:~ ,~. . .,..1f"'., ,...,;:' ;", ~
~)fr;;f.- bJ' 'tt~~'~il!-'--JY-~;~'Y-//']
~(~--{.:j ~ 11 t:; . ::0... - ,'" ' .:',: .....,:t~ ..."" "..""..'::V'j
l[ : J:~\ C.. j ':' ~~ ~ ~- ., . ~.. .~;.I) ,..j~, :/,',~/~'.'.:' ,..
-' -~ '." ' .'-.. JF~ ~~,- ,,,:, H, . :~;r
.-.;i. ,;' /'f. ~ ~.AY" \ ' \\,~, '~,;"<'. ,X:j i
!J )$. '., .~. ':'j ~~~-j "~;:::~.:"::~~:::12 -1:1 ~I j
if} ,{~),-; ,W, - ",- /' J \~1 - ,"\,'. '?O. ~ ,~7 ,'I, ~
~~~~J}L ~. ,( ~ .~~ly~~7~~)
,N
Figure 6-6
North Desoto Growth Area
Category Three
6-21
-------
7.0
7.1
Borth Carolina
wetlands of Borth Carolina
The State of North Carolina is the third-largest state in Region
IV with almost 31.3 million land acres. The State lies in
portions of three general physiographic provinces - Coastal
Plain, Piedmont, and Blue Ridge. Wetland ecosystems occur
throughout the State and range in size, location, and vegetative
composition. Early estimates of the extent of wetlands within
the State indicate an original inventory of almost 11.1 million
acres of wetlands (Dahl 1990). This figure represents
approximately 35 Percent of the State's landscaPe. The most
recent surveys (1980's data) estimate that the State contains
approximately 5.7 million acres of wetland habitats (21.1
Percent of its surface area).
In the contiguous United States, North Carolina has the fifth
largest acreage of wetlands. It also has the largest estuarine
wetland system on the east coast of the United States, estimated
at over 2.2 million acres in extent (NCDEHNR(b». The Coastal
Plain province of the State contains 95 percent of the State's
fresh and salt water wetlands.
Recent classification schemes have identified at least 68
distinct wetland communities within North Carolina, ranging from
estuarine systems such as salt marshes to high mountain bogs
(Schafale and Weakley 1990). Significant wetland resources in
the State include: River Swamps and Floodplains, Cypress-Gum
Swamps, Piedmont/Mountain Swamp Forest, Appalachian Bog,
Pocosin, Atlantic White Cedar Forest, and Tidal Marsh.
River Swamps and Ploodplain These are contiguous wetlands in
North Carolina whose composition is dependent upon flooding
regime, landscape position, and fertility of the adjacent
river. Some classification systems break these wetlands out as
alluvial (brownwater), and tannic (blackwater) types.
Wetlands associated with brownwater rivers have seasonally to
intermittently flooded hydrology, tend to have periods of
sustained high flow, and occur in watersheds of high pH,
nutrient, and sediment loadings. Brownwater rivers are
typically richer in species composition than blackwater systems,
and include associations of dominant trees such as
Sycamore-Sweetgum-American Elm, and Green Ash-Sweetgum-Wi1low
Oak. Brownwater rivers have their headwaters in the Piedmont or
Blue Ridge. Examples of Brownwater rivers include the Roanoke,
Neuse, and certain tributaries of the CaPe Fear.
Blackwater rivers are similar in ecological composition and
function to those found in other states (e.g., Section 3.1).
They typically originate in the Coastal Plain Province, have
7-1
-------
wide floodplains, and are more variable in flow regime than
brownwater rivers. The water tends to be very acidic and low in
both minerals and nutrients. Characteristic dominants include
Laurel oak, Red Maple, and Cypress. Examples of blackwater
rivers in. North Carolina include the Waccamaw and Northeast Cape
Fear River.
Blacbater Cypress-Gma SWamps These wetlands occupy backwater
sloughs, and featureless floodplain areas of blackwater rivers.
Cypress-Gum swamps exist in all river types of North Carolina,
and c~~ occur as disjunct stands within the Coastal Plain.
Since both cypress and black gum can survive in semi- to
per.manently-flooded conditions, these forest swamps are found in
the lowest and wettest portions ,of the landscape. Vegetative
diversity is low, but they have been indicated' as providing
important' habitat areas for wetland-dependent animals. They
also offer important cover, food, and reproductive habitats for
organisms generally associated with the river channel. The
Black River in North Carolina has cypress-gum swamps, as does
the Lumber River.
Piedmont/MOuntain Swamp Porest These seasonally to frequently
flooded wetlands are found throughout the Piedmont and lower
portions of the Blue Ridge. They occur in watersheds with
relatively steep gradients and narrow floodplains, but can be
flooded for long periods of time. They are vegetatively similar
to the river swamps and floodplains, yet they are distinctive by
a general absence of either herb or shrub layers (Schafale and
Weakley 1990). Wildlife richness of these systems is likewise
similar to river swamps and floodplains. The Dan River and
Brown's Creek Floodplain (Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge)
contain examples of the Piedmont/Mountain Swamp Forest wetland
~ype .
Appalachian Bog These,wetlands are typically found throughout
the mountains, and ridge and valley areas of North Carolina.
Their hydrology is typically derived from seepage from upslope
areas. They represent a mosiac of zoned patterns of shrub
thickete and herb-dominated areas, much of it underlain by
sphagnum. Trees such as red maple, pines, spruce, and eastern
hemlocke may be scattered throughout or may dominate on the
edges. Shrubs may include rhododendron, willow, or hypericum.
Herbs consist of various sedges and beakrush, and a diverse
number of other grasses and shrubs. These wetland types are
inherently rare due to their unique landscape position and
hydrolngic characteristics. Biologically, they support a ,
distint:tly different flora and fauna than the surrounding upland
and moantain habitats, and contribute to landscape diversity.
Many of North Carolina's endemic rare and endangered species
occur in ,Appalachian Bogs.
Pocosia The Pocosin ecosystems of the Southeast contain
broadl~aved evergreen shrub bogs (Sharitz and Gibbons 1982).
7-2
-------
Such bogs typically occur in areas characterized by highly
organic soils and peats and long hydroperiods during which
inundation may occur. These wetlands have an extensive range in
the coastal plain, occuring from southern Virginia to northern
Florida. North Carolina contains the most numerous and greatest
areal extent of pocosins than any other southeastern state.
Schafale and Weakley (1990) classify this category of wetland
into at least seven different types, differentiated by landscape
position, stature and complexity of vegetation, and depth of
underlying peat. Their classification includes Carolina Bays
(see Section 8.1), Low Pocosin, High Pocosin, Pond Pine
Woodland, Bay Forest, Streamhead Pocosin, and Small Depression
Pocosin. Nutrient poor conditions, dependence on fire, and
complex assemblages of evergreen trees and shrubs on peat
substrates are the shared characteristics of the Pocosin
wetland.
Atlantic White Cedar Forest These wetland types contain
vegetative elements of both Carolina Bay (SectiQn 8.1), and
pocosins. They can occur with peat substrates, or in
depressions fed mainly by rainwater, or as streamheads with
flowing or seepage waters. The dominant plants in this
communi ty are white cedar, pond pine, gum, and cypress. The
Atlantic White Cedar forest once covered extensive acreages in
the coastal plain and sandhills region, but now represents a
relatively small but unique wetland resource to the State of
North Carolina.
Tidal Marsh Marsh grasses of this community are primarily
black needlerush with lesser amounts of several species of
cordgrass. The best representation of a tidal marsh system in
North Carolina is within the Pamlico River Estuary (Copeland and
Riggs 1984). The marshes of the estuary function by supporting
a productive commercial and recreational fisheries industry, and
serves as a base for a large and important recreation and
tourism industry.
7.2
Status of the Wetland Resource
A recently completed report by a principal state agency
responsible for wetlands indicates that less than half of the
State's original wetlands survive. In the mid-1980's, the total
wetland inventory for the State of North Carolina was 5.7
million acres, a decline of 5.4 million acres from the original
inventory (Dahl 1990). Population growth and urban expansion
will continue to threaten the wetland resource, principally in
the piedmont and major barrier island complexes and the adjacent
outer coastal plain of the State. Conversion to agriculture,
peat mining, and replacement of the vegetation with pine for
timber industry use also constitute major threats to the wetland
resources of North Carolina.
7-3
-------
Data O~ the status of pocosins is also available. This
cODIIDWlity once covered more than 2.4 million acres in North
Caroli~~ (Richardson 1981, 1983). In 1979, it was determined
~hat a~proximately 1.5 million acres of natural or slightly
altered pocosins remained (Richardson and Gibbons, in press).
Conver3ion to agricultural and silvicu1tural activities appears
'to be the cause of the majority of the loss.
Wetlands of North Carolina are particularly important to native
~ildlife, since about 70 percent of the endemic plants and
animalB listed as rare or endangered rely on wetlands for at
least aome portion of their life history (NCDEHNR 1990(a».
1.3
~_j;EOGRAPHIC AREAS III BORm CAROLIIIA
See Figure 7~1 for the generalized location of all identified
~arget ~rea8 in North Carolina. All figures for North Carolina
can be found at the end of the North Carolina section 0
~ODA.'RY OF TARGET AREAS
CateJlQ~l
Jacksonville Growth Area - Onslow County
New Bern - Craven County
White Oak. Township - Onslow County
Wilmington Growth Area - New Hanover County
Catea0D1-2
Greenville Gxowth Area - Pitt County
~urham Growth Area - Durham and Orange Counties
Catea
-------
CATEGORY ONE (cont.)
threatened or endangered species. The geographic areas are not
listed in any specific order of priority.
1.
Jacksonville Growth Area - Onslow County (Figure 7-2)
Ecoloaical Imoortance
The Jacksonville growth area fronts the New River which drains
to the Atlantic Ocean. The wetlands found in this area are
generally of several types. The wetland types include
tidally-influenced freshwater forested and shrub swamps,
freshwater marshes, wet pine flatwoods and savannahs and
estuarine marsh. Numerous sloughs, streams and tidal creeks
provide access for fish and wildlife to and from the swamps and
estuarine marshes. This area which lies near the mixing zone
between fresh and salt water provides ~portant fish and
wildlife breeding, foraging and migratory habitat in addition to
enhancing the water quality of the New River and the nearshore
Atlantic Ocean waters. These wetlands also act as the receiving
waters for stormwater runoff from the surrounding uplands which
provides a level of flood protection for adjacent areas under
development.
Several threatened and endangered species are likely to occur in
the area. These species include the bald eagle, red-cockaded
woodpecker and the rough-leaved loosestrife. Other threatened
and endangered species that are likely to migrate into and
through the area or might occur incidentally include the
shortnose sturgeon, wood stork, and the Arctic peregrine
falcon. Additionally, riparian wetlands and pocosins of the
coastal plain of North Carolina have become the principal
habitat for the black bear, a species of special concern.
Important recreational and commercial species supported by the
New River and its associated wetlands include, but are not
limited to, whitetail deer, ducks and furbearers such as beaver,
muskrat and otter, bass, shad, herring, oysters, clams,
flounder, seatrout and croakers.
Threats
This area is currently undergoing significant urban expansion.
The major threats causing wetland loss include residential
subdivision and commercial development, their associated
infrastructure, and conversion to silvicultural and agricultural
activities. A significant number of forestry activities also
exist within the area.
The Jacksonville growth area currently supports a population of
nearly 87,500 people. By the year 2000, the population is
expected to increase by more than 8,000 individuals to an
estimated population of 95,500, an increase of nearly 9 percent.
7-5
-------
CATEOOlRY om: ( cont. )
This area has been suggested for the implementation of an
advance iden~ification by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commi$aion and, in part, by the North Carolina Environmental
Defen~e Fund through their concerns for wetland loss as
~xpre$~ed in their publication "Carolina Wetlands: Our Vanishing
1Resource. ..
2.
lIE" Eern - Craven County (Figure 7-3)
~col~ic~,l Imoortance
The N~~ £ern area fronts the Neuse River which drains to Pamlico
. Sound and~ the Atlantic Ocean. The wetlands found in this area
are generally of several types. The wetland types include
~idally~ influenced freshwater forested and shrub swamps,
fresh~ater marshes, wet pine flatwoods and savannahs, pocosins
and estuarine marsh. Numerous sloughs, streams and tidal creeks
provida &c~ess for fish and wildlife to and from the swamps and
estuarine marshes. This area which lies near the mixing zone
between fresh and salt water provides important fish and
wildlife breeding, foraging and migratory habitat in addition to
enh&ncin~ the water quality of the Neuse River, pamlico Sound
and tha ~earshore Atlantic Ocean waters. These wetlands also
act as the receiving waters for stor.mwater runoff from the
~urrounclin9 uplands which provides a level of flood protection
for adjacent areas under development.
Several threatened and endangered species are likely to occur in
the area. These species include the bald eagle, red-cockaded
woodpecker and the rough-leaved loosestrife. Other threatened
and e~dangered species that are likely to migrate into and
~hrou~h the area or might occur incidentally include the
13hort)ItofJ€ sturgeon, wood stork, and the Arctic peregrine
falcon. Additionally, riparian wetlands and pocosins of the
coastal pl&in of North Carolina have become the principal
habitat for the black bear, a species of special concern.
Important recreational and commercial species supported by the
Weuse River and its associated wetlands include, but are not
limited to, whitetail deer, ducks and furbearers such as beaver,
muskrat and otter, bass, shad, herring, oysters, clams,
floundar, seatrout and croakers. The estuarine habitats of
Pamlico Sound have been documented as inshore, warm weather
nursery areas for both fish and invertebrates. The Neuse River
has alao been documented as spawning areas for anadromous fishes
Buch aa shad and striped bass. The catadramous eel migrates to
~he e6t~ary and near coastal waters to spawn.
'lhrea~!!
This area is currently undergoing significant urban expansion.
The majo~ threats causing wetland 108s include residential
Bubdivision and commercial development, and their associated
1-6
-------
CATEGORY ORE (cant.)
infrastructure. The New Bern area cUrrently supports
apopulation of nearly 58,700 people. By the year 2000, the
population is expected to increase by more than 11,400
individuals to an estimated population of 70,200, an increase of
approximately 19 percent.
A significant number of forestry activities also exist within
the County. Approximately 73,600 acres of bottomland timber
existed in Craven County in 1987. It has been estimated that
Craven County had lost approximately 50 percent of its wetlands
prior to 1962. In 1987, Craven County increased its
agricultural lands by more than 8,000 acres. Lack of use of
best management practices in farming has resulted in significant
loadings of sediment to the water column.
This area has been suggested for the implementation of an
advance identification by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission and, in part, by the North Carolina Environmental
Defense Fund through their conce~s for wetland loss as
expressed in their publication "Carolina Wetlands: Our Vanishing
Resource."
3.
White Oak TOwnship - Onslow County (Figure 7-4)
Ecoloaical ImDortance
The minor civil division of White Oak Township fronts the White
Oak River which drains to the Atlantic Ocean. The wetlands
found in this area are generally of several types. The wetland
types include tidally-influenced freshwater (blackwater)
forested and shrub swamps, freshwater marshes, pocosins, wet
pine flatwoods and savannahs and estuarine marsh. Numerous
sloughs, streams and tidal creeks provide access for fish and
wildlife to and from the swamps and estuarine marshes. This
area which lies near the mixing zone between fresh and salt
water provides important fish and wildlife breeding, foraging
and migratory habitat in addition to enhancing the water quality
of the White Oak River and the nearshore Atlantic Ocean waters.
These wetlands also act as the receiving waters for stormwater
runoff from the surrounding uplands which provides a level of
flood protection for adjacent areas under development.
Several threatened and endangered species are likely to occur in
the area. These species include the bald eagle, red-cockaded
woodpecker and the rough-leaved loosestrife. Other threatened
and endangered species that are likely to migrate into and
through the area or might occur incidentally include the
shortnose sturgeon, wood stork, and the Arctic peregrine
falcon. Additionally, riparian wetlands and pocosins of the
coastal plain of North Carolina have become the principal
habitat for the black bear, a species of special concern.
7-7
-------
CATBGQ~Y OD (cont.)
Important recreational and commercial species supported by the
White Oak River and its associated wetlands include, but are not
limited to, whitetail deer, ducks and furbearers such as beaver,
muskr~t and otter, bass, shad, herring, oysters, clams,
floundsr, eeatrout and croakers. The White Oak River supports a
t:ommercia.l shad fishery and is a State-recognized striped bass
spawning area. In addition, the river and its associated
wetlands offer important habitat for the State-listed endangered
~d fede:I'al-listed threatened American alligator.
Threat~
This aro~ is currently undergoing significant urban expansion.
The maj():I' threats causing wetland loss include residential
subdivision and commercial development, and their associated
infrastru.cture. White Oak Township currently supports a
population of more than 24,200 people. By the year 2000, the
population is expected to increase by more than 5,000
individu~ls to an estimated population of 29,200, an increase of
approxUJGltely 21 percent.
A significant number of forestry activities also exist within
Onslo~ County. In 1987, Onslow County supported approximately
81,000 acres of bottomland timber. It has been estimated that
Onslow County had lost approximately 20 percent of its wetlands
prior to 1962 by conversion to other uses.
This are~ has been suggested for the implementation of an
advance identification by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission and, in part, by the North Carolina Environmental
Defense Fund through their concerns for wetland loss as
expressedl in their publication "Carolina Wetlands: Our Vanishing
Resource" and the u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service through their
National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan.
4.
Wi,lW.ngton Growth Area- New Hanover County (Figure 7-5)
Ecologrica\l Importance
The Wilmington growth area fronts the Cape Fear River which
drains to the Atlantic Ocean. The wetlands found in this area
are generally of several types. The wetland types include
tidally-influenced freshwater forested and shrub swamps,
freshwa1:E)r marshes, wet pine flatwoods and savannahs and
estuarinE! marsh. Numerous sloughs, streams and tidal creeks
provide ~ccess for fish and wildlife to and from the swamps and
~stuarinE! marshes. This area which lies near the mixing zone
between fresh and salt water provides important fish and
7-8
-------
CATEGORY ORE (cont.)
wildlife breeding, foraging and migratory habitat in addition to
enhancing the water quality of the Cape Fear River and the
nearshore Atlantic Ocean waters. These wetlands also act as the
receiving waters for stormwater runoff from the surrounding
uplands which provides a level of flood protection for adjacent
areas under development.
Several threatened and endangered species are likely to occur in
the area. These species include the bald eagle, red-cockaded
woodpecker and the. rough-leaved loosestrife. Other threatened
and endangered species that are likely to migrate into and
through the area or might occur incidentally include the
shortnose sturgeon, wood stork, and the Arctic peregrine
falcon. Additionally, riparian wetlands and pocosins of the
coastal plain of North Carolina have become the principal
habitat for the black bear, a species of special concern.
Important recreational and commercial species supported by the
Cape Fear River and its associated wetlands include, but are not
limited to, whitetail deer, ducks and furbearers such as beaver,
muskrat and otter, bass, shad, herring, oysters, clams,
flounder, seatrout and croakers. Additionally, the Cape Fear
River supports annual runs of natural striped bass and herring
populations.
Threats
This area is currently undergoing significant urban expansion.
The major threats causing wetland loss include residential
subdivision and commercial development and their associated
infrastructure. The Wi~ington growth area currently supports a
population of nearly 110,100 people. By the year 2000, the
population is expected to increase by more than 14,000
individuals to an estimated population of 124,500, an increase
of approximately 13 percent.
This area has been suggested for the implementation of an
advance identification by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission and, in part, by the North Carolina Environmental
Defense Fund through their concerns for wetland loss as
expressed in their publication "Carolina Wetlands: Our Vanishing
Resource."
CATEGORY 'J.'WO
Category Two includes urban areas located within or nearby
significant expanses of wetlands that support important
commercial or recreational uses. The geographic areas are not
listed in any specific order of priority.
7-9
-------
CATEGORY TWO (cant.)
1.
GreEalville Growth Area - Pitt County (Figure 7-6)
Ecoloai~~ImDOrtance
The Greenville growth area straddles the Tar River which drains
to the estuaries of the Pamlico River, pamlico Sound and the
Atlantic Ocean. This area generally supports blackwater
forested and scrub-shrub wetlands. The extensive floodplain is
vegetatively dominated by cypress, tupelo, red maple and
water-tolerant oaks. Numerous sloughs, streams, and creeks
provide access for fish and wildlife to and from the swamps for
breeding, foraging and refuge. This area lies upstream from the
estuaries and mixing zone. Studies have shown that wetlands at
this location on the landscape are effective in water quality
enhancement through sediment retention, rapid mineral and
nutrient cycling, aerobic and anaerobic cycling of nitrogen and
other chemical pollutants, floodflow attenuation and
desynchronization' of downstream releases.
Of the listed federally threatened and endangered species that
could pot~entially be found utilizing the wetlands near' the
Greenville growth area, the bald eagle and the shortnose
sturgeon are the species which might be found. However, their
occurrences are most likely to be incidental. Riparian wetlands
and pocosins of the coastal plain of North Carolina have become
the principal habitat for the black bear, a species of special
concern. Important recreational and commercial species
supported by the Tar River and its associated wetlands include,
but are not limited to, whitetail deer, ducks and furbearers
such as beaver, muskrat and otter, bass, shad, and herring.
Additionally, the Tar River supports annual runs of natural
striped bass, shad and herring populations.
Threats
The majol~ threats causing wetlands loss include residential
subdivision and commercial development, and their associated
infrastructure. The Greenville growth area currently supports a
populaticm of more than 55,300 people. By the year 2000, the
population is expected to increase by more than 11,100
individuals to an estimated population of 66,400, an increase of
approximately 20 percent.
A significant number of forestry activities also exist within
Pitt County. In 1987, the County supported approximately 59,200
acres of bottomland timber. It has been estimated that Pitt
County had lost approximately 64 percent of its wetlands prior
to 1962 by conversion to other uses.
7-10
-------
CATEGORY TWO (cont.)
This area has been suggested for the implementation of an
advance identification by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission and, in part, by the North Carolina Environmental
Defense Fund through their concerns for wetland loss as
expressed in their publication "Carolina Wetlands: Our Vanishing
Resource."
2.
Durham Growth Area - Durham and Orange Counties
(Figure 7-7)
Ecoloaical Imoortance
The Durham growth area straddles the New Hope Creek corridor
which is part of a natural rare, large area of piedmont swamp
forest in North Carolina's triassic basin. Piedmont streams
generally support narrow floodplains and bottomlands. However,
the New Hope Creek and surrounding aquatic habitats support
nearly 11,000 acres of bottomland forests, including forested
swamps. New Hope Creek is a tributary to Jordon Lake which is a
u.s. Army Corps of Engineers water supply reservoir and sole
source drinking water supply for the towns of Cary and Apex,
North Carolina. Jordon Lake has been classified by the State as
being nutrient-sensitive waters suggesting that the quality of
the water is extremely dependent upon the balance of the
nutrients in the water column. The bottomland forests of this
piedmont stream system are dominated by hardwoods such as
water-tolerant oaks, tulip poplar, sweetgum, red maple and
elms. These wetlands provide important habitat for fish and
wildlife breeding, foraging and migration. In addition, these
wetlands provide enhancement of water quality for New Hope Creek
and Jordan Lake, as well as floodflow attenuation and
desYQchronization of downstream floodflow releases which result
in a measure of flood protection.
The wetlands of this corridor provide critical habitat for the
State-listed threatened black vulture and Thorey's grayback
dragonfly, a species of special concern to the State. In
addition, the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program has listed
this site on its inventory of natural areas, wildlife and rare
species for Orange and Durham Counties. Important recreational
species supported by New Hope Creek include, but are not limited
to, sunfish, catfish, songbirds, ducks, and whitetail deer.
Threats
This area is currently undergoing significant urban expansion.
The major threats causing wetland loss in the New Hope Creek
corridor include residential subdivision and commercial
development, their associated infrastructure, and drainage for
flood and mosquito control. The Durham growth area currently
7-11
-------
CATRG(JJR'{. 'NO ( cont. )
suppoI~a and estimated population of 179,000 people. By the
ye~ e,OOO, ~he population of is expected to increase by more
than e,8,OOO individuals to an estimated population of 207,000,
an increase of approximately 16 percent.
This nr~a has been suggested for the implementation of an
advan(~e identification by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
throuHh their National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan,
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and, in part, by
the Eorth Carolina Environmental Defense Fund through their
conce~ne for wetland loss as expressed in their publication,
"Ca1t'oliJ!lU Wetlands: Our Vanishing Resource."
CM'E~»RY TmRBE
Category Three includes urban growth areas located within or
neaEby eignificant expanses of wetlands. The geographic areas
are not listed in any specific order of priority.
The~e aru "0 Category Three areas for the State of North
Carollna..
CATEGORY FOUR
CateqGry Four includes areas experiencing significant
silviculture or agriculture expansion within or nearby wetlands
that ]'iY~tdy support threatened or endangered species, or
important commercial or recreational uses. The geographic areas
are not listed in any specific order of priority. (See Figure
7-1 f{)r t~he location of counties identified as Category Four
areas 0 )
1.
R~benon County - Lumber River Drainage
~coloGic~1 Importance
This county supports extensive acreage of blackwat~r forested
awampE3, non-riverine wet hardwood forested, non-riverine
forested swamps, wet pine flatwoods and Carolina bays. Most of
this County's wetlands are contained within the watershed which
forms thE! Lumber River. These wetlands provide important
habit~t for fish and wildlife breeding, foraging and migration.
In ado\i'tion, these wetlands provide enhancement of water quality
for th',e I.uraber River, as well as floodflow attenuation and
desynchxcnization of downstream floodflow releases which result
in a ~ea~ure of flood protection. Carolina bays are unique in
geomoLphic formation as well as vegetative composition. They
ue thou9)ht to provide critical habitat for numerous rare,
threataned, endangered and special concern fish and wildlife.
7-12
-------
CATEGORY FOUR (cont.)
The black bear has been known to inhabit the wetlands and
Carolina bays of Robeson County. In addition, species such as
the eastern tiger salamander and the awned meadowbeauty are
dependent upon Carolina bay habitat and functions for survival.
Many commercially and recreationally important species are
supported by the wetlands and aquatic habitats associated with
the Lumber River. Such species include, but are not limited to,
whitetail deer, turkey, furbearers such as muskrat and beaver,
ducks, bass and bream. The hunting of whitetail deer, turkey
and furbearers is integral part of rural southern life.
Although these species are mostly terrestrial organisms, they
utilize bottomlands and other wetlands for refuge, travel and
foraging.
Threats
As Robeson County is primarily rural with no major urban growth
areas, forestry activities are putting the most pressure on the
remaining wetland resources of this area. It has been estimated
that by 1962 approximately 39 percent of the wetlands which
existed before the County was settled had been converted to
other uses. In 1987, approximately 126,000 acres of bottomland
timber existed in Robeson County. Historically, environmentally
insensitive farming and silviculture practices have resulted in
significant loadings of nutrients and sediment to the water
column, which decreases the productivity and the habitat
suitability of the receiving aquatic habitat.
This area has been suggested for the implementation of an
advance identification by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission and, in part, by the u.S. Fish and wildlife Service
through their National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan.
2.
pasquotank County - Dismal Swamp
Ecoloaical Importance
This county supports extensive acreage of blackwater forested
swamps, non-riverine wet hardwood forested and non-riverine
forested swamps. The wetlands of this county are wholly
contained within the watershed which drains to the Albemarle
Sound. These wetlands provide important habitat for fish and
wildlife breeding, foraging and migration. In addition, these
wetlands provide enhancement of water quality for the pasquotank
River and Albemarle Sound, as well as floodflow attenuation and
desynchronization of downstream floodflow releases which result
in a measure of flood protection. pocosins are still present in
this area, however, their extent has been significantly
reduced. pocosins are unique in geomorphic formation as well as
7-13
-------
CATEGORY FOUR (cont.)
veget~ti7e composition. They are thought to provide critical
habitBt for numerous rare, threatened, endangered and special
concegn fish and wildlife.
The b:LacTt bear has been known to inhabit the wetlands and
poco~Ans of pasquotank County. In addition, species such as the
threaf<:ened Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew are dependent upon
this uetland system's habitat and functions for survival. The
PaSqt10taJlUc . River is reported as documented nursery habitat for
anadr.omous fish species such as shad, striped bass and herring.
Many eODDercially and recreationally important species are
suppoJ~sd by the wetlands and aquatic habitats associated with
the PHSquOtank River. Such species include, but are not limited
to, whitBtail deer, turkey, furbearers such as muskrat and
beaveR', ducks, shad, herring, striped bass, crabs and groundfish
such HS IJpot and croaker. The hunting of whitetail deer, turkey
and ftlrbGarers is integral part of rural southern life.
Althongh these species are mostly terrestrial organisms, they
utiliBe bot.tomlands and other wetlands for refuge, travel and
foragiLng.
ThreQ\~~s
As JPalBqill()tank County is primarily rural with only the minor
civil division of Elizabeth City, both agriculture and
silvi~uli<:ure are the activities putting the most pressure on the
remaining wetland resources of this area. It has been estimated
that hy 1962 approximately 55 percent of the wetlands which
exist()d before the County was settled had been converted to
other uses. In 1987, approximately 24,000 acres of bottomland
timbel~ <3Jds'fted in pasquotank County. Historically, lack of use
of be£Jt nanagement practices has resulted in significant
loadings of nutrients and sediment to the water column, which
aec~eusan ~he productivity and the habitat suitability of the
receivil1lH aquatic habitat.
This urea has 'been suggested, in part, for the implementation of
an advance identification by the North Carolina Environmental
Defenue Fund through their concerns for wetland loss as
expreused in their publication "Carolina Wetlands: Our Vanishing
ResQu2:ce."
3.
~telJ County - Chowan River Drainage
EcoJLoOliCt'Ll Imoortance
This Ci01Uilty supports extensive acreage of blackwater forested
swamp~, non-riverine wet hardwood forests dominated by water-
tolerant oaks, tulip poplar, sweetgum, red maple and elms, and
non-riverine forested swamps dominated by cypress and tupelo.
Unique Atl&ntic white cedar stands are are also present in the
7-14
-------
CATEGORY FOUR (cont.)
Chowan River drainage basin. The wetlands of the southwestern
half of this county 'are wholly contained within the watershed
which drains to the Albemarle Sound by way of the Chowan River.
These wetlands provide important habitat for fish and wildlife
breeding, foraging and migration. In addition, these wetlands
provide enhancement of water quality for the Chowan River and
Albemarle Sound, as well as floodflow attenuation and
desynchronization of downstream floodflow releases which result
in a measure of flood protection.
The black bear has been known to inhabit the wetlands Gates
County. In addition, species such as the threatened Dismal
Swamp southeastern shrew are dependent upon this wetland
system's habitat and functions for survival. The Chowan River
is reported as documented nursery habitat for anadromous fish
species such as shad, striped bass and herring. Many
commercially and recreationally important species are supported
by the wetlands and aquatic habitats associated with the Chowan
River. Such species include, but are not limited to, whitetail
deer, turkey, furbearers such as muskrat and beaver, ducks,
bass, shad, herring and striped bass. The hunting of whitetail
deer, turkey and furbearers is integral part of rural southern
life. Although these species are mostly terrestrial organisms,
they utilize bottomlands and other wetlands for refuge, travel
and foraging.
Threats
As Gates County is primarily rural with no major urban growth
areas, both agriculture and silviculture are the activities
putting the most pressure on the remaining wetland resources of
this area. It has been estimated that by 1962 approximately 46
percent of the wetlands which existed before the county was
settled had been converted to other uses. In 1987,
approximately 59,000 acres of bottomland timber existed in Gates
County. Also in 1987, a 7,600-acre increase in available
agricultural lands was reported for Gates County. Historically,
environmentally insensitive farming and silviculture practices
have contributed to significant loadings of sediment to the
water column which decreases the productivity and the habitat
suitability of the receiving aquatic habitat. '
This area has been suggested for the implementation of an
advance identification, in part, by the North Carolina
Environmental Defense Fund through their concerns for wetland
loss as expressed in their publication "Carolina Wetlands: Our
Vanishing Resource."
7-15
-------
CATEGORY FOUR (cont.)
4.
a~ufort County - Pamlico/pungo River Drainage
EcolOjJiciil Importance
This ~~o~,ty supports extensive acreages of tidal forested swamps
and JIlBrSrrleS, non-riverine wet hardwood forests dominated by
water<~tolerant oaks, tulip poplar, sweetgum, red maple and elms,
and r~)n-riverine forested swamps dominated by cypress, blackgum
and b!lpelo. The wetlands of this county are wholly contained
withirl1 tille watershed which drains to the Pamlico Sound by way of
the PimU..iCO and Pungo Rivers. These wetlands provide important
habitat for fish and wildlife breeding, foraging and migration.
In addition, these wetlands provide enhancement of water quality
for the :Pamlico and Pungo Rivers and Pamlico Sound, as well as
flood:Elo\~ attenuation and desynchronization of downstream
flood:Elo~ releases which result in a measure of flood
protecc;ti«:m.
The b1ac:'1t bear has been known to inhabit the wetlands Beaufort
Count~!. The Pamlico and Pungo Rivers are reported as documented
nurseii:y ;llabitat for anadromous fish species such as shad,
strip(}d Toass and herring. These rivers also support nursery
habi t{~t :for inshore, warm weather spawners such as crabs,
flounder, spot and croaker. Many commercially and
recreati!<)nally important species are supported by the wetlands
and a~JUa':CiiC habitats associated with the Pamlico and Pungo
RiverB. Such species include, but are not limited to, whitetail
deerf tu:rkay, furbearers such as muskrat and beaver, ducks,
bass, shad, herring and striped bass, crabs and other groundfish
such (~s ~pot and croakers. The hunting of whitetail deer,
turkey ~~d furbearers is an integral part of rural southern
life. Although these species are mostly terrestrial organisms,
they ~lltilize forested swamps and other wetlands for refuge,
trave:L aJlld foraging.
Thracl'fr:s
Agric~ltura and silviculture activities are putting the most
presEnre on the remaining wetland resources of this area. It
has ~)en estimated that by 1962 approximately 64 percent of the
wetlands wh~ch ex~sted before the county was settled had been
conve1~ed to other uses. In 1987, approximately 53,400 acres of
bott.onlal'1d timber existed in Beaufort County. Also in 1987, a
15,Q~O-acra increase in available agricultural lands was
repor~ed for Beaufort County.
Thi~ ilrea has been suggested for the implementation of an
advanee :Ldentification, in part, by the North Carolina
EnvironL1u!ntal Defense Fund through their concerns for wetland
los~ BS uxpressed in their publication "Carolina Wetlands: Our
Vanishing Resource."
7-16
-------
CA'l'EGORY POUR (cont.)
5.
Columbus County - Waccamaw River Drainage
Ecoloaical ImDortance
This county supports extensive acreage of blackwater forested
swamps, non-riverine forested swamps dominated by.cypress and
tupelo, wet pine flatwoods and Carolina bays. The watershed
which drains to the Waccamaw River covers approximately 75
percent of Columbus County. The remainder of the County drains
to the Lumber River described at number 6 in this category. The
wetlands of the Waccamaw River drainage basin provide important
habitat for fish and wildlife breeding, foraging and migration.
In addition, these wetlands provide enhancement of water quality
for the Waccamaw River, as well as floodflow attenuation and
desynchronization of downstream floodflow releases which result
in a measure of flood protection.
The black bear has been known to inhabit the wetlands of
Columbus County and the Waccamaw River. In addition, species
such as the federally-listed threatened Waccamaw shiner and the
state-listed Plymouth gentian and Harper's fringe rush are
endemic to and solely dependent upon Lake Waccamaw and the
Waccamaw River for survival. Many commercially and
recreationally important species are supported by the wetlands
and aquatic habitats associated with the Waccamaw River. Such
species include, but are not limited to, whitetail deer, turkey,
furbearers such as muskrat and beaver, ducks, bass and bream.
Although these species are mostly terrestrial organisms, they
utilize bottomlands and other wetlands for refuge, travel and
foraging.
Threats
As Columbus County is primarily rural with no major urban growth
areas, forestry activities are putting the most pressure on the
remaining wetland resources of this area. It has been estimated
that by 1962 approximately 47 percent of the wetlands which
existed before the county was settled had been converted to
other uses. In 1987, approximately 150,300 acres of bottomland
timber existed in Columbus County.
This area has been suggested for the implementation of an
advance identification by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, u.S. Fish and Wildlife Service through their
National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan and, in part, by
the North Carolina Environmental Defense Fund through their
concerns for wetland loss as expressed in their publication
"Carolina Wetlands: Our Vanishing Resource."
7-17
-------
NORTH CAROLINA
Figure 7-1
TARCBT AREAs OF NOR'I'B CAROLINA
KEY a
CA'I'EUORY ONE
1.
Jacksonville Growth Area
New Bern Growth Area
White Oak Township Growth Area
Wilmington Growth Area
CATEGORY THREE - none
2.
3.
4.
CATEGORY FOUR
5.
6.
Greenv111e GrOWth Area
Durhaa GrOWth Area
7. Robeson County
9. Pasquotank County
9. Gates County
10. Beaufort County
11. Columbu8 County
CATEGORY TWO
7-18
-------
..~
.. .
..
Figure 7-2
Jacksonville Growth Area
Category One
7-19
-------
r-
- r)
,-.
p.ml~f\
L.
Figure 7-3
New Bern Growth Area
Category One
7-20
-------
"::.~
0""
".~"
..',.
Figure 7-4
White Oak Township Growth Area
Category One
7-21
-------
Figure 7.5
Wilmington Growth Area
Category One
7-22
-------
Figure 7-6
Greenville Growth Area
Category Two
7-23
-------
Figure 7-7
Durham Growth Area
Category Two
7-24
-------
8.0
8.1
South Carolina
Wetlands of South Carolina
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's National Wetlands Inventory
program estimates that at the time of settlement, the State of
South Carolina had over 6.4 million acres of wetlands, or
approximately 32 percent of its surface area (Dahl 1990).
Current estimates indicate the State has a wetland inventory of
approximately 4.7 million acres (24 percent of the landscape).
South Carolina occupies at least four different physiographic
provinces: coastal plain, sandhills, piedmont, and mountain.
The distinct geomorphology of the landscapes of these zones
creates an abundance of wetlands of varying biological and
hydrological conditions. Wetlands are not equally distributed
across these provinces, with wetlands constitutin9 about 33
percent of the surface area of the coastal plain; 20 percent of
the sandhill region; 4 percent of the piedmont, and less than 1
percent of the mountain region (SCSPTD, unpublished data).
The significant wetland types of South Carolina include:
Swamps and Floodplains, Carolina Bays, Tidal Marshes, and
Coastal Impoundments.
River Swamps and Floodplains The majority of the estimated
4.6 million acres of South Carolina's wetlands (approximately 3
million acres) fall into this category (USFWS 1990). These
systems are vegetatively similar to other southeastern riverine
wetlands and provide many functions and values such as flood
protection, wildlife habitat, water quality enhancement, and
water supply potential. South Carolina bottomlan~ hardwoods are
particularly valuable for neo-tropical migrant songbirds.
Representing an important and diverse wildlife habitat, river
swamps and floodplains contribute significantly to recreational
hunting and fishing opportunities. The recreational demands on
these wetlands constitute important consideration toward the
economy of South Carolina. These wetlands are extremely
valuable habitat for white-tailed deer, wild turkey, and
waterfowl, as well as providing spawning and nursery habitat for
a diverse assemblage of recreationally and economically
important fishery resources.
River
Carolina Bays Carolina Bays are shallow, poorly drained
basins scattered primarily throughout the Coastal Plain province
of South Carolina. Individual bays range in size from less than
one acre to several hundred acres. All Carolina Bays share a
common elliptical shape oriented along a northwest-southeast
axis. These remarkably similar attributes have given rise to a
variety of hypotheses relative to their geologic origin.
Although their shape and landscape orientation are consistent,
differences in soil substrate, hydroperiod, and depth of
standing water creates diverse plant and animal communities
within this wetland class. The South Carolina Wildlife and
8-1
-------
Marine Resources Department's Heritage Trust Program identified
eight &ifferent types of Carolina Bays (Bennett and Nelson
1991), including: 1) non-alluvial swamp~ 2) pond cypress pond~
3) pond cypress savannah; 4) depression meadow, and; 5) open
water lake. The five systems share a clay-based substrate.
Three other plant associations have been found in peat-filled
bays in South Carolina: 1) bay forest; 2) pond pine woodland,
and; 3) pocosin.
Bays are generally hydrologically isolated from lake or riverine
systen:;EJ and therefore exhibit fluctuations in the extent of
standi.ng water. Because of their typically temporary nature,
fish populations are usually low or absent in Carolina Bays. As
a result, amphibian and reptilian populations are high. Birds,
turtlelEJ, aquatic snakes, and mammals, in turn, are attracted to
bays t~ these concentrations of larval and adult amphibians and
invert,ebrates such as crayfish (Sharitz and Gibbons 1982).
Carolina Bays support many rare species of plants found nowhere
else. They also supply food and cover requirements for many
speciall animal species such as the black bear. Other wetland
functions such as ground-water recharge and discharge are
attributed to Carolina Bays as well.
Tidal Harshes According to Tiner (1977), there are
appro>.ulmately 504,000 acres of coastal marshes in South
Carolina. For the purposes of this classification, this wetland
type c:an be divided into three major zones based upon
predominant vegetation as influenced by elevation, water, and
soil EJalinities: 1) salt marshes (66 percent); 2) freshwater
marShE~(3 (13 percent) ~ and, 3) brackish-water marshes (7 percent)
(USFWS 1990).
Salt Dlarsnes are generally covered by extensive stands of smooth
cordgl~ass at lower elevations and a more diverse community at
highel~ elevations, comprised of salt grass, black needlerush,
glass\rorts, and marsh-hay cordgrass. Tidal freshwater marshes
borde]: coastal rivers where predominant influence on plant
communities is riverine inflow coupled with the twice daily
tidal hydroperiod. Plant diversity is greater in the these
ecosYfltems than in either the salt or brackish marshes. Giant
southE)Jrn-wildrice typically dominates tidal freshwater marshes
with co-dominants including wildrice, Virginia arrow arum,
pickerelweed, arrowheads, and a variety of sedges and other
grasseG.
More iL!1l1and tidal freshwater marshes are less herbaceous and are
characterized by a shrub/forest association including tag alder,
swamp dogwood, buttonbush, willows, bald cypress, red maple, and
tupelo<.gums. Brackish marshes are transitional, sharing
characteristics of both salt and freshwater marshes; marine and
river:Ll!\e influences compete in this zone and produce diverse and
bioloHically rich flora and fauna.
8-2
-------
All of these marsh types represent significant biological and
recreational resources, providing habitat to a wide variety of
both ecologically and economically important finfish, shellfish,
and wildlife species in the lower coastal plain.
Coastal Impoundments This type of wetland system
(representing approximately 71,000 acres) is found concentrated
in the brackish and freshwater zones, and to a lesser extent in
the salt zone of coastal estuaries. The majority of the coastal
impoundments represent former rice fields that were developed in
the colonial era and that are currently managed primarily as
wintering and migrating habitat for waterfowl, as well as for a
wide variety of wading and shorebirds, and for aquaculture.
Since resource and recreational use of these systems is
extremely high, they are viewed as ecologically and economically
important components of South Carolina wetlands. Wetland
management prescribes strategies to maintain early successional
vegetation stages in all three salinity zones, thereby enhancing
these areas for wetland- dependent vertebrate species. The
influence of historic and current uses of these systems has
modified basic wetland functions. For example, ditching and
diking of marshes changes natural drainage, circulation, and
hydroperiod, resulting in an alteration of energy flow and
export. Coastal impoundments are noted to be particularly
important components in the feeding ecology of the the
endangered bald eagle and wood stork, and provide habitat for
the majority of the dabbling ducks in the Atlantic: flyway.
Regardless of the extent of man's manipulation of this wetland
type, these areas retain wetland functions, and represent
important ecological and economical resources to the State of
South Carolina.
8.2
Status of the Wetland Resource
South Carolina is the smallest state in surface area of any of
the Region IV States. Encompassing approximately 20 million
acres of land area, South Carolina's original extent of wetlands
was over 6.4 million acres, or about 32 percent of its landscape
(Dahl 1990). The most recent estimate for the extent of
wetlands is approximately 4.7 million acres. For the State,
this represents a loss of about 27 percent of its wetland
resource, the second-lowest of any State in the southeast. Hook
(1989) attributes this phenomena to a variety of factors,
including: 1) good stewardship; 2) relatively small size and
scattered distribution; and, 3) lack of large scale urban
sprawl.
The extent and function of the Carolina Bay community has been
severely impacted by man's activities in the State. For
example, a recent analysis of Carolina Bays reveals that 2,651
bays two acres or larger, exist in South Carolina. However, of
8-3
-------
these bays, it is estimated that 80 percent have been altered in
Slome miliM.er, and that perhaps as few as 200 bays remain intact
in the State (Bennett and Nelson 1991). The most dominant
affect of the bays were: 1) drainage and planting with
algricultural crops~ 2) forestry operations; 3) roads; 4) power
lines~ 5) farm ponds; and, 6) commercial and residential
develoI?iUent.
Coastal wetland areas are subject to the most threat of
converl3ion or degradation due to increasing population growth,
especilally around the Charleston Harbor area, and the barrier
island system of the State. Major population centers such as
Columbia also provide opportunities for wetland losses through
urban ~prawl and degradation from non-point source runoff,
develop~ent, etc.
8.3
~ARGET GEOGRAPHIC AREAS IN SOOTH CAROLINA
See Figure 8-1 for the generalized location of all identified
target areas in South Carolina. All figures for South Carolina
can be found at the end of the South Carolina section.
SOMMARt' OF TARGET AREAS
CATEGO~Y ONE
Horry County - East of Waccamaw River to Intracoastal Waterway
Berke1~y County - Moncks Corner
Mount Pleasant - Charleston County
Highway 61 (Bear/Swamp/Rantow1es Creek) - Charleston County
CATEGORY TWO
Bluff ton/Hilton Head - Beaufort County
CATEGCRY THREE
Columb;ia Urban Complex - Richland/Lexington Counties
James Island/Folly Beach and Johns Island/Wadmalaw Island-
ChaI'leston County
Lexing:1~on/Irmo/West Columbia - Lexington County
CATEGORY FOUR
Clare~don County
Hari0I11 County
Hampton County
8-4
-------
CATEGORY ONE
Category One includes urban growth areas located within or
nearby significant expanses of wetlands which likely support
threatened or endangered species. The geographic areas are not
listed in any specific order of priority.
1.
Barry County - East of Waccamaw River to Int:racoastal
Waterway (Figure 8-2)
Buist Tract - 40,000 acres.
la.
Ecoloaical Importance
This portion of Horry County supports a significant density of
Carolina Bay complexes in addition to other palustrine and
riverine forested and scrub-shrub wetlands (gum elloughs, gum
ponds, bayheads, bottomlands, etc.) Numerous sloughs and creeks
drain to the Waccamaw river providing access for fish and other
aquatic and water-dependent wildlife to and from the swamps and
extensive floodplain. It has been estimated that the land area
of Horry County is approximately 50 percent wetlands with the
undeveloped portions of the County exceeding 60 percent
wetlands. These wetlands provide valuable fish and wildlife
foraging, breeding and migratory habitat, water quality
enhancement for the Waccamaw River, as well as floodflow
attenuation and desynchronization of downstream floodflows.
Several threatened and endangered species are likely to occur in
the area. These species include the red-cockaded woodpecker,
wood stork, Canby's dropwort, rough-leaved loosestrife,
pondberry,. Cooley's meadowrue and Vahl's fimbry. Other
endangered species that are likely to migrate into and through
the area or might occur incidentally include the shortnose
sturgeon, Arctic peregrine falcon and the piping plover. This
area also supports one of the few remaining decimated
populations of black bear in the coastal plain. Recreational
and commercial species supported by the Waccamaw river and the
surrounding wetland complexes include, but are not limited to,
whitetail deer, feral pigs, turkey, woodcock, largemouth bass,
beaver, muskrat and mink.
Threats
This area is currently undergoing a conversion to residential
subdivision and golf course development from the historical
impacts of silviculture activities. It is expected within the
next few years that the area will undergo a significant increase
in development pressure due to the proximity to Myrtle Beach and
Conway and the proposed I-95 connector and bypasses. The Myrtle
Beach urban division currently supports a year-round population
8-5
-------
CATEGOJ~Y ONE (cont.)
of app1~oximately 56,000 individuals. It is expected that this
populai:.ion in the year 2000 will exceed 71,000 individuals, an
increaae of approximately 28 percent over current population
estima1:iE!s. However, the transient sununer population exceeds
more than 100,000 individuals. It is expected that as the urban
area e1~?ands and the accommodations improve, the number of
transioillt residents and their associated impacts will increase
dlramatiLcally.
A siqniLficant number of forestry operations exist in Horry
County today. Currently, the County supports approximately
185iOOO acres of bottomland hardwoods. Historically, lack of
use of best management practices has resulted in significant
loadinHI3 of sediment to the water column, which has reduced the
produc1~:lvity of the receiving aquatic habitat. In recent years
a propc)l3al for peat mining has been developed. However, this
. has no1: come to fruition due to significant opposition to the
projec1: 0
This area has been suggested for the implementation of an
adVanCE! identification by the South Carolina Coastal Council,
u.S. Fiuh and Wildlife Service, South Carolina Wildlife and
Marine Resources Division and the u.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
2.
Bez~eley County - Moncks Corner (Figure 8-3)
Ecoloqi~al ImDortance
This portion of Berkeley County supports a significant density
of Carolina Bay complexes in addition to other palustrine
forestecl and scrub-shrub wetlands (gum sloughs, gum ponds,
bayheads, bottomlands, etc.) Numerous sloughs and creeks drain
to the Cooper river providing access for fish and other aquatic
and water-dependent wildlife to and from the swamps and
extensive floodplain. It has been estimated that the land area
of Berkeley County is approximately 50 percent wetlands. These
wetlands provide valuable fish and wildlife foraging, breeding
and migratory habitat, water quality enhancement for the Cooper
River, floodflow attenuation and desynchronization of downstream
floodflDws.
Several threatened and endangered species are likely to occur in
the are~. These species include the red-cockaded woodpecker,
Canby's dropwort and pondberry. Other endangered species that
are likl9ly to migrate into and through the area or might occur
incident.ally include the shortnose sturgeon, Arctic peregrine
falcon, wood stork, and bald eagle. Recreational and commercial
species supported by the Cooper River and the surrounding
wetland complexes include, but are not limited to, whitetail
deer, fc!ral pigs, turkey, woodcock, largemouth bass, beaver,
muskrat and mink.
8-6
-------
CATEGORY ONE (cont.)
Threats
The wetlands of this area are currently undergoin.g substantial
impacts due to their conversion to residential subdivision
development and silviculture activities. The Moncks Corner
minor civil division currently supports an estimated population
of approximately 20,389 individuals. It is expected that the
population in the year 2000 will increase by more than 7,900
people to an estimate of nearly 28,300 individuals, an increase
of approximately 39 percent over current population estimates.
In 1987, approximately 142,600 acres of bottomland timber
existed in Berkeley County. Expansion of forestry operations
threatens to reduce the biodiversity of the mixed hardwood
bottomlands through drainage and conversion to pine plantations.
Historically, environmentally insensitive farming and forestry
practices have contributed significant loadings of sediment to
the water column which decreases the productivity and the
habitat suitability of the receiving aquatic habitat.
3.
Charleston County - Mount Pleasant (Figure 8-4)
~coloaical Importance
The wetlands of this portion of Charleston Count}r generally
exist in several types, brackish and salt marshes and freshwater
forested wetlands. The brackish and freshwater wetlands
generally appear to be confined to the drainage basin of the
Wando River while the salt marshes are confined in the drainage
area to the bays and sounds connected to the Atlantic Ocean.
The majority of the wetlands in this area exhibit some form of
tidal action. The forested wetlands associated with the Wando
River act as the rivers source in addition to maintaining the
water quality through the removal of suspended sediments and the
uptake of nutrients and pollutants.
Numerous creeks and sloughs connected to the Wando River allow
movement of fish and wildlife into and out of the forested
swamps. These areas provide refugia, breeding grounds, travel
corridors and foraging areas for a variety of fish and
wildlife. The forested floodplain, sloughs and gum ponds
attenuate flood waters and desynchronize downstrE!am discharges,
thereby, reducing the risk of downstream flooding.
The estuarine marshes provide spawning areas for a variety of
recreationally and commercially important fish and wildlife. The
high production of nutrients and the discharge of detritus from
the marshes create an environment conducive to the recruitment
of prey organisms which maintain the basis of the food chain and
8-7
-------
CATEGO!lY ONE ( cont. )
commercially ~portant fisheries. The daily flush of water
exports these organisms and nutrients to the nearshore waters
which lncrease the food availability for more pelagic species.
The maintenance of marsh vegetation and the formation of oyster
reef~ ~nd bars enhance water quality within the estuary by
reducing the erosive forces of the tides and upland runoff,
providing habitat for other aquatic organisms, and serve as a
cond~it for the transfer of energy to other trophic levels.
'Jl'hre~t'ened and endangered species, including those species in
status review, which potentially may occur within the area
includl3 the West Indian manatee, bald eagle, wood stork,
red-co(::kaded woodpecker, piping plover, Kemp's ridley and
logger)ilead sea turtles, shortnose sturgeon, Canby's dropwort,
ponclbe:r:ry, Bachman's sparrow and the flatwoods salamander.
Recrea
-------
CATEGORY ONE (cont.)
Charleston, North Charleston and the airport making the Mount
Pleasant area a more desirable location for development.
The State has designated the Mount Pleasant area as a non-point
source project area. Under this designation, DHEC will develop
and implement, in cooperation with federal, state and local
agencies, a comprehensive plan to prevent and control water
resource impacts from non-point source. The emphasis of this
project lies in the maintenance and enhancement of water quality
and existing uses. In addition to the State project, this area
has been suggested for the implementation of advance
identification by the South Carolina Coastal Council, South
Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Division, and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers.
4.
Charleston County - Highway 61 (Bear Swamp/Rantowles
. Creek)
(Figure 8-5)
Ecoloaical Importance
This portion of Charleston County supports a mosaic of forested
swamp, bottomlands and historical surficial phosphate mines.
These forested wetlands are wholly contained within the Ashley
and Stono Rivers drainage basin. These wetland areas drain
primarily to the Stono River and serve as a floodwater
attenuation basin for the Stono. The connection of these
wetlands to the Ashley and Stono Rivers provides fish and
wildlife access for foraging, refuge and spawning. The forests
provide excellent perching areas for a number of migratory
neo-tropical warblers. In addition to the fish and wildlife
habitat value and the floodflow attenuation, these wetlands
provide enhancement of downstream water quality and prevention
of flooding by desYnchronization of stormwater releases.
The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental
Control (DHEC) has reclassified the Stono River as protected for
shellfish harvesting. Although the shellfish resource is
present, the current ambient water quality prevents the direct
consumption of the shellfish. The wetlands of this area are
extremely important for the maintenance and improvement of water
quality and the existing resource.
Threatened and endangered species in addition to those that are
in status review which potentially may occur within the area
include the red-cockaded woodpecker, bald eagle, wood stork,
Canby's dropwort, pondberry, flatwoods salamander, shortnose
sturgeon, Arctic peregrine falcon and Bachman's sparrow.
Recreational and commercial industry supporting species include,
8-9
-------
CATEGORY ONE (cont.)
but are not limited to, whitetail deer, turkey, feral pigs,
woodcock, and wood ducks.
Threats.
The Charleston urban complex, which consists of Dorchester,
Berkeley and Charleston Counties, is rapidly expanding north
into Berkeley and Dorchester Counties. This growth area
currently supports a population of approximately 418,000
individuals that is expected to expand to 528,000 individuals by
the year 2000, an increase of 26 percent. The north Highway 61
area is developed in narrow bands along the existing
thoroughfares. Installation of new roads will provide
additional areas for urban sprawl. The South Carolina
Department of Transportation has proposed the construction of an
alternative travel route paralleling Highway 61. This roadway
and its associated impacts will open significant acreage for
development which may lead to impacts on the wetlands of the
area adjacent to the road. The initiation of the roadway
proposal has stimulated the development community. Already the
proposal for the Highway 61 bypass has generated the concept of
a large subdivision north of Bee's Ferry Road.
This area has been suggested for the implementation of an
advance identification by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
South Carolina Coastal Council, and the South Carolina Wildlife
and Marine Resources Division.
CATEGORY TWO
Category Two includes urban areas located within or nearby
significant expanses of wetlands that support important
commercial or recreational uses. The geographic areas are not
listed in any specific order of priority.
1.
Beaufort County - Bluff ton/Hilton Head (Figure 8-6)
Ecoloaical Importance:
This area is part of the Ashley, Combahee and Edisto (ACE) basin
which drains 26 percent of state. Beaufort County is wholly
contained within the Combahee-Coosawhatchie sub-basin.
Bluff ton, a minor civil division, lies on the May River which
drains to Calibogue Sound and Hilton Head is surrounded by Port
Royal Sound, Calibogue Sound, Mackays Creek and their associated
wetlands. The majority of the wetlands associated with the May
River and the adjacent sounds are estuarine marshes vegetated
predominantly with Spartina. These marshes provide spawning
areas for a variety of recreationally and commercially important
fish and wildlife.
8-10
-------
CATEGORY TWO (cont.)
Sixty-three percent of the ACE basin supports resources of
statewide or greater than statewide significance and resources
of regional significance, a value class of 1 and 2, for the 14
resource categories evaluated in the South Carolina Rivers
Assessment produced by the South Carolina Water Resources
Commission and the National Parks Service. The May and Colleton
Rivers and their surrounding area are designated by the State as
outstanding resource waters (ORW) which exhibit exceptional
water quality because of restrictions on activities on or near
these waters. The continued presence of wetlands adjacent to
these waters will help maintain this designation.
Endangered and threatened species, including those in status
review, are only likely to incidentally occur in 1:he area.
These incidentally occuring species include the West Indian
manatee, bald eagle, wood stork, red-cockaded woodpecker, Arctic
peregrine falcon, piping plover, loggerhead sea turtle, Canby's
dropwort and pondberry. Recreationally and commercially
important fish and wildlife found in the area include, but is
not limited to, whitetail deer, ducks, largemouth bass, bream,
seatrout, flounder, shrimp, clams and oysters. Anadromous
fishes such as striped bass and eels migrate up the surrounding
rivers to spawn.
Threats
Although Hilton Head is mostly developed, Bluff ton is one of the
fastest growing minor civil division in the State. Bluff ton is
experiencing a surge in development due to the proximity of the
town to both Hilton Head and Savannah. The South Carolina
Department of Transportation has recently upgraded several roads
in the vicinity of Hilton Head easing access to the Island and
surrounding areas. The Bluff ton minor civil division currently
supports a population of approximately 24,461 individuals and is
projected to expand to around 33,000 individuals by the year
2000, an increase of 32 percent. In addition, Beaufort County
is experiencing a minor increase in silviculture operations.
Currently, the County supports about 55,000 acres of bottomland
hardwoods.
This area has been suggested for the implementation of an
advance identification by the South Carolina Coastal Council.
- 2.
Charleston County (Figure 8-8)
2a.
James Island/Folly Beach
Johns Island/Wadmalaw Island
2b.
Ecoloaical Importance
These islands near Charleston support several different types of
8-11
-------
CATEGORY TWO (cont.)
wetlands such as emergent brackish and salt marshes, freshwater
forestled swamps, freshwater scrub swamps and freshwater marsh.
Althouqh present, there is limited acreage of freshwater
aystemls. The hydrology of the majority of these wetland systems
is tidally driven or influenced. These wetlands serve as
import(ant nursery areas for many recreationally and commercially
importd!nt fish and wildlife. Propagation of such species in
these wetlands include, but are not limited to shrimp, ducks,
flound(3r, red drum, oyster and clams. Wildlife such as
whitetciil deer, turkey and muskrat utilize the freshwater
systems for travel corridors, foraging and breeding cover.
These '~etlands also provide important resting areas for
migrat()ry waterfowl and song birds such as warblers. James
Island lies between the Stono and Ashley Rivers while Johns and
Wadmalaw Islands lie between the Stono and North Edisto Rivers.
Both these areas make up part of the Ashley-Cooper River
Elub-bal3in of the ACE basin. The South Carolina Water Resources
Commisl3ion has rated these rivers as having a high value class
for tho resource categories of wildlife habitat, recreation and
natura 1 features.
Threat!!
The Jm16S Island and Mark Clark Expressways are currently under
const~lction. These roadways will make access to downtown
Charlefl~on, the Interstate system and the airport easier while
relieving some of the burden on the current infrastructure.
Easier access and the proximity of the area to downtown
Charleflton will increase urban expansion and the desire to live
on the ~slands. The Charleston urban complex is estimated to
increase its population by 26 percent in the year 2000 from a
populat;~Lon estimate of over 418,000 to greater than 528,000.
The Chs;r.leston and James Island civil divisions will contribute
approximately 9 percent to the total expected population
expansi.on of the growth area, approximately 10,000 people.
CATEGOFlY THREE
CategoIY Three includes urban growth areas located within or
nearby significant expanses of wetlands. The geographic areas
are not listed in any specific order of priority.
1.
Richland/Lexinqton Counties - Columbia Urban Complex
(Columbia, Lexington, Irmo, Pontiac) (Figure 8-7)
Northeast Columbia/Pontiac
1a.
~coloqical Importance
This area of the State lies in the upper coastal plain/lower
8-12
-------
CATEGORY THREE (cont.)
piedmont region and is part of the sandhills physiographic
region. Significantly more topographical relief exists in this
area than in the lower coastal plain. Due to this, wetland
systems are generally associated with rivers, streams and their
tributaries rather than isolated and/or depressional wetlands or
the broad swamps and floodplains of the coastal areas. The
riparian wetlands of this area generally exhibit narrow
floodplains. However, where the topography flattens out
substantial floodplains and saturated wetlands can be found.
These ponding areas reduce the risk of flooding in downstream
urban areas by functioning as stormwater attenuation areas and
through the desynchronization of downstream releases. The
narrow floodplains are utilized by fish and wildlife as travel
corridors through the sandhill region and as escape cover from
predators or other disturbances. Many of the lower piedmont
streams support a diverse assemblage of aquatic species.
However, the diversity of this area is being reduced due to the
creation of impoundments and non-point source discharges
associated with urban development.
Threats
This area is currently exhibiting an increase in both urban and
silviculture development. The Columbia minor civil division
has, for all practical purposes, been developed to maximum
capacity. With no room to expand within the city limits,
development is moving to the northeast towards Pontiac. The
Pontiac minor civil division currently supports an estimated
population of almost 27,000 people. This estimate is expected
to increase by 38 percent in the year 2000 to a population of
38,000 individuals. As of 1986 it was estimated that Richland
County supported approximately 59,000 acres of timberland. The
devastation of the coastal timber industry by Hur'ricane Hugo has
supported an increase in timber production from the Piedmont
region of the State.
This area has been suggested for the implementation of an
advance identification, in part, by the U.S. Fish. and Wildlife
Service through their concern for the increasing impacts and
their associated degradation of diversity on Piedmont streams.
2.
Lexington County - Lexington, Irmo, West Columbia
(Figure 8-9)
Ecological Importance
.
The wetlands of this area are generally associated with rivers
and creeks. This area lies in the upper coastal plain/lower
Piedmont region of the state. Due to this area's geographical
8-13
-------
CATEG01RY THREE (cont.)
location, significant topographical relief typically cause the
wetlands to be found in narrow, forested or scrub floodplains.
Althou,gh Most of the wetlands found in the area are relatively
narrow and somewhat linear, substantial floodplains and
aaturat:ed wetlands can be found where the topography flattens
out. These ponding areas reduce the risk of flooding in
downstream urban areas by functioning as floodwater attenuation
areas ~nd desYnchronizing downstream releases. The narrow
floodplains are utilized by fish and wildlife as travel
corridors and as cover from predators or other disturbances.
Threats
This area is currently undergoing a significant increase in
urban development. Many of the lower Piedmont streams support a
diverss assemblage of aquatic species. However, the diversity
of this area is being reduced due to the creation of instream
impoundments and point and non-point source discharges
aasoci~ted with commercial, industrial and residential
develo;pment. Current population estimates for the Irmo minor
civil division exceed 34,000 people. This estimate is expected
to inc:t'ease to over 42,000 people by the year 2000, an increase
of 25 lpercent. Population estimates for the Lexington minor
civil div~sion reach to almost 38,000 people and is expected to
exceed 49,000 individuals by the year 2000.
This a:c-sa has been suggested for the implementation of an
advancl:! identification, in part, by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Servic(~ through their concern for the increasing impacts and the
Blssociated degradation of diversity on Piedmont streams.
CATEGOJlY FOUR
Catego}~ Four includes areas experiencing significant
silviculture or agriculture expansion within or nearby wetlands
that li:':<:ely support threatened or endangered species, or
important commercial or recreational uses. The geographic areas
are not; listed in any specific order of priority. (See Figure
8-1 for the location of counties identified as Category Four
areas. )
1.
Clc~endon County - Black River Watershed
Ecoloqical Importance
This county supports extensive acreage of blackwater forested
swamps, non-riverine wet hardwood forested, non-riverine
forested swamps, wet pine flatwoods and Carolina Bays. The
8-14
-------
CATEGORY FOUR (cont.)
wetlands of the northeast portion of this county are contained
within the watershed which forms the Black River. These
wetlands provide important habitat for fish and wi!dlife
breeding, foraging and migration. In addition, these wetlands
provide enhancement of water quality for the Black'River,
floodflow attenuation and desynchronization of downstream
floodflow releases which result in a measure of flood
protection. Carolina Bays are unique in geomorphic formation as
well as vegetative composition. They are thought: to provide
critical habitat for numerous rare, threatened, endangered and
special concern fish and wildlife.
The Carolina Bays of Clarendon County support federally and
state-listed threatened and endangered species such as the awned
meadowbeauty, Canby's dropwort and RynchosDora inundata which
are dependent upon the Carolina Bay habitat and functions for
survival. Many commercially and recreationally important
species are supported by the wetlands and aquatic habitats
associated with the Black River. Such species include, but are
not limited to, whitetail deer, turkey, furbearers such as
beaver, ducks, bass and bream. The hunting of whitetail deer,
turkey and furbearers is integral part of rural southern life.
Although these species are mostly terrestrial orga~isms, they
utilize bottomlands and other wetlands for refuge, travel and
foraging. The South Carolina Water Resources Commission ranks 8
of 12 resource categories evaluated for the Black River as
having outstanding to superior resources of regional, statewide
and greater than statewide significance, particularly for
natural areas, recreation and wildlife habitat.
Threats
Many of the remaining wetland habitats are being threatened by
conversion to forestry management, non-point source pollution,
and sedimentation. As Clarendon County is primarily rural,
forestry activities have been putting intense pressure on the
remaining wetland resources of this area. In 1987,
approximately 111,000 acres of bottomland timber existed in
Clarendon County. Expansion of forestry operations threatens to
reduce the biodiversity of the mixed hardwood bottomlands
through drainage and conversion to pine plantations.
Historically, environmentally insensitive farming and forestry
practices have contributed significant loadings of sediment to
the water column which decreases the productivity and the
habitat suitability of the 'receiving aquatic habitat.
8-15
-------
CATEGO]~Y POUR (cont.)
2.
~~ion County - Pee Dee River Basin
Ecoloaical ImDortance
This co'unty supports extensive acreage of riverine and
blackwater forested swamps, non-riverine wet hardwood forested,
non- riverine forested swamps, wet pine flatwoods and Carolina
Bays. The wetlands of this county are wholly contained within
the wai;:ershed which forms the Great Pee Dee River. These
wetlands provide important habitat for fish and wildlife
breeding, foraging and migration. In addition, these wetlands
provide enhancement of water quality for the Pee Dee Rivers,
floodflow attenuation and desynchronization of downstream
floodf1Low releases which result in a measure of flood
protection. Carolina Bays are unique in geomorphic formation as
well a~ vegetative composition. They are thought to provide
critical habitat for numerous rare, threatened, endangered and
specia~~ concern fish and wildlife.
The CaJ:olina Bays of Marion County support state-listed species
of conC:f3rn such as the leather leaf which is dependent upon the
Carolina Bay habitat and functions for its survival. Many com-
mercially and recreationally important species are supported by
the we1:1ands and aquatic habitats associated with the Pee Dee
Rivers. Such species include, but are not limited to, whitetail
deer, 1:urkey, furbearers such as beaver, ducks, bass and bream.
Spec iesl popular with hunters such as whitetail deer, turkey and
furbea:r:ers utilize bottomlands and other wetlands for refuge,
travel and foraging. The South Carolina Water Resources
Commissdon ranks 9 of 12 resource categories evaluated for the
Great :Pee Dee River as having outstanding to superior resources
of regi.onal, statewide and greater than statewide significance,
partic~larly for undeveloped natural areas, recreation, timber
management and wildlife habitat.
Threats,
Many of the remaining wetland habitats are being threatened by
conversion to forestry management, non-point source pollution,
and sed.imentation. Forestry-related activities have been
putting' intense pressure on the remaining wetland resources of
this area. In 1987, approximately 92,000 acres of bottomland
timber existed in Marion County. Expansion of silviculture
operations threatens to reduce the biodiversity of the mixed
hardwood bottomlands through drainage and conversion to pine
plantations.
The minor civil division of the city of Marion currently
supports an estimated population of 17,140 people. By the year
2000, the population is expected to increase by 360 individuals
to an estimated population of 17,500, a 2 percent increase.
8-16
-------
CATEGORY FOUR (cant)
3.
Hampton County - Coosawhatchie River
Ecological Importance
The portion of the county which drains to the Coosawhatchie
River supports extensive acreage of riverine forested swamps,
non-riverine wet hardwood forested, non-riverine :forested
swamps, wet pine flatwoods and Carolina Bays. The wetlands of
this county are wholly contained within the Ashepoo-
Combahee-Edisto (ACE) basin. These wetlands provide important
habitat for fish and wildlife breeding, foraging and migration.
In addition, these wetlands provide enhancement of water quality
for the Coosawhatchie River, as well as floodflow attenuation
and desynchronization of downstream floodflow releases which
result in a measure of flood protection. Carolina Bays are
unique in geomorphic formation as well as vegetative
composition. They are thought to provide critical habitat for
numerous rare, threatened, endangered and special concern fish
and wildlife.
The Carolina Bays of Hampton County generally are hard bottom
bays which support federal-listed endangered species such as the
red-cockaded woodpecker and Canby's dropwort. Federal and state
species of concern associated with the Carolina Bays of Hampton
county include Chapman's sedge, Boykin's lobelia, Tracy's
beak-rush, Baldwin's nut-rush, and Stillingia aauatica. Most of
these species are dependent upon the Carolina Bay habitat and
functions for their survival.
Many commercially and recreationally important species are
supported by the wetlands and aquatic habitats associated with
the Coosawhatchie Rivers. Such species include, but are not
limited to, whitetail deer, turkey, furbearers such as muskrat
and beaver, ducks, bass and bream. Species popular with hunters
such as whitetail deer, turkey and furbearers utilize
bottomlands and other wetlands for refuge, travel and foraging.
The South Carolina Water Resources Commission ranks 5 of 10
resource categories evaluated for the Coosawhatchie River as
having outstanding to superior resources of regional, statewide
and greater than statewide significance, particularly for
undeveloped natural areas, timber management, water quality and
wildlife habitat.
Threats
Many of the remaining wetland habitats are being t:hreatened by
conversion to forestry activities, non-point source pollution,
and sedimentation. As Hampton County is primarily rural,
forestry-related activities have been putting intense pressure
on the remaining wetland resources of this area. In 1987,
approximately 112,000 acres of bottomland timber existed in
8-17
-------
CATEGO....FQr FOUR ( cant. )
Hampton County. Expansion of silviculture operations threatens
to red\:lee ~he biodiversity of the mixed hardwood bottomlands
through drainage and conversion to pine plantations.
Historleally, lack of use of best management practices has
resulted in significant loadings of nutrients and sediment to
the wab~r column, which decreases the productivity and the
habitat; suitability of the receiving aquatic habitat.
8-18
-------
SOUTH CAROLINA
Figure 8-1
TARGET AREAS OF SOU'l'll CAROLINA .
KEY:
CATEGORY ONE
1-
2.
3.
4.
Myrtle Beach Growth Area
Charleston Growth Area -
Charleston Growth Area -
Charleston Growth Area -
CATEGORY TWO
5.
Monclce Corner
Nt. Pleasant
Hiqhway 61
Bluff ton-Hilton Head Growth Area
CATEGORY THREE
6.
7.
Northeast Columbia-Pontiac Growth Area
Charleston Growth Area - James Island/
Johns Island/Wadmalaw Island
Lexinqton-Irmo-West Columbia Growth Area
8.
CATEGORY FOUR .
9. Clarendon County
10. Marion County
11. Hampton County
8-19
-------
j
I
f
,
,
l_~r.-._~
...~,
'f.., ,
."-~,.___.n____n
. ~ '
yd..
4' ....~.
..
Figure 8-2
Myrtle Beach Growth Area
Category One
8-20
-------
Figure 8-3
Charleston Growth Area. Moncks Corner
Category One
8-21
-------
" ~
. -..~~
\
~ JIIIC, E,NA
;,"
Figure 8-4
Charleston Growth Area - Mt. Pleasant
Category One
8-22
-------
r "'CL.~fI/II~
Figure 8-5
Charleston Growth Area - Highway 61
Category One.
8- 2 3
llaMa. _n-
\
-------
Figure 8-6
Bluffton-Hilton Head Growth Area
Category Two
8-24
-------
Figure 8-7
Northeast Columbia-Pontiac Growth Area
Category Three
8-25
-------
Figure 8-8
Charlles~on Growth Area - James Island/Johns
Island/Wadmalaw Island
Category Three
8-26
-------
Figure 8-9
Lexington-Irmo-West Columbia Growth Area
Category Three
8-27
-------
9.0
9.1
Tennessee
Wetlands of Tennessee
The State of Tennessee has complex geomorphologic:al features
that influence the extent and frequency of wetland types.
Tennessee lies within eight different physiographic provinces,
including Blue Ridge, Ridge and Valley, Cumberland Plateau,
Highland Rim, Central Basin, Western Valley, Coantal Plain, and
Mississippi Alluvial Valley (Chester 1989). The vast majority
of the wetlands in Tennessee (approximately 72 percent) occur in
the floodplains of the Mississippi River and its tributaries
(USFWS 1990). However, the fifty-nine different wetland types
identified in Tennessee are found throughout the State.
At the time of colonial settlement of the United States (around
1780), it was estimated that the State contained over 1.9
million acres of wetlands (Dahl 1990). This represented
approximately 7.3 percent of the State's 26.5 million surface
acres. Today, wetlands encompass approximately 187,000 acres,
or 2.7 percent of the State's land surface area. Significant
wetland resource types which exist in the State c)f Tennessee
include River Swamps and Floodplains, Cypress-Gum Swamps, Bogs,
Freshwater Marshes, and Scrub-Shrub Wetlands.
River Swamps and Floodplains The extent and vegetative nature
of this type of wetland system is dependent upon its landscape
position and the degree of saturation/flooding during the
growing season. They occur statewide in almost all provinces,
and can be found adjacent to major rivers and streams, or as
isolated systems. The majority of this wetland 1:ype is conunonly
known as bottomland hardwoods. At least 37 dominant tree
species or tree associations have been identified for this
conununity, including maple, ash, gum, sweetgum, flycamore, oaks,
sugarberry, slippery elm, river birch, and water tupelo.
These river swamps and associated floodplains arE~ extremely
valuable as cover and food habitat to waterfowl cmd migratory
birds. They serve water quality enhancement functions, and
provide high quality fish, furbearing, and hardwood resources.
They also provide recreational opportunities like hunting,
fishing, hiking, canoeing, and nature study.
Cypress-Gum Swamps This association occurs in the coastal and
alluvial plains of West Tennessee. Cypress-Gum swamps are
vegetatively similar and perform the same functions as those
found in other southeastern states. Representatives of this
wetland type are also found in other parts of thE~ state in the
flats and depressions of the Highland Rim, Central Basin,
Cumberland Plateau, and Ridge and Valley ProvincE~s. However,
they are an unusual landform and are frequently small and
degraded (TSPD 1990).
9-1
-------
Bogs Bogs are typically exclusive to only the more
mountainouB areas of the State. These herbaceous wetlands
occupy ~reas of poor drainage and may be underlain by extensive
peat deposits. A form of bogs, called a karst fen, is also
found in the State where limestone formations facilitate their
development.
preshuater Marshes This community is found in the Ridge and
Valley, Cumberland Plateau, Highland Rim, and Coastal Plain
provinc~s of the State. Freshwater marshes are characterized by
the p~e~ence of canary grass, or a mixture of smartweed, sedges,
and rushes. Cattail, maidencane, and aquatic bed vegetation
also occur. These systems provide important wildlife habitat
and landscape diversity in the State. Wading birds are
elSpecially dependent upon these systems for food, coverg and
reproduction.
Scrub~shrub Wetlands This community can occur throughout the
State and usually occupy very small areas. Scrub-shrub wetlands
consifit~ of smooth alder - buttonbush associations, or as pure
stand~ of buttonbush. Associated with backwater areas of river
systems, and depressional areas with poor drainage, these
systems also offer landscape diversity and may act as important
refugia for wetland-dependent species in an upland-dominated
landscape.
9.2
Status of the Wetland Resource
Statewide, loss estimates of wetlands in Tennessee approach 1.2
million acres (Dahl 1990), or over 59 percent of the original
wetland acreage in the State. Approximately 65 percent (371,000
acres) of western Tennessee's wetlands had been cleared for
conve~si.on to agriculture by 1990 (USFWS 1990). Over-harvest of
timber has also become a serious issue and may compromise
wetland functions for the remaining inventory. Wetlands of all
types in the vicinity of metropolitan areas are under threat of
drainage, filling, stream channelization, and erosion.
9.3
~ARGJE'Jl" GEOGRAPHIC AREAS IN TEHHESSEE
See Figure 9-1 for the generalized location of all iden~ified
target areas in Tennessee. All figures for Tennessee can be
found at the end of the Tennessee section.
SlIJKMARY:"OJF TARGET AREAS
Cateaory One
Memphis Growth Area
Murfree~boro Growth Area
9-2
-------
Category Two
Clarkesville Growth Area
CateGory Three
Maryville-Alcoa Growth Area
CateGory Four
Lauderdale/Haywood/Hardeman Counties - Hatchie River Watershed
Weakley County - Obion River Watershed
CATEGORY ONE
Category One includes urban growth areas located within or
nearby significant expanses of wetlands which likely support
threatened or endangered species. The geographic areas are not
listed in any specific order of priority.
1.
Memphis Growth Area - Shelby County (Figure 9-2)
la.
Wolf River watershed
lb.
Nonconnah Creek watershed
lc.
Loosahatchie River watershed
ld.
Big Creek watershed
EcoloGical Imoortance
The rivers and creeks of this area drain to the Mississippi
River and support numerous aquatic habitats within their
contributing watersheds. Such habitats include floodplain
lakes, sloughs, backwaters, and extensive isolated and
contiguous bottomland forested and shrub swamps. These areas
are dominated by hardwoods because they are too wet to support
stands of naturally occuring pines. The numerous natural
drainages of the area provide access for fish and other aquatic
and water-dependent wildlife to and from the swamps and
floodplains. These wetlands provide travel corridors and
migratory routes for wetland dependent species that have large
range requirements. In addition, these wetlands provide
valuable fish and wildlife foraging, breeding and migratory
habitat, water quality enhancement for creeks, rivers and their
tributaries, floodflow attenuation, and desYnchronization of
downstream floodflow releases. The Tennessee Chapter of the
Sierra Club has stated that the Wolf River also serves as a
vital groundwater recharge area.
9-3
-------
CATEGOFt!r ONE ( cant. )
Several State-listed threatened, endangered and species of
concern are likely to occur throughout Shelby County and the
referenced creeks, rivers and their associated wetlands. These
specieEj include the river otter, black-crowned night heron,
sharp-fll1irmed and Cooper's hawks, Bewick's wren and golden seal,
a stato,~listed threatened plant. Several federally-listed
threatm1ed and endangered species also have been reported near
Memphin and the Wolf River. Such species have included the bald
eagle, L~ssissippi kite, peregrine falcon, grasshopper and
Bachman's sparrows.
Recrea1:ional and commercial species supported by the wetlands
a,SSociil~ed with the referenced creeks and rivers include, but
mre noi: lLmited to, whitetail deer, turkey, ducks, furbearers,
catfish, crappie, bass, turtles, frogs and migratory song
birds. Additionally, the wetlands of the lower Mississippi
Valley are extremely important as stopover and foraging areas
for lal::'ge numbers of waterfowl. Species popular with hunters
such al~ whitetail deer, turkey and furbearers utilize
bottomlands for refuge, travel and foraging.
Threatl!
This aj"aa is under intense development pressure from
residential, commercial, silviculture and infrastructure
interel3ts. The Memphis Growth Area currently supports an
estima~gd population of 783,472 people. By the year 2000, the
popula~ion is expected to increase by more than 192,000
individuals to a population estimate of nearly 976,000, a 25
percen~ increase. Residential and commercial developments
threat(:m wetlands through physical removal of the wetlamd from
the landscape and alteration of their hydrology.
A significant number of forestry activities also exist within
the County. In 1989, Shelby County supported approximately
52,500 acres of bottomland timber. Expansion of silviculture
operations threatens to reduce the biodiversity of the mixed
hardwo(od bottomlands. Flood control projects have and continue
to re~Jce the productivity of the bottomlands by reducing and
alteri:og the wet/dry cycle necessary for the importation and
exportl!tion of nutrients. Historically, environmentally
insens.itive farming and silvicultural practices have contributed
significant loadings of sediment to the water column which
decreal3es the productivity of the receiving aquatic habitat.
This a:r:ea has been suggested for the implementation of an
advance identification by the Environmental Protection Agency,
Wildlife Management Institute, Tennessee Wildlife Resource
Agency, Tennessee Department of Conservation and the u.s. Fish
and
9-4
-------
CATEGORY ONE (cont.)
Wildlife Service through their National Wetlands Priority
Conservation Plan.
2. Xurfreesboro Growth Area - Robertson/Sumner/Wilson/
Davidson/Williamson/Rutherford Counties
(Figure 9-5)
Ecoloaical ImDortance
This area of the State lies primarily in the Nashville basin
with portions extending into the highland rim region of
Tennessee. Significantly more topographical relief exists in
the highland rim region than the Gulf coastal plain. Due to
this, wetland systems are generally associated with rivers,
streams and their tributaries rather than isolated and/or
depressional wetlands or the broader swamps and floodplains of
the coastal plain. The riparian wetlands of this area generally
exhibit narrow floodplains. However, where the topography
flattens out, substantial floodplains and saturated wetlands can
be found. These ponding areas reduce the risk of flooding in
downstream urban areas by functioning as stormwater attenuation
areas and through the desynchronization of downstream releases.
Numerous sloughs and small floodplain swamp drainages provide
access for fish and wildlife to and from the swamps for
breeding, migration and cover from predators and other
disturbances.
Several state and federally-listed threatened and endangered
species and species of special concern are found in scattered
locations throughout the six counties. Such species include the
spring creek bladderpod, Nashville breadroot, Tennessee
milkvetch, Leavenworthia stvlosa, a glade cress, and Arenaria
fontinalis, a type of sandwort.
Many of the highland rim and Nashville basin streams support
diverse assemblages of aquatic species including bass, sunfish,
madtoms, catfish, chub, dace, shiner, sucker and darters.
Terrestrial species that would utilize the wetlands near
Clarksville include, but are not limited to, whitetail deer,
ducks, turkey and furbearers such as muskrat, mink, and beaver.
Threats
This area is currently undergoing significant urban expansion.
Residential and commercial development and associ.ated
infrastructure threaten wetlands through physical removal of the
wetlands from the landscape and the alteration of their
hydrology. The Murfreesboro Growth Area currently supports an
estimated population of nearly 824,600 people. This estimate is
9-5
-------
CATEGORY ONE (cant.)
expected to increase by approximately 164,500 individuals by
the year 2000 to a population estimate of almost 989,500, a 20
percent increase.
In addition, agriculture is prevalent throughout the area.
However, only one county is reported to have expanded their
agricultural acreage. In 1987, Robertson County increased its
agricultural acreage by more than 6,500 acres. Expansion of
agricultural operations threatens the biodiversity of wetlands
through drainage and conversion to single species crops.
Historically, lack of use of best management practices has
resulted in significant loadings of sediment to the water
column, which decreases the productivity of the receiving
aquatic habitat.
This area has been suggested for the implementation of an
advance identification by the Tennessee Wildlife Resources
Agency and the Tennessee Department of Conservation.
CATEGORY TWO
Category Two includes urban areas located within or nearby
significant expanses of wetlands that support important
commercial or recreational uses. The geographic areas are not
listed in any specific order of priority.
1.
Clarksville Hinor Civil Division - Montgomery County
(Figure 9-3)
la.
Red River watershed
Ecoloqical Importance
This area of the state lies in the highland rim region of
Tennessee. Significantly more topographical relief exists in
the highland rim region than the Gulf coastal plain. Due to
this, wetland systems are .generally associated with rivers,
streams and their tributaries rather than isolated and/or
depressional wetlands or the broader swamps and floodplains of
the coastal plain. The riparian wetlands of this area generally
exhibit narrow floodplains. However, where the topography
flattens out, substantial floodplains and saturated wetlands can
be found. These ponding areas reduce the risk of flooding in
downstream urban areas by functioning as stormwater attenuation
areas and through the desYnchronization of downstream releases.
Numerous sloughs and small floodplain swamp drainages provide
access for fish and wildlife to and from the swamps for
breeding, migration and escape cover from predators and other
disturbances.
9-6
-------
CATEGORY TWO (cant.)
Many of the highland rim streams support diverse assemblages of
aquatic species including bass, sunfish, madtoms, catfish, chub,
dace, shiner, sucker and darters. Terrestrial species that
would utilize the wetlands near Clarksville include, but are not
limited to, whitetail deer, ducks, turkey and furbearers such as
muskrat, mink, and beaver. .
Threats
This area is currently undergoing significant urban expansion.
Residential and commercial development and associated
infrastructure threaten wetlands through physical removal of the
wetlands from the landscape and the alteration of their
hydrology. The Clarksville minor civil division currently
supports an estimated population of nearly 67,400 people. This
estimate is expected to increase by approximately 16,150
individuals by the year.2000 to a population estimate of almost
83,500, a 24 percent increase.
In addition, agriculture is prevalent throughout the county.
1987, Montgomery County increased its agricultural acreage by
more than 6,500 acres. Expansion of agricultural operations
threatens the bio-diversity of wetlands through drainage and
conversion to single species crops.
In
CATEGORY THREE
Category Three includes urban growth areas located within or
nearby significant expanses of wetlands. The geographic areas
are not listed in any specific order of priority.
1.
Karyville-Alcoa Kinor Civil Division - Blount County
(Figure 9-4)
1a. Little River watershed
Ecoloaical Importance
This area of the State lies in the Appalachian ridge region of
Tennessee. Significantly more topographical relief exists in
the Appalachian ridge than in the highland rim region or the
Gulf coastal plain. Due to this, wetland systems are generally
associated with rivers, streams and their tributaries rather
than isolated and/or depressional wetlands or the broader swamps
and floodplains of the coastal plain. The riparian wetlands of
this area generally exhibit narrow floodplains. However, where
the topography flattens out, substantial floodplains and
saturated wetlands can be found. These ponding areas reduce the
risk of
9-7
-------
CATEGO:RY THREE (cont.)
floodli:rlg in downstream urban areas by functioning as stormwater
attenulition areas and through the desYnchronization of
downst:ceam releases. Numerous sloughs and small floodplain
swamp (jrainages provide access for fish and wildlife to and from
the s~~ps for breeding, migration and escape cover from
predators and other disturbances.
Many of the Appalachian ridge streams support diverse
assemblages of cool water aquatic species including trout,
smallmlouth bass, chub, dace, shiner, sucker and darters.
Terres'trial species that would utilize the wetlands near
Maryville and Alcoa include, but are not limited to, whitetail
deer, d.ucks, turkey and furbearers such as muskrat, mink, and
beaver.
~~hrea t;~
This a:cea is currently undergoing significant urban expansion.
Reside:!1tial and commercial development and associated
infras'tructure threaten wetlands through physical removal of the
wetlands from the landscape and the alteration of their
hydrology. The MarYVille-Alcoa minor civil division currently
suppor'ts an estimated population of nearly 61,000 people. This
estima't:e is expected to increase by approximately 8,500
individuals by the year 2000 to a population estimate of almost
69,500, a 14 p~rcent increase.
CATEOO:RY FOUR
Catego:cy Four includes areas experiencing significant
silvic~alture or agriculture expansion within or nearby wetlands
that a:re likely to support threatened or endangered species, or
importlant commercial or recreational uses. The geographic areas
are no't listed in any specific order of priority. (See Figure
9-1 fo:r the location of counties identified as Category four
areas. )
JL.
La'aderdale/Baywood/Bardeman Counties - Hatchie River
Watershed
Ecological ImDortance
The Ha'tchie River, which drains to the Mississippi River, lies
within the Gulf coastal plain and the Mississippi River alluvial
plain. Within this watershed are a number of aquatic habitats
such al3 extensive shrub and forested bottomland hardwood swamps,
floodplain lakes, sloughs and backwaters. The Hatchie River has
been d(:!signated a Class 1 scenic river by the State of Tennessee
since it is the only remaining river in western Tennessee that
has no't been channelized. The numerous natural drainages of the
area
9-8
-------
CATEGORY FOUR (cant.)
provide access for fish and other aquatic and water-dependent
wildlife to and from the swamps and floodplains. These wetlands
provide travel corridors and migratory routes for wetland-
dependent species that have large range requirements. In
addition, these wetlands provide valuable fish and wildlife
foraging, breeding and migratory habitat, water quality
enhancement for creeks, rivers and their tributaries, floodflow
attenuation, and desynchronization of downstream floodflow
releases.
The Hatchie River, due to its relatively pristine condition,
supports several fish species that were once common but are now
listed as threatened by the State. The state-listed threatened
blue sucker makes annual upstream spawning runs in the late
winter and early spring. The Hatchie River is probably the only
refuge left in Tennessee for the scaly and naked sand darters,
both species of state concern, and supports one of the
healthiest remaining populations of the northern madtom,
determined to be a species of special concern by the State
Natural Heritage Program. In addition to the species of fish of
state concern, the Hatchie River supports rich and diverse
populations of mussels. A 1980 study reported a total of 29
species from the river, some of which had never been reported in
the Hatchie River.
In addition to the exceptional habitat for species of concern,
the Hatchie River and its backwaters support good sportfishing
for catfish, bass, bream, crappie, and commercial fishing for
catfish, buffalos, carp, and suckers. Recreationally and
commercially important wildlife species supported by the river
and its associated wetlands include, but are not limited to,
whitetail deer, turkey, ducks, and furbearers such as muskrat,
nutria, beaver and mink. Additionally, the wetlands of the
lower Mississippi Valley are extremely important as stopover and
foraging areas for large numbers of waterfowl and migratory
songbirds.
Threats
As Lauderdale, Haywood and Hardeman Counties are primarily rural
counties, the major impacts to the remaining wetland resources
stem from forestry activities. Between 1979 and 1989, the
forestry industry harvested approximately 36 percent of the
147,000 acres of bottomland hardwoods in Lauderdale, Haywood,
and Hardeman Counties. As the remaining stands of bottomland
hardwoods mature over the next 10 years, the number of harvested
acres is expected to increase substantially.
Many of the remaining wetland habitats are being threatened by
agricultural conversion, non-point source pollution,
9-9
-------
CATEGORY FOUR (cont.)
sed~e~tation, and channelization. In particular, Haywood
County increased its agricultural acreage by nearly 2000 acres
in 1987. Environmentally insensitive farming and silvicultural
practices can contribute significant loadings of sediment to the
water columnf decreasing the productivity of the receiving
aquati~ habitat. Channelization and other flood control
projects would eliminate backwater flooding and the transfer of
~utrie~ts between the water column and the wetlands.
This area should be considered for the implementation of an
advance identification since it was listed by the u.s. Fish and
Wild~ife Service in their National Wetlands priority
Consorva~ion Plan.
2.
Weakley County - Obion River Watershed
Ecolo~~cal Importance
The Ohion River, which drains to the Mississippi Rivero
traver~es the Gulf coastal plain. Weakley County contains
portions of the middle and upper reaches of the north, south and
middle forks of the Obion River. Most of the Obion River has
been channelized. However, significant wetland acreage
associ~ted with the river's historical floodplain remain
relatiwely intact. The types of wetland systems existing within
the watershed and associated with the river include bo~tomland
hardwood swamps, shrub swamps, and a few emergent marshes.
The wetlands associated with the oxbows and bendways located
along the mainstem of the River act as important nursery areas
for nany species of fish. Annual high-water conditions provide
acceGS for fish and other aquatic and water-dependent wildlife
to and, from the swamps and floodplain which serve as valuable
fish and wildlife foraging, breeding and migratory habitat. In
addition, these wetlands provide water quality enhancement for
the Eiver through the reduction and retention of suspended
particlilates and the uptake of nutrients by the vegetation of
the 3~/~~PS and marshes. These wetlands also serve natural flood
protection functions through the attenuation and
desynchronization of downstream releases of stormwater runoff.
Approximately 50 species of fishes have been reported from the
Obion River. Although recreational fishing for bass, bream and
catfish occur on the Obion River its success is limited by high
turbidity which reduces the gamefish's ability to find prey.
Limi~8d commercial fishing for carp, catfish, buffalo, and
gizzaJ:'d shad also exists on the Obion River.
The federally-listed threatened slackwater darter, southern rein
orchid,o purple fringeless orchid, and the federally-listed
9-10
-------
CATEGORY FOUR ( cant. )
endangered bald eagle and red-cockaded woodpecker have been
known to occur in the Obion River. Many species of state
concern are also known to occur in the area. Such species
include, but are not limited to, the copperbelly water snake,
green water snake, Mississippi kite, black-and yellow-crowned
night heron, sharp-shinned hawk and osprey. In addition, much of
the Obion River bottomlands are utilized by migratory waterfowl,
such as ducks, and migratory songbirds, such as warblers.
Threats
Many of the remaining wetland habitats are being threatened by
conversion to forestry activities, non-point source pollution,
sedimentation and channelization. As Weakley County is
primarily rural with no major growth areas, forestry activities
are exhibiting intense pressure on the remaining wetland
resources. Between 1979 and 1989, the forestry industry
harvested approximately 33 percent of the nearly 44,300 acres of
bottomland hardwoods in Weakley county. The number of harvested
acres is expected to increase substantially as the remaining
stands of bottomland hardwoods mature over the next 10 years.
Expansion of silviculture operations threatens to reduce the
biodiversity of the mixed hardwood bottomlands through drainage
and conversion to pine plantations. Historically, lack of use
of best management practices has resulted in significant
loadings of nutrients and sediment to the water column, which
decreases the productivity of the receiving aquatic habitat.
Flood control projects have and continue to reduce the
productivity of the bottomlands by reducing and altering the
wet/dry cycle necessary for the importation and exportation of
nutrients. A lack of maintenance on the Obion River
channelization has resulted in extensive erosion and
sedimentation that has caused portions of the river to return to
its original meandering course and reflood adjacent wetlands by
overbank flooding. Maintenance and re-channelization of the
Obion River has been proposed which would result in the
re-isolation and elimination of backwater flooding and the
transfer of nutrients between the wetlands and the water
column. Elimination of the restored overbank and backwater
flooding results in the drainage and conversion of the wetlands
to other uses.
This area has been suggested for the implementation of an
advance identification by the Wildlife Management Institute,
Tennessee Wildlife Resource Agency, Tennessee Department of
Conservation and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service through
their National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan.
9-11
-------
TENNESSEE
Pigure 9-1
TARGET AREAS OP 'l'EHHESSBB
KEY:
CATEGORY ONE
1.
2.
Memphis Growth Area
Murfreesboro Growth Area
CATEGORY TWO
3.
Clarkesville Growth Area
CATEGORY THREE
4.
Maryville-Alcoa Growth Area
CATEGORY POUR
S.
6.
Lauderdale/Haywood/Madison Counties
Weakley County
9-12
-------
..~.
....~..
..Q::
~
i 1'."
I
I
I
I
Figure 9-2
Memphis Growth Area
Category One
9-13
-------
Figure 9-3
Murfreesboro Growth Area
Category One
9-14
-------
Figure 9-4
Clarksville Growth Area
Category Two
9-15
-------
Figure 9-5
Maryville-Alcoa Growth Area
Category Three
9-16
-------
10.0
Snmm;!lry
This report identifies 44 Category One urban growth areas
within Region IV where wetlands which support threatened and
endangered species are at risk from impacts posed by future
urban development. The report identifies 10 Category Two
urban growth areas where wetlands which support important
commercial or recreational uses are threatened by urban
development. The report identifies 4 Category Three urban
areas where wetlands are threatened by future urban
development. The report also identifies 61 counties
(Category 4) throughout Alabama, Florida, Georgia,
Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee,
and five watersheds in Kentucky where agriculture and/or
silviculture activities are potentially impacting wetland
systems that support threatened or endangered species or
important recreational or commercial uses. (See figure
10-1.) EPA, the Corps, the regulated community, and the
public could significantly benefit from an advance
identification of any of the Category 1, 2 and 3 areas. In
some cases, an advance identification might be an appropriate
tool for Category 4 areas where future conversion of
naturally vegetated wetlands is anticipated.
Florida, the largest Region IV state and the state with the
most wetlands (11 million acres), ranks out as the state with
the most overall need for wetland planning activities.
Eighteen Category One urban growth areas were identified.
This is more than twice the number of any of the other Region
IV states. Endangered species are likely to exist in all
growth areas identified in Florida, and for this reason, all
growth areas ranked as a Category One priority. C~orgia
ranked as the state with the second highest number of target
areas, 9 Category One and Two areas. Alabama and South
Carolina followed with 8 growth areas each (Categories 1, 2
and 3). North Carolina, Mississippi and Tennessee follow
with 6, 5, and 4 growth areas (Categories 1, 2 and 3),
respectively. Kentucky is the only state in the Region where
no urban areas are expected to significantly impact wetlands
in the near future. Industrial activities such as mining and
agriculture are known to be impacting wetlands in Kentucky
and, therefore, the Category 4 areas in this state would be
appropriate for ADID.
Nine of the thirteen ADID studies underway were identified in
this report as Category One high priority areas:
Alabama - City of Huntsville
Florida - NE Shark River Slough, Dade County
Florida - West Broward County
Florida - St. John's Forest, Jacksonville
Florida - Rookery Bay, Naples/Ft. Myers
10-1
-------
Flo~ida ~ Florida Keys, Monroe County
Flc)rida - SW Biscayne Bay, Dade County
GacIX'gia - Chatham Co. /Savannah
Mieloisaippi - Jackson/Pearl River
Only t}k~ee of the ADID studies presently underway were not
identii:ied as target areas in this report. They are: (1) the
CentraI Dougherty Plain ADID near Albany, Georgia; 2) the
Caroliui! Bays ADID of the South Carolina Coastal Plain; and
(3) thE! Carteret County, North Carolina ADID. The first two
project~ areas were not specifically identified as target
~reas by this report because they are large, primarily rural,
~reas JC'l9presenting ecological systems that cross numerous .
politi(:al jurisdictional boundaries. The threats to these
systeml; are many and varied, typically mostly related to
agriculture and silviculture impacts, and in some cases
hydrol()gic modifications in upstream or ground-water
systeml3. Some counties and growth areas included wi thin
these Btudy areas are listed as target areas in this report.
The Ca~teret County ADID study was initiated due to the
StatEJ'I:; interest not only in assessing the value of the
County's wetlands, but also because the County contains a
wide variety of wetland types and an extensive database of
information exists on the County from the Albemarle-pamlico
NatiQn~l Estuary Program study. The State hopes that these
factors will form the basis for a valuable ADID study that
can be used as a prototype for similar efforts in other
count.i-es.
Of the 54 urban growth areas targeted in this report, the
Region is implementing one or more ADIDs in seven of the 44
Catego~y One areas. Three ADIDs are underway in one target
areau the high priority Category One area of
Dade~Broward-West Palm Beach of southeast Florida. The
Region alBo has underway an ADID in one of the Kentucky
watersheds, the Pond River Watershed identified as a Category
Four area in this report. In addition to ADIDs, the Region
is addressing another Category One area, the Jackson County,
Missisuippi Growth Area, through a state program grant to the
State of Mississippi for development of a comprehensive
wetlan~s ganagement plan for the County. .
The list of priority areas as identified in this report
represents a major source of information the Region will
consi~er in deciding to take on any future ADID studies.
The
10-2
-------
decision to implement an ADID will depend on many factors
including the identification of a local sponsor, and the
local sponsor's willingness to contribute match.ing funds or
other contributions to the project. The Region is more
likely to take on ADIDs where the results are likely to be
incorporated into land use plans or wetlands protection
ordinances, and where significant public involvement in the
ADID is proposed. The Region is limited in its ability to
implement ADIDs by existing financial and staff
resources.
10-3
-------
Summary of State Target Areas
Fig. 10-1
Category Category Category Category
One Two Three Four
AL 6 2 0 3
FL 18 0 0 18"
GA 6 3 0 20
KY 0 0 0 5*
...... MS 4 0 1 8
o NC 4 2 0 5
I
"'"
SC 4 2 2 3
TN 2 1 1 4
Total 44 10 4 66
* The 5 target areas in Kentucky are watersheds. " All
other Category Four areas are counties.
.
-------
11.0
REFERENCES
Baker, E.
Wetlands.
1991. Mississippi's Best Management Practices for
Mississippi Forestry Commission.
Beccasio, A.D., A.E. Redfield, R.L. Frew, W.M. Levitan, and
J.E. Smith. 1983. Lower Mississippi Valley Ecological
Inventory - User's Guide and Information Base. United States
Fish and Wildlife Service Report FWS/OBS 83/19, USFWS,
Washington, D.C.
Bennett, S.H., and J.B. Nelson. 1991. Distribution and
Status of Carolina Bays in South Carolina. South Carolina
Wildlife and Marine Resources Department, Nongame and
Heritage Trust Section.
Chester, E.W. (editor). 1989. The Vegetation and Flora of
Tennessee. Proceedings of a symposium sponsored by the
Austin peay State University Center of Excellence for Field
Biology of Land Between the Lakes. The Tenn. Acad. of
Science, and TVA-LBL, held at Brandon Springs, Tennessee, 3
March 1989. J. Tenn. Acad. Sci. 64, No.3.
Copeland, B.J. and S.R. Riggs.
pamilico River, North Carolina:
FWS/OBS-82/06. 83pp.
1984. The Ecology of the
An Estuarine Profile. USFWS
Dahl, T.E. 1990. Wetland Losses in the United States 1780's
to 1980's. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., 21pp.
Frayer, W.E. and J.M. Hefner. 1990. DRAFT: Florida's
Wetlands: Status and Trends 1970's to 1980's. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Washington, D.C., 46pp.
GDNR. 1991. Georgia Department of Natural Resources' State
Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP). Chapter 6 -
Wetlands in Georgia. GDNR, Atlanta, GA.
Georgia Forestry Commission. 1991. Results of the Best
Management Practices for Forestry in Georgia (Compliance
Survey) . 2 8pp .
HaYnsworth, J. (designer). 1991. Carolina Bays (poster).
Prepared jointly by the USEPA and S.C. Wildlife and Marine
Resources Department, Heritage Trust Program.
11-1
-------
REFERE~lCES (cont.)
Hook, D.D. 1989. South Carolina's Freshwater Wetlands:
Status and Issues. Pages 1-8. In: Appalachian Society of
AmericCl:il Foresters (South Carolina Division) 1989.
Proceeding: Wetland Issues and Forestry in South Carolina.
Sept~)~r 7, 1989. Columbia, SC.
Ladermu)J'l, A.D. 1989. The Ecology of Atlantic White Cedar
Wetlan(!:s: A Community Profile. USFWS Biological Report
EJ 5 ( 7 . 21) . 114 pp .
Mettee, M.F., P.E. O'Neil, R.D. Suttkus, and J.M. Pierson.
1987. Fishes of the Lower Tombigbee River System in Alabama
and MitJsissippi. Geological Survey of Alabama Bulletin 107,
'l'uscalc):!)sa, Alabama.
Mount, R. H. 1975. The Reptiles and Amphibians of Alabama.
Auburn University Agricultural Expertment Station. Auburn
PrintiJrlg Co., Auburn, AL.
NCDEHN:R(a). 1990. Original Extent, Status, and Trends of
Wetlands in North Carolina: A DRAFT Report to the N.C.
Legisl,ature Study Commission On Wetlands Protection. North
Caroli:rla Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resour1ces, Raleigh, N. C .
NCDEHN:R(b). 1990. Outdoors North Carolina: 1990-1995. The
North ICarolina State Comprehensive Outdoors Recreation Plan -
Chapter VII (Wetlands). North Carolina Department of
Enviro.nment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh, N.C.
Richardson, C.J.
Publishing. PA.
1981.
364pp.
Pocosin Wetlands.
Hutchinson Ross
Richardson, C.J. and J.W. Gibbons. (in press). Pocosins,
Carolina Bays, and Mountain Bogs. In: Vegetation of the
Southe~stern United States. Wiley Press, NY.
Sharitz, R.T.; and J.W. Gibbons. 1982. The Ecology of
Southeastern Shrub Bogs (Pocosins) and Carolina Bays: A
Communi.ty Profile. u.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report
FWS/OBS 82/04, Washington D.C. 93pp.
Schafale8 M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of
the Natural Communities of North Carolina: Third
Approximation. N.C. Natural Heritage Program, Division of
Parks and Recreation. Raleigh, NC.
SCSPTD. undated. South Carolina State Parks and Tourism
Department. Unpublished data quoted in Hook (1989).
11-2
-------
REFERENCES (cont.)
Seaman, W.J. (editor). 1985. Florida Aquatic Habitat and
Fishery Resources. Florida Chapter of the American Fisheries
Society. Kissimmee, FL., 542pp.
Stout, J. P. 1985. The Ecology of Irregularly Flooded Salt
Marshes of the Northeastern Gulf of Mexico: A COJmnunity
Profile. USFWS Biological Report 85(7.1). 98pp.
Tiner, R.W. Jr. 1977. An Inventory of South Carolina's
Coastal Marshes. South Carolina Marine Resources Center
Technical Report Number 23. Charleston, SC. 33pp.
TSPD. 1990. State Comprehensive OUtdoor Recreation Plan -
Tennessee Wetlands Plan. Prepared by the Tennessee State
Planning Department, Nashville, TN.
USFWS. 1990. DRAFT: Regional Wetlands Concept Plan,
Emergency Wetlands Resources Act - Southeast Region. August
1990. USFWS, Atlanta, GA.
Wagner, W., D. Carr, and K. Kellett. 1990. A Citizens'
Guide to Protecting Wetlands in Alabama. Southern
Environmental Law Center Publication. SECL, Chapel Hill, NC.
Wharton, C.H. 1978. The Natural Environments of Georgia.
Georgia State University. Atlanta, GA. 227 pp.
Wharton, C.H., W.M. Kitchens, E.C. Pendleton, and T.W. Sipe.
1982. The Ecology of Bottomland Hardwood Swamps of the
Southeast: A Community Profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service Report FWS/OBS-81/37. Washington, D.C. 133 pp.
11-3
-------
APPENDIX A
POPULATION AND GROWTH RATE FOR AREAS
OF URBAN EXPANSION IN EPA REGION IV
PART 1 -- MAJOR GROWTH AREAS (50,000 OR MORE PEOPLE BY 2000)
PART 2 -- MINOR GROWTH AREAS (15,000 - 49,999 PEOPLE BY 2000)
-------
PART 1 -- MAJOR GROWTH AREAS (50,000 or more people by 2000)
-------
TABLE 2-1
Population and (jrowth Rate
For Areas of Urban Expansion
In EPA Region IV
STATE CO.I AREA GEOGRAPHIC AREA NAME POP70 POPBO POP90 POP95 POP2000 70.80 8090 9095 90-00
I A BAY ~LEY GROWTH AREA 42786 58518 75564 83499 91372 39'i. )Ow, 10" 21"
I 3 BAY MINETTE DIVISION 13347 17040 20627 22270 23913 28W, 21 W, 8W, 16W,
I 3 DAPHNE DIVISION 8461 13563 18896 21406 23916 6OW, 39W, 13W, 27W,
I 3 F AlRHOPE DIVISION 10562 13782 16609 17898 19187 )0'-' 21'-' 8'-' 16"
I 3 FOLEY DIVISION 10416 14133 19432 21925 24418 36'-' 37W, 13" 26"
I 69 B DOTHAN DMSION 46263 63302 72970 76574 80 118 37'-' 15" S" 10"
I C LANODALE-AUBURN OROWTH AREA 58014 70869 77633 79999 83272 20" 12" 4" 7"
I 17 LANGDALE DIVISION 13377 15358 11682 18514 19346 15" 15" 5" 9"
I 81 AUBURN-OPELIKA DIVISION 44637 555 II 59951 61485 63019 24" 8" 3" 5'1
I D ATHENS-HUNTSVILLE GROWTH AREA 188431 198094 227866 240486 251361 8" 13" 5" 10"
I 83 ATHENS DIVISION 35867 40056 43758 45742 47726 12". 9" 5" 9"
I 89 HUNTSVILLE DIVISION 152564 158038 184108 194744 205380 4" 16" 6" IZS ./
~.
I E MOBILE OROWTH AREA 279742 312971 337763 350357 392078 64" 22" 8" 16"
I 97 GRAND BAY DIVISION 9685 15723 19495 21245 22995 62" 24" 9" 18"
I 97 MOBILE DIVISION 264197 284274 300753 309451 318149 8" 6" 3" 6"
I 97 TANNER-WILLIAMS DIVISION 5860 12974 17515 19661 21807 121" 35" 12" 25W,
I F PRATTVlLLE-MONTOOMERY GROWTH AREA 170634 201495 223137 229855 242607 27" 13" 4" 9"
I I PRATTVILLE DIVISION 17434 24089 27704 29411 31118 38" 15W, 6" 12"
I 101 MONTGOMERY DIVISION 153200 177406 195433 200444 205455 16" 10" 3" 5"
I G DECATUR.HARTSELLE GROWTH AREA 56721 64025 74234 79457 84 790 18" 11" 7" 14"
I 103 DECATUR DIVISION 44890 48929 56488 60424 64360 9" IS" 7" 14"
I 103 HARTSELLE DIVISION 11831 15096 17746 19033 20320 28" 18" 7" IS"
1 117 H ALABASTER.HELENA DIVISION 12251 33674 56797 68540 80283 115" 69W, 21" 41"
2 I A GAINESVILLE DIVISION 83081 112522 138054 149675 161296 35«J. 23" 8W, 11'-'
2 5 B PANAMA CITY DIVISION 49207 67691 85731 94625 103519 38" 27W, 10" 21 W,
2 C MELBOURNE GROWTH AREA 117840 212778 331242 391141 449180 39'J 77% law, 36W,
2 9 COCOA-ROCK LEDGE DIVISION 42207 47550 66119 75546 114913 11W, 391{, 141{, 291{,
2 9 INDIALANTIC-MELBOURNE BEACH DIV. 35380 41253 49532 53889 582411 111{, 20/{. 91{, 181{,
2 9 MELBOURNE DIVISION 505111 61542 91111 106114 121115 l'l'f,. 481 16% :UI{,
-------
TABI.E 2-1
Population and Growth Rate
For Areas of Urban Expansion
In EPA Region IV
:;T A TE CO.I AREA GEOGRAPHiC AREA NAME PoP10 'OP80 POf'!K) POP!J5 POP2000 70-&0 80-90 9695 ~
'2 9 PALM BAY DMSION 7780 18801 4\3716 86163 108610 142" 239" 35S 70S
2 9 TITUSVILLE DIVISION 41886 43632 c\0762 69429 78096 4" 39S 14S 29S
2 D DADE.BROWARD.WEST PALM GROWTH AREA 1759427 2634 7fT1 33521111 311W91 4J I 0445 1116" 52S 14S 29S
2 II DAVIEDMSION 14491 S5411 8952S 106&46 124167 2112" 62S 19S 39"
2 II DEERFIELD BEACH DIVISION 40665 7S068 94221 UMI03 II 39113 IISS 26S 10S 21S
2 II HOLLYWOOD DIVISION 126001 150636 152849 ISH40 156631 70S IS IS 2S
2 II MARGATE DIVISION 14994\ 105472 1504797 17~ 205083 603" 47S 16S 32"
2 II MIRAMAR-PEMBROKE PINES DIVISION 44143 74438 10849) 125913 143333 69" 46S 16S 32S
2 II PLANTATION DIVISION 48667 150155 20331) 2J0692 258001 209" 35S IJS 27S
2 II POMPANO BEACH DIVISION 60124 83016 102832 II )058 123284 38" 24S 10" 20"
2 2S HIALEAH DIVISION 115236 166331 209500 23046 I 251422 44" 26" 10S 20"
2 25 HOMESTEAD DIVISION 28857 51865 fiOSSS 65092 69329 80" 17S 7S 14S .
2 25 KEN DALE LAKES-LiNOOREN ACRES DIV. 13718 77623 160)S5 201109 24186) 466" 100S 25S 51"
2 25 KENDALL-PERRINE DIVISION 89155 135869 149689 156194 162699 52S 10S 4S 9S
2 25 MIAMI DIVISION 719672 771794 11)9038 811376 823714 7S 4S 2" 3"
2 99 BOCA RATON DIVISION 31117 58129 94500 113227 131954 87" 6)" 20S 40"
120627 .
2 99 BOYNTON BEACH.DELRAY BEACH DIV. 57010 1111402 223206 2S8010 112S S6S liS 37" I
2 99 JUPITER DIVISION 9861 221 J4 60044 7'J 301 91570 124S 171" )2S 64"
2 99 LAKE WORTH DIVISION 69976 114880 ISI447 170556 189665 64S )2" I)S 25S
2 99 RIVIERA BEACH DIVISION 57620 78476 90507 97229 1039S1 36" 15115 7S 15"
2 99 ROY AL PALM BEACH-WEST JUPITER DIV. 215S 14136 ))152 42799 52446 556" I3SS 29S 58"
2 99 SUNSHINE PARKWAY DIVISION 2163 23266 70~ 9<1220 117900 976" 203 " 3U 67"
2 99 WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION 85609 107129 130395 142572 1504749 25" 2a 9. 19"
2 25 PRINCETON-GOULDS DIVISION 53451 82892 105924\ 117030 128134 55. 28. 10" 21.
2 25 SOUTH WESTSIDE DIVISION 6SOO3 80008 89457 93947 9&4 J7 23. 12. 5" 10S
2 25 NORTII WESTS IDE DIVISION 9737 3S352 52209 «>414 68739 263S 481, 16. 32"
2 E JACKSONVILLE GROWTH AREA 567037 644518 811592 898717 998676 so. 32S 12. 23.
2 31 JACKSONVILLE DIVISION 528837 571003 699573 766325 833077 8. 231, 101, 19.
2 109 ST. AUGUSTINE DIVISION 21091 33870 51484 61150 70816 61 I, 521, 191, 381,
2 19 ORANGE PARK DIVISION 17109 39645 60535 71102 82069 1J2':t 5J':t 181, J61,
-------
TABLE 2-1
Population and (jrowth Rare
For Areas of Urban Expansion
In EPA Region IV
STATE CO.I AREA GEOGRAPHIC AREA NAME POP70 POPBO POP90 POP95 POP2000 70-80 110-90 90-95 90-00
2 53 F WEEKI WACHS! blVISION 7692 23017 71174 96342 121510 199~ 209~ 35. 71.
2 G T AMPA-sT. PBTSRSBURG GROWTH AREA 997122 1417414 1179480 1946944 2263335 121~ 53'-' 14. 27"
2 57 BRANDON DIVISION 32051 69271 110319 I 30763 151207 i in 59~ 19" 37'-'
2 57 CITRUS PARK-FERN LAKE DIVISION 7907 22175 64030 84381 104732 188" 181" 32" 64'-'
2 57 PLANT CITY DIVISION 37789 41717 60619 66944 73269 26'-' 27" 10. 21'-'
2 57 TAMPA DIVISION 368135 430171 514883 556944 599005 la 20. 8" 16'-'
2 101 NEW PORT RICHEY DIVISION 31940 74437 103472 118546 133620 133'-' 39" 15" 29'-'
2 101 PORT RICHEY DIVISION 10512 59582 103749 124657 145565 467" 74" 20" 40'-'
2 103 BOCA CIEGA DIVISION 40184 62848 67325 68667 70009 56'-' 7~ 2S 4'-'
2 103 CLEARWATER DIVISION 156647 262607 312184 332,79 352174 68'-' 19'-' 6'-' 13'-'
2 103 ST. PETERSBURG DIVISION 293767 348797 365168 368183 371198 19'-' 5" 1'-' 2'-'
2 103 TARPON SPRINGS DIVISION 17590 38609 m31 95680 113629 119~ 101" 23" 46'-'
2 61 H VERO BEACH DIVISION 34165 55474 86003 100641 115279 62" 55. 17" 34'-'
2 I FORT MYERS OROWTH AREA 110378 228360 391085 474920 535965 97" 69" 19" 31"
2 21 NAPLES DIVISION 27086 62371 113318 140935 168552 130" 82" 24" 49'-'
2 71 BONITA SPRINGS DIVISION 6512 13818 32010 41048 50086 112S 132" 28" 56'-'
2 71 CAPE CORAL DIVISION 16754 38303 76621 95937 115253 129" 100" 25" 50'-'
2 71 FORT MYERS DIVISION 48218 86828 128458 149399 170340 80" 48" 16" 33'-'
2 71 NORTH FORT MYERS DIVISION 11808 27040 40678 47601 54524 129" 50" 1'" 34~
2 73 J TALLAHASSEE DIVISION 86017 108132 135479 149088 162697 26" 25" 10" 20'-'
2 K BRAlfDENTON GROWTH AREA 195181 313222 422249 473238 SJ8423 82. 43" 14" 28'-'
2 81 BRADENTON DIVISION 78711 121182 159895 177776 195657 54" 32S ,,'-' 22'-'
2 115 SARASOTA DIVISION 84047 122216 155479 169370 183261 45" 21" 9" 18'-'
2 115 VENICE DIVISION 17545 38954 49642 54628 59614 122S 27" 10" 20'-'
2 15 PORT CHARLOTTE DIVISION 14878 30870 57233 71464 85695 loa 85'-' 25" 50'-'
2 L OCALA.BELL VIEW GROWTH AREA 42087 85918 147696 178055 213926 124'-' 89" 22S 45'-'
2 83 BELLEVIEW DIVISION 7179 19776 .43811 55652 67487 154'-' 122" 2a 54'-'
2 83 OCALA DIVISION 34308 66142 103879 122403 140921 93" 51'-' 18" 36'-'
2 M PORT SALERNO-STUART GROWTH AREA 21032 55S44 91287 109197 163293 455" 130'-' 39" 79'-'
2 85 PORT SALERNO-HOBE SOUND DIVISION 5193 2JS42 39865 48042 56219 353% 69% 21 '.t 41%
-------
TARLE 2-1
PopuUation and Growth Rate
For Areas of Urbaii Expansion
In EPA Region IV
STATE CO.I AREA OEOORAPH'C ARF.A ..,AUF- !'Q!'m ~!"'~ !»O~ ~:"')~ ~:>2~ ";\}-::; ....;0 ;0-- ;u..oo
-"11~
2 85 STU ART DIVISION 15839 32002 51422 61155 70888 102~ 61~ 19\; Ja~
2 9! N Fmrr WA1:ro~ =:!ACR DIVISION 46626 60575 834.51 95019 106707 30" 38'10 14" 21"
2 0 ORLANDO aaowm AREA 651223 976894 1406809- &677699 1951549 79" 70'10 19" 39"
2 95 APOPKA DIVISION 19786 31674 49598 58759 67920 60" 57'10 18'10 37.
2 95 ORLANDO DIVISION 281343 349718 418688 455930 493172 24" 20'10 9'10 II.
2 95 SOUTHWEST ORANGE DIVISION 9901 18798 49983 65723 81463 90" 166'10 31'10 63.
2 95 UNION PARK DIVISION 13696 36792 67218 82555 97892 169. 83'10 23 '10 46.
2 95 WINTER OARDEN-OCOEE DIVISION 16829 28174 50157 61231 72305 67. 78'10 22 '10 44.
2 97 KISSIMMEE DIVISION 13228 27316 53007 65726 78445 10'" 94'10 24 '10 48.
2 97 ST. CLOUD DIVISION , 10701 19952 42228 53241 64254 86. 112. 26'10 52.
2 117 CASSELBERRY.AL T AMONTE SPRINGS DIV. 43980 122387 198726 238413 278100 178. 62. 20'10 40.
2 117 SANFORD DIVISION 33964 44168 66498 78139 89780 30. 51. 18'10 35. "
2 127 DELTONA DIVISION 7870 19379 41992 53696 6S400 146. 111. 28'10 56.
2 127 DE LAND DIVISION 26630 38205 49220 55175 61130 43'10 29. 12'10 24.
2 105 LAKELAND DIVISION 92632 136445 182347 205345 228343 4'" 34. 13. 25.
2 105 LAKE WALES DIVISION 21178 25012 31787 44153 50519 18" 51. 17. 34.
~
2 105 WINTER HAVEN-AUBURN DALE DIVISION 59485 78874 99360 109613 119866 33'10 26. 10'10 21 '10
2 P FORT PIERCE-PORT ST. LUCIE GROWTH AREA 48976 81018 1]7034 165267 2012IS 464" 13611 23" 47'1
2 III FORT PIERCE DIVISION 47431 65733 84571 94145 103719 39" 29. II. 2J.
2 III PORT ST. LUCIE DIVISION 1545 15285 52463 71122 89111 889" 243. 36. 71.
2 Q DAYTONAGROWfH AREA 91128 141501 199185 22996S 2600S9 '72" 41. IS" 31"
2 127 DAYTONA BEACH DIVISION 34843 40405 48706 53357 58008 16" 21. 10. 19'10
2 127 NEW SMYRNA DIVISION 19588 29876 42252 48846 5S440 53'1 41. 16. 31'1
2 127 ORMOND BEACH DIVISION 23236 35620 51693 60221 68749 53'1 451> 16. 33'1
2 127 PORT ORANGE DIVISION 13461 35600 56534 67541 78548 164'10 591> 19. 39'10
2 33 R PENSACOLA DIVISION 181007 199087 242812 260918 279024 10'1 22'1 7'10 15'1
J A SAVANNAH GROWTH AItEA 115416 111611116 20J678 208445 l'J606S 54'" 271. 81{, 16.
3 SI POOLER-8l1RROllGIIS DIVISION 7908 12918 17804 19884 21964 63'10 38... 121{, 23.
J 51 SA V ANN AU DIVISION 160890 160809 161661 168189 168111 .0. 4... 0% I.
-------
TABLE 2-1
Population and Growth Rare
For Areas of Urban Expansion
In EPA Region IV
ST ATE CO.I AREA OEOORAPHIC AREA NAME POP70 POPBO POP90 POP95 POP2000 70-80 80.90 90-95 90-00
J 51 TYBEE ISLAND-WILMINGTON DIVISION 6618 IJI59 1821J 20J72 225JI 99S J8S 12S 24S
J B ALANTAORowTH AREA 849633 1287132 1936165 2272195 2685204 I07S 70" 19S 39"
J 89 ATLANTA-DECATUR DIVISION 2609J7 291409 3i;:;OO J31143 342986 12S 10" 4" 7"
J 57 WOODSTOCK DIVISION 6994 21024 53465 72086 90707 20lS I54S J5S 70S
J 6J JONESBORO DIVISION 1489J 27751 J9376 44280 49184 86S 42S 11" 25" I'
I
3 63 RlVERDALE DIVISION 15111 42004 55906 61597 67288 178S 33S 10" 20"
3 67 ACWORTH -KENNESA W DIVISION 17608 29481 64495 82290 100085 67S 119S 28S 55"
3 67 AUSTELL DIVISION 12983 . 16420 1919S 21517 233S9 26S 21S 9" 18"
3 67 MABLETON DIVISION 2J863 30201 34359 36688 J9017 27S 14S 7" 14"
J 67 MARIETTA DIVISION SS590 68421 103817 121968 140119 23S S2S 17S 35"
3 67 NORTHEAST COBB DIVISION ISI3I. 71025 123444 150162 176880 J69S 74S 21" 43"
3 67 POWDER SPRINGS DIVISION 1720 11501 21230 26187 31144 49S ass 23" 47"
3 67 SMYRNA DIVISION 32427 31390 47139 S2229 S7319 15S 26" "" 22"
3 67 VININGS DIVISION 7870 ... 569 18550 22110 25670 47S 60S 19" 38"
J 89 CHAMBLEE-DORA VILLE DIVISION 88737 98005 101925 103449 104913 10S 4S I" 3"
J 89 LITHONIA DIVISION 11747 22193 44317 54686 6SOSS 94S 94S 23" 47"
J 89 STONE MOUNTAIN DIVISION 9464 22611 J4S66 40266 4S966 p9S 53S 16" 33"
J 89 TUCKER DIVISION 44504 48206 57268 61397 65S26 8S 19S 7S 14"
J 97 BILL ARP DIVISION 3308 18S6S 26123 29932 33741 461S 41S IS" 29"
J 97 LITHIA SPRINGS-DOUGLASVILLE DIV. 21S65 29643 42132 48408 54684 37S 42" IS" 30"
3 113 FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION 6435 14344 25942 J2742 39542 123S 81" 26" 52"
3 IIJ TYRONE DIVISION 3172 11612 J0648 41434 S2220 266S 164" J5" 70"
3 117 CUMMING DIVISION 8980 15856 26287 32258 J8229 77S 66" 23" 45"
J 121 COLLEGE PARK DIVISION 16592 20592 23297 24387 25477 24'1 13" 5'1 9"
3 121 FAIRBURN-UNION CITY DIVISION 18575 J21J2 40411 44077 4774J 13'1 26'1 9" 18"
3 121 ROSWELL-AlPHARETT A DIVISION 191J2 J9700 9034J 114152 IJ7961 108" 128'1 26'1 5J'I
J 135 BUFORD DIVISION 9221 121J8 20340 24944 29548 32'1 68" 23'1 45"
J 135 LA WRENCEVILLE DIVISION 13891 30230 77519 103192 128865 118'1 156'1 JJ'I 66'1
J 135 LlLBURN DIVISION 17903 5J795 97458 121702 145946 200'1 81 'I 25'1 50'1
3 135 NORCROSS DIVISION 11457 22109 52628 b9140 85852 9J'I IJ8'1 32% 6J%
-------
TABLE 2-1
I~opulation and Growth Rare
For Areas of Urban Expansion
In E8>A Region IV
5T_'HE CO.I AREA GEOGRAPHIC AREA NAME (''Uno Pof>aO POP9Q POP95 POP2OOQ 70~ 1090 90-95 9().00
J 135 SNELL vrU.E.(jRA YSON DIVISION 8284 30552 70552 92358 114164 269~ IJI~ :JI~ 62S
J 135 SUWANEE-DULUTH DIVISION 6279 10104 28461 38391 48321 61~ 182~ 35S 70S
J 151 MCDONOUOH DIVISION 9884 13)16 15808 17787 19766 35~ 19~ 13~ 15S
3 151 STOCKBRIOOE DIVISION 6922 14149 26754 34428 42102 104~ 89S 29~ 57S
3 217 COVINOTON-PORTERDALE DIVISION 22005 27636 36689 41213 45857 26S 33S 12~ 15S
J 223 HIRAM DIVISION 5189 9214 1729J 219SO 26607 78S 88S 27~ 54S
J 247 CONYERS DIVISION 12322 21544 30797 35703 40609 75~ 43S 16S 32S
J 247 SOUTH ROCK DALE DIVISION 2938 10090 17731 21722 15713 243~ 76S 2J~ 45~
J C EVANS-HARLEM OROwm AREA. 19603 36S00 62141 75485 86656 81S 63S 20~ 39~
J 13 EVANS DIVISION 10688 25675 46S03 51313 68123 140~ 81S 23~ 46~
J 7J HARLEM DIVISION 8915 10815 156J8 18172 20706 21~ 44~ 16~ 32~
J 17 D NEWNAN DMSION 24845 30504 39892 45768 51644 23~ 31S 15~ 29~ JI
3 153 E WARNER ROBINS DMSION 49581 62152 71931 75886 79841 15S 16S 5~ liS
4 A. FA. VETTE OROWTH AREA. 2291M1 279438 322073 343588 379454 36~ 20S 9~ 18~
4 67 FAYE1TE DIVISION 174323 204165 231135 243993 2S685 I 17S I3S 6~ liS
4 113 NICHOLASVILLE DIVISION 11011 18210 24364 27517 30670 65S 34S 13S 26" .
4 151 RICHMOND DIVISION 20585 27531 31858 34135 36412 34S 16S 7S 14~
4 209 OEOROETOWN DIVISION 14654 16772 18498 19815 21152 14S 10S 7~ 14S
4 239 VERSAILLES DIVISION 8469 12760 16218 18118 20018 51S 27~ 12~ 13"
.. B FLORENCE GROWTH AREA. 143536 1569f11 168106 175236 191202 33S 15S 7~ 14~
4 15 FLORENCE DIVISION 19J07 26435 33001 36589 40177 37~ 25~ II~ 2a
4 117 COVINGTON DIVISION 11257J 111377 112366 114031 115696 -I~ I~ I~ 3~
4 117 INDEPENDENCE DIVISION 11656 19095 22139 24616 26493 64~ 19~ 8~ 17~
5 A NORTH DESOTO GROWTH AREA 26336 J5349 48512 56420 64310 43~ 37" 16~ 33"
5 33 DISTRICT I 9166 10918 15089 17646 2020J 19~ 38~ 17~ J4~
5 J3 DISTRICT 2 11078 12186 17359 20396 2J4J3 10~ 42~ 17~ 35~
5 n DISTRICT 3 6092 12245 16064 18:178 20692 101~ 31~ 14~ 29~
5 B GIll.FPORT -BILOXI GROWTH AREA 48472 65664 110567 8J481 86441 J6W, 2JW, 4'J, 7'{,
-------
TABLE 2-1 .>.. ~
.....
Population and Gmwth Rate ~ Z
9 (],)o
.~ =:ICD
For Areas of Urban Expansion .:n r- ~ c:!;
-~ C"ICD
In EPA Region IV Bo> I.C)
o~«UI.C)
~ (V) .~ 0 0
::r Q) c:: I
STATE co., AREA OEOGRAPHIC AREA NAME POP70 POPBO POP90 POP95 POP2000 70-80 80-90 90-95 9().00 j -c CIJ - CD
" o~ 6~
.0 U >..- I
5 47 DISTRICT 3 26564 35148 43038 44426 45814 32'-' 22'-' 3" 6" .: = en g>~
5 47 DISTRICT 4 21908 30516 37529 39055 40581 39'-' 23'-' 4" 8" .(ClJE:CC"l
L~Q)en
5 C SOUTH JACKSON COUNTY GROWTH AREA !8908 47505 59289 62925 66394 l54ii 15ii 6~ 12" "Q.. ro
-"-' o~
5 59 DISTRICT I 8569 24231 31789 34314 36839 183'-' 31'-' 8" 16" /) a
:> N
5 59 DISTRICT 5 10339 23274 27500 28611 29722 115'-' 18'-' 4" 8"
5 89 D MADISON GROWTH AREA. 7293 14914 34014 44931 55848 104'-' 128" ]2" 64"
5 E EAST JACICSON OaowrH AREA ]72n 59926 78816 88205 96978 70" 31" m, 13"
5 121 DISTRICT I 8267 14155 17439 19087 20735 71'-' 13" '" 19'-'
5 121 DISTRICT 2 7335 15326 20909 23692 26475 109'-' 36'-' 13'-' 27'-'
5 121 DISTRICT 4 8256 15663 23038 26702 30366 90'-' 47'-' 16'-' 32"
5 121 DISTRICT 5 13414 14782 17430 18724 20018 10'-' 18'-' 7'-' 15'-'
6 A ASHvu.LE-LIMESTONB GROWI'H AREA 82735 83365 89666 92953 99745 19" 13" 6" II" .1
6 21 ASHEVILLE TOWNSHIP 74009 70889 74562 76555 78548 4'-' 5" 3'-' 5'-' ' I
I
6 21 LIMESTONE TOWNSHIP 8n6 12476 15104 16398 17692 43'-' 21" '" 17"
6 B KANNAPOUS-CONCORD GROWTH AREA 96397 94245 103362 108167 113278 -2" II" 5" 10"
6 15 TOWNSHIP 4, KANNAPOLIS 27492 29628 32654 34112 35570 8'-' 10" 4'-' 9'-'
6 25 TOWNSHIP 12, CONCORD 18734. 16943 21511 23701 25891 . -10" 2'" 10'-' 20'-'
6 159 CHINA GROVE TOWNSHIP 19496 20285 20731 21095 21459 4'-' 21' 2'-' 4'-'
6 159 SALISBURY TOWNSHIP 30675 27389 28466 29259 30052 -11'-' 4" 3'-' 6"
6 C HICKORY GROWTH AREA 76305 85911 95998 101141 101803 19" 14" 6" 12'-'
6 35 CLINES TOWNSHIP 9656 13144 16371 17986 19601 36'-' 25'-' 10'-' 20'-'
6 35 HICKORY TOWNSHIP 45354 48059 52874 55369 57864 6'-' 10" 5" 9'-'
6 35 NEWTON TOWNSHIP 21295 24708 26753 27786 28819 16" 8'-' 4" 8"
6 D DALLAS GROWTH AREA 125930 134170 143561 148197 154074 9'-' 8'-' 4" a
6 45 TOWNSHIP 4, KINGS MOUNTAIN 14897 16368 17834 18630 19426 10'-' 9" 4" 9'-'
6 45 TOWNSHIP 6, SHELBY 29384 31324 32576 3JJIJ 34050 7'-' 4'-' 2" 5"
6 71 DALLAS TOWNSHIP 14189 16123 18473 19397 20321 14" 15" 5" 10"
6 71 GASTONIA TOWNSHIP 67460 70355 74678 76857 79036 4" 6'-' 3" 6"
6 E HIGH POINT GROWTH AREA 123924 125420 131243 135071 139859 2'-' 6'-' 3'-' a
-------
TARLE 2-1
Populalion and Growth Rate
For Areas of Urban Expansion
In EPA Region IV
STATE CO.I AREA OEOGRAPHIC AREA NAME POP70 POPIO POP90 POP9S POP1OOO ~ ~9'J 9!!!!~ ~
- - -- - ... -...
U 57 LIiXINOTON TOWNSHIP 27946 28859 29416 29865 30314 3~ 2" 2~ 3~
6 57 THOMASVlLLE TOWNSHIP 28970 30139 34487 J~22 39:57 4~ i4~ 7" 14"
6 81 HIOH POINT TOWNSHIP 67008 66422 67340 68384 69428 -I~ I" 2" 3~
6 F DURHAM GROWTH AREA 141107 IS7<404 178921 192346 209164 17" 16" 8" 17"
6 63 DURHAM TOWNSHIP 101806 106832 117345 123693 130041 5" 10" 5" II"
6 US CHAPEL HILL TOWNSHIP 39301 S0572 61576 68653 75730 29" 22" II" 23"
6 0 WlNnON GROWTH AREA 163394 112287 195890 207416 238121 30" 33" II" 22"
6 67 WINSTON TOWNSHIP 134574 I3J 885 139326 143085 146844 -2~ 6" 3" 5"
6 67 SOUTH FORK TOWNSHIP 10546 13296 17526 19522 21518 26" 32" "" 23"
6 67 KERNERSVILLE TOWNSHIP 9672 15459 18117 2D214 21711 60" 21" 8" 16"
6 81 FRIENDSHIP TOWNSHIP 8602 11647 20321 24595 28869 35~ 74" 21" 42"
6 81 H MOREHEAD TOWNSHIP 90621 102081 ..4138 121022 127206 13~ 12" 5" II"
6 I CHARLOTTE GROWfH AREA 306747 341166 411127 4S0773 S790406 108~ 79" 20" 41"
6 119 TOWNSHIP I, CHARLOTTE 29SOSO 314447 360107 317158 414209 7~ 15" 8" IS" I
l
6 119 TOWNSHIP 5, PROVIDENCE 2648 7064 17245 22487 27729 167~ 144" 30" 61"
6 119 TOWNSHIP 6, CLEAR CREEK 6083 11925 17581 20563 2354S 96~ 47" "" 34~
6 119 TOWNSHIP 13, MORNINO STAR 2966 7730 16194 20565 24936 161~ 109" 27" 54"
6 J WlLIMINOTON OROWfH AREA 718S2 94947 110105 117030 127m2 47" 22" 8~ IS"
6 129 CAPE FEAR TOWNSHIP 6719 10184 1528.5 17617 19949 52~ SO" 15" 31~
6 129 HARNETT TOWNSHIP IS635 26986 31707 33643 3.5S79 73" 17" 6" 12"
6 129 MASONBORO TOWNSHIP 80lS 13m 15620 16.502 17384 72" I)" 6" II~
6 129 . WILMINGTON TOWNSHIP 47483 44000 47493 49268 sion -7" 8" 4" a
6 K JACKSONVILLE OROWfH AREA 15181 77491 87339 91348 9S95 I 7" IS" S" 10"
6 1]3 JACKSONVILLE TOWNSHIP 54844 54111 .59085 61429 63773 -I" 9" .." 8"
6 133 SWANSBORO TOWNSHIP 20337 23380 28254 29919 31584 15" 21" 6" 12"
6 L GREEN VILLE- WlNTERVILLE GROWTH AREA 35898 45648 .55308 60S I I 68535 .59" 34" 12" 24"
6 147 GREENVILLE TOWNSHIP 30486 J4557 31766 3964 8 41530 13" 9" 5.... 10....
6 147 WINTERVILLE TOWNStllP 5412 11091 17542 20863 24184 105" 58" 19.... 38""
6 M RALlEGIf GROWTH AREA 176632 229841 308063 349857 404506 78" 49" 16" 31"
6 IS] CARY TOWNSIIIP 11973 26037 45129 S4999 64869 117" 73'0{. 22~ 44"
-------
TAnLE 2-1
Population and Growth Rate
For Areas of Urban Expansion
In EPA Region IV
STATE CO.I AREA OEOGRAPHIC AREA NAME POP70 POP80 POP90 POP95 POP2000 70.80 80.90 90.95 90-00
6 183 NEUSE TOWNSHIP 8240 19824 35902 44117 52452 1411, 811, 23" 46"
6 183 RALEIOH TOWNSHIP 105932 101910 108755 113359 117963 -41, 71, 4" 8"
6 !S3 WAKE FOREST TOWNSHIP 921111 11458 16305 18852 21399 231, 421, 16" 31"
6 183 ST. MARYS TOWNSHIP 20466 28326 33356 36214 39072 381, III" 9" 17"
6 183 ST. MAnHEWS TOWNSHIP 12656 20412 25666 28518 31370 611, 26" II" 22"
6 183 HOUSE CREEK TOWNSHIP 8071 21874 429SO 53738 64526 1711, 96" 25" SO"
7 A NORTH AUOUST A-AIKEN OROWTH AREA 67112 78236 96963 106475 IIS963 161, 24" 10" 20"
7 3 AIKEN DIVISION 31445 38195 46976 51392 558011 211, 23" 9" 191,
7 3 NORTH AUOUST A DIVISION 36267 40041 499117 5S083 60179 101, 25" 10" 201,
7 13 B BEAUFORT -PORT ROYAL DIVISION 37636 39258 47001 49338 S167S 4" 20" S" 10"
7 C CHARLESTON OROWTH AREA 2SIS83 329647 418167 459342 52111107 73" 43" 13" 26"
7 15 OOOSE CREEK-HANAHAN DIVISION 30411 511157 791154 90677 101500 91" 37" 14" 27"
7 15 MONCKS CORNER DIVISION 6904 12354 20389 24029 27669 791, 65" 18" 361,
7 19 CHARLESTON-NORTH CHARLESTON DlV. 171157 1117261 208962 218169 227376 61, 12" 4" 91,
7 19 MOUNT PLEASANT DIVISION 18440 28764 39782 44491 49200 56" 311" 12" 24"
7 35 SUMMERVILLE DIVISION 18671 43111 69180 111976 94m 131" 601, 18" J71,
7 D FLORENCE-PAMPLICO OROWTH AREA 56108 70509 7635S 781167 8J07S 32" "" 4" 9"
7 41 FLORENCE DIVISION 46218 564119 60096 61578 63060 22" 6" a 5"
7 41 PAMPLICO DIVISION 9890 14020 16259 17289 111319 421, 161, 6" 131,
7 E OREENVILLE OROWTH AREA 224070 26117811 299070 315964 361182 48" 29" 10" 21"
7 45 GREENVILLE DIVISION 176434 197261 203995 209046 214097 121, 31, 2'J, 51,
7 45 GREER DIVISION 12129 12283 15811 17616 19421 II, 291, II" 231,
7 45 SIMPSONVILLE DIVISION 7674 15890 26774 32284 37794 1071, 681, 21" 411,
7 45 T A YLORS DIVISION 9746 17325 21026 22964 24902 781, 211, 9" III"
7 71 EASLEY DIVISION 18087 26029 31464 34054 36644 441, 21" 8" 16"
7 51 F MYRTLE BEACH DIVISION 21211 .341127 54381 63090 71799 641, 561, 16" 32"
7 G LEXINGTON GROWTH AREA 94560 156152 195327 214230 231290 921, 261, 9" III"
7 63 IRMO DIVISION 9771 25856 341S4 38J44 42534 1651, 321, 12" 25"
7 63 LEXINGTON DIVISION 12297 25820 37898 43899 49900 110% 47W> 16% 32%
-------
TARLE 2-1
Population and Growth Rate
For Areas of Urban EKpansion
In EPA Region IV
STATE CO., AREA GEOORAPHIC AREA NAME POP70 POP80 POP90 POP95 POP2000 10-80 80-90 90-95 90-00
7 63 ~~C:"~:'::J:A.cAV~E UlviSiON 01'15 .5.5582 62240 65763 69286 27" 12" '" II"
7 85 SMAW-HORATIO DIVISiON 16491 18434 18951 18929 18907 A2" 3111 ~~ -O~
7 79 DUTCH PORK DIVISION 12286 30460 42084 47295 52506 148" 38" 12" 25"
7 H SP ART ANBURO.WEL1..FORD GROWTH AREA 104221 118240 121022 133297 145401 13" 16" 7" 14"
7 U SPART ANBURO DIVISION 9:J014 105609 112117 115747 119377 14" 6" 3" 6"
7 U WELLPORD DMSION 11214 12631 15905 17550 19195 13" 26" 10" 21"
7 85 I SUMTER DMSION 43165 45)73 53571 56828 tiOOIS 5" II" 6" 12"
7 J FORT MILL.fORT ROCK OROWTH AREA 61313 76944 96037 106200 115]12 33" 2.4" 10" 20"
7 91 FORT MILL DIVISION 8957 12861 15125 17175 18625 44" 22S 9" 18"
7 91 ROCK HILL DIVISION 52356 64083 10]12 1902S 97738 22S 25" II" 22"
8 9 A M ARYVIU.E-AlCOA DIVISION "SOl 9 51690 60965 65202 69439 15" 18" 7" 14"
8 II B CLEVliLAND DMSION 34418 46301 SOSl3 52933 55353 34" 9. 5" 10" 1
8 C CHATTAN()(XJA OROWTH AREA 645388 69J4Q 730280 751109 781290 18" 7. 4" 8" .
t
8 37 METROPOLrr AN GOVERNMENT DIVISION 44785) 477811 516126 534592 553058 7" I" 4" 7" ,
8 65 CHArT ANOOGA DIVISION 187842 202092 19865) 200608 202563 8" -2" I" 2"
8 65 SODDY -DAISY DIVISION 9693 13S6S 15501 16609 17717 40" 14" 7" 14" .
8 113 D JACKSON DMSION 52]78 ~3 60398 62277 64156 8" 7" 3" 6"
8 125 E CLARKSVILLE DMSION 42288 53399 67392 75467 1]542 26" 26" 12" 24"
8 P MEMPHIS OROWTH AREA 681021 131838 113412 810543 975119 40" 43" 12" 25"
8 157 COLLIERVILLE DIVISION 5605 9715 17466 21224 24982 7)" 80" 22" 43"
8 157 MEMPHIS DIVISION 675423 72212] 766006 789319 112632 7" 6" 3" 6"
8 0 KINOSPORT -JOHNSON CITY GROWTH AREA 130408 145552 152033 I S42S9 15665] 12S 5" 2" ]"
8 16) KINGSPORT DIVISION 75069 82180 84468 BS332 16196 9" ]" I" 2S
8 179 JOHNSON CITY DIVISION 55339 63)72 67565 68927 70289 15" 7" 2'1 4"
8 H MURPREESBORO GROWTH AREA 147280 221748 308488 356927 40302) 69" 41" 15" 31" .
8 165 GALLATIN DIVISION 16374 20<14 7 2.5131 27930 30729 25" 23" 11'1 22"
8 165 HENDERSONVILLE DIVISION 20979 38513 47656 53087 58518 84" 24" II" 23~
8 187 BRENTWOOD DIVISION 6446 18026 31125 38013 44901 180" 73" 22" 44"
8 187 FRANKLIN DIVISION 13990 20179 31122 36619 42116 49" 5o" 18" 35"
-------
TABLE 2-1
Populalion and Growth Rare
For Areas of Urban Expansion
In EPA Region IV
STATE CO.I AREA GEOGRAPHIC AREA NAME POP70 POP80 POP90 POP95 POP2000 70-80 80-90 90-95 90-00
8 189 LEBANON DIVISION 17287 18748 23629 26218 28807 8" 26" "" 22"
8 189 MOUNT JUUET DIVISION 6287 15024 23084 27247 31410 139" 54" 18" 36"
8 147 SPRlNOFIELD-
-------
TABLE 2-3
Prioritization of Urban Growth Areas by State
In EPA Region IV
PROJECTED DENSITY LAND
GROWl'll PERSONSIMI(2) AREA
RANKING RANKING RANKING WEIGHTED WEIGHTED
ST ATE AREA GEOGRAPHIC AREA NAME (u) (x2) (xl) VALUE RANKING
1 H ALABA!'ii'HJr-RhENA DIVISION 21 14 3 38 8
I A BA Y MINETIE-FOLEY GROWI'H AREA 12 16 8 36 7
1 E MOBILE 1:;:~OwrH AREA 24 4 7 35 6
I D A THENS-KUNTSYU.LE GROWTH AREA 18 10 6 34 5
I F PRA TTVILrLE.MONTGOMERY GR.OWl'O AREA. I' 2 S 22 4
1 B DOTHAN DlVKSIt)N .6 12 4 22 3
I 0 DECAYUll
-------
STATE
TABLE 2-3
Prioritization of Urban Growth Areas by State
In EPA Region IV
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
AREA GEOGRAPHIC AREA NAME
C CHARLESTON GROwrHAREA
G LEXINGTONG~WTJr~ ...,... ... . ........ .....
J FORT MJLL~FORTR()CK GROWTH AREA...., '
A NORTHAUGUSTA;:~GaOWTIIAJu:~.'
E GREENVILLE.GROwrRAREAq ,. .'.., ,."...q, .
D FLORENCE.PAMPL1COGR()WJ'ijARE~.
F MYRTLEBEACHDIVISIO~> ",q,.., ,
H SPARTANBURG"WELLFORDq~Wl'HAREA.
B BEAUFORT.PORTROYi\l.'I)IVISIOJol'" ,.' q
I SUMTER DMSION .'. ....q.,. ... '........".,." q "..
H MURFR.£E.SBOROOROWTH AREA
F MEMPHISGROwrHARBA .',.' .
E CLARKSVILLEDMSION>...",..,,'
C CHATTANOOGA GROWtH AREA '
. . .
A MARYVILLE.ALCOA DMSIONHq ,
G KINGSPORT..JOHNSONClTYGROWl'K,AREA .
D JACKSON DMSION> .' '. .',. .,.. , ".. . " '
B CLEVELAND DMSION
PROJECTED
GROWl'll
RANlClNG
(u)
DENSITY LAND
PERSONSIMI(2) AREA
RANlClNG RANKING WEIGHTED
(xl) (xl) VALUE
8 10 48
14, 51 . 47
q, 18, 6 42
<,16 ' , S 42
..'..4 7 38
,20, 8 34
..... 10, 3 28
,q6 4 . 22
12:.2 ' 17
,'2, 1 12
.. -16 II 4.5
Z 6 n
12 4 31
, 4 7 29
10 2 24
8 . S 22
.14 . 3. 20
6 1 13
WEIGHTED
RANKING
10
51
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
I
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
I
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
. JO..
'..,24.q
.,,18, .
.,21
i:i
)2
......:.]:.q
?
. 11,'
~q
,..18".
.",,12...
" 51'.
.'.']"..'..
6:
Notes: ( I ) 1 = Alabama, 2 = Florida, 3 = Georgia, 4 = Kentucky,S = MiJaiAippi, 6 = North Carolina,
7 = South Carolina, 8 = Tcnneuee.
(2) Designated Growth Areas. Letters are cross referenced with figures in Appendix A.
-------
PART 2 -- MINOR GROWTH AREAS (15,000 - 49,999 people by 2000)
-------
TAUI.E 2-4
PopulaLi(m, Growth Kates, I)ersons per Square Mile
and Land Area per Minor Civil Division with Greater or Equal 10 15,000 Populalion
in EPA Region IV
SI8I.e Couoty MCD POP. POP. POP. POP. POP. GROWTH RATE PERSONS PER SQUARE MILE
Code Code Code MINOR CIVIL DIVISION 1970 1980 1990 1995 2000 70.80 80-90 90-95 90.2000 1970 1980 1990 1995 2000 MI(2)
I I 20 PRATT\'ILLE DIVISION 17434 24089 27704 29411 31223 38" 15" 6'£ 12" 114.5 1S8.3 182.0 193.2 205.1 152.2
I 3 5 BAY MINETTE DIVISION 13347 17040 20627 22270 24044 28" 21 '£ 8'£ 16" 25.5 32.5 39.3 42.5 45.9 524.2
I 3 10 DAPHNE DIVISION 8461 13563 18896 21406 24249 60. 39'£ 13. 27S 71.2 114.2 159.1 180.2 204.1 118.8
I 3 20 FAiRHOPE DIVISION 10562 13782 16609 17898 19287 30" 21" 8'£ 16" 157.6 2OS.1 241.9 261.1 281.9 61
I 3 15 FOLEY DIVISION 10416 14133 19432 21915 24138 36'£ 11. 13'£ 26" 56.5 76.1 IOS.5 119.0 134.3 184.2
I 15 5 ANNISTON DIVISION 14051 83265 86299 86415 86651 12" 4'£ 0" 0" 358.6 403.2 411.9 418.8 419.6 206.5
I 17 20 LANODALE DIVISION 13371 15358 17682 11S14 19385 15. 15. 5. 9. 11S.8 213.3 245.6 151.1 269.2 72
I 31 10 ENTERPRISE DIVISION 21382 24412 21624 21852 28082 14" 13" I" 2!5 98.9 112.9 121.1 128.8 129.8 216.3
I 33 23 TRI.cmES DIVISiON 31603 33365 31495 3OISO 28862 6. -6. -4'£ .9. 456.0 481.5 454.5 435.1 416.5 69.3
I 39 5 ANDALUSIA DIVISION 11015 11168 18451 11469 18481 1'£ 2. 0')1, 0" 46.3 49.5 SO.3 SO. 3 SO.3 361.3
I 43 20 CULLMAN DIVISION 11863 20145 19158 18S03 17870 7'£ .5. -3. -7. 239.7 156.0 243.4 235.1 227.1 78.7
I 45 25 OZARK DIVISION 11608 20919 22031 21548 23011 12" 5" 2!J, 5" 77.5 87.1 91.8 93.9 96.1 240.1
I 47 35 SELMA DIVISION 34884 36938 35364 33675 32067 6. -4" .5" -10" 131.1 U9.5 133.6 127.2 121.1 264.1
I 49 20 FORT PAYNE DIVISION 12118 15108 15640 15621 15602 3O" ~. ~'£ ~. 73.9 95.8 95.4 95.3 95.2 163.9
I 51 15 ELMORE DIVISION 8907 125S2 15239 16557 17989 41. 21. 9. 17. 130.1 184.3 223.1 243.1 264.2. 68.1
I 55 15 OADSDEN DIVISION 75008 71496 14211 72446 10111 3" "'. .2!5 -5. 403.5 416.9 399.2 389.1 380.4 185.9
I 59 IS RUSSELL VILLE DIVISION 13537 IS669 15312 14965 14626 16. .2. .2S .5" 50.5 58.4 57.1 55.1 54.5 268.3
I 69 20 DOTHAN DIVISION 46263 63302 72910 16514 80356 31" 15" 5. 10. 175.0 239.4 216.0 289.6 303.9 264.4
I 71 30 SCOTTSBORO DIVISION 14023 20017 18494 17493 16546 43" "'. -5" .1115 66.0 94.2 87.0 12.3 71.8 212.6
I 13 15 BIRMINGHAM DIVISION 544314 543277 538216 532397 526641 ~" -I" -I" -215 1113.3 1110.0 1694.1 1615.8 1651.7 311.1
I 73 SO OARnEI'IDALE DIVISION 13467 17111 19065 19845 20657 2'" II" 4" 8" 174.7 222.0 247.3 15U 267.9 71.1
I 13 62 HOOVER DIVISION 18351 26519 25629 2S053 24490 45" -3" -2!5 .... 401.8 589.3 S69.5 556.7 544.2 45
I 71 10 FLORENCE DIVISION 42354 47859 47613 47001 46397 US -I. -I. -3. 442.6 500.1 497.5 491.1 484.8 95.7
I 81 6 AUBURN-OPELIKA DIVISION 44631 55511 59951 61485 63058 24" 8. 3')1, 5" 343.4 421.0 461.2 413.0 485.1 130
I 83 S ATHENS DIVISION 35861 400S6 43758 45742 47816 12" 9" 5'£ 9" 94.8 IOS.8 115.6 120.9 126.3 318.5
I 81 25 TUSKEGEE-MILSTEAD DIVISION 1S934 16856 15810 15331 14861 6" -6" .3" -6')1, 140.6 148.8 139.5 135.3 131.2 113.3
. 89 25 HUNTSVILLE DIVISION 152564 158038 184108 194744 205994 4" 16. '" 12S 645.6 668.8 179.1 824.1 871.1 236.3
I 95 4 ALBERTVILLE-BOAZ DIVISION 20894 24910 21924 29231 30599 20" 12')1, 5" 9')1, 218.6 261.2 292.1 305.8 320.1 95.6
I 91 15 GRAND BAY DIVISION 9685 ISn3 19495 21245 23152 62')1, 24" 9'£ 18" 63.9 103.8 128.7 140.2 152.8 15t.S
I 97 30 MOBILE DIVISION 264197 284274 300753 309451 318401 8')1, 6')1, 3')1, 6" 708.1 762.5 806.7 830.1 854.10 372.8
I 97 55 TANNER. WILLIAMS DIVISION 5860 12974 17515 19661 22070 121" 35" 12" 25. 58.4 129.2 174.5 195.8 219.8 100.4
1 97 60 THEODORE DIVISION 13931 21316 21222 21299 21376 53" ~')I, 0')1, I" 224.0 342.7 341.2 342.4 343.7 62.2
I 101 15 MONTGOMERY DIVISION 153200 177406 195433 200444 205583 16" 10" 3')1, 5')1, 874.9 1013.2 1116.1 1144.7 1174.1 175.1
I 103 15 DECATUR DIVISION 44890 48929 56488 60424 64634 9')1, 15')1, 7')1, 14')1, 548.8 598.2 690.6 138.7 790.1 81.8
-------
TAIILE 2-4
Population, Growth Rates, Persons per Square Mile
;md Land Area peT Minor Civil l>ivision with Greaier or I~ual io 15,000 Popuiarioo
in EPA Region IV
Stale c-a.y MCD POP. I'OP. POP. POP. POP. OROWTH RATE PERSONS PER SQUAIIE MILE
Coole Coole Code MINOR CIVIL DIVISION 1970 1980 1990 1995 2000 7O.ao 10-90 90-95 90-2000 1970 1910 1990 1995 2000 MI(2)
I 103 )() HARTS6U..E DIVISION 11831 lS096 11746 190)) 2CM13 21" 1111 111 15" 207.2 264.4 ]10.' ])],3 357.5 51.1
I 113 15 PHENIX CITY DIVISION ]4194 31240 4(2)S 42063 43974 '" I" 511 911 276.5 295.1 ]11.' 3)],) 348.4 1262
I lIS 15 PELL cITY DIVISION 9850 13642 11)13 19136 21151 3811 21. ... 215 86.6 120.0 IS2.] 168.3 186.0 11].1
1 111 3 ALABASTER-HELENA DIVISION 12151 33674 S6191 68540 82111 11511 69" 2111 41" S9.1 162.4 273.9 ))0.5 398.1 207.4
1 121 45 SYLACAUOA DIVISION 20126 22343 2221' 216]2 21061 "" -I. .3. .'5 138.9 154.2 1S3.] 149.3 145.4 144.9
I 121 so T ALLADEOA DIVISION 22681 25934 26229 15114 2.5341 1411 '" -2" .]11 106.9 122.2 IU5 121.5 119.4 212)
I 123 5 ALEXANDER crn DIVISION 12.546 88637 20111 21055 21961 .911 8. .5 95 12.0 106.9 115.' 120.8 126.0 114.3
I 115 60 TUSCALOOSA DIVISION 94542 101174 113192 117669 121618 14" 611 311 111 581.1 663.2 100.) 1241 1411 162S
I 127 35 JASPBR DIVISION 11995 22496 24039 1.4900 15192 2.5. ", .. 15 196.0 245.1 261.9 7112 281.0 91.8
12 I 5 GAINESVILLE DIVISION 13011 111522 I 31054 149615 162274 35" 2311 811 1111 781.6 1058.5 1298.7 14080 1S26 6 106 3
12 I IS HIOH S'RlNOS.ALACfItIA DIVISION 9019 1652] 249S2 21791 33234 8211 ". IS. 315 40.0 12.' 109.9 126.9 146.4 227
12 5 5 LYNN HAVEN DIVISION 12S83 10)86 16346 19216 22755 .17" 5711 1111 3611 ).41.0 211.5 4430 522.1 616.7 369
12 5 20 PANAMA CITY DIVISION 49207 61691 8ml 94615 104442 3811 21. 10. 2111 280.5 385.9 "'.8 539.' 595.4 115.4
12 5 22 PANAMA CITY BEACHES DIVISION 4153 1152 16960 21264 26660 74" 10611 2.511 ". 130.6 226.7 465.9 5842 7J2.4 364
12 9 4 COCOA BEACH-CAPE CANAVEIL\L DIV. 11238 18690 23292 25641 28221 8. 15. 105 20" 115].5 2009.1 2SCM.5 2151.1 ]035.2 9.]
12 9 10 COCOA.ROCKLEDOE DIVISION 42207 47S5O 66119 75546 16317 13" 39" 14" 29" 2~.5 293.5 408.1 466.3 5)2.8 162
12 9 20 INDIALAHTIC.MELBoURNE BEACH DIY. 35380 412.53 415]2 53819 58629 "" 20. 9. 115 2406.' 2106.3 )]69.5 366S.9 J9U.4 14.1
12 9 15 MELBOURNE DIVISION SOSI7 61542 9I11J 106114 123515 2211 4111 1611 nil 8502 1034.3 1S3 I.] 1783.4 2077.1 595
12 9 31 MEUITI' ISLAND DIVISION 30636 ]1514 4096] 45154 49994 6. 265 105 21" 8,..2 910.8 1141.4 1261.6 1400.4 )J.1
12 9 32 PALM BAY DIVISION 7110 11101 6)716 86163 116511 14211 23911 3511 7011 129.2 312.3 1058.4 1431.] 19)5.5 602
12 9 35 TrtuSvn.tE DIVISION 41886 4J6J2 60762 ..29 19332 411 395 14. 29" 244.1 154,) 354.1 404.6 462.3. 171.6
12 II 10 DAVIE DIVISION 14491 55411 19S15 106146 127518 28211 6211 1911 3911 170.5 6S19 1(5).2 12.57.0 1500 2 IS
12 II 15 DEERFIELD IIBACH DMSION 40665 7S068 94223 104103 115019 IS. 265 10" 2111 867.1 1600.6 2009.0 2219.7 2452.4 ~.9
12 II 20 FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION 23319S 273127 271121 2711 31 2711S5 17" .111 011 011 4243 I 49678 4920 5 49201 4921.1 5S I
12 II 15 HALLANDALE DIVISION 31217 50277 SOI04 50340 50571 355 4" 0" I" 509'.2 6881.3 616).6 6195.9 6928.4 7.)
12 II )() HOLLYWOOD DIVISION 126001 150636 IS2849 154740 I S6654 2011 I" '" 211 3OS8.1 )656.2 3709.9 37SS I 3802 3 41 2
12 II 37 MAROATE DIVISION 14996 105412 154197 119940 209167 601. 415 1611 3211 403.1 28JS.] 4161.2 48n.1 5622.8 372
12 " 38 MIRAMAR-PEMBROKE PINES DIVISION 4410 744J8 IOM9J 115913 146130 69" 46" "" 32" 6416 1011.9 1576.9 11301 21240 688
12 " 43 PLANTAnON DIVISION 41661 ISOISS 203313 2J0692 261661 20911 ]511 13" 2711 902.9 2715.8 ]71U 4280.0 4854.7 539
12 " so POMPANO BEACH DIVISION 60114 83016 1021132 113051 124301 JII'-' 24" 10" 20'-' 24146 )H40 4119 I 4540 S 4992 0 149
12 15 4 OROVE CrrY.ROTONDA DIVISION 3047 10015 19994 2SJS5 32153 229'-' 10011 2711 5411 n.4 710 ISH 194.9 2471 130 1
12 15 1 PORT CHARLOTTE DIVISION 148711 30810 571}J 71464 192 J4 107'-' IS" 2S" ~'-' I ~1 I 3260 604 4 154 6 9411, 947
12 IS 10 PUNTAOORDA DIVISION 9634 17515 16171 J1129 J6'182 11'-' SO" 11'-' 37" 16.2 296 44.4 52 II 61) 593}
12 11 S CRYSTAL RIVI:R DIVISION 80M 2J71S 47191 ~9~11 74746 189Wo I (}4 '-' 2"'-' '1''11- 126 1>54
IH I 1117 I 109 9 1\(, 1
-------
ThULE 2-4
I'opulalion, Growth Rates, I)ersons per Square Mile
and Land Area per Minor Civil Division witJl Greater or Equal to 15,000 Population
in EPh Region IV
Stale County MCD POP. POP. pOP. pOP. POP. GROWTH RATE PERSONS PER SQUARE MILE
Code Cnde Code MINOR CIVIL DIVISION 1970 1980 1990 1995 2000 70-80 80.90 90-95 90.2000 1970 1980 1990 1995 2000 MI(2)
12 17 10 INVERNESS DIVISION 11133 31428 52561 63207 7tn» 182~ 67~ 20" 41" 35.6 100.4 168.0 202.0 242.9 312.9
12 19 15 MIDDLEBURG-CLA Y HILL DIVISION 2689 8218 24392 32604 43581 206" 197" 34" 67" 18.1 55.3 164.0 219.3 293.1 148.7
12 19 20 ORANGE PARK DIVISION 17109 39645 605n 71302 83984 132" 53" 18" 36" 371.1 '60.0 1313.1 1546.7 1821.8 46.1
12 21 5 EVERGLADES DIVISION 3294 9877 18359 22463 27484 200" '6" 22!1. 45" 2.9 8.5 1S.9 19.4 23.8 1155.7
12 21 10 IMMOKALEE DIVISION 7660 1372J 11774 21202 23944 19" 37" 13" 26" 11.6 20.8 28.5 32.1 36.3 659.7
12 21 15 NAPLES DIVISION 27086 62371 113318 140935 175283 130~ '2!I. 24" 49" 126.0 290.2 527.3 655.8 815.6 214.9
12 23 10 LAKE CITY DIVISION 22112 30210 34930 37139 39488 37" 16" 6" 13" 75.5 103.2 119.3 126.9 134.9 292.1
12 25 20 HIALEAH DIVISION II 5236 166331 209500 230461 153519 44" 26" 10" 20" 2102.' 3035.2 3823.0 4205.5 4626.3 54.8
12 15 15 HOMESTEAD DIVISION 28.57 51865 60855 6$092 69624 80" ml 7" 141 59.2 106.4 124.9 133.6 142.9 487.3
12 15 2. KEN DALE LAKES-LINDGREN ACRES DlV. 13718 77623 160355 201109 152221 466" 107" 15" 51" 92.7 524.5 1083.5 135'.' 1704.2 148
12 15 30 KENDAU..PERR.1NE DIVISION 891S5 135861i 149689 156194 162982 521 101 4" 91 1819.5 2m.8 30SU 3187.6 3326.2 49
12 15 45 MIAMI DIVISION 719672 771794 199038 811376 823905 7" 41 2!1. 3" 5439.7 5833.7 6039.6 6132.' 6227.5 132.3
12 15 SO MIAMI BEACH DIVISION 105842 126450 124869 123977 123091 19" .1 I .1" .1 I 801'.3 9519.5 9459.' 9392.2 9315.1 13.2
12 15 85 NORTHWEST DADE DIVISION 61167 8.080 90900 92110 93336 44" 3" I" 3" 3662.7 5274.3 5443.1 5515.6 55'9.0 16.7
12 15 90 NORTH WESTSIDE DIVISION 9737 35352 S2209 60474 70047 263" 4'" 16" 32" 296.0 1074.5 1586.9 1138.1 2129.1 . 32.9
12 15 110 PRiNCETON.()()ULDS DIVISION 53451 .2892 105926 117030 129298 55" 2'" 10" 21" 596.6 m.1 11'2.2 1306.1 1443.1 '9.6
12 15 120 SOUTH WESTSIDE DIVISION 6$OOJ 80008 89457 93947 9.662 23" 121 5. 101 4610.1 5674.3 6344.5 6662.9 6Ii97.3 14.1
12 27 5 ARCADIA EAST DIVISION 6942 115.5 15097 16320 17642 '1" 20" .1 16" 19.2 34.9 41.8 45.2 48.9 360.'
12 31 .)5 JACKSONVlUE DIVISION' 528837 571003 6li9S73 766315 .39446 8" 231 10" 191 675.1 721i.0 193.1 978.3 1071.7 713.3
12 33 5 CANTONMENT DIVISION 13432 23389 30667 34021 37742 74" 31" II" 22" 107.5 187.3 245.5 272.4 302.2 124.9
12 J3 3S PENSACOLA DIVISioN 181007 199087 242112 260981 280510 101 221 7. 151 HI t.8 1222.9 1491.5 1603.1 1723.0 162.'
12 35 II FLAGLER BEACH DIVISION 1092 6747 18490 15617 35491 511" 174" 39" 77" 17.1 105.' 289.8 401.5 556.3 63.8
12 39' 21 QUINCY DIVISION 20054 22749 24784 ~ 26453 13" 9. 311 71 77.4 87.8 95.7 98.1 102.1 259.1
12 53 6 BROOKSVILLE DIVISION 7707 11900 2.828 34198 40568 145" 53" 19" 37" 41.6 102.1 155.7 184.7 219.1 185.2
12. 53 16. WEEKI WACHIiE DIVISION 7692 23017 71174 96342 130410 1991 2091 35" "" 29.7 8... 274.6 371.7 503.1 259.2
12 55 5 AVON PARK DIVISION 10929 14401 19212 21601 242.7 321 33" 12!I. 15" 57.' 76.2 101.6 114.2 128.4 189.1
12 55 10 LAKE PLACID DIVISION 6129 11282 20828 15554 31352 .... 851 23" 451 '.9 16.4 30.2 37.1 45.5 689.2
12 55 15 SEBRING DIVISION 12449 21843 30641 34998 39975 75" 40~ 14" 28~ 54.0 94.8 133.0 151.9 173.5 230.4
. 12 57 6 BRANDON DIVISION 32051 '69271 110319 I J0763 154996 1161 591 19" 37" 350.7 757.9 1207.0 1430.7 1695.' 91.4
12 57 10 CITRUS PARK. FERN LAKE DIVISION 7907 22775 64030 84381 111200 188" 181~ 32" 64" 92.6 266.7 749.' 988.1 1302.1 85.4
12 57 40 PALM RlVER.EAST TAMPA DIVISION 15578 21717 1.981 18815 18670 39" .13" .1" -21 594.6 '28.9 724.5 718.5 712.6 26.2
12 57 45 PLANT CITY DIVISION 37789 47717 60619 66944 73929 26" 27" 10~ 21" 182.6 230.6 293.0 323.6 357.3 206.9
12 57 60 RUSKIN DIVISION 8510 18807 31547 37841 45391 121" 68" 20" 40" 96.' 214.0 358.9 430.5 516.4 87.9
12 57 65 TAMPA DIVISION 368735 430771 514883 556944 602441 17" 20" 8" 16" 1814.6 2119.9 1533.9 2740.9 2964.8 203.2
-------
TARLE 2-4
Populalion, (Jrowth Rates, Per5Ofl!'l per Square Mile
C!!!~ La~'d M~ F'" M;;;", Ci;i.1 D;;i.£~tJu wiiO Grealer or Equal 10 is,OUO Population
in EPA Region IV
St.." C<1ull!)l' MCD POP. POP. I'OP. POP. POP. GROwm RATE PERSONS PER SQUARE MILE
Code Code Code MINOR CML DIVISION 1970 1910 1990 1m 2000 10-80 10-90 90-95 90-2000 11110 1910 1990 1m 2000 MI(1)
12 57 80 THONOTOSASSA DIVISION 9713 14529 19189 21484 24(5) SO$ n$ 12$ 2.'" 113.2 169.3 223.6 250.4 2.10.3 1S.8
12 57 85 WlMAUMA.LlTHIA DIVISION 55)5 14154 21010 24J97 28JJO 156$ "$ 16" 3211 20.5 52.5 78:0 90.6 105.2 2694
12 61 15 VERO BIiACI! DIVISION 34165 55474 16003 100641 117770 62$ 55$ 17. 3411 285.4 "U 711.5 140.1 983.9 119.7
12 69 10 EUSTIS DIVISION 10175 12)29 19202 22641 26696 2111 5611 1811 3611 J95.9 419.1 741.2 881.0 IOJ8.8 25.7
12 69 15 FItUmAND PARK.LADY LAKE DIVISION 4995 8563 IllS I 22937 28985 11$ 11211 2611 5)11 Ian 184.9 392.0 495.4 626.0 ".)
12 69 25 LEESBURO DIVISION 12992 17))) 19961 21401 22945 )JII 1511 111 1411 470.7 628.0 723.2 7754 IJU 27.6
12 69 ~ MOUNT DORA DIVISION 8~1 13229 17148 19110 21296, "" 3011 "$ 23$ 149.0 220.5 285.1 JII.S 354.9 60
12 69 45 TAVARES DIVISION 6348 9(6) 15)38 18474 222.51 4311 6911 2011 4'" 1111 168.1 284.6 342.7 412.8 5J 9
12 69 50 UMATILLA DIVISION 6042 12316 16694 11159 2.1305 10$$ 3S11 1311 2.611 17.. 3H 41.9 54.2 61.2 3482
12 71 16 BONffA SPRINOS DIVISION 6512 13811 32010 41048 526)8 11211 Inll 2811 5611 47.2 100.1 232.0 291.4 311.4 138
12 11 21 CAPE COItAl. btVISlON 16754 38303 16621 95931 120123 12911 lGO$ 2511 SO$ II J.J 150.., 509.1 637.S 798.2. ISO.S
12 71 JO FORT MYERS DIVISION 48218 86828 128458 149J99 17)754 8011 ..11 1611 JJII S25.3 '45 8 1399.3 1627.4 1192.7 918
12 71 35 LEHIGH ACIIiS DIVISION ~31 Ism 191m 21999 254]9 6511 22$ 16. 31. 16.. 60.2 13.5 ".0 91.3 2S1.1
12 71 40 NORTH FORT MYERS DIVISION 11808 271MO 40618 47601 55702 12911 SOli 1711 3411 242.5 555.2 835.) 977.4 1143.8 487
12 13 5 T ALLAHASSEB DIVISioN 86011 101131 1J5479 149081 164064 26. 2511 1015 2011 1144.0 1619.6 2116.9 2m.S 2S6U M
12 7) 10 TALLAHASSEE EAST DIVISION 6380 11080 17252 20245 23757 1411 5611 1711 )SII 41.S 72.0 112.1 1315 154.4 ISJ.9
12 13 IS TALlAHASsEE NORTHEAST DMSION 3217 12853 20859 1.4794 ~71 JG05 all 1911 38. 21.3 111.0 1".1 215.6 261.2 109.9
12 81 10 BRADENTON DIVISION 78711 121182 15989' 177716 197651 5411 nil 1111 2211 81H 1348.0 1178.6 1977.S 21916 199
12 81 30 PALMETTo DIVISION 141SO 18603 2ml 22233 23370 265 1.11 S5 10. '01.4 0... 121.9 7S8.I 797.6 29.3
12 8J 5 BELLE VIEW DIVISION 1T79 19776 4]817 55652 70614 15411 12211 2711 ,.11 31.6 10.4 178.2 226.3 287 4 1.45.9
12 83 15 BAST MARION DIVISION ]907 10592 17716 21366 25661 111$ "" 2011 40. 7.3 19.7 n.1 ]9.1 .'.1 536.9
12 8J 20 FORT MCCOY .ANTHONY DIVISION 6941 9111 16415 19997 24272 nil 10. 2111 4)11 34.S 45.5 11.8 99.) 120.5 2014
12 83 25 OCALA blVISION :14301 66142 103879 122403 144230 ,,,, 5'7S "" 3611 10.1 JI5.7 4".1 'ioU .... 209.S
12 85 I) PORT SALERlfO.HOBE SOUND DIVISION Sl9J 2)542 39865 411042 57896 JS)II 6911 2111 4111 SO.. 221.6 387.0 466.4 562.1 10)
12 85 IS STUART DIVISION 158J9 J2OO2 Sl422 61155 72130 1000S ftS "'I Jl5 400.0 101.1 1298.5 1544.3 1116.6 ]9.6
12 87 10 KEY WEST DIVISION 27563 31727 ]6399 38848 41462 IS. 1511 111 1311 6125.1 JOSO.4 8088 7 8632 9 9213.1 4.5
12 87 17 MlbDLE KEYS DIVISION 5756 10221 15886 11164 2216] ". 5511 1811 16S :JIM.6 540.1 I4O.S 992.8 1112.7 11.9
'12 87 20 UPPER KEYS DIVISION 7012 14887 19114 21316 2J831 11211 2911 1111 2311 58.2 IU5 159.1 177.4 1918 120 5
12 89 5 CALLAHAN .fJlLUARD DIVISION 77J1 14411 20301 21462 27107 8111 «III 1611 3111 11.1 31.9 44.8 51.8 59.' 0).)
12 89 10 FERNANDINA BEACH DIVISION 9140 10841 15]68 17813 20647 1911 4211 1611 HII )19.6 319 I 5n) 622 8 721.9 286
12 91 10 CRESTVIEW DIVISION 12161 14940 22511 26457 J0998 1)11 Sill 1711 3411 15.8 93.1 1~.7 IM.I 19).1 160.5
12 91 15 EGLIN DIVISION 10:149 9956 18410 22J21 21077 .." 85. 21" 43" 18.1 270 49.9 n5
606 3686
12 91 2S FORT WALTON BEACH DIVISION 46626 6OS15 8J4S1 9~ 108J27 JOII 3811 1411 2811 1184\.4 I 54U 212U 2419.3 2756.4
39.)
12 91 3S NICF.VIILE VAlPARAISO DIVISION 141.~7 18S91 27262 318M 37290 JO" 47" ""
:14.. 'i()J8 (1St> 9 96J 1 1126 (\ UI17 28 J
-------
TABLE 2-4
PopulaLion, Growth Rates, I~ersons per Square Mile
and Land Area per Minor Civil Division with Greater or l3qual tu 15,000 l'opulaLion
in EPA Region IV
Stale County MCD POP. pOP. pOP. POP. POP. GROWTH RATE PERSONS PER SQUARE MILE
Code Code Code MINOR CIVIL DIVISION 1970 1980 1990 1995 2000 7O-M 80-90 90-95 90.2000 1970 1980 1990 1995 2000 MI(2)
12 91 II OKEECHOBEE DIVISION 5187 16614 29499 15401 42489 208" 78" 20" 40" 21.9 67.5 119.9 141.9 172.6 246.1
12 95 5 ApOPKA DIVISION 19786 31674 49598 58759 69612 60" 57" 18" 37" 149.1 238.7 173.8 442.8 524.6 132.7
12 95 40 ORLANDO DIVISION 281143 349718 418688 455910 4964&5 24" 20'1 9" 18" 1287.6 1600.5 1.916.2 2086.6 2272.2 218.5
12 95 63 SOUTHWEST ORANGE DIVISION 9901 18798 49983 65723 86420 90" 166" 31" 63" 55.1 104.7 278.3 365.9 481.2 179.6
12 95 75 UNION PARK DIVISION 13696 36792 67218 82555 101391 169" 83" 23'1 46" 145.1 389.7 712.1 874.5 1074.1 94.4
12 95 86 WINTER OARDEN.ocOEE DIVISION 16829 28174 SOl57 61231 747SO 67'& 78" 22" 44" 459.8 769.8 1370.4 1673.0 2042.3 36.6
12 97 5 KISSIMMEE DIVISION 11228 27116 51007 65n6 81497 107" 94" 24" 48" 72.2 149.2 289.5 359.0 445.1 183.1
12 97 15 ST. CLOUD DIVISION 10701 19952 42228 53241 67126 86" 112'1 26" 52" 69.6 129.8 274.7 346.4 436.7 153.7
12 99 10 BELLE OLADE-PAHOKEE DIVISION 32826 35571 1S9SO 36406 36868 8" I" I" 3'1 76.1 12.5 11.4 84.4 85.5 411.3
12 99 15 BOCA RATON DIVISION 31117 58129 94SOO 113227 135665 87" 63" 20" 40" 713.7 1333.2 2167.4 2596.9 3111.6 43.6
12 99 20 BOYNTON BIiACH-DELRAY BBACH DIV. 57010 120627 188402 223206 264439 112" 56" 18" 37" 650.1 1375.5 2148.3 2545.1 10 15.3 87.7
12 99 35 OLADES DIVISION 655 2515 18265 26392 38135 284" 626" 44" 89" 0.5 2.1 15.3 22.0 31.9 1197.3
12 99 4S rumsR DIVISION 9861 22134 60044 79307 104750 124" 171" 32" 64" 26404 591.4 1609.1 2126.2 2808.3 37.1
12 99 SO LAKE WORTH DIVISION 69976 114880 151447 170556 192076 64" 32" 13" 25" 1572.5 2581.6 3403.3 3832.7 4316.3 44.5
12 99 70 RIVIERA BBACH DIVIsION 57620 78476 9OS07 97229 104450 36" 15" 7S "" 1504.4 2049.0 2363.1 253'.6 2n7.2 . 38.3
12 99 77 ROYAL PALM BEACH-WEST JUPITER DIV. 2155 14136 33152 42799 55253 556" 135" 29" 58" 12.7 83.3 195.4 252.2 325.6 169.7
12 99 78 SUNSHINB PARKWAY" DIVISION 2163 23266 7OS4O 94220 125849 976" 203" 34'1 67" 16.2 174.7 529.6 707.4 944.8 133.2
12 99 80 WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION 85609 107129 110395 142572 155886 25" 22'1 9" 19" 2067.9 2587.7 3149.6 3443.8 3765.4 41.4
12 101 5 CENTRAL PASCO DIVISiON 7118 17602 28188 33129 38936 147" 60" 18" 35" 25.6 63.2 101.2 119.0 139.8 278.5
12 101 20 NEW pORT RICHEY DIVISION 31940 74437 103472 118546 135816 133" 39" 15" 29" 211.5 493.0 685.2 785.1 899.4 151
12 101 25 pORT RICHEY DMSION 10512 59582 103749 1246J7 149771 467" 74" 20" 40" 17.1 491.6 859.6 1032.' 1240.9 120.7
12 101 10 ZEPHYRHILLS DIVISION 11036 24096 29097 31311 33693 85" 21" 8" 15" 134.4 248.4 300.0 322.8 347.4 97
12 103 15 BOCA ClEOA DIVISION 40184 62848 67325 68667 70036 56" 7" 2" 4" 2406.2 3763.4 4031.4 4111.8 4193.8 16.7
12 103 20 CLEARWATER DIVISION 156647 262607 312184 332179 353455 68" 19" 6" 13" 1856.0 3111.5 3698.9 3935.8 4187.9 84.4
12 103 SO ST. PETERSBURO DIVISION 293767 348791 365168 368183 371223 "" 5" I" 2" 2685.3 3188.3 3331.9 3365.5 3393.3 109.4
12 103 52 ST. PETERSBURO BEACH DIVISION 14144 15670 16539 16716 16895 II" 6" I" 2" 3722.1 4123.7 4352.4 4398.9 4446.0 3.8
12 103 55 TARPON SPRINOS DIVISION 17590 38609 m31 95680 IIm4 119" 101" 23" 46" 253.1 555.5 111'.4 1316.7 1694.6 69.5
12 105 10 BARTOW DIVISION 10308 41091 46341 49011 51835 36" 11" 6" 12'1 60.9 82.6 93.2 98.5 104.2 497.4
12 105 45 HAINES CITY DIVISION' 19185 32443 37876 40646 43619 69" 17" 7'1 IS 'I 49.4 83.5 97.4 104.6 112.2 388.7
12 105 55 LAKELAND DIVISION 92632 136445 182347 205345 231244 47" 34" 13" 25" 239.3 352.5 471.1 530.5 597.4 387.1
12 105 70 LAKE WALES DIVISION 21178 25012 37787 44153 51591 18'1 "" 17" 34" 76.1 89.9 US., 1S8.7 185.4 278.3
12 105 96 WINTER HAVEN-AUBURNDALE DIVISION S9485 78874 99360 109613 120924 33" 26" 10" 21" S03.3 667.3 840.6 927.4 1023.0 118.2
12 107 21 INTERLACHEN.FLORAHOME DIVISION 6365 12553 17259 19043 21011 97" 37'& 10" 21" 16.1 31.7 43.6 48.1 53.1 395.5
12 107 25 PALATKA DIVISION 18413 22124 24350 24728 2S112 20" 10" 2" 3" 117.5 140.7 154.9 1S7.3 159.7 157.2
-------
TARLE 2--4
Population, Growth Rates, Persons per Square Mile
'uKi Land Area per Minor Civil Division with Greater or Equal to 15,000 Population
in EPA Region IV
SbIt: CouzdJ MCD POP. POP. POP. POP. POP. GROWTH RATE PERSONS PER SQUARE MR.E
1910 1990 1995 1000 MI(2)
C
-------
TABLE 2-4
Population, Growth Rates, l'crsons per Square Mile
and Land Area per Minor Civil Division with Greater ur Equal 10 15,000 Population
in EPA Region IV
~ County MCD pOP. POP. POP. POP. POP. GROWfH RATE PERSONS PER SQUARE MILE
Code Code Code MINOR CIVIL DIVISION 1910 1980 1990 1995 2000 70-80 80-90 90.95 90-2000 1970 1980 1990 1995 2000 MI(2)
13 S9 5 ATHENS DIVISION S4800 60045 62173 62382 62592 10S 4. 0'-' I. 8041.1 92H 955.0 951.2 961.5 65.1
13 63 II FOREST PARK-MORROW DIVISION 59680 70313 67596 65681 63820 18'-' ''''' -3" .6" 1314.5 1548.7 1488.9 1446.7 1~5.7 45.4
13 63 15 JONESBORO DIVISION 14893 2775 I 39376 44210 49795 16'-' 42" 12'-' 25" 241.1 00.5 .639.2 718.8 80U 61.6
13 63 25 RIVERD.'LE DIVISION 15111 42004 55906 61S97 67867 171'" 33" 10" 20" 510.2 1515.1 2109.7 2324.4 2S61.0 26.5
13 67 5 ACWORTH.KENNESAW DIVISION 17Ci08 29481 64495 82290 104995 67S 119" 28'-' 55" 160.5 268.7 517.9 7SO.1 957.1 109.7
13 67 10 AUSTEll. DIVISION 12983 16420 19795 21577 23519 26'-' 21" 9" 18'-' 630.2 197.1 960.9 1047.4 1141.7 20.6
13 61 15 FAIR OAKS blVISloN 23S90 21710 21082 20864 20648 ... -3. -I ti -2ti 2016.2 1855.6 180 1.9 1183.2 1764.1 11.;
13 67 20 MABLETON DIVISION 23863 30201 343S9 36688 39175 21'-' 14" 7" 14" 790.2 1000.0 1137.7 1214.1 1297.2 30.2
13 67 2S MARlETT A DIVISION S5m 680421 103117 121961 143292 23" 52" 17" 35" 1200.6 1477.1 2242.3 2634.3 3094.9 46.3
13 67 30 NORTHEAST COBB DIVISION 15131 71025 123444 150162 182663 369" 74" 2a 43" 223.8 IOSO.7 1126.1 2221.3 2702.1 67.6
13 67 3S POWDER SPRINoS DIVISiON 7720 11501 21230 26187 32301 49" 85" 23" 47'-' 276.7 41U 7eo.9 931.6 il57.' 27.9
13 67 ~ SMYRNA DIVISION 32427 37390 47139 52229 57869 15" 26" II" 22" 1832.0 2112.4 2663.2 2950.8 3269.4 17.7
13 67 45 VININOS DIVISION 1870 11569 laSSO 22110 26353 47" 60ti 19" 38'-' 650.4 956.1 1533.1 1827.3 2118.0 12.1
13 69 15 DOUGLAS DIVISION 14407 17007 20203 21489 22857 18" 19" 6'-' 13" 109.6 129.4 153.8 163.5 173.9 131.4
.13 71 20 MOULTRIE DIVISION. 20717 22671 23C102 23890 24182 9" 4" lti 2". 143.0 156.5 162.9 164.9 166.9. 144.9
13 73 10 EV ANS DIVISION C Y . 10688 25675 46S03 57313 10636 140'-' 81" 23'-' 46. 147.6 354.6 642.3 191.6 975.6 72.4
13 73 15 HARLEM DIVISION. . .., \\ 1\ 8915 10825 15638 18172 ('2Ili'i 21" 44. 16" (32"" 109.3 132.7 191.6 222.7 :m.8 81.6
13 77 25 NEWNAN DIVISION 248045 30504 39892 45768 52510 23" 31" 15" 29'-' 99.2 121.8 1S9.3 182.8 209.7 250.4
13' 81 10 CORnE!.6 DIVIsION. 17089 1823) 19115 19042 18969 7" 5" .0" -I" 18.4 83.6 17.7 '7.3 '7.0 218
13 89 6 ATLANTA-DECATUR DIVISION 260937 291409 319300 331143 34342S la 10. 4" 7" 2038.6 2276.6 2494.5 2587.1 2683.0 128
. 13 89 20 CHAMB:.EE,-DORA viU.ribIVISION 88737 9800S 101925 103449 104996 lOti 4" I" 3" 2304.11 2S4U 2647.4 2687.0 2727.2 38.5
13 89 45 LITHONIA DIVISION 11747 22193 44317 54686 67481 94" "" 23'-' 47" 187.7 364.1 707.9 873.6 1078.0 62.6
.13 89 6S STONE MOUNTAIN blVlSION 9464 22611 34566 40266 46906 . 139" 53" 16" 33" 468.5 1119.4 171 J.2 1993.4 2322.1 20.2
13 89 70 TUCKER DIVISION 44504 48206 57268 61397 65824 8" 19" 7'-' 14'-' 1194.5 1943.1 2309.2 2475.7 2654.2 24.8
13 95 15 EAST DOUGHERTY DIVISION 31995 36048 35910 34471 33090 . m5 ..0" ..." -I" 285.4 321.6 320.3 307.5 295.2 112.1
13 95 20 WEST DOUGHERTY DIVISION 57644 64670 63647 60995 58454 12" -a ...'-' .1" 261.4 293.3 211.6 276.6 265.1 220.5
'1] 97 5 BILL AlII' DIVJSION 3308 18565 26123 29932 34296 461. 41" 15" 29" 67.1 376.6 529.9 607.1 695.7 49.3
13 97 21 LlTHIA :>PRINOS-DOUOLASVILlE DlV. 21565 29643 42132 48401 55619 3a 42" 15" 30" 314.4 432.1 614.2 7OS.7 110.8 68.6
13 103 10 RINCON DIVISION f-q '...~f' 6193 9522 15280 180455 ~.;'; 54" 60" 21" (~2
-------
TAnLE 2--4
Populabon. Growth Rales, PenlOfl5 per Square Mile
and Land Area ~r Minor Civill)ivi~1m tIJi~ Qre:l~:-:::- ~~:=: :u :~,oro Puvuiaiiun
in EPA Region IV
SIW: COuaiy MCO I'OP. I'OP. POP. POP. 1'0.. GROWTH RATE PERSONS PER SQUARE MR.E
Code Code Code MINOR CIVIL DIVISION 1970 1980 19!IO 1995 2000 70.-0 10-90 90-95 90-2000 1970 1910 1990 1995 2000 MI(1)
I] 121 20 COLLEGE PARK DIVISION 16m 2OS92 23297 2A387 25528 24" 13" 5111 9111 2476.4 )073... 3477.2 3639.9 3810.1 6.7
U 121 25 EAST POINT DIVISION 40364 4Ot22 38009 3650S 35061 0" -6" ..." .8" 2903.9 2908.1 2734.5 2626 3 2522.3 13.9
U 121 30 FAiRBUJIH-UNION CITY DIVISION 18S75 32132 40411 44077 48016 73" 26111 .15 II" :101.1 520.1 655.0 714.4 m.2 61.7
U 121 46 ROSWELL.ALPHARETT A DIVISION 19132 39700 90343 114152 144236 108" 128" 26" S3" 142.2 295.2 671.7 .... 7 1072.4 134 5
I] 127 5 8RONSWlClt DIVISION 1951S ]]381 36900 37A4 ]84U 70" 11111 2111 4111 447.1 762.1 ..2.5 160.4 m.6 4U
U 129 S CALHOUN DIVISION 15663 19268 22761 2A390 26129 23" II" 7" 14" 147.9 181.9 21S.0 2:103 246.7 IOS.9
13 U5 S 8UFORIJ DMSION 9221 12131 20)40 24N4 »S9O 32111 61" 23" 45111 231.9 314.5 '26.9 646.2 792.5 ]1.6
U US IS LAWRENCEVlllE DIVISION 1J891 ]0230 17S19 103192 U7367 118" 156" J3" 66" 165.1 360.7 925.0 1231.4 1639.2 8U
I) m 20 Ut80JlN DMSION 1790J 53795 97451 121701 151911 ZOOS "" 25111 50" JIG.9 1144.6 2071.6 2519.4 m1.6 41
13 US 25 NORCROSS DMSION 114S7 22109 S2628 692AO 91096 93" U8" 32" 63" 347.2 670.0 15948 20982 2760.S ]J
U 135 30 SNEll VlllE-ORA YSON DIVIsION 8284 JOSS2 ~52 92)58 12O!I06 269111 IJI" 31" 62111 18.2 325.4 7SU "'"' 1217.6 93.9
13 US 3S SUWANEE.DULUTH DIVISION 6279 10104 28461 38391 SI786 61" 182" "" 70" 125.1 202.S S1O.4 769.4 1037.8 49.9
I) U7 10 CORNEliA DIVISION 12250 15216 16664 17227 17109 24" 10" 3111 7111 141.1 176.1 192.9 199.4 206.1 86.4
13 119 15 OAINESVILLE DIVISION 34862 43646 4011 44594 44879 25" 2" III I" 274.5 343.7 348.9 3RI 353.4 127
13 151 15 MCDoNOUOH DIVISION 9884 13316 15101 17711 20014 35" "" "" 25. 13.3 n.1 111.3 1J2.0 148.5 134.8
IJ 151 20 STOCKBRIDOE DIVISION 6922 14149 26754 34428 44303 104" 89" 29" S7" 125.9 257.3 486.4 6260 IDS.5 SS
I) I5J 10 PERRY ['IVISION 10336 12226 lsan 16155 Inus "" 23" 1111 14" 121.6 150.9 186.1 199.4 21fl 81
U 153 IS WARNER ROBINS DIVISION 49581 621S2 71931 75886 1OOS8 25" 16. 5" II" 480.4 602.2 697.0 735.3 77S.8 103.2
IJ 169 7 ORA Y .oiUSWOLD DIVISION 9886 13929 16216 11159 11090 41" 11111 ,. "" 50.2 10.1 82.1 81.1 91.9 196.'
I) 175 2S DUBLIN DIVISION 19346 21122 21841 2"88 22136 9" 3" I" III 12A.7 136.1 140.1 141.7 142.6 155.2
U 179 5 HINESVIl.lS DMSION 13419 31528 38m 40267 42JO'J lUll 22111 '" 10111 50.1 111.1 141.2 150.' 158.1 261.6
U 115 JO V ALooST A DIVISION )7827 SQ4.48 511198 498SO 48632 33" I" .2" .5" 191.0 264.1 267.5 261.0 254.6 191
IJ 189 10 THOMSON DIVISION 12767 14846 16136 Id60S ,,... 16111 ." 3" 6. 176.1 205.6 22.3.5 2JO.o 236.7 n.2
u 2U 10 CHATSWORTH DIVISION .j' \ ,. 7961 12320 16150 18417 21002 55" 31" 14" .28111 57.1 88.) 115.1 132.0 ISO 6 139 5
U 115 5 COLUMBUS DIVISION 167377 170108 178390 177161 175954 2111 '. .1111 .1111 781.4 '94.1 In. I 127.1 121.4 214.2
U 217 6 COVINGTON.PORTERDALE DIVISION 2200S 27636 36689 41273 46430 26" 33" 12" 25. 163.6 2OS.S 272.8 306.9 3452 134.S
J) 223 10 HIRAM DIVISION 5119 9214 1m3 21950.. 2786r.' 78111 II" 27" ,'~. 16.9 136.5 156.2 325.2 412.8 67.5
IJ 2H 10 CEDARTOWN DIVISION 11714 19O5O 19561 19650 197)9 8" 3" 0" I. 98.7 106.2 109.0 100.S 1100 179.
13 245 5 AUGUST A DIVISION I 36068 14-4126 141365 136614 I 3202J 6" .2" .3111 .7" 1479.0 1566.6 1536.6 1484.9 105.0 9'2
IJ 24'i 20 ORACEWOOD DIVISION \ !I, 575) 14461 26004 JOS75 J5\N9 151" 80" II. 35" 1625 408 5 734.6
863.7 1015.5 35.
IJ 247 3 CONYERS DIVISION 12322 21544 30797 3570) ~1)91 75" 43" 16" 32" 254.1 4442 tlUO
736.1 853.4 48.5
U 247 15 SOt/TII ROCK DALE DIVISION 2938 1009() I77JI 21722 26611 24J" 76. 2.'" 45" 65)
224.2 394.0 4827 5914 45
IJ 25S 10 GRIFFIN DIVISION 26476 3492.4 41428 44328 47431 32" 19. 7" 14" 44S.1
587.9 697.4 746.3 798.5 59.4
n 251 IS TOCCOA DlVI~ION 9184 14J06 15876 16'i17 17184 56' "" ."
." ISO.3 214.1 2S9.8 270J 281 2 61 I
-------
TABLE 2-4
Population, Growth Rales, l"crsons per Square Mile
and Land Area per Minor Civil Division with Greater or liqual to IS,OOO Population
in Ef)A Region IV
State Couuty MCD POP. POP. POP. POP. POP. GROWfIl RATE PERSONS PER SQUARE MILE
Code Code Code MINOR CIVIL DIVISION 1970 1980 1990 1995 2000 70-80 80-90 90-95 90-2000 1970 1980 1990 1995 2000 MI(2)
13 261 5 AMERICUS DIVISION 19952 22326 223M 21717 21()88 12~ O~ .3~ -6. 148.6 166.2 166.5 161.7 157.0 134.3
13 275 35 THOMASVILLE DIVISION 24045 26986 27441 27515 27589 1215 215 0" I. 114.1 128.1 130.2 130.6 130.9 210.7
13 277 35 TIFTON DIVI$ION 18251 211.49 22626 23082 23547 16~ 6~ 2. 4. 622.9 m.2 m.2 787.1 803.7 29.3
13 279 16 VIDALIA-LYONS DIVISION 16743 19661 21893 22851 23851 "" II" 415 9. 73.5 86.3 96.1 10C)'] 104.7 227.9
13 285 20 LA ORANGE DIVISION 30938 36301 39816 40922 420S9 17~ 10~ 3~ 6. 203.0 238.2 261.) 261.5 276.0 152.4
13 293 25 THOMASTON DIVISION 13839 19357 20857 21173 21494 4O~ 8~ 2" 315 221.8 310.2 334.2 339.3 344.5 62.4
13 299 30 WAYCR-OM DIVISION 21*..67 30409 29493 23610 27753 9" .3" ..]" -6" 1IS.4 125.9 122.1 ;t=.~ 114.9 2.01.5
13 305 5 IESUP DIVISION 13264 15396 16675 16951 17232 1615 8~ a 3. 39.0 45.3 49.1 49.9 50.7 339.7
13 313 5 DALTON DIVISION 4S679 51445 52571 53197 53830 13~ 2" I" 2. 312.0 35U 359.1 363.4 367.7 146,4
~I 9 10 OLASOO'N DIVISION 14583 18085 18692 18619 18546 1.415 3~ .015 -115 174.4 216.3 223.6 222.7 221.8 83.6
21 15 10 FLORENCE DIVISION 19301 26435 33001 36$89 4OS67 37" 25" II" 22. 449.0 614.8 767.5 150.9 90.4 43
21 19 5 ASHLAND DIVISION 36769 33998 31566 30085 28673 -8" -7~ -515 -915 2283.8 2111.7 1960.6 1868.6 1781.0 16.1
21 21 5 DANVlLL£ DIVISION 14383 17612 18491 19050 19626 22. 5. 3~ 6" 184.4 225.1 237.1 2.44.2 251.6 78
21 29 15 SHEPHERDSVILLE NORTHWEST DIVISION 14846 25169 26485 27509 28573 70~ 5~ 4. 8. 194.8 330.3 347.6 361.0 375.0 76.2
21 35 10 MURRAy DIYISION 13537 17411 17204 17441 17611 29" .1" I" 3" 285.6 367.3 363.0 368.0 373.0. 47.4
21 37 40 NEWPORT DIVISION 76498 68353 65212 64193 63190 -II~ -5~ -215 -3. 1981.8 1770.8 1689.4 1663.0 1637.0 38.6
21 47 20 , HOPKlNSVILU! DIVISION 32200 36858 35S66 34170 32829 14. """ """ .." 158.5 111.5 175.1 168.2 161.6 203.1
21 49 10 WINCHESTER DIVISION 19680 23399 25432 26263 27121 19" 9~ 3~ 7" 159.2 189.3 205.8 212.5 219.4 123.6
21 59 3 DAVIESS BAST DIVISION 15859 17562 170S9 16542 16041 II" .", -3~ -61 II.) 90.0 IU IU 12.2 195.1
21 59 6 DA VIESS WEST DIVISION 12763 18697 19425 19480 19535 46" 4~ 015 I" 50.5 74.0 76.8 77.1 77.3 252.8
21 59 10 , OW£NSBOko DIVISIoN 50863 49690 51275 51210 51145 .21 '" .0" .0" 3633.1 3549.3 3662.S 3657.9 J6SU 14
21 67 10 FAYETTE DIVISION 174323 204165 231135 1.43993 257566 "" 13~ 6" II" 610.8 71.5.4 809.9 854.9 902.5 285,4
21 13 20 FkANru:oRT DIVISION JOJ4I 39429 41A68 43510 44578 30" I. 21 S~ 236.7 307.6 3]1.J ]39.4 347.7 128.2
21 89 15 RUSSELL DIVISION 15411 17961 16780 16145 15534 17" -7~ ....~ -I" 945.5 1101.9 1029.4 990.5 953.0 16.3
:: 2j 93 10 BUZABttHTOWN DIVISION 19410 28592 28375 26985 15663 47. .1. .5" -10" 111.0 163.5 162.2 154.3 146.7 174.9
21 93 21 RADCLIFF DIVISION 18133 24194 28932 29796 30686 37~ 11~ 3~ 615 174.7 238.9 278.7 287.1 295.6 103.8
21< 93 45 WEST POINT DIVISiON 33509 26117 18922 15643 12932 .22" ',.21. .17~ .351 344.0 268.1 194.] 160.6 132.1 97.4
21 95 45 HARLAN DIVISION 18389 20039 18366 16866 15489 9. -I~ -815 -1615 181.7 198.0 181.5 166.7 153.0 101.2
21 101 15 HENDERSON DIVISION 21082 21283 21384 21250 21117 I" O~ .1. .1. 1516.7 1531.2 1538.4 1528.8 1519.2 13.9
21 107 20 MADISONVILLE DIVISION 25091 29737 28913 28015 27145 1915 -3. -315 -6" 145.3 172.2 167.4 162.2 157.2 172.7
21 III 35 LOUISVILLE DIVISION 691411 681390 668634 653630 638963 .I~ .2" -2. ..... 2100.3 2069.8 2031.1 1985.5 1941.0 329.2
21 113 15 NICHOLASVILLE DIVISION 11011 18210 24364 27517 31078 6515 34. 13" 26" 114.9 190.1 254.3 287.2 324.4 95.8
21 115 2S PAiNTSVILLE DIVISION 10644 15587 153S5 14608 13897 46. .I~ .5" -10" 106.4 155.9 153.6 146.1 139.0 100
21 117 5 COVINOTON DIVISION 112573 111377 112366 114031 115721 -I" I. I" 3" 2535.4 2508.5 2530.8 2568.3 2606.3 44.4
-------
TAULE 2-4
~optllation. Growth Hates. Persons pcr Square Mile
~~ L::m! .'\~ ;rer L'v'b;:;;T Ci..r.~ m~,,~w -w-i.."i Gi~iei( 6f ~..qua~ io i5.000 ropuiauoo
in EDJA Region IV
SIaIe COUIIIy MCD pop, POP. POP. POP. POP. GROWTH RATE PERSONS PER SQUARE MILE
Code Code Code MINOR CIVIL DMSION 191'0 1910 1990 1995 2000 7O-«J 1D-90 90-95 90-2IlOO 1910 1980 1990 1995 2IlOO MI(2)
21 117 20 INDEPENDENCE DIVISION 116S6 1909~ 227)9 2Mi16 26648 64.. 19.. IS "" 141.0 406.J 411.1 UJ.7 S67.0 47
21 145 10 PADUCAH DIVISION 51289 5JI79 52142 51095 SOO69 4.. -a -21 -4. 49O.J ~ou 491.~ 411.' 478.7 IIM.6
21 151 5 BEREA DIVISION 12340 1S617 16769 11m 11009 27S ,. 4. 7. 101.2 1)7.5 147.0 ISU 157.1 114.1
21 151 25 RICHMOND DIVISION 20585 27531 31858 34U5 36575 34. 161 7" 14. 350.7 469.0 542.7 SlI.S 62J.1 sa.7
21 161 10 MAYSVlUJi DIVISION 1S4CM 1591S Ism 15520 I S40I :u, -2. .IS -IS IU IU 17.7 17.0 86.4 17I.J
21 179 5 BARDSTOWN DIVISION 11582 14535 1633J 17105 179IJ 251 12" '" 9S 95.9 120.J UU 141.6 148.3 120.1
21 lIS 13 PIiWEIi VAlLEY DIVISION 8111 15145 WI4 25815 29600 9041 42. ". 29. 19.7 In.s 246.6 282.7 nu 9J.J
21 193 40 HAZARD DIVISION 14178 "812 17827 17275 16740 261 0" -3" ~I 170.1 214.6 214.1 201.1 201.7 n
21 199 ]5 SOMERSEt DIVISION 184116 2SOOI 26516 2t181O 21127 ,.." .. I. 2. 14B 19'-2 20'7.0 209.4 211.1 128.1
21 70S 15 MOREHaD DIVISION 12637 16146 15809 15516 15128 281 -2" .2. -4" 67.2 IU 84.0 82.5 810 188 I
21 209 5 OEOROEToWN DIVISION 1<8654 16772 18498 19825 21247 141 10. 7. 141 122.1 139.1 154.2 165.2 177.1 120
21 211 IS SHELBYVILLE DIVISION 11224 13929 15455 16367 17J)3 241 II" 6. 12" 11.1 100.6 111.7 111.3 1252 U8.4
21 2" 5 C~B~vnLEDIVlS~N lJOOS 16100 1711) 1 '404' 17792 2.4S 6. 2. ... 11".7 141.0 150.9 IU.9 156.9 IIU
21 227 5 BOWLING OREEN DIVISION 4OS48 52IM1 S6J22 55474 S46J9 281 I. -2" -31 406.J 521.5 S64,) ~55.9 547.5 998
21 239 10 VERSAIlLES DIVISION 8469 12760 16211 11111 202A1 5U' 21. 12. 23. 9'-8 145.1 liB 207.1 231.J . 17.5
28 )3 5 DISTRICT I 9166 10918 lSOI9 17646 20636 19" 38. 11.. 34" 11.9 ".0 130.0 152.0 177.7 116.1
28 33 10 DJSTRlCT2 110'78 12186 In59 20)96 23964 10. 42. 1711 ". )76.1 41".5 510.4 69J.7 115.1 21.4
28 )) 15 DISTRICT J 6092 12245 16064 111378 2102.S .101. JI. 14" 2911 57.1 116.2 152.4 174.4 199.5 1~.4
28 J5 10 DISTRICT Z 9189 1tO.7 m.2 m.9 ]15.4 307.2 116.7
28 49 25 DISTRICT 5 41859 39240 J48 2J 32206 297116 -6,. -II~ -I'" .151 239.J 2244 199.1 184.1 170.3 1149
28 5~ 5 iJlSTRICT I 8569 24231 31789 34314 37040 1131 HI I" 16" 34.1 96.5 126.6 136.1 147.5 251.1
28 59 10 mSTRICT 2 22400 16987 16074 15226 l44n -24~ .5. .51 -II I 2731.7 2071.6 1960.2 8856.' 1158.9
82
28 59 15 DISTRICT 3 22994 11656 15415 14251 13175 -231 -13" ... -151 4))8.5 ]))1.3 29OI.S
2688.9 2A8S.1 5)
28 59 20 DISTRICT 4 2J672 35867 3R056 37988 37920 51~ 6. .0" .o~ 1628 246.7
261.7 261.3 260 8 IH4
-------
TAIJLE 2-4
Population, Growth Rales, IJersons per Square Mile
and Land Area per Minor Civil Division with Greater or Equal to 15,000 Population
in EPA Region IV
Slate COUnty MCD POP. POP. POP. POP. POP. GROWTH RATE PERSONS PER SQUARE MILE
Code Code Code MINOR CIVIL DIVISION 1970 1980 1990 1995 2000 70-80 80-90 90.95 90-2000 1910 1980 1990 1995 2000 MI(2)
28 59 25 DISTRICT 5 10339 23274 27SOO 28611 29767 125" 18" 4" 8" "2.0 9
-------
TARLE 2.-4
"~li2t!on, (irowLi! ~~, Pc!'ro!!S ~!' &:~re M~!~
and LweI Area per Minor Civil Division with Greater m Equal 10 15,000 PopuiabOO
in EPA ~egion IV
Slate COUDIy MCD I'OP. I'OP. I'OP. I'OP. I'OP. ORO'NI"H RATE PERSONS PER SQUARE MILE
Code MINOR CIVIL DMSION 1910 1980 1990 I99S 2000 10-10 1I().90 9CJ.9S 90-2000 1910 1910 1990 1995 2000 "'(2)
Codc Code
J1 51 SO ROCKFISH TOWNSHIP IS800 26042 28581 2932.5 30088 6S~ 10~ J~ SII 261.2 .30.. 4n.4 484.1 .97.3 60.5
37 SI SS SEVENTY .FIRST TOWNSHIP 4942' 67870 69904 70694 114'J J1~ 3" I" 2" 116.0 1065.S 1091.4 1109.8 IIU.J 6J.1
J1 57 5S LEXlHOI"ON TOWNSHIP 27946 2US9 29416 2916S 30321 311 2S 211 3S .51.1 413.1 412.2 489.6 491.1 61
J7 S7 7S THOMASVlLLE TOWNSHIP 28970 JOIJ9 34481 36822 39JIS .~ 14" 1" 1.11 .26.1 44J.9 S07.9 542.3 579.0 679
J1 6J 10 DURHAM TOWNSHIP 101806 106832 11730 12J693 IJOJ84 SS lOll 511 1111 IJIG.I 1651.9 1122.1 1920.1 2OZ4.6 6U
J1 6J JO TRIANOLE TOWNSHIP 11674 16616 28021 33833 408S1 42" 69~ 2111 41~ 202.1 288.S 4865 S11.. 709.2 516
37 6S 5 TOWNsHIP I, T ARBORO 13679 15010 15543 15111 16002 10~ .11 III 3S 336.9 369.7 312.1 ]I'" ]N.I 40.6
]1 65 60 TOWNSHIP 12, ROCKY MOUNT 18763 20734 23993 2.5S51 21223 II" 16~ 7" I)~ .21.. 413.. 547.1 ,ns 621.5 43.1
J1 67 JO KERHnSVIU£ tOWNSHIP Hn 154S9 11717 20214 21131 6011 2111 III 1611 271.7 .34.2 525.1 567.1 613.2 J5.6
31 67 60 SOUTH FORK TOWNSHIP 10546 13296 11S26 19522 21745 26~ 32" II" 23" 522.1 651.2 867.6 966.. 1076.5 20.2
37 67 70 WINstON toWNSHIP 13457. mils 139326 ,.:J08S 146945 .2S 6. 3S 511 1534.5 ISOU 1!II.7 1631.5 187", 17.7
37 71 15 DALLAS TOWNSHIP 14119 16123 18473 19391 20361 14" 85" ", 10~ 2)9.7 2n.3 312.0 327.7 344.0 59.2
J1 11 20 OASToHIA toWNSHIP 61460 703S5 74678 7615'7 79100 .11 '" ]11 611 1210.7 1S5.9 908.5 935.0 962.:1 12.2
J1 11 15 RIVER BEND TOWNSHIP 12685 11193 11161 18413 11668 36" 6" I. 3" 234.5 311.1 ])S.1 :WO.o4 34S I 54.1
37 11 JO SOUTH I'oINT TOWNSHIP J2JS7 J))95 )9542 421066 44751 3. 1111 611 u. 595.9 "5.0 728.2 114.7 12A.1. 54.3
J1 II 30 FRIENDSHIP TOWNSHIP 1602 11647 20321 24S95 29168 3S" 7.. 2111 .2" 261.0 3628 633.1 766.2 927.3 32.1
37 II JS OIUofER TOWNSHIP 55310 S3S60 53824 S4OS4 54215 -311 Oil 011 I. n76.1 2204.1 2215.0 2224.. 2213.9 14.3
37 81 4S HIOH POINT TOWNSHIP 67008 66422 61340 68384 69444 .1" I" 2. 311 1599.2 IS15.3 1607.2 1632.1 16S7.4 41.9
37 II 70 MOIWI8AD toWNSHIP 90621 102081 11.131 121cm 121')9 13. 12. SS II. Im.3 2109.1 2m.7 2!00.5 26)5.1 48.4
37 U 45 ROANOIE RAPIDS TOWNSHIP 1150S 20340 22622 23690 2A808 10" 1111 s. 9. SSO.1 605.4 673.J 70S. I 1".3 336
31 17 60 9IA. YNBSVlLLS TOWNSHIP 16955 18084 19092 194" 19821 1S 'II III 4. 264.' 212.1 :t97.1 m.s 309.2 64.1
]1 89 30 HENDEISONVILLE TOWNSHIP 25018 31S15 35031 36S21 38087 26" II. 4. 9. 432.1 S44.5 6OS.0 6JO.9 657.1 57.9
37 97 20 CODDI.I CIW!IC. TOWNSIlIP 12942 14457 16987 11408 19948 12. II. IS 1111 211.3 JOJ.I 356.1 315.9 411.2 .7.1
]1 97 70 STATESVILLE TOWNSHIP 15651 25167 26810 21871 28914 -2~ 1. .. I" 5S7.1 547.1 512.1 605.9 629.9 46
31 107 20 KINSTOH TOWNSHIP 28j6] 28046 26579 2.5136 249210' .all -511 -J. "II Ion. 1 loon 952.7 m.4 1932 27.9
]1 109 20 LlNCOLNTON TOWNSHIP 16147 18879 21761 2J686 25181 1111 15" 9. II" 311.7 ]64.S 420.1 .51.3 497.1 51.1
J1 fit 5 TOWNsHIP I, CHARLOTTE 29SOSO 314441 360107 317858 .1614 I 7. 1511 IS ISS 1613.2 1719.2 1961.9 2116.1 mu 1129
]1 119 2~ TOWNsHIP 5. PROVIDENCE 2648 . 7064 17245 22481 29322 161" 144" JO~ 61. 1)5.8 362.3 884.4 1153 2 IS03.1 19'
J1 119 :JO TOWNSHIP 6, CLEAR CREEK "'3 1192S mil 2OS63 24051 96. 4711 1711 34. 166.7 316.7 481.7 563.. 651.9 J65
n 119 65 TOWNSHIP 13, MORNING STAR 2966 1130 16194 20565 26116 161. 109" 27" ,." 168.S 09.2 920.1 II68S I48J 9 176
37 125 35 TOWNSIIIP 7, MCNEILLs 10221 1J960 16696 18379 20'232 n. 20~ 10S 20. 122.7 167.6 2100.4 220.6 242.9 IU
37 127 65 ROCKY MOUNT TOWNSIIIP 16799 18020 19004 19404 19812 7" S" 2~ 4" 518.S 5562 586.5 598 9 611.S )2.
31 127 15 STONY CREEK TOWNSHIP IOJ36 14206 18JOI 20249 22A04 31~ 29" liS 21 II 284.7 J91.3 504.2 557.1 611.2 36.)
37 129 5 CAPE FEAR TOWNSIIJP 6119 10184 15285 17617 20305 52" SO" 15. 31" 81.7 IJJ 0 199 5 230 0 265 , 766
-------
TABLE 2-4
Population, Growth Rales, Persons per Square Mile
and Land Area per Minor Civil Division with Greater or Equal to 15,000 Population
in EPA Region IV
Slate Couuty MCD POP. POP. POP. POP. POP. GROWTH RATE PERSONS PER SQUARE MILE
Code Code Code MINOR CIVIL DIVISION 1910 1980 1990 1995 2000 70-M 80-90 90.95 90-2000 1910 1980 1990 1995 2000 MI(2)
37 129 15 HARNETT TOWNSHIP 15635 26986 31707 33643 3S697 73" 17" 6" 12" 247.1 427.7 S02.5 533.2 565.7 63.1
37 129 20 MASONBORO TOWNSHIP 8015 13777 15620 16502 17434 72" 13" 6" "" 378.1 649.9 736.8 778.4 822.3 21.2
37 129 25 WILMINGTON TOWNSHIP 47483 44000 47493 49268 51109 .7" 8" 4" 7" 2261.1 2095.2 2261.6 2346.1 2433.1 21
37 133 5 JACKSONVILLE TOWNSHIP 541144 54111 59085 61429 63866 -,,, 9" 4" 8" 386.8 381.6 416.7 433.2 450.4 141.8
37 133 20 SW ANSBORO TOWNSHIP 20337 23380 282S4 29919 31682 IS" 21" 6" 12" 15.0 97.7 111.1 125.1 132.5 239.2
37 133 25 WHITE OAK TOWNSHIP 14129 18787 24262 26640 29251 J3~ 29~ 10" 20" 150.1 899.6 257.8 2n.i 310.9 94.1
37 I3S 15 CHAPEL HILL TOWNSHIP 3930 J 50572 61576 68653 76543 29" 22" "" 23" 429.5 552.7 673.0 7SO.3 836.5 91.5
37 139 5 ELIZABETH CITV TOWNSHIP 15507 14297 15676 16488 17342 -8" 10" 5" 10" 2SO 1.1 2306.0 252U 2659.4 2797.1 6.2
37 145 40 ROXBORO TOWNSHIP 13m 15154 16327 17012 Jm6 13" I" .... 8" 303.9 344,4 371.1 386.6 402.9 "
37 147 so OREENVILLE TOWNSHIP 30486 34557 37766 39648 41624 13" 9" 5" 10" 1354.9 1535.9 1678.5 1762.1 1849.9 22.5
37 147 75 WlNTERVILLE TOWNSHIP 5412 11091 17542 20863 24813 IOS" 58" 19" 38" 117.9 241.6 382.2 454.5 540.6 45.9
37 151 5 ASHEBORO TOWNSHIP 18100 18745 19396 19925 20468 4" 3" 3" 5" 467.7 484.4 SOI.2 514.9 528.9 38.7
37 151 95 TJUNrrV TOWNSHIP 14084 18249 23191 25910 28947 30" 27" 12S 23" 25t.5 325.9 414.1 462.7 516.9 56
37 153 25 ROCKINGHAM TOWNSHIP 13705 16043 16631 169!14 17365 17" 4" 2S 4" 243.0 284.5 294.9 301.3 307.9 56.4
37 155 45 LUMBERTON TOWNSHIP 20311 23301 25160 25961 26788 15" ." 3" 6" 585.5 671.5 725.1 748.2 m.o. 34.7
37 157 10 LEAKSVlLLE TOWNSHIP 20373 22176 22142 22f117 22012 9" .{I" .{I" .1" m.5 427.3 426.6 425.4 424.1 51.9
37 157 35. RElDSVJU-E TOWNSHIP 17230 18236 18097 180S1 18007 6" .1" .{I" .{I" 247.9 262.. 260.4 259.7 259.1 69.5
37 159 10 CHINA OROVE TOWNSHIP 19496 20285 20731 21095 21465 4" 2S 2" 4" 459.8 478.4 488.9 497.5 506.3 42.4
37 159 55 SAUSIIURV TOWNSHIP 30675 27389 2.1466 2!1259 300'74 -II" 4" 3" 6" 986.3 180.7 915.3 NO.1 967.0 31.1
37 161 20 COOL SPRINO TOWNSHIP 13093 15709 16420 16659 16901 20" 5" I" 3" 430.7 516.7 540.1 548.0 556.0 30.4
37 165 15 STEWAltTSVItLI> TOWNSHIP 16559 19070 20666 21400 22160 15" ." 4" 7" 111.2 201.6 226.1 234.1 242.5 91.4
37 169 45 Y AOK1N TOWNSHIP 77SO 13249 16988 18754 20704 71" 28" 10" 21" 97.2 166.2 213.1 235.3 259.8 79.7
37 171 40 MoUNT AIRY TOWNSHIP 20963 23616 23780 23842 23904 13" ." 0" I" 342.0 385.3 381.9 318.9 390.0 61.3
37 179 30 MONROE TOWNSHIP 22563 26260 32249 355 II 39103 16" 23" 10" 20" 194.5 226.4 278.0 306.1 337.1 116
i7 179 45 V ANCB TOWNSHIP 6577 11390 20353 25003 :J0715 73. 19" 23" 46" 132.9 230.1 411.2 S05.1 620.5 49.5
37 181 10 HENDERSON TOWNSHIP 20807 22300 22861 23096 23333 7" 3" '" 2S 594.5 637.1 653.2 659.9 666.7 35
37." 183 15 CARY TOWNSHIP II 973 26037 45129 54999 67028 117" 73" 22. "" 377.7 821.. 1423.6 1735.0 2114.4 31.7
37 183 30 HOUSE CREEK TOWNSHIP 8077 21874 42950 53738 67236 171" 96" 25" 50" 399.9 1082.9 2126.2 2660.3 3328.5 20.2
37 183 60 NEUSB TOWNSHIP 8240 19824 3S902 44177 543S9 141" 81" 23" 46" n3.1 m.. 1407.9 1732.4 2131.7 25.5
37 183 75 RALEIOH TOWNSHIP 105932 101910 108755 113359 118158 -4" 7" 4" '" 2635.1 2535.1 2705.3 2819.9 2939.3 40.2
37 183 80 ST. MARYS TOWNSHIP 20466 28326 33356 36214 39317 38" 18S 9" 17w. 352.3 487.5 574.1 623.3 676.7 58.1
37 183 85 ST. MATTHEWS TOWNSHIP 12656 20412 25666 28518 31687 61" 26" II" 22" 197.8 318.9 401.0 "5.6 495.1 64
37 183 95 WAKE FOREST TOWNSHIP 9288 11458 16305 I 88S2 21797 23,. 42" 16" 31" 117.9 145.4 206.9 239.2 276.6 78.8
37 191 5 BROGDEN TOWNSHIP 14052 18005 19037 19457 19886 28" 6" 2" 4,. 118.2 151.4 160.1 163.6 167.3 118.9
-------
~ -?
TABLE 2-4
~~~:t:;ao ~r~w1.~ ~~. ~~~S ~iT ~oore ~v~~~z
and Land fovea ~i Minoo Civil Divit>iM with Gmitei m Equal ao 15,oon ~OjRiIa~M
in EPA Region IV
Sbtc Coualy MeD POP. POP. POP. POP. POP. OROWfH RATE PERSONS PER SQUARE MILE
Code Code Code MINOR CIVIL DIVISION 1910 1980 1990 1995 2000 'JO.a) 110-90 90-9S 90-2000 1910 1980 1990 1995 2000 MI(2)
37 191 20 OOlDSBORO TOWNSHIP 29799 21>778 25712 25218 1473J .10" ~" .2S ~. 1552.0 1J9oC. 7 1139.2 IJIU 1288.2 19.2
37 191 45 NEW HOPE TOWNSHIP 14811 19293 20JOot 20617 20935 30" 5" 2S 3S 187.5 244.2 257.0 2610 2650 7'9
37 195 50 WILSON TOWNSHIP )4638 37642 39344 .0057 4078] 9" 5S 2. .S 680.3 695.8 m.2 740.. 75J.1 54.1
45 3 5 AIKEN DIVISION 31..5 38195 46976 51392 5622) 21" 2)" 9S 19" 21..5 260.5 32CU )506 383.5 1~6
.5 3 50 NORTH AUOUST A DIVISION 36267 40041 49987 5.3 60699 10. 25" .0. 20. 440.7 "'.5 em.4 66111.3 717.5 82.3
45 7 5 ANDERSON DIVISION 53252 64 396 67854 69475 71135 21" 5. 2" 5" .00.1 483.8 50U 5220 534.4 133.1
.5 7 35 BRUSHY CIUi£K DIVISION 5563 1169) 19071 22718 27062 IIOS 63. 19. .. 82.2 172.7 211.7 "5.6 )99.7 67.7
45 7 76 WlLLJAMSTON .PELZER DIVISION 11008 15338 16580 17175 17791 39" 8" 4" 7" 115.. 17..7 111.1 195.6 202.6 178
45 13 7 BEAUFORT -PORT aOY AL DIVIsIoN 37636 J9258 471101 49338 51191 .. 20" 5. 10S 4'0.0 .27.6 512.0 537.5 56U 91.8
45 13 10 BLUFFTON DIVISION 5152 14978 2A461 28386 3~1 185" 63" 16" 32" 20.3 57.9 94.6 109.8 127.. 258.6
45 15 18 GooSE CREEK-HANAHAN DIVISION JeNII 58157 19854 90677 102961 91. 37. 14. 27. 199.7 381.9 5U.! "U 676.1 152.3
45 15 25 MONCKS CORNER DIVISION 6904 12354 20389 24029 28319 7'9" 65. 18" 36" 510 103.8 171.3 201.9 2)8.0 119
4S .9 6 CHAItLESTON-NORTH CIIARLBSToN DIY. 177157 187261 2089CI2 218169 227782 6. 12S .. 9. I"'.' 2051.' 22M.] un.5 2503.1 91
45 19 15 JAMES ISLAND DIVISION 24197 27719 25889 24603 23381 15" -7" .5" -10. 531.1 609.2 569.0 540.7 513 9 .5.5
45 19 40 MoUNT PLEASANT DIVISION Is..o 28764 J9782 ....91 49751 56. 38. 12. 14. 217.7 3)9.6 469.7 m.3 587.' . ".1
45 21 10 GAFFNEY DIVISION 2a24 21922 27928 28125 28323 12" OS I" IS 1".9 163.0 163.0 164.2 165.3 1'71.3
45 23 S CffESTER DMSION 16922 17411 18436 .8166 19306 3. 6S Z!I 5S 61.8 6'-' 73.' 7J.6 17.. 2A9.5
.5 29 30 W At TERBORO DIVISION 15)22 18312 21054 22330 23683 20" 15" 6" 12. 51.0 '61.. 78.4 831 11.1 261.7
45 ]I 5 DARUNarON DIVISION 184.. 13469 24616 24985 25360 27" 5. IS 3. 111.4 .4U 150.2 152,4 1.54.7 I6U
45 31 20 HARTSVILLE DIVISION 23390 19884 20441 20553 20666 -15" 3S I" I" 21..1 112.6 111.7 111.7 189.1 101.9
45 35 25 SUMMIiRVILJ...E DIVISION 18671 43111 69110 81976 91139 ISI. dO" II. n. 101.5 2JU ]76.2 "5.1 528.2 11J.9
4S 41 15 FLORENCE DIVISION 46218 56489 60096 61578 63097 22" 6. 2" 5" 321.7 .u1.8 .27.4 010 ...1 140.6
4S 41 ... PAMPLICO DIVISION 9890 14020 16259 17219 11384 42S ". 'S 13" 4.5.1 64.0 74.2 78.9 IU 219.2
45 4) 10 GEOROETOWN DIVISION 15638 19281 21549 22681 23812 23" 12S 5" "" 110.0 135.7 151.6 159.6 168.0 14U
4S 45 IS GREENVILLE DIVISION 176434 197261 2OJ995 209IMcI 214222 12S JS 2. 5. "4.2 1089.2 1126,4 1154.3 IIIU 111.1
.5 45 35 GREER DIVISION 12129 12283 15811 17616 19627 IS 29. "" 23" 666.4 674.9 868.1 9619 1078.4 112
4~ 45 60 SIMPSONVILLE DIVISION 7674 15890 26774 32214 38928 107. ". 21. 41. ISU 31U '28.1 636.. 161.. SO.7
45 45 70 TAYLORS DIVISION 9746 17325 21026 22964 25081 78" 21" 9" 18" ]12.4 555.3 673.9 7360 IOU 312
45 47 5 GREENWOOD DIVISION ~173 3961A ~}~ 41Id52 4U81 i6~ 2'i IS 3. 286.1 ]]2.4 3)8.3 342.7 347.2 119.2
45 51 15 CONWAY DIVISION 18665 23868 31788 35173 38918 28" 33" "" 21" 73.0 9). 124.4 137.6
152.3 1556
4S 51 45 ltrTLE RIVER DIVISION 4960 11181 16254 19662 23785 77" 85S 21. 42" 75.1 134.1 m.2
300.2 363.1 M.S
45 51 70 MYRTLE BEACH DIVISION 21211 34827 543S1 63090 73194 64" 56" 16" 32" 228.6 375.3 586.0
679 8 718.7 928
45 55 20 CAMDEN DIVISION 18611 20)81 22642 24IIM 25660 10" II. 6. 13" 108.0
118.3 I)'" 139.9 la.9 In.)
45 57 15 LANCASTI'R DIVISION 290]5 349SI 36402 ]7016 37640 20" 4" a
3" 164.7 198.2 20t1 5 2100 21 J 5 176)
-------
TAULE 2-4
Population, Growth Kates, Persons per Square Mile
and Land Area per Minor Civil Division with Greater or Equal to 15,000 Population
in EPA Region IV
Stale County MCD POP. POP. POP. POP. POP. OROWTIt RATE PERSONS PER SQUARE MILE
Code Code Code MINOR CIVIL DIVISION 1970 1980 1990 1995 2000 70-80 BO.90 90-95 90-2000 1970 1980 1990 1995 2000 MI(2)
45 59 5 CLINTON DIVISION 16644 16268 16080 15994 1S908 -2" .1" .1" -I" 112.0 109.5 108.2 107.6 107.1 148.6
45 59 15 LAURENS DIVISION 11577 1915O 19121 19099 19011 9" .o" .o" .o" 109.4 119.2 119.0 118.8 118.1 160.1
4' 63 15 IRMa DIVISION 9771 158S6 34154 38344 43048 165" 32" 12" 15" 469.8 IU3.1 1642.0 1843.5 2069.6 20.8
45 63 30 LEXINGTON DIVISION 12291 15820 31898 43899 S08SO 110" 41" 16" 32" 121.3 254.6 313.1 432.9 SOI.5 101.4
4S 63 43 WEsT COLUMBIAoCA YCE DIVISION 4371S SSS82 62240 65763 69485 27" 12" 6" II" m.4 ~.I 748.1 790.4 835.2 83.2
45 61 15 MARION DIVISION 14463 16581 11145 11323 11503 15" 3" I" 2" 16.6 81.9 90.9 91.8 92.8 In.7
45 69 5 BENNETTSVILLE DIVISION 13597 16731 16807 16583 16362 23" 0" -I" -3" 114.4 140.7 141.4 139.5 131.6 111.9
45 11 10 NEWBERRY DIVISION 15685 16403 11616 18112 18146 5" 7" 3" 6" 95.2 99.5 106.9 110.3 113.7 164.8
4S 13 2S SENECA DIVISION 14756 17711 21461 23519 15m 21" 21" 10" 19" 176.1 212.2 256.1 280.7 307.6 13.1
45 75 so ORANOEBURO DIVISION 29699 31220 41806 44026 46364 15" m, 5" II" 1S8.6 198.7 223.2 235.1 U7.5 181.3
45 77 10 CUMsON DMsION" 8433 IS058 17307 11311 19388 79" IS" 6" 12" 319.4 570.4 655.6 693.9 734.4 26.4
45 71 15 EASLEY DIVISION 18087 26029 31464 34OS4 36851 44" 21" 8" 16" 316.0 541.1 654.1 108.0 766.3 48.1
.s 79 15 COLUMIIA DIVISION" 198567 195759 187861 184431 111066 -I" "''' .2" ..." 1157.' 1141.5 1095.4 1075.4 lOSS.' 171.5
45 19 30 DUTCH FORK DIVISION 12286 30460 42084 41295 53151 148" 38" 12w. 15" 145.6 360.9 498.6 560.4 629.8 84.4
45 19 so PONTIAC DIVISION 4482 16U3 26986 32083 38143 262" 66" 19" 38" 90.4 327.5 544.1 646.' 769.0 .49.6
45 83 85 SPARTANBURO DIVISION 93014 105609 112117 115141 119495 14" 6" 3" 6" 778.4 883.1 938.2 968.6 1000.0 119.5
4S 13 90 W£u.FORD DIVISION 11214 12631 1590S 175SO 19365 13" 26" 10" 2'" 269.6 30U 382.3 421.9 465.5 41.6
45 85 28 SHAW-HORATIO DIVISION 16491 18434 18951 18929 18901 12" 3" .0" .0" 127.8 142.9 146.9 146.7 146.6 129
45 85 35 SUMTIOR DIViSION 43165 45m 53571 56828 60283 5" "" 6" 12" 131.2 111.0 1040.2 1103.5 1170.5 51.5
45 81 15 UNION DIVISION 18139 19511 19482 19260 19041 4" .0" -I" .2" 114.3 182.1 181.2 119.2 177.1 107.5
4S 91 10 CloVER DIVISION 9615 12902 11163 19292 21685 34" 33" 12" 15" 7403 99.6 132.4 148.9 167.3 129.6
45 91 15 FORT MILL DIVISION 8951 12861 15125 11115 18159 44" 22" 9" 18" 166.5 239.1 292.3 319.2 348.7 53.8
45 91 40 ROCK HILL DIVISION 52356 64083 80312 8902S 98683 22" 25" II" 22" 273.1 335.2 420.0 465.6 516.1 191.2
41 I 35 OAK RIDGE DIVISION 26829 15300 15901 26153 26401 -6" 2" I" 2" 593.6 559.1 513.2 518.6 584.1 45.2
47 3 20 SHELBYVILLE DIVISION". ISOl2 17345 18163 18593 19033 . 115" 5" 2" ,,, 230.6 266.4 279.0 285.6 292.4 65.1
47 9 44 MARYVlLLE-AlCOA DIVISION 4S019 51690 60965 65202 69733 15" 18" 1'J, 14" 452.5 519.5 612.7 655.3 700.8 99.5
47 "." II 10 CLEVELAND DIVISION 34488 46308 SOSl3 52933 5S469 ",.." 9" 5" 10" 541.4 727.0 793.0 131.0 870.1 63.7
47 IJ 40 LA FOllETTE DIVISION 11833 17752 18539 18655 18m SO" 4" I" I" 13U 199.9 208.8 210.1 211.4 88.8
47 19 10 ELIZ'uETHTON DIVISION USOO 28859 30126 30170 30214 18" 4" 0" 0" 414.6 488.3 509.7 510.5 511.2 59.1
41 29 35 NEWPORT DIVISION 15801 17788 11960 11966 11912 13" I" 0" 0" 125.1 140.1 142.1 142.1 142.2 126.4
47 31 IS MANCHESTER DIVISION 10188 14307 IS098 1S409 15126 33" 6" 2ft 4" 77.3 102.6 108.2 110.5 112.7 t39.5
41 31 15 TULLAIIOMA DIVISION 16611 11508 19528 20421 21367 5" 12" 5" 9" 246.1 259.4 289.3 302.6 316.6 61.5
47 35 8 CROSSVILLE DIVISION 8861 13276 16443 18225 20200 SO" 24" II" 22" 114.3 171.3 212.2 235.2 260.6 77.5
41 31 16 METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT DIVISION 441853 477811 516126 5J4592 553119 7" 8" 4" '" 884.6 943.7 1019.4 1055.9 1093.1 S06.J
-------
TARLE 2--4
PupulaLitm. (jmwth Raies, Persons per Square Mile
and Land Area per Minor Civil Division with Greater or Equal 10 15,000 Population
in EPA Region IV
SIde COUnl)' MCD POP. POP. POP. POP. POP. ORO\VT1f RATE PERSONS PER SQUAIIE MILE
MINOR CIVIL DIVISION 1910 1910 1990 1995 2000 ~ 1C).9C) 90-95 90-2000 1910 1910 1990 1995 2000 MI(2)
CGde CGde Code
.7 .5 5 DYERSBURO DIVISION 19673 22636 22764 2»95 2)838 15~ '" 2" 5" 137.7 1".4 159.3 163.0 166.' 142.9
.7 51 040 WINCHESTER DIVISION 14~7 16485 17755 11322 18907 IS" 8" ,,, 6" 68.' 79.1 85.2 87.9 907 208.4
47 55 25 PULASKI DIVISION 14083 1~2 ICI695 17186 17691 "" 7" 3" 6" 48.9 54.3 57.9 59.6 61.4 2.1.2
47 59 10 OREENEVILLE DIVISION 28~2 '0231 3100A :J0965 :J0906 7" ''' ~'' ~" 176.5 181.2 19:J.2 192. 192.4 160.6
47 6' 10 MORRISToWN DIVISION 30119 38M9 38172 31527 :J6193 2'~ 0" .2. .3. m.3 «JIU 407.' 400.9 ".2 9'.6
47 65 10 CHATTANOOGA DIVISION 187M2 202092 198653 200608 202582 8" -2" I" 2" 1105.6 1189.5 1169.2 1110.7 1192.4 169.9
47 65 15 EAST IUDOI! DIVISION 20906 III69t 20147 205N 21051 .6" 2S 2S 4S 3266.6 J077.2 3148.0 n 17.8 :J2.I9. 2 6.4
47 65 61 SODDY -DAISY DIVISION 969' JJ565 15501 16609 17196 040" 14" 7" 14S 276.9 387.6 442.9 474.5 SOl 5 35
47 79 20 PAlUs DIVISION IS078 17112 17'1(7 17191 17127 U" IS ~S .1. 126.4 143.4 144.7 144.1 143.6 119.'
47 9) ]0 CONCORD DIVISION ,.79 11m 17414 19881 22697 115" 48" 14" 21" 209.9 451.0 667.2 7617 .69 6 26.1
47 93 55 HALlS DIVISION 12901 20125 206:J2 ~7 20462 56. 3S ~" .IS 2AO.2 J7U :J44. 2 38U 381.0 n.7
47 9) 90 kNOXVD..LE DIVISION 2)2017 251520 250)38 247877 24~ 9. -I" -I. -2" '17.0 889.2 1.1.5 .72. '64.2 2M
47 99 25 LAWRENCEBUITO DIVISION 12651 1542) 17124 179)6 11717 22" liS 5. 9. 116.7 142.3 1".0 16'-5 173.] 101.4
47 105 10 LENOIR CITY DIVISION UUM 1S906 16967 17364 17770 21" 7" 2" 5" 1720 201.7 222.7 227.9 2)).2 76.2
47 107 5 AtHlINS DIVISION 19912 23301 24492 14756 UO'13 17. 5. IS 2S 105.7 12H 129.5 130.' 131.3 .189.1
47 II) 15 JACKSON DIVISION 52)78 5664' 6OJ9I 62277 64214 8" 7" ,,, 6" 446.1 482.5 514.5 n05 5470 117.4
47 119 S COLUMBIA DIVISION 250n 29311 J24» 34125 3S199 17" liS 5" 10. 213.1 JJU t67.0 316.0 -.1 81.4
47 115 5 CLARkSVILLE DIVISION 42288 53)99 67m 75467 804510 . 26" 26. 12" 24. 297.6 375.' 474.3 531.1 594.7 142 I
47 131 .5 UNION CITY DI\'ISION 15268 15747 15j66 14994 I46JI 3. .2. ~S -5. 105.2 101.5 105.9 IOU 100.' 145.1
47 141 IS COOKEVILLE DIVISION 24910 ~781 J9616 .1957 444)6 40" I.. 6" 12. 193.6 270.2 )07.' 3260 )4H 1287
47 14' 5 DAYToN DIVISION 11643 16199 16426 16,.7 16750 39" I. I" 2. M.' ".7 97.0 91.0 ".9 169.3
47 145 10 HARRIMAN DIVISION 14122 16063 16574 16713 16853 14. 3. I" 2. 291.' :JJ I. 9 ~U 345.3 :J4I.2 484
47 147 : :J6. SPRINOFUiLD-OREEN8lUER DIVISION 18552 2)177 2601G 27925 29901 25. IJS 7S 14S ISU 192.' 217.0 m.3 248.1 120.2
47 149 :JO MURFREESRORO DIVISION 3561J 45749 65152 77)38 90966 28" 44" II. '5. 296.5 :J8O.9 "7.5 64).9 757.4 120.1
47 149 45 SMYRNA DIVISION 11752 21285 14909 42550 51"3 '1. ". 22. ... 201.6 365.1 "8.1 729.' 119.6 ".)
47 1S5 '5 SEVIERVILLE DIVISION 101128 15669 19999 22085 24J89 45" 28" 10. 21" 99.6 144.1 IM.O 20).2 224.4 108.7
47 157 20 COLUERVILLE DIVISION 5605 9715 17466 21224 25791 73. 80S 22" 43. 113.9 191.5 355.0 431.. S'lA. 2 49.2
47 157 40 MEMPHIS DIVISION 67,.23 722123 766006 789) 19 113)42 7" 6" 3. 6" 1739.4 1159.7 1972. 7 2032.1 2094.6 )88)
47 .57 45 MILUNarON DIVISION 28170 27515 25451 25141 241)4 -2!5 "'" .1. .2" 430.1 420.2 '81.6 :JI).I :J79.1 6",
47 163 21 BLUFF CrTY.PINEY FLATS DIVISION 10552 1,.79 I ()(M6 16205 16366 .7. 4" I" 2. 958 1040.5 145.6 141.1 1415 1102
47 163 15 BRISTOL DIVISION :J094 3 31047 JOOIi9 29614 29166 m, -,,, -a -,,, 756.6 759.1 7)5.2 72A.1 71).1 40.9
47 163 so KINGSI'ORT DIVISION 7S069 82180 84468 115H2 86205 '" 3" I. 2" 5,. 0 606.5 623.. 629. 636 2 1J55
47 165 15 GALLATIN DIVISION 1637. 204-47 151J1 27'9]0 JIG41 2'" 23" "" 22. 218.9 273.4 ')6.0 37).4 415.0 741
47 165 20 IIENDERSONVII.LE DIVISION 2f»19 3851) .. 7656 53081 59131 "". 24. ... 23" 2194 402 9 498.5 555 ) 6186 9~ 6
-------
TABLE 2-4
IJopulalion, Growth Rates, Persons per ScJuare Mile
and Land Area per Minor Civil Division with Greater or Equallo 15,000 Population
in EPA Region IV
Stote CouDly MCD POP. POP. POP. pOP. POP. GROWTH RATE PERSONS PER SQUARE MILE
Code Code Code MINOR CIVIL DIVISION 1970 1980 1990 1995 2000 10-80 80-90 90-95 90-2000 1910 1980 1990 1995 2000 MI(2)
47 177 25 MCMINNVlLLE DIVISION 15743 16813 16461 16281 16096 7" .215 .1" .2" 309.3 330.3 323.5 319.9 316.2 50.9
47 179 15 JOHNSON CITY DIVISION 55339 6J3n 61565 68927 10316 15" 7" 215 4" 622.5 112.8 760.0 775.3 791.0 88.9
47 187 15 BRENTWOOD DIVISION 6446 18026 31125 380 13 46425 180" 73" 22" ...." 13.4 205.3 3S4.S 432.9 528.8 87.'
47 187 2S FRANKLIN DIVISION 13990 20779 31122 36619 43087 49" SO" I'" 35" 153.4 221.8 J4U 40LS 472.4 91.2
47 119 15 LEBANON blVislON 17287 11748 23629 26218 29091 ." 26" II" 22" 201.7 218.8 275.7 305.9 339.4 1S.7
47 189 2S MOUNT JULIET DIVISION 6287 15024 23084 27247 32161 139" 54" 18" 36" 175.1 418.5 643.0 7S9.0 895.8 35.9
Source: BonDaIa of Hummel8lown, Pennoylvania and Oanndt Fleming of HarrilburS, Pennl)'lvania.
NoIe8: (I) Statea: 1 = Alobama, 12 = Florida, 13 = Georgia, 21 = Kentudy, 28 = Miaaiuippi, 31 = North Carolina, 4S = South Carolina, 47 = T...neuee.
(2) Countiea and MCDo: See Appendix A for defmitioo of codea.
..
r
"
~.
"
-------
TABLE 2-5
Prioritizatioo of Minor Civil DiviliOlll
With Greata' or Equal to 15,000 PopuJatiOll by Slate
In EPA RegiOllIV
PROJECTED DENSrrv LAND
GROWl'll PERSONSIMI(2) AREA
!TATE COUNTY MCD RANKlNO RANKING RANKING WEIGHTED WEICHTED
eODH CODE CODE MINOR CIVIL DMSION (sJ) (x2) (xl) VALUE RANKING
= ---. J ~ liA Y Mll'uu I Ii DIVISION loa 86 : 43 i.J7 ~3
'
1 3 25 f'OLEY DIVISION 123 62 21 212 ~2
I 3 10 [IAPENIi DMSIOH 126 ". 17 197 ~I
I 97 25 CJIllAND BAY DIVISION 114 58 21 193 oW
I 115 15 JlELL CITY DMSION 117 56 16 189 39
1 83 5 ATHEN£ DIViSION 78 68 42 188 38
I 97 SS T ANNER.WI1.UAMS DmmON 120 50 14 184 37
I 117 3 ALABASTER-HELENA DMSION 129 24 3D 183 36
I I 20 PllAT'lV1LLE DMSIOH 96 .52 22 170 35
I m 5 AL~ANDER CITY DMSION 75 70 25 170 ~
1 39 S A:~&)ALUSIA D1VI.SION 42 &4 40 166 33
I 45 25 O;ZAJU{ DMSION ". 16 35 165 n
1 39 25 H~TSVllJ.J! DMSION 9' 31 34 165 31
1 103 15 DECATUR DIVISION 99 54 10 163 30
1 51 IS E[.MORE DIVISION 111 46 5 161 29
I 69 20 DOIiHAN DIVISION SIO 36 36 162 28
I IS oS ANNISTON DMSION 4.5 86 29 160 27
1 31 10 EI'I'iERPIUSE DIVISION 51 66 33 ISO 16
I 3 20 FAIlU{OPB DIVISION 105 38 4 147 25
I 59 IS RUSSELLVILLE DIVISION 24 82 38 144 1~
I 49 20 IFORT PAnI'E DMSION 39 71 24 141 23
I 103 30 MAR.TSIELLE DIVISION 102 28 II 141 ~2
1 17 20 !.ANGDALE DIVISION 87 42 7 136 21
I 121 50 i A.::"I~ADEQA DIVISION 30 74 31 135 ~o
I 95 4 iWJ~RTVa.I.S.80AZ DMSION &4 34 12 130 19
I 1 J 3 25 PHIHilX CITY DIVISION 81 30 18 129- 13
1 97 30 MOBU DMSION 63 20 41 124 17
7) 50 CiAlWENDALE DIVISION 72 44 8 124 16
127 35 lASP;~R DIVISION 69 40 11 120 15
~7 35 SELMA DIVISION 6 n 37 115 I~
7/ 30 sccrrrslOlO DMSIOH 3 80 32 115 13
97 60 THE:OOORlE DMSION 41 32 3D 110 !~
101 25 M01frOOMlllY DMSION 60 18 26 104 11
1:5 60 TUSCALOOSA DMSION 66 11 23 101 10
1:1 4$ S'n.M:AUOA DM.SION II 60 20 98 9
87 2S nlS,UOU-MILSTEAD DIVISION 15 64 15 94 3
81 6 AI!1I UWf~PE1JKA DMSION S7 16 19 92 7
33 23 nU~mE.S DMSION 9 74 6 89 ~
7J 15 BnUtimOHAW DIVISION 36 2 39 77 5
55 15 GADSDEN DIVISION 21 26 28 75 ~
43 :0 CtJL;~MAN DIVISION 12 41 9 69
77 10 FLOJU!NCE DIVISION 33 18 13 64
73 ~2 HOO~R DMSION 27 14 I 42
., 99 3S GLAJ)/ES DIVISION 453 300 151 904 : 5 :
-.
-, 21 5 EVEflCJLADES DIVISION 363 302 ISO 815 : 5.)
, ; 15 ! 1 I~TE>R.10R COUNTY DIVISION 399 276 139 814 :~~
'.
-, 5.5 10 LAKE i?LACID DIVISION 366 2~ 141 808 :.;j
, 83 15 EAST MAR-ION DIVISION 336 292 144 772 . "
.'
-------
TABLE 2-5
Prioritization of Minor Civil DivisiOlll
With Greater or Equal to 15,000 Population by State
In EPA Region IV
PROJECTED DENSITY LAND
GROWl'll PERSONSIMI('2) AREA
STATE COUNTY MCD RANKING RANKING RANKING WEIGHTED WEIGHTED
CODE CODE CODE MINOR CIVIL DMSION (KJ) (:12) (xl) VALUE RANKING
12 91 15 EGLIN DMSION . 3.54 278 135 767 146
12 17 5 CRYSTAL RIVER DMSION 396 230 132 758 145
12 53 16 WEEICI WACHEE DMSION 444 114 124 752 144
12 83 5 BELLEVlEW DMSION 411 214 119 744 143
12 19 15 MIDDLEBtJRG-CLA Y HD.L DIVISION 435 212 93 740 142
12 99 77 ROYAL PALM BEACH-WEST JUPITER DIV 420 208 104 732 \~I
12 83 20 FORT MCCOY-ANTHONY DIVISION 357 262 111 730 140
12 15 4 GROVE CITY -ROTONDA DIVISION 408 . 224 87 719 139
12 15 10 PUNTA OORDA DIVISION 291 282 146 719 138
12 95 63 SOUTHWEST ORANGE DIVISION 423 188 107 718 137
12 113 10 GULf BREEZE-HAROLD DMSION 341 244 121 713 136
12 71 16 BONITA SPRINGS DMSION 417 200 91 708 135
12 117 15 OVIEDO DMSION 314 220 95 699 134
12 17 10 INVERNESS DMSION 342 226 130 698 133
12 93 11 OKEECHOBEa DIVISION 333 242 120 695 132
12 97 15 ST. CLOUD DIVISION 402 196 97 695 131
12 35 11 FLAGLER. BEACH DMSION 450 176 52 678 130
12 97 5 KISSIMMEE DMSION 375 194 108 677 129
12 111 16 PORT ST. LUCIE DMSION 447 140 75 662 128
12 127 18 DELTONA DIVISION 414 166 78 658 m
12 109 20 ST. .AUGUSTINE DMSION 306 222 128 656 116
12 99 78 SUNSHINE P~WAY DIVISION 432 134 90 656 125
12 101 5 CENTRAL PASCO DMSION 273 256 127 656 12~
12 89 5 CALLAHAN-HILLIARD DMSION 219 286 141 646 123
12 53 6 BROOKSVIU.S DMSION 303 228 109 640 122
12 21 15 NAPLES DMSION 378 146 115 639 121
12 21 10 IMMOKALEE DMSION 189 296 147 632 120
12 71 21 CAPE CORAL DMSION 387 148 94 629 119
12 57 85 WIMAUMA-LlTHIA DMSION 2.37 266 125 628 118
12 71 35 LEHIGH ACRES DMSION 225 '272 1'22 619 11 i
12 73 10 T ALLAHASUB BAST DMSION 267 2.50 98 615 116
12 109 14 PONTE VEDRA DMSION 438 152 2S 615 115
12 105 70 LAD WALBI DMSION 252 236 126 614 11~
12 69 15 FRUITLAND P~.LADY LAKE DIVISION 405 164 40 609 : 1 J
12 69 SO UWAtBJ.A DMSION 192 284 131 £lJ7 ' , ,
11-
. 12 73 15 TALLAHASSEE NORTHEAST DIVISION 309 218 77 604 111
12 57 10 anus PAJU(-FERN LAKE DIVISION 416 114 60 600 110
12 91 10 CRESTVIEW DIVISION 264 234 100 598 1::9
12 85 13 PORT SALERNo-HOBE SOUND DIVISION 351 174 73 598 108
12 119 5 SUMTER SOUTH DMSION 177 280 133 590 107
12 69 45 T A V ARES DMSION 345 198 46 589 106
12 15 7 PORT CHARLOTTE DIVISION 381 136 69 586 1:5
12 1 15 HIGH SPRINGS-ALACHUA DIVISION 216 252 117 585 1.)J
12 25 28 KEN DALE LAKES.LINDGREN ACRES D1V. 393 94 92 579 11:;
12 9 32 PALM BAY DMSION 441 84 51 576 10:
12 57 £IJ RUSKIN DIVISION 327 182 63 572 .'.
...
lZ 5 22 PANAMA CrrY BEACHES DIVISION 390 154 26 570 !,x
!2 . 95 5 APOPKA DIVISION 294 180 89 563 ;.;
-------
TABLE 2-5
PrioritiDdm of Millar CMI DiviIioaa
Wida ~ 01' Equal to 15.000 PopuIadoa by Slale
III EPA Regioa IV
PROJECTED DENsrrv LAND
GROwrH PEUoNSINJ(2) AJUiA
S';,HE COUNTY MCD IWfUfO IlAHXJNO IlAHXJNO WEIOHTED WEIGHTED
CODE CODE CODE MINOR CIVIl. DMSION (13) (12) (&1) VALUE RAN1(INO
- ",."".".-- -
12 107 21 INr~AARo'" DMIIOH 135 211 131 561 98
12 S5 15 SEB:tJMO DMSION 201 240 III 559 97
12 95 75 tn,JI-ON 'AU DIYISION 36t 12% 61 559 96
J 2 113 30 'ACE DMSION 213 231 103 554 95
12 53 1$ OCM.A DiMIIOH 2'29 160 114 553 94
: 2 55 S AVON fJAWe DMSION 110 260 110 550 93
12 101 1$ 1X)!l'i? ISCDY DfYIIION 331. 116 12 537 92
12 103 55 ¥ AJWOM SPIINOS DMSION 372 91 SS 51$ 91
12 127 I 08 BMY.oRANGS cn'Y DMIION m 162 38 521 ~
12 99 45 lU'l1iU DMSION 42t sa 30 517 89
12 21 5 AaC:ADIA 1LU1' DMSIDIf.' to 2tO 134 514 88
12 123 5 FERaY NORTH DMSION 6J 2f1 14' S06 87
12 9 3.5 rm:mvu.u DM.tIOIt 'JIll 110 105 S02 86
12 127 20 NEVI SMYSIHA DMSION 222 192 IS 499 85
12 105 55 L&\ICU..WD DMIIDII IU 1'70 136 4&9 84
' 9 10 COCOA.noacuooa DWWON 206 171 101 413 83
...
2 .s 5 L 1fNPf RAVIN DMSD8 2IS 161 21 481 82
12 87 20 UL>PIUl un DMSION 168 2J2 11 411 81
12 117 20 SANI~OIW DIVISION %70 131 72 410 80
J 2 105 45 HAJl\IE,S ern DMSION 71 264 137 479 .y
1/ II 10 DA V1E DMJIOH 315 loa Sf 471 78
I: 61 15 VER() ~EACH DMIION 261 132 10 473 77
I;: 95 86 WfH1n OAIDliN-ocoa DIYUION UO n 7.1 469 75
" 2S 2S H(jM1~~ DMSION 72 154 142 461 i5
"
12 105 10 BA&TOW DI'VUION 54 261 143 ~ 74
'1 57 6 BIl,Vj C:ON DMSIOH 300 96 66 462 73
"
12 57 45 PLANT CITY DMSIDN 141 - 113 456 7:
' 33 5 CANTONMENT DMSIOH 156 210 M 4!0 7(
., 57 so TH([)NCTOS.u.IA DIYUID" 171 %1' 61 40&1 70
., :~I :0 :'01 EW !)()IT IJCHIY DMSION %10 141 N 448 Oy
"
., !J 10 LAQ emf DMSIIOIf 60 2$1 1%1 447 68
' j~1 10 DE LAMO OMSIOH 114 186 16 446 57
., ~ 10 8AU\~&IInqI DMSION 7A %74 140 ~31 56
. .
9' IS mlAm'DMSION 31% u 33 433 55
. . 39 21 QaINC,'I' ".r-.. 39 %70 113 432 60&
: 17 9 CA.SS&!.UUY.4I.fAWONTI SPalNOS DI 330 .0 H 427 ~J
~y 10 IDftIII [XftIJaN 212 121 16 426 52
71 40 NOITl() I}Oftf WYIU DMSION 1$1 120 4% 420 51
~ .0 MOUN'!r IDOlA DMIIOM 165 206 50 419 :,v
P 17 MIDIi)IA UY9 DMSJoN 281 111 1% 411 5~
. . ~o P~~iJ:, cm DMSION 138 172 106 416 ~~
19 :~ 80Yt4TIO)f IIIACH.DIUAY lEACH DIV. 297 51 62 411 ,.
!9 :0 FWJAl~IO~A UAaI DMSJoH UI 156 11 408 :5
19 15 BOC A IA TON DIVISION 32A 46 36 406 ~ 5
i9 ~~ ORAtJOi! ,~ DMIIOH 216 90 )9 40S :...
JS ORMOND lEACH DIVISION 2A' 108 ~3 ~ ;1
°1 :10 FORT MYU.S I)MllOH UJ 16 67 396 . .
II J5 ~ICEVIll!.VA.UUAJSO DIVISION 2.3, 112 20 )57
-------
TABLE 2-5
Priaritizatioa of Minor Civil DivisiODl
With GmLtcr or Equal to 15.000 Population by State
In EPA Regioa IV
PROJECTED DENSrrv LAND
GROwrH PERSON~(2) AREA
STATE COUNTY MCD RANKING RANKING RANKING WEIGHTED WEIGHTED
CODE CODE CODE MINOR Crvn. DMSION (u) (12) (xl) VALUE RANKING
12 31 35 JACKSONVlLLE.DMSION 111 1~ 149 384 50
12 127 45 PORT ORANGE DIVISION 318 ,~ 17 383 ~9
12 113 20 MILTON DMSION sa 248 83 382 48
12 107 25 PALATKA DMSION 33 246 99 378 47
12 9 25 MELBOURNE DIVWON 246 IJO 49 375 46
12 11 38 MIRAMAR-PEMBROKE PINES DIVISION 234 78 54 366 45
12 101 30 ZEPHYRHD.LS DMSON 87 206 70 363 44
12 111 5 FORT PIERCE DIVISION 162 126 71 359 43
12 105 96 WINTER HI. YBN.AUBua.NDAlJi DMSION 132 130 79 }41 42
12 25 90 NORTH WESTsmE DIVISION 228 '16 23 327 41
12 25 110 PIUNCETON..ooULDS DIVISION 147 106 64 317 ~o
12 81 10 BRADENTON DMSION 159 74 65 298 39
12 91 25 FORT WALTON BEACH DMSION 198 60 32 290 38
12 95 40 ORLANDO DMSION 102 72 116 290 37
12 11 37 MARGATB DIVISION 2AO 11 29 281 36
12 9 31 MERRITT ISLAND DMSION 144 110 24 278 35
12 33 35 PENSACOLA DIVISION " 91 102 27& ~
12 1 5 GAINESVILLE DMSION 96 102 74 272 33
12 115 8 GULF GATEoOSPREY DMSION 153 100 9 262 32
12 11 15 DEERFIELD BEACH DIVISION 150 70 41 261 31
12 11 43 PLANTATION DIVISION 195 20 4S 260 30
i:~ 57 65 TAMPA DIVISION 93 54 112 259 :9
12 99 SO LAKE WORTH DMSION 186 II 37 251 :8
!1 73 5 TALLAHASSEE DIVISION 126 64 53 243 ,~
-'
12 69 25 LEESBURG DMSlON 75 144 19 238 :6
12 115 15 SARASOT A DMSION 105 66 56 227 :5
12 81 30 PALMETTO DIVISION 4& 1~ 22 220 2~
12 liS 35 VENICE DIVISION 123 68 14 205 23
12 25 20 HIALEAH DMSION a20 12 47 189 22
12 9 4 COCOA BEACH~APE CANAVERAL DIV. 129 ~ 5 184 21
12 127 6 DAYTONA BEACH DMSION 114 56 13 183 20
! ~ 99 80 WEST PALM BEACH DMSION 101 38 35 181 19
12 57 40 PAUA IUYBItraAIT TAMPA DMSION 3 151 18 179 18
12 99 70 RJVIDA BEACH DMSION 81 62 31 174 .-
.
12 103 20 CUAaWATR DIVISION 66 32 58 156 15
12 11 so POMPANO BEACH DMSION 117 16 15 1~8 15
12 9 20 1NI)1.ALAH1'JC-Ua 8nURNa BEACH DIV. 99 )4 8 141 :4
12 103 50 ST. PETERSBURG DMSION 15 42 76 133 13
12 2.S 30 KENDALL.PEJUUNa DMSION 42 44 44 130 !Z
12 25 ~5 MIAMI DMSION 30 10 88 128 II
12 11 30 HOLLYWOOD DIVWOH 21 36 34 91 I!j
., :~7 25 NORTH PENINSULA DMSION 57 26 4 87 9
,-
!1 103 I' BOCA CIEOA DMSION 36 JO 10 76 !
I; ~7 10 KEY WEST DIVISION 69 4 2 75
" 11 :0 FORT LAUDERDALS DMSION 9 lIS 48 75 :J
'-
" 25 120 SOUTH WESTSIDE DIVISION 45 6 7 58
., z.s 85 NORTHWEST DADE DMSION 27 14 11 52 ~
'.
" iS3 S2 ST PETERSBURG BEACH DIVISION 11 . 24 I 43
-------
TABLE 2-'
Prioriri~tiOQ of Millar CiW om.u..
W"1da Orar.:r or Equal to 1',000 Pr1pd.ti
-------
TABLE 2-5
PrioritizatiOG of Minar Civil DMIioaa
With Greau:r or Equal to 15,000 PopuIatiOG by Sl2te
In EP A RegiOG IV
PROJECTED DENSITY LAND
ORO\V11l PERSONSIMI(2) AREA
ST.UE COUNTY MCD RANlClNO RANlClNO RANlClNO WElOHTED WEIGHTED
CODE CODE CODE MINOR CIVIL DMSION (d) (K2) (d) VALUE RANKING
IJ 135 2.S NORCROSS DMSIOH 24' 10 13 272 ~I
13 245 20 GRACEWOOD DMSION 191 51 14 210 J.O
13 63 15 JONESBORO DMSION 162 74 30 266 39
13 189 10 THOMSON DMSION 90 132 39 261 38
13 299 30 WA YCROSS DIVISION 15 162 13 260 37
13 121 30 FAIRBURN.UNION CITY DMSION 144 14 31 2.59 36
13 153 15 WARNER ROIINS DMSION 120 16 " 257 35
13 61 30 NORTHEAST coal DMSION 1JY1 14 36 251 ~
13 135 20 ULBURN DMSION 221 6 21 255 33
13 251 15 TOCCOA DMSION 102 111 29 249 32
13 255 10 CiRIFFIH DIVISION 121 10 21 237 31
13 9 21 MILLEDOEvn.LE.MJDW A Y .HARDWICK D 69 114 52 235 30
13 313 5 DALTON DMSIOH 6Q 10. 67 231 29
13 61 45 VININGS DIVISION 201 26 3 230 :5
13 261 5 AM.EIJCUS DIVISION II 141 61 227 21
13 185 30 V ALDOST A DMSION 2A 126 14 224 :6
13 67 2.S MARIETTA DMSION 195 . 20 223 2.5
13 89 65 STONE MOUNTAIN DIVISION 192 24 6 222 :~
13 293 2.S THO MASTON DMSION 7S 112 32 219 23
13 139 15 GAINESVILLE DMSION 54 106 57 211 :2
13 95 20 WEST DOUGHERTY DMSJON 3 122 10 205 21
13 61 10 AUSTELL DIVISION 141 41 7 196 :0
13 67 20 MABLSTON DIVISION 126 41 12 110 19
13 215 5 COLUMBUS DMSION 30 70 71 171 15
13 95 15 EAST DOUOHERTY DMSION 6 116 55 177 17
13 63 25 RJVERDALE DIVISION 147 20 9 176 16
13 89 6 A TLANT A.DECATUa DIVWON 99 16 51 173 15
13 ~71 35 TlFTON DIVISION II 71 11 110 jJ
: 3 51 2.S SA V ANNAl( DIVWON 4' 52 71 161 13
13 121 5 BRUNSWICK DMSION M 66 17 161 I!
13 89 10 TUCXU DIVISION 131 18 I 166 11
13 67 .4() SMYRNA DMSION 1$0 4 5 159 :0
13 59 .s AT'RBNI DIYISIDN 41 Q '" 144 9
i3 121 10 A 1'1..AHT A DMSION 33 21 II 142 3
!3 21 20 WAoCDf DIYWON ]!I 40 49 121 7
:3 121 20 COUiaI PAIX DMSION 111 2 I 114 6
13 59 20 CJIllftI Q.OOIA VILLI DIV1SION n 12 15 99
: 3 :~5 5 AUGUSTA DMSION 11 36 ~ 94 J
:3 63 11 FOUST PAIX.MOUOW DIVISION 21 38 19 78
:3 1/7 15 FAIR OAKS DIVISION 17 30 2 59
: 1 121 25 EA.ST PaIHT DMSION 9 12 4 35
" . 211 15 SHELBYVlLLE DIVISION 99 72 31 202 ...;
. .
; 1 179 S BARDSTOWN DIVISION 93 66 27 114 H
" :09 5 GEORGETOWN DIVISION 105 51 26 183 '3
.,
; I 59 6 DA V[W WEST DIVISION 6Q 10 31 171 J7
" :35 13 PE~'tE VALLEY DIVISION 110 36 16 171 ,~
.0
~ I :39 10 VERSAILLa DIVISION 114 42 15 111 )~
., : 5 1 5 BEREA DIVISION 17 56 25 168 1..1
-------
TABLE 2-5
Priaridzadaa of ~ Civil DiviJiau
WiCh GreaIer or Equal to 15.000 ~d..~CII by Slate
In EPA Rqima IV
PROJECTED DENSITY LAND
OaOwrH PERSONSIWI(2) AJlEA
51 ~ TE COl'NTY MCD IlAMCINO IlAMCINO RANKINO WElOHTED WEIOHTED
CODE CODe CODE MINOR CIV1L DM.SION (zJ) (12) (d) VALUE RAN KINO
- 113 15 NI(:nOLMVIU.B DMSJON 117 34 11
~I 161 33
21 ~9 10 w);\liCHESTER DMSION ,, ~ 21 151 32
21 161 10 MA\\'SVUJU! DMSIOH 41 14 34 1$6 31
; I 211 $ CAMiP8ELUVru.a DMSION 12 60 24 156 30
21 67 10 F A'Y!STTB DIVIIION M II 39 15] 29
21 205 15 MOREHEAD DIVISION 39 71 3S 15~ 28
21 59 3 DA vmas BAIT DMSION 30 76 36 142 ,~
~,
21 199 35 SOMEJUET DMSION 6J 41 29 140 26
21 117 20 IHt.1JPIND1NC8 DIVIIIDN 101 22 , 131 2$
~1 93 ~1 RAJXUFf DMSJOH 71 31 n 131 :~
21 13 20 FRJuatPOn DIVWOIf 7! J2 30 131 23
21 15 10 FLOnENCIa DMSIOH 111 16 6 133 "
21 21 .5 DA!)PilLLB DIVISION 8. 40 11 133 21
21 151 25 RICHMOND DMSION 10'1 20 10 132 :J
21 29 15 SHI!ftWWSVlLLa NORTHWEIT DMSJO 90 21 11 12f 19
2 I 107 20 MADISONVII..U DMSION 24 51 32 WI' :3
21 9 10 OLJUJOOW DMSIOH 54 44 14 l1a 17
: I ~1 20 HOI't~IHSVtLLI DMSION II 54 31 100 :6
21 93 10 ELUABETHTOWN DIVISION 9 66 33 108 15
; I 3$ 10 MU,l,1A Y DMSIOH 66 30 9 lOS ..
,.
~ ~ 11$ ::.s PA£~rsV1LU DMSION 1% 61 20 100 13
:1 93 45 WEJi1I' POINT DMSIOH 3 70 II 91 12
;1 193 40 KAjWtD DMSION rT 50 13 90 11
'. 95 45 HAJU,AN tJlV1SION 6 61 21 89 ;)
" 227 .s BOWIUNO CiUDf DIVWON 45 U 19 II 9
:~S 10 P AtJtlCAH DMSION 36 26 23 as !
" , ,. 5 CO\ltNOTON DMSION 6t 4 7 ao
"I
: II 35 LOCI3VQ.U DMSIOH 33 6 40 79 6
.., :11 1.5 HElI/DEUeN DMSION 51 11 1 6&
59 10 OW1~NSBOilO DMSION 57 2 2 61 ~
. , J7 .o ~EWPO.T DIYWON G 10 ) "
59 15 RUSSUJ. DMSION 11 14 4 39
19 .5 A.SHLAMD DIYIIDf 1" 3 26
. 3 : 21 20 DIS'!mJCr 4 11 61 31 131 ::
:! : ~I , DJmrNC'r n 61 60 24 1~3 31
o ~ J3 S D 1J't1JJCT n 90 44 IS 1~9 ....
: ~ ~9 5 DLI1rmt"f R 6) .52 31 1<66 :9
o ~ : I 10 DIS'1'1l1Cr ~ 1\ 42 22 1~5 :!
o! B 15 DIS11lJCT iJ M 16 27 139 .~
.
oj ~~ :.5 OlS1'I\JCT S .51 5. 29 138 :~
: I J3 15 DIS1'IUCT ~ '" 31 11 \}4 ..
.1 :5 OISTIUCT! 60 S. 19 I)) ..;
. ! 59 , OiSnJCT 1 4a 64 11 127 :3
S' !S DISTIUCT ) 7.5 )1t 13 12;:
< ~, :0 DIS'f.Jel. 54 U 11 III :t
, ~ I 15 DISTRJCT J 4' " 14 107
:5 10 OiSTIJCT 2 66 30 1 104
.. ]J :J DISTRJCT 2 9) 6 ) 102
-------
TABLE 2-5
Prioritization of Minor Civil Divisioos
With Greater or Equal to 15,000 Population by Slate
In EPA Regioo IV
PROJECTED DENSITY LAND
GROWl'll PERSONSIMI(2) AREA
STATE COUNTY MCD RANKING RANKING RANKING WEIGHTED WEIGHTED
CODE CODE CODE MINOR CIVD. DMSION (z]) (xl) (xl) VALUE RANKING
28 75 10 DISTRICT 2 33 50 18 101 17
28 81 20 DISTRICT 4 78 18 5 101 16
28 49 10 DISTRICT 2 30 40 30 100 15
28 35 10 DISTRICT 2 57 32 6 95 \~
28 149 15 DISTRICT 3 72 10 4 86 13
28 59 20 DISTRICT 4 36 28 20 84 12
28 35 25 DISTRICT 5 9 56 16 81 11
28 47 15 DISTRICT 3 48 12 17 77 10
28 49 25 DISTRICT 5 6 46 25 77 9
28 49 15 DISTRICT 3 27 26 23 76 8
28 49 20 DISTRICT . 21 20 26 67 7
28 49 5 DISTRICT 1 39 8 II 58 6
28 47 10 DISTRICT 2 24 22 9 55 5
28 47 5 DISTRICT 1 15 24 7 46 ~
28 47 25 DISTRICT 5 11 14 10 42 3
28 59 10 DISTRICT 2 12 4 2 \8 2
28 59 15 DISTRICT 3 3 2 I 6 1
37 183 95 WAKE FOREST TOWNSHIP 246 164 75 485 92
37 129 5 CAPE FEAR TOWNSHIP 243 168 74 485 91
37 49 25 TOWNSHIP 6 237 152 89 478 90
37 125 35 TOWNSHIP 7, MCNEILLS 213 180 79 472 89
37 169 45 Y ADKIN TOWNSHIP 222 172 77 471 88
37 179 30 MONROE TOWNSHIP 216 150 87 453 87
37 133 25 WHITE OAK TOWNSHIP 207 154 84 445 86
37 23 10 ICARD TOWNSHIP 201 166 71 438 a5
37 133 20 SWANSBORO TOWNSHIP 156 186 93 435 84
37 183 85 ST. MATTHEWS TOWNSHIP 228 124 65 417 83
37 15 I 95 TRINITY TOWNSHIP 240 114 50 404 82
37 35 20 CUNES TOWNSHIP 210 142 46 398 8\
37 179 45 V ANCE TOWNSHIP 267 88 43 398 80
37 147. 75 WINTEIlVILLE TOWNSHIP 2S2 108 38 398 79
37 5 I 15 CARVERS CREEK TOWNSHIP 180 144 73 397 78
37 31 45 MnR~snan TOWNSHIP 198 136 61 395 77
37 63 30 TRJANOLB TOWNSHIP 255 70 53 378 76
37 135 15 CRAJIIL RILL TOWNSHIP 234 51 83 375 75
37 109 20 UNCOLNTON TOWNSHIP 204 118 44 366 74
37 165 15 STBWAaTIVU..LI TOWNSHIP un 182 82 36E 73
37 97 20 CODDLE CREEK TOWNSHIP 189 130 40 359 ~~
'.
37 119 30 TOWNSHIP 6, CLEAR CREEK 249 78 29 356 11
37 45 20 TOWNSHIP 4, KINGS MOUNTAIN 126 162 68 356 ~O
37 35 40 NEWTON TOWNSHIP 108 160 85 353 69
37 191 5 BROGDEN TOWNSHIP 75 184 90 349 68
37 71 15 DALLAS TOWNSHIP 141 148 56 345 67
37 127 75 STONY CREEK TOWNSHIP 22S 90 28 343 66
J7 57 75 THOMASVlLLETOWNSHIP 174 91 69 341 65
37 23 40 MORGANTON TOWNSHIP 69 178 86 333 1>4
37 81 30 FRIENDSHIP TOWNSHIP 251 52 21 331 63
37 133 5 JACKSONVILLE TOWNSHIP 114 126 91 331 02
-------
TABLE 2-5
Prioriti~tiftQ of Millar CM! DMIima
Witb Oreatcr or equal to 15,000 ~1"ti
-------
TABLE 2-5
PriaritimiOll of Minar CMI DiviJiaaa
Willa Greaa or Equal to 15,000 Pt1pd.tiOll by State
In EPA RegiOllIV
PROIECTED DENSrry LAND
GROWI'H PEISONSINI(2) AREA
STATE COUNTY MCD RANKlNO RANKlNo RANKING WEIGHTED WEIGHTED
CODE CODE CODE MINOR Crvu. DMSION (d) (xl) (d) VALUE RANKING
37 159 55 SALISBURY TOWNSIUP 9) 41 11 159 13
37 161 20 COOL SPRING TOWNSHIP 36 104 17 157 12
37 183 75 RALEIGH TOWNSIIJP 120 4 n 156 II
37 139 5 ELIZABETH Crry TOWNSHIP 144 6 1 151 10
37 51 55 SEVENTY -FIUT TOWNSHIP 30 42 64 136 9
37 181 10 HENDERSON TOWNSHIP 27 76 26 129 8
37 129 25 W1LMJMOTOH TOWNSHIP' . 105 10 9 124 7
37 81 45 HIGH POINT TOWNSHIP ... 30 34 112 6
37 51 25 CROSS CUI!X TOWNSHIP '1 ~ 22 93 5
37 107 20 KINSTON TOWNSHIP 3 56 IS 74 4
37 1 60 TOWNSIUP 12. BUa&.IN01"OH 12 36 II 59 3
37 191 20 OOLDSBORO TOWNSHIP 9 31 5 52 ::
37 81 35 GD.MEI. TOWNSHIP ~. 14 13 51 1
45 13 10 BLUFFTON DMSION 144 ~ 53 291 ~
45 51 IS CONWAY DMJION 114 116 52 252 S3
45 41 44 P AMPLICO DMSION 17 106 SO 243 52
45 91 10 CLOVER DMSJON 132 110 31 :43 51
45 15 2.S MONCKS CORNER DMSION 147 61 27 242 50
45 29 30 W ALTDBOIO DIVISION II 104 54 239 49
45 35 2.S SUMMERVUJ.E DMSION 150 42 46 238 48
45 51 45 LlTTL£ IUVD DIVWOH lQ 51 12 ::.32 47
45 7 35 BRUSHY CREEK DMSION 156 54 1J 223 46
45 55 20 CAMDEN DM.SION 90 II 43 221 45
45 91 40 ROCK HILL DMSION 117 44 49 210 44
45 63 30 LEXINOTON DM.SION 131 41 23 209 43
45 15 18 GOOSE CREEK.HANAHAN DMSION 135 J2 37 204 42
45 23 5 CHESTER DMJION 42 108 51 201 41
45 J 5 AIKEN DMSION 102 56 35 193 40
45 71 10 NEWlEUY DIVISION '" " 40 192 39
45 45 60 SIMPSONVUJ.E DMSION 159 1.4 9 192 }!
45 75 SO ORANOUUIG DMIIOIf 12 66 47 115 37
45 7) 2.S SENECA DMSION 105 64 16 185 }o
45 7'9 50 PO~ DIYIIDf 151 n 8 183 J5
45 51 70 WYa1U I8ACH DMJION 141 20 22 In ).4
45 4] 10 .'" - ~'v...N DIV1ImN " 71 34 III 3J
45 67 15 WAaION DMSION 30 102 41 180 3~
45 79 30 DUft:8 JIOU DIVISION 121 JI4 17 110 J l
45 19 40 MOUNT PLlA.tAHT DMSION 123 36 18 177 :0
45 91 2.S FOIT MILL DMSION 99 60 II 170 :~
45 83 90 WELLFORD DMSION III ~ 5 166 ~!
45 J I .5 DAlUHOTON DMSION 36 M 39 159 ,.
-
45 57 15 LANC.uTEa DIV1SION 39 70 44 153 2~
45 59 2.S LAUUNSDMSlON II H 31 l52 :5
45 7 16 WTLUAMSTON .PIUD DIV1SION 60 12 19 IS I "
..
45 59 5 CWlTON DIVISION 15 100 36 151 23
45 : I 10 GAFFNEY DIVISION 27 82 ., ISO
45 J SO NORTH Aueron A DMSION 108 21 14 ISO ::
45 55 28 SHAW. HORATIO DIVISION 21 90 JO 1.&1
-------
TABLE 2-5
Priarjti7.lltiOll of Wiaar CMl DMaiou
With Greaser or Equal to 15,000 !tt1ptl.tiaa by S....,
In SPA RqiaalV
PROJECTED DENSrrv LAND
CiRO\Vl1f PEJt.SONSIMI(2) AUA
sr UE COUNTY MC!> lANXJNo RAHKlHO lANXJNo WE1CiHTED WEICiHTED
CJDE CODE CODE WlNOI CIVIL DMSION (xJ) (12) (.1) VALUE RANKINCi
- ..
~5 .1 U FLORDICB DIVWOH .. 52 33 1J3 19
.5 63 2S IRMO DMSION 126 . 2 132 18
.s 45 3$ CiUEI DMSION 120 10 1 131 17
~S 6~ S !JENNETTSVtLUi DMSION 9 92 %6 127 16
~5 77 IS ~MLIiY DIVISION 9) 26 7 126 15
.5 13 'I IJEAUfORT.PORT ROYAL. DMSION 66 31 21 115 1.
~5 31 20 MAaT!VIU.I DMSIOH U 74 15 123 13
.; 47 5 GREENWOoD DMSION 33 0 21 123 12
45 45 70 "i'A nou DMsION H 11 4 111 II
.; 7 5 ANDEIUON DMSION 45 . 40 32 117 10
45 87 lS UNION? DMSION 12 76 U 112 9
~5 71 10 CLEMOON DMSION 71 30 3 111 !
.15 63 43 WEST COLUIGIA.cA YCB DMSION 75 l' 1$ 106 -
I
.\5 45 15 CiREJ£NV'ILLI DMSION 51 6 45 102 6
-., 85 35 j\IJMTU DIVISION M 1 10 102 s
~, 33 U ,iPAAT .\NaUIO DMSION 57 14 29 100 4
~5 19 6 (;HAlU.S.STON.NOIT1l CHAaLUI'ON DIY 63 2 20 U 3
45 19 15 COLUMBIA DMSION 6 11 42 60
4; 19 15 J AMU BSLAND DIVISION 3 46 6 55 1
4" 51 40 'iVjlNCHI!.!TER DMSION 17 100 ., 234 51
4~' 55 2.5 PUt..uJfJ DMSION 71 102 4' 229 SO
.; :55 35 SEVIERVU.1.E DMSION 117 76 30 223 49
47 141 36 S PlUNCiP1I1J).GlIIMl1IU DIVISION 111 n 35 211 48
." :31 15 B It!NTWOOD DIVISION 1.53 38 21 212 .7
~i 187 2.5 F1lAHIILIN DMSION 141 46 25 212 46
~" JS 8 C,~
-------
.. h, . -.......~;
TABLE 2-5
Prioritization of Minor Civil Divisioos
With Greater or Equal to 15,000 Population by State
In EP A Region IV
PROJECTED DENSmr LAND
GROWI'H PERSONSIMI(2) AREA
ST ATE COUNTY MCD RANKINO RANKINO RANKING WEIGHTED WEIGHTED
CODE CODE CODE MINOR CIVIL DMSION (u) (x2) (xl) VALUE RANKING
47 93 30 CONCORD DMSION 135 16 2 153 22
47 113 15 JACKSON DIVISION 84 36 32 152 21
47 59 10 GREENEVILLE DMSION 27 80 -43 150 20
47 37 76 METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT DIVISIO 90 8 51 149 19
47 79 20 PARJS DIVISION 24 88 33 145 18
47 131 45 UNION CITY DIVISION 3 96 42 141 17
47 13 40 LA FOLLETTE DMSION 36 78 23 137 16
47 157 40 MEMPHIS DMSION 81 4 SO 135 15
47 11 10 CLEVELAND DMSION 99 14 13 126 14
47 163 50 KINGSPORT DMSION 54 28 38 120 13
47 145 10 HARlUMAN DMSION 39 58 7 104 12
47 179 15 JOHNSON CITY DIVISION 60 20 24 104 11
47 65 10 CHA TT ANOOOA DIVISION 48 6 45 99 10
47 177 25 MCMINNVILLE DIVISION 15 66 9 90 9
47 19 10 EUZASETHTON DIVISION 33 -42 12 87 8
47 93 55 HALLS DMSION 21 54 10 85 7
47 63 10 MORRISTOWN DIVISION 6 52 26 84 6
.p 93 90 KNOXVILLE DIVISION 18 18 48 84 S
47 157 4S MILLINGTON DMSION 12 S6 15 83 4
47 1 35 OAK RIDGE DIVISION 42 34 6 82 3
47 65 15 EAST RIDGE DMSION 66 2 I 69 2
47 163 2S BRISTOL DIVISION 9 24 5 38 1
Svurce: BonDat4 of HummelstowD. Pcauylvania and GaoACG Flernillg of HarriJburg. PCIIIII}'lvaoia.
.'..;r~s: {II States: I = Alabama. 12 = Florida. 13 = Ocorgia. 21 = Ken(ud;y. 28 = Miuiuippi. 37 = North Carolina. 4S = South Carolina. 47 = T
,.2} COUn[l~S and .\ICDs: See Appendix A {or defmitioD of cod".
-------
APPENDIX B
COUNTY PRIORITY BY STATE OF
SELECTED SILVICULTURAL ACTIVITIES
-------
TABLE 3-1
County Priority By
Selected SiJvacultural Activities .
Alabama
1982
PRIMARY CRITERIA SECONDARY CRITERIA TERTIARY CRITERIA
WWLAND ANNUAL
HARDWOOD BOnOMLAND BOnOMLAND TOTAL
TIMBERLAND TIMBERLAND SAWTIMBER BOnOMLAND
HARVESTED RANKING REMAINING RANKING REMOVAL(I) RANKING TIMBERLAND RANKING WEIGHTED WEIGHTED
COUNTY (ACRES) (13) (ACRES) (v) (BOARD FT.) * (u) (ACRES) (It I) VALUE RANKING
WubiDgeoe 24412 25 97648 24 27827 .27 122060.. 2S ........ 226 27
Baldwin 17862 22 136942 26 15823 23 154804 26 216 26
Mobile 30510 27 61020 16 5615 15 91530 . 23 182 2S
Clarke 5602 13 151254 27 16447 24 156856 0 168 24
.. ..17..
Cooccuh 19455 24 51880 12 7743 .7 7P35.. 159 .~3
Eacambia 18615 23 49640 II 9259 19 68255 16 156 22
Tuecalooa 5836 15 70032 19 4564 14 75868 . 20 ..150 21
~
Grccnc 0 0 99042 25 20149 2S 99042 24 149 20
W'dc:ox 11271 21 46056 7 11570 22 63n7 13 141 19
Crenabaw 6103 16 61030 17 3046 11 67133 14 135 18
MarcoF 0 0 81159 23 11227 . 21 .. .81159 22 13~ 17
Lowoda 24604 26 30755 2 7884 18 55359 9 129 16
Cboda. 6243 18 56187 14 2281 10 62430 12 . 128 15
lIale 0 0 67870 18 22134 26 67870 15 121 14
Lamar 0 0 75744 21 6847 16 75744 19 114 13
Coviogtoo 6181 17 49448 10 2052 9 55629 10 109 12
Monroe 0 0 79545 22 1945 8 79545 21 103 11
Perry 11468 20 40138 3 4397 13 51606 7 102 10
Blount 6491 19 12982 1 10815 20 19473 1 101 9
Sumter 0 0 72288 20 0 0 72288 18 78 8
MontgomCl)' 0 0 54666 13 4071 12 54666 8 71 7
j
J
J
I
-------
TABLE 3-1
County Priority By
Selected Silvacultural Activities
AJabama
1982
PlUMARYCRITERlA SECONDARY CRITERIA TERTIARY CRITERIA
LOWLAND ANNUAL
HARDWOOD BOTrOMLAND BOTrOMLAND TOTAL
TIMBERLAND TIMBERLAND SAWI1MBER BOTrOMLAND
HARVESTE.D RANKING REMAINING RANKING REMOV AI.( I) RANKING TIMBERLAND RANKING WEIGHTED WEIGHTED
COUNTY (ACRES) (&3) (ACRES) (&3) (BOARD FT.)* (.2) (ACRES) (d) VALUE RANKING
Macoo 5817 14 40719 4 1152 6 46536 4 70 6
Picbu 0 0 58140 15 710 5 S81~ 11 66 5
F1Ydtc 0 0 46552 8 1642 7 46552 5' 43 4
Oaaova 0 0 49100 9 0 0 49100 6 33 .3
D"'" 0 0 45360 6 0 0 45360 3 21 2
M8di8oa 0 0 42420 5 0 0 42420 2 .. 17 I
I
q
1
I
DAT A SOURCE: USDA FOREST SERVICE.
(I) 19n-1982 ANNUAL AVERAGE.
* "Board feet" should be corrected to read "thousands of ooard feet."
.
-------
..""""'"
-*-
FIGURE 3-2
County Prioritization of Selected
Silvicultural Activities
By Weighted Ranking
Alabama
I ~
liMESTONE! (
,,/~-\. '>-- : (JACKSON
--- (" I: IIIADISON ( / "
COl~-f ;' . I 'r /
. LA-EHCE i '---~''1../1. r .~ ,/'
FRANKL IN: ~ IIIIOAGAN ('-- fl.r-" DE KAL8
I ! t' MARSHAll /
I . .
- - _. '-,-1 ~-- ,
i -- -'1 J CHEAOICEE
MARION I WINSTON i ~
I: ETOWAH \
L -- -- -'- L
'\ 9 r-~-'
-.~
WALKER r~------ CALHOUN ~~
-------
. =-- ~....
.,...
-
TABLE 3-4
County Priority By
Selected Silvacultural Activities
Florida
PmMARY CRITERIA SECONDARY CRITERIA
A.1\lNUAL
BOTTOMLAND TOTAL
SA WI1MBER. BOTTOMLAND
RafOVAL(l) RANKING TIMBERLAND(2) RANKING WEIGHTED WEIGHTED
COUNTY (HOARD FT.) * (xl) (ACRES) (xl) VALUE RANKING
il'ayior ..,.22685 45 2007J6 . 43 133 44
Volwria 19156 44 162992 41 129 43
Polk 9351 41 137363 39 . 121 42
Osceola 9828 42 111599 34 118 41
Madiaoa 12021 43 94558 31 117 40
Gadsden 8844 40 91115 29 109 39
Levy 6833 36 119007 35 107 38
Orange 8349 38 89467 28 104 37
Lab 6815 35 92301 30 100 36
St. Jow 8430 39 75756 22 100 35
Liberty 3243 27 165384 42 96 34
Nassau 4910 32 105741 32 96 33
Dixie .3144 26 144775 40 92 32
Columbia 5S06 33 88302 27 93 31
SUmtel' 8284 37 65597 15 89 30
Hillsborough 5727 34 72420 20 88 29 !
Layfay~ 4422 31 81437 . 24 86 28
Waltou 2817 25 109719 33 83 27
Clay 3347 29 69144 19 77 26
Gulf 2203 20 122929 37 77 25
Flagler' 3602 30 65731 16 76 24
Jc:ff~u 1637 17 127184 38 72 23
Citrua 3329 28 56244 10 66 22
Puc:o 2719 24 62353 14 62 21
Marion 245& 21 67431 18 60 20 I
Waku11a 1451 16 73017 21 S3 19
Hardee 2583 22 53033 6 50 18
Leou 261J7 23 44147 2 48 17
Santa Rora 762 11 85551 26 48 16
Putnam 1964 18 56859 II 47 15
Collier 0 0 235979 44 44 14
Duval 1999 19 52551 5 43 13
Otaloosa 1206 14 58355 12 40 12
-------
.:...,.. ~<64
. ..
TABLE 3-4
County Priority By
Selected Silvacultural Activities
Florida
-
-
PRIMARY CRITERIA SECONDARY CRITERIA
ANNUAL
BOTTOMLAND TOTAL
SA WI'lMBER BOTTOMLAND
REMOV AL(1) RANKING TlMBERLAND(2) RANKING WEIGHTED WEIGHTED
COUNTY (BOARD FT.) * (x2) (ACRES) (xl) VALUE RANKING
Alachua 1353 15 54548 9 39 11
..
Franklin ...08. 10 66796 17 37 10
Calhoun 806 12 62223 13 37 9
Jadaloa ... 0 0 120157 36 36 8
Hamiltoa 928 13 53718 8 34 7
Wuhiahtoa 0 0 84953 25 25 6
Baker 0 0 81146 23 23 5
HollIICI8 261 9 45671 4 22 4
Brevard 0 0 53555 7 7 3
Lee 0 0 44630 3 3 2
Hendry 0 0 42205 1 1 1
DATA SOURCE: USDA FOREST SERVICE.
(1) 1980-1986 ANNUAL AVERAGE.
(2) 1987 DATA.
* "Board feet" should be corrected to read "Thousands of lx>ard feet."
-------
FIGUI
3-5
COlll11y Priorilizalioll of Scln:lcd
Silvicuhural Acrivilics
By Weighred Rallking
Florida
o
(-'"11111<-' \V.III ~ III IIlIlIi.." """"111'''''<.1
'.""1 11111 ocr h',''''hM.1 1I:1II''''''''..r ~ 4C/.fNN'
"'1." "'''"IIII,'II,II,,"locl';III,1 an,"
II]
('umil~' pi It "II)' hy w,..iJ:hllO" r:tllkilll: In
,k~u lulul':' 11,,1\"
o
....
""""111" '\llh , III ""II,,,,, 1.'''''''1'.111'' ';I\Y.
111111"'"1 I.. f.1I .If. ",It 1.'nl~I\'.~!" :'~:
1'II,ltulIll.llhl 111111".,1.11'" .U"Il"'
.: ~!~.~~::::. .i...
..'" ..-
. .". ~
-------
.. ....-::{:m
. ...
TABLE 3-S
County Priority By
Selected Silvacultural Activities
Georgia
PRIMARY CRITERIA SECONDARY CRITERIA
ANNUAL
BOTl'OMLAND TOTAL
SAWTIMBER BOTl'OMLAND
REMOV AL(1) RANKING TIMBERLAND(2) RANKJ:NG WEIGHTED WEIGHTED
County (BOARD Fr.) * (x2) (ACRES) (xl) VAl.UE RANKING
Screvca . .10579 36 70990 29 101 37
Bulloch 7850 33 79648 34 100 36
..
Burke 16460 34 62226 24 92 35
JeffcnoD 12688 32 55662 20 84 34
Camden 3684 24 83032 35 83 33
Lauren. 9412 28 66173 27 83 32
Emanuel .10435 29 58528 22 80 31
WilkiaaoD 22780 30 54830 19 79 30
Rabun S095 37 0 0 74 29
Gilmer 17875 35 4739 3 73 28
CliAch 5298 16 115022 37 69 27
WuhiagtoD 2043 31 26919 6 68 26
1.oog 743 19 71109 30 68 25
Coffee 919 21 58646 23 65 24
T8UDall 4226 17 72509 31 65 23
Oglcthorpc 2939 27 41401 9 63 22
Jenkins 7669 22 47110 13 57 21
WaYDe 11322 10 88116 36 56 20
Fulton 2725 26 8436 4 56 19
LowadCl 4724 20 51027 15 55 18
HarallOD 1961 23 14264 5 51 17
Lumpkin 3143 25 0 0 50 16
Liberty 5279 15 53537 18 48 15
Early 3624 18 45546 12 48 14
Berrica 4849 13 55742. 21 47 13
BrylUl 2897 11 63214 25 47 12
Telfair .,.,.':,',.... .'..'..:. 396& 9 64670 26 44 11
.......
Brlllltley 1207 8 70686 28 44 10
Broob 61& 14 48874 14 42 9
Etrmgham 10090 12 53059 17 41 8
Echols 1442 3 76873 32 38 7
Ware 1937 I 79399 33 35 6
Wilcox 8910 7 51988 16 30 5
-------
...~....~
----.I II ..
TABLE 3-5
County Priority By
Selected SilvaculturaI Activities
Georgia
PRIMARY CRITERIA SECONDARY CRITERIA
-
ANNUAL
BOTTOMLAND TOTAL
SAWfIMBER BOTTOMLAND
)REMOV AL(1) RANKING TlMBERLAND(2) RANKING WEIGHTED WEIGHTED
Coauty (BOARD Fr.) '* (x2) (ACRES) (xl) VALUE RANKING
Terrell 19683 6 45078 II 23 4
McIAt.ooh 300S 5 40884 7 17 3
Pierce 742 4 41128 8 16 2
Charltm. 2198 2 44190 10 14 1
-
DATA SOURCE: USDA FOREST SERVICE.
(I) 1982-1!)U8 ANNUAL AVERAGE.
(2) 1989 DATA.
* "Board feet" should be corrected to read "Thousands of board feet."
-------
... ... ..... ...
4-
FIGURE 3.6
County Prioritization of Selected
Silvicultural Activities
By Weighted Ranking
Georgia
0'0£ "0. ' 'o""s-
: ,j> I -'.. 'AfIII""''''' "'''-,,''' gU'O
~ '- ~- ..~:. .Y' --.. . UNIO"" :..-
~ ~"! ( - - ...--. , -; ,-
"'-of ._'~ . ',- ,,-
; WAl.EA ....... . Gu..,r" .. ' .;: . ;
, ~"---1 I .,g 4('--..J '.WI""'E oJt
-'-'.c,' ~...""L~I"" '\.
c:P'" GOAOO" I)' 16 t.---- ''''''1£"",t''
.,,0 ~/ ~ ) Ptc"e.-.s ...., "..~. /./ ,,,,.---:...---..t HAA
",,"./ -:O---~-_.. ....".., SANKS.,~ ,
. I -..A., ..fl'
"1.0"'0 ,SARTO'" Clo4fAO.EE ...,..: .'-./ -.,
, 9-'"' - '
" r,o ..... '. lAC-SO.... ' ". fL'SERT
~'''''-...,..- --1..--- '-- ' -~ --- "Ao,s9'::"-
POL" . ~{:. \ .r~> :BA"AO~£YW-" ;c..--'"
- ,5" , C08B ),..., GW'''''£TT :"---r' _!~q~ '... ,.d' "
0""1 q"~' I I" ",oco...." ~t:N:.£.... -' ~ "",
17.....c; r---....,.-J- ,/ I "" " ' "Al TO" '", FF" &.&. I "'l<£S C:"''''
... ..":/ DE ul8,' " 'y-" ~~",
0/' ~"":,m..9 ~~ ~:..' "- /, ': ~ Co
CAAROLL ~~ 1 "f ) ": or. ~'''OAGA'', GAH"£ ,;-TAII"'~""" f,. , Ivf,.
, ~ ~ ' y "EW1QOo1 , , ,'£ ~.£' <0" II,.
,~ .. ". ~ -- A" -"" / i' It.... (,,. \ /
-''''''' : "~ {',.." HEH-V ," \./ '.----, \... .,.' --. "9'9,., ""jI'} .""
, COWET.. .,...,. ~ --- ,~ ~ JASPER PUTIt..A...'" ...:~.,::::---.c.:R1C"'''OHO
..t'AO ". YauTTS , "'''COC- -' ."'.. /' ~',
~_~0ING1: - 1""1.. (j~OCJ./ -ril'/ --
~ . --~ ~----- '\~'
; J''''~ _0.9-' -- ~,.. -- ~ ...... I BURa£
, ,. 1)11([ ..'fIT 0'" ...,-' '."'~.~.c:.
YDOuP : ~~, ; -.. ; "'OIl\lAO£' JONES...,," \ -, tJ'III' t W.;;J ..
I ...9-' ;"--'.. . '/,,1'., WA~""'OH... , ~')/
~, ~,VPSO"'- --' ' '~, .--{ \~ 26 I ~( :
-- ..' ".... .--~ 8188:' .I\.....scw..~.,.".._.--....,.) \ "",...lftiS.' scaEvtlllt
-- ' /' "'" ' JO""SO", \ 21' 7
"A""'S (' "l80',~~"'~."'ORr:~..":'~WIGGS ,.,Jr.J~~, /; 31 \!~- 3
- ,~ . . ..c."" /' " ...&NUIl .~' ......../...
~ ,...OA......;;:::.", ,-- ~.o"'\ ,.-'~:!" _AUII(H5 7-'';:, ['" . -'~ I''''''''I..~
.-., :";1':" .... c~. ..",.: ","" ,'''. 2 f ~\.\."': .' O\,.l": 8t.A.lOC~' -~
:"AA'O" V'. .;- ",co" : J' , ',tO~' "t (......v.---....., \c."..~. '36 "8 "f,.
~r" ~r,: -'J'~ : , "',", oJ .----- '\ ~
,~;; r ~ - . -.. --: :: " /", . , . '"' - ~.
~'-I. ' ".';-...~, IPUlAS...' --'. -'I - - ' A'-.. 7 ~'- ", ~ -' \
~~ - -.,.------ " ,,\,.. . -..J . WI I I SACO" ~ : W.'fNi \,.,.....-...... ..
c\ A' ~ OOuG"t'p.. '1 'llWnAf.... ~""'- I COIl'll. L I 0 .t.T0Sf4..
'~~_J ; TI" '~,~ i"'t./2~,.2 j 3
" (I J 13 ~ '---; 6 ' ,","CI ----.. ',.J-..;.
~., &A.-EAr ,1.---"-"""'~"',.""'IJf .'''.....SOIll.-J '...... ~ . G~""'~ ...
/"'TC"£l', " ''T--/IlAA..Tl['
"'llER. .- COlOU'" :CM'" ...-J: \ IUM i 10 ..I'-'-~
'I' , ~ ~ ,
',~ ,'-', ....." 27 "'/-'"
~ -'~ '.--~" '- I I
~4j" I I " L- I Q.1NCI4 I ;
~"./ DECATuA i GAAOT ! T"O"AS , 1IlOO85':) 18 ~ LJ ,""II~ TQOoI
9 A~,( 7 '- '
'" I (CHO', ~ - ':
~
<:JUICE"
33
'---
o
Counties Wllh ~ 10 million bollomland
~awtlmt>cr hoardfoOl removals or ~ 40,000
Il)t:ll NHlomland timberland acres.
(II
County priority by w~ight~d nlnking in
,h:sc:cndlng ord~r
U.S EPA Headquarters Library
Mail code 3404T
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20460
202-566-0556
o
Cuunlic:s with < 10 million bollomland saw.
tlmN:r M:lrdfOOI r~movals or < 40,000 10lal
t>nllomlanJ timberland acres
-------
TABLE 3-6
County Priority By
Selected Silvacultural Activities
Kentucky
PRIMARY CIUTEIUA SECONDARY CRITERIA
ANNUAL
DOTI'OMLAND TOTAL
SA Wl'lMBER DOTI'OMLAND
REMOV AL(1) RANKING TlMBERLAND(2) RANKING WEIGHTED WEIGHTED
REOION (BOARD FT.) * (x2) (ACRES) (xl) VALUE RANKING
WC8rCnl CoaliJe1d Uait 30529 3 142400 3 9 3
PCDDrOyai U Dit 20088 2 SS400 2 6 2
Diu.... Uait 3105 1 49700 1 3 1
DA'r A SOURCE: USDA FOREST SERVICE.
(I) 1974-1987 ANNUAL AVERAGE.
(2) 1988 DATA.
* "Board feet" should be corrected to read "Thousands of board feet."
-------
" t'IUURE
Regional Prioritization of Selected
SilviclIltliral Activities
hy Weighted Ranking
Kentucky
Blllq.:I,'" Ih'~II'1I
F\:, III hl"11I ( 'tIIlIl~f laud Hc,;it)ll
1\'lIlIlt'y.tl
W'"'''"'II ("'~lllIdd I{q;iull
1:.'~ll'rll '(q.:.on
J
~
S...II h~rn Clllllhc.l"nd Ih'gi"n
o
Cuunlla Wl,h ~ 10,000 lowland ',mberland
"ClO h""'OICd, ~ 10 mllhon bollooJland
Sc. "..a.dluul 'C'"U"/~I., o. ~ 40,000
1111011 boll..mland 11I1I:'~II"lIld a.res
IZJ
Cuunly pnunly by w~lglllcd .an~illg 10
d,-..,"cllding u.da
o
C"UII'I<-.. wllh < 10,000 luwland ,imberland
an,"s "a",,,,'cd, < 10 million bullomland
.".."II/nh... h"",dloo, removals, or < 40,000
101;11 holltJrnt:lluJ 1101I--=II.tlltJ acres
-------
TABLE ]-2
County Priority By
~!et~ Silvacwtura! Activiti~
M!55~5S~p~i
1987
PRIMARY CRITERIA SECONDARY CRITERIA TERTIARY CRITERIA
LOWLAND ANNU AL
HARDWOOD BOTTOMLAND BOTTOMLAND TOTAL
TIMBERLAND TIMBERLAND SAWTIMBER BOTTOMLAND
HARVESTED RANKING REMAINING RANKING REMOVAL(I) RANKING TIMBERLAND RANKING WEIGHTED WEIGHTED
COUNTY (ACRES) (d) (ACRES) (d) (BOARD F1'.)* (u) (ACRES) (d) VALUE RANKING
lu8quaaa 27323 « 65576 42 17919 42 92899 . .>.:..:. 46. 388.. 46
Wurco 28683 45 51630 37 18668 44 80313 40 374 45
Newtoo 16376 26 43670 31 18114 43 60046 35 . ...292 44
Sharkey 15580 15 57127 39 7105 30 72707 39 291 43
Walkin80a 21139 37 35231 22 17076 41 . 56370 .3Q... ...289 . 42
ManhaU 6753 9 81041 46 13816 40 87794 44 289 41
Jecboa 11420 15 74231 44 9950 33 85651 .. 43 ..286 40
Jupcr 17670 30 35341 23 20106 45 53011 23 272 39
Wuhinp. 17926 31 62741 40 571 8 80667 4t 270 .38
Claiborne 23336 39 35003 21 6564 28 58339 33 269 37
ar- 20151 34 40303 15 6331 27 60454 <36 267 36
Bolivar 20715 35 41431 27 4092 21 62146 37 265 35
W8yuc 23474 42 29342 12 11553 39 52816 22 262 34
Lownde8 13122 21 72168 43 2383 14 85290 42 262 33
yazoo 7320 10 80525 45 4678 23 87845 45 156 32
Kemper 22233 38 33349 15 10371 34 55582 28 255 31
Ncahoba 19690 33 34458 17 11533 38 54148 26 252 30
Madison 19660 32 34405 16 10707 35 54065 25 239 29
Simpeou 33367 46 13347 3 11113 36 46714 18 237 28
Tunica 14936 24 44807 32 2883 15 59743 34 232 27
Joocs 26268 43 13134 2 11277 37 39402 7 216 26
-------
TABLE 3-2
County Priority By
Selected Silvacultural Activities
Mississippi
1987
PR!MARYCRITERIA SECONDARY CRITERIA TERTiARY CRiTERiA
LOWLAND ANNUAL
HARDWOOD BOlTOMLAND BOlTOMLAND TOTAL
TIMBERLAND TIMBERLAND SAWIlMBER BOTTOMLAND
HARVESTED RANKING REMAINING RANKING REMOVAL(I) RANKING TIMBERLAND RANKING WEIGHTED WEIGHTED
COUNTY (ACRES) (u) (ACRES) (u) (BOARD Fr.) * (12) (ACRES) (.1) VALUE RANKING
Coahoma 8086 II 48516 35 3177 17 56602 31 203 25
.
CoriaItOO 13961 22 34903 19 6614 29 48864 . .19 200 24
Pearl Riva' 12369 20 43291 29 1573 II 55660 29 198 23
NoJWbec 11246 29 34492 18 3370 18 51138 21 198 22
Copiah 4837 6 48367 34 6319 26 53204 24 196 21
ltawamba 20745 36 ' 25931 II 2960 16 4~76 17 190 20
Mooroc 23471 41 17603 5 3437 19 41074 10 186 19
Jeffc:noa 23384 40 17538 4 3976 20 40922 .9 181 18
Smith 16433 27 10955 I 21077 46 27388 1 177 17
Humphrey. 8265 12 49592 36 0 0 57857 32 176 16
HoImC8 0 0 63985 41 422 6 63985 38 113 15
Lawrcocc 11960 17 29899 13 8212 32 41859 12 166 14
Marion 16688 28 22252 8 6274 25 38940 6 164 13
At.taIa 11666 16 34997 20 1955 13 46663 16 150 12
George 6183 8 43282 28 535 7 49465 20 142 II
Ran1ia 0 0 55201 38 0 0 55201 27 141 10
Clay 14219 23 21329 7 4557 22 35548 3 137 9
Perl}' 12120 18 24239 9 5449 24 36359 4 133 8
Hancock 5727 7 40090 24 688 9 45817 14 125 7
Leah 10289 14 20577 6 7352 31 30866 2 124 6
Lenore 8265 13 33061 14 1920 12 41326 II 116 5
I'
..
.
j
.
-------
TABLE 3-2
County Priority By
Selected Silvacultural Activities
".:~~:-~:-i.
&""&~Iiti')IW
1981
PRIMARY CRITERIA SECONDARY CRITERIA TERTIARY CRITERIA
LOWLAND ANNUAL
HARDWOOD BOTTOMLAND BOTTOMLAND TOTAL
TIMBERLAND TIMBERLAND SAWfiMBER BOTrOMLAND
HARVESTED RANKING REMAINING RANKING REMOVAL(I) RANKING TIMBERLAND RANKING WEIGHTED WEIGHTED
COUNTY (ACRES) (v) (ACRES) (v) (BOARD FT .)* (d) (ACRES) (d) VALUE RANKING
Laudada1c 0 0 46302 33 0 ..0... ,'.., .. 46302 1$ .114. >.~i
PaooIa 0 0 43562 30 300 5 43562 13 113 3
..
Laf.~ 12129 19 24251 10 189 ..10 36386 5 112 i
Harri80a 0 0 40566 26 0 0 40566 8 86 1
DATA SOURCE: USDA FOREST SERVICE.
(I) 1977-1987 ANNUAL AVERAGE.
* "Board feet" should I:e corrected to read "thousanrls of board feet~"
-------
--- .. ... .. ...--.- .. -.
FIGUR~ 3-3
County Prioritization of Selected
Silvicultural Activities
By Weighted Ranking
Mississippi
o
o
"
~
TIPPA... '--- -- -"\ j
. PRENTISS?
. . ~
L~.----- - .':
ALCORN
UNION
LAFAYETTE ~ J
. I
2 ! PONTOTOC ,
I
FRANKLIN
LINCOLN
i
! ,.
, : NOXUSEE
ATTALA i WINSTON'
12 i 22
LEAlCE NESH08" KEMPER
6 30 31
NEWTON I LAUOEROALE
44 \ 4
SMITH JASPER \ CLARKE
39 I
WAYNE
34
A..'TE
! --, "'\
: i ~
LA"AR ! t lPERtrf
1..0
: 8
rl I
GIIEENE
36
CounllCS with ~ 10.000 lOll/land timberland
at'r~ h:m:c:sted. ~ 10 million bollomland
sawllm~r boardfoo. r':.J:l"/:Jls. or ~ 40,000
IOlal N1uomland 1:'11~'...rI.IIIJ :,.:rcs
STONE
I GEORGE
./1
40
-......,
I
: JACKSON
IZJ C0unty pnon1Y by wC1ght~d ranking In
JI"~cenJlng pnkr
L
COUllllCS with < 10,000 lowland timbertand
,Ie res ha/"'<.'Sted, < 10 million bottomland
sawlnnbcr boardfoot r~mO\lals. or < 40.000
IllI.11 t'ouomland IIm~rland acres
-------
-"- ........
..~..-
... - --
'" --
-
TABLE 3-7
County Priority By
Selected Silvacultura1 Activities
North Carolina
PRIMARY CRITERIA SECONDARY CRITERIA
ANNUAL
BOTIOMLAND TOTAL
SA WI1MBEIt BOTIOMLAND
REMOV AL(1) RANKING TIMBERLAND(2) RANKING WEIOTHED WEIGHTED
COUNTY (BOARD Fr.) * (~) (ACRES) (xl) VALUE RANKING
RobcIoD ...~6, 39 125917 41 119 42
..
ColumbU8 21469 38 150327 42 118 41
lohDltoo 39689 ',41 70847 31 113 40
Dup1.in 18026 34 75028 34 102 39
Pitt 21138 37 .,' 59237 . 27 101 38
Wake 20952 36 39900 16 88 37
MadiIoD 41517 42 0 0 84 36
Halifax 17992 33 44795 17 83 35
81adeu 11380 21 110867 39 81 34
Wilkc8 32621 40 0 0 80 33
Edg~mbc 1 S668 30 51370 20 80 32
Northampton 15153 29 53237 21 79 31
10DCl8 13299 27 54533 23 77 30
Iredel1 19066 35 8466 7 77 29
Chatham 16783 31 17252 9 71 28
Beaufort 12347 24 53432 22 70 27
Lcooir 11276 20 69584 30 70 26
HU'IICItt 13253 26 26253 13 65 2S
Hendcnoo 16900 32 0 0 64 24
Bertie 8677 13 90115 37 63 23
Carawba 15133 28 7440 6 62 22
Tyrrdl . 9012 14 73199 32 60 21
Moon: 11451 22 29705 15 59 20
F rankI..iD 13225 25 10379 8 58 19
CravCID 8630 12 73657 33 57 18
Pcodcr 6307 8 120482 40 56 17
Nub 11832 23 . 18869 10 56 16
SamplOD 6447 9 85772 36 54 15
Bnmawick 5082 , 5 101424 38 48 14
Oraaville 11024 18 22449 11 47 13
Hyde 7113 . 11 5S629 24 46 12
Grecoe 10322 16 29177 14 46 11
Camden ..' 7140 10 56562 25 45 10
Ouow 4858 4 81432 3S 43 9
Puquotm.k 10205 IS 24081 12 42 8
CaldwcU 11267 19 0 0 38 7
G8ta 5769 6 587S5 26 38 6
Dan: 4OS9 3 68445 29 35 5
Haywood 10549 17 0 0 34 4
Wuhingtoll 5931 7 48343 18 32 3
Marti.a 953 2 60911 28 32 2
Cumberland 848 I 50144 19 21 I
DATA SOURCE: USDA FOREST SERVICE.
(I) 1983 DATA.
(2) 1984 DATA.
* "Board feet" should be rorrected to read "Thousands of board feet."
-------
FIGURE 3-8
County Prioritization of SelecteJ
Silvicultural Activities
By WeighteJ Ranking
North Carolina
~
\..
o
Counlies wilh ~ 10 million oollomland
sawlimber bollrdrool ro:movals or ~ 40,000
lolal hOllomland limberland acres.
~
County priorily by weighled ranking in
desl'cnding order
o
Coulllles wilh < JO million bollomland saw-
limhcr hoanJ(ool ro:mov..ls ur < 40,000 lolal
hOlllllllland lil1lherland acres
-------
TABLE 3-8
County Priority By
Selected Silvacultural Activities
South Carolina
PIUMAR.Y CRITERIA SECONDARY CRITERIA
- ANNUAL
BOTrOMLAND TOTAL
SA Wl'lMBER. BOTrOMLAND
REMOV AL(1) RANKING TIMBERLAND(2) RANKING WEIGHTED WEIGHTED
COUNTIf (BOARD Fr.) * (xl) (ACRES) (xl) VALUE RANKING
Clueadoa . 20348 25 110916 18 68 26
Marion 27379 26 92264 15 67 25
Hamptoa . 19478 24 U2062 19 67 24
Elut.clcy 14606 21 142575 21 63 23
lJrorry 14007 18 184589 26 62 22
Dartingto[j) 16585 23 64461 12 58 21
Co1ldoo 10602 15 149245 22 52 20
Bam~g 14604 20 63763 11 SI 19
Dillon 14537 19 63319 10 48 18
Gcorgcto~ 9157 11 155151 24 46 17
Yort 14911 22 10546 2 46 16
Florence 10550 13 108104 17 43 15
OmIIgebw?g 5961 8 175180 25 41 14
Williamsburl: 6656 9 153960 23 41 13
DorchClte? 9475 12 94460 16 40 12
CalhOUD 13972 17 17255 3 37 II
Richlaod 10601 14 59172 9 37 10
Orc:aIwoorl 11408 16 3829 1 33 9
SUlDtcr 4819 7 91806 14 28 8
Kuahaw 8181 10 50741 6 26 7
Juper 730 3 115024 20 26 6
Marlboro 3006 6 85628 13 25 5
Anleadale 1383 5 48614 5 15 4
CI1C1tCrficld 1318 4 43321 4 12 3
Aiba 466 2 56347 8 12 2
Beaufort 286 1 54993 7 9 1
DATA SOUF.CE: USDA FOREST SERVICE.
(1) 1985 DATA.
(2) 1986 DATA.
* "Board feet" should be corrected to read "Thousands of board feet."
-------
) CHIAOKU j
) YOAII
.\ \ \, } SP""'''''BUAO/' --~ _-,6 - \ ...,
. PlCAI... '( '\ \ i " '" ..~.."'\ ,~.q,..,. "
~// ""';'" ~,~ \ ,~, ( c'\ 3 , S 18
1/ ',,-, " -~~--, \::.:. M'~
',- Ai ,_., > . 'A'H'. 'ElD \(' 111_. I' JI,.DA~~INOTON ~_._'-'-
~ ~"M"" ./.. 7 I...) -~}
A"fvIlU~ ',- (:-: A " \\, '~'S 2S ~
;J , \, -- v,, 22
9, . , _.~ /' T'- " \
-, L ~,~ ..,,~.~) 10 8 i "'--'-.-../ / \::. .
~~ , ) -
~'('. \ "-, "', > ~-- -,-- .
I IDGHlhD '-/" CAlHOUN
---.. ~-, II 26 13 /~.....- .
\ -.. "-V-y/ -,,'-. / '7 ,',',
2 / 1"-" -;;-, j (''-,,,'1
J ."-.. /" ~-) BI""nIY J ',-
"""'" , -~ V "2 ~ \'. 23 .;/ .
. " ' ',19 ---.J 'V.._-,( ''>''.:., .-'
~"_.\ ~-,: V .
4 / \ counON .' /
) --TON \ 20 ( C""A'fSIO"
.J \. ;>-, I /
'j!4 "-') '\_~'!, ' 0
JA....II }" .AUf'o..,...
6 I/~I IZI
~ I "~
j.. '.'
I,
, URE 3-9
J . f Selecled
. PrioritizallOIl u, ,
COllllly, . I AClivlllCS
Silvlcultur,1 k'
(.1 Weighteu Rail IIIg
Y Soulh Camlllla
HOIIIIY
.
,
I
o
.'1 "1 hollollll;lIIo.I
>lUnuu Ol)()()
1'"""",,, w,.11 -:;r . rCIllOViI'. Hr ~" .
' ho"ru 00
>"W'"II'" r '1IIIh.:rlilno.l acres.
1111,,1''''11111111;1110.1 .
. h'cd ranking III
. ,y hy wc.g
Cutlllly priOri
lI."n'II..hllg 1I"ler
\ " OOllollllano.l s.~w.
" WI,II < IU nuilloll 40000 lu.a'
CIIIIII',n . .11,,,,, rClllllvills or < .
'"I1'><:r '''',11 I><:.I-ono.l iIncs
''tlllllllllamJ lUll I
-------
PRIMARY CRITERIA SECONDARY CRITERIA TERTIARY CRITERIA
LOWLAND ANNUAL
HARDWOOD BOTIOMLAND BOTIOMLAND TOTAL
TIMBERLAND TIMBERLAND SAWTIMBER BOTIOMLAND
HARVESTED RANKING REMAINING RANKING REMOVAL(I) RANKING TIMBERLAND RANKING WEIGHTED WEIGHTED
COUNTY (ACRES) (u) (ACRES) (u) (BOARD FT.) * (x2) (ACRES) (d) VALUE RANKING
Haywood 23731 8 3SS97 S 6421 . 6 59328 '. "".' .,....f .."'S9 8
Madi80a 18347 7 30580 4 11457 8 48927 S 54 7
LaudcnIaIc 16154 6 40384 7 961 2 56538' 7 SO 6
Weakley 14752 5 29504 3 8911 7 44256 3 41 5
..
Heery 6521 2 39125 6 4920 4 45646. ""4"'." 36 4
..
Shelby 0 I 52S09 8 0 I 52509 6 35 3
Hardemu 12355 4 18532 2 2777 3 30887 2 26 2
McNaiIy 11508 3 5754 1 6225 5 17262 1 23 1
TABLE 3-3
County Priority By
~!octed SilvacuJturaI Activities
Te~..n~~
1989
DATA SOURCE: USDA FOREST SERVICE.
(I) 1980-1989 ANNUAL AVERAGE.
* "Board feet" should be corrected to read "Thousands of board feet."
1
£
J
.
1
!
-
"'
-------
FIG URE 3-4
County Prioritization of Selected
Silvicultural Activities
By Weighted Ranking
Tennessee
.
o COllnli~s willi ~ 10,000 lowland limh.:rland
alT~S harv~sl~d, ~ 10 milliun bollulI1land
",wlimlx:r hoanlhK,1 rcmovals, or ~ 411,OOtJ
lolal hOllumland limhcrland acre.~
121 Counly priorily by wcighlcd ranking in
"~so'~nJing ordcr
o Counlies willi < IU,OOO lowland limhcrland
alTes ha.-veslo'd, < 10 million bollomland
sawlimh.:r hoanlf(KII rcmovals, or < 40,000
Iolal oollomland 1 imherland acrcs
-------
APPENDIX C
COUNTY PRIORITY BY STATE OF
SELECTED AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES
-------
TABLE 4-1
County Priority By
Selected AgricuJturaI Activities
Alabama
1987
PRIMARY CRITERIA SECONDARY CRITERIA TERTIARY CRITERIA
CHANGES IN CATFISH CHANGES IN
CROPLAND RANKING PRODUCED RANKING FARMLAND RANKING WEIGHTED WEIGHTED
COUNTY (ACRES) (x3) (NUMBER) (xl) (ACRES) (xl) VALUE RANKING
Sumter 9122 14 0 0 -1406 8 50 14
Houston 7805 13 0 0 -4834 6 45 13
ClebUI'DC 1611 12 0 0 -28 9 4S 12
Bibb 1481 11 0 0 1188 II 44 11
Tuscaloosa -10516 2 737000 14 -14074. 3 37 20
St. Claire 1392 10 0 0 -6245 5 35 9
Coffee -7918 3 18000 12 -15198 2 35.. 8
Walker 296 7 0 0 4349 13 34 7
Jefferson 653 8 (D) I -3858 7 33 6
Clay -2013 6 0 0 4934 14 32 5
Franklin 924 9 0 0 -9162 4 31. 4
Hale -11198 I 498000 13 -25037 I 30 3
Randolph ~2510 S (D) 1 506 10 27... 2
Russel -2520 4 (D) 1 2520 12 26 1
j
.
DATA SOURCE: U.S. BUREAU OF CENSUS.
NOTE: THE SYMBOL (D) IS USED TO DENOTE COUNTIES WHERE DATA IS "WITHHELD TO
ADVOID DISCLOSING DATA FOR INDIVIDUAL FARMS."
-------
/
I /
~~
FIGURE 4-8
County Prioritization of Selected
Agricultural Activities
By Weighted Ranking
Alabama 1982-1987
@
/
,.,.
\
I
JACKIQIII
IU DISON
COWIQTQIIt
@
/
-J- -
~&~..
C
~
@)
~
CJ C"unlICi wllh JCII Ih.1R . ~OO'3c:"re 'ncr~ "' "'''pl"nJ :,''''
lh~n a ~()()'a"c .nCTcaIC In nc:"1! (3nnI3nJ. .ltlJ k~ \~..In .1 <,.,
Je~ .ncrcax In (,nnland
II«)8IU"
. CounllO IIflllI a ~OO.aCI~ or mC\'e Incre.'''' n '~"I',.I::'; ., <,,,
JCIC or mor~ Inc:"Ie.u4! In nee (Jrml.lnJ, JnJ.1 <,., .I.rt' , r '''. :,
In'Ic:"~ In (arm/.lnd
[!g ('..unl~ pn"nl~ 1'0\' '"e'lihh:..s r.ln~ln, r.ln~,r.~ :r. '" : '., .1
o Pr....Jueinc ,\rea I'l'JI"c: ?)
-------
PRIMARY CRITERIA SECONDARY CRITERIA
CHANGES IN CHANGES IN
CROPLAND RANKING FARMLAND RANKING WEIGHTED WEIGHTED
COUNTY (ACRES) (xl) (ACRES) (xl) VALUE RANKING
Highlands 20295 18 . 3OS06 J.8 54 19
Collier 9490 15 52423 19 49 18 I
Palm Beach 35220 19 -8379 8 46 17\
Lee 4839 13 14113 . 16 42 161
De Soto 7691 14 3445 13 41 15
Manatee 15794 17 -24570 5 39 14
Martin 15026 16 -34653 4 36 13
Saint Lucie 4418 12 -5377 9 33 12
Nassau 1899 10 -5132 10 30 11
Indian River 3665 11 -13551 7 29 10
Lafayette -8650 3 25460 17 23 9
Bradford 998 6 469 11 23 8
Union -2957 4 4144 U4 22 7
-
jOsceola
I Sarasota
I Hendry
Flagler
Okeechobee
Glades
1670
1588
(D)
696
- 26607
1433
............~.-
TABLE 4-1
County Priority By
Selected Agricultural Activities
Florida
1987
9
8
1
5
2
7
141456
-40210
6751
-19518
2274
-267087
2
3
15
6
12
1
DATA SOURCE: U.S. BUREAU OF CENSUS.
NOTE: THE SYMBOL (0) 15 USED TO DENOTE COUNTIES WHERE DATA 15 "WITHHELD TO
AD VOID DISCLOSINO DATA FOR INDIVIDUAL FARMS..
20
19
17
16
16
15
I
I
I
6:
,
5 I
I
4:
31
2 I
I I
-------
I~
@
FIGURE
COllllly I'riurilizillillll of SCIcCIClI
Agriculillfal 1\<:1 ivil ies
By Wcigtllctl Ranking
Flor ill,a 19H2-1987
~ 14
@ ------ .
o Cuunllcs "'"h !as Ihan a 500'acn: incrax in cn,,>I;on" and laos
IItan a 500'acre Incrux In larmland
. C..unlics "',Ih a 500'acn: or more: innl'''SC in crnpl.tntl ond a
500 ane IIr more: increase in 1.lrllil.II'"
(SJ Cuunly pi illrtly II)' "'Ci""l"\l ranLine r'I/'!:I/'1I Irnm I 1(1 I 'J
o ""'''unng Area (Tod'ie 'I)
-:1 - tjS\
, -::------ \!.:!)
'~"':'~I
\ :, I
\
'- !
....)
;/
--'.
.('
.' .
-
-------
TABLE 4-2
County Priority By
Selected Agricultural Activities
Georgja
1987
PRIMARY CRITERIA SECONDARY CRITERIA
I
CHANGES IN CHANGES IN I
CROPLAND RANKING FARMLAND RANKING WEIGHTED WEIGHTED I
COUNTY (ACRES) (xl) (ACRES) (xl) VALUE RANKING I
Miller 6436 21 6205 20 62 21
Wilcox 4504 19 1096 16 54 20
Banks 2869 15 7182 21 51 19
Terrell 5401 20 -824 10 50 18
.. 17
Thomas 3191 16 .1753 18 50
Tift 3925 18 -2122 9 45 161
Calhoun 2780 13 2151 19 45 15
PulDam 3610 17 -2913 8 42 14 I
Turner 2841 14 -309 12 40 13[
Polk 2561 12 -367 11 35 12 '
Worth 942 7 1339 17 31 111
Ware 1053 9 . -5515 6 24 10 I
Charlton 2085 10 -11182 3 23 91
!Atkinson
i Seminole
I
; Camden
i
I Barrow
iWebster
iTaliaferro
IcrisP
,Dade
2179 11 -12731 1 23 8 i
I
507 3 432 13 19 i~
I
967 8 -11218 2 18 61
-1153 2 743 14 18 5 :
-1262 1 768 15 17 .+!
555 s ..3105 7 17 3 I
I
703 6 -10709 4 16 2 I
516 4 -7251 S 13 1 :
I
DAT A SOURCE: U.S. BUREAU OF CENSUS.
-------
/
@)
FIGURE 4-3
County Prioritization of Selected
Agricultural Activities
By Weighted Ranking
Georgia 1982-1987
1/
(~
-\ /
@ 0
Counl":s Wlllliesa tlun a SOO.8CR I~ ID aopl.1nd JnlJ k">i
lh.1n a 500.aCft .nC'I'QIC In rannl.1nd
. Counlles ..,,11 a 500.aCft or more Increaac ,n CTOpl.1nJ .lnJ .1
500'Jen! or IIIO~ InC!'QIC In rannl.1n4
II
o ProduClnc Ala (TaNe 9)
c.lun"-, pnot'I"-' ~ -'c/llcd ranklnl ranp"1 (rom I 10 ; 1
-------
--.. .---:-......:....;.:
. -----
TABLE 4-3
County Priority By
Selected Agricultural Activities
Kentucky
1987
PRIMAAY CRITERIA SECONDARY CRITERIA
CHANGES IN CHANGES IN
CROPLAND RANKING FARMLAND RANKING WEIGHTED WEIGHTED I
COUNTY (ACRES) (x2) (ACRES) (xl) VALUE I
RANKING I
Mason . 107993. SI IS093 SO 152 52
Fleming 18596 49 27216 52 150 51
Bourbon 16692 48 24475 .51 147 50
Daviess 12966 47 8706 48 142 49
, Henry 7861 4S 10429 '~9 139 48
W aslUngton 12469 46 7552 44 136 47
Marion 119560 52 2701 28 132 46
Metcalfe
81732
6104
5276
4108
4261
3192
4461
3192
2116
2356
4723
5476
1165
2064
2046
3998
3053
3512
1949
2475
2982
1432
2397
2175
50
44
42
38
39
35
40
34
27
29
41
43
20
26
25
37
33
36
24
31
32
22
30
28
3338
4694
6279
5001
4607
4355
1019
3190
4669
3630
-195
-4103
7607
38tS
3775
-88
954
-1544
2543
331
-1453
1990
-1257
-2449
;10
~I9
130
127
127
117
115
106
99
97
92
90
89
88
86
86
83
82
81
76
75
72
69
69
66
59
45
44
43
42
41
40
39
38 i
37 !
j
36 i
35 !
!
34 !
33 :
3" :
~ I
31 :
30 !
29
28 :
27 .
26 i
,-
-)
:: -+ .
Jessamine
,Bath 43
I Hancock 41
!Grayson 37
1M uhlenberg . 36
,Union 19
I
: Pulaski 29
'
:Gallatin 38
I Barren 32
I Casey 7
I Lawrence 2
I
I Madison 46
iGarrard 34
I 3:3
; Edmonson
I I!
' Monroe
j
'Grant 1$
I
i Clinton 4J
; Estill 27
I 10
;Carter
, 5
! ~icholas
I 25
: Carroll
I ...,..,
. Robertson 6 _J
I ,,,
RockcastJe 3:
-------
PRIMARY CRITERIA SECONDARY CRITERIA
CHANGES IN CHANGES IN
CROPLAND RANKING FARMLAND RANKING WEIGHTED WEIGHTED
UNTY (ACRES) (xl) (ACRES) (xl) VALUE RANKING
ark -1736 S 8201 47 57 21
coin 520 13 3371 31 57 20
I
I
,
~
'Lin
I Merufee
I Harrison
ILewis
IHait
I
ILee
: Woodford
, Bell
McCr~
~1ol'gan
Fayette
, Taylor
'K.oott
806
916
364
-911
1342
-6320
892
906
1788
-6427
186
420
790
754
-682
492
-4048
-1402
(D)
Greenup
Simpson
, Caldwell
"dair
Green
Bulle-r
.\fartin
-- .
TABLE 4-3
County Priority By
Selected Agricultural Activities
Kentucky
1987
16
19
10
7
21
3
17
18
23
2
9
11
15
14
8
12
4
6
1
1605
1015
4250
4856
231
7566
970
638
-9996
5115
2373
1471
866
821
1226
617
1392
975
1529
24
11
35
40
9
45
16
12
1
42
26
22
14
13
20
11
21
17
23
56
56
SS
S4
51
51
50
48
47
46
44
44
44
41
36
35
29
29
19 I
18 I
17
16
15
14
13
12
I
11 :
10,
,
9:
8 :
7!
6:
,
. I
) ;
41
3 !
.., i
.. '
2S
[JAT" SOURCE: U,S. BUREAU OF CENSUS
~';on: THE SYMBOL (0) I.S USED TO DENOTE COUNTIES WHERE DATA IS "WITHHELD TO
>,DVOID DISCLOSrNO DATA FOR rNDlVIDUAL FARMS."
-------
FIGUIU~ 4-4
County Prioritization of Selected
Agricultural Activities
By Weightcu Ranking
Kentucky 1982- )987
@
. ..
\ / /' ~ I
@ @
@
~
@
o Counlies wilh less Ihan a o5OO.ac~ increase: in cropland and less
Ihan a o5OO.acre increase: in rarmland
[!] Counlies wilh 8 o5OO.acre IIr mllre incrcase in cropland and a
0500 acre or mllre increase in r;,rml..nd
(S] Cllunly priority hy weighled ranLing r..nging rrm" I III 052
o 1',nJunn,; Arca (Tahlc: '.I)
-------
COUNTY
Tunica
Issaquena
TaJlahatcbie
Humphreys
Coahoma
Sunflower
Lee
Clarke
George
TABLE 4-8
County Priority By
Selected Agricultural Activities
Mississippi
1987
PRJMARY CRITERIA SECONDARY CRITERI
CHANGES IN LAND IN
CROPLAND RANKING RICE
(ACRES) (x4) (ACRES)
7491 9 ~IOS6
4966 7 711
6514 8 538
-4410 2 -401
-379 4 . 1788
-21841 1 -13395
1589 6 0
818 5 0
-471 3 . 0
DATA SOURCE: U.S. BUREAU OF CENSUS.
TERTIARY CRITERIA QUADRARY CRITERIA
CATFISH CHANGES IN
RANKING PRODUCED RANKING FARMLAND RANKING WEIGHTED WEIGHTED
(x) (NUMBER) (xl) (ACRES) (xl) V ALUE RANKING
5 0 0 . 16513 . ... .. ... .9
8 0 0 9904 8
7 0 0 -3563 . ..7
6 4848000 9 -108 6
9 0 0,..13715...5
4 1969000 8 -32858 .. . 4
o . 0 0-10275 ..}
o 0 0 -19003 . 2
o 0 0 14$6 J
.
j
.
-------
@
~
- @
ALCORN 0
1
~ /
PRENTISS!
..'" .... _a LA --
FIGURE 4-9
County Prioritization of Selected
Agricultural Activities
By Weighted Ranking
Mississippi 1982-1987
-- .-- "'ARSMALL
. ",-..'
-:
@
MONROE
CLAY
'''H'.' ~.
NO-USEE
lEAKE
NESMOSA
KEMPER
NEWTON lAUOI!"OAlE
I
MINOS I RANKIN
(
r I
SM. TM JASPER
I
COPIAM SIMPSON \
wA.,NE
JONES
LINCOLN
FRANKLIN
'I ~l
I ~ON lAMAR ,l' PER"Y
AM.TE PIKE
LAL T..AlL ~ \
o
'//
@
-"'::::.--
STONE
MA""'SON
JACKSON
CounllCS W1lh loa lhan a SOO'a~ ancrease in cropland. loa
Ih.ln a SOO.a~ ancrease in nee fa nnl.1nd. W1lh no or an
unknov.ll lev~1 of calnsh pro.JuClion. and loa than a SOO.acre
Incr~;ise .n (;innland
--'"
(,.. .
.
CClunllCS ,...lth d SOO'acr~ or mor~ Incrcase an cropland. a ~OO.
acre or mor~ Incr~.uc In nc~ (arml.mLl. a knov.ll lev~1 of catfISh
product Ion. an..! a 500 acn:: or more ancr~ase In (armland
[SJ
o
C<.Junlv pnonly ~ wcIght~LI ranlung r.lnglng fn'm I 109
Producing Area (rable 9)
@
/
@)
/
-------
TABLE 4-4
County Priority By
Selected Agricultural Activities
North Carolina
1987
PRIMARY CRITERIA SECONDARY CRITERIA
CHANGES IN CHANGES IN
CROPLAND RANKING FARMLAND RANKING WEIGHTED WEIGHTED!
,
OUNTY (ACRES) (x2) (ACRES) (xl) VALUE : RA~KI;>'!G '
i
C
.....
i Greene '
10159 27 9684 28 82 "'8 !
- I
I '
i Pasquotank 8992 26 7860 27 79 27
:Gates 6S75 24 1001 22 70 26
!Wilson 4484 22 1324 25 69 25
~ Beaufort 14889 28 -1848 12 68 24
,
!L.moir 3483 21 4323 26 68 23 I
I '
: Northampton 5940 23 183 19 6S .,'"
.... '
, Sampson 3356 20 619 21 61 :! 1 I
I 20 !
:C;,-aven 8038 25 -2898 10 60
; Hertford 2483 15 1107 23 53 19 '
Jones 3214 19 -1593 13 51 18 '
I 17 :
' C,lmden 2294 14 -742 17 45
I
I Henderson 2597 11 -1818 11 45 16 :
I 1658 1234 24 42 l5 ;
Dilvie 9
\hrtin 2504 16 -5159 8 40 14
Haywood 2216 12 -1398 14 38 13 '
,~;;he 2836 18 -15258 1 37 12
1Jckson 1277 8 -507 18 34 l1
PamJico 2263 13 -5775 7 33 to
\t-::Dowell 1019 7 -1176 16 30 9
Avery 911 5 536 20 30 8 :
Rodungbam 2158 11 -10664 4 26 7
Watauga 735 4 -1263 15 23 6
Duplan 1913 10 -13529 2 22 5
Pe rson 966 6 -11 096 3 15 -+
Hoke 681 3 -6167 6 12 3
\1'I.:belJ 421 1 -2974 9 11 .,
-
H) de 564 2 -9221 S 9
0... T ~ SOL'RCE, U S, 8UREAU OF CENSUS
-------
FIGURE 4-5
County Pri()ritization of Selected
Agricultural Activities
By Weighted Ranking
Nort h Carolina, 1982-1987
@
/
@)
2~'7
-
.1 a.....
. >.....,
"10'\.
/\ )~..\..'./
.....,... I . I'
- ---f'll 1:''1
',\:.--'--- " ('
-
--~1~\"'-
1\,
--......c. \
,
o Counlies wilh less Ihan a SOO-acrc increase in cropland and less
Ilian a SOO-acre increase in rarmland
.
111
o
C"unlics willi a SOO-acre or more increase in cropland and a
S()()-acre or more increase in rilrmland
Counly priorlly hy wcigillcd ranking r,mging rrom I 10 28
"rodunng Area (rahle 'I)
-------
TABLE 4--5
County Priority By
Selected Agricultural Activities
South Carolina
1987.
PRIMARY CRITERIA SECONDARY CRITERIA
CHANGES IN CHANGES IN
CROPLAND RANKING FARMLAND RANKING WEIGHTED WEIGHTED
COUNTY (ACRES) (x2) (ACRES) (xl) VALUE RANKING
McCormick IOS0 2 -6241 1 5 2
Fairfield 821 I -5134 2 4 1
DATA SOURCE: U.S. BUREAU OF CENSUS
-------
FIGUr
4-6
County Prioriti7..allon of Selected
Agricultural Activities
By Weighted Ranking
South Carolina, 1982-1987
@
CHfAOMU J
\..~' P'U"'''''J'~~~~'-- @
\ uoo.o.. (,
/ "'"OIAIOOI ) , '-- '- ''"' ') CHUflA l""C"SfIA \ CHUffA"(LO \ )fr91~'t I \
. / ~_.:-/yW:..~.. . \,<=:2:<, :,/."... \
~"II1LlI ~ ", I "I_AAY )' I' I \ - ., /,.-r----.. .'
" , / ..../ ~ --
'- 'f- -- ", .'-'/ ' 1 III (// \ /'
~i' --"',,\ ~', "'-'-f"." "-< )-""A'O"
S"lUO" I \ A'CHl""O \ J', - HOAI..CI ..
'\ '\/) \(
lEI'NOJON ~\ SUMTEA ' ,'~ ~ ., L HOARY
1001'/110 / /, '\.., \ -_./, / ~l \
~ ,/' .:---> ----..< -lor ~ /\.\
-' ", C"lHOU" "I Cl"AI..OO.. ' ;!.. \.
.' ".MI.. 4 ~ "., ~ -~ I ;/ Wllll"-..seUAG \ -
~" \~ \ ;1. ~ GfOAGI'O-
. I' . - '. OA""OI8UAG . r ~' .
e"A-Ill : , /, J '\.'-' )
I "-..eIAG . , ./ ''OJ ,
.' ''"-",- n '1 eU'MILlY ,-,
-.. . -u <. ."
""f~~~.l\//-} ---\9('....~~,\ / -'
.. \ "., ?- I
, ,;...' !
/ COll IT 0" )' \f
-1' H"-..PfO.. \ {
'L.\""~ 1 CH"AH:~- /
,"SPfA t ~"" -",,---
r-~"U'OA" ----
C
<'.~
o Cuuntia wilh Ics8 than. SIIO-.cre increase in cropland and less
Ihan 8 SIlO-acre increase in (armland
. Cuuntics with. SIIO.acre or more increase in cropland and a
SOO.acre or more increase in (armland
;
.
@
fS] CUUllly priorily by weighted ranking ranging (rom I 10 2
o I'f(klucing Area (Tahle 9)
-------
I --
I PRIMARY CRITERIA SECONDARY CRITERIA
CHANGES IN CHANGES IN
CROPLAND RANKING FARMLAND RANKING WEIGHTED WEIGHTED
COUNTY (ACRES) (xl) (ACRES) (xl) VALUE RANKING
Crockett 28296 11 38803 17 51 17
Franklin 8224 16 4327 14 46 16
Washington 6840 15 4500 15 45 15
Union 2967 13 -831 7 33 14
Hawkins 5289 14 -3721 3 31 13
Haywood 1971 12 -903 6 30 12
Polk 1762 10 1772 10 30 11
Scon 1421 9 1927 II 29 10
Montgomery 845 S 5658 16 26 9
Dickson 1842 11 -11391 1 23 8
Greene 983 6 1459 9 21 7
Wayne 1350 8 -1705 5 21 6
Grundy 1228 7 -1986 ~ IS c;
RU~~.:50~ -iil 2 2314. !2 16 ~I
Claiborne -3272 1 2854 13 15 3
Campbell 741 3 -648 g i4 ...,
~
Cocke 711 4 -7250 2 10 1
TABLE 4-6
County Priority By
Selected Agricultural Activities
Tennessee
1987
DATA SOURCE: U.s. BUREAU OF CENSUS.
_J
-------
FIGURE 4-.
County Prioritization of Selected
Agricultural Activities
By Weighted Ranking
Tenessee, 1982-1987
@
\
\/
@
~
@
o
Counlics wilh less Ihan a 500-acre increase in cropland and Ic~s
Ihan a 500-acre increase in rarmland
.
Counlies wilh a 500-acre or more increase in cropland and a
500-acre or more increase in rarmland
.
o
Counly priorily by weighlcd ranking ranging rrom I 10 17
I'roducing Area (T
-------
APPENDIX D
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
PRIORITY AREAS FOR EACH STATE
-------
ALABAMA
location of priority wetlands in Alabama
(See Table C.2)
-------
~ T"""
"'~.&&:.I
IDENTIFIER2
Table C.2.
Important'Wet!ands in Alab~a Meeting Wet1ands ~5sessment C~iteri~
AREA NAME
COUNTY
iU?Pi
-------
Table C.2.
(Page 2 of 3).
Important Wetlands in Alabama Heeting Wetlands Assessment Criteria'
MAJOR
SITE APPROXIMATE WETLAND
IDENTIFIERZ AREA NAHE COUNTY ACREAGE TYPE(S)
6 Forrest Cri. Swamp Shelby 320 P.FO,F
SIGNIFICANCE OF AREA)
This site is unusual because it i5
a disjunct tract of pure tupelo
forest. FNS. ~rr: RCD, 00.
7
Byrd Spring Swa.p
Hadison
650
P,FO,C/F
An area of tupelo gum and
bottomland forest that is spring-
fed from a karst cave system. FNS,
HO. HT.RCD, T.
8
Wheeler Wetlands
Horgan,
Hadison
2,290
P.FO.C/F
Seven tracts of tupelo gum
and bottomland swamp adjacent to
Wheeler NWR. FNS. .rr:RCD, T.
-----------------------
Footnotes.
Wetland Assessaent Threshold Criteria and instructions are presented in Appendix A.
Z
Site identifier does not imply priority rank.
identifier.
See Figure AL-2 for general location of areas corresponding to site
]
In addition to any species and resources specifically listed, all sites exhibited a diversity of other fish and
wildlife resources of interest to the Service and State, as well as important outdoor recreation, educational, and
public use opportunities or potential opportunities.
.
Site identified as an ecologically significant wetland site in the Alabama Statewide Comprehensive Outdo0r
Recreation Plan (Volume 2, Alabama Wetlands Addendum, July 1988).
5
Site identified by Fish and Wildlife Service as a Joint Venture area under the North American Waterfowl "anag~ment
Plan.
.
nes \ \(90) .
"Land Acquisition Briefing Book, FY 1991."
-------
FLORIDA
-- _. - - ..
location of priority wetlands in Florida (Se0- Tr)hl", C.4)
,or'-. ., "'" "'..,!~....". .. .., ~ ~
-------
Table C.4.
Important Wetlands in Florida Meeting Wet1ands Assessment Criteria.\
MAJOR
SITE APPROXIMATE WETLAND
IDENTIFIER2 AREA NAME COUNTY ACREAGE TYPE(S) SIGNIFICANCE OF AREA3
1 Lochloosa Lake Alachua 11,050 P:FOIF/C Area includes a number of
L2:AB:H endangered bald eagles and active
P,EHIG:H stork nesting colony, and eastern
Indigo snakes.. FNS, WQ. HT:RCD,
WDP, AC.
2 Charlotte Harbor Charlotte 5,360 E2ISS:N Proposed State Reserve Area.. ES,
FNS, WQ. Would provide buffer to
Island Bay NWR. HT:RCD, WQ.
3 Crystal River Citrus 5, 990 P,FO,F/C Provides habitat for the endangered
PIEH:H West Indian manatee and bald eagle.
Within FWS proposed acquisition and
planning area of Crystal River
NWR. ** FNS, WQ. tIT: RCD , \-IQP, T,
WDP.
4 Dee River Ranch Citrus 1,600 L2:AB:H Includes habitat fo the Federally
PIEHIF/G protected wood stork and eastern
PIFO:A/C Indigo snake.. WQ. tlT:AC, 'iQP, 00.
5 Flying Eagle Ranch Citrus 5,900 PIFOIF/A/C . Includes habitat for the Federally
L2,AB:H protected wood stork and bald
PIEH:F eagle.. FNS, WQ. rrr:RCD, T, .'QP.
PIABIH
PISS,A
-------
Table C.4.
(Page 2 Oat 9).
Important Wetl~n(t":! :!..:-:. ~~VL iu", Meeting Wet1ands Assessment. Cri..t.er1.a.\
MAJOR
SITE APPROXDiArn WETLAND
IDEN'rIFI!;R2 AREA NAHE COUNTY ACREAGE TYPE(S)
6 Fakahatchee Strand CoUter S,UG PrFOrC
P,EM,A
7
Rookery Bay
ColI ier
10,850
E2.SSIN
8
Save Our Everglades
Collier
77,770
PrFOIC
PIEHIC
9
Dade Broward Levee
Dade
11 , 960
P.EHrC
P.FO.C
10
East Everglades.
Dade
71,920
P:EH:C
P:SS:C
SIGNIFICANCE OF AREA)
Tnc!ud~~ h~ita~ for the fed~r~lly
protected Florida panther, wood
stork, and bald eagle.. Adjacent
to State Preserve and Big Cypress
National Preserve. Adjacent to
Florida Panther NWR; within FWS
acquisition planning area.** FNS,
WOo H'I':RCD, WQP.
Includes habitat for the
Federally protected manatee, wood
stork, and bald eagle.. Adjacent
to National Estuarine Research
Reserve. FNS, WQ. HT:RCD, WQP.
Includes habitat for Federally
protected Florida panther, wood
stork, and bald eagle. Adjacent or
near to Big Cypress National
Preserve and Florida Panther NWR..
FNS, WQ. HT:RCD, T, WQP, A, ODe
Includes habitat for the Federally
protected wood stork and Everglades
kite.. FNS, WQ. HT:RCD, WQP.
Includes habitat for the Federally
protected Florida panther, wood
stork, and Everglades kite.
Proposed addition to everglades
National Park.. FNS, WQ. 'rI':AC,
WQP.
-------
Table C.4.
(Page 3 of 9).
Important Wetlands in Florida Heeting Wetlands Assessment Criteria.'
SITE
IDENTUIER2
11
12
13
14
15
16
_.
AREA NAME
Everglades Water
Conservation Area.
Lower Suwannee
Planning Area
Apalachicola River
and Bay
Lower Apalachicola
Gadsen County Glades
Kissimmee River
Floodplain
1 . .
~........
COUNTY
Dade, Broward,
Palm Beach
Dixie
Franklin
Franklin
Gadsen
Glades,
Highlands,
Okeechobee,
Polk
APPROXIMATE
ACREAGE
MAJOR
WETLAND
TYPE(S)
74,800
PrEH:F
PrSS:F
17 , 760
P:FO:C/F
E2:FOrP
774
P:FO:C/A
E2rEH:P
PrSSrP
9,308
E2:EH:P
PrFO:A/C
P.EH
1,240
P:FO:A/C
41,960
PIEH
SIGNIFICANCE OF AREA)
Includes habitat for the
Federally protected Florida
panther, wood stork, and Everglades
kite.' FNS, WQ. HT:WQP, OGH.
Includes habitat for the Federally
protected wood stork, manatee, and
bald eagle; and proposed Gulf
shortnose sturgeon. Adjacent to
Lower Suwannee NWR; within FWS
ac~isition planning area... FNS,
WQ. ',5 H'l': ITH, RCD, T, 00.
Includes habitat for the Federally
protected bald eagle, several
endangered sea turtles, and
sturgeon (proposed for listing) .1,5
FNS, WQ. H'l':RCD, T, WDP, WQP.
ES, FNS, WQ.I HT: RCO, AC, 00.
Recognized by State as important
area.. HT: RCD, 00.
Includes habitat for several
Federally listed species including
bald eagle and Eastern Indigo
snake.. FNS, h'Q. lIT: h'QP, OD.
-........... .-..-
.,---........,....-......-..-- .. -.-.
-------
Table \:.4.
(Page 4 of 9).
Important Wetlands in Florida Meetinq Wet1ands Assessment Cr~te~~a.\
SITE
IDENTIFIER2
AREA NAME
COUNTY
APPROXIMATE
ACREAGE
MAJOR
WETLAND
TYPE(S)
SIGNIFICANCE OF AREA]
11
18
19
20
21
22
23
Riverbend Area
Chassahowitzka
Swamp
Letchworth Hounds
Wacissa and Aucilla
Wacissa.Swaap
River Springs Area
B. H. K. Ranch
Hamilton.
Madison,
Suwannee
Hemado
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Lafayet.te
Lake, Orange
6,870
6, 700
244
6,915
17,600
3,800
2,630
P:FO:A/C
PIEHIF
P.FO.F/C
E.EH:N/P
P.FO:C/F
P.EH.A/F
P.FO.C/A
P.FOIF/C
P.SSIF/C
R2.UBIH
PIFOIA/C
PIEHIA/C
P.FOIC
P:EH.C/F
PISS:C/F
Includes important habitat for Gulf
shortnose sturgeon. FNS, WQ. 4,5
HT:RCD, WQP.
Includes habitat for Fed~rally
protected woo~ stork, Eastern
Indigo snake. and other endangered
species. AdJ'acent to existinq
. .
State WHA. FNS, WQ. HT:RCO, 00.
Recognized by State as an important
area.. ~Q. HT:RCD, AC, 00.
Portions of area are under
management by State gam~ and fish
.
agency. FNS, WQ. trr:RCO. AC, 00.
Includes habitat for the Federally
protected wood stork.. Area
included in State WlfA. FNS. 'fQ.
HT:ITH, RCD.
Portion of Suwannee Ri.ver and
floodplain; major spawning area. for
Gulf sturgeon. ES. FNS, HQ, U
HT:RCD, WQP. 00.
Includes habitat for the Fed~rally
protected wood stork, Sherman's fox
squirrel. and other species.. ES,
FNS. trr:RCO, 1TH, T, 00.
-------
Table C.4.
(Page 5 of 9).
Important Wetlands in Florida Heeting Wetlands Assessment Criteria.'
SITE
IDENTIFIER2
AREA NAME
COUNTY
APPROXIMATE
ACREAGE
MAJOR
WETLAND
TYPE(S)
24
SIGNIFICANCE OF AREA]
25
26
21
28
29
St. Johns River
Carl
Se.inole Spring
Eastero Bay
Gulf Island
Jossylyn Island
-
Six Mile Cypress
Slough
'-
Lake
6, 200
P:FO:A/C/F
P:EH,C/G
R2:AB/UB/H
Lake
8,280
P,FO,A/C
P,EH.F/C
Lee
5,500
E21SSIN
Lee
2, 700
E2.SS.N
E2IEH,N
ElIUB,L
Lee
4,100
E2:SS,L
P,EH:A
Lee
300
P,FO,C
.-...".-" .......,.......
St. Johns River is critical habitat
for the m~~atee. The area is an
important milrating .corridor for
black bears. ES, FNS, WQ.
HT:RCO, WQP. 00.
Includes habitat for the Federally
protected wood stork and Eastern
Indigo snake; also several
candidate plantspecies. 4 WQ.
HTIRCO, T, WQP.
Includes habitat for the Federally
protected manatee and bald eagle.
Proposed aquatic preserve. 4 FNS,
WOo HTIRCO, HOP, WQP.
Includes habitat for the Federally
protected manatee and bald eagle.
FNS, WQ. HT:RCO, WDP, WQP, 00.
Includes habitat for the Federally
protected wood stork and bald
eagle. Site included on National
Register of Historic Places;
important archaeological area.4
FNS, WQ. HT:RCO, WDP, 00.
I'
i
Includes habitat tor the Federally
protected wood stork and bald
. e..gle. Proposed State P<,u'k ct
r.
-------
Table C.4.
(Page 6 of 9).
Important Wet1ands in F10rida Meeting Wet~ands ~ssessment Crite~ia.\
srm
IDENTIFIERl
AREA NAME
COUNTY
APPROXIMATE
ACREAGE
UI\ 'Tno
. ..-...,v.,
WETLAND
TYPE(S)
30
SrGHIFICA.~CE OF AP~J
31
32
33
34
35
Key West Salt Ponds
North Key Largo
Hammocks
Rotenberger
Strazzulla
Cypress Creek
Withlacoochee
Riverine, Corridor A
Honroe
Honroe
Pal.. Beach
Palm Beach
Pasco
Pasco, Polk,
Sumter
440
2,820
20,200
1,100
2,915
100
E2.US.H
E2.SS.H
E2.FO.SS
E2.AB.H
E1.AB.L
P,SS.C
P.EH.F
P.SS:C
P.FO,C
P:FO.F/C
P,FO,F/A/C
P:EH:F
R2:UB,H
FNS, WQ. Potential County Park
area.- HT:RCD, T, WDP, WQP.
Includes habitat for the Federally
protected American crocodile, Key
Largo wood rat, and several
others. - Within FWS proposed
acquisition and planning area for
Crocodile Lake NWR.** ES, FNS, WQ.
HT.RCD, WDP, T, WQP, OD.
Includes habitat for the Federally
protected wood stork. Adjacent
area part of State WHA.4 FNS, WQ.
H'I':AC, WQP.
Includes habitat for the Federally
protected Everglades kite, Florida
panther, and wood stork. 4 FUS,
WQ. HT:AC, WQP.
Includes habitat for the Federally
protected wood stork and bald
eagle.4 WQ. HT:RCD, WQP.
Includes habitat for the Federally
protected wood stork, Eastern
Indigo snake, and bald eagle. 4
WQ. tIT: RCD, T, WQP, ITIt.
-------
Table C.4.
(Page 1 of 9t.
Important Wetlands in Florida Heeting Wetlands Assessment Criteria. I
SITE
IDENTIFIER2
AREA NAME
COUNTY
APPROXDtATE
ACREAGE
MAJOR
WETLAND
TYPE(S)
36
SIGNIFICANCE OF AREA]
31
38
39
40
41
42
Withlacoochee
Riverine, Corridor B
Withlacoochee
Riverine, Corridor D
South Savannas
Garcon Point
Pond Creek
Spring Ha880ck
Carlton Half-Hoon
Ran~h
Paso
Pasco
St. Lucie,
Hartin
Santa Rosa
Santa Rosa
Se.inole
Sumter
210
P.FO.F/C/A
PIEH:F
2,030
PIFO.F/C
P,EH:C
2,240
P,EH,F/C
2,560
P,EHIA/C/F
E2IEH,P/N
2,360
P,FO,C/B
P,EHIB
340
PIFOIC/A
P,SS,C
PIEH,F
PIUB,H
4,150
P,FO,F/C
P,EH,F/G
P,ABIH
P,UB.H
R2,OO,H
Includes habitat for the Federally
protected wood stork, Eastern
Indigo snake, and bald eagle. 4
WO. HT: RCD, T, WOP, ITtt.
Includes habitat for the Federally
protected wood stork, Eastern
Indigo snake, and bald eagl~. 4
WOo HTIRCD, T, WOP, IT".
Include habitat for several
Federally protected species. 4
WO. tIT: RCD, WOP, 00.
ES,
State endangered plant known to be
in area.5 FNS. tIT: RCD, T. 00.
ES, FNS.
tIT I RCD, T, AC, WQP, ITtt.
Includes habitat for the Federally
protected wood stork and Eastern
Indigo snake. Last major hydric
hammock in county.
Includes habitat for the Federally
protected wood stork and Eastern
Indigo snake. 4 FNS, rIT:RCD, HQP.
-------
.J.cU.Jle <..".4.
(Page 8 0 f q!.
rmpoLt~.~ ne~iands in Florida Meeting ~et1ands ~ssessment Criter\a.\
~
MAJOR
SITE APPROXIMATE WETLAND
IDENTIFIER2 AREA NAHE COUNTY ACREAGE TYPE(S)
43 Panasoffkee Project Sumter 700 PIFO,F/C
44
Peacock Slough
Suwannee
330
P.FO.A/F
P.SS:A
PIAB.H
45
Archie Carr
Brevard,
Indian River
H2 I US
500
46
Pelican Island NWR
Brevard,
Indian River
364
E21 Fa .
E2:SS
PIEH
R2.UB:H
47
J.N. "Ding" Darling
NWR
Lee
127
E2. FO
E2:SS
P,FO
SIGNIFICANCE OF AREA)
Includes habitat. tor the Federally
protected wood stork, Eastern
Indigo snake, and bald eagle.4 WQ.
HT I RCD, T, WQP, ITH.
4,5 FRS, WQ. HT:OD.
Area exhibits highest density.
nesting beach in Western Hemisphere
for the endangered loggerhead sea
turtle. Within Service proposed
acquisition area for the Archie
Carr NWR.** ES. HT:RCD, OD.
Includes important breeding habitat
for the endangered "ood stork and
lagoon habitat for the endangered
manatee and sub adul t sea turtles. .
Within FWS proposed acquisition for
Pelican Island NWR.'" ES. .rr:RCD,
00.
Includes habitat for several
Federally protected species. The
West Indian tropical hammock
community is unique to southern
Florida. Adjacent to J.N. "Ding"
Darling NWR; area is within FWS
proposed acquisition... ES.
HT:RCD, 00.
-------
- . .,...-
Table C.4.
(Page 9 of 9).
Important Wetlands in Florida Heeting Wetlands Assessment Criteria.1
SITE
IDENTIFIER2
MAJOR
WETLAND
TYPE(S)
SIGNIFICANCE OF AREA)
APPROXIMATE
ACREAGE
AREA NAME
COUNTY
48
St. Harks NWR
Expansion---
Wakulla
900
E2.EH,P
P,EH,F
P,FO,F
Includes habitat for at least
12 Federally protected species and
a large number of other species of
special interest to the FWS. ES,
FNS, WOo HT:RCD, 00.
Footnotes.
Wetlands Asses88ent Threshold Criteria and instructions are presented in Appendix A.
2
Site identifier does not indicate or imply priority rank.
corresponding to the site identification number.
See Figure FL-2 for general location of areas
)
In addition to any species and resources spec~fically listed, all sites exhibited a diversity of fish and
wildlife resources of interest to the Service and State, as well as important outdoor recreation, educational,
and public use opportunities or potential opportunities. .
.
Site identified as a priority wetland area in the State planning document entitled "Wetlands In Florida:
An Addendua to Florida's Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan," Florida Department of Natural Resources,
Division ot Park and Recreation, 1988.
5
Recognized by State as an "Outstanding Florida Water."
-
Portion of area under evaluation by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as an "Advance
Identification Area."
--
FWS (1990).
"Land Acquisition Briefing Book, FY 1991."
...
FWS (1990).
"Preli8inary Project Proposal to Expand St. Harks HWR,
Wakulla County, Florida."
............
. ~r -.... .........-.. _.... ~ ..~.
... ......~
---- ...
-------
GEORGIA. location of priority wetlands in Georgia
(See Table C.5)
-------
Table C.S. Important Wet1ands in Georgia Meeting ~et1ands
,",ssessment Cr\..ter\.a.\
MAJOR
SITE APPROXIMATE WETLAND
mEHTIFIER2 AREA NAME COUNTY ACREAGE TYPE(S) SIGNIFICANCE OF AREA3
1 Upper Altamaha Appling, 25,000) P,FOIC Considered, along with the Lower
River Swamp Tattnall, P,SS:C Altamaha, to be the most diverse
Tombs R2,SBIH and productive river swamp in
Georgia. Area supports the
endangered shortnose sturgeon.
Immediately upstream from proposed
Lower Altamaha NWR.4 FNS, WQ.
HT:RCO, T, WDP, WQP, 00.
2 Roundabout Swamp Atkinson 2,000 P,FOIB An existing Carolina Bay of
PISS,B recognized importance.4 FNS.
HT:RCO, ITH.
3 Little Hurricane Bacon 2,000 P,FO,C Provides habitat used by several
Creek Federally protected species.4 ES,
FNS, WQ. H'l':WDP, WQP, 00.
4 Swamp of TOAI Baker, 40,000 P,FO The most extensive lime sink area
Chickasaw-Hatchie Calhoun, PlOt in Georgia. Includes habitat for
Swamp Dougherty the Federally protected wood stork,
bald eagle, and possibly other
species. The rare Georgia blind
cave salamander also occurs on the
site.4,5 ES, FNS, WQ. HT:WQP, AC,
RCO, T, 00.
5 Indian Island Club Baldwin 1,300 P,FO,F/C Includes habitat for the Federally
protected bald eagle. 4 FNS.
H'l',OGH, 00.
-------
Table C.S
(Page 2 of 13).
Important Wetlands in Georgia Meeting Wetlands Assessment. C!"i.tert~.1
MAJOR
SITE APPROXIMATE WETlAND
mENTIF~ AREA NAME COUNTY ACREAGE TYPE(S)
6 Sag Ponds Bartow 10 PtEtttH
P.SStF
PtFO.F
7
Echecorme Creek
Bibb,
Houston,
Peach
3,260
P.FOtC
PtEtttC
8
Bond Swamp Area
Bibb,
Twiggs
2,816
PtFOtC
PtEtttF
9
Ocmulgee River
Bleckley,
Houston,
Twiggs
15,000
PIFOtC
R2aUBaH
SIGNIFICANCe OF AReA]
An unusual area wi th flora
persisting from the Pleistocene;
also significant fossils. The site
is a National Natural Landmark.-
WQ. HTIWQP, RCD, OD.
Includes habitat used by Federally
protected bald eagle. 4 FHS. WQ..
HTaRCD, WDP.
Area provides habitat used by
several Federally protected
species. A portion of the swamp
has been acquired into the National
Wildlife Refuge system.. Within
FHS proposed acquisition for Bond
Swamp NWR.'" ES, FRS, WQ. trl': RCD,
T, WQP, OGH, OD.
Includes habitat for the Federally
protected bald eagle. Inc!uded in
State WHA System. Municipal water
supply for Macon and other cities..
FRS, WQ. 'HT:ITH, RCD.
-------
SITE
IDENTIFlER2
10
11
12
13
Table C.5
(Page 3 of 13).
AREA NAME
Lower Satilla
River
Lower Ogeechee
River
Middle Ogeechee
River
St. Marys River
Important Wetlands ~n Georg~a Meeting Wet1ands ~5sessment Cr~ter~a.\
COUNTY
Brantley,
Ware,
Pierce,
Charlton,
Camden
Bryan
Bulloch
Camden,
Charlton,
Ware,
Brantley
APPROXIMATE
ACREAGE
65,000
40,000
40,000
50,000
MAJOR
WETLAND
TYPE(S)
PIFOIC
E2.EM.P
P,EH,C
P,SSIC
R2.UB.H
P,FO,A/C
E2,EH,P
R2.UB,H
P,FO
P.EH
R2,UB,H
P.FO,F/C
P,EH,C
E2.EH,N
R2,UB.H
SIGNIFICANCE OF AREA1
Includes habitat for a number of
Federally protected species.
State listed hooded-pitcher plant
occurs in area; also, largest bird
rookery along Georgia coast. Site
is a recommended National Natural
Landmark; the river is a proposed
"National Wild and Scenic River.".
ES, FNS, WO. HTIRCO, WOP, 00.
An important river for anadromous
fish species, including the
Federally protected shortnose
sturgeon. Proposed "National Wild
and Scenic River. II. FNS, WQ.
HT.ITH, RCO, WOP.
Includes habitat for a number of
Federally protected species.
Important remote remnant of
Ogeechee River forested
floodplain.. ES, FNS, WQ. MTIRCO,
ITH, WOP, OD.
Includes habitat for a number of
Federally protected species,
including anadromous fish.
Proposed "National Wild and Scenic
River. II. ES, FNS, WQ. trr:RCD,
WOP, ITH.
-------
Table C.5
(Page 4 oi 13).
I~rtant ~etlandG in Georgia Meeting Wetlands Assessment Criteria.1
SIn:
IDmrnrIBRZ
APPROXIHATE
ACREAGE
MAJOR
wmAND
TYPE(S)
AREA lWtE
COUNTY
1.
Black 8U11OCk
Camden
200
SIGNIFICANCE OF AREA)
P.SS.C
P.FO.C
P.EH.C
15 Buffalo SWBJIP Carrol 800
16 Suwannee River Charlton, 8,000
Ware,
Clinch,
Echols
P.FO.C/A
P.. sa. F
P.FO.C
P.SS.F
R2.UB.H
11
Mulberry Grove
Chathall
1,200
P.FO.F
P.Ethf
Site contains nesting wood storks
(endangered) and is one of only
six rookeries in Georgia.. HT.RCD.
.
FNS, WQ. HT.RCD, 00.
Includes habitat for the Federally
protected bald eagle, wood stork,
and Eastern indigo snake.
Contains lime sinks and Carolina
bays. Adjacent to Okefenokee NWR.
Has been nominated as a .'National
Wild and Scenic River.". FNS, WQ.
NT.RCD, ITH, WOP.
Includes habitat for the Federally
protected wood stork and shortnose
sturgeon. Important habitat for
anadromous fish.. Adjacent to
Savannah NWR. FWS, WQ. ttT IT, "OP,
00 (Navigation Projec~).
-------
--.-'-'-.-..... -.--.--.
Table C.5
(Page 5 of 13).
Important Wetlands in Georgia Meeting Wetlands l\s~essment CI.1t.eI.1<'\.\
-----
MAJOR
SITE APPROXIMATE WETLAND
IDEHTIFIER2 AREA NAME COUNTY ACREAGE TYPE(S)
18 Cemochechobee Clay 1,500 P.FO:C
Creek P:SS:C
19
Hiona Bottoms
Crawford,
Taylor,
Hacon
P:FO.C/F
P:SS:F
P.AB:H
15,000+
20
Hogcrawl Creek
Bottoms
Dooly,
Macon,
SWlter
15,000+
P.FO:C/F
R2aUBaH
21
Cooleewahee Creek
and Li8esink Ponds
Dougherty
P.FOaF/C/A
12,000
.-.-... ""-. - ~._--
SIGNIFICANCE OF AREAl
Includes habitat for th~ F~d~rally
protected bald eagle and Hood
stork. Also, site exhibits unusual
plant diversity and includes the
endangered relict Trilluim. Area
also includes an important geologic
feature--the Blue tlad Ravilll'!.
Adjacent to Walter F. G~org~ State
.
MtA. FNS, WQ. HT:ITtI, RCD, '''OP.
Includes habitat for the F~d~rally
protected Eastern indigo snake and
.
bald eagle. FNS, \'1O. I!T:WOP, 00.
Includes habitat for the Fedp.rally
protected Eastern indigo !;:nake and
bald eagle.. FNS, WQ. m':WDP,
I'l'H.
Includes habitat for the rl'!r1~:rally
protected \-lOod stork and baJ d
eagle. Blind crayfish and th~ rare
Georgia blind salamander ,'r~ kllt)\1J)
to occur in the lime sin~ rcqion.
The lime sink is part of
underground aquifer system that.
supplies drinking \-Iater for' p<1rts
of State. FNS, WOo J!T:RCD, '''QP.
-------
......h1.-- ~ 0:::
---- ......,
'~Q~i: U ui i.3j.
Important Wetlands in Georgia Meeting Wetlands Assessment Criteria.l
MAJOR
SITE APPROXIMATE WE'I'I.AND
IDENTIFIER2 AREA HAHE COUNTY ACREAGE 'I'YP£(S)
22 Bear Island I and Eft1ngham 5,900 P.ro.C
II
23
Ebenezer Swamp
Eff1nghaa
1,500
P.FO.C/A/B
24
Cup Boyd
Emanuel
500
P.FO.C/A/F
25
Ohoopee/Little
Ohoopee Rivers
P,FO.C/F/A
R2.UB,H
Emanuel
30,000
-
~ ~
-
--
T-
--.1.- ~
-~ ,
SIG"IFICA1~CE OF AREA)
Contains probably thP. h~st
w.p~o~ected virgin bottomland
hardwood community in Georgia.
Endangered bald eagle nests near
site. Adjacent to Savannah NWR.
Previously recommended as a
National Natural Landmark.1 ES,
FNS, WQ. HT.ITH, HOP, WDP.
Swamp is highly natural and
undisturbed, containing a virgin
cypress forest. I Near Savannah
NWR. ES, FNS, HOP. HT:RCD, HOP,
ITH.
Includes habitat for the endangered
Eastern indigo snake and State-
listed gopher tortoise. Area is
currently owned by the Georgia-
Carolina Boy Scout Council and is a
designated National Natural
Landmark. I FNS, HO. tff: ITH, OD.
Includes habitat for the Federally
protected Eastern indigo snake,
red-cockaded woodpecker, and bald
eagle. A portion of the area (267
acres) is a designated National
Natural Landmark. f FNS, HQ. .
1fT. ITH, RCD.
- ...-
-------
SITE
mEHTU'~
26
27
28
29
30
Table C.5
(Page 7 of 13).
AREA IWtE
Jacks/Conasua9a
River
Chalker Swaap
Lower Al tamaha
River Sw8IIP
St. SillOns Island
Rookery
Grantley Tract
. .... . ...... -- . 6 , " ~ """...... .
Important Wetlands in Georgia Heet1.ng Wetlands Assessment Ct:1.tex:1.a.\
COUNTY
Fannin
Glascock,
Washington
Glynn,
Long,
McIntosh,
Wayne
Glynn
Glynn
APPROXIMATE
ACREAGE
30 ,000
5,000
60,000
200
600
HAJOR
WETI..AHD
'l'YPE(S)
P.FO.A
R3.RB.H
P.FO.C
. R2 . UB. H
+
P.FO,C
P.EH.C
R2.UB.H
E2.EH,P
P.ro,C/F/A
P.SS.C
P.AB."
P.EH.C
P.EHIR
P.ro
SIGNIFICANCE OF AREA)
River supports.L~e endangered
conasua~a Logperch. Good trout
stream. Adjacent to the Cohutta
Wilderness Area. Both rivers have
been named as potential "National
Wild and Scenic Rivers." WQ.
HT.ITH, WQP, T, RCD, WDP.
Ogeechee River is known to support
the endangered shortnose sturgeon.4
FNS, WQ. HT.ITH, T, WQP, ODe
Largest river-swamp systems in
State. Includes habitat for a
number of Federally protected
species.4 Huch of area included
within FHS proposed acquisition for
the Al tamaha NWR. * ES, FNS, WQ.
HT.ITH, T, ODe
Supports one of only six known
endangered wood stork rookeries in
4
States. HT:RCD, T.
Providing habitat for several
Federally protect~d species.
Adjacent to Altamaha State
Waterfowl Management Area.4 ES,
FHS. HTIRCD, ODe
-------
Table C.5
(PaCJe 8 of 13).
Important Wetlands in GP,or~!~ M~etinq Wetlwkds AS5eS&went Ccitecia.!
SITE
IDEHTIFIER2
AREA NAME
COUNTY
APPROXDtATE
ACREAGE
MAJOR
NETLAHD
TYPE(S)
SIGNIFICANCE OF AREA]
2e
-..- -.-.
U~o:J, "Y.-
it"l"! :i'fii, RCD.
31
Horth Oconee River
Swaap
Hall
~iro
32
"owali98 Riverl
Thollpson Creek
Henry
660
P.FO.C
P.EH.F
P.SS.F
33
B19 Indian Hossy
Creek
Houston
1,210
P.FO.C/F/A
34
BiCJ Grocery Creek
Houston
720
P.FO.C/A
35
Crystal Lakel
Alapah8 River
Irwin
2,000
P.FO
36
Monticello Botto.-
land Woods
p.ro.C/F
Jasper
4,500
37
8i9 Dukes Pond
P.FO.C/A/B
P.SS.A
Jenkins
1,100
. - -----_.~
"--
FNS, WOo ~ ttT:WDP, OD.
FNS, WQ.. ttT.ITH, RCD, WQP.
FNS, WO.. HT.ITH, RCD, WQP.
Associated sandhill ecosystem
includes habitat for endangered
Eastern indigo snake. Area
includes relic stunted cypress and
Ogeechee lime.. FNS, WQ. HT.ITH,
OD.
Site has been identified as a
potential ecological natural
landmark for the Piedmont Region..
rRS, NQ. HT: ITH, OGM, WOP.
Includes a major rookeTY for the
endangered wood stock.. FNS, WQ.
HT.ITH, OD.
~ ~
-,
.-
--
-------
---..--- ---.
------- -
Table C.5
(Page 9 of 13).
Important Wetlands 1.0. Georgia Meet~o.n ~etl.andB
... .,. .. Assessment Cr\.te:r\.a.\
MAJOR
SITE APPROXIMATE WETLAND
mENTIFIER2 AREA HAHE COUNTY ACREAGE TYPE(S)
38 Kent's Landing Jenkins 150+ P.FOIC/F
Swallp
39
Oconee River
Laurens, 100,000+ P.FOIC
Wilkinson, P.FO.A
Wheeler, etc. P,SSIA
R21UBIH
Macon, 5,000+ PIFOIC
Dooly R2aUBaH
40
Flint River
41
Buffalo Swup
McIntosh
10,000
PIFOIA/N/B
PIEHIA
PISSaF
R2.UBIH
42
Creighton Island
McIntosh
3,000
P.FO.A/C
SIGNIFICANCE OF AREA1
Area recognized as a critical off-
river (Ogeechee River) striped bass
refuge. Area includes habitat for
several federally protected
species. ES, FNS, WO. HT:ITH,
RCD.
.
FNS, WO.
HT.
ITH, RCD, WOP.
An area of very diverse habitat
types and species. Area contains
41 rare species of plants and 10
endemic species of freshwater
.
snails. ES, FNS, WO. HT:WDP,
RCD, WQP, AC.
Includes habitat for the Federally
protected wood stork and bald
eagle. Adjacent to State MIA..
FNS, WQ. HTIITH, ODe
A barrier island recognized as an
important area for coastal wading
and shore birds. Includes habitat
.
for the endangered wood stork.
FNS. HTIRCD, ODe
-------
Tabl~ C.5
(PQg~ 10 of 13).
IQportant Wetlands in Geo~91a Meeting Wetlands Assessment Criteria.!
SITE
IDDft'II'mr
APPROXIMATE
ACREAGE
HAJOR
WETLAND
TYPE(S)
AREA IWtE
COUNTY
2, 230
. SIGNIFICANCE OF AREA]
43
Julianton Plantation
McIntosh
E2.EH.N
P.FO.A/C
44
Oldnor Island
McIntosh
2,500
E2.EH.N/P
E2.FO.P
45
Wahoo Island
McIntosh
2,500
E2.EH.P
E2.US.N
E2.FO.P
E2.SS.P
46
TowaUga River
Monroe
15,000
P.FO
R2.UBIH
Area including important rookery
for the endangered wood stork and
other species. Adjacent to Harris
Neck NWR. One of few remaining
undeveloped tracts on Georgia
.
coast. FNS, WQ. HTIRCD, ITH.
Includes habitat for the Federally
protected wood stork and other
wading birds. Area is adjacent to
two wildlife refuges, a State M~,
a National Estuarine Sanctuary,
Gray's Reef Nation Marine
sanctuafY' and St. Catherine's
Island. FNS, WQ. HT: RCD, 00.
A small, undeveloped barrier
island adjacent to several
recognized refuges and sanctuaries
(See 44, above). Includes habitat
for the Federally protected wood
stork.i FNS, WQ. HT:RCD, ODe
4
FNS, WQ.
tfflITH, RCD.
-------
SITE
IDENTIFIER2
47
48
49
50
Table C.5
(Page 11 of 13).
AREA NAME
Alcovy River
Swamp
Merry Brothers
Pond
Savannah River
Swup
Spooner Springs
..- - .-.. - _u.-..-
Important Wetlands in Georgia Meeting 'fIetl.ands Assessment Cr\.tet:'i..a.\
COUNTY
Newton
Richmond
Richmond,
Screven
Seminole
APPROXDiATE
ACREAGE
500
11,000
7, 700
900
MAJOR
WETLAND
TYPE(S)
PIFO
R21UBIH
PIEHIH
PIFO,A
P.UB.H
P,RB,H
P,FO
R2,UB.H
P,FO
SIGNIFICANCE OF AREA)
Area represents the northern most
extension of Coastal bottomland
hardwoods in the Piedmont Region.
Area includes two disjunct coastal
plain species; the birdvoiced tree
frog and mole salamander.. FNS,
WQ. HT.ITH, \'lQP, RCD.
Recognized by several groups as an
area of abundant waterfowl, herons
and egrets, and rare birds.
Adjacent to the Phinizy Swamp
Mitigation Area, managed by State..
ES, FNS, \'lQ. HT:RCD, ITH, \'lQP, T,
OGH.
Includes habitat for several
Federally protected species.
Adjacent to several refuges and
management areas.. FNS, WQ.
HT,ITH, \'lQP, \'lOP, AC, 00.
One of the largest and least
disturbed sinkhole wetlands in
State. Included in National
Registry of Natural Landmarks..
FNS, WQ. HT:ITH, RCD.
-------
Table Co!$ (Page 12 IOf 1]~. Important Wetlands in Georgia Heeting Wetlands Assessment Criteria. I
MAJOR
SIn: APPROXIMATE tm'l'I.A}..'D
mEHTIFIERZ MEA IWfE COUNTY ACREAGE TYPE(S) SIGNIFICANCE OF AREA]
51 Upper Flint River Talbot, 750 P.FO.F/C/A/G Area supports the Federally
Shoals Upson L2.UB.F protected Tillium and several
LI.UB.H State-listed plant species.
P.UB.F Contains the unique Flint River
I
bass. FHS, WQ. tfl': HOP, RCD, ITH.
52 Springfield Lake Tattnall 4,800 P.FO.F I HTaITH, WQP.
FNS, WQ.
LI.UB.H
53 Williamson Swaap Washington 3,200 P.FO.A/C Extensive floodplain swamp,
surrounded by agricultural lands.
FNS, WQ. HTaAC, ITH.
54 Osciewitchee Wilcox 125 P.FO.A/C/F Scarce rnd unique Coastal Plain
Springs spring. FNS . H'I' a ITH, WQP.
Footnotes.
1 Wetland AssesB8ent Threshold Criteria and instructions are presented in Appendix A.
Z Site identifier does not indicate or imply priority rank.
corresponding to the site identified number.
See Figure GA-2 for general location of areas
)
In addition to any species and resources specifically listed, all sites exhibited a diversity of other fish and
wildlife resources of interest to the Service and State, as well as important outdoor recreation, educational, a~d
public use opportunities or potential opportunities.
. . -. . -- -.0
-------
Table C.5
(Page 13 of 13).
Footnotes (con't.).
t
Important Wetlands in Georgia Meeting Wetlands Assessment Cr~ter~a.\
Site identified as a "Significant Wetland in Georgia" in the draft wetlands addendum (Chapter 6, "Wetlands in
Georgia") to the Georgia Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (Georgia Department of Natural Resources
1990) .
5
Site identified as an "Advance
.
FWS (1990).
"Land Acquisition Briefing Book, FY 1991."
Identification Area" by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
-------
KENTUCKY
location of priority wetlands in Kentucky
(See Table C.6)
. + .+ .- --.
.-
-------
.-- .-.-.-
SITE
mENTII'IERZ
1
2
2a
Table C.6.
AREA IWtE
Ax Lake
Hayfield Creek
Columbus Botto.
Important Wetlands in Kentucky Meetlnn ~e~1.ands
'" .. ... I'I.ssessment CI:1.teI:1.a..\
COUNTY
Ballard
Ballard,
Carlisle,
McCracken
Carlisle,
Hickman
APPROXIMATE
ACREAGE
5,000
13,720
10,000
MAJOR
WETLAND
TYPE(S)
P.FO.F/C/A
PiSSiA
P.EH.C
L2.AB.H
P.FO.CIH
P.SS.F
R3:UB.H
P.FO.C/H
P.SS.F
L2.AB.H
P.f**
SIGNIFICANCE OF AREA]
Important waterfowl and migratory
bird area.4 Contains largest
remaining stand of cypress/tupelo
in State. Area includes habitat
for the Federally protected bald
eagle, and supports six State
endangered or threatened species.
Area contains 19 known
archaeological sites. Contains the
largest Great Blue Heron rookery in
State. Adjacent to Ballard and
Swan Pond State MtA's. ES, FNS.
H'l'.AC, 1m, WQP.
Important waterfowl and migratory
bird area.4 Designated by State as
an "Outstanding Water Resource
Area." Contains 22 known
archaeological sites.S ES, FNS,
WQ. HT: AC, WDP, ITtt, WQP.
Important waterfowl and migratory
bird area.4 Includes FWS planning
and proposed acquisition for the
Kentucky NWR. * WQ. tIT:AC, WQP,
00.
-------
T&bl~ C.G. (Page 2 of ~).
.~
-.---.- 40.__._-
:i:mportant Wetlands in Kentucky Meet.ing Wet1ands Assessment Cr1.ter1.a.\
SI~
IDENTIFIER2
MEA tmME
COiMlY
jU>PR()xXHATE
ACREAGE
~a.JO~
WETLAND
TYPE(S)
3
Sr.GNIFIC}l~CE OF AP£A)
3a
4
Bayou du Chien
Reelfoot NWR
Expansion-
Obion Creek
Fulton,
Hickman
9,650
Fulton
-4,300
Hickman,
Carlisle,
Graves
9,140
P.FO.C/H
P.SS.F
P.EttIF
RIUB.H
PIFOIA/C
PaSS
P.Ett
PaFOIC/H
PaSSaF
RaUB.H
Important waterfowl and migratory
bird area.. Designated by State as
an "Outstanding Water Resource
Area." Includes habitat for the
Federally protected bald eagle.
Contains 31 archaeological sites
listed in the National Register of
Historic Places, including a State
Archaeological Landmark site.5 ES,
FNS, WQ. H'l'IAC, ITM, WQP, HOP.
Important waterfowl and migratory
4
bird area. ES, FNS, WQ. H'l': AC,
WQP, RCD, 00.
Important waterfowl and migratory
bird area.4 Designated by State as
an "Outstanding Water Resource
Area." Obion Creek is the only
naturally-meandered unchannelized
tributary to the Mississippi River
remaining in the State. Contains
numerous archeological sites.
Contains 23 State-listed endangered
or threatened species ~nd provides
habitat for several Federally
protected species.5 ES, FNS, WQ.
t-rrIAC, HOP, ITM, WQP.
-------
Table C.6. (Page 3 of 4).
Important Wetlands in Kentucky Heeting Wetlands Assessment Criteria. I
SITE MAJOR
APPROXIMATE . WETlJUID
IDENTIFIER2 AREA NAME COUNTY ACREAGE TYPE(S) SIGNIFICANCE OF AREA]
5 Cypress Creek HcLean 6,000 PIFOIF/G/A Recognized as an important area by
PIEHIF the Kentucky Nature Preserves
PISS,C Commission. Includes habitat for
RIUB.H several State-listed end~,gered or
Lli UB. H threatened species. Area contains
five known archeological sites. A
portion of the area has been
desigpated as a State Natural
5
Area. £5, FNS, WQ. HTIAC, OGH,
I'nt, OD, HOP.
6 Lake .9 Fulton 3,000 PIFO.A/C Important waterfowl and migratory
PISS bird area.. ES, FNS, WQ. HT:AC,
PlEtt HOP, OD.
Footnotes I
I
Wetlands A8ses88ent Threshold Criteria and' instructions are presented in Appendix A.
J
Site identifier does not indicate or imply priority rank.
corresponding to the site identification number.
See Figure KY-2 for general location of areas
]
In addition to any species and resources specifically listed, all sites exhibited a diversity of fish and wildlife
resources of interest to the Service and State, as well as important outdoor recreation, educational, and public use
opportunities or potential opportunities.
--
-
-
.t
Site identified by the Fiah and Wildlife Service 88 a key waterfowl and Lower Hississippi River Valley Joln~ Ven~uce
Alt"e. (c.c..VOEY 23A) uncIelt" the North A8erJ.can "'.t.r~o..,~ Hanage.ent P~an.
- - ...
-------
~
"l".:~ble c. E, ~Page l! .)" 4 i
l~pv~~:~ ~etlande in ~entucky Meeting Wetlands Assessment Crlterla.\
roo~ote~ .~on't.)<
!
Site identlfi~(! ir.B 2.. o:;.nortty toret\a~i' ~.n ~~n1:ud(y {!(~r;tucky Department of Local Government 1987, 1989).
.
FIre '. i ~90 tr
~~d Acquisition Brl~fing Book, FY 1991."
.. At least 50 percent of identified faDled wetlands would be restored to a wetland type recoCJl)ized as declining in the
Southeast Region (e.9., Palustrine Forested, Palustrine Emergent).
K
j
.
-------
MISSISSIPPI location of Ri"ioritywetlands in Mississippi.
- - (See Table c.8)
-------
-. ~
--~
Important Wetlands in Mississippi Heetin~ Wetlands Ass~ssment Criteria.\
Table C.B.
SITE
YDEHTUIER2
AREA NAME
COUNTY
APPROXIMATE
Ar.BF.~GE
MAJOR
WETLNID
'!"lP~{S}
1
~T"'.'I"'~'Y'''''''''._''' --
U~U'I".&.&: .L\...IU.'-~ VI:
._....1
nru:,t\
2
3
.
5
Dahomey Plantation
Sharkey Bayou
Third Bridge Lake
roster Creek
Turkey Creek
Bolivar
12,000
P.FO.C/A
P.DfIC/D
PISS,B
R3.SB.H
Carroll
.,000
L2.UB:H
P,FO,A/C
P.SS,F
Carroll
1,170
P,FO,C/A
P,SS.F
L2.UBIH
Copiah
100
P,UB,H
P,Ra,H
PaFO:H
Copiah
250
P:UB.H
P,Ra,H
P,FO.H
Important waterfowl and migratory
bird area.4 State recognized
"Natural Area. "6 One of the few
remaining large tracts of
bottomland forest in the
Mississippi Delta. Within FWS
planning and acquisition area for
proposed Dahomey NWR.* FNS, WO.
HT, AC , RCD, WOP, OGH, 1"'.
Important waterfowl and mig~atory
bird area, 4 surrounded by
agricultural lands.5 ES. FNS, WO.
HTaAC, ITH, WQP.
Important waterfowl and mig~ato~y
bird area.4,5 FNS, WQ. tfT:AC,
ITH, HQP.
Includes habitat for the Federally
protected Bayou darter and C~ystal
6
darte r . FNS. WQ. tIT: OGH, T,
HQP, HOP, ITH. OD.
Includes habitat for the Fede~ally
protected Bayou darter and Crystal
6 . ...
darte r . FNS, WQ. tiT: OGt!. RCD, 11,
WOP, HOP, OD.
-------
Table C.8.
(Page 2 of 13).
Important Wetlands in Mississippi Meeting Wetlands Assessment Criteria.!
SITE APPROXIMATE
IDENTIFIER2 AREA NAME COUNTY ACREAGE
6 Bayou Pierre Copiahl 1,700
Claiborne
7
Granny Creek Bay
Forrest
3
8
Whi te Pond
Forrest
3
9
Thollpson Bog
120
George
10
Pascagoula River
Bioreserve
105,000
George,
Jackson
MAJOR
WETLAND
TYPE(S)
R31UBIH
R3:R8:H
PaFOIH
PIFO:H
PIEHIH
PIFO:H
P:FOIC
PIEHIB
PIFO:C
E21EHIN
E2:FO:N
SIGNIFICANCE OF AREA]
Includes habitat for the Federally
protected Bayou darter and Crystal
darter.' FNS, WQ. BT: RCD, OGU, T,
WQP, WDP, 00.
Area includes several plants of
special concern to the State. Site
is under review by the U.S. Forest
Service as a "Research Natural
,
Area. ITH, 00.
Site is registered in accordance
with the Hississippi Natural
Heritage Act of 1978. Area
includes one or more plant species
of special concern to the State.'
HTa'RCO, T, 00.
Area includes several plant srecies
of State and Federal concern.
HT:AC, OGH, WQP, 00.
Important waterfowl and migratory
bird area.h Includes one of the
largest areas of remaining forested
wetlands in State. Pascagoula
State WHA within the area. The
Nature Conservancy has designed the
area as a "Biore,serve...6 ES, FNS,
tiQ. HT.AC, RCD, OGH, T, wQP, WDP,
00.
-------
Table C.S.
.~
(Page 3 of 13).
Important Wetlands in Mississippi Meeting ~et1ands ~sseBsment C~~teT~a.~
MAJOR
SIm APPROXDtATE WETLAND
IDCNTIFIERZ AREA NAME COUNTY ACREAGE TYPE(S) SIGNIFICANCE OF AREA]
11 Brushy Creek 8098 Greene 60 PISS.S Area includes several plant species
P.roIB of special concern to the State,
f.EH.B including a pitcher-plant bog
community. 6 I'I1t, 00.
12 Scott Bog Greene 321 P.FO.C/F/J Includes several plant species of
P.SS:A/B special concern to the State,
P.EH.B/A including a pitcher-plant bog
community. State recognized
"Natural Area. 6 trr: AC, WQP, OGII,
T, 00.
13 Oxberry Bayou Grenada 4,500 P.FO.A/C Important waterfowl and migratory
P.SS.F bird area.4 Adjacent to FWS
L2.UB.H proposed Tallahatchie River NWR.*
FNS, WOo H'l':AC, ITtt, WQP.
14 Oxberry Seepage Grenada 25 P.FO." Includes several plant species of
Swamp special concern to the State. 6
H'l':AC, ITH, WOP, 00.
15 Sweetleaf in the Grenada 40 P.FO.C Includes several plant species of
Delta special concern to the State. 6
HT:AC, ITH, WQP, 00.
16 Buttercup Flats Hancock 11 P:EH:A/B Includes several plant species of
PISS:B special concern to the State.
PIFOd\ State recognized "Natural Area...6
H'I': AC, RCO, WQP, OGH.
-------
Table C.8.
(Page 4 of 13).
Important Wetlands in Hississippi Heeting Wetlands Assessment Criteria. I
SITE
IDENTIFIERZ
17
18
19
20
21
22
-~-
AREA HAHE
Lakeshore Savannah
Crane Pond Branch
809
Hancock County
Marshes'
Bernard Bayou
Island Bog
Hill Creek 80g
- .~~. ~--.L - ~ . - . ' .'
COUNTY
Hancock
Hancock
Hancock
Harrison
Harrison
Harrison
-... . .,
APPROXIHATE
ACREAGE
1,920
33
13,300
302
10
3
~
MAJOR
WETLAND
TYPE(S)
P,EH,B
P,FO,B
P,S S,B
P,EH,B
P,SS,B
E2.EH.N/H/P
ElaAB,L
P.SS
P.Ett
P,EH.B
P.SS.B
P,EH.B
P,SS,B
SIGNIFICANCE OF AREA!
Includes several plant species of
special concern to the State.'
HT.AC, WOP. RCD, T, ITH, 00.
Includes several species of special
concern to the State. Proposed
State "Natural Area. ,,' tIT: RCD,
ITH, 00.
Important waterfowl and migratory
bird area. h Includes plant
. species of special concp.rn to the
State. Area includes important
archaeological sites. State
recognized "Natural Area. ,,' FNS,
WO. HT : AC , WOP, RCD, OGH, T, HOP,
ODe
Includes plant species of special
concern to the State and also under
review for Federal protection.'
HT:RCD, T, ODe
Includes plant species of special
concern to the State, including a
pitcher-plant bog.' HT:ITH, T, 00.
Includes several plant species of
special concern to the State,
including a quaking pog communlty.6
lIT. ITH, OD.
-------
1~able C. 8.
(Page 5 of 13).
Important Wetlands in Mississippi Meeting Wetlands Assessment Criteria.'
...~
HAJOR
SITE APPROXIMATE WETLAND
IDENTIFIE:R2 AREA NAME COUNTY ACREAGE TYPE(S)
23 Pretty B09 Harrison 8 P.EHIB
P.SS.B
24
Turkey Nest Bog
Harrison
8
P.EH.B
P.SS.B
25
Eagle Brake
Holmes
800
P.FOIC
26
Pinchback Lake
Holmes
500
P.FO.A/C
L2.UB.H
27
Tchula Lake
Holmes
.*
1,500
P.FO.C
P.EH.F
28
Gunn Bayoul
Toney Brake
Humphreys
4,800
P.FO.A/C
P.EH.F
L2.UB.H
29
Kilby Brake
P.FO.C
L2IUB.H
Humphreys
730
SIGNIFICANCE OF AREA]
Includes several plant species of
special concern to the State,
including a pitcher-plant bog
community. ' Irr: T, ITH, 00.
Includes several plant species of
special concern to the State,
including a pitcher-plant bog
,
community. H'l':T, ITH, 00.
Important waterfowl and migratory
bird area.4,5 WQ. .rr:AC, WQP, ITH.
Important waterfowl and migratory
4
bird area. FNS, WQ. UT:AC, WQP,
ITH.
Important waterfowl and migratory
bird area.4 Includes FWS planning
and possible acquisition areas for
Horgan Brake NWR. * WQ. HT: AC,
WOP, ITH.
Important waterfowl and migratory
bird area.4,5 FNS, WQ. HTIAC, WQP,
ITH.
Important waterfowl and migratory
4
bird area. FNS, WQ. AC, NQP,
ITH.
-------
Table C.8.
(Page 6 of 13).
Important Wetlands in Hississippi Heeting Wetlands Assessment Criteria.1
SITE
IDENTIFIER2
AREA NAHE
COUNTY
APPROXIMATE
ACREAGE
MAJOR
WETLAND
TYPE(S)
30
SIGNIFICANCE OF AREA]
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Little Eagle Lake
HUllphreys
Sky Lake
Humphreys
Snake Creek
HUllphreys,
Hollies
Cypress Lake
Issaquena
Lafayette Lakes
Issaquena
Bull Hountain
Creek
Itawamba
Shady Swallp B09
Itawamba
Cottonmouth
Savanna
Jackson
5,940
1,700
2,000
4,220
1,830
1,600
11
352
PIFO:A/C
P:EH,F
Llr UBIH
P:FO,A/C
L2IUB,H
P.SS.H
P.FO.C
PIFO.A/C
L2.UB.H
P.SS.F
P.FO.C/A
P.EH.F
L2.UB.H
R3.FO.N
R3.UB.H
P.FO
P,FO,"
P.SS.F
P.£H.F
Important waterfowl and migratory
bird area.4,5 FNS, WQ. tlT:AC, WQP,
ITH.
Important waterfowl and migratory
bird area.4,5 FNS, WQ. HT:AC, WQP,
ITH.
Important waterfowl and migratory
4
bird area. tIT: AC, WQP, 1111.
Important waterfowl and migratory
bird area.4,5 FNS, WQ. tIT:AC, WQP,
ITH.
Important waterfowl and migratory
bird area.4,5 FNS, WQ. .IT:AC, WQP,
ITH.
Includes several candidate species
for protection by State.6 FNS, WQ.
HT:AC, WQP, HOP, OGtf.
Includes several plant species of
special concern to the State.
State recognized "Natural Area...6
HT:AC, ITH.
Includes several plant species at
~
special concern to the State.
,,",RCD, T, :I77t, 00.
-------
"table C.8.
(Page 1 of 13).
~
Important Wetlands in Mississippi Meeting Wet1ands Assessment Criteria.\
SITE
IDEHTIFIERZ
AREA HAH!1
38
COUNTY
39
40
41
42
43
Grand Bay Savmma
Larue Quaking Bog
Cypres8 Grove Lake
Gayden Brake
Old Orchard Lake
Round Lakel
Pleasant Lake
APPROXIMATE
ACREAGE
MAJOR
WETLAND
TYPE(S)
SIGNIFICRNCE OF AREA]
Ja!:kson, also 10, S00
Mobile (Alabama)
Jackson
Jefferson
LeFlore
LeFlore
LeFlore
8
4,800
2, 170
11 , 600
1,600
PaSHIB
P:SSIC
PrFO.C
E21EHIN
PIEH.B
P:SS:B
PrFO.F
PrFOIA/C
P.SSIF
L2IUB:H
PIFOIC/A
PISSIF
L2rUB.H
PIFOIA/C
PISSrF
L2.UB.H
PIFO:C/A
PISSIF
L2:UB:H
Important waterfowl and migratory
bird area. fa Historic habitat for
the Federally endangered
Mississippi sandhill crane.
Includes FWS planning and proposed
acquisition for Grand Bay NWR.*
Area includes plant species of
special concern to the State. FNS,
WQ.tfI':AC, RCD, OGM, ITtt, ODe
Includes plant species of special
concern to the State; quaking bogs
are considered to be rare community
types in the Southeast.6 tfI':AC,
WQP, ITH.
Important waterfowl and migratory
bird area.4,5 FNS, WQ. tM':AC, WQP,
ITH.
Important waterfowl and migratory
bird area.4,5 FNS, WQ. H'l':AC, WQP,
ITH.
Important waterfowl and migratory
bird area.4 FNS, WQ. HT:AC, WQP,
ITH.
Important waterfowl and migratory
bird area.4,5 FNS, WQ. HT:AC, WQP,
ITH.
. ..:.----"
-------
Table C.8.
(Page 8 of 13).
Important Wetlands in Hississippi Heeting Wetlands Assessment Criteria.'
SITE
mENTIFIER2
AREA NAH&
COUNTY
APPROXIMATE
ACREAGE
MAJOR
WETLAND
TYPE(S)
2,500
SIGNIFICANCE OF AREA)
44
Buttahatchie River
Lowndes,
Honroe
R3.RB.H
45
East Forkl
TOIIbigbee River
Honroe,
ltawamba
1, 200
R3.RB.H
P.FO.H
46
Richardson Savanna
Pearl River
140
P.EH.B
47
Upper Hickory
Creek Bog
Pearl River
481
P.EH.B
P.SS.B
48
Wht tney Bank Lands
P.FO.C/A
L2.UB.H
Sharkey
5,660
49
Horse Shoe Bog
19
P.EH.B
P.FO.F
P.SS,F
Stone
~--
A last remaining example of an
unaltered and relatively unpolluted
river with pool-gravel, riffle
habitats within the Tombigbee River
System. Provides habitat for
several Federally protected mussels
and several candidate species.'
FNS, WOo HT.OGH, RCO, HOP, 00.
Provides habitat for several
Federally protected mussels.' FNS.
HT.AC, WOP, RCO, OGH, HOP, 00.
Includes plant species of special
concern to State.' HT:RCO, T. 00.
Includes plant species of special
concern to State, including
pitcher-plant bog communities.'
HT. ITH, T, 00.
Important waterfowl and migratory
bird area. .,5 FNS, WQ. HT:AC, HQP,
ITH.
Includes plant species of special
concern to State; also a Federal
candidate species. Pitcher-plant
bog.' HT.ITH, T.
-------
Table CoR
{Page 9
-C l.:i,.
..Import:..ant:.. WeLl-ands 1n H1BS1BB1pP1 Heet:..lnq Irtet:..l...ndto>
F\.UH~t;u....m~,\,- \~, \\..~":. '\...."
.--41
MAJOR
SITE APPROXDtATE WETLAND
ID£NTIFIER2 AREA NAME COUNTY ACREAGE TYPE(S)
50 Kirby Creek Bogs Stone 49 PIEMIB
P:SS:B
51
Lake Toe-O-Leen
Bogs
Stone
23
P.EH.B
P.SS:B
52
Sweetbay Bogs
Stone
50
P.FOIC
P.EH.C
P.SS:H/C/B
53
Pondberry Brakes
Sunflower
8
PIFO.C
54
Hossy Lake
Sunflower,
LeFlore
4,240
P,FO,A/C
P.SS.F
L2.UB.H
55
Yorks Place
(Black Bayou)
Tallahatchie
2,200
P.FO.A/C
P.SS.F
L2:UB:H
56
Flat Lakel
Bear Lake
Tallahatchie,
Grenada
3,380
..
P.FO:C/A
P.SS,F
L2:UB:H
SIGNIFICANCE or AREA)
Includes plant :;,J!~c:i~s of sper'lal
concern to State. Site listed on
Mississippi Natural Registl'Y wldec
State Natural Heritage Act of
1978.' trI':T, ITtf, '-fQP.
Includes plant species of speci~J
concern to State. Site listed on
State Natural Registry tinder SL3te
Natural Heritage Act of 19'18.6
HT: RCD, T, 1111, HOP,
Includes plant species of sp~~ial
concern to State.6 tIT: RCO, 01;11,
HOP.
Includes plant species of special
Ii
concern to State. tIT:AC, WQP, T.
Important waterfowl and migratory
bird area. U FNS, WQ. ItT:I\C, "'QP,'
I'l'tt.
Important waterfoHl and migrdl.ory
bird area.4,5 FNS, WQ. 'IT:AC, "/Q,
ITH.
Important waterfowl and miQlrttor.y
bird area.4,5 Withi.. HIS plallning
and acquisition area for proposed
Tallahatchie River N\fR.. FtI~, WI).
trI': AC, tlOP, ITlf.
j
-------
Table C.8.
(Page 10 of 13).
Important Wetlands in Mississippi Heeting Wetlands Assessment Criteria. I
SITE APPROXDfATE
IDENTUIER2 AREA NAME COUNTY ACREAGE
51 HcIntyre Scatters Tallahatchie, 10,000
LeFlore
58 Beaverdaa Lake Tunica 1,750
MAJOR
'-"ETLAND
TYPE(S)
P.FO.A/C
P.SS.F
L2.UB.H
P.FO.C/A
L2.UB:H
P.SS.F
59
Steele Bayou Suap
PIFO.A/C
P.SSIF
L2.UB.H
R2IUB.H
Warren,
Issaquena
18,700
60
Indian Bayou
Bottoaland
PIFO.C
Washington
500
61 Eret Bog Wayne 15 PIFOIB
P.SSIB
62 Savannah Branch Bog Wayne 2,310 PISSIB
P.FO.B
P:EH.B
63 Foster Lake Wilkinson 4,090 P:FO.A/C
P.EH.F
L2.UB.H
..- ..-.-------... . - .' .~... -..-.-.
SIGNIFICANCE OF AREA]
Important waterfowl and migratory
4
bird area. ES, FNS, HQ. ttT:AC,
WQP, ITH.
Important waterfowl and migratory
bird area.4,5 FNS, WQ. tlT:AC, HQP,
ITH.
Important waterfowl and migratory
bird area.4,5 FNS, WQ. ttT:AC, WQP,
ITH.
Includes plant species of special
concern to State. Bottomland
forest area surrounded by
agricultural lands.6 HT:AC, ITtI,
WQP.
Includes plant species of special
6
concern to State. HT:T, RCO, ITtI,
00.
Includes plant species of special
6
concern to State. HT:T, OGtI, ITtf,
WQP.
Important waterfowl and migratory
bird area. .,5 FHS, WQ. IfT:AC, WQP,
Inf.
-------
'rable C.S.
jPage 11 of 13;.
------4
Important Wetlands in Mississippi Meeting Wetlands Assessment Criteria.'
SI'l'E
IDEHTIFIER2
MEA NAME
64
Dump Lake
65 Johnson Brake
66 Rocky Bayou
67 Nolf Lake
68 ColUns Creek
69
St. Catherine Creek
70
Hathews Brake NWR
COUNTY
APPROXIMATE
ACREAGE
Yazoo
4, 500
Yazoo
1,100
Yazoo
1,985
Yazoo
1,575
Yazoo,
Warren
9,000
Adams
15,000
Holmes,
LeFlore
1,660
MAJOR
WETLAND
TYPE(S)
PIFOIA
L2,UB:H
PISS:F
PIFO.A/C
PIFOIC/A
P,SSIF
PIFOIA/C
PISS,F
P,FO,A/C
P:EH:F
L21UBIH
P:FO
PISS
Plf.**
R21UBIH
P:FO:A/C
P:SSIF
SIGNIFICANCE OF AREA]
---...--.---
Important waterfowl and migratory
4
bird area. FNS, WQ. tfT:AC, \"IQP,
ITH.
Important waterfowl and migratory
bird area} WQ. rfT: AC, WQP, IT.,.
Important waterfowl and migratory
bird area}'S WQ. tfT:AC, WQP, ITIt.
Important waterfowl and migratory
bird area. .,SWQ. tfT:AC, WQP, ITIt.
Important waterfowl and migratory
.
bird area. FNS, WQ. tn-:AC, WQP,
ODe
Important waterfowl and migratory
bird area.. Includes FWS planning
and proposed acquisition for the
St. Catherine Creek NWR.* FNS, WQ.
HTIAC, HQP, ODe
Important waterfowl and migratory
bird area.4 Includes FWS planning
and proposed expansion acquisition
for Mathews Brake NWR.* FNS, WQ.
HT:AC, WQP, OD.
._.~-
-------
Table C.8.
(Page 12 of 13).
.
Important Wetlands in Mississippi Meeting Wetlands Assessment Criteria. I
SITE
IDENTIFIERZ
MAJOR
WETLAND
TYPE(S)
AREA NAME
COUNTY
APPROXIMATE
ACREAGE
2, 380
SIGNIFICANCE OF AREA]
71
Mississippi Sandhill
Crane HWR
Jackson
P:EH:B/C/H
P:SS:B/C
P.FO!B/C
72
Panther Swamp NWR
P.FO.A/C
P.SS.F
P.f*.*
Yazoo
1, 950
Footnotes.
Includes i~portant hahitat for the
endangered (Federal} tfississippi
sandhill crane. Includes FWS
planning and proposed expansion
acquisition for the Mississippi
Sandhill Crane NWR.. ES. Irr:RCD,
T.
Important waterfowl and miqratory
bird area.. Includes FtlS pliuming
and proposed expansion r)cquisition
for Panther Swamp NWR.. "'0.
HT.WQP, OD.
2
Wetland A8ses88ent Threshold Criteria and instructions are presented in Appendix A.
Site identifier does not indicate or imply priority rank.
corresponding to the site identification number.
See Figure HS-2 for general location of areas
In addition to any species and resources specifically listed, all sites exhibited a diverslty of other fish and
wildlife resources of interest to the Service an State, as well as important outdoor recreation, educat.ional, and
public use opportunities or potential opportunities.
]
.
Site identified by the Fish and Wildlife Service as a key waterfowl and Lower Mississippi River Valley Joint
Venture Area (Category 23A) under the North AIIIerican Waterfowl Management Plan.
. .... .... .................. ~........ ""- .'
-------
Table C.8.
(Page 13 of 13),
Important Wetlands in Mississippi Meeting Wetlands Assessment Criteria.\
Footnotes (Con't.),
Ii
Site identified by the Fish and Wildlife Service as a key waterfowl and Gulf Coast Joint Venture Area (Category
23B) under the North American Waterfowl Management Plan,
5
Site identified in the wetlands addendum to the Mississippi Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan
(Mississippi Bureau of Recreation and Parks 1989),
,
Site noted as a priority wetland by the Mississippi Natural Heritage Program.
*
FWS (1990) I
-Land Acquisition Briefing Book, FY 1991,-
**
FWS acquisition planning area larger than wetlands acres listed (FWS 1990),
*** At least 50 percent of identified farmed wetlands would be restored to a wetland type recognized as declining in
the Southeast Region (e.g., Palustrine Forested, Palustrine Emergent),
..-4
-------
NORTH CAROLINA
. locaiton of priority wetlands in North Carolina
(See Table C.9)
-------
Table C.9.
.~
Important Wetlands in North Carolina Meeting Wetlands Assessment Crite£ia.\
SITE
IDmnI~mRl
MEA~
COUNTY
APPROXIMATE
ACREAGE
MAJOR
WETLAND
TYPE ( S ) **
.
..
STG~TFrr~~rE OF ~YF.~)
2
3
Roanoke R1ver~
(Proposed FWS
Roanoke River NWR)
Roanoke River-
(Outside currently
proposed NWR sites)
Horseshoe Lake
Complex
Bertie,
Halifax,
Hartin,
Washington
Bertie,
Halifax,
Hartin,
Washington
Bladen,
Cumberland
33,000
13,550
8,000
PrFO.C/F/A
PISS
P:EMrF
R2rABrH
R21UBIH
P.FO.A/C/F
PISS
PIABIF
R2.AB.H
R2.UBIH
PlrOIB
PISSIB
PIEHIH
L2:UB:H
Important waterfOl.il and migr"at.ory
bird area. 4 The most e~tens i v">. and
diverse alluvial ecosystem in the
State. Includes habitat tor the
Federally protected bald eaqle and
numerous other sped es of Fed~ral
and State concern. Impo["tant
striped bass spawning area. Area
contains important archaeological
sites.5,6 ES, FNS, WQ. t-rr:AC, RCD,
T, HOP, I'l'tf, WQP, 00.
The Roanoke River ecosystem is the
largest and least disturbed
bottomland forest system remaining
in the Hid-Atlantic Region. S,6
Important striped bass spa~ming
area. ES, FNS, WQ. tIT:AC, RCD, T,
HOP, ITH, WQP, 00.
A portion of the are~ is a State
sanctuary for the black hear. Best
remaining concentrati'>n of Carolina
bays in the \-Iorlf.!. Contains pl.=mt
species of special concern to the
State.5,' ES, FNS, WQ. rIT:AC, RCD,
WQP, 00.
- .. - --.--..t
-------
Table C.9.
(Page 2 of 7).
Important Wetlands in North Carolina Heeting Wetlands ~ssessment C~ite~ia.\
MAJOR
SITE APPROXIMATE WETLAND
IDENTIFIER2 AREA NAME COUNTY ACREAGE TYPE(S)"
4 Rocky and Deep Chatham, 400 PIFOIC/J
River Buffer Area Lee RIUBIH
5
Waccamaw River
Wetlands
Columbus,
Brunswick
19,050
P:FOIC/P/G
PIEHIH
R21UBIH
6
Currituck Outer
Banks
E21EHIP
PISS:C
Currituck
14,500
SIGNIFICANCE OF AREA]
Includes critical habitat for the
Federally protected Cape Fear
shiner; area also includes the
~ndangered plant Harperella.5,6 ES,
FNS, WQ. HT:RCO, WQP, 00.
Part of area adjacent to State's
largest Carolina Bay (Lake
Waccamaw). ,Includes numerous
species of State and Federal
concern. Includes a State black
bear sanctuary. 5,6 ES, FNS, WQ.
HT:RCO, ITH, WQP.
A largely undeveloped coastal
barrier island and associated
freshwater wetlands. Important
waterfowl and migratory bird area.4
Includes habitat for several
Federally protected species,
including a nestin?, area for the
loggerhead turtle. ,6 ES, FNS, WQ.
HT:RCO, T, WQP.
-------
Table C.9.
(Paqe 3 of 7).
Important Wetlands in North Carolina Heetinq Wetlands Assessment Criteria. I
MAJOR
SITE APPROXIMATE WETlAND
IDENTIFIER2 AREA HAHE COUNT'{ ACREAGE TYPE(S) U SIGNIFICANCE OF AREA]
7 Buxton Woods Dare 2,100 P.SSIC A large tract of forest recognized
PIFO as a concentration area for
El.UB.L migratory passerines and rap tors.
Includes habitat for the Federally
protected peregrine falcon and bald
eagle. Includes numerous plant
species of special concern to the
State. 5,6 ES, NQ" H'l':RCO, Sand.
mining, WQP, 00.
8 Kitty Hawk Woods Dare 1,900 P.FO.C/A Largest remaining tract of
P:SS.C swamp forest on the Atlantic
E2.EHIP coast. 5,6 HT:RCO, T, ITH, WQP, OD.
9 U.S. 264 Low Pocosin Dare 21,000 P.EMIB . Includes plant species of special
P.FO.B/C concern to the State. Provides
P.SS.B important habitat for the black
E2IEH,P bear (State bear sanctuary). 5,6 WQ.
HTIPeat mining, WQP.
10 Mew Hope Creek Durham, 1,500 PIFO.C/A A rare area of Piedmont swamp
Corridor Chapel Hill PISS.A/C forest. Corridor includes habitat
R.UB.H for several species of special
concern. Includes a proposal State
Environmental Education Center. 5,6
FMS, WQ. HT:RCD, T, ITH, WQP. 00.
~
-------
Table C.9.
SITE
mENTIFIER2
11
- 12
.
:.
13
(Page 4 of 7).
AREA NAME
Swift Creek
Floodplain
Scranton Hardwoods
Upper Alligator
River Pocosin
Important Wetlands in North Carolina Meeting Wetlands ~ssessment Crit~ria.\
COUNTY
Edgecombe,
Hash,
Fra..nkUn
Hyde
Hyde,
Tyrrell,
Dare
APPROXIMATE
ACREAGE
5,000
6,000
66,830
MAJOR
WETLAND
TYPE(S) **
PIFOIC/B/A
RIUB.H
PIFOIA/C
PIFOIB
PISSIB
PIEHIB
SIGNIFICANCE OF AREA]
At least one third of the mussel
species in the Atlantic Slope
Region occur here. The rem~injng
population of the endangered Tar
River spiny mussel inhabit.s the
creek. Anadromous fish migrati0n
occurs in the lower reaches. ES,
FHS, WQ. HTIRCO, T, \IDP, ITtI, HOP,
00.
An example of a non-riverine wet
hardwood forest, generally
considered an endangered cQmmunity
type. The area is a State-
designated black bear sanctual y. 5,6
HTI AC, T, ITH, \"lQP.
Area is part of the most extensive
peat vegetation in the Souttleastern
U.S., and includes the rapidly
decreasing scrub-shrub "pf)cosin"
habitat type. Includes h.'\hi t.;'1t f.or
the Federally-listed endangered
bald eagle and red-cockaded
woodpecker, and is a potentj~l
expansion area for the introduced
red wolf population within the
Alligator River NWR, \-/hich is
adjacent to the area. 5,6 Includes
FWS proposed expansion to the
Alligator River NWR.. FNS, WOo
HT:AC, peat mining, T, WOP, 00.
-------
Table C.9.
,Page 5 of 1}.
-~
-
~
.
!II!!'
Important Wetl~~d3 in North Caro)jna Meeting Wetlands Assessment Criteria.'
-
SITE
IDEHTIFIER2
AREA NAME
COUNTY
APPROXIMATE
ACREAGE
MAJOR
WETLAND
TYPE(S) U
-
SIGNIFICANCE OF AREA]
ii
-
II!
iO
14
"'
~
15
16
White Oak River
Floodplain
Black River Cypress
SwaJIP Forest
Rocky Point Marl
Forest
Onslow
3, 500
Pender,
Bladen,
Sampson
1,900
Pender
600
P.FO.F/C/P
P.EH.P
R3eUB.H
PIFOIF/C
R21UBIH
PeFOIA
This river is currently under
consideration for designation as a
"National Wild and Scenic River."
A State-recognized striped bass
spawning area. Area within a State
black bear sanctuary. The river
corridor has 10 known historical
and archaeological sites. 5,6 FNS,
WO. HT: AC , RCD, OGl.I, \iDP, WQP! OD.
i
~
-
Area exhibits the greatest
concentration of old-growth bald
cypress trees currently documented
in North America (individuals from
180 to 1,200 years in age).
Includes plant species of special
concern to the State. S,6 FNS, WQ.
HT I RCD , T, WDP, ITtf, 00, WQP.
Only known occurrence of the wet
marl forest:community type in the
State. Includes plant species of
special concern to the State. ~,6
HT. RCO, mining, T, ITtI, 00.
.....t
-------
Table C.9.
(Page 6 of 7).
Important Wetlands in North Carolina Meeting Wetl~lds ~ssessment Criteria.\
MAJOR
SITE APPROXIMATE WETLAND
IDENTIFIER2 AREA NAME COUNTY ACREAGE TYPE (S)..
11 Scuppernong River Tyrrell, 9,000 P:FO:F
Swamp Forest Washington R21UBIH
18
East Dismal Swamp
Washington
P:SS:A
PIFOIB
PIEHIA
5,000
19
Long Hope Valley
PIFO:B
P:EH:B
PISS:B
Watauga,
Ashe
2,000
SIGNIFICANCE OF AREA]
One of the largest remaining tracts
of swamp forest in the State. One
of the few areas in State that
exhibits intact stands of Atlantic
white cedar. Includes important
habitat for the black bear,
waterfowl, and numerous other
species. 5,~ ES, FNS, WQ. tfr:AC,
ITH, 00, WQP.
Important remnant of a non-riverine
swamp forest. A possible critical
habitat corridor for the blaek bear
between the Albermarle-PamHco.
Peninsula and habitats further
inland; would provide a connecting
corridor between the Upper
Alligator River wetlands and the
Lower Roanoke River wetlands. 5,6
WQ. tIT: AC, T, ITH, WQP.
Area exhibits a unique northern
ecosystem in North Carolina,
including six cranberry bogs
scattered through spruce
communities. Includes 30 plant
species of special conc~rn to the
State.5,6 FNS. tIT: AC, RCD, HUP,
ITH, 00, WQP.
-------
Table C.9.
(Page 7 of 1).
Important We~landB in North Carolina Meeting Wetlands Assessment Criteria.i
Footnotes.
1
Wetlands AssesB8ent Threshold Criteria and instructions are presented in Appendix A.
2
Site identifier does not indicate or imply priority rank.
corresponding to the site identification number.
See Figure NC-2 for general location of areas
1
In addition to any species and resources specifically listed, all sites exhibited a diversity of other fi5h and
wildlife resources of interest to the Service and State, as well as important outdoor recreation, educational, and
public use opportunities or potential opportunities.
.
Site identified by the Fish and Wildlife Service as a key waterfowl and Middle-upper Atlantic Coast Joint Venturp.
Area (Category 20) under the North American Waterfowl Management Plan.
Site identified as a priority wetland in the Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (Outdoors North
Carolina, 1990-1995. Chapter VII, Wetlands Protection Plan, 1989).
5
,
Site recognized as an important wetland by the State Natural Heritage Program and the North Carolina Natur~
Conservancy.
.
rws (1990).
-Land Acquisition Briefing Book, FY 1991.-
..
All North Carolina pocoslna srQ under evaluation by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as an "Advancp.
Identification Area.-
-------
SOUTH CAROLINA
location of priority weLlands in South Carolina
(See 'J'able C. 11 )
..- . ....--. . .'.'" '--
-------
.j
Table C. U.
Important Wetlands in South Carolina Heeting Wetlands Assessment Criteria.1
!4_A.JOR
SITE APPROXIMATE WETLAND
IDID."TUIm2 MEA NAME COtmTY ACREAGE TYPE(S)*
1 Monetta Sink Aiken 14 PaEH:A
2
Windmill High
Pond
Aiken
18
P:EHIA
3
Barton Bay
Allendale
231
PIFOIF/B
SIGNIFICANCE OF AREA]
One of the few remaining examples
of a species-rich high pond
community in the Southeast.
Harbors one of only three of
State's remaining viable or
recoverable populations Qf the
Federally protected Piedmont
bishopweed. Also, includes other
plant species of concern to the
.
State. HT:AC, RCD, T, 00.
See comments for Site 1. State's
largest population of Piedmont
bishopweed occurs he re. 4 I rr: AC ,
RCD, T, 00.
Site exhibits the Federally
protected Canby's dropwort, as well
as two Federal status revie~
species- and one State endangeI'ed
plant species. Excellent example
of a Pond-Cypress Savannah
community (Carolina Bny) still
relatively intact.4 HT:AC, ITIr,
00.
-------
Table C. 11.
SITE
IDENTIFIER2
4
5
(Page 2 of 6).
AREA NAME
Ashleigh Bay
ACE River Basin
Important Wetlands in South Carolina Meeting Wetlands Assessment Cliteria.\
COUNTY
Barnwell
Beaufort,
Charleston,
Colleton
APPROXIMATE
ACREAGE
24
273,000
MAJOR
WETLAND
TYPE(S)*
P:FO:S
P:SS:B
P:FO:A/C/H
P:EH:A/C
P:SS:A/C
E2:EH:P/N
R2:UB:H
L2:UB:H
SIGNIFICANCE OF AREA]
Includes several plant Rp~cies of
both Federal and State ("ow:~rn.
Site is ecologically important as a
remnant example of a highly
threatened habitat tTIJe (Carolina
bay) that has mostly been
eiiminated in the State.t IIT:1\C,
RCD, T, ITH, 00.
Diverse system of importanL h~)itat
types for numerous fish and
wildlife species, including many
waterfowl and migratory bi n.ls. The
basin harbors 42 per'c~nt .)f the
State's nesting pairs of rpd~rally
protected bald eagles. Emlang~n~d
wood storks have active nesting
colonies in the ap:>.:\. Includ~s
numerous plant species of spe~i~l
concern to bot.h the FHS C\ntJ StC\te.
Includes economically imp')J~tant
commercial fisheries.~ Incllld~s
FWS planning and propo~al
acquisition areas for the ACE Aasin
NWR.' ES, FHS, WQ. IIT:RCD, T,
ITH, WQP, 00.
-------
Table C. 11.
(Page 3 of 6).
Important Wetlands in South Carolina H~p.t!~~
~e!:.!a.r:d::
,.. '.. . I
l.L 1 Lel"la.'
II\_-------~
.--.~.aC~i:)IIICIl L
SITE
IDENTIFIER2
AREA NAHE
COUNTY
APPROXIMATE
ACREAGE
MAJOR
WETLAND
TYPE(S) *
6
SIGNIFICANCE OF AREA]
7
8
Fo~r ~:ol~ S~CXI:ip
DOt"C'nester,
Orangeburg
Santee Delta
Georgetown
Upper Winyah Bay
Georgetown
2,050
PIFO.F/C/A
15,300
E2IEHIN/P
Ell UBI L
p.FO.e
P.EH.T
23,000
E2IEH.N
P.EHIT
RI:UB.L
--------------.- ---_. ---
----- ---. --- -
Area contains the largest remaining
virgin stand of old growth
cypress/tupelo forest in the world.
Area has been proposed to become
part of the adjacent Francis
Biedler Forest Sanctuary, a U.S.
Department of the Interior "Natural
Landmark." Recognized as a
"National Natural Area" by the
Society of American Foresters. ES,
FNS, WQ. 'IT: ITH, WQP, 00.
Important waterfowl and migratory
bird area.5 The delta' s
marsh/estuarine system is extremely
valuable as spawning and nursery
grounds for numerous fish species.
Provides habitat for the Federally
protected bald eagle and wood
stork. ES, FNS, WQ. 'IT: RCO, WDP,
ITH, WOP, 00.
Area contains the most extensive
freshwater marshes of any coastal
system in the State. Important
waterfowl and migratory bird area.S
Includes habitat for the Federally
protected bald eagle. ES, FNS, ,\'IQ.
if1':RCD, OD, WQP.
-------
Table C.H.
(Page 4 of 6).
Important Wetlands in South Carolina Heeting Wetlands Assessment Criteri~.l
HAJOR
SITE APPROXIHATE WETLAND
IDENTIFIER2 AREA NAME COUNTY ACREAGE TYPE(S)*
9 Ducks Bay Hampton 250 P:FO:C/F
10
Bare Bone Bay
Complex
Harry
1,100
P:SS:B
P:FO:B
11
Little Pee Dee
Harry,
Harion
3, 200
P:FO:N
P:AB:H
R2:UB:H
SIGNIFICANCE OF ~R~A!
.--....---
Excellent example of a pond cypress
savannah community (Carulina b~y),
which is a highly thl~2\t"'nf~(I,
rapidly disapp~aring habitat type.
Area includes th~ Fed"'I~.:\ll y
protected Canby's drop\lort., .15 \leI I
. as several other plClllt spf>Gi~s 0f
special concern to the FWS and the
State.4 ES. tlT:AC, ITI!.
Includes four practically
undisturbed Carolina bays. Ar~a
includes active n~st caviti~s for
the Federally protect.ed R~d-
cockaded ,...oodpecker. 4 ES. trr: RCO,
00.
Area of undisturbed "i ld~ 1.'lIf~f;S
habitat for numerous sp~{;ies. Area
is being considered for inGlusion
in the State Scenic Riv~rs Program,
the National Wild and Scenic River
Program, and as a National River
Park. ES, FNS, NQ. IIT:OGII, T,
WQP, 00.
-------
Table C.H.
(Page 5 of 6).
Important Wetlands in South Carolina Meeting Wetlands Assessm~nt Criteria. 1
I
i
SITE
IDENTIFIERl
APPROXDtATE
ACREAGE
MAJOR
WETLAND
TYPE(S).
MEA NAME
COUNTY
.
SIGNIFICANCE OF AREA~
12
Nt. Pleasant
Church Bay
55
P:FO:F/A
Lee
13
Branchvi He Bay
Orange burg
P:FO:A
20
14
Saluda County
High Ponds
Saluda
P:EH:A
31
15
Shiloh Savannah
43
PaFO:A/C/F
Sumter
Includes a number of Carolina bays,
which are highly threatened and
rapidly disappearing. Area
includes the Federally prot~cted
Canby's dropuort. 4 ES. I IT: AC ,
RCD, T, ITII.
An ecologically important CaJolinZl
bay community. Area includ~s th~
Federally protected Canby's
dropwort, as well as s~v~ral other
species of special conGern to the
State.4 ES. tIT:AC, RCD, T, ITlI,
OD.
An excellent example of a high pond
area. Area includes th~ f'ederally
protected Piedmont bishopHe~d, and
several other species of special
concern to the Stat~. 4 ES. IIT:I\C,
RCD, T, OD.
An excellent example of .:t pond
cypress community, \lith tr~es
likely exceeding 100 years 0f aq~.
Includes the Federally protect~d
Canby's drop\rort, and other plant
species of special concern to the
State. ES. HT:RCD, IT", OD.
~
-------
Table C .11.
(Page 6 of 6).
Important Wetlands in South Carolina Heeting Wetlands Assessment Ctit.eli;:\.1
Footnotes:
Wetlands Assessment Threshold Criteria and instructions are presented in Appendix A.
Site identifier does not indicate or imply priority rank.
corresponding to L~e site identification number.
See Figure SC-2 for general location of ap~.):-;
3
In addition to any species and resources specifically listed, all sites exhibited a diversity I)f othAr fi~-!I "'"
wildlife resources of interest to the Service and State, as well as important outdoor recreation, '~dllc,:IU'-,n.d. 211d
public use opportunities or potential opportunities.
.
Area recognized as an ecologically important site by the State Heritage Program.
5
Site identified by the Fish and Wildlife Service as a key waterfowl and middle-Upper Atlantic Coast J.)illt. '-"'II':lIl~
Area (Category 20) under the North American Waterfowl Management Plan.
6
FWS (1990)1
"Land Acquisition Briefing Book, FY 1991."
.
Carolina bays in South Carolina are under evaluation by the U.S. Environmental Protection Ag~nq' .:1 f.: rill ",,\1-::"11-,,01
Identification Area."
.. A portion of this area has been purchased recently (1990) by the State.
-------
TENNESSEE
. lOCdtion of priority t.vetlands in Tennessee (See 'I'able C.12)
-------
Table C.12.
Important Wetlands in Tennessee Heeting Wetlands Assessment Criteria.!
SITE
IDENTIFIER2
AREA NAME
COUNTY
APPROXIMATE
ACREAGE
MAJOR
WETLAND
TYPE(S)
..
A
SIGNIFICANCE OF AREA~
2
3
4
5
6
7
KiddIe Fork-
Forked Deer River
Upper Hiddle Fork-
Forked Deer
Long Poncf'
Hoss Island
Pond Creek
Whi te 's Lakeo
Horseshoe Lake
Crockett,
Gibson
Crockett,
Gibson
Dyer
Dyer
Dyer
Dyer
Dyer, .
Obion
11,535
P.FO:A/L
P.SS:F
R.UB,H
3,500
P:FO:A/C
P:SS.F
R,UB,H
3,000
P.FO:A/C
P.EH:F
1,020
P.FO:A
P.SS,F
2,500
P:FO:A/C
P.SS.F
2,200
P:FO:A/C
L2.UB,H
2,250
P.FO:A
L2.UB:H
Important waterfowl and mi
-------
Table C.12.
( Page 2 0 f 6).
Important Wetlands in Tennessee Heeting Wetlands Assessment Criteria.'
SITE
IDENTIFIER2
AREA NAME
COUNTY
APPROXIMATE
ACREAGE
MAJOR
WETLAND
TYPE(S)
8
2..300
SIGNIFICANCE OF AREA]
Upper Wolf R1ver
Fayette
PIFOIC/A/F
PISSIF
R21UBIH
9
H1n90 SWaJlp
Franklin
610
PIFO
PlEtt
10 TatUllvllle Gibson, 3,560 PIFO:A/C
Bottoas Dyer PISSIF
11 Pirtle Pond- Hardeman 6,150 PIFO
Clover Lakes PISS
R2.UBIH
Important waterfowl and migratory
bird area.4 One of only two
remaining naturally-meandering
swamp river systems in State. Area
contains several'State-listed
endangered or threatened species.
ES, FNS, WQ. trI':AC, WDP, ITlf, WQP.
An excellent example of a vanishing
wetland type known as Karst Fen;
largest remaining example in State.
Contains several State-listed
endangered or threatened species.
Site has been recommended as a,
National Natural Landmark in a
study commissioned by the National
Park Service. ES. HT:AC. RCD, T.
1m.
Important waterfo\oll and migrCllory
bird area} WQ. .rr:AC, \-IOP, HOP.
Recognized by the Tennessee
Department of Conservation as the
highest ranking wetland acquisition
site In State. Area contains at
least seven State-listed end,:mqered
and threatened specie. r;:ut of the
Hatchie River system, which is a
State Scenic River. Contains at
least one archaeological ~jte. ES,
FHS. WO. m,AC. T. 1",. 'IQP:_~
-------
Table C.12.
(Page 3 ot 6).
Important Wetlands in Tennessee Heeting Wetlands Assessment Criteria.!
SITE
IDENTIFIER2
AREA NAME
COUNTY
APPROXIMATE
ACREAGE
MAJOR
WETLAND
TYPE(S)
12
SIGNIFICANCE OF AREA]
12a
12b
13
14
15
Anderson-Tully
Reelfoot NWR
Expansion
Lake Isom NWR
Expansion
Lost Lake
Open Lake
Lower Anderson-
Tully
Lake,
Dyer
Obion
Lake,
Obion
Lauderdale
Lauderdale
Lauderdale,
Mississippi
(Arkansas)
2,800
-1,200
3,900
4,500
3, 300
19,320
P:FO:A/C
P:FO:A/C
PISS
PIEH
P:FO:A/C
PISS
P:EH
P:FOIA/C
PIFO:A/C
LlaUB:H
L2:USIC
R21UBIH
PIFOIA/C
P:EHIF
Plt--
Important waterfowl and migratory
.
bird area. WQ. HT:AC, ITtI, WQr.
Important waterfowl and migratory
.
bird area. ES, WQ. tfr:AC,RCO,
WQP, 00.
Important waterfowl and migratory
bird area.. ES, WQ. ttT:AC, HQP,
00.
Important waterfowl and migratory
bird area.. Anderson-Tully Stat~
WHA. WQ. tIT: AC, ITH, 1-/QP.
Important waterfowl and migratory
bird area.. Includes habitat for
the Federally protected bald eagle.
Contains several State-listed
endangered and threatened species.
Contains several archaeological
sites. Adjacent to Upper Anderson-
Tully State WHA and Chickasaw mJR.
ES, FNS, WQ. HT:AC, T, WQP, 00.
Important waterfowl and migratory
area.. Includes part of l\flrl~rs(Jn-
Tully State w.m in Tennessee.
Includes FWS planning and proposed
acquisition for the Chickasaw miR..
ES, FNS, WQ. HT:AC, ITfI, '"lOP.
-------
t
~
-
!!
~
Table C.12.
(Page .. o~ 6).
I",po~t~t W~tl&nd9 in Tennessee Meeting Wetlands Assessment Criteria.1
-
SITE
IDENTIFIER2
APPROXIMATE
ACREAGE
MAJOR
WETLAND
TYPE(S)
AREA MAHE
COUNTY
16
Lower Hatchie
River Bottoms
Lauderdale,
Tipton
4 , 530
P:FO
P:EH
PISS
R2:UBIH
P:f..
11
Middle Hatchie
Lauderdale,
Tipton
3,500
PIFO
PISS
R2:UBIH
18
TuscUJlbla River
Bottoms
McNairy,
Hardman
5, 315
P:FO
PISS
R2:UB:H
19
Crockett
Oblon
2, 200
P:FOIA
p:EH:F
SIGNIFICANCE OF AREAJ
Important waterfowl and migr.::.tor-y
bird area.' Includes habi t..'\t for
the Federally protected ha1d eagle
and at least 11 State-listed
endangered or threatenerJ ~p~cie!').
Contains eight knO\ffl archy.oh,gical
sites. Includes F\'IS planning nnd
proposed acquisi tion for t.he 1.0wer
Hatchie NWR.. ES, FNS, \-IQ. rIT:AC,
T, ITH, WQP, 00.
Import.ant. wat.erfo'.ll .:111'1 miql""t.('ry
bird area.' ES, FNS, HQ. IIT:I\C,
Int, WQP, 00.
Area contains t.wo State-li5t~d
endangered or threaten'?d sp~(:l~s,
and is part of the Hatchi~ River
State Scenic River System.
Adjacent to Big Hill prmc1 St.nt.e
Park. ES, FNS, WQ. IfI':1\C, \'IDP,
ITH, WQP, 00.
Important wat.erfowl and migratory
bird area. 4 Adjacent to Goo. ~h
Waterfowl Hanagement Area (St~tP).
FNS, WQ. tIT:AC, OD, WQP.
-------
Table C.12.
(Page 5 of 6).
Important Wetlands in Tennessee Meeting Wetlands Assessment Criteria.l
MAJOR
SIn: APPROXIMATE WETLAND
IDENTIFIER2 AREA NAHE COUNTY ACREAGE TYPE(S) SIGNIFICANCE OF AREA]
20 Lower Wolf River--- Shelby, 1,650 P:FO:C/A/F Important waterfowl and migratory
Fayette P:EH:F bird area.' Area contains five
R2:UB:H State-listed endangered or
threatened species. ES, FNS, WQ.
HT:AC, RCD, WDP, ITI-I, 00, WQP.
21 Donoho SWallp Weakley 5,240 P:FO:A Important waterfowl and migratory
P:EH:F bird area.. FNS, WQ. tIT:AC, ITtf,
WQP.
22 Spring Creek Weakley 2,140 P:FO.A Important waterfowl and migratory
bird area.. FNS, WQ. IIT:AC, ITft,
WQP.
Footnotes.
Wetlands AssesS8ent Threshold Criteria and instructions are presented in Appendix A.
2
Site identifier does not indicate or imply priority rank.
corresponding to the site identification number.
See Figure TN-2 for general location of areas
3
In addition to any species and resources specifically listed, all sites exhibited a diversity of other fish and
wildlife resources of interest to the Service and State, as well as important outdoor recreation, educational, and
public use opportunities or potential opportunities.
Site identified by the Fish and Wildlife Service as a key waterfowl and Lower Mississippi River Valley Joint
Venture Area (Category 23A) under the North American Waterfowl Management Plan.
.
-
I1fS (1990).
"Land Acquisition Briefing Book, FY 1991."
-------
Table C.12.
~~;'.:.~.,. ;
of f, ~ .
Important HeLlan~~
. '!E'nr.'~£s4!e Heet~.::9 Wetlands Assessment crt ter ia. !
Footnotes (Con't.) I
..
At least '5,~ percent of identified farmed wetlands would be restored to a wetland type recognized as d~r.:Hninq in
the Southeast Region (e.g., Palustrine Forested, Palustrine Emergent).
... Area under study by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as an "Advance
Identification Ar~a."
o
It portion of the area has been acquired by the State.
~
-------
APPENDIX E
LIST OF INDIVIDUALS CONTACTED IN EACH STATE
FOR RECOMMENDATIONS ON THREATENED WETLANDS
-------
APPENDIX E
Local, State and Federal Contacts Surveyed for
Recommendations of High Risk Wetland Areas
ALABAMA
Richard Hulcher
AL Dept. of Environmental
1751 Congo W.L. Dickinson
Montgomery, AL 36130'
Blake Roper
AL Dept. of Environmental
2204 Perimeter Road
Mobile, AL 36615
Management
Drive
Management
Tim Boyce
AL State Forestry Commission
513 Madison Avenue
Montgomery, AL 31630
Jerry Hooper
AL Game and Fish Commission
P.o. Box 366
Decatur, AL 35602
Tom Thornhill
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
P.O. Box 1190
Daphne, AL 36526
Mark Mann
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 234
Decatur, 'AL 35601
David Koonce
AL Dept. of Environmental Management
Mining and Non-Point Source
1751 Congo W.L. Dickinson Drive
Montgomery, AL 36130
Don Elder
Cahaba River Society
2717 7th Avenue South
Suite 207
Birmingham, AL 35233
-------
-2-
Pat Byi:ogton
AL Conservancy,
2717 7t:h Avenue
Suite 2'31
Birming:t1am, AL
Bham Chapter
South
35233
Sharon l!!artin
U 0 S. Fil;h and Wildlife
Po O. BO:1t 845
Cookevi.lle, TN 38503
Service
Ward Nel~
AL Cons.~rvancy, Mobile Chapter
5505 Vanderbilt Drive North
Mobile, AL 36608
FLORIDA
Rick McCann
FL Game and Freshwater Fish
CommiHsion
Office of Environmental Services
620 South Meridian
TallahaHsee, FL 32399
Barbara :3ess
FL Depto of Environmental
Regulation
Wetland!> Resource Management
3319 McGuire Boulevard
Orlando~ FL 32803-3767
Larry O~:)onnell
FL Depto of Environmental
Regulation
. Wetland!> Resource Management
1900 SO\l'ch Congress Avenue
Wast Pa:~m Beach, FL 33406
John Ha:~.l, Chief
U.S. ~~Y Corps of Engineers
P . 0 . BOJC 4970
Jacksonville, FL 32232-0019
Don Pallaer
U.S. Fiah a~d Wildlife Service
3100 University Boulevard, South
Jacksonville, FL 32216
-------
-3-
Ed Kepner
National Marine Fisheries Service
Habitat Conservation Division
3500 Delwood Beach Road
Panama City, FL 32408
John Kerr
FL Dept. Environmental Regulation
Northwest District
160 Governmental Center
Pensacola, FL 32501-5794
David Burr
SW Florida Reg. Planning
Council
P.o. Box 3455
North Ft. Myers, FL 33918-3455
Mike Donovan
TRC Coordinator
Appalachee RPC
314 East Central Avenue
Blountstown, FL 32424
Mary Beth Corrigan
South Florida RPC
3440 Hollywood Boulevard
Suite 140
Hollywood, FL 33021
Jeremy Tyler
FL Dept. of Environmental
Regulation
7825 Bay Meadows Way
Suite B200
. Jacksonville, FL 32256-7577
Janet Llewellyn
FL Dept. of Environmental
Regulation
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, FL 32301
Lisa Grant
St. Johns River WMD
P.O. Box 1429
Palatka, FL 32178-1429
Ginger Sinn
South Florida WMD
P.O. Box 24680
West Palm Beach, FL
33416-4680
-------
-4-
Dave
U.S.
P.O.
Vero
Ferrell
Fish and Wildlife Service
Box 2676
Beach, FL 32967-2676
Mike Dentzou
FL Dept. of Environmental
Regulation .
2269 Bay Street
Ft. Myers, FL 33901
Larry NaIl
FL Dept;. of Natural Resources
Sanctuaries and Research Reserves
3900 Commonwealth Boulevard
Tallahassee, FL 32303
Terry Demott
Suwanne River WMD
Route 3, Box 64
Live Oak, FL 32060
Lance Peterson
Northwest Florida WMD
Route 1, Box 3100
Havanna, FL 32333-9700
Joan Pellerin
Northeast Florida RPC
9143 Phillips Highway
Suite 350
Jacksonville, FL 32256
Manny Lopez
SW Florida WMD
2370 Broad Street
Brooksville, FL 34609-6899
Sally Black
Treasure Coast RPC
P.O. Box 1529
Palm City, FL 34990
Michael Gilbrook
East Cefitral Florida RPC
1011 Wymore Road
Suite 105
Winter Park, FL 32789
Jay Troxel
U.S. Fish and Wildlife
1612 June Avenue
Panama City, FL 32405
Service
-------
-5-
Deborah Kohne
FL Dept. of Environmental
Regulation
Southwest District
4520 Oak Fair Boulevard
Tampa, FL 33610-7347
Eric Livingston
FL Dept. of Environmental
Regulation
Wetlands Resource Management
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, FL 32301
GEORGIA
Gary Biser
GA Dept. of Natural Resources
Game and Fish.
P.O. Box 519
Calhoun, GA 30703-0519
Phil Laumeyer
u.S. Fish and Wildlife
Federal Building, Room
801 Gloucester Street
Brunswick, GA 31520
Service
334
Stuart Stevens
GA Dept. of Natural Resources
1 Conservation Way
Brunswick, GA 31523
Tim Hess
GA Dept. of Natural Resources
Game and Fish Division
205 Butler Street, SE
Atlanta, GA 30334
Nick Ogden
u.s. Army Corps
Building 102
Ft. Gillem
Forest Park, GA
of Engineers
30050-5000
-------
-6-
Ken Dugger
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Branch
P.O. Box 889
Savannah, GA 31402-0889
Elmar Kursbach
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 889
Savannah, GA 31402-0889
Sally Bethea
GA Conservancy
781 Marietta Street
Atlanta, GA 30318
Eugene Odum
University of Georgia
Institute of Ecology
Ecology Building
Room 12
Green Street
Athens, GA 30206
John Moore
U.S. Forest
349 Forsyth
Monticello,
Service
Street
GA 31024
Dick Wrightmyer
U.S. Forest Service
508 Oak Street
Gainesville, GA 30501
Ronnie HaYnes
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Russell Federal Building
75 Spring Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
Steve Johnson
GA Dept. of Natural Resources
Game Management Section
2024 Newton Road
Albany, GA 31708
John Bozeman
GA Dept. of Natural Resources
2117 Hwy 278, SE
Social Circle, GA 30279
-------
-7-
KENTUCKY
Dave McChesney
KY Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Resources
1 Game Farm Road
Frankfort, KY 40601
Bob Kanzinger
U.S. Army Corps
P.O. Bo'x 59
Louisville, KY
of Engineers
40201-0059
Rich Hannon
KY State Nature
407 Broadway
Frankfort, KY
Preserve Mission
40601
Jeff Grubbs
KY Division of
18 Reilly Road
Frankfort, KY
Water
40601
MISSISSIPPI
Jim Morris
Department of Environmental
Quality
Bureau of Pollution Control
P.O. Box 10385
Jackson, MS 39289-0385
John Burris, Staff Biologist
MS Dept. of Wildlife Conservation
P.O. Box 10385
Jackson, MS 39209-0385
Curtis James
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
900 Clay Street, RM 235
Vicksburg, MS 39108
MS Wildlife Federation
P.O. Box 1814
Jackson, MS 39215-1814
Louie Miller
Conservation Chairman
MS Sierra Club
Route 2, Box 237C
Canton, MS 39046
-------
-8-
Larry Lewis
MS Bureau of Marine Resources
2620 Beach Boulevard
Biloxi, MS 39531
Fredrick Keeter
Soil Conservation Service
Water Resources Staff Leader
Suite 1321
Federal Building
100 W. Capitol Street
Jackson, MS 39269
Elizabeth Guynes
u.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Branch
P.O. Box 60
Vicksburg, MS 39180-0060
NORTH CAROLINA
Wayne Wright
u.S. Army Corps
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC
of Engineers
28402-1890
John Dorney
Department of Environmental
P.O. Box 29535
Raliegh, NC 27626-0535
Management
Dennis Stewart
NC Wildlife Resource Commission
111 Garner Road
Greenvil1e, NC 27834
Mike Gant
Field Supervisor
US Fish and Wildlife
P.O. Box 33726
Raliegh, NC 27636
Service
Ken Jolly
u.S. Army Corps of Engineers
11413 Falls of the Neuse Road
Wake Forest, NC 27587-9408
Ernie Jahnke
u . S. Army Corps
P.O. Box 1890
Wl1ming'ton, NC
of Engineers
28402-1890
-------
-9-
Bob Johnson
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Room 75, Grove Arcade Building
37 Battery Park Avenue
Asheville, NC 28801-2714
David Lexon
U.S. Army Corps
P.O. Box 1000
Washington, NC
of Engineers
27889-1000
Allen Weakley
State Parks and Recreation
P.O. Box 27687
Raliegh, NC 26711
SOUTH CAROLINA
Sally Knowles
Bureau of Water Pollution Control
SCDHEC
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
Billy McTeer
SC Wildlife Dept.
P.O. Box 167
Columbia, SC 29202
Susan Davis
SC Wildlife and
P.O. Box 12559
Charleston, SC
Marine Resources
29412
Steve Gilbert
U.S. FWS
P.O. Box 12559
Charleston, SC
29412
Nancy Brock
SC Dept. of Archives
P.O. Box 11669
1430 Senate Street
Columbia, SC 29211
and History
Steve Snyder
SC Coastal Council
4130 Faber Place
Suite 300
Charleston, SC 29405
-------
-10-
Ann Hale
SC Water Resources
1201 Mai.n Street
Suite 1101
Columbia, SC 29201
Commission
Joe Mills
SC Forestry Commission
P.O. Box 21707
Columbia, SC 29221
Margaret Davidson
SC Seag:t'ant
287 Meeting Street
Charleston, SC 29401
Ben Stuckey
U.S. SCS
1835 Assembly
Room 950
Columbia, SC
Street
29201
Steve Bennett
SC Wildlife Dept.
P.O. Box 167
Columbia, SC 29202
Dan Childers
Baruch Institute
P.O. Box 1630
Georgetown, SC 29442
Betty Spence
SC Wildlife Federation
P.O. BOJR 61159
Columbia, SC 29260
Bobby Riggs
U.S. Army Corps
P.O. Bo~ 919
Charleston, SC
of Engineers
29402
Bob Somers
SC LAnd Resources Commission
2221 Dev~ne Street
Suite 222
Columbia, SC 29201
-------
-11-
TENNESSEE
Mike Lee
TN Dept. of Environment and
Division of Water Pollution
150 Ninth Avenue North
7th Floor
Nashville, TN 37243-1534
Conservation
Wade Whitinghill
u.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1070
Nashville, TN 37202-1070
Cathy Elliot
U.S. Army Corps
P.O. Box 465
Lenoir City, TN
of Engineers
37771
Tom Scott
City of Chattanooga
Room 223
City Hall
Chattanooga, TN 37402
Randy Clark
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Clifford Davis Federal Building
Memphis, TN 38103
Larry Smith
637 Watson
Memphis, TN
38111
Chester McConnell
TN Wildlife Management
Route 6, Box 212
Lawrenceburg, TN 38464
Institute
Lee Barclay
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
P.O. Box 845
Cookeville, TN 38503
Dan Sherry
TN Wildlife Resource
P.D Box 40747
Nashville, TN 37204
Agency
Betsy Bunting
TN Dept. of Conservation
701 Broadway
Nashville, TN 37243-0447
-------
APPENDIX F
RESPONSES FROM STATE AND OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES
ON ENDANGERED WETLANDS SYSTEMS
-------
~~---
Northeast Florida Regional Planning Council
Baker. Clay. Duval. Flagler. Nassau. Putnam. St. Johns
9143 Phillips Highway. Suite 350. Jacksonville. Florida 32256
(904)363-6350 FAX (904) 363-6356
Suncom 874-6350 Suncom FAX 874-6356
June 17, 1991
Ms. Gail Vanderhoogt, Chief
Wetlands Planning Unit
U.S.E.P.A., Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Re:
Wetlands Advance Identification Process
Dear Ms. Vanderhoogt:
In response to your letter of May 29, 1991, regarding EPA's wetlands ad-
vance identification process, the Northeast Florida Regional Planning Coun-
cil (NEFRPC) staff offers the following information.
The NEFRPC is primarily involved in regional land use issues from a plan-
ning perspective, rather than a regulatory perspective. Therefore, our
commpnts to you will be fairly general. It is our understanding that you
are also contacting the regulatory agencies in this Region, and we feel
they are the appropriate sources for information on specific wetlands which
are worthy of EPA's advance identification process.
I have enclosed copies of several pages from the Northeast Florida Compre-
hensive Regional Policy Plan which designate Regionally Significant freshwa-
ter and coastal wetlands, as well as the Northeast Florida Development of
Regional Impact (DRI) map. As is the case throughout Florida, the areas of
highest development pressure are primarily the coastal area? Therefore,
NEFRPC staff feels the saltwater marshes are valuable resources which are
threatened by development and worthy of wetlands advance identification.
The St. Johns River and Intracoastal Waterway are very significant regional
resources which are also experiencing pressure from development, and all
~etlands associated with these water bodies should be considered for ad-
vance identltlcatlon. Ihe NEFRPC DRI map shows the highest number of
large-scale developments in Duval County, however northwest St. Johns Coun-
ty is experiencing tremendous development pressure. Several significant
wetland systems exist in this area, including the Iwelve-Mile Swamp, and
should also be considered for advance identification. -
AHIt~Y)O!jve AC.oQr~ ,,.\:1 ~ ",{, (.\.I(}',-.,"'\I", ;... ~",:)..f?'
-------
Ms. Gail Vanderhoogt
June 17, 1991
PAGE 2
Thank YOll for the opportunity to comment on this program, and please con-
tact me if the NEFRPC can be of further assistance.
Sinc~rely,
,// i
.j'. A..<
I .
J€lan Pe 11 eri n
,Regional Planner
{- ../~
I ' .i '~. :
cc:
Haynes Johnson
-------
~~o~~~c~~nfy
TELEPHONE: (407) 633-2016
Sun Com: 366-2016
OFFICE OF NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
2725 51. Johns St.. Melbourne. FL 32940
FLORIDA'S SPACE COAST
Ms. Rosalind Moore
Environmental Scientist
U.S. EPA Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Ga. 30365
June 20, 1991
RE: Wetlands Advanced Identification (ADID) Studies
Dear Ms. Moore:
Our office was forwarded information on the above referenced
program through the EPA National Estuary office in Melbourne. The
general information which I reviewed suggests that this program
would be extremely beneficial to Brevard County. This county has
a unique physical outlay, bounded on both the eastern and western
boundaries by large water systems and their associated wetlands.
The fact that both brackish (Indian River Lagoon) and fresh (St.
John's River) water systems occur in Brevard, contributes to the
large amount of diversity exhibited by the wetland communities.
Brevard County is approximately seventy-two (72) miles long and
varies in width to a maximum of twenty (20) miles (please refer
to the attached map). This long, narrow shape, coupled with the
accelerated development of upland areas along Florida's
coastline, has lead to an almost complete development of suitable
upland areas within the County. This extreme development
pressure, and the existence of extensive and ecologically diverse
wetland ecosystems, combine to make our area a prime candidate
for this program.
Currently, research on the Indian River Lagoon is being funded
by through the EPA National Estuary Program, the Florida
Department of Environmental Regulation's SWIM (Surface Water
Improvement and Management) program, the Coastal Zone Management
program and others. The lagoon has been nationally recognized for
its regional ecological significance and national environmental
importance. There are numerous agencies with jurisdiction over
this waterbody. Although information on much of its condition and
importance has been complied, a void of information exist on the
habitat value of the Lagoon's associated wetlands. While we may
know where they are, often we don't have information on their
TRUMAN SCAlIBOROUGH. JR
j.s:':' .
KAREN S ANDREAS
O'SI11CI 2
1
CAROL SENNE
O'SIIICI J
SUE SCHMm
District.
THAD ALTMAN
TOM N JENIINS
:t5H C1 ~
. '. :. ~'- .. ,,:. .tto'
ROBERT D GUTHRIE
Coun!~ A"o'nf~
R C WINSTEAD JR
~ p',
PRIIYrED OIY RECYCLED P4PER
-------
condition or ecological/habitat significance.
The po~ulation of Brevard County is rapidly approaching one-
half million persons, and future projections indicate the
populatio;n could reach 700,000 by the year 2005. The County has a
responsibility to locate these persons, while decreasing
detrimental impacts to the environment. The past practices and
current situation involving wetlands in Brevard County make the
protection of those viable wetlands which remain, imperative!
The Office of Natural Resources Management is the agency
responsib~e for the local review and protection of the natural
resources of the entire county. Our staff is both varied and
knowledgeable. However, as with most local governments, our
resources are limited, and the ADID program would be a valuable
tool in assisting the county in its wetland identification and
protection program. -
Brevard ~as already completed initial native communities
mapping. The ADID program would be beneficial in identifying the
ecological value of these areas, and would assist the County with
local protl~ction efforts. Locally, Brevard County is pursuing a
mitigation banking program as an option for local wetland
protection. In addition, the County has a $55 million bond
referendum ~o purchase environmentally significant lands, known
as the Environmentally Endangered Lands (E.E.L.) program.
Identifying those wetlands which are deemed to have the most
significant ecological value would allow the County to
concentrate protection and acquisition efforts on these areas.
The ADID ~rogram would be particularly beneficial to the Indian
River Lagoon National Estuary Program. The ADID program would
complement the National Estuary Program's studies of the Indian
River Lagoon estuary by identifying those wetland resources with
significant ecological and habitat value. The information
generated by-the ADID program would bolster local and State
~etland on Elf forts, while providing an information source for the
local develcpment community.
Thank you for your time and consideration regarding this
subject. Staff feels Brevard CQunty is a model candidate for the
,\OIO program and we look forwrard to any information or assistance
jour agency ~ay provide to qualify Brevard for this program.
Sincerely,
Offige of ~atural Resources Management
..'~I /~~(~
:':ark Crosley, '!INRH Environmental Specialist
ce. Lisa Barr, ONRM Interim Director
30el Snodgrass, ONRM Interim Section Supervisor
Bob Day, Biologist, IRL NEP Program
2
-------
FwRIDA
GAME
AND
FREsH
WATER
FISH
COMMISSION
001\ WRIGHT
Orlando
JOSEPH G. SPICOLA, JR.
lam..
:\IRS. GILBERT W. HUMPHREY
Miccosukee
JOE MARLIN HILLIARD
Cll!wiston
BES ROWE
Gaines,illl!
ROBERT "- BR"~TL\'. Ev
-------
~'let land Name
Pt. Everglades
Manaroves
CHASSAHOWITZKA
and
WEEKI WATCIIEE
SPRINGS
HI XTOWN S~oJAMP
Class
E?F03
---
---
Sl.ze
(Acres)
150 P...c.
25,000 Ac.
20,000 Ac.
POTENTIALLY
THREATENED WETLANDS
Location (Watershed,
Lat/lona. Sec!TwD!Rno)
. S25,T~~PSOSfRNG
-------
o
.
.
--~
~
,"'LA\..V'
t11
'\..
. ~.. ..
x
IlIA:
WIUHJFE.
~
o
'.
"
'.
'\0......",
I ~..
a
C SSAHOWITZKA "~~'"
N TIONAL WILDLIFE
FUGE
o
SATE CONSER-S2
V TION LAND ><
UJ
ADID ~
-
P OPOSED
A A
-- .
~
c.:..
a
......
~
.
~
~
~
(J
.. .. S C 0
; .
-
PROPOSED CHASSAHOWITZKA AND WEEK I WATCHEE SPRINGS ADID
CITRUS AND HERNANDO COUNTIES, FLOr.:DA
ARE.'; .
-------
r
--
- --..
'~:.f J
.... ,..',1
'PROpnSF')
, '(1)('1'
AD 10 I\RFA nW"1 c:!,!,~ .... I
rnu~!,!,y "0: ~ MAD! SnN .." I
, ..,,-,~~:;A I
\'
. -
.~ ",<- b
'.., '.~j.>.,....'
- j
c'
>I
"
'"
-------
arpc
apalcichee regional planning council
. ,
31 I.f East Centrol Avenue. Room 1 I 9
Blountstown. Florida 321f21f
Phone: (gOlf] 571.f-1.f57 1
Suncom: 7 71-1.f1.f 17
June 10, 1991
Ms. Gail Vanderhoogt
Wetlands Planning Unit
U.s. Environmental Protection
345 Courtland Street NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Agency
RE:
Wetlands Protection
Dear Ms. Vanderhoogt:
The Council staff is very concerned with your search for
"future disposal sites.- Goal 8.3.1 of the Apalachee Regional
Comprehensive Policy Plan is to maintain the functions of the
region's natural water systems. Even -low value- wetlands pro-
vide some important functions. It has consistently been the
Council's policy that disposal should occur only on uplands.
recen~Y t..~~~"oPc,.~~~8 y~;rR~: f;~:l 8~:~8~?fcRi:';'. ~::8::~n 8~: . /
t~h~. ~~-. ~
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please
call me at .904-674-4571 or 904-488-6211.
Sincerely,
M~~~~
Mike Donovan
Regional Planner
I~
MD/dm
Enclosures
Serving Calhoun. Franklin. Gadsden. Gulf. Jackson. Jefferson. Leon. liberty. and Wakulla Counties
-------
/. U4VI~~,
"Ot'~-""~- .
~ ~~--.:.. 4k'.
~ =-"7 ~.
~-~\'''"'-
- -:,.,.., 1''''
~~r
~.
',!rl OF F\O"~ "
f"lorida Department 01 Environmental Regulation
Central District
.
.~:\19 .'vIaguire BOulevard, Sui!c 232
Orlando. Flonda 32803.3 -6-
.
L....-ron Chll~s. G0"~rn()r
C~rol .\1 BroQ,.'n~r. 'C'\.7ret.HV
June 13, 1991
Gail Vander~oogt. Chief
Wetlands Planning Unit
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Hetlar.ds Advance Identification Program
OCD-HRP-91-0256
Dear Ms. Vanderhoogt:
Thank you for your May 30 letter (which arrived June 3). I'll be out of town from
June 8 through June 29 but wanted to provide you some information regarding
valuable wetlands for the ADID process. I apologize for the brevity of the
responses. :f you want more information, of course feel free to contact me.
The following wetland systems are some in central Florida which are of regional
value and facing development pressures to varying degrees.
1.
Econlockhatchee River/Orange & Seminole County. This river is located east
of Orlando and flows north into the St. Johns River, Orange County, Seminole
County and the St. Johns River Hater Management District have expressed
interest in providing additional protection for the system. Some parcels may
be purC~dsed and inCluded in the mitigation required for construction of the
Southern Connector (a limited access toll road proposed by the OrlandO-Orange
County Expressway Authority).
I~ekiva River/Seminole and Lake County. Located north of Orlando, this river
flows into the St. Johns River west of Lake Monroe. It already has been
designated as Outstanding Florida Haters (OFH) by DER. Additional protection
is provided by the St. Johns River HMO with its Hekiva River Basin
regulations. The Department of Natural Resources/CARL Program (Conservation
and Recreation Lands) has identified several parcels along the river
(includi1g adjacent uplands) appropriate for state purchase. Some of these
also may be purchased and included in the Southern Connector mitigation plan
(if appropriate permits are issued by DER). Final agency action has not been
taken and is not expected in the immediate future.
2.
3.
Reedy Creek/Osceola County. Flowing southeast from Halt Disney World, much
of the creeK flOodplain remains pristine. The Osceola Land Trust has
purchased land adjoining the creek for preservation and DER has received a
conservation easement over a 200+ acres parcel as settlement in a wetlands
resource enforcement case. South Florida Hater Management District also, I
believe. ~as recognized the value of Reedy Creek as a resource of regional
significalce.
,,..-.1,- ...~ ~,."
-------
G. Vanderhoogt
Page Two
OCD-HRP-91-0256
June 13, 1991
4.
Oklawaha River/Marion County. The Oklawaha is situated east of Ocala and
Silver Springs. Already provided some protection as Outstanding Florida
Haters, it nonetheless is faced with increasing development pressures as the
local population grows. The nearby Silver River also is considered
Outstanding Florida Haters. The Department of Natural Resources is in the
process of, or has recently purchased, a large wetland tract on the north
side of the Silver River (which flows into the Oklawaha).
5/6.
Tomoka River and Spruce Creek/Vol usia county. Located north and west of
Daytona Beach, both these systems have extensive saltwater marshes associated
with them. Vol usia County has a wetlands ordinance which generates monies
for wetlands acquisition and enhancement. Both water bodies were recently
approved for OFH designation by the Environmental Regulation Commission.
There are other riverine systems in Osceola County and Polk County which have been
identified by South Florida HMO for acquisition and/or enhancement. You may wish
to contact that agency directly for details.
Please let me know if you desire either more information on any of these wetlands
or additional wetlands identified for the ADID process. I'm sure, with a little
more time, I can identify other wetlands worthy of consideration.
Sincerely,
. Q~/ ~ddI!"n-
~~ Barbara Bess
o - Section Supervisor
Wetlands Resource Permitting
SS: jm
-------
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Field Office
1612 June Avenue
Panama City, Florida 32405
.
.
June 21, 1991
Ms. Gail Vanderhooght, Chief
Wetlands Planning Unit
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia
Dear Ms Vanderhoogt:
This is in response to your request of June 5, 1991 regarding identification of valuable
wetland areas that are threatened by development, and that might benefit from
wetlands advanced identification. This information will be used in EPA's wetlands
advance identification (ADID) process.
Fish and Wildlife Service supports the concept of protecting wetlands threatened by
development in an advance identification process. However, we are concerned that
. this process may lead to the adverse alteration of wetlands that are not specifically
identified as "high value" under the ADID program.
In addition, the Congressional authorization of the Section 10/404 permitting program
under the Rivers and Harbor Act and the Clean Water Act was to protect all wetlands.
In the Florida Panhandle, all wetlands are being threatened by some type of
(jeve/opment. We do not believe the ADID program should take the defensive attitude
of prioritizing wetlands based on threat of development or ecological value.
.
Trl~ Fact Sheat accompanying your letter lists several wetland functions which benefit
fish and wildlife. Nearly all the wetlands in the Florida Panhandle have a high value
for at least one of these functions, even though some of the other functions may be
of less value. losses of these "mixed value" wetlands would be quite detrimental to
fish and wildlife.
For example, in the Florida panhandle, coastal forested interior wetlands are being lost
a t an alarming rate under the current Section 404 permitting program. The value of
these wetlands apparently have been only minimally studied. Their topography and
location indicate they are extremely important for storage and filtration of stormwater
runoff. Their presence and ability to function properly are probably crucial in
maintaining good water Quality in the estuaries to which they drain. On the other
hand, these wetlands have little or no direct habitat value for fish. Their value for
wildlife is poorly understood. Relatively rare fauna such as the black bear use them
-------
in the more remote, wilder parts of the Panhandle. In the urban settings more subject
to development pressure, they often provide the only large, moist forested areas
available for amphibians, reptiles, migratory and resident birds, and small mammals.
The State of Florida requires stormwater retention ponds to fulfill the water storage
and filtration functions of these wetlands. It will be many years before the adequacy
of these ponds can be determined. Drainage from these wetlands often flows to
estuaries containing submerged seagrass beds. Seagrass habitats have a high value
for more ecological functions than the interior forested wetlands. They provide
nursery, breeding, feeding habitat for a multitude of commercial species such as blue
crab, penaeid shrimp, scallops, sea trout, flounder, and other finfish, migratory
waterfowl. These wetlands also stabilize bottom sediments, aid in water quality
maintenance and contribute to the estuarine and marine environment productivity
through the plant vegetation and associated epiphytic organisms. Seagrass beds are
also imminently threatened by development along the coast, they are extremely
sensitive to anthropogenic caused discharges which cause excess turbidity and
nutrients. In northern Florida, these grassbeds require a minimum of 50 years to
revegetate, and mitigation transplanting projects have not been successful.
Thus, when we compare these two types of wetlands, which has the "higher"
ecological function and should be given higher priority for protection? Our initial
thoughts might be the submerged seagrass beds; however, without the interior
wetlands, water quality of the estuaries would decrease and the seagrass beds would
be affected.
We believe that similar arguments could be made for the several other various types
of wetlands that occur in the Florida Panhandle. In addition, it would be infeasible for
us to provide the names, wetland classifications, sizes, locations, and potential
impacts of all the wetlands in the Panhandle that have a high value for at least one
of the wetland functions listed in the Fact Sheet. Therefore, after considerable
thought, this office has decided to not identify any specific wetlands to be considered
under the ADID process. .
. We appreciate the opportunity to provide this input. Please contact Mr. Lloyd Stith
of this office at (904) 769-0552 regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
~ J..,L"
.~~(~
Lorna Patrick
Acting Project Leader
cc: .
FWS/FWE, Atlanta, GA (Chase)
NMFS, PC,FL
EPA, Gulf Breeze, FL
FWS, Jax FO, FL
FWS, Vero Bch, FL
-------
HE\~ GRINER
'ma'
: FI)"da
- W.\RIN3
31rrT an
Flcrloa
\,P ;ON
- 'ea surer
F.o'ica
:AR'.'ER
: Or:
-------
POTENTIALLY 'fHREATENED WETLANDS
Wetland Name CTass Size Location (Watershed, Potential Other Pertinent
(Acres\ Lat/lona. Sec/Twv/Rna\ Imoact Information
Pt. Everglades
Mangroves E2F03 150 Ac. S25,TWP50S,RNG42E. PORT EXPANSION 84R-4146 EXP.9/2'.
(SEE ATTACHED MAP)
Suwannee River PFO Thousands See Attached Map Residential Encroachment
Floodplain
Waccassa River PEM. . . . Thousands See Attached Map Residentia1. Silvicultural
Floodplain PFO....
PSS....
POW....
-------
d~...
+~~~
{~~ Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
1:~~ Nonh'OVes< Distrkt . .60 Gomnmental Cente, . "'05.co1., F10,'''' 32501.;-9;
~OF F\# Lawton Chiles. Governor Carol M. Browner. Secretdr\'
Ms. G~il Vanderhoogt, Chief
Wetla:nds Planning Unit
United states Environmental
Protection Agency, Region IV
345 Courtland street, N.E.
Atlant~, Georgia 30365
Dear Ms. Vanderhoogt:
This is in response to your recent request for information
identi~ying geographic areas of the Northwest District that
shouldl be targeted for EPA's wetlands advance identification
(ADID) processes. Attached is the form you sent, completed to
the e>l:tent possible for a few major areas information readily
available to me, but without the class code, since I am not all
that familiar with the federal classification code system, and
without latitudes, longitudes, sections, townships, or ranges,
since I believe indication of watershed/waterbody and the maps
included will adequately identify the areas.
Generally, I recommend that all major river and estuarine
systems of the Florida panhandle be treated as valuable wetland
areas, and all are threatened to some degree by potential
development. This includes the flood plains and river deltas
of the Perdido, Escamb' Blackwater, Yellow, Choctawhatche~
Shoal, PApa ac ~cola, Ochlockonee, C ~po a, a~~1~Mark's,
Wac1sS11 ;-amt~o15choppy -"R~ve'rs-a-s- welras -Big COlawater Creek
aJ1d ~~Jntlna creekJ It aiso-lncludes bay w~~ers ana their
. assocTIfted bayous, marsh areas, and seagrass beds for the
Pensacola Ba s stem' udin Pensacola, Escambia, and East
-Bay~~ e Santa Rosa Sound s stem e oc aw a c ee ay
~y~L~m, the st. Andrews Bay system (~nc u ~ng as, es,
Andrew~i3 and Nortn Bays as well as St. Andrews Sound), the St.
Joseph Bay system, the Apalachicola Bay system (including st.
Vincent and St. George Sounds), the Alligator Harbor system,
Ochlockonee Bay system, and Apalachee Bay system (including
Apalachee, Goose, and Dickerson Bays). Besides these areas,
the Florida panhandle has many small creeks and streams subject
to the threats of development and impoundment, including
R", ''I' I,.d ~ Pu~r
-------
Carpenter's Creek, Pond Creek, and Juniper Creek, to name a
few. Several large lakes (Deerpoint, Jackson, and Talquin)
have valuable wetland resources threatened by existing and
potential development.
Feel free to call me if you have questions.
::92 p~
~ John P. Kerr, Ph.D.
Wetlands Management Supervisor
JPK: jkv
Attachment
-------
I
WAt 1 :'!!~
!'!,'!r.e
Is Co\d ..j.Jv'Guk
~~~.....,J~
~o.ct,JQ.tU' e~ f
vJ L -\Po. ...J !;) -
G'f~l- Qj£'
i vJ L--\fo."",cb
GrOc.t'~Q. t'C-~~
II )2,'.JU vJe--ti._J s
I Zco;j.~~Cr---k
W--W--J ~
t5C4~b:a.-gJ
~~ 1t~....-d. ~
CjoJ'<:o~ ~-<)t
v-Je.:W ---.1 ~
Q~ \OC.\
1?J.J., \?JS
~r::\R~~
Sr. ~r\C" '=> Q.J ~
J~-ttO~~
S~Oo.l e,J..)
~r.\f:TJr\ <;,
oJ~.!J6 000
-'
P()~!~I:~ NT ~ !\!, ~ ,V
'I'i.! '! I.' 1\ 'I' "'''W!J ..c1i'::.l:I.1\!-In S
r~GLatlGii
~ ~*o.c, ~~ ryQ.~
o\lt.f' \;>000 ~ o.:\t"'c~<:Ld "9~
,
6.J J"' 10" 000 , ~ o..-t\-G.c ~ ~d. '9~
0.JJ' 3 OOD
,
oJv ~ 60
,
o~v\ 0<:0
,
-Se.CL o1\'ad;~! "9+
~ c.1\-~c~~~ ~t
~ C1--\\-~Ll "P+
oJcf l~()(X) 5~ Q.\~~4 ~J. ~+
~J' 600
oJv.6" 000
o-JJ'1,ooo
S- crt\-e-c7 ~ d 'n?i-
s~ o..*~~ ~d ~of-
SL~ a-\\o.c-;~~ /'~~
0.JJ" ~ooo s~~ d.-\~o..~7~<1 '7O-tL
oJ" .t, 000 s"- ~ t1- ~
-------
I
y" ~
Wetlan
Name
I
Sot'c.~::'f~\ 8~
v.Je..1f7o-..,fc!"' ~
SY~~:>~b
~L'\Pa..-d.~
~~\ ~.\,
. v.1~'\Lc\.~
v-J~~,~ou e.J"s'
. vJc--\fo--~~
~ ~~\c-\\ - QJJ
I' vJ 4Lt\CN......l~
, ~\\o0 8J
wjp.........ck~
C ass
PO'l'EN'l'IALLY 'l'IIHEI\'l'ENED WE'l'LANDS
~ a.~\-o..c..~cl ~~
5 ~ o.-t\-o.~l-cL '7 o..~
\
~.J ~1~ -V C4._~t ~c0 <:- \ f vr~
\ -r'I ~ \00 J...p l:'0; ~---o....-
,........ \:>c>\,"'Y"d:?~~
o-J V \(X) c:::> S.. 't a. -t\- OL <:- ~ Ai. d '"" G- ~
~ crl\-o.ct~ y(} Q,~
6"\JV\OCO 5~ Q.1+~~~ ~
oJJ ~
-------
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
Joe D. Tanner, Com T1issioner
205 Butler Street, S.E., Suite 1362, Atlanta, Georgia 30334
David J. Waller, Director, Game and Fish DivIsion
404/656.3523
July 15, 1991
Mso G3il Vanderhoogt
U.5. ~nvironmental Protection
Wetla~:lds Planning Uni t
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlal1~a, Georgia 30365
Agency
Dear Hso Vanderhoogt:
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to make recommendations for
the Ioretlands advance identification process in Georgia. From a
fish~ries perspective, it appears as thou~h the wetlands areas most
valuEhle to us which are threatened by development are those in the
apprc1ximate 50 mile square metropolitan Atlanta area.
In particular, creek bottoms along the tributaries to the
Chattzhoochee River which flow through Gwinnett, Forsyth, Fulton,
DeKa1b, Cobb, and Douglas counties are of major importance due to the
sensitivity of the river's trout fishery, Atlanta's drinking water
supply, downstream native river fish populations, and even West Point
Reservoir, The north and west sides of metro Atlanta area are drained
by these tributary streams. A 'guesstimate' of the wetland area
involved here might be 10,000 acres. This acreage could he made more
accurate hy reviewing county maps being developed by the state
Freshwate~ Wetlands and Heritage Inventory program.
~n the east and south sides of Atlanta, the Alcovy, Yellow, South,
and Flint rivers (and their major tributaries) in Gwinnett, Walton,
DeKalb. Rockdale, Newton, Henry, Clayton, Fulton, and Fayette counties
have ~~en and continue to be threatened by development. Several water
suppl, systems exist within these drainage areas, and the water quality
and fish populations in Lake Jackson and the middle Flint Rivers (both
of which sustain considerable warmwater fisheries) are directly impacted
by what type of development takes place within these watersheds. A
'gues:3timate' of the wetland area involved here might total 30,000
acres" As for the Chattahoochee drainage, this acreage could be made
more accurate by reviewing county maps being developed by the state
Freshuater Wetlands and Heritage Inventory program.
-------
A map of the approximate proposed project area is attached.
~erhaps the Atlanta Regional Commission or some conglomeration of state
environmental groups such as the Georgia Environ~ental Council would
consider being a local cooperator. Please call if you have questions
(656-3524).
Sincerely,
f"--V6 ~#4>
Timmy B. Hess
Assistant Chief of Fisheries
:th
cc: Amy McCollum (response w attachments only)
Don Johnson (response w attachments only)
John Bozeman (FWHI) (response w attachments
Wetlands subject file
only)
Attachments
-------
Wet an
Name
?y ~ 1"'1 fL~
k. Everglades
Nai1groves
*
metropolitan
Atlanta
wetlands
C ass
E2F03
POTEN'l'IAl.LY THRE/\~ENED WETLANDS
150 Ac.
xJ.
40,000+ ?
S25,TWP50S,RNG42E.
(SEE ATTACHED MAP)
..-~-~-, -----------
Chattahoochee~ Flint, Yello ,
South and Alcovy river
watersheds
PORT EXPANSION
>l--------.------.----- -- .
- development (commercial,
industrial, residential,
recreational, etc.)
Ot er Pertinent
Information
84R-4146 EXP.9/21/9~
(
~
I
-------
\'
...IO,J~ .
. ~':e.
~/
Figure 1. ~etropolitan Atlanta river
by development.
-------
Inner'
(dI:II(O("', Commissioner
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
)(1)eI(IXUJ(l)t~ Director, Gllme IInd Fish Division
David J. Waller
Game Management Section
2U24 Newton Road
Albany. Georgia 31708
9l2-430-42J4
July l~, 1991
Ms. Gail Vanderhoogt. Chief
Wetlands Planning Unit
U.S. Environmental Protection
Region IV
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta. Georgia 30365
Agency
Dear Ga il :
Enclosed are my recommendations as requested by your letter of
June 24, 1991. I hope you wi 11 be ab 1 e to cons i der these even though
the tentatlve deadllne mentioned in your letter has passed. There
are many more lndividual wetland sites that I can think of which WOUld
warrant some form of protection. but most are probably too small to
meet the Advanced Identification Process criteria. I do feel the
Carol ina Bays and the river corridor areas are presently very much
at riSk and in need of protection. Our river corridors are especially
vulnerable. . If you need further assistance. please feel free to
~ontact me at t912)430-4254.
Slncerely.
~
5 J / j \.If.i
tnclosure
CC Terry Ki le
Carroll Allen
Steve C. Johnson
Senior Wildlife Biologist, Waterfowl
-------
.vetland Name
Georgia Carol in
Bays
l-1ajor River
Gorridors of
Georg i a Ri vers
class
S1ze
(Acres)
250.000 ac.
Un known
POTENTIALLY THREATENED WETLANDS
Location (Watershed,
Lat/lona Sec/Two/Rna\
Coastal plain of Georgia
Bottomland wetlands
associated with the
Chattahoochee. Flint.
Ochlocknee. Withlacoochee.
Ocmulgee. Alapaha. Willa-
coochee. Satilla. Oconee.
Altamaha. Ohoopee. Canooche .
Ogeechee. and Savannah
Ri vers.
Potentl.al
Imoact
Drainage. ditching.
development
-
agriculture.
Drainage. ditching. agriculture.
forestry, and development.
Other Pertinent
Information
Many have been altered
but many are intact. Over
1000 Carolina Bays have
been identified. (Rough
map attached.)
f.luch of thi s has been
altered. Wetlands
associated with smaller
streams in each watershed
may also be considered
for inclusion.
-------
~jgun~ obtaine~ ~ror.J ~he ::?turJl Environnen'i:s of Georgia by Charles H. Uharton.
ueorgld Scate unlverSlty. t~tlanta. ~a.. and ~eorgia Dept. of :latUra1 Resources. 1973.
\ ,.
I
\
-'-J--
" r-.~ r ...
\ I . ... \
-,. '- --:- - - ~
~
.( - -"- - 'I..
~ .~,
, .
t'-,-{ .
\ _.r-'C
" _I
,..,
" ... )'.{} .L~
,., ~ ' J;? ';0-.., -;- ..-4
.- - -" . ",-0\ ~/ 8. .~'::- "),
J ..1 \. .. -... ~
""" / ,...', ,,,,"._~ ?: J
, '" . ...". ~--- /.
- .. ..... ~ ~ - /'... \... \
'- "..'" . ,...... ....
- / . ./ - ~. r - .~ . .' . :...... -v \
. - >:- .: .. ,. ;,it,.1L1~ . ~ ~
,~:'! I ;>..'~'.-~ ~ ,.. -f, ," ~;~.:, -:: t~~L.v...
.... '. ."' ,..' J f '. . ,..- ," t-tr'?\: - . .
~~ .- #' ...c.;, " - t: :. 1& '\ ~
I .& " ~ ~ - ,. - -. ~ ..... ~n "..
I ,1..... . ..... -..,. . .:\ ,. , , " .. . . ~ ,.,.. "".. / '
..t_~ ~ .,. '" ~"., ....-. "
1,\1-,--< ,. "..~ r~ PO", .... ?
. " - , -<. '. . , I ph. :11-- '\. '\. -
I ,j ~ - - -, . ;,.", -"-T ~ ..... - \
~ - I . ., ...,.... '"- . . . "\ ~
. "- - -.-) '..; - - ~ w'\IJ)",\ /\4.J...~ - "",. ....~ :""'~\.{ :-
I I I \ .... ~ - ~ - - --.... ""--- ( .~ .J '-, -i . r~- .
a - ..... ' ~ .. " I' ~ .... ". "r
I' ,~ -J'#o"'~ ~ - t..n...c,-" -
\ ~_.-.: - - - --\ ---- - . , .- 7 . \3~". , " ........... . ~
, ~ ~ .. -.. ! ~... . /-...- ' ': \oJ~~ t[,
C \ - I .. -" - .~ "{,i;: r "~.
I - ~ .......... - /' ~ ;": ..,,' - '- ~..: ~ p~ - - '1 .
-' - - ~ -" A.J
-------
Joe Tanner, Commissioner
David Waller, Director, Game & Fi.h Division
Georgia Department of ~
Freshwater Wetlands'
8 August 1991
Dr. Gail Vanderhoogt, Chief
Wetlands Planning Unit - Reg.
U.S. Environmental Protection
345 Courtland street NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
IV
Agency
Re:
EPA's Advanced Identification of Wetlands
Dear Gail:
In response to your letter of June 24, 1991, requesting
information on Georgia's valuable wetlands that are threatened by
development and conversion, I am submitting the following river
systems, swamps, or isolated wetlands located in Coastal Georgia.
Other DNR recommendations have included certain Piedmont swamps and
tributaries of the Chattahoochee and estaurine marshlands. The
areas that I wish to call attention to are significant sources of
freshwater to Georgia's estuaries. The Flatwood swamps act as
great sponges and release freshwater to Green Island, st.
Catherines, Sapelo, DOboy, st. Simons, Jekyll, and Cumberland
Sounds. Other sounds are fed by the Savannah, Ogeechee, Altamaha,
Satilla, and st. Marys Rivers.
Map
River/Swamp System
Savannah, GA-SC 1:100,000
Savannah River
Ebenezer Creek
Walthour Swamp
Three Mans Swamp
Skinners Bay
Little Ogeechee River
Hardin Canal
Little Canoochee
River
Jesup, GA 1:100,000
Medway River
Jerico River watershed
Jones Creek watershed
North Newport River
Baker Swamp
Haynes Swamp
Peacock Creek
Russell Swamp
-------
Page 2
8 August 1991
MaD
Jesup (continued)
River/SwamD Svstem
Brunswick, GA 1:100,000
South Newport River
Bull Town Swamp
Big Mortar Swamp
Sapelo River
Buck Hill Swamp
Youngs Swamp
Darien River
Chisholm Swamp
Buffalo Swamp
Snuff Box Canal
McClendon Swamp
Altamaha River
Clayhole Swamp
Turtle River
BUffalo River Swamp
Turtle River Swamps
Little Satilla River
Buck Swamp
Pyles Swamp
L. Satilla River Swamp
Bradley Swamp
Redcap - Glencoe Swamp
Satilla River
Waverly Swamp
White Oak Swamp
Tower Swamp
Kinqs Bay (Brantley Co.)
Fernandina Beach, FL-GA
1:100,000
Satilla River
Walker Swamp
Rose Creek Swamp
Tower Swamp.
Bullhead Creek Swamp
Crooked River
Pine Barren Swamp
Hermitage Swamp
Cane Swamp
North/South Fork
St. Marys River
Swamp west of US 17
I suggest that you contact Susan Shipman, Chief Coastal
Fisheries, and Gordon Roqers, John Pafford, and James Music at
Coastal Resources, GA DNR, 1 Conservation Way, Brunswick, GA
31523, for copies of specific studies on Georqia commercial
shellfish and finfish, and catch data on annual commercial fishery
-------
Page 3 -
8 August 1991
harvests and sport fishery harvests. Reproductive st.udies on
several important fishery species have also been completed.
If I may be of further assistance, please call. I would like
to discuss with you our GIS landcover/wetland products that will
be completed in mid-September.
1:Ze1~
John R. Bozeman
JRB/da
------- |