South Carolina's wetlands status and trends, 1982 - 1989

              South Carolina’s
Wetlands
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Status and Trends, 1982 – 1989
1
South Carolina’s
Wetlands
Status and Trends, 1982 – 1989
T. E. Dahl
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Division of Habitat Conservation
Habitat Assessment Branch
Front cover photo: Estuarine emergents,
Edisto River, South Carolina
T. Dahl
Back cover photo: White water-lily
(Nymphaea odorata)
USFWS
Acknowledgments
This study was funded in part by the
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), Office of Wetlands, Oceans and
Watersheds under interagency agree-ment
number DW149356-01-0. Special
appreciation is due to Doreen Vetter and
Chris Williams of the EPA, Wetlands
Division, Washington, D.C.
The author would like to recognize the
extraordinary efforts of two people of
the Wetlands Status and Trends Unit
of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Mr. Richard Young was responsible for
the integrity and geographic information
system analysis of the data. Ms. Martha
Caldwell assisted in the field work and
conducted the statistical analysis of the
data sets.
Many other people on the staff at the
National Wetlands Inventory Center of
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in St.
Petersburg, FL contributed to this effort.
Their help is greatly appreciated.
Dr. Kenneth Burnham of Colorado State
University, Fort Collins, CO wrote the
statistical analysis programs.
Publication design and layout was done
by the U.S. Geological Survey,
Madison, WI.
This report should be cited as follows:
Dahl, T.E. 1999. South Carolina’s wet-lands
— status and trends
1982 – 1989. U.S. Department of the
Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service, Washington, D.C. 58 pp.
United States Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
United States Environmental Protection Agency
2
Conversion Table
U.S. Customary to Metric
inches (in.) x 25.40 = millimeters (mm)
inches (in.) x 2.54 = centimeters (cm)
feet (ft) x 0.3048 = meters (m)
miles (mi) x 1.609 = kilometers (km)
nautical miles (nmi) x 1.852 = kilometers (km)
square feet (ft2) x 0.0929 = square meters (m2)
square miles (mi2) x 2.590 = square kilometers (km2)
acres (A) x 0.4047 = hectares (ha)
gallons (gal) x 3.785 = liters (L)
cubic feet (ft3) x 0.02831 = cubic meters (m3)
acre-feet (A-ft) x 1233.5 = cubic meters (m3)
ounces (oz) x 28.3495 = grams (g)
pounds (lb) x 0.4536 = kilograms (kg)
short tons (tons) x 0.9072 = metric tons (t)
British Thermal Units (BTU) x 0.2520 = kilocalories (kcal)
Farenheit degrees (F ) 0.5556 (F - 32) = Celsius degrees (C )
Metric to U.S. Customary
millimeters (mm) x 0.03937 = inches (in.)
centimeters (cm) x 0.3937 = inches (in.)
meters (m) x 3.281 = feet (ft)
kilometers (km) x 0.6214 = miles (mi)
square meters (m2) x 10.764 = square feet (ft2)
square kilometers (km2) x 0.3861 = square miles (mi2)
hectares (ha) x 2.471 = acres (A)
liters (L) x 0.2642 = gallons (gal)
cubic meters (m3) x 35.31 = cubic feet (ft3)
cubic meters (m3) x 0.0008110 = acre-feet (A-ft)
milligrams (mg) x 0.00003527 = ounces (oz)
grams (g) x 0.03527 = ounces (oz)
kilograms (kg) x 2.2046 = ounces (oz)
metric tons (t) x 2204.62 = pounds (lb)
metric tons (t) x 1.102 = short tons (tons)
kilocalories (kcal) x 3.968 = British Thermal Units (BTU)
Celsius degrees (C ) 1.8(C ) + 32 = Farenheit degrees (F )
3
Contents
Executive Summary ...............................................................................................................................................................7
Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................................8
Historical Background ...........................................................................................................................................................9
Study Area .............................................................................................................................................................................14
Estimating South Carolina’s Wetland Resources .............................................................................................................19
South Carolina’s Wetlands — Common Community Associations ................................................................................. 21
Results: Status, Distribution and Ownership of Wetlands ...............................................................................................30
Wetland Trends, 1982–89 .....................................................................................................................................................40
Discussion of Wetland Trends .............................................................................................................................................44
Summary ................................................................................................................................................................................49
References Cited ...................................................................................................................................................................50
Appendix A: Definitions of Habitat Categories Used in the
South Carolina Status and Trends Study ...........................................................................................................................53
Appendix B: Data Table .......................................................................................................................................................57
Appendix C: Data Table — Combined categories .............................................................................................................58
4
Figure 1. Estimated extent of South Carolina’s original wetlands .............................................................................................9
Figure 2. Regions of historical commercial rice producing wetlands in South Carolina .........................................................9
Figure 3. A 1989 high altitude infrared photograph shows patterns of old rice fields and levees
along the Ashepoo River, Colleton County, South Carolina .......................................................................................................10
Figure 4. An infrared photograph of primarily forested wetland along the Pee Dee River, South Carolina, 1990 ...........11
Figure 5. Location and construction date of the major reservoirs in South Carolina ...........................................................12
Figure 6. A 1990 aerial infrared photograph of “Carver’s Bay”, Georgetown County, South Carolina .............................13
Figure 7. The four physiographic zones within South Carolina used in this study ................................................................14
Figure 8. Three major segments of South Carolina’s coast .......................................................................................................15
Figure 9. The South Carolina portion of the Coastal Barrier Resources System ..................................................................16
Figure 10. Major rivers and (watershed) basins within South Carolina. ................................................................................17
Figure 11. South Carolina counties ..............................................................................................................................................18
Figure 12. Major land use categories within South Carolina ....................................................................................................18
Figure 13. Randomized sample plot distribution for this study. ...............................................................................................19
Figure 14a-d. Wetland area (a) as compared to total area of the State; (b) percent by estuarine and
freshwater types; (c) estuarine covertypes; (d) freshwater covertypes ...................................................................................30
Figure 15. Estuarine emergent wetlands along South Carolina’s coast ..................................................................................31
Figure 16. Estuarine wetland distribution along South Carolina’s coast, 1989 ......................................................................32
Figure 17. Palustrine (freshwater) wetland distribution within South Carolina, 1989 ..........................................................33
Figure 18. Forested wetland distribution within South Carolina, 1989 ...................................................................................37
Figure 19. Graphic representation of wetland resource areas in South Carolina, 1989 ........................................................37
Figure 20. Change in wetlands (as a percentage) converted to various land uses in South Carolina
between 1982 and 1989 ...................................................................................................................................................................40
Figure 21. Conversion and loss of forested wetland in South Carolina, 1982-1989 ................................................................41
Figure 22. An example of wetland loss to “other upland” land use in Horry County, South Carolina ................................42
Figure 23. An illustration of major Federal land units in South Carolina ...............................................................................43
Figure 24. Metropolitan lands in South Carolina and losses of wetland to upland urban development .............................43
Figure 25. Conversion from forested wetland to emergent wetland ........................................................................................45
Figure 26. Managed pine plantation of South Carolina’s coastal plain ....................................................................................46
Figure 27. Population growth in South Carolina counties between 1980 and 1990 ................................................................48
Figure 28. Wetland resource areas of South Carolina that may face future threat for conversion to upland land uses ...48
List of Figures
5
Table 1a–e. Wetland habitat descriptions, characteristic plant species and classification designation
as found in this study.
(a) Wetland types of South Carolina’s Appalachian Highlands (Blue Ridge) .............................................................. 22
(b) Wetland types of South Carolina’s Gulf-Atlantic Rolling Plain (Piedmont) ........................................................... 23
(c) Wetland types common to both South Carolina’s Gulf-Atlantic Rolling Plain (Piedmont) and Coastal Flats... 24
(d) Wetland types of South Carolina’s Coastal Flats ...................................................................................................... 27
(e) Wetland types of South Carolina’s Coastal Zone. ...................................................................................................... 29
Table 2. Distribution of all palustrine wetland types by physiographic region in South Carolina
as found in this study, 1989 .......................................................................................................................................................... 33
Table 3. Estimated acreage of wetlands by covertype classes within the physiographic regions
of South Carolina, 1989 ................................................................................................................................................................ 34
Table 4. Average area and size range of palustrine wetlands as they appeared within the sample units
for South Carolina in 1989 ........................................................................................................................................................... 36
Table 5. Area of reserves and publicly owned lands that may contain wetlands in South Carolina .................................. 38
Table 6. Estimated wetland area in South Carolina in 1982 and 1989 and the change(s)
as reported for various categories in this study ........................................................................................................................ 41
Table 7. Potential timber and pulp production effects to wetlands ......................................................................................... 47
List of Tables
6
7
This study examined 465 sample plots
distributed throughout South Carolina.
Aerial photographs were used in combi-nation
with field verification to determine
changes in wetland area between 1982
and 1989.
The results indicate that South Carolina
had an estimated 4,104,850 acres
(1,661,880 ha) of wetlands in 1989; 89
percent were freshwater wetlands.
Eleven percent were estuarine (salt-water)
wetlands. Palustrine forested
wetlands made up 70 percent of the total
wetland area.
The average annual net loss of wetlands
observed during this study was 2,920
acres (1,182 ha). Total wetland area
declined by 0.5 percent from 1982 to
1989. Palustrine forested wetlands
suffered the biggest losses, declining 5.1
percent, while palustrine shrub wetlands
realized the largest gains, increasing by
33.4 percent. The rate of wetland loss in
South Carolina had declined by 48 per-cent
compared to previously reported
results.
Loss of estuarine wetlands was minimal.
Estuarine wetlands declined by 109 acres
(44 ha), making the average annual loss
of estuarine wetlands statistically
insignificant.
Collectively agriculture, forestry and
urbanization were responsible for 81
percent of all the observed freshwater
Executive Summary
South Carolina estuarine intertidal wetland
T. Dahl
wetland losses between 1982 and 1989.
Forestry accounted for 31 percent of the
losses, agriculture (exclusive of farmed
wetland conversions) was responsible for
28 percent and urban expansion 22
percent, respectively.
Agricultural conversion of wetlands was
evenly split between the Coastal Flats
and the Rolling Plain (Piedmont).
Conversion of wetlands to silvicultural
land use was primarily restricted to the
Coastal Flats portion of the state. An
estimated 55 percent of all palustrine
wetlands were found on or adjacent to
agricultural lands. Urban expansion
converted wetlands in various locations.
Most notable occurrences were observed
in the Hilton Head area, Charleston and
North Charleston and in the vicinity of
Myrtle Beach and Columbia. The impacts
of rural development on wetland losses
were most notable in Horry County.
From 1982 to 1989, forested wetlands
diminished in area by 155,500 acres
(62,960 ha). Of the forested wetlands
where the trees were removed, most
remained as some other type of wetland.
Of the forested wetlands lost to upland
land uses, an estimated 40 percent or
5,340 acres (2,160 ha) were lost to upland
managed pine plantations.
When all wetland losses and gains were
tallied, South Carolina had not attained
no-net-loss of wetland area within the
time frame of the study.
8
Freshwater wetlands near Elloree, South Carolina
T. Dahl
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) has major responsibility for
the protection and stewardship of
migratory and endangered fish and
wildlife and their habitats. The agency
is concerned with changes in the status
of wetlands as they potentially affect
any migratory and endangered species.
The Service has undertaken wetlands
inventory and monitoring activities in
the past resulting in the production of
wetland maps, reports and trends
studies.
This study was conducted to provide
recent information on the extent and
trends of South Carolina’s wetlands.
Introduction South Carolina occupies a key position
in the Southeastern Coastal Plain and,
like many states, faces accelerating
demands on its natural resources.
This report presents the results of a
study of wetland changes in South
Carolina between 1982 and 1989. It
provides estimates of the status of
wetland area within the State, and losses
or gains that occurred during the study
time frame. The trends data have been
supplemented with additional sources of
information on wetland ownership and
community types to provide the reader
with a more complete picture of South
Carolina’s wetland resources.
9
From soil records and historical maps
it is possible to estimate the past extent
of South Carolina’s wetlands. Although
precise information is not available on
the area and type of wetlands, some
estimates indicate that as much as 32
percent of the State’s area, up to 6.4
million acres (2.6 million ha), were
wetland during the 1700s (Dahl 1990).
Coastal marshes, riverine swamps,
isolated bays and pocosins made up the
majority of the wetland habitats
(Figure 1).
Beginning with native North American
habitation of the area now known South
Carolina, human use and occupation has
modified the landscape and had an
impact on the number and type of wet-lands.
In South Carolina, the coastal
region or “low country” was the first area
to attract European settlements (Garrett
1988). Early settlers followed the river
systems to the interior using them as a
means of transportation. Traditional
small farms and subsistence agriculture
were replaced by plantations during the
colonial period and wetland drainage and
modification became prevalent. As early
as 1754, South Carolina authorized
Historical
Background
drainage of the Cacaw Swamp for
agricultural use (Beauchamp 1987).
Plantation owners did not always seek
to drain wetlands. In the coastal regions
some plantation owners found that the
immense coastal marshlands supported
by major rivers were capable of being
irrigated with every flood tide by fresh
water and vast areas of marshlands were
diked and the water regulated to support
rice growing operations (Lucas 1980). As
early as the 1670s rice formed one of
South Carolina’s commercially valuable
commodities (Salley 1919) and by the
1850s South Carolina was the largest
producer of rice in the United States and
its territories, with an estimated yield of
about 160 million pounds (72 million kg)
statewide (Littlefield 1995). Tidal rice
culture was practiced along the
Savannah, Combahee, Ashpoo, Edisto
and Cooper rivers, but the largest
historical rice growing area was located
in the lower reaches of the Santee,
Sampit, Black, Pee Dee and Waccamaw
River deltas. Major historical rice
growing areas of South Carolina are
shown in Figure 2. Today, many of South
Carolina’s historic rice fields remain
Figure 1. Estimated extent of South
Carolina’s original wetlands. Adapted from
historic map information and extrapolation
of hydric soils from the State Soil Survey
Geographic Data Base.
Figure 2. Regions of historical commercial
rice producing wetlands in South Carolina
(Sources: Kovacik and Winberry 1987;
Littlefield 1995).
10
as wetland (Figure 3). Commercial rice
growing operations have declined,
leaving these areas to revert to tidal
marshlands.
Throughout the State’s history, river
systems have been active forces helping
to shape the physical geography and
influence cultural land uses. Both the
use and conservation of many of the
State’s natural resources stem from
the wealth of these rivers. Historically,
South Carolina contained at least 20
large rivers that flowed unimpeded from
the interior to the Atlantic Ocean. These
rivers nourished the coastal marshes
and were bordered by broad expanses
of alluvial low lands, forested swamps
or bottomlands supporting many water
tolerant hardwood tree species (Figure
4). In some regions of the coastal plain
these bottomland wetlands were from
two to six miles (9.7 km) wide (Lucas
1980) and represented a tremendous
source of commercial forest resources.
The cypress trees (Taxodium distichum)
that were characteristic of many of these
bottomland swamps were an important
source of timber for pioneering settlers
(Ewel and Odum 1984). During the 1800s
baldcypress became a highly prized
Figure 3. A 1989 high altitude infrared photograph shows patterns of old rice fields and levees (mottled
blue) along the Ashepoo River, Colleton County, South Carolina.
commercial forest product because of its
durability and resistance to termites and
rotting under humid conditions (Williams
1989). Cypress trees were exploited
extensively throughout the 1800s and the
first half of this century. By the 1850s
there were 50 sawmills operating around
Aiken, South Carolina near the head-waters
of the Savannah and Edisto
rivers. By the 1950s standing bald-cypress
stands had been greatly reduced.
Although cypress logs were used exten-sively
during the 1800s, some of the
wettest hardwood areas went untouched.
While logging of the hardwood species
11
began in the swamps of South Carolina
sometime prior to 1900 (Durham 1967),
the deep swamps of the Great Pee Dee
and Santee rivers were considered too
inaccessible for timber harvesting until
sometime following 1900. It is estimated
that South Carolina’s first growth timber
harvest peaked around the mid-1920s
(Williams 1989). Following this period,
most of the swamp forests in South
Carolina had been logged at least once.
Forested wetlands in the southeastern
United States are highly productive
ecosystems because of periodic inputs
of floodwater, sediment and nutrients
Figure 4. An infrared photograph of primarily forested wetland along the Pee Dee River, South Carolina,
1990. Historically, forested wetlands along riverine systems were extensive and provided a source of
timber through the 1800s.
(Taylor et al. 1990). Within the wet
bottomland forests there occur variations
in canopy type and height based on
responses of plant species tolerance to
soil inundation from the wettest to the
driest. Usually these communities
support populations of mammals, am-phibians
and crawfish (Wharton et al.
1981). The Congaree Swamp in South
Carolina supports the second highest
density of birds (1634 birds/sq km) of the
eastern deciduous forests (Winton 1980).
Taylor et al. (1990) described the func-tions
and values of bottomland hardwood
forests in greater detail. Of the total area
in South Carolina that was originally
forested wetland, some has been drained
and converted to upland silvicultural
uses, some has been logged and re-planted
or regenerated naturally, other
areas have been cleared for agricultural
production or urban development. Today
the poorly drained soils that made up
many of the original wetlands in the
southeastern United States are some of
the most intensively managed forest sites
in the world (Allen and Campbell 1988).
South Carolina has 11,000 miles (17,699
km) of permanently flowing rivers and
streams (Beasley et al. 1988). Reservoirs
have been created on every major river
12
Figure 5. Location and construction date of
the major reservoirs in South Carolina.
River
River
River
River
River
Santee
Wateree
Saluda
Savannah
Congaree River
Catawba
Cooper R.
Lake
Jocassee
(1974)
Lake
Greenwood
(1940)
Lake
Murray
(1930)
Lake
Marion
(1942)
Lake
Moultrie
(1942)
Lake
Wylie
(1925)
Lake
Keowee
(1971)
Hartwell
Reservoir
(1963)
Clark Hill
Reservoir
(1954)
Richard B. Russell
Lake
(1984)
Wateree
Lake
(1919)
Reservoir
system in South Carolina with the
exception of the Pee Dee. Although
hundreds of small millpond impound-ments
were built within the State during
the 18th and 19th centuries, the 20th
century has seen the construction of
large water retention dams. In some
cases impounding the rivers drowned
tracts of bottomland forested wetlands,
in other instances wetland areas were
created by flooding backwater pools and
bays. The location and date of construc-tion
of some of the major reservoirs on
South Carolina’s rivers are shown in
Figure 5.
One of the more unusual wetland types
that have been impacted over time is
the “Carolina bay”. Carolina bays are
oval or elliptical depressions of unknown
origin (Sharitz and Gibbons 1982). These
wet-lands were originally by-passed by
settlers but eventually the rich soils
enticed drainage and conversion to agri-culture
(Kovacik and Winberry 1987). It
has been estimated that South Carolina
originally contained about 4,000 Carolina
bay wetlands of various sizes (Richardson
and Gibbons 1993). There is no accurate
accounting of the number of Carolina
bays that have been converted to upland
uses or those that have been ditched or
partially drained. Over the past 200 years
many have been converted to agriculture
or upland forestry and some estimates
are that very few of the original number
of bays in South Carolina remain undis-turbed
(Bebber 1988). Figure 6 shows an
aerial view of a Carolina bay bisected by
a road and affected by other types of
development.
Despite these historical trends, South
Carolina still maintains numerous
riverine swamp forests, productive salt
marshes and freshwater wetlands.
Overall, South Carolina ranks fifth in
the Nation in wetland acreage expressed
as a percent of surface area. Forested
wetlands make up an important resource
contributing 6 percent of the National
total forested wetland area and 9 per-cent
of the area within the southeastern
United Sates. Two virgin or nearly virgin
stands of bottomland forested swamp
remain in South Carolina: The Congaree
Swamp National Monument and the
Francis Beidler Forest. These are two
very rare examples of uncut swamp
hardwood forest stands remaining in
the southeastern United States (Durham
1967).
13
Figure 6. A 1990 aerial infrared photograph of “Carver’s Bay”, Georgetown County, South Carolina. This bay is bisected by a road
and has been modified by encroaching land uses. In South Carolina all Carolina bays are oriented in a northwest/southeast
direction.
14
The total land area of South Carolina is
approximately 19,320,552 acres (7,822,086
ha)1 . The landscape varies in topographic
relief from mountainous in the west to
nearly level in the eastern portion of the
Atlantic coastal plain.
For this study, South Carolina was
stratified into four physiographic regions
(Figure 7). These regions are described
below.
Coastal Zone
Although not typically described by
geographers as a unique region, a
Coastal Zone region was considered in
this study. The Coastal Zone encom-passes
the near-shore areas of the coast
and includes barrier islands, coastal
marshes, exposed tidal flats and other
features not included in the landward
physiographic zones. The Coastal Zone
as described here is not synonymous with
any state or Federal jurisdictional coastal
zone definitions. It is an area where salt-water
is the overriding influence on bio-logical
systems.
Within the Coastal Zone, South Carolina
has 2,876 miles (4,628 km) of shore
bordering the Atlantic Ocean. There are
three distinct segments of the shore
based on the geomorphic processes that
formed each. These are shown in Figure
8 and include: The Grand Strand, a
100,000 year old barrier sand formation
that extends from the North Carolina
border south to Winyah Bay; the Santee
Delta which is the largest deltaic complex
on the east coast and; the Sea Island
Complex composed of erosion remnant
islands (that were part of the mainland at
one time) and active barrier islands built
by wind or wave action (South Carolina
Coastal Council 1982). Included as part of
this coastline are 198 miles (319 km) of
recreational beaches and 153 miles (246
km) of barrier islands (Wells and
Peterson n.d.).
Some segments of South Carolina’s
barrier islands have been designated as
part of the Coastal Barrier Resources
System. The Barrier Islands Act of 1983
removed undeveloped islands from
Federal flood insurance protection and
resulted in 13 locations along South
Carolina’s coastline being designated as
coastal barriers under this legislation.
The system was expanded to include
several more sites by the Coastal Barrier
Improvement Act. In all, 16 coastal
barriers are part of the South Carolina
System as shown in Figure 9.
1 This study incorporated some estuarine
embayments not included in the total
land area figure.
Figure 7. The four physiographic zones
within South Carolina used in this study.
G u l f - A t l a n t i c
R o l l i n g P l a i n
G u l f - A t l a n t i c
C o a s t a l F l a t s
Coastal
Zone
Piedmont
Coastal Plain
Appalachian Highlands
Blue Ridge
Study Area
15
Figure 8. Three major segments of South
Carolina’s coast (Adapted from Kovacik and
Winberry 1987).
Sav a n n a h
Winyah
Bay
SANTEE
DELTA
North Carolina State Line
Ri v e r
S E A I S L A N D C O M P L E X
G R A N D S T R A N D
H A M P T O N
J A S P E R
C O L L E T O N
DORCHESTER
B E R K E L E Y
WILLIAMSBURG
GEORGETOWN
H O R R Y
B E A U F O R T
C H A R L E S T O N
16
H A M P TO N
J A S P E R
C O L L E TO N
DORCHESTER
B E R K E L E Y
WILLIAMSBURG
GEORGETOWN
H O R RY
B E A U F O R T
C H A R L E S T O N
Waites Island
Complex
Long Pond
Huntington Beach
Litchfield Beach
Pawleys Inlet
Debidue Beach
North Island
and
South Island
Dewees Island
Otter Island
Harbor Island
St. Phillips Island
Daufuskie Island
Morris Island Complex
Bird Key Complex
Edisto Complex
Captain Sams Inlet
Portion of the Coastal
Barrier Resource System
Figure 9. The South Carolina portion of the
Coastal Barrier Resources System. This
graphic illustrates the approximate location
and boundaries of named geographic features
not actual demarcations or designations
under the coastal barrier legislation.
17
Gulf-Atlantic Coastal Flats
The Gulf-Atlantic Coastal Flats devel-oped
from continental submergence and
emergence with both erosion and deposi-tion
of soils (Colquhoun 1974). Soils
originated either from the Appalachians
or from coastal processes (McKnight et
al. 1981) and they are composed of water
borne deposits of sands, silt or clay and
calcareous sediments. The Coastal Flats
are characteristically level but small
relief features affect drainage patterns
and duration of inundation (Clark and
Benforado 1981). Elevation on the
Coastal Flats ranges from sea level to
300 feet (91 m). An unusual feature of
the Coastal Flats in South Carolina is
the occurrence of Carolina bays. These
are oval or elliptical depressions that
range in size from 4–5 acres (1.6–2.0 ha)
to thousands of acres such as the bay
that is the Big Swamp in Manchester
State Forest in Sumter County (Kovacik
and Winberry 1987). In South Carolina
almost all of these bays are oriented in
a northwest-southeasterly direction and
unless artificially drained, all are wet-lands.
Gulf-Atlantic Rolling Plain
The Gulf-Atlantic Rolling Plain as
described by Hammond (1970) is nearly
the same as the Piedmont within South
Carolina. Others have used this term to
describe this physiographic region which
makes up roughly one-third of South
Carolina (Meador 1995; Gibson 1994).
This region is characterized by hilly
topography; elevations range from 300
to 1200 feet (91–366 m). The rivers in this
part of the State are long, with more
gently sloped, wide valleys and carry
heavy sediment loads (Kovacik and
Winberry 1987).
Appalachian Highlands
The Appalachian Highlands or Blue
Ridge Mountains are in the extreme
northwestern portion of the state. The
Blue Ridge is a small portion of the
Appalachian Mountain System. It is the
area of greatest topographic relief in
South Carolina where elevations range
from 1400 to over 3500 feet (427 to 1067
m). Streams in this region are fast-flowing
and entrenched within steep
valleys.
Other Geographical Features
Other important facets of South
Carolina’s geography that put wetland
distribution into context relate to the
watersheds, reservoirs and river drain-age
characteristics. The State is divided
into four major watershed basins; the
Pee Dee River Basin drains approxi-mately
9 percent of South Carolina’s
land area, the Santee River Basin drains
about 41 percent of the state, the ACE
(Ashley-Combahee-Edisto) River Basin
drains 32 percent of the State and, the
Savannah River Basin drains about 18
percent of South Carolina (Figure 10).
Figure 10. Major rivers and (watershed)
basins within South Carolina. 1) Pee Dee
River Basin; 2) Santee River Basin;
3) Ashley-Combahee-Edisto (ACE) River
Basin; 4) Savannah River Basin (Source:
Beasley et al. 1988).
River
River
River
River
River
River
Santee
Wateree
Saluda
Broad
S avannah
Congaree R.
Catawba
Cooper R.
Little Pee Dee River
Pee Dee River
Waccamaw River
Lynches River
Black River
Edisto R.
Ashley R.
Ashepoo
River
Combahee River
Coosawhatchie
R.
1
2
3
4
18
Rivers draining the Rolling Plain
(Piedmont) are typically colored yellow
and red by silt and clay sediments.
Rivers originating in the Coastal Flats
typically meander and form wide, flat
flood plains, channels or oxbows. They
are often colored black from the high
levels of tannic acid in the runoff from
surrounding swamp hardwoods. The
wetlands surrounding these rivers have
thus acquired the colloquial terms of
“red river bottoms” or “red river swamp”
and “black water river bottoms” depend-ing
on the origins of the river waters.
A further description of these and other
terms used to describe wetland communi-ties
in South Carolina appear in Table
1a–e.
Figure 12. Major land use categories within
South Carolina. Landuse categories are
approximate based on the total area of the
State as estimated by the Bureau of Census.
This land area excludes some coastal
embayments. Water area includes some
vegetated wetlands and/or ponds as well as
deepwater rivers and lakes (Source: South
Carolina State Budget and Control Board
1994; Powell et al. 1993; U.S. Geological
Survey 1970; this study).
Figure 11. South Carolina counties.
There are 46 counties in South Carolina
(Figure 11). Major industries include
tourism, agriculture, forestry and
manufacturing. Orange-burg County is
the leading agricultural county in South
Carolina. It has the largest amount of
land in farms in the State and ranks at or
near the top of all counties for production
of soybeans (Glycine max.), corn (Zea
mays), wheat (Triticum aestivum),
cucumbers (Cucumis sativus), watermel-ons
(Citrullus vulgaris) and cantaloupes
(Cucumis melo), (De Francesco 1988).
Land use in South Carolina is shown in
Figure 12.
HAMPTON
BAMBERG
ORANGEBURG
BARNWELL
ALLENDALE
JASPER
COLLETON
DORCHESTER
BERKELEY
WILLIAMSBURG
GEORGETOWN
HORRY
BEAUFORT
CHARLESTON
CLARENDON
FLORENCE
MARION
SUMTER
CALHOUN
AIKEN
EDGEFIELD
LEXINGTON
RICHLAND
LEE
DARLINGTON
DILLON
MARLBORO
CHESTERFIELD
KERSHAW
CHESTER LANCASTER
FAIRFIELD
NEWBERRY
SALUDA
GREENWOOD
MCCORMICK
ABBEVILLE
ANDERSON LAURENS
UNION
SPARTANBURG
CHEROKEE
YORK
GREENVILLE
PICKENS
OCONEE
Wetland
Forest
15%
Upland Forest
49%
Agriculture
17%
Urban
Development
7%
Water
6%
Other
Wetlands
5%
Barren
Lands
1%
19
Within the four physiographic strata
described previously, sample plots (four
square miles or 10.36 sq. km) were
distributed at random. Four hundred
sixty five sample plots were analyzed in
this study (Figure 13). For each of these
sample areas, aerial photography was
acquired and stereoscopically interpreted
to identify wetlands, deepwater habitats
and uplands. Habitat category definitions
are given in Appendix A.
The mean dates of the photography used
to determine wetland trends in South
Carolina were 1982 and 1989 with the
difference being an average of 6.5 years.
All photographs were color infrared and
ranged from 1:58,000 to 1:40,000 scale.
For this study, wetlands 3 acres (1.2 ha)
and larger composed the target popula-tion2
. Field verification of features on the
aerial photography was done for approxi-mately
10 percent of the sample. Rigor-ous
quality control inspections were built
into the interpretation, data collection
and analysis processes. A more complete
description of the techniques used to
accomplish the interpretation, registra-tion,
and change detection is provided in
various technical manuals (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 1994a, 1995; Dahl and
Johnson 1991).
Changes in areal extent or type of
wetland observed on the sample plots
between 1983 and 1989 were recorded.
Statistical estimates were used to expand
the sample data to specific physiographic
regions, wetland types or were generated
for the entire State. The percent coeffi-cient
of variation associated with each
estimate was also calculated.
2 Actual results indicate that for each
wetland catagory included in this study
the minimum size represented was less
than 1.0 acre (0.4 ha). However, not all
wetlands less than the target size
catagory were detected.
Estimating
South Carolina’s
Wetland
Resources
Figure 13. Randomized sample plot
distribution for this study. Each box
represents a 4 square mile (10.36 sq. km)
area. There were 465 total sample plots for
the State.
Gulf-Atlantic
Rolling Plain
Gulf-Atlantic
Coastal Flats
Coastal
Zone
Appalachian Highlands
20
Wetland Types Not Included
In This Study
Because of the limitations of using aerial
photography as the primary data source
to detect wetlands, certain wet habitats
that occur in South Carolina were
excluded from this study including:
Small Limesinks or Limestone Sink-holes
— These are cavities or depres-sions
that are variable in size and expo-sure
(Nelson 1986). They are associated
with partially or completely collapsed
limestone rock and can be considered
a type of wetland if they hold standing
water. Large limesinks or sinkholes
would be detected on the aerial photo-graphy
and included in the study results
based on their cover type. However,
many lime-sinks are small (less than 1
acre or 0.4 ha), and tree canopies or other
vegetation may mask their presence.
In these instances, limesinks have been
excluded from the report analyses.
Seagrasses or Submerged Aquatic
Vegetation — Seagrasses and other
submerged plants inhabit the intertidal
and subtidal zones of estuaries and near
shore coastal waters (Orth et al. 1990).
The detection of submerged aquatic
vegetation is difficult using aerial photo-graphy
without extensive surface-level
observations, tide stage data, water
clarity data and low surface waves
(Ferguson et al. 1993). Because of these
requirements, seagrasses were not
delineated as part of this study and the
data presented in this report are not
intended to provide a reliable indicator
of the extent of seagrass area in South
Carolina’s coastal waters.
21
Because the wetland habitat descriptions
used in this study are generalized system
and class terms from Cowardin et al.
(1979), further information on the
inclusion of some of South Carolina’s
wetland types is presented in Table 1a–e.
This information is organized by phy-siographic
region within the State and is
intended to provide a brief physical
description or geographic setting, and
information on “typical” plant community
composition for some of the wetlands
encountered in the State. Table 1a–e is
not inclusive of all wetland types, comm-unities
or plant species that may be found
within South Carolina’s wetland habitats.
Where possible published references
documenting similar community descrip-tions
are provided. A complete list of
plant species that occur in South
Carolina’s wetlands is given by Reed
(1988).
South Carolina’s
Wetlands —
Common
Community
Associations
Ashepoo River wetlands
T. Dahl
22
Table 1a-e. Wetland habitat descriptions, characteristic plant species and classification designation as found in this study.
Table 1a. Wetland types of South Carolina’s Appalachian Highlands (Blue Ridge).
Habitat or
Community Type
Description Characteristic Plant
Species
References Designation for
this study
Alder or Rhododendron Thickets Thick, shady shrub dominated areas on the edges
of streams that are occasionally to frequently
flooded.
Alder ( Alnus spp. )
Rhododendron (Rhododendron maximum)
Coastal dog-hobble ( Leucothoe axillaris)
Mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia )
Shrubby yellow-root (Xanthorhiza simplicissima )
Buffalo-nut (Pyrularia pubera )
Nelson, 1986 Palustrine Shrub
Coves and Hollows Wet, mixed mesophytic forest found in valleys or
hollows of the Cumberland Plateau and
mountainous areas. Only some of these habitats
have impaired soil drainage and are considered
wetlands.
Yellow-poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera )
Sweetgum ( Liquidambar styraciflua)
White ash ( Fraxinus americana)
Black cherry ( Prunus serotina )
Black walnut ( Juglans nigra)
South Carolina Forestry
Commission, 1988
Palustrine Forest
Springs and Seeps
(Mountain Bog and Fen)
Small, wet areas normally dominated by shrubs or
emergents. These small wetlands are usually
located in the heads of valleys where the soils are
continually saturated.
Common marsh-marigold (Caltha palustris )
Lamp rush (Juncus effusus)
Smooth sawgrass (Cladium mariscoides )
Sedge ( Carex spp. )
Woodland bulrush (Scirpus expansus )
Sphagnum moss (Sphagnum spp.)
Richardson and Gibbons,
1993
Palustrine Emergent
Beaver Ponds Open water ponds, wet emergent meadows or
flooded timber resulting from beaver activity.
Although beaver may be found throughout South
Carolina, they are most abundant in the Rolling
Plain and the Appalachian Highlands regions.
Beaver are usually associated with deciduous trees
in close proximity to standing or flowing water
bodies.
River birch (Betula nigra )
Red maple ( Acer rubrum)
Yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera )
Sweetgum ( Liquidambar styraciflua)
Alder ( Alnus spp. )
Swamp cottonwood ( Populus heterophylla)
Willow (Salix spp. )
Welsch et al. , 1995 Palustrine Forest;
Palustrine Shrub;
Palustrine Unconsolodated
Bottom (ponds)
Freshwater Ponds, Rivers and
Lakes
Flowing or standing bodies of freshwater. Bladderwort (Utricularia spp. )
Naiad ( Najas guadalupensis )
Pondweed ( Potamogeton spp.)
Water-lily ( Nymphaea odorata)
Yellow pond lily (Nuphar lutea )
Cattail (Typha latifolia )
Sedge ( Carex spp. )
Duckweed ( Lemna spp.)
Aulbach-Smith and de
Kozlowski, 1990;
Menzel and Cooper, 1992
Palustrine Unconsolodated
Bottom (ponds);
Lacustrine;
Riverine
23
Table 1b. Wetland types of South Carolina’s Gulf-Atlantic Rolling Plain (Piedmont).
Willow Heads and Strands Woody stands dominated by willow that occur on
wet soils adjacent to streams, springs or shallow
ponds. These wetlands may also represent the
early stages of succession to forest around deep
ponds or more permanent water bodies.
Willow ( Salix spp. )
Alder ( Alnus spp. )
Langdon et al. , 1981 Palustrine Shrub
Piedmont Seepage Forest Continually saturated forest on flat areas with
closed canopy. Seepage of ground water tends to
keep these wetlands saturated year round and
distinguishes them from other forested
communities.
Red maple ( Acer rubrum)
Swamp tupelo (Nyssa biflora )
Swamp haw (Viburnum cassinoides )
Stiff dogwood (Cornus foemina )
Poison sumac (Toxicodendron vernix )
Nelson, 1986 Palustrine Forest
Floodplain Forests (red) River
Bottoms
Wetlands immediately adjacent to a large drainage
system originating in the Piedmont. Sloughs and
oxbows extend into low ridges which flood
periodically. Soils are characteristically loams or
clays.
Water tupelo ( Nyssa aquatica )
Red maple ( Acer rubrum)
Black gum ( Nyssa sylvatica)
Swamp cottonwood ( Populus heterophylla)
Laurel oak ( Quercus laurifolia )
Sweetgum ( Liquidambar styraciflua)
Green ash ( Fraxinus pennsylvanica)
Water hickory (Carya aquatica)
American sycamore ( Platanus occidentalis)
River birch (Betula nigra )
American elm (Ulmus americana)
Willow ( Salix spp. )
Overcup oak ( Quercus lyrata)
Barry, 1980;
South Carolina Forestry
Commission, 1988
Palustrine Forest
Beaver Ponds See Table 1a.
Freshwater Ponds, Rivers and
Lakes
See Table 1a.
Habitat or
Community Type
Description Characteristic Plant
Species
References Designation for
this study
24
Table 1c. Wetland types common to both South Carolina’s Gulf-Atlantic Rolling Plain (Piedmont) and Coastal Flats.
Habitat
Community
Description Characteristic Plant
Species
References Designation for
this study
Bottomland Hardwood (general) Forested lowland areas that support species that
tolerate hydric conditions. Bottomland hardwood
wetlands support a predominance of deciduous
hardwood tree species, but softwoods may also be
represented as well as bald cypress. Bottomlands
may exhibit differences in geomorphology,
physiography, climate, soils and water
characteristics. These differences result in forest
associations and types that may be prevalent in
one area and not another. Bottomland forested
wetlands are characteristically subjected to high
water tables, soil saturation, periodic or
continuous flooding at various times of the year
with water being the dominating environmental
factor.
Bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) Wharton et al. , 1982 Palustrine Forest
Pond cypress ( Taxodium ascendens )
Water tupelo ( Nyssa aquatica )
Swamp tupelo (Nyssa biflora )
Water elm ( Planera aquatica)
Swamp privot (Forestiera acuminata )
Water ash ( Fraxinus caroliniana)
Black willow ( Salix nigra)
Swamp cottonwood ( Populus heterophylla)
Red maple ( Acer rubrum)
Water oak ( Quercus nigra)
Swamp chestnut oak ( Quercus michauxii)
Water hickory (Carya aquatica)
River birch (Betula nigra )
Black gum ( Nyssa sylvatica)
Sweet bay ( Magnolia virginiana)
American elm (Ulmus americana)
Stiff dogwood (Cornus foemina )
Shagbark hickory ( Carya ovata)
Eastern cottonwood ( Populus deltoides )
Honey-locust (Gleditsia triacanthos )
Alder ( Alnus serrulata )
Wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera )
Cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto )
Sweetgum ( Liquidambar styraciflua)
American sycamore ( Platanus occidentalis)
Possum haw ( Ilex decidua)
Willow oak (Quercus phellos )
Laurel oak ( Quercus laurifolia )
Southern red oak (Quercus falcata )
Shumard's oak (Quercus shumardii )
Loblolly pine (Pinus taeda )
Common persimmon (Diospyros virginiana)
25
Habitat
Community
Description Characteristic Plant
Species
References Designation for
this study
Muck Swamps Deep forested swamps found on predominantly
muck soils of silt loam and clay in association
with river systems. Many of these swamps have
been extensively logged making large tracts rare.
Water tupelo ( Nyssa aquatica )
Bald cypress ( Taxodium distichum )
Black gum ( Nyssa sylvatica)
Nelson, 1986;
South Carolina Forestry
Commission, 1988
Palustrine Forest
Peat Swamps These forested wetlands may be synonymous with
pocosins. They support a variety of tree species
on peat (organic) soils.
Black gum ( Nyssa sylvatica)
Red maple ( Acer rubrum)
Loblolly pine (Pinus taeda )
Pond pine ( Pinus serotina)
Atlantic white cedar (Chamaecyparis thy)oides
South Carolina Forestry
Commission, 1988
Palustrine Forest
Atlantic White Cedar Swamp Acidic, wet forests dominated by white cedar
usually in even-aged stands. Peat tends to
accumulate in these nutrient poor wetlands and
they support a diverse assemblage of animal
species. Within South Carolina Atlantic white
cedar stands are reported to occur in Lexington,
Kershaw, Chesterfield, Darlington and Marlboro
counties.
Atlantic white cedar (Chamaecyparis thy)oides
Red maple ( Acer rubrum)
Sweet bay ( Magnolia virginiana)
Pond pine ( Pinus serotina)
Red bay ( Persea borbonia)
Bayberry (Myrica spp. )
Lady's slipper (Cypripedium acaule )
Cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea)
Beak rush ( Rhynchospora spp. )
Golden club (Orontium aquaticum )
Green arum (Peltandra virginica )
Sweet pitcherplant (Sarracenia rubra )
Fetterbush ( Lyonia lucida)
Gallberry (Ilex spp.)
Blueberry ( Vaccinium spp. )
Swamp titi ( Cyrilla racemiflora)
Laurel-leaf greenbrier (Smilax laurifolia)
Moss ( Sphagnum spp.)
Laderman, 1982; 1989;
Nelson, 1986
Palustrine Forest
Table 1c (continued). Wetland types common to both South Carolina’s Gulf-Atlantic Rolling Plain (Piedmont) and Coastal Flats.
26
Habitat
Community
Description Characteristic Plant
Species
References Designation for
this study
Carolina Bays Freshwater wetlands within shallow elliptical
depressions of unknown origin. Carolina bays
are scattered throughout the Coastal Plain and
range from less than 50 meters in length to over 8
kilometers. Bays can support wetland plant
communities including grasses and sedges
(emergent wetlands) to cypress-gum forested
swamps. These areas are named for the dominant
"bay species" found along drainages of the South
Carolina sandhills, slopes and elliptical
depressions of the Piedmont and Coastal Plain.
EMERGENT PHASE
Maidencane (Panicum hemitomon)
Water lily (Nymphaea odorata)
Watershield (Brasenia schreberi)
Yellow-eyed grass ( Xynis spp.)
Cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea)
FORESTED PHASE
Loblolly bay ( Gordonia lasianthus )
Pond cypress ( Taxodium ascendens )
Sweet bay ( Magnolia virginiana)
Red maple ( Acer rubrum)
Red bay ( Persea borbonia)
Pond pine ( Pinus serotina)
Wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera )
Laurel-leaf greenbrier (Smilax laurifolia)
Lide et al. , 1995;
Richardson and Gibbons,
1993
Sharitz and Gibbons, 1982;
Nelson, 1986
Palustrine Emergent
Palustrine Shrub
Hillside Bog or Seep Seasonally or permanently saturated wetlands on
slopes of sand hills or other topographic hill-like
features of the Piedmont or Coastal Plain. These
bogs are dominated by herbaceous species.
Insectivorous plants or orchids may be present.
Wiregrass ( Aristida spp. )
Broom sedge ( Andropogon virginicus)
Toothache grass (Ctenium aromaticum )
Whip nut-rush (Scleria triglomerata )
Beak rush ( Rhynchospora spp. )
Umbrella sedge ( Fimbristylis spp. )
Yellow pitcherplant ( Sarracenia flava)
Purple pitcherplant (Sarracenia purpurea)
Sweet pitcherplant (Sarracenia rubra )
Bladderwort (Utricularia spp. )
Sundew ( Drosera spp. )
Rose pogonia (Pogonia ophioglossoides )
Ladies' tresses (Spiranthes spp. )
Moss (Sphagnum spp.)
Nelson, 1986 Palustrine Emergent
Freshwater Emergent Marshes
(deep and shallow)
These are the most common type of wetland
dominated by grasses and sedges. These areas
usually occupy topographic depressions, swales
or the margins of ponds, lakes or rivers. These
wetlands are species rich and include grasses,
sedges, annual weeds and shrubs. Water levels
vary from permanent standing water to wet
meadow (saturated) conditions. Some freshwater
marshes near the outer Coastal Plain may be
tidally flooded.
Cattail (Typha spp.)
Maidencane (Panicum hemitomon)
Wild rice (Zizania aquatica )
Common reed (Phragmites australis )
Sedge ( Carex spp. )
Bulrush ( Scirpus spp. )
Rush ( Juncus spp.)
Aulbach-Smith and de
Kozlowski, 1990
Palustrine Emergent
Table 1c (continued). Wetland types common to both South Carolina���s Gulf-Atlantic Rolling Plain (Piedmont) and Coastal Flats.
27
Habitat
Community
Description Characteristic Plant
Species
References Designation for
this study
Blackwater or Brownwater River
Bottoms (includes swamp cane
islands)
Wetlands occurring in the floodplain of a major
drainage or river system originating in the
Coastal Plain.
Sweetgum ( Liquidambar styraciflua)
Loblolly pine (Pinus taeda )
Sugarberry ( Celtis laevigata)
Overcup oak ( Quercus lyrata)
Water oak ( Quercus nigra)
Willow oak (Quercus phellos )
Laurel oak ( Quercus laurifolia )
White ash ( Fraxinus americana)
American sycamore ( Platanus occidentalis)
American holly ( Ilex opaca )
American elm (Ulmus americana)
Nelson, 1986 Palustrine Forest
Beech-Magnolia Hammock These forests usually have calcareous soils and are
dominated by a number of hardwood species.
Flooding is not as evident as in the river bottoms
but represents a wet variation of the mixed
hardwood forest type.
Beech ( Fagus grandifolia )
Southern magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora)
Sweetgum ( Liquidambar styraciflua)
Spruce pine (Pinus glabra )
Laurel oak ( Quercus laurifolia )
American holly ( Ilex opaca )
Pignut hickory ( Carya glabra )
Red hickory ( Carya ovalis )
Nelson, 1986 Palustrine Forest
Non-Riverine Swamp Forest /
Cypress or Gum Ponds
Depressional forested wetlands on poorly drained
lowlands that are not associated with riverine
systems. These wetlands usually maintain some
surface water and provide important wildlife
habitat.
Pond cypress ( Taxodium ascendens )
Bald cypress ( Taxodium distichum )
Black gum ( Nyssa sylvatica)
Red maple ( Acer rubrum)
Dahoon ( Ilex cassine)
Sweetgum ( Liquidambar styraciflua)
Swamp chestnut oak ( Quercus michauxii)
Pond pine ( Pinus serotina)
Nelson, 1986 Palustrine Forest
Pine Flatwoods Forested wetland on flat or slightly undulating
terrain dominated by moisture tolerant pine trees.
Soils in these areas are usually sandy with a
characteristically high water table. Not all pine
flatwood communities may be wetland.
Longleaf pine (Pinus palustris )
Loblolly pine (Pinus taeda )
Slash pine ( Pinus elliottii)
Blackjack oak (Quercus marilandica )
Bitter gallberry ( Ilex glabra )
Arrow-wood ( Viburnum spp. )
Bluestem (Andropogon spp. )
Wiregrass ( Aristida spp. )
Nelson, 1986 Palustrine Forest
Table 1d. Wetland types of South Carolina’s Coastal Flats.
28
Habitat
Community
Description Characteristic Plant
Species
References Designation for
this study
Pine Savannah Forested phase of the pitcher plant bog. This
type of wetland community occurs in flat areas of
the Coastal Plain and usually supports many
herbaceous species in the understory.
Longleaf pine (Pinus palustris )
Pond pine ( Pinus serotina)
Wiregrass ( Aristida spp. )
Toothache grass (Ctenium aromaticum )
Purple silkyscale ( Anthaenantia rufa )
Nut-rush ( Scleria spp.)
Yellow pitcherplant ( Sarracenia flava)
Sundew ( Drosera spp. )
Nelson, 1986 Palustrine Forest
or
Palustrine Shrub
Pocosin Low, wet forest or shrub dominated community
that develops on saturated, nutrient poor, organic
soils (peat) of the Coastal Plain.
Pond pine ( Pinus serotina)
Loblolly bay ( Gordonia lasianthus )
Pond cypress ( Taxodium ascendens )
Swamp tupelo (Nyssa biflora )
Red bay ( Persea borbonia)
Sweet bay ( Magnolia virginiana)
Wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera )
Red maple ( Acer rubrum)
Dahoon ( Ilex cassine)
Fetterbush ( Lyonia lucida)
Greenbrier ( Smilax spp. )
Bitter gallberry ( Ilex glabra )
Blueberry ( Vaccinium spp. )
Huckleberry ( Gaylussacia spp.)
Large gallberry ( Ilex coriacea )
Choke cherry (Aronia arbutifolia )
Poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans )
Jones, 1981;
Langdon et al. , 1981
Palustrine Shrub
Wet Flats (low) Characterized by non-alluvial soils with higher
fertility, these wetlands can be found on
abandoned rice fields within South Carolina's
Coastal Plain.
Sweetgum ( Liquidambar styraciflua)
Red maple ( Acer rubrum)
Water oak ( Quercus nigra)
Laurel oak ( Quercus laurifolia )
Willow oak (Quercus phellos )
Ash (Fraxinus spp. )
Loblolly pine (Pinus taeda )
Elm (Ulmus spp. )
South Carolina Forestry
Commission, 1988
Palustrine Forest
Wet Flats (high) Non-alluvial soils with better drainage. Cherry-bark oak (Quercus pagoda )
Shumard's oak (Quercus shumardii )
Swamp chestnut oak ( Quercus michauxii)
Yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera )
Hickory ( Carya spp. )
Beech ( Fagus spp. )
South Carolina Forestry
Commission, 1988
Palustrine Forest
Table 1d (continued). Wetland types of South Carolina’s Coastal Flats.
29
Habitat
Community
Description Characteristic Plant
Species
References Designation for
this study
Salt Flat or Beach Coastal flats or beaches are composed of mud or
sand found in hyper-saline conditions along the
coast or on the landward side of barrier islands.
Coastal saltgrass ( Distichlis spicata )
Annual seepweed (Suaeda linearis )
Virginia glasswort (Salicornia virginica )
Carolina sea-lavender (Limonium carolinianum)
Pit-seed goosefoot (Chenopodium berlandieri )
Halberd-leaf saltbush (Atriplex patula )
Perennial saltmarsh aster ( Aster tenuifolius)
Seashore dropseed (Sporobolus virginicus )
Nelson, 1986 Estuarine Shore
Interdunal Pond These are freshwater ponds or swales formed
between beach ridges or dunes of the outer Coastal
Zone or on barrier islands. Although these areas
are freshwater communities, the salinity of these
wetlands can vary with tidal connection and
periodicity of flooding.
Carolina mosquito fern ( Azolla caroliniana)
Duckweed ( Lemna spp.)
Bogmat ( Wolffiella floridana )
Coastal marsh-pennywort (Hydrocotyle bonar)iensis
Cattail (Typha spp.)
Sawgrass (Cladium jamaicense )
Pondweed ( Potamogeton spp.)
Climbing hempvine ( Mikania scandens )
Nelson, 1986 Palustrine Unconsolidated
Bottom (ponds)
Salt Marsh These are estuarine emergent wetlands that occur
along flat, tidally influenced areas of the coastline
or barrier islands. Salt marshes are regularly
flooded by the tides and are dominated by
relatively few salt tolerant grasses. Salt marshes
are some of the most commonly recognized
wetlands and support a variety of wildlife, fish and
shellfish.
Saltmarsh cordgrass ( Spartina alterniflora )
Saltmeadow cordgrass ( Spartina patens )
Coastal saltgrass ( Distichlis spicata )
Black needlerush (Juncus roemerianus)
Barry, 1980;
South Carolina Coastal
Council, 1982
Estuarine Emergent
Brackish Marsh Brackish marshes are found on the upland side or
edges of estuaries, tidal creeks or salt marshes.
Salinity is lower than in salt marshes as a result of
salt and fresh water mixing at the interface of the
estuarine and freshwater systems. These wetlands
are often dominated by a few plant species, most
notably Black needlerush ( Juncus roemerianus).
Black needlerush (Juncus roemerianus)
Big cordgrass (Spartina cynosuroides )
Saltmeadow cordgrass ( Spartina patens )
Seaside bulrush ( Scirpus robustus)
Swordgrass (Scirpus americanus)
Little-head spike-rush ( Eleocharis parvula)
Coastal saltgrass ( Distichlis spicata )
Cattail (Typha spp.)
Arrowhead (Sagittaria spp. )
Barry, 1980;
Nelson, 1986
Estuarine Emergent
or
Palustrine Emergent
Table 1e. Wetland types of South Carolina’s Coastal Zone.
30
South Carolina had an estimated
4,104,850 acres (1,661,880 ha) of wetlands
in 1989. Of this area, 89 percent were
freshwater, and 11 percent were estua-rine
(saltwater) wetlands. The temporal
and spatial changes of wetland area are
presented in Appendix B. Wetland area
in relation to the total land area of South
Carolina and wetland area by system
type is presented in Figure 14 a–d.
Estuarine emergent wetlands are
dominated by salt-tolerant plants
(Cowardin et al. 1979). In 1989, an
estimated 93 percent of South Carolina’s
estuarine wetlands by area were emer-gent
(Figure 15). An additional six
percent of the area of all estuarine
wetlands were tidal flats, beaches or
shorelines and one percent was domi-nated
by estuarine shrubs. The distribu-tion
of estuarine emergent wetlands
along South Carolina’s coast is shown in
Figure 16. The mean size of the estuarine
emergent marshes sampled was 71 acres
(28.7 ha). The mean size of estuarine
shrub wetlands was much smaller, 3
acres (1.2 ha). Estuarine beaches,
exposed flats or shorelines averaged
11 acres (4.5 ha) based on those areas
sampled as part of this study.
Almost all estuarine wetlands were
found in the Coastal Zone (97 percent).
However, a small portion of estuarine
wetlands (3 percent) were found to
extend into the Coastal Flats physi-ographic
region along the reaches of
tidal inlets and rivers.
Within the Coastal Zone the mean size
of the estuarine wetlands sampled was
68 acres (27.5 ha). Fifteen percent of all
vegetated estuarine wetlands were
adjacent to urban landscapes. This
percentage was composed primarily
of the salt marshes near Myrtle Beach,
Charleston, Seabrook Island, Hilton
Head and Savannah. An additional 21
percent of South Carolina’s estuarine
wetlands were adjacent to agricultural
lands, while 57 percent were adjacent
to undeveloped lands.
Results: Status,
Distribution and
Ownership of
Wetlands
Figure 14 A–D. W etland area (A) as compared to total area of the State; (B) percent by estuarine and freshwater
types; (C) estuarine covertypes; (D) freshwater covertypes.
A Total Land Area
B Total Wetlands
C Estuarine
Wetlands
D Freshwater
Wetlands
Upland 76%
Wetland 21%
Deepwater 3%
Freshwater 89%
Estuarine 11%
Emergents
93%
Flats/
Beaches 6%
Shrubs 1%
Ponds 2% Emergents 5%
Shrubs
14%
Forested
79%
31
Figure 15. Estuarine emergent wetlands along South Carolina’s coast.
32
Figure 16. Estuarine wetland distribution
along South Carolina’s coast, 1989.
Coastal
Zone
Less than 10
10 to 24
25 to 49
50 to 74
75 or more
Estimated percent
coverage
There were slightly more than 3.6 million
acres (1,457,490 ha) of freshwater wet-ands
in the State in 1989. Forested
wetlands were most prevalent, making
up 79 percent of all freshwater wetlands,
or almost 2.9 million acres (1,174,089 ha).
Forested wetlands averaged 25 acres in
size (10.1 ha), the largest mean size in
area of all freshwater wetland types.
The distribution of palustrine wetlands
by physiographic region is shown in
Table 2. The majority of freshwater
wetland area was found in the Coastal
Flats (61 percent). The Rolling Plain
contained 36 percent of all freshwater
wetlands by area. The Coastal Zone and
Appalachian Highlands had 2 and 1
percent, respectively (Figure 17). More
detailed information about the distribu-tion
of wetlands by covertype within
physiographic regions of the State is
shown in Table 3.
33
Figure 17. Palustrine (freshwater) wetland
distribution within South Carolina, 1989.
Less than 5
5 to 9
10 to 24
25 to 49
50 or more
Estimated percent
coverage
Table 2. Distribution of all palustrine wetland types by physiographic region in South Carolina as found in
this study, 1989.
Physiographic Region Estimated Area in Acres Percent CV1 Percent of Total Palustrine
Appalachian Highlands 2,351 (951.8 ha) 19 <1
Gulf Atlantic Rolling Plain 1,343,250 (543,826 ha) 9 36
Gulf Atlantic Coastal Flats 2,251,375 (911,488 ha) 5 61
Coastal Zone 64,430 (26,085 ha) 19 2
Total Palustrine 3,661,406 (1,482,351 ha) 5 100
1Percent coefficient of variation is expressed as (standard deviation/mean) * (100).
34
Table 3. Estimated acreage of wetlands by covertype classes within the physiographic regions of South Carolina,
1989.
Wetland Type
1989 Area
Percent CV1
Acres Hectares
Appalachian Highlands
Palustrine forested 1,162 471 34
Palustrine scrub/shrub 329 133 34
Palustrine emergent 313 127 50
Palustrine unconsolidated shore
Palustrine unconsolidated bottom 547 222 28
Palustrine aquatic bed
Total Palustrine wetland area for region 2,351 952 19
Total wetland area for region 2,351 952 19
Atlantic Rolling Plain
Palustrine forested 1,056,350 427,822 10
Palustrine scrub/shrub 170,422 69,021 16
Palustrine emergent 45,778 18,540 13
Palustrine unconsolidated shore 484 196 34
Palustrine unconsolidated bottom 55,859 22,623 7
Palustrine aquatic bed 927 375 42
Total Palustrine wetland area for region 1,343,250 543,826 9
Total wetland area for region 1,343,250 543,826 9
Atlantic Coastal Flats
Palustrine forested 1,793,315 726,292 6
Palustrine scrub/shrub 337,883 136,843 14
Palustrine emergent 97,405 39,449 19
Palustrine unconsolidated shore 237 96 55
Palustrine unconsolidated bottom 21,362 8,652 14
Palustrine aquatic bed 1,173 475 31
Total Palustrine wetland area for region 2,251,375 911,807 5
Estuarine intertidal scrub/shrub 859 348 61
Estuarine intertidal emergent 42,318 17,139 57
Estuarine intertidal unconsolidated shore
Total Estuarine wetland area for region 43,177 17,487 56
Total wetland area for region 2,294,552 929,294 5
Palustrine farmed 13,430 5,437 22
35
1Percent coefficient of variation is expressed as (standard deviation/mean) * (100).
Table 3 (continued). Estimated acreage of wetlands by covertype classes within the physiographic regions of
South Carolina, 1989.
Wetland Type
1989 Area
Acres Hectares Percent CV
Coastal Zone
Palustrine forested 32,238 13,056 22
Palustrine scrub/shrub 4,649 1,883 24
Palustrine emergent 23,899 9,679 41
Palustrine unconsolidated shore 505 205 55
Palustrine unconsolidated bottom 3,057 1,238 20
Palustrine aquatic bed 82 33 44
Total Palustrine wetland area for region 64,430 26,094 19
Estuarine intertidal scrub/shrub 2,912 1,179 23
Estuarine intertidal emergent 368,928 149,416 10
Estuarine intertidal unconsolidated shore 26,324 10,661 21
Total Estuarine wetland area for region 398,164 161,256 8
Marine intertidal unconsolidated shore 2,103 852 35
Total Marine wetland area for region 2,103 852 35
Total wetland area for region 464,697 188,202 6
South Carolina
Palustrine forested 2,883,065 1,167,641 5
Palustrine scrub/shrub 513,283 207,880 10
Palustrine emergent 167,395 67,795 13
Palustrine unconsolidated shore 1,226 497 29
Palustrine unconsolidated bottom 80,825 32,735 6
Palustrine aquatic bed 2,182 883 24
Palustrine farmed 13,430 5,439 22
Total Palustrine wetland area for state 3,661,406 1,482,870 5
Estuarine intertidal scrub/shrub 3,771 1,527 22
Estuarine intertidal emergent 411,246 166,555 9
Estuarine intertidal unconsolidated shore 26,324 10,661 21
Total Estuarine wetland area for state 441,341 178,743 9
Marine intertidal unconsolidated shore 2,103 852 35
Total Marine wetland area for state 2,103 852 35
Total wetland area for state 4,104,850 1,662,465 4
36
Wetlands dominated by shrubs (including
tree species under 6 m in height) made
up an estimated 14 percent of the fresh-water
wetlands. Freshwater emergent
marshes and ponds composed five and
two percent of the area respectively.
Shrub wetlands averaged 9 acres (3.6 ha)
in size, freshwater emergent marshes
averaged 5 acres (2.0 ha) and ponds 2
acres (0.8 ha). The average size and
range by freshwater wetland types are
presented in Table 4.
The concentration of forested wetlands
in the coastal region and the relationship
between the major river systems in the
formation and maintenance of South
Carolina’s forested wetlands is illustrated
in Figure 18. Bottomland hardwood
communities located along the major
river flood plains make up a substantial
portion of South Carolina’s wetland area.
Figure 19 illustrates South Carolina’s
wetlands in relation to the State’s
physiographic regions and major river
systems. By comparison, relatively few
freshwater wetlands are located in or
adjacent to larger lakes. About 4.6
percent of all palustrine wetlands are
directly adjacent to lacustrine systems.
Freshwater wetlands are also less
common in urban landscapes. Approxi-mately
8.4 percent of South Carolina’s
palustrine wetlands are in or adjacent
to urban areas as identified by this study.
The majority of palustrine wetlands (55
percent) are found in or adjacent to
agricultural lands.
The 4,104,850 acres (1,661,880 ha) of
wetlands in South Carolina make up
approximately 21 percent of the land
surface area of the State. An additional
3 percent of the surface area or 655,700
acres (265,466 ha), are deepwater
habitats. About 10 percent of the total
land area in South Carolina is in public
(State or Federal) ownership. Federal
land holdings include 1,198,600 acres
(485,263 ha) and the State owns another
825,700 acres (334,290 ha).
About 17.1 percent of the Federal land
holdings are wetlands. This is approxi-mately
5.0 percent of South Carolina’s
total wetland acreage. Another 14.7
percent of the State-owned lands are
wetland, or about 2.9 percent of the
State’s total wetland area. Over 91.0
percent of South Carolina’s wetland
acreage is in private ownership. Table 5
details the wetland area by respective
reserves and publicly-owned units within
the State.
Table 4. Average area and size range of palustrine wetlands as they appeared within the
sample units for South Carolina in 1989.
Wetland Type Mean (acres) Range (acres)
Palustrine forest 25 (10.0 ha) <1 to >2200 (0.4 – 891 ha)
Palustrine shrub 9 (3.6 ha) <1 to >1600 (0.4 – 648 ha)
Palustrine emergent 5 (2.0 ha) <1 to >1300 (0.4 – 526 ha)
Freshwater ponds 2 (0.8 ha) <1 to >20 (0.4 – 8.1 ha)
Other misc. types 2 – 3 (0.8 – 1.2 ha) <1 to >17 (0.4 – 6.9 ha)
37
Figure 18. Forested wetland distribution
within South Carolina, 1989.
Figure 19. Graphic representation of wetland
resource areas in South Carolina, 1989.
Areas designated as wetland may represent a
mixture of wetland and uplands.
Less than 5
5 to 9
10 to 24
25 to 49
50 or more
Estimated percent
coverage
Reservoir
Wetland
38
Table 5. Area of reserves and publicly-owned lands that may contain wetlands in South Carolina.
Land Ownership Wetland Acres
SOUTH CAROLINA - STATE LANDS
South Carolina Park System 15,151
1,481 (lakes)
ACE Basin National Estuarine Research Reserve 11,942
North Inlet/Winyah National Estuarine Research Reserve 9,000
Heritage Trust Preserves - SC
Capers Island 2,100
Tom Yawkey Complex 17,700
Stevens Creek Natural Area ------
Eastatoe Creek Gorge 373
Bird Key-Stono 20
Victoria Bluff 1,111
Crosby Oxypolis Heritage Preserve 32
Colleton County Cowbane Preserve 32
Nipper Creek 68
Watson Tract 1,660
Bunched Arrowhead 178
Ashmore Tract 529
Cathedral Bay 58
Flat Creek/40 Acre Rock 1,436
Cartwheel Bay 568
Savannah River Bluffs ------
Tillman Sand Ridge ------
Savage Bay 77
Bennett’s Bay 679
Tilghman Heritage Preserve 456
Chandler Heritage Preserve 251
Snee Farm Heritage Preserve ------
Buzzard Roost Heritage Preserve ------
Dargan Heritage Preserve 2,387
Shealy’s Pond Heritage Preserve 62
Woods Bay Heritage Preserve 368
Lewis Ocean Bay Heritage Preserve 9,343
Glassy Mountain Heritage Preserve ------
Deveaux Bank Heritage Preserve 15
Waccamaw Bridges Heritage Preserve 453
Janet Harrison Highpond Heritage Preserve 30
St. Helena Sound Heritage Preserve 7,536
Little Pee Dee River Heritage Preserve 3,771
Great Pee Dee River Heritage Preserve 2,725
Little Pee Dee State Park Bay 301
Little Pee Dee (Ward) Heritage Preserve 269
Lynchburg Savannah Heritage Preserve 275
Pacolet River Heritage -------
Segars Heritage Preserve 400
Henderson Heritage Preserve -------
Wildlife Management Areas
Bear Island Wildlife Management Area 12,055
Donnelley Wildlife Management Area 8,048
State University System 8,100
State Owned Subtotal 121,040
39
Table 5 (continued). Area of reserves and publicly-owned lands that may contain wetlands
in South Carolina.
Land Ownership Wetland Acres
SOUTH CAROLINA -FEDERAL LANDS
Department of Agriculture
Forest Service
Francis Marion NF
Hell Hole Bay 2,125
Wambaw Creek 912
Wambaw Swamp 4,815
Little Wambaw Swamp 5,047
Remaining Forest Areas 27,101
Sumter NF 1,500
Department of Energy
Savannah River Facility 39,500
Department Interior
Park Service
Congaree Swamp Natl. Monument 15,138
Fish and Wildlife Service
Cape Romain NWR 60,745
Carolina Sandhills NWR 2,736
Santee NWR 10,425
Pinckney Island 2,795
Savannah NWR (SC portion) 9,323
4,900 (lakes)
ACE Basin NWR 11,942
Department of Defense
Charleston Naval Weapons Station 2,795
Shaw Air Force Base 3,074
Other Defense Installations ------
Federally Owned Subtotal 204,873
AUDUBON SANCTUARIES
Francis Beidler Forest 5,819
Silver Bluff Plantation 3,100
Medway Plantation 821
Alexander Sprunt, Jr. 640
McAlhany Sanctuary 370
Heritage Trust Bunched Arrowhead Preserve 140
Audubon-Newhall Nature Preserve ------
Parson’s Mountain Recreation Area ------
THE NATURE CONSERVANCY
Great Swamp and Ivanhoe Tract 473
Other holdings 7,974
Conservation Organization Subtotal 19,337
Estimated total acreage 345,250
Sources: Bebber 1988; Brunswig and Lake1991; Kane and Keeton1993; U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service1994 (b) and (c).
40
The average annual net loss of wetlands
observed was 2,920 acres (1,182 ha). Total
wetland area in South Carolina declined
by 0.5 percent from 1982 and 1989.
Palustrine forested wetlands suffered the
biggest losses, declining 5.1 percent over
the study period. Palustrine shrub wet-lands
realized the largest gains, increas-ing
by 33.4 percent (Table 6).
Loss of estuarine wetlands was minimal.
Estuarine wetlands declined 109 acres
(44 ha) during the seven year time frame
between 1982 and 1989. The average
annual loss of estuarine wetlands was 17
acres (6.9 ha). It is believed that these
minor losses were the result of coastal
erosion processes as estuarine wetlands
were converted to deep water.
Almost all of South Carolina’s wetland
losses were to freshwater classes.
Freshwater (palustrine) forested wet-lands
declined by an estimated 155,500
acres (62,956 ha). Of this total change,
13,200 forested wetland acres (5,344 ha)
were lost to upland land uses. Another
2,650 acres (1073 ha) were converted to
lacustrine deepwater through the
creation of impoundments or flooding,
while 136,500 acres (55,263 ha) were
converted to other vegetated types that
remained as wetland.
Palustrine wetlands declined by 18,800
acres (7,611 ha) from 1982–1989. An
estimated 16,900 acres (6,840 ha) were
lost to upland land uses. Overall this
represents an annual loss of 2,920 acres
(1,182 ha) of vegetated freshwater
wetlands. Loss of vegetated wetlands
was partially offset by the addition of
open water ponds. Pond area increased
by 10.5 percent (8,450 acres or 3,421 ha).
Almost half (45 percent) of this area
came at the expense of other wetland
types.
Three major activities contributed to the
loss of freshwater wetlands to uplands:
Agriculture converted an estimated 5,210
acres (2,109 ha) to upland, and an addi-tional
1,100 acres (445 ha) to farmed
wetlands. Forestry converted 5,890 acres
(2,385 ha) of wetlands to uplands, and
urbanization was responsible for 4,113
acres (1,665 ha) of wetland loss.
Collectively, agriculture, forestry and
urbanization were responsible for 81
percent of all the freshwater wetland
losses between 1982 and 1989. Agricul-tural
conversions (exclusive of farmed
wetlands) accounted for 28 percent,
forestry 31 percent and urban expansion
22 percent respectively. The remaining
losses of freshwater wetlands to uplands
were caused by rural development,
(9 percent or 1700 acres [688 ha]),
(Figure 20).
Wetlands Trends,
1982–1989
Although losses of wetlands to agricul-ture
were observed in each physi-ographic
region of the state the majority
of agricultural conversions of wetlands
occurred in the Coastal Flats and the
Rolling Plain (Piedmont). Conversion of
wetlands to silvicultural land use was
primarily restricted to the Coastal Flats.
The conversion of forested wetlands to
other wetland types (shrubs or
emergents), occurred uniformly across
the state with the exception of the
Appalachian Highlands. These activities
had a major impact on forested wetland
resources (Figure 21).
Figure 20. Change in wetlands (as a
percentage) converted to various land uses
in South Carolina between 1982 and 1989.
Urban
22%
Forestry
31%
Lakes
and Ponds
10%
Rural
Development
9%
Agriculture
28%
41
Figure 21. Conversion and loss of forested wet-land
in South Carolina, 1982-1989. This graphic
portrays both losses to upland land uses as well
as conversion of forested wetlands to other wet-land
types.
Wetland
Emergents
18,680 acres
12%
Lakes and Ponds
6,720 acres
4%
Upland Silviculture
5,340 acres
3%
Urban Development
3,160 acres
2%
Agriculture
2,480 acres
2% Rural Development
1,520 acres
1%
Other Uplands
720 acres
1%
Wetland Shrubs
116,850 acres
75%
Table 6. Estimated wetland area in South Carolina in 1982 and 1989 and the
change(s) as reported for various categories in this study.
Wetland 1982 Area 1989 Area Change in Percent
Type in Acres in Acres Acres Change
Estuarine 28,262 28,426 +165 0.6
Non-Vegetated (19) (19) (363)
Estuarine 415,291 415,017 -274 -0.1
Vegetated (9) (9) (137)
All Estuarine 443,553 443,444 -109 0.0
Wetlands (9) (9) (729)
Palustrine 73,490 82,050 +8,560 11.6
Non Vegetated (6) (6) (15)
Palustrine 169,610 167,395 -2,214 -1.3
Emergent (13) (13) (519)
Palustrine 384,864 513,283 +128,419 33.4
Scrub/Shrub (14) (10) (22)
Palustrine 3,038,551 2,883,066 -155,485 -5.1
Forested (5) (5) (16)
Palustrine 3,606,706 3,579,356 -27,350 -0.8
Vegetated (5) (5) (17)
All Palustrine 3,680,196 3,661,406 -18,790 -0.5
Wetlands (4) (5) (24)
All Wetlands 4,123,749 4,104,850 -18,899 -0.5
(4) (4) (25)
( ) Percent coefficient of variation. Percent coefficient of variation is expressed
as (standard deviation/mean) * (100).
42
Rural development was concentrated in
the Rolling Plain portion of the state but
this change in land use resulted in
comparatively small losses of palustrine
wetland area. The possible exception is
Horry County where rapid growth and
development appeared to be expanding
the incorporated regions as well as
affecting the rural areas of the county.
Here, the loss of freshwater wetlands to
unidentified or miscellaneous “other”
upland land uses was predominant
(Figure 22).
Agricultural losses were the only effects
observed in the Appalachian Highlands.
Clearly the majority of land use actions
affecting wetland area changes occurred
in the Gulf-Atlantic Rolling Plain and the
Coastal Flats. Agriculture and some
rural development activities affected the
Rolling Plain while agriculture, forestry,
urbanization and miscellaneous other
upland land uses affected the Coastal
Flats.
Losses of wetlands between 1982 and
1989 in South Carolina occurred outside
of Federal lands (Figure 23) and on the
outskirts of metropolitan areas. There
were no confirmed losses of wetland
recorded on the identified Federal lands
sampled1 . Conversion from one wetland
type to another occurred on Federal
lands.
Urban expansion converted wetlands in
various locations. Most notable occur-rences
were observed in the area around
Hilton Head, Charleston and North
Charleston and in the vicinity of Myrtle
Beach and Columbia, South Carolina
(Figure 24).
1Not all Federal ownership or boundaries
are known.
Figure 22. An example of wetland loss to “other upland” land use in Horry County, South Carolina.
43
Figure 23. An illustration of major Federal
land units in South Carolina. No wetland
losses were observed within Federal land
holdings between 1982 and 1989. Parcels of
private land too small to distinguish at this
scale were included within the shaded
Federal ownship areas. The precise location
of some Federal lands was undetermined.
Figure 24. Metropolitan (urban) lands in
South Carolina (yellow). Losses of wetland to
upland urban development were observed in
those areas indicated in red.
Cowpens
National
Battlefield
Fort
Jackson
Shaw Air Force Base
Charleston
Air Force
Base
Charleston
Naval
Weapons
Station
Myrtle Beach
Air Force Base
Carolina Sandhills
National Wildlife
Refuge
Savannah
National Wildlife
Refuge
Congaree
Swamp
National
Monument
Francis
Marion
National
Forest
Santee National
Wildlife Refuge
Cape Romain
National Wildlife
Refuge
Fort Sumter
National
Monument
Sumter
National
Forest
Ninety Six
National
Historic
Site
Sumter
National
Forest
Savannah
River
Plant
Sumter
National
Forest
Kings
Mountain
National
Military
Park
ACE
Basin
NWR ACE
Basin
NWR
ACE
Basin
NWR
ACE
Basin
NWR
Pickney
Island
NWR
Parris Island
Marine Corps
Recruit Depot
Beaufort
Marine Corps
Air Station
Federal lands
Greenville
Columbia Florence
Moncks
Corner
Myrtle
Beach
Complex
Charleston
Beaufort
Hilton Head Island
Wetland loss 1983–1989
Population centers
44
Hefner et al. (1994) reported that wet-land
losses to upland in South Carolina
were an estimated 6,100 acres (2,470 ha.)
per year between 1972 and 1982. Find-ings
from the present study indicate that
this rate of loss has slowed. Based on
data collected between 1982 and 1989,
the annual wetland losses to upland were
2,920 acres (1,182 ha). This represents a
48 percent reduction in the annual rate
of wetland loss.
Agriculture
From 1972 to 1982 agriculture was
responsible for 41 percent of the wetland
losses (Hefner et al. 1994). From 1982 to
1989 agriculture was responsible for 28
percent of the losses. This in combination
with an overall reduction in the wetland
loss rate for the State means that
wetlands in agricultural areas have fared
much better since the mid-1980s. This
may have been related to agricultural
programs that promote wetland conser-vation
and disincentives for wetland
drainage that have been in place since
passage of the 1985 Food Security Act
(Farm Bill).
During this study period, an estimated
2,520 acres (1,020 ha) of forested wet-lands,
2,950 acres (1,194 ha) of palustrine
shrub wetlands and 2,260 acres (915 ha)
of palustrine emergent wetlands were
lost to upland agriculture. Over 1,100
acres (445 ha) of vegetated wetlands
were also converted to farmed wetlands.
Logging and Forestry
Although losses of wetlands due to agri-cultural
activities have declined substan-tially,
freshwater forested wetland area
has been greatly reduced apparently
resulting from silviculture and other
logging and forestry practices2 . Overall,
forestry practices accounted for 31
percent of the total wetland losses
between 1982 and 1989.
Freshwater forested wetlands declined
by 125,000 acres (50,600 ha.) between
1972 and 1982.
2 This study did not differentiate between
silvicultural operations and other clear
cutting or logging operations involved in
the removal of forest cover.
Thirty-three percent (4,170 acres or
1,690 ha.) of this area was converted to
upland land uses (Hefner et al. 1994).
From 1982 to 1989, forested wetlands
diminished by 155,500 acres (62,960 ha.).
While the loss of forested wetland to
uplands either through drainage or
filling, decreased from 4,170 acres (1,690
ha.) per year to an estimated 2,035 acres
(824 ha.) per year, the amount of forested
wetland area that changed increased
from 12,500 acres (5,060 ha.) per year to
24,000 acres (9,714 ha.) per year. This is
twice the area of wetland forests affected
as compared to the previous study
conducted by Hefner et al.(1994).
Of the forested wetlands lost to upland
land uses, 40 percent or 5,340 acres
(2,160 ha) were lost to upland-managed
pine plantations. Another 2,480 acres
(1,004 ha) were drained and converted to
upland agriculture; 3,160 acres (1,280 ha)
were lost to urban expansion and 1,520
acres (615 ha) were lost to rural develop-ment.
Unidentified upland land uses were
responsible for 720 acres (291 ha) of
forested wetland losses. Similar trends
have been reported for the Edisto River
Basin where conversion of natural forest
and agricultural land to planted loblolly
pine has occurred at a very rapid rate
(Marshall 1993).
Eighty-seven percent of the wetland
forests where the trees were removed
between 1982 and 1989 remained as
another type of vegetated wetland.
Seventy-five percent were re-classified as
wetland shrubs and another 12 percent
were wetland emergents. Figure 25
shows an area that had been wetland
forest and is now re-classified as wetland
emergents. An additional four percent
(6,720 acres or 2,720 ha) were converted
to lakes or ponds. Some of this conver-sion
may have resulted from beaver
impounding an area and drowning the
trees. Other conversions result from
man’s activities by either creating new
impoundments, holding ponds or by
raising the water levels on existing
impoundments and killing the trees
(Tansey and Cost 1990).
Throughout the southeastern United
States about 24 percent of the forest
lands are owned or leased by the forest
industry, largely for pulp and paper
Discussion of
Wetland Trends
45
production and processing (McKnight et
al. 1981). During the 1940s a technologi-cal
innovation for processing young pine
trees to make them suitable for news-print
had an effect on forestry operations
throughout the southeastern United
States. This development shifted pulp-wood
production from the northern
states to the south and formed the basis
for current forestry management
practices. In 1980 pulpwood accounted
for 75 percent of all the timber cut in
South Carolina, the majority of it being
pine trees (Kovacik and Winberry 1987).
Although bottomland hardwood and
cypress trees produce valuable timber
products, and continue to contribute
substantially to the economy of the
region (Langdon et al. 1981), they are
fairly slow to regenerate and mature.
The average rotation age of bottomland-cypress
forests in the southern U.S. is
about 65 years (Langdon et al. 1981).
Conversely, pines replanted in the same
areas and intensively managed with
fertilizer and herbicide applications can
attain a rotation age of 17 years in south-ern
Georgia (Larry Mallard, Okefenokee
National Wildlife Refuge, personal
communication).
Maximum timber production with as
short a harvest rotation as possible is
the goal for commercial timber indus-tries.
For pulp and paper products
industry this can best be achieved by
the establishment of loblolly pine (Pinus
taeda) plantations (Figure 26) in combi-nation
with silvicultural management
actions (Malac et al. 1981; Allen and
Campbell 1988). These intensive forest
management techniques require the
operation of heavy equipment during site
preparation and planting, fertilizing and
thinning operations, as well as during
harvesting and slash disposal (Stenzel
et al. 1985). This is a problem in many
wetland forests in the southeast, since
sites are accessible for only 3 to 6 months
each year unless the area is drained of
excess water. This has created a dilemma
for the logging operations in the south-eastern
Coastal Plain where there are
extensive wetland areas encountered on
otherwise commercially valuable timber-lands.
The problem has been two-fold:
1) excess water limits operable season
length and impedes the heavy equipment
needed for forestry operations and 2)
limited regeneration and productivity
of pines planted on wet soils.
Figure 25. An area that had been a forested wetland one year prior to this photograph. The trees have been
removed and the area is dominated by low shrubs and emergent plants. This represents a conversion from
forested wetland to emergent wetland (Colleton County, South Carolina).
46
Initially, drainage practices alleviated
excess water problems. Forested wetland
drainage projects were initiated well
before the 1950s and continued through
the 1980s (as evidenced by this study)
in attempts to drain soils sufficiently to
increase yields on historically wet sites
(Allen and Campbell 1988). Until very
recently, normal silvicultural activities
including earthmoving, planting, seeding,
cultivating, minor drainage and harvest-ing
were exempt from Federal regulation
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(Welsch et al. 1995). In some cases drain-age
in combination with bedding was
practiced to initiate seedling regenera-tion
in wetlands. By the mid-1980s
bedding sites was viewed as essential for
the survival and rapid early growth of
pine seedlings on poorly drained soils
(Allen and Campbell 1988). These
techniques were so successful from the
forestry standpoint that some pines
exhibited height growth of 10 meters in
only 12 years (Gent et al. 1986).
During the 1980s wetland drainage
activities were being actively discouraged
and some forestry operations shifted
away from drainage practices and
embarked on water management tech-niques
to partially drain or manipulate
water levels on wet soils to facilitate
seedling survival and growth. The long-term
impact(s) of such management
actions on wetlands, especially on certain
community types (e.g. pocosins and bays)
has yet to be determined. Table 7 pre-sents
some current forest management
and harvest actions that can effect
wetlands in the southeastern United
States.
By the late 1980s South Carolina had
developed guidelines for wetland forest
operations using “Best Management
Practices” (Ice 1989; South Carolina
Forestry Commission 1988). However,
an analysis of voluntary compliance with
the Best Management Practices in South
Carolina indicated that where wetlands
and poorly drained soils were predomi-nant,
problems with Best Management
Practice implementation were apt to be
more apparent (Hook et al. 1991).
Figure 26. Managed pine plantation of
South Carolina’s coastal plain. Intensively
managed sites can obtain rapid harvest
rotations for use by the pulp and paper
industry.
47
In 1995, the Environmental Protection
Agency and the Army Corps of Engi-neers
issued guidance at the Federal
level describing Best Management
Practices to protect water quality and
hydrologic function when establishing
pine plantations in wetlands. This
guidance clarified the circumstances
under which certain silvicultural activi-ties
are allowed in forested wetlands and
outlines which mechanical silvicultural
site preparation activities require a
permit under the authority of the Clean
Water Act (U.S. Environmental Protec-tion
Agency and Department of the
Army 1995).
Whatever the reasons, the data on
forested wetlands collected as part of
this study indicate that in South Caro-lina,
forested wetlands are disappearing
at the rate of 5.4 percent per year as
Table 7. Potential timber and pulp production effects to wetlands.
Action Effect
Road construction Wetland loss; change hydrology, flow
Clearcutting Changes habitat type/conditions;
evapotranspiration differences
Fertilizers/herbicide application Adds nutrients; reduces herbaceous
competition; degrades runoff
Plantations Changes species composition
Management of existing stands Management for commercial value of forest
products
Thinning ---------
Burning Eliminates understory; adds nutrients
Bedding Changes soil saturation; allows better
growth of planted species (pines)
Patch cuttings ----------
Natural regeneration May produce less desirable forest products;
longer rotation cutting
Selective cutting Targets commercially valuable species or
stands
Drainage improvement Wetland loss; change in hydrology
Water management Changes hydrology; dewaters organic (peat)
soils; organic soil oxidation
Levee construction Wetland loss; changes periodicity of
flooding; eliminates sediment/nutrient input
Channelization Reduces or eliminates flooding
48
these areas are converted to upland
land uses and other types of wetlands.
Logging, forestry practices and forest
management may influence South
Carolina’s wetlands into the future.
Urban and Rural Development
Urbanization and rural development
contributed substantially to losses of
wetlands in certain areas of the State
between 1982 and 1989. The demands
for land for building will potentially have
an affect on South Carolina’s wetland
resources if this trend continues. Key
areas include the Hilton Head area of
Beaufort County; the Charleston and
North Charleston metropolitan complex;
the Myrtle Beach areas of Horry County
and the high growth communities of the
Rolling Plain. Figure 27 shows the
counties in South Carolina exhibiting
high population growth through 1990. It
is anticipated that conflicts between land
development interests and wetlands will
persist in these areas. By using this
demographic information in combination
with the results obtained during this
study it is possible to illustrate which
wetlands may be most vulnerable to
development pressure in the future
(Figure 28).
Urban development was the second
leading cause for the loss of forested
wetlands to upland between 1982 and
1989 (24 percent). When urban develop-ment
and rural development are com-bined
they account for 35 percent of
the palustrine forested wetlands lost to
uplands during this study. Activities that
convert wetlands to the upland urban
and upland rural development categories
should be regulated actions and fall
under Federal and/or State jurisdiction.
Figure 27. Population growth in South
Carolina counties between 1980 and 1990
(Source: U.S. Bureau of Census 1992).
Figure 28. Wetland resource areas of South
Carolina that may face future threat for
conversion to upland land uses. These areas
were determined based on the results of this
study indicating that wetlands in these
regions are generally in unincorporated
areas, on privately owned lands and subject
to development pressure based on demo-graphic
and resource data.
HAMPTON
BAMBERG
ORANGEBURG
BARNWELL
JASPER
COLLETON
WILLIAMSBURG
GEORGETOWN
CLARENDON
FLORENCE
MARION
CALHOUN
EDGEFIELD
RICHLAND
DARLINGTON
DILLON
MARLBORO
CHESTERFIELD
CHESTER LANCASTER
FAIRFIELD
NEWBERRY
SALUDA
GREENWOOD
ABBEVILLE
ANDERSON
UNION
CHEROKEE
LEE
CHARLESTON
ALLENDALE
DORCHESTER
BERKELEY
HORRY
BEAUFORT
SUMTER
AIKEN
LEXINGTON
KERSHAW
MCCORMICK
LAURENS
SPARTANBURG
YORK
GREENVILLE
PICKENS
OCONEE
10 to 19
20 to 29
30 to 39
40 or greater
Percent increase
in population
1980–1990
49
South Carolina had an estimated
4,104,850 acres (1,661,880 ha) of wetlands
in 1989. The average annual net loss of
wetlands was 2,920 acres (1,182 ha) and
total wetland area declined by 0.5
percent from 1982 and 1989.
The rate of wetland loss in South
Carolina declined by 48 percent com-pared
to the previous study period.
This was probably due to a decline in
the number of wetland acres converted
to agriculture following passage of
legislation to discourage wetland conver-sion
in the mid-1980s. Other wetland
conservation measures within the State
undoubtedly contributed to this declining
loss rate.
When all losses and gains of wetlands
were tallied, South Carolina has not
attained no-net-loss of wetland area
within the time frame of this study.
Loss of palustrine forested wetlands
continue to contribute substantially to
the loss of wetland area. To date, im-proved
forest management practices in
combination with farm land abandon-ment
and shifts away from commodity
crops such as cotton and tobacco to
growing trees are helping sustain South
Carolina’s forested resources. Future
monitoring will be necessary to deter-mine
the effectiveness of new guidance
for the Best Management Practices of
forested wetlands.
Urban expansion and development in
the rapidly growing areas of the Coastal
Flats and Gulf-Atlantic Rolling Plain may
put pressure on all natural resources in
those parts of the State. In future years
there will be an increasing challenge to
balance population and economic growth
with wetland protection.
Cooper River, South Carolina
M. Caldwell
Summary
50
Allen, H.L. and R.G. Campbell. 1988. Wet
site pine management in the South-eastern
United States. In: D.D.
Hook, W.H. McKee, Jr., H.K. Smith,
J. Gregory, V.G. Burrell, Jr., M.R.
DeVoe, R.E. Sojka, S. Gilbert, R.
Banks, L.H. Stolzy, C. Brooks, T.D.
Matthews, and T.H. Shear (eds.). The
ecology and management of wet-lands.
Vol 2. Timber Press, Portland,
OR. pp.173–184.
Anderson, J.R., E.E. Hardy, J.T. Roach
and R.E. Winter. 1976. A land use
and land cover classification system
for use with remote sensor data. U.S.
Geological Survey Professional Paper
964. U.S. Geological Survey,
Washington, D.C. 28 p.
Aulbach-Smith, C.A. and S.J. de
Kozlowski. 1990. Aquatic and Wet-lands
Plants of South Carolina. South
Carolina Aquatic Plant Management
Council in cooperation with S.C.
Water Resources Comm. 123 p.
Bailey, R.G. 1980. Description of the
Ecoregions of the United States.
USDA-Forest Service. Misc. Publica-tion
No. 1391. 77 pp.
Barry, J.M. 1980. National Vegetation of
South Carolina. Univ. of South
Carolina Press, Columbia, SC. 214 p.
Beasley, B.R. D.A. Lange, K.T. Newland
and W.C. Brittain. 1988. South
Carolina Rivers Assessment. Report
No. 164. South Carolina Water
Resources Commission, Columbia,
SC. 249 p.
Beauchamp, K.H. 1987. A history of
drainage and drainage methods. In:
Pavelis, G.A. (ed.), Farm drainage in
the United States — history, status
and prospects. Washington, D.C.,
Economic Research Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Miscella-neous
Publication No 1455,
pp. 13–29.
Bebber, T.L. 1988. South Carolina Wet-lands
Study A Component of the
State Comprehensive Outdoor
Recreation Plan. South Carolina
Dept. of Parks, Recreation, and
Tourism, Division of Engineering and
Planning. Columbia, SC. 235 p.
Brunswig, N. and K. Lake. 1991. Wildlife
Sanctuaries, National Audubon
Society Sanctuary Dept. Sharon, CT.
42 p.
Clark, J.R. and J. Benforado. 1981. Wet-lands
of Bottonland hardwood
forests. Elsevier Scientific Publishing
CO. Amsterdam. 401 p.
Colquhoun, D.J. 1974. Cyclic surficial
stratigraphic units of the middle and
lower coastal plains, central South
Carolina. In: Oaks, R.Q. DuBar, J.R.
(eds.), Postmiocene Stratigraphy
Central and Southern Atlantic
Coastal Plain, Utah Sate Univ. Press.
pp. 179–190.
Cowardin, L.M, V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and
E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of
wetlands and deepwater habitats of
the United States. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.
131 p.
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.
Dahl, T.E. and C. Johnson. 1991. Status
and trends of wetlands in the conter-minous
United States, mid 1970’s to
mid 1980’s. U.S. Department of the
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Washington, D.C. 28 p.
De Francesco, D.J. 1988. Orangeburg
County Soil Survey. U.S. Department
of Agriculture, SoilConservation
Service, Washington, D.C.
Durham, E. 1967. Woody Plants of the
Congaree Forest Swamp, South
Carolina. Ecological Studies leaflet
No. 12. The Nature Conservancy. 5 p.
Ewel, K.C. and H.T. Odum (eds). 1984.
Cypress Swamps. University of
Florida Press, Gainesville, FL 472 p.
Ferguson, R.L., L.L. Wood and D.B.
Graham. 1993. Monitoring spatial
change in seagrass habitat with aerial
photography. Photogrammetric
Engineering and Remote Sensing,
59(6): 1033–1038.
Garrett, W.E. (ed.). 1988. Historical atlas of
the United Sates. National Geo-graphic
Society, Washington, D.C.
289 p.
Gent, J.A., Jr., H.L. Allen, R.G. Campbell,
and C.G. Wells. 1986. Magnitude,
duration and economic analysis of
loblolly pine growth response follow-ing
bedding and phosphorus fertiliza-tion,
Southern Journal of Applied
Foresty 10: 124–128.
Gibson, G. (ed.). 1994. South Carolina
Statistical Abstract 1994. Office of
Research and Statistical Services,
South Carolina State Budget and
Control Board. Columbia, SC. 430 p.
Hammond, E.H. 1970. Physical subdivi-sions
of the United States of America.
In: U.S. Geological Survey. National
References Cited
51
atlas of the United States of
America. Department of the
Interior, Washington, D.C. 61 p.
Hefner, J.M., B.O. Wilen, T.E. Dahl and
W.E. Frayer. 1994. Southeast
wetlands; status and trends, mid-
1970’s to mid-1980’s. U.S. Depart-ment
of the Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 32 p.
Hook, D., W. McKee, T. Williams, B.
Baker, L. Lundquist, R. Martin and
J. Mills. 1991. A survey of voluntary
compliance of forestry best man-agement
practices in South Caro-lina
during the period 1988-1990.
South Carolina Forestry Commis-sion.
23 p. plus appendix.
Ice. G.G. 1989. The effectiveness of
silvicultural nonpoint source control
programs for several southern
states. In: D.D. Hook and R. Lea
(eds.) Proceedings of the sympo-sium:
The forested wetlands of the
southern United States. Gen. Tech.
Rept. SE-50. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service,
Asheville, NC. pp. 163–168.
Jones, R.H. 1981. A classification of
lowland forests in the northern
coastal plain of South Carolina.
M.S. Thesis. Clemson University,
Clemson, SC. 177 p.
Kane, S. and R. Keeton. 1993. Southern
National Forests. FalconPress
Publishing Co., Inc. Helena, MT in
cooperation with the Forest Ser-vice,
U.S. Department of Agricul-ture.
159 p.
Kovacik, C.F. and J.J. Winberry. 1987.
South Carolina A Geography.
Westview Press, Boulder, CO. 235 p.
Laderman, A.D. 1982. Comparative
community structure of
Charmaecyparis thyoides bog forests:
Canapoy diversity. Wetlands, Vol. 2.
pp. 216–230.
Laderman, A.D. 1989. The ecology of the
Atlantic white cedar: A community
profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service Biol. Rept. 85 (7.21). 114 p.
Langbein, W.B, and K.T. Iseri. 1960.
General introduction and hydro-logic
definitions manual of hydrol-ogy.
Part 1. General surface water
techniques. U.S. Geologocal Survey,
Water Supply Paper 1541-A. 29 p.
Langdon, O.G., J.P. McClure, D.D. Hook,
J.M. Crockett and R. Hunt. 1981.
Extent, condition, management,
and research needs of bottomland
hardwood — cypress forests in the
Southeastern United States. In: J.R.
Clark and J. Benforado (eds.).
Wetlands of bottomland hardwood
forests. Elsevier Scientific Pub. Co.
Amsterdam. pp. 71–85.
Lide, R.F., V.G. Meentemeyer, J.E. Pinder,
III. and L.M. Beatty. 1995. Hydrol-ogy
of a Carolina Bay located on the
upper Coastal Plain of Western
South Carolina. Wetlands, Vol. 15,
No. 1. pp 47–57.
Littlefield, D.C. 1995. Rice and the making
of South Carolina. S.C. Department
of Archives and History. Columbia,
SC. 38 p.
Lucas, S.E., Jr. 1980. Mills Atlas of the
State of South Carolina 1825. South-ern
Historical Press, Inc. Greenville,
SC. 43 p. plus maps.
Marshall, W.D. 1993. Assessing change in
the Edisto River Basin: An ecological
characterization. South Carolina
Water Resources Commission,
Report No. 177. Columbia, SC. 149 p.
Meador, M.R. 1996. South Carolina
Wetland Resources. In: J.D.
Fretwell, J.S. Williams and P.J.
Redman (eds.). National Water
Summary on Wetlands Resources.
U.S. Geological Survey, Water Supply
Paper 2425, Reston, VA.
pp. 345–349.
Menzel, R.G. and C. M. Cooper. 1992.
Small impoundments and ponds. In:
C.T. Hackney, S.M. Adams and W.H.
Martin (eds.). Biodiversity of the
southeastern United States-aquatic
communities. John Wiley and Sons,
Inc., NY. pp. 389–420.
McKnight, J.S., D.D. Hook, O.G. Langdon
and R.L. Johnson. 1981. Flood
tolerance and related characteristics
of trees of the bottonland forests of
the southern United States. In: J.R.
Clark and J. Benforado (eds).
Wetlands of bottonland hardwood
forests. Elsevier Scientific Pub. Co.
Amsterdam. pp. 29–69.
Nelson, J.B. 1986. The Natural Communi-ties
of South Carolina. South Caro-lina
Wildlife and Marine Resources
Dept. 55 p.
Orth, R.J., K.A. Moore and J.F. Nowak.
1990. Monitoring Seagrass distribu-tion
and abundance patterns: A case
study from the Chesapeake Bay. In:
S.J. Kiraly, F.A. Cross and J.D.
Buffington (eds.). Federal coastal
wetland mapping programs. Biol.
Rept. 90 (18). Fish and Wildlife
Service, Washington, D.C.
pp. 111–123.
Powell, D.S., J.L. Faulkner, D.R. Darr, Z.
Zhu and D.W. CacCleery. 1993.
Forest resources of the United
States, 1992. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service.
General Technical Report RM-234,
Washington, D.C. 132 p.
Reed, P.B. 1988. National list of plant
species that occur in wetlands:
South Carolina. NERC-88/18.40.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Washington, D.C.
Richardson, C.J. and J. W. Gibbons.
1993. Pocosins, Carolina Bays and
Montain Bogs. In: W.H. Martin,
S.G. Boyce and A.C. Echternacht
(eds.). Biodiversity of the south-eastern
United States-lowland
terrestrial communities. John Wily
and Sons, Inc. New York.
pp. 257–310.
Salley, A.S. Jr. 1919. The introduction of
Rice Culture into South Carolina.
Bulletins of the Historical Commis-sion
of South Carolina No. 6.
Columbia, SC. 23 p.
Sharitz, R. R. and J.W. Gibbons. 1982.
The ecology of southwestern shrub
boys (pocosins) and Carolina bays:
a community profile. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.
FWS/OBS - 82/04. 93 p.
South Carolina Coastal Council. 1982.
Understanding our coastal envi-ronment.
Charleston, SC. 40 p.
South Carolina Forestry Commission.
1988. Best management practices
for South Carolina’s Forest
Wetlands. 20 p.
South Carolina State Budget and
Control Board. 1984. South
Carolina statistical abstract. Office
of Research and Statistical Ser-vices,
Columbia, SC. 430 p.
Stenzel, G., T.A. Walbridge, Jr. and J.K.
Pearce. 1985. Logging and pulp-wood
production. John Wiley and
Sons, Inc. NY. 358 p.
Tansey, J. B. and N. D. Cost. 1990.
Estimating the forest-wetland
resource in the southeastern
United States with forest survey
data. In: B.D. Jackson (ed). Forest
Ecology and Management Vol. 33/
34, Nos. 1-4. pp. 193–213.
Taylor, J.R., M.A. Cardamore and W.J.
Mitsch. 1990. Bottomland Hard-wood
forests: their functions and
values. In: J.G. Gosselink, L.C. Lee
and T.A. Muir (eds). Ecological
Processes and Cumulative Im-pacts:
Illustrated by Bottomland
52
Hardwood Wetland Ecosystems.
Lewis Publishers, Inc. Chelsea, MI.
pp. 13–86.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1992. USA
counties: A statistical abstract supple-ment
on CD-ROM. U.S. Department
of Commerce, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1975 Soil
taxonomy: A basic system of soil
classification for making and inter-preting
soil surveys. Soil Conserva-tion
Service, Soil Survey Staff,
Agricultural Handbook 436,
Washington, D.C. 754 p.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1991.
Hydric Soils of the United States. Soil
Conservation Service, Miscellaneous
Publication Number 1491,
Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and
U. S. Department of the Army. 1995.
Memorandum to the field — Applica-tion
of best management practices to
mechanical silvicultural site prepara-tion
activities for the establishment of
pine plantations in the southeast.
Washington, D.C. 8 p.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994a.
Continuous Wetlands Trend Analysis
Project Specifications (Photointer-pretation
and Cartographic Proce-dures).
Wetland Status and Trends,
National Wetlands Inventory Center,
St. Petersburg, FL. 60 p.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994b.
Mapping Report for United States Air
Force: Shaw Air Force Base. Open
File Report, National Wetlands
Inventory Center, St. Petersburg, FL.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994c.
Mapping Report for United States
Navy: Naval Weapons Station,
Charleston, SC. Open File Report,
National Wetlands Inventory Center,
St. Petersburg, FL.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995.
Photointerpretation Conventions of
the National Wetlands Inventory,
National Wetlands Inventory Center,
St. Petersburg, FL. 60 p.
U.S. Geological Survey. 1970. The national
atlas of the United States of America.
U.S. Department of the Interior,
Washington, D.C. 417 p.
Wells, J.T. and C.H. Peterson. Date
Unknown. Atlantic and Gulf Coastal
Barriers. LA Sea Grant College
Program, LA State Univ., Baton
Rouge, LA. 15 p.
Welsch, D.J., D.L. Smart, J.N. Boyer, P.
Minkin, H.C. Smith and T. L.
McCandless. 1995. Forested
wetlands: Functions, benifits and
the use of best management
practices. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service.
NA-PR-01-95, Radnor, PA. 63 p.
Wharton, C.H., W.M. Kitchens, E.C.
Pendleton, and T.W. Sipe. 1982. The
ecology of bottomland hardwood
swamps of the Southwest: a com-munity
profile. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.
FWS/OBS–81/37. 133 p.
Wharton, C.H., V.W. Lambou, J. Newsom,
P.V. Winger, L.L. Gaddy and R.
Manake. 1981. The fauna of bottom-land
hardwoods in the Southeastern
United States. In: J.R. Clark and J.
Benforado (eds.). Wetlands of
bottomland hardwood forests.
Elsevier Scientific Pub. Co.
Amsterdam. pp. 87–160.
Williams, M. 1989. Americans and Their
Forests A Historical Geography.
Cambridge University Press. 599 p.
Winton, C.G. 1980. Breeding bird census:
virgin hardwood swamp forest.
Amer. Birds 34(1): 41–44; 50.
53
Appendix A
DEFINITIONS OF HABITAT CATEGORIES USED IN THE SOUTH CAROLINA STATUS AND
TRENDS STUDY
WETLANDS 1:
In general terms, wetlands are lands where saturation with water is the dominate factor deter-mining
the nature of soil development and the types of plant and animal communities living in
the soil and on its surface. The single feature that most wetlands share is soil or substrate that is
at least periodically saturated with or covered by water. The water creates severe physiological
problems for all plants and animals except those that are adapted for life in water or in saturated
soil.
Wetlands are lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is
usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. For purposes of this classi-fication
wetlands must have one or more of the following three attributes: (1) at least periodi-cally,
the land supports predominantly hydrophytes,2 (2) the substrate is predominantly und-rained
hydric soil,3 and (3) the substrate is nonsoil and is saturated with water or covered by
shallow water at some time during the growing season of each year.
The term wetland includes a variety of areas that fall into one of five categories: (1) areas with
hydrophytes and hydric soils, such as those commonly known as marshes, swamps, and bogs;
(2) areas without hydrophytes but with hydric soils—for example, flats where drastic fluctuation
in water level, wave action, turbidity, or high concentration of salts may prevent the growth of
hydrophytes; (3) areas with hydrophytes but nonhydric soils, such as margins of impoundments
or excavations where hydrophytes have become established but hydric soils have not yet devel-oped;
(4) areas without soils but with hydrophytes such as the seaweed-covered portions of
rocky shores; and (5) wetlands without soil and without hydrophytes, such as gravel beaches or
rocky shores without vegetation.
Marine System The Marine System consists of the open ocean overlying the continental shelf and its asso-ciated
high-energy coastline. Marine habitats are exposed to the waves and currents of the
open ocean and the water regimes are determined primarily by the ebb and flow of ocean-ic
tides. Salinities exceed 30 parts per thousand, with little or no dilution except outside
the mouths of estuaries. Shallow coastal indentations or bays without appreciable freshwa-ter
inflow, and coasts with exposed rocky islands that provide the mainland with little or
no shelter from wind and waves, are also considered part of the Marine System because
they generally support typical marine biota.
Estuarine System The Estuarine System consists of deepwater tidal habitats and adjacent tidal wetlands that
are usually semi-enclosed by land but have open, partly obstructed, or sporadic access to
the open ocean, and in which ocean water is at least occasionally diluted by freshwater
runoff from the land. The salinity may be periodically increased above that of the open
ocean by evaporation. Along some low-energy coastlines there is appreciable dilution of
sea water. Offshore areas with typical estuarine plants and animals, such as red mangroves
(Rhizophora mangle) and eastern oysters (Crassostrea virginica), are also included in the
Estuarine System.
1 Adapted from Cowardin et al. 1979.
2 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has published the list of plant species that occur in wetlands of the
United States (Reed 1988).
3 U.S. Department of Agriculture has developed the list of hydric soils for the United States
(U.S. Department of Agriculture 1991).
54
Marine and Estuarine Subsystems
Subtidal The substrate is continuously submerged by marine or estuarine waters.
Intertidal The substrate is exposed and flooded by tides. Intertidal includes the splash
zone of coastal waters.
Palustrine SystemThe Palustrine System includes all nontidal wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs,
persistent emergents, emergent mosses or lichens, farmed wetlands, and all such wetlands
that occur in tidal areas where salinity due to ocean derived salts is below 0.5 parts per
thousand. It also includes wetlands lacking such vegetation, but with all of the following
four characteristics:
(1) area less than 8 Ha (20 acres); (2) active wave formed or bedrock shoreline features
lacking; (3) water depth in the deepest part of basin less than 2 meters at low water; and
(4) salinity due to ocean derived salts less than 0.5 parts per thousand.
Classes
Unconsolidated
Bottom Unconsolidated Bottom includes all wetlands with at least 25 percent cover of parti-cles
smaller than stones, and a vegetative cover less than 30 percent. Examples of
unconsolidated substrates are: sand, mud, organic material, cobble-gravel.
Aquatic Bed Aquatic Beds are dominated by plants that grow principally on or below the surface
of the water for most of the growing season in most years. Examples include: sea-grass
beds4, pondweeds (Pontamogeton spp.), wild celery (Vallisneria americana),
waterweed (Elodea spp.), and duckweed (Lemna spp.).
Rocky Shore Rocky Shore includes wetland environments characterized by bedrock, stones, or
boulders which singly or in combination have an areal cover of 75 percent or more
and an areal vegetative coverage of less than 30 percent.
Unconsolidated
Shore Unconsolidated Shore includes all wetland habitats having two characteristics: (1)
unconsolidated substrates with less than 75 percent areal cover of stones, boulders
or bedrock and; (2) less than 30 percent areal cover of vegetation other than pio-neering
plants.
Emergent
Wetland Emergent Wetlands are characterized by erect, rooted, herbaceous hydrophytes,
excluding mosses and lichens. This vegetation is present for most of the growing
season in most years. These wetlands are usually dominated by perennial plants.
Shrub Wetland Shrub Wetlands include areas dominated by woody vegetation less than 6 meters
(20 feet) tall. The species include true shrubs, young trees, and trees or shrubs that
are small or stunted because of environmental conditions.
4 Although some seagrass beds may be evident on aerial photography, water and climatic conditions often
prevent their detection.
55
Forested Wetland Forested Wetlands are characterized by woody vegetation that is 6 meters tall or
taller.
Farmed Wetland Farmed wetlands are wetlands that meet the Cowardin et al. definition where the
soil surface has been mechanically or physically altered for production of crops, but
hydrophytes will become re-established if farming is discontinued.
DEEPWATER HABITATS:
Wetlands and deepwater habitats are defined separately because the term wetland
has not included deep permanent water bodies. For the purposes of conducting
status and trends studies, Riverine and Lacustrine are considered deepwater habitats.
Elements of Marine or Estuarine systems can be wetland or deepwater. Palustrine
includes only wetland habitats.
Deepwater Habitats are permanently flooded land lying below the deepwater of
wetlands. Deepwater habitats include environments where surface water is perma-nent
and often deep, so that water, rather than air, is the principal medium within
which the dominant organisms live, whether or not they are attached to the sub-strate.
As in wetlands, the dominant plants are hydrophytes; however, the substrates
are considered nonsoil because the water is too deep to support emergent vegeta-tion
(U.S. Department of Agriculture 1975).
Riverine System The Riverine System includes deepwater habitats contained within a channel, with
the exception of habitats with water containing ocean derived salts in excess of 0.5
parts per thousand. A channel is “an open conduit either naturally or artificially
created which periodically or continuously contains moving water, or which forms a
connecting link between two bodies of standing water” (Langbein and Iseri 1960).
Lacustrine System The Lacustrine System includes deepwater habitats with all of the following charac-teristics:
(1) situated in a topographic depression or a dammed river channel; (2)
lacking trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent mosses or lichens with greater
than 30 percent coverage; (3) total area exceeds 8 ha (20 acres). Similar wetland and
deepwater habitats totaling less than 8 ha are also included in the Lacustrine System
if an active, wave-formed or bedrock shoreline feature makes up all or part of the
boundary, or if the water depth in the deepest part of the basin exceeds 2 m (6.6
feet) at low water.
UPLANDS:
Agriculture5 Agricultural land may be defined broadly as land used primarily for production of
food and fiber. Agricultural activity is evidenced by distinctive geometric field and
road patterns on the landscape and the traces produced by livestock or mechanized
equipment. Examples of agricultural land use include: cropland and pasture, or-chards,
groves, vineyards, nurseries, cultivated lands, and ornamental horticultural
areas including sod farms, confined feeding operations, and other agricultural land
including livestock feed lots, farmsteads including houses, support structures (silos)
and adjacent yards, barns, poultry sheds, etc.
5 Adapted from Anderson et al. 1976.
56
Urban Urban land is comprised of areas of intensive use with much of the land covered by
structures (high building density). Urbanized areas are cities and towns that provide
the goods and services needed to survive by modern day standards through a Cen-tral
Business District. Services such as banking, medical and legal office buildings,
supermarkets and department stores make up the business center of a city. Commer-cial
strip developments along main transportation routes, shopping centers, contigu-ous
dense residential areas, industrial and commercial complexes, transportation,
power and communication facilities, city parks, ball fields and golf courses can also
be included in the urban category.
Forested
Plantation Forested plantations include areas of planted and managed forest stands such as
those in the Southeastern United States. Planted pines, Christmas tree farms, clear
cuts and other managed forest stands, such as Hardwood Forestry, will be included
in this category.
Rural
Development Rural developments occur in sparse rural and suburban settings outside distinct
urban cities and towns. These communities depend on urban areas for the goods
and services found in a Central Business District. They are characterized by non-intensive
land use and sparse building density. Typically, a rural development is a
cross-roads community with a corner gas station and convenience store surrounded
by sparse residential housing and agriculture. Scattered suburban communities locat-ed
outside a major urban center can also be included in this category as well as some
industrial and commercial complexes, isolated transportation, power and communi-cation
facilities, strip mines, quarries, and recreational areas such as golf courses, etc.
Major highways through rural development areas are included the rural develop-ment
category.
Other Land Use Other Land Use is composed of uplands not characterized by the previous catego-ries.
Typically these lands would include native prairie; unmanaged or non-patterned
upland forests and scrub lands; and barren land. Lands in transition may also fit into
this category.
57
Appendix B
This table presents acreage, in thousands of acres, and the estimated number of acres that changed classification between 1982 and 1989. The columns (across)
identify the 1982 classification with the column labeled “Time 1” containing the acreage totals for that year. The rows (down) identify the classification and acreage
for 1989. The row labeled “Time 2” contains the totals for 1989. The number under the acreage estimate for each entry is the percent coefficient of variation for
that estimate.
WETLAND WETLAND
TYPE M2 E1UB E2EM E2SS E2US RIV PFO PSS PEM PUS PUB PAB Pf LAC M1 AGRIC URBAN UFP URD OTHER TIME1 TYPE
M2 1442 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 793 0 0 0 0 0 2244 M2
38 . 88 . . . . . . . . . . . 83 . . . . . 38
E1UB 47 348539 301 0 820 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 349706 E1UB
71 10 35 . 38 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
E2EM 367 104 410688 317 200 0 0 5 2 0 13 5 0 11 47 4 0 0 0 0 411762 E2EM
74 56 9 50 50 . . 87 87 . 87 87 . 87 87 87 . . . . 9
E2SS 0 18 84 3424 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3530 E2SS
. 52 88 23 . . . . . . 87 . . . . . . . . . 23
E2US 2 535 161 30 25218 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 72 26018 E2US
87 41 39 87 22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 21
RIV 0 0 0 0 0 70208 0 15 36 0 0 0 0 743 0 0 0 0 0 0 71002 RIV
. . . . . 18 . 96 96 . . . . 96 . . . . . . 18
PFO 0 0 0 0 0 0 2803697 195754 18913 76 3600 429 122 2646 0 2520 3163 5342 1520 766 3038551 PFO
. . . . . . 5 11 26 66 16 69 51 52 . 34 41 42 76 51 5
PSS 4 0 0 0 0 0 78906 283811 14915 0 1515 41 275 367 0 2949 572 1333 117 60 384864 PSS
87 . . . . . 21 15 50 . 31 96 60 65 . 55 40 81 65 47 14
PEM 0 0 0 0 0 0 339 32975 129356 20 1779 15 1054 813 0 2257 297 123 246 335 169610 PEM
. . . . . . 49 21 15 76 21 72 42 60 . 29 35 65 56 47 13
PUS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 66 624 392 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1113 PUS
. . . . . . . 79 57 42 68 96 . . . . . . . . 34
PUB 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 258 2627 189 68186 519 0 25 0 143 153 0 66 178 72377 PUB
. . . . . . 95 37 18 55 7 45 . 79 . 58 71 . 69 94 6
PAB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 20 0 158 1167 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 1376 PAB
. . . . . . . 95 96 . 84 28 . . . 95 . . . . 26
Pf 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 239 87 0 15 0 11888 0 0 66 0 0 0 0 12305 Pf
. . . . . . 96 43 50 . 96 . 23 . . 52 . . . . 23
LAC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 644 177 0 0 0 220068 0 0 0 0 0 0 220890 LAC
. . . . . . . . 56 88 . . . 27 . . . . . . 27
M1 242 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 109969 0 0 0 0 0 110211 M1
87 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 . . . . . 31
AGRIC 0 0 4 0 0 0 42 97 603 31 1870 0 92 2536 0 AGRIC
. . 87 . . . 58 75 51 82 17 . 96 52 .
URBAN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 73 0 0 0 0 URBAN
. . . . . . . . . . 38 . . . .
UFP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 46 21 828 0 0 2994 0 UFP
. . . . . . . 96 78 75 20 . . 90 .
URD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 246 0 0 5 0 URD
. . . . . . . . 96 . 54 . . 96 .
OTHER 0 2 0 0 86 25 41 61 66 87 2146 0 0 6064 0 OTHER
. 87 . . 67 96 95 72 44 69 13 . . 72 .
TIME2 2103 349197 411246 3771 26324 70234 2883066 513283 167395 1225 80825 2182 13430 236272 110808 TIME2
35 10 9 22 21 18 5 10 13 29 6 2 22 26 31
58
Appendix C
This table presents the acreage estimates (first line) and the percent coefficient of variation (second line) for the acreage change occurring in combined wetland
and deepwater categories between 1982 and 1989. Estuarine totals represent the estuarine wetland types including estuarine emergents, shrubs and unconsoli-dated
shores. Deepwater totals include all lacustrine and riverine acreage estimates. Palustrine totals include the freshwater wetland types including palustrine
forest, shrub, emergent, unconsolidated shore, unconsolidated bottom and aquatic bed.
WETLAND Forested Rural Other WETLAND
TYPE Estuarine Deepwater Palustrine Marine Agriculture Urban Plantation Development Upland TIME1 TYPE
Estuarine 441942 668 29 839 4 0 0 0 72 443553 Estuarine
9 38 72 83 87 . . . 50 9
Deepwater 1167 639559 872 0 0 0 0 0 0 641598 Deepwater
33 11 45 . . . . . . 11
Palustrine 4 3851 3654127 0 7940 4186 6799 1950 1339 3680196 Palustrine
87 44 5 . 27 32 41 61 39 4
Marine 242 0 0 109969 0 0 0 0 0 110211 Marine
87 . . 31 . . . . . 31
Agriculture 4 2536 2734 0 Agriculture
87 52 17 .
Urban 0 0 73 0 Urban
. . 38 .
Forested Plantation 0 2994 909 0 Forested Plantation
. 90 19 .
Rural Development 0 5 262 0 Rural Development
. 96 52 .
Other Upland 86 6091 2401 0 Other Upland
67 72 13 .
TIME2 443444 655703 3661406 110808 TIME2
9 11 5 31
U.S. Department of the Interior
U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service
http://www.fws.gov
December 1999