RESTORATION AND CONSERVATION OF COASTAL FORESTED
WETLANDS IN THE GULF OF MEXICO
A Report Prepared For
U.S. Endowment for Forestry and Communities
Greenville, South Carolina
Prepared By
John W. Day, Jr., Ph.D.
and
Rachael G. Hunter, Ph.D.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
August 2013
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this study was to review available information on freshwater
forested wetlands (FFW) in the coastal zones (plus 25 miles) of Alabama, Florida,
Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas to identify wetland types, ecosystem functions and
services, recent and/or historical losses, ecological and environmental benefits of
restoration, and conservation and restoration opportunities. The primary objectives
and tasks associated with this project are described in more detail in Chapter One.
Much of the information for this study was found in ecosystem management plans for
Federal, state, local, and private organizations (e.g., Lake Pontchartrain Basin
Foundation, Florida Division of Forestry, Alabama Department of Conservation and
Natural Resources), but information was also found in peer-reviewed manuscripts and
agency web sites.
Freshwater forested wetlands are an important component of the coastal
ecology of states bordering the Gulf of Mexico. Dominated by baldcypress-water tupelo
swamps and hardwood wetlands, these forests reduce nutrients and sediments in
surface water that ultimately flows into the Gulf, provide wildlife habitat, protect
coastal urban areas from storm surge, retain stormwater, recharge groundwater,
support timber, fish, fur, and alligator harvests, offer opportunities for recreation, and
sequester carbon. Costanza et al. (1997) estimated the value of ecosystem services
worldwide and determined that swamps and floodplains had the second highest
economic value ($7,927 per acre per year), second only to coastal estuaries ($9,248 per
acre per year). Additional discussion on wetland functions and ecosystem services is
provided in Chapter Two.
The study area for this review included the coastal zone (plus 25 miles) of the
five states that border the Gulf of Mexico and Chapter Three includes a description and
map of the study area in each state. Baldcypress-water tupelo swamp and bottomland
hardwood wetlands are the primary FFW types in the study area. Wet pine savannah
and flatwoods are also prevalent throughout the Gulf States. Many of the baldcypress
ii
swamps underwent severe deforestation in the early part of the 20th century and
secondary growth is now threatened by changes in hydrology (e.g., impoundment),
urbanization, rising sea levels, and saltwater intrusion. Bottomland hardwood wetlands
have also been affected by changes in hydrology, as well as urbanization and agricultural
development. Modification of hydrology and fire suppression has degraded wet pine
savannahs and flatwoods. All five of the Gulf States recognize restoration of longleaf
pine habitat as a priority, but wet longleaf pine is not widespread in the study area.
Composition of FFW along the Gulf of Mexico coast (e.g., in the designated
study area) varies with substrate type, latitude, longitude, degree of freshwater input,
salinity, and aridity (Figures ES-1 and 2). Swamp forests occur in frequently flooded lowlying areas while hardwood wetlands occur in areas that are less frequently flooded.
Due to the aridity of Texas, bottomland forests are generally restricted to narrow
floodplains. Swamps occur only to a minor extent in floodplains of northern coastal
Texas and are generally absent in southern coastal Texas but they are predominant in
the Mississippi Delta, in the Mobile-Tensaw River delta, and in south Florida, west of the
Everglades. Bottomland hardwood forests are generally similar in composition
throughout the Gulf, although wetlands east and west of the Mississippi River may differ
somewhat in composition because the Mississippi marks the eastern or western limit of
distribution of several tree species. Where a shallow limestone platform supports
coastal forest in a non-estuarine environment, FFW may be wet pine savannahs and
flatwoods or coastal hardwood hammock. The FFW that dominate the study area of
each state are described in detail in Chapter Four.
iii
Figure ES-1. Coastal characteristics and forest types of the Gulf of Mexico
(Williams et al. 1999).
iv
Figure ES- 2. Coastal characteristics and forest types of the Gulf of Mexico
(Williams et al. 1999).
Freshwater forested wetland restoration and conservation is vital to the health
of the Gulf of Mexico and is important at both a large (i.e., federal and state projects)
and a small scale (e.g., individual landowners). Careful planning is valuable to the
success of any wetland restoration or enhancement project. Knowledge of the
landscape and watershed is also necessary because the surrounding area has an
v
enormous influence on how a wetland develops and functions. In general, the most
important factor in restoring and enhancing wetlands is to develop appropriate
hydrologic conditions. For most projects, multidisciplinary expertise in planning and
project supervision is necessary for successful restoration.
Restoration of baldcypress-tupelo swamps improves water quality, provides
storm protection to urban areas, offers recreation opportunities, provides wildlife
habitat, and increases carbon sequestration. A majority of swamps along the Gulf coast
are threatened by saltwater intrusion and by hydrologic alterations that cause
impoundment, restrict tree regeneration, and reduce nutrient, sediment, and
freshwater inputs. Diverting freshwater, planting seedlings or saplings, removing
impediments to surface water flow, and implementing management plans in these
wetlands are necessary to sustain them.
Hardwood wetland restoration improves water quality by reducing nutrient and
sediment concentrations in surface water flowing into adjacent water bodies. In
addition, these wetlands also support wildlife and provide recreation and economic
opportunities. Many hardwood wetlands are threatened by invasive species, alterations
in hydrology, development, and improper management. Protection from urban sprawl
and fragmentation, implementation of forest management plans and best management
practices, and removal of invasive species and impediments to surface water flow are
essential for conserving and restoring these wetlands.
Each of the five states that border the Gulf of Mexico has written an assessment
of forest resources that includes threats to FFW and strategies for management,
conservation, and restoration, and these plans are discussed in Chapter Five. Largeand small-scale projects on state-owned lands (e.g., wildlife management areas, parks,
and other parcels) are typically successful because extensive input is provided by
biologists, foresters, ecologists, and other conservation and restoration experts.
However, successful restoration and management of the numerous privately owned
FFW in the coastal areas of each state is also essential for a healthy Gulf Coast and there
are many ways that private landowners can enhance and restore FFW to maintain
vi
important ecosystem functions. These include developing a forest management plan
that will provide direction for long-term forest stewardship and incorporating best
management practices (BMPs) to avoid or minimize direct and indirect impacts from
activities that can diminish the quantity, quality, and biological diversity of FFW.
Chapter Six summarizes the information presented in this report and provides
recommendations for specific areas of FFW within each state that should be the focus of
restoration and conservation efforts.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter One. Introduction ................................................................................................. 1
Chapter Two. Wetland Functions and Ecosystem Services ............................................... 2
Wetland Functions .......................................................................................................... 2
Wetland Ecosystem Services .......................................................................................... 4
Economic Valuation .................................................................................................... 6
Chapter Three. Description of the Study Area ................................................................... 8
General Study Area ......................................................................................................... 8
Alabama .......................................................................................................................... 8
Florida ........................................................................................................................... 12
Louisiana ....................................................................................................................... 15
Mississippi ..................................................................................................................... 18
Texas ............................................................................................................................. 21
Chapter Four. Description of Freshwater Forested Wetlands......................................... 26
Coastal Freshwater Forested Wetlands (FFW) of the Gulf of Mexico .......................... 26
Multi-State Areas of Regional Priorities ....................................................................... 30
Longleaf Pine ............................................................................................................. 31
Cogongrass ................................................................................................................ 32
Alabama ........................................................................................................................ 33
Hardwood Wetlands ................................................................................................. 38
Swamps ..................................................................................................................... 40
Wet Pine Forest......................................................................................................... 40
Wet Pine Savannah, Bog ........................................................................................... 42
Florida ........................................................................................................................... 42
Swamps ..................................................................................................................... 43
Hardwood Wetlands ................................................................................................. 48
Louisiana ....................................................................................................................... 59
Swamps ..................................................................................................................... 61
viii
Hardwood Wetlands ................................................................................................. 62
Mississippi ..................................................................................................................... 67
Hardwood Wetlands ................................................................................................. 69
Swamps ..................................................................................................................... 77
Texas ............................................................................................................................. 80
Lower Coast Riparian Wetlands ................................................................................ 82
Riverine Forested Wetlands...................................................................................... 83
Coastal Flatwoods Wetlands..................................................................................... 84
Chapter Five. Restoration and Conservation ................................................................... 86
Gulf of Mexico Programs .............................................................................................. 86
RESTORE Act/Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council ........................................ 86
Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Task Force .......................................................... 87
Gulf of Mexico Program ............................................................................................ 87
Southern Forest Land Assessment............................................................................ 88
Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program ................................................. 89
Forest Legacy Program.............................................................................................. 90
Gulf Coast Joint Venture ........................................................................................... 90
Coastal Impact Assistance Program .......................................................................... 90
Regional Working Group for America’s Longleaf ..................................................... 91
NOAA Gulf Spill Restoration...................................................................................... 92
Individual State Programs ........................................................................................... 103
Alabama .................................................................................................................. 103
Florida ..................................................................................................................... 118
Louisiana ................................................................................................................. 140
Mississippi ............................................................................................................... 150
Texas ....................................................................................................................... 180
Restoration Techniques .............................................................................................. 191
Meetings with Individuals Involved in Forested Wetland Restoration and Conservation
..................................................................................................................................... 195
ix
Chapter Six. Summary and Recommendations ............................................................. 197
Summary ..................................................................................................................... 197
Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 198
Alabama .................................................................................................................. 199
Florida ..................................................................................................................... 202
Louisiana ................................................................................................................. 203
Mississippi ............................................................................................................... 205
Texas ....................................................................................................................... 208
Chapter Seven. Literature Cited ..................................................................................... 211
x
CHAPTER ONE. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this study was to review available information on freshwater forested
wetlands (FFW) in the coastal zones of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas to
identify wetland types, ecosystem functions and services, wetland losses, ecological and
environmental benefits of restoration, and conservation and restoration opportunities. There
were five primary objectives for this project, including:
1. Identify FFW types within the study area by state;
2. Acquire maps illustrating locations of FFW types by state and/or for the Gulf Coast
study area;
3. Conduct a literature review on coastal FFW in Louisiana, Texas, Alabama, Mississippi,
and Florida to describe types, ecosystem functions and services, losses, and
environmental and economic benefits of restoration;
4. Identify coastal forest conservation and restoration programs, potential coastal
forest restoration areas by program type, and critical areas for future restoration
and conservation; and
5. Produce a final report that synthesizes the compiled information.
To accomplish these objectives, the following tasks were completed, including:
1. Identify the project study area (coastal zone + 25 miles);
2. Review available information (e.g., peer-reviewed manuscripts, federal, state, and
local program web sites) for coastal FFW in the five Gulf Coast states;
3. Discuss conservation and restoration strategies with appropriate state and local
entities; and
4. Compile existing maps showing range of wetlands types and conservation and
restoration priority areas.
1
CHAPTER TWO. WETLAND FUNCTIONS AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
WETLAND FUNCTIONS
Wetland functions are the physical, chemical, and biological processes that sustain a
wetland and can be broadly grouped into biotic, hydrologic, and biogeochemical functions
(Table 2-1; Brinson 1993, Smith et al. 1995). Examples of wetland functions include providing
habitat for different animal species (biotic), groundwater recharge (hydrologic), and
denitrification (biogeochemical). Functions of a specific wetland will vary depending on the
wetland type, health, and position within a landscape (Mitsch and Gosselink 2000a). Among
the most important functions of coastal wetland forests are biogeochemical nutrient
transformations and maintenance of characteristic plant communities (Chambers et al. 2005).
Table 2-1. General forested wetland functions, related effects, and
corresponding ecosystem services (Chambers et al. 2005).
Function
Effects
Ecosystem Service
Hydrologic
Short-term surface water
Reduced downstream flood
Reduced damage from
storage
peaks
floodwaters
Long-term surface water
Maintenance of base flows,
Provides fish habitat during
storage
seasonal flow distribution
dry periods
Maintenance of high water
Maintenance of hydrophytic
Plant and animal biodiversity
table
community
Biogeochemical
Transformation, cycling of
Maintenance of nutrient
Timber production
elements
stocks within wetlands
Retention, removal of
Reduced transport of
Maintenance of water quality
nutrients, pollutants
nutrients downstream
Accumulation of organic
Retention of nutrients,
Maintenance of water quality,
matter
metals, carbon
carbon sequestration
Accumulation of inorganic
Retention of sediments, some Maintenance of water quality
sediments
nutrients
Biotic
Maintenance of
Habitat for animals and plants Biodiversity, recreation,
characteristic plant
commercial harvests
2
communities
Maintenance of
characteristic energy flow
Food web support
Biodiversity, coastal fisheries
Forested wetlands are uniquely suited to mitigate the negative impacts of nonpoint
source pollution. Wetlands reduce concentrations of nutrients, sediments, and contaminants in
surface water flowing through them (Lane et al. 2004, Day et al. 2004, Reddy and DeLaune
2008, Hunter et al. 2009). Nitrogen, in particular, undergoes numerous biogeochemical
transformations in a wetland. The reduction of inorganic nitrate to nitrogen or nitrous oxide
gas (i.e., denitrification) is important because it is a permanent removal pathway for nitrogen.
There is a wide range of denitrification rates across wetland systems indicating a differential
ability specific to the wetland (Mitsch et al. 2001). However, natural forested wetlands
generally have a high denitrification capability (Hunter and Faulkner 2001).
In contrast to nitrogen, phosphorus has no gaseous component and, therefore, will
accumulate in wetlands, primarily in the soil compartment (Faulkner and Richardson 1989). In
wetlands with mineral soils, phosphorus is adsorbed by amorphous iron and aluminum oxides
and retained in the wetland soil. In wetlands with organic soils and little oxalate-extractable
iron and aluminum, phosphate is taken up by plants and is retained by the build up of soil
organic matter (Chambers et al. 2005).
Coastal wetland forests provide important fish and wildlife habitat functions. Songbirds,
wading birds, waterfowl, raptors, reptiles, amphibians, mammals, crawfish, and fish are all
common inhabitants of forested wetlands. The actual value of any particular wetland as
habitat is dependent upon the animal species of interest and characteristics such as geographic
location and size of forest stand, connectivity of the adjacent forest stands and habitats,
landscape composition, hydroperiod, vertical structure, tree sizes and species composition.
While bottomland hardwood forests often support a high vertical and horizontal
diversity, many cypress-tupelo forests naturally have low horizontal and vertical diversity
because of frequent flooding and episodic periods of regeneration success. Even so, cypresstupelo forests often support species that are not found in higher elevation plant communities
(Wakely and Roberts 1996). The number of species, however, is affected by forest conditions.
3
Zoller (2004) found that the number of species of breeding migrant songbirds was less in forest
degraded by hydrologic changes than in healthier forests. The reduction in species was
believed to be a result of a reduction in vertical structure as the forest declined (Chambers et al.
2005).
WETLAND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
Ecosystem services are the benefits that humans and society derive from the functions
of an ecosystem and the value of these services can be quantified. Ecosystems contribute to
ecosystem services but they are not synonymous. Ecosystem processes and functions exist
regardless of whether or not humans benefit (e.g., soil formation; Boyd and Banzhaf 2007,
Granek et al. 2010). Ecosystem services only exist if they contribute to human wellbeing and
cannot be defined independently of humans, such as storm protection for human safety or built
infrastructure.
Forested wetlands provide important ecological functions that have enormous
economic values. Costanza et al. (1997) estimated the value of ecosystem services worldwide
and determined that swamps and floodplains had the second highest economic value ($7,927
per acre per year), second only to coastal estuaries ($9,248 per acre per year). Ecosystem
services of forested wetlands include timber production, commercial fish, fur, and alligator
harvests, recreation, flood storage, water quality maintenance and carbon storage (Messina
and Conner 1998).
With the loss of forested wetlands, there is a loss the services that they supply. Some of
these services are clearly accounted for by economic measures such as oil and gas production.
Others are only partially accounted for, such as timber production. For forestry, the market
value of timber includes the costs to harvest trees and bring them to market, but not the work
of the natural system in producing the trees. Other economic values of forested wetlands are
normally omitted by all economic measures. These include services such as storm protection,
water cleansing, carbon sequestration, and spiritual values. In considering the overall values of
wetland forests, the value of these ecosystem goods and services must be included.
The ecosystems that provide services are sometimes referred to as “natural capital,”
using the general definition of capital as a stock that yields a flow of services over time
4
(Costanza and Daly 1992). Often for these benefits to be fully realized, natural capital
(generally built and maintained without humans) is combined with other forms of capital that
do require human agency to build and maintain. These include: (1) built or manufactured
capital; (2) human capital; and (3) social or cultural capital (Costanza et al. 1997b).
These four general types of capital are all required in complex combinations to produce
any and all human benefits. Ecosystem services thus refer to the relative contribution of
natural capital to the production of various human benefits, in combination with the three
other forms of capital. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA 2005) classified ecosystem
services as follows:
1. Provisioning services – Ecosystem services that combine with built, human, and social
capital to produce food, timber, fiber, or other “provisioning” benefits. The production
and delivery of timber require boats and chain saws (built capital), lumberjacks (human
capital), and timber companies (social capital).
2. Regulating services - Services that regulate different aspects of the integrated system.
These are services that combine with the other three capitals to produce flood control,
storm protection, water regulation, human disease regulation, water purification, air
quality maintenance, pest control, and climate control. For example, storm protection
by forested wetlands in the Mississippi delta requires built infrastructure, people, and
communities to be protected. Due to the public good nature of these services, they are
generally not marketed but have clear value to society.
3. Cultural services – Ecosystem services that combine with built, human, and social capital
to produce recreation, aesthetic, scientific, cultural identity, sense of place, or other
“cultural” benefits. For example, to produce a recreational benefit requires a beautiful
natural asset (a cypress forest), in combination with built infrastructure (a road, trail,
dock, etc.), human capital (people able to appreciate the “swamp” experience), and
social capital (family, friends and institutions that make the forested wetland accessible
and safe). The rich and complex coastal culture of Louisiana involving food, language,
music, and unique ways of life is dependent on forested and other wetlands.
5
4. Supporting services - Services that maintain basic ecosystem processes and functions
such as soil formation, primary productivity, biogeochemistry, and provisioning of
habitat. These services affect human wellbeing indirectly by maintaining processes
necessary for provisioning, regulating, and cultural services. They also refer to the
ecosystem services that have not yet, or may never be intentionally combined with
built, human, and social capital to produce human benefits but that support or underlie
these benefits and may sometimes be used as proxies for benefits when the benefits
cannot be easily measured directly. For example, net primary production (NPP) of
forested wetlands is among the highest in the world, is an ecosystem function that
supports carbon sequestration, which combines with built, human, and social capital to
provide the benefit of climate regulation.
This categorization suggests a very broad definition of services, limited only by the
requirement of a contribution to human wellbeing. Even without any subsequent valuation,
explicitly listing the services derived from an ecosystem can help provide some recognition of
the full range of potential impacts of a given policy option. This can help make the analysis of
ecological systems more transparent and can help inform decision makers of the relative merits
of different options before them.
Economic Valuation
Costanza et al. (1997) reported on the total global value of ecosystem services, including
gas, climate, water, and disturbance regulation, water supply, erosion control and sediment
retention, soil formation, nutrient cycling, waste treatment, pollination, biological control,
refugia, food production, raw materials, genetic resources, recreation, and cultural. Coastal
forested wetlands provide all of these services. Costanza et al. (1997) also discussed economic
values of these ecosystem services. Mangroves and swamps provide very high economic value
of ecosystem services ranging from $9990 to $19580 per ha per year. The total global value of
ecosystem services reported by Costanza et al. (1997) was $33 trillion per year. This was
roughly equal to the value of the world’s economy.
6
Batker et al. (2010) reported that the value of ecosystem goods and services of the
Mississippi delta ranged from $12 to $47 billion annually. The value of the natural capital of the
delta that yields the annual flow of ecosystem goods and services was $330 billion to $1.4
trillion. Using Costanza et al. (1997), Chambers et al (2005) derived a rough estimate of value of
the specific ecosystem services of $7,927 per acre per year for swamps and floodplains. If this
value is multiplied by the 845,692 acres of swamp forest area in Louisiana, for example, then
the dollar amount is $6.7 billion per year. Based on a rate of swamp forest loss in Louisiana
(232,067 acres) annualized over 50 years (4,641 acre per year) this yields an estimated value of
$36,777,290 per year or about $1.8 billion in lost ecosystem services over 50 years.
7
CHAPTER THREE. DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA
GENERAL STUDY AREA
The area of concentration for each of the five Gulf of Mexico states was the coastal zone
plus 25 miles. The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA) defines the coastal
zone of a state as the coastal waters and adjacent shoreland, which should extend inland only
to the extent necessary to control shorelands on which activities have direct and significant
impact on coastal waters, and/or are likely to affected by or be vulnerable to sea-level rise.
Excluded from the coastal zone are those lands subject solely to the discretion of, or held in
trust by, the Federal government, its officers or agents. The basis of the study area for each
state included in this project is that state’s designated coastal zone boundary (or equivalent)
plus 25 miles. Additional areas were considered where particular wetland types extended from
the coastal zone landward.
ALABAMA
Alabama’s federally designated Coastal Area includes the continuous 10-foot contour of
Mobile and Baldwin counties seaward to the extent of state waters (Figure 3-1). Alabama's
Coastal Area Management Program (ACAMP) was approved in 1979 to regulate activities in this
area. The Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, State Lands Division,
Coastal Section is the lead agency for ACAMP. The State Lands Division is also the manager of
all undeveloped state-owned trust lands and state water bottoms, and administers the state’s
Forever Wild Land Trust.
8
Figure 3-1. Alabama Coastal Area Management Program
Coastal Area Boundary. Pink area is below 10 feet msl
(http://adem.alabama.gov/programs/coastal/default.cnt).
Based on information from the US Fish and Wildlife Service Wetland Mapper
(http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html) and the Alabama Ecoregion map (Figure 32), much of the coastal zone is flatwood. Forested wetlands in the southernmost portion of the
state are mainly palustrine, forested needle-leaved evergreen (e.g., black spruce, pond pine)
that are temporarily flooded with surface water for brief periods during the growing season or
palustrine, forested broad-leaved evergreen that have saturated soils for extended periods
during the growing season but surface water is seldom present. North of Mobile Bay the
forested wetlands are primarily palustrine, forested broad-leaved evergreen and broad-leaved
deciduous (e.g., black ash) that are semi-permanently flooded with surface water throughout
9
most of the growing season in most years (USFWS Wetlands Mapper
http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Wetlands-Mapper.html).
Figure 3-2. Ecoregions of Mobile Bay, Alabama. The light blue-green color (75a)
designates Gulf Coast Flatwoods, the darker green color (75i) designates floodplains
and low terraces, and the dark brown color (65p) designates southeastern floodplains
and low terraces. The black line designates the 10 foot contour
(http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/alga_eco.htm).
The Coastal Area is in the Mobile River watershed and the wetlands north of the Coastal
Area are in the Tombigbee and the Alabama watersheds (Figure 3-3). The Lower Tombigbee
10
River and the Alabama River converge north of Mobile Bay, with the former in the Lower
Tombigbee sub-basin and the latter in the Lower Alabama sub-basin.
Figure 3-3. Watersheds in Alabama (www.fp.auburn.edu).
The study area in Alabama for this project is the federally designated Coastal Area in
addition to the forested wetlands north of the Coastal Area boundary (Figure 3-4). These
forested wetlands are contiguous from Mobile bay north to the “heart-shaped” area where the
Mobile and Tensas rivers watersheds diverge.
11
Figure 3-4. Boundary of Alabama study area (orange line), including the federallydesignated Coastal Area and forested wetlands to the north of the Coastal Area.
FLORIDA
The Florida Coastal Management Program (FCMP) is based on a network of agencies
implementing 24 statutes that protect and enhance the state's natural, cultural and economic
coastal resources. The goal of the program is to coordinate local, state and federal agency
activities using existing laws to ensure that Florida's coast is as valuable to future generations as
12
it is today. Florida's Department of Environmental Protection is responsible for directing the
implementation of the state wide coastal management program. The FCMP was approved by
NOAA in 1981 and the coastal zone includes the area encompassed by the state's 67 counties
and its territorial seas. The FCMP consists of a network of 24 Florida Statutes administered by
eight state agencies and five water management districts.
According to an ecoregion map of Florida, the areas of Florida bordering the Gulf of
Mexico consist primarily of Gulf Coast Flatwoods and Southwestern Florida Flatwoods (Figure 35). Based on information from the USFWS Wetlands Mapper, many of the wetlands in these
flatwoods are palustrine, forested, vegetated by evergreen and deciduous plants, and with
seasonally flooded to semi-permanently flooded soils.
65p
65f
75j
65g
65f
65p
75i
75a
75a
65h
65p
75i
75i
75g
Tallahassee
65f
65f
Jacksonville
75e
75f
65o
75a
75i
75k
75a
75i
75l
75k
75k
Gainesville
75k
Level III and IV Ecoregions of Florida
75l
75c
Glenn E. Griffith1, James M. Omernik1, and Suzanne M. Pierson2
1
U.S Environmental Protection Agency
Corvallis, Oregon 97333
2
Mantech Environmental Technology, Inc.
Corvallis, Oregon 97333
Ecoregions denote areas of general similarity in ecosystems and in
the type, quality, and quantity of environmental resources. This map
depicts revisions of ecoregions, originally compiled at a relatively
small scale (Omernik, 1987), as well as subregions of those
ecoregions. Compilation of this map, performed at the larger
1:250,000-scale, was part of a collaborative project between the
United States Environmental Protection Agency Environmental
Research Laboratory-Corvallis and the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection during 1991-1993. Subsequent revisions
near the border with Alabama and Georgia were made in 1999 and
2001. However, this map should be considered an interim draft, as
further revisions are needed in Florida to make it consistent with
more recent state ecoregion projects in adjacent areas and other parts
of the U.S. The ecoregions are designed to serve as a spatial
framework for environmental resource management: the most
immediate needs are for developing regional biological criteria and
water quality standards, and for setting management goals for
nonpoint-source pollution. Explanation of the methods used to define
the ecoregions is given in Omernik, (1995), Gallant et al., (1989),
and Griffith et al., (1994).
REFERENCES
Gallant, A.L., Whittier, T.R., Larsen, D.P., Omernik, J.M., and Hughes, R.M.,
1989, Regionalization as a tool for managing environmental resources:
Corvallis, Oregon, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPA/600/3-89/060,
152 p.
Griffith, G.E., Omernik, J.M., Rohm, C.W., and Pierson, S.M., 1994, Florida
regionalization project: Corvallis, Oregon, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory,
EPA/600/Q-95/002, 83 p.
Omernik, J.M., 1987, Ecoregions of the conterminous United States (map
supplement): Annals of the Association of American Geographers, v. 77, no. 1,
p. 118-125, scale 1:7,500,000.
Orlando
65 Southeastern Plains
65f Southern Pine Plains and Hills
65g Dougherty Plain
65h Tifton Upland
65o Tallahasee Hills/Valdosta Limesink
65p Southeastern Floodplains and Low Terraces
75 Southern Coastal Plain
75a Gulf Coast Flatwoods
75b Southwestern Florida Flatwoods
75c Central Florida Ridges and Uplands
75d Eastern Florida Flatwoods
75e Okefenokee Plains
75f Sea Island Flatwoods
75g Okefenokee Swamps
75i Floodplains and Low Terraces
75j Sea Islands/Coastal Marsh
75k Gulf Barrier Islands and Coastal Marshes
75l Big Bend Coastal Marsh
75b
Lake
Okeechobee
76 Southern Florida Coastal Plain
76a Everglades
76b Big Cypress
76c Miami Ridge/Atlantic Coastal Strip
76d Southern Coast and Islands
76a
76c
76b
Miami
Level III ecoregion
Level IV ecoregion
State boundary
County boundary
Omernik, J.M., 1995, Ecoregions-a spatial framework for environmental
management, in Davis, W.S. and Simon, T.P., eds., Biological assessment and
criteria-tools for water resource planning and decision making: Boca Raton,
Florida, Lewis Publishers, p. 49-62.
76d
SCALE 1:940 000
10
20
jc/jo //disk/uber2/data/jobs/j377.jim.fl/zaml/fl_eco.aml //sanco panza/ecoregions/jobs/j377.jim.fl/fl_eco_v4.ai 4/29/2
75d
Tampa
0
20
0
40
Albers equal area projection
40 mi
80 km
Key West
Figure 3-5. Ecoregions of Florida (http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/fl_eco.htm).
13
The State of Florida has five water management districts (WMD), including Northwest
Florida, Suwannee River, St. John’s River, Southwest Florida, and South Florida (Figure 3-6). To
delineate the study area for Florida, we compiled information from the ecoregion map and the
boundaries of the five WMDs. Because this project is based on wetlands in the Gulf of Mexico,
we eliminated the St. Johns River WMD and the eastern portion of the South Florida WMD that
encompasses the Miami Ridge and Atlantic Coastal Strip. The resulting study area for this
project includes those areas in the Northwest Florida WMD, Suwannee River WMD, Southwest
Florida WMD, and the western two-thirds of the South Florida WMD (Figure 3-7). These
watersheds drain to the Gulf of Mexico. Much of south Florida drains into Florida Bay and then
into the Gulf.
Figure 3-6. Water management districts of Florida. (http://www.dep.state.fl.us).
14
Figure 3-7. Boundary of study area (orange line) in Florida, including four of the
five water management districts.
LOUISIANA
In Louisiana, the Department of Natural Resources Office of Coastal Management is
responsible for the maintenance and protection of the state’s coastal wetlands. Louisiana’s
first formal coastal zone boundary (CZB) was adopted by Act 361 of the 1978 Regular Session of
the Louisiana Legislature. In 2009-10, a proposed updated CZB was delineated based on
scientific analysis and it was approved by the Louisiana Legislature in June 2012 (Figure 3-8).
The coastal zone of Louisiana contains many types of wetlands, including fresh and saltwater
marsh, mangroves, and freshwater forested wetlands (Figure 3-9).
15
The study area for this project in Louisiana will include the entire coastal zone and a
portion of the Atchafalaya Basin that is not included in the coastal zone (Figure 3-10).
Figure 3-8. Current coastal zone boundary (yellow line) in Louisiana.
16
Figure 3-9. Ecoregions of Louisiana (http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/la_eco.htm).
17
Figure 3-10. Boundary of study area for Louisiana.
MISSISSIPPI
The Mississippi Coastal Program, approved by NOAA in 1980, is comprised of a network
of agencies with authority in the coastal zone. The Department of Marine Resources (DMR),
through the Office of Coastal Ecology, serves as the lead agency. DMR is governed by a
Commission on Marine Resources appointed by the governor. The primary authority guiding
the Coastal Program is the Coastal Wetlands Protection Act, which includes a wetlands plan
designating the allowable use of the state's tidal wetlands. The Mississippi Coastal Zone
includes the three coastal counties (Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson) as well as all adjacent
coastal waters and the barrier islands of the coast (Figure 3-11).
18
Figure 3-11. Counties in Mississippi’s designated Coastal Zone (Hancock, Harrison,
and Jackson).
Ecoregions of Mississippi’s coastal zone include Southern Pine Plains and Hills, Gulf
Coast Flatwoods, Floodplains and Low Terraces, and Gulf Barrier Islands and Coastal Marshes
(Figure 3-12). Freshwater forested wetlands in these areas are classified as palustrine forested
containing needle-leaved evergreen species or broad-leaved deciduous species. The southern
portions of Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson counties contain wetlands while the northern
portions of these counties are primarily composed of Southern Pine Plains and Hills (Figure 312). The floodplain of the Pascagoula River is classified as Southeastern Floodplains and Low
Terraces and Floodplains and Low Terraces and these wetlands will be included in the study
area to about 20 miles north of Jackson county (Figure 3-13).
19
Figure 3-12. Ecoregions of Southern Mississippi (65f = Southern Pine Plains and
Hills; 65p = Southeastern Floodplains and Low Terraces; 75a = Gulf Coast Flatwoods;
75i = Floodplains and Low Terraces; 75k = Gulf Barrier Islands and Coastal Marshes;
http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/ms_eco.htm).
20
Figure 3-13. Boundaries of study area in Mississippi.
TEXAS
The Texas Coastal Management Program (CMP), funded by NOAA, helps ensure the
long-term environmental and economic health of the Texas coast through management of the
state's coastal zone (Figures 3-14 and 3-15). The program is managed by the Texas Land
Commissioner of the Texas General Land Office.
The Coastal Zone Boundary is entirely within the Western Gulf Coastal Plain ecoregion
of Texas (Figure 3-16). This ecoregion includes coastal prairie, floodplains, barrier islands and
coastal marshes. The Western Gulf Coastal Plain extends landward quite extensively in places
and well past the designated coastal zone in most areas. However, because freshwater
forested wetlands are limited in most of coastal Texas, the study area for this project will
include those counties with all or portion of the county in the coastal zone (Figures 3-17 and 318).
21
Figure 3-14. Northern half of the Texas Coastal Zone (http://www.glo.texas.gov/
what-we-do/caring-for-the-coast/grants-funding/cmp/index.html).
22
Figure 3-15. Southern half of the Texas Coastal Zone (http://www.glo.texas.gov/
what-we-do/caring-for-the-coast/grants-funding/cmp/index.html).
23
Figure 3-16. Ecoregions of Texas (http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/tx_eco.htm).
Figure 3-17. Northern half of study area in Texas.
24
Figure 3-18. Southern half of study area in Texas.
25
CHAPTER FOUR. DESCRIPTION OF FRESHWATER FORESTED
WETLANDS
COASTAL FRESHWATER FORESTED WETLANDS (FFW) OF THE GULF OF MEXICO
Composition of FFW along the Gulf of Mexico varies with substrate type, latitude,
longitude, and aridity. Forests exist on well-drained sands (characteristic of the barrier islands
and certain stretches of mainland coast), low-lying silty sediments of river deltas throughout
the Gulf Coast, and low-lying limestone platforms in much of Florida (Williams et al 1999).
Terrell (1979) divided the coastline of the Gulf of Mexico into ten regions with different
geomorphic and hydrologic characteristics (Figures 4-1 and 4-2, Table 4-1). These
characteristics affect both the species composition of forests adjacent to the coast and if that
forest is wetland.
Bottomland hardwood forests and swamp forests exist at the mouths of most rivers
around the Gulf (Figures 4-1 and 4-2). Swamp forests, typically dominated by baldcypress
(Taxodium distichum) and water tupelo (Nyssa aquatica), occur in frequently flooded areas of
floodplains. Bottomland hardwood wetlands occur in areas that are less frequently flooded.
Due to the aridity of Texas, bottomland forests are generally restricted to narrow floodplains
and swamp forests occur only to a minor extent in floodplains of northern coastal Texas (Shew
et al. 1981). Swamp forests reach their greatest development in the Mississippi Delta and in
south Florida, west of the Everglades. Bottomland hardwood forests are generally similar in
composition throughout the Gulf, with minor variations. Most notably, palms (Sabal palmetto,
in Florida, and Sabal texana at the mouth of the Rio Grande) and other tropical tree species
become important components of wetland coastal forests at low latitudes. Additionally,
bottomland forests east and west of the Mississippi River may differ somewhat in composition.
Hydric hammocks, wetland hardwood forests in Florida that are in still-water wetlands rather
than riverine systems (Vince et al. 1989), share many species with bottomland hardwood
forests.
26
Where a shallow limestone platform supports coastal forest in a non-estuarine
environment, the forest may be pine flatwoods or a coastal hardwood hammock. The
flatwoods are dominated by slash pine (Pinus elliottii), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), longleaf pine
(Pinus palustris) and/or pond pine (Pinus serotina), and often contain an understory of saw
palmetto (Serenoa repens) (Abrahamson and Hartnett 1990). Live oak (Quercus virginiana),
southern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana var. silicicola), and cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto)
often dominate the coastal fringes of hardwood hammock (Vince et al. 1989). These systems
dominate the Big Bend region of Florida (Figure 4-1). Forest stands on the coastal margin may
exist as isolated stands on topographic highs surrounded by salt marsh. These elevated areas
may be highs in the underlying limestone platform or old Indian middens. Mangrove forests
gradually replace salt marsh from central Florida southward (Davis 1940, Figure 4-1), and from
the southern tip of Texas southward. Isolated stands of mangrove occur sporadically along the
Gulf of Mexico (Little 1976).
Table 4-1. Classification of Gulf Coast regions from Terrell (1979). See Figures
4-1 and 4-2 for locations.
Ecosystem
Texas Barrier Island System
Strandplain-Chenier Plain
Mississippi Delta
North-Central Gulf Coast
Apalachicola Cuspate Delta
Big Bend Drowned Karst
Description
Extensive lagoon system formed by drowned river mouths
and barrier islands, freshwater inflow regular on upper coast
to limited with hypersaline condition on lower coast,
marshes common along upper coast, submerged grass beds
common along lower coast, barrier islands of sand.
Extensive marsh system, freshwater inflow from several
small river systems, but lacking direct influence from
Mississippi; cheniers present.
Extensive marsh systems, barrier island system, sediments
silty, silt terrigenous, water turbid, very extensive shallows
area, extensive influence from Mississippi River
White sand beaches, clear water, extensive dune system, and
barrier island system. High-energy beaches compared to
others of the Gulf Coast.
Smooth sand beaches, mud-bottomed bays, turbid water,
barrier islands present, little or no seagrass.
Rugged shoreline, rocky bottoms, very wide shallows area,
clear water, extensive seagrass beds and marshes, high fish
production, extensive oyster bars.
27
Central Barrier Coast
Ten Thousand Islands
Florida Bay
Florida Keys
Sandy beaches with a few rocky areas, extensive marshy and
swampy areas present, narrow shallows area; Juncus sp.,
Spartina sp., or mangroves characteristic, depending on
latitude.
Coastline dominated by a multitude of small mangrove
islands and tidal channels, extremely complex, direct marine
action on the coast.
Coastline part of Everglades National Park, area of numerous
mangrove-covered islands and very extensive swamps
covering the entire southern tip of Florida. Marine influence
from Gulf of Mexico, but area is fairly protected.
Low limestone islands with pinnacle rock coasts or very
narrow shell beaches bordered with mangroves, extensive
shallow areas with soft marl or shell fragment bottoms
extending out to coral reefs, very extensive seagrass and
algal beds.
28
Figure 4-1. Coastal characteristics and forest types of the Gulf of Mexico
(Williams et al. 1999).
29
Figure 4- 2. Coastal characteristics and forest types of the Gulf of Mexico
(Williams et al. 1999).
MULTI-STATE AREAS OF REGIONAL PRIORITIES
Many of the threats to FFW (e.g., widespread development, hydrologic modification,
invasive species) are the same in all five Gulf Coast states (Table 4-2). Because the threats are
similar, states may share data and resources to control the threats. In addition strategies can
30
be developed and extended beyond state boundaries and other traditional legal jurisdictional
lines (Alabama Forest Assessment Team 2010).
Table 4-2. Regional Priorities Shared Among Alabama, Florida, Louisiana,
Mississippi, and Texas (Alabama Forest Assessment Team 2010).
Threats to Forests
AL
FL
LA
MS
Urban Growth and Development




Fragmentation and Parcelization


Changing Markets




Invasive Species




Insects and Disease


Wildfire




Catastrophic Weather Events

Air Quality


Climate Change



Specific Issues
Longleaf Pine




Cogongrass




TX









Longleaf Pine
Longleaf-dominated forest is a diverse ecosystem that historically covered millions of
acres in Alabama but is now among the most endangered ecosystems in North America (Figure
4-3). Only about three percent of pre-European settlement longleaf pine forest area (natural
stands) remains. Although pine forests comprise 41 percent of the state’s total forest cover,
only three percent of the forest is classified today as longleaf pine. Those few areas remaining
in natural condition harbor a number of rare and imperiled species, including Bachman’s
sparrow, red-cockaded woodpecker, pine snake, and gopher tortoise. Longleaf pine forests
adapted over millennia to fire triggered naturally or by Native Americans. Each stage of the
tree’s life cycle relates to fire, from the mineral soil required for seedlings to the thick bark that
provides insulation and dissipates heat. Because periodic low-intensity fires clear undergrowth,
natural longleaf forests are open, airy, grassy savannas, in contrast to dense, closed-canopy
hardwood forests (Alabama Forest Assessment Team 2010). Most of the longleaf pine in the
study area is not wet and, therefore, is not a focus of this study.
31
Figure 4-3. Historic distribution of longleaf pine in the southeastern United States (Alabama
Forest Assessment Team 2010).
Cogongrass
Cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica) is a warm-season, perennial grass that originates from
Asia. It was first introduced into the United States through Mobile in the early 1900’s as packing
material for oranges. Cogongrass is one of the 10 worst weeds in the world. It is steadily
marching through Alabama and into neighboring states (Mississippi, Louisiana, Florida, Georgia,
South Carolina, and Tennessee; Figure 4-4). This highly invasive pest permanently alters plant
and animal communities, increases fire frequency and intensity, and requires extensive
investment to control. In other areas of the world cogongrass has destroyed entire landscapes,
creating a ‘sea’ of cogongrass with no other plants. Domestic food and fiber supplies are
negatively impacted by cogongrass through reduction in wildlife food sources and killing or
injuring valuable cash crops such as corn, cotton, and trees. Cogongrass exists on rights-of-way,
forests, and agricultural, residential, commercial, and industrial areas. Because it is found in so
many areas, there is a need for a large-scale, concerted effort to effectively control it (Alabama
Forest Assessment Team 2010).
32
Figure 4-4. Distribution of cogongrass (2009) in the southeastern United States (Alabama
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources 2010).
ALABAMA
Alabama has approximately 22.9 million acres of forestland that covers 70% of the land
area of the state (Alabama Forest Assessment Team 2010). As of 2000 these forests were
estimated to be 45 percent oak, 36 percent pine, and 18 percent mixed oak-pine (Hartsell and
Brown 2001; Figure 4-5). Longleaf pine, slash pine, loblolly pine, and shortleaf pine are the
principal softwood species. Plantations comprised 24 percent of the timberland in 2000, with
loblolly pine being the principal planted tree. Dozens of hardwood species are present, with
predominant representatives including oaks and hickories of several species, sweetgum, and
yellow poplar. Pine-dominated forests are most prevalent in the Coastal Plain, but occur in all
regions. Although 5.5 million acres of forest or former agricultural land have been converted to
pine plantations, many areas that historically were dominated by pines have succeeded to
hardwoods as a result of fire suppression (Alabama Forest Resource Center 2002).
33
Figure 4-5. Alabama’s major forest types in 2000 (Alabama Forest Resources
Center 2002).
As reported in the 2001 309 assessment, the general description of wetlands in the
Alabama Coastal Area (area below the continuous 10-foot contour seaward three miles) was
dominated by non-fresh marsh (50%) and forested wetlands (34%; Figure 4-6; Alabama
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources 2010).
34
Figure 4-6. 2001 acreage for wetland types in Alabama’s Coastal Area (Alabama
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources 2010).
The coastal zone of Alabama is classified as North-Central Gulf Coast (Terrell 1979) and
most rivers and streams and many of the bays in the Alabama coastal zone are bordered by
FFW. In areas where flooding is extensive, pond cypress (Taxodium distichum var. nutans) and
swamp tupelo (Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora) dominate the canopy but with moderate flooding
the dominant tree is sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana). Red maple (Acer rubrum), swamp
tupelo, swamp bay (Persea palustris), and tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera) may also be
present. White cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides) becomes increasingly more common in
swamps along upper reaches of streams, especially in Baldwin County. The transition zone
between these FFW and upland pine-oak forests may support growth of plants adapted to
somewhat better drained conditions such as water oak (Quercus nigra), laurel oak (Q.
laurifolia), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), southern magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora), and
devilwood (Osmanthus americana; Alabama Marine Environmental Sciences Consortium 1981).
Most of the forested wetlands found in the coastal zone occur primarily within the
riverine floodplains of the Mobile-Tensaw River (MTR) Delta, located north of Mobile Bay (Stout
1990; Figure 4-7). The MTR Delta is one of the largest intact wetland ecosystems in the United
35
States and it comprises approximately 260,000 acres of wetland habitats, ranging from
submersed grass beds to cypress-gum swamps and seasonally flooded bottomland hardwoods
(Alabama Wildlife Federation 2013). The Mobile Bay Watershed is the sixth largest river basin
in the United States and the fourth largest in terms of stream flow. It drains water from threequarters of the State of Alabama, and portions of Georgia, Tennessee and Mississippi into
Mobile Bay (Manlove et al. 2002).
Figure 4-7. Forest Cover of Alabama by Forest Type Group (Alabama Forest Assessment
Team 2010). Oak/gum/cypress swamp dominates in the Mobile-Tensas (MTR) River delta.
From the mid-1970’s to the mid-1980’s, forested wetlands such as bottomland
hardwood swamps and cypress sloughs declined by 3.1 million acres in the Southeast. In
Alabama, the net loss of palustrine forested wetlands was estimated to be 42,000 acres. The
principal cause of the net wetland loss was agriculture (Hefner et al. 1994). However, within
the Mobile–Tensaw River Delta only 1,200 acres of forested wetlands were lost between 1979
and 1988 (Watzin et al. 1995). The primary causes of forested wetland loss in the extreme
upper end of the Mobile Bay Initiative area can be attributed to conversion of forested habitats
to scrub-shrub areas (e.g., clear-cutting associated with timber harvest) and
commercial/residential development (Manlove et al. 2002).
36
Ellis et al. (2008) quantified and assessed geospatial land use and land cover (LULC)
changes in Mobile and Baldwin counties between 1974 and 2008 (Figure 4-8). The most
noticeable change between 1974 and 2008 is the approximate 30% increase in urban expansion
around Mobile, Alabama.
Figure 4-8. Land cover types in Mobile Bay, Alabama in 1974 (left) and 2008
(right)(Ellis et al. 2008)
37
Figure 4-9. Composite of nine threats to Alabama forests (urban growth and
development, fragmentation and parcelization, changing markets, invasive species,
insects and disease, wildfire, catastrophic weather events, air quality, climate
change; Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources 2010).
In Alabama’s coastal zone, there are four primary types of freshwater forested
wetlands, including bottomland hardwood wetlands (natural levee, oak-dominated,
backwaters, flats), swamps (alluvial and deep alluvial), moist pine forest, and moist pine
savannah/bog (Manlove et al. 2002, Alabama Marine Environmental Sciences Consortium
1981). These wetlands are described below.
Hardwood Wetlands
When rivers exceed their banks and spread across a floodplain, coarse sediments are
deposited adjacent to the river channel and natural levees are formed. Because of the higher
elevation, growth of moderately flood tolerant tree species will occur here, including water
hickory (Carya aquatica), sugar hackberry (Celtis L.), American elm (Ulmus americana),
sweetgum, water oak, willow oak (Quercus phellos), and overcup oak ((Q. lyrata) Stout et al.
1982; Manlove et al. 2002).
Moving further laterally from the river channels, oak-dominated bottomland hardwood
forests occur in areas where temporary flooding is common. Plants found in the lower
38
hardwood swamp forest, sometimes referred to as the first bottom, include overcup and laurel
oak, water hickory, river birch (Betula nigra), red maple, and green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica), as well as cottonwood in disturbed areas. Lower hardwood swamp forests do
not stay wet during the entire growing season, nor do they flood every year (Alabama Wildlife
Federation 2013).
Between the first bottom and the uplands reside two additional habitat types:
backwaters and flats, sometimes referred to as the second bottom, and the upper hardwood
swamp – a transitional area to true uplands. Backwaters and flats are intermediate in the
elevation profile of the system. Trees include those that are common in first bottoms as well as
American elm, water oak, willow oak, sweetgum, and sycamore (Platanus L.). This habitat,
which is most prevalent in the north and central portion of the Delta and fades as you move
south towards Mobile, has standing water during less than 25% of the growing season
(Alabama Wildlife Federation 2013).
From the mid-1970’s to the mid-1980’s, forested wetlands such as bottomland
hardwood swamps and cypress sloughs declined by 3.1 million acres in the Southeast. In
Alabama, the net loss of palustrine forested wetlands was estimated to be 42,000 acres. The
principal cause of the net wetland loss was agriculture. However, within the Mobile–Tensaw
River Delta only 1,200 acres of forested wetlands were lost between 1979 and 1988 and this
loss was caused primarily by conversion of forested habitats to scrub-shrub areas (e.g., clearcutting associated with timber harvest) and commercial/residential development (Manlove et
al. 2002).
In the southwestern part of Alabama (including the coastal zone), bottomland
hardwood forests in need of special protection include black bear habitat (e.g. Hells Swamp
Creek, Sullivan Creek, Bassett Creek), maritime live oak-pine forest (critical fallout habitat for
migratory songbirds), longleaf pine forests/flatwoods/savannas and associated wet pitcher
plant seeps, dry longleaf pine-oak sandhill woodlands with gopher tortoises and/or other rare
species, riparian corridors and associated forested wetlands along ecoregional priority
river/stream reaches (e.g. Escatawpa River, Perdido River; Alabama Forest Resources Center
2002).
39
Swamps
The two types of swamps in coastal Alabama, alluvial and deep alluvial, are
distinguished by the length of flooding. Alluvial swamps have short periods of seasonal flooding
and contain a mixture of relatively flood tolerant species, including swamp tupelo, red maple,
green ash, swamp cottonwood (Populus heterophylla), and overcup oak. In addition, extremely
flood tolerant species, such as bald cypress and water tupelo, can also be found in alluvial
swamps (Stout et al. 1982; Manlove et al. 2002). Deep alluvial swamps occupy portions of the
floodplain that are flooded for prolonged periods (Stout et al. 1982). Areas where flooding is
relatively constant are dominated exclusively by bald cypress and water tupelo. Even slight
variations in soil characteristics, topography, or drainage may produce marked changes in species composition of these areas. As the depth and duration of surface flooding decreases,
additional tree species may appear including red maple, laurel oak, swamp tupelo, green ash,
sweetgum, and swamp cottonwood (Stout et al. 1982; Manlove et al. 2002).
From the mid-1970’s to the mid-1980’s, forested wetlands such as bottomland
hardwood swamps and cypress sloughs declined by 3.1 million acres in the Southeast. In
Alabama, the net loss of palustrine forested wetlands was estimated to be 42,000 acres. The
principal cause of the net wetland loss was agriculture. However, within the Mobile–Tensaw
River Delta only 1,200 acres of forested wetlands were lost between 1979 and 1988 and this
loss was caused primarily by conversion of forested habitats to scrub-shrub areas (e.g., clearcutting associated with timber harvest) and commercial/residential development (Manlove et
al. 2002).
Wet Pine Forest
Wet pine forest is prevalent in areas of low relief and poor drainage between streams.
It often forms a more or less extensive strip between floodplain swamps and upland pine-oak
forest. Despite its apparent monotony, the vegetation of moist pinelands is diverse and rich in
species. The most common tree is the slash pine (Pinus elliottii), although longleaf pine can also
grow there. The understory may be very dense, especially if fire has been prevented, consisting
40
largely of gallberrry (Ilex glabra), wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), saw palmetto, St. John’s worts,
such as Hypericum fasciculatum, and occasional sweet bay, swamp bay, and swamp tupelo.
Longleaf-dominated forest is a diverse ecosystem that was once the backbone of the
timber industry in Alabama but is now among of the most endangered ecosystems in North
America. The vast longleaf forests (Figure 4-10) have been reduced to a fraction of their former
extent (Alabama Forest Resources Center 2002).
Figure 4-10. Historic distribution of longleaf pine in
Alabama (Alabama Forest Resources Center 2002).
In 2006, the U.S. Farm Service Agency (FSA) unveiled a Conservation Reserve Program
(CRP) Longleaf Pine Initiative designed to reforest up to 250,000 acres of longleaf pine forests in
nine southern states including Alabama. In 2009, the Alabama Forestry Commission (AFC) was
awarded a $1.76 million American Recovery and Reinvestment Act grant to restore longleaf
pine on state forestlands. In 2009, The Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries Division of Alabama
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (ADCNR) was awarded a $300,000
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act grant to continue longleaf pine restoration efforts on
41
private lands in Alabama through a partnership with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Alabama
Forest Assessment Team 2010).
In the lower southwestern part of Alabama (including the coastal zone), pine forest in
need of special protection include maritime live oak-pine forest (critical fallout habitat for
migratory songbirds), longleaf pine forests/flatwoods/savannas, and associated wet pitcher
plant seeps (Alabama Forest Resources Center 2002).
Wet Pine Savannah, Bog
This habitat type is similar to the wet pine forest with an overstory of slash or longleaf
pines. However, the tree canopy is much more open and the understory more herbaceous than
shrubby. The vegetation of this habitat reflects clearing of the dominant trees and shrubs,
usually by recurrent burning. A great diversity of sedges, grasses, and other herbaceous plants
grow in the open, sunny understory of these moist pinelands. Possibly the most colorful and
unusual plants in this habitat are insectivorous plants such as the pitcher plants (Sarracenia
spp.). Other attractive and conspicuous herbs of this community include pipewort (Eriocaulon
decangulare), redroot (Lachnanthes tinctoria), golden crest (Lophiola americana), milkworts
(Polygala spp.), meadow beauties (Rhexia spp.), yellow-eyed grasses (Xyris spp.), ladies’ tresses
orchids (Spiranthes spp.), fringed orchids (Habernaria spp.), the rose crested orchids (Pogonia
ophioglossoides), and the uncommon rosebud orchid (Cleistes divaricata).
Numerous plants of the moist pinelands are included in the list of endangered and
threatened plants of the state. In the southwestern part of Alabama (including the coastal
zone), pine forest in need of special protection include longleaf pine
forests/flatwoods/savannas and associated wet pitcher plant seeps (Alabama Forest Resources
Center 2002).
FLORIDA
The freshwater forested wetlands of Florida fall into two primary categories,
cypress/tupelo swamp and hardwood forest. The cypress/tupelo swamp is dominated entirely
by cypress or tupelo, or these species are important in the canopy and there is usually a long
42
hydroperiod. Other types of swamp include dome swamp, basin swamp, strand swamp, and
floodplain swamp. The hardwood is dominated by a mix of hydrophytic hardwood trees
although cypress or tupelo may be occasional or infrequent in the canopy and the hydroperiod
is short. Types of hardwood forest include bay gall, hydric hammock, bottomland forest, and
alluvial forest (FNAI 2010).
Swamps
According to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (2005), cypress
swamps in Florida are in poor and declining condition (Figure 4-11). Approximately 1,586,941
acres of cypress swamp habitat exist in Florida, of which 44% are in existing conservation or
managed areas. Another 11% are in Florida Forever projects and 10% are in SHCA-designated
lands. The remaining 35% are other private lands.
43
Figure 4-11. Current extent (as of 2005) of cypress swamp habitat in Florida
(Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 2005).
Threats to cypress swamp habitat include conversion to agriculture, conversion to
housing and urban development, groundwater withdrawal, incompatible fire, incompatible
forestry practices, incompatible resource extraction–mining/drilling, invasive animals, invasive
plants, nutrient loads–agriculture, nutrient loads–urban, roads, and surface water withdrawal
and diversion (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 2005).
Widespread ditching and diking of this habitat and hydrologic fragmentation due to
construction of roads through and adjacent to this habitat are large sources of altered
hydrologic regime. Groundwater withdrawal for municipal and agricultural purposes has
impacted cypress wetlands in localized areas throughout Florida, but this threat is most severe
44
in portions of central Florida. Incompatible forestry practices threaten this habitat due to
physical and hydrological disturbance and the slow regeneration time of cypress trees.
Currently, most cypress harvest is of young, small-diameter trees for landscape mulch. Nearly
all cypress wetlands in unprotected lands have suffered from altered landscape context as the
surrounding uplands and wet prairies have been converted to other land uses, primarily
agriculture and urban/suburban development. In many parts of Florida, cypress wetlands are
particularly vulnerable to and have been seriously impacted by a variety of invasive plants.
Many cypress wetlands in both agricultural and urban settings receive nutrient-laden
discharges from stormwater management systems, often leading to drastic changes in
understory plant community composition and associated faunal changes. Additional threats
specific to this habitat include the numerous water control structures affecting Cypress
Swamps, particularly smaller dome swamps, statewide (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission 2005).
Table 4-3. Stresses to baldcypress swamp in Florida (Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission 2005).
Stresses
A
Altered hydrologic regime
B
Altered landscape mosaic or context
C
Altered soil structure and chemistry
D
Altered community structure
E
Altered species composition/dominance
F
Habitat destruction or conversion
G
Altered water quality of surface water or aquifer:
nutrients
H
Missing key communities, functional guilds, or seral
stages
I
Altered fire regime
J
Fragmentation of habitats, communities, ecosystems
K
Altered water and/or soil temperature
I
Habitat degradation/disturbance
Habitat Stress Rank
High
High
High
High
High
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
Table 4-4. Sources of stresses to baldcypress swamp in Florida (Florida Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission 2005).
Habitat Source Rank
Related Stresses
45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Sources of Stress
Incompatible forestry practices
Surface water withdrawal
Nutrient loads – agriculture
Invasive plants
Conversion to housing and urban
development
Invasive animals
Groundwater withdrawal
Roads
Conversion to agriculture
Incompatible vegetation harvest
Nutrient loads-urban
Incompatible fire
Incompatible resource extraction;
mining /drilling
Incompatible grazing and ranching
Incompatible agricultural practices
Management of nature-water control
structures
Statewide Threat Rank of Habitat
High
High
High
High
High
(from Table 4-3)
A,B,C,D,E,F,H
A,B,C,D,E,F
E,G
D,E
A,B
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
Low
Low
C,D,E
A,C,E
A,B,E
A,B
E
E,G
B,E
A,F
Low
Low
Low
D,E,G
A
A,B
HIGH
Dome Swamp
Dome swamp is an isolated, forested, depression wetland occurring within a firemaintained community such as mesic flatwoods. These swamps are generally small, but may
also be large and shallow. The characteristic dome shape is created by smaller trees that grow
in the shallower waters of the outer edge, while taller trees grow in the deeper water in the
interior of the swamp. Pond cypress (Taxodium ascendens) often dominates, but swamp
tupelo, may also form pure stands or occur as a co-dominant. Other canopy or subcanopy
species include red maple, dahoon (Ilex cassine), swamp bay, slash pine, sweetbay, loblolly bay
(Gordonia lasianthus), and, in South Florida, coco plum (Chrysobalanus icaco) and pond apple
(Annona glabra). Shrubs are typically sparse to moderate, but often are absent in dome
swamps with a high fire frequency or dense in swamps where fire has long been absent. Dome
swamps are most often found on flat terraces, where they develop when the overlying sand has
slumped into a depression in the underlying limestone, creating a rounded depression
connected to a shallow water table. In uplands with clay subsoils, dome swamps may occupy
46
depressions over a perched water table. Soils in dome swamps are variable but are most often
composed of a layer of peat, which may be thin or absent at the periphery, becoming thicker
toward the center of the dome. This peat layer is generally underlain with acidic sands or marl
and then limestone or a clay lens. In South Florida, dome swamps also occur on peat directly
overlying limestone (FNAI 2010).
Basin Swamp
Basin swamp is a basin wetland vegetated with hydrophytic trees and shrubs that can
withstand an extended hydroperiod. Basin swamps are highly variable in size, shape, and
species composition. While mixed species canopies are common, the dominant trees are pond
cypress and swamp tupelo. Other typical canopy and subcanopy trees include slash pine, red
maple, dahoon, swamp bay, sweetbay, loblolly bay, swamp laurel oak, sweetgum, water oak,
green ash, American hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana), and American elm. Depending on the
hydrology and fire history, shrubs may be found throughout a basin swamp or they may be
concentrated around the perimeter. This natural community typically occurs in any type of
large landscape depression such as old lake beds or river basins, or ancient coastal swales and
lagoons that existed during higher sea levels. Basin swamps exist around lakes and are
sometimes headwater sources for major rivers, such as the Suwannee. Soils are generally
acidic, nutrient-poor peats often overlying a clay lens or other impervious layer (FNAI 2010).
Strand Swamp
Strand swamp is a shallow, forested, usually elongated depression or channel situated in
a trough within a flat limestone plain, and dominated primarily by bald cypress. Smaller strand
swamps and shallow edges may instead contain pond cypress. Small, young cypress trees at
the outer edge of strand swamps grade into large old ones in the deeper interior, giving a
strand a distinctly rounded cross-sectional profile. The variable woody understory contains a
mixture of temperate and tropical elements, mainly red maple, pond apple, swamp laurel oak,
cabbage palm, strangler fig (Ficus aurea), swamp bay, sweetbay, coastal plain willow, wax
myrtle, myrsine (Rapanea punctata), and common buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis).
Strand swamp soils are peat and sand over limestone. Swamps with larger cypress and a more
diverse understory are on deep peat that acts as a wick to draw moisture from groundwater up
47
into the root zone during droughts. Swamp edges, however, often have little organic matter
over deep sand. The normal hydroperiod ranges from 100-300 days. Water levels rise with
increasing rainfall around June and then decrease to their lowest levels during winter and early
spring. Water is deepest and remains longest near the center (FNAI 2010).
Floodplain Swamp
Floodplain swamp is a closed-canopy forest of hydrophytic trees occurring on frequently
or permanently flooded hydric soils adjacent to stream and river channels and in depressions
and oxbows within floodplains. Trees are often buttressed, and the understory and
groundcover are sparse. The canopy is sometimes a pure stand of bald cypress, but more
commonly bald cypress shares dominance with one or more of the following tupelo species:
water tupelo, swamp tupelo, or ogeechee tupelo (N. ogeche). The “knees” arising from the root
systems of both cypress and tupelo are common features in floodplain swamp. Other canopy
trees capable of withstanding frequent inundation may be present but rarely dominant,
including water hickory, overcup oak, red maple, green ash, American elm, and swamp laurel
oak. Pond cypress is sometimes present in backswamps and depressions of the more
hydrologically isolated areas of the floodplain. Floodplain swamp can often occur within a
complex mixture of communities including alluvial forest, bottomland forest, and baygall. This
produces a variable assemblage of canopy and subcanopy species, with less flood tolerant trees
and shrubs found on small hummocks and ridges within the swamp. Shrubs and smaller trees
such as Carolina ash (Fraxinus caroliniana), planer tree (Planera aquatica), black willow (Salix
nigra), titi (Cyrilla racemiflora), Virginia willow (Itea virginica), common buttonbush, cabbage
palm, and dahoon may be present (FNAI 2010).
Hardwood Wetlands
Hardwood wetlands occur throughout mainland Florida (Figure 4-12) and are in good
but declining condition. As of 2005, there were 3,250,491 acres of hardwood swamp/mixed
wetland forest habitat in Florida, of which 36% were in conservation or managed areas, 8% in
the Florida Forever projects, 11% in SHCA-designated lands, and the remaining 45% are other
private lands (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 2005).
48
Figure 4-12. Distribution of hardwood wetland forests in Florida (Florida Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission 2005).
Threats to hardwood wetland habitat include conversion to agriculture, conversion to housing
and urban development, groundwater withdrawal, incompatible fire, incompatible forestry
practices, incompatible recreational activities, invasive animals, invasive plants, roads, and
surface water withdrawal and diversion (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
2005).
Table 4-5. Stresses to hardwood wetlands in Florida (Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission 2005).
49
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
Stresses
Altered hydrologic regime
Altered community structure
Altered species composition/dominance
Altered landscape mosaic or context
Habitat destruction or conversion
Fragmentation of habitats, communities, ecosystems
Missing key communities, functional guilds, or seral
stages
Altered fire regime
Altered water quality of surface water or aquifer:
nutrients
Habitat degradation/disturbance
Erosion/sedimentation
Altered soil structure and chemistry
Habitat Stress Rank
High
High
High
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
Low
Low
Table 4-6. Sources of stresses to hardwood wetlands in Florida (Florida Fish
and Wildlife Conservation Commission 2005).
Habitat Source Rank
Sources of Stress
1
Surface water withdrawal
High
2
Invasive plants
High
3
Incompatible forestry practices
High
4
Invasive animals
Medium
5
Roads
Medium
6
Incompatible fire
Medium
7
Conversion to agriculture
Medium
8
Conversion to housing and urban
Medium
development
9
New dams
Medium
10
Incompatible vegetation harvest
Low
11
Groundwater withdrawal
Low
12
Dam operations
Low
13
Management of nature-water control
Low
structures
14
Incompatible recreational activities
Low
15
Incompatible grazing and ranching
Low
16
Incompatible animal harvest
Low
Statewide Threat Rank of Habitat
HIGH
Related Stresses
(from Table 4-5)
A,C,D,F,H
B,C,H
B,C,G
B,C
A,D,E,F,H
C,H
D,E
D,E
B, C, G
B,C
A
B,C
A
C,E
C
C
50
Baygall
Baygall is an evergreen forested wetland of bay species situated at the base of a slope or
in a depression. Loblolly bay, sweetbay, and/or swamp bay form an open to dense tree canopy
and are also dominant in the understory along with fetterbush (Lyonia lucida), large gallberry
(Ilex coriacea), dahoon, myrtle dahoon (I. cassine var. myrtifolia), titi, black titi (Cliftonia
monophylla), wax myrtle, coastal doghobble (Leucothoe axillaris), swamp doghobble (L.
racemosa), red maple, Florida anisetree (Illicium floridanum), coco plum, and/or Virginia willow.
Black titi is a dominant component of baygall in the Florida Panhandle, but uncommon
in other areas. Loblolly pine, slash pine, and/or pond pine are often found in the canopy, as
well as sweetgum, and in the Panhandle, Atlantic white cedar. Wetter baygalls may also
contain swamp tupelo and/or pond cypress. The canopy and understory do not generally form
distinct strata but may appear as a dense, tall thicket. Vines, especially laurel greenbrier (Smilax
laurifolia), coral greenbrier (S. walteri), and muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia), may be abundant
and contribute to the often impenetrable nature of the understory. Herbs are absent or few,
and typically consist of ferns such as cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), netted chain fern
(Woodwardia areolata), and Virginia chain fern (W. virginica). Sphagnum mosses (Sphagnum
spp.) are common (FNAI 2010).
Baygall typically develops on wet soils at the bases of slopes, edges of floodplains, in
depressions, and in stagnant drainages. The soils are generally composed of peat with an acidic
pH (3.5 - 4.5). Seepage from uplands, rainfall, and/or capillary action from adjacent wetlands
maintains a saturated peat substrate. While baygalls are not generally influenced by flowing
water, they are often drained by small blackwater streams. Within the slough and glades marsh
communities of the Everglades in South Florida, baygall may develop on elevated islands of
peat (often called “bayheads”). Although most baygalls are small in acreage, some form large,
mature forests, often called “bay swamps” (FNAI 2010).
Hydric Hammock
Hydric hammock is an evergreen hardwood and/or palm forest with a variable
understory typically dominated by palms and ferns occurring on moist soils, often with
limestone very near the surface. While species composition varies, the community generally
51
has a closed canopy of oaks and palms, an open understory, and a sparse to a moderate
groundcover of grasses and ferns. The canopy is dominated by swamp laurel oak and/or live
oak with varying amounts of cabbage palm, American elm, sweetbay, red cedar, red maple,
sugarberry, sweetgum, and water oak. Cabbage palm is a common to dominant component of
hydric hammock throughout most of Florida. Loblolly pine may be frequent in some areas, but
slash pine is less frequently encountered. In addition to saplings of canopy species, the
understory may contain a number of small trees and shrubs.
Species composition is mainly influenced by flooding patterns. In saturated and
frequently flooded environments, hydrophytic trees such as swamp tupelo become more
abundant. Frequency and depth of inundation have a pronounced effect on oak canopy
composition as well, with saturated soils supporting more swamp laurel oak, and areas of
infrequent flooding supporting more live oak. Increased salinity is a factor often limiting certain
species. Rises in terrain as well as ecotones to mesic hammock and upland hardwood forest
induce a greater cover of upland species, specifically southern magnolia, pignut hickory (Carya
glabra), and saw palmetto.
Hydric hammock occurs on low, flat, wet sites where limestone may be near the surface
and soil moisture is kept high mainly by rainfall accumulation on poorly drained soils. Periodic
flooding from rivers, seepage, and spring discharge may also contribute to hydric conditions.
Soils are variable, usually somewhat acidic to slightly alkaline with little organic matter, and in
all cases, alkaline materials are available in the substrate (FNAI 2010).
As of 2005, only 35,341 acres of hydric hammock habitat remain in Florida, primarily in
the Big Bend region (Figure 4-13; Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 2005).
52
Figure 4-13. Location of remaining hydric hammock habitat in the Big Bend
region of Florida (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 2005).
Threats to Hydric Hammock habitat that were also identified for multiple other habitats
include climate variability and invasive plants (Table 4-7). Habitat-specific threats to Hydric
Hammock were identified because of potential military use of a new area along the Big Bend
coastline that includes significant occurrences of this habitat (Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission 2005).
Table 4-7. Stresses to hydric hammock habitat in Florida (Florida Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission 2005).
Stresses
A
Altered species composition/dominance
B
Habitat destruction or conversion
Habitat Stress Rank
High
High
53
C
D
E
F
Altered hydrologic regime
Altered community structure
Erosion/sedimentation
Altered water quality of surface water or aquifer:
nutrients
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Table 4-8. Sources of stresses to hydric hammock habitat in Florida (Florida
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 2005).
1
2
3
Sources of Stress
Sea level rise
Invasive plants
Military activities
Habitat Source Rank
High
Medium
Low
Related Stresses
(from Table 4-7)
A,B
A
A,B
Bottomland Forest
Bottomland forest is a deciduous, or mixed deciduous/evergreen, closed-canopy forest
on terraces and levees within riverine floodplains and in shallow depressions. Found in
situations intermediate between swamps (which are flooded most of the time) and uplands,
the canopy may be quite diverse with both deciduous and evergreen hydrophytic to
mesophytic trees. Dominant species include sweetgum, spruce pine (Pinus glabra), loblolly
pine, sweetbay, swamp laurel oak, water oak, live oak, swamp chestnut oak (Q. michauxii), and
sugarberry. More flood tolerant species that are often present include American elm and red
maple, as well as occasional swamp tupelo and bald cypress. Evergreen bay species such as
loblolly bay, and sweetbay are often mixed in the canopy and understory in acidic or seepage
systems. Smaller trees and shrubs often include American hornbeam, swamp dogwood (Cornus
foemina), possumhaw (Ilex decidua), dahoon, dwarf palmetto (Sabal minor), swamp bay, wax
myrtle, and highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum).
The understory is either dense shrubs with little ground cover, or open, with few shrubs
and a groundcover of ferns, herbs, and grasses. In the drier forests of this type, American holly
(Ilex opaca), Gulf Sebastian bush (Sebastiania fruticosa), and sparkleberry (Vaccinium
arboreum) may be frequent. Ground cover is also variable in composition and abundance, often
with species overlap between herbs suited to either mesic or hydric conditions. Characteristic
species include witchgrasses (Dichanthelium spp.), slender woodoats (Chasmanthium laxum),
54
and sedges (Carex spp.; FNAI 2010).
Alluvial Forest
Alluvial forest is a hardwood forest found in river floodplains on low levees, ridges and
terraces that are slightly elevated above floodplain swamp and are regularly flooded for a
portion of the growing season. The physical environment is greatly influenced by ongoing
disturbances created by a fluctuating river bed that is both eroding and depositing substrates.
Primary trees found include overcup oak, swamp laurel oak, water hickory, American elm,
green ash, water locust (Gleditsia aquatica), river birch, and red maple. A great diversity of less
flood-tolerant hardwoods or swamp species such as cypress and tupelo may also be present,
but not dominant elements. Shrubs, small trees, and vines are usually sparse or moderate in
abundance with green hawthorn (Crataegus viridis), swamp dogwood, eastern swamp privet
(Forestiera acuminata), dwarf palmetto, coastalplain willow, black willow, American hornbeam,
Hypericum spp., possumhaw, and laurel greenbrier common (FNAI 2010).
Alluvial forest occurs in river floodplains and occupies low levees along channels,
expansive flats located behind levees, low ridges alternating with swamps, and successional
point bars. It is usually intermixed with lower areas of floodplain swamp and higher areas of
bottomland forest, baygall, or upland hardwood forest. This forest develops along tertiary or
higher order streams where deposition of alluvium becomes a significant factor in floodplain
development (rather than simply erosional forces). Soils are variable mixtures of sand and
alluvial sediments that have been deposited by the current drainage system and are often
distinctly layered. Alluvial forest occupies an elevation within the broader floodplain that is
inundated seasonally from riverbank overflow for one to four months of the year during the
growing season (FNAI 2010).
Pine Flatwoods
Pine flatwoods occur on flat sandy terrain where the overstory is characterized by
longleaf pine, slash pine, or pond pine. The type of pineland habitat present is usually related
to soil differences and small variations in topography. Hydroperiod is an important factor
determining what kind of pineland is represented. Generally, flatwoods dominated by longleaf
pine occur on well-drained sites while pond pine-dominated sites occur in poorly drained areas,
55
and slash pine-dominated sites occupy intermediate or moderately moist areas. The
understory and ground cover within these three communities are somewhat similar and include
several common species such as saw palmetto, gallberry, wax myrtle, and a wide variety of
grasses and herbs (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 2005).
Threats specific to natural pinelands included the siting of utility corridors through this
habitat, particularly on public lands, which results in fragmentation and loss of habitat (Table 49, 4-10). This habitat is also threatened by conversion to more intensive land uses and
insufficient management of invasive plant species such as Japanese climbing fern.
Table 4-9. Stresses to hardwood wetlands in Florida (Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission 2005).
Stresses
A
Altered fire regime
B
Altered hydrologic regime
C
Habitat destruction or conversion
D
Altered community structure
E
Altered species composition/dominance
F
Fragmentation of habitats, communities, ecosystems
G
Insufficient size/extent of characteristic communities or
ecosystems
H
Altered landscape mosaic or context
I
Keystone species missing or lacking in abundance
J
Missing key communities, functional guilds, or seral
stages
K
Altered soil structure and chemistry
L
Excessive depredation and/or parasitism
M
Habitat degradation/disturbance
Habitat Stress Rank
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
Medium
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Table 4-10. Sources of stresses to hardwood wetlands in Florida (Florida Fish
and Wildlife Conservation Commission 2005).
Habitat Source
Sources of Stress
Rank
1
Roads
Very High
2
Conversion to housing and urban
Very High
development
3
Surface water withdrawal
High
4
Incompatible fire
High
Related Stresses
(from Table 4-9)
A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H
A,B,C,F,G,H
A,B,C,D,E,F
A,B,C,D,E,H
56
5
Conversion to commercial and industrial
development
6
Invasive plants
7
Incompatible recreational activities
8
Incompatible forestry practices
9
Groundwater withdrawal
10
Conversion to recreation areas
11
Utility corridors
12
Conversion to agriculture
13
Management of nature-water control
structures
14
Invasive animals
15
Incompatible resources extraction:
mining/drilling
Statewide Threat Rank of Habitat
High
A,B,C,D,F,G,H
High
High
High
Medium
Medium
Medium
Low
Low
A,B,D,E
A,B,C,D,E,F
A,B,C,D,E,F
A,B,D,E
A,B,C,F,G
A,B,C,D,E,F,G
H
A
Low
Low
D,E
C,F,H
Very High
Wet Flatwoods
Wet flatwoods are pine forests with a sparse or absent midstory and a dense
groundcover of hydrophytic grasses, herbs, and low shrubs. The pine canopy typically consists
of one or a combination of longleaf pine, slash pine, pond pine (P. serotina), or South Florida
slash pine (P. elliottii var. densa). The subcanopy, if present, consists of scattered sweetbay,
swamp bay, loblolly bay (Gordonia lasianthus), pond cypress, dahoon, titi, and/or wax myrtle.
Shrubs include large gallberry, fetterbush, titi, black titi (Cliftonia monophylla), sweet
pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia), red chokeberry (Photinia pyrifolia), and azaleas (Rhododendron
canescens, R. viscosum, FNAI 2010).
The current condition of wet flatwoods is poor and declining, with 3,095,165 acres
remaining in Florida (Figure 4-14). Of that total, 30% (917,949 acres) are in existing
conservation or managed areas, 7% (206,899 acres) are on private lands encompassed by
Florida Forever projects, 8% (235,176 acres) are SCHA-identified lands, and the remaining 56%
(1,735,141 acres) are within other private lands (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission 2005).
57
Figure 4-14. Current location of wet flatwoods in Florida (Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission 2005).
Threats specific to natural pinelands included the siting of utility corridors through this
habitat, particularly on public lands, which results in fragmentation and loss of habitat. This
habitat is also threatened by conversion to more intensive land uses and insufficient
management of invasive plant species such as Japanese climbing fern (Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission 2005).
Mesic Flatwoods
Mesic flatwoods is characterized by an open canopy of tall pines and a dense, low
ground layer of low shrubs, grasses, and forbs. Longleaf pine is the principal canopy tree in
northern and Central Florida, and South Florida slash pine forms the canopy south of Lake
58
Okeechobee. Although slash pine is currently more common than longleaf pine in mesic
flatwoods in northern Florida, this a result of invasion by, or planting of, slash pine after logging
of longleaf pine followed by a long period of fire exclusion in the early part of the twentieth
century. Early accounts mention slash pine only in wet flatwoods sites.
Characteristic shrubs include saw palmetto, gallberry, coastalplain staggerbush (Lyonia
fruticosa), and fetterbush. Rhizomatous dwarf shrubs, usually less than two feet tall, are
common and include dwarf live oak (Quercus minima), runner oak (Q. elliottii), shiny blueberry
(Vaccinium myrsinites), Darrow's blueberry (V. darrowii), and dwarf huckleberry (Gaylussacia
dumosa). The herbaceous layer is predominantly grasses, including wiregrass (Aristida stricta
var. beyrichiana), dropseeds (Sporobolus curtissii, S. floridanus), panicgrasses (Dichanthelium
spp.), and broomsedges (Andropogon spp.), plus a large number of showy forbs (FNAI 2010).
LOUISIANA
Freshwater forested wetlands are a prominent feature in the landscape of coastal
Louisiana (Figure 4-15) and there are two general categories: swamps and bottomland
hardwood forests. While both wetland types are formally classified as palustrine wetlands in
the Cowardin classification of the National Wetlands Inventory (Cowardin et al. 1979), swamps
are flooded for most if not all of the growing season and dominated by baldcypress,
pondcypress, and water tupelo (Penfound 1952; Mitsch and Gosselink 2000a). Bottomland
hardwoods are seasonally inundated for varying lengths of time with as many as 70 commercial
tree species depending on the hydroperiod (Putnam et al. 1960, Hodges 1997, Coastal Wetland
Forest Conservation and Use Science Working Group 2005)
The Louisiana Natural Heritage Program (2009) recognizes 15 different types of FFW in
Louisiana. These include baldcypress-tupelo swamp, baldcypress swamp, tupelo-blackgum
swamp, bottomland hardwood forest, wet hardwood flatwood, forested seep, bayhead swamp,
slash pine-cypress/hardwood forest, pine flatwood, eastern longleaf pine savannah, western
acidic longleaf pine savannah, western saline longleaf pine savannah, and small stream forest.
Of these 15 FFW all but the wet hardwood flatwood wetland occurs in the Louisiana Coastal
Zone (Louisiana Natural Heritage Program 2009).
59
According to the Louisiana Forest Inventory Analysis (FIA), there was an estimated 7.4
million acres of oak-gum-cypress forest in Louisiana in 1934. By the mid-1980s the area had
been reduced by almost 50% to 3.9 million acres (Chambers et al. 2005). Projected losses are
more than 50% of the total area by 2050 (Table 4-11).
Figure 4-15. Distribution of forested wetlands in Louisiana (Louisiana Office of
Forestry 2010).
Table 4-11. Projection of swamp forest losses in the Louisiana Deltaic Plain
(Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force 1998).
Acres of Swamp Lost by 2050 at
Basin
Acres of Swamp in 1990
Current Restoration Rates
Pontchartrain
213,570
105,100
Breton Sound
0
0
Mississippi Delta
0
0
Barataria
146,360
80,090
60
Terrebonne
Atchafalaya
Teche/Vermillion
Mermentau
Calcasieu/Sabine
Total
152,400
12,600
18,390
370
170
543,860
46,700
0
0
0
0
231,890
Swamps
Baldcypress-Tupelo Swamp
Baldcypress-tupelo swamps are forested, alluvial swamps growing on intermittently
exposed soils. The soils are inundated or saturated by surface water or ground water on a
nearly permanent basis throughout the growing season except during periods of extreme
drought. Baldcypress and tupelo gum are co-dominants. Common associates are swamp
blackgum, swamp red maple, black willow, pumpkin ash (Fraxinus profunda), green ash, water
elm (Planera aquatica), water locust, Virginia willow, and buttonbush. Undergrowth is often
sparse because of low light intensity and long hydroperiod (Louisiana Natural Heritage Program
2009).
Baldcypress Swamp
Baldcypress Swamps are forested, alluvial swamps growing on intermittently exposed
soils. The soils are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater on a nearly
permanent basis throughout the growing season except during periods of extreme drought.
Baldcypress is the dominant overstory species. Common associates are water tupelo, swamp
red maple, black willow, pumpkin ash, green ash, water elm, water locust, Virginia willow, and
buttonbush. Undergrowth is often sparse because of low light intensity and long hydroperiod
(Louisiana Natural Heritage Program 2009).
Tupelo-Blackgum Swamp
Tupelo-blackgum swamps are forested alluvial wetlands and soils that are inundated or
saturated by surface water or groundwater on a nearly permanent basis throughout the
growing season except during periods of extreme drought. Overstory primarily composed of
one or more species of Nyssa spp. (gums). Common associates are baldcypress, swamp red
61
maple, black willow, pumpkin ash, water elm, water locust, swamp privet (Forestiera
acuminata), laurel oak, leucothoe (Leucothoe racemosa), swamp cyrilla, swamp dogwood,
Virginia willow, buttonbush, and various woody vines. Composition of associate species may
vary widely from site to site depending primarily on flooding regime. Undergrowth is often
sparse because of low light intensity and long hydroperiod (Louisiana Natural Heritage Program
2009).
Pondcypress-Blackgum Swamp
This swamp type is known from the Florida Parishes of Louisiana along the northshores
of Lake Maurepas and Pontchartrain in depression and flatwoods or other areas where surface
water is persistant. The dominant tree species are pondcypress, swamp blackgum (Nyssa
biflora), and swamp red maple. Typical understory species include cypress knee sedge (Carex
decomposita), lizard’s tail (Saururus cernuus), red-root (Lacnanthes caroliniana), marsh St.
John’s wort (Triadenum walteri), stinkweed (Pluchea rosea), and royal fern (Osmunda regalis
var. spectabilis. This natural community is poorly documented and there is only one known
protected occurrence of this type in Louisiana (Louisiana Natural Heritage Program 2009).
Hardwood Wetlands
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Bottomland forest is an alluvial wetland occupying broad floodplain areas that flank
large river systems. They are predominantly associated with the Mississippi, Red, Ouachita,
Pearl, Tensas, Calcasieu, Sabine, and Atchafalaya River floodplains. Bottomland Forests may be
called a fluctuating water level ecosystem characterized and maintained by a natural hydrologic
regime of alternating wet and dry periods. Relatively extensive stands of giant cane
(Arundinaria gigantea) may occur sporadically in some bottomland forests (Louisiana Natural
Heritage Program 2009).
Forested Seep
This is a very similar community to bayhead swamp but differs primarily by not being so
well-developed and swamp-like. It occurs in north, central, western, and southeastern
Louisiana, typically in mixed pine-hardwood forests, on hillsides, at the base of slopes, and in
62
the narrow bottoms of small perennial or intermittent streams. It is usually very limited in size,
seldom larger than a few acres, and often much smaller. Wooded seeps on slopes are
continually moist due to constant seepage forced to the surface by an underlying impervious
layer. Where sufficiently developed, sweet bay, black gum, and red maple usually dominate the
overstory. Common shrubs include Virginia willow, bigleaf waxmyrtle (Myrica heterophylla),
hazel alder (Alnus surrulata), swamp blackhaw (Viburnum nudum), red chokeberry (Aronia
arbutifolia), poison sumac (Rhus vernix), fetterbush (Lyonia ligustrina), and baygall blueberry
(Vaccinium fuscatum; Louisiana Natural Heritage Program 2009).
Bayhead Swamp
This community is extremely variable ranging from a shrub-dominated swamp to a
mature swamp forest with evergreen shrubs forming the primary understory and midstory.
Bayhead Swamps occur in the heads of creeks or branches, at the base of slopes, in acid
depressions in pine flatwoods, and borders of swamps in north, central, western, and
southeastern Louisiana. Sweet bay, often dominant, and black gum are the common overstory
trees. Laurel oak, red maple, sweet gum, water oak, baldcypress, pond cypress, slash pine, and
longleaf pine may be present. Shrub species that may be present include red bay, swamp
cyrilla, bigleaf wax myrtle, wax myrtle, little-leaf gallberry, sweet gallberry (I. coriacea),
American holly, fetterbush, leucothoe, Virginia willow, red chokeberry, possum-haw viburnum,
poison sumac, and other species (Louisiana Natural Heritage Program 2009).
Slash Pine-Pondcypress/Hardwood Forest
This natural community is part of a climax acid swamp complex that occurs in poorly
drained or undrained shallow depressions and on pond margins in the pine flatwoods of the far
eastern Florida Parishes. Overstory contains slash pine, and often baldcypress and
pondcypress, with a mixture of hardwoods such as sweetbay, black gum, red maple, sweetgum,
and water oak. The understory is often dense, with swamp cyrilla, sweet gallberry, fetterbush,
littleleaf gallberry, Virginia willow, bigleaf wax myrtle, and wax myrtle characteristic species.
Sphagnum moss (Sphagnum spp.), Pteridophytes (ferns), and greenbriers (Smilax spp.) are
common (Louisiana Natural Heritage Program 2009).
63
Pine Flatwood
Pine flatwoods occur primarily in the lower Florida Parishes and southwest Louisiana on
essentially flat, low-relief areas with a high water table. They may infrequently occur in central
Louisiana. Soils are normally mesic but may be saturated in winter and may become dry in
summer. In the eastern Florida Parishes, longleaf pine and slash pine are often co-dominants
and in other places, one or the other may be almost totally dominant. In southwest Louisiana,
only longleaf and loblolly pine are present, the former usually most abundant. Water oak,
laurel oak, sweetbay, red maple, sweetgum, and black gum are often predominant in the
community. Many species common to Pine Savannahs occur sporadically in this community
(Louisiana Natural Heritage Program 2009).
Pine Flatwoods are closely related to Pine Savannahs but differ by having a dense
overstory stocking, often thick midstory and understory, and lower floristic diversity. These
characteristics are probably due to relatively infrequent fire events. Slash pine is much less
resistant to fire than longleaf pine and where mixed stands occur, fire was probably excluded
for 5 - 10 years, thus allowing slash pine to grow to a fire-resistant size. Where fire is totally
excluded or only very infrequently occurs, hardwood species soon dominate the forest. Sites
that are rarely burned are typified by a proliferation of shrubs and hardwood trees (Louisiana
Natural Heritage Program 2009).
Pine Savannah
Pine savannahs are floristically rich, herb-dominated wetlands that are naturally
sparsely stocked with longleaf pine. They historically dominated the Gulf Coastal Plain flatwood
regions of southeast and southwest Louisiana. The term “savannah” is classically used to
describe expansive herb-dominated areas with scattered trees. Wet savannahs occupy the
poorly drained and seasonally saturated/flooded depressional areas and low flats, while the
non-wetland flatwoods occupy the better drained slight rises, low ridges and “pimple mounds”
(only southwest LA). Pine savannahs are subject to a highly fluctuating water table, from
surface saturation, flooding in late fall/winter/early spring to growing-season droughtiness.
Soils are hydric, very strongly acidic, nutrient poor, fine sandy loams and silt loams, low in
organic matter. The soils for both eastern and western types may be underlain by an impeding
64
layer so that they are only slowly permeable and water runs off the surface gradually. Common
woody species include longleaf pine, slash pine, sweet bay, black gum, live oak, blackjack oak
(Q. marilandica), laurel oak, swamp cyrilla, wax myrtles, St. John's worts, and littleleaf snowbell
(Styrax americana, Louisiana Natural Heritage Program 2009).
Longleaf pine forests once covered vast areas of central, southwestern and
southeastern Louisiana north of Lake Pontchartrain (about 4 million acres) but much of these
forests have disappeared over the past century and, currently, less than 10 percent of the
original forests exist in Louisiana. Botanists and geologists often subdivide the longleaf forests
into flatwoods and savannahs, depending on the topography and soils, but the basic structure
remains the same. Longleaf pine trees form a sparse overstory, the midstory is open, and the
ground vegetation includes lush growth of grasses and other herbaceous vegetation.
Persistence of longleaf pine forests requires one regular disturbance – fire. Fire stimulates
flowering by many of the herbaceous plants, reduces invasion by woody species common in
hardwood forests, and allows dominance by longleaf pine (Louisiana Office of Forestry 2010).
There are two distinct regions of Louisiana that are part of longleaf pine's historical
range, the Florida Parishes in the east and the Terrace Flatwoods to the west (Figure 4-16).
Both these regions were heavily logged early in Louisiana's timber industry history. Although
these regions of the state are no longer primarily in longleaf, they have retained the incendiary
nature typically observed in longleaf ecosystems (Louisiana Office of Forestry 2010).
65
Figure 4-16. Historical coverage of longleaf pine in Louisiana (Louisiana Office of
Forestry 2010)
Small Stream Forest
Riparian forests are relatively narrow wetland forests occurring along small rivers and
large creeks in central, western, southeastern, and northern Louisiana. They are seasonally
flooded for brief periods. Soils are typically classified as silt-loams. This community includes the
phase formerly designated as riparian sandy branch bottom. Common trees include southern
magnolia, beech (Fagus grandifolia), black gum, swamp white oak, white oak (Q. alba), water
oak, laurel oak, cherrybark oak (Q. falcata var. pagodaefolia), sweetgum, sycamore, red maple,
river birch, shagbark hickory (Carya ovata), bitternut hickory (Carya cordiformis), white ash
(Fraxinus americana), water ash, cherry laurel (Prunus caroliniana), winged elm (Ulmus alata),
and yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera). Spruce pine is a common associate in the Florida
Parishes, and bald cypress and loblolly pine are occasional associates statewide. Sweet bay and
66
bigleaf magnolia may be present. Primary midstory and understory associates include silverbell
(Halesia diptera), ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), arrow-wood (Viburnum dentatum), Itea
virginica (Virginia willow), Symplocos tinctoria (sweetleaf), hazel alder (Alnus serrulata), wild
azalea (Rhododendron canescens), and bigleaf snowbell (Styrax grandifolia; Louisiana Natural
Heritage Program 2009).
MISSISSIPPI
Mississippi is one of the most heavily forested states in the nation. According to the
most recent forest survey of Mississippi, 64.85 percent of the state’s land area is covered with
forest totaling approximately 19.8 million acres. With the exception of the Mississippi delta,
forestry is the predominant land use. These forests are 46.4 percent hardwood, 14.9 percent
oak-pine and 38.6 percent pine. The amount of forest cover in Mississippi has actually
increased over the past four decades primarily due to the conversion of agricultural land to pine
plantations (Mississippi Forestry Commission 2007).
Only 11 percent of Mississippi’s forests are owned by government. Eighteen percent is
in the hands of forest industry and 72 percent belongs to private, non-industrial landowners.
Most of Mississippi’s private forestlands are maintained for economic returns from the sale of
timber as a primary or secondary objective. Other major uses include management for hunting
of game species such as white-tailed deer, wild turkey, squirrels, or for wildlife viewing and
aesthetics (Mississippi Forestry Commission 2007).
National Wetlands Inventory data indicate 148,000 acres of FFW habitat in the
Mississippi Coastal Area. The largest contiguous block of FFW within the initiative area exists
along the Pascagoula River Basin. This basin (extending northward from the mouth of the
Pascagoula River to the Jackson County line) consists of approximately 60,000 acres of wetlands
dominated by estuarine marshes, forested swamps, and seasonally flooded bottomland
hardwoods. Forested wetlands comprise over 45,000 acres (75%) of the Pascagoula River Basin
ecosystem, of which approximately 33,000 acres is owned and managed by the Mississippi
Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks (Pascagoula River Wildlife Management Area
(WMA) and Ward Bayou WMA, Table 4-12, Manlove et al. 2008).
67
From the mid-1970’s to the mid-1980’s, forested wetlands such as bottomland
hardwood swamps and cypress sloughs declined by 3.1 million acres in the Southeast. In Mississippi, more than 365,000 acres of palustrine forested wetlands were lost or converted to
other wetland types. The principal cause of over half of these changes can be attributed to
agriculture development in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley (Hefner et al. 1994). However,
within the Coastal Mississippi Wetlands Initiative area, forested wetland loss has been minimal.
Minor losses were due to conversion of forested habitats to scrub-shrub areas (e.g., clearcutting associated with timber harvest) and industrial/residential development (Manlove et al.
2002).
Table 4-12. Estimated forested wetland habitat this is currently under public
ownership in the Coastal Mississippi wetlands area (Manlove et al. 2002).
Land Tracts
Ownership
County
Acreage
1
2
Little Biloxi WMA
MDWF&P
Harrison
450
Red Creek WMA
MDWF&P
Harrison/Jackson
14,000
Sandhill Crane NWR3
USFWS4
Jackson
8,000
Pascagoula River WMA
MDWF&P
Jackson
20,000
Ward Bayou WMA
MDWF&P
Jackson
13,234
Total
55,684
1
WMA = Wildlife management area
MDWF&P = Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks
3
NWR = National Wildlife Refuge
4
USFWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2
Mississippi has ten national wildlife refuges, six national forests, seven national parks,
24 state parks, and 42 state wildlife management areas, one national estuarine research
reserve, 83,000 acres of coastal preserves and thousands of acres of lands managed by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers. There are also 673,106 acres of 16th Section lands in the state,
thousands of acres of forest land owned by Institutions of Higher Learning and 280,000 acres
owned by the Department of Defense. Where possible, strategically acquiring forest legacy
tracts adjacent to these public forestlands may, in some cases help build biological corridors
among blocks of public lands, thus improving the return on the investment of program dollars
68
and the ecological value of the natural communities in those tracts (Mississippi Forestry
Commission 2007).
There are five primary types of forested wetlands in Mississippi, including bottomland
hardwood forests, riverfront palustrine floodplain forests, wet pine savannas/flatwoods, spring
seeps, and swamp (Mississippi Museum of Natural Science 2005).
Hardwood Wetlands
Bottomland Hardwood Forests
Moderately wet bottomland hardwood forests are found on fertile, fine textured clay or
loam soils of floodplains, stream terraces and wet lowland flats with very poorly drained and
very slowly permeable alluvial clay soils. Sugarberry-American elm-green ash, sweetgum-mixed
oak, and Nuttall oak-American elm-pecan are representative communities of the low terrace
(moderately wet) bottomland hardwood forest type. Prevalent trees include willow, water,
overcup, and Nuttall oaks, pecan, sugarberry, American elm, green ash, and sweetgum. Other
subcanopy species include boxelder, dwarf palmetto and giant cane (Mississippi Museum of
Natural Science 2005).
Bottomland hardwood forests and swamps were once common in the Southeast. During
the last century, the most dramatic wetland loss in the entire nation occurred in forested
wetlands of the Lower Mississippi River Alluvial Plain region, which includes the Mississippi
delta region (Figure 4-17). Of an estimated 24 million acres of the original bottomland
hardwood forests, only 5.2 million acres (22 percent) remained in 1978. Fifty-six percent of
southern bottomland hardwood and bald cypress forests were lost between 1900 and 1978.
The largest patches of bottomland forests are the wet bottomland types that contain few tree
species. However, significant areas of bottomland hardwood forests remain in the mid-South
region, mainly situated in the Mississippi River Valley. By classifying the forests into Society of
American Forest cover types, it is estimated that over 2.5 million acres of moderately wet
bottomland forest and over 0.6 million acres of very wet bottomland forest remain in the lower
part of the Mississippi River Alluvial Plain within Mississippi, Arkansas and Louisiana (Mississippi
Forestry Commission 2007).
69
The bottomland hardwood forests subtype occurs in linear patches on floodplains along
creeks and rivers. Collectively, bottomland hardwood forests make up almost seven percent of
the state's land area (about two million acres). Except in the Mississippi Delta, where they
occur within wide expanses of agriculture land, these forests are adjoined by upland hardwood
and pine forests, urban lands and smaller agricultural holdings (Mississippi Forestry Commission
2007).
Figure 4-17. Range of bottomland hardwood
wetlands in Mississippi (Mississippi Museum of
Natural Science 2005). In this figure and in
subsequent figures, wavy black lines delineate
ecoregion as defined by The Nature Conservancy.
The primary cause of bottomland hardwood losses has been conversion of these lands
to agricultural production. Additional losses have been caused by construction and operation
of flood control structures and reservoirs, surface mining and urban development. The
moderately wet forest types are increasingly fragmented due to improved road access,
70
increased agriculture usage (i.e., pastures and fencing) and closer proximity to development.
The wetter tracts are less fragmented but have lost many of their original functions. They are
somewhat less vulnerable to disturbances because moisture conditions prevented access to
these lands. Human activities along streams and other bottomland communities have had, and
continue to have, a negative impact in this habitat (Mississippi Forestry Commission 2007).
Riverfront Palustrine Floodplain Forests
Riverfront soils are lower in organic matter and have higher pH than soils of other
bottomland hardwoods. The moisture level of riverfront substrates depends on river stage,
which is usually high in the spring, causing saturation or flooding, and low in the fall, bringing
dryer conditions. Black willow and eastern cottonwood are the dominant species of riverfront
communities along the Mississippi River Alluvial Plain and the Big Black River, but American
sycamore and river birch may dominate other riverfront communities. Boxelder, sugarberry
and silver maple are also commonly present (Mississippi Museum of Natural Science 2005).
Although much diminished after river diking, dredging, revetment and channelization
projects, the lands between the Mississippi River and its levees still contain the long swaths of
riverfront forests (Figure 4-18). It is estimated that over 500,000 acres of cottonwood-willow
forest remains in the lower Mississippi River Alluvial Plain within Mississippi, Arkansas and
Louisiana. Rivers confined to the western portion of the state and flow into the Mississippi
River, such as the Big Black and Sunflower, are dramatically impacted by the stages of the
Mississippi River, which significantly alters their rate of flow and sediment deposition
(Mississippi Museum of Natural Science 2005).
71
Figure 4-18. Range of riverfront floodplain forests in
Mississippi (Mississippi Museum of Natural Science 2005).
Dams, channelization, manmade levees and other modifications have restricted the
extent of riverfront forests. Bank erosion-accretion processes has been slowed or eliminated
along leveed and stabilized portions of the Mississippi River. The modified river environment
has caused the riverfront cottonwood and willow communities to regenerate poorly
(Mississippi Forestry Commission 2007).
Wet Pine Savannas/Flatwoods
Wet pine savannas and flatwoods are found on low, wet, rain-fed coastal flats, foot
slopes, depressions, and along drainageways. Wet pine savannas receive moisture through
precipitation and are not subject to riverine flooding. The high precipitation and low
evapotranspiration rates during the winter and spring season along the coast creates a surplus
of moisture that gradually percolates through the soil profile. Nutrient-deficient soils develops
72
on these wet flats because nutrients released by weathering are insufficient to replace those
removed by leaching.
Wet pine savannas are not associated with riverine floodplains, but are found on broad
coastal flats and sloping plains that annually receive over 60 inches of rainfall and remain
saturated for long periods during the growing season. Seepage zones are commonly observed
along lower slopes. The coastal region receives ample growing season rainfall from frequent
convective thunderstorms, resulting in the surface horizon remaining saturated for extended
periods because of the slow permeability of subsoils. The herbaceous ground cover of the wet
savannas is exceptionally diverse in stands that are in good condition, with more than 200
understory plants identified (Mississippi Museum of Natural Science 2005).
Pine flatwoods are limited to moist, poorly drained sites, which occasionally occur on
ridge crest depressions, but more commonly, along lower slopes and broad flats, at the
headwaters of streams, on wet peaty soils and on low terraces of major streams. Moisture
determines the dominant pine species with slash replacing longleaf on wetter sites. Scattered
loblolly pine may also be present in the canopy. In many instances the soils are nutrient poor
and wet. On wetter situations, the pines are stunted and stressed by the wet conditions. Soils
of pine flatwoods have restricted permeability in their subsurface horizons, causing long
periods of saturation.
Red maple, sweetbay and tuliptree, common as low shrubs and trees in the subcanopy,
occasionally attain a height that reaches into the canopy. If fire is not frequently prescribed,
the shrub layer can become dense and impenetrable, with titi, buckwheat tree (Cliftonia
monophylla), gallberries and bayberries. Pitcher plants, St. John's-wort and numerous grasses
often occur on exposed, open patches where water pools or recent burns have killed shrubs.
Frequency of fire determines the height and density of the shrub layer while soil type appears
to influence the presence of buckwheat tree (Mississippi Museum of Natural Science 2005).
It is estimated that less than five percent of the original acreage of wet pine savanna
habitat remains in the Atlantic/Gulf Coastal Plain making it one of the most endangered
ecosystems in the country (Figure 4-19). The lack of prescribed burns has had a dramatic
negative impact on the size and distribution of wet pine savannas. Fire suppression allowed
73
pines and shrubs to invade and out-compete the native savanna plants. In the 1960s and 1970s,
much of the remaining open savanna was converted to pine plantation by planting and ditching
(bedding); the latter disrupted the natural water regime. Additional urbanization of the three
coastal counties of Mississippi caused significant losses of this habitat. The savannas of Sandhill
Crane National Wildlife Refuge are considered the last remaining large patches of this diverse
Community (Mississippi Museum of Natural Science 2005).
Figure 4-19. Range of wet pine savannah in Mississippi
(Mississippi Museum of Natural Science 2005).
Spring Seeps
Spring seeps often contain rare plants and may be the only wetlands available to local
animal populations during droughts. Larger spring-fed wetlands are considered in swamp, bog
74
or other wetland categories within this document. Spring seeps occur throughout the state and
are categorized into hardwood or pine seeps (Mississippi Museum of Natural Science 2005).
Seeps occur throughout Mississippi but are infrequently found in the blackland and interior
flatwoods regions of the state. They are more abundant in regions with steep terrain such as
the loess hills, Tennessee River hills, and the rolling hills of the longleaf pine region. The number
of seeps in Mississippi is unknown and no study of their condition is available (Mississippi
Forestry Commission 2007).
Hardwood Seeps
Soils of hardwood seeps are often saturated throughout the year. The habitat supports
wetland grasses, sedges, herbs and an abundance of ferns. Ferns frequently encountered are
netted chainfern (Woodwardia areolata), royal fern (Osmunda regalis), cinnamon fern and
common lady fern (Athyrium filix-femina; Mississippi Museum of Natural Science 2005).
Hardwood seeps are scattered throughout the state where water-bearing substrates produce
outflows (Figure 4-20). They occur as small wetland patches (1 to 10 acres in size) in draws and
along lower hill-slopes. While no accurate figures exist, it is estimated that there are 500 to
thousands of acres of hardwood seeps in the state (Mississippi Museum of Natural Science
2005).
75
Figure 4-20. Range of hardwood seeps in Mississippi
(Mississippi Museum of Natural Science 2005).
Pine Seeps
Pine seeps have a similar composition to bog habitats and are named after the piney
woods region of the state where they are found. The overstory typically includes slash pine but
there may be a large presence of other swamp species such as sweetbay and blackgum.
Virginia chainfern and poison sumac are particularly common (Mississippi Museum of Natural
Science 2005). Pines seeps occur in the southern half of Mississippi (Figure 4-21). Pine seeps
are considered imperiled in the state because of their average small size and vulnerability to
further decline due to land use changes and other developments (Mississippi Museum of
Natural Science 2005).
76
Figure 4-21. Distribution of pine seeps in Mississippi
(Mississippi Museum of Natural Science 2005).
Swamps
There are about 600,000 acres of swamp habitat in Mississippi, equivalent to about two
percent of the state land area. Oxbow lakes, low floodplain terraces, bottomland flats,
backwater areas or springheads are common areas to find swamp forest vegetation. The soils
of swales or depressions are seasonally to semi-permanently flooded and remain saturated for
long periods throughout the year. There are two swamp forest subtypes occur in Mississippi:
Bald Cypress/Gum Swamp Forests and Small Stream Swamp Forests. Bald
cypress/blackgum/water tupelo swamps are found in depressions associated with riverine
floodplains. The second subtype, small stream swamp forests, include wet pond cypress
77
depressions, white cedar swamps and bay swamp forests (Mississippi Forestry Commission
2007).
Bald Cypress/Gum Forests
Oxbow lakes, low floodplain terraces, bottomland flats, backwater areas or springheads
are common areas to find swamp-forest vegetation. The soils of swales or depressions are
seasonally to semi-permanently flooded and remain saturated for long periods throughout the
year. These swamps contain a variety of mixtures and densities of bald cypress, blackgum,
water tupelo and other hardwood trees (Mississippi Museum of Natural Science 2005).
Centuries of land clearing and development have seriously impacted southern
swamplands. Despite dramatic losses the region currently accounts for about 36 percent of all
wetlands and 60 percent to 65 percent of all forested wetlands. Although loss rates have
declined recently, most wetland acreage lost every year in the country is from southern
forested wetlands. Annual loss rates of forested wetlands for the period from 1960 to 1975
was estimated to average 0.5 percent in Mississippi.
The USDA Forest Service inventories completed by the early 1990’s indicate continued
annual loss rates of 0.7 percent and 1.0 percent for the oak-gum-cypress forest type in the
Louisiana and Mississippi portions of the Lower Mississippi River Alluvial Plain. Estimates of a
million acres of cypress-tupelo swamp remain in the Lower Mississippi River Valley, within the
states of Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississippi (Mississippi Forestry Commission 2007). About
400,000 acres of this forest type is found in the state (1.3% of Mississippi, Mississippi Museum
of Natural Science 2005).
The annual losses of forested wetlands in Mississippi during the 1960's and 1970's were
estimated to be about 0.5 percent per year. Fragmentation, developments near swamp lands
and logging of mature stands has reduced the quality of this subtype. Bald cypress/gum swamp
forests are considered vulnerable in the state due to historic widespread declines and recent
losses caused by a wide range of developments that create additional isolation and
fragmentation (Mississippi Museum of Natural Science 2005).
78
Figure 4-22. Range of bald cypress/gum swamp
forests in Mississippi (Mississippi Museum
of Natural Science 2005).
Small Stream Swamp Forests
The lower gulf coastal plain has a dense network of brooks, creeks, and rivers that
support wetlands in seepage beds along lower slopes and intervening drainages. Species
composition varies depending on moisture and soil characteristics. Sweetbay and blackgum are
the most common trees. Pond cypress is locally common on wetter sites near the coast. Red
maple, slash pine, sweetgum, tuliptree, swamp laurel oak and water oak are also common.
Longleaf pine, spruce pine and beech are occasionally encountered (Mississippi Museum of
Natural Science 2005).
Small stream swamp forests consist of several communities that are situated on
bottomlands of small streams in the in the piney woods region and cover approximately 50,000
acres. The patches are long narrow wetland habitats, which may reach up to 1,000 acres in size
and are often transected by transportation and power line corridors. They are situated
79
between the stream channel and pine forests on the adjacent uplands (Mississippi Museum of
Natural Science 2005).
Figure 4-23. Range of small stream swamp forests
in Mississippi (Mississippi Museum of Natural Science 2005).
TEXAS
It is estimated that sixteen (16) million acres of bottomland hardwood and other
forested wetlands existed in Texas prior to its being settled. This estimate was based on the
acreage of geologic floodplains in Texas (Kier et al., 1977) and assumes that all or most of these
floodplains were originally forested. According to a 1980 Texas Parks and Wildlife (TPWD)
report, forested wetlands inventoried by Landsat totaled approximately 6,068,000 acres in
1980, including 5,973,000 acres of bottomland hardwood and other forested riparian
vegetation and 95,000 acres of swamps. A comparison of these estimates indicates a 63% loss
80
of original bottomland hardwoods. Future declines in bottomland hardwoods are expected
from other land use changes such as the creation of additional water supply reservoirs.
The Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) projects the need for fourteen (14) new
major surface water supply reservoirs through the year 2040 (TWDB, 1990). According to the
TPWD, if thirteen (13) of the fourteen (14) proposed reservoirs are constructed, there will be a
total of 36,106 acres of bottomland hardwoods and riparian areas lost statewide but principally
concentrated within the East Texas river systems (Texarkana Metropolitan Planning
Organization 2009).
An estimated 4.1 million acres of wetlands existed on the Texas coast in the mid-1950s.
By the early 1990s, wetlands had decreased to less than 3 .9 million acres including 3 .3 million
acres of freshwater wetlands and 567,000 acres of saltwater wetlands. About 1 .7 million acres
(52 percent) of the 3 .3 million acres of freshwater wetlands were classified as farmed
wetlands. The total net loss of wetlands for the region was approximately 210,600 acres,
making the average annual net loss of wetlands about 5,700 acres. The greatest losses were of
freshwater emergent and forested wetlands (Moulton et al. 1997). Over 96,000 acres (a 10.9
percent decrease) of forested wetlands (swamps, hardwood bottomlands, etc.) were lost or
converted to other wetland types. Most of the losses were to upland agriculture and other
upland land uses, with conversions to the palustrine scrub-shrub and palustrine farmed wetland
types and to lacustrine deepwater (Moulton et al. 1997).
The Texas Gulf Coast supports seven major wetland types based on geology, vegetation,
and climate (Figure 4-24), including Texas coastal sand sheet wetlands, lower coast riparian
wetlands, riverine forested wetlands, barrier island interior wetlands, estuarine or tidal fringe
wetlands, prairie pothole and marsh wetlands, and coastal flatwoods wetlands. Of these seven
wetland types, only three are FFW, including lower coast riparian, riverine forested, and coastal
flatwoods (http://texaswetlands.org/wetland-types-map/).
81
Figure 4-24. Wetland types of Texas (http://texaswetlands.org/wetland-types-map/).
Lower Coast Riparian Wetlands
Lower coast riparian wetlands are river bottom wetlands and river-associated habitats
from about the San Antonio River south to the Rio Grande. Riverine wetlands on the middle
and lower coast are limited to depressions on the floodplains of rivers and major creeks. For
the most part, these depressions are scour features left by the rivers: oxbows, cut-off channels,
etc. The lower Rio Grande Valley is by far the largest of the riverine systems of the lower coast.
82
This broad valley is a riverine-deltaic plain laid down by the ancestral Rio Grande, and the
oxbow features in this valley are locally known as resacas. Overbank flooding and runoff from
the adjacent floodplain are the main sources of water for the lower coast riparian wetlands.
Trees and shrubs that dominate these riparian zones include mesquite (Prosopis spp.), huisache
(Acacia farnesiana), salt cedar (Tamarix ramosissima), hackberry/sugarberry, cedar elm (Ulmus
crassifolia), Chinese tallow-tree (Triadica sebifera), green ash, black and sandbar willow, and
rattlebush (Sesbania drummondii, www.texaswetlands.org).
Narrow riparian corridors, because they are so limited in size to begin with, are very
susceptible to disturbances such as overgrazing, channel dredging (such as is done to stabilize
the international boundary), and brush control programs. Many of these habitats are now
dominated by introduced or disturbance types such as salt cedar and mesquite. These two
species use a lot of water and are often targeted by brush control programs related to water
conservation efforts. Salt cedar and mesquite dominated riparian zones are not as desirable as
a mixture of native tree and brush species, but they do provide habitats for birds and other
animals and help stabilize stream banks and floodplain soils (www.texaswetlands.org).
Riverine Forested Wetlands
Riverine forested wetlands are found on the floodplains of rivers and streams that cross
the middle and upper coastal plain. The larger rivers of the wet upper coast, such as the
Sabine, Neches, Trinity, and Brazos Rivers, have broad floodplains that support extensive
forested wetlands. Smaller rivers and streams of the semiarid lower coast do not flood for long
enough periods to support extensive forested wetlands. Swamps are the wettest type of
riverine forested wetland in Texas and are found mostly in East Texas, from Houston east to the
Sabine River. Overbank river flooding is the primary source of water for forested wetlands.
The dominant trees of most swamps are bald cypress and water tupelo. Water hickory, water
locust, black tupelo, planertree and many others are also commonly found in the swamps. On
the upper coast, bottomland hardwood forests are dominated by willow oak water oak,
overcup oak, cherrybark oak, laurel oak, green ash, red maple, black willow, water tupelo, and
others.
83
Agriculture and silviculture (pine plantations) are the major continuing threats to
forested wetlands. The character of a forested wetland is destroyed if all of the trees are cut
down, even if the hydrology is not otherwise altered, and the wetland may require a hundred
or more years to recover. Most of the swamp forests underwent severe deforestation in the
early part of this century as high-quality cypress was over-harvested (www.texaswetlands.org).
Another major threat is the construction of dams and reservoirs on the rivers that
supply water to these wetlands. In addition to the clearing or drowning of forested wetlands
within reservoir floodpools, there is a long-term threat that results from the flood-control
function of most dams. Once annual flooding is removed, the wetlands begin to dry out and
become more susceptible to development pressures. Since the mid-1950s, forested wetlands
on the Texas coast have decreased in area by about 11 percent, a net loss of more than 96,000
acres (www.texaswetlands.org).
Coastal Flatwoods Wetlands
Coastal flatwoods occur on poorly drained flats between rivers (interfluvial zones) on
the coastal plain. The flatwoods wetlands stretch from the Louisiana border west to about the
Houston area. Inundation in the coastal flatwoods is primarily from local precipitation, and is a
result of the very slow runoff that characterizes these flats. The wet flatwoods are typically wet
during the winter and early spring months. The soils will be saturated, and shallow standing
water will be present in many places. Coastal flatwoods can be dominated by either pine or
hardwoods. Common trees of the drier pine wet flatwoods are longleaf, shortleaf, and loblolly
pines. The wetter hardwood flatwoods include willow and laurel oaks, swamp chestnut oak,
cherrybark oak, and sweetgum, with dwarf palmetto common in the understory. The
hardwood flatwoods occur on the Coastal Prairies and Marshes region of the upper coast. The
suppression of fire may have favored hardwoods in some areas that were longleaf pine savanna
(www.texaswetlands.org).
Major threats are similar to those for riverine-forested wetlands. Since the mid-1950s,
the area of commercial pine plantations (loblolly and nonnative slash pine) on the upper coast
has increased by about 322,000 acres; an increase of about 390 percent. Some of this area was
originally native pine or mixed pine-hardwood flatwoods (www.texaswetlands.org).
84
85
CHAPTER FIVE. RESTORATION AND CONSERVATION
There are numerous restoration and conservation programs for FFW that are currently
active in each of the five Gulf of Mexico states and these programs are discussed below.
GULF OF MEXICO PROGRAMS
RESTORE Act/Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council
The RESTORE Act dedicates 80 percent of all administrative and civil penalties related to
the Deepwater Horizon spill to a Gulf Coast Restoration Trust Fund and outlines a structure by
which the funds can be utilized to restore and protect the natural resources, ecosystems,
fisheries, marine and wildlife habitats, beaches, coastal wetlands, and economy of the Gulf
Coast region. The RESTORE Act sets forth the following framework for allocation of the Trust
Fund:

35 percent equally divided among the five States for ecological restoration, economic
development, and tourism promotion;

30 percent plus interest managed by the Council for ecosystem restoration under the
Comprehensive Plan;

30 percent divided among the States according to a formula to implement State
expenditure plans, which require approval of the Council;

2.5 percent plus interest for the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Science, Observation,
Monitoring and Technology Program within the Department of Commerce’s National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); and

2.5 percent plus interest allocated to the States for Centers of Excellence Research
grants, which will each focus on science, technology, and monitoring related to Gulf
restoration.
The RESTORE Act established a Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council (the Council),
which is comprised of governors from the five affected Gulf States’, the Secretaries from the
86
U.S. Departments of the Interior, Commerce, Agriculture, and Homeland Security as well as the
Secretary of the Army and the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The
Gulf States recommended and President Obama appointed the Secretary of Commerce as the
Council’s Chair.
Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Task Force
The Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Task Force (GCERTF) was established by Executive
Order 13554 as a result of recommendations from “America’s Gulf Coast: A Long Term
Recovery Plan after the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill” by the Secretary of the Navy, Ray Mabus.
The GCERTF consists of members from 11 Federal agencies and representatives from each State
bordering the Gulf of Mexico. The Science Coordination Team (SCT) for the GCERTF was
developed to guide scientific input in the development of the Strategy. The intent of the
Strategy was to articulate the long-standing issues facing the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem and to
identify recommendations to help address these issues. Fundamental to the success of the
Strategy is ensuring that it has a robust and defensible scientific foundation (Walker et al.
2012).
Gulf of Mexico Program
The Gulf of Mexico Program (GMP) was initiated in 1988 by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) as a non-regulatory program. Founded on the threefold principles of
partnership, science-based information, and citizen involvement, the mission of the Gulf
Program is to facilitate collaborative actions to protect, maintain, and restore the health and
productivity of the Gulf of Mexico in ways consistent with the economic well-being of the
Region (http://www.epa.gov/gmpo/). As a result of a shared vision for a healthy and resilient
Gulf of Mexico coast, the Governors of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas
formalized the Gulf of Mexico Alliance in 2004. Thirteen federal agencies committed to
supporting the Alliance and formed a Federal Workgroup with EPA's GMP, the National Oceanic
87
and Atmospheric Administration, and the Department of the Interior serving as co-leads
(http://www.epa.gov/gmpo/).
A Gulf Ecological Management Site (GEMS) is a geographic area that has special
ecological significance to the continued production of fish, wildlife and other natural resources
or that represents unique habitats. The GEMS Program coordinates and utilizes existing
federal, state, local and private programs, resources, and mechanisms to identify GEMS in each
state, to build an informational database, and to foster cooperative use of GEMS to further
GMP goals. GEMS have been identified in each of the five Gulf Coast states (Figure 5-1,
http://www.epa.gov/gmpo/).
Figure 5-1. Location of GEMS (yellow/red markers) in the Gulf Coast states
(http://www.epa.gov/gmpo/).
Southern Forest Land Assessment
The Southern Forest Land Assessment (SFLA) is a cooperative project of the Southern
Group of State Foresters to identify important lands across the southern landscape where
future efforts in rural forestry assistance should be focused (Jacobs et al. 2008, Texas Forest
Service 2009). The project serves as the assessment component of the Forest Stewardship
Program’s Spatial Analysis Project (SAP). The South is the only region that conducted the
88
analysis at the regional scale. Several regions across the South exhibited concentrations of high
priority areas: (1) the Appalachians, (2) a region that includes eastern Texas, northwestern
Louisiana, and southwestern Arkansas, (3) the Ouachita and Ozark Mountains in Arkansas, and
(4) the coastal region from Mississippi through the panhandle of Florida, and through Georgia
and the Carolinas (Figure 5-2). Most of the low priority land occurred in western Texas and
Oklahoma where forestland is not as prevalent as it is to the east (Jacobs et al. 2008).
Figure 5-2. Forest Resource Priority map produced through the Southern Forest Land
Assessment (Jacobs et al. 2008).
Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program
Congress directed the Secretary of Commerce to establish a Coastal and Estuarine Land
Conservation (CELCP) Program in 2002 to protect important coastal and estuarine areas that
have significant conservation, recreation, ecological, historical, or aesthetic values, or that are
threatened by conversion from their natural or recreational state to other uses. The program
provides state and local governments with matching funds to purchase significant coastal and
estuarine lands, or conservation easements on such lands, from willing sellers. Lands or
89
conservation easements acquired with CELCP funds are protected in perpetuity so that they
may be enjoyed by future generations (http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/land/).
Forest Legacy Program
The Forest Legacy Program (FLP) is a federal program that partners with states to
protect environmentally-sensitive forest lands. The Forest Legacy program protects “working
forests” (i.e., forests that protect water quality, provide habitat, forest products, opportunities
for recreation and other public benefits). Designed to encourage the protection of privately
owned forest lands, FLP is an entirely voluntary program. The USDA Forest Service administers
the FLP in cooperation with state partners
(http://www.fs.fed.us/spf/coop/programs/loa/flp.shtml).
Gulf Coast Joint Venture
The Gulf Coast Joint Venture (GCJV) is a bird habitat conservation partnership that spans
the coastal portions of Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. The primary goal of the
GCJV is to provide habitat for waterfowl in winter and ensure that they survive and return to
the breeding grounds in good condition but not exceeding levels commensurate with breeding
habitat capacity. The GCJV encompasses a wide variety of habitats, from seagrass beds, coastal
marsh, and barrier islands to bottomland hardwood forests, fresh marsh, and baldcypress
swamps (Esslinger and Wilson 2001).
Coastal Impact Assistance Program
The Coastal Impact Assistance Program (CIAP) is a one billion dollar federal funding
program to help oil and gas producing states and their coastal subdivisions mitigate impacts
from production on the Outer Continental Shelf (federal areas outside of state jurisdictions).
CIAP was established by Section 384 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to help producing states
and their coastal political subdivisions to mitigate impacts from Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)
90
oil and gas production. The Act identified five Authorized Uses of CIAP funds which are: 1)
projects and activities to conserve, protect or restore coastal areas, including wetlands; 2)
mitigation of damage to fish, wildlife or natural resources; 3) planning assistance and the
administrative costs of CIAP compliance; 4) implementation of a federally approved marine,
coastal or comprehensive conservation management plan; and 5) mitigation of the impact of
OCS activities by funding onshore infrastructure projects and public service needs. CIAP
supports projects in Alabama, Alaska, California, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas.
Regional Working Group for America’s Longleaf
Longleaf pine forests once covered an incredibly vast range. From the Atlantic Coastal
Plain of southeastern Virginia to the West Gulf Coastal Plain of Texas, these systems
encompassed more than 90 million acres of the North American landscape. Today, less than
three percent of the original acreage remains. A number of threatened or endangered species
depend on these remnant areas for their existence. A Regional Working Group of diverse
organizations was formed in October 2007 to develop the America’s Longleaf Initiative. This
Conservation Plan was developed by a Writing Team assigned by the Steering Committee of the
Regional Working Group (Regional Working
Group for America’s Longleaf 2009).
The 15-year goal for this Conservation Plan is an increase in longleaf acreage from 3.4 to
8.0 million acres, with more than half of this acreage targeted in the range-wide “Significant
Geographic Areas” in ways that support a majority of ecological and species needs (Figure 5-3).
Within this overall goal, the Conservation Plan calls for maintaining existing longleaf ecosystems
in good condition; improving acres classified as “longleaf forest types” and with longleaf trees
present, but missing significant components of understory communities and fire regimes to
support representative communities of longleaf ecosystems; and restoring longleaf pine forests
to suitable sites currently in other forest types or land classifications (Regional Working
Group for America’s Longleaf 2009).
91
Figure 5-3. Significant landscapes for longleaf pine restoration (Regional Working
Group for America’s Longleaf 2009).
NOAA Gulf Spill Restoration
When a spill occurs and the Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) process
starts, early restoration opportunities can help begin restoration of natural resources sooner
than might otherwise be possible. Early restoration projects can be implemented prior to
completion of the NRDA process, which is complex and sometimes can take many years to
complete (http://www.gulfspillrestoration.noaa.gov/).
For the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, BP has committed to fund up to $1 billion in early
restoration projects under an agreement with the NRDA trustees titled “the Framework for
Early Restoration Addressing Injuries Resulting from the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill”
(Framework Agreement). This agreement represents an initial step toward fulfilling the
company’s obligation to fund the complete restoration of natural resources injured by the spill.
Ten projects have been funded to date. The NRDA trustees are continuing to accept proposals
for early restoration projects, especially those that focus on:
92

Rebuilding coastal marshes;

Replenishing damaged beaches;

Improving human use of resources;

Conserving sensitive areas of ocean habitat for impacted wildlife; and

Restoring barrier islands and wetlands (http://www.gulfspillrestoration.noaa.gov/).
We reviewed NRDA projects submitted within the study area in each of the five Gulf
States and describe below those that focus on restoration and conservation in FFW. No FFW
projects were submitted for Mississippi.
Alabama
Titi Swamp Acquisition
Titi Swamp is located in south Fairhope (Baldwin County, Alabama) east of Scenic 98 and
south of Nelson Road on 62 acres of natural wetland (Figure 5-4). The project will include the
purchase of the property from the private owner ($500,000) and the creation of a nature
preserve and local wetland mitigation bank to restore it to full function. The swamp drains to
Mobile Bay and acts as a large stormwater attenuation and treatment facility. The
implementation of the project will provide long-term water quality protection for Mobile Bay.
For more information contact Public Works Director, Ms. Jennifer Fidler (251) 928-8003.
93
Figure 5-4. Location of projects recommended for BP Oil Spill
restoration funding.
Wolf Bay Wetland Nature Preserve
This project is a fee simple resource recovery land acquisition project submitted by the
Alabama Forest Resource Center for $3,000,000. The acquisition of properties with a high
conservation value has been identified by the Mabus Report and the Land Trust Alliance's Gulf
of Mexico Land Trust that are members of the Partnership for Gulf Coast Land Conservation.
The 569-acre Wolf Bay Nature Preserve Tract is within the Alabama Coastal Area (Figure 5-4).
The Wolf Bay Coastal Area has been designated as a Geographic Area of Particular Concern
(GAPC) in the Alabama Coastal Area Management Plan (ACAMP). This tract is recognized as a
Gulf Ecological Management Site (Gulf of Mexico Program). In 2007 Wolf Bay was designated
as an Outstanding Alabama Water (OAW) by ADEM and the EPA. The parcel consists of 458
acres of wetlands and 111 acres of upland property. It has 147 species that have been
documented in September of 2010 by Troy University. The natural communities exhibited on
94
the parcel are East Gulf Coastal Plain Wet Flatwood Bog, Southern Coastal Plain Blackwater
River Floodplain Forest and Black Needle Rush Tidal Herbaceous Alliance.
There is a large threat of development to this site. The 111 acres of uplands would
allow for a large development to occur on this site. The tract has been nominated to Forever
Wild. The acquisition of this property would create an opportunity for future
maintenance/management and restoration activities to be conducted on this site. The project
is in the boundaries of the Wolf Bay Watershed Management Plan. Partners in this project
include Weeks Bay Foundation (Land Trust), Alabama Forest Resource Center (Land Trust), and
Wolf Bay Water Watch (Water Watch Group).
Andrew Benton Tract
This project is a fee simple resource recovery land acquisition project ($2,000,000)
submitted by the Weeks Bay Foundation. The acquisition of properties with a high
conservation value has been identified by the Mabus Report and the Land Trust Alliance's Gulf
of Mexico Land Trust that are members of the Partnership for Gulf Coast Land Conservation.
The 407-acre Andrew Benton Estate Tract is within the Weeks Bay Coastal Area as
delineated in the Weeks Bay Reserve Management Plan as established under the Coastal Zone
Act of 1972: "Within the Weeks Bay Coastal Area the highest priority exists for land acquisition
and for resource protection activities" (Figure 5-4). The Weeks Bay Coastal Area has been
designated as a Geographic Area of Particular Concern (GAPC) in the Alabama Coastal Area
Management Plan (ACAMP). The parcel is recognized as a Gulf Ecological Management Site
(Gulf of Mexico Program). This Tract is ranked the second most favorable site in Baldwin
County for potential restoration according to the criteria described in the Alabama Wetlands
Program (Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, State Lands Division,
Natural Heritage Program). The tract consists of 2,750 feet of water frontage on Bon Secour
Bay. Partners in this project include the Weeks Bay NERR, Weeks Bay Foundation, and the Land
Trust Alliance.
95
Dauphin Island Habitat Acquisition and Conservation for Neotropical Migratory Birds
Dauphin Island is the first landfall following a 600-mile non-stop flight across the Gulf of
Mexico from the Yucatan Peninsula. Dauphin Island Bird Sanctuaries, Inc. (DIBS) is a nonprofit
corporation dedicated to preserving the island as migratory bird habitat. To date, DIBS has
raised over $1.4 million to acquire and permanently protect nearly 10 acres of critical habitat.
Most of these 10 acres is classified as wetland, including portions of the Tupelo Gum Swamp
and the General Gorgas Swamp. DIBS seeks funds to acquire and permanently protect the
remaining 30-40 lots in the Steiner block and the Tupelo Gum and Gorgas Swamps. DIBS
estimates that these 30-40 lots would have an average appraised value of about $30,000 each,
for a total of $1.56 million necessary to acquire and maintain the properties.
Florida
Central Tate's Hell Hydrologic Restoration and Estuarine Monitoring
The New River basin in the central Tate’s Hell swamp encompasses more than 110,000
(Figure 5-5) and is the largest watershed in the Tate’s Hello State Forest. Hydrologic alterations
have severed historical drainage pathways and disrupted the natural flow of freshwater to the
bay and impacted the salinity regime in adjacent estuarine habitats. The Northwest Florida
Water Management District have planned a high priority hydrologic and habitat restoration
project to reconnect and restore the natural hydrology and wetland functions and re-establish
natural salinity at a cost of $1,940,000. Hydrologic improvements will include 60 low water
crossings, 29 flashboard risers, 55 new or replacement culverts, 13 culvert removals, 189 ditch
blocks, one bridge, and approximately 7 miles of road removals. Pre- and post-construction
monitoring will be conducted to evaluate environmental and water quality changes due to
restoration efforts.
96
Figure 5-5. Location of forested wetland projects recommended for NOAA Oil Spill Restoration
funding in Florida.
Apalachicola River and Bay Basin Hydrologic Restoration
Apalachicola Bay, East Bay, and St. George Sound lie at the terminus of the ApalachicolaChattahoochee-Flint river system and comprise one of the most productive estuaries in the
United States. This estuary serves as a major nursery for ecologically and commercially
important species, and it provides a foundation for much of the regional economy. During the
1960s and 1970s, the hydrology of the Tate's Hell State Forest was severely altered to facilitate
silviculture activities. Construction of numerous roads and ditches disrupted natural flow to the
estuary, impacting salinity and water quality. This project will reconnect and restore natural
hydrology and wetland functions, and re-establish the natural salinity regime at a cost of
$1,800,000.
The proposed project recommends hydrologic restoration of 34,000 acres and as much
as 1,000 acres of removal of exotic and invasive species along with prescribed burning, and tree
thinning in a manner that is consistent with the Florida Division of Forestry's Vegetation
97
Management Guidelines document (Haddock 2001). These activities would be followed by
reforestation, where needed with trees planted at naturally occurring or slightly higher tree
densities. Slash pines are very resilient even in wet areas and could be replanted in project
areas, such as historical wet savannas, at pine densities of less than 200 trees per acre that will
result in a naturally dense tree canopy. The re-vegetation efforts will accelerate, enhance and
ensure the success of hydrologic restoration work.
Freeman Tract/Steinhatchee River
The Freeman Tract is a critical in-holding within the Big Bend Wildlife Management
Area, one of Florida's most pristine conservation areas, which extends more than 200 miles
along Florida's gulf coast (Figure 5-5). Located at the mouth of the Steinhatchee River, the tract
helps protect water quality of the gulf and river, preserve habitat for wildlife, and provide
recreational opportunities for the public. With its pristine salt marshes, pine forests, and tidal
creeks, the site preserves habitat for listed species like West Indian manatee, Wood stork, Gulf
sturgeon, Florida black bear, and Gulf salt marsh snake. It will also provide a critical buffer to
adjacent public lands and protect the watershed of the Steinhatchee River and its estuary on
the Gulf of Mexico. These waters are part of the Big Bend Seagrass Preserve, a 950,000-acre
expanse of submerged seagrass and marshlands that extend for 150 miles along Florida's gulf
coast. This area provides some of the state's best habitat for bird, fish, and shellfish species,
and is a vital part of the local and regional economy.
The State of Florida and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service have made very large
investments in the protection of the Big Bend region of Florida's Gulf Coast. Beginning with the
St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge and continuing south to the Waccasassa Bay Preserve State
Park, approximately 250,000 acres have been placed in public ownership along the Gulf of
Mexico. The Conservation Fund requests $850,000 for this project. Partners in this project
include Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
98
Lower Peace River Project
The Peace River is the principal freshwater source for Charlotte Harbor, Florida's second
largest estuary (Figure 5-5). The Peace River is a critical lifeline of central Florida because it is
an essential source of water supply for the surrounding region and it is the watershed of the
Bone Valley region. Charlotte Harbor and southwest Florida's health is directly related to the
health of the Peace River. The Peace River corridor is not only regionally significant, it also
provides one of the few viable options for functionally connecting conservation lands in the
south and north Florida, from the Everglades to the tip of the Florida panhandle.
In comparison with other regions of Florida, there has been much less attention paid to
the Peace River as a state resource throughout Florida's conservation history. This inattention
is reflected in the scarcity of protected lands that occur near and along the river. Wildlands
Conservation, in cooperation/coordination/partnership with the Southwest Florida Water
Management District, the Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program, and the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection have identified land owners that are willing to
participate in an effort to preserve thousands of acres of land along the lower Peace River in
Desoto County. The cost of this project is approximately $10,000,000 and it encompasses
almost 10,000 acres of natural lands along the Peace River, and includes both floodplain and
the adjacent uplands. The project encompasses 30 miles of Peace River frontage,
approximately 6 miles along Horse Creek, one of the river's major tributaries, and 2.3 miles of
Joshua Creek, another significant tributary.
Wildlands Conservation, Inc. is currently working with the landowners along the lower
Peace River in Desoto County to explore options for conserving their lands. The proposed
project area is an acquisition priority for the Southwest Florida Water Management District
(SWFWMD); the area is also on the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Florida
Forever List.
The project serves as a valuable riparian buffer for the Peace River from intensive land
uses and development and protection of this land is essential for the water resources of the
River and Charlotte Harbor. This area is included in the following management plans, including
Florida Ecological Greenways Network, Florida Department of Environmental Protection's
99
Integrated Habitat Network, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Coordinated
Conservation Blueprint, Acquisition target for Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Florida Forever Program, Southwest Florida Water Management District Priority Acquisition
target. The cost of this project is $10,000,000. Partners of this project include Charlotte Harbor
National Estuary Program, Southwest Florida Water Management District, and the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection.
Texas
Lower Sabine River Corridor
The 555-mile Sabine River divides Texas and Louisiana. The lower stretch of the river
flows out of Toledo Bend Reservoir into the Sabine Lake estuary and then into the Gulf of
Mexico. Hancock Forest Management and its partners own over 14,000 acres of Sabine river
bottom in Newton County, Texas, including over 30 contiguous river miles, as well as limited
tracts in Louisiana (Figure 5-6), all of which are being actively marketed for conservation. The
property, estimated at $25 million, could be owned by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
National Park Service or the Army Corps of Engineers, or held privately and protected through
conservation easements.
The bottomland forests of the lower Sabine River consist of mixed pine-hardwood that
give way to cypress bayous as the river nears the Gulf. The river flows through an area of
abundant rainfall and discharges the largest volume of any river in Texas. The large,
unfragmented river bottom tracts offer an unusual opportunity to protect a remote forest as
well as to preserve a watershed that provides a large source of fresh water to the Gulf's
habitats and fisheries. The Sabine river bottoms are extremely important as habitat for
migratory landbirds, who use the forests for food and shelter each spring after crossing the Gulf
and follow the river corridor on their way to breeding grounds farther north.
The Conservation Fund has been in continued discussions with the owner regarding
acquisition of these tracts, and both parties are eager to begin pending availability of funds. For
more information about individual tracts, please contact The Conservation Fund 101 W. 6th
Street, Suite 601, Austin, Texas 78701. The phone number is (512) 477-1712. Location
100
Overview (lat: 30.2, long: -93.45).
Figure 5-6. Location of forested wetland sites recommended to the NOAA Oil Spill
restoration in Texas.
Columbia Bottomland
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Austin's Woods Conservation Plan was developed to
conserve the unique and internationally significant wetland forest ecosystem of the Columbia
Bottomlands found along the Texas Mid-Coast in Brazoria, Fort Bend, Wharton and Matagorda
counties (Figure 5-6). In the overall conservation plan, the Service proposes to acquire up to
28,000 acres of bottomland forest in the floodplains of the Brazos, San Bernard, and Colorado
Rivers near the Gulf of Mexico, contained within the San Bernard National Wildlife Refuge. The
proposed pattern of land acquisition is a mosaic of wetland forest blocks that together protect
the ecosystem. To date, a total of 16,000 acres have been conserved as additions to the
Refuge.
101
The bottomland forests of the Columbia Bottomlands, encompassing the floodplain
wetlands of the Brazos, San Bernard and Colorado rivers ecosystem on the Texas mid-coast, are
critically important to wildlife, including waterfowl and waterbirds, neotropical migrant
songbirds, and many reptiles, amphibians and mammals. The ecosystem is the only expanse of
forest adjacent to the Gulf of Mexico in Texas, making the forests of the Columbia Bottomlands
a primary stopover for migratory landbirds completing their spring migration across the Gulf of
Mexico. The forest, which originally covered 700,000 acres, now covers approximately 177,000
acres. Thousands of acres of habitat continue to be lost in this ecosystem each year from
commercial and residential development, logging, drainage, and clearing for grazing.
The acquisition of these tracts will provide added public benefits in the form of
compatible recreational uses, educational opportunities, and to further research. The Service
may offer public hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, canoeing and interpretation when
compatible with the purposes of the refuge. Demand for outdoor recreation is high in the
Houston area. Columbia Bottomland project boundary is approximately 15 miles from
downtown Houston.
The Conservation Fund is currently working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to
finalize protection of Osceola Plantation within the San Bernard National Wildlife Refuge. The
Fund is available to partner with the Service to protect other high priority tracts. Upon
acquisition, the properties would be conveyed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to become
part of the San Bernard National Wildlife Refuge.
This project is included in the Mid-Coast Initiative of the Gulf Coast Joint Venture, GCBO
Partner, Austin's Woods Land Protection Plan (FWS-2013), Austin's Woods Conservation Plan
(FWS-1997), Texas Gulf Coast Land Protection Plan (FWS-1985), U.S. Shorebird Conservation
Plan, Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan, North American Waterbird Conservation Plan,
North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Gulf Coast Joint Venture Plan for the Texas MidCoast, Strategic Conservation Plan for the Columbia Bottomlands. The estimated cost of this
project is $125,000,000 and the available funding is $3,500,000. Location Overview
(lat: 29.270042, long: -95.65611).
102
Land acquisition at Nannie M. Stringfellow WMA in Brazoria County
The Nannie M. Stringfellow WMA preserves and manages bottomland hardwood forest
and wetlands habitat and associated wildlife species. The purpose of this project is to acquire
200 acres of bottomland hardwood wetland habitat adjacent to the current 3,600 acre Nannie
M. Stringfellow Wildlife Management Area in Brazoria County, Texas for $500,000 (Figure 5-6).
Project will directly benefit up to 237 species of neotropical migratory birds, millions of which
depend upon this habitat in their annual migrations, in addition to numerous native species of
birds, reptiles, and mammals. Project will add valuable bottomland hardwood acreage to the
existing mitigation land owned by the Texas Department of Transportation and managed by the
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. Location Overview (lat: 28.96865, long: -95.609722).
INDIVIDUAL STATE PROGRAMS
Alabama
Multiple state and federal programs exist to protect and conserve environmentally
important forestlands in Alabama, including FFWs. Those programs that focus on the coastal
area relevant to this study are discussed below.
Forever Wild Land Trust Program
Under the Forever Wild Act of 1992 the Alabama Department of Conservation and
Natural Resources (ADCNR) State Lands Division is authorized to acquire conservation
easements or fee title to lands in need of public protection. Since its establishment, the
Forever Wild program has acquired and currently manages more than 200,000 acres of land in
23 counties in Alabama for public use (Figure 5-7). The Alabama Department of Conservation
and Natural Resources (ADCNR) manages these lands through its various divisions: State Lands,
State Parks, and Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries.
103
Figure 5-7. Forever wild land tracts in Alabama
(www.alabamaforeverwild.com).
Alabama Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program
The Alabama CELCP Program area comprises approximately 7,800 square miles of land
area that is geographically split into three separate drainage areas (Figure 5-8). The largest
portion of the program area reaches the Gulf of Mexico via Mobile Bay or the Perdido or
Escatawpa River watersheds. The other two units, the Yellow River watershed and the
104
Choctawhatchee River watershed, cross into the Florida panhandle before reaching the Gulf.
The CELCP Program area contains one federally designated National Estuarine Research
Reserve (Weeks Bay NERR) and includes land within the management area of another (Grand
Bay NERR, MS). The CELCP Program area also contains two National Wildlife Refuges (Bon
Secour and Grand Bay NWR), portions of a National Forest (Conecuh National Forest), and a
host of state and local conservation, recreation, and cultural resource sites (Alabama
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources 2005).
The CELCP Program area also includes the Mobile Bay National Estuary Program and the
Mobile-Tensaw River Delta (Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
2005). Priority conservation targets in the Alabama CELCP Program Area include Gulf beach
and dune systems, maritime live oak-pine forest, bottomland hardwood forests and swamps,
wet longleaf pine forests, flatwoods, and savannas, upland longleaf pine and wiregrass sandhill
community, Atlantic whitecedar swamps, riparian corridors, red hills and lime hills, and
estuarine zones (Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources 2005).
.
105
Figure 5-8. Boundary of the CELCP program area in Alabama (Alabama Department of
Conservation and Natural Resources 2005).
Alabama Coastal Area Management Program
The Alabama Coastal Area Management Program (ACAMP) has been in effect since 1979
and is administered through two state agencies. The Alabama Department of Conservation and
Natural Resources is responsible for planning, fiscal management, public education and
research management; and the Alabama Department of Environmental Management carries
out permitting, regulatory, and enforcement functions. The program has identified specific
conservation and management targets for the coastal area through its Special Management
Area and Geographic Area of Particular Concern designations (Alabama Department of
Conservation and Natural Resources 2005).
Geographic Areas of Particular Concern (GAPC) are “areas that are recognized as being
under development pressure and requiring specific attention.” The following proposed GAPCs
are related to the Coastal Connection Scenic Byway:
106

Gulf of Mexico Shoreline (proposed) - The Gulf of Mexico Shoreline protects the natural
beach and dune system that is vital to the coastal area. Uses, except those of regional
benefit are, that can potentially have a negative impact on the position or stability of
the shoreline are discouraged along the Gulf of Mexico shoreline.

Weeks Bay Coastal Area (proposed) – This area includes Weeks Bay and extended
boundaries of the Weeks Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve. This area is located
in Baldwin County and the Weeks Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve. Weeks Bay
is a shallow sub-estuary of Mobile Bay and includes several habitats like tidal wetlands
and swamps, salt marshes, aquatic grassbeds and maritime forests.

Mon Louis Island (proposed) – This Island consists of approximately 14,600 acres, of
which nearly 75 percent is wetlands. The southern portion of the Island has the largest
undeveloped contiguous block of the coastal salt march in Alabama. The ACAMP
recognizes this Island as unique and culturally significant and discourages all activities
that will significantly alter the critical habitat in the area (HNTB Corporation 2008).
Areas of Preservation and Restoration (APR) are “areas that are pristine or
representative of natural systems and deserve special attention.” These areas have special
conservation, recreational or ecological value and APR designation recognizes that they deserve
special regulatory provisions for preservation. The following recognized or proposed APRs are
related to the Coastal Connection Scenic Byway:

Audubon Sanctuary – This Sanctuary consists of 159 acres of land owned by Mobile
County and preserved in its natural state. The sanctuary is a habitat for migratory birds
as well as terrestrial and semi-aquatic species. The APR designation for this area
discourages all activities that are inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the
sanctuary.

Weeks Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve – As discussed above, Weeks Bay has
several unique and environmentally sensitive characteristics that are recognized
through the APR designation.
107

Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge (proposed) – The Refuge includes 6,500 acres of
land and is home to numerous species including the endangered Alabama beach mouse
and migratory birds. The APR designation discourages all activities that are not
consistent with the goals and objectives of the wildlife refuge or those that would
significantly alter the refuge’s natural state (HNTB Corporation 2008).
Mobile Bay National Estuary Program
The Mobile Bay National Estuary Program (MBNEP) was created in 1995 for
conservation and protection of the Mobile Bay estuary. The mission of the MBNEP is to
promote wise stewardship of the water quality characteristics and living resource base of the
Mobile Bay estuarine system. Administered through and funded by the EPA under provisions
of the Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1987, the initial task for the MBNEP was the development of a
Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan (CCMP) as a blueprint for conserving the
estuary. This CCMP was recently revised for 2013 – 2018 and it provides information for
coastal environmental management and restoration (Mobile Bay National Estuary Program
2012).
In 2004 the Mobile Bay National Estuary Program (MBNEP) was awarded a grant by the
EPA Gulf of Mexico Program to conduct a strategic assessment of habitats throughout Mobile
and Baldwin Counties that would identify priority sites for acquisition and restoration. At the
same time, The Nature Conservancy of Alabama (TNC) was going through an internal process to
identify priority habitats for conservation. Recognizing their common objectives, MBNEP and
TNC partnered and conducted a one-year conservation planning effort using this ecosystem
based process to focus on the following conservation areas: Perdido River Corridor, the Gulf
Islands, the Mobile Bay & Delta, and the Grand Bay. This effort resulted in the identification of
17 priority acquisition sites (or other conservation options) and over 30 other sites/ habitat
types where restoration and/or enhancement are considered viable and necessary (Table 5-1).
Grand Bay - The Grand Bay complex is located in southeastern Jackson County,
Mississippi and southern Mobile County, Alabama. This conservation area extends over 150,000
acres of land and water.
108
Gulf Islands - The Gulf Islands conservation area spans the string of barrier islands that
lie just off the coast of Alabama. This includes Dauphin Island, smaller islands in Mississippi
Sound, the Fort Morgan Peninsula, Gulf Oak Ridge, East Ono Island, Wolf Bay, the Perdido Pass
Islands, and the Soldier Creek basin.
Mobile -Tensaw River Delta / Mobile Bay - The Mobile-Tensaw River Delta conservation
area is located in southwest Alabama in the East Gulf Coastal Plain ecoregion in central
Alabama and empties into Mobile Bay. The Mobile-Tensaw River Delta is defined as the area
from the Alabama River cutoff southward to the upper end of Mobile Bay at U.S. Highway 90
within the ten-foot contour interval. The Delta is approximately 45 miles long, averages 8 miles
wide, and contains over 400 square miles of wetland and associated upland ecosystems.
Perdido River - The Perdido River and Bay conservation area covers approximately
700,000 acres of land in Baldwin and Escambia Counties in Alabama and Escambia County,
Florida. The land use is mostly forested (85%) with agriculture (13%) also important.
Urban/industrial areas make up less than 2% of the watershed but they are increasing. Much of
the remaining long-leaf pine forest in Coastal Alabama is located in the Perdido River corridor
(Mobile Bay National Estuary Program 2006).
Table 5-1. Selected parcels for conservation and protection in Alabama’s coastal
zone (Mobile Bay National Estuary Program 2006).
REGION
SITE
INCLUDING
1. Grand Bay
Cat Island1
2. Grand Bay
East Grand Bay Coastal Parcels
Cuppersmith-Cedar Point Tract
Dezauch Tract
Tensaw Land and Timber Tract
Henderson Tract (Mon Luis
Island)
West Fowl River Tract
3. Grand Bay
Grand Bay National Wildlife
Whitehead
Refuge
MC Davis Tracts2
4. Grand Bay
West Grand Bay Coastal Parcels Solet Tract
Henderson Tracts
5. Gulf Islands
Dauphin Island Migratory Bird
Steiner Properties
Stopover Habitats2
109
Tupelo Gum Swamp
Gorgas Swamp
6. Gulf Islands
7. Gulf Islands
8. Gulf Islands
9. Mobile Bay & Delta
10. Mobile Bay & Delta
11. Mobile Bay & Delta
12. Mobile Bay & Delta
13. Mobile Bay & Delta
14. Perdido River
15. Perdido River
16. Perdido River
17. Perdido River
1
2
Peninsula Tract
West End of Dauphin Island2
Gulf State Park In-Holdings
Bayou Sara2
Coastal Land Trust (ALCO) Tract2
Hell’s Creek Swamp
Live Oak Landing2
Weeks Bay In-Holdings2
AIG Baker/Reeder Lake Tract
IP Perdido River Tract2
Lillian Swamp Tracts2
Delta LLP Connector Tracts
Destroyed in Katrina
Acquired/owned/project in development
Dauphin Island Bird Sanctuaries
The "Tupelo Gum Swamp" listed in Table 5-1 is an 11-acre swath of wetlands hidden
between several dead-end roads south of Bienville Boulevard. The Tupelo Gum Swamp is
located in the center of the widest part of the island and there are 20 lots (10 acres) that
contain substantial wetlands and are designated as Tupelo Gum Swamp. This swamp is located
just inland of the main dune line on the island's south side and is bisected by a 10-foot-wide
public access right-of-way. This area has been targeted for conservation because of its unique
vegetation. Gaining control of these lots will secure important wetland habitat and provide an
ecotourism opportunity through the development of a birding trail along this right-of-way.
Since 2001, DIBS has successfully acquired four of these lots through gifts and purchases
(http://www.coastalbirding.org/index.htm).
East of the Tupelo Gum Swamp is the Gorgas Swamp, again populated with Tupelo Gum
trees. At present this area is being destroyed by excessive all-terrain vehicular traffic, which
compacts the soil, generating ruts and gullies that serve to drain the water off the surface, and
interrupting the hydrologic cycle. Unless this swamp is purchased and use of its grounds
restricted, 10 acres of rich wetland habitat will be lost
(http://www.coastalbirding.org/index.htm).
110
Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Consortium
The mission of the Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Consortium (MASGC) is to is to
provide integrated research, communication, education, extension and legal programs to
coastal communities that lead to the responsible use of Alabama, Mississippi, Gulf of Mexico
and nation’s ocean and coastal resources through informed personal, policy and management
decisions (Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Consortium 2012). To fulfill this mission, MASGC
commits to interdisciplinary environmental scholarship and community-based natural
resources management so that coastal and marine resources are conserved and managed for a
sustainable economy and environment (http://d276864.h39.zee-hosting.com/page.asp?id=3).
The MASGC maintains a habitat database to provide information on habitat projects in order to
improve coordination and restoration methods (http://restoration.disl.org/www/).
Mobile Baykeeper
Mobile Baykeeper is a nonprofit environmental organization with over 4,000 members
with a common interest in preserving and protecting the beauty, health and heritage of the
Mobile Bay Watershed (http://www.mobilebaykeeper.org/). Mobile Baykeeper created a list of
projects that will positively benefit coastal Alabama in a multitude of significant ways (Table 52). These projects were taken from the database of submitted projects from the NRDA NOAA
website (http://www.gulfspillrestoration.noaa.gov) and the list has been reviewed by a number
of organizations such as The Nature Conservancy, Operation Homecare, The Ocean
Conservancy, and Boat People SOS. To date, this list includes projects that have been
contributed and vetted by community stakeholders with a wide variety of areas of expertise
and mission statements, but with the common goal of promoting projects which begin the
process of restoring coastal Alabama and making it more resilient.
Table 5-2. Potential Alabama Coastal Restoration Projects Supported by Mobile
Baykeeper.
Project
Objective
Location
Estimated
Cost
111
100-1000 Restore
Coastal Al
Build 100 miles of oyster
reef and protect marsh and
seagrass
Mobile Causeway
Restore hydrologic
Hydrologic
connectivity between the
Restoration Project
Mobile/Tensaw Delta and
Mobile Bay
D’Olive Creek
Restore hydrology, stabilize
Watershed
stream banks, provide
Restoration
wildlife habitat
Alabama Oyster Shell Oyster shell collection and
Recycling Program
re-use
Fisheries
Collection of plankton data
Oceanography of
to establish a baseline of
Coastal Alabama
coastal fishery conditions
Three Mile Creek
Research and develop a
Repair and
watershed management
Maintenance
plan; restore natural flow of
a waterway
Swift Tract Addition – Fee simple acquisition on
A Resource
Bon Secour Bay of 131 acres
Protection Project
of forested wetlands and
6,650 linear feet of
shoreline
Coastal Land
More than 130,000 acres
Acquisition in AL
have been identified
Fowl River Shore and Restore and stabilize
Island Restoration
shoreline and restore
wetlands
Renovation of
Conduct system retrofit for
Mobile’s Stormwater stomwater improvements
Management System
Baldwin County
County-wide study and
Stormwater,
management plan
Watershed Study,
and Mangement Plan
Dauphin Island
Restoration of Dauphin
Causeway
Island Causeway
Restoration
Coastal Alabama
$150,000,000
Mobile and Baldwin
Counties
$70,000,000
D’Olive Creek (Mobile
Bay)
$42,723,000
Mobile and Baldwin
counties
Coast
$6,400,000
Three Mile Creek
$2,500,000
$7,500,000
Tracts adjoin the
$309,200
Weeks Bay Mitigation
Bank, Weeks Bay
Reserve Swift and Bect
Tract
Coastal Alabama
$250,000,000
Fowl River
$6,500,000
City of Mobile
1 Billion+
Baldwin county
$50,000,000
Dauphin Island and
access
$20,535,330
112
Forest Legacy Program
In 2000 Governor Siegelman appointed the Alabama Forestry Commission (AFC) as the
state lead agency to develop and administer a Forest Legacy Program in Alabama. The purpose
of the Forest Legacy Program (FLP) is to identify and protect environmentally important
forestland from conversion to non-forest uses, through the use of conservation easements and
fee purchases. The Forest Legacy Program complements existing state programs by providing
funding necessary to acquire otherwise unobtainable easements and important tracts that
contain environmentally important forest resources. The FLP created six Forest Legacy Areas
(FLAs) including North, North Central, West Central, Southeast, Upper Southwest, and Lower
Southwest (Figure 5-9, Alabama Forest Resources Center 2002).
Figure 5-9. Forest Legacy Areas in Alabama
(Alabama Forest Resources Center 2002).
.
Five counties comprise the Lower Southwest FLA, including Baldwin, Covington,
Escambia, Mobile, and Washington. As of 2000, the population was 636,426 and 74% of the
113
land area was timberland. The Lower Southwest FLA has several identified environmentally
sensitive forest types in need of special protection, including:

Black bear habitat in Mobile and Washington counties (e.g. Hells Swamp Creek, Sullivan
Creek, Bassett Creek),

Maritime live oak-pine forest (critical fallout habitat for migratory songbirds),

Longleaf pine forests/flatwoods/savannas and associated wet pitcher plant seeps,

Dry longleaf pine-oak sandhill woodlands with gopher tortoises and/or other rare
species,

River bluff forest along the Mobile-Tensas delta,

Atlantic white cedar swamps (e.g., Blackwater and Styx rivers, Big Escambia Creek), and

Riparian corridors and associated forested wetlands along ecoregional priority
river/stream reaches (e.g. Escatawpa River, Perdido River).
Public lands in this FLA include Conecuh National Forest, Bon Secour National Wildlife
Refuge (NWR), Grand Bay NWR, Weeks Bay National Estuarine Preserve, Gulf State Park (SP),
Florala SP, Frank Jackson SP, Meaher SP, Baldwin State Forest (SF), George Washington SF, Little
River SF, and Panther Creek SF. Habitat in this FLA is facing several threats. Urban sprawl from
Mobile is impacting areas of north and west Mobile County as well as much of Baldwin County.
Coastal development is impacting southern Baldwin County. Proposed toll roads and hurricane
evacuation routes threaten additional forested areas (Alabama Forest Resources Center 2002).
Alabama Forestry Commission
The Alabama Forestry Commission (AFC) manages approximately 14,487 acres of state
forests. In addition, it administers the TREASURE Forest Program that provides management
assistance to landowners. This voluntary program promotes sound and sustainable, multipleuse forest management while at the same time protecting and enhancing the environment.
The AFC is committed to protecting and sustaining our forest resources using professionally
applied stewardship principles and education. The AFC will ensure Alabama's forests contribute
114
to abundant timber and wildlife, clean air and water, and a healthy economy
(http://www.forestry.state.al.us/Default.aspx).
The Nature Conservancy of Alabama
The mission of The Nature Conservancy (TNC) is to conserve the lands and waters on
which all life depends. In Southern Alabama, TNC works to protect several ecosystems,
including Grand Bay Savanna, Splinter Hill Bog, Dennis Cove, Gulf Islands, Rabbit Island, MobileTensaw River Delta, and Weeks Bay NERR.
Longleaf Pine Ecosystems
The 15-year goal for the Range-Wide Conservation Plan for Longleaf Pine is an increase
in longleaf from 3.4 to 8.0 million acres, with half of this acreage targeted in the 16 range-wide
“Significant Landscapes.” One of those significant landscapes is in Alabama (Figure 5-10;
Regional Working Group for America’s Longleaf 2009).
115
Figure 5-10. Significant landscapes in longleaf pine conservation (Regional Working Group for
America’s Longleaf 2009).
Alabama CIAP
The State of Alabama CIAP Plan Amendment for FY 2009 and FY 2010 includes 25 Tier
One Projects and 19 Tier Two Projects (44 total) allocating the remaining FY 2009 and FY 2010
CIAP funding for the State of Alabama, Baldwin County, and Mobile County ($39,253,102.84;
Table 5-3). Tier One projects submitted for grant funding are anticipated to utilize 100 percent
of the allocation for FY 2009 and FY 2010. Tier Two projects are for back up purposes. If a Tier
One is cancelled, scaled back or deferred, the State of Alabama, Baldwin County, or Mobile
County can submit a Tier Two project for grant funding without having to amend the CIAP Plan
Amendment for FY 2009 and FY 2010. The Tier One and Tier Two projects included in the State
of Alabama CIAP Plan Amendment for FY 2009 and FY 2010 will provide long-term benefits to
Alabama’s coastal area (Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources 2011).
116
Table 5-3. List of Habitat Restoration/Acquisition Projects To Receive
Potential Funding Through Alabama CIAP (Alabama Department of Conservation
and Natural Resources 2011).
Project
Objectives
Location
Tier One
Acquisition of Live Oak Purchase conservation land Baldwin
Landing at Live Oak Landing
County, MobileTensaw Delta
Dauphin Island Implement shoreline
Dauphin Island,
Shoreline Stabilization stabilization on Dauphin
AL
island
Habitat Restoration at Protect, conserve, and
Gulf State Park,
Gulf State Park restore coastal habitat
between Gulf
through sea oat restoration Shores &
Orange Beach
Wetland and Waterway Provide roadway
Baldwin County
Protection stabilization to 17 miles of
roadway
Raymond L. Harris Design an eco-park for
Baldwin County
Nature Preserve educational purposes
Stream Restoration for Restoration of 800 linear
D’Olive Creek
Tributary to D’Olive feet of an unnamed
Watershed,
Creek tributary of D’Olive Creek
Baldwin County
Dauphin Island Habitat Restore degraded habitats Dauphin Island
Restoration
Sensitive Habitat Restoration of stream
Mobile County
Restoration and corridors and wetland
Enhancement of enhancement
County-owned Property
Tier Two
Bon Secour Land Purchase 11.82 acres of
SW Baldwin
Acquisition Project coastal wetlands & uplands County
Restoration of Dauphin Construct 10 acres of dune Dauphin Island
Islands West End Dunes habitat
Dauphin Island Aloe Bay Acquire a waterfront parcel Mobile County
Property Acquisition on the north shore of
Dauphin island
Stream Restoration of Restore 800 linear feet of
City of Daphne,
Tributary to Tiawasee D’Olive Creek and 1000 ft
Baldwin County
and D’Olive Creek of Tiawasee Creek
Estimated
Cost
$4 million
$5 million
$50,000
$3.2
million
$250,000
$250,000
$200,000
$3.3
million
$4.9
million
$225,000
$1.3
million
$540,000
117
Perdido Bay Coastal
Islands Acquisition
Coastal Alabama Land
Acquisition
Habitat Protection and
Restoration along StateOwned Lands
Purchase Gilchrist Island &
Walker Island
Acquire land for
conservation in coastal
Alabama
Protect and restore salt
marsh along shorelines
along Grand Bay,
Portersville Bay, and
Mississippi Sound
Implement erosion control
measure through
stabilization of dirt roads
Acquire space for outdoor
recreation and education
Water Quality
Enhancement in Coastal
Watersheds
Acquisition of Property
for Conservation &
Public Access
Habitat Restoration on Produce a strategy for
Public Lands habitat restoration
Orange Beach,
Baldwin County
Mobile County
$344,500
Mobile County
$5 million
Mobile &
Baldwin
counties
Baldwin County
$1.4
million
Mobile County
$3 million
$2 million
$2 million
Florida
Florida Division of Forestry
The mission of the Florida Forest Service (FFS) is to protect and manage the forest
resources of Florida, ensuring that they are available for future generations. Wildfire
prevention and suppression are key components in our efforts to protect homeowners from
the threat of damage in a natural, fire-dependent environment. We are dedicated to training
individuals to meet these goals. In addition to managing over one million acres of State Forests
for multiple public uses including timber, recreation and wildlife habitat, we also provide
services to landowners throughout the state with technical information and grant programs
(http://www.floridaforestservice.com/). The Florida Division of Forestry, along with partnering
forest resource agencies and individuals, developed the Florida Forest Resource Strategy document
to provide an updated systematic approach to addressing forest resource issues important to
Florida (Florida Division of Forestry 2010). The strategy focused on many issues, including
longleaf pine ecosystems.
118
Longleaf pine ecosystems once accounted for about 60% of the landscape of the
southeastern Coastal Plain and were strongly linked to the functions of the remaining
ecosystems, including wetlands. Of the original range, only about 0.2% is being managed with
fire sufficient to perpetuate the open structure and species diversity of this ecosystem. The
primary threat to the remaining longleaf pine is the absence of frequent fire. In order to
contribute a focus and a means for developing and informing priorities, a map was developed
with information from the Range-wide Conservation Plan for Longleaf Pine, the Landowner
Survey Focus Areas map provided by FWC, and managed areas mapped by the Florida Natural
Areas Inventory (Figure 5-11, Florida Division of Forestry 2010).
Figure 5-11. Florida longleaf pine priority areas (Florida Division of Forestry 2010).
The 15-year goal for the Range-Wide Conservation Plan for Longleaf Pine is an increase
in longleaf from 3.4 to 8.0 million acres, with half of this acreage targeted in the 16 range-wide
119
“Significant Landscapes.” Four of those significant landscapes are in Florida (Figure 5-12,
Regional Working Group for America’s Longleaf 2009).
Figure 5-12. Significant Landscapes for Longleaf Pine Conservation (Regional Working
Group for America’s Longleaf 2009).
Florida Natural Areas Inventory
The Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) is dedicated to gathering, interpreting, and
disseminating information critical to the conservation of Florida’s biological resources. The
Inventory was founded in 1981 and is now part of Florida State University’s Institute of Science
and Public Affairs. FNAI staff maintain a comprehensive statewide database that now includes
more than 35,000 occurrences of rare plant and animal species and high-quality natural
communities. The database also contains information on more than 1,600 lands managed
wholly or in part for conservation. This database includes national forests, parks and wildlife
120
refuges; state parks, forests, aquatic preserves, and wildlife management areas; county and
municipal parks; private preserves; and military installations with substantial natural areas.
Boundaries of state and local land acquisition projects are also represented. For January 2013,
one proposal was been submitted to the Florida Forever Program: Candy Bar Ranch which is a
838 acre property in western DeSoto County just south of State Highway 72. The primary
natural communities are mesic/hydric hammock, mesic flatwoods, and depression/basin marsh
(Florida Natural Areas Inventory 2013).
Florida Critical Lands and Waters Identification Project
The Critical Lands and Waters Identification Project (CLIP) is a database that identifies
lands and waters with important natural resource attributes of state and regional
significance. The CLIP Database serves as an informative statewide support and decisionmaking tool for identifying important opportunities to protect Florida's essential ecosystems.
The Florida Natural Areas Inventory, the University of Florida, and the Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission developed the CLIP Database to assess and incorporate available GIS
data for identifying statewide areas of interest for protecting biodiversity, water resources,
ecosystem services, and other natural resource values.
Florida Forest Legacy
The Forest Legacy Program (FLP), a Federal program in partnership with States, supports
State efforts to acquire and protect forest lands with natural resource values. The Forest
Legacy Program complements private, Federal, and State programs focusing on conservation.
The goals of the Florida Forest Legacy program are to:

Conserve important forested communities to enhance the environmental, social, and
economic health of the state;

Seek established public conservation partners to leverage federal funding;

Pursue high quality forest lands that support statewide strategic conservation efforts;

Mitigate the state’s rapid loss of environmentally important forests, focusing on those
which are threatened by conversion from all sources; and
121

Respect the property rights of private landowners by limiting participation to willing
sellers (Florida Division of Forestry 2010).
Currently, there are more than 16,500,000 acres enrolled in the Forest Legacy program in
Florida (Figure 5-13).
Figure 5-13. Florida Forest Legacy Areas (Florida Division of Forestry 2010).
Florida Forever
Florida Forever is the state’s premier conservation and recreations land acquisition
program. The Florida Forever Priority List reflects the acquisition priorities of the portion of
Florida Forever administered by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. These
lands are proposed for acquisition because of outstanding natural resources, opportunities for
natural resource-based recreation, or historical and archaeological resources. The Acquisition
122
and Restoration Council recommends and ranks projects on a proposed priority list that is
submitted for approval to the Governor and Cabinet (acting as the Board of Trustees of the
Internal Improvement Trust Fund, or BOT). Since its inception in July 2001 to the present, the
Florida Forever program has acquired more than 683,000 acres of land with $2.87 billion
(http://www.dep.state.fl.us/lands/fl_forever.htm).
Florida Water Management Districts
Florida has five water management districts created by the Water Resources Act of 1972
and these districts were described in Chapter Four. Each management district produces
management plans to protect and manage water resources.
Northwest Florida Water Management District
The Northwest Florida Water Management District (NWFWMD or District) stretches
from the St. Marks River Basin in Jefferson County to the Perdido River in Escambia County. It
serves Bay, Calhoun, Escambia, Franklin, Gadsden, Gulf, Holmes, Jackson, Leon, Liberty,
Okaloosa, Santa Rosa, Wakulla, Walton, Washington and western Jefferson County. Within the
District's 11,305-square-mile area, there are several major hydrologic (or drainage) basins:
Perdido River and Bay System, Pensacola Bay System (Escambia, Blackwater and Yellow Rivers),
Choctawhatchee River and Bay System, St. Andrew Bay System, Apalachicola River and Bay
System and St. Marks River Basin (http://www.nwfwmd.state.fl.us/).
Wetlands are widely distributed throughout the Florida Panhandle and include
bottomland hardwood forests, hydric pine flatwoods, wet prairies, cypress strands and
swamps, bay and gum swamps, mixed forested wetlands, seepage slopes, and fresh and salt
marshes (Figure 5-14).
123
Figure 5-14. Northwest Florida Water Management District major wetland systems (Northwest
Florida Water Management District 2006).
Section 373.199(7), F.S. requires the Northwest Florida Water Management District
(District) to update annually its Florida Forever Work Plan. This plan contains information on
projects eligible to receive funding under the Florida Forever Act and also reports on land
management activities, lands surplused and the progress of funding, staffing and resource
management of projects for which the District is responsible. The approved acquisition areas
listed below were taken from the latest NWFWMD Florida Forever Work Plan (Table 5-4,
Northwest Florida Water Management District 2012) and those in Figures 5-15 and 5-16 are
additional potential acquisition lands, although some may have been purchased since this plan
was updated in 2009 (Northwest Florida Water Management District 2006).
Table 5-4. Approved Acquisition areas by waterbody type from the NWFWMD Florida Forever
Work Plan (Northwest Florida Water Management District 2012).
Rivers & Creeks Rivers & Creeks
Other
Originating in
Originating
Ecosystems,
Florida
Outside Florida
Springs
Lakes & Ponds
Basins & Buffers
Wakulla River
Apalachicola River
St. Marks River
Lower Apalachicola
River Wetland
Chipola River
Econfina Creek and
other tributaries of
St. Marks River near
Natural Bridge
Spring Lake/Spring
Group Area
Waddell Springs
Lake Jackson
Sand Hill Lakes
SW Escambia
County Ecosystem
Garcon Point
Ecosystem
West Bay Buffer
124
Deer Point
Lafayette Creek
Choctawhatchee
River including
Holmes Creek
Escambia River
Bosel Springs
Sandy Creek Basin
Hays Springs
Apalachicola Bay/St.
Vincent Sound
Buffer
Blackwater River,
including Juniper,
Big Coldwater &
Coldwater creeks
Ochlockonee River
& its major
tributaries
Yellow & Shoal
Rivers
Perdido River and
Bay
Gainer Springs
Figure 5-15. Public and conservation lands in the Northwest Florida Water Management
District (Northwest Florida Water Management District 2006).
125
Figure 5-16. Key acquisition areas that have been suggested, reviewed, or approved by the
Mitigation Review Team (Northwest Florida Water Management District 2006).
Suwanee River Water Management District
The Suwannee River Water Management District is the smallest of the state's water
management districts in terms of geographic area, population served, tax base, and agency
staff. The Suwannee River Water Management District manages water and related natural
resources in north-central Florida by providing water quality and quantity monitoring, research,
regulation, land acquisition and management, and flood protection.
Suwannee River Water Management District (SRWMD or District) began using Florida
Forever funding ten years ago. This has culminated in the fee purchase of 43,781 preservation
acres and 24,771 acres of protected conservation easements. Florida Forever funding has also
been used for completion of two water resource development projects and four restoration
projects. The District projects the use of up to $1 million of Florida Forever funding for various
restoration projects during FY 2012 (Figure 5-17). Since inception of Florida Forever, the
District has expended $67.5 million for land acquisition and $52 million for restoration and $42
million for water resource development.
126
Figure 5-17. 2012 Florida Forever Acquisition Plan for Suwannee River Water Management
District (Suwannee River Water Management District 2012).
127
Southwest Florida Water Management District
The mission of the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) is to
manage water and related natural resources to ensure their continued availability while
maximizing environmental, economic and recreational benefits. To identify the critical
programmatic areas necessary to fulfill our crucial mission, the SWFWMD created a strategic
planning program intended to provide information to stakeholders and guidance to staff
regarding the pathway toward superior stewardship of water resources (Southwest Florida
Water Management District 2012).
SWFWMD acquires much of its land for conservation and management through the
Florida Forever program and the 2011 workplan includes 11 watershed maps showing land
acquired and land acquisition needs (Figures 5-18 to 5-28, Southwest Florida Water
Management District 2011).
Figure 5-18. Alafia River watershed and proposed acquisition areas (Southwest
Florida Water Management District 2011).
128
Figure 5-19. Hillsborough River watershed and proposed acquisition areas
(Southwest Florida Water Management District 2011).
129
Figure 5-20. Lake Wales Ridge watershed and proposed acquisition areas
(Southwest Florida Water Management District 2011).
130
Figure 5-21. Little Manatee Ridge watershed and proposed acquisition areas
(Southwest Florida Water Management District 2011).
131
Figure 5-22. Manatee River watershed and proposed acquisition areas
(Southwest Florida Water Management District 2011).
132
Figure 5-23. Myakka River watershed and proposed acquisition areas
(Southwest Florida Water Management District 2011).
133
Figure 5-24. Peace River watershed and proposed acquisition areas (Southwest
Florida Water Management District 2011).
134
Figure 5-25. Southern Coastal watershed and proposed acquisition areas
(Southwest Florida Water Management District 2011).
135
Figure 5-26. Springs Coast watershed and proposed acquisition areas (Southwest
Florida Water Management District 2011).
136
Figure 5-27. Tampa Bay watershed and proposed acquisition areas (Southwest
Florida Water Management District 2011).
137
Figure 5-28. Withlacoochee River watershed and proposed acquisition areas
(Southwest Florida Water Management District 2011).
South Florida Water Management District
The South Florida Water Management District is a regional governmental agency that
oversees the water resources in the southern half of the state, covering 16 counties from
Orlando to the Florida Keys and serving a population of 7.7 million residents. It is the oldest
138
and largest of the state’s five water management districts. Created in 1949, the agency is
responsible for managing and protecting water resources of South Florida by balancing and
improving water quality, flood control, natural systems and water supply. A key initiative is the
restoration of America's Everglades – the largest environmental restoration project in the
nation's history. The District is also working to improve the Kissimmee River and its floodplain,
Lake Okeechobee and South Florida's coastal estuaries (South Florida Water Management
District 2013).
Florida Wetland Restoration Information Center
The Florida Wetland Restoration Information Center is a web portal established through
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to facilitate the ecological restoration of
wetlands and their associated uplands. The web site includes the Florida Ecological Restoration
Inventory that is a searchable inventory containing descriptions and interactive maps of current
and proposed restoration projects
(http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wetlands/fwric/index.htm). However, this web site was not
working during the course of this project and we were unable to access this resource.
U.S. DOI Office of Everglades Restoration Initiatives
The Everglades is recognized both nationally and internationally as one of the world’s
most unique natural and cultural resources. Encompassing nearly 4 million acres of the
southern tip of the Florida peninsula the Everglades and the greater Everglades ecosystem are
also the focus of the world’s largest intergovernmental watershed restoration effort. The
Department of the Interior (DOI) has a number of important responsibilities in the
management, restoration and preservation of this unique ecosystem. The National Park Service
(NPS) manages four national park units, including Everglades, Dry Tortugas and Biscayne
National Parks and Big Cypress National Preserve, and the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
manages 16 National Wildlife Refuges, including the A.R.M. Loxahatchee National Wildlife
Refuge. The FWS is also responsible for the management of species protected by laws such as
the Endangered Species Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. In addition, DOI’s U.S.
139
Geological Survey provides key scientific research and support to DOI as well as to its
restoration partners (http://www.sfrestore.org/about_us.html).
Louisiana
Coastal Louisiana contains 40% of the wetlands and 30% of the coastal marsh found in
the lower 48 states. Between 1932 and 2000, coastal Louisiana lost over 1,875 mi2 of land, with
another 513 mi2 estimated to be lost by 2050 (Barras et al. 2003). In addition, according to land
loss estimates, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita transformed 217 mi2 of marsh to open water in
coastal Louisiana (USGS 2006). Coastal land loss in Louisiana is critical primarily because of the
enormous economic value of this area to the State and because of the value of coastal wetlands
for storm protection, urban development, and fish and wildlife habitat.
Louisiana produces or transports nearly one-third of the nation’s oil and gas supply and
is tied to 50% of the nation’s refining capacity. Ten major navigation routes are located in
south Louisiana, along with five of the busiest ports in the U.S. Louisiana provides 26% (by
weight) of the commercial fish landings in the lower 48 states and more than five million
migratory waterfowl spend the winter in Louisiana’s marshes. Forested wetlands also provide
stopover habitats for neo-tropical migratory birds crossing the Gulf of Mexico (CPRA 2007). In
addition, more than 60% of the state’s population lives in Louisiana’s coastal parishes (U.S.
Census 2008). Coastal land loss is also a contributing factor to the water quality challenges
facing the Gulf of Mexico.
Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority – Louisiana’s Comprehensive Master Plan for a
Sustainable Coast
The 2012 Coastal Master Plan incorporates world-class science and engineering
expertise into the decision-making process to determine how to use limited dollars, river water,
and sediment to gain the most value in coastal restoration. The Master Plan will guide the
state’s coastal investments for the next 50 years and identified projects will substantially
increase protection for communities and make great strides toward achieving a sustainable
coast. The primary goals of the Master Plan are to use a combination of restoration,
140
nonstructural, and targeted structural measures to provide increased flood protection for all
communities and to use an integrated and synergistic approach to restoration to ensure a
sustainable and resilient coastal landscape (Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority of
Louisiana 2012).
Restoration projects focus on using sediment and fresh water from the Mississippi River
to sustain a diversity of coastal habitats, including cypress swamps, marshes, ridges, and barrier
islands. Some of the primary areas for forested wetlands restoration include the western
Maurepas Swamp and the Central Wetlands Unit (both described later in this chapter), where
freshwater and sediment will help offset the impacts of saltwater intrusion. Freshwater
diversions are also planned in other areas of the coast (Figure 5-29, Coastal Protection and
Restoration Authority of Louisiana 2012).
Figure 5-29. Freshwater diversions included in the 2012 Master Plan (Coastal
Protection and Restoration Authority of Louisiana 2012).
Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO) Ecosystem Restoration Plan
The Mississippi River Gulf-Outlet (MRGO) was a 76-mile manmade navigation channel
141
built to provide a shortcut from the inner harbor area of the Port of New Orleans to the Gulf of
Mexico. Constructed in 1950s-1960s, the MRGO navigation channel directly removed wetland
habitat and influenced ecosystem changes. The channel allowed the intrusion of saltwater into
the vast wetland complex bordering the City of New Orleans and surrounding coastal
communities east of the Mississippi River. The dredging and filling during the construction of
MRGO destroyed thousands of acres of wetlands, interrupted the local circulation patterns of
natural waterways that transected the channel, and breached an important hydrologic
boundary when the channel was cut through the ridge at Bayou La Loutre.
After the MRGO was completed, significant habitat shifts occurred as the area
converted to a higher salinity system as a result of saltwater intrusion from the gulf into the
estuary. In 2009, the ship channel was closed with a large rock structure at the site of a
prominent coastal ridge (Bayou La Loutre) that had been severed during channel construction.
As a result of the closure, ship traffic no longer transits the channel and environmental
conditions are improving with salinity falling throughout the estuary. Although positive, these
environmental benefits will not replace the habitats lost in the area (USACE 2012).
The goal of MRGO Restoration plan is to restore and protect a total of 58,861 acres
within the project area. The tentatively selected plan is estimated to cost $2.9 billion for
construction, which does not include engineering and design costs, real estate acquisition, and
other costs. The following habitats will be restored (Figure 5-30):

13,950 acres of fresh and intermediate marsh;

33,966 acres of brackish marsh;

466 acres of saline marsh;

10,431 acres of cypress swamp; and

48 acres of ridge habitat.
Seventy miles of shoreline will also be protected. Over 20,000 acres of restoration proposed in
the plan are located within critical landscape features such as the Biloxi Marsh and the East
Orleans Land Bridge. The plan also includes the construction of a freshwater diversion to
restore historic salinity conditions in the ecosystem, which would help re-establish historic
habitat types such as cypress swamp (USACE 2012).
142
Figure 5-30. Mississippi River Gulf Outlet Restoration Plan (USACE 2012).
Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act
The Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act, (CWPPRA), is federal
legislation enacted in 1990 that is designed to identify, prepare, and fund construction of
coastal wetlands restoration projects. Since its inception, 151 coastal restoration or protection
projects have been authorized, benefiting over 110,000 acres in Louisiana. The legislation
(Public Law 101-646, Title III CWPPRA) was approved by the U.S. Congress and signed into law
by former President George H. W. Bush. CWPPRA project managers, scientists, and engineers
use a variety of techniques to protect, enhance, or restore wetlands. Each restoration project
may use one or more techniques to repair delicate wetlands. These techniques include marsh
creation and restoration, shoreline protection, hydrologic restoration, beneficial use of dredged
material, terracing, sediment trapping, vegetative planting, barrier island restoration, and bank
stabilization.
143
Atchafalaya Basin Program
The mission of the Atchafalaya Basin Program is to conserve, restore, and enhance the
natural habitat of the Atchafalaya Basin, the nation’s largest river swamp, and give all people
the opportunity to enjoy the Atchafalaya experience (Louisiana Department of Natural
Resources 2013). The Atchafalaya Basin is the nation’s largest river swamp and one of
America’s most productive ecological regions and this system faces many stresses and
challenges, including

Ever-Changing Hydrology – Natural changes and human-induced modifications have
resulted in the alteration of the ecology of this resource and will continue to do so.

Sedimentation – Since 1932, there has been a net accretion of nearly 2.5 billion cubic
meters of sediment in the Basin floodway, converting much open water and cypress
swamps to bottomland forest.

Hypoxic Conditions – Spoil banks, oil field canals and natural levees inhibit the historical
sheeting pattern of water flow, causing hypoxic conditions (poor water quality) within
nearly all of the large, interior swamps.

Invasive Exotic Plant Species – Massive growth of hydrilla, salvinia, giant salvinia and
water hyacinth restricts access to many areas in the Basin and exacerbates hypoxic
conditions in the swamps.

Land Use/Resource Management – Diverse and sometimes conflicting activities within
the Basin occur with regard to flood control, commercial fisheries, navigational,
petrochemical, silviculture, recreational, environmental, and cultural interests
(Louisiana Department of Natural Resources 2013).
USGS National Wetlands Research Center
The mission of the National Wetlands Research Center (NWRC) is to develop and
disseminate scientific information needed for understanding the ecology and values of
wetlands and for managing and restoring wetlands, coastal habitats, and associated plant and
animal communities throughout our world. Scientists with NWRC have the ability to address a
144
diverse set of parameters with regards to both basic research and application science. These
include wetlands ecosystem resilience and response; coastal monitoring of a holistic set of
ecosystem parameters; climate and land use change detection and analysis; geospatial analysis
and state-of-the-science graphical analysis and display; and forest and wetland ecosystem
research.
Center scientists are studying forested wetland restoration techniques in state and
national wildlife refuges to develop cost-effective, state-of-the-art methodologies. By doing so
they may provide an understanding of ecological processes and regeneration requirements for
different types of forested wetlands, develop landscape simulation models that describe
forested wetland development and resilience to various climatic disturbances, and investigate
the restoration potential of forested wetlands within the southern United States and abroad.
Forested wetland research priorities include:

Baldcypress regeneration at Caddo Lake, TX;

Prioritizing bottomland hardwood forest sites for conservation and augmentation;

Natural invasion of woody species on cropped wetlands in the Mississippi Delta; and

Baldcypress regeneration and saltwater tolerance
(http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/about/message.htm).
Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation
Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation (LPBF) is dedicated to restoring and preserving the
water quality, coast, and habitats of the entire Pontchartrain Basin. Through coordination of
restoration activities, education, advocacy, monitoring of the regulatory process, applied
scientific research, and citizen action, LPBF works in partnership with all segments of the
community to reclaim the Basin for this and future generations. The Lake Pontchartrain Basin is
a 10,000 square mile watershed encompassing 16 Louisiana parishes. LPBF created a
Comprehensive Habitat Management Plan (CHMP) that provides goals, strategies and methods
designed for Basin sustainability. The CHMP was developed by a science and engineering
committee and reviewed by a second panel of coastal experts. Recommendations of the plan
include:
145

Expansion of longleaf pine savannah in the Florida parishes (Upland Sub-basin);

Restoration and protection of north shore riverine habitats (Upland Sub-basin);

River reintroductions to sustain and re-build cypress swamps around Lake Maurepas
(Upper Sub-basin);

Restoration of the fringing marsh along the south shore of Lake Pontchartrain (Middle
Sub-basin); and

Hydrologic restoration of St. Bernard and Plaquemines Parish's estuaries through
constriction of the MRGO channel and river reintroductions (Lower Sub-basin; Lake
Pontchartrain Basin Foundation 2006).
There are several forested wetland areas in Louisiana that are critical to the state’s
coastal sustainability and resiliency, including the Central Wetlands Unit, Maurepas Wetlands,
and the LaBranche wetlands. Each of these areas either contains degraded baldcypress or once
contained baldcypress and has now converted to open water and/or marsh. These wetlands
are described below.
Central Wetlands Unit
The Central Wetlands Unit (CWU) is an approximately 30,000-acre tract of wetlands in
Orleans and St. Bernard Parishes. The area is located between the flood protection levee
located along the (now closed) Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO) navigation channel and the
flood protection levee that separates developed areas of the two parishes (Figure 5-31). Prior
to the construction of the MRGO, about 10,000 to 15,000 acres (depending on how swamp area
was determined) of the CWU was cypress-tupelo swamp and the remaining was fresh and low
salinity marsh (Figure 5-32). Practically all the forested wetlands were killed by salinity
intrusion caused by the MRGO. After Hurricane Katrina, it was determined that the MRGO
channel caused much of the flooding and the channel was closed.
Since the closure of MRGO, the CWU is freshening and large areas will soon be suitable
for replanting of the swamp forests. There are a number of current and proposed restoration
projects in the CWU including planting of cypress trees, use of fresh water resources (treated
146
municipal effluent, storm pump runoff, and Mississippi River water) to control salinity, pumping
sediment from the Mississippi River or other areas, and creation of floating marshes.
Restoration funds could be used to augment these activities.
Figure 5-31. Location of the Central Wetland Unit in southeastern Louisiana.
Figure 5-32. Location of historical baldcypress coverage in the Central Wetland
147
Unit, southeastern Louisiana.
Maurepas Swamp
The Maurepas swamp, one of the largest stands of coastal forested wetlands, is a
77,500 acre cypress tupelo swamp located in the fresher western end of the Lake Pontchartrain
estuary (Figure 5-33). This swamp was formed in areas receiving Mississippi floodwaters over
the past several thousand years. The area has been cut off from Mississippi River water input
for over a century due to flood control levees. Shaffer et al. (2009) reported that most of the
Maurepas swamp is degrading due to excessive flooding that prevents regeneration and salt
water intrusion from Lake Pontchartrain. Shaffer et al also reported that the 10-15% of the
trees are dying each year and the swamp will be largely gone by mid century. A major
Mississippi River diversion is needed to sustain this swamp. Until this is done, hydrologic
management of various types (removal of features that cause semi-impoundment, enhancing
freshwater input to the swamp from the Amite River and other sources) can enhance the health
of the swamp.
Figure 5-33. Condition of baldcypress swamps adjacent to Lake Maurepas,
southeastern Louisiana (Shaffer et al. 2009).
148
LaBranche Wetlands
The 8100-hectare LB wetlands consist primarily of non-regenerating baldcypress-water
tupelo swamp and freshwater herbaceous wetlands in the southern areas, grading to
intermediate, brackish, and saline marsh and shallow open water ponds closer to Lake
Pontchartrain (Figure 5-34). The wetlands border Lake Pontchartrain to the north while the
rest of the area is bordered by flood control levees (Cramer et al. 1981, Pierce et al. 1985,
Boumans et al. 1997). The major factors contributing to the deterioration of the LB wetlands
are isolation from riverine input by Mississippi River levees, hydrologic alterations, erosion,
saltwater intrusion, hurricanes, semi-impoundment, nutria herbivory, and soil subsidence
(Pierce et al. 1985). These factors have interacted in a cumulative way to create nonsustainable ecosystems in much of the Pontchartrain Basin (Shaffer et al. 2009a,b) and
conditions in the LB wetlands are similar to those in the Maurepas swamp. Ultimately, a
Mississippi River diversion is necessary to restore and sustain the wetlands. Until then, salinity
intrusion is a continuing threat to the forested wetlands (Day et al. 2012). Freshwater input to
the area is currently from direct precipitation and storm water pumps. There is a proposed
project to discharge treated municipal effluent to the LB wetlands. This project has partial
funding but an additional $2-3 million dollars is necessary.
149
Figure 5-34. Location of the LaBranche wetlands in southeastern Louisiana.
Mississippi
Mississippi has nine national wildlife refuges, six national forests, seven national parks,
24 state parks, and 42 state wildlife management areas, one national estuarine research
reserve, over 80,000 acres of coastal preserves and thousands of acres of lands managed by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that support and serve the growing tourism and recreation
industry (Mississippi Forestry Commission 2010). The USDA Natural Resource Conservation
Service (NRCS) Natural Resource Inventory (NRI) identified a 5.8 percent increase of Mississippi
150
forestland from 15,319,000 acres in 1982 to 16,208,000 acres in 1997. The major cause of
timberland increase was conversion to from agricultural lands to primarily pinelands that is
influenced by national farmland programs’ emphasis on Mississippi. However, losses of forest
land acreage near urban areas in the state such as the Gulf coast counties, the Jackson
metropolitan area, Desoto County/Memphis area are conspicuous and more closely reflect the
Southeastern trend of conversion of forest to non-forest use in urban and developed areas
(Mississippi Forestry Commission 2007).
Some forested ecosystems of Mississippi and the Southeast have been recently
highlighted as being in peril of complete or near-complete loss. Reed Noss and Robert L. Peters
(1995) identified in endangered ecosystems of the United States based on four factors:
1) Dramatic diminishment in area since European settlement
2) Small and fragmented current area
3) Relatively high numbers of imperiled species
4) Continuing threats to these species’ existence
Noss and Peters (1995) identified four Mississippi ecosystems that are endangered:
1) Longleaf pine forests and savanna (critically imperiled);
2) Blackbelt and Jackson Prairies (critically imperiled);
3) Streams in the Mississippi Alluvial Plain (critically imperiled); and
4) Riparian Forests (threatened).
Longleaf pine forests and savannas, streams and riparian forests should be considered priorities
for the Mississippi Forest Legacy Program (FLP) in areas of Mississippi subject to large
population growth (Mississippi Forestry Commission 2007).
Mississippi’s Forest Legacy Program
The Forest Legacy Program (FLP) was established by Congress in 1990 to ascertain and
protect environmentally important forest areas that are threatened by conversion to non-forest
uses and to promote the long-term sustainability of forest lands. To meet these goals, the FLP
authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture, through the USDA Forest Service, to work in
cooperation with Mississippi and other states, commonwealths, territories and tribes to acquire
151
lands and interests in lands in perpetuity (Mississippi Forestry Commission 2007). The
following objectives were established by the committees for Mississippi’s FLP:

Sustain native or rare and unique forest ecosystems;

Protect water quality;

Protect forests from development along lakes, rivers and buffer protected lands;

Protect wildlife habitat;

Maintain traditional forest uses, including hunting and fishing;

Sustain productive forests; and

Provide public recreation opportunities (Mississippi Forestry Commission 2007).
There are three Forest Legacy Areas in Mississippi, including the Northeast FLA, the
Central FLS, and the Southeast FLA. The Southeast FLA is the only one that will be discussed in
this report (Figure 5-35). Priorities for conservation in the Southeast FLA wet pine
savannas/slash pine flatwoods, mesic longleaf pine forests, dry longleaf pine forests,
bottomland hardwoods, small stream swamp forests, maritime forests, beech/magnolia forests,
pine seeps, Pascagoula River drainage, Lower Pearl River drainage, Black Creek, Leaf River, Wolf
River, Biloxi River, Okatoma Creek, Ragland Hills, Leaf River, scenic streams, fallout habitat for
neotropical migratory songbirds, Black bear, gopher tortoise, gopher frog, pitcher plant habitat,
riparian corridors and forested wetlands along ecoregional priority river/stream reaches, areas
adjacent to public lands managed for conservation and mitigation banks, existing private
conservation lands, 16th Section lands, Important Bird Areas and military installations
(Mississippi Forestry Commission 2007).
Important public lands in the Southeast FLA include DeSoto National Forest,
Chickasawhay Ranger District, Stennis Space Center, Camp Shelby, Red Creek WMA, Pascagoula
River WMA, Wolf River WMA, Leaf River WMA, Old River WMA, Little Biloxi WMA, Ward Bayou
WMA, Chickasawhay WMA, Mississippi Sandhill Crane NWR, Grand Bay NWR, Coastal
Preserves, Paul B. Johnson State Park, Buccaneer State Park, Shepard State Park, and 16th
Section lands (Mississippi Forestry Commission 2007).
152
Threats to forest communities in the Southeast FLA include significant urban, suburban
and exurban sprawl from coastal development and Hattiesburg, recent population shifts within
the region generated by Hurricane Katrina, significant recent timber losses from Hurricane
Katrina, second home/vacation home development, decades of fire exclusion, sale of industry
lands to individuals, invasive species, road construction, conversion of natural stands to pine
plantations and sand and gravel mining (Mississippi Forestry Commission 2007).
Figure 5-35. Southeast Mississippi Forest Legacy Area (Mississippi Forestry
Commission 2007).
The FLA program in southeast Mississippi has identified two land parcels for acquisition
along the Pascagoula River, including the 2100-acre Scarbrough Tract and the 1142-acre Griffith
Tract (Figure 5-36).
153
Figure 5-36. Pascagoula River Conservation Lands, Mississippi
(Mississippi Forestry Commission 2010).
Mississippi’s Assessment of Forest Resources and Forest Resource Strategy
The mission of the Mississippi Forestry Commission is to provide active leadership in
forest protection, forest management, forest inventory and effective forest information
distribution necessary for Mississippi’s sustainable forest-based economy. The Mississippi
Forestry Commission (MFC) is the lead agency for development of Mississippi’s Statewide
Assessment of Forest Resources and Forest Resource Strategy. Assessment provides an analysis
154
of forest conditions and trends in the state and delineates priority rural and urban forest
landscape areas. The Strategy provides general long-term plans for investing state, federal, and
other resources to effectively stimulate or leverage desired action and engage multiple partners
(Mississippi Forest Commission 2010).
Eight key issues were identified by stakeholders during the development of Mississippi’s
Statewide Assessment of Forest Resources and Forest Resource Strategy as areas or issues of
primary concern regarding Mississippi’s natural resources and forest lands. These key issues
are listed below, with those issues relevant to this report showing priority restoration targets.

Issue 1: Forest Sustainability to promote reforestation of longleaf pine within its natural
range (Figure 5-37);
Figure 5-37. Mississippi historic forest boundary with longleaf pine priority area
(Mississippi Forestry Commission 2010).

Issue 2: Resource Markets;

Issue 3: Land Ownership Policies;
155

Issue 4: Forest Health
o Protect and conserve natural forest communities/ecosystems from non-native,
invasive plants through elimination/suppression of invasive plants (cogongrass
(Figure 5-38), Chinese privet (Figure 5-39), and Chinese tallow (Figure 5-40)).
Figure 5-38. Cogongrass priority areas (Mississippi Forestry Commission 2010).
156
Figure 5-39. Japanese and Chinese privet priority areas (Mississippi
Forestry Commission 2010).
Figure 5-40. Chinese Tallow tree priority areas (Mississippi Forestry
Commission 2010).

Issue 5: Stewardship Education;
157

Issue 6: Wildfire Fuel Reduction;

Issue 7: Climate Change
o Encourage afforestation of agriculture, pasture, and open fields through the
WRP, CRP, and FLP areas
o Conserve/protect existing forests with highest carbon stores (moist, mature
forestlands) in large blocks on public lands and adjacent private lands

Issue 8: Wildlife (Mississippi Forest Commission 2010).
Mississippi Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy
The Mississippi Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS) ranked the following
forest sub-types as highest concern for wildlife species in the state:

Small stream swamp forests;

Dry longleaf pine;

Bottomland hardwoods;

Hardwood seeps;

Lower slope/high terraces hardwoods;

Mesic longleaf pine savannas;

Dry hardwood forests;

Bald cypress/gum swamp forests;

Dry-mesic hardwood forests;

Loess hardwood forests;

Dry-mesic shortleaf/loblolly pine; and

Beech/Magnolia forests (Mississippi Museum of Natural Science 2005).
Mississippi Coastal Improvements Program
The purpose of this report is to describe the Comprehensive Plan developed for the
Mississippi Coastal Improvements Program (MsCIP) and, following approval by the Assistant
Secretary of the Army (Civil 39 Works), to seek authorization from Congress for implementation
of the recommended plan features to assist in the recovery of coastal Mississippi. A number of
158
system-wide problems were discussed during the study process that can be combined into
these four categories:

Significant damage to structures and infrastructure within the three-county (Hancock,
Harrison, and Jackson) MsCIP study area due to hurricane-induced storm surge;

Significant damage to coastal ecosystems and fish and wildlife resources due to
hurricane-induced storm surge and subsequent coastal erosion and saltwater intrusion;

Saltwater intrusion to the Mississippi Sound ecosystem and associated coastal
environments was increased through the hurricane storm surge as well as erosion of the
coastal landscape surrounding the estuary; and

Significant erosion of the coastal landscape with subsequent damage to coastal
ecosystems and man-made infrastructure (USACE 2009).
An overall theme of Comprehensive Plan opportunities is not merely to reverse the
harm done by the hurricanes of 2005, but to promote the long-term future sustainability of
physical, human, and environmental resources within the study area. The comprehensive,
system-wide opportunities include:

Assist in sustainable redevelopment of hurricane damaged physical, environmental, and
human resources within the MsCIP study area;

Reduce the susceptibility of residential, commercial, and public structures and
infrastructure to hurricane induced storm damages within the three-county (Hancock,
Harrison, and Jackson) MsCIP study area;

Assist in the recovery and long-term sustainability of coastal wetlands that support
important fish and wildlife resources within the study area;

Accelerate the recovery and assist in the long-term sustainability of maritime forest
environments that suffered hurricane induced damages;

Restore barrier island environments that suffered hurricane induced storm damages in a
manner that promotes long-term sustainability of the Mississippi Sound estuary;

Reduce saltwater intrusion to the Mississippi Sound landscape; and
159

Assist in the recovery of coastal ecosystems and infrastructure damaged by erosion
during the hurricane events of 2005 and support programs that promote long-term
erosion reduction and limit erosion potential during future hurricane events (USACE
2009).
The system-wide goals established for the MsCIP study were developed in clear
recognition of the linkages between structural and nonstructural storm damage reduction and
ecosystem restoration opportunities. System-wide goals are intended to address the coastal
landscape of the entire Gulf Region, including the adjacent area specifically evaluated in the
LaCPR program. MsCIP system-wide goals identified in the Comprehensive Plan effort include
the following:

Identify measures to minimize risk to loss of life and safety caused by hurricane and
storm surge;

Recommend cost-effective measures for restoration of nationally and regionally
significant environmental resources within a context of long-term sustainability;

Recommend cost-effective measures to reduce damages from hurricanes and storms
without encouraging re-development in high-risk areas;

Recommend cost-effective measures to mitigate damages caused by saltwater intrusion
into nationally significant ecosystems;

Recommend cost-effective measures to restore eroded coastal resources as part of a
system-wide approach to develop a resilient coastline;

Identify other water resource related programs and activities integral to the
development of a comprehensive system-wide plan.
System-wide objectives for the MsCIP are:

Reduce loss of life caused by hurricane and storm surge by 100%;

Reduce damages caused by hurricane and storm surge by $150M-$200M annually, per
coordination with state and local interests based on knowledge of damages from
previous hurricane activity;
160

Restore 10,000 acres of fish and wildlife habitat including coastal forests, coastal
wetlands, wet pine savannah, submerged aquatic sea grasses, oyster reefs, and beaches
and dunes by the year 2040;

Manage seasonal salinities within the western Mississippi Sound such that optimal
months) are achieved on an annual basis by 2015;

Reduce erosion to barrier islands, mainland, and interior bay shorelines by 50%; and

Create opportunities for collaboration with local, state, and Federal agencies to facilitate
implementation of programs and activities that maximize the use of resources in
achieving the comprehensive goal.
The recommended comprehensive plan consists of cost-effective elements that address
the goals of hurricane and storm damage reduction, shoreline erosion, saltwater intrusion, and
fish and wildlife preservation (Figure 5-41). Justification of the cost-effectiveness, technical
feasibility, environmental feasibility, and other plan accomplishments for each
recommendation, are presented in detail, in the individual appendices attached to the main
report. The figure below shows the relationship between the Comprehensive Plan elements
(USACE 2009).
161
Figure 5-41. Comprehensive plan elements from the Mississippi Coastal
Improvement Program (USACE 2009).
In the 2009 study, the USACE identified numerous potential wetland restoration sites
and 43 projects were selected as potential restoration sites (Table 5-4). These sites were then
ranked based on technical feasibility, environmental feasibility, potential cost-effective, does
not induce development, and does not induce flooding. For ecosystem restoration and
saltwater intrusion projects, the problem addressed had to be identified as having no ability to
heal on its own, national and/or regional significance, and other factors relating to restoring
ecosystems damaged by the storms of 2005. Of the 43 projects, several forested wetland
restoration sites were recommended for implementation, including Turkey Creek Ecosystem
Restoration, Dantzler Ecosystem Restoration, and Franklin Creek Ecosystem Restoration
(Figures 5-42, 5-43, and 5-44, USACE 2009).
162
Table 5-4. Potential Forested Wetland Restoration Sites in Coastal Mississippi
(USACE 2009).
Site (Map Reference Number)
1
Pearlington, Hancock (1)
Pearlington South, Hancock (2)
Ansley, Hancock (4)
Delisle, Harrison (16)
Ellis Property, Harrison (17)
Pine Point East, Harrison (18)
Pine Point West, Harrison (19)
Pass Christian Beach Front,
Harrison (20)
Pass Christian Site, Bayou
Portage, Harrison (21)
Brickyard Bayou, Harrison (23)
Biloxi River - Shorecrest, Harrison
(24)
Biloxi River – Eagle Point,
Harrison (25)
Keegan Bayou, Harrison (27)
Restoration
Acres
76
11
2,023
120
443
103
83
21
43
14
15
17
54
1200 total
Wachovia, Hancock
1
2
Ansley, Hancock
900 total
Dupont, Harrison
Turkey Creek, Harrison (22)2
Dantzler, Jackson2
Franklin Creek Floodway,
Jackson2
650 total
880
385
149
Vegetation
Emergent aquatic, bayhead swamps,
riverine forests
Emergent aquatic, bayhead swamps,
riverine forests
Emergent aquatic, wet pine savannah
Emergent aquatic, bayhead swamps
Emergent aquatic, wet pine savannah,
wet pine flatwoods
Emergent aquatic, wet pine savannah
Emergent aquatic, wet pine savannah
Emergent aquatic, bayhead swamps
Emergent aquatic, bayhead swamps
Emergent aquatic, bayhead swamps
Emergent aquatic, bayhead swamps,
riverine forests
Emergent aquatic, bayhead swamps,
riverine forests
Emergent aquatic, wet pine savannah
(800 acres marsh, 200 forested, 200
savannah) Emergent aquatic, bayhead
swamps, riverine forests, savannah
(800 marsh, 100 forested) Emergent
aquatic, wet pine savannah
(170 marsh, 480 forested) Emergent
aquatic, bayhead swamps, riverine
forests
Wet pine savannah
Wet pine savannah
Wet pine savannah
See corresponding map number on Figures 5-42, 5-43, 5-44.
Included in Figure 5-41
163
Figure 5-42. Potential wetland restoration sites in Hancock County, Mississippi
(USACE 2009). See Table 5-4 for project descriptions.
164
Figure 5-43. Potential wetland restoration sites in Harrison County, Mississippi
(USACE 2009). See Table 5-4 for project description.
165
Figure 5-44. Potential wetland restoration sites in Jackson County, Mississippi
(USACE 2009). See Table 5-4 for project description.
The Mississippi Natural Heritage Program
The Mississippi Natural Heritage Program (MNHP) program has three major areas of
activity: 1) To conduct a comprehensive inventory of Mississippi's ecological resources in order
to provide a continuous process for identifying significant natural areas and setting land
protection priorities in the state. 2) To conduct field surveys to verify the continued existence
of a reported occurrence of a rare plant, animal or community type (an "element"), to collect
sufficient information on the occurrence, distribution and status of elements (status surveys) to
support decision making concerning prioritization of management activities and to look for new
element "occurrences" not previously documented during the inventory process. 3) To
conserve outstanding examples of our natural heritage by use of innovative management and
protection strategies (working with landowners, developing management plans, monitoring
elements of diversity on established natural areas).
166
Mississippi Coastal Impact Assistance Program
This program is administered by the Mississippi Department of Marine Resources
(MDMR) and it lists land acquisition as one of its main focus areas. Mississippi began its CIAP
plan development process on three fundamental premises: that Mississippi has one Gulf of
Mexico to protect, that environmental issues do not respect geo-political boundaries, and that
proposals should seek to improve the health of the coastal ecology by conservation, protection,
enhancement or restoration (Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality 2001).
Coastal Preserves Program
The Mississippi Department of Marine Resources (DMR) Coastal Preserves Program was
developed in 1992 by authority of the Wetlands Protection Act. The Coastal Preserves
Programs objective is to acquire, protect, and manage sensitive coastal wetland habitats along
the Mississippi Gulf Coast, therefore ensuring the ecological health of Mississippi's coastal
wetland ecosystems. The State currently has title to approximately 30,000 acres of the
designated 72,000 acres of crucial coastal wetland habitat within Mississippi's 20 coastal
preserve sites (http://www.dmr.state.ms.us/eco-tourism/coastal-preserves).
Land Trust for the Mississippi Coastal Plain
The mission of the Land Trust for the Mississippi Coastal Plain is to conserve, promote
and protect open spaces and green places of ecological, cultural or scenic significance in the
counties of the Mississippi Coastal Plain. Since its founding in 2000, LTMCP has sought to move
toward a more proactive approach to land acquisition based on a long-term, region-wide
strategy. With funding from the Coastal Impact Assistance Program (CIAP), LTMCP and its
consultant CDM Smith, began the Conservation Legacy program in 2010 to develop planning
and technical tools for conserving land in a more strategic manner in the six coastal counties of
Mississippi. Using geographical information system (GIS) tools, maps of potential conservation
lands were developed (Figures 5-45, 5-46, and 5-47). These maps identify and rank potential
lands for conservation, reflecting environmental/ecological value, cultural and historical value,
167
and proximity to development and existing conservation lands, among other factors
(http://www.ltmcp.org/links/conservation-legacy/).
Figure 5-45. Location of potential conservation and restoration areas in Hancock
County, Mississippi (http://www.ltmcp.org/links/conservation-legacy/).
168
Figure 5-46. Location of potential conservation and restoration areas in Harrison
County, Mississippi (http://www.ltmcp.org/links/conservation-legacy/).
169
Figure 5-47. Location of potential conservation and restoration areas in Jackson
County, Mississippi (http://www.ltmcp.org/links/conservation-legacy/).
The Nature Conservancy
The Nature Conservancy (TNC) has operated in Mississippi since the 1960s and their
chapter office was founded in 1989. Since inception they have protected over 133,000 acres
through purchase, partnership or easements throughout the state. Their mission is to find,
protect and maintain the best examples of natural communities, ecosystems and endangered
species in Mississippi. Today, the Chapter operates statewide and has four field offices:
Jackson, the Mississippi Gulf Coast, Tupelo and Camp Shelby. TNC uses their conservation area
plans (CAPS) to prioritize the highest priority places that, if conserved, promise to ensure
biodiversity over the long-term.
170
Wolf River Conservancy
Wolf River Conservancy works in Benton County, Mississippi and Fayette and Shelby
Counties in Tennessee to conserve and enhance the Wolf River as a natural resource for public
education and low impact recreation.
Wolf River Conservation Society
The Wolf River Conservation Society (WRCS) society was established in 1998 to
conserve, manage and protect the Wolf River and its watershed from the headwaters to its
termination at the Bay of St. Louis in south Mississippi. The Wolf River watershed is in parts of
Hancock, Harrison, Lamar and Pearl River Counties. The WRCS currently holds easements on
approximately 1,500 acres along the river.
Grand Bay National Estuarine Reserve
The State of Mississippi operates the Grand Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve
(Reserve or NERR) encompassing approximately 18,049 acres of coastal wetlands and estuarine
waters along the southeastern coast of Mississippi. The Reserve was designated into the NERRS
in 1999 as the 24th reserve, as authorized under the provisions of the Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972. The Reserve is a large relatively intact area of coastal wetlands
located in Jackson County, immediately adjacent to the Mississippi-Alabama state line. The site
includes a variety of wetland types, including tidal estuary and non-tidal wetlands.
The Reserve supports a highly diverse community of plants and animals and includes
one of the largest estuarine systems in Mississippi (Figure 5-48). Estuarine ecosystems serve as
vital nursery areas for a large portion of our commercial and recreational species of fish and
shellfish, serve as filters to enhance coastal water quality and serve to provide a degree of
resilience to buffer human built and natural communities from severe storm events.
The administrative boundaries of the Grand Bay NERR include approximately 18,049
acres of lands and waters in southeastern most Jackson County, Mississippi. Administrative
boundaries of the Reserve have not changed from the original Management Plan. The NERR
includes Middle Bay, Point Aux Chenes Bay, Bayou Cumbest, Crooked Bayou, Bayou Heron and
171
associated coastal wetland habitats and selected portions of coastal uplands within the
boundaries of the Grand Bay NWR. The core area of the Grand Bay NERR is comprised of
approximately 13,280 acres of estuarine tidal marsh, tidal creeks, shallow open-water habitats,
oyster reefs, sea grass beds, maritime forest (pine, live oak), salt flats, sandy beach, shell beach
and shell middens.
Potential expansion could include acquisition of privately owned land containing tidal
marsh, scrub-shrub, pine flat woods, wet pine savanna, coastal bay head, cypress swamps and
freshwater marshes to the north and west (Figure 5-49). The majority of these properties has
been previously identified in state grant requests or is located within the boundaries of the
Grand Bay NWR. Several properties in Alabama just east of the Reserve and Grand Bay NWR
are part of the State of Alabama Grand Bay Forever Wild preserve and provide further
protection to the Grand Bay savanna complex (Grand Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve
2013).
172
Figure 5-48. Habitat types within the Grand Bay National Estuarine Research
Reserve (Grand Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve 2013).
173
Figure 5-49. Land ownership within the Grand Bay National Estuarine Research
Reserve (Grand Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve 2013).
Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge
The Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) created a Land Protection Plan that
describes land conservation and resource protection needs for the area (Figure 5-50).
Acquisition of this land could result in the protection and management of up to 8,428 acres of
174
prime coastal habitat as an expansion of Grand Bay NWR, through a combination of fee-title
purchases from willing sellers and less-than-fee interests (e.g., conservation easements and
cooperative agreements) from willing sellers. The project areas have been prioritized for
acquisition using the following criteria: biological significance, existing and potential threats,
significance of the area to refuge management and administration, existing commitments to
purchase or protect land, and ability to manage. Four categories of land acquisition have been
established from 1 (highest priority) to 4 (lowest priority, US Fish and Wildlife Service 2011).
Figure 5-50. Grand Bay NWR acquisition boundary and expansion areas (US Fish
and Wildlife Service 2011).
The first priority is Area C and the most important resource within this area is the large
blocks of bottomland hardwood wetlands that border a riverine corridor formed by the
Escatawpa River, tributaries, and numerous sloughs and lakes (Figure 5-51). Bald cypress and
swamp tupelo dominate the swamps behind the natural levees. Associated trees and shrubs
include sweetbay, redbay, and wax myrtle underneath the pine, while buttonbush, swamp
175
privet, and black willow are found below the cypress-tupelo canopy (US Fish and Wildlife
Service 2011).
Figure 5-51. Location of approved acquisition acreage in Area C (US Fish
and Wildlife Service 2011).
The largest landowner in this area is International Paper Company. In 2007, Chevron
USA, Inc., established a 915-acre mitigation bank on International Paper Company property for
176
impacts associated with its Casotte Landing Natural Gas Import Terminal Project. The
Conservation Fund is working with International Paper on the restoration, enhancement, and
conservation plan for this area. The Conservation Fund has also been in contact with the US
Fish and Wildlife Service concerning the possibility of this area becoming part of Grand Bay
NWR, once the mitigation plan has been completed later this year (US Fish and Wildlife Service
2011).
The second priority is Area B that is characterized by open longleaf and slash pine
savannas and flatwoods containing pitcher plants, orchids, composites, and other plants. The
savannas include a low, dense herbaceous layer and a sparse tree canopy dominated by slash
and longleaf pines. Flatwoods are distinguished from savannas by a lesser tree canopy, a less
diverse herbaceous layer, and a well-developed and often greater shrub layer. This area
contains the most landowners of any of the four areas (Figure 5-52). Several of these
landowners have expressed an interest in selling their land to the Service. The Corps of
Engineers and Jackson County also own several tracts in this area and these could possibly be
managed as part of the refuge in the future (US Fish and Wildlife Service 2011).
177
Figure 5-52. Location of approved acquisition acreage and
landowners in Area B (US Fish and Wildlife Service 2011).
The third priority is Area D and consists of pond cypress savannas, the wettest savanna
communities at Grand Bay NWR, which commonly occur in slight depressions and along shallow
drains that meander across Area D (Figure 5-53). The canopy is dominated by pond cypress and
occasionally slash pine and is under a regime of frequent fire; an open character is maintained
with a sparse shrub canopy. A dense herbaceous layer is dominated by grass and sedge
species. The Grand Bay Swamp in Area D represents the westernmost occurrence of pocosin
along the Gulf Coast, a natural feature of regional significance. A string of near-shore barrier
178
islands form part of the southern boundary of Area D. These islands are continually eroding
primarily because of a lack of available sediments. The open bays behind the islands support
large seagrass beds, which provide cover and food for a host of estuarine and marine species.
The largest ownership in this area is a bank trust tract of approximately 1,800 acres (US Fish
and Wildlife Service 2011).
The fourth priority is Area A. The majority of this area is a large pasture that contains a
pecan orchard. The importance of this area is that it supports a gopher tortoise colony (US Fish
and Wildlife Service 2011), but this area does not contain forested wetland and is therefore not
of use for this study.
179
Figure 5-53. Location of approved acquisition acreage and
landowners in Area D (US Fish and Wildlife Service 2011).
Texas
Texas Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program
In order to accomplish the goals of the Texas Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation
Program (TCELCP) and conserve and protect natural coastal and estuarine areas in Texas, a
state CELCP plan was developed and approved by NOAA (Texas Coastal and Estuarine Land
Conservation Program 2010). Conservation priorities were determined for the TCELCP and these
180
included:
(a) seven of the 16 Coastal Natural Resource Areas (CNRAs) in the TCMP (coastal wetlands,
coastal shore areas, critical dune areas, coastal barriers, tidal sand and mud flats, special
hazard areas, coastal historic areas);
(b) habitats for rare, threatened, or endangered species;
(c) coastal prairies;
(d) live oak-red bay forests;
(e) Texas ebony-anacua forests;
(f) rivers, streams, and riparian zones;
(g) public access and recreation areas; and
(h) other conservation lands, i.e., lands that provide connectivity, buffers, and/or lands that
contribute to the goals, objectives, or implementation of local, state, or regional
conservation plans or programs (e.g., the CMP, NERR, estuary programs, Texas Gulf
Ecological Management Site Program, or other state/regional/local plans; Texas Coastal
and Estuarine Land Conservation Program 2010).
Texas A&M Forest Service
Texas Forest Service (TFS) was created in 1915 by the 34th Legislature as an integral part
of The Texas A&M University System. It is mandated by law to "assume direction of all forest
interests and all matters pertaining to forestry within the jurisdiction of the state." In 2012, the
agency's name was changed to Texas A&M Forest Service
(http://texasforestservice.tamu.edu/main/default.aspx). TFS completed the final draft of its
State Assessment in June 2009. With input from stakeholders, TFS program leaders identified
six primary issues for the rural and urban forests of the state, including Central Texas
woodlands conservation, sustainability of forest resources in East Texas; water quality and
quantity; wildfire and public safety; and urban forest sustainability (Texas Forest Service 2012).
TFS is involved in several multi-state projects or programs that are of regional priority,
including Longleaf Task Force and Cogongrass Collaboration. A range-wide conservation plan
for longleaf pine Identified four areas targeted for restoration in Louisiana and Texas on the
following public lands: (1) Sabine/Angelina National Forests, (2) Big Thicket National Preserve,
181
(3) Fort Polk, and (4) Kisatchi National Forest (Figure 5-54, Regional Working Group for
America’s Longleaf 2009).
Figure 5-54. Significant Landscapes for Longleaf Pine Conservation
(Regional Working Group for America’s Longleaf 2009).
Texas Forest Legacy Program
The Forest Legacy Program (FLP) is a voluntary cooperative effort between the USDA
Forest Service and the State of Texas that protects ecologically important forests threatened by
conversion to non-forest uses. The program encourages the voluntary protection of privately
owned forestland primarily through the acquisition of conservation easements, which are
legally binding agreements transferring a negotiated set of property rights (primarily
182
development rights) from one party to another without removing the property from private
ownership. Most FLP conservation easements restrict development, require sustainable
forestry practices, and protect other values
(http://texasforestservice.tamu.edu/main/article.aspx?id=115). As of 2012, there are three
funded Forest Legacy tracts in Texas: Burleson Wetlands (2,908 acres in Smith County), Turkey
Creek Phases I and II (10,729 acres in Tyler and Woodville counties), and Longleaf Ridge (4,790
acres in Jasper County). FLP has identified priority areas in East Texas based on the Texas
Statewide Resource Assessment (Figure 5-55, Texas Forest Service 2012).
Figure 5-55. Texas Forest Legacy Program areas of priority (Texas
Forest Service 2012)
183
Texas Natural Resource Trustee Program
The Natural Resource Trustee Program's mission is to fulfill the natural resource trustee
role of evaluating injury to natural resources as a result of discharges of oil or releases of
hazardous substances and to seek restoration of the injured resources when appropriate. The
goal is to make the environment and public whole for injuries to natural resources and natural
resource services resulting from an incident involving a discharge or substantial threat of a
discharge of oil or hazardous substances. This goal is achieved through returning injured
natural resources and services to baseline and compensating for interim losses of such natural
resources and services through the restoration, rehabilitation, replacement or acquisition of
equivalent natural resources and/or services. Since the program's inception, natural resource
restoration projects valued at more than $32 million have been implemented or are planned on
behalf of the public as a result of NRDA settlements for the restoration of injured natural
resources (http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/remediation/nrtp/nrtp.html).
Texas Coastal Management Program
The Texas Coastal Management Program’s (CMP) mission is to improve the
management of the state’s coastal natural resource areas (CNRAs)—areas designated by the
Council to be of particular concern to the state—and ensure the long-term ecological and
economic productivity of the Texas coast (Texas Coastal Management Program 2012).
Texas Gulf Coast Joint Venture
The Texas GCJV is divided geographically into three Initiative Areas, each with relevant
planning documents to guide bird habitat conservation, including Laguna Madre, Texas MidCoast, and Chenier Plain. The primary goal of the Gulf Coast Joint Venture (GCJV) is to provide
habitat for waterfowl in winter and ensure that they survive and return to the breeding grounds
in good condition but not exceeding levels commensurate with breeding habitat capacity.
Actions to achieve healthy wetland ecosystems and will provide benefits to fish and wildlife, in
184
addition to waterfowl, will be supported (http://www.gcjv.org/index.php).

The goal of the Chenier Plain Initiative is to provide wintering and migration habitat for
significant numbers of dabbling ducks, diving ducks, and geese, as well as year-round
habitat for mottled ducks. The Chenier Plain Initiative area includes Orange, Jefferson,
Chambers, and Harris counties within the TCELCP boundary.

The goal of the Laguna Madre Initiative is to provide wintering and migration habitat for
significant numbers of redhead ducks, greater and lesser scaup, Northern pintails, and
other dabbling ducks, as well as year-round habitat for mottled ducks. The Laguna
Madre Initiative area includes Nueces, Kleberg, Kenedy, Willacy, and Cameron counties
within the TCELCP boundary.

The goal of the Mid-Coast Initiative is to provide wintering and migration habitat for
significant numbers of dabbling ducks, redheads, lesser snow geese, and greater whitefronted geese, as well as year-round habitat for mottled ducks. The Mid-coast Initiative
area includes Galveston, Brazoria, Matagorda, Jackson, Victoria, Calhoun, Refugio,
Aransas, and San Patricio counties within the TCELCP boundary (Texas Coastal and
Estuarine Land Conservation Program 2010).
Galveston Bay Estuary Program
Officially established in 1989, the Galveston Bay Estuary Program (GBEP) is one of two
estuary programs in Texas. As a non-regulatory program administered by the Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality, GBEP is charged with implementing The Galveston Bay
Plan, a Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan for Galveston Bay
(http://www.gbep.state.tx.us/index.asp). Some of the goals of the Galveston Bay Estuary
Program include placing 2,500 acres of coastal habitats under long-term conservation and
restoring and enhancing 5,000 acres of lost or degraded coastal habitats (Galveston Bay Estuary
Program 2007).
Armand Bayou Watershed Partnership
The Armand Bayou Watershed Partnership is a collaborative of stakeholders from state
185
agencies, nonprofit organizations, civic groups, academic institutions, local governments,
business and industry groups, and utilities. It is developing and implementing a watershed plan
for the purposes of protecting, preserving and enhancing the ecological integrity of the Armand
Bayou watershed while improving the quality of life in the communities of the watershed. The
2006 watershed report identified almost 12,000 acres of high-priority undeveloped lands to
protect within the Armand Bayou watershed (Texas Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation
Program 2010), but a copy of this report could not be obtained.
Natural Resource Restoration Projects for the Texas Coast
This report lists 60 candidate restoration projects, including some proposed for
acquisition. Each site falls within one of five defined geographical areas, and there are maps
identifying each region. Sites for acquisition/conservation easement in South Texas include
Lamar Peninsula/St. Charles Bay, adjacent to Aransas National Wildlife Refuge, Resaca de los
Cuates, adjacent to Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge, wetlands within the upper
reaches of Bahia Grande, and San Martin Lake (Cecil Consulting 2000).
Gulf Coast Joint Venture
The primary goal of the Gulf Coast Joint Venture (GCJV) is to provide habitat for
waterfowl in winter and ensure that they survive and return to the breeding grounds in good
condition but not exceeding levels commensurate with breeding habitat capacity. Actions to
achieve healthy wetland ecosystems and will provide benefits to fish and wildlife, in addition to
waterfowl, will be supported (Esslinger and Wilson 2001).
The goal of the Chenier Plain Initiative is to provide wintering and migration habitat for
significant numbers of dabbling ducks, diving ducks, and geese, as well as year-round habitat
for mottled ducks. The Chenier Plain Initiative area includes Orange, Jefferson, Chambers, and
Harris counties within the TCELCP boundary.
The goal of the Laguna Madre Initiative is to provide wintering and migration habitat for
significant numbers of redhead ducks, greater and lesser scaup, Northern pintails, and other
dabbling ducks, as well as year-round habitat for mottled ducks. The Laguna Madre Initiative
186
area includes Nueces, Kleberg, Kenedy, Willacy, and Cameron counties within the TCELCP
boundary.
The goal of the Mid-Coast Initiative is to provide wintering and migration habitat for
significant numbers of dabbling ducks, redheads, lesser snow geese, and greater white-fronted
geese, as well as year-round habitat for mottled ducks. The Mid-coast Initiative area includes
Galveston, Brazoria, Matagorda, Jackson, Victoria, Calhoun, Refugio, Aransas, and San Patricio
counties within the TCELCP boundary (Esslinger and Wilson 2001).
Galveston Bay Foundation
A list of 167 sites (with accompanying maps) for habitat restoration and/or conservation
strategies was developed through interviews and facilitated public meetings. Site locations
were added to a GIS database. In addition, a matrix of funding sources was also developed. The
Blueprint can be found at http://galvbay.org/conservation_blueprint.html. An update to the
original publication is currently being completed by the Environmental Institute of Houston.
Forested wetland sites containing TCELCP priority lands and values—in particular, coastal
wetlands and coastal prairies—include:

Cotton Lake/Cotton Bayou;

Elmgrove Point Marshes and Flats;

Horseshoe Lake Marshes and Flats;

Double Bayou Riparian Woodlands;

Gordy Marsh and Lone Oak Bayou;

Old and Lost Rivers Marshes;

Trinity River Delta Fan;

Turtle Bayou Fringing Marsh and Riparian Woodlands;

Bird Lake Marshes and Flats;

Eisenhower Park Area Swamp and Marsh;

Highland Shores Riparian Woodlands and Marsh;

Highlands Forest and Wetlands;

Clear Creek Riparian Woodlands; and
187

Cedar Bayou Upper Reaches (Galveston Bay Foundation 1998).
Harris County Master Plan for Parks, Recreation and Open Space, Phase 2
Goals of the Harris County Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan are to: 1)
develop and enhance a balanced network of parks and facilities to serve the passive and active
needs of the citizens of Harris County; 2) develop passive recreation within existing facilities,
through acquisition of new land or through inter-local agreements with municipalities or
organizations, such as the Harris County Flood Control District; and 3) continually identify,
protect, and preserve quality natural open spaces for unstructured recreational activities,
inherent aesthetic value and protection of valuable ecosystems. The County proposes to
acquire 2,000 acres of land by 2008 and an additional 2,400 by 2020. Priority lands include
coastal wetlands, riparian zones, and public access and recreation areas
(http://www.eng.hctx.net/pdf/park_plan_2.pdf).
Seabrook Wetland Conservation Plan
The purpose of this conservation plan is to present a balanced approach to conserving
Seabrook’s unique coastal wetland resources, while promoting economic growth and improving
the quality of life for its residents. This plan will also serve as a model for other coastal
communities and help insure the health and diversity of the Galveston Bay estuary. The goals
of the Plan are to: 1) protect top priority sites; 2) minimize coastal wetland loss and promote
replacement and enhancement of degraded coastal wetlands; 3) raise awareness of residents,
land owners, and the development community; and 4) encourage ecotourism. Sites to be
acquired when funding becomes available, include:

North Red Bluff,

Meyer Street-East Lagoon Natural Area,

Hester-Central City Greenbelt,

Clear Lake Marshland Natural Area,

Galveston Bay Open Space,

Red Bluff-Taylor Lake Open Space,
188

Friendship Open Space,

Repsdorph Natural Area,

South NASA Road One Open Space, and

West Central Open Space/Greenbelt (Laible 2003).
The sites are selected to protect open space that contains coastal wetlands and adjacent
uplands from being overdeveloped. A description of the Plan can be found at
http://labs.tdl.org/tamug/handle/123456789/26353. Other priority lands to be protected
include riparian zones and public access and recreation areas.
Coastal Bend Bays Plan
The Coastal Bend Bays Plan calls for identifying habitat types that are most at risk and to
assist with efforts to conserve the habitats. Twenty potential wetland conservation project
sites were identified. A project advisory committee selected seven potential wetland
conservation project areas, and project descriptions were generated for each site. Data
generated will be stored on the CBBEP GIS for use in making informed decisions regarding
individual projects and the development of overall conservation and public access goals. A
copy of the report can be found at
http://www.cbbep.org/publications/publications.html#special. TCELCP priority lands and
values referenced in the document include: coastal wetlands, coastal shore areas, tidal sand
and mud flats, and coastal barriers (Smith and Wood 2003).
Clear Creek Watershed Wetland Habitat Atlas
This wetland atlas was developed as an aid for public officials and others within the
Clear Creek Watershed of the Houston area to make informed choices about habitat
preservation. CELCP priority land types and values referenced in the document include: prairie
potholes-pimple mound complexes and other wet prairies (coastal prairie), riparian forests and
coastal flatwoods (coastal wetlands), and estuarine wetlands influenced by tides, including
submerged aquatic vegetation. Wetland types are not prioritized. The maps
189
(http://www.rpts.tamu.edu/urban-nature/geospatial/atlas.htm) are the result of aerial photo
interpretation, with limited ground truthing (Texas Coastal Watershed Program 2002).
West Galveston Island Greenprint for Growth
The Trust for Public Land worked with the City of Galveston to conduct the conservation
visioning process, known as “greenprinting,” for the West End. Greenprinting is a pioneering
and award-winning Geographic Information Systems-based, or GIS-based, process that
combines scientific natural resource data with community conservation priorities to guide
future land conservation efforts. It gives local leaders the benefit of community input to make
more informed decisions about growth and development. Greenprinting analysis is a guide for
local governments to focus limited acquisition dollars on available land with high conservation
value. The Trust for Public Land has completed 14 Greenprints and is in the process of
completing 20 more analyses across the country (http://www.tpl.org/news/pressreleases/west-galveston-greenprint-report.html).
The Trust developed a map of areas within which land conservation could best achieve
community-identified goals. Priority lands identified in the document include: coastal
wetlands, conservation lands that support protection of submerged aquatic vegetation, coastal
shore areas and barriers, and public access and recreation.
Texas National Estuarine Research Reserve and Management Plan: The Mission-Aransas
Estuary
This management plan describes how the MA-NERR will be managed by the University
of Texas at Austin, Marine Science Institute (MSI). This management plan is a compilation of
subject specific plans that describe the management of the Reserve. A boundaries/acquisition
plan describes the criteria, description, and rationale of the boundary, as well as core and
buffer areas, and future acquisitions/boundary expansion opportunities. The
boundaries/acquisition plan identifies the following coastal wetland and watershed habitats,
including adjacent uplands, which are likely to be identified as key acquisition areas, including
shorelines along St. Charles Bay, shorelines along Port Bay, Aransas River delta, and Mission
190
River corridor. Future acquisition priorities for the MA-NERR also include key coastal shore
areas, watersheds, which may include riparian zones, and adjacent uplands. The final
management plan for the MA-NERR is at
http://www.nerrs.noaa.gov/Doc/PDF/Reserve/MAR_MgmtPlan.pdf (University of Texas at
Austin, Marine Science Institute 2006).
RESTORATION TECHNIQUES
The need for forested wetland restoration continues to increase as these valuable
ecosystems disappear. Forested wetlands are often created or restored to mitigate the loss of
wetland functions caused by conversion to another land use, although it is virtually impossible
to re-create the exact hydrology, soil, and topographic conditions that formed any natural
wetland. It is often much easier to restore structure of a wetland (i.e., hydrology, vegetation)
than to restore function of a wetland (e.g., flood storage, denitrification; Hunter and Faulkner
2001). Restoration of forested wetlands is often a long-term project because forests take
decades to regenerate (Mitsch and Gosselink 2007).
Wetland restoration is defined as returning a degraded or former wetland to a preexisting condition or as close to that condition as is possible. Wetland creation is converting a
non-wetland to a wetland. Wetland enhancement is improving the condition of a wetland to
enhance one or more of its functions performed. Wetland creation is usually difficult because it
is a challenge to bring water to a site where it does not naturally occur and to establish
hydrophytic vegetation on non-hydric soils (Interagency Workgroup on Wetland Restoration
2003).
There are two ways to approach a wetland restoration or enhancement project. The
first method, a passive approach, is to remove the factors causing wetland degradation or loss
and let nature do the work of re-establishing the wetland. Passive methods allow natural
regeneration of wetland plant communities, natural re-colonization by animals, and reestablishment of wetland hydrology and soils. Passive approaches are most appropriate when
the degraded site still retains basic wetland characteristics and the source of the degradation is
an action that can be stopped. Active approaches involve physical intervention in which
191
humans directly control site processes to restore, create, or enhance wetland systems. The
active approach is most appropriate when a wetland is severely degraded or when goals cannot
be achieved in any other way, as is usually the case with wetland creation and enhancement
(Interagency Workgroup on Wetland Restoration 2003).
Careful planning is imperative to the success of a wetland project. Steps in the planning
process typically include:

Choosing a project site,

Collecting past and present information on the project site and local watershed,

Collecting data on reference sites,

Developing objectives and target criteria based on watershed, project site, and
reference site information,

Talking to local, state, and federal agencies about appropriate regulations,

Talking to adjacent landowners and identifying important social or economic factors
that could affect the project,

Refining goals and objectives,

Deciding on methods for implementing changes designed to rectify damage and
meeting planning goals and objectives,

Preparing designs, such as protocols or construction documents, to direct
implementation, and

Publicizing the project (Interagency Workgroup on Wetland Restoration 2003).
Knowledge of the landscape and watershed is important for wetland projects because
this setting has an enormous influence on how the wetland develops and functions. The
distribution of wetlands is influenced by natural features of watersheds, such as topography
(elevation, aspect, and slope), climate, precipitation patterns, soil types, groundwater, surface
waters, floodplains, and vegetation communities. Information on the hydrology, soils, and
vegetation communities in the watershed should be collected, along with maps and aerial
photography that show local topography and sources of water (Interagency Workgroup on
Wetland Restoration 2003).
192
All restoration, creation, and enhancement projects must be carefully placed in the
watershed to meet hydrologic, soil, and biotic requirements and, therefore, proper site
selection is critical. Local, regional, or state lists of priority wetland restoration sites can
provide valuable information when selecting a site. Hammer (1992) lists six factors to consider
when choosing a restoration, creation, or enhancement site, including hydrology, topography
and geology, soils, biotics, land ownership, and agency requirements. Current conditions of a
project site can be evaluated by conducting a site assessment. Visual inspection of the site can
provide qualitative information on topography, erosion patterns, drainage and water
movement patterns, major vegetation types, human structures and land use, and adjacent land
uses.
In addition to qualitative information, collecting site-specific, quantitative data is often
necessary to determine the causes of wetland loss or degradation, to obtain permits, and to
design a project. Modifications to the project design or maintenance plan may be needed to
address problems such as poor water quality or lack of sufficient water, improper sun exposure
for plantings, lack of nearby native species, invasive and non-native species on adjacent lands,
presence of herbivores that could decimate new plants, human uses that are incompatible with
wetland functions, future land uses (in and around the site) that are incompatible with wetland
functions, and presence of cultural resources (Interagency Workgroup on Wetland Restoration
2003).
Project goals and specific objectives will provide target criteria for hydrology, soils,
topography, and/or biological factors that must be changed on the project site to restore,
create, or enhance a wetland. Progress is determined by measuring performance standards or
target criteria that are linked to each objective. Target criteria often include a numerical endpoint and a time line to reach that end-point. A standard method for setting project targets is
to base them on the conditions of the wetland that existed on the site before it was altered.
Because historical information is often missing, most wetland scientists depend on local
“reference sites,” which are sites that represent the least altered wetlands of the target type in
the area. The ecological conditions at reference sites are usually indicative of the natural
193
communities that can be supported under current conditions (Interagency Workgroup on
Wetland Restoration 2003).
If passive methods for restoration will not work, then implementation should focus on
bioengineering or soft engineering solutions that work with natural processes. Soft engineering
uses physical solutions that reinstate ecological processes and allow the system to become as
self-sustaining as possible. In addition to being ecologically preferable, bioengineering methods
are often more economical than traditional techniques (Interagency Workgroup on Wetland
Restoration 2003).
Steps in implementation of a wetland project typically include site preparation, plant
preparation, installation, maintenance, and continuous adaptive management. During site
preparation, the project site is altered through activities such as removing non-native species,
removing piles of soil, debris and trash, amending soil with nutrients or other enhancements,
removing polluted soils, bringing in appropriate soils or substrates, plugging or removing drains,
fencing out cattle or herbivores, breaching levees, and mowing or burning the site to reinstate
the natural disturbance regime (Interagency Workgroup on Wetland Restoration 2003).
After the project is constructed, an “as-built” assessment is conducted to document the
site conditions immediately after the installation is completed. The as-built assessment
provides a “baseline,” or starting point, for measuring change during subsequent monitoring.
Maintaining the site in good ecological condition is a critical part of implementing a project and
involves controlling non-native and invasive species, controlling herbivores, repairing
structures, maintaining monitoring and other equipment, replacing plants, mowing, burning,
and other activities that mimic the natural disturbance regime, reducing or preventing human
intrusion, implementing forest management plans that maintain the integrity and historical
resource values of the wetland, and maintaining existence of natural hydrology and removing
barriers to hydrology (Manlove et al. 2000, Interagency Workgroup on Wetland Restoration
2003).
194
MEETINGS WITH INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED IN FORESTED WETLAND RESTORATION AND
CONSERVATION
Discussions, including meetings, e-mails, and phone conversations, were held with the
following individuals working with state, Federal, and private organizations to talk about
restoration opportunities in each of the five Gulf States:

Chris Allen, Coastal Resources Scientist Supervisor, Louisiana Coastal Protection
and Restoration Authority (CPRA), Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Marcus Beard, USDA Forest Service, Apalachicola National Forest, Florida

Stuart Brown, Coastal Resources Scientist, CPRA, Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Honora Buras, Coastal Resources Scientist Senior, CPRA, Baton Rouge, Louisiana

James Cowan, Ph.D., Professor, School of the Coast and Environment, Louisiana
State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Jennifer Fidler, Director of Public Works, Fairhope, Alabama

Kyle Graham, Deputy Director, CPRA, Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Garrett Graves, Governor’s Executive Assistant for Coastal Activities, CPRA,
Baton Rouge, Louisiana

PJ Hahn, Director of Coastal Zone Management, Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana

Gary Hegg, Silviculturist, Apalachicola National Forest, Florida

Jim Hancock, Grants Manager, Mississippi Forestry Commission, Jackson,
Mississippi

Richard Keim, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, School of Renewable Natural
Resources, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Jae-Young Ko, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Department of Marine Sciences, Texas
A&M University, Galveston, Texas

Sara Mack, Ph.D., President, Tierra Resources, LLC, New Orleans, Louisiana

William Mitsch, Ph.D., Director of Florida Gulf Coast University’s new Everglades
Wetland Research Park (EWRP), Naples, Florida

Ad Platt, Longleaf Technical Assistance Specialist, Longleaf Alliance, Mobile,
Alabama
195

Susan Reece, Ph.D., Program Manager, Mississippi Coastal Improvements
Program, Jackson, Mississippi

Gary Shaffer, Ph.D., Professor, Southeastern Louisiana University, Hammond,
Louisiana

Rick Wallace, President, Weeks Bay Foundation, Weeks Bay, Alabama

Jerome Zeringue, Director, Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration
Authority (CPRA), Baton Rouge, Louisiana
196
CHAPTER SIX. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
SUMMARY
Freshwater forested wetlands (FFW) are an important component of the coastal ecology
of states bordering the Gulf of Mexico. Dominated by baldcypress-water tupelo swamps and
hardwood wetlands, these forests reduce nutrients and sediments in surface water that
ultimately flows into the Gulf, provide wildlife habitat, protect coastal urban areas from storm
surge, retain stormwater, recharge groundwater, provide timber, fish, fur, and alligator
harvests, offer opportunities for recreation, and sequester carbon.
Composition of FFW along the Gulf of Mexico coast (e.g., the coastal zone boundary of
each state plus 25 miles) varies with substrate type, latitude, longitude, degree of freshwater
input, salinity, and aridity. Hardwood wetlands and swamp forests are the predominant type of
FFW in the study areas of states that border the Gulf of Mexico. Swamp forests occur in
frequently flooded low-lying areas while hardwood wetlands occur in areas that are less
frequently flooded. Due to the aridity of Texas, bottomland forests are generally restricted to
narrow floodplains and swamp forests occur only to a minor extent in floodplains of northern
coastal Texas and are generally absent in southern coastal Texas.
Swamp forests reach their greatest development in the Mississippi Delta, in the MobileTensaw River delta, and in south Florida, west of the Everglades. Bottomland hardwood forests
are generally similar in composition throughout the Gulf, although wetlands east and west of
the Mississippi River may differ somewhat in composition because the Mississippi marks the
eastern or western limit of distribution of several tree species. Where a shallow limestone
platform supports coastal forest in a non-estuarine environment, FFW may be wet pine
flatwoods/savannahs or coastal hardwood hammock.
Restoration of FFW can provide numerous benefits to the Gulf of Mexico and each state
along the Gulf has forested wetlands types and areas that provide specific benefits. Restoration
and conservation projects are important at both a large (i.e., federal and state projects) and
small scale (e.g., individual landowners). Careful planning is important to the success of any
wetland restoration or enhancement project. Knowledge of the landscape and watershed is
197
also necessary because the surrounding area has an enormous influence on how a wetland
develops and functions. In general, the most important factor in restoring and enhancing
wetlands is to develop appropriate hydrologic conditions. For most projects, multidisciplinary
expertise in planning and project supervision is necessary for successful restoration.
Restoration of baldcypress-tupelo swamps improves water quality, provide storm
protection to urban areas, provide recreation opportunities and wildlife habitat, and sequester
carbon. A majority of swamps along the Gulf coast are threatened by saltwater intrusion and
hydrologic alterations that cause impoundment, restrict tree regeneration, and reduce nutrient,
sediment, and freshwater inputs. Freshwater diversions, seedling/sapling planting, removal of
impediments to surface water flow, and implementing management plans are necessary to
sustain these wetlands.
Hardwood wetland restoration and conservation also improves water quality by
reducing nutrient and sediment concentrations of surface water flowing into adjacent water
bodies. In addition, these wetlands also support wildlife and provide recreation and economic
opportunities. Many hardwood wetlands are threatened by invasive species, alterations in
hydrology, development, and improper management. Protection from urban sprawl and
fragmentation, implementation of forest management plans and best management practices,
and removal of invasive species and impediments to surface water flow are essential for
conserving and restoring these wetlands.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Each of the five states that border the Gulf of Mexico has written an assessment of
forest resources that includes threats to FFW and strategies for management, conservation,
and restoration, and these plans are discussed in Chapter Five. Large- and small-scale projects
on state-owned lands (e.g., wildlife management areas, parks, and other parcels) are typically
successful because extensive input is provided by biologists, foresters, ecologists, and other
conservation and restoration experts. However, successful restoration and management of the
numerous privately owned FFW in the coastal areas of each state is also essential for a healthy
Gulf Coast.
198
There are many ways that private landowners can enhance and restore FFW to maintain
important ecosystem functions. The most basic is for private landowners to develop a forest
management plan that will provide direction for long-term forest stewardship. A management
plan offers essential guidance to any restoration project because a state forester will visit the
area and provide recommendations. In addition, the use of best management practices (BMPs)
is encouraged to protect wetland functions. BMPs provide landowners with the necessary tools
to avoid or minimize direct and indirect impacts from activities that, if improperly conducted,
can diminish the quantity, quality, and biological diversity of FFW. The principal outcome from
applying wetland BMPs is to protect normal surface water movement within the wetland (e.g.,
minimizing rutting, removing fill material, etc.). By maintaining hydrologic flows, most other
wetland functions will be protected.
There are numerous areas of FFW in each state that are important for maintaining the
health of the Gulf of Mexico coastal region and its waters. These FFW areas are discussed
below.
Alabama
In the study area for Alabama, there are four primary types of FFW, including
bottomland hardwood, swamp, wet pine flatwood, and wet pine savannah/bog. From the mid1970’s to the mid-1980’s Alabama lost approximately 42,000 acres of FFW, primarily due to
conversion to agriculture. However, within Mobile and Baldwin counties, FFW acreage actually
increased from 203,704 acres in 1974 to 210,192 acres in 2008. This trend is not expected to
continue without active conservation because FFW are threatened by urban growth and
development, fragmentation and parcelization, conversion to agriculture, clear cutting
associated with timber harvest, invasive species, insects, disease, and climate change that will
lead to sea-level rise and saltwater intrusion.
Bottomland hardwood wetlands and swamps store floodwater, sequester carbon,
reduce sediment erosion, and provide habitat for wildlife (including migratory songbirds and
waterfowl), and improve water quality by reducing nutrient and sediment concentrations. In
addition, these FFW have numerous economic benefits from fishing and hunting, timber
199
production, and ecotourism. Wet pine flatwoods and savannahs provide habitat for many rare,
endangered, and threatened flora and fauna species.
Most of the FFW in the study area for Alabama occur primarily in the riverine
floodplains of the Mobile-Tensaw River (MTR) Delta, located north of Mobile Bay. The MTR
Delta is one of the largest intact wetland ecosystems in the United States and it comprises
approximately 260,000 acres of wetland habitats, ranging from submersed grass beds and
marshes to baldcypress-water tupelo swamps and seasonally flooded bottomland hardwoods.
The MTR Delta has recently been identified by the Natural Heritage Program as one of the top
priority sites for protection within the East Gulf Coastal Plain Ecoregion. In addition, the delta is
one of 327 watersheds to be deemed as being of irreplaceable value to conserving populations
of freshwater fish and mussel species at risk in the United States. The ecological integrity of
Mobile Bay estuary is very dependent on the existence and ecological health of the MTR delta.
Weeks Bay is another area with a large drainage basin and conservation of riparian wetlands in
this area is also important to water quality in Mobile Bay (Figure 6-1). Specific conservation and
restoration projects in these areas are discussed in Chapter Five.
200
Figure 6-1. Significant freshwater forested wetland conservation and
restoration areas in the Alabama study area.
201
Florida
In Florida’s study area, the primary types of FFW include baldcypress-tupelo swamp,
hardwood forest, and wet pine flatwoods. Approximately 1,586,941 acres of baldcypresstupelo swamp habitat exist in Florida, of which 44% are currently in conservation or managed
areas. Another 11% are in Florida Forever projects and 10% are in other conservation lands.
The remaining 35% are other private lands. The main threats to FFW in Florida include
conversion to agriculture, urban development, alterations in hydrology, and invasive species.
Hardwood wetlands (baygall, hydric hammock, bottomland forest, and alluvial forest)
occur throughout mainland Florida and are in good but declining condition. As of 2005, there
were 3,250,491 acres of hardwood/mixed wetland forest habitat in Florida, of which 36% were
in conservation or managed areas, 8% in the Florida Forever projects, 11% in SHCA-designated
lands, and the remaining 45% privately owned. Hydric hammock is the least extensive wetland
type and, as of 2005, only 35,341 acres remain in Florida, primarily in the Big Bend region.
Most of the loss of hydric hammock has been due to habitat destruction and conversion but
future threats include climate change and sea level rise. In general, threats to hardwood
wetlands are the same as those to baldcypress-tupelo swamp.
The current condition of wet flatwoods is poor and declining, with 3,095,165 acres
remaining in Florida. Of that total, 30% are in existing conservation or managed areas, 7% are
on private lands encompassed by Florida Forever projects, 8% are SCHA-identified lands, and
the remaining 56% are within other private lands. Threats specific to flatwoods included the
siting of utility corridors through this habitat, particularly on public lands, which results in
fragmentation and loss of habitat. This habitat is also threatened by conversion to more
intensive land uses and insufficient management of invasive plant species such as Japanese
climbing fern.
As discussed above, bottomland hardwood wetlands and swamps improve water
quality, store floodwater and sequester carbon, reduce sediment erosion, provide habitat for
wildlife, and have numerous economic benefits from fishing and hunting, timber production,
and ecotourism. Wet pine flatwoods and savannahs provide habitat for many rare,
endangered, and threatened flora and fauna species.
202
Important FFW for conservation and restoration in the Florida study area include
forested wetlands and hydric hammock habitat (Figure 6-2). Florida has five water
management districts created by the Water Resources Act of 1972 and each management
district produces management plans to protect and manage water resources. Specific projects
within each of the areas identified in Figure 6-2 are described by water management district in
more detail in Chapter Five.
Figure 6-2. Significant freshwater forested wetland conservation and
restoration areas in the Florida study area.
Louisiana
The two main categories of FFW in Louisiana’s study area are baldcypress-water tupelo
swamp and bottomland hardwood forests. According to the Louisiana Forest Inventory
Analysis, there was an estimated 7.4 million acres of baldcypress-water tupelo swamp in
Louisiana in 1934 but by the mid-1980s this area had been reduced by almost 50% to 3.9
203
million acres. A loss of another 230,000 acres of tidal swamp forests are predicted in the
Pontchartrain, Barataria, and Terrebonne basins by 2050, about a 50% decline from the current
total acreage in these basins. Along with the other ecosystem functions discussed above, in
coastal Louisiana baldcypress-tupelo swamps protect coastal communities from storm surge,
levee erosion, and flooding. The primarily threats facing baldcypress-tupelo swamp in coastal
Louisiana are sea-level rise, saltwater intrusion and soil subsidence.
In the lower Mississippi River alluvial valley, which extends from near the Gulf of Mexico
to southern Illinois, the extent of bottomland hardwood wetlands has declined from 24.2
million acres to less than 5 million acres . Louisiana has lost approximately 70% of its original
bottomland hardwood forests. Bottomland hardwood wetlands are important for reducing
nutrients and sediments in surface water, providing wildlife habitat, and floodwater retention.
The primary cause of bottomland hardwood loss has been conversion to agricultural
production, but additional losses are due to construction of flood control and navigation
structures, surface mining, and urban development.
The FFW type of greatest concern in coastal Louisiana is baldcypress-water tupelo
swamp. Within the study area, there are very few swamps that have not been impacted by
increases in soil salinity and water level and decreases in soil elevation. Because this ecosystem
type is so vital for continued longevity of urban areas in coastal Louisiana (e.g., New Orleans,
Kenner, Metairie, etc.), it is imperative to increase fresh water inputs into coastal swamps.
There are several forested wetland areas in Louisiana that are critical to coastal resiliency,
including the Central Wetlands Unit, the Maurepas wetlands, and the LaBranche wetlands
(Figure 6-3). Each of these areas either contains degraded baldcypress-water tupelo swamp or
once contained baldcypress-water tupelo swamp that has now converted to open water and/or
marsh. Specific projects within each of the areas identified in Figure 6-3 are described in detail
in Chapter Five.
204
Figure 6-3. Significant freshwater forested wetland conservation and restoration areas in the
Louisiana study area.
Mississippi
There are five primary types of forested wetlands in the study area for Mississippi,
including swamps, bottomland hardwood forests, riverfront palustrine floodplain forests, wet
pine savannas/flatwoods, and spring seeps. In Mississippi, more than 365,000 acres of forested
wetlands were lost or converted to other wetland types between the mid-1970’s and mid1980’s, primarily due to agricultural development. National Wetlands Inventory data indicate
148,000 acres of forested wetland habitat in the Mississippi Coastal Area. There are about
600,000 acres of swamp habitat in Mississippi, equivalent to about two percent of the state
land area. Threats to swamp forests include development, alterations in hydrology, and
fragmentation.
205
Several large patches (50,000 - 100,000 acres) of bottomland hardwood forests are
found along lowland stretches of the Pascagoula and Pearl River and in the Mississippi Delta in
west-central Mississippi and the total acreage of bottomland hardwood forests along smaller
rivers is substantial. Collectively, bottomland hardwood forests make up almost seven percent
of the state's land area (about two million acres). The primary cause of bottomland hardwood
loss has been conversion to agriculture. Additional losses have been caused by construction
and operation of flood control structures and reservoirs, surface mining, and urban
development.
Although much diminished after river diking, dredging, revetment and channelization
projects, the lands between the Mississippi River and its levees still contain the long swaths of
riverfront palustrine floodplain forests. It is estimated that over 500,000 acres of cottonwoodwillow forest remains in the lower Mississippi River Alluvial Plain within Mississippi, Arkansas
and Louisiana. Dams, channelization, manmade levees and other modifications have restricted
the extent of riverfront forests. Bank erosion-accretion processes has been slowed or
eliminated along leveed and stabilized portions of the Mississippi River. The modified river
environment has caused the riverfront cottonwood and willow communities to regenerate
poorly.
It is estimated that less than five percent of the original acreage of wet pine savanna
habitat remains in the Atlantic/Gulf Coastal Plain, making it one of the most endangered
ecosystems in the country. The lack of prescribed burns has had a dramatic negative impact on
the size and distribution of wet pine savannas. In the 1960s and 1970s, much of the remaining
open savanna was converted to pine plantation by planting and ditching (bedding). In addition,
urbanization of the three coastal counties of Mississippi caused significant losses of this habitat.
The savannas of Sandhill Crane National Wildlife Refuge are considered the last remaining large
patches of this diverse community.
Seeps occur throughout Mississippi, although infrequently, but the number of seeps is
unknown and no study of their condition is available. The Mississippi Natural Heritage Program
has documented a limited number of spring seeps. Threats to seeps include highway
construction and other activities that alter hydrology, erosion, urban development and other
206
land use changes. Pine seeps are considered imperiled but overall acreage is unknown, while
an estimated 500 to several thousand acres of hardwood seeps are thought to exist in the state.
As discussed above, swamps, bottomland hardwood wetlands, and riverfront palustrine
floodplain forests improve water quality, store floodwater and sequester carbon, reduce
sediment erosion, provide habitat for wildlife, and have numerous economic benefits from
fishing and hunting, timber production, and ecotourism. Wet pine savanna and spring seeps
provide habitat for many rare, endangered, and threatened flora and fauna species.
Longleaf pine forests and savannas, streams and riparian forests are priorities for the
Mississippi Forest Legacy Program in areas of Mississippi subject to large population growth.
Important FFW for conservation and restoration in the Mississippi study area include the
Pascagoula River Basin, the largest contiguous block of forested wetlands within the Mississippi
study area, and the Pearl River Basin (Figure 6-4). Other important FFW for conservation and
restoration are located in the southern portions of Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson counties
(around Grand Bay, St. Louis Bay, and Biloxi Bay). Specific projects within each of the areas
identified in Figure 6-4 are described in detail in Chapter Five.
207
Figure 6-4. Significant freshwater forested wetland conservation and restoration areas in the
Mississippi study area.
Texas
The Texas Gulf Coast categorizes its three types of FFW as lower coast riparian, riverine
forested, and coastal flatwoods. An estimated 4.1 million acres of wetlands existed on the
Texas coast in the mid-1950s but by the early 1990s, wetlands had decreased to less than 3.9
million acres including 3.3 million acres of freshwater wetlands and 600,000 acres of saltwater
wetlands. The total net loss of wetlands for the region was approximately 210,600 acres,
making the average annual net loss of wetlands about 5,700 acres. The greatest losses were of
freshwater emergent and FFW, with over 96,000 acres (a 10.9 percent decrease) of FFW lost or
converted to other wetland types. Most of the losses were to upland agriculture and other
upland land uses, with conversions to scrub-shrub and farmed wetlands and construction of
reservoirs. Many riparian wetlands are now dominated by introduced or disturbance species
such as salt cedar and mesquite. Future losses are predicted from the construction of
approximately 10 major reservoirs and eight minor reservoirs and from timber harvest
operations if forests are not replanted.
Lower coast riparian wetlands are river bottom wetlands and river-associated habitats
from about the San Antonio River south to the Rio Grande, including those on the Guadalupe,
Nueces, and San Antonio rivers. These FFW are very susceptible to disturbances such as
overgrazing, channel dredging, and brush control programs. There is a need to develop
management plans that would limit this type of activity. Many of these habitats are now
dominated by introduced or disturbance types such as salt cedar and mesquite. These two
species use a lot of water and are often targeted by brush control programs related to water
conservation efforts. Salt cedar and mesquite dominated riparian zones are not as desirable as
a mixture of native tree and brush species, but they do provide habitats for birds and other
animals and help stabilize stream banks and floodplain soils. We suggest a balanced approach
that incorporates both types of habitat.
208
Riverine forested wetlands are found on the floodplains of rivers and streams that cross
the middle and upper coastal plain, such as the Sabine, Neches, Trinity, and Brazos Rivers, and
have broad floodplains that support extensive forested wetlands (both swamps and
bottomland hardwood forests). Swamps are the wettest type of riverine forested wetland in
Texas and are found mostly in East Texas, from Houston east to the Sabine River. Most of these
swamps underwent severe deforestation in the early part of the 20th Century, as high-quality
cypress was over-harvested. These wetlands are threatened by the construction of dams and
reservoirs and by other modifications to hydrology.
Coastal flatwoods occur on poorly drained flats between rivers on the coastal plain
dominated by pine or hardwoods. The flatwoods wetlands stretch from the Louisiana border
west to about the Houston area, and they are extensive. Most of the wet flatwood areas are on
low Pleistocene terraces of the major rivers and streams of the Upper Texas Gulf Coast. Major
threats are similar to those for riverine forested wetlands. Since the mid-1950s, the area of
commercial pine plantations on the upper coast has increased by about 322,000 acres,
displacing native pine or mixed pine-hardwood flatwoods. There is a need to develop plans
that would help private forest land owners to better manage their property in a way that allows
them to generate income. Selective cutting and replanting over time and carbon sequestration
are two options. Modification of hydrology and suppression of fire have also degraded these
systems. In addition to the timber and wildlife habitat values, flatwood wetlands perform most
of the same water quality and flood control functions as riverine-forested wetlands.
Riparian wetlands in the Texas study area are threatened by pollution, development/fill,
shoreline structures, including channelizing and covering stream banks with impervious
surfaces to maintain high flow conditions, damming, water diversions, erosion, nuisance or
exotic species, and dredging and dredged material disposal. Conservation priority is given to
riparian zones containing palustrine forested wetlands along tidal rivers and streams and to
riparian areas containing other lands and values to be protected, such as habitats for
endangered/threatened species.
Important FFW for conservation and restoration in the Texas study area include lower
coast riparian wetlands on the Nueces, San Antonio, and Guadalupe rivers (Figure 6-5).
209
Riverine forested wetlands on the Brazos, Colorado, Trinity, San Jacinto, Neches, and Sabine
rivers are important for wildlife habitat and water quality maintenance. Wet pine flatwoods
between Houston and the Sabine River also deserve attention. Specific projects within areas
identified in Figure 6-5 are described in detail in Chapter Five.
Figure 6-5. Significant freshwater forested wetland conservation and restoration areas in the
Texas study area.
210
CHAPTER SEVEN. LITERATURE CITED
Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, State Lands Division. 2005. State
of Alabama Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program Implementation Strategy.
Prepared by Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, State Lands Division,
Coastal Section. Montgomery, Alabama.
Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. 2010. Alabama Coastal Area
Management Program Section 309 Enhancement Grant Program Assessment and Strategy.
Prepared by Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, State Lands Division,
Coastal Section. Montgomery, Alabama.
Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. 2011. State of Alabama CIAP
Plan Amendment Fiscal Year 2009 and 2010. Prepared by Alabama Department of
Conservation and Natural Resources, State Lands Division. Montgomery, Alabama. 437 pp.
Alabama Forest Assessment Team. 2010. Forests at the Crossroads: Alabama’s Forest
Assessment and Resource Strategy. A report prepared by the Alabama Forestry Commission,
Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Alabama Department of
Environmental Management.
Alabama Forest Resources Center. 2002. Alabama Forest Legacy Program Assessment of Need
Document. Mobile, Alabama. 87 pp.
Alabama Marine Environmental Sciences Consortium (MESC). 1981. Wetland habitats of the
Alabama coastal zone. Alabama MESC. Contribution No. 040. Prepared for the Alabama
Coastal Board. Alabama Coastal Area Board Technical Report No. CAB 81-01.
(http://alabamamaps.ua.edu/historicalmaps/Coastal%20Ecosystems/Atlases/
WetlandHabitats1981Atlas.html).
Alabama Wildlife Federation website. 2013.
(http://www.alabamawildlife.org/stewardship/?pageID=54).
Armand Bayou Watershed Partnership. 2006. Armand Bayou Watershed Greenprint: Final
Report. A report of the Coastal Coordination Council, pursuant to NOAA award no. NA04NOS
4190058. 52 pp.
Cecil Consulting. 2000. Identification of Natural Resource Restoration Projects for the Texas
Coast. Presented to the Coastal Coordination Council. GLO Contract No. 99-124R. 60 pp.
211
Chambers, J.L., W.H. Conner, J.W. Day, Jr., S.P. Faulkner, E.S. Gardiner, M.S. Hughes, R.F. Keim,
S.L. King, C.A. Miller, J.A. Nyman, and G.P. Shaffer. 2005. Conservation, protection, and
utilization of Louisiana’s coastal wetland forests. Final report to the Governor of Louisiana from
the Coast Wetland Forest Conservation and Use Science Working Group, Baton Rouge, LA. 121
pp.
Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority of Louisiana. 2012. Louisiana’s Comprehensive Master Plan for a
Sustainable Coast. Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority of Louisiana. Baton Rouge, LA. 190 pp.
Coastal Wetland Forest Conservation and Use Science Working Group. 2005. Conservation,
protection and utilization of Louisiana’s coastal wetland forests. Final Report to the Governor
of Louisiana.
Ellis, J., J. Spruce, R. Swann, and J. Smoot. 2008. Land-use and land-cover change from 19742008 around Mobile Bay, AL. Final report produced for NASA and the Mobile Bay National
Estuary Program.
Esslinger, C.G., and B.C. Wilson. 2001. North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Gulf Coast
Joint Venture: Chenier Plain Initiative. North American Waterfowl Management Plan,
Albuquerque, NM. 28 pp. + appendix. (Revised 2003.)
Faulkner, Stephen P.; Chambers, Jim L.; Conner, William H.; Keim, Richard F.; Day, John W.;
Gardiner, Emile S.; Hughes, Melinda S.; King, Sammy L.; McLeod, Kenneth W.; Miller, Craig A.;
Nyman, J. Andrew; Shaffer, Gary P. 2007. Chapter 16 - Conservation and use of coastal
wetland forests in Louisiana. In: Ecology of Tidal Freshwater Forested Wetlands of the
Southeastern United States. W.H. Conner, T.W. Doyle, and K.W. Krauss (eds). Springer,
Florida Division of Forestry. 2010. Forest Resources – 2010 Florida’s Statewide Strategies.
Tallahassee, FL. 102 pp.
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2005. Florida’s Wildlife Legacy Initiative.
Florida’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Tallahassee, Florida, USA.
Florida Natural Areas Inventory. 2010. Guide to the natural communities of Florida: 2010
edition. Florida Natural Areas Inventory, Tallahassee, FL.
Florida Natural Areas Inventory. 2012. Florida Forever Conservation Needs Assessment
Overview Maps. Florida Natural Areas Inventory, Tallahassee, FL.
Florida Natural Areas Inventory. 2013. Preliminary evaluations of the January 2013 Florida
Forever Proposals. Florida Natural Areas Inventory, Tallahassee, FL. 12 pp.
212
Galveston Bay Estuary Program. 2007. Charting the Course to 2015: Galveston Bay Strategic
Action Plan. Publication GI-385/07 of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Houston,
Texas. 32 pp.
Galveston Bay Foundation. 1998. Habitat Conservation Blueprint, A Plan to Restore the Habitats
and Heritage of Galveston Bay: Sites, Strategies, and Resources. Galveston Bay Foundation.
Webster, TX. 181 pp.
Grand Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve. 2013. Grand Bay National Estuarine Research
Reserve Management Plan 2013-2018: Grand Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve,
Mississippi Department of Marine Resources, Moss Point, Mississippi. 104 pp.
Hartsell, Andrew J. and Mark J. Brown. 2002. Forest Statistics for Alabama, 2000. USDA Forest
Service Resource Bulletin SRS-67. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern
Research Station Asheville, NC.
HNTB Corporation. 2008. Alabama Scenic Byway Program. Coastal Connection Scenic BywayCorridor Management Plan. Prepared for Alabama Association of Regional Councils,
Montgomery, AL. 137 pp.
Hunter, R.G., J.W. Day, Jr., R.R. Lane, J. Lindsey, J.N. Day, and M.G. Hunter. 2009. Nutrient
removal and loading rate analysis of Louisiana forested wetlands assimilating treated municipal
effluent. Environmental Management 44:865-873.
Hunter, R.G., and S.P. Faulkner. 2001. Comparison of denitrification potentials between
restored and natural bottomland hardwood wetlands. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 65(6):1865-1872.
Jacobs, J., R. Srinivasan, and B. Barber. 2008. Southern Forest Land Assessment: A cooperative
project of the Southern Group of State Foresters. A report produced for the Southern Group of
State Foresters, Winder, GA. 93 pp.
Karels, J.R. and C.H. Bronson. 2010. Florida Resources – 2010 Florida’s Statewide Strategies.
Florida Division of Forestry, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.
Laible, Michael. 2003. Seabrook Wetland Conservation Plan. 44 pp.
Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation. 2006. Comprehensive habitat management plan for the
Lake Pontchartrain Basin. Metairie, LA. 142 pp.
Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force. 1998. Coast 2050:
Toward a Sustainable Coastal Louisiana. Louisiana Department of Natural Resources. Baton
Rouge, LA. 161 pp.
213
Louisiana Department of Natural Resources. 2013. FY 2014 Annual Plan – Atchafalaya Basin
Program. Baton Rouge, LA. 29 pp.
Louisiana Natural Heritage Program. 2009. The Natural Communities of Louisiana. Louisiana
Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Baton Rouge, LA. 46 pp.
Louisiana Office of Forestry. 2010. Louisiana Statewide Forest Resource Assessment and
Strategy: A comprehensive analysis of forest-related conditions, trends, threats, opportunities,
and management strategies. Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry, Baton Rouge,
LA. 136 pp.
Manlove, C.A., B.C. Wilson, and C.G. Esslinger. 2002. North American Waterfowl Management
Plan, Gulf Coast Joint Venture: Coastal Mississippi Wetlands Initiative. North American
Waterfowl Management Plan, Albuquerque, N.M. 28 pp. + appendix.
Manlove, C.A., B.C. Wilson, and C.G. Esslinger. 2002. North American Waterfowl Management
Plan, Gulf Coast Joint Venture: Mobile Bay Initiative. North American Waterfowl Management
Plan, Albuquerque, N.M. 28 pp. + appendix.
Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Consortium. 2012. 2014-2017 Strategic Plan. MississippiAlabama Sea Grant Consortium, Ocean Spring, MS. 48 pp.
Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality. 2001. State of Mississippi Coastal Impact
Assistance Plan. Jackson, Mississippi. 19 pp.
Mississippi Forestry Commission. 2007. Mississippi’s Forest Legacy Program Assessment of
Need 2007-2012. Jackson, Mississippi. 89 pp.
Mississippi Forestry Commission. 2010. Mississippi’s Assessment of Forest Resources and
Forest Resource Strategy. Jackson, Mississippi. 200 pp.
Mississippi Museum of Natural Science. 2005. Mississippi’s Comprehensive Wildlife
Conservation Strategy. Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks, Mississippi
Museum of Natural Science, Jackson, Mississippi. 428 pp.
Mobile Bay National Estuary Program. 2012. The comprehensive conservation management
plan, Baldwin and Mobile Counties, Alabama, 2013-2018. Draft. 105 pp.
Mobile Bay National Estuary Program. 2006. Conserving Alabama’s Coastal Habitats:
Acquisition and restoration priorities of Mobile and Baldwin Counties. Prepared by the Mobile
Bay National Estuary Program in partnership with The Nature Conservancy under a contract
with the Gulf of Mexico Program. Mobile, Alabama. 70 pp.
214
Moulton, D.W., T.E. Dahl, and D.M. Dall. 1997. Texas Coastal Wetlands: Status and trends,
mid-1950s to early 1990s. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 34 pp.
National Audubon Society. 2012. Restoring the Gulf for Coastal Waterbirds: A long-term
vision. 18 pp.
Northwest Florida Water Management District. 2006 (Revised March 2009). Northwest Florida
Umbrella, Watershed-based, Regional Mitigation Plan. Havana, Florida. 78 pp.
Northwest Florida Water Management District. 2012. Northwest Florida Water Management
District Consolidated Annual Report. Havana, Florida. 121 pp.
Noss, Reed F., and Robert L. Peters. 1995. Endangered Ecosystems: A Status Report on
America’s Vanishing Habitat and Wildlife. Washington, D.C. Defenders of Wildlife.
Pyne, M. 2005. West Gulf Coastal Plain Flatwoods Pond ecological system: Ecological integrity
assessment. Assessment prepared by NatureServe, Dunham, NC. 32 pp.
Regional Working Group for America’s Longleaf. 2009. Range-wide conservation plan for
Longleaf Pine. 52 pp.
Smith, E. H. and John Wood. 2003. Identification of Potential Conservation, Restoration, and
Enhancement Sites. Publication CBBEP-49, Project Number 0319. 45 pp.
South Florida Water Management District. 2013. South Florida Environmental Report. West
Palm Beach, Florida.
Southwest Florida Water Management District. 2012. 2012-2016 Strategic Plan. Brooksville,
Florida. 36 pp.
Southwest Florida Water Management District. 2011. Florida Forever Work Plan Annual
Update 2011. Brooksville, Florida. 72 pp.
Stout, J.P., M.J. Lelong, H.M. Dowling, and M.Y. Powers. 1982. Wetland habitats of the Alabama
Coastal Zone, Part III. An inventory of wetland habitats of the Mobile-Tensaw River Delta. Alabama Coastal Area Board. Technical Report 81-49A. 25 pp.
Stout, J.P. 1990. Suggestions for planting and maintaining wetlands in Coastal Alabama.
Prepared for the Alabama Department of Environmental Management.
Suwannee River Water Management District. 2013. Suwannee River Water Management
District Five Year Strategic Plan. Live Oak, Florida. 27 pp.
215
Suwannee River Water Management District. 2012. Florida Forever Work Plan 2012 Annual
Update. Live Oak, Florida. 42 pp.
Suwannee River Water Management District. 2013. Florida Forever Work Plan 2013 Annual
Update. Live Oak, Florida. 30 pp.
Swann, R., R. McElhenney, D. Yeager, T. Herder, M. Hamilton, and L. Young. 2008. State of
Mobile Bay: A status report on Alabama’s coastline from the Delta to our coastal waters.
Presented by the Mobile Bay National Estuary Program and its Science Advisory Committee.
Texarkana Metropolitan Planning Organization. 2009. Metropolitan Transportation Plan for
the Texarkana Metropolitan Area 2010 – 2035. Texarkana, Texas. 196 pp.
Texas Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program. 2010. The Texas Coastal and
Estuarine Land Conservation Program Plan. Texas General Land Office, Coastal Management
Program, Galveston, Texas. 47 pp.
Texas Coastal Management Program. 2012. 2012 Annual Report. Austin, Texas. 59 pp.
Texas Coastal Watershed Program. 2002. Clear Creek Watershed Wetland Habitat Atlas. A
Cooperative Effort of the Galveston Bay Estuary Program, Texas Sea Grant, Texas Cooperative
Extension Service, and TPWD. 15 pp.
Texas Forest Service. 2009. Texas Statewide Assessment of Forest Resources: A
comprehensive analysis of forest-related conditions, trends, threats, and opportunities. 2009.
College Station, Texas. 168 pp.
Texas Forest Service. 2012. Texas Statewide Resource Strategy: A comprehensive strategic
plan to address forest-related conditions, trends, threats, and opportunities as identified in the
September 2008 Texas Statewide Assessment of Forest Resources. College Station, Texas. 164
pp.
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 2005. Land and Water Resources Conservation and
Recreation Plan. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin, TX. 133 pp.
The Nature Conservancy. 2009. Prioritization guide for coastal habitat protection and
restoration in Mobile and Baldwin counties, Alabama. Prepared by The Nature Conservancy in
collaboration with the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration and the Mobile Bay
National Estuary Program. 37 pp.
The South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force. 2010. Strategy and Biennial Report July
2008-June 2010. Miami, Florida. 64 pp.
216
The Trust for Public Land. 2007. West Galveston Island Greenprint for Growth. The Trust for
Public Land, Houston Galveston Office, Houston, TX. 31 pp.
US Army Corps of Engineers. 2009. Mississippi Coastal Improvements Program (MsCIP) –
Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson Counties, Mississippi. Comprehensive Plan and Integrated
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Volume 1 – Main Report. Army Engineer
District, Mobile, Alabama. 417 pp.
US Army Corps of Engineers. 2012. Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO) Ecosystem
Restoration Plan, Final Feasibility Report. Supplemental Report of the Chief of Engineers in
Response to the Water Resources Development Act of 2007. USACE, New Orleans District, New
Orleans, Louisiana. 285 pp.
US Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 2. 1991. Emergency Wetlands Resources Act: Region 2
Wetlands Regional Concept Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 2, Albuquerque, NM.
186 pp.
US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Land protection plan and final environmental assessment
for the expansion of Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge: Jackson County, Mississippi and
Mobile County, Alabama. Southeast Region. 76 pp.
The University of Texas at Austin, Marine Science Institute. 2006. Final Texas NERR
Management Plan. In: Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Federal Approval
of the Texas National Estuarine Research Reserve and Management Plan: The Mission-Aransas
Estuary. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, National Ocean Service, Office of Ocean and
Coastal Resource Management, Estuarine Research Division. 129 pp.
Walker, S., A. Dausman, and L. Dawn. Eds. 2012. Gulf of Mexico Ecosystem Science
Assessment and Needs – A product of the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Task Force Science
Coordination Team. 72 pp.
Williams, K., Z. S. Pinzon, R.P. Stumpf, and E.A. Raabe. 1999. Sea-level rise and coastal forests
of the Gulf of Mexico. Prepared for the U.S. Geological Survey under Cooperative Grant
Number 1434-96-AG-01576. Open File Report 99-441, U.S. Geological Survey, Center for
Coastal Geology, St. Petersburg, Florida.
Wilson, B.C., C.A. Manlove, and C.G. Esslinger. 2002. North American Waterfowl Management
Plan, Gulf Coast Joint Venture: Mississippi River Coastal Wetlands Initiative. North American
Waterfowl Management Plan, Albuquerque, NM. 28 pp. + appendix.
217