The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutOrginal Extent, Status and Trends of Wetlands in NC/~~ ORIGINAL EXTENT, STATUS AN D TRENDS OF WETLANDS I N NORTH CAROLINA A Report to the ''~;; N. C. Legislative Stuffy . . .~ Commission on °~ Wetlands Protection - ~~; i d~~l Department of Environme Raleigh, North Carolina tal, Health, and Natural Resources Report No. 91-01 /January, 1991 t ~ :ice ."..... t,~_ .M .d- ^~~' t i~ ~ ~' . `3 1~~; ~;,. !i ~~ ORIGINAL EXTENT, STATUS AND TRENDS OF WETLANDS IN NORTH CAROLINA: A REPORT TO THE N.C. LEGISLATIVE STUDY COMMISSION ON WETLANDS PROTECTION SEPTEMBER 1991 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, AND NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT WATER QUALITY SECTION RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA This report has been approved for release _Y LC.~-ems Geor T. Everett Director Date -/ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report describes the original extent (before European settlement) of wetlands in North Carolina and the status and trends of wetlands in coastal North Carolina where the vast majority of the state's wetlands are located. This report was originally prepared in October 1990 to answer questions raised by the North Carolina Legislative Study Commission on Wetlands Pro- tection. It represents a compilation and analysis of data avail- able on that date and also describes needs for further study. The primary source of information on the original wetland extent was hydric soil delineations shown on U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service soil maps. Information on status and trends came from a reinterpretation of existing data and new data on ownership and headwaters or isolated status. The following numbers are esti- mates and are intended to provide a general (rather than detailed) picture of N.C.'s wetlands. Supplemental information was gathered to answer questions raised by the Commission. Originally, North Carolina had about 7.8 million acres of wetlands (not including water). The vast majority (95%) of these were located in the coastal plain with smaller percentages in the piedmont (20) and mountains (3%). Percentages of counties which were originally wetland varied greatly depending on physiographic region. Wetland originally covered about 30 of the landscape in the mountains and about 20 of the piedmont. In the coastal plain, wetlands originally covered about 520 of the land (not counting water). The impact of human activities on wetlands is often inaccu- rately described as wetland "loss." This term is scientifically imprecise and too inaccurate for regulatory purposes. Wet- lands often provide a variety of important values such as pollu- tant retention, flood control, wildlife habitat, groundwater recharge, aquatic life production and habitat for rare or endan- gered species. Activities in wetlands can remove all, portions or none of each of these values. For instance, conversion of a bottomland hardwood forest to a housing development usually removes all wetland functions. In contrast, conversion of a pocosin to a ditched pine plantation impacts some wetland values (such as water quality control) but does not eliminate wildlife and groundwater recharge values (although they may be impacted). Therefore, it is more accurate to discuss whether the wetland supports, partially supports or does not support its original uses (values). This terminology is consistent with water quality analyses performed by the State of North Carolina in the federal Clean Water Act-mandated 305 (b) report. For this report to the Legislature, wetlands which are impacted by agriculture and urban development are considered to be nonsupporting, while those impacted by forestry are considered to partially support wetland uses. This demarcation is consis- tent with current determinations by the U.S. Army Corps of Engi- neers whereby "prior convertr~d" agricultural lands (wetlands con- verted to agricultu~~l uses .`-efore 1985) are not wetlands subject i to 404 permits while many pine plantations are 404 wetlands. Rel- atively undisturbed wetlands mapped by the National Wetlands Inventory are considered to be supporting intrinsic uses. Of the original wetlands in the North Carolina coastal plain, about 24% do not support their uses. Of the nonsupporting wet- lands, most were impacted by agricultural conversions and the remainder primarily by urban development. Of the remaining 760, about 2/3 support and 1/3 partially support their uses. Partially supporting wetlands were impacted by forestry. Most of the par- tially and nonsupporting wetlands are freshwater wetlands rather than estuarine salt marshes. About 69% of the supporting coastal plain wetlands in the early 1980's were forested swamps (probably mostly hardwood swamps). Other major supporting wetland types were estuarine salt marsh (230), and pocosins (4$). The partially supporting wetlands were predominantly loblolly (and other species) pine plantations. About 320 of the wetlands in the coastal plain are publicly owned. About 360 of the coastal plain wetlands are headwaters (located on streams with less than 5 cfs flow}. About 590 of the freshwater wetlands are headwaters wetlands. About 80 of the coastal plain wetlands are hydrologically isolated (without per- manent or intermittent stream connection). No estuarine wetlands are headwaters or isolated. Headwaters or isolated wetlands are readily filled under Corps of Engineers Nationwide 26 permits which allow fill for activities under 10 acres in headwaters or isolated wetlands. The present extent of wetlands in an individual county is probably unique to that county since it reflects the original extent of wetlands in the county, the type and degree of develop- ment pressure on that county and land ownership patterns. In this report, Carteret County was evaluated as an interesting case study since it is a coastal county, originally had a large amount of wetland and has had considerable urban development pressure. Originally, about 830 of the land in Carteret County was wet- lands. By the mid-1980's, about 52~ of the county was still wet- lands. About 320 of the county was covered by freshwater wet- lands while another large portion (20~) was covered with estuar- ine wetlands. Of the land area of Carteret County, only 17° was freshwater wetland which was privately owned in the early 1980's. Privately owned, undeveloped upland areas in Carteret County occupied 36% of the county. These figures demonstrate that there are large amounts of upland, undeveloped areas in the county. Additional research is needed before several important ques- tions can be answered. Important research questions include 1) what is the impact of wetland regulations on developable land, 2) what proportion of pine plantation wetlands support, partially support and do not support their original uses, 3) what is the extent of wetlands in the piedmont and mountains and what has impacted them in those physiographic regions, and 4) what is the ii recent trend of wetland impact across the state? Estuarine salt marsh wetlands have experienced less conver- sion than freshwater wetlands in North Carolina. The success of the North Carolina Coastal Area Management Act and the Division of Coastal Management in controlling impact on salt marshes is well documented. However, it is clear that impact on freshwater wetlands continues in spite of the past 404 program as well as recent enhanced federal (primarily Corps of Engineers and Swamp- buster) and state (primarily Division of Environmental Manage- ment) regulatory efforts. Also, great concern has been expressed about costly, confusing, complex and piecemeal freshwater wet- lands regulatory programs. Serious consideration should be given by administrative and legislative leaders to enhancing and streamlining freshwater wetland protection in North Carolina. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report by the Division of Environmental Management relied heavily upon hydric soil information collected by Steve Leonard, Wetland Specialist in the Division of Soil and Water Conservation. The primary data source in this report was from a M.S. project by Gordon Cashin at Duke University. His original data were expanded upon and reanalyzed for this report. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ...............................................i Acknowledgements ..............................................iii Introduction ....................................................1 Previous Wetland Inventories in North Carolina ..............2 Wetland "Loss" Studies for North Carolina ...................3 Wetlands Values .............................................4 Methodology .....................................................7 Wetland Definition ..........................................7 Study Site Selection ........................................8 Hydric Soil Determinations ..................................8 Wetland Analysis ...........................................10 Results ........................................................12 Geographic Limitations .....................................12 Uncertainty and Statistical Limitations ....................12 Original Extent ............................................13 Status in Early 1980's .....................................13 Vegetation Types ......................................13 Use Support ...........................................13 Headwaters ............................................13 Isolated ..............................................17 Ownership .............................................17 Carteret County: A Case Study .........................17 Trends: European Settlement, Mid 1950's and Early 1980's...18 Conclusions and Recommendations ................................23 Literature Cited ...............................................25 iv LIST OF TABLES 1. Wetland types and their associated functions ................6 2. Percent of land surface in hydric soils in coastal plain..14 3. Wetland types in the coastal plain in early 1980's.........15 4. Wetland statistics for North Carolina ....... ...............16 LIST OF FIGURES 1. Location of study sites .....................................9 2. Point of Marsh study site ..................................19 3. Hackney study site .........................................20 4. Vanceboro study site .......................................21 APPENDICES 1. Wetland inventories for North Carolina ....................29 2. Original wetland extent in North Carolina .................30 3. North Carolina precipitation from January to March 1983...31 4. Photo/map date and fieldchecking ..........................33 v INTRODUCTION Wetlands in recent years have become widely recognized as natural resources of great value to society for the uses they provide. These uses can include stormwater control, groundwater recharge, and provision of wildlife habitat. The North Carolina Legislative Study Commission on Wetlands Protection made several informational requests to the North Carolina Department of Envi- ronment, Health, and Natural Resources at their September 1990 meeting. The requests were as follows. The locations of answers to these questions are listed in parentheses behind the question. In addition, page 15 summarizes most of these answers. 1) How many wetlands did North Carolina originally have? (page 12) 2) How were these wetlands distributed (by physiographic region and county)? (page 12), 3) What is the present extent of wetlands in the State? (Page 16) , 4) What has caused the "loss" of wetlands? (page 16), 5) What is the trend of wetland "loss"? (pages 16-17), 6) What is the breakdown between privately vs publicly owned wetlands? (page 16), 7) What per cent of wetlands are in 1-ieadwater locations?, (page 16) , 8) What per cent of wetlands are isolated and what is their distri bution by size? (page 16), 9) How many acres of "disturbed" wetlands are present in North Carolina? (pages 16-1?), 10) What is the impact of the 404 program on developable land? This report intends to answer the first nine questions. An accurate answer for the last question (impact of wetland regula- tions on developable land) is too comple:~ for this report. This question cannot be answered without extensive data gathering for a test locale (such as Carteret County) and data analysis by the North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (CGIA) Such a study is outlined in the recommendations section of this report (pg. 21). For such a study, agreement is crucial on the definition of "developable land" and what parameters (floodplain, Coastal Management Act regulations, zoning, access to major roads, etc.) should be considered in the study. Cer- tainly, the 404 program has an economic cost as well as providing economic benefits. Until a study plan is well designed and agreed upon, the Department believes that any attempt to answer the "developable impact" question is premature. However, as a first attempt to begin to answer this last question, data will be presented on the extent of wetlands in Carteret County in terms of the extent of freshwater versus estu- arine wetlands versus uplands with each category divided into privately versus publicly owned land. However, each county is probably unique. Therefore, the data on Carteret County can probably only reflect that unique county and can only be extra- 1 polated beyond Carteret County with caution. PREVIOUS WETLAND INVENTORIES IN NORTH CAROLINA Over the years, a number of surveys and partial inventories of N.C. wetlands have been produced for various purposes (Appen- dix 1). Because of the restricted coverage of these historic studies, they are of limited usefulness in establishing an his- toric baseline estimate of wetland acreage in North Carolina. Another problem is that these studies have often used varying definitions of wetlands. Therefore, comparison between these studies is usually inadvisable. Accurate inventories attempt to answer the following questions - 1) the original extent of wet- lands, 2) the present wetland extent, 3) the extent at various past times and 4) causes for any observed changes. Shaw and Fredine (1956) and Wilson (1962) are the two most commonly cited wetland inventories for North Carolina. Both pri- marily focused on large (greater than 40 acres) wetlands of importance to wildlife. Neither study provides sufficient detail for an accurate determination of wetlands status or trends. Currently, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is con- ducting the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) in North Carolina. This study identifies and classifies wetlands according to USFWS criteria published in Cowardin, et al. (1979), and produces detailed maps indicating wetland location. Photo interpretation is based primarily on 1982-1983 aerial and satellite photography. These photos were taken during an unusually wet year (Appendix 3). This fact would minimize any tendency for the NWI maps to show marginal areas as wetlands. Unfortunately at the time of this writing, the NWI is still incomplete for North Carolina. Coverage includes most of the North Carolina coastal plain, some of the piedmont, and limited mountain areas (Leonard, 1989). Complete NWI information for the state will probably not be available until the mid-1990's (Hef- ner, 1990) . For purposes of wetland determinations required by the Food Security Act of 1985 (Swampbuster provision), the Soil Conserva- tion Service (SCS) has prepared county maps based on soil surveys and technical guides to wetlands. These wetland maps are not available for distribution but can be inspected in SCS field offices. However, any agency or citizen can make fairly accurate wetland determination by using the technical guide in conjunction with a modern soil survey. The lack of a comprehensive historic or current inventory has complicated attempts to assess the degree of wetland impact in North Carolina. Nevertheless, several studies have been attempted, most of which are limited to a specific wetland type. 2 WETLAND "LOSS" STUDIES FOR NORTH CAROLINA Many attempts have been made to assess the extent of wetland losses throughout the nation. It has been estimated that by the mid-1970's, only 46% of the original 215 million wetland acres remained as wetlands in the conterminous United States (Tiner, 1984). A study sponsored by the USFWS estimated that some 11.4 million acres of wetlands were lost between the mid-1950's and the mid-1970's (Office of Technology Assessment, 1984). This represents a five percent loss of the nation's wetlands during this twenty year period. However, these figures represent national averages for wet- land losses. Some areas of the country have experienced signifi- cantly greater losses, especially in the southeast region. Hefner and Brown (1985) reported that 84.0 of the nationwide losses occurred in the USFWS's southeast region. They also identified several areas in which the greatest losses occurred. Eastern North Carolina is one such area; however, conversion of pocosins to pine plantations were not counted as wetland "loss" in these figures (Hefner, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, personal commu- nication to Steve Leonard). North Carolina ranks third in the southeast in wetland acreage, containing some 5,690,000 acres in the mid-1970's according to Hefner and Brown (1985). However, Hefner and Brown (1985) used black and white photos without the benefit of NWI or detailed soil maps which makes their numbers somewhat uncertain. Also, North Carolina has the majority of the nation's pocosin wetlands (Richardson, et al., 1981). The conclusion that North Carolina has experienced major wetland losses has been mentioned in numerous publications, such as Richardson, et al. (1981), Tiner (1984) and Hefner and Brown (1985). Unfortunately, it is difficult to determine whether these losses have occurred because no complete inventory of original wetland resources exists for the state. Similarly, the definition of "loss" varies consider- ably from study to study with no consensus on a definition. Several studies have been conducted to determine the loss of coastal wetlands in North Carolina. Spinner (1968) used informa- tion from Shaw and Fredine (1956) and his own surveys to estimate that 7.1% of marsh acreage was destroyed between 1956 and 1968. However, Burdick (1967) found that 22.2°~ of marsh acreage was altered, based on Shaw and Fredine (1956) and Wilson (1962). This discrepancy is probably explained by different meanings for Spinner's term "destroyed" and Burdick's term "altered" (Chitter- ling et al., 1983). The major error in these wetland loss studies is that they usually consider the alteration of a wetland from its natural condition to be a "loss" of wetlands. However, many pine planta- tions and indeed, some agricultural land are still wetlands sub- ject to 404 permits. This fact tends to confuse the discussion of wetland status and trends. 3 This report rejects the validity of the use of the word "loss" with respect to wetlands since it is scientifically impre- cise and too inaccurate for regulatory purposes. Rather, this study examines the extent to which wetlands (with varying amounts of disturbance) support intrinsic uses (values). Similarly, Leslie and Clark (1990) in their review of wetland loss and alteration for the National Wetlands Policy Forum concluded that "...it would be more meaningful to measure loss of the functions themselves than the amount of areal loss." The Clean Water Act requires every state to produce a bien- nial 305 (b) report on the status and trends of water quality, including wetlands. Water and wetland quality are to be reported as either supporting, partially supporting or not supporting uses. EPA Guidance for these categories (U.S. EPA 1989) defines 1) supporting; uses fully attained with no evidence of modifica- tion of the natural community, 2) partially supporting; uses par- tially supported with some community modification, and 3) not supporting; uses clearly not supported with definite community modification. In order to be consistent with this federally man- dated report, wetlands in this study will be discussed in terms of use support. Three other states (Indiana, Iowa and Hawaii) also evaluate their wetland resources in terms of use support (Mayio, U.S. EPA - Washington, D.C., personal communication). WETLAND VALUES (USES) Discussion of wetlands often is confounded by confusion between wetland functions versus values. Wetlands provide a wide variety of functions such as carbon storage or groundwater recharge. A subset of these functions are protected by various laws. These are called values (or uses) such as water quality control or endangered species habitat (Mitsch 1986). The essen- tial difference between these categories is that values (uses) are protected by various laws (especially the Clean Water and Endangered Species Act). If a function is not protected by law (such as carbon storage or oxygen production}, then that ability of a wetland is not relevant ir, the regulatory realm. This report discusses wetland values (uses) not functions. Wetlands provide a wide variety of uses. Some of these are: 1) wildlife habitat, 2) aquatic life habitat, 3) water storage, 4) sediment stabilization, 5) removal of sediment and to:~ic;ants, 6) removal or transformation of nutrients, 7) groundwater recharge'or discharge, 8) outdoor recreation/education, 9) commercial (esp. shellfishing or timber/value), 10) rare or endangered species habitat, 11) dispersal corridors, and 12} natural area buffers. 4 However, not all wetlands (irrespective of disturbance, size or location) provide each of these uses. For instance, pocosins usually have thick, dense, nearly impermeable clay layers beneath them which may limit their groundwater recharge value. In con- trast, mountain bogs are the only habitat for bog turtles (a rare species). A simplified compilation of uses versus wetland type is shown in Table 1 (N.C. Division of Environmental Management 1988). From this table, it is clear that some uses are unique to particular wetlands (such as commercial fish in salt marshes) while other uses are more ubiquitous (such as wildlife habitat). Supporting wetlands are designated as those shown on NWI maps as wetlands. These are wetlands which have had little distur- bance and therefore have intact vegetation, soils and hydrology. Based on field evaluations of these sites, these wetlands gener- ally support the uses outlined earlier. Other states have made the same conclusion about use support from NWI maps. For instance, after a detailed, random study (O'Brien 1990), Vermont concluded that 93~ of the NWI - mapped wetlands had significant uses requiring protection through their 401 Certification pro- gram. Partially supporting wetlands are areas which have had natu- ral cover and hydrology modified but still retained their wetland status and most wetland uses. For instance, pine plantations [although having altered hydrology (via ditches) and vegetation (usually converted from pine - harc7:~,ood wet flat or poco~.in)) still retain some wildlife habita~ -slue, still retain some water onsite for flood control, still recharge groundwater, still remove some nutrients and the ditches still provide some aquatic habitat. However, these uses are often impaired compared to their natural condition. For instance, Lynch (1982) found lower breeding bird densities and diversity in loblolly pine planta- tions than. in natural loblolly-bay f,,,rests. However, it is clear that pine plantations did provide so-e wildlife habitat. There- fore, that use was not removed but rather was partially supported (i.e., "some community modification" [U.S. EPA 1989]). Similarly, Allen and Campbell (1988) reported shot-term impacts on water quality effects from conversion of natural wetlands to p::°e plan- tations. These impacts included increased nutrient rune and soil erosion. Again, the uses of the wetland (i.e., nutrent removal and sediment stabilization) were not removed but were altered so as to be partially supported. There are pine plantations on hydric soil that are no longer defined as Section 404 wetlands. Sites known to DEM and COE staff include locations in Beaufort, Craven and Pamlico Counties on hydric soils such as Leaf and Bayboro. In these cases, the hydrology had been permanently altered so as to remove large areas from 404 permit jurisdiction. What caused the removal of hydrology is not always clear and probably varies from site to site. Most likely causes include .previous agricultural use, for- estry ditches and evapotranspiration from the large, densely planted pine trees. These is no clear evidence that pine planta- 5 Table 1. Wetland types and associated functions Wetland Function --------------- Habitat --------------- ----- WH ----- ----------------- FH SA FCS~ FDS ----------------- ----------- NRR GWR ----------- ------------- GWD ST RE ------------- -------- ES DR -------- 1. FW marsh * 2. Bottomlands * 3. Salt marsh 4. Bogs 5. Savannahs 6. NA forests --------------------------------------------------------------------- FW = freshwater NA = nonalluvial WH =wildlife habitat FH = fishery habitat SA = shoreline anchoring FCS = food chain support FDS = flood dissipation and storage NRR = nutrient retention and removal GwR = groundwater recharge GWD = groundwater discharge ST = sediment trapping RE = recreation ES = endangered species DR = plant and animal diversity 6 tions are being planted on wetlands for the purpose of eventual urban development. Finally, in many of these developments, there are locations in the pine plantation that retained hydrology and were still subject to 404 permits. These are often shown as wet- lands on NWI maps. Unfortunately, the percentages of non-404 and existing 404 areas in pine plantations on hydric soils are unknown (Franklin, U.S. Corps of Engineers - Wilmington, personal communication). Until additional research is conducted (see Conclusions and Rec- ommendations section), it seems reasonable to conclude that pine plantations on hydric soils generally partially support the orig- inal uses of the wetland. Similarly, it is estimated that more than 60% of the 1.1 million acres of pine plantations established on hydric soils still exhibit wetland vegetation and hydrology as they are currently defined (White, N.C. Forest Service, personal communication). The remaining category is that of nonsupportina wetlands. Two major causes of wetland impact are agriculture and urban develop- ment. This study considers wetlands converted to either of these two land uses as not supporting original wetland uses. In both cases (but especially for urban development), disturbance has been so severe that even if they are still 404 wetlands, all or some of the uses once provided are entirely removed. For instance, a parking lot removes wildlife riabitat, groundwater recharge and nutrient removal uses. Similarly, although agricul- tural conversion probably does not alter groundwater recharge significantly, it does remove aquatic life and nutrient removal uses. Therefore, agricultural and urban development were consid- ered to convert wetlands into the nonsupporting category. How- ever, if aquaculture or rice cultivation were widespread in N.C., then these agricultural activities might be partially supporting since wildlife and aquatic life uses are common in these types of agriculture. METHODOLOGY The following section describes the methods (and limitations of those methods) which were used to determine wetland status and trends. This work is largely a modification and expansion of work done by Cashin (1990). WETLAND DEFINITION The problem of how to define and classify wetlands is a seri- ous complication when studying these areas. This study primarily utilized the definition outlined by the Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for administration of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. According to this definition: Wetlands are areas which are inundated or saturated by sur- face water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient 7 to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions (FICWD, 1989). Wetlands examined in this work were classified according to the scheme outlined by Cowardin, et al. (1979) for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. It should be emphasized that this defini- tion is changed frequently in its operational implementation. For instance, the Corps recently decided that prior converted farmland did not meet the "under normal circumstances" provision in the wetland definition. Therefore, the operational definition of wetlands often changes and this report should be considered accurate as of its date (October 1990). For this report, primary emphasis for wetland mapping was given to hydrophytic vegetation and hydric soils. Presence of these characteristics was determined using soil surveys, NWI maps, aerial photographs, and field surveys. Essentially, areas were mapped as wetlands if they had wetland vegetation (usually wooded) and hydric soils without visible artificial drainage. These areas were determined to be wetlands that supported intrin- sic uses. Wetlands were considered impacted (partially or nonsup- porting} on sites where a natural vegetative community existed on hydric soil in the 1950's, but the areas' vegetation or hydrology were altered by the early 1980's. Wetland areas identified in this study do not represent the extent. of 404 permit jurisdic- tional wetlands since many agricultural fields and pine planta- tions are still subject to the 404 permit process. STUDY SITE SELECTION Twenty-seven sites were selected in the North Carolina coastal plain (Figure 1) Study sites were based on 7.5 minute topographic quadrangles. These quadrangles were selected ran- domly using a map index and a random number table. From each quadrangle, one quarter was then randomly selected as a study site. Consequently, each study site comprised one-fourth of a 7.5 minute topographic quad; approximately 9,943 acres. The topographic maps for these sections were at a scale of 1:24,000, and this scale was adopted for the study. HYDRIC SOIL DETERMINATIONS For each study site, areas of hydric soil were determined using information from published soil surveys or from the county Soil Conservation Service office. A list of hydric soils in North Carolina was used to identify those mapped soil series con- sidered hydric (USDA, 1989). These areas were drawn onto a base map by overlaying or by using a zoom transfer stereoscope when resealing was required. Hydric soil acreage was determined for each map by planimetering each area at least twice and calculat- ing the average value. In addition, some soil series contained up to 10% inclusions of hydric soils. These were not accounted for. Therefore, the original wetland extent in these study areas may be slightly underrepresented. 8 Figure 1. Location of Study Sites ------ - --r--7-------r-~- ~~ _ °~: Boca uc«.a I csu,i I r[BSOw I ~ I "'`""[• ' / \ ;~ro ~L` / ~o, v.wu .r.no.c ~~t f~-N~ T-~-- = s cw,roxo ! I j B[B,a PIEDMONT ~ ~._ ~" .,` ... „ ~ ..:»,«~,o,~• ~ ~ (\~\\l\\ B.woor.« i [~~.~«.w % ..r ~ «~:sow I 1 6 / - ~ ` _ r 1 9-1 - Z ~9 l ~ X13 ~~ B' .. - / q«w S, Cw ~~ l «..,[„ COASTAL ...rr ~ ly-~`~~ ~ ~ ~I ~..~ ./" T._ ~l 181 ~!~ 24 ( .i ?'~~ J -, ~ , ~ ~ c x,17 `///, our. ~• i~ ~~--- / 1 ~ j ~• ~' r~ ... B, . `~\ / BoBrsCw \ , 22~.-.-.~{ ows~e.. , ~ 0 ,[ Loi VUBUS ~ J \ ^ 26 `A11//p to o to zo ao ~o \ / YBUw1Wi(. ~ 1 1 I 1 1 1. ~'\ j ,,~~ miles Study Site Quadrangle Name Quarter Selected 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Beulaville Bonnetsville Burgaw Carolina Beach Center Hill Chadbourn NE Comfort Great Island Greenville NW Grifton Hackney Little Kinnakeet Long Shoal Point Mann's Harbor Pembroke Pinetops Point of Marsh Rivermont Roper South Spicer Bay Stella Tomahawk Union Vanceboro Wagram Wilmington Woodard 9 Southwest (SW) Northwest (NW) Northeast (NE) SW NE NE SE NE SW SE NE NE NE NW SE SW SW NW SE NW NE NW SW SE NW NE NE Hydric soil acreage was used as a baseline figure reflecting wetland acreage prior to development. Scott, et al. (1989) and Moorhead (1990) found a good correlation between the presence of hydric soils and wetland vegetation. Consequently, it was decided that using hydric soil information was the best means of estimating historic wetland acreage in the absence of a compre- hensive historic inventory such as the General Land Survey in the midwestern and western U.S. In order to estimate the original extent of wetlands state- wide, soil surveys were utilized. Soil surveys are available for most coastal plain counties. In these counties, the acreage of hydric soils was determined and compared to total county acreage (Appendix 2). However, only a few mountain and piedmont counties have had their soils mapped. For these areas, the extent of hyd- ric soil in mapped counties was determined and extrapolated to the remainder of the region. WETLAND ANALYSIS National Wetland inventory maps were obtained for the 25 sites that had been mapped. Two sites were mapped by a Wetland Specialist with the Division of Soil and Water Conservation, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. These maps were overlain c>nto hydric soil maps, and NWI wetlands lying on hydric soil were identified as wetlands in the early 1980's. Wetlands shown on the NWI maps are based on photo- interpretation of false color aerial ~>hotos taken in the winters of 1981 to 1983. Black and white photographs were used for the analyses of 1950's wetlands. Aerial photographs were borrowed or purchased from the U.S. Soil Conservation Service for the period 1951-1956. Orthophotoquads dating from 1979-1983 were borrowed from the U.S. Geological Survey. These photographs were inter- preted for the cause and extent of wetland development during this period. The causes of wetland impact were determined by examining the land use that replaced the wetland. For example, wetland impact due to forestry occurred when the site was ditched, drained, and converted to pine plantation. Photographs from the 1950's were not available for Dare or Hyde counties, which include four study sites. Fortunately, these sites (Great Island, Little Kinnakeet, Long Shoal Point, and Mann's Harbor) have not been greatly impacted by man. In fact, three of them are either mostly or entirely under federal protection: Great Island as part of Swan Quarter National Wild- life Refuge, Little Kinnakeet as part of the Cape Hatteras National Seashore and Mann's Harbor as part of the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. Wetland development for these sites was analyzed using photorevised topographic maps and fieldchecking. Sixteen of the sites were field checked by Division of Envi- 10 ronmental Management staff. These sites were examined to verify the effectiveness of wetland drainage and the type of development that caused the impact. Appendix 3 is a summary of photograph and NWI dates, and fieldchecking conducted for each site. Maps were produced for wetlands. These maps also cause of any impacts since areas was determined using area was planimetered at l mined. each site showing 1980's and 1950's identified the type of wetland and the the 1950's. The acreage of these a Lasico model 30 planimeter. Each east twice and the average value deter- The extent of headwaters or isolated wetlands was also stu- died. Headwaters wetlands were defined as those wetlands in wat- ersheds above the 5 cfs average flow location. These locations were taken from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers headwaters maps in Wilmington, North Carolina. These areas are eligible for Nationwide Permit No. 26 if fill is less than 10 acres. Isolated wetlands with less than 10 acres of fill are also covered by Nationwide Permit No. 26. However, this later determination is difficult and usually requires a site visit by a Corps represen- tative (Franklin, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, personal communi- cation). For this study, an isolated wetland was determined to be an NWI wetland that had no permanent or intermittent stream connection on the appropriate 1:24,000 U.S.G.S. topographic map. These areas probably correspond fairly accurately to isolated wetlands for Permit 26 (Franklin, personal communication). How- ever, there are many areas below tree minimum mappable unit (appx. 1 acre) on the NWI maps that would be isolated. Therefore, there are undoubtedly many more small (<1 acre) isolated wetlands than shown by this analysis. Public or private ownership was also studied. Public land ownership such as state parks or forests, National Wildlife Refuges or Seashores and military bases were taken from 1988 maps (ADC 1988). These maps were enlarged to 1:24,000 and boundaries drawn on the respective study site. Areas of wetlands in these ownership types were then calculated. Data from the Forest Inventory and Analysis Section of the S.E. Forest Experimental Station was gathered for the 44 contigu- ous counties in the coastal plain and sandhills regions of North Carolina. These data were used to indicate forested wetland type and the percent of those types in plantations. Carteret County was chosen as a case study because of its coastal location, relatively large extent of urban development and original great extent of wetlands. Ownership was taken from ADC (1988) as above. National Wetlands Inventory maps were used to determine the extent of early 1980's wetlands which supported their uses. Upland, estuarine wetlands and freshwater wetlands were separately analyzed. Upland areas were also separated into areas which were undeveloped (no buildings), developed (greater than about one house per acre) and somewhat developed (approxi- mately more than one house per five acres). These distinctions 11 were made from the extent of development shown on the NWI maps which correspond to development shown on the (underlying) USGS topographic map. The total area calculated from the NWI maps (upland and wetland) was within 60 of the land area according to the N.C. Statistical Abstracts (N.C. Office of State Budget and Management. 1991). Therefore, it is believed that this method (with appropriate qualifications about the accuracy of NWI maps) is sufficiently accurate for this study. RESULTS GEOGRAPHIC LIMITATIONS Other than the original extent (based on SCS hydric soils), very little is known about status, trends or geographic extent of wetlands in the piedmont or the mountains. These areas have probably experienced different types and intensities of develop- ment pressures than coastal plain wetlands. For instance, large scale agriculture or silviculture is common only in the coastal plain. However in the mountains, many wetlands are associated with river valleys which are also corridors for urban develop- ment, transportation routes and land clearing. Similarly, some of the most fertile piedmont soils are along floodplains of larger streams and rivers and therefore subject to clearing for agricultural development. Finally, water supply reservoirs are common in the piedmont and their creation often results in the flooding of large acreages of bottomland hardwood forests. There- fore, it is likely that each physiographic region has had unique patterns of wetland impact. However at: this time, information is only available to discuss the extent of wetlands in the coastal plain of North Carolina. UNCERTAINTY AND STATISTICAL IMPLICATIONS There is a considerable amount of uncertainty associated with reports on wetland status and trends. Much of this uncertainty results from the fact that no accurate historical database exists for original extent of wetlands. To compound this situation, the definition of wetlands often changes. For instance, the whether an individual soil series is included in the definition of hydric soil changes. Similarly, whether agricultural fields are 404-wetlands is subject to changing regulatory interpretation. Therefore, the definitions and conclusions in this report can only be approximate and current only to October, 1990. The twenty seven study sites represent a small fraction of the entire coastal plain of North Carolina. Since the sites were selected randomly, they should represent the coastal plain to within some degree of statistical accuracy. Cashin's (1990) esti- mates (using these study sites) of the percent of wetlands impacted by development was 51.2° with a 95= confidence interval of plus or minus 12.70. Certainly a larger sample size would nar- row this confidence interval. However, twenty seven samples was selected as a manageable number of samples for the work required. 12 Until a larger sample is analyzed (see Conclusions and Recommen- dations), the numbers in this report should be considered to be approximate. ORIGINAL EXTENT The state originally had about 7.8 million acres of hydric soils (23% of the land area of North Carolina} (Appendix 2). These hydric soils approximate the original extent of wetlands in the state. The vast majority of this soil was located in the coastal plain (950) with much smaller amounts in the piedmont (2 °s) and mountains (3%). However, these figures should be consid- ered approximate since many counties in the piedmont and moun- tains do not have detailed soils maps. About 52% of the total land in the coastal plain was hydric soil (wetlands). The percent of hydric soils varied greatly among counties in the coastal plain (Table 2). For instance, Hyde, Tyrrell, Dare, Camden, Washington, Currituck and Pasquotank Counties had greater than 85% hydric soils. In contrast, Rich- mond, Hoke and Harnett Counties had less than 20~ hydric soils. STATUS IN EARLY 1980'S Vegetation Tyges The twenty-seven study areas identified 55,328 acres of sup- porting wetlands in the early 1980's from the NWI maps (Table 3). Most of these (690) were palustrine forested (mostly hardwood forest). Other common types were estuarine intertidal emergent (salt marsh - 23~) and palustrine shrub-scrub (pocosin - 4J~.). Other types were uncommon. The salt marsh number may be somewhat high since Alexander, et al. (1986) found only 158,000 acres of salt marsh in N.C. According to the S.E. Forest Experimental Station, the most common forested wetland types were flatwoods and dry pocosins (63% of the total} and wet pocosins (120). About 180 of the forested wetlands were pine plantations. Planta- tions made up about 27% of the flatwoods and dry pocosins. This again reinforces the previous observation that the wetland num- bers in this report should be considered approximate. Use Support About 24% of the coastal plain wetlands do not support origi- nal uses (Table 4) Of the remaining 760, about 2/3 support and 1/3 partially support their uses. Supporting wetlands are pri- marily NWI-identified wetlands while partially supporting wet- lands are primarily pine plantations. As discussed earlier, these designations should be considered approximate subject to more intensive field survey and wetland delineation. Headwaters A total of 36°~ of early 1980's coastal plain wetlands are headwaters wetlands (located in watersheds above the 5 cfs aver- 13 Table 2 PERCENTAGE OF LAND SURFACE AREA IN HYDRIC SOILS COASTAL NORTH CAROLINA COUNTIES County Hyde Tyrrell Dare Camden Washington Currituck Pasquotank Perquimans Carteret Pamlico Beaufort Pender Jones Craven Gates Brunswick Columbus Chowan Bladen Martin Bertie Hydric Soils 97.3$ 95.5% 89.7% 89.6% 85.6% 85.4% 85.0% 83.4% 83.0% 80.2% 71.4% 68.5% 68.2% 66.8% 63.4% 58.3% 57.7°s 54.8% 54.1% 53.4% 51.1% County New Hanover Onslow Robeson Pitt Duplin Hertford Lenoir Wilson Sampson Edgecombe Cumberland Wayne Halifax Nash Northampton Scotland Greene Johnston Richmond Hoke Harnett Hydric Soils 50.60 48.5% 47.0% 46.7% 45.0% 40.2% 40.0% 38.3% 37.5% 34.8% 33.7% 32.2% 30.0% 29.5% 27.5% 26.7 % 26.1°s 25.1% 18.0% 18.0% 15.5% 14 Table 3. Vegetation Types of Supporting Wetlands by Category: Study Sites within North Carolina Coastal Plain. Wetland Category* ---------------------------- Examples ------------------------ Percent (o) ------------- ---------------------------- ' Palustrine Forested ------------------------ Bottomland hardwood ------------- 69.4 forest Palustrine Scrub-shrub Pocosin 3.8 Palustrine Emergent Freshwater marsh 0.6 Palustrine Unconsolidated Farm pond 0.6 Bottom Estuarine Intertidal Salt marsh 22.9 Emergent Estuarine Intertidal Salt scrub-shrub 2.2 Scrub-shrub Estuarine Subtidal Estuarine pond 0.2 Unconsolidated Bottom Estuarine Subtidal Estuarine tidal flat 0,3 Open Water ---------------------------- ---------------------------- ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------- ------------- * Wetland categories taken from Cowardin et al. (1979) 15 TABLE 4 WETLAND STATISTICS FOR NORTH CAROLINA I. Original extent based on hydric soils (original wetlands) Original size - 7.8 million acres Percent located in mountains - 30 Percent located in piedmont - 20 Percent located in coastal plain - 950 II. Percent of land in hydric soils (original wetlands) Entire coastal plain - 52 $ Selected counties Coastal plain Hyde - 97 0 Dare - 900 Carteret - 830 Chowan - 550 Duplin - 450 Nash - 300 Harnett - 160 Transylvania - 30 Piedmont Cabarrus - 2% Forsyth - 30 Lee - 5% Mountains Ashe - 3 0 Henderson - 3% III. Present (early 1980's) Wetland Use Support (coastal plain only) Not supporting - 240 Of the remaining 760, 2/3 support and 1/3 partially support uses. IV. Vegetation types (coastal plain, supporting uses only) Forested swamps - 690 Estuarine marsh - 230 Pocosins - 40 V. Headwaters or isolated (coastal plain only) Headwaters Percent of all coastal plain wetlands - 36% Percent of coastal plain freshwater wetlands - 590 Isolated Percent of all coastal plain wetlands - 80 Percent of coastal plain freshwater wetlands - llo VI. Ownership (coastal plain only). Publicly owned - 32% 16 age flow mark) (Table 4). Since estuarine wetlands are nonhe::i- waters wetlands, the percent of freshwater wetlands which are headwaters is much higher - 59%. Headwaters {and isolated) wet- lands are provided only a bare modicum of protection by the Clean Water Act since Nationwide Permit 26 allows fill of up to 10 acres (3 acres operationally by the Wilmington, North Carolina Corps of Engineers) without extensive permit review. Only the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (through its 401 Certification) can routinely review the filling of these wet- lands. Isolated About 80 of the total (or 11% of the freshwater) wetlands are hydrologically isolated (Table 4). As discussed earlier, numer- ous small (<1 acre), isolated wetlands are not represented by these figures. If this fact is ignored, then of the isolated wetlands about 1$ are less than or equal to 5 acres in size. How- ever, isolated wetlands less than or equal to five acres in size consist of about one-half of the total number of isolated wet- lands. Again, these wetlands are subject to fill with Nationwide Permit 26. Ownership About 32% of the wetlands are publicly owned (Table 4). Most of this ownership is federally owned land in National Wildlife Refuges, National Seashores, National Forests and military facil- ities. Carteret County: A Case Stud Originally about 830 of the land area of Carteret County was wetlands. By the early 1980's (based on NwI maps), about 520 of the county was wetlands which supported their original uses. In the early 1980's, about 320 of the county's land mass was occu- pied by freshwater wetlands. About 650 of the county was privately owned. Of this 650, 9o was estuarine wetland, 17$ was freshwater wetland, 36% was undeveloped and 3o was developed upland. About 350 of the land of the county was publicly owned which reflects large areas occupied by the Croatan National For- est, Cape Lookout National Seashore, and various N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission Gamelands. Only about 1.60 of the county was heavily developed while another 1.8o had a moderate amount of urban development. It appears that there was about twice as much privately owned upland as privately owned freshwater wetland. The distinction between estuarine and freshwater wetland is important to make since estuarine wetlands are thoroughly protected by the N.C. Coastal Areas Management Act (CAMA) while freshwater wetlands are protected by the relatively weaker Section 404 permit program. However, all of the privately owned upland (and freshwater wet- land) was probably not "developa>~~_e" since it may have lacked road and sewer access, not suit a .e for septic tanks, been land 17 locked by publicly owned property and for various other reasons. Therefore, no conclusions can be drawn about the impact of the Section 404 (or CAMA) program on the extent of developable land in the county. Definitive statements on this issue await further research. TRENDS: EUROPEAN SETTLEMENT, MID 1950's AND EARLY 1980's Since European settlement, North Carolina wetlands have been subject to a variety of development forces - notably filling for development, clearing and draining for agriculture, and logging or type conversion for forestry. As discussed earlier, these activities impact wetland values to differing extents. By the 1950's, about 16$ of North Carolina wetlands had been converted to partially or nonsupporting categories. About lOs of the tidal and 180 of the non-tidal (freshwater) wetlands fell into these use categories. By the early 1980's, an additional 35% of the wetlands (for a total of 510) had been converted to partially or nonsupporting categories. Only 20 of the tidal wet- lands experienced use impact from the 1950's to 1980's. Forestry was determined to be responsible for about 530 of these .changes from the 1950's to the 1980's while agriculture was responsible for 420. Urban development (2%), military develop- ment (1$) and other activities (2$) were less important. As dis- cussed earlier, forestry impacts resulted in partially supporting wetlands while other development generally resulted in non- supporting wetlands. Stockton and Richardson (1987) examined tidal wetland losses between 1970 and 1984 caused by permitted activities. They found a significant decrease in the acreage of annual losses after the state became the lead agency in the permitting process. In each of the years 1970, 1971, and 1973, over 988 acres were permitted for development. In 1978, the area approved for alteration did not exceed 124 acres for any year in the study period. The dif- ference in wetland losses before and after CAMA is significant even after discounting several large projects in the early 1970's. Wetland changes varied considerably among study sites with some sites showing negligible change while other showed severe alterations (Figs 2 to 4). For instance, the site in Point of Marsh quadrangle, in Carteret County, gives an example of a coastal area where only small changes have occurred (Figure 2). This site comprised 6,169 acres of land surface, all of which was hydric soil. This site was still unaltered during the early 1950's, mostly emergent marsh areas with 51 acres of pine trees and shrubs. Between the 1950's and 1980's, a military landing strip was built on this site with accompanying roads and ditches. Building occurred in both emergent marsh areas and part of the scrub-shrub area. Thereafter, the scrub-shrub area has entirely disappeared, and the portion not occupied by the landing strip 18 Figure 2. Point of Marsh Study Site Wetlands Trends (presettlement -early 1980's) 0 .5 1 Wetlands altered between early 1950's and early 1980's miles ® Wetlands developed between early 1950's and early 1980's .••. ~.• Early 1980's wetlands 19 Figure 3. Hackney Study Site Wetland Trends (presettlement -early 1980's) ~ `~' ~ ~,~~ ~Q 1 ~~ 1-. t ~` : ~ ~~ ~::. ~: .:._„ ~~ Ir_ ~\ t'!ii ^ 0 .5 1 ~ ~ ~ Wetlands developed before 1950's miles ® Wetlands developed between early 1950's and 1980's Early 1980's Wetlands Non hydric soil (non wetlands) ~c Figure 4. Vanceboro Study Site Wetlands Trends (presettlement -early 1980's) J/' . - •i~~. " I ~1"~ Vance~oro ~~~ ' ~~ :~ '~ ~'. ~~ l 1111 ' /. J .tf. _ :~ ~~ 1 ~'~ \_ - . _ ~ ~.'. ~~ • ~. .. '~ ~. '~. ~~~:- \\. . '~i ._ _ _ ~ . ~~ . . •~ ~ ~~' ,;. ^ 0 .5 1 Wetlands developed before 1950's ` miles ® Wetlands developed between early 1950's and 1980's Early 1980's Wetlands ^ Non hydric soil (non wetlands) 21 had been replaced by emergent marsh. The actual area of wetland impacted totals 46 acres which represents about 1$ of the site. The second example lies in the Hackney quadrangle in Beaufort County, and shows the result of combined pressure from agricul- ture and forestry (Figure 3). This site once contained about 6,020 acres of wetlands (72% of the land surface). By the early 1950's and 1980's, 490 of the original wetlands were impacted, leaving only 51% of the original wetlands intact.,These impacts included 284 acres developed for agriculture and 2,660 acres con- verted for forestry purposes. An additional 32.5 acres were con- verted to residential development. Residential development on this site removed nearly all the original tidal wetlands. The small peninsula in Figure 3 originally contained 8.4 acres of estuarine scrub-shrub, which was either developed for residential purposes or converted to a tidally influenced pond. Finally, the study site in the Vanceboro quadrangle, in Craven County shows a moderate level of development (Figure 5). This site contained 57o hydric soil, indicating about 5,640 acres of historic wetlands. By the early 1950's, 41% of these wetlands had been impacted. However, since then only 134 more acres have been developed for agriculture, which represents an additional 20 impact. Consequently, 570 of the original wetlands are still supporting original uses. 22 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS North Carolina originally had about 7.8 million acres of wetlands which occupied about 23% of the state. Most of these (95%) were in the coastal plain. Also, originally the state's coastal plain was covered with about 52% wetlands (excluding areas of open water). These wetlands have been subject to a wide variety of devel- opment pressures since European settlement. Data on wetland sta- tus, trends and geographic extent are available only for the coastal plain. In the coastal plain by the early 1980's, about 24% of the original wetlands did not support intrinsic uses. Of the remaining 76%, about 2/3 support and 1/3 partially support their uses. Most of impacted wetlands were affected since the 1950's. The three most common wetland types in coastal North Carolina are hardwood forests (69% of the total), pine planta- tions and salt marsh. Most (59%) of the fresh water wetlands in the coastal plain are headwaters. Isolated wetlands in the coastal plain make up a smaller portion (10%) of the freshwater wetlands. Most coastal plain wetlands (68%) are privately owned. Saltwater wetlands are essentially not headwaters or isolated wetlands. Nationwide Per- mit 26 applies to isolated or headwaters wetlands. Only a small amount of protection is provided by the Corps of Engineers for these wetlands. Data which have been collected on North Carolina coastal plain wetlands should be digitized and stored in the North Caro- lina (Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (CGIA). Once these data have been entered into this system, more sophis- ticated analyses can be conducted. An example might be to deter- mine what percent of wetlands are located in 100 - or 10-year floodplains and thereby protected (to varying extents) from urban development. Only when these data are entered into the CGIA sys- tem can they be readily accessed, updated and analyzed. One very important question that has been raised by the Leg- islative Study Commission is the extent of impact of the Section 404 wetland program on developable land. As discussed earlier, this is an extremely complex issue which needs a well thought out study design. A geographic information system approach (like the one used by CGIA) is the only rational way to evaluate this ques- tion. Factors to consider in this study would include 1) other regulations which also coincide with wetland areas such as zon- ing, septic tank suitability, floodplain regulations (both flood- way and flood fringe), Coastal Area Management Act, and Endan- gered Species Act, 2) land ownership, 3) distances from major roads or sewer system service areas, and 4) availability of non- wetland areas for nearby development. If the Legislative Study Commission would like an answer to this very complex question, the Department can prepare a cost estimate for a proposed study area (such as Carteret County). 23 Another important question is what proportion of pine planta- tion wetlands support, partially support or do not support their original uses. A combined approach of 1) field evaluations of the values of a random sample of pine plantations, and 2) ground- water and surface water modeling of pine plantations is probably needed to answer the important question of the extent of use impact from pine plantations. Results of this work should point out measures to ameliorate these impacts. Clearly research is needed in the piedmont and mountain regions of the state to determine wetland status, trends, and geographic extent. Only when these data have been collected can a complete picture of wetlands in North Carolina emerge. Such a study should receive high priority. However, the paucity of SCS soil maps and basic nonexistence of NWI maps would make this study difficult and expensive. The sample of 27 study sites in the North Carolina coastal plain should be expanded to reduce statistical uncertainty. How- ever, analysis of a late 1980's date is of greater importance. This information may allow administrative and legislative policy makers to decide the extent of protection offered by existing federal and state programs (especially Swampbuster and enhanced 404/401 permit activities) and whether this level of protection is adequate. However, the evidence of impacts on coastal plain freshwater wetlands and their vulnerability to fragmented federal and state protection programs is clear. It is also clear that saltwater wetlands have been adequately protected by the North Carolina Coastal Areas Management Act and the Division of Coastal Manage- ment. Vigorous enforcement and funding of this work must con- tinue. It is apparent that both administrative and legislative actions are needed to organize and enhance freshwater wetland protection measures in North Carolina. 24 LITERATURE CITED ADC. 1987. Saltwater Sport Fishing and Boating in North Carolina. 6440 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA. Alexander, Charles E., Marlene A. Broutman, and Don W. Field. 1986. An Inventory of Coastal Wetlands of the USA. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Washington, D.C. Allen, H. L. and R. G. Campbell. 1988. Wetsite pine manage- ment in the southeastern United States. pgs 173-184 in D. D. Hook, et al., (eds). "The Ecology and Management of Wetlands." Volume 2: Management Use and Value of Wetlands. Timber Press, Portland, OR. Burdick, George E. 1967. An Investigation of the Alteration of Coastal Marshes in North Carolina. N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission, Division of Game. Raleigh, N.C. Cashin, Gordon E. 1990. Wetland Development in the North Carolina Coastal Plain. M.S. Thesis. Duke University. Chitterling, Carin, Charlotte Clark, John Lohnes, and Heather Nixon. 1983. Wetland Trends and Policies in North Carolina and South Carolina. Master's Project. School of Forestry and Envi- ronmental Studies, Duke University. Durham, N. C. Cowardin, Lewis H., Virginia Carter, Francis G. Golet, and Edward T. Laroe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, U.S. Department of the Interior. FWS/OBS-79-31. Washington, D.C. Dorney, John R. 1990. Personal Communication. Water Quality Planner. Division of Environmental Management, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh, N.C. Doucette, W. H. and J. A. Phillips. 1978. Overview: A.ri- culture and Forest Land Drainage in North Carolina's Coastal Zone. Center for Rural Resource Development, Report No. 8. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, N.C. Emmons, Ebenezer. 1860. The Swamp Lands of North Carolina. W. W. Holden, Printer to the state. Raleigh, N.C. Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation (FICWD) 1989. Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. Coopera- tive technical publication. Franklin, David. 1990. Personal Communication. Special 25 Projects, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, N.C. Gray, C.C., D. E. Baker, F. J. Marschner, B.O. Weitz, W.R. Chapline, Ward Shepard, Raphael Zon. 1.923. The utilization of our crops, pasture, and forests. U.S. Department of Agriculture Yearbook. Washington, D.C. Hefner, John M. 1990. Personal Communication. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior. Atlanta, GA. Hefner, John M., and James D. Brown. 1985. Wetland trends in the southeastern United States. Wetlands. 4:1-12. Kerr, W.C. 1883. Report on the swamplands. Scarborough, J.C. (ed.) 1883. Reports on the swamplands of North Carolina belonging to the State Board of Education Ashe and Gatling. Raleigh, N.C. Knight, Herbert A. and Joe P. McClure. 1975. North Caro- lina's Timber, 1974. Resource Bulletin, SE. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. Southeastern Forest Experiment Sta- tion. Asheville, N.C. Leonard, Steve. 1990. Personal communication. wetland Spe- cialist, Division of Soil and Water Conservation, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Ral- eigh, N.C. Leslie, M. and E. H. Clark, III. 1990. Perspectives on wet- lands loss and alterations. pg. 1-21. J. Bingham, et. al., (eds}, in "Issues in Wetlands Protection: Background Papers Pre- pared for the National Wetlands Policy Forum." The Conservation Foundation. Washington, D.C. Lilly, J. Paul. 1981. "A History of Swamp Land Development in North Carolina." In Pocosin Wetlands, Richardson, C. J., edi- tor. Hutchinson Ross Publishing Co., Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania. Lynch, J.M. 1982. Breeding birds of Hall Swamp pocosin, Martin County, N.C. The Chat 46(4): 93-105. Mayio, Alice. 1990. 305 (b) Report Coordinator. Water Quality Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washing- ton, D.C. McMullan, Philip S. Jr. 1984. .Land Clearing Trends on the Albemarle-Pamlico__P_ennsula: 300 Years of Development in a Wet- lands Region. McMullan Consulting, Durham, N.C. Mitsch, William J., and James G. C7osselink. 1986. Wetlands. Von Nostrand Reinhold, New York, N.Y. Moorhead, Kevin. 1990. Evaluating wetland loss with hydric soils. Wetland Ecology and Management 1(2) in press. 26 North Carolina Division of Environmental Management. 1988. Water Quality Progress in North Carolina - 1986-1987 305 (B) Report. Report No. 88-02. Water Quality Section. Raleigh, N.C. North Carolina Literary Board. 1867. Swamp Lands of the State of North Carolina: Facts for immigrants and capitalists Raleigh, N.C. North Carolina Office of State Budget, Management and Infor- mation Services. State Data Center. 1991. Statistical Abstract of North Carolina Counties. Raleigh, N.C. O'Brien, Catherine L. 1990. Vermont adopts wetland rules. National Wetlands Newsletter 12(3):8-9. Office of Technology Assessment; (OTA). 1984. Wetlands: Their Use and Regulation, Summary U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Pratt, J.H. 1909. Drainage of N.C. swamp lands. Elisha Mitchell Scientific Society Journal 25:158-163. Pratt, J.H. 1916. Reclamation of swamp and overflowed lands in North Carolina. Manufacturer's Record 69(12):50. Richardson, Curtis J. 1981. Editor. Pocosin Wetlands: An Integrated Analysis of Coastal Plain Fresriwater Shrub Boas in North Carolina. Hutchinson Ross Publishing Co., Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania. Richardson, Curtis J., Rhonda Evans, and David Carr. 1981. "Pocosins: An Ecosystem in Transition." In Pocosin Wetlands, Richardson, C.J., editor. Hutchinson Ross Publishing Co., Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania. Richardson, Curtis J. 1983. Pocosins: Vanishing wasteland or valuable wetlands? Bioscience 33(10}. Scott, M.L., W.L. Slauson, C.A. Segelquist, and G.T. Auble. 1989. Correspondence between vegetation and soils in wetlands and nearby uplands. Wetlands. 9(1):41-60. Shaler, Nathaniel S. 1889. General Account of the fresh- water morasses of the United States with a description of the Dismal Swamp district of Virginia and North Carolina U.S. Geo- logic Survey Report, 4(1):255-339. Shaw, S.P. and C.G. Fredine. 1956. Wetlands of the United States: their extent and value for waterfowl and other wildlife U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of River Basin Studies, Circular 39. Washington, D.C. Spinner, G.P. 1968. A plan for the marine resources of the Atlantic coastal zone. American Geographical Society. 27 Stockton, Margie B., and Curtis J. Richardson. 1987. Wet- land development trends in coastal North Carolina, USA, from 1970 to 1984. Environmental Management. 11(5):649-657. Tiner, Ralph W. 1984. Wetlands of the United States: Cur- rent Status and Recent Trends. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Soil Conser- vation Service. 1989. Hydric Soils of North Carolina. Raleigh, N.C. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Guide- lines for the preparation of the 1990 State Water Quality Assess- ment [305(b) Report]. Office of Water. Washington, D.C. White, Fred. 1990. Division of Forestry, N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh, N.C. Wilson, Kenneth A. 1962. North Carolina Wetlands, their distribution and management. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. Federal Aid in Wildlife in Restoration Project W-6-R. Raleigh, N.C. 28 Year Appendix 1. Wetland Inventories for North Carolina Author Type of Wetland 1860 Emmons swamplands owned by state swamplands in NC 1867 NC Literary Board swamplands 1883 Kerr principle tracts claimed by the Board of Education 1889 Shaler fresh water morasses 1916 Pratt swamp overflowed lands 1923 Gray et al. land mostly too rough... *1949 1956 Wooten and Purcell Shaw and Fredine land i~easible to drain 20 wet..and types 1962 Wilson wetlands in 41 coastal counties 1967 Burdick marshlands 19.68 Spinner marshlands 1974 Knight and McClure swamps and bottomlands *1982 USFWS Yadkin-Pee Dee Basin 1981 Richardson et al. Pocosins in 41 counties 1982 East Carolina University Atlas Project- Albemarle- Pamlico 1982 National Wetlands Inventory All wetland types * Adapted from Chitterling et al., 1983. No citation given in Chitterling et al. 29 North Carolina Precipitation January-March 1983 I ,e.ee e.ee H E e.oo S ~.oo O F e.oo P R e.oo E C I 4.00 P 3.00 q s.oo T w 0 1 ~.oo 0 N o.oo i i W B N F R E G P G i E E A O L O L R L L W Y C 1 L Y E M H E K Z D M E I A B T Y A S O N N V E T B B U V G E R E M E O T I T N N V O T R H L O I U H O L N L N E L T C E I T Y JANUARY 4.90 4.00 3.61 2.44 2.50 2.86 3.46 3.27 3.19 FEBRUARY 8.74 6.26 9.39 6.60 6.47 7.05 7.19 7.63 4.11 MARCH 8.09 7.69 9.17 8.87 6.37 7.77 7.95 9.31 6.46 NORMAL AVERAGE 3.71 3.81 3.87 3.88 3.89 3.98 3.98 4.11 4.25 JANUARY ®FEBRUARY MARCH 'NORMAL AVERAGE (D a r• k N Appendix 3 Oriyinal North Carolina Wetland Extent from Soil Surveys :ountq Region Total Wetland Water Percent of County Percent of County acres soil acres acres As wetlands and crater As wetlands Alleyhanp Mountains 150,093 8,534 0 5.7 5.7 Ashe Mountains 272,742 7,876 1,213 ~.3 2.9 Henderson Mountains 239,936 6,391 326 2.8 2.7 Transylvania Mountains 243,283 6,640 1,184 3.2 2.7 Sample totals Mountains- 906,054 29,441 2,723 3.5 3.3 18 counties Mountains 4,455,282 143,914 14,244 3.5 3.2 Cabarrus Piedmont 233,312 4,475 301 2.0 1.9 Caldwell Piedmont 303,661 5,378 2,125 2.5 1.8 Catawba Piedmont 264,422 2,731 11,200 `_..3 1.1 Forsyth Piedmont 264,909 6,861 ~ 922 l.9 2.6 Guilford Piedmont 420,698 7,041 5,213 2.9 1.7 Lee Piedmont 16b,099 8,097 565 `~.2 4.9 Stanly Piedmont 259,187 1,051 5,888 2.7 0.4 Sample totals Piedmont 1,912,288 35,634 26,214 3.2 1.9 40 counties Piedmont 12,500,906 232,944 171,365 ~•2 1.9 Beaufort Coastal Plain 612,979 377,759 84,275 75.4 71.4 Bertie Coastal Plain 471,379 229,338 22,784 53.5 51.1 Bladen Coastal Plain 568,205 304,367 5,6% 54.6 54.1 Brunsxick Coastal Plain 571,514 320,930 20,800 59.8 58.3 Camden Coastal Plain 203,770 137,994 49,856 92.2 '89.7 Carteret Coastal Plain 673,626 279,367 337,261 91.5 83.1 Chowan Coastal Plain 154,784 63,737 38,592 66.1 54.9 Columbus Coastal Plain 609,882 346,604 9,280 58.4 57.7 Craven Coastal Plain 487,213 300,017 38,272 69.4 66.8 Cumberland Coastal Plain 421,414 141,972 768 33.9 33.8 Currituck Coastal Plain 281,082 139,752 117,504 9i.5 85.4 Dare Coastal Plain 800,602 224,422 550,496 96.8 89.7 Duplin Coastal Plain 524,429 235,480 1,019 45.1 45.0 Edgecombe Coastal Plain 323,642 112,205 1,355 X5.1 34.8 Gates Coastal Plain 221,088 135,625 7,223 G4.6 63.4 Greene Coastal Plain 170,579 44,178 1,550 X6.8 lti.l Halifax Coastal Plain 468,026 135,544 4,864 30.0 29.3 Harnett Coastal Plain 384,966 59,177 3,770 16.4 15.5 Hertford Coastal Plain ?31,738 91,406 4,400 41.3 4U.2 Hoke Coastal Plain 251,238 45,062 8% 18.3 18.0 Hyde Coastal Plain 871,136 389,000 471,635 98.8 97.4 Johnston Coastal Plain 519,138 129,902 1,075 25.2 25.1 Jones Coastal Plain 301,190 199,992 7,813 69.0 68.2 Lenoir Coastal Plain 257,549 102,970 64 40.0 40.0 Martin Coastal Plain 299,686 152,770 13,594 55.5 53.4 Nash Coastal Plain 347,162 99,942 7,936 31.i 19.5 New Hanover Coastal Plain 140,973 58,477 25,344 59.5 50.6 Northhampton Coastal Plain 351,757 94,853 7,232 2`~.U Z7.5 Onslow Coastal Plain 524,934 236,782 36,864 X2.1 48.5 Pamlico Coastal Plain 368,186 174,838 150,118 b8.3 80.2 31 Uriginai North Carolina Wetland Extent from Soil Surveys County Region Total Wetland Water Percent of County Percent of County acres soil acres acres As wetlands and water As wetlancLs Pasquotank Coastal Plain 185,203 124,002 39,283 88.2 85.0 Pender Coastal Plain 562,381 383,828 2,4% 68.7 68.b Pe*~+>;~n~ Coastal Plain 208,845 131,562 51,149 87.5 83.4 Pitt Coastal Plain 420,173 1%,127 0 46.7 46.7 Richoond Coastal Plain 306,938 53,713 1,536 18.0 17.6 Robeson Coastal Plain 608,378 284,259 3,278 47.3 47,0 Sampson Coastal Plain 606,304 226,081 2,997 37.8 37.5 Scotland Coastal Plain 205,331 54,523 960 27.0 26.7 Tyrrell Coastal Plain 383,142 248,714 122,778 97.0 95.5 Washington Coastal Plain 264,4$6 181,582 52,243 88.4 85.6 Wayne Coastal Plain 355,661 114,243 1,293 32.5 32.3 Wilson Coastal Plain 240,333 91,173 2,225 38.9 38.3 Sample total Coastal Plain 16;761,042 7,454,319 2,302,574 58.2 51.6 SU[RiARY Statewide 33,717,230 7,831,177 2,488,183 30.6 23.2 32 Appendix 4: Photo / Map Dates and Fieldchecking 1950's 1980's Study Site photos NWI orthophotos Fieldchecked~ Beulaville 1955 1983 1983 No Bonnetsville 1951 1983 1980 No Burgaw 1956 1982 1983 Yes Carolina Beach 1956 1982 1980 Yes Center Hill 1955 1982 1982 No Chadbourn NE 1951 1983 1979 No Comfort 1955 1982 1982 No Great Island * 1983 1983 No Greenville NW 1954 1982 1982 Yes Grifton 1954 1982 1982 No Hackney 1954 1982 1982 Yes Little Kinnakeet * 1983 1975 Yes Long Shoal Point * 1982 1975 Yes Mann's Harbor * 1982 1982 Yes Pembroke 1951 - 1981 Yes Pinetops 1954 1982 1982 Yes Point of Marsh 1958 1982 1982 No Rivermont 1951 1982 1982 No Roper South 1955 1982 1982 Yes Stella 1955 1983 1983 Yes Spicer Bay 1955 1982 1980 Yes Tomahawk 1951 1983 1982 No Union 1955 1982 1982 Yes Vanceboro 1954 1981 1982 No Wagram 1956 - 1981 Yes Wilmington 1956 1982 1982 Yes Woodard 1954 1982 1982 Yes * Great Island was examined using a 1951 topographic map. No changes have occurred. Little Kinnakeet was examined using a 1948 topographic map photorevised to 1983. Long Shoal Point was examined using a 1951 topographic map. No changes have occurred. Mann's Harbor was examined using a 1953 topographic map photorevised to 1974. 33