TECHNICAL SUMMARY DOCUMENT
for
The Central Dougherty Plain
Advance Identification of Wetlands
EPA 904/R-97/005
Prepared By:
Michael C. Rowell1 and Stephen C. Johnson2, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife
Resources Division, Albany, GA 31708
Veronica Fasselt, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Water Management
Division, Wetlands Protection Section, Atlanta, GA 30303
August 1997
Current Addresses: 1- Biota Research and Consulting, P.O. Box 8578, Jackson, Wyoming 83001
2- Natural Resource Services, 229 East Shore Dr., Americus, Georgia 31709
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
it
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Any project of this complexity requires the support from many different people and
organizations. Those people and organizations deserve much of the credit for the successful
completion of this project, for without their support this project would never have happened. We will
attempt, here, to recognize those individuals for their contributions to the Central Dougherty Plain
Advance Identification of Wetlands (CDP ADID), and more importantly, to the protection of vital
wetland resources in southwest Georgia. It is inevitable that the names of some who provided
important assistance will inadvertently be omitted, however. To those, we share our gratitude.
For their far-sighted concern for the natural world in general, and for wetlands in particular,
which helped to provide the impetus for this project, we thank, in no particular order, Ms. Marjorie
Botti, Mr. Charles Erwin, Mr. Alan Ashley, Ms. Genie Milam, all members of the Albany Chapter
of the Audubon Society (111 be working on that bird survey data for a long time.), and Mr. Bill
Keenan. We thank, in particular, Mr. Terry Kile and the Georgia Department of Natural Resources,
who served as the local sponsor for this project. Without the support of this organization and its
personnel, this project would not have happened.
For their invaluable technical advise, we express our gratitude to all members of the CDP
ADID Technical Support Team. In particular, we thank Dr. Katherine Kirkman, Mr. Mark Drew,
Dr. Todd Rasmussen, Dr. Richard Lowrance, Dr. George Vellidis, Dr. Harland Cofer, Dr. Bob
Herrington, Mr. John Sperry, Mr. Keith Parsons, Mr. Mel Parsons, Mr. Bruce Pruitt, Ms. Sidney
Bacchus, and Mr. Angus Gholson. We thank Mr. Bill Ainslie whose stringent review of this
document was invariable in strengthening its technical soundness. We also thank Mr. Jim Couch
for many hours spent in preparation of our computer database of wetlands. Field assistance from
Ms. Jane Rodrigue and Mr. Darrell Ragan was critical to the success of the functional assessment
and floral and faunal assessment phases of the project, respectively, and to them we express our
thanks.
Finally, but certainly not least in importance, the authors wish to personally thank Mrs. Joy
McBride and Mrs. Lois Wilson. Without the administrative aptitude of these two individuals, this
project would probably have been lost in a massive pile of paper somewhere between Albany and
Atlanta.
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii
LIST OF FIGURES vi
LIST OF TABLES vii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY viii
1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Justification. 2
1.2 Objectives 4
1.3 Project Participants 5
1.4 Project Tasks 7
1.4.1 Task 1: Public Educatioivfaformation 7
1.4.2 Task 2: Land Ownership Database 7
1.4.3 Task 3: Hydrologic Monitoring 8
1.4.4 Task 4: Soil Survey 8
1.4.5 Task 5: Wetland Classification 8
1.4.6 Task 6: Floral and Faunal Assessment 8
1.4.7 Task 7: Wetland Functional Assessment 9
2. METHODS 10
2.1 Public EducatioiVInvolvement 10
2.2 Land Ownership 10
2.3 Hydrologic Monitoring 11
2.3.1 Monitoring Objective 11
2.3.2 Specification of Hydrologic Data 13
2.3.3 Frequency of Measurements 13
2.3.4 Precipitation 13
2.3.5 Stream Stage 13
2.3.6 Iimesink Stage 14
2.3.7 Ground Water Levels 14
2.4 Soils Mapping 14
2.5 Wetland Classification 14
2.5.1 Explanation of Wetland Type Symbols 16
2.5.2 Wetland Types 16
2.6 Floral and Faunal Assessment 17
2.7 Functional Assessment 19
2.7.1 Wetland Functions 19
2.7.1.1 Water Quality Enhancement 22
2.7.1.2 Aquifer Recharge 23
2.7.1.3 Water Storage 24
2.7.1.4 Biotic Community Support 25
2.7.2 Functional Assessment Methods 27
2.7.2.1 Field-Level Functional Assessment 27
2.7.2.2 Remote-Level Functional Assessment 37
3. RESULTS 41
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands iv
3.1 Public EducatioiVInformation 41
3.1.1 Public Meetings 41
3.1.2 News Releases and Stories 41
3.1.3 Publications 41
3.2 Hydrologic Monitoring 41
3.3 Soil Survey 42
3.4 Wetland Classification 42
3.5 Floral and Faunal Assessment 43
3.5.1 Wildlife Habitat Evaluation 43
3.5.2 Expected Special Status Species Occurrence in Wetland Types 45
3.6 Field-Level Wetland Functional Assessment Results 45
3.6.1 Depressional Aquatic Bed Wetlands 46
3.6.2 Depressional Forested Wetlands 47
3.6.3 Depressional Herbaceous Wetlands 49
3.6.4 Depressional Scrub-Shrub Wetlands 50
3.6.5 Riverine Forested Alluvial CreetySwamp Wetlands 52
3.6.6 Riverine Herbaceous Alluvial Creek/Swamp Wetlands 53
3.6.7 Riverine Scrub-Shrub Alluvial Creels/Swamp Wetlands 55
3.6.8 Riverine Aquatic Bed Wetlands 57
3.6.9 Riverine Forested Coastal Plain CreetySwamp Wetlands 59
3.6.10 Riverine Herbaceous Coastal Plain CreetySwamp Wetlands 61
3.6.11 Riverine Scrub-Shrub Coastal Plain Creek/Swamp Wetlands 62
3.7 Remote-Level Wetland Functional Assessment Results 63
3.8 Public Perception of Wetland Functions in the Central Dougherty Plain 75
3.9 Accuracy of National Wetland Inventory Maps within the Project Area 77
4. DISCUSSION 79
4.1 Functional Assessment 79
4.1.1 Interpretation of the Biotic Community Support Evaluation 79
4.1.2 Determination of the Presence of Water Velocity Reduction 80
4.2 Threats to Wetland Resources in the Central Dougherty Plain 81
4.2.1 Geohydrology of the Central Dougherty Plain 82
4.2.2 Effects of Pumping from the Upper Floridan Aquifer 86
4.2.3 Potential Effects of Increased Pumping from the Upper Floridan Aquifer
87
4.3 The Potential for Wetland Mitigation in the Project Area 91
4.4 Recommended Measures to Protect Significant Wetland Features in the Central
Dougherty Plain 92
4.4.1 Kiokee-Chickasawhatchee-Spring Creeks Confluence Area 92
4.4.2 Aquifer Recharge Wetlands 94
4.4.3 Upper Chickasawhatchee Creek 94
4.4.4 Cooleewahee Creek Corridor 95
4.4.5 List of Recommended Actions to Protect Critical Wetland Resources in the
Project Area 95
LITERATURE CITED 99
GLOSSARY 101
APPENDIX I. Plant List 104
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands v
APPENDIX II. Hydric Soils List 109
APPENDIX III. Special Status Species Ill
APPENDIX IV. Functional Assessment Data Sheet 116
APPENDIX V. Data Development 119
APPENDIX VI. Hydrologic Data 124
APPENDIX VII. Joint Public Notice 129
APPENDIX VIII. Public Comments and Agency Responses 135
AGENCY APPROVAL 174
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands vi
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Project area 3
2. Locations of hydrologic monitoring sites 12
3. Water quality function model 34
4. Water storage function model 35
5. Biotic community support function model 36
6. Aquifer recharge function model 40
7. Wetland locations and classifications 44
8. Relative magnitudes of the water quality function of wetlands 65
9. Relative magnitudes of the water storage function of wetlands 66
10. Relative magnitudes of the biotic community support function of wetlands 67
11. Relative magnitudes of the aquifer recharge function of wetlands 68
12. Fill-suitability designations of wetlands 70
13. Wetland ratings under Fill-suitability Alternative 2 71
14. Wetland ratings under Fill-suitability Alternative 3 72
15. Wetland ratings under Fill-suitability Alternative 4 73
16. Average rating of all wetland functions (Fill-suitability Alternative 5) 74
17. Wetlands potentially affected by increased pumping of the Upper Floridan Aquifer .... 90
18. Wetlands in the Kiokee-Chickasaw-Spring Creeks confluence area 93
19. Riverine wetlands in the upper Chickasawhatchee Creek drainage basin 96
20. Riverine wetlands in the Coolewahee Creek corridor 97
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands vii
LIST OF TABLES
1. Soil series within the project area which are listed in Hydric Soils of the United States
(USDA 1991) and the relative percentages of each 42
2. Wetland types found in the project area and the relative areas and percentages of each (excludes
open water) 43
3. Average wildlife habitat scores of project area wetland types 43
4. Average wildlife habitat scores for wetland vegetation classes 45
5. Average wildlife habitat scores for wetland geomorphic settings in the project area 45
6. Average wildlife habitat scores for wetland systems in the project area 45
7. Responses of survey participants when asked to rank wetland benefits in order of importance
75
8. Accuracy of National Wetland Inventory Maps among project area wetland types 77
9. Maximum drawdown due to simulated pumping in area of potential well field development
88
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands viii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Wetlands in the Central Dougherty Plain (CDP) face many threats, ranging from conversion
for other land uses to potential reduction or loss of source water by ground water withdrawals. In
an effort to minimize the detrimental impacts from these threats, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency implemented an Advance Wetlands Identification (ADID) project in the CDP. The goals of
the CDP ADID were to encourage protection of sensitive wetland resources by providing a scientific
database upon which to base local land use decisions and to reach consensus among resource agencies,
on the functional importance of local wetland resources. The objectives in reaching these goals were
to classify all project area wetlands, and then to evaluate the functional importance of each wetland
type for the wetland functions: water quality enhancement, water storage, aquifer recharge, and
biotic community support.
Using data pertaining to wetland functionality, all project area wetlands were assigned a fill-
suitability designation. Wetlands which were determined to have high functional importance were
rated "High Value - Unsuitablefor FM" (92.7% of project area wetlands, 20.0% of the total project area).
Those wetlands determined not to have high functional importance were rated "Low Value - Suitable for
Fm With Appropriate Mitigation" (7.3% of project area wetlands). These fill-suitability designations are
advisory only and not legally binding.
It is the recommendation of the CDP ADID Project Team that wetlands rated as High Value -
Unsuitable for Fill be granted the highest degree of protection possible under the Clean Water Act and
that permit applications for activities that would degrade these wetland resources be carefully
scrutinized by permitting agencies to ensure that the proposed projects are not contrary to public
interest and comply with the Clean Water Act Section 404 (b)(1) Guidelines. The Project Team also
recommends additional wetland protection efforts such as:
1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) exertion of discretionary authority to rescind or
place stringent regional conditions upon Nationwide Permit (NWP) 26, or other NWPs
which cause unacceptable impacts to crucial wetlands, for the CDP ADID project area.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands ix
2. Purchase of crucial wetland resources by agencies or organizations which would place
emphasis upon wetland protection.
3. Use of conservation easements to protect important wetlands.
4. Development of joint county/COE procedures for reviewing building sites to assure
that developers are made aware of potential wetland issues early in the planning
process and to facilitate advance planning for wetlands.
5. Incorporation of CDP ADID wetland designations into county zoning and building
permit issuance processes and local subdivision rules.
6. Detailed monitoring of ground water withdrawals, particularly during well field
development and droughts, to assess wetland impacts.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 1
1. INTRODUCTION
A large complex of riverine and depressional wetlands exists in southwest Georgia in the
vicinity of Albany, Georgia. These wetlands are hydrologically interconnected to a large degree, and
create one of the largest remaining, relatively intact, inland wetland ecosystems in the southeastern
United States (U.S.). This large concentration of riverine and depressional wetlands is believed by
some historians to be the historical site of the Indian Chiefdom, Toa (Erwin 1996), thus the wetland
system is called the Swamp of Toa by some local residents. Many archeological sites are known to exist
within the swamp, and the swamp was of importance to aboriginal peoples.
This 78,000-acre wetland system provides many benefits to residents and visitors of southwest
Georgia. Wetlands provide the region with clean water, abundant natural resources, and potentially,
with a largely untapped source of economic growth for the region, tourism.
Within the Dougherty Plain and the southeastern U.S., much of the landscape has been
cleared, primarily for agriculture (Lynch et al. 1986). The natural land cover provided by these
wetlands creates a visual oasis within the region, malring southwest Georgia unique in the Atlantic
and Gulf Coastal Plains, as well as in the southeastern U.S. (Lynch et al. 1986).
Because of these attributes and with some effort, southwest Georgia could potentially market
the Swamp of Toa as an attraction to those interested in outdoor recreation. The swamp could provide
opportunities for outdoor recreationists, such as hunting, fishing, bird watching, photography, as well
as other activities. Southwest Georgia is already nationally recognized as a favorite destination for
upland game bird, waterfowl, and big game hunters. Wetlands that exist in the region are largely
responsible for this reputation. Nature-related tourism could potentially bring money into local
economies.
Wetlands within this swamp system are currently faced with many threats, including
conversion to agricultural, silvicultural, and urban uses and removal of water source through ground
water withdrawal (Lehman et aL 1993). Protection of this swamp should be of high priority to those
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 2
who are interested in preserving the unique cultural, ecological, and economic character of southwest
Georgia The purpose of the Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands (CDP
AD ID) is to contribute towards that goal.
1.1 Justification
Twenty-three percent (1.5 million acres) of Georgia's original 6.8 million acres of wetlands
have been lost since 1780 (Dahl et al. 1991). Conversion of wetlands for agriculture and silviculture
have historically caused most of these wetland losses. Recent data indicate Georgia's wetland losses
continue at an estimated rate of 7300 acres per year. The rate of conversion for urban development
has increased in the region. Georgia ranks among the top seven states in the U.S. for losses of
forested wetlands (Dahl et al. 1991).
The depressional wetlands of southern Georgia and the forested palustrine wetlands
indigenous to Georgia's Upper Coastal Plain have been affected by agricultural and silvicultural
practices which are largely exempt from Clean Water Act, Section 404 permitting requirements.
Wetlands in southwest Georgia, particularly those in the CDP area (Figure 1), have been drained
or filled extensively, since this physiographic area falls in the most intensively farmed portion of the
state. Much of this wetland loss has occurred since the mid-1970's as a result of trends toward
increasing agricultural irrigation and increasing average field size.
The CDP is characterized by its flat terrain, a limestone substrate (karst terrain), and
associated limesink depressional wetlands (Wharton 1978). Limes ink wetlands are unique in Georgia
and are generally limited to the Dougherty Rain, the Valdosta area, and portions of northwest
Georgia (Wharton 1978). Limesinks are created when underlying limestone bedrock is dissolved and
ground surfaces collapse, forming depressions which may fill with water. These limesinks create
conditions for unique biotic communities. Soils in this limesink region are generally more alkaline
than those in other parts of the southeastern U.S. due to the influence of the limestone. The
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
3
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 4
limesinks provide unique habitat which supports rare and unusual varieties of flora and fauna.
Many of these wetlands are important in maintaining and enhancing regional water quality
through their ability to remove pollutants from surface water runoff. They are also thought to
contribute significantly to direct recharge of underground aquifers (Hayes et al. 1983).
Many human activities can threaten limesink communities, including conversion for
agriculture, forestry, and urban growth. Because of the possible direct connection of many of these
limesinks to the Upper Floridan Aquifer (UFA), ground water contamination through these wetlands
is a potential result of degradation of these wetlands (Wharton 1978).
Land ownership characteristics in portions of the CDP have resulted in the preservation of
a number of large hunting plantations in relatively undeveloped states. These plantations, each
containing several thousand acres, have preserved many of the region's wetlands, especially in the
vicinity of Albany, Georgia. Recent growth of the city of Albany has created concern about the effects
of this growth on the surrounding environment, particularly depressional wetlands and the UFA.
Concerns that increased ground water withdrawals may adversely affect local wetlands have been
expressed by residents of the area
In response to these concerns, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), under authority of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(40 C.F.R. 230.80), initiated an AD ID project in the CDP. The CDP AD ID project area encompassed
approximately 383,828 acres in a five-county area of southwest Georgia (Figure 1).
1.2 Objectives
Objectives of the CDP ADID included: 1) the creation of a wetland database pertaining to
wetland resources in the project area, 2) facilitation of the use of this wetland database by federal,
state, and local regulatory agencies, as well as the general public, for advance planning in areas
containing wetlands, and most importantly 3) protection of valuable wetlands which occur in the
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 5
project area through use of this database to deflect development away from these wetlands.
The wetland database was created in the form of a geographic information system (G1S).
Data pertaining to locations and characteristics of local wetlands were compiled within this GIS.
These data were used to create a series of maps depicting approximate locations and relative
functional capabilities of project area wetlands.
Representatives from federal, state, and local agencies, and the public at large, were invited
to participate in the CDP AD ID in order to inform them of the availability of the wetlands database
nnH to receive input from these groups in an attempt to tailor it to the specific needs of the local
community. Local and regional planners were asked to participate in the project, so that they might
use the wetland database in planning activities.
Ultimately, the CDP ADID database and maps should be used to steer development away
from important wetland resources. Such use of these tools will go far toward maintaining and
pinhanring regional water quality, ecological integrity, and overall quality of life in southwest Georgia.
1.3 Project Participants
The broad scope of the CDP ADID and the many different scientific disciplines which are
associated with wetlands made it necessary to approach the task from an interdisciplinary
perspective. An Interagency Project Team (Project Team) composed of representatives from the
following agencies designed and conducted the project:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Veronica Fasselt
Georgia Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Michael Rowell, Steve Johnson
U.S. Pish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Howard Hall, Philip Laumeyer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), Dr. D. Heber Pittman, David Crosby, Tom Fischer
A Technical Support Team (TST) consisting of experts from various fields also participated in the
project. TST members participated on a voluntary basis and served in an advisory and review
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
capacity. The TST was made up of the following people:
6
Name
Dr. Todd Rasmussen
Mr. Angus Gholson, Jr.
Dr. Robert Herrington
Dr. Harland Cofer
Dr. Katherine Kirkman
Mr. Mark Drew
Dr. Richard Lowrance
Dr. George Vellidis
Mr. Mel Parsons
Mr. Bruce Pruitt
Mr. James Bradley
Mr. John S perry
Mr. Keith Parsons
Expertise Institution/Organization
Hydrology University of Georgia School of Forest Resources,
Athens, GA 30602, (706) 542-4300
Botany U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (retired), P.O. Box 385
Chattahoochee, FL 32324, (904) 663-4417
Zoology Georgia Southwestern College, Americus, GA 31709,
(912) 931-2135
Geology Georgia Southwestern College, Americus, GA 31709,
(912) 928-1252, FAX (912) 928-1630
Wetland Joseph W. Jones Ecological Research Center, Newton,
Ecology GA 31770, (912) 734-4706, FAX (912) 734-4707
Botany Joseph W. Jones Ecological Research Center,
Newton, GA 31770, (912) 734-4706, FAX (912) 734-4707
Riparian U.S. Agricultural Research Service, P.O. Box 946,
Ecology Tifton, GA 31793-0748, (912) 386-3514,
FAX (912) 386-7215
Riparian U.S. Agricultural Research Service, P.O. Box 946,
Ecology Tifton, GA 31793-0748, (912) 386-3514,
FAX (912) 386-7215
Wetland U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ecological
Science Services Division, 980 College Station Road, Athens,
Georgia 30605-2720, (706) 355-8714, FAX 546-2459
Wetland U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ecological
Science Services Division, 980 College Station Road, Athens,
Georgia 30605-2720, (706) 355-8713, FAX 546-2459
Soil Science Natural Resource Conservation Service, 102 N.
Washington St., Suite 610, Albany, GA 31701,
(912) 430-8513, FAX (912) 430-8449
Civil City of Albany (retired), P.O. Box 447, Albany, GA
Engineering 31702, (912) 883-6955, FAX (912) 430-3868
Water Georgia Department of Natural Resources,
Quality Environmental Protection Division, 205 Butler Street,
SE, East Floyd Tower, Atlanta, GA 30334,
(404) 656-4887, FAX (404) 430-8449.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 7
1.4 Project Tasks
The CDP AD ID project was divided into a number of different tasks. Each task addressed
questions related to a specific area of study, such as hydrology, or accomplished a particular goal.
The methodologies employed to accomplish each task were developed by the Project Team with the
assistance and advice from the TST. Detailed technical descriptions of the methods implemented to
accomplish each task are described in "Section 2.0 Methods* of this report. A brief overview of each
project task is presented below.
1.4.1 Task 1- Public Education/Information. Public education and involvement was an important
part of the AD ID process. Public outreach in the form of meetings, televised reports, and printed
materials was carried out to: (1) inform the public of the importance of wetlands and benefits of the
project, (2) gain public support for the project, and (3) prevent dispersement of misinformation to the
public.
The Project Team held a series of public meetings and workshops throughout the course of
the CDP ADID. Meetings were held for local city and county governments, land developers,
conservation groups, landowners, and the general public. The objectives of these gatherings were
not only to inform the public of the project, wetland values, and wetland regulations, but also to
receive input for the project from private citizens. Project Team members appeared on local and
national television news to discuss and promote the project A paper describing the project, and one
other ADID study in Georgia, was presented at a professional water resources conference.
1.4.2 Task 2: Land Ownership Database. Accurate knowledge of the land ownership status of all
wetlands within the CDP was critical to the success of this project. This information was used to
assess land ownership patterns, to obtain permission for access to privately-owned wetlands for field
evaluations, and to provide owners of wetlands with information pertaining to wetland functions,
regulations, and the CDP ADID project.
Owners of individual wetlands were identified by comparing county property appraiser's or
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 8
tax assessor's records with National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps and aerial photography. A
variety of data related to land ownership within the project area was compiled into a computer
database using dBASE III Plus software.
1.4.3 Task 3: Hvdrologic Monitoring. The relationships between surface water levels, rainfall, and
ground water levels within the UFA are unclear. There is little doubt, however, that agricultural
and municipal water usage affects water levels in this aquifer (Hayes et al. 1983). Ground water
use may have some impact upon the hydrologic regimes of wetlands within the region. In addition,
a well field to provide a municipal water supply for the City of Albany is proposed within the project
area. Therefore, a limited hydrologic monitoring system was developed to assess relationships
between water levels of the UFA, stream levels, local rainfall amounts, and surface water levels in
limesink ponds.
1.4.4 Task 4: Soil Survey. One of the three parameters used to delineate wetlands is soil type
(Environmental Laboratory 1987). Therefore, the wetlands GIS included a data layer containing U.S.
Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soil types for the five counties in the project area.
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Spatial Analyses Center at the Georgia Institute of Technology
compiled the soil data layer into digital format.
1.4.5 Task 5: Wetland Classification. The CDP contained many types of wetland communities, some
of which were rare and occupied relatively small areas. It was important to classify and describe
wetland types to allow various wetland functions to be assessed.
A wetland classification system was developed specifically for the CDP by the Project Team.
The system was adapted from currently existing wetland classification systems (Brinson 1992,
Cowardin et al. 1979, Wharton 1978). These wetland types served as sampling strata for field
evaluations and as extrapolation units for functional assessment results.
1.4.6 Task 6: Floral and Fnmi«l Assessment. An evaluation of wildlife habitat value for each of
the wetland types was conducted by the FWS team member. In addition to this habitat evaluation,
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 9
a list of potential threatened, endangered, and species of special concern was compiled for each
wetland type. Throughout the project, periodic surveys for rare plants and animals were conducted.
Information acquired in this project task was used to describe each wetland in terms of its biological
characteristics.
1.4.7 Task 7: Wetland Functional Assessment. In order to determine the relative magnitudes of
functions of wetlands located within the project area, the Project Team conducted a large-scale
wetland functional assessment. Results of this functional assessment were used to develop wetland
function maps and to assign wetlands into relative value categories. The relative water quality
enhancement, aquifer recharge, water storage, and biotic community support capacities of wetland
types were evaluated in this procedure. These wetland functions were chosen for evaluation because
they represented, at least to some extent, measurable, physical characteristics of wetlands, as
opposed to subjective wetland values which must always be considered in some social context. Wetland
values would have been difficult to measure because of this subjectivity.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 10
2. METHODS
2.1 Public Education/Involvement
The CDP AD ID Project Team conducted a public information campaign throughout the course
of the project. This effort consisted primarily of public meetings designed to inform the public of the
project and to solicit comments and suggestions from local citizens. A survey of local government and
community leaders was conducted to determine how the public perceives wetland functions and
values. Survey participants were asked the following questions:
1. Of the wetland benefits to be evaluated, (1) water quality enhancement, (2) ground water
recharge, (3) flood storage ability, and (4) wildlife habitat, do you feel that some benefits are
more important than others? Please rank them in order of importance.
2. Do local wetlands provide any benefits that you feel should be added to those listed in
question 1?
3. Are there any local areas or items of special significance, such as wildlife species or plants,
which you feel are locally important and should be protected?
4. Can you suggest any other issues that you feel need to be addressed by the Project Team?
As additional public information efforts, a presentation on the project was given at the 1993
Georgia Water Resources Conference in Athens, articles on the project were published by local
newspapers, local television news covered events associated with the project, two Project Team
members appeared on a local television news broadcast to discuss the project, and the Cable News
Network (CNN) Science and Technology Program broadcasted a story on the project.
Such a public information drive was needed in the Albany area, since cases of unpermitted
filling of wetlands suggested a lack of public awareness of current wetland regulations and the
required permitting process. Additionally, offices of regulatory agencies were not present in this
region, so these agencies had limited visibility to the public in southwest Georgia.
2.2 Land Ownership
Owners of wetlands were identified by comparing NWI Maps and aerial photography with
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
county land parcel maps. Data collected for each wetland are listed below:
11
Datum
Status
Firstname
Lastname
Streetl
Street2
City
State
Zipcode
Homephone
Workphone
Permission
County_l-3 (3 fields)
Landlot
Land_Distr
Tractacres
Topo_Map
Topo_No
Aerial No
Description
Designates affiliation (landowner, business, etc.)
Self explanatory
Self explanatory
Self explanatory
Self explanatory
Self explanatory
Self explanatory
Self explanatory
Self explanatory
Self explanatory
Indicates permission status for tract visits
Indicates countries) in which the tract is located
County landlot number
State land district number
Self explanatory
Gives name of quadrangle containing tract
Gives number of quadrangle containing tract
Gives number of photograph containing tract.
2.3 Hydrologic Monitoring
2.3.1 Monitoring Objective. Wetlands were controlled by the hydrologic, geologic, and biologic
environment which surrounded them. It was the purpose of this hydrologic monitoring program
(Figure 2) to focus on the identification of the important components of the hydrologic environment
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
12
NEWTON
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Figure 2. Locations of hydrologic monitoring
sites for the Central Dougherty Plain Advance
Identification project area.
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 13
of wetlands located within this project area. Knowledge of hydrologic relationships provided useful
information related to:
1. The determination of the location, timing and magnitude of ground water recharge;
2. The importance of ground water level fluctuations on the persistence and size of
wetlands; and
3. The identification of potential impacts related to water quality degradation.
2.3.2 Specification of Hydrologic Data. To investigate the hydrologic relationships within the project
area, hydrologic data were collected over a period of approximately one year from precipitation gages
and selected rivers, streams, isolated limesinks, and ground water in wells completed in the UFA.
Hydrologic data included:
1. Spatially variable daily precipitation depths; and
2. Water levels in streams, rivers, limesinks, and ground water.
2.3.3 Frequency of Measurements. Measurements of water level were normally collected on a
weekly basis. After major rainfall events, however, the frequency of data collection was increased
to three times per week in order to construct a clear depiction of the perturbation in the hydrologic
systems. After these storms, data collection was continued at this frequency until the perturbation
was no longer evident in any of the systems. At this time, data collection frequency returned to once
weekly.
2.3.4 Precipitation. Rainfall was monitored using systematically selected sites throughout the project
area. Rain gages were read daily by local volunteers. Positions of rain gages were established by
overlaying the study area with a grid and then finding volunteers in close proximity to the grid
points. Persons reading the gages were asked to record daily rainfall amounts. The data sheets
were sent to the DNR office in Albany at the end of each month.
2.3.5 Stream Stage. Stream stage data were obtained at eight bridges by CDP AD ID personnel.
A weighted steel tape was used to measure the distance from a specific measuring point to the water
surface. Water surface elevations were recorded to the nearest 0.1 foot.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 14
2.3.6 Lamaaink Stjflp Water levels in nine limeainks were monitored. Enameled steel staff gages
were placed in these ponds such that they could be read from the shore with binoculars. An effort
was made to place the staff gage at a point sufficiently deep so that the water would not recede
below or rise above the staff gage face, although during extreme droughts and wet periods, water
levels did drop below or rise above the gages.
2.3.7 Ground Water Levels. Water levels in selected wells were obtained by using a steel tape and
measuring the depth to water from a permanently marked point on the top of the well casing. Water
levels in seven wells in the UFA were monitored. When possible, wells were located in the
immediate vicinity of corresponding surface water features such as monitored limesinks and streams
or center-pivot irrigation systems.
2.4 Soils Mapping
The objective of the soil survey was to develop a GIS data layer containing a map of all soils
in the project area. This was accomplished by incorporating county soil maps, prepared by the
NRCS, into the wetland GIS. These data were converted to digital spatial format from existing soil
mylars by personnel at the USGS Spatial Analyses Center, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta
using ARC/INFO software. Personnel from the NRCS provided a quality control review of the soils
maps. Due to the complexity of determining actual soil types and the unavailability of a soil science
professional for long-duration field activities, soil types were not field-verified.
2.5 Wetland Classification
Development of a region-specific wetland classification was necessary for the purposes of
differentiating between wetland types having different physical and biological characteristics. The
classification system that was compiled for this project categorized all project area wetlands into
distinct wetland types based upon two hydrogeomorphic (HGM) classes, riverine or depressional, and
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 15
subordinate vegetative classifications. Also, for riverine systems the physiographic province in which
the drainage originated (i.e., alluvial vs. non-alluvial systems) was used as a classification criterion.
These wetland types were used to stratify samples and to provide for justifiable extrapolations within
defined wetland types.
The primary tier of the CDP AD ID wetland classification system was adapted from the HGM
classification system developed by Brinson (1993a). Secondary and tertiary tiers were adapted from
Cowardin et al. (1979) and from Wharton (1978), respectively.
Brinson (1993a) developed a wetland classification system in which the primary classification
was based upon HGM characteristics. The CDP AD ID Project Team felt that it was prudent to base
the wetland classification upon geomorphic and hydrologic characteristics, since these played a major
role in wetland formation and function. Geologic characteristics directly affected soil formation and,
ultimately, biotic community development. Wetland classification systems based on static wetland
characteristics, such as HGM class, at their most elementary level were not as likely to be rendered
irrelevant by biotic succession. For example, many wetlands examined throughout the course of this
project exhibited different vegetative classes (Cowardin et al. 1979) than indicated on NWI maps
produced by the FWS, which were created from aerial photography in the mid-1980s. Since that
time, the vegetative communities present in these wetlands had changed, for example, from
herbaceous to scrub-shrub or from scrub-shrub to forest. HGM characteristics normally would not
be expeced to change within any currently used planning time frame. The HGM classes riverine and
depressional were used at the highest level of this wetland classification system. Riverine wetlands
were defined as wetlands which were hydrologicaHy connected (surfacially) to a flowing water system;
depressional wetlands had no surface connection to flowing water (except during storm events).
Cowardin et al. (1979) developed a wetland classification system which was used by the FWS
in their NWI mapping effort. This classification system was based primarily upon vegetative
characteristics and, to a lesser extent, water regimes. The Cowardin classification system stopped
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 16
short of describing region-specific wetland communities, but was open-ended to allow more specific
classification systems to be appended. Vegetative classes used to describe project area wetlands were
taken directly from existing NWI maps.
Wharton (1978) described naturally occurring hydric systems in Georgia. These systems were
described as alluvial and coastal plain systems and provided a regionally pertinent classification
system which, with some adaptations, sufficed as the lowest level of classification in the CDP AD ID
wetland classification system. These classifications were used only for riverine systems. Alluvial
systems were those riverine wetland systems whose drainage basins originated in the Piedmont
Physiographic Province. Coastal plain systems originated entirely within the Coastal Plain
Physiographic Province. The veracity of this classification was verified by ground-truthing randomly
selected sample sites during the functional assessment phase of the project.
2.5.1 Explanation of Wetland Type Symbols. CDP ADID wetland types were represented by a two-
or three-letter symbol. These symbols were used to denote wetland types on maps of the project
area. The first position of the symbol represented the HGM classification code as described by
Brinson (1993a). The second position represented the vegetation subclasses described by Cowardin
et al. (1979). The third position represented hydric systems adapted from Wharton (1978).
Wharton's hydric systems were not used for wetlands classified hydrogeomorphically as depressional.
Code letters for the HGM classifications, riverine and depressional, were "R" and "D",
respectively. The vegetation classes, aquatic bed, forested, herbaceous, and scrub-shrub were
represented by "Q", "F", "H",and "S", respectively. The hydric systems, alluvial river/swamp and
coastal plain creetyswamp, were represented by "A" and "C", respectively. For example, a riverine
wetland with forested vegetation which occurred in an alluvial system would be described by this
classification system as "RFA."
2.5.2 Wetland Types. Each of the 12 potential CDP ADID wetland types are listed below. Wetland
type symbols are given in parentheses. RQA and RQC wetlands were combined into one category
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 17
(RQ) because of the rarity of RQA wetlands. Through GIS analysis, only approximately eight acres
of RQA wetlands were found in the entire study area.
Depressional Aquatic Bed Wetland (DQ)
Depressional Forested Wetland (DF)
Depressional Herbaceous Wetland (DH)
Depressional Scrub-Shrub Wetland (DS)
Riverine Forested Alluvial River/Swamp System (RFA)
Riverine Herbaceous Alluvial River/Swamp System (RHA)
Riverine Scrub-Shrub Alluvial River/Swamp System (RSA)
Riverine Aquatic Bed Alluvial River/Swamp System (RQA)
Riverine Aquatic Bed Coastal Plain Creei/Swamp System (RQC)
Riverine Forested Coastal Plain Creek/Swamp System (RFC)
Riverine Herbaceous Coastal Plain CreetySwamp System (RHC)
Riverine Scrub-Shrub Coastal Plain CreetySwamp System (RSC)
2.6 Floral and Faunal Assessment
Project area wetland types were evaluated for general value as wildlife habitat and to
determine which wildlife or plant species of special interest were likely to be found in each wetland
type. This evaluation took place as both field assessments and a literaturq/database search,
conducted by personnel from the FWS and DNR. Data on the locations and areas of expected
occurrence of threatened, endangered or otherwise sensitive species from the Georgia Freshwater
Wetlands Heritage Inventory (Ambrose 1991) were used in the initial steps of this assessment.
Methods used in the field for floral and faunal assessment are described below.
A simple model was developed to assess specific sites in terms of suitability as general
wildlife habitat. The model asked a series of questions about a given site and used the responses
to develop a cumulative score for each site. The score was used as a relative index of wildlife habitat
value. To make the model more sensitive to differing vegetative characteristics of the different
wetland types, the model was divided into "blocks," some of which could be omitted when they were
not applicable to the particular wetland type. For example, it would have been inappropriate to ask
the number of tree cavities present in an herbaceous wetland. Wetland sites were evaluated only
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 18
on the bases of the appropriate blocks.
The sample of wetlands evaluated during this phase of the floral and faunal assessment was
stratified by wetland type. Results were extrapolated to each wetland type. Questions asked by this
model, and the method of scoring each question, are given below.
Basic Block (questions asked of all wetland types)
1. Number of invertebrate classes seen:
2. Number of signs of invertebrates present:
3. Number of vertebrate species seen:
4. Number of species (animal) seen in plot (1/10 acre):
5. Number of vertical vegetative strata (4 is maximum):
6. Ability of wetland to supply drinking water to terrestrial
vertebrates (score dependent upon NWI water regime):
Total Score for Basic Block (above scores summed):
Herbaceous Block (questions asked of wetlands with an herbaceous stratum)
1. Percent of plot (1/1000 acre) with herbaceous ground cover
(visually estimated):
2. Average height of herbaceous ground cover (feet):
Total Score for Herbaceous Block:
Overstory Block (questions asked of wetlands with a tree or shrub component)
1. Number of hardwood species in subcanopy:
2. Taxodium present in subcanopy? (yes=l, no=0):
3. Height of subcanopy/shrub stratum (feet):
4. Percent of subcanopy in hardwoods or Taxodium:
5. Number of subcanopy species which produce hard mast:
6. Number of tree cavities in plot (1/10 acre):
7. Number of ground-level cavities in trees or stumps in plot:
8. Number of ground burrows seen in plot:
Total Score for Canopy Block:
Total of Scores for All Appropriate Blocks (£B):
£B / Number of Questions Asked = Total Wildlife
Assessment Score
Total wildlife assessment scores were averaged for each wetland type and this average score
was the generalized wildlife assessment score for each wetland type. These scores were used as
relative comparison indices for the generalized wildlife habitat value of each wetland type.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 19
2.7 Functional Assessment
Hie functional assessment phase of the CDP ADID was conducted to: (1) define the various
functions provided by wetlands in the study area, (2) evaluate the relative magnitude of various
functions provided by the individual wetland types defined during the wetland classification phase,
and (3) determine the relative importance of the individual wetland types in providing each of the
various functions.
2.7.1 Wetland Functions. Four major functions associated with wetlands were evaluated. These
were:
1. Water quality enhancement (While this actually represents a wetland
value, a composite of wetland functions was used to evaluate it.)
2. Aquifer recharge
3. Water storage
4. Biotic community support
Specific indicators of various chemical and biological processes which were used to evaluate
the above listed wetland functions are outlined below. Definitions, descriptions, and references are
found in subsequent descriptive text and in the Glossary.
Function:
A. Water Quality Enhancement
Associated Processes:
1. Biogeochemical transformation
Process Indicators:
a. Topographic complexity
Characteristics:
1. Distinct topographic breaks
a. Natural levees (riverine only)
b. Oxbows (riverine only)
c. Meander scrolls (riverine only)
2. Microtopographic complexity
a. Hummocks
b. Small surface channels
b. Soil reduction
Characteristics:
1. Gleying
2. Mottling
3. Organic matter accumulation
4. Oxidized rhizospheres
5. Highly organic soil
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
6. Histic/umbric epipedons
7. High organic content in surface layer of sandy soils
c. Presence of surfaces for microbial processing
Characteristics:
1. Presence of standing dead trees and/or stumps
2. Presence of submerged woody debris
3. Presence of submerged and/or emergent vegetation
4. Presence of detritus layer
5. Absence of second year litter
2. Water velocity reduction
Process Indicators:
a. Structural roughness
b. Constrictions
c. Sediment deposits
d. Topographic complexity
Characteristics:
1.
2.
3. Landscape position
B. Aquifer Recharge
Function Indicators:
1. Geomorphic setting
Characteristics:
a. Riverine setting
b. Depressional setting
2. Secondary permeability of bedrock (ie. sinkhole density)
3. Overburden thickness
C. Water Storage
Associated Processes:
1. Water velocity reduction
Process Indicators:
a Structural roughness
b. Constrictions
c. Sediment deposits
d. Topographic complexity
Characteristics:
1. Distinct topographic breaks
a. Natural levees (riverine only)
b. Oxbows (riverine only)
c. Meander scrolls (riverine only)
2. Microtopographic complexity
a. Hummocks
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Distinct topographic breaks
a. Natural levees (riverine only)
b. Oxbows (riverine only)
c. Meander scrolls (riverine only)
Microtopographic complexity
a. Hummocks
b. Small surface channels
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 21
b. Small surface channels
2. Presence of wetland hydrology
Indicators:
a. Ponding
b. Flooding
c. Inundation
d. Buttressed tree boles
e. Adventitious roots
f. Recent sediment scour and deposition
g. Reduced soil
3. Stream order
D. Biotic Community Support
Associated Processes:
1. Organic carbon export
Process Indicators:
a. Organically stained water in pools, soil, or channels
b. Presence of highly organic soil
c. Detritus deposits
d. Geomorphic setting
Characteristics:
1. Riverine setting
2. Depressional setting
2. Vegetative cover type, diversity, and interspersion
Characteristics:
a. Number of vegetative strata
b. Species composition of vegetative strata
3. Corridor value
Process Indicators:
a Geomorphic setting
Characteristics:
1. Riverine setting
2. Depressional setting
b. Landscape position
Characteristics:
1. Stream order (riverine wetlands)
2. Proximity to the nearest wetland (depressional wetlands)
4. Special status species support
Characteristics:
a Presence of special status species
b. Potential special status species habitat
Following are detailed descriptions of functions that were evaluated during the functional
assessment phase of this project. Associated biological, hydrological, and biogeochemical processes
and appropriate physical indicators of each are described.
2.7.1.1 Water Quality Enhancement. Water quality enhancement is a wetland value. Contaminants
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 22
are removed from water moving through some wetlands by endemic biological, physical (e.g., settling),
and chemical processes. These numerous processes are the actual wetland functions which result in
improved water quality. Here water quality enhancement was defined as a wetland function for the
sake of organizational clarity and brevity. It should be understood, however, that water quality
enhancement, as used in the context of this report, was a composite of specific wetland functions.
The specific wetland functions that were included here are described below.
Work conducted by Brinson (1993b) indicated that wetlands associated with lower order
streams had a greater effect upon water quality within the watershed than those associated with
higher order streams. Brinson's results suggested that wetlands associated with headwater areas
(i.e., streams of low order), to a large extent, set the biogeochemical state of waters in a given
watershed; therefore, these headwater areas were of disproportionately high importance within a
watershed in terms of water quality. Using GIS analyses, the Project Team distinguished headwater
areas from streams lower in the watersheds. Further discussion of this technique is provided in
'Section 2.7.2.2 Remote-Level Functional Assessment". Field processes which were used to assess
the water quality enhancement function of wetlands are described below.
Processes:
1. Biogeochemical Transformation: Biogeochemical transformation was defined as the
conversion of nutrients, elements, and other chemical compounds from one form to
another through abiotic and biotic processes. Physiological processes of plants and
animals were the primary mechanisms through which biogeochemical processing
occurred in wetlands. These processes generally resulted in a decrease in
contaminant load of water exiting the wetland. Indicators of biogeochemical
transformation included topographic complexity, soil reduction indicators, and the
presence of surfaces for microbial processing.
2. Water Velocity Reduction: This process enhanced the water quality function of
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 23
wetlands in two ways. First, it slowed water moving through the wetland allowing
suspended solids to settle from the water column. Second, it increased the amount
of time water remained in the wetland unit, which allowed more time for
biogeochemical transformation and other processes which affect water quality to occur.
Water velocity reduction potential was indicated by structural roughness
(characteristics of a wetland which slow water flow), constrictions, sediment deposition,
and topographic complexity. Water velocity reduction processes were much more
evident in riverine than in depressional wetland systems. However, depressional
wetlands, because they occurred in topographic low points, always reduced the
velocity of laterally flowing water from upland sources.
2.7.1.2 Aquifer Recharge. A map of significant aquifer recharge areas was compiled at a statewide
scale (1:500,000) (Davis et aL 1989). Virtually all of the project area for the CDP ADID was mapped
as a significant ground water recharge area. Further, depressional wetlands within the project area
were often associated with sinkholes in the limestone bedrock, and thus, may be directly connected
with the UFA.
Within the Dougherty Plain limestone bedrock existed a network of fractures (Brook 1985,
Brook and Sun 1982). Areas where fractures occurred in high densities formed zones of high
secondary permeability. (Primary permeability is the inherent porosity of the actual rock matrix,
whereas secondary permeability refers to cracks, crevices, and solution cavities within the rock).
Within these zones, sinkholes developed at a higher frequency than outside of these zones. As a
result, high secondary permeability zones facilitated surface/ground water interchange and were likely
important aquifer recharge areas, as well as zones which were more susceptible to aquifer drawdown
and ground water contamination (Brook personal communication).
Fracture locations could only be inferred from land surface features and were difficult to map
accurately. Surface manifestations (sinkholes) of these fractures were, however, easily detected from
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 24
aerial photographs and provided reliable indications of the locations of zones of high secondary
permeability (Brook 1985). Depressional wetlands within zones of high secondary permeability of
bedrock likely possessed high hydrologic connectivity with the underlying aquifer (Cofer, Rasmussen
and Brook personal communication). Sinkhole density was used to develop a GIS coverage of
suspected zones of high secondary permeability, which were used to separate riverine and
depressional wetlands into relative functional importance categories for aquifer recharge.
Thickness of overburden was used as a second criterion for evaluating the aquifer recharge
function of wetlands. In general, recharge rates exhibit an inverse relationship with overburden
thickness. A GIS layer for overburden thickness was developed using data from the Georgia Geologic
Survey (Watson 1981). Wetlands occurring in areas of shallow overburden were rated higher than
those occurring on deep overburden. The Project Team selected 50 feet as the cut-off value for
overburden thickness. This value represented the average thickness of project area residuum, and
coincidentally, was also the minimum mapping unit of the overburden data.
A high degree of connection of the UFA to riverine features within the project area was well
documented (Hicks et aL 1981). Although the rivers normally functioned as ground water discharge
zones, during periods of heavy rainfall ground water discharge zones within riverine wetlands,
particularly those within river channels, became recharge zones and river water rapidly entered the
aquifer. Because this recharge was only known to occur during flood events, the Project Team
originally rated riverine wetlands for ground water recharge, but gave them a lower rating than
depressional wetlands. Ultimately, the Project Team elected to evaluate the aquifer recharge function
only for depressional wetlands, due to the lack of data on the Tate and amount of recharge by
riverine wetlands.
2.7.1.3 Water Storage. Wetlands reduce flood peaks by sequestering runoff during storm events and
slowly releasing it afterward. The water storage function of wetlands was evaluated by examining
three characteristics. These were (1) water velocity reduction potential, (2) presence of indicators of
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 25
long-term soil saturation, and (3) stream order. The reduction of water velocity within a wetland acts,
at a watershed scale, to desynchronize flood surges, thereby reducing downstream flood peaks. This
benefit of wetlands was demonstrated in southwest Georgia during the estimated 500-year flood event
which occurred on the Flint River in July of 1994. The flood peak in Bainbridge, Georgia
(downstream of the project area) was approximately seven feet below expected levels. Wetlands
occurring in upstream watersheds played an important role in this reduction, as did the UFA, which
also stored water during this flood.
Water storage capacity increases with wetland area in a watershed. Wetland area tends to
be larger in drainages associated with high order streams. Consequently, they have a higher water
storage capacity than smaller wetlands associated with low order streams. Thus wetlands were rated
based upon the stream order of the stream with which they were associated. Those wetlands
associated with streams having an order of three or greater were assigned a higher water storage
capacity rating. Hie stream order of three represented the average stream order within the project
area.
2.7.1.4 Biotic Community Support. Primary productivity is higher in wetlands than in any other
terrestrial biotic community in North America, in many cases equaling that of tropical rain forests
(Tiner 1984). On a continental scale, wetlands make up only five percent of the total landscape, yet
they provide habitat for 33 percent of all threatened and endangered species (Dahl et al. 1991).
Wetlands provide breeding, roosting, and feeding areas for many other species of wildlife and habitat
for many species of plants, some of them of significant economic importance. They also export
significant amounts of organic carbon, which is important in food web support of biotic communities
(Mitsch and Gosselink 1993).
The amount of primary production occurring in wetlands is indicated by the amount of
organic carbon that they export. For this reason, organic carbon export was the primary indicator
used to evaluate biotic community support. Other biological characteristics of project area wetlands
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 26
were evaluated in the Floral and Faunal Assessment phase of this project.
Processes:
1. Organic Carbon Export: The amount of organic carbon exported from a wetland and
made available for use by downstream organisms can be an indicator of a wetland's
intrinsic productivity and of the significance of that wetland at an ecosystem scale.
Indicators of organic carbon presence and export included (a) organically stained water
(indicated that organic carbon was present in the water and could potentially be
moved off-site), (b) the presence of highly organic soil, (c) detritus deposits, and (d)
geomorphic setting. Organic soil and detritus deposits were important indicators,
particularly if free water was absent from the wetland at the time the wetland was
sampled.
Geomorphic setting of the wetland also affects this function. Riverine wetlands
generally export organic carbon more readily than do depressional wetlands (Mitsch
and Gosselink 1993). While depressional wetlands do provide significant organic
carbon export through nnfmnla (e.g., migrating herptiles, wading birds, etc.), riverine
wetlands generally possess these same organic carbon export mechanisms, as well as
flowing water.
2. Corridor value: Corridor value is the degree to which the wetland serves as a conduit
for the movement of organisms through unsuitable habitat, as well as the dispersal
of plant propagules and organic carbon over long distances (Forman and Godron
1986). Geomorphic setting was the primary indicator of corridor value, the assumption
being that riverine wetlands have a higher corridor value than depressional wetlands.
Landscape position was the second major indicator of corridor value. Stream order is
a characteristic of landscape position which was used to assess the corridor value of
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 27
riverine wetlands. Wetlands associated with high order streams were considered to
have higher corridor value, since these streams generally provide corridors over longer
distances than do low order streams. Proximity to the nearest wetland was a second
characteristic of landscape position which affected corridor value. Depressional
wetlands within one kilometer (km) of any other wetland were rated higher for
corridor value than those depressions more distant than one km from other wetlands.
The distance of one km represented a general average dispersal distance for
amphibians which occur in project area wetlands.
2.7.2 Fuprtinnal Assessment Methods. Functional assessments of individual wetland types were
conducted through utilization of data collected using field and remote techniques. Data collected
through field evaluations pertained to intrinsic characteristics of specific wetland types as described
above. Data obtained from remote sources (such as soils and NWI maps) were used to examine the
landscape context of wetlands within the project area. Remote-level assessments were conducted
using digital data in the GIS. Field and remote data were ultimately combined to develop wetland
suitability designations and maps depicting relative functional magnitudes of project area wetlands
for the four evaluated wetland functions. Field- and remote-level data collection and analysis
procedures are described below in separate sections.
2.7.2.1 Field-Level Functional Assessment. The following wetland functions, associated processes,
and process indicators were evaluated in the field-level functional assessment:
Function:
A. Water Quality Enhancement
Associated Processes:
1. Biogeochemical transformation
Process Indicators:
a. Topographic complexity
Characteristics:
1. Distinct topographic breaks
a. Natural levees (riverine only)
b. Oxbows (riverine only)
c. Meander scrolls (riverine only)
2. Microtopographic complexity
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
a. Hummocks
b. Small surface channels
b. Soil reduction
Characteristics:
1. Gleying
2. Mottling
3. Organic matter accumulation
4. Oxidized rhizospheres
5. Highly organic soil
6. Histic/umbric epipedons
7. High organic content in surface sand layer
c. Presence of surfaces for microbial processing
Characteristics:
1. Presence of standing dead trees and/or stumps
2. Presence of submerged woody debris
3. Presence of submerged and!or emergent vegetation
4. Presence of detritus layer
5. Absence of second year litter
2. Water velocity reduction
Process Indicators:
a Structural roughness
b. Constrictions
c. Sediment deposits
d. Topographic complexity
Characteristics:
1. Distinct topographic breaks
a.
Natural levees (riverine only)
b.
Oxbows (riverine only)
c.
Meander scrolls (riverine only)
Microtopographic complexity
a.
Hummocks
b.
Small surface channels
B. Aquifer Recharge (not evaluated at the field level)
C. Water Storage
Associated Processes:
1. Water velocity reduction
Process Indicators:
a. Structural roughness
b. Constrictions
c. Sediment deposits
d. Topographic complexity
Characteristics:
1. Distinct topographic breaks
a. Natural levees (riverine only)
b. Oxbows (riverine only)
c. Meander scrolls (riverine only)
2. Microtopographic Complexity
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 29
a. Hummocks
b. Small surface channels
2. Presence of indicators of long-term soil saturation
Indicators:
a. Ponding
b. Flooding
c. Inundation
d. Buttressed tree boles
e. Adventicious roots
f. Recent sediment scour and deposition
g. Reduced soil
D. Biotic Community Support
Associated Processes:
1. Organic carbon export
Process Indicators:
a. Organically stained water in pools, soil, or channels
b. Presence of highly organic soil
c. Detritus deposits
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 30
topographic depression. For riverine wetlands, the AA consisted of an area bounded on one side by
a baseline no longer than 300 meters and on the other side by the main stream channel. The
baseline was oriented generally parallel to the main channel in riverine wetlands. The defined
length for riverine baselines provided a means for breaking up large riverine units into manageable
units for sampling. Separate field data sheets were used for each wetland type within an AA. For
data analysis purposes, each individual wetland type within a randomly chosen AA was considered
to be an independent unit.
SnmnliTur Strategy: Assessment areas were chosen in a stratified random manner for field sampling.
Wetland types as described above served as sampling strata. AA's for sampling were chosen by
overlaying a map of the project area with a Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) grid. Grid squares
were numbered. A random numbers table was then vised to choose potential grid squares for
selecting AA's for sampling. Collection of field data was accomplished through the use of line
transects. The starting point for each transect was located along a baseline which was oriented
parallel the approximate wetlandAipland boundary. Baselines were oriented parallel to water courses
in riverine wetlands and parallel to long axes in depressional wetlands. Transects were located
perpendicular to baselines. At least one transect intersected each wetland type within the
assessment area. Transects were continued until all wetland types within the assessment area were
sampled at least once. The complete field protocol used to collect field data was described in the
CDPADID Plan of Study [Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR) 1993 unpublished report].
A summarized field protocol for data collection for the field level functional assessment is provided
below.
Field Data Collection Protocol: The following procedures were used in the collection of field data
for the field-level functional assessment. The protocol was written in present tense as it is meant
to be actual instructions for field data collection for this functional assessment model. A sample data
sheet is provided in Appendix IV.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
31
Equipment: The following equipment will be required to perform the field-level functional
assessment procedure:
- equipment vest
- pocket knife
- D-tape
- logger's tape
- 10-basal area factor (BAF) prism
- soil probe or shovel
- spatula (if soil probe is used)
- flagging tape
- notebook (weatherproof)
- Munsell Soil Color Chart
- base maps (showing transects and sample points)
• compass
- plant key
- plant press (optional)
- data sheets
- permanent pens
The following guidelines related to specific function and process indicator data collection will be
followed during the field-level sampling phase of the project.
TS-anaarf. Establishment-- Begin by establishing a baseline along the edge of the AA which is to be
sampled. The baseline should parallel the major stream channel for riverine wetlands. For
depressional wetlands, the baseline should parallel the long axis of the wetland unit for elongated
depressional wetlands or run in a north-south direction for circular depressional wetlands.
Orientation of the baseline and transects should be determined before going to the field. Each
transect should be oriented 90° to the baseline. Use a hand compass to stay on the correct bearing.
Space transects 100 meters apart along the baseline. This spacing may be modified to insure that
all wetland types within the AA are intersected by at least one transect. Transects should be
continued until the entire AA has been sampled.
Data Collection: From the baseline move along the first transect to the interior of the first wetland
type. Choose a point that is judged to be representative of that particular type. This will be the
first sample point. First collect the vegetative data and record them on a field data sheet. Then dig
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 32
a soil pit and collect soils and hydrology data. Note den trees, snags, animal signs (scats, tracks,
etc.), and other related data. Fill out the remainder of the data sheet then move to the interior of
the next wetland type along the transect. Repeat the above procedure.
In large homogeneous wetland types, place a sample point every 200 meters along each
transect If the wetland type is less than approximately 250 meters wide, then only one sample point
is needed for that section of the transect Data that do not require a soil pit or a sample plot should
also be collected while en route from one sample point to the next. These data should be recorded
on a data sheet dedicated to the particular wetland type in which the data are collected. Continue
as described until all transects are completed. Specific data collection methods are described below.
Special Status Flora anH Fauna- The occurrence in or use of sampled wetland types by special
status plants and animals will be documented. Record the number of individuals, their location
within the type, and their behavior, if applicable. If the species is an animal, make careful
observations to determine if it is using the wetland type for nesting, foraging, resting, or escape
cover.
Modification a- Note the presence of any man-caused modifications of the wetland type (i.e., dikes,
levees, ditches, roads, mnn-maHft dams, recent tree harvest, bedding and other silvicultural practices,
agricultural fields, etc.).
Soil Pita: Using the shovel, dig one 0.5 meter (18 inch) deep soil pit at each sample point. This pit
will be used to collect soils data to be used in assessing different wetland functions. A soil probe
may used if preferred. Refill all pits after data collection is completed.
Vegetation Sampling Data will be collected at each sample point for three vegetative strata:
(1) herbs, (2) sapling/shrub, and (3) tree^woody vines. Data for herbs should be collected first, before
the vegetation is trampled. In a plot of five-foot radius, determine the species and percent cover of
the three most dominant herbaceous species. Record this in the appropriate space on the data sheet.
For the sapling/shrub stratum, record the species, and number of individuals of each species, for
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 33
every sapling or shrub occurring in a plot of 10-foot radius. Using a 10-BAF prism, record the
species of each tree which is "in" according to the prism. Note the species of all observed woody
vines occurring in each sample plot.
Field Data Tabulation: Wetland processes occurring in each sampled wetland were determined
based upon the following criteria.
1. Water Velocity Reduction (WVR): WVR was used to evaluate the water quality
enhancement and water storage functions of wetlands. If two or more of the WVR indicators
listed above were observed, or if the geomorphic setting of the wetland was depressional, then
WVR was determined to be occurring at the 3ite.
2. Biogeochemical Transformation (BGCT): This process was considered to be present where
the following occurred;
1. reduced soil, and
2. surfaces for microbial processing, and
3. topographic complexity or structural roughness.
3. Presence of Water Storage Indicators: The presence of at least one water storage indicator
was required to determine the presence of water storage.
4. Organic Carbon Export: If at least one indicator of organic carbon export was present, then
this process was considered to be occurring from the wetland.
Analysis of Field Data: Field data were entered into an Excel™ 5.0 (Microsoft Corporation)
database. Data from each sampled wetland type within an individual AA constituted one record in
this database. Each record was evaluated for each function using the flow chart models depicted in
Figures 3 - 5. The most common rating (critical, high, medium, low, or very low) for each wetland
function for all sampled wetlands of each type was determined from field data. This rating served
as the predicted on-site functionality rating for all wetlands of that particular type for that particular
function.
Data collected during these field visits were used to develop functional profiles for each
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
34
Figure 3. Water quality function model used in the Central Dougherty Plain Advance
Identification of Wetlands. WVR = water velocity reduction, DW = depressional
wetland, BGCT = biogeochemical transformation.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
35
Figure 4. Water storage function model used in the Central Dougherty Plain Advance
Identification of Wetlands. WVR = water velocity reduction process, DW =
depressional wetland.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
36
Figure 5. Biotic community support function model used in the Central Dougherty Plain Advance
Identification of Wetlands. WVR = water velocity reduction process, DW =
depressional wetland.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 37
wetland type. Functional profiles describe floral, faunal, hydrologic, and edaphic characteristics of
each wetland type and are presented in "Section 3.0 Results" of this report.
2.7.2.2 Remote-Level Functional Assessment. The wetland GIS was used to carry out the remote-
level functional assessment The following wetland functions and associated processes, with specific
indicators of each, were evaluated in the remote-level functional assessment:
A. Water Quality Enhancement
Characteristics:
1. Field-level score for wetland type
2. Stream order
B. Aquifer Recharge
Function Indicators:
1. Geomorphic setting
Characteristics:
a Riverine setting
b. Depressional setting
2. Secondary permeability of bedrock (i.e., sinkhole density)
3. Overburden thickness
C. Water Storage
Associated Process:
1. Field-level score for wetland type
2. Stream order
D. Organic Carbon Export
Associated Processes:
1. Field-level score for wetland type
2. Corridor value
Process Indicators:
a. Geomorphic setting
Characteristics:
1. Riverine setting
2. Depressional setting
b. Landscape position
Characteristics:
1. Stream order (for riverine wetlands)
2. Proximity to the nearest wetland (for depressional wetlands)
Analysis of Remote Data: Generalizations about the intrinsic functional characteristics of each wetland type
based on the results of the field-level functional assessment provided the starting point for the remote-level
analysis. Landscape-level characteristics of specific wetland units were evaluated along with the predicted
on-site functional ratings of wetland types within each unit to produce a landscape functional rating for each
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 38
function, for all wetland units within the project area. This analysis was used to produce a map for each
of the four wetland functions predicting the relative magnitude of each function (critical, high, medium, low, very
low) for each wetland in the project area.
Included in this report along with the maps are detailed functional profiles of each wetland type.
These functional profiles describe the general on-site characteristics of each wetland type and discuss which
functions are best provided by each wetland type. Technical details of the GIS analyses are provided in
Appendix V. The evaluation rationale for each function is stated below.
Water Quality Enhancement: The order of the stream associated with each riverine wetland was
considered. The water quality function of individual riverine and depressional wetland types was evaluated
by determining stream order of the drainage basin within which each wetland occurs. Wetlands occurring
in association with lower order streams (1 and 2) were rated higher than wetlands associated with higher
order streams (Brinson 1993b). The Project Team selected this cut-off based on the distribution of stream
orders within the project area. The evaluation process for remote-level water quality evaluation is shown
in Figure 3.
Aquifer Recharge: Evaluation of this wetland function was conducted entirely by remote methods, as shown
in Figure 6. Limesink depressions occurred throughout the project area in locations where dissolution of the
underlying limestone of the UFA had taken place. Because depressional wetlands typically occurred at
higher elevations than riverine wetlands, and because depressional wetlands provided continuous rather than
episodic recharge, the Project Team elected to evaluate the aquifer recharge function only for depressional
wetlands.
Zones of high secondary permeability within the limestone bedrock were identified by analyzing the
density of sinkholes throughout the project area. Areas with a high concentration of sinkholes were
considered zones of high secondary permeability. Wetlands occurring within these zones were rated higher
than those outside the zones. The model vised to evaluate the aquifer recharge function is shown in Figure
6. An explanation of how areas of high secondary bedrock permeability were defined and how they were
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 39
delineated is provided in the description of the GIS analysis in Appendix V.
Overburden thickness was another characteristic used to evaluate aquifer recharge function of
wetlands. A GIS data layer depicting areas of shallow overburden was developed from Georgia Geologic
Survey data (Watson 1981). An overburden thickness of 50 feet was used as a cut-off point for this criterion.
The rationale for this cut-off is detailed in "Section 2.7.1.2 Aquifer Recharge".
Water Storage: Water storage ratings for wetlands were obtained by considering the order of the associated
stream. Wetlands associated with higher order streams (> 3) were rated higher than those of order 2 or 1.
The stream order cut-off of 2 was selected by the Project Team based upon the distribution of stream orders
within the project area. This evaluation process is shown in Figure 4.
Biotic Community Support: Corridor value was the indicator of the biotic community support function
which was evaluated remotely. Geomorphic setting and landscape position were used to evaluate this
characteristic. Riverine wetland types were rated higher than depressional wetlands, because riverine
wetlands generally exhibited a greater degree of landscape connectivity. Riverine wetlands associated with
third or higher order streams were rated higher than those of order 2 or 1. This cut-off point was selected
based upon the distribution of stream orders within the study area; Higher order streams tended to provide
longer corridors than did lower order streams.
The corridor value of depressional wetlands was evaluated by considering their distance from other
wetlands. Those depressional wetlands farther than one km from other wetlands were rated lower t.hnn
those less than or equal to one km from other wetlands. The distance of one km was an arbitrary distance
determined to be a generalized dispersal distance of wetland herpetofauna (R. Herrington personal
communication). The scoring process used for biotic community support is shown in Figure 5.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 40
Figure 6. Aquifer recharge function model used in the Central Dougherty Plain Advance
Identification of Wetlands.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 41
3. RESULTS
3.1 Public Educatiorv^nformation
3.1.1 Public Mogtinffa At the beginning of this project, a series of meetings was held for the general public,
private landowners, and local governments. The purpose of these meetings was to inform people of the CDP
ADID and encourage public participation in the project. Meetings were held on the following dates: local
government representatives, September 23, 1992 • 20 attendees; local conservation/research organizations,
September 24, 1992 - 25 attendees; and the general public, November 19, 1992 - 80 attendees.
3.1.2 News Releases and Stories. Information about the CDP ADID was disseminated by both local and
national television news. On October 30, 1992, two representatives of the Project Team appeared on the
noon broadcast of Albany's WALB TV. These representatives described the project and discussed how the
results could be used to protect local wetland resources and benefit local citizens. In July of 1993, CNN
Science and Technology broadcasted a story on the project. Again, the project, its final products, and
potential uses and benefits of these products were generally described. The story broadcasted several times
during July 1993.
3.1.3 Publications. A paper describing this project, and one other ADID in Georgia, was presented during
the 1993 Georgia Water Resources Conference at the University of Georgia in Athens. The paper was
included in the conference proceedings.
3.2 Hydrologic Monitoring
Hydrologic systems fluctuated in response to precipitation. Hydrologic data for riverine wetlands
showed a higher amplitude and a shorter hydroperiod than did depressional wetlands. Generally, these
results were similar to those reported by Hicks et al. (1987). These hydrologic data are summarized
graphically in Appendix VI. Only those sites for which relatively complete data sets were obtained were
analyzed; these are shown in the appendix. Some monitoring stations produced only partial data sets due
to problems with consistent site access or reliability of data gathering assistants.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 42
3.3 Soil Survey
The USGS Center for Spatial Analysis, Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, GA digitized
NRCS soil survey data for the project area. The soils database was then reviewed by the NRCS. The data
were placed into ARC/INFO files for use in the wetlands GIS.
Table 1 (below) lists soil series occurring in the project area which are included in Hydric Soils cfthe
United States (USDA 1991) or the 1991 local lists of hydric soils. The percentage of the project area comprised
of each soil is also listed with its respective soil type. Approximately 24% of the project area is comprised
of a soil type designated by the NRCS as being hydric or including a hydric component (USDA 1991).
Table 1. Soil series within the project area which are listed in Hydric Soils cfthe United States
(USDA 1991) and the relative percentages of each
Hvdric Soil Tvoe
Acres
% of Studv A
Albany Sand
3570.13
0.93
Bladen Loam
3,414.74
0.89
Bonneau Loamy Sand
2,924.22
0.76
Coxville Fine Sandy loam
376.84
0.09
Dunbar, Izagora and Bladen
3,367.86
0.88
Grady Clay Loam
5,364.04
1.40
Grady Fine Sandy Loam
18,418.43
4.79
Grady Loam
6,471.96
1.68
Herod-Muckalee Association
11,287.66
2.94
Herod-Muckalee Soils
3253.85
0.85
Kinston and Bibb Soils
167.92
0.04
Lynchburg Sandy Loam
2,607.59
0.68
Meggett-Muckalee
16,616.02
4.33
Meggett-Muckalee Complex
6,825.39
1.77
Ocilla Loamy Sand
2,539.68
0.66
Osier-Pelham Complex
404.49
0.10
Pelham Loamy Sand
2,804.80
0.82
Rains Loamy Sand
1.526.92
0.40
Totals
91,942.54
24.01
3.4 Wetland Classification
Twelve wetland types as described in "Section 2.5 Wetland Classification" were found in the project
area. Each wetland type and the percentage of the project area composed of each is listed below in
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 43
Table 2. Figure 7 shows the locations of these 12 wetland types in the project area. RQA and RQC
wetlands were combined for functional analyses, since only approximately eight acres of RQA wetlands were
found in the project area, and since Project Team members were able to access these wetlands to collect data.
Collectively, these wetlands are known as riverine aquatic bed (RQ) wetlands.
Table 2. Wetland types found in the project area and the relative areas and percentages of each (excludes
open water)
% of Study
% of Total
Wetland T\me
Acreage
Area Wetlands
Study Area
Depressional Forested
15,951.53
19.32
4.21
Depressional Herbaceous
5,487.86
6.65
1.45
Depressional Scrub-Shrub
740.85
0.90
0.20
Depressional Aquatic Bed
1,546.14
1.87
0.40
Riverine Forested Alluvial
6,925.76
8.39
1.80
Riverine Forested Coastal Plain
44,965.80
54.45
11.72
Riverine Herbaceous Alluvial
789.38
0.96
0.20
Riverine Herbaceous Coastal Plain
1,051.17
1.27
0.27
Riverine Scrub-Shrub Alluvial
221.41
0.27
0.06
Riverine Scrub-Shrub Coastal Plain
632.89
0.77
0.16
Riverine Aquatic Bed Alluvial
8.69
0.01
0.002
Riverine Aquatic Bed Coastal Plain
148.09
0.18
0.04
Totals
78,469.57
95.04
20.51
3.5 Floral and Faunal Assessment
3.5.1 Wildlife Habitat Evaluation. Forty sites were evaluated in the wildlife habitat assessment portion
of the floral and faunal assessment. These sites were evaluated as described in "Section 2.7 Functional
Assessment". The results of the wildlife habitat evaluation are provided below in Tables 3-6.
Table 3. Average wildlife habitat scores of project area wetland types
Wpt.lnnH Typp Sample Size Average Score
DF
4
22.73
DH
7
17.90
DQ
3
12.67
DS
6
48.05
RFA
3
24.83
RFC
6
25.02
RHA
2
17.75
RHC
3
14.77
RQ
1
11.90
RSC
4
25.40
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
44
LEARY J
KEY
B DEPRESSIONAL FOREST
M DEPRESSIONAL HERBACI
» OPEN WATER
I® DEPRESSIONAL AQUATIC BE|
M DEPRESSIONAI. SCRUB-SHRU1
¦ RIVERINE FOREST
* RIVERINE HERBACEOUS
RIVERINE AQUATIC BED
RIVERINE SCRUB-SHRUB
S3 ALLUVIAL SYSTEM
0 COASTAL PLAIN SYSTEM
NEWTON
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Figure 7. Wetland locations and
classifications in the Central Dougherty
Plain Advance Identification project area.
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
45
Table 4. Average wildlife habitat scores for wetland vegetation classes (Cowardin et al. 1979)
Vegetation Class
Forested
13
12
04
11
Sample Size Average Score
24.3
17.1
12.5
36.4
Herbaceous
Aquatic Bed
Scrub-Shrub
Table 5. Average wildlife habitat scores for wetland geomorphic settings in the project area
Geomorphic Setting Sample Size Average Score
Riverine
Depressional
20
20
28.0
21.4
Table 6. Average wildlife habitat scores for wetland systems in the project area
System
Alluvial Creek/Swamp
Coastal Plain Creek/Swamp
Depressional
SAmplft Sigft
06
14
20
Average Score
20.1
22.0
27.1
Since habitat requirements vary greatly among species, these scores should be used with caution.
While one wetland type may provide high quality habitat for one species, it may be of no habitat value to
another. These indices and the rankings of wetland types based upon them should be used only as general
comparison criteria.
3.5.2 Expected Special Status Species Occurrence in Wetland Typns. Data pertaining to the occurrence
of expected special status species in each project area wetland type were gathered through field observation,
database searches (Ambrose 1991, Lynch et al. 1986, and FWS 1992), and literature searches. The results
of this examination are given in Appendix III.
3.6 Field-Level Wetland Functional Assessment Results
Functional profiles and descriptions of wetland functional assessment results for each wetland type
are presented below. Sample sizes (n) for each wetland type are given parenthetically at the beginning of
each section.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 46
3.6.1 Depressional Aquatic Bed Wetlands. (n=6) Depressional aquatic bed (DQ) wetlands comprised 1.87%
of project area wetlands and 0.40% of the total land area. On-site functionality ratings of DQ wetlands
relative to all project area wetlands types for the three field-level functional evaluations were:
- water quality enhancement - high
- water storage - high
- biotic community support - very low.
The high rating of this wetland type in water quality enhancement resulted from the predominance
of indicators of biogeochemical transformation. Specifically, the soil indicators gleying, mottling, and sulfidic
odor; the microbial processing indicators detritus/debris deposits, emergent vegetation, and ground litter; and
the process of water velocity reduction were present in all sampled DQ wetlands. Some other indicators of
these processes were present, but not consistently.
Hie water storage rating of high resulted from the consistent presence of the process of water velocity
reduction inherent to all depressions and the presence of the water storage indicators ponding and reduced
soil. These indicators were present in all sampled DQ wetlands. No other water storage indicators were
present in any of the sampled sites of this type.
The biotic community support rating of very law resulted from a consistent lack of organic carbon
export indicators; although a histosol, which indicates accumulation of organic matter and low decomposition
rate, was noted in one of the sampled DQ wetlands. Depressional wetlands, relative to riverine systems,
generally had lower potential for transport of organic carbon from the, site. While there was significant
transport of organic material from depressional wetlands resulting primarily from nrtimnl movements, riverine
systems had these same organic carbon transport mechanisms, plus the added mechanism of flowing water.
This was the rationale behind scoring depressional systems below riverine systems in terms of organic carbon
export.
The vegetation of DQ wetlands was dominated by spatterdock (Nuphar spp.) and fragrant water-lily
(Nymphaea odorata). Other species noted in this wetland type included water-shield (Brasenia schreberi), ludwigia
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 47
(Ludwigia spp.), water-hyssop (Bacopa caroliniam), and panic grass (Panicum spp.). Similar to the other
depressional wetland types, DQ wetlands often occurred as inclusions within other vegetation types,
particularly cypress (Taxodium)-domiaated communities.
Soils of DQ wetlands were characterized by the presence of gleying and mottling. These soils
remained in a highly reduced state, which was indicated by the presence of a sulfidic odor in soils sampled
in these areas. These soils were typically unclassified (Swa or Water) by the NRCS.
The overriding hydrologic influence in DQ wetlands was the ponding of water and the predominant
hydrodynamic characteristic of these wetlands was vertical fluctuation. DQ wetlands in the project area had
at least a semi-permanently flooded water regime. Ponding of this duration was necessary to support typical
aquatic bed vegetation. Depressional wetlands with shorter-duration water regimes supported other
vegetative types such as herbaceous or shrub-dominated communities. Hydrologic sources in DQ wetlands
were possibly a combination of precipitation and ground water.
3.6.2 Depressional Forested Wetlands. (n=14) Depressional forested (DF) wetlands comprised 19.32% of
project area wetlands and 4.21% of the total land area These wetlands occurred as hydrologically isolated
patches. The field-level functional ratings for DF wetlands were:
- water quality enhancement - high
- water storage - high
- biotic community support - moderate.
The high rating of DF wetlands for water quality enhancement resulted from the predominance of
indicators of biogeochemical transformation. Specifically, the soil indicators gleying, mottling, sulfidic odor,
and histiq/umbric epipedons; the microbial processing indicators standing dead trees and stumps, woody
debris, emergent vegetation, and ground litter; and the process of water velocity reduction occurred in all
sampled DF wetlands.
The water storage rating of high resulted from the consistent presence of the process of water velocity
reduction inherent to all depressions and the presence of the water storage indicators ponding, buttressed
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 48
tree boles, and reduced soil. Adventicious rooting also occurred in a number of sampled DF wetlands.
The biotdc community support rating of moderate resulted from the consistent presence of the organic
carbon export indicators organically stained water and detritus/debris deposits, and their depressional
geomorphic setting. Again, depressional wetlands, relative to riverine systems, generally had lower potential
for transport of organic carbon.
The overstory vegetation of DF wetlands was dominated by cypress (Taxodium distichum var. nutans and
Taxodiumdistichum). Also present in the overstory were water tupelo (Nyssa aquatica), swamp blackgum (Nyssa
sytoatica var. biflora), overcup oak (Quercus lyrata), water oak (Quercus nigra), slash pine (Pinus elliottii), spruce pine
(Pinus glabra), loblolly pine (Pirtus taeda), longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), red maple (Acer rubrum), and hickory (Carya
spp.). The shrub stratum was typically dominated by buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) or fetterbush
(Leucothoe racemosa). Other shrub species found were common persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), yaupon (Ilex
vomitoria), waxmyrtle (Myrica cerifera), and bluestem palmetto (Sabal minor). Herbaceous-level vegetation was
generally sparse, but dominated by panic grass, smartweed (Polygonum spp)., various sedges (Carex spp.), rushes
(Juncus spp.), and pennywort (Hydrocotyl spp.). Other herbaceous plants found in DF wetlands included climbing
hydrangia (Decumaria barbara), plumegrass (Erianthus spp.), pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata), and arrowhead
(Sagittaria spp).
Soils of DF wetlands were variable but generally were characterized by gleying (50% of sampled
wetlands), mottling (29%), histiqAimbric epipedons (29%), oxidized rhizospheres (21%), sulfidic odor (14%),
and matrix chroma of 1 (29%). Soils in all sampled DF wetlands met the criteria for hydric soils as
described in the COE wetland delineation manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987). These soils were
typically classified as Grady soils by the NRCS.
The hydrologic regimes of DF wetlands were highly variable, ranging from seasonally flooded to
permanently flooded. Those wetlands of shorter-duration water regimes typically were dominated by broad-
leaved species such as oaks and hickories. DF wetlands with longer-duration water regimes were typically
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 49
dominated by cypress and tupelo. The primary hydrologic source of sampled DF wetlands was determined
to be precipitation in most cases, since most sampled DF wetlands had an impermeable clay lens. The extent
of the presence of these clay lenses in individual DF wetlands and in the DF wetland type in general was
unknown. If such a clay layer was present throughout an entire wetland unit then that wetland probably
had little ground water influence. Vertical fluctuation was the primary hydrodynamic characteristic in DF
wetlands.
3.6.3 Depresaional Herbace""" WatlnnHa (n=20) Depressional herbaceous (DH) wetlands comprised 6.65%
of project area wetlands and 1.45% of the total land area. On-site functionality ratings of DH wetlands for
the three field-level functional evaluations were:
- water quality enhancement - high
- water storage - high
- biotic community support - very low.
The high rating of this wetland type in water quality enhancement resulted from the predominance
of indicators of biogeochemical transformation. Specifically, the soil indicators gleying and mottling, the
microbial processing indicators emergent vegetation and ground litter, and the process of water velocity
reduction were present in most sampled DH wetlands.
The water storage rating of high resulted from the consistent presence of the process of water velocity
reduction inherent to all depressions and the presence of the water storage indicators ponding, inundation,
and reduced soil. These water storage indicators were present in (75%), (25%), and (75%) of sampled DH
wetlands, respectively. No other water storage indicators were present in any of the sampled sites of this
type.
The biotic community support rating of very low resulted from a consistent lack of organic carbon
export indicators, although two organic carbon export indicators, organically stained water and detritus/debris
deposits, were found in two (10%) of the sampled DH wetlands. The geomorphic setting of depressional also
accounted for the very low rating (see "Section 2.7.1.4 Methods") of DH wetlands for biotic community support.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 50
Typical dominant plant species in DH wetlands were panic grass, smartweed, plumegrass, bulrush
(Scirpus spp.), and sedge. Associates of these dominant plant species included beard grass (Andropogon spp.),
water-hyssop, soft rush (Juncus effusus), ludwigia, water-milfoil (Myriophyllum pirmatum), camphor-weed (Pluchea
camphorata), cattail (Typha latifolia), and bladderwort (Utricularia ivflata).
Soils of DH wetlands were characterized by the presence of gleying (65% of sampled DH wetlands),
mottling (45% of samples), sulfidic odor (15%), and a matrix chroma of 1 (30%). These soils remained in a
highly reduced state, which was indicated by the presence of a sulfidic odor in soils sampled in these areas.
These soils were typically classified by the NRCS as Pelham or Albany Sands.
The overriding hydrologic influence in DH wetlands was the ponding of water. DH wetlands in the
project area had variable water regimes. These wetlands tended to have shorter water regimes (i.e. seasonal
or temporarily flooded), but this was not exclusively the case. The short water regimes may, in part, have
resulted from the high percolation rates of the sandy soils typically found in these sites. Hydrologic sources
in DH wetlands were possibly a combination of precipitation and ground water, which was suggested in those
DH wetlands with long-duration water regimes. DH wetlands with shorter water regimes probably did not
have a significant ground water connection. As was the case with all depressional wetlands in the project
area, vertical fluctuation was the predominant hydrodynamic characteristic.
3.6.4 Depressional Scrub-Shrub Wetlands. (n=9) Depressional scrub-shrub (DS) wetlands comprised 0.90%
of project area wetlands and 0.20% of the total land area. On-site functionality ratings of DS wetlands for
the three field-level functional evaluations were:
- water quality enhancement - high
- water storage - high
- biotic community support - very law.
The high rating of this wetland type in water quality enhancement resulted from the predominance
of indicators of biogeochemical transformation. Specifically, the soil indicators gleying and mottling, the
microbial processing indicators emergent vegetation and ground litter, and the process of water velocity
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 51
reduction were present in all sampled DS wetlands.
Hie water storage rating of high resulted from the consistent presence of the process of water velocity
reduction inherent to all depressions and the presence of the water storage indicators ponding, inundation,
and reduced soil. These water storage indicators were present in (78%), (22%), and (89%) of sampled DS
wetlands, respectively.
The biotic community support rating of very low resulted from a consistent lack of organic carbon
export indicators, although three organic carbon export indicators, organically stained water, organic soil,
and detritu^debris deposits, were found in one of the sampled DS wetlands. The geomorphic setting of
depressional (see "Section 2.7.1.4 Methods") also contributed to the very low rating of DS wetlands for biotic
community support.
Typical dominant plant species in DS wetlands were buttonbush, common persimmon and fetterbush
(Leucothoe racemosa). Associates of these dominant plant species included St. John's wort (Hypericum spp.), holly
(Ilex spp.), waxmyrtle, and bigleaf snowbell (Styrax americana) in the shrub stratum, and water-hyssop, sedge,
ludwigia, water-milfoil, fragrant water-lily, panic grass, smartweed, and lizard's-tail (Saururus cernuus) in the
herbaceous stratum. Some DS wetlands were actually immature phases of DF wetlands. These wetlands
were dominated by sapling stage tree species typically found in forested wetlands (i.e., oaks, hickories and
gums).
Soils of DS wetlands were characterized by the presence of gleying (78% of sampled DS wetlands),
mottling (57%), oxidized rhizospheres (33%), sulfidic odor (22%), and histiofambric epipedons (22%). These
soils were typically classified by the NRCS as Pelham or Albany Sands or Grady soil series.
The overriding hydrologic influence in DS wetlands was the ponding of water. DS wetlands in the
project area had variable water regimes. These wetlands tended to have shorter water regimes (i.e. seasonal
or temporarily flooded), but this was not exclusively the case. The short water regimes may, in part, have
resulted from the high percolation rates of the sandy soils typically found in some of these sites. Hydrologic
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 52
sources in DS wetlands were possibly a combination of precipitation and ground water, which was suggested
in those DS wetlands with long-duration water regimes. DS wetlands with shorter water regimes probably
did not have a significant ground water connection, since such a connection would have caused a longer
water regime. As was the case with all depressions! wetlands in the project area, vertical fluctuation was
the predominant hydrodynamic characteristic.
3.6.5 Riverine Forested Alluvial Creek/Swamp Wetlands. (n=18) Riverine forested alluvial (RFA) wetlands
comprised 8.39% of project area wetlands and 1.80% of the total land area. On-site functionality ratings of
RFA wetlands for the three field-level functional evaluations were:
• water quality enhancement • high
- water storage - high
• biotic community support - high.
The high rating of this wetland type in water quality enhancement resulted from the predominance
of indicators of biogeochemical transformation. Specifically, the soil indicators gleying, mottling, oxidized
rhizospheres, sulfidic odor, and a low matrix chroma; all microbial processing indicators; and water velocity
reduction indicators sediment deposits, structural roughness, and topographic complexity were present in
most sampled RFA wetlands. The water storage rating of high resulted from the consistent presence of the
process of water velocity reduction indicators listed above.
The biotic community support rating of high resulted from the consistent presence of detritus debris
deposits present in sampled RFA wetlands (56% of sampled wetlands). The geomorphic setting of riverine
also accounted, in part, for the high rating of these wetlands for biotic community support, for reasons
previously discussed.
Typical dominant plant species in RFA wetlands were bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), pond cypress
('Taxodium nutans), green ash (Fraxinus pennsytoanica), water oak, overcup oak, willow oak (Quercus phellos),
Shumard oak (Quercus shumardii), blackgum (Nyssa sytoatica), red maple, Florida maple (Acer barbatum), river birch
(Betula nigra), hickory, sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), spruce pine,
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 53
loblolly pine, American elm (Ulmus americam), and hackberry (Celtis spp.) in the tree stratum; American
hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana), common persimmon, bigleaf snowbell, ludwigia, switchcane (Arundinaria gigantea),
lyonia (Lyonia spp.), bluestem palmetto, and Virginia sweetspire (Itea virginica) in the shrub stratum; and
peppervine (Ampelopsis arborea), crossvine (Bignortia capreolata), bog-hemp (Boehermia cylindrical, trumpet-creeper
(Campsis radicans), apanglegrass (Chasmanthium sp.), St. John's wort, panic grass, Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus
quinquefolia), catbriar (Smilax spp.), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), and netted chain-fern (Woodwardia areolata)
in the herbaceous stratum.
Soils of RFA wetlands were of alluvial origin. Alluvial soils typically exhibited little or no
stratification in the upper portions of the soil profile and usually had sandy texture. Because of the coarse
texture of these soils, they were less likely to show characteristics of hydric soils, even though they may
receive adequate water to support hydrophytic vegetation. Caution was taken when evaluating these areas
for conformity to the definitional criteria for wetlands due to these soil characteristics. Of the hydric soil
characteristics examined, gleying occurred in 39% of the RFA sites evaluated, mottling in 39%, oxidized
rhizospheres in 28%, sulfidic odor in 11%, histic epipedons in none, and a low matrix chroma in 22% of the
RFA soils. No other hydric soil indicators for sandy soils were observed in this wetland type.
Overbank flooding was the most frequently noted hydrologic source in RFA wetlands (61%), although
some RFA wetlands were influenced by precipitation and ground water. High and low velocity flows were
the predominant hydrodynamic characteristics, 39% and 56%, respectively. One RFA site was found to have
vertical fluctuation as its primary hydrodynamic characteristic. This unusual area was actually a depression
imbedded in an alluvial system.
3.6.6 Riverine Herbaceous Alluvial Creek/Swamp Wat-lands. (n=8) The RHA wetland type was relatively
rare, comprising only 0.96% of the project area wetlands and 0.20% of the entire project area. These
wetlands usually occurred as narrow fringes along alluvial water courses, and thus, were subject to frequent
disturbance in the form of high velocity flooding. This intense disturbance regime was likely responsible for
the maintenance of these herbaceous wetlands. As accretion of sand and silt occurred in RHA wetlands, the
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 54
elevation of the ground surface increased. Over time this accretion, by raising the elevation of the wetland,
moved it to a lighter disturbance regime, which allowed other plant species (i.e., shrubs and trees) to colonize
the wetland and survive. The end result of this process was the transition of the wetland from an
herbaceous-dominated wetland to a shrub, and eventually forest-dominated community.
On-site functionality ratings of RHA wetlands for the three field-level functional evaluations were:
- water quality enhancement - high
- water storage - high
- biotic community support - law.
The high rating of this wetland type in water quality enhancement resulted from the predominance
of indicators of biogeochemical transformation. The soil indicators gleying, mottling, oxidized rhizospheres,
and sulfidic odor; the microbial processing indicator emergent vegetation; and water velocity reduction
indicators sediment deposits, structural roughness, and topographic complexity were present in most sampled
RHA wetlands. The water storage rating of high resulted from the consistent presence of the process of
water velocity reduction indicators listed above.
The biotic community support rating of low resulted from the consistent absence of organic carbon
export indicators, although the indicators organically stained water and an organic soil were found at one
RHA site. Flood regimes resulting from the usual position of RHA wetlands, on peripheries of streams (i.e.
sand bars), were not conducive to the accumulation of organic material. The geomorphic setting of riverine
prevented the rating for this function from being very low.
Typical dominant plant species in RHA wetlands were panic grass, sedge, beggar-tick (Bidens sp.),
lizard's-tail, and southern wild rice (Zizaniopsis miliacea). Other plants occurring in these wetlands included
camphor-weed, bog-hemp, spangiegrass, and ludwigea. Additional plant species were likely to occur in RHA
wetlands. The small sample size and short duration of sampling probably did not allow a comprehensive
list of plant species to be developed for this wetland type.
Soils of RHA wetlands were very similar to those described for RFA wetlands. They were of alluvial
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 55
origin and exhibited little stratification in the upper portion of the soil profile. They had a sandy texture.
Again, because of the coarse texture of these soils, they were less likely to show characteristics of hydric
soils, even though they received adequate water to support hydrophytic vegetation. As was the case for all
alluvial wetlands, caution was taken when evaluating these areas for conformity to the definitional criteria
for wetlands due to these soil characteristics. Of the hydric soil characteristics examined, gleying occurred
in 38% of the RHA sites evaluated, mottling in 50%, oxidized rhizospheres in 63%, sulfidic odor in 38%, and
a histic epipedon was found in one RHA site (13%). No other hydric soil indicators for sandy soils were
observed in this wetland type.
Overbank flooding was the most frequently found hydrologic source in RHA wetlands (75%), although
two (25%) of the sampled RHA wetlands were influenced by ground water. High and low velocity flows were
the predominant hydrodynamic characteristics. Two RHA sites were found to have vertical fluctuation as
a primary hydrodynamic characteristic.
3.6.7 Riverine Scrub-Shrub Alluvial Creek/Swamp Wetlands. (n=9) Riverine scrub-shrub alluvial (RSA)
wetlands comprised 0.27% of project area wetlands and 0.06% of the total land area. On-site functionality
ratings of RSA wetlands for the three field-level functional evaluations were:
- water quality enhancement - moderate
- water storage - high
- biotic community support - law.
The moderate rating of this wetland type in water quality enhancement resulted from the consistent
absence of indicators of biogeochemical transformation. Of Hie RSA wetlands sampled, 67% had no indicators
of reduced soil, although surfaces for microbial processing were present in 67% and topographic complexity
was present in 89%. Despite the absence of hydric soils in many RSA wetlands, wetland vegetation and
hydrology were present. Such areas did conform to the definitional criteria for wetlands (Environmental
Laboratory 1987), but were considered "problem areas."
The high water storage rating resulted from the consistent presence of water storage indicators and
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 56
the presence of all water velocity reduction indicators. Specifically, the water storage indicators flooding,
ponding, and sediment scour/deposition were present in most sampled RSA wetlands. The presence of
constrictions, sediment deposits, structural roughness, and topographic complexity in most sampled RSA
wetlands indicated that significant water velocity reduction occurred in these wetlands.
Only two (22%) sampled RSA wetlands had indicators of organic carbon export. In both instances,
this indicator was detrituVdebris deposits. For this reason, RSA wetlands received an on-site functional
rating of law for biotic community support. It is because these wetlands are of the riverine geomorphic
setting that they were not rated very low for this function.
Typical dominant plant species in RSA wetlands were hazel alder (Abtus serrulata), river birch, American
hornbeam, hackberry, St. John's wort, possumhaw (Ilex decidua), lyonia, and black willow (Salix nigra). Other
shrub species present in RSA wetlands included red maple, American beautyberry (Calicarpa americana), southern
catalpa (Catalpa bignonoides), buttonbush, eastern hophornbeam (Ostrya virginiana), and American sycamore.
Typical herbaceous-level plants included Virginia creeper, panic grass, smartweed, lizard's-tail (Saurarus cemuus),
bulrush, poison ivy, and southern wild rice.
As is indicated by the presence of three species in this wetland type, RSA wetlands often represented
immature stages of RFA wetlands. In fact, all wetlands along the Flint River initially classified as RSA were
field-checked in April 1995 and found to be RFA wetlands. Initial classification of vegetative types was
based upon NWI maps, which, for the project area, were derived from 1983 aerial photography. In the 10-
year time span from the development of the NWI's to the vegetation classification for this study, these shrub
areas matured into forested wetlands. This process was probably common throughout and beyond the study
area where disturbance had caused the creation of apparent shrub wetlands, although some wetlands in the
area were truly shrub wetlands. True RSA wetlands can be distinguished only by evaluation of the species
composition of the shrub stratum; if a particular site is dominated by species which at maturity are shrubs,
then the area may be considered a true scrub-shrub wetland.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 57
Soils of RSA wetlands were of alluvial origin, and thus showed little evidence of stratification in the
upper portion of the soil profile; only 22% showed evidence of soil reduction. Because of the high percentage
of sand in these soils, they were better drained and less likely to show characteristics of hydric soils, even
though they may receive adequate water to support hydrophytic vegetation. Caution was taken when
evaluating these areas for conformity to the definitional criteria for wetlands due to these soil characteristics.
These areas were considered "problem areas" (Environmental Laboratory 1987) when evaluating whether or
not they met the definitional criteria for wetlands. This allowed proper designation of wetlands in alluvial
areas. Gleying, mottling, and oxidized rhizospheres occurred in 11%, 11%, and 33% of sampled RSA
wetlands, respectively. No other soil reduction indicators were observed in RSA wetlands.
Overbank flooding was the most common hydrologic source in RSA wetlands (67%), although some
RSA wetlands were influenced by precipitation (33%). High and low velocity flows were the predominant
hydrodynamic characteristics, 56% and 33%, respectively. One RSA site was found to have vertical
fluctuation as its primary hydrodynamic characteristic. RSA wetlands which had primary hydrologic sources
other t.hnw overbank flooding and primary hydrodynamic influences other than high velocity flows were
typically somewhat removed from the channel of their associated stream. These areas were on the landward
side of the natural levees, and thus received overbank waters only during relatively major flood events.
Precipitation and overland lateral flows of water provided the primary hydrologic influence in these wetlands.
Of the RSA wetlands occurring within the natural levee system of alluvial streams, all were subject
to high velocity flows. These wetlands were exclusively positioned inside major bends of watercourses, and
therefore served as secondary channels during flood events. The intense disturbance regime inherent to
these locations was most likely responsible for the presence and maintenance of shrub vegetation. In those
RSA wetlands that had transformed into forested communities, basal areas of the stands were very low as
were the canopy closures. The trees in these sites were generally of poor form, having matured in an intense
disturbance regime.
3.6.8 Riverine Aquatic Bed Wetlands. (n=4) Riverine aquatic bed wetlands comprised 0.19% of project
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 58
area wetlands and 0.04% of the total land area. These wetlands included both alluvial and coastal plain
creek/swamp systems and received at least a portion of their hydrology from creeks and rivers. On-site
functionality ratings of RQ wetlands for the three field-level functional evaluations were:
- water quality enhancement - high
- water storage - high
- biotic community support - high.
The high rating of RQ wetlands for water quality enhancement resulted from the predominance of
indicators of biogeochemical transformation and water velocity reduction. Three out of the four RQ wetlands
sampled had reduced soil and all had surfaces for microbial processing. The consistent presence of
constrictions (all four wetlands) and structural roughness (three of four) indicated that significant water
velocity reduction occurred in RQ wetlands. Reduction of water velocity in RQC wetlands was actually
observable as these constricted areas ponded water. Hydrodynamically, they were more similar to
depressions than to typical riverine systems.
RQ wetlands rated high for water storage, because of the process of water velocity reduction and also
the presence of water storage indicators. Ponding was the primary water storage indicator observed in RQ
wetlands.
The biotic community support rating of high resulted from the presence of organic carbon export
indicators in all four sampled RQ sites. Two of the RQ sites examined had highly organic soils.
Hie vegetation of RQ wetlands, similarly to DQ wetlands, was dominated by spatter dock and fragrant
water-lily. Other species occurring in RQ wetlands included water-milfoil, panic grass, smartweed, and
pickerelweed. Long-duration water regimes were necessary to support these vegetative communities.
Soils of RQ wetlands were typically sandy soils with significant amounts of organic material on the
surface layer. Two of the sites had very deep (greater than 24 inches) organic soils.
The overriding hydrologic influence in RQ wetlands was the ponding of water. RQ wetlands in the
project area had at least a semi-permanently flooded water regime. Ponding of this duration was necessary
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 59
to support typical aquatic bed vegetation. Wetlands with shorter-duration water regimes would support other
vegetative types such as herbaceous or shrub-dominated communities. The primary hydrologic source in RQ
wetlands was overbank flooding. A combination of precipitation and ground water probably also had an
influence on the hydrology of these wetlands. Many RQ wetlands in the project area were apparently
limesinks that had become hydrologically connected, through natural or anthropogenic processes, to stream
systems. Limesink origin of RQ wetlands was indicated by a circular shape.
Although RQ wetlands were riverine systems, vertical fluctuation was the predominant hydrodynamic
characteristic. Low velocity flows were one key difference between coastal plain creek/swamp systems and
alluvial creek swamp systems. In coastal plain creek/swamp systems water velocity was not adequate to
maintain water movement in areas - constricted by topographic or other features. Hydrodynamic
characteristics were therefore more similar to those in depressional areas, than those normally present in
riverine systems.
3.6.9 Riverine Forested Coastal Plain Creek/Swamp Wetlands. (n=23) Riverine forested coastal plain
creeVswamp (RFC) wetlands were the most abundant wetland type in the project area, comprising 54.45%
of project area wetlands and 11.72% of the total land area. These wetlands occurred as floodplain forests
associated with creeks that originated in the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province (Wharton 1978). The
field-level functional ratings for RFC wetlands were:
- water quality enhancement - high
- water storage - high
- biotic community support - high.
Hie high rating of RFC wetlands for water quality enhancement resulted from the predominance of
indicators of biogeochemical transformation. Specifically, the soil indicators gleying and mottling, all
microbial processing indicators, and the process of water velocity reduction occurred in most sampled RFC
wetlands. The water storage rating of high resulted from the consistent presence of water velocity reduction
processes and the presence of all water storage indicators. The biotic community support rating of high
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 60
resulted from the consistent presence of the organic carbon export indicators, particularly detritus/debris
deposits, and the geomorphic setting of riverine.
Vegetative communities of RFC wetlands warranted separation into two categories, broad-leaved and
needle-leaved. Hie overstory vegetation of the broad-leaved RFC wetlands was dominated by water tupelo,
swamp blackgum, and overcup oak. Needle-leaved RFC wetlands were dominated by cypress. Also sparsely
present in the overstory of both types were water oak, slash pine, spruce pine, loblolly pine, longleaf pine, red
maple, and hickory. Common species occurring in the shrub stratum were red maple, buttonbush, fringetree
(Qwrumthus mrginicus), sweet pepperbush (CletkraabnfoUa), black titi(Cliftoniamonophyllum), dogwood (Cornus spp.),
common persimmon, strawberrybush (Euortymus americanum), green ash, water locust (Gleditsia aquatica), honey
locust (Gleditsia triacanthos), holly, Virginia sweetspire, corkwood (Leitneriafloridana), fetterbush (Leucothoe racemosa),
fetterbush (Lyonia lucida), sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana), waxmyrtle, swampbay (Persea palustris), azalea
(Rhododendron spp.), blackberry (Rubus spp.), bluestem palmetto, American elm, and arrowwood viburnum
(Viburnum dentatum). Needle palm (Rhapidophyllum hystrix), a rare species in southwest Georgia, was found in
abundance in RFC wetlands. Herbaceous-level vegetation of RFC wetlands consisted of peppervine,
switchcane, swamp Jack-in-the-pulpit (Arisaema triphyllum), climbing hydrangia, bog-hemp, sedge, trumpet-
creeper, pennywort, spider-lily (Hymenocallis sp.), blue flag (Iris spp.), red-root (Lacnanthes carolmiana), common
duckweed (Lemna minor), camphor-weed, catbriar, poison ivy, and annual wild rice (Zizania aquatica).
Soils of RFC wetlands were generally very dark, mucky, and wet The soils typically had a very dark
O-horizon (13% had a histic epipedon). The high occurrence of gleying (83% of sampled RFC wetlands) and
the lower occurrence of mottling (61%) was indicative of persistent and stable soil saturation. Soils in all
sampled RFC wetlands met the criteria for hydric soils as described in the COG wetland delineation manual
(Environmental Laboratory 1987). The Meggett-Muckalee Complex, the Herod-Muckalee Association, and
the Grady Loam were typical soil series found in RFC wetlands.
The hydrologic regimes of RFC wetlands were variable, ranging from seasonally flooded to
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 61
permanently flooded. Those wetlands of shorter-duration water regimes typically were dominated by broad-
leaved species; those with longer-duration water regimes tended to have needle-leaved tree species. The
hydrologic source of RFC wetlands was dominated by overbank flooding, although precipitation and ground
water almost certainly had significant influences over some RFC wetlands. Some RFC wetlands consisted
of forested ponds within floodplains of creeks. Low velocity flow was the primary hydrodynamic
characteristic in most RFC wetlands (74%), although vertical fluctuation was the primary hydrodynamic
influence in some of these areas (26%).
3.6.10 Riverine Herbaceous Coastal Plain Creek/Swamp Wetlands. (n=8) Riverine herbaceous coastal
plain creek/swamp (RHC) wetlands comprised 1.27% of project area wetlands and 0.27% of the total land
area. On-site functionality ratings of RHC wetlands for the three field-level functional evaluations were:
- water quality enhancement - low
- water storage - moderate
- biotic community support - low.
The low rating of this wetland type in water quality enhancement resulted primarily from the lack
of indicators of water velocity reduction. Soils and surfaces for microbial processing were indicative of a
relatively high magnitude of biogeochemical transformation occurring in RHC wetlands, but the absence of
topographic complexity of these 9ites indicated that their water velocity reduction potential was low.
The water storage rating of moderate, again, resulted from the absence of the process of water velocity
reduction, although indicators of ponding were observed in 88% of the sampled RHC wetlands, which
indicated that these sites were effective at slowing water. Two or more indicators of water velocity reduction
were required for water velocity to be considered to occur at a high magnitude at a given site, but most RHC
wetland sites evaluated had only one indicator of water velocity reduction. Water storage indicators were
present in all sampled RHC wetlands.
RHC wetlands received a low on-site functional rating for biotic community support because of the
consistent lack of organic carbon export indicators. Only two of the RHC sites visited during field data
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 62
collection showed indicators of organic carbon export. The geomorphic setting of riverine caused RHC
wetlands to receive a rating of low instead of very low.
Typical dominant plant species in RHC wetlands were sedge, water-willow (Justicia ovata), ludwigea
and fragrant water-lily. Other species found in these wetlands included panic grass, southern smartweec3
(Polygonum densiflorum), pickerelweed, bulrush, cattail, and bladderwort (Utricularia irtfiata).
Soils of RHC wetlands were characterized by the presence of gleying and oxidized rhizospheres (63°/
of sampled RHC wetlands). Seventy-five percent of sampled RHC wetlands met the criteria for hydric soils
(Environmental Laboratory 1987). Sandy soils did not show hydric soil indicators as readily as silt or cla;
soils, because the sandy soils did not hold water as well as soils of finer texture. Areas with these well
drained sandy soils were classified as wetland if they received adequate hydrology and had one or mor<
obligate dominant wetland plant species present. (Wetland plants have been ranked according to their affmit;
for wet environments; obligate means that the species occurs in a wetland greater than 99% of the time).
One site was found to have a histic epipedon.
Precipitation was determined to be the overriding hydrologic influence in RHC wetlands (75%)
Overbank flooding was the primary hydrologic source in 25% of sampled RHC wetlands. This indicated tha_
some of these areas were possibly lime sink depressions which became hydrologically connected to a riverin
system.
3.6.11 Riverine Scrub-Shrub Coastal Plain Creek/Swamp Wetlands. (n=8) Riverine scrub-shrub coasts
plain creek/swamp (RSC) wetlands comprised 0.77% of project area wetlands and 0.16% of the total land
area. On-site functionality ratings of RSC wetlands for the three field-level functional evaluations were:
- water quality enhancement - high
- water storage - high
- biotic community support - high.
The high rating of this wetland type in water quality enhancement resulted from the predominance
of indicators of biogeochemical transformation. Specifically, the soil indicator gleying; the microbis
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 63
processing indicators standing dead trees and stumps, woody debris, and emergent vegetation; and the
process of water velocity reduction were present in most sampled RSC wetlands.
The water storage rating of high resulted from the consistent presence of the process of water velocity
reduction and the presence of the water storage indicators ponding, inundation, and reduced soil. These
water storage indicators were present in (38%), (38%), and (88%) of sampled RSC wetlands, respectively.
The biotic community support rating of high resulted from the presence of organic carbon export
indicators in four of the eight RSC evaluated sites. Typical dominant plant species in RSC wetlands were
butfconbush, common persimmon, and black willow. Black titi, green ash, honey locust, fetterbush (Leucothoe
racemosa), and water tupelo were also found to occur in RSC wetlands. Herbaceous-level associates of these
shrub species included lake cress (Armoracea aquatica), sedge, spider-lily, St. John's wort, water-milfoil, fragrant
water-lily, panic grass, southern smartweed, lizard's-tail, and bulrush. Mosquito fern (Azolla caroliniana) was
found in the understory of one RSC wetland-
Soils of RSC wetlands were characterized by the presence of gleying (63% of sampled RSC wetlands),
mottling (25%), oxidized rhizospheres (25%), sulfidic odor (13%), and histuAunbric epipedons. Soils in all
eight sampled RSC wetlands met the hydric soil criteria of the COE wetland delineation manual
(Environmental Laboratory 1987).
Overbank flooding was the primary hydrologic source in 38% of sampled RSC wetlands. Precipitation
was the primary hydrologic source in 50% of these sites. One RSC site was known to have ground water
as its primary hydrologic source. Water regimes of RSC wetlands were highly variable.
3.7 Remote-Level Wetland Functional Assessment Results
Remote-level evaluations were carried out to complete the functional assessment. All wetland units
within the project area were evaluated for landscape-level characteristics as described in 'Section 2.7
Methods" of this report Results of the remote-level functional assessment were used to create maps for the
four evaluated wetland functions (water quality enhancement, aquifer recharge, water storage, and biotic
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 64
community support) which depict all project area wetlands and their relative magnitudes of performance of
each function. The relative magnitudes were described as critical, high, moderate, low, and very low. These maps
were generated within the GIS at a scale of 1:24,000, which would be useful for general environmental
planning purposes. These maps were presented at this scale to give the reader a general overview of the
project area wetlands and wetland functions. For more detailed maps, contact the Georgia Department cf Natural
Resources, Ylildlife Resources Division, Game Management Section in Albany, Georgia (912) 430-4254. This,
information will provide individuals and permitting agencies with a means of determining, in advance of a
Section 404 permit application, the likelihood of permit approval and wetland avoidance or mitigation options
for a specified wetland unit. Maps for each evaluated wetland function are presented below, at large scale,
in Figures 8 through 11.
Using results of the field- and remote-level functional assessments, five potential wetland fill-
suitability designation alternatives were developed. They were:
~ Alternative 1.- Wetlands with critical or high ratings for all wetland functions and any wetlands
which were rated as critical or high for aquifer recharge (92.7% of project area wetlands, 20.0% of the
total land area) designated as High Value - Unsuitable for Fill, (riverine wetlands were evaluated in
this alternative only for water quality enhancement, water storage, and biotic community support);
~ Alternative 2.- Wetlands with critical or high ratings for all wetland functions (19.6% of project area
wetlands, 4.3% of the total land area) designated as High Value - Unsuitable for Fill;
~ Alternative 3.- Wetlands with a critical rating in any wetland function (62.7% of project area
wetlands, 17.9% of the total land area) designated as High Value - Unsuitable for Fill,
~ Alternative 4.- Wetlands with a critical or high rating in two or more functions (35.1% of project area
wetlands, 7.4% of the total land area) designated as High Value - Unsuitable for Fill; and
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
65
DAW!
~
Very Low
~
Low
~
Medium
~
High
~
Critical
¦
Open Water
~
Uplands
ELMODEL
S
NEWTON
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Figure 8. Relative magnitudes of the
water quality function of wetlands in
the Central Dougherty Plain Advance
Identification Project Area.
5 MILES
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
66
DAWS1
LEARY
LEESBURG
- i, k!. U—
i»«a- • *
'"X
r
I d ¦ .
GA32
*
:-rmCf
1 *<•
y
l"
V . ^
14,
M
¦
1 y
,<», » -i
1
Q" . a
>
l
•• •'? '
*iv
SSL
»»< /»
SV
o_ ¦
ALBANY
N
SCALE
/J
KEY
&
^ /•<].
f\l>' Z I; f*"
t/ • , i
iiw¦ t
V
\ v\ O
K
0
I -m
S./4»
¦' 9 »
7 *
~
Very Low
0
Low
~
Medium
~
High
~
Critical
¦
Open Water
~
Uplands
¦»* vm
til
ELMODEL
6 MILES
o>-
s~
NEWTON
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Figure 9. Relative magnitudes of the
water storage function of wetlands in
the Central Dougherty Plain Advance
Identification Project Area.
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
67
LEARY
~
Very Low
~
Low
~
Medium
~
High
~
Critical
¦
Open Water
~
Uplands
ELMODEL
NEWTON
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Figure 10. Relative magnitudes of the
biotic community support function of
wetlands in the Central Dougherty Plain
Advance Identification Project Area.
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
68
Figure 11. Relative magnitudes of the
aquifer recharge function of wetlands
in the Central Dougherty Plain Advance
Identification Project Area.
~
Very Low
H
Low
0
Medium
~
High
~
Critical
¦
Open Water
~
Uplands
~
Riverine
(NOT RATED)
LEARY
LEESBURG
NEWTON
United States Environmental Protection Agency
SCALE
1
2.5
ELMODEL
KEY
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 69
~ Alternative 5.- Average functional ratings of all evaluated wetland functions.
The fill-suitability designations assigned to project area wetlands are recommended protection
statuses and are not legally binding. Section 404 permit applications involving wetlands rated as High Value -
Unsuitable for Fill will not necessarily be denied; nor will permit applications involving wetlands rated as Low
Value - Suitable for Fill With Appropriate Mitigation necessarily be approved. The designations simply represent
preliminary recommendations by permitting agencies.
Each wetland fill-suitability alternative was evaluated in the field by Project and Technical Support
Team members. The purpose of this field evaluation was to visually inspect a sample of wetlands of both
fill-suitability categories for all five proposed fill-suitability alternatives and for the Teams to arrive at a
consensus as to the most appropriate alternative. Alternative 1, wetlands with critical or high ratings for all
wetland functions (riverine wetlands not evaluated for aquifer recharge), was selected by the Project and
Technical Support Teams as the preferred fill-suitability designation alternative. It was recommended by
the Project and Technical Support Teams that individual wetlands meeting the criteria described for Fill-
suitability Alternative 1 be protected and that permit applications for development activities in those
wetlands be carefully scrutinized by permitting agencies. Protection of these wetlands is necessary in order
to protect the chemical, biological, and ecological integrity of waters of the U.S. which originate within the
project area. Maps depicting the results of Alternative 1, as well as the other four alternatives, are shown
in figures 12 through 16.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
70
DAWS'
6 MILES
Section 404 permits ata raquhad for any
filling of wetlands that an Jurisdictional
under the Section 404program. A H designations
an ADVISORY ONL Y. They do not guarantee the
Issuance of a Section 404permit, nor do they
represent the denial of a Section 404 permit.
ELMODEL
NEWTON
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Figure 12. Fill suitability designations
of wetlands in the Central Dougherty Plain
Advance Identification Project Area.
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
71
~
Critical/High rating
~
Wetlands with
lower ratings
¦
Open Water
~
Uplands
LEARY
Figure 13. Wetland ratings under fill
suitability alternative 2 in the Central
Dougherty Plain Advance Identification
Project Area.
NEWTON
United States Environmental Protection Agency
ELMODEL
LEESBURG
Suction 404permits an required for any
fitting of wetlands that are Jurisdictional
under the Section 404 program. AH designations
an ADVISORY ONLY. They do not guarantee the
Issuance of a Section 404permit, nor do they
represent the denial of a Section 404permit.
SCALE
I l l
0 2.5 5 MILES
KEY
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
72
LEARY
ELMODEL
NEWTON
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
73
DAWSC
LEARY
¦
Critical rating
~
Wetlands with
lower ratings
¦
Open Water
~
Uplands
Suction 404 permits an required for any
filling of wetlands that are Jurisdictional
^ under the Section 404program. AH designations
u, an ADVISORY ONLY. They do not guarantee the
Issuance of a Sect/on 404permit, nor do they
represent the denial of a Section 404permit.
ELMODEL
NEWTON
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Figure 15. Wetland ratings under fill
suitability alternative 4 in the Central
Dougherty Plain Advance Identification
Project Area.
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
74
DAWSC
LEARY J
ELMODEL
A.
& i
o "
' "<3 v'
a
\ a
a0
*h°
a
0
«?
• *
V J
"• *
+
¦ :
* f
- ^
J
~
VERY LOW
~
LOW
~
MEDIUM
~
HIGH
~
CRITICAL
is
Section 404permits ere required for any
flll/ng of wetlands that are Jurisdictional
under the Section 404program. AII designations
are A DVISORY ONLY. They do not guarantee the
Issuance of a Section 404permit, nor do they
represent the denial of a Section 404permit.
S~
NEWTON
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Figure 16. Average rating for all wetland
functions (fill suitability alternative 5)
in the Central Dougherty Plain Advance
Identification Project Area.
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 75
3.8 Public Perception of Wetland Functions in the Central Dougherty Plain
A survey of local citizens, specifically local community leaders and organization heads, was conducted
to gage public perceptions on values and functions of local wetland resources. Fifty survey subjects were
selected and mailed a questionnaire posing various questions as to their knowledge and opinions about
wetlands in general and about local wetlands in particular. The specific questions asked are listed below:
1. Of the wetland benefits to be evaluated, (1) water quality enhancement, (2) ground water recharge,
3) flood storage ability, and (4) wildlife habitat, do you feel that some benefits are more important
than others? Please rank them in order of importance.
2. Do local wetlands provide any benefits that you feel should be added to those listed in question 1?
3. Are there any local areas or items of special significance, such as wildlife species or plants, which
you feel are locally important and should be protected?
4. Can you suggest any other issues that you feel need to be addressed by the Project Team?
The term "wildlife habitat" was used as a lay person's term for biotic community support. Of the 50 survey
subjects, 18 returned completed questionnaires.
In response to Question 1, survey respondents ranked wetland functions as presented in Table 7.
One survey respondent would not rank wetland benefits, saying that they were all of equal importance.
Seventeen survey responses provided information for Question 1.
Table 7. Responses of survey participants when asked to rank wetland benefits in order of importance. The
number of responses is the left cell entry; the percentage of responses is given in parentheses on the right.
Function Rjinlrpri #1 Ranlrpri RnwlroH #3 Ranlrpd #4
Water Quality 4 (23%) 5 (29%) 7 (40%) 1 (6%)
Enhancement
Ground Water 8 (47%) 5 (29%) 3 (18%) 1 (6%)
Recharge
Water Storage 2 (12%) 2 (12%) 3 (18%) 10 (59%)
Ability
Wildlife Habitat 3 (18%) 5 (29%) 4 (24%) 5 (29%)
The function which was ranked first in importance by the highest number of respondents was ground
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 76
water recharge; it received 47% of the number one rankings. Water quality enhancement, ground water
recharge, and wildlife habitat all received the same amount of number two rankings (5). The function which
was most frequently ranked number three was water quality enhancement, with seven respondents placing
the function in this rank. Finally, the most surprising result of Question 1, flood storage was ranked fourth
in importance by 10 of the 17 respondents. This result was unexpected since the survey was conducted soon
after the 500-year flood of the Flint River. This may have indicated that the respondents were not aware,
or did not believe, that wetlands affect water movements during storm events.
Eight respondents answered Question 2, which asked about other benefits provided by wetlands.
Responses to Question 2 included the following;
- Buffering against dense population growth,
- Wildlife corridors, recreation,
- Evenly distributing human population,
• Catfish production ponds,
- Hunting, fishing, birdwatching, canoeing, nature hikes,
- Threatened and endangered plant habitat,
- Biodiversity, and
- Aesthetics.
These responses indicate that the survey respondents had at least general knowledge of ecology and a wide
range of perception of wetland values, as well as a wide range of interests.
Eleven of the 18 respondents answered Question 3, which asked about local areas or items in need
of protection. Respondents gave the following answers:
- Gulf coast striped bass,
- Threatened and endangered species - wood storks and indigo snakes,
- Important limesinks,
- "Swamp of Toa" area,
- Floodplain wetlands,
- The rare plant, arrowhead,
- Gopher frogs, flatwoods salamanders, Georgia blind cave salamander, and wetlands critical to them,
- Chickasawhatchee wildlife management area,
- The Flint River and Cooleewahee Creek floodplain wetlands, and
- All wetlands.
These responses are addressed in "Section 4.0 Discussion" of this report.
Twelve of the 18 survey respondents gave an answer for Question 4, which asked what other issues
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 77
needed to be addressed by the Project Team. Items that respondents felt deserved attention were:
- Wetland losses and restoration opportunities,
- Impacts of agriculture, farm pond construction, and conversion of wetlands for agriculture,
- Interactions of ground water and surface water,
- The need for a provision for road anchor power line crossings of wetlands,
- Irrigation and development in wetlands,
• Wetland designations that would be of more use to timber and agricultural industries, other than
"suitable for fill" and "unsuitable for fill,"
- Non-point pollution,
- Storm water runoff,
- Recommendations for areas to be protected under the "Preservation 2000" program,
- Use of wetlands for irrigation,
- The rarnimnm sue of a wetland that can be developed without significant impacts, and
- Consistent regulations.
Some of these responses indicated that some of the respondents did not receive initial information
that was disseminated by the Project Team during the public outreach phase of the project. This indicated
that other methods of public outreach should perhaps be used in the future in addition to those that were
used. Other responses indicated that the respondents were generally well informed about current wetland
issues. These responses are addressed by the Project Team in "Section 4.0 Discussion".
3.9 Accuracy of National Wetland Inventory Maps within the Project Area
The accuracy rate of the NWI maps was evaluated at functional assessment sites during that phase
of the project. A total of 110 wetland sites were examined in this analysis of NWI accuracy. Overall, the
accuracy of the NWI maps for the project area, including all wetland types, was 69%. These data were
partitioned by wetland type and then re-evaluated to determine if any wetland types had disproportionately
low NWI accuracy rates. These results are listed below in Table 8.
Table 8. Accuracy of National Wetland Inventory Maps among project area wetland types
Wetland Type % Classified Accurately Wetland Type % Classified Accurately
DF 100% RFC 100%
DH 78% RHA 25%
DQ 83% RHC 50%
DS 44% RQ 50%
RFA 86% RSA 11%
RSC 67%
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 78
Wetland types with apparently disproportionately low accuracy rates were the DS, RHA, RHC, RQC,
RSA, and RSC wetland types. The scrub-shrub (S) vegetation class generally had a very low accuracy rate.
The most likely explanations for the inaccuracies in this vegetative class are disturbance and plant succession
since the time of map compilation. Disruption of plant communities by silvicultural activities (i.e. clear-
cutting) was responsible for the currently inaccurate classifications of 9ome scrub-shrub wetlands as forested
wetlands. At the time of the aerial photograph interpretation for the development of the NWI maps,
vegetation in these areas may have been of the forested class. Since that time however, trees in some of
these sites have been removed and shrub-level vegetation, some of which is composed of immature
individuals of tree species, has come to dominate the site. The inverse of this process was also observed,
though not at sampled sites. Some sites that were originally classified as scrub-shrub vegetation were, at
the time of the CDP ADHD, actually forested sites. Forest stand maturation was probably responsible for
inaccuracies of this type. Some sites that were vegetated with shrub-level vegetation at the time of the
development of the NWI maps have since been replaced by tree species. Four sites along the Flint River
were observed which had undergone this transition.
Low NWI accuracy rates for wetlands of other vegetative classes could have been the result of a wide
range of phenomena. Possible explanations might include hydrologic changes, plant succession, or
agricultural practices.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 79
4. DISCUSSION
4.1 Functional Assessment
Two issues related to the results of the wetland functional assessment warrant some clarification.
The first is the interpretation of the results of the biotic community support functional evaluation. The
second item is the criteria used in determining the presence of the process of water velocity reduction within
sampled wetlands.
4.1.1 Interpretation of the Biotic flnmmnT>itv Support Evaluation. The low rating of depressional
wetlands for the biotic community support function reflects certain inadequacies of the functional assessment
model used in this evaluation. The Project Team was unable to arrive at a consensus on how to best
incorporate biological characteristics of wetlands into the biotic community support evaluation process. The
ranking of certain vegetative communities over others on the basis of "wildlife value" is flawed, because some
plant community types are valuable to some wildlife, but not to others. Such use of vegetation
characteristics would have required the prioritization of wildlife species or guilds, a process which the Project
Team felt was inappropriate and scientifically indefensible. Incorporation of indices of biodiversity were
considered for the biotic community support model, however use of such indices proved impractical and
unworkable due to the excessive complexity involved in the analysis of this characteristic.
Despite the fact that these characteristics of wetlands were not used to a great extent in the
evaluation of the biotic community support functions, consideration of these data would have yielded a more
accurate evaluation of the actual habitat or ecological value of project area wetland types. The evaluation
process used here does represent an accurate evaluation of the relative importance of project area wetland
types in the export of organic carbon important to maintaining downstream ecosystems, which was the
intended purpose of the biotic community support evaluation. These results should not be construed as
indications of the relative wildlife habitat value or the overall ecological importance of wetland types.
Results of the Floral and Faunal Assessment ("Section 3.5") provide a more accurate evaluation of these
intrinsic attributes of project area wetland types.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 80
Depressional wetlands, for example, generally received lower rankings for biotic community support
than did riverine wetlands. These rankings were a result of the fact that depressional wetlands are, by
definition, hydrologicaHy isolated from other wetland ecosystems, and thus, are not as effective at exporting
organic carbon as are riverine wetlands, which by definition are hydrologically connected to other wetland
ecosystems. This result does not indicate the relative importance of these depressional systems in terms of
wildlife habitat, biodiversity, or crucial habitats for sensitive species. Much evidence exists which indicates
that depressional wetlands possess high-biological diversity and provide habitat for a disproportionately high
percentage of threatened, endangered, or otherwise sensitive plant and animal species (L.K. Kirkman and
R. Herrington, personal communication).
4.1.2 Determination of the Presence of Water Veloeitv Reduction. The process of water velocity reduction
was used in the evaluation of two wetland functions, water quality enhancement and water storage. The
presence of water velocity reduction in a sampled wetland unit was determined by the presence of the
following field indicators: constrictions to flow, sediment deposits, structural roughness, and topographic
complexity. A consensus was reached by the Project Team that all depressional wetlands preformed water
velocity reduction, since water flowing laterally from upland sources during rain events ponds in these areas
and either percolates into the soil, evaporates, or is transpired by plants.
In an effort to ensure the accuracy of stating that an individual wetland unit performed water
velocity reduction, the Project Team elected to require that at least two water velocity reduction indicators
be present in a sampled wetland unit in order for the process to be determined present. This requirement
may have been too rigorous in some instances. Some single field indicators may have been adequate to
exhibit that a wetland is performing water velocity reduction (i.e., structural roughness). As a result of the
evaluation process used, some apparent inconsistencies emerged upon evaluation of the functional assessment
data. Field indicators of water storage were observed in all RHC wetlands, for example, however, based
upon the 2-indicator requirement, less than half (38%) of these areas were determined to be performing
water velocity reduction. This resulted in RHC wetlands receiving a moderate ranking for the water storage
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 81
function. Closer examination of the water velocity reduction indicators present in RHC wetlands revealed
that 88% of these sites had at least one water velocity reduction indicator, that structural roughness was
observed in 50% of sampled RHC wetlands. This suggested that RHC wetlands were very effective at
reducing water velocity, even though the evaluation procedure used here indicated this wetland type
possessed only a moderate capacity for the process. Perhaps water velocity reduction field indicators should
have been placed into reliability categories in which the observation of certain single indicators would have
been adequate to determine the presence of this process.
4.2 Threats to Wetland Resources in the Central Dougherty Plain
Wetland resources in southwest Georgia have faced a variety of threats, ranging from urban sprawl
and conversion for silviculture and agriculture to reduction or loss of source water from aquifer withdrawals
and pollution from agricultural and industrial chemicals. Statewide, Georgia has lost 1.5 million acres (23%)
of its original 6,843,200 acres of wetlands (Dahl 1990). Of that 1.5 million, 520,000 acres (35%) have been
destroyed by drainage for agriculture.
Wetlands in southwest Georgia, however, probably had not been subject to loss and degradation at
the same intensity as those in the rest of the state. Dahl used acreage of hydric soils to estimate original
wetland acreage in the United States (Dahl 1990). The present study estimated 78,469 acres of wetlands
in the project area (20.5% of the total project area). GIS analysis of hydric soil occurrence in the study area,
indicated that 91,942 acres (24.0% of the total project area) have soils classified as a hydric (USDA 1991).
This suggests a loss of 13,473 acres (14.6%) of original wetlands in the project area.
Land ownership patterns helped to preserve some wetland and upland habitats in a relatively
unimpacted state within southwest Georgia. Large tracts of land were held in the ownership of plantations.
Lynch et al. (1986) report that as much as 150,000 acres of this region were contained in these hunting
preserves. Many of these plantations were 20,000 or more acres in size. Originally, agriculture was the
primary activity on these plantations, however in recent times these agricultural fields have been allowed
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 82
to revert back to a natural state. This pattern of land ownership was primarily responsible for the protection
that wetlands in the region received.
At the time of this project, a trend of down-sizing existed on some of these plantations, however.
Economic and taxation circumstances led some of the plantations in southwest Georgia to sell property.
Should this trend continue, many of Hie previously protected wetland sites will become threatened, and may
eventually be lost.
Urban growth threatens wetlands, primarily in the northern part of the project area. Lee County
in particular has undergone much growth in recent years. Concomitant with this growth have been impacts
to wetland resources. Urban growth and development need not be a detriment to local wetland resources.
Advance planning by local communities can facilitate such development with minimal impacts to wetlands
or other aquatic sites.
Conversion for agriculture and silviculture has been another real and potential threat to wetland
resources in the CDP. Aerial surveys which took place throughout the project area revealed a high rate of
deforestation in forested wetlands and conversion to upland uses. These activities were observed throughout
the project area, but were most commonly observed in the southwestern and south-central portions of the
project area.
Clearing and removal of wetland vegetation for agricultural purposes has also frequently occurred
in the project area, though at a lower intensity since implementation of the "Swampbuster" provisions of the
Food Security Act in December 1985. These areas were clearly visible during aerial surveys which took place
throughout this project While the hydrology of some of these agricultural wetlands has been altered through
ditching and drain tiles, the hydrologic integrity of other wetlands remains intact. These agricultural
wetlands represent potential wetland restoration opportunities.
4.2.1 Geohvdrology of the Central Dougherty Plain. The project area lies within the Dougherty Plain
Physiographic Province of southwest Georgia (Wharton 1978) and is underlain by Coastal Plain sediments
that consist of alternating units of sand, clay, sandstone, dolomite, and limestone. The UFA is a semi-
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 83
confined aquifer which underlies the Dougherty Plain. The geologic units pertinent to the functioning of the
UFA are, in ascending order, the Lisbon Formation, the Ocala Limestone, and the undifferentiated
overburden. In the project area, the Lisbon Formation is thick and dense and acts as an impermeable base
of the UFA. The UFA in the project area consists primarily of the Ocala Limestone and is the primary
source of irrigation, industrial, and rural domestic water supplies in the area (Hicks et al. 1987). The
undifferentiated overburden consists of alternating layers of sand, silt, and clay, which acts as a source of
recharge to or receives discharge from the UFA (Torak et al. 1991).
The Dougherty Plain is characterized by karst topography having numerous, shallow flat-bottomed
or rounded depressions, that may be remnants of ancient sinkholes. The depressions range in depth from
only a few feet to more than 25 feet and are usually filled with material of low permeability; some
depressions hold water year round (Torak, et al. 1991 and Hicks et al. 1987). Younger sinkholes may not
hold water year round, because they have not been filled with low permeability materials. Consequently,
water can move easily into or out of them from the underlying limestone aquifer, depending upon head
differential (Hayes et al. 1983).
The undifferentiated overburden, where present, overlies the UFA and is composed of many layers
of sand, silt and clay, most of which are discontinuous. In the Albany area, the thickness of the overburden
varies from approximately 20 feet to over 100 feet. West of the Flint River, however, the overburden
generally ranges in thickness from 20 to 40 feet (Hicks et al. 1987). The dominant lithologic factor
determining the hydraulic conductivity of the undifferentiated overburden is the relative amount of sand and
clay (Hayes et al. 1983). The vertical hydraulic conductivities of the sand components of this overburden
are approximately 23 feet per day, while the vertical hydraulic conductivities of the silty clay components
are around 0.0004 feet per day. Although most layers of similar lithology within the undifferentiated
overburden are discontinuous and can be traced only for short distances, a layer of clay in the lower half
of the overburden, which ranges in thickness from approximatley 10 to 29 feet, may be continuous throughout
the southwestern part of the Albany area (Torak et al. 1991). The clay layers, where present, are relatively
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 84
impermeable and result in local perched water tables (Hicks et al. 1987).
The UFA consists primarily of the Ocala Limestone which dips gently to the southeast and varies
in thickness throughout the Albany area from about 25 to 270 ft (Torak et al. 1991). The Ocala Limestone
is exposed along the Flint River and its major tributaries, and at scattered locations in the northwestern part
of the area (Hicks et al 1987). In the project area, there are two water-bearing zones within the UFA, each
having different hydraulic properties. The upper water-bearing zone typically consists of fossiliferous, very
fine-grained, recrystallized, chalky limestone and the lower water-bearing zone, which generally is highly
fractured, consists of alternating layers of sandy limestone and recrystallized dolomitic limestone (Hicks et
al. 1987).
The upper water-bearing zone is characterized by having relatively low secondary permeability (few
solution cavities and conduits), and a resultant low capacity to transmit large quantities of water (Torak
et aL 1991). The thickness of the upper water-bearing zone in the project area ranges from about two feet
to over 75 feet with an average thickness of approximately 40 feet (Torak et al. 1991). Thickness variations
in the upper water-bearing zone determine the extent to which this zone acts as a hydrologic barrier for
transmitting water vertically between the lower water-bearing zone and the undifferentiated overburden.
Most domestic wells penetrate only into this zone and yield only small quantities of water.
The lower water-bearing zone is characterized by having relatively high secondary permeability
(abundance of solution cavities and conduits), and a resultant high capacity to transmit large quantities of
water. This zone ranges in thickness from about 50 to 100 feet and is highly fractured (Torak et al. 1991).
The high secondary permeability of the lower water-bearing zone results from dissolution of limestone by
ground water circulating along bedding planes and fractures (Hicks et al. 1987). These fractures are
responsible for the majority of the aquifer's water transport (Torak et al. 1991).
Water levels in the UFA fluctuate on an annual cycle, with spring highs and fall lows. During years
of normal precipitation water levels fluctuate from two to 30 feet (Hicks et al. 1987). Near large-volume
pumping centers, such as industrial or agricultural wells, these seasonal water level fluctuations likely exceed
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 85
30 feet. A fluctuation of 33.4 feet within a 25-day period was measured in the UFA well near Byne
Crossroads in Lee County. The well lies approximately 300 yards from a center pivot irrigation system. On
May 16, 1993 the irrigation well was not in use and the water level in UFA was 27.2 feet below the
measuring point. The irrigation well was pumping on June 10, 1993 and the water level in the UFA was
60.6 feet below the measuring point. The well was likely within the cone of influence from the irrigation
weH The Byne Crossroads well is located near the outcrop of the UFA, where the aquifer is relatively thin
in comparison to the rest of the study area to the south. Typically the yield to drawdown ratio for wells in
Lee County is lower than for those in other parts of the study area. For more information on fluctuations
in the UFA from pumping and seasonal influences refer to Hicks et al. 1987 and Torak et al. 1991.
Surface water features in the Albany area are maintained, in part, by discharge from the UFA.
Discharge from the aquifer into streams is at a maximum during the winter months, which coincides with
the mnviTnimn water levels in the UFA. In the dryer months (November and December) discharge from the
UFA is responsible for maintaining baseflow in rivers and streams. Ground water discharge also helps to
maintain the riverine wetlands during the dryer months and periods of low rainfall. Major solution conduits
that emerge within or adjacent to stream channels are responsible for the majority of the water that enters
the wetlands and streams from the UFA.
Relationships of water levels in depressional features to those in the UFA are less understood. Some
depressions are likely influenced by water from the UFA. In areas where the upper water-bearing zone is
absent, thin or fractured and the percentage of clay in the undifferentiated overburden is low or the clay has
been breached by sinkholes, the depressions may be directly connected to the aquifer and show significant
fluctuation in water level due to changes in the water level in the lower water-bearing zone. These
depressions act as recharge sites during periods of low water levels within the UFA and as discharge sites
during high water level periods (H. Cofer and T. Rasmussen personal communication). Other depressions
have been filled with low permeability material or are in locations where the percentage of clay in the
overburden is high, which most likely preclude any significant hydrologic interchange with the UFA. Water
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 86
levels in such depressions may still be influenced by water levels in the UFA, but at a lower magnitude and
a longer time lag. Wetlands in areas of exposed limestone may also be susceptible to degradation due to
ground water withdrawals.
It is impossible to determine the degree of connection between depressional features and the aquifer
by visual inspection. The highly heterogeneous nature of the surficial geology makes the determination of
areas of thin or absent upper water-bearing zone materials difficult. Detailed data to quantify these areas
is not available at this time, however, it is likely that the density of sinkholes is an indication of areas in
which the upper water-bearing zone is absent, thin, or fractured.
4.2.2 Effects of Pumping from the Upper Floridan Aquifer. Large withdrawals of water from the UFA
for supplemental irrigation began around 1975, with the introduction of center-pivot irrigation systems (Hicks
et aL 1987). Ground water withdrawals for irrigation in the Dougherty plain increased from about 47 billion
gallons in 1977 to about 107 billion gallons in 1981 (Hayes et al. 1983). Studies by Hicks et al. (1987)
revealed no evidence of long-tram water drawdown in the UFA. The predevelopment pctentiometric surface
of the UFA constructed from data collected prior to 1957 was compared to the potentiometric surface
measured in L985. The potentiometric surfaces were similar despite 28 years of pumping from the UFA.
In 1983, an average of 66 million gallons per day (mgd) was withdrawn, from the UFA in the Dougherty
Plain. The authors suggest that the ground water flow system within the UFA remains in a state of
equilibrium, meaning that the long-term rate of discharge is equal to the rate of recharge and that no change
in ground water storage has taken place.
Leitman et aL (1993), however, presented evidence that base flows in the Flint River watershed have
decreased since the early 1970's, The authors suggest that this decrease is related to ground water
withdrawals associated with the increase in the use of center-pivot irrigation systems in the Dougherty Plain.
This hypothesis is supported by the ground water modeling performed by Torak et al. (1991). The largest
relative percent change in the water budget due to simulated increased pumping was the reduction of
discharge to the Flint River (Table 11, Torak et al 1991). Therefore, it cam be concluded that the increase
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 87
in irrigation pumping over the past 30 years has not effected the long-term potentiometric surface of the
UFA because the increased discharge to wells was derived by intercepting water that would have, tinder
predevelopment conditions, discharged to surface water features.
It is unknown what percentage of wetlands loss in the project area may have resulted from irrigation
pumping. The reduction in discharge to surface water features would have altered the riverine wetland
environments, causing subtle changes in plant community structure, the degree of which would be dependent
upon the degree of hydrologic alteration. Depressional wetlands in close proximity to large ground water
withdrawals could also have been effected. These effects could have ranged from subtle changes in the plant
community to the complete loss of the wetland depending on the proximity to the ground water withdrawals
and the geologic setting.
It is difficult to assess the impact on wetlands from the increased irrigation pumping of the UFA over
the past 30 years. Evidence suggests that many depressional wetlands may be perched and the hydraulic
connection between these wetlands and the aquifer is weak. In northern Baker County between
Chickasawhatehee and Cooleewahee Creeks there are approximately 50 irrigation wells of which 20% are
pumped at a rate in excess of two mgd. These wells coexist with a large number of depressional wetlands,
which appear to be relatively healthy. This fact can be attributed to two factors: the geologic setting is such
that many of the wetlands are not directly connected to the aquifer, anchor the irrigation wells are pumped
only during the growing season allowing the wetlands to recharge during the wet season. However, in areas
where the upper water-bearing zone is absent, thin or fractured and the percentage of clay in the
undifferentiated overburden is low or the clay has been breached by sinkholes, the depressional wetlands
may be directly connected to the aquifer. Wetlands that are connected may have been impacted by the
increased irrigation pumping. This may account for some of the wetland loss in the project area.
4.2.3 Potential Effects of Increased Pumping from the Upper FlnriHan Amiifar A municipal well field,
pumping from the UFA, is proposed for the Albany area. The proposed well field study area is located
approximately five miles southwest of the City of Albany. The USGS investigated the water-resource
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 88
potential of the UFA in this area.
Six water withdrawal simulation alternatives were evaluated by Torak et al. (1991). These
alternatives simulated aquifer behavior with four different water withdrawal intensities, from 7.2 mgd from
one well to 72 mgd from five wells, using a calibrated finite-element model. Pumpage greater t.hnw the
proposed and projected rates (7.2 and 14.4 mgd) were simulated to demonstrate the significant yield potential
of the UFA. Simulated mnvmniTw drawdowns are summarized below in Table 9. Drawdowns in the UFA
of eight feet are predicted to be completely within the area of potential development for the maximum
pumping rate of 72 mgd. While the water withdrawals that result in this drawdown are predicted to have
no gignifirant adverse impact on the flow system of the UFA, significant drawdowns could adversely impact
wetlands. The effects were not quantified in the CDP AD ID nor in the water-resource potential study for
the UFA conducted by Torak et al. (1991). Potential impacts from future ground water withdrawals for
irrigation, industrial, or municipal purposes are discussed below.
Table 9. Maximum drawdown due to simulated pumping in area of potential well field development
Source: Torak et al. 1991, page 65 (-- indicates pumping not simulated at node)
Aquifer Drawdown (Feet) Pump Rate
Simulation Node 1226 Node 1294 Node 1446 Node 1367 Node 1156 (lffigAD
1 1.16 -- -- -- -- 7.2
2 -- 1.10 -- -- -- 7.2
3 - -- 1.85 -- - 7.2
4 2.58 2.29 3.14 -- -- 21.6
5 4.15 3.53 4.70 4.38 3.77 36.0
6 8.35 7.12 9.44 8.81 7.33 72.0
Depressional wetlands within close proximity to large ground water withdrawals may experience
changes in hydrology. The degree of the effects of these hydrologic changes upon wetland ecosystems may
vary, depending upon elevation and depth of the depression, hydraulic transmissivity of substrate, local
geology, local ground water flow characteristics, proportion of the water budget of the wetland comprised of
ground water, amount of drawdown, or perhaps, other factors. The potential effect to all wetlands within
close proximity to a pumped well is the loss, partial or complete, of the source of water to the wetland
system which may drastically alter these wetland environments, resulting in large-scale degradation of these
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 89
sites. Wetlands which completely lose source water will transform to upland communities. Wetlands which
partially lose their source of water as a result of drawdown will likely experience transitions in plant
community structure, the degree of which would be determined by the degree of hydrologic alteration. Plant
community changes, such as transition from a plant community dominated by aquatic bed vegetation to a
community dominated by grasses and sedges, would be expected to occur as a result of partial loss of source
water. Potential vegetative responses to changing hydrology are discussed in more detail by Bacchus (1995).
Possible effects of water drawdown on riverine wetlands are not as easily speculated. It is unlikely
that increased ground water withdrawals from the UFA would completely eliminate the source of water for
any riverine wetlands, since by definition, these wetlands receive a major portion of their hydrologic budget
from overbank flows. Nonetheless, some change in the hydrology of riverine systems could occur as a result
of aquifer withdrawals. These effects would probably be less obvious than in depressional systems and might
be reflected as subtle changes in the plant communities of these areas.
As was stated earlier, it is impossible to determine the degree of connection between depressional
features and the aquifer by visual inspection. Therefore, it is assumed that all depressional wetlands are
directly connected to the aquifer and could potentially be impacted by drawdown in the UFA. This worst
case scenario of wetlands which may be adversely affected by the proposed municipal well field, pumping
at a rate of 72 mgd, as predicted by Torak et al. (1991) is shown on Figure 17. The proposed well field
location has been moved eastward and lies at a greater distance from areas of high concentration of
wetlands. The rate of withdrawal currently proposed for the well field by the Albany Water Gas and Light
Commission is 7.2 mgd, with plans to expand to 14.4 mgd. The potential impacts from withdrawal of 7.2
mgd will likely have nnininrmm adverse effects upon wetlands in the vicinity of the well field. The new
municipal well field should provide an opportunity to monitor wetlands and collect data to better evaluate
the interconnection between depressional features and the UFA in the study area.
Due to the uncertainty of the effects of this well field upon wetlands in its vicinity, wetland
monitoring is needed. Permanent wetland monitoring stations with piezometers, permanent vegetative plots,
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
90
Figure 17. Wetlands within the Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification project area potentially
affected by a proposed municipal well field. Zone represents the area which may experience a drawdown
in the Upper Floridan Aquifer of at least six inches resulting from a well field withdrawal rate of 72
million gallons per day (Torak et al. 1991). This is the maximum estimated area of impact from the
well field; lesser impacting alternatives are being considered.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 91
and permanent photograph points should be established in this area. Transects should be run from adjacent
uplands, through the various wetland types and to the opposite upland. These wetlands should be compared
ecologically and functionally to reference wetlands. Monitoring is recommended for five years after initial
start up and should be reinitiated following major changes in pumping rates. Data from these stations
should be collected and evaluated regularly to monitor effects of the well field upon wetlands in its vicinity.
Increased pumping from the proposed well field is not the only potential threat to wetlands in the
area Approximately 385 mgd is pumped from CDP for irrigation during the growing season. Continued and
increased pumping for irrigation may also have adverse effects on wetlands and monitoring as described
above for the well field should be conducted in the vicinity of irrigation withdrawals also.
4.3 The Potential for Wetland Mitigation in the Project Area
Opportunities for wetland mitigation in the project area are numerous. Historically, this area had
a high density of wetlands. Presently, wetlands comprise approximately 21% of the area, perhaps the largest
concentration of wetlands specific to a region in Georgia, excepting the coastal and Okeefenokee regions.
Wetland mitigation opportunities exist primarily in the form of degraded wetlands. Wetland habitats
which have been converted through drainage or other means offer many potential wetland mitigation sites
with high probabilities for successful restoration (where hydrologic source can be restored). Wetland
restoration is preferred over wetland creation, because restoration has a higher probability of success.
The acreage of converted or degraded wetlands in the project area is a significant data gap, and
determination of this acreage was not an objective of the CDP AD ID. Examination of converted wetlands
within the region would be a worthwhile task, however, since such areas represent potential wetland
mitigation sites. The feasibility of creating a wetland mitigation bank should also be explored.
A secondary source of potential wetland mitigation sites in the project area is degraded wetlands
which were designated as Low Value - Suitable for Fill with Appropriate Mitigation by the Project Team. Many of
these wetland sites were found to have undergone alterations (i.e. drainage, partial filling, or removal of
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 92
vegetation) which diminished their ability to perform the evaluated functions. In these sites such alterations
could be identified and reversed, resulting in the restoration of highly functional, thus highly valuable,
wetland environments.
Enhancement of low value wetlands offers the most abundant opportunities for wetland mitigation,
perhaps as much as 12,000 acres of wetlands. Mitigation of this type, however, should result in less wetland
mitigation credit for Clean Water Act Section 404 permitees, since this method typically provides lesser
contribution to the goal of "no net loss of wetlands" than do wetland restoration or creation.
4.4 Recommended Measures to Protect Significant Wetland Features in the Central Dougherty Plain
The CDP area contains many significant wetland features which deserve protection. Protection of
these features is in the interest of the economic and ecological condition of the region and the state.
Wetlands in the CDP provide a wide array of benefits to the region, many of which have direct economic
value. Many of these wetlands facilitate recharge of the UFA, which supplies potable water to much of south
Georgia and Florida. Wetlands in the CDP also provide many ecological support functions which are
significant on local, regional, and continental scales. Prominent wetland areas within the project area which
warrant special protection are discussed below.
4.4.1 Kiokee-Chickaflawhatchee-Spring Creeks Cnnflnpnra Atb« Protection of this area is of high priority.
It comprises the central basin of perhaps the largest and most extensive complex of riverine and depressional
wetlands in southwest Georgia, if not the entire state. The majority of these wetlands rated high or critical
for the water quality, water storage, and biotic community support functions and were, rated as High Value -
Unsuitable for Fill. For many years this area has been leased by GDNR from St. Joseph Land and
Development Company, and has been used as a wildlife management area.
Purchase of this property by an entity which would protect the wetland areas from destruction would
go far toward protecting the integrity of the Kiokee-Chickasawhatchee-Spring Creeks confluence area. This
area is shown in Figure 18.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
93
Figure 18. Wetlands in the Chickasawhatchee -
Kiokee -Spring Creeks confluence area in the
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification
Project Area.
¦ FOCUS WETLANDS
¦ OTHER WETLANDS
LEESBURG
LEARY
United States Environmental Protection Agency
SCALE
I I I
O 2.6 5 VILES
ELMODEL
NEWTON
KEY
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 94
4.4.2 Aquifer Recharge Wetlands. Protection of wetlands which rated high or critical for the aquifer recharge
function is of high priority. These areas are commonly small and isolated wetland units, which makes them
subject to NWP 26. NWP 26 is a general permit which allows wetland impacts of up to three acres in
wetlands that are considered to be isolated or above headwaters. Many depressional wetlands in the CDP are
isolated in terms of surface water features, but are hydrologically connected to the UFA. This characteristic
makes these wetlands critical exchange points between surface and ground water. These depressions also
possess a high degree of biodiversity and are crucial habitats for sensitive plant and animal species (L.K.
Kirkman and R. Herrington, personal communication). Because of NWP 26, these wetlands receive very little
protection from destruction, despite the fact that they perform highly-valued wetland functions at high
magnitudes. Enhanced protection of these areas is justifiable from both ecological and economic perspectives.
A region-wide wetland protection mechanism is necessary to preserve these depressional wetlands. While
some wetland functions can be replaced, given enough financial effort, aquifer recharge is an irreplaceable
wetland function, and thus cannot be mitigated for or recreated at another site.
Wide-scale protection of these wetlands resulting from purchase by individuals or institutions
interested in protecting them is unfeasible due to cost, their wide distribution, and the large number of these
wetlands. A region-wide regulatory wetland protection tool, such as placement of regional conditions on NWP
26, or perhaps the repeal of that NWP by the COE for the project area, is required to provide adequate
protection to these sites. This action is strongly recommended by the Project Team. Locations of these
wetlands are shown in Figure 11.
4.4.3 Upper Chickasawhatchee Creek. This area includes wetlands which are associated with the upper
portion of Chickasawhatchee Creek and its tributaries. Upper Chickasawhatchee Creek bisects the western
portion of the project area. These wetlands are important for a variety of reasons. They generally were
rated critical or high for water quality, water storage, and biotic community support functions, and as a result
were rated as High Value - Unsuitable forFill. They create a long-distance dispersal corridor which is used by
many species of animals and plants. This corridor enters the project area southeast of Dawson, bisects the
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 95
Kiokee-CWckasawhatch.ee- Spring Creeks confluence area, and then intersects the Ichauwaynochaway Creek
corridor. These qualities make protection of the upper Chickasawhatchee Creek a high priority.
As with depressional wetlands, riverine wetlands located in a high watershed position (i.e.
headwaters) lack adequate protection under the Clean Water Act because of NWP 26. NWP 26 allows
wetland impacts of up to three acres in wetlands associated with streams which have a mean annual flow
of less than five cubic feet per second. The recommended action of rescindment of NWP 26 would provide
much needed protection to these important headwater wetlands in the project area. Aside from rescindment
of NWP 26, conservation easements could be used to afford some protection to these wetlands. The upper
Chickasawhatchee Creek wetlands are shown in Figure 19.
4.4.4 Cooleewahee Creek Corridor. Wetlands associated with Cooleewahee Creek create a long corridor
area which connects the northern and southern halves of the project area This corridor begins near Albany,
continues south where it skirts the eastern edge of the Kiokee-Chickasawhatchee-Spring Creeks confluence
area, then farther south where it intersects the Flint River corridor.
Like wetlands in the Kiokee-Chickasawhatchee-Spring Creeks confluence area, wetlands in the
Cooleewahee corridor rated high or critical for most wetland functions and were designated as High Value -
Unsuitable for Fill. These wetlands should be protected in order to preserve those wetland functions within
the project area. Outright purchase or conservation easements would be appropriate mechanisms to protect
the Cooleewahee corridor. This area is shown in Figure 20.
4.4.5 List of Recommended Actions to Protect Critical Wetland Resources in the Project Area.
1. COE exertion of discretionary authority to rescind or place stringent regional conditions upon
NWP 26, or oilier NWPs which cause unacceptable impacts to wetlands, for the project area.
2. Purchase of the Kiokee-Chickasawhatchee-Spring creeks confluence area and other crucial
wetland areas by an agency or organization which would place emphasis upon wetland
protection in the management of such areas.
3. Use of conservation easements to protect privately-owned wetlands.
4. Development of joint county/COE procedures for reviewing building sites to assure that
developers are made aware of potential wetland issues early in the planning process and to
facilitate advance planning for wetlands.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 96
Figure 19. Riverine wetlands in the upper
Chickasawhatchee Creek drainage basin, Central
Dougherty Plain Advance Identification Project Area
LEARY
NEWTON
United States Environmental Protection Agency
¦ FOCUS WETLANDS
¦ OTHER WETLANDS*
ELMODEL
LEESBURG
5 MILES
SCALE
I
0 2.5
KEY
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
97
Figure 20. Riverine wetlands in the
Cooleewahee Creek corridor, Central
Dougherty Plain Advance Identification
Project Area.
8 FOCUS WETLANDS
H OTHER WETLANDS
LEESBURG
LEARY
NEWTON
United States Environmental Protection Agency
SCALE
I I 1
O 2.6 S MILES
ELMODEL
KEY
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 98
5. Incorporation of CDP ADID wetland designations into county zoning and building permit
issuance processes and local subdivision rules.
6. Detailed monitoring of ground water withdrawals, particularly during municipal well field
development and droughts, to assess wetland impacts.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 99
LITERATURE CITED
Adamus, P.R., E.J. Clairain, Jr., R.D. Smith, and R.E. Young. 1987. Wetland Evaluation Technique. Volume
II: Evaluation Rationale. Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Washington, D.C.
Ambrose, J. 1991. Georgia's natural communities - a preliminary list. Unpublished report. Ga. Dept. of Nat. Res.
Atlanta, GA. 15 pp.
Bacchus, S.T. 1995. Improved assessment of baseline conditions and change in wetlands associated with
ground water withdrawal and diversion. Proceedings of the 1995 Georgia Water Resources Conference.
University of Georgia, Athens.
Brinson, M.M. 1993a. A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands. Technical Report WRP-DE-4, U.S. Army
Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 79pp.
.1993b. Changes in the functioning of wetllinds along environmental gradients. Wetlands 13(2):65-74.
Brook, G.A. 1985. Geological factors influencing well productivity in the Dougherty Plain covered karst
region of Georgia. Karst Water Resources. Proceedings of the Ankara - Antalya Symposium. July 1985.
LAHS Publication.no. 161, pages 87-99.
and T.L. Allison. 1983. Fracture mapping and ground subsidence susceptibility modeling in covered karst
terrain: The example of Dougherty County, Georgia. Pages 595-606.
and C. Sun. 1982. Predicting the specific capacities of wells penetrating the Ocala Aquifer beneath the Dougherty
Plain, Southwest Georgia. Technical Completion Report USD1/0WRT Project A-086-GA in cooperation
with Environmental Resources Center, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA. 86 pp.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification cf Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats
Of the United States. FWS/OBS-7JV31. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Washington, D.C. 131 pp.
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. 13 pp.
and C. E. Johnson, and W.E. Frayer. 1991. Status and Trends cf Wetlands in the Conterminous United
States, Mid-1970's to Mid-1980's. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Washington, D.C. 28 pages.
Davis, R.D., J.C. Donahue, R.H. Hutcheson, and D.L. Waldrop. 1989. Most Significant Ground Water Recharge
Areas of Georgia. Hydrologic Atlas 18. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental
Protection Division, Georgia Geologic Survey, Atlanta, GA.
Delaplane, K.S. editor. 1993. 1993 Georgia pest control handbook. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Cooperative
Extension Service, University of Georgia, Athens. Special Bulletin 28.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S.
Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, 100 pp.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 100
Erwin. C. 1996. De Soto in the Swamp of Toa. The Journal of Southwest Georgia History XI:60-81.
Forman, R.T.T. and M. Godron. 1986. Landscape Ecology. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, NY, 619 pp.
GDNR 1993. Plan of Study for the Central Dougherty Plain Advanced Identification of Wetlands.
Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Albany. Unpublished Report.
Hayes, L.R., M.L. Maslia, W.C. Meeks. 1983. Hydrology and model evaluation of the principal artesian aquifer,
Dougherty Plain, southwest Georgia. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection
Division, Georgia Geologic Survey. Bulletin 97. Atlanta, GA. 93 pp.
Hicks, D.W., RE. Krause, and J.S. Clarke. 1981. Geohydrology of the Albany area, Georgia. U.S. Geological
Survey in cooperation with the City of Albany Water, Gas and Light Commission. Information
Circular 57.
., H.E. Gill, and SA. Longsworth. 1987. Hydrology, chemical quality, and availability of ground water in the
upper Floridan aquifer, Albany area, Georgia. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report
87-4145, 52pp.
Leitman, S., A. Dzurik, S. Ovenden, and D. Wilber. 1993. An evaluation of the effects of irrigation withdrawals in
the Dougherty Plain on base-flow in the Apalachicola River. Georgia Water Resources Conference, University
of Georgia, Athens.
Lynch, M J., A.K. Gholson, Jr., and W.W. Baker. 1986. Natural features inventory oflchauway Plantation, Georgia.
The Nature Conservancy, Southeast Regional Office, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Unpublished
Report.
Mitsch, WJ. and J.G. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands. Second Edition. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY.
722 pp.
USDA 1991. Hydric soils cf the United States. 3rd Edition. In cooperation with the U.S. Soil Conservation
Service. Miscellaneous Publication Number 1491.
FWS 1992. Endangered and threatened species cf the southeast region, ed. Division of Endangered Species. United
States Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
Tiner, R. C. 1984. Interrelationships between biological, chemical, and physical variables in Mount Hope
Bay, Massachusetts. Estaurine, Coastal, and Shelf Science 12:701-712.
Torak, L.J., G.S. Davis, G.A. Strain, and J.G. Herndon. 1991. Geohydrology and evaluation cf water-resource
potential of the Upper Floridan Aquifer in the Albany area, southwestern Georgia. U.S. Geological Survey in
cooperation with the City of Albany Water Gas and Light Commission. Open-file Report 91-52.
Watson, T.W. 1981. Geohydrology of the Dougherty Plain and adjacent area, southwest Georgia. Georgia Geologic
Survey in cooperation with the U.S. Geological Survey. Hydrologic Atlas 5.
Wharton, C.H. 1978. The natural environments of Georgia. Bulletin 114. Georgia Geological Survey, Atlanta,
GA.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
101
GLOSSARY
Advance Identification (ADID)- A program authorized by Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act and
initiated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to protect critical and/or sensitive wetlands and to
streamline the Section 404 permitting process by identifying, in advance of any permit application, functions
of all wetlands in a particular area. Areas targeted for an ADID project are generally areas undergoing
rapid urban development. The results of an ADID constitute a valuable land management tool which can
be used in making land use or zoning decisions.
Agriculture- The growing of row crops or livestock for commercial purposes.
Aquifer- A subterranean layer of porous water-bearing rock, gravel, or sand. The principal aquifer in the
Dougherty Rain is the Upper Floridan Aquifer.
Biological Diversity- A characteristic of a given area defined by the number of different life forms supported
by that area. Biological diversity is also referred to as species diversity or species richness.
Centred Dougherty Plain (CDP)- The centrally located portion of a physiographic province in southwest
Georgia, characterized by relatively flat terrain and a limestone substrate, bounded on the west by the
Chattahoochee River, on the east by the Pelham Escarpment.
CDP ADID Team (Project Team)- The study team which conducted the Central Dougherty Plain Wetlands
Advance Wetland Identification Project. This team was composed of representatives from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and
the Georgia Department of Natural Resources.
Clean Water Act- Originally passed by the U.S. Congress as the Water Pollution Control Act of 1972. It was
renamed the Clean Water Act in 1977 and prohibits the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters
(including wetlands) of the United States without a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Corps of Engineers (COE)- A branch of the U.S. Army that is responsible for maintaining waterways of the
U.S. Included in this responsibility is the authority to issue permits for discharge of dredged or fill material
into waters of the U.S., including wetlands.
Depressional Wetlands- Wetlands that are formed by depressions or low spots in the terrain and which are
not a river or stream.
Endangered Species- A plant or animal species classified under the Endangered Specie9 Act of 1973 as
being in immediate danger of becoming extinct.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)- A federal agency charged with protecting the environment. The
EPA sponsors ADID projects throughout the nation.
Fauna- Animals.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)- The federal agency which is responsible for operating the nation's
National Wildlife Refuges, managing migratory wildlife, protecting threatened and endangered species,
reviewing Section 404 wetland permit applications, and contributing to ADID projects by evaluating the
wildlife function of wetlands.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
Flora- Plants.
102
Floridan Aquifer- See Upper Floridan Aquifer.
Functional Assessment- An evaluation method conducted on wetlands to determine the presence and quality
of various functions, such as flood water retention, ground water recharge, water quality maintenance, plant
and animal habitat, etc.
Geographic Information System (GIS)- This computer-based land management tool allows maps of different
characteristics to be combined for use in analyzing complex land management problems.
Georgia Freshwater Wetlands and Heritage Inventory (GFWHI)- A program initiated by the Georgia
Department of Natural Resources to inventory and monitor freshwater wetlands, plants, and wildlife of the
State.
Gleying- The formation of a grayish, greenish or bluish clay layer under the surface of some water-saturated
soils. Gleying is caused by highly reduced soil conditions which result from long-term soil saturation.
Ground Water- Water that occurs below the ground surface.
Hydric Soil- A soil whose formation was strongly influenced by being saturated with water. Hydric soils
are characterized by gleying, mottling, and poor drainage. Hydric soil is one of the three primary wetland
parameters.
Hydrology- The study of water occurrence, quality and movement through the environment. The study of
the interactions of precipitation, ground water, and surface water. Hydrology is one of the three primary
wetland parameters.
Hydrophytic Vegetation (Hydrophytes)- Plants that require or can tolerate water-saturated soil conditions
for long periods of time. Some examples are cypress, water tupelo, various sedges, and cattails. Hydrophytic
vegetation is one of the three primary wetland parameters.
Interagency Project Team (Project Team)- A team of professionals from various agencies whose objective
is to conduct a project requiring expertise from several different disciplines. The CDP ADID Team is an
interagency team.
Land Ownership Database- A database in which information pertaining to land ownership is compiled.
Some examples of the type of information contained in such a database are names and addresses of land
owners, areas of tracts, etc.
Limesink- A wetland or a pond which is created when underlying limestone is dissolved by water allowing
the land surface to deform downward and/or collapse. The resulting depression often fills with water.
Limesinks are characterized by steep sides and generally elliptic to round shapes.
National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Map- Maps compiled by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service depicting
wetlands at a scale of 1:24000. The maps were developed from 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle maps and
aerial photography and then field checked to insure a certain degree of accuracy. Although the maps are
accurate, they do not constitute jurisdictional wetland delineations.
Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS)- An agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture which
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
103
is responsible for managing and conserving the nation's soils. The NRCS has developed the County Soil
Survey Reports which are used widely by people in agricultural and natural resource fields. This agency
was formerly named the U.S. Soil .Conservation Service (SCS).
Ocala Aquifer- Common name for the Upper Floridan Aquifer.
Precipitation- Rainfall, snow, etc.
Rare Species- A species of plant or animal that is uncommon and potentially threatened or endangered.
Section 404- The section of the Clean Water Act which regulates the deposition of dredged or fill material into
the watery of the United States, including wetlands. Section 404 is administered by the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency.
Silviculture- The science of growing trees for commercial sale.
Soil Type- A group of soils that are similar in terms of such characteristics as acidity/alkalinity, texture,
organic content, etc.
Surface Water- Water that occurs above the ground surface, such as in a stream, lake, or pond.
Technical Support Team (TSD- A body of experts in various subjects associated with wetland science which
was formed to advise the CDP ADID Project Team on technical matters involved in the evaluation of
wetlands.
Threatened Species- Plant or animal species classified under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as being
in such a condition as to soon be in immediate danger of becoming extinct.
Upper Floridan Aquifer- The principal aquifer for the Central Dougherty Plain. This aquifer is known
locally as the Ocala Aquifer, Floridan Aquifer, or the principal artesian aquifer. It provides potable water
for much of south Georgia and north Florida.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)- A federal agency which produces maps of the U.S. and carries out research
pertaining to geology and hydrology of the U.S.
Wetland- Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and
duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs,
and similar areas.
Wetland Delineation- The process of determining the actual boundaries of wetlands through a field
evaluation using accepted criteria. The CDP ADID does not constitute a wetland delineation but rather,
provides an approximation of wetland locations.
Wetland Function- Physical, chemical, or biological processes which occur in wetlands. Some examples of
wetland functions are sediment retention, organic carbon export, and water velocity reduction.
Wetland Value- Benefits to humans which are provided by wetland functions. An example of a wetland
value is water quality enhancement which results from the wetland function, sediment retention.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
APPENDIX I. Plant List
Central Dougherty Plain
Advance Identification of Wetlands
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
Trees:
Code
Species
Common Name
ACBA
Acer barbatum
Florida Maple
ACRU
Acer rubrum
Red Maple
ACSA
Acer saccharinum
Silver Maple
BENI
Betula nigra
River Birch
BULA
Bumelia languinosa
Buckthorn
CACA
Carpinus carolirtiam
American Hornbeam
CAAQ
Carya aquatica
Bitter Pecan
CAOV
Carya ovata
Pignut Hickory
CATO
Carya tomentosa
Mockernut Hickory
CASP
Carya spp.
Hickory
CEOC
Celtis occidentalis
Hackberry
CESP
Celtis spp.
Hackberry
CHVI
Chionanthus virginicus
Fringetree
COFL
Cornusfioridanus
Flowering Dogwood
DYVI
Diospyros virginiam
Common Persimmon
FRPE
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
GLAQ
Gleditsia aquatica
Water Locust
GLTR
Gleditsia triacanthos
Honey Locust
HOP
Ilex opaca
American Holly
JUVI
Juniperus virginiam
Eastern Red Cedar
LIST
Liquidambar styraciflua
Sweetgum
L ITU
Lireodendron tulipifera
Yellow Poplar
MA VI
Magnolia virginiam
Sweetbay
MEAZ
Melia azedarach
Chinaberry
MORU
Morus rubra
Red Mulberry
NYAQ
Nyssa aquatica
Water Tupelo
NYBI
Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora
Swamp Blackgum
NYSY
Nyssa sylvatica
Blackgum
OSV1
Ostrya virginiana
Eastern Hophornbeam
PEBO
Persea borbonia
Redbay
PEPA
Persea palustris
Swampbay
PIEL
Pinus elliottii
Slash Pine
PIGA
Pinus glabra
Spruce Pine
PIPA
Pinus palustris
Longleaf Pine
PITA
Pinus taeda
Loblolly Pine
PLAQ
Planera aquatica
Water Elm
PLOC
Platanus occidentalis
American Sycamore
PPDE
Populus deltoides
Eastern Cottonwood
QUHE
Quercus hemispherica
Laurel Oak
QUIA
Quercus laurtfolia
Diamondleaf Oak
QULY
Quercus lyrata
Overcup Oak
QUMI
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
Trees: (cont'd.)
Code
Soecies
Common Name
QUNl
.Quercus nigra
Water Oak
QUPH
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
QUSH
Quercus shumardii
Shumard Oak
ROPS
Robinia pseudoacacia
Black Locust
SACA
Salix carolinianum
Coastal Plain Willow
SANI
Salix nigra
Black Willow
TISP
Tilia s pp.
Basswood
TXDl
Taxodium distichum
Bald Cypress
TXNU
Taxodium nutans
Pond Cypress
ULAL
Ulmus alata
Winged Film
ULAM
Ulmus americana
American Elm
ULSE
Ulmus serotina
September Rim
Shrubs:
Code
Soecies
Common Name
AEPA
Aesculus pavia
Red Buckeye
ALSE
Alnus serrulata
Hazel Alder
AMAR
Ampelopsis arborea
Peppervine
ARC]
Arundinaria gigantea
Switchcane
ASTR
Asimina triloba
Pawpaw
BAHA
Baccftaris halimifolia
Eastern Baccharis
BESC
Berchemia scandens
Rattan-vine
BISP
Bidens spp.
Beggar-tick
CAAM
Calicarpa americana
American Beautyberry
CABI
Catalpa bignonoides
Southern Catalpa
CECA
Cercis canadensis
Eastern Redbud
CLAL
Clethra alnifolia
Sweet Pepperbush
CLMO
Cliflonia monophyllum
Black Titi
CPOC
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Buttonbush
CRNS
Comus spp.
Dogwood
CRSP
Cratagus spp.
Hawthorn
DEBA
Decumaria barbara
Climbing Hydrangia
EUAM
Euonymus americanum
Strawberrybush
GESE
Gelsemium sempervirens
Yellow Jessamine
HYSP
Hypericum spp.
St. John's Wort
ILDE
Ilex decidua
Possumhaw
ILEX
Ilex spp.
Holly
ILVO
Ilex vomitoria
Yaupon
1TV1
Itea virginica
Virginia Sweetspire
LEFL
Leitneriafloridana
Corkwood
LERA
Leucothoe racemosa
Fetterbush
UVU
Ligustrum vulgare
Common Privet
LUSP
Ludwigia spp.
Ludwigia
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
Shrubs (cont'd.):
Code
Soecies
Common Name
LYLU
Lyonia lucida
Fetterbush
LYSP
Lyonia spp.
Lyonia
MYCE
Myrica cerifera
Waxmyrtle
RHHY
Rhapidophyllum hystrix
Needle Palm
RHSP
Rhododendron spp.
Azalea
RUSP
Rubus spp.
Blackberry
SAMI
Sabal minor
Bluestem Palmetto
SMBO
Smilax bona nox
Catbriar
SMSP
Smilax spp.
Catbriar
ST AM
Styrax americana
Bigleaf Snowbell
TORA
Toxicodendron radicans
Poison Ivy
VASP
Vaccinium spp.
Vaccinium
VIDE
Viburnum dentatum
Arrowwood Viburnum
vim
Viburnum nudum
Possumhaw Viburnum
VISP
Viburnum spp.
Arrowwood
VIRO
Vitis rotundfolia
Muscadine
Herbs:
Code
Species
Common Name
ANSP
Andropogon spp.
Beard Grass
ARAQ
Armoracia aquatica
Lake Cress
ARDR
Arisaema dracontium
Green Dragon
ARTR
Arisaema triphyllum
Swamp Jack-in-the-Pulpit
AZCA
Azolla carolinana
Mosquito Fern
BACA
Bacopa caroliniana
Water-hyssop
BICA
Bignonia capreolata
Crossvine
BOCY
Boehermia cylindrica
Bog-hemp
BRSC
Brasenia schreberi
Water-shield
CARA
Campsis radicans
Trumpet-creeper
CHSP
Chasmanthium spp.
Spanglegrass
CXSP
Carex spp.
Sedge
CLJA
Cladium jamaicense
Saw Grass
CYSP
Cyperus spp.
Flat Sedge
ELSP
Eleocharis spp.
Spikerush
ERSP
Erianthus spp.
Plumegrass
EUSP
Eupatorium spp.
Thoroughwort
HDSP
Hydrocotyle spp.
Pennywort
HYSP
Hymenocallis spp.
Spider-lily
1PSP
Ipomoea spp.
Morning-glory
IRIS
Iris spp.
Blue Flag
fUEF
Juncus ejfusus
Soft Rush
JURE
Juncus repens
Creeping Rush
JUSP
Juncus spp.
Rush
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
Herbs (con't.):
Code
Species
JUOV
Justicia ovata
LACA
Lacnanthes carolinitma
LEM1
Lemna minor
LUSP
Ludwigia spp.
MYPI
Myriophyllum pirmatum
NUSP
Nuphar spp.
NYOD
Nymphaea odorata
PAHE
Panicum hemitomon
PASP
Panicum spp.
PAQU
Parthenocissus quinquefolia
PICA
Pluchea camphorata
POCO
Pontederia cordata
PODE
Polygonum dertsiflorum
POSP
Polygonum spp.
SACE
Saururus cernuus
S ALA
Sagittaria lanctfblia
SASP
Sagittaria spp.
SCSP
Scirpus spp.
TYLA
Typha latifblia
UTIN
Utricularia irflata
UTSP
Utricularia spp.
WOAR
Woodivardia areolata
ZlAQ
Zizartia aquatica
Z1M1
Zizaniopsis miliacea
r.nmmnn Namfi
Water-willow
Red-root
Common Duckweed
Ludwigia
Water-milfoil
Spatterdock
Fragrant Water-lily
Maidencane
Panic Grass
Virginia Creeper
Camphor-weed
Pickerelweed
Southern Smartweed
Smartweed
Lizard's-tail
Duck-potato
Arrowhead
Bulrush
Cattail
Bladderwort
Bladderwort
Netted Chain-fern
Annual Wild Rice
Southern Wild Rice
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
APPENDIX II. Hydric Soils List
Central Dougherty Plain
Advance Identification of Wetlands
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
Map Unit Name*
Symbol
Hydric Soil Component
Location
Albany Sand
AdA
Pelham inclusions
Depressions
Bladen Loam
BiA
Whole map unit
tyA
Bormeau Loamy Sand
BoA
Pelham inclusions
Depressions
Coxville Fine Sandy Loam
Co
Whole map unit
N/A
Dunbar, Izagora and Bladen
Dib
Bladen component
Drainage
ways
Grady Clay Loam
Gel
Whole map unit
N/A
Grady Fine Sandy Loam
Gr
Whole map unit
N/A
Grady Loam
Gr
Whole map unit
WA
Herod-Muckalee Association
HM
Whole map unit
tyA
Herod-Muckalee Soils
Avp
Whole map unit
N/A
Kinston and Bibb Soils
Kb
Whole map unit
tyA
Lynchburg Sandy Loam
LtA
Pelham inclusions
Depressions
Meggett-Muckalee
Swa
Whole map unit
N/A
Meggett-Muckalee Complex
Mm
Whole map unit
N/A
Ocilla Loamy Sand
Oc
Pelham & Rains inclusions
Depressions
Ocilla Loamy Sands
OhA
Pelham inclusions
Depressions
Osier-Pelham Complex
Op
Whole map unit
WA
Pelham Loamy Sand
Pe
Whole map unit
N/A
Pelham Loamy Sand
P1A
Whole map unit
N/A
Rains Loamy Sand
Ra
Whole map unit
N/A
* Data compiled from County Hydric Soils Lists for the project area.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
APPENDIX III. Special Status Species
Central Dougherty Plain
Advance Identification of Wetlands
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
Special Status Animals
Wet- Expected
land Species
Type
Status:
Federal
Status:
State
Use
DF
Bald Eagle
Gopher Frog
Wood Stork
Endangered
Candidate
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Nesting
Breeding
Nesting
Candidate Rare
DH Gopher Frog Candidate
Southeastern Myotis Candidate
Swallow-tailed Kite
Wood Stork Endangered
DQ Flatwood Salamander Candidate-2
Gopher Frog Candidate
Southeastern Myotis Candidate
Swallow-tailed Kite
Wood Stork Endangered
DS Southeastern Myotis
RFA Blue-stripe Shiner Candidate
Southeastern Myotis Candidate
RFC Bald Eagle Endangered
Barbour's Map Turtle Candidate-2
Gopher Frog Candidate
Gray Bat Endangered
Rafinesques Big-ear Bat Candidate
Southeastern Myotis Candidate
RHA Gopher Frog Candidate
Gray Bat Endangered
Southeastern Myotis Candidate
Rare
Imperiled
Endangered
Rare
Imperiled
Endangered
Threatened
Rare
Endangered
Endangered
Rare
Endangered
Rare
Breeding
Foraging
Foraging
Foraging
Breeding
Breeding
Foraging
Foraging
Foraging
Foraging
All (OpenWater)
Foraging
Nesting
All Stages
Breeding
Foraging
Roosting
Roosting, Foraging
Breeding
Foraging
Foraging
RHC Gopher Frog Candidate
Gray Bat Endangered
Southeastern Myotis Candidate
Wood Stork Endangered
RQ Gopher Frog Candidate
Gray Bat Endangered
Endangered
Rare
Endangered
Endangered
Breeding
Foraging
Foraging
Foraging
Breeding
Foraging
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
RQ Southeastern Myotis Candidate Rare Foraging
Wood Stork Endangered Endangered Foraging
RSA
Gopher Frog
Gray Bat
Candidate
Endangered
Endangered
Breeding
Foraging
RSC
Gopher Frog
Gray Bat
Candidate Breeding
Endangered Endangered Foraging
Special Status Plants
Wetland Expected
Type Species
Status-
Federal
Status-
State
DF Awned Meadowbeauty Candidate-2 Threatened
Boykin Lobelia Candidate-2
Canby's Dropwort Endangered Threatened
Curtis9 Loosestrife Candidate Endangered
Harper's Fimbristylis Candidate Endangered
Harper's Yellow-eyed Grass Candidate
Hooded Pitcher-plant Unusual
Pineland Plantain Candidate
Pondberry Endangered Endangered
Purple Pitcher-plant Endangered
Relict Trillium Endangered Threatened
Silky Camellia Rare
Swamp Buckthorn Candidate-2 Endangered
Variable-leaf Indian Plantain Candidate Threatened
Yellow Flytrap Unusual
DH American Chaffseed Candidate Threatened
Awned Meadowbeauty Candidate-2 Threatened
Boykin Lobelia Candidate-2
Canby's Dropwort Endangered Threatened
Curtiss Loosestrife Candidate Endangered
Harper's Fimbristylis Candidate Endangered
Harper's Yellow-eyed Grass Candidate
Hirst Panic Grass Candidate Endangered
Hooded Pitcher-plant Unusual
Parrot Pitcher-plant Threatened
Pineland Plantain Candidate
Purple Pitcher-plant Endangered
White Pitcher-plant Candidate-2
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
DH Yellow Flytrap Unusual
114
DQ
DS
Boykin Lobelia
Canby's Dropwort
Curtiss Loosestrife
Harper's Fimbristylis
Hirst Panic Grass
Pineland Plantain
Purple Pitcher-plant
Yellow Flytrap
Candidate-2
Endangered
Candidate
Candidate
Candidate
Candidate
Threatened
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Unusual
RFA
RFC
Curtiss Loosestrife Candidate
Hooded Pitcher-plant
Pondberry Endangered
Silky Camellia
Swamp Buckthorn Candidate-2
Variable-leaf Indian Plantain Candidate
Yellow Flytrap
Curtiss Loosestrife Candidate
Hooded Pitcher-plant
Needle Palm Candidate-3
Pondberry Endangered
Relict Trillium Endangered
Silky Camellia
Swamp Buckthorn Candidate-2
Variable-leaf Indian Plantain Candidate
Yellow Flytrap
Endangered
Unusual
Endangered
Rare
Endangered
Threatened
Unusual
Endangered
Unusual
Endangered
Threatened
Rare
Endangered
Threatened
Unusual
RHA Canby's Dropwort
Hirst Panic Grass
Hooded Pitcher-plant
White Pitcher-plant Candidate-2
Yellow Flytrap
RHC Canby's Dropwort
Hirst Panic Grass
Hooded Pitcher-plant
White Pitcher-plant Candidate-2
Yellow Flytrap
Endangered Threatened
Candidate Endangered
Unusual
Unusual
Endangered Threatened
Candidate Endangered
Unusual
Unusual
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
RQ
9
RSA Purple Pitcher-plant Endangered
Yellow Flytrap Unusual
RSC Purple Pitcher-plant Endangered
Yellow Flytrap Unusual
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
APPENDIX IV. Functional Assessment Data Sheet
Central Dougherty Plain
Advance Identification of Wetlands
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
CENTRAL DOUGHERTY PLAIN ADVANCE WETLAND IDENTIFICATION FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT • UNIT 0: UTM OF CENTER OF UNIT:nortHng:
DATE; PERSONNEL; COP TY&E: NVt TYPE: VERIFICATION OF NWI TYPE: easting:
9
e
©
'M
•4^
8
&
4*
IS
3
-------
BIOGEOCHEHICAL PROCESSING
WATER VELOCITY REDUCTION
FLOOO STORAGE INDICATORS
ORGANIC CARBON EXPORT
HYDROGEOMORFH1C DESCRIPTION
Are the following conditions
present in the wetland unit?
reduced soil
surfaces for microbial
processing
or
topographic complexity
Are at least two indicators of
water velocity reduction present
in the wetland, or Is the
geomorphic setting of the
wetland DEPRESSIONAl?
Is at least one flood storage
indicator present in the
wetland?
If no indicators of OCE are
present, respond HO. if one
Indicator of OCE I* present,
respond YES. If second year
grand Utter is ABSENT and at
least one other OCE Indicator Is
present, respond HIGH.
List the gecoorphlc setting, the
primary water source(s), and the aost
appropriate hydrodynaalc deserlptor(s)
of the wetland.
ISOMORPHIC SETTING:
HYOROtOGIC SOUXCE(S):
Reduced soil muse be present for
a YES response. Either surfaces
for microbial processing or
topographic complexity must also
be present.
HYOROOYNAHICS:
r / M
r / H
T / M
HIGH J 1 J *
COMMENTS;
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
APPENDIX V. Data Development
Central Dougherty Plain
Advance Identification of Wetlands
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
DATA DEVELOPMENT
120
All data was developed and/or converted to the necessary digital information using Environmental
Systems Research Institute (ESRI), Inc. Arq/Info GIS software, release 7.02, on a DataGeneral Aviion 412
Workstation (Unix). All maps were plotted on either a Hewlett Packard HP650C designjet plotter or a
Hewlett Packard HP1200CPS deskjet plotter.
Project Boundary
The Original Scope of Work included a project area of approximately 900,000 acres. This area was
defined by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) hydrologic unit (HUC), number 03130009 and a portion of
HUC number 03130008 west of the Flint River. After discussions with the Project Team, the project
area was reduced to + 400,000 acres. The project boundary was re-defined by the Flint River and
Georgia highways 32, 55, and 37. The Flint River boundary was obtained by selecting a set of arcs that
comprised the Flint River from EPA Reach File 3 (RF3). The Georgia highway boundaries were obtained
by selecting the appropriate arcs from the U.S. Census Bureau's digital TIGER line graphs. The TIGER
lines and the RF3 lines were appended together, corrected for any dangling arcs, attributed, and built as
a polygon. This polygon became the clip cover used to reduce all other project coverages to the project
boundary.
Wetlands
Digital 7.5 minute National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) quadrangles (quads) were obtained from the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), appended together, and projected into the Universal Transverse
Mercator (UTM), zone 16, projection system. The boundaries between quads and polygons were dissolved
on the Cowardin (Cowardin et al. 1979) wetland classification attribute to reduce the number of polygons.
An item defining the hydrogeomorphic (HGM) (Brinson 1993a) attribute was added to the NWI polygon
file. All polygons were grouped into a temporary HGM class based on their NWI Class attribute
(forested, scrub/shrub, emergent, aquatic bed, open water, or uplands) and dissolved on this item, which
reduced the number of polygons further. This temporary HGM coverage was converted to a grid with a
10 meter resolution. The "REGIONGROUP" function with the "CROSS" option was run on the grid to
produce a two class grid, contiguous area and non-contiguous area. The "CROSS" option was used, since
there are many roadways crossing wetlands in the project area. The two class grid was converted back
into a polygon coverage, then overlaid on the temporary HGM coverage. The HGM polygons that passed
through the contiguous polygons were coded as riverine and the remainder were coded as depressional.
Uplands in either selection set remained as uplands.
The original NWI file was used as a guide for editing the HGM coverage. All polygons that were coded
as depressional in the HGM coverage but were connected to the riverine systems by a ditch, intermittent
stream, or other physical hydrologic structure in the original NWI coverage were recoded as riverine.
A sub-watershed map provided by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) was converted to
digital data. Sub-watersheds that drain into the Flint River were considered to support riverine systems
that are alluvial in nature. Those sub-watersheds that drain into the Kinchafoonee Creek were
considered to support coastal river systems. This data was overlain on the HGM coverage and the HGM
attribute was updated appropriately.
The alphabetical characters that indicate hydrological modifications {drainecfditched (d), diked/impounded
(h), excavated (x), or beaver (b)} on the original NWI data were conflated to the HGM coverage. The
attributes of HGM wetland polygons were preceded by an 'M' if hydrological modifications were present.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
121
The total acreage of the project area, as well as the total acreage of vegetated wetlands (no open water,
unconsolidated bottom, or unconsolidated shore), was calculated. The acreage of each HGM polygon was
divided by the total project acreage, as well as the total wetland acreage, to calculate a percent land and
wetland area coverage. The HGM polygon file was sorted on the HGM attribute and a summary report
was generated listing the HGM label, the total acres of each HGM class, the percent land area by HGM
class, and the percent wetland area by HGM class.
The HGM functional assessment presumes that similarly vegetated wetlands with similar hydrology and
landform provide, essentially, the same wetland functions. This premise gathers its strength and support
from a well defined reference domain and an ever increasing reference set of wetlands as more fieldwork
takes place. In this study, numerous wetlands of each type were visited and assessed for a suite of
functions. Each function evaluated was averaged for each wetland type and this functional average was
extrapolated to the remaining wetlands of each type that were not visited.
Stream Order
EPA's River RF3 was used to determine the Strahler stream order of the river systems. Each RF3 file is
a discrete USGS HUC depicting the river system in digital line graph (DLG) format at a scale of
1:100000. The DLG's are comprised mainly of linear features. However, there are numerous polygon-
like features (cycles) that must be removed prior to running the STRAHLER.AML (Arc Macro Language
program). In addition, all arcs must be directed downstream.
All polygon-like features of each KF3 file were removed by digitizing the centerline of the feature in a
downstream direction and deleting the arcs that make up the polygon-like feature. The 'TRACE
DIRECTION1 command was used to determine the linear direction of arcs relative to a reference location
on the river network, generally the outflow point of the HUC. Those arcs that were directed upstream
were selected in Arcedit and 'flipped' to point downstream. Once all arcs were directed downstream an
ARC module STRAHLER program was run to assign stream order. The stream networks of the HUCs
within the project area were appended together and clipped to the project boundary.
The riverine HGM polygons were extracted into a new stream order polygon coverage and the polygon
boundaries were dissolved on the riverine attribute to reduce the polygon features to the fewest possible.
The stream order polygon coverage became the 'EDIT' coverage in Arcedit with the stream order line
coverage as the 'BACKCOVER' set with the 'BACKSYMBOLITEM' option on to differentiate stream
order. Polygons were manually 'screen digitized' into the 'EDIT cover at the stream order break points.
The area of stream order influence within large swamp systems was determined by best professional
judgement. All dangles and undershoots were corrected or removed prior to re-building polygon topology
for the stream order polygon coverage.
Overburden
Digital geologic overburden for the project was captured by an Altek digitizing tablet from a hard copy,
paper map product (Torak et al. 1991). The map scale was approximately 1:500000 (1 inch = 7.895
miles). The overburden arcs were clipped to the project boundary, unioned with the project boundary to
create a new coverage, then built as polygons.
Recharge
The HGM depressional polygons were selected from the HGM coverage and converted to a 30 meter
resolution grid. The resolution of the grid was chosen for three reasons: 1) to minimize the run time of
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
122
the Arc/Info GRID program, 2) to preserve, as much as possible, the curvilinear nature of the wetland
polygons and, 3) to maintain a cell size approximately that of the smallest mapped wetland polygon.
Each depressional grid cell was coded to a single integer of 1. All other cells had no value. The Arc/Info
GRID function, 'FOCALSUM', using the 'CIRCLE' option with a 16 cell (480 meters, 1584 feet) radius
was run to determine density clusters of depressions. A radius of approximately 1600 feet was used,
since sinkhole and fracture trace characteristics remained relatively constant within that area according
to Brook (1985). Sinkhole/depression formation and connection to the aquifer is variable, dynamic, and
highly influenced by man's activities in karst areas (Brook et al. 1983). Therefore, to be most
conservative and inclusive of the sinkhole/depressions, the mean value of the grid cells after the
TOCALSUM' run minus one standard deviation was used as the threshold value for depressional cluster
identification. The cells meeting these criteria were selected and converted to a polygon coverage using
'GRIDPOLY' function.
Distance
All NWI polygons were converted to a 10 meter resolution grid. Each grid cell was coded to a single
integer of 1. All other cells had no value. The An^Info GRID function 'EUCDISTANCE', set with a
mflyimnm threshold distance of 1000 meters, was run to determine the NWI cells that were within 1
kilometer of any other NWI cell. Dr. Robert Herrington noted during consultation that the average
dispersal distance for amphibians is generally no larger than one kilometer. Average amphibian
dispersal distance was chosen because of their sensitivity to habitat change and the availability of
supporting literature. All cells within the 1000 meter distance threshold were converted to polygons.
Soils
Digital county soils data was prepared by the USGS under contract to EPA and the Dougherty County
Soil and Water Commission. The original hard copy data consisted of a triple layer of pin registered
mylar plates. The first plate consisted of the photographic plate bounding box. The second consisted of
soil polygon line work etched into opaquely coated mylar and the third contained the polygon attributes.
This information was transferred to a single sheet of mylar, then scanned into Artyinfo. The soil
polygons were rectified, georeferenced, edge matched to the adjacent soil survey map plate, and
submitted to the NRCS for verification and approval.
This data was used in developing the functional profile of each wetland type as the HGM functional
assessment methodology is directly tied to soil properties. The percent of hydric soils in the project area
was compared to the percent of wetlands in the project area and was found to cover slightly more area
than the wetlands. It can be reasoned that although there are probable flaws in both the soil and
wetland data sets, using the wetlands data yielded a more conservative product.
Data Model
All the data sets, excluding the soils data, were unioned together into a modeling coverage. Polygons
smaller than one-quarter of an acre in size that contained no polygon attributes were eliminated from
the coverage. These "sliver" polygons generally resulted from converting vector data to raster then back
to vector. Once these "sliver" polygons were eliminated the model was run on the vegetated wetland
polygons only. Additional items were added to the modeling coverage to store the model output. These
items included water quality, water (flood) storage, biotic community support, and aquifer recharge. The
output of these items is a result of the onsite averaged functional levels coupled with physical landscape
level features. Time did not allow for automation of the model so the model was run by command line
query. The functional model flow charts are exhibited as Figures 3 through 6 and the resultant maps
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
123
are exhibited as Figures 8 through 11 within the body of the AD ID document.
A frequency table of the four evaluated functions was generated on the modeling coverage using a
defined case item. Four items equivalent to Fill-suitability Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 were added to the
frequency table. The table was queried and attributed for the critical/high rated wetlands for each
alternative, accordingly. The frequency table was then related to the modeling coverage by the case item.
A shade item was added to the modeling coverage which shaded all vegetated wetlands orange, open
water blue and uplands white. For each alternative, other than Alternative 5 (average wetland function),
the modeling coverage was selected for critical/high rated wetlands in the related frequency table
alternative and shaded red. The opposite set of polygons in the modeling coverage was then selected and
shaded by the color code of the shade item in the modeling coverage. For Alternative 5, an item was
added to the frequency table that contained the shade symbol color code.
The Preferred Alternative was generated by selecting critical/high rated wetlands from the related
frequency table for the functions of water quality, water (flood) storage, and biotic community support.
This selected set corresponded mainly to the critical/high functioning riverine systems, since they were not
rated for aquifer recharge. Depressional wetlands that were rated critical or high for aquifer recharge in
the related frequency table were added to the previously selected set of polygons. These polygons were
shaded red and labeled High Value - Unsuitable for Fill. All other vegetated wetlands in the opposite
selection set were color coded green and labeled as Low Value - Suitable for Fill With Appropriate Mitigation.
Open water was color coded blue with the uplands remaining white. As a result, approximately 93% of
the vegetated wetlands in the study area were classified as highly functional wetlands that are
unsuitable for fill. However, these wetlands cover only 20% of the total land area of the study.
The data used to generate the map products, the digital map files, the reports, and the map postscript
files will be available from EPA and the Georgia Department of Natural Resources - Albany. This data
may eventually reside at EPA's public access Web server: URL htl/Avww.epa.gov.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
APPENDIX VI. Hydrologic Data
Central Dougherty Plain
Advance Identification of Wetlands
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
RAINFALL
NORTH AREA
Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb.
DATE (1992-1993)
McBride
Albany
Conley
RAINFALL
SOUTH AREA
Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb.
DATE (1992-1993)
Cook j§§§| Tomlinson
United States Environmental Protection Agency
125
RAINFALL
NORTH AREA
DATE (1993)
(111 McBride Albany Conley
RAINFALL
Mar.
SOUTH AREA
Apr.
May Jun.
DATE (1993)
Jul.
Aug.
Bl Cook
B888 Tomlinson
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
LIMESINK DEPTH
NORTH AREA
9/22 1/14 2/25 3/12 4/7
DATE (1992-1993)
BH Small Pond [Ml Cypress Pond
m White Pond ^ Round Pond
LIMESINK DEPTH
SOUTH AREA
9/22
2/25 3/12
(1992-1993)
4/7
Windmill Pond [_]
Clear Lake
Goat Pond
S. Clear Lake
United States Environmental Protection Agency
126
LIMESINK DEPTH
NORTH AREA
5/8 6/10 7/13 8/11 11/3
DATE (1993)
H§ Small Pond {QQ}] Cypress Pond
Q White Pond Round Pond
LIMESINK DEPTH
SOUTH AREA
5/8 6/10 7/13 8/11 11/3
DATE (1993)
[§§§ Windmill Pond Q] Goat Pond
Clear Lake |§§ S. Clear Lake
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
STREAM TAPEDOWN
NORTH AREA
35
30
. 25
r o n
uj 15
10
5
0
8/19 9/18 10/16 1/4 2/17
DATE (1992-1993)
Muckalee Cr. @ GA 32
¦ Kinchafoonee Cr. @ GA 32
B88I Fowltown Cr. @ Palmyra Road
l^'^l Chickasawhatchee Cr. @ Sasser
STREAM TAPEDOWN
SOUTH AREA
35 -i
8/19 9/18 10/16 1/4 2/17
DATE (1992-1993)
SIS Coolewahee Cr.
Kiokee Cr. @ GA 234
|ajj Kiokee Cr. @ Ducker
IDinU Chickasawhatchee Cr. @ Elmodel
United States Environmental Protection Agency
127
STREAM TAPEDOWN
NORTH AREA
3/12
4/15
5/16 6/10
DATE (1993)
7/8
8/19
Muckalee Cr. @ GA 32
Kinchafoonee Cr. @ GA 32
Fowltown Cr. @ Palmyra Road
Chickasawhatchee Cr. & Sasser
STREAM TAPEDOWN
3/12
SOUTH AREA
4/15
5/16 6/10
DATE (1993)
7/8
8/19
§•3 Coolewahee Cr.
8$ Kiokee Cr. @ GA 234
Kiokee Cr. @ Ducker
JIIIIU Chickasawhatchee Cr. @ Elmodel
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
WATER TABLE DEPTH
NORTH AREA
70
7/21 8/28 9/11 10/2 1/14 2/10
DATE (1992-1993)
ISi Byne Crossroads ||]]]|{ Tibbie Residence
Albany Nursery Myers Residence
WATER TABLE DEPTH
SOUTH AREA
7/21 8/28 9/11 10/2 1/14
DATE (1992-1993)
2/10
{§88 Ducker E| Round Pond
153 Elmodel
United States Environmental Protection Agency
128
WATER TABLE DEPTH
NORTH AREA
3/12 4/26 5/8 6/10 7/28 8/30
DATE (1993)
HH Byne Crossroads HQ]]]] Tibbie Residence
H Albany Nursery 88I Myers Residence
WATER TABLE DEPTH
SOUTH AREA
3/12
4/26
5/8 6/10
DATE (1993)
7/28
8/30
Ducker
Elmodel
Round Pond
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
APPENDIX VII. Joint Public Notice
Central Dougherty Plain
Advance Identification of Wetlands
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
NOV 1 5 1995
JOINT PUBLIC NOTICE
U.S. AHHJ CORPS OF ENGINEERS
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
The U.S.'Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region IV,
Atlanta,*Georgia and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE),
Savannah District wish to announce completion of l£he final draft
advance identification (ADID) for the Centralx Dougherty Plain
area ofrGeorgia. This project identifies possible future wetland
fill sites and wetland sites generally unsuitable for dredging or
filling-within the jurisdiction of .the -Clean Water Act for
portions of Baker, Calhoun, Dougherty, Lee and Terrell Counties
in Georgia. Public comments on the ADID Final Draft Technical
Summary Document, which provides the rationale for the
determinations made in the Central Dougherty P.Iain ADID .project,
are-encouraged; a public meeting will be held in Albany to -
receive public comments.
INTRODUCTION
The Clean Water Act of 1977 regulates discharge of dredged or
fill*material into the waters of the United States, including
wetlands. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act establishes a
procedure whereby the COE may issue permits ^ for the discharge of
-dredged"-or fill material, if the proposed project meets certain
criteria/* as outlined in the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines (40 CFR
Part'230). - The ADID process is intended to facilitate the.
federal Section 404 permit process by establishing the
preliminary positions of federal regulatory agencies concerning
wetland and aquatic sites identified as possible future fill
sites and sites generally unsuitable for disposal of dredged or
fill material. The findings of the ADID process are summarized
in an ADID Technical Summary Document, which provides a finding
of fact and rationale for decisions made by the EPA and the COE
as a result of the ADID process. The results are ADVISORY in
nature; the normal Section 404 (dredge and fill) permit
application process will continue to be followed when any
activity subject to regulation is proposed.- The results can,
however, be used as an effective planning tool by landowners,
developers, conservation organizations and government regulatory
agencies to make environmentally sound decisions, should.the
discharge of dredged or fill matex;iar*be contemplated at any of
the identified wetland sites.
BACKGROUND
The Central Dougherty Plain ADID project encompasses
approximately 383,828 acres of southwest Georgia, as shown on the
attached map. The Flint River drains the project areavand forms
fit8 eastern boundary. Major tributaries feeding the Flint
include ""the following i Chlckasawha tehee Creek, Kiokee Creek,
Coolewahee Creek, Kuckalee Creek and Flnchafoonee Creek.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
This area contains extensive bottomland hardwoods and limes ink
wetlandsthreatened by'urban growth,* agricultural-- pollution,
groundwater withdrawals and silvicultural" conversion. "Wetland
trend analyses by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-identify
forested swamps, such as these bottomland hardwoods, and limesink
wetlands/ as the most rapidly disappearing wetland type in the
southeast, of which over eighty percent have already been
destroyed.
This project was initiated in response to concerns over
unpermitted filling of local wetlands. The project was
undertaken to produce"a scientific database on which local land.
use decisions could be based. - The resulting report and maps were
developed by an interagency team of resource agencies with .
guidance from technical advisors representing local academic and
research institutions. The products identify both, highly
functional and degraded wetlands'and provide suggestions to
compensate for future wetland losses. Ultimately, coordination
between resource agencies and the public over local wetland
issues should Improve.
WETLAND JURISDICTION
The 383,828 acre project area contains approximately 78,470 acres
of wetlands designated on National Wetlands Inventory Maps (NWI)
prepared by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Because of the
large size of the project area, not all wetlands have been field
verified; however, the maps provide a good preliminary, estimate
of wetland'locations for-this area.. Some revisions-, have been
made to these wetland maps based?on field-reconnaissance of. the
project area. These revisions were generally, needed due to.
either natural plant succession^or anthropomorphic, changes.that
occurred after the wetlands maps were, prepared;;
WETLAND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT
The wetland functional assessment considers water quality .
enhancement, water storage,: aquifer.recharge*and.biotic community
support: Functions are assessed, using a1, combination of .'remote '
sensing-and field techniques.^ The'majority of-the.project area
wetlands provide high levels of water quality enhancement, water
storage and biotic community support-.functions. .'.This, high level
of wetland function reflects the relatively undisturbed nature of
most project area wetlands. * These wetland functions translate
into important economic benefits for the region in the form of
clean water, flood protection and recreational game and.'fish
habitat. Many of the limesink wetlands also play a significant
role in recharging the underlying Floridan Aquifer, a primary
source of potable water supply for residents of south Georgia.
Altered wetlands generally rate lower in the functional anaylsis
and provide fewer benefits for the region. Many of these
wetlands provide an opportunity for future restoration ¦. and are
potential future mitigation sites.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
ADID DESIGNATIONS
Two categories have been established for designating the proposed
suitability of a wetland area for disposal of dredged or fill
material in the ADID project areat
(1) Generally Unsuitable - Wetlands of high functional
value, where loss of the wetland could potentially result in
"significant degradation of waters of the United States".
Approximately 93% of the bottomland hardwood and limesink
wetlands are so designated. These wetlands comprise
approximately 20% of the local landscape.
(2) Possible Future Fill Disposal Sites (Potentially
Suitable with Appropriate Mitigation) - Wetlands where the
functional value is lower in comparison to other wetlands in a
similar hydrogeomorphic setting and where functions may be
replaceable through mitigation. Approximately 7% of the wetlands
are so designated. These areas typically have been modified
through ditching. They consist primarily of limesink wetlands
with low aquifer recharge function, although they also include
some limerock terraces along the Flint River vegetated with
scattered shrubs and trees. These scoured shelves with thin
soils store river floodwaters for short periods during flood
events, but generally provide wetland functions at lower levels
than other riverine floodplain areas.
The project area also includes approximately 301,249 acres of
uplands. These areas are considered suitable alternatives to
filling of highly functional wetlands. When both upland areas
and possible future fill disposal sites are considered,
approximately 79% of the total land area is suitable for filling.
PUBLIC MEETING
Open house public meetings to receive written and/or oral
comments are scheduled as follows:
DATES» November 28, 1995
TIMES: 2<00 - 8»00 PM
PLACEt Game Management Office
ADDRESS: 2024 Newton Road, Albany
TELEPHONE: (912) 430-4254
November 29, 1995
12<00 - 6:00 PM
Game Management Office
2024 Newton Road, Albany
(912) 430-4254
The public is invited to comment on the conclusions and
determinations of the Central Dougherty Plain ADID. Copies of
the final draft of the Technical Summary Document can be obtained
from the EPA Region IV office in Atlanta, the Savannah District
Corps of Engineers office, or the Georgia Department of Natural
Resources office in Albany (attn.: Steve Ruckel, Albany Game
Management Office, address given above). Written comments will
be accepted for 30 days after this date. Comments concerning the
ADID should be submitted to both of the following:
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
Veronica Fasselt Tom Fischer
ADID Coordinator Central Area Section
Wetlands Protection Section Regulatory Branch
US Environmental Protection Agency US Army Corps of Engineers
345 Courtland Street, NE P.O. Box 889
Atlanta, GA 30365 Savannah, GA 31402-0889
Additional information concerning the Central Dougherty Plain
ADID determinations can be obtained by contacting Veronica
Passelt at (404) 347-3871x6509.
C . uleQj
Thomas C. Welbora, Chief
Wetlands Protection Section
US Environmental Protection
Agency, Region IV
David Crosby, Ch±4f /
Central Area Seotiptn
US Army Corps or^-uigineers,
Savannah District
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
Ctntniliougkerty Ptatn Advance Identification ef Wetlands
NEWTON
United Statu Environmental Protection Agency
figure 1. Project area for the
Centra] Dougherty Plain Advance
Identification of wetlands.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
APPENDIX VIII. Public Comments and Agency Responses
Central Dougherty Plain
Advance Identification of Wetlands
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
136
CENTRAL DOUGHERTY PLAIN WETLANDS ADID PROJECT
COMMENTS ON DRAFT TECHNICAL SUMMARY DOCUMENT
PHONE *:
ADDRESSt X'ckOf) K I iO Ob
7~
COMMENTS
I \)p Jibls(\J)sa_Ot£fL0ULa~t Ao rnitofi
//hi QaSL
A/n/fOA . I
mta %
Q- ^ fX.ft/T\
-eiM ~Ea /yj Oboiy^ sJA nntl MOLfl JImjD QTYboV
oXlfln* V .i/yi
iM
IZl)tin 9 . i
ILL
ifcitai
y/n
gj
idJL
T75t
&±jkmLn
4M4VLBV
3Smf
0# Yjla a
•a
Lt ^
VM^>UcVyA Jr p /l PWfti
-y\o9Ao/D. _ '
fpA c^P jflXxL -7 ; Ji I i^)-vy^
i /vi Atotfl/frts
P/frA ^ /TW xfl ytvThhn j? IJVMi
Q/M7jnr\g^)
jlS-
jjxJUI
"Jul
11 Vt i 0/\
CPn,
CH?
m
[n/njA£]/Ljfan.
ID CfV(LLl7dV/l~ti>i" ~
A u?
)\Q rt
&jL/(yJAJ^IJL La siStaiA
^JLAAI M-4U erf <3L/VU_1 ^4)1
M
M
M J
h J
}JSq LWt.
KUO^i/t JL'
Kn;7>$ )aoo/n rvti.
>0X| T^otg)
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
rewTP&T. DOUOTERTY PLAIN WETLANDS ADXD PROJECT
fyiMMWWTff OH DRAFT TECHNICAL SUMMARY DOCUMENT
NAME: SvJaloA/ /% fhss PHONE 3: fe/s)
ADDRESS t
9 £~S~~ Ibr.
6-yf JZ2552
COMMENTS: y° ? ^***^»' a^cton**^' --a^yfeo^* *?/?£
^ "*&> -^^4* -j>eAj£ybd>
^ ^ j23Jg£sirt4>c*ZA.
,y / V . ^ i. ~ (VWw'wMcA,
E*6' few sV£ "CyCg^ i A<#»
^ (r*t>jH#fiS'b'-et#>ul«( «, /Arf}*rJie~ ex.
/J\, )**' stS" £&s Tzf.l a-> fl/au,. 7>Cs_-
rT^-Tr
t2strZes-J?Z~- „
c2a^ -za€,^ -gg^. ^uJ>& *gf zz£ sZZfe?
O-F go^C-C^^ ttf ***/-
C**^/ggyg rw;*^ TITO'S. /%6v 4> e*s£&t*Ut
£e+r>p ^i>- eScv/^ ~/rL*,
b/S.'fritJ' fr/crf/***/*. >4 ^¦e^JZt-
fu**v ^°fy& ehfcfAr+4 o/C*ay>/e^ L* Efa, si/e^y s/e^f"f*) w*e> ek-hfJ't'Gvt- t4 /?//&~^ a Ay yf^^aS. roa^t- (Zs2Z*e,^. Tj?..
S*6&o~£ <*~^° Z&s Ativ /a ^ ^jg* ^ A^//
£"/£«. -TtA^^f-yr^) luef/pjv**.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
138
5*¦!>i orfew-vtrt*'
r » . '7 ^ ^ "
t n * «r«iii ¦ ztM^. A-ee* <^gsi£-tu>Ces
^i&L*£4rsj*e&L C*Lf si/A! (5-T Su> 5«c/
r~&^U3-
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dousherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
s*0
A i
USfc ? UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
% ^ REGION 4
J4S COURTLAND STREET. N.E.
ATLANTA GEORGIA 3B3eS
June 13, 1996
Lyndon McCavitt, District Conservationist
Natural Resources Conservation Service
955 Forrester Drive
Dawson, GA. 31742
Re: Response to Comments for the Central Dougherty Plain
Wetlands Advance Identification (ADID) Draft Technical
Summary Document
Dear Mr. McCavittt
Thank you for taking the time to provide comments on our Draft
Technical Summary Document for the Central Dougherty Plain ADID
Project. He apologize for the delay in responding to public
comments. As you know, federal employees were furloughed during
the month of December 1995, the scheduled date for responding to
official comments for this document. This project was on hold,
since our return in January 1996, due to previously scheduled
activities. We will try to move forward quickly now, so that the
final document can be released in summer of 1996.
In response to your concern that this area is being singled out
for additional regulation and protection, we would like to
provide the following comments. As you suggest, the ADID program
does attempt to target areas that contain significant wetland
resources. We recognize that incremental losses of wetland
resources continue to occur, in spite of the Section 404
permitting program. Through the ADID Program, we attempt to
encourage protection of significant wetland resources by
providing information to local communities that can be used in
planning for future growth. The Albany area provides a unique
opportunity for protection of significant wetlands, because this
area contains relatively intact wetland systems that provide
important functions. Land use patterns are currently changing
and as this area becomes more urbanized, important decisions will
have to be made concerning local natural resources that will
affect the quality of life for all future residents of the area.
We share your concern that duplication of effort be avoided.
Recommendations 4 and 5 were not intended to add duplication to
the regulatory process. We simply want to ensure that wetland
issues are considered durina the earliest proiect olanninc staaes
and that wetland information is available to landowners when they
make initial contacts with their local governments.
Sincerely,
Veronica Fasselt, Project Officer
Central Dougherty Plain ADID
United States Environmental troiecnon Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
Georgia Forestry Commission
P. O. Box 819 • Macon, Georgia • 31298-4599 Dav,d
(912) 751-3500
November 21, 1995
Ms. Veronica Fasselt
ADID Coordinator
Wetlands Protection Section
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
Dear Ms. Fasselt:
I just received the joint public notice of November 15, 1995 regarding the final draft of the
advance identification (ADID) for the Central Dougherty Plain Area of Georgia.
Just based on the notice, in particular the Background Section, we have reason to suspect the
trend analyses statement by the USFWS. The statement that bottomland hardwood forests are
the most rapidly disappearing wetland type in the southeast, of which over eighty percent have
already been destroyed, does not hold true for the counties in the Central Dougherty Plain.
According to the 1989 figures from the U. S. Forest Service's Forest Inventory and Analysis
report, the number of acres of bottomland hardwood forests for these counties increased from
139,343 acres in the 1982 survey to 150,660 acres in the 1989 survey. This is an increase of
11,326 acres or 7 1/2 percent. During the same period, the number of acres of strictly pine type
decreased from 148,759 acres in the 1982 survey to 144,243 acres in the 1989 survey. Realizing
these figures represent the entire counties and not just the area in the Central Dougherty Plain, the
trends should be similar. Therefore, the number of acres of bottomland hardwoods being
destroyed or converted is not an accurate assessment in the Central Dougherty Plain. A 1995
survey report should be available in the next two to three months which will supply more updated
information.
In addition, attached is a letter from Mr. William Farris, President of the National Association of
State Foresters, to USFWS Director Mollie Beattie questioning the process of data collection for
the NWI and the information being distributed by them. The NASF recommendations are
included
Jim L. Gillis, Jr. C M. Eunice, Jr. J. C. Fendig Gloria Shauo Robert Simpson, in
Chairman, Sopcnon Blackshear Savannah Mount Beny f AManA
An Equal Opportunity Employer
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
Ms. Fasselt
Page 2
Nov. 21, 1995
We concur with Mr. Fanis' concerns and recommendations and hope that we can work together
to develop a plan with specific and accurate facts for the area that do not create false perceptions
about forest management activities in wetlands.
If I can be of further assistance, please advise.
DLW/gwt
Attachments
xc: Mr. Tom Fischer
Lynn Hooven
Frank Green
Phil Porter
Greg Findley
Bob Izlar
Sincerely,
David L. Westmoreland
Director
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
/.J
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE FORESTERS
444 North Capitol Street, NW Suite S40 Washington, D.C. 20001 202/624-5415
August 30,1999
1995 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
PrvsMkm
WiDum A Fimi
lowa
Vtcm-PrvatMrtt
Stanley F Hamilton
Idtfto
Tmaiurw
Paul 0 Fr»y
Louisiana
Mollis Beattie, Director
USUI FUh & Wildlife Service
IMS C Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20240
Dear Director Beattie:
Representing the directors of the state forestry and territorial agencies, the
National Association of'State Foresters (NASF), folly support goals for wetland
stewardship and we are working with our partners at the national, state and local
levels towards this end. However, we are increasingly aware that information
being distributed by the U.S. Pish and Wildlife Service (FWS) creates false
perceptions about forest management activities on wetlands. We would like to
bring these concerns to your attention and make several recommendation i for
your agency's consideration that we believe will improve our relationship and
ability to work together to achieve our mutual goals and objectives.
McSMmfn AipfVflnBM
CharteaE. Mggs
Wisoonsai
W»imrn RmgnstntMSvm
Mierutt G Bock
Hawai
SouT.tm Reo/attntam*
Mar* Matuuawtki
Kentucky
mtreasre Pttt Prttidtnt
James W Gamer
Virginia
WMthingmn Rterntnaavt
Tern Satee
CONCEBNS/PROBUSMS
L lbs s^'^'aMdalhyortBiBBitelhstoiaftaiitfdwflsoiU.
The National Wetland Inventory (NWI). requires treea to be 20 feet tall before
being classified as forested wetlands. Approximately two percent of the
commercial forest land is harvested each year. A portion of this is in even-age
silviculture systems which reduce tree height below 20 feet NWI Status and
Trend Report ™»kes this change in forest cover sound like a loss of forested
wetlands.
Page 20, Southeast Wetlands: "Large areas of palustrine forested
wetlands ware lost., presumably by a combination of silvicultural
and agricultural activities."
The statamenta on forested wetland loss are usually qualified to indicate it is not
really a lou but a conversion. On-going silviculture is not a wetland conversion
in terms of Section 404 and should not be labeled.as such in the reports.
Page 13, Southeast Wetlands: "Approximately 3.1 million acres of
palustrine forested wetlands (9 percent) were lost, or converted."
Sustainable forestry changes the age, composition, and structure of timber
stands. This causes a change in NWI reporting of wetland type, forestry timber
tyge, but these are still forested lands. The hydrology of the area is not altered in
the long-run.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
Mollis Beattie
August 30,1995
Page 2
2. The impression, it beinff ocated that timber management ia not oampadbUwitir wetland
functions.
Page 55, Chesapeake Watershed Report: "Wetland Loss Hotspots: forested wetlands
were subjected to significant timber harvest...."
The National Wetland Policy Forum in 1991 established timber production is one of the wetland
functions and values. Harvesting is a normal and compatible use of wetlands.
x Tim tmpr—'¦th—mily nrtiw n— jiimitiU —riawdhnnhm
V
Bay Journal, December 1994: Harvesting trees destroys habitats for migratory birds,
affect hydrology, and sediment"
There is considerable research which supports the role of timber harvest in providing habitats for
those neotropical migrants which prefer young forests. Harvesting increases the number of woody
sterna while enhancing floodplain Auctions for flood control and sediment retention. Young
forests also release lower levels of nitrate-nitrogen.
4. *SanV is a value laden tarn and it oaed in aa inappropriate and derogatory manner when
applied to young teeaa.
Bay Journal, December 1994: Timber harvesting altered 18,000 acres of palustrine
forested wetlands into areas dominated by "scrub" vegetation."
We do not consider tree planting, reforestation, or Arbor Day celebrations as promoting "scrub" or
stunted vegetation.
5. It appears the FW3 has an apparent niefeimce for wfldlifls epecies associated with mature
forests and support! regulatoty requli amenta fcr^iilwtlw logging" at mature trees in wetlands
programs.
Wetland Reserve Program Interim Rule, June 1, 1995: "A selective harvest of
overs to ry trees... A clear cutting approach to timber harvest, however for the purpose
of achieving economic gain at the expense at wetland Auctions and values would not
be compatible with forested wetlands Auctions and values."
Selective harvesting irjiot an appropriate requirement It opens the door for commercial clear cuts
and high grading. Harvesting only mature trees is not appropriate because it pre-empts
landowners from intermediate cuts that are required to maintain forest health and vigor.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
144
Mollie Beattie
August 30,1995
Page 3
& We question the validity or value of blaming forestry for the loea of the ivory-billed woodpecker.
Partner* for Wildlife: "Excessive logging of mature bottomland forests is believed to
be the main reason for the extinction
We believe the forestry community should be given credit for retaining 5 million acres of
bottomland hardwoods. Certainly forestry did not cause the loss of 19 million acres which were
converted to another landuse.
7. Review of a range of FWS publications makes it abundantly dear the agency does not
adequately use the research which la available from the forestry community or elsewhoe. The
Chesapeake Watershed Beport uses a limited range of references and then calls for more
research.
8. We do not believe it appropriate for FWS to call far more regulation of forestry without a
documented analysis of what is in existence at the Federal, State, and local level (Chesapeake
Watershed Report}.
RECOMMENDATIONS
NASF recommends the FWS take the following actions
• Bwnmmmil the serub'shrub classifications be changed to shnihtforest and that these &r*«i st
considered as forested wetlands in the Status and Trends reports where return to forest cover ¦
likely.
• Rfnnir*'"1 (ll*t the FWS utilize the USDA Forest Service's Forest Inventory and Analysis
information as part of the Status and Trends Report.
• B£SBBUB£1UL the FWS adopt policies which are more compatible with the diversity requirements
of the Wetland Executive Order and to work with the forestry community to better define forest
stewardship management in more meaningful terms.
We strongly urge the FWS work more closely with the forestry community. Where Federal goals
can be achieved mi private lands through stewardship management which benefits the landowner
and the pub lie, active management should be supported. Where it is in the Federal interest u>
require single purpose management for one type of species. Federal purchase should be pursued
We hope our comments "i1* nwwn
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
345 COURTLAND STREET. N.E.
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30365
July 10, 1996
David L. Westmoreland, Director
Georgia Forestry Commission
P.O. Box 819
Macon, GA. 31298-4599
Re: Response to Comments for the Central Dougherty Plain
Wetlands Advance Identification (ADID) Joint Public Notice
Dear Mr. Westmoreland:
Thank you for taking the time to provide comments on our joint
public notice for the Central Dougherty Plain ADID Project. We
apologize for the delay in responding to public comments. As you
know, federal employees were furloughed during the month of
December 1995, the scheduled date for responding to official
comments for this document. This project was on hold, since our
return in January 1996, due to previously scheduled activities.
We will try to move forward quickly now, so that the final
document can be released shortly.
We share your commitment to using the best available data for
decision-making. As indicated in our joint public notice, we
used trend analyses data from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
as a selection factor in targeting the Central Dougherty Plain
area for this wetlands planning effort. During the preliminary
project planning phase, this data was some of the best available
data for this type of decision.
In order that we may continue to use the best available data to
target sites for future wetlands planning efforts, we request a
copy of the updated inventory that you describe in your comment
letter. Thank you for drawing our attention to this data source.
Sincerely,
Veronica Fasselt, Project Officer
Central Dougherty Plain ADID
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
Georgia Forestry Commission
P. O. Box 819 • Macon, Georgia 31202-0819
(912) 751-3500
David L. Westmoreland
Director
July 25, 1996
Ms. Veronica Fasselt
Project Officer
Central Dougherty Plain AD ID
U. S. EPA Region IV
345 Courtland St., N. E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
Dear Ms. Fasselt:
Thank you for your letter of July 10, requesting the U. S. Forest Service's updated 1996 forest survey
inventory data for the Central Dougherty Plain (CDP).
The survey teams have completed the Southwest Unit and are now working in the Southeast Unit. They
will then move to the Central Unit which contains the majority of the CDP (see map). There is no
published data for the Southwest Unit at this time; however, data for Baker County may soon become
available, if that would help. Mr. John Greis, U. S. Forest Service liaison to EPA Region IV Wetlands
Unit, should be able to retrieve the information as soon as it becomes available. His office is in your
building.
I appreciate your concern in wanting to use the best available data. This reflects a spirit of cooperation
between the federal and state agencies in reporting accurate data. The data sets from the U. S. Forest
Service and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service should be consistent. If not, discrepancies should be
explained and agreed upon by the EPA and the two agencies before being reported in the final document.
If this process is followed, I believe this and any future AD ID reports would receive much better
acceptance among the forestry community.
Again, thank you for considering my comments. If I can be of further assistance, please advise.
Sincerely,
David L. Westmoreland
Director
DLW/sl
Enclosure
\c L'
Lynn Hooven
Frank Green
Jim L Gillis, Jr.
Chairman, Soperton
C. M. Eunice, Jr.
Blacluhear
J. G. Fendig
Savannah
Larry S. Walker
Oglethorpe
P. W. Bryan,Jr.
Thomajville
An Equal Opportunity Employer
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
I
f?
IX
C/i
a
cn
5»
g
3
»
?
s-
a
>
%
s
<3
GEORGIA
&S3 Timberland
i" ; Nontimberland
9
s
a
Q
I
a
C3
&
a
r>
I
a:
o
I
a
&
»
8-
SOUTHWEST
Figure 1.-Forest Survey Units in Georgia with a generalized distribution of timberland.
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
148
-Atlan Audubon Society
1130 N. Jamestown Rd#506
Decatur Ga. 30033
November 25 1995
U.S. Corps of Engineers
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Dear Participants:
I am writing to compliment you on the scope and format of your
advance identification project(ADID) around Albany Georgia. I am
Vice President o£ the Atlanta Audubon Society and Chairman o£ a
group of 60 volunteers to monitor wetlands. It is a combined
committee of conservation groups-Atlanta Audubon,Georgia Wildlife
and Sierra Club-that joined to monitor wetlands in the Metro
Atlanta area. With your help in identifying critical wetlands in
the Metro area, our committee could be depended upon to extend
your eyes and ears into the community and enlarge your manpower.
Are you contemplating a similar identification for our area as
you have done in Albany? With the extension of nationwide permits
we havew felt cut off from the public review of projects with no
prior ability to forstall invasion of critical wetlands. Wirh
your help we can be empowered to help you.
cc:Veronica Fasselt
David Crosby
Bob Lord
Butch Register
Tom Fischer
Thomas C. Welborn
Lolly Lederberg /
1130 N. Jamestown Rd.#506
Decatur Ga 30033
404 633 9384
RO Bo* "9189 ¦ AtlanK., Georgia 30359 (ii04)95r>-£l111
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
John Pritchett
213 River Street Blakety, Georgia 31723
johnp@kolomolri.org
(912)723-3740
6 December 1995
Ms. Veronica Fasselt
United States Environmental Protection Agency
34S Couitland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
RE: Central Dougherty Plain Advance ID of Wetlands
Draft Technical Summary Document
Dear Ms. Fasselt,
My comments are not meant to be a criticism but a statement. I think you and the team
are to be commended for the job you have done with the study. The document you have
produced appears to be very comprehensive and accurate. I am a little dismayed at the lack of
understanding by the public as to the value of these wetlands, but I think the survey is correct in
the assumptions it makes from the respondent surveys.
Eighteen out of fifty surveys returned is not a big enough sample to draw accurate
statistics as to what public perceptions of wetland values are but the return rate raises a larger
concern; does 64% of the populace care so little about this subject they are unwilling to complete
a survey? It might be enlightening if you could go back and get the nonrespondents to complete
the survey.
My concern with the entire project is it's delineation. I am convinced the
intercormectectiveness of all the wetlands in the Georgia segment of the Dougherty Plain is not
adequately addressed. It would take little more effort to include the area between the Flint River
and the Pelham Escarpment (the eastern border of the Dougherty Plain). This area is also subject
to the same developmental pressures as the area West and North of Albany.
We chose highways and a river to delineate the boundaries of the study area. Neither of
these is indicative of significant borders of a geologic province. They are just convenient for us to
map. It would have been more appropriate to have considered geologic features and political
boundaries. I think the study area should include the entire Georgia segment of the Dougherty
Plain from the Pelham Escarpment on the South and East to the Red Hill Province on the North
and to the Alabama border on the West If legislation needs to be developed from the study, it
would be easier to address the concerns from the state legislature than to try to get counties to
address the issues since only part of the study area is in the individual counties.
I realize the delineation issue was raised before and the response was, it is to big an area to
adequately cover with the resources available, but lets take the request again to the powers that be
and see if we can get them to see the value of an increased study area size.
Thanks for considering my suggestions.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
345 COURTLAND STREET. NLE
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30365
June 13, 1996
John Pritchett
213 River Street
Blakely, GA 31723
Ret Response to Comments for the Central Dougherty Plain
Wetlands Advance Identification (ADID) Draft Technical
Summary Document
Dear Mr. Pritchett:
Thank you for taking the time to provide comments on our Draft
Technical Summary Document for the Central Dougherty Plain ADID
Project. We apologize for the delay in responding to public
comments. As you know, federal employees were furloughed during
the month of December 1995, the scheduled date for responding to
official comments for this document. This project was on hold,
since our return in January 1996, due to previously scheduled
activities. We will try to move forward quickly now, so that the
final document can be released in summer of 1996.
Tour suggestion to expand wetlands planning efforts to other
portions of the Dougherty Plain is a good one. Now that the ADID
project is completed, this project could serve as a pilot for
similar efforts throughout the Dougherty Plain.. The techniques
developed to assess wetlands of the Central Dougherty Plain could
easily be applied to wetlands in other parts of the Dougherty
Plain. Although our wetlands program does not have federal
funding available to expand this ADID, we would gladly support
this type of effort by providing technical assistance.
Please call me at (404) 347-3871x6509 or write me at the address
above, if you would like additional information or assistance.
Sincerely,
Veronica Fasselt, Project Officer
Central Dougherty Plain ADID
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
2403 Temple Avenue
Albany, Georgia 31707-2663
December 12, 1995
Ms.-Veronica Fasselt
Environmental Scientist
Water Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Re: Draft Technical Summary Document
The Central Dougherty Plain
Advance Identification of Wetlands
Dear Ms. Fasselt:
I begin by joining you in honoring and thanking Mrs.
Botti and Terry Kile. By saving your ADID study, by doing so
much to save both the Lee County wetlands and the Swamp of
Toa, I feel those two people have, as a side effect, also
very nearly saved my life. Mrs. Genie Milam was undoubtedly
of help to you, as she has often been of good help to so
many, and you can not have meant to misspell her name.
Of course, I am grateful to you, your coauthors, and
the members of your technical support team. I have already
learned much from your work and look forward to studying it
even more closely over time. That you were able to establish
high values for most of the wetlands in your study area is
fundamental.
It was a pleasure meeting you on November 28. Mike
Rowell told me he thinks he will remember the suggestions I
made then, but wants me to put them in writing. I take this
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
CDP ADID—p. 2
opportunity to withdraw a few you did not think were
helpful, and to add a few you might want to use.
1. You might, for instance, want to strike the word
"Creek" from the opening paragraph of your introduction.
Although "Creek" is often used as a short form for
"Muskogee-speaking peoples," the historical Creek
confederacy probably did not develop until long after the
death of De Soto. Since the Toa Indians probably spoke not
Muskogee, but Hitchiti, and since their descendents probably
became not Creeks, but Seminoles, there is little reason to
call them Creeks.
Also, you might want to put a space between the "e" and
"S" in De Soto's name. Writing "DeSoto" is like writing
"United States ofAmerica."
2. On p. 93, you might want to delete the following:
"...depressional wetlands are, by definition, hydrologicaly
isolated from other wetland ecosystems..."
By your own account, many of the depressional wetlands
in your study area are connected to other wetland ecosystems
through the groundwater.
As for surface connections, the 1968 Soil Survey of
Dougherty County, Georgia traces the courses by which many
of these wetlands spill over into other wetlands. They do so
regularly, when they are full, after a hard or long rain.
Landowners in the area have spent hundreds or thousands
of dollars to install culverts where farm roads cross these
watercourses, and tax money has been spent to install
culverts where public roads cross them.
I would be happy to show you many culverts.
Note: You might want to review what you say about this
on pp. 18, 31, 54, 55, and 104-106. The passage at the
bottom of p. 104 and the top of p. 106 seems to me to be
accurate.
The passage on p. 18 allows for underground
connections, but not surface overflows. The passage on p. 55
limits underground connections for a specific reason, while
failing to allow for surface overflows.
The passages on pp. 31 and 55 are similar, in that they
both concern organic carbon export. The passage on p. 31
excludes surface overflows, while the passage on p. 55 would
allow for them. Since presumably some surface overflows
transport far more organic carbon than animals do, the
passage on p. 55 is still a problem.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
COP ADID—p. 3
On pp. 69 and 73 you suggest there are natural
processes by which limesinks can become connected to
riverine wetlands, but you do not describe those processes.
I would say that depending on the depth and size of the
depressional wetland, the size of the watershed that
delivers surface water to it, the permeability of the soil
or clay or limestone beneath it, the elevation of both the
wetland itself and the land separating it from the creek it
is most likely to spill into, conditions of overflow vary.
Those depressional wetlands that overflow regularly enough
to change the soil and vegetation that lie between them and
the creek are no longer disjunct, but become, by your
definition, riverine.
3. You might want to emphasize the importance of Hott's
Slough and Piney Woods Creek.
You already rate Mott's Slough and Piney Hoods Creek as
being of critical value for water quality enhancement, and
as being of high value for both water storage and biotic
community support.
You might also want to recognize Hott's Slough and
Piney Hoods Creek as being of absolutely critical value as a
wildlife corridor linking the Kiokee, Chickasawhatchee,
Spring Creeks Confluence Area to the Cooleewahee.
Although you already show this connection on most of
your maps, you might also want to show it in Figure 1 on
page 3.
In Figure 1, north of the Swamp of Toa, you now show
ten watercourses crossing U.S. 82 between Albany and Dawson,
and yet along this length of roadway there is only one
bridge, at the Chickasawhatchee. You show nine watercourses
crossing Ga. 32 between Dawson and Leesburg, and yet along
this length of roadway there are only three bridges, two
over runs of the Chickasawhatchee, and one over the
Kinchafoonee.
Throughout that part of your study area, there is a
roll to the land, and consequently few wetlands to hold back
some of the water. A few of those other watercourses are
fairly long and drain a fairly large area, and yet no other
bridges are needed to control the water passing under these
roads.
To the south, in the central basin of the Swamp of Toa,
where Piney Hoods Creek flows under Tarver Road, there is a
steel and concrete bridge with two or three piers beneath
the deck. At times, a large volume of water flows under this
bridge, even though the drainage area for Piney Hoods Creek
itself is very small at that point. The surrounding land is
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
154
CDP ADID—p. 4
flat and there are plenty of wetlands to hold some of the
water.
As I interpret the U.S.G.S. quadrangles, the western
end of Mott's Slough is a little above 178', the middle is
exactly 178', and the eastern end is a little below 178',
just at the point where Piney Woods Creek begins.
This might lead you to believe, that whenever they are
flowing, the Kiokee and the eastern run of the
Chickasawhatchee send water into the Cooleewahee through
Mott's Slough and Piney Hoods Creek.
I think instead that water backs up and spreads out in
Mott's Slough, spilling over and flowing east into Piney
Woods Creek only when it reacher a certain level, usually in
the late winter and early spring. Conversely, when the water
level drops in the Kiokee and eastern run of the
Chickasawhatchee, I believe water in Mott's Slough flows
west.
The U.S.G.S. quadrangle shows Piney Woods Creek as only
an intermittent stream, and the 1968 Soil Survey of
Dougherty county, Georgia shows the northern tip of Piney
Woods Creek moving north into Mott's Slough, which I believe
most of the time it does.
I am attaching a photocopy of your Figure 1, with
Mott's Slough and the bridge over Piney. Woods Creek drawn in
red.
In green, I show a missing piece of the eastern run of
the Chickasawhatchee, on the northeast side of Pine Island.
It's fine for you to leave this off on Figure 17, where you
also show the surrounding wetlands, but you might not want
to leave it off on Figure 1. When water in the eastern run
of the Chickasawhatchee is low, it does have a clear
channel, and when it's high so much water is moving through
the area of the missing piece, it's confusing to leave it
off.
4. You might consider it imperative that you retain
Figure 17 in your final report. Simply by rewriting the
caption you can meet the criticism you described.
There are perhaps some who will carefully read what you
say about the wellfield, without studying your report as a
whole, so it is important what you say here.
While you make it plain in the wellfield section that
agricultural withdrawals can affect water levels in the
Upper Floridan Aquifer, and while you suggest elsewhere (pp.
2 and 9) that agricultural withdrawals may be damaging
wetlands in your study area, you never say the wellfield
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
CDP ADID—p. 5
proposal should be evaluated In the context of already high
agricultural withdrawals. Peak municipal use coincides with
peak agricultural use.
While you make it plain in the wellfield section that
excessive groundwater withdrawals are likely to alter
wetland vegetation, and while you say elsewhere (pp. 18 and
91) you have already witnessed many such changes in
vegetation, you never pull the two together and say that
groundwater withdrawals in your study area may already be
far in excess of what the wetlands can bear.
The wellfield proposal should not be evaluated
according to the initial placement of wells, but by the
pumping necessary to justify the $12 million investment.
It is no coincidence that the U.S.G.S. suggested the
city put its wellfield on the southeastern edge of the Swamp
of Toa. That's where the water is abundant and clean.
Yet pulling the water out of the Swamp of Toa may
ultimately be self-defeating, because the more the wetlands
are degraded, the less they will be able to clean the water,
and the more likely contaminants will reach the wellfield.
The city has suggested you are exaggerating the threat
to wetlands, but in fact you are underestimating it, not
only because you don't tally in the agricultural damage, but
also because you don't consider how reduced upstream flow
would surely reduce the hydroperiod in Wetlands downstream.
This could in turn reduce the hydroperiod in-wetlands lying
downaquifer from the wetlands downstream.
You might encourage the city to build a water
purification plant and take its water out of the Flint.
Although in the short run this option appears to be
prohibitively expensive, in the long run it is probably both
cheaper and more dependable, since if we put in the
wellfield first and then have to build the water
purification plant, the cost of the one will obviously be
added to the other.
5. On page 104, you might want to rewrite the following
sentence describing the Confluence Area:-"It comprises
perhaps the largest and most extensive complex of riverine
and depressional wetlands in southwest Georgia, if not the
entire state."
Identifying it instead as the crucially-important
central basin of a much larger swamp system is not only more
accurate, but in my opinion is also more likely to draw the
cooperation and national support necessary to achieve full
protection.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
CDP ADID—p
If you have questions about anything I have said in
this letter, please ask them.
Happy holidays and a happy new year to you.
Charles Erwin
(912-436-5914)
Attachment
Copy (with attachment): Mr. Stephen C. Johnson
Dr. Katherine Kirkman
Mr. Michael C. Rowell
Mr. John H. Sperry
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
157
Cunt Douihtrtj Pbbi AOvatet IittetflutoM if
United Stain Enrlronnuntal Protection Aguey
Figure 1. Project area for the
Centra] Dougneny Plain Advance
Identification of wetlands.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
US COURTIAND STREET. NI.E.
ATLANTA. GEORGIA J0J45
June IS, 1998
Mr. Charles Erwin
2403 Temple Avenue
Albany, GA 81707-2663
Be: Response to Comments for the Central Dougherty Plain Wetlands
Advance WwitiflinHnn (ADID) Draft Technical Summary Document
Dear Mi*. Erwin:
Thank you for taking the time to provide detailed rnrnmmtn on our Draft Technical Summary
Document for the Central Dougherty Plain ADID Project. In response to your suggestions numbered
1, 4 and 5, we will try to change some of the wording in our document to clarify our intent. Your
suggestions numbered 2 and 3 win be addressed in this letter.
We offer the following comments in response to your suggestion number 2: Our objective in separating
project area wetlands into two hydrojjeomorphic categories (riverine and depressionaD was to group
them in such a way that their functions could be assessed using remote techniques. Our depressional
wetland category generally inriuded wetlands that are considered "isolated" for purposes of Section 404
of the Clean Water Act. However, this does not mean that these wetlands are isolated from storm
event overflows. Hie duration and frequency of these overflows differs significantly from that of
riverine wetland systems, and thus renders these two categories functionally distinct.
In response to your suggestion number 3: Figure 1 is simply intended to show the general location of
the project area, not detailed creek locations. For wetland/creek locations,-please refer to Figure 7 on
page 5L
We apologize for the delay in responding to public comments. As you know, federal employees were
fcrloughed during the month of December 1995, the scheduled date for responding to official comments
for this document Una project was on hold, since our return in January 1998, due to previously
scheduled activities. We will try to move forward quickly now, so that the final document can be
released in summer of 1996.
Sincerelv.
Veronica Fasselt, Project Officer
Central Dougherty Plain ADID
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
ENERGY CENTER office of the general manager p o box i788 albany. Georgia 31702 (912) 883-8330
December 20, 1995
Ms. Veronica Fasselt
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Water Management Division
345 Courtland Street N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
Re: Draft Technical Summary Document for the Central Dougherty Plain Advance
Identification of Wetlands Comments
Dear Ms. Fasselt:
As General Manager of the Water, Gas & Light Commission, I am extremely
disappointed that the Commission was not notified or consulted with during preparation of
the referenced document. This is especially true since a significant portion of the document
addresses proposed activities of this Commission. As a minimum, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) should have had accurate information relative to the proposed well
field.
The quality of the hydrogeological analysis and subsequent conclusions is very
disappointing. The attached comments from the U. S. Geological Survey (USGS)
demonstrates that the documents author did not accurately interpret or have a technical
understanding of available hydrogeological information. One would expect hydrogeological
aspects of published EPA documents to be prepared by an experienced hydrogeologist.
This Commission has never proposed to pump 72.0 mgd from the Upper Floridan
Aquifer (UFA) in Dougherty County, Georgia. The current concept is to develop a well
field to pump 7.2 mgd with a long term development potential of 14.4 mgd. You can find
this information on file with the Water Resources Division of the Department of Natural
Resources.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
Ms. Fasselt, EPA
December 20, 1995
Page 2
The Water, Gas & Light Commission is bewildered as to why our proposed well field
was singled out for such extensive discussion. If there is potential risk to wetlands from
pumpage of the UFA, why was there no mention or discussion of the impact of the many
existing wells currently pumping many times more water from the aquifer than the maximum
forecast from WG&L's well field. It appears that WG&L's proposed well field was singled
out for special criticism while other existing agricultural and industrial wells were simply
ignored. We are incredulous that this could happen and that such an Oversight could be part
of a project with objective purposes. This feeling is compounded when the document reports
its own drawdown measurements in an agricultural well to be several times greater than the
forecast drawdown which generated the figure shown on page 102 of the document
Although our Commission is understandably disheartened, it is our hope that this
matter can be resolved in a manner that is acceptable to all parties.
LOE:kf
Enclosures
xc: Woody Hicks, USGS
Ken McGraw, MAC
William Frechette, DNR
Tom Kwader, Woodward-Clyde
James E. Knight, WG&L
wpdocs\epa
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Sincerely,
Lemuel 0. Edwards
General Manager
-------
Centra/ Dougherty Piain Advance Identification of Wetlands
December 15, 1995
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Water Management Division
345 Courtland St., Atlanta.. Ga.
Summary
USGS Comments on DRAFT TECHNICAL SUMMARY DOCUMENT for The Central
Bough erty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands, by Michael C. Rowell, Stephen C. Johnson,
and Veronica Fasselt, November 1,1995
The DRAFT TECHNICAL SUMMARY DOCUMENT (DRAFT) misrepresents findings of USGS
tiydrogeologic investigations in the Albany, Ga., area, specifically, in die area being considered for
installation of public-supply wells by Albany Water, Gas, and Light Commision. These
misrepresentations cause erroneous conclusions to be drawn by the authors of the DRAFT that
indicate that better hydraulic connection exists for water-producing zones in the Upper FloTidan
aquifer with topographical depressions, surface water, and wetlands than was determined by USGS in
their reports, tta high degree of hydraulic, connection mistakenly described in die DRAFT leads to
forming toe erroneous conclusion that wetlands located more thai* 10 miles a way from potential well
sites will he adversely affected by pumpage from the Upper Floridan aquifer. The evaluation of
simulated pumpage in the Upper Flo rid in aquifer on surface water and depression! wetlands in the
vicinity of Albany, Ga., reported in the DRAFT reflects a lack of understanding of basic hydraulic
principles t)' the auftors and an inability to compile hydnojfealogic data and simulation results into a
ir.sanirigfjl and credible assessment <-f cause-aod-effect ndations of £um?ag.e :n jaantial wetland
degradation. Findings of the DRAFT evaluation, of proposed pump age on wetlands in die vicinity of
Albany, Ga., are speculative, not founded by scientific reasoning or hydrologic principles., and
inconsistent with previous bydrologic investigations by impartial USGS personnel. Examples to
substantiate these statements are as follows:
• misuse of average thickness /or die upper water-btcring zone of Uit Upper Floridan aquifer and
the dtscripncri of discontinuous ctay 'leraes' « the undifferentiated overburden to describe a better
hydrastiic connection of the aquifer Kith wetUuids than atisa in the vicinity of proposed pumpage.
Actual thickness of die upper water-bearing zone in this area is leported by USGS as 50-65 ft and
forms a leaky confining unit that provides additional protection from the surface. A continuous clay
layer tanging in thickness from 2C-4C ft at the base of the overtnrden it; the proposed well-field area
is- given by (he USGS in their tepans tut is ignored in the dra.fi When KKTbiuaJ w:th arveft-jntai
thiclctiess tanging front 20 to diok fi&n 100 B. of which tfce lower half is mostly day. pocapage
effects vill be isolated from wetlands and drawdown wilL be limited ca the Upper Ftaridaa aquifer.
• misrepresenunion of pumpage-iruhiced water-level decline (dr&udown) in the Upper Floridan
aquifer as the amount of water-level change that would occur in wetlands more than SO miles away
from proposed well sites.
Basic hydraulic principles underlying Darcy's Law, which defines flow through, porous media, do not
petvn.il the burden in experience itie same water-level change as we Upper Floridan aquifer The
wetlands can drain by vertical downward leakage of surface water into the aquifer only if water levels
in the wetlands decline in response to pumpage in the aquifer and a sufficient vertical hydraulic
gradient exists to drive leakage [vertical ground-water flow) out of the wetlands. Head change in the
lower water-bearing zone of the aquifer, such as occurs due to pumpage, is dissipated vertically
through the upper water-bearing zone and overburden because of the low vertical hydraulic
conductivity of these units. This head dissipation establishes a vertical hydraulic gradient through the
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
upper water-bearing zone and overburden that causes ground water to flow in accordance with Darcy's
Law. However, because of low vertical hydraulic conductivity in these units, minimal drawdown in
the Upper Floridan aquifer, and small vertical hydraulic gradients, leakage from the surface (such as
drainage of wetlands) into the aquifer is impeded or nonexistent, and water-level change at the surface
due to pumpage in the aquifer also is virtually nonexistent. The authors of the DRAFT (1) failed to
account for the dissipation of head change through the units that semiconfme the lower water-bearing
zone when defining the zone of influence to the proposed pumpage (fig. 17), and (2) failed to
recognize the inconsequential rate of vertical leakage out of topographic depresssions (assuming they
are saturated) and wetland features that would be caused by dissipating six inches of water-level
change through 70-170 ft of upper water-bearing zone and overburden, of which 10-40 ft is clay.
• misrepresentation of the objective of the simulation study performed by USGS personnel (p. 99,
paragraph 2 of DRAFT) gives the implication that the USGS corroborated with Albany Water, Gas,
and Light Commision "to determine the most appropriate scenario for a municipal well field for the
Albany area ,' and that the six pumpage scenarios are viable development alternatives of the
Commission.
The USGS performs hydrologic investigations, including simulations, that are consistent only with its
mission to evaluate the Nation's water resources. Hydrologic investigations are performed through the
Cooperative Program with federal, state and local agencies, which can be used for selected purposes
by the funding agencies. Work performed by USGS in the Albany area is an example of such a study.
• misrepresentation of simulated drawdown in the Upper Floridan aquifer in response to pumpage of
Tl million gallons per day as the basis for generating maps of potentially affected wetlands.
Terms such as "immediate well vicinity" and "drawdown zone" were used in context with maximum
simulated drawdowns at nodes (p. 99, 100, and figure 17 of DRA^T) to convey the concept that large
amounts of wetland areas would be affected by water-level declines of these magnitudes if pumpage
were to occur at the proposed well field. In reality, however, the cause-and-effect relations of the
proposed pumpage in the Upper Floridan aquifer to water-level declines that might be expected in
wetland areas was not established in the DRAFT. Further, no data were presented in the DRAFT to
establish a hydrologic link between water-level change and wedand degradation caused by pumpage in
the Upper Floridan aquifer in the Albany, Ga., area. The DRAFT ignores mentioning that more than
90 irrigation wells located in Baker and Dougherty Counties were simulated by the USGS at the same
time as hypothetical pumpage from an area of proposed ground-water development (a map showing
these well locations is contained in the report of the USGS model study). The DRAFT fails to report
the effects of this actual pumpage on wetland degradation, even though these wells are closer to the
wetlands than the proposed pumpage, and that pumping rates increase toward the end of summer in
response to crop demands when precipitation and aquifer water levels are at or near their annual low.
In fact, data do not exist that indicate adverse hydrologic effects of irrigation pumpage on wetlands,
even though areas delineated as potentially affected wetlands (due to pumpage from proposed well
sites located more than 10 miles away) coexist among the highest concentration of irrigation pumpage
in southwestern Georgia.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
December 15, 1995
U.S. Environmental Protection.Agency
Water Management Division
345 Courtland St., Atlanta, Ga.
USGS Detailed Comments on DRAFT TECHNICAL SUMMARY DOCUMENT for The
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands, by Michael C. Rovvell,
Stephen C. Johnson, and Veronica Fasselt, November 1, 1995
{"DRAFT" in comments below refers to the above document; "VSGS report" refers to Open-File
Report 91-52.]
1. Text on p. 10, of USGS report states that Dougherty County Health Department records indicate
that most domestic wells only penetrate the upper waterbearing zone. Although this is true, most of
these wells only penetrate this zone so that they could be completed as open hole in the fractured and
solutioned region at the top of the lower water-bearing zone. There are few wells that actually are
completed in the upper water-bearing zone. The statement about completion of domestic wells in the
upper water-bearing zone is misleading and allows the reader to draw the conclusion that this zone
provides large amounts of water to domestic wells when, in actuality, it provides little water to wells.
2. Average thickness of 40 feet for upper water-bearing zone does not accurately describe its
thickness in the area of potential ground-water development (proposed well field) and the high degree
of hydraulic separation of the lower water-bearing zone from the land surface and wetlands. The
USGS report states on p. 10, 4th paragraph, that "in the northern part of the area of potential
development, the lower water-bearing zone is separated from the undifferentiated overburden by about
50-65 ft of the upper water-bearing zone." This phrase is given in the USGS report before the
average thiclcness of 40 ft is stated, which is cited in the draft. The 50-65-ft thickness of the upper
water-bearing zone provides an effective hydrologic barrier to vertical movement of ground water;
notwithstanding that the overburden ranges in thickness ftom 20 to more than 100 ft, is mostly clay,
and covers the upper water-bearing zone in the area of potential ground-water development (see Hicks
and others, 1987, plate 2). The upper water-bearing zone acts as a hydraulic barrier to vertical
ground-water flow, as stated by Hicks and others (1987, p. 45, conclusion 10.): "the upper part of the
Upper Floridan aquifer forms a leaky confining unit," and "wells that derive water exclusively from
the lower part of the aquifer probably would have additional protection against contaminants from the
land surface that percolate through the overburden." This "protection" also limits the amount of head
change in the lower water-bearing zone due to pumpage ftom affecting surface water, wetlands, and
topographically depressed areas on the land surface.
3. A layer of clay ranging in thickness from 10-29 ft is mapped as a continuous unit in the area of
potential development, and ranges from 20-40 ft in the region west of the Flint River (see USGS
report, p. 9). Text on p. 9 of the USGS report specifically addresses the continuity of the clay in the
southwestern part of the Albany area (see also fig. 3 of USGS report). The statement regarding a
continuous clay in this part of the study area occurs in the same sentence that addresses the
discontinuity of "most layers of similar lithology in the undifferentiated overburden." The DRAFT
uses one part of the sentence given in the USGS report to support the discontinuity of clay in the
overburden and ignores the remaining part of the sentence that states that the clay is continuous.
These misstatements lead the reader to conclude that good hydraulic connection exists between the
lower water-bearing zone and land surface, including the wetlands, when, in actuality, the dat.i
indicate the opposite conclusion. A combined thickness of overburden and upper water-bearing zone of
70-175 ft , containing at least 10-40 ft of clay, provides a sufficient hydraulic barrier to vertical
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
164
ground-water flow and to the interaction of the lower water-bearing zone with surface-water
(wetlands) in the vicinity and west of the area of potential ground-water development.
4. Language used by the authors to describe the influence of the Upper Floridan aquifer on
depressional features ranges from definitive to speculative in successive sentences on page 99 of the
DRAFT. The lack of confidence exhibited by the authors in reporting the influence of the aquifer on
depressional features illustrates the lack of substance in the DRAFT concerning cause-and-effect,
relations between pumpage and wetland degradation southwest of Albany, Ga. From statements such
as these, it can only be concluded that sufficient data was either lacking or nonexistent to support
definitive statements about the influence of the Upper Floridan aquifer on the hydrology of wetlands
and topograhical depressions.
If the "relationships of water level in the Upper Floridan aquifer to those in depressional features are
less understood" (p. 99 of draft) than the relation of ground-water and surface-water levels, discussed
in the DRAFT on page 98, then what data was used to prove with "no doubt" that some depressional
features are "greatly influenced by water from the" Upper Floridan aquifer?" If there is no doubt
about the influence of the Upper Floridan aquifer on depressional features, then why was the personal
communication of Cofer and Rasmussen nettled to state less definitively that "depressions probably act
as" recharge and discharge sites to the Upper Floridan aquifer? This speculative conclusion about the
hydrologic interchange between the aquifer and depressional features, which was drawn ftom personal
communication, distracts ftom the seemingly strong positive statement that precedes it. What
transpired during the writing of these successive statements in the draft to change the authors'
confidence from 'no doubt' to 'probably?' Couldn't anything more definitive be derived from the
personal communication to avert such a deterioration in the authors' confidence in successive
sentences so as to avoid use of contradictory language such as 'no doubt greatly influenced' and
'probably act as?'
5. The authors misstate the objective of the simulated pumpage as an evaluation "to determine the
most appropriate scenario for a municipal well field for the Albany area." Language such as this is
not contained in the report cited by the authors, nor would it have withstood the Survey review
process. The purpose of simulating increased ground-water development in the area southwest of
Albany, Ga., is stated on pages 4, 21, and 22 of the USGS report using language that is consistent
with our mission to evaluate the Nation's water resources. The USGS is prohibited ftom engaging in
work that would benefit any environmental service organization, such as consulting firm or Albany
Water, Gas, and Light Commission. Text in the DRAFT (p. 99, paragraph 2) gives the implication
that the USGS corroborated with Albany Water, Gas, and Light Commission for their private gain by
portraying the six pumping scenarios contained in the USGS report as viable development alternatives
of the Commission. The USGS performs hydrologic investigations, including simulations, which are
consistent only with its mission. Hydrologic investigations are performed through the Cooperative
Program with federal, state and local agencies, which can be used for selected purposes by the
funding agencies. Work performed by USGS in the Albany area is an example of such a study.
6. On p. 99-102 the DRAFT discusses adverse impacts of simulated water-level decline (drawdown)
in the Upper Floridan aquifer on "depressional wetlands within the drawdown zone without presenting
hydrologic evidence that indicates adverse impacts would occur Terms such as "immediate well
vicinity" and "drawdown zone" are undefined in the draft, but are used in the same context to convey
to the reader that large amounts of wetland areas will be affected by drawdown of the same magnitude
as simulated by pumpage in the Upper Floridan aquifer (see paragraph that spans pages 99 and 100).
According to figure 17 of the DRAFT, very few features identified as potentially affected wetlands
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
165
reside within the 12-square-mile area of potential ground-water development (shown on the fig. 17 as
the cross-hatchured area and labelled "PROPOSED WELL FIELD LIMITS"). However, the DRAFT
misrepresents drawdown in the Upper Floridan aquifer as the amount of water-level change that would
occur in wetlands more than 10 miles away from proposed well sites. The eight-foot contour of
drawdown in the Upper Floridan aquifer resulting from a simulated pumping rate of 72 Mgal/d does
not extend beyond the limits of the proposed area of ground-water development, and only one or two
wetland features are contained within the eight-foot contour. This is not to say that these few, or any,
wetlands will be adversely impacted by pumpage of 72 Mgal/d from the Upper Floridan aquifer
because the effects of pumpage on surface-water levels and wetland hydrology was neither established
nor described in the DRAFT. No hydrologic data or analysis was presented in the DRAFT to
substantiate statements tha describe adverse pumpage effects in wetland areas in and around the area
of potential ground-water development southwest of Albany, Ga.
Basic hydraulic principles underlying Darcy's Law, which defines flow through porous media, do not
permit the overburden to experience the same water-level change as the Upper Floridan aquifer when
it is pumped. The wetlands can drain by vertical downward leakage of surface water into the aquifer
only if water levels in the wetlands decline in response to pumpage in the aquifer and a sufficient
vertical hydraulic gradient exists to drive leakage (vertical ground-water flow) out of the wetlands.
Pumpage-induced head change in the lower water-bearing zone of the aquifer is dissipated vertically
through the upper water-bearing zone and overburden because of the low vertical hydraulic
conductivity of these units. This head dissipation establishes a vertical hydraulic gradient through the
upper water-bearing zone and overburden that causes ground water to flow in accordance with Darcy's
Law. However, because of low vertical hydraulic conductivity in these units, minimal drawdown in
the Upper Floridan aquifer, and small vertical hydraulic gradients, leakage from the surface (such as
drainage of wetlands) into the aquifer is either impeded or nonexistent, and water-level change at the
surface due to pumpage in the aquifer is equally nonexistent. The authors of the DRAFT (1) failed to
account for the dissipation of head change through the units that semiconfme the lower water-bearing
zone when defining the zone of influence to the proposed pumpage (fig. 17), and (2) failed to
recognize the inconsequential rate of vertical leakage out of topographic depresssions (assuming they
are saturated) and wetland features that would be caused by dissipating six inches of water-level
change through 70-170 ft of upper water-bearing zone and overburden, of which 10-40 ft is clay.
Through inference and suggestion, the authors speculate that depressional wetlands will be adversely
affected to the same magnitude as shown by simulaied drawdown in the Upper Floridan aquifer (table
9 and fig. 17), and that the area circumscribed by the six-inch contour of simulated drawdown in the
Upper Floridan aquifer can be used to define the zone of adverse impact of pumpage on wetlands. The
authors admit that adverse impacts on the wetlands due to pumpage were not quantified in their study
(see top of page 100); yet, despite any hydrologic substantiation, definitive statements were made that
"depressional wetlands within the drawdown zone will experience changes in hydrology." No data or
hydrological evidence was given to support the description of the extent of changes to depressional
wetlands resulting from pumpage that follows on page 100, yet it is stated that "impacts will be large
and detrimental to these wetland ecosystems." and that the "potential effect to all wetlands within the
drawdown zone is the loss, partial or complete of the hydrologic source to the wetland system which
will drastically alter these wetland environments resulting in large-scale degradation of these sites."
The DRAFT further fantasizes the degradation scenario, which eventually culminates with a transition
in the plant community from aquatic-bed vegetation to grasses and sedges, and attempts to lend
credibility to this ecological destruction by referencing recent work by Bacchus; however, none of this
diatribe is founded in data specific to the hydrogeologic regime in the Albany, Ga., area, and easily
can be dismissed as pure speculation or conjecture. Further attestation to the nonscientific method that
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
166
4
was used to speculate about adverse impacts on wetlands due to pumpage from proposed well sites is
the text at the bottom of page 100, which states that "possible effects of water drawdown on riverine
wetlands are not as easily speculated."
7. The hydrogeology of the flow system comprised of undifferentiated overburden, Upper Floridan
aquifer, and Lisbon formation, described by Hicks and others (1987), and simulation results published
in the report, indicate that no adverse impacts will occur to any hydrologic unit of the flow system as
a result of pumping 72 million gallons per day from the area of potential ground-water development in
the Upper Floridan aquifer southwest of Albany, Ga. Because the depressional wetlands are connected
to these hydrologic units, either to the overburden or to surface-water features, they are not adversely
affected by pumpage. In the northern pan of study areas investigated by Hicks and others and
contained in the simulation report, the upper part of the Upper Floridan aquifer forms a leaky
semiconfining unit, which separates hydraulically and physically the lower water-bearing zone—where
additional wells might be plawd—from the overburden and land surface. The low hydraulic
conductivity of the upper water-bearing zone in this area is more characteristic of the semiconfining
nature of the overburden than the producing zone of the remaining aquifer thickness below it.
Thickness of this low-hydraulic-conductivity zone ranges ftom 50-65 ft in the area of potential
ground-water development, which, when added to (he overburden thickness containing an average 20
ft of clay, provides an effective hydraulic barrier to the vertical flow of ground water to, and from,
the Upper Floridan aquifer (see p. 10 of report). This hydraulic barrier not only protects the lower
water-bearing zone from contamination by surface sources, but also suppresses water-level changes,
such as drawdown due to pumpage, from affecting the undifferentiated overburden and surface-water
features.
8. The hydraulic disconnection of the Upper Floridan aquifer ftom the undifferentiated overburden is
evidenced by water-level data and simulation results showing that the potentiometric surface of the
Upper Floridan aquifer is unaffected by surface-water features and depressional wetlands, with the
exception of locations near major streams in the Dougherty Plain. Good hydraulic connection between
the Upper Floridan aquifer and surface-water features, and between the aquifer and depressional
wetlands, would cause deflections in the potentiometric surface near surface-water features and
depressional wetlands, such as bending of potentiometric contours upstream or downstream, or
circular patterns around sinkholes. Features such as these would change seasonally in response to
climate- and pumpage-induced changes in the potentiometric surface; such features are absent from
potentiometric surfaces in the Albany, Ga., area, as seasonal potentiometric surfaces maintain the
same general patterns of contours.
9. Comparison of ground-water-flow directions (fluxes) that were computed for the six scenarios of
simulated pumpage and plotted on maps in the USGS report indicates that regional directions of
ground-water movement from the north and west of the area of potential development were "virtually
unaffected by pumping" at 72 Mgal/d. This would not be the case for a flow system that has good
hydraulic connection between the Upper Floridan aquifer and depressional wetlands because water-
level declines would alter regional ground-water-flow directions from prepumpage conditions by either
decreasing aquifer discharge to streams and depressional wetlands or by inducing aquifer recharge
from these apparent sources of water.
10. The DRAFT authors failed to assimilate cause-and-effect relations of irrigation pumpage in Baker
and Dougherty Counties with the potential to deteriorate depressional wetlands in the area west of the
proposed well sites located southwest of Albany. 'Anecdotal' evidence of seasonal water-level
fluctuations in a well in Lee County is presented in the DRAFT. This well is located northwest of
Albany and is nearly 10 miles north of the area of potential ground-water development, near the
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
167
northern boundary of ihe area containing a sparse distribution of POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
WETLANDS due to pumpage from proposed well sites, as identified on figure 17 of the DRAFT. The
Les County well eapsiienctd about 33.4 ft of water-level decline, termed "fluctuation" in the
DRAFT,
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
* UNrrE0 STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
i S3 ^ REGION 4
I V&77 ? ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
1 oo ALABAMA STREET, S.W.
% m0^ ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-3104
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
To: Woody Hicks
U.S.G.S.
Georgia District
Peachtree Business Center
3039 Amwiler Road, Suite 130
Atlanta, GA 30360
From: Veronica Fasselt
Date: June 2, 1997
Re: Central Dougherty
Plain ADID
The items listed below are attached £or your use.
Copies Pate OK Nwfoey Description
1 6/97 ADID Draft Text
Remarks: Per our meeting on the Central Dougherty Plain ADID
Project, we have revised the text for Section 4.2, which describes
threats to wetland resources. A copy-of the revised text is
enclosed. If you have any additional concerns, please call me at
(404) 562-9406, or write me at the address shown above.
Copies:
Von nil! °jrn r~o M
Signed: _
Veronica Fasselt
Environmental Scientist
R*cycl>d/R*cyclabl« -Printed with VegetaWe Oil Based Inks on 100% Recycled Paper (40% Poaconsumm)
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 1S9
United States Department of the Interior
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Water Resources Division
Pcachtrce Business Center, Suite 130
3039 Amwiler Road
Atlanta, Georgia JO360-2824
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
Atlanta Federal Center 100 Alabama Street S.W.
Atlanta, GA 30303-3104
ATTENTION: Ms. Veronica Fassclt
June 16, 1997
Thank you for providing our agency with a copy of the revised Section 4.2 of the Central
Dougherty Plain ADID report. It was our understanding at the conclusion of the meeting attended
at EPA Region IV in December 199S that the USGS would be included in the technical review of
the referenced document subsequent to revision and prior to release. Although you did not solicit
review or technical comment on Section 4.2 from USGS, subsequent to reading the revised section
of the report, Lynn Torak and I felt compelled to respond because of significant technical
misunderstandings and unsupported suppositions included in this section of the report In addition,
I have included a few comments and suggestions in the margins of the ten (enclosed). Following
are specific comments regarding Section 4.2 of the report:
1. The opening statement in the first paragraph of Section 4.2 establishes your agenda for the
entire section, which alleges that "loss of source water from aquifer withdrawals and pollution
from agricultural and industrial chemicals" is threatening the area's wetlands. This statement
has no supporting data or references provided in the text The text of your report indicates that
most wetland loss is attributable to land-use conversion for agriculture (520,000 acres) or
urban growth (??? acres). The ADID study (Section 4.2) provided no supporting estimates of
wetland loss attributed to cither ground-water withdrawal or chemicals. In fact, you state in
the second paragraph on page 80 that "Wetlands in southwest Georgia, however, probably had
not been subject to loss and degradation at the same intensity as those in the rest of the state."
This appears inconsistent with your premise since more ground water is pumped in southwest
Georgia for irrigation than in the rest of Geoigia combined.
2. Section 4.2 of the report provided an adequate description of the hydrogeology of the
Dougherty Plain and hypothetical threats to wetland resources from simulated pumpage by
using excerpts from reports by Hayes and others, Hicks and others, Torak and others, and
Lehman and others, and from personal communication from Cofcr and Rasmus sen. However,
the inference given at the top of page 84 that 27 ft is a typical water-level response in the
Upper Floridan aquifer to pumpage from a single center-pivot irrigation well needs to be
qualified with regard to the local hydrogeology of the aquifer in the vicinity of irrigation
pumpage. The example focuses on a well near Byne Crossroads in Lee County, Ga., near the
outcrop of the Upper Floridan aquifer, where the aquifer is 50 ft thick, or less. I: should be
noted that this relatively limited thickness of the Uoner Fioridan aquifer would result in more
drawdown than in the remainder of your study area to the south where the aquifer thickness
may exceed 300 ft. A more areally representative and informative approach would be achieved
if the author would include data from other wells across the study area that truly are typical.
M^MdStfi^EttviranmentaL Prfitrr&MiAoencus-
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
Presenting one example of agricultural impact from an area where the yield versus drawdown
ratio is the worst, leaves your work vulnerable, weak, and frankly, biased The USGS will
gladly provide your agency with long-term water-level data for any of our monitoring sites
within the study area. A good example of less drawdown from a thicker part of the Dougherty
Plain than is present in Lee County, Ga., can be interpreted from text on page 86 of Section
4.2, which states that approximately SO irrigation wells are located in Baker County, Ga.; 10
of which pump at rates greater than 2 million gallons per day." During the growing season,
some, or even most, of these wells pump simultaneously, yet drawdown in this area is less than
in Lee County, and, as stated in Section 4.2, "these wells coexist with a large number of
depressional wetlands, which appear to be relatively healthy." A description of the simulated
effects of increased pumpage from the Upper Floridan aquifer on water levels in the Dougherty
Plain is given in the ACF/ACT Subarea 4 report (Torak and others), which indicates that the
Lee County area is affected by pumpage increases more than other parts of the Dougherty
Plain.
3. As stated in Section 4.2 of the report, the USGS conducted modeling to simulate a pumping
range of 12 to 72 Mgal/cL Pumpage greater than the proposed rates of 7.2 Mgal/d, and
projected 14.4 Mgal/d were simulated to demonstrate the significant yield potential of the
Upper Floridan aquifer and the potential effects on the area hydrogeolosy. The discussion
within the first paragraph on page 87 dwells on the potential effect of the hypothetical pumping
rate of 72 Mgal/d; "While the water withdrawals that result in this drawdown [8 ft in the area
of potential withdrawals south of Albany, Ga.] are predicted to have no significant adverse
impact on the flow system...it is possible that significant drawdowns could have an adverse
impact to wetlands. The effects were not quantified in the CDP ADID...". This statement
alludes to larger pumpage increases in the Dougherty Plain than were simulated in the Albany
study having the potential to cause significant drawdown that would affect wetlands. The
appearance of table 9 from the Albany report by Torak and others in the section gives the
impression to thq reader that drawdown corresponding to the pumpage listed in the table is
sufficient to adversely affect wetlands, although inferences from the report are to the contrary.
Text following this table discusses hydrologic changes to depressional wetlands located in
close proximity to large ground-water withdrawals, which seem to be supported rather than
refuted by the included table. A better perspective of large ground-water withdrawals can be
obtained from other parts of the Albany report, from which can be inferred that, at the height
of the growing season, maximum ground-water withdrawal in this part of the Dougherty Plain
(about 1,500 square miles) is 5 times the rate simulated by the model, or 385 Mgal/d, from
574 wells.
4. The summary paragraph at the bottom of page 88 makes the worst-case assumption "that all
depressional wetlands are directly connected to the [Upper Floridan] aquifer," therefore they
are susceptible to adverse impacts from aquifer drawdown, and cites the unlikely scenario of
simulated pumpage at a rate of 72 Mgal/d in the Albany area as an example of pumpage that
could cause such impacts. Although the proposed monitoring program for wetlands located
within the 0.5 ft contour of simulated drawdown resulting from this pumpage is commendable,
monitoring to identify adverse wetland effects caused by increased pumpage from the
installation and implementation of irrigation wells in the vicinity of drawdown produced by the
"well field" pumpage should be considered as equally plausible and addressed in this section.
The volume of pumpage represented by the permits for irrigation pumpage from the Upper
Floridan aquifer, submitted to and on file at Ga. EPD, should be mentioned as a potential
threat to wetlands in the Dougherty Plain. The appearance is given in Section 4.2 that the
wellfield south of Albany would be solely responsible for adverse effects on wetlands in this
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
part of the Dougherty Plain, whereas the potential increase in withdrawal from this area is
atypically small compared with permit requests for irrigation pumpage.
For your information, the issue of potential wetland degradation resulting from operation of the
wellfield is being addressed cooperatively by the Albany Water, Gas, and Light Commission
(Albany WGL), and scientists from the Joseph W. Jones Ecological Research Center and the
USGS. A preliminary site visit was made by the research team to identify potentially affected
wetlands in the wellfield area ih&t would be conducive to long-term monitoring. No wetlands could
be identified within the relatively small area of potential drawdown generated by the wellfield. The
Albany WGL has obligated to provide partial support to a regional wetland study that includes the
wellfield area. Scientists from J.W. Jones and USGS are collaboratively working to develop a
much larger, regional wetlands study within the Dougherty Plain. If adequate funding is obtained,
this collegia! research would greatly extend our understanding of the factors affecting wetlands.
In summary, the revised section of the ADID report is much improved over the version that was
released for public comment in 1995. However, Section 4.2 of the report still appears biased in
regards to the planned increase in municipal pumping in the Albany area. As previously stated, the
planned wellfield withdrawal of 7.2 Mgal/d is insignificant when compared to the ongoing large-
scale withdrawal for agricultural irrigation. As a result, it is intuitive that the wellfield withdrawal
will certainly have much less potential to impact the area's wetlands than the withdrawal for
agricultural irrigation.
If you have any questions regarding these review comments, or you would like for USGS to
provide the aforementioned water-level data, please do not hesitate to contact us at (770) 903-
9100.
Enclosure
cc: Timothy W. Hale
Richard E. Krause
Lynn J. Torak
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
172
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
100 ALABAMA STREET, S.W
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-3104
July 17,1997
David W. Hicks
U.S. Geological Survey
Water Resources Division
Peachtree Business Center
3039 Amwiler Road
Atlanta, GA 30360-2824
Re: Response to Comments for the Central Dougherty Plain Wetlands Advance Identification
(ADID) Draft Technical Summary Document
Dear Mr. Hicks:
Thank you for your rapid response to the technical revisions for the Draft Technical Summary
Document for the Central Dougherty Plain Wetlands ADID Project. We appreciate the effort
involved in providing such detailed comments and suggest that in the future you could more
effectively influence project outcome by responding to requests for assistance while the project is
underway, rather than waiting until a draft document has circulated before responding to our
requests for USGS assistance.
Response to comment #1
Objectives of the CDP ADID include the creation of a wetland database and facilitation of the use
of this wetland database by federal, state, and local regulatory agencies for the protection of valuable
wetlands which occur in the CDP ADID study area. The opening statement of section 4.2 is not
intend to set an agenda but is rather a listing of known and potential threats ranging from the most
threatening, land use conversion, to less threatening, loss of water from aquifer withdrawals.
Response to comment #2
The water-level fluctuation in the Byne Crossroad well was included to demonstrate the wide
. variation of response to pumping in the UFA not to infer that this response is typical. This well is not
typical of die yield to drawdown ratio that would be expected in the southern portion of the study
area. Changes to the text have been made.
Response to comment #3
Comment is noted and changes have been made to text There was no intent to mislead the reader.
Re°"onse to comment #4
Comment is noted and changes to text have been made. The recommendation that other withdrawals
such as irrigation pumping be monitored to determine impact on wetlands has been added.
ftoytWcri#* • PiWd W*** 01 Baxd Ma on 100% R«ycM P*w (40* PMteonumK)
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands
173
A copy of the revised text is enclosed. Please call me if I can be of farther assistance.
Sincerely,
Verooica Fasselt,
Environmental Scientist
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 174
AGENCY APPROVAL
The undersigned and the agencies they represent do agree with and support the contents of this
document.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
United States Army Corps of Engineers
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Central Dougherty Plain Advance Identification of Wetlands 175
United States Environmental Protection Agency
------- |