US Army Corps

of Engineers

Construction Engineering

Research Laboratories

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

USACERL Technical Report 99/08

December 1998

Management of Peatland Shrub- and

Forest-dominated Communities for

Threatened and Endangered Species

by

Kevin Robertson, Mary G. Harper, and Mike Woolery

Plant communities found on peatland soils include

forests, basin shrublands, and seepage

communities. The ecology and management of six

communities are reviewed, with an emphasis on land

uses associated with Department of Defense (DoD)

installations. Peatland plant communities in the

southeastern United States are important to

landscape and regional biodiversity because they

are often the only natural areas that have not been

converted to urban or agricultural uses, and they

support several threatened, endangered, and

sensitive species (TES). Several of these plant

communities are rare due to alterations in fire and

hydrology over large expanses of the region.

The discussion includes ecological descriptions for

each community, information about occurrences on

DoD installations throughout the southeast, the

contribution of these communities to regional

biodiversity, and known occurrences of plant TES

associated with these communities. Also included in

the discussion are outlines for determining

community quality, indicators of quality, known and

potential impacts to the integrity of TES habitat for

these communities, and management of these

impacts. Special consideration is given to the

impacts and management of timber harvesting,

alterations in hydrology (drainage), and changes in

fire regime since they are most likely to affect

peatland communities on DoD installations.

USACERL TR-99/08

1

SF 298
2 USACERL TR-99/08

Foreword

This study was conducted for the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) under Work Item ES8, “Regional Guidelines for Managing

Threatened and Endangered Species Habitats.” The technical monitor was Dr. Femi

A. Ayorinde, Cleanup and Conservation Program Manager, SERDP. Mr. Bradley

P. Smith is the Executive Director, SERDP.

The work was performed by the Natural Resource Assessment and Management

Division (LL-N) of the Land Management Laboratory (LL), U.S. Army Construction

Engineering Research Laboratories (CERL). Ms. Harper was employed as a

Research Associate under an interagency agreement with the U.S. Forest Service,

Rocky Mountain Range and Forest Experiment Station, and Colorado State

University. Ms. Harper was responsible for community classification, while Mr.

Woolery and Mr. Robertson provided information on community impacts and

management. Ms. Ann-Marie Trame, CERL principal investigator, coordinated

preparation of this report. Information on animal species was the responsibility of

Dr. Richard A. Fischer, and overall coordination for the work unit was the

responsibility of Mr. Chester O. Martin, both from the Natural Resources Division

(NRD), Environmental Laboratory (EL), U.S. Army Engineer Waterways

Experiment Station (WES), Vicksburg, MS. Dr. Harold E. Balbach is Acting Chief,

CECER/LL-N. Dr. John T. Bandy is Operations Chief, CECER-LL; and Dr. William

Severinghaus is the responsible Technical Director, CECER-LL. The CERL

technical editor was Gloria J. Wienke, Technical Information Team.

Dr. Michael J. O’Connor is Director of CERL.
USACERL TR-99/08 3

Contents

SF 298 ................................................................ 1

Foreword .............................................................. 2

List of Figures and Tables ................................................ 5

1 Introduction ....................................................... 7

Background ........................................................ 7

Objectives ......................................................... 8

Approach ......................................................... 8

Scope ............................................................ 9

Mode of Technology Transfer ......................................... 10

2 Overview of the Peatland Communities ............................... 11

Bay Forests ....................................................... 12

Atlantic White Cedar Forests .......................................... 17

Pond Pine Woodland ................................................ 18

Basin Pocosins .................................................... 19

Streamhead Pocosin ................................................ 22

Cypress Domes .................................................... 23

Occurrence on Military Installations ..................................... 25

3 Biodiversity and TES .............................................. 26

4 Land Use Practices ................................................ 31

Forestry ......................................................... 31

Agriculture ........................................................ 32

Fire ............................................................. 33

5 Community Quality ................................................ 35

The Use of a Community Quality Assessment ............................. 35

Indicators of Community Quality ....................................... 36

6 Impacts and Management ........................................... 41

Forestry Activities .................................................. 41

Fire Management .................................................. 51

Hydrologic Management ............................................. 57

Chemical Pollution .................................................. 59
4 USACERL TR-99/08

7 Summary ........................................................ 61

Appendix A: Detailed Ecological Description of Bay Forest Communities ........ 65

Appendix B: Detailed Ecological Description of Atlantic White Cedar Forest

Communities ..................................................... 69

Appendix C: Detailed Ecological Description of Pond Pine Woodland Communities

................................................................ 73

Appendix D: Detailed Ecological Description of Basin Pocosin Communities ..... 77

Appendix E: Detailed Ecological Description of Streamhead Pocosin Communities 82

Appendix F: Detailed Ecological Description of Cypress Dome Communities ..... 85

Appendix G: Community Quality Evaluation and Management ................. 89

References ........................................................... 92

Distribution
USACERL TR-99/08 5

List of Figures and Tables

Figures

1 Proposed relationships among vegetation types, hydroperiod,

and fire in pocosin habitats. (Source: Sharitz and Gibbons,

1982.) ................................................... 11

2 Diagram relating to adjacent ecosystems: (A) short pocosin,

(B) tall pocosin, (C) gum-cypress swamp forest, (D) Atlantic

white cedar swamp forest, (E) savannah, (F) marsh, (G)

estuary, (H) lake, (I) pine plantation, (J) agricultural field.

(Source: Ash et al 1983.) .................................... 12

3 Bay forest in North Carolina .................................. 13

4 Old-growth Atlantic White Cedar forest in North Carolina ............ 18

5 Pond Pine woodland in North Carolina .......................... 19

6 Relationship between pocosin types and depth of peat .............. 21

7 High Pine Pocosin in North Carolina ............................ 21

8 Streamhead Pocosin, showing ecotone with upland longleaf

pine community, North Carolina ............................... 23

9 Streamhead Pocosin and ecotone, North Carolina ................. 24

10 Canal dissecting low pocosin in North Caolina .................... 34

11 Hummocky microtopography of the Atlantic White Cedar forest

floor .................................................... 44

12 Skid trail built with downed logs on wet peat soils in North

Carolina ................................................. 44

13 Older skid trail with sinking logs, North Carolina ................... 45
6 USACERL TR-99/08
USACERL TR-99/08 7

Tables

1 Known, reported occurrences of peatland communities on

military installations in the southeastern United States .............. 13

2 Federally listed threatened, endangered, and SAR occurring in

peatland communities on military installations in the southeastern United States .......................................... 28
8 USACERL TR-99/08
USACERL TR-99/08 9

1 Introduction

Background

Plant communities found on peatland soils include forests, basin shrublands, and

seepage communities. Peatland plant communities in the southeastern United

States are important to landscape and regional biodiversity because they are often

the only natural areas that have not been converted to urban or agricultural uses,

and they support several threatened, endangered and sensitive species (TES).

Several of these plant communities are rare themselves, due to alterations in fire

and hydrology over large expanses of the region. Many of these communities can

be found on Department of Defense (DoD) installations in the southeast. The

ecology and management of six different but similar communities are reviewed here

with an emphasis on land uses associated with DoD installations.

Management approaches to protecting TES and natural plant communities are

often designed to address immediate and local problems (M. Imlay, Natural

Resource Specialist, Army National Guard Bureau, professional discussion, 18

August 1995). Although this approach can be rewarding and effective for an

individual installation, it precludes any organized understanding of land use

impacts, or sharing of lessons learned, and can sometimes lead to repeated,

inefficient efforts to solve similar problems throughout a region of the country.

Duplication of effort needs to be reduced or eliminated.

This report constitutes one in a series that is the product of an interlaboratory effort

between the U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratories

(USACERL) and the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (WES)

to generate habitat-based management strategies for TES on DoD lands in the

southeastern United States (Strategic Environmental Research and Development

Program [SERDP] work unit “Regional Guidelines for Managing T&E Species

Habitats”; Martin et al. 1996). This effort is directed at developing strategies to

manage TES and their habitats on a plant community basis, using methods that

apply to multiple species and that apply to military training lands across the

southeastern United States. Any increase in understanding of the habitat

requirements of listed TES will help training and natural resource personnel to

comply with the Endangered Species Act (ESA), while avoiding restrictions on the
10 USACERL TR-99/08

military mission. Furthermore, the results detailed in this report suggest a great

deal of additional effort is required before the management process can largely be

driven by solid scientific information (as required by the ESA).

Objectives

The objectives of this research were to compile known information, identify gaps in

knowledge, and stimulate future research efforts on the potential positive and

negative effects of landscape planning, silviculture, military training, and other

resource-based activities on six peatland communities that serve as high-quality

habitat for TES on military lands in the southeastern United States.

This SERDP work unit, in particular, was undertaken to reduce duplication of effort

in conservation of TES using habitat in peatland shrub- and/or forest-dominated

communities. It is hoped that this review of information may be used to improve

the ecological and economic effectiveness of TES habitat management. By

understanding the ecological requirements of TES and the environmental resilience

or sensitivity of the six peatland communities discussed here, installations acquire

increased control over TES management and land use decisions.

Approach

To identify potential impacts and management options to mitigate those impacts,

researchers reviewed the available literature and conducted interviews with

community ecologists throughout the southeastern United States, with an emphasis

on interviewing those people who have been involved in TES and plant community

survey work on military installations. Site visits were made to military installations. Potential impacts were also discussed with military natural resources

personnel, botanists, community ecologists, and military contractors such as The

Nature Conservancy (TNC) and state Natural Heritage Program (NHP) staff.

Information also was acquired from installation TES survey reports in which

impacts and management were addressed. Land Condition Trend Analysis (LCTA)

reports, Land Rehabilitation and Maintenance (LRAM) data, and academic and

Federal agency literature on logging and recreational impacts to plant communities

were also used.
USACERL TR-99/08 11

Scope

Within the context of the larger DoD mission, TES populations can be maintained

through the following framework: (1) identify mission requirements, (2) identify

TES requirements, (3) identify ideal compromises for meeting both TES and mission

requirements, and (4) pursue these compromises and develop realistic, workable

approaches. The fourth step should be executed through professional management

of TES populations, at the installation level, to reduce restrictions on the military

mission. This document partially contributes to the total TES and land-management process. It provides information to assist in identifying the needs of TES (step

2), and perhaps will assist in identifying options for compromise as well (step 3).

The content of this report is not intended to provide the “bottom line” for management of TES on military lands — only to provide information from literature review

for the consideration of installation land managers.

This report focuses on plant communities because they provide habitat for

numerous species. By managing at the community or ecosystem level, DoD has the

opportunity to conserve multiple TES simultaneously. Plant communities are less

ambiguous entities than complete ecosystems, and have been described and

cataloged for many decades by ecologists and biogeographers. They provide a useful

basis for understanding and managing the natural systems that support military

training and other land uses.

Peatland communities support multiple uses, including DoD training and testing,

TES conservation, and forest commodities (e.g., timber) production. This document

provides a review of wetland ecology and recommended management practices for

peatland shrub- and forest-dominated communities. It is intended to provide

current information for management on military installations that is compatible

with the military mission (e.g., training). Where feasible, recommendations mimic

natural disturbance patterns and provide suitable habitat for the diversity of

species that inhabit the community, with an emphasis on TES.

A range of management options was considered for areas that trainers and resource

managers recognize as potential endangered species habitat. These options are not

intended to constrain military training. Rather, management options were

developed within the context of training requirements, and should be considered

only to the extent they are compatible with training. Many of the more restrictive

land use options identified in this report apply to lands already protected due to

their sensitive nature (forested wetlands). Training will continue to be the primary

land use concern, with training-land decisions being made daily based on whatever

information is available at the time. Flexibility in management options identified
12 USACERL TR-99/08

in this and related reports will enable land managers to make more informed

decisions and effectively support the training mission. Moreover, while management options in this report are not intended to be applied across entire DoD

installations, they are presented as potential tools consistent with an ecosystem

approach and support healthy, functional communities.

Mode of Technology Transfer

This report is to be used by DoD natural resource policymakers, installation land

managers, and the natural resources research community, in conjunction with

associated documents produced under this SERDP work unit (e.g., Trame and

Harper 1997) Harper et al. 1997; and by Trame and Tazik (1995) to (1) develop

ecosystem-compatible approaches to describe natural communities and TES habitat

within the context of military land management, (2) evaluate military-related

effects on those communities, (3) develop community-based strategies for supporting

both military land use and TES habitat management, and (4) develop management

solutions for military impacts to natural communities when management for TES

habitat is a priority.

This report is available on the CERL web page at http://www.cecer.army.mil
USACERL TR-99/08 13

2 Overview of the Peatland Communities

The plant communities included in this report can be categorized as forest/woodland

types: Atlantic white cedar (AWC) forest, pond pine woodland, cypress domes,

streamhead pocosins and bay forest; and basin shrub-dominated types: low, high,

and depression pocosins. They all share characteristic peatland soils, and may

succeed each other through time and space due to the influence of hydroperiod and

fire return interval (Figure1). Consequently, these communities often form a

mosaic on the landscape and are connected by hydrologic and fire processes, and

wildlife movements (Figure 2). The ecotones near cypress domes and streamhead

pocosins, and portions of high-quality basin pocosins, are important sites dominated

by a rich herbaceous layer that includes many rare plants. Although these sites are

ecologically similar to bogs, larger expanses of herbaceous seeps and bogs on

peatland soils were considered separately by Harper et al. (1997). More complete

ecological descriptions of the communities summarized below can be found in the

appendices.
14 USACERL TR-99/08

Figure 1. Proposed relationships among vegetation types, hydroperiod, and fire in pocosin

habitats. (Source: Sharitz and Gibbons, 1982.)

Figure 2. Diagram relating to adjacent ecosystems: (A) short pocosin, (B) tall pocosin, (C)

gum-cypress swamp forest, (D) Atlantic white cedar swamp forest, (E) savannah, (F) marsh,

(G) estuary, (H) lake, (I) pine plantation, (J) agricultural field. (Source: Ash et al 1983.)
USACERL TR-99/08 15

Bay Forests

The bay forest community type (Figure 3) occurs on the Atlantic coastal plains from

Virginia south to Florida, and west to eastern Texas and Arkansas (Christensen

1988, Landaal 1991a). Examples of bay forests occur on 12 military installations

in the southeastern United States (Table 1). Bay forests may generally be divided

into those that occur on seepage slopes and those that occupy basins or non-alluvial

wetlands. Those on seepage slopes share many physical characteristics with

streamhead pocosins and those in basins with the other pocosin types and peatland

forests. Community structure is characterized by a dense, short (3 to 10 m in

height in the Green Swamp, NC) canopy made up of broad-leaved evergreens, a

vine-shrub subcanopy, a dense to somewhat open shrub layer, and a sparse

herbaceous layer (Landaal 1991a, Schafale and Weakley 1990). Bay forests are

extremely susceptible to fire, and when burned, usually revert to an earlier

successional community. The bay forest community is characterized by the canopy

dominance of loblolly bay (Gordonia lasianthus), sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana),

and swamp red bay (Persea palustris) with other associated species varying across

the region (Landaal 1991a, Christensen 1988). In North Carolina, pond pine (Pinus

serotina), swamp tupelo 
16 USACERL TR-99/08

Figure 3. Bay forest in North Carolina.

Table 1. Known, reported occurrences of peatland communities on military installations in the

southeastern United States.

State Branch Installation Community type

Community name

as provided in documents References

AL Army Fort Rucker Bay forest Bay Swamp Mount and Diamond

1992

FL Air Force Eglin Air Force

Base (AFB)

Bay forest Baygall Florida Natural Areas

Inventory (FNAI)

1994a

Eglin AFB Pocosin Seepage Slope 

(Streamhead

Pocosin)

FNAI 1994a

Eglin AFB Cypress Dome Dome Swamp FNAI 1994a

Hurlburt Field sub: 

Eglin AFB

Pocosin Titi Ponds LABAT-ANDERSON

INC. 1994

Tyndall AFB Bay forest Baygall FNAI 1994b

Army Camp Blanding Bay forest Bay Swamp Information sent to

authors by Robert
USACERL TR-99/08 17

State Branch Installation Community type

Community name

as provided in documents References

* Robert Brozka is the Assistant Director for Field Operations, Center for Ecological Management of Military Lands,

Colorado State University, CO.

** Tom Burst is Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Southern Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, North Charleston,

SC.

Brozka*, 1994

Navy Naval Air Station

(NAS) Pensacola

Bay forest Bay Swamp excerpt from Natural

Resources Management Plan, sent to

authors by Tom

Burst**, 1995

Naval Air Station

(NAS) Pensacola

Pond Pine

Woodland

Pond Pine

Dominated

Flatwoods (Wet

Flatwoods)

excerpt from Natural

Resources

Management Plan,

sent to authors by

Tom Burst, 1995

Naval Air Station

(NAS) Pensacola

Pocosin Titi Swamp excerpt from Natural

Resources

Management Plan,

sent to authors by

Tom Burst, 1995

NAS Whiting Field Bay forest Bayheads excerpt from Natural

Resources

Management Plan,

sent to authors by

Tom Burst, 1995

NAS Whiting Field Atlantic White

Cedar Forest

Atlantic White Cedar

Forest

excerpt from Natural

Resources

Management Plan,

sent to authors by

Tom Burst, 1995

NAS Whiting Field Pocosin Titi Depressions excerpt from Natural

Resources

Management Plan,

sent to authors by

Tom Burst, 1995

Cecil Field NAS Cypress Dome Cypress domes excerpt from Natural

Resources

Management Plan,

sent to authors by

Tom Burst, 1995

GA Army Fort Stewart Bay forest Bay Forest The Nature

Conservancy (TNC)

1995
18 USACERL TR-99/08

State Branch Installation Community type

Community name

as provided in documents References

*

 Ron Wieland is the Ecologist with the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks, Jackson, MS.

** Michael Schafale is the Community Ecologist with the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.

Ft. Stewart Cypress Dome Dome Swamp TNC 1995

LA Army Camp Villerie Bay forest Bayhead Swamp TNC 1993

Fort Polk Bay forest Bayhead Swamp Hart and Lester 1993

MS Army Camp Shelby Bay forest Bay Forest Information sent to

authors from Ron

Wieland*

, 1994

NC Air Force Dare County AFR Bay forest Bay Forest Fussel et al. 1995

Dare County

Bombing Range

Atlantic White

Cedar Forest

Peatland Atlantic

White Cedar Forest

North Carolina Natural

Heritage Program

(NCNHP) and The

Nature Conservancy

(TNC) 1995

Dare County

Bombing Range

Pond Pine

Woodland

Pond Pine

Woodland

NCNHP and TNC

1995

Dare County

Bombing Range

Pocosin Low Pocosin, High

Pocosin

NCNHP and TNC

1995

Army Camp Mackall

and Fort Bragg

Atlantic White

Cedar Forest

Peatland Atlantic

White Cedar Forest,

Streamhead Atlantic

White Cedar Forest

Russo et al. 1993

Camp Mackall

and Fort Bragg

Pocosin Small Depression

Pocosin,

Streamhead Pocosin

Russo et al. 1993

Sunny Point

Military Ocean

Terminal (MOT)

Pond Pine

Woodland

Pond Pine

Woodland

Information sent to

authors from Mike

Schafale**, 1994

Marine

Corps

Marine Corps Air

Station (MCAS)

Cherry Point

Pond Pine

Woodland

Pond Pine

Woodland

LeBlond, Fussell, and

Braswell 1994b

Marine Corps

Base (MCB)

Camp Lejeune

Atlantic White

Cedar Forest

Peatland Atlantic

White Cedar Forest

LeBlond, Fussell, and

Braswell 1994a,c

Marine Corps

Base (MCB)

Pond Pine

Woodland

Pond Pine

Woodland

LeBlond, Fussell, and

Braswell1994a,c
USACERL TR-99/08 19

State Branch Installation Community type

Community name

as provided in documents References

*

 The original source uses Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora as the name for swap tupelo. The current scientific name 

Nyssa biflora (Walt.) is used in all instances in this report.

** The original source uses Nyssa sylvatica var. sylvatica as the name for black gum. The current scientific name,

Nyssa sylvatica (Marsh.), is used in all instances in this report.

Camp Lejeune

MCB Camp

Lejeune

Pocosin Low Pocosin, High

Pocosin, Small

Depression Pocosin,

Streamhead Pocosin

LeBlond, Fussell, and

Braswell1994a,c

SC Army Fort Jackson Pocosin Low Pocosin, High

Pocosin

Information sent to

authors by Bert

Pittman*, 1995

VA Army Fort A.P. Hill Bay forest Oligotrophic

Saturated Forest

Fleming and van

Alstine 1994a

Fort A.P. Hill Pond Pine

Woodland

Oligotrophic

Saturated Woodland

Fleming and van

Alstine 1994a

Fort A.P. Hill Pocosin Oligotrophic Scrub Fleming and van

Alstine 1994a

Fort Picket Pocosin Oligotrophic Scrub Fleming and van

Alstine 1994b

* Bert Bittman is the Botanist with the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.

(Nyssa biflora*), red maple (Acer rubrum), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), and Atlantic

white cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides) may be significant components of the canopy

and sub-canopy in addition to the dominant bay species (Schafale and Weakley

1990). In Florida, pond pine, slash pine (Pinus elliottii), longleaf pine (Pinus

palustris), and bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) occur in bay forests. Canopy

dominants in Texas bay forests include swamp laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), black

gum (Nyssa sylvatica**), sweet bay, yaupon (Ilex vomitoria), and red maple

(Christensen 1988). In Louisiana, the canopy is similar to that in Texas, with the

addition of pond cypress (Taxodium ascendens), slash pine, and longleaf pine. The

shrub layer can be diverse and may include titi (Cyrilla racemiflora), fetter-bush

(Lyonia lucida), sweet gallberry (Ilex coriacea), bitter gallberry (I. glabra),

evergreen bayberry (Myrica heterophylla), black highbush blueberry (Vaccinium

atrococcum), highbush blueberry (V. corymbosum), zenobia (Zenobia pulverulenta)

(Christensen 1988), wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), male-berry (Lyonia lugustrina),

leucothoe (Leucothoe axillaris, L. racemosa), Virginia willow (Itea virginica), red

chokeberry (Sorbus arbutifolia), possum-haw viburnum (Viburnum nudum), poison

sumac (Rhus vernix), sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia), hazel alder (Alnus
20 USACERL TR-99/08

* The original source uses Rhus toxicodendron as the name for poison ivy. The current scientific name,

Toxicodendron radicans, is used in all instances in this report.

serrulata), American snowbell (Styrax americana), summer azalea (Rhododendron

serrulatum), wild azalea (Rhododendron oblongifolium) (Smith 1988), and sparkle

berry (Vaccinium corymbosum) (Ewel, Davis, and Smith 1989). Vines, including

greenbriar (Smilax spp.), Carolina jessamine (Gelsemium sempervirens), and

Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia) are important components of bay

forests (Christensen 1988). Herb species include netted chainfern (Woodwardia

areolata), cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), and royal fern (Osmunda regalis)

(Landaal 1991a, Christensen 1988). Appendix A gives a detailed ecological

description of bay forest communities.

Atlantic White Cedar Forests

Atlantic white cedar (AWC) forests (Figure 4) occur on peatlands throughout the

Coastal Plain, occurring in a narrow coastal range 50 to 130 miles wide from

southern Maine to northern Florida and west to southern Mississippi. Table 1 lists

the installations where AWC communities can be found. AWC forests are found on

shallow, frequently flooded organic soils on interstream flats and peat-filled

Carolina bays and swales (Weakley and Schafale 1991). This plant community is

dependent on fire for persistence; it requires open conditions with little to no

competing vegetation in order to regenerate. This condition is best created through

stand-killing crown fires at intervals of 25 to 250 years. In the presence of such a

fire regime, this community exhibits a dense, even-aged canopy dominated by AWC,

with a relatively open shrub and herb layer (Landaal 1991b). AWC does not form

even-aged stands in areas without the appropriate type of catastrophic disturbance

(Clewell and Ward 1987). In these cases, AWC shares dominance with several

other species, and a more dense shrub layer forms (Christensen 1988). In mixed

stands, characteristic subdominants include red maple, sweet bay, and swamp

tupelo (Landaal 1991b). The shrub layer is often dominated by sweet pepperbush

and highbush blueberry (Landaal 1991b), but can also include fetter-bush, sweet

gallberry, bitter gallberry, and red bay (Persea borbonia; Christensen 1988). Peat

moss (Sphagnum sp.) and Virginia chainfern (Woodwardia virginica) are important

species in the herb layer (Christensen 1988), as are partridge berry (Mitchella

repens) and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans*

) (Landaal 1991b). Appendix B

gives a detailed ecological description of the AWC community.
USACERL TR-99/08 21

Figure 4. Old-growth Atlantic White Cedar forest in North Carolina.

Pond Pine Woodland

Pond Pine Woodlands (Figure 5) are found on the outer Coastal Plain from Florida

to Virginia (Landaal 1991c). There are six known occurrences of pond pine

woodlands on military lands in the southeastern United States (Table 1). These

communities occur on poorly drained sites over shallow organic soils that undergo

temporary flooding (Schafale and Weakley 1990). This community exhibits an open

to nearly closed canopy, with a tall (greater than 5 m) dense shrub layer and sparse

understory (Schafale and Weakley 1990). Highest quality pond pine woodlands are

characterized by an understory dominated by cane (Arundinaria gigantea or A.

tecta), which requires burning at intervals of 3 to 5 years. Under fire return

intervals of 10 to 20 years, the community experiences a shift in the understory

vegetation, from dominance by cane, to shrubs that slowly replace the cane. The

pond pine woodland’s canopy is dominated by pond pine and may include co-
22 USACERL TR-99/08

Figure 5. Pond Pine woodland in North Carolina.

dominant loblolly bay (within its range), sweet bay, red maple, loblolly pine, and

AWC in the canopy and understory (Landaal 1991c, Schafale and Weakley 1990).

The subcanopy or shrub layer is dominated by titi, fetter-bush, sweet gallberry, and

swamp red bay (Landaal 1991c). Common vines are blaspheme vine (Smilax

laurifolia) and coral greenbriar (Smilax walteri) (Landaal 1991c). Herbs are

generally nearly absent, but may include Virginia chainfern, netted chainfern and

peat moss clumps (Landaal 1991c, Schafale and Weakley 1990). Appendix C gives

a detailed ecological description of pond pine woodland communities.

Basin Pocosins

The three basin pocosins, low, high and depression pocsins, are discussed together

because they grade into one another in the landscape, and/or they have similar

physical and floristic characteristics. Low pocosin communities occur on the coastal

plain from Virginia to Florida, but are mostly restricted to the outer coastal plain

of North Carolina (Schafale and Weakley 1990). Small depression pocosins are

found in isolated areas throughout the coastal plain and sandhills in North and

South Carolina (Doyle 1990a, Schafale and Weakley 1990). Eleven military

installations in the southeastern United States support basin pocosin communities
USACERL TR-99/08 23

(Table 1). Low pocosins occur on deeper peat (usually 1 to 5 m deep) than high

pocosins (peat depth of 1.5 m or less) (Figure 6); both communities occur on

oligotrophic wet sands (Schafale and Weakley 1990). Pocosin communities are

seasonally flooded; almost all of the water is received as direct rainfall (Schafale

and Weakley 1990). The basin pocosin communities are maintained by fire; natural

ignitions are thought to have occurred at 3- to 8-year intervals in areas with the

highest species diversity. In the past, fires burned over large areas at a time, and

recovery of the vegetation was rapid. In fact, species diversity and productivity are

highest following fire. Low pocosins are dominated by shrubs less than 1.5 meters

in height, but may include widely spaced, stunted and gnarled pond pine. High

pocosins (Figure 7) have a shrub layer ranging from 1.5 to 3 m tall, a subcanopy

formed by scattered bay shrubs and hardwood species, and may exhibit an open

canopy of pond pine. Small depression pocosins may resemble either low or high

pocosins in their physiognomy (Doyle 1990a).

Low pocosins consist of a canopy of widely scattered and stunted pond pine, swamp

red bay, loblolly bay, with sweet bay often included. The dense shrub layer is

usually dominated by fetter-bush, titi, zenobia, or gallberry. Blaspheme vine or

laurel greenbriar is common. Pools or openings dominated by leatherleaf

(Cassandra calyculata), Walter’s sedge (Carex walteriana), Virginia chainfern,

yellow pitcherplant (Sarracenia flava), bushy beardgrass (Andropogon glomeratus),

peat (Sphagnum sp.), and, rarely, cranberry (Vaccinium macrocarpon) may occur

within the low pocosin (Schafale and Weakley 1990).

In North Carolina, the high pocosin canopy/subcanopy usually consists of pond pine

(less than 25 percent cover), swamp red bay, loblolly bay, and sweet bay (Schafale

and Weakley 1990). Red maple, swamp tupelo, and sweet gum (Liquidambar

styraciflua) may also occur across the range of this community (Doyle 1990b). In

North Carolina, the shrub layer is dominated by fetter-bush, titi, and zenobia.

Regional shrub dominants may also include red bay. Greenbriar and blaspheme

vine are also common in high pocosins. Switch cane (Arundinaria tecta) may occur.

Herbs are generally absent, but in recently burned sites Virginia chainfern and

bushy beardgrass may occur (Schafale and Weakley 1990).
24 USACERL TR-99/08

Figure 6. Relationship between pocosin types and depth of peat.

Figure 7. High Pine Pocosin in North Carolina.
USACERL TR-99/08 25

Small depression pocosin communities have a sparse to dense canopy that may

include pond pine, red maple, swamp red bay, sweet bay, swamp tupelo, pond

cypress, loblolly pine, and loblolly bay. The dense shrub layer consists of fetterbush, titi, bitter gallberry, sweet gallberry, sweet pepperbush, dangleberry

(Gaylussacia frondosa), and myrtle-leaved holly (Ilex myrtifolia), highbush

blueberry, and Carolina sheepkill (Kalmia carolina); wetter areas may support

zenobia and leatherleaf. Blaspheme vine and wild sarsaparilla (Smilax glauca)

may be common. The sparse herbaceous layer may include cinnamon fern, Virginia

chainfern, netted chainfern, and sedge (Carex spp.) (Doyle 1990a, Schafale and

Weakley 1990). Appendix D gives a detailed ecological description of these pocosin

communities.

Streamhead Pocosin

Streamhead pocosins (Figures 8 and 9) occur in scattered locations throughout the

upper Coastal Plain and fall-line sandhills from southeastern Virginia to northern

Florida and west to southeastern Alabama (Martin 1992). See Table 1 for a listing

of streamhead pocosins occurring on military installations in the southeast.

Streamhead pocosins occur on wet, acidic soils overlying clay or sand in the

headwaters of small streams, flat bottoms, and sometimes seepage slopes (Schafale

and Weakley 1990). Streamhead pocosins have historically burned along with the

surrounding plant community, which was often longleaf pine sandhills. The edges

of the pocosin burn more frequently than the interior, due to a strong gradient in

moisture. Many of the species found in the herbaceous layer are adapted to the

open light conditions maintained by frequent fire. Infrequently burned streamhead

pocosins tend to have greater concentrations of trees and shrubs and fewer herbs

than frequently burned examples (Martin 1992).

Streamhead pocosin communities are characterized by having a scattered to very

dense canopy, a dense shrub layer, and a less sparse herb layer than other pocosin

types (Martin 1992, Schafale and Weakley 1990). The streamhead pocosin canopy

consists primarily of pond pine and sweet bay, but may also include slash pine,

loblolly pine, swamp red bay, tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera), red maple, swamp

tupelo, black gum, and AWC (Martin 1992). The shrub layer is dominated by titi,

buckwheat tree (Cliftonia monophylla), and fetter-bush (Martin 1992). In North

Carolina, netted chainfern, cinnamon fern, and sedge are typical herbs (Schafale

and Weakley 1990). Appendix E gives a detailed ecological description of streamhead pocosin communities.
26 USACERL TR-99/08

Figure 8. Streamhead Pocosin, showing ecotone with upland longleaf pine community, North

Carolina.

Cypress Domes

Cypress domes are distributed throughout Florida and along the Atlantic Coastal

Plain and occur in shallow depressions within the pine flatwoods ecosystems

(Crownover et al. 1995, Marois and Ewel 1983). Table 1 lists cypress dome
USACERL TR-99/08 27

Figure 9. Streamhead Pocosin and ecotone, North Carolina.

communities found on military lands. Cypress domes occur in depressions that are

underlaid by drainage impeding clay layers. These depressions contain stagnant

water levels with a low pH (3.6 to 4.4; Brown 1981). These communities appear to

have a dome shape, from which they are named, because the tallest cypress trees

grow in the center of the depression with tree height decreasing towards the edge.

The herbaceous and shrub layers may range from very sparse to dense (Brown

1981). Typically shrubs are most dense on mats of organic matter accumulating at

the base of cypress trees and are infrequent on the peaty mud in between (Monk

and Brown 1965). A herbaceous layer of ferns, forbs, and grasses is typical (Monk

and Brown 1965). Fire has occurred in cypress domes historically during the dry

season, and is an important factor for maintaining the dominance of cypress in the

community and the diverse herbaceous layer near the edge of the community.

Periodic surface fires will not alter the vegetational composition of a normally wet

dome, but these fires will help to kill newly established slash pines and hardwoods

(Cypert 1961, Gunderson 1977, Ewel and Mitsch 1978, Marois and Ewel 1983).

The natural fire return interval for this community is not known (Kurz and Wagner

1953).

Most cypress domes are floristically similar. Pond cypress is the dominant canopy

tree. Swamp tupelo occurs occasionally and may be the dominant subcanopy tree

(Marois and Ewel 1983, Brown 1981). Other tree species sometimes present in the

domes are slash pine, swamp red bay, sweet bay (Brown 1981), and sweet gum
28 USACERL TR-99/08

(Monk and Brown 1965). The major species present in the understory are fetterbush, wax myrtle, bitter gallberry, Virginia willow, blueberry (Vaccinium spp.)

(Brown 1981), red maple, loblolly bay (Marois and Ewel 1983), buttonbush

(Cephalanthus occidentalis), and dahoon (Ilex cassine) (Ewel, Davis, and Smith

1989). Virginia chainfern is usually the dominant herb. Other common herbs

include lizard’s tail (Saururus cernuus), red-root (Lachnanthes tinctoria), peat moss

(Monk and Brown 1965), and Panicum spp. grasses (Brown 1981). Appendix F

gives a detailed ecological description of cypress dome communities.

Occurrence on Military Installations

At least 19 DoD installations provided information stating that they have at least

one of the six peatland communities covered in this report (Table 1). The following

installations provided information that demonstrated they probably do not support

peatland communities: Redstone Arsenal, Fort McClellan and Pellham Range, and

Anniston Army Depot, AL; NAS Cecil Field, NAS Jacksonville, NAS Orlando, and

McCory NTA, FL; Military Corps Logistics Base (MCLB) Albany, Fort Gordon, and

Fort Benning, GA; Barksdale Air Force Base, and LAAP, LA; Camp McCain, MS.

Other installations in the region did not provide enough information to determine

whether or not peatland communities occur on those installations.
USACERL TR-99/08 29

3 Biodiversity and TES

Peatland communities are important to regional biodiversity because these

communities are sometimes the last extensive natural areas found in the

surrounding landscape. Many of these areas were ignored by early settlers because

of flooding and poor drainage, until the Timber Act of 1876 declared that swamp

lands should be sold to private individuals for agricultural development (Sharitz

and Gresham 1998). In the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, disturbance of these

communities increased with new logging techniques, widespread drainage and land

conversion to agriculture, forestry plantations, and urban uses. Even sites that

escaped direct conversion until today are affected by altered hydrology resulting

from extensive drainage across the landscape.

The value of peatland communities often lies in their position or extent at the

landscape scale. Basin pocosin communities often comprise the last remaining

natural areas among developed land, so they provide important refuge habitat for

native plants and animals (Sharitz and Gresham 1998). Since bay forests often

develop during long fire return intervals in basin pocosin areas, they support

similar species and often serve to connect areas of basin pocosin vegetation.

Streamhead pocosins add to landscape biodiversity because of their ecotonal

position within watersheds. Pond pine woodlands are important because they are

known to provide habitat for the endangered red cockaded woodpecker (RCW,

Picoides borealis) as well as offering cover to many other species (Sharitz and

Gresham 1998). Cypress domes are generally smaller than pocosins, but provide

important amphibian and avian habitat for several endangered species. Remaining

white cedar forests are important for regional biodiversity because the community

is so uncommon. AWC forests have decreased by over 90 percent in the Carolinas

alone (Frost 1987). Specific contributions of these communities to regional

biodiversity and endangered species conservation is examined further below.

Basin pocosins are possibly the largest contiguous area of palustrine wetlands, and

possibly of undisturbed land, in the southeast (Richardson 1991), although an

estimated 69 percent of these communities were lost by 1980 (Richardson 1983).

Additional conversion of these communities could reduce regional biodiversity; every

effort should be made to conserve existing areas. Low pocosins are more rare than

high pocosins or pond pine woodlands. Several rare and endangered species are
30 USACERL TR-99/08

found in pocosins, including spoonflower (Peltandra sagittifolia), northern white

beaksedge (Rhynchospora alba), tawny cottongrass (Eriophorum viginicum), red

wolf (Canis rufus), black bear (Ursus americanus; Schafale and Weakley 1990) and

the rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia; Frantz 1995). Pocosin

communities are especially important to black bear populations. The black bear

was once found throughout the coastal plain, but now relies heavily on pocosin

communities for cover (Hellgren, Vaughan, and Stauffer 1991).

Bay forests on DoD lands are know to support two plant species federally listed as

“candidates for threatened status”: bog spicebush (Lindera subcoriaceae) and

pondspice (Litsea aestivalis; see Table 2). Bay forests also provide habitat for the

endangered red wolf and the black bear. Bay forests will grade into other pocosin

types, providing important connectivity across the landscape for species that require

large home ranges or long-distance dispersal opportunities.

Streamhead pocosins are ecotonal communities, and thus provide many benefits.

They function as a buffer to the stream ecosystem, filtering out chemicals,

sediment, and nutrients from nearby upland communities. The small, narrow

shape of these habitats makes them especially susceptible to degradation due to the

management of the surrounding land; fire suppression has been the most damaging

impact (Schafale and Weakley 1990). Streamhead pocosins support a high species

diversity (due to their ecotonal nature) and thus harbor more rare and endangered

plants than the other peatland communities discussed here (Schafale and Weakley

1990). Two federally listed species at risk (SAR): the Carolina asphodel (Tofieldia

glabra) and Carolina goldenrod (Solidago pulchra), and one endangered plant

species: the rough-leaved loosestrife, occur in this community on southeast military

installations (Table 2). Populations of rough-leaved loosestrife in streamhead

pocosin habitat have declined from 19 to 10 populations in recent years (Frantz

1995), warranting close monitoring and aggressive management efforts.

Pond pine woodlands were once widespread throughout the southeast, and are still

fairly common in a variety of environments. This community is found under

physical conditions similar to a basin pocosin community, and is classified by some

as a pocosin type (Weakley and Schafale 1991). Pond pine woodlands are the

primary and perhaps the only habitat for the federally endangered RCW among
USACERL TR-99/08 31

Table 2. Federally listed threatened, endangered, and SAR occurring in peatland communities on

military installations in the southeastern United States.

Common

name

Scientific 

name Installation

Federal

status

Habitat/community (as described in

literature)

Woody Plants

Bog spicebush Lindera subcoriaceaEglin AFB, FL

Ft. Bragg, NC

SAR Baygalls (FNAI 1994a), pocosins

(Russo et al. 1993), sandy, silty sink

hole depressions and swamps (Kral

1983).

Pondspice Litsea

aestivalis

Ft. Stewart, GA

Camp Lejeune

MCB, NC

SAR Dome swamp (TNC 1995), small

depression pocosin (LeBlond, Fussell,

and Braswell 1994a), bayheads, edges

of sandy sinks, pocosins (Kral 1983,

TESII 1994), pond and swamp margins

and low wet woodlands (Radford,

Ahles, and Bell 1969).

Forbs

Boykin’s

Lobelia

Lobelia boykinii Ft. Stewart, GA SAR Dome swamp (TNC 1995), swamps,

bogs, vernal ponds, wet pine savannas,

flatwoods, adjacent ditches, cypress

savannas, often in shallow water

(Godfrey and Wooten 1981).

Chapman’s

Butterwort

Pinguicula

planifolia

Eglin AFB, FL

Pensacola NAS,

FL

SAR Dome Swamp (FNAI 1994a, FNAI

1988), bogs, cypress domes,

depressions in flatwoods and

savannas, often in shallow standing

water in moist peat or peat-sand-muck

(Kral 1983), peaty ponds, boggy

flatwoods, ditches and drainage canals

(Godfrey and Wooten 1981).

Carolina

Asphodel

Tofieldia glabra Camp Lejeune

MCB, NC

SAR Streamhead Pocosin (LeBlond, Fussell,

and Braswell 1994a), savanna and

pocosin ecotone (Radford, Ahles, and

Bell 1969).

Resinous

Boneset

Eupatorium

resinosum

Ft. Bragg, NC SAR Shrub bogs, Pocosins (Russo et al.

1993; Radford, Ahles, and Bell 1969),

sphagnous bogs in pinelands (Godfrey

and Wooten 1981).
32 USACERL TR-99/08

Common

name

Scientific 

name Installation

Federal

status

Habitat/community (as described in

literature)

Rough-leaved

loosestrife

Lysimachia

asperulaefolia

Ft. Bragg, NC

Ft. Jackson, SC

Camp Lejeune

Sunny Pt. MCB,

NC

E Streamhead pocosin (Russo et al.

1993), Pocosin (Information sent to

authors by B. Pittman 1995), on high

hydroperiod, black sandy peats such in

seep bog pocosins or boggy flatwoods

savanna (Kral 1983), small depression

pocosin, pond pine woodland (LeBlond,

Fussell, and Braswell 1994a,c), high

and low pocosin (Frantz 1995).

Savanna Aster Aster

chapmanii

Eglin AFB, FL SAR Dome Swamp (FNAI 1994a), bogs,

pine savannas and flatwoods, borders

of cypress-gum depressions (Godfrey

and Wooten 1981).

Grasses,

Rushes,

Sedges

Beakrush,

Pale

Rhychospora

pallida

Camp Lejeune

MCB, NC

SAR Small Depression Pocosin (Leblond,

Fussell and Braswell 1994c)

Carolina

Goldenrod

Solidago

pulchra

Camp Lejeune

MCB, NC

Cherry Point

MCAS, NC

SAR Streamhead Pocosin (LeBlond, Fussell

and Braswell 1994a), Pond Pine

Woodland (LeBlond, Fussell and

Braswell 1994b,c), moist sandy peat of

flatwoods savanna and pocosin borders

(Kral 1983).

Curtiss 

Sandgrass

Calamovilfa

curtissii

Eglin AFB, FL SAR Dome Swamp (FNAI 1994a), moist

sands or sandy peats of slash and

longleaf pine-saw palmetto flatwoods

and flatwoods savanna (Kral 1983).

these peatland communities (Sharitz and Gresham 1998). Other rare or threatened

species include spoonflower, northern white beaksedge, and cranberry in highly

disturbed areas or areas that have been recently burned. Species ranked as

significantly rare in the state of North Carolina include Acrapex relicta, Dysgonia

similis, Glena pulmosaria, Hemipachnobia subporphyria monochromatea,

Lithiacodia n. sp., Macrochilo louisiana, Metarranthis nr. lateritiaria, Orgyia

detrita, and the black bear; the federally endangered red wolf also inhabits pond

pine woodlands (North Carolina Natural Heritage Program [NCNHP] and TNC

1995).

AWC forests have become very rare due to widespread draining, logging, fire

control, and fragmentation, and have become the target of conservation efforts on
USACERL TR-99/08 33

that basis. It is estimated that 98 to 99 percent of this community has been

destroyed (Noss, LaRoe, and Scott 1992). Nonetheless, this community provides

habitat for several state-listed rare species, including Glena pulmosaria, Hypagyrtis

nr. brendae, Metaranthis nr. lateritiaria, Orgyia detrita (NCNHP and TNC 1995),

the red wolf, and the black bear (Fussel et al. 1995).

Cypress domes support five federally listed endangered plants and plant species at

risk on southeast military installations (Table 2). Cypress domes are important

habitat for many birds, mammals, and amphibians. Two endangered birds, the

wood stork (Mycteria americana) and bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) have

been known to nest in the pond cypress canopy. Many other upland and water

birds also nest in this community (Ewel 1998). The federally endangered flatwoods

salamander (Ambystoma cingulatum), striped newt (Notophthalmus perstriatus)

and gopher frog (Rana capito capito) all are found in cypress domes (TNC 1995).
34 USACERL TR-99/08

4 Land Use Practices

The vegetation, drainage, and fire regime of remaining peatland communities have

been altered by past management practices and other human activities. This

section describes the management practices and land uses that peatland

communities support on DoD installations in the southeastern United States.

These land use practices have the potential to alter the quality of habitat for

numerous TES that may depend on remnant communities for survival.

Forestry

In some places, peatlands have been used for forestry on a small scale since the

arrival of European settlers. Large-scale logging efforts did not come until later.

North Carolina’s pocosin areas were railroad-logged of their Atlantic white-cedar

and cypress in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. Many of these harvested lands

were left to regenerate naturally, and were again harvested in the 1950’s and

1960’s by pulp and paper companies. Forest harvesting operations most likely occur

in AWC, pond pine, and cypress dome communities, with limited pulpwood

harvesting in bay forest communities (Wharton 1978).

AWC has been used since colonial days for decorative wood products, boat planks,

buckets, fencing, and home siding (Ward 1989). As a result of the high demand for

its durable nature wood, AWC forests have been repeatedly cut since the time of

European settlement, and the extent of this community is greatly diminished (Ash

et al. 1983). The decrease in AWC occurrence is not caused by logging alone, but

by lack of regeneration due to alterations in fire and hydrologic processes. At one

time there were large pure stands of AWC; remaining examples of this community

are small and probably do not experience the fire and hydrologic cycles necessary

for their long term persistence (D. Stewart, Wildlife Biologist, Alligator River

National Wildlife Refuge, professional discussion, 26 March 1996.)

Much original pond pine land has been drained and converted to agriculture or pine

plantations (Ash et al. 1983). Pond pine itself is usually harvested as pulpwood due

to poor form and slow growth, but on better sites can sometimes be used for

sawtimber (Bramlett 1990). Harvesting of pond pine is usually limited by the wet
USACERL TR-99/08 35

peat soils it occupies (S. Smith, Forester, Dare County Bombing Range, NC,

professional discussion, 20 March 1996).

Cypress, like AWC, is prized for the weather-resistant qualities of its heartwood,

and is used for mulch, railroad ties, fenceposts, pilings, and chips. Because of the

high demand for its wood, almost no old growth cypress remains. Even though

much cypress has been allowed to regenerate, the prized heartwood has not had

time to develop in the young trees (Ewel, Davis, and Smith 1989). Additionally,

over 1 million acres of cypress-dominated communities have been permanently

converted to intensive pine plantations and pasture land (Odum and Ewel 1978).

The basin pocosins are not themselves logged, but sometimes they are drained and

converted to pine plantations for intensive silviculture (Miller and Maki 1957). Site

conversion begins with the digging of a drainage ditch to remove surface water and

make the site dry enough to support logging machinery. Often, ditch spoil is piled

beside the new drainage ditch and used for road material. After 1 or 2 years of

drainage, the original vegetation is logged. Unmerchantable trees and understory

vegetation are pushed down with bulldozers, crushed with large bladed drums, and

burned. The soil is mounded into beds, into which phosphorus fertilizer is often

mixed, and pine seedlings are then planted (Sharitz and Gresham 1998).

Clearcutting combined with artificial regeneration has been the most widely

practiced method of harvest by the forest industry in the lower Atlantic Coastal

Plain. Artificial regeneration is usually done with loblolly or slash pine (Ash et al.

1983) but may be done with the original species in the case of AWC (S. Smith, 20

March 1996). Clearcutting is suited to cultivation of fast-growing species that are

intolerant of competition from other trees. Logging can be done by track or, more

commonly, by rubber-tired skidders (Ash et al. 1983). Skidding with rubber-tired

tractors is less expensive than with crawler-type tractors, but increases the

potential for erosion and soil compaction (Dyrness 1972).

Agriculture

Converting peatlands for row-crop agriculture, like timber harvesting, has occurred

since the late 1700’s. Much like converting land to pine plantations, conversion to

agriculture involved draining and clearing of timber and other vegetation. Proper

drainage is attained through a series of canals that, when completed, also act as a

means of transport for agricultural and forestry products (Lilly 1981). When

drained, these soils are productive for crops such as rice, corn, soybeans and cotton.
36 USACERL TR-99/08

During and after the Civil War there was economic depression in much of the south,

and funds were not available drain more land. From this period until the early

1900s, the main land use of peatland communities was the harvesting of timber

(Lilly 1981). In the early 1900’s there was renewed interest in converting peatlands

to agriculture. In 1909, the state of North Carolina established drainage districts,

and by 1911, over 280,000 ha (700,000 acres) had been enrolled in these districts.

As some of these districts failed, the land was sold back to the government, which

created state and national forests, such as the Hoffmann Forest and the Croatan

National Forest in North Carolina (Sharitz and Gresham 1998).

In the 1950’s, the Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP) of the Soil

Conservation Service provided federal cost sharing for improved drainage of

cropland, which led to more wetland drainage. Today, clearing wetlands for

agriculture is no longer practiced. The 1985 and 1990 Farm Bills prohibit

destruction of wetlands if the landowner wishes to remain eligible for USDA farm

subsidies (Sharitz and Gresham 1998).

Fire

Before and during the early part of European settlement, fire was a natural part

of the peatland landscape. In some instances, fire return intervals increased; in

other areas, fire return intervals decreased due to human alterations of the

landscape. Basin pocosins were less dense in their natural state than they are

today, due to recent reduction or elimination of fire. Before the extensive isolation

of pocosins by canals (Figure 10) and the suppression of fire, pocosins were

estimated to burn once every 13 to 50 years (low pocosins), or once every 25 to 50

years (high pocosin) (Sharitz and Gresham 1998). Although uncommon today, this

fire regime is characteristic of high quality pocosins (T. Cruise, Alligator River

National Wildlife Refuge, professional discussion, 18 April 1996).

In areas where the vegetation was valued for timber, drainage increased and

wildfires became more common and more intense due to the drier state of the fuel
USACERL TR-99/08 37

Figure 10. Canal dissecting low pocosin in North Caolina.

load (Sharitz and Gresham 1998). As these areas were considered more valuable,

landowners and government agencies undertook wildfire control programs, and

reduced the frequency and extent of fires. The current practice of intense ditching

of peatland areas allows for rapid access to peatlands for wildfire control (Sharitz

and Gresham 1998).

Since wildfires historically have played a pivotal role in regeneration of AWC

forests, managers attempt controlled burns to manage this community. These

controlled burns do not always function as an adequate replacement for the standkilling crown fires that historically preceded (and facilitated) AWC regeneration.

Controlled burns must be conducted when conditions are favorable for controlling

the fire and this may not provide adequate clearing of the vegetation (Motzkin,

Patterson, and Drake 1993). This issue illustrates the difficulty of managing small

patches of plant communities that historically were maintained through large-scale

fire.
38 USACERL TR-99/08

5 Community Quality

The Use of a Community Quality Assessment

To practice sound ecosystem management, several policy goals must be reconciled:

the military mission, protection of TES, and consumptive land uses such as

production of forest commodities. Decisions regarding land use priorities can be

guided by site classification on the basis of ecological quality. Site quality initially

can be assigned using baseline data, but should be augmented by a monitoring

program that evaluates the effects of land use decisions. Determination of

community quality has obvious benefits for TES conservation planning. Low

quality communities do not provide the same habitat quality for TES as higher

quality communities, and therefore should be treated differently in terms of

protection, restoration efforts, and allowable land uses. Use of a quality ranking

system for management purposes can assure that protection priority is given to

highest quality TES habitat. Furthermore, use of this system can assure that

restoration activities are used for communities that have the potential to become

high quality TES habitat with minimum restoration efforts. Similarly, use of a

quality ranking system can ensure that efforts are not wasted in the restoration of

low quality communities. Finally, plant communities on installations are subject

to multiple land uses, and use of a quality ranking system in combination with an

assessment of impacts of various land uses can allow managers to determine which

activities are appropriate in which communities, based on the potential to provide

quality habitat for TES. The ranking system developed for Eglin AFB, FL, using

“Type” categories to denote ecological quality, was introduced in the companion

document by Harper et al. (1997) and has been adapted for this report as well (more

information can be found in Appendix G). Management recommendations found in

this document are oriented towards the highest quality sites on military

installations, unless specifically noted otherwise.
USACERL TR-99/08 39

Indicators of Community Quality

Bay Forests

Type I. Areas dominated by loblolly bay, sweet bay, and red bay, with a dense

understory of shrubs and vines. Older stands will have developed a more uneven

age class in the canopy, and will have multiple vegetation layers present. Stands

over 50 years old might be considered old growth and high quality. Hydrology will

be relatively unaltered, although seasonal water table fluctuations may be present.

Close proximity to other high quality areas increase the value of this community for

TES conservation.

Type II. Stand may be younger, with more uniform structure due to fire or other

disturbance, but species composition should be similar to Type I. These areas may

have a lower water table due to adjacent or nearby ditches or canals. These areas

could be improved by restoring natural hydrology to the area.

Type III. Area may retain some soil characteristics of bay forests, but most of the

vegetation has been removed and area has been converted.

Type IV. These areas have been converted to other land uses, and lack the soil

qualities that support the original bay forest vegetation type. These areas may

have undergone severe fire (or other disturbance) that has removed much of the

upper organic layer of the soil, making it unlikely that bay forest would inhabit the

site, even if natural hydrology was restored.

Atlantic White Cedar Forests

Type I. Stands of AWC are even-aged, dense, and almost 100 percent AWC

dominance in the canopy. Because this community is adapted to catastrophic fire

and naturally occurred in even-aged stands, young even-aged stands are not

regarded negatively as they are for many other forest types. Microtopography in

this community consists of hollows and mounds of approximately 1 meter heights

and depths. The mounds are formed from the accumulation of organic matter and

the growth of sphagnum moss on root systems and debris (Ehrenfeld 1995). Quality

examples of AWC forests are interpreted partly by the surrounding landscape.

Young stands that occur within communities that are exemplary, such as high

pocosins and non-alluvial swamps, are considered to be higher quality (Fussel et al.

1995).
40 USACERL TR-99/08

Type II. The canopy is composed of at least 50 percent AWC (Fussel et al. 1995).

These areas are presumed to have once been more strongly dominated by cedar;

they may occur in locations on the landscape where they would not naturally be

expected due to changes in physical characteristics of the site or artificial reseeding.

The soil may be somewhat disturbed by rutting and there may be changes in the

natural microtopography from past logging activities (Fussel et al. 1995).

Type III. Recently clear-cut areas that are not now dominated by white cedar but,

based on presence of stumps, clearly were prior to cutting (Fussel et al. 1995).

Type IV. These areas are completely converted to other community types for

alternate land uses, such as pine planting and agriculture.

Basin Pocosins

Type I. High quality examples of low and high pocosins have an absence of artificial

disturbance except for limited local disturbances, such as bombardier trails. They

do not include sites where plantations have been created. Type I sites must be

large and contiguous with little fragmentation and ditching-related impacts to

hydrology (Fussel et al. 1995). Low pocosins are characterized by shrub vegetation

reaching less than 1.5 meters high; high pocosins grow to 1.5 to 3 meters in height,

which is intermediate between low pocosin and pond pine woodland. Trees in both

communities consist mostly of pond pine that is scattered and relatively low in

stature, with those in low pocosins being more stunted. Small depression pocosins

may be similar to either except that they do not cover large areas (Fussel et al.

1995).

Type II. These include pocosin areas that have been subdivided by canals and

thereby have undergone changes in hydrology and/or fire regime. Many areas that

are high pocosins today were low pocosins before lowering of the water level and

suppressing fire (T. Cruise, 18 April 1996); such communities may be restored by

reverting these natural processes to past levels.

Type III. These include pocosins that have been converted but may have retained

certain soil characteristics, such as an adequate peat layer, and can be restored if

the proper physical characteristics of the community were restored and seed sources

were available (Fussel et al. 1995).

Type IV. These areas have been converted and eroded such that they would not

support the original community type even under restoration of original hydrologic

and fire regimes.
USACERL TR-99/08 41

Pond Pine Woodland

Type I. Quality examples have a substantial pond pine canopy. The shrub layer

is generally taller than that found in high pocosins. Pond pine woodland that has

experienced severe fire may appear very similar to high pocosin, although it can

often be distinguished by the presence of remaining live and dead pond pines in

high abundance (Fussel et al. 1995). Natural habitats are believed to have had a

fire frequency of 3 to 5 years (Wells 1942, Hughes 1966). A dense understory of

cane, which indicates that fire occurred within the past 15 years, is characteristic

of the original habitat in most areas and is considered an indicator of high quality

(Hughes 1966, Fussel et al. 1995). High quality stands have a mosaic of canopy

ages. Because of the slow growth of trees in this ecosystem, old stands are

considered particularly significant (Fussel et al. 1995).

Type II. Stands may be young and relatively even aged due to past logging, but are

still dominated by pond pine in the canopy layer. In the absence of its natural fire

regime, this community is likely to develop a subcanopy of species such as red

maple, loblolly bay, and swamp red bay. The area may be rutted or dissected with

skid trails from past logging. Switch cane is absent and the understory may be

dense with shrubs due to fire suppression (Fussel et al. 1995).

Type III. These areas have recently been cut over as evidenced by the presence of

stumps, and they may or may not return naturally due to changes in the natural

hydrology and/or fire regime. Also included are areas that supported pond pine in

the past, but no longer can, due to lack of regeneration after cutting or changes in

the natural hydrology and/or fire regime (Fussel et al. 1995).

Type IV. These areas have been converted for alternate land use, including

artificial seeding of other pine species for harvest, or for row crop agriculture.

Streamhead pocosins

Type I. High quality examples of this community type have intact seepage from the

upland habitat, without disturbances to the soil that alter the semi-permanent

saturated condition (Schafale and Weakley 1990). The characteristics and quality

of the upslope habitats adjacent to the community are important factors affecting

the quality of this community type. Upslope areas should be free of logging or other

activities that might affect the community through siltation or chemical pollution.

High quality sites experience fire every 1 to 5 years, with decreasing burn

frequencies along the moisture gradient into the center of the community.

Streamhead pocosins have a scattered canopy, and, although their shrub layer is
42 USACERL TR-99/08

dense, it is less so than that of other pocosin types; the community has a welldeveloped herbaceous layer (Martin 1992, Schafale and Weakley 1990).

Type II. These streamhead pocosins may have suffered soil disturbance, such as

rutting from vehicles, ditching, or installment of fire breaks, that have altered their

hydrology. They may have greater concentrations of trees and shrubs indicating

less frequent fire than those under the natural fire regime. Some siltation may

have occurred due to soil disturbance on the upslope (Martin 1992).

Type III. These areas are overgrown with shrubs or a closed canopy, resulting in a

less vigorous herbaceous layer with lower cover and species diversity. Heavy

siltation from adjacent upland activities may be responsible for impacts to the

herbaceous layer. The hydrology may be seriously altered due to changes in the

water source or stream flow, or from drainage ditches or ruts caused by heavy

vehicle traffic. As a result, the community does not provide its natural seepage

function (Martin 1992).

Type IV. These areas have been converted for other land uses and the soil is

permanently altered or eroded.

Cypress Domes

Type I. High quality cypress domes should display distinct, concentric zones of

vegetation along a hydrologic gradient. Species abundance and diversity are

typically low in the deeper, central portion of the community, and increase

outwardly toward the shallow and drier edges of the depression. At least some

standing water is present during the wet season, while the surface of the soil

becomes exposed during the dry season (TNC 1995). A diverse, grass-dominated

ecotone, in which most rare plants of this habitat are found (Godfrey and Wooten

1981, Kral 1983, Johnson 1993), generally occurs between the water margin and

the surrounding flatwoods (Florida Natural Areas Inventory [FNAI] 1994a). 

Indigenous salamanders are present in cypress domes with open understories and

herbaceous plants (TNC 1995). Emergent herbaceous species surround the wettest

part of the depression and are important for amphibians that need herbaceous

vegetation for egg deposition and shelter for their larva that feed within the clumps

of vegetation (FNAI 1994a). The tree canopy and subcanopy are moderately open

and consist of pond cypress, slash pine, and black gum; they usually have a

characteristic dome shape with larger trees in the center and smaller trees toward

the edge. Shrubs are sparse in the ecotone and dense in the basin, and consist of

myrtle-leaved holly, St. John’s wort (Hypericum spp.), and fetter-bush (FNAI

1994a).
USACERL TR-99/08 43

Herbs and small shrubs are sparse in the center of the dome, but typically a very

dense herb-dominated ecotone exists around the periphery. Leaf litter and peat are

typically sparse and thin, and little evidence of anthropogenic disturbances to the

soil, hydrology, or vegetation exists.

These high quality communities should have little evidence of tree stumps, fire

breaks, drainage ditches, trash, or hog damage. Evidence of turpentine extraction

may be apparent on older slash pines without diminishing the quality of the

community. Weedy and exotic species are rare or absent (FNAI 1994a). Important

field indicators include the characteristic “dome shape” of the woody vegetation,

lack of weedy and exotic species, and lack of physical disturbance to the soil,

hydrology, and vegetation (FNAI 1994a).

Type II. Vegetation composition and structure is similar to that of Type I described

above, except that Type II dome swamps may have experienced anthropogenic

disturbances. Weedy and exotic species may be present, and the tree canopy may

lack the characteristic dome shape of the Type I dome swamps. Old “flat top”

cypress are either sparse or absent. Shrubs may be dense, reducing or almost

eliminating the herbaceous layer, and there may be a thick leaf or peat layer due

to long-term fire suppression (FNAI 1994a).

There is often evidence of physical disturbance to the soil and vegetation, such as

tree stumps, fire breaks, drainage ditches, trash, and feral hog damage. Some

species typically found in dome swamps in relatively low abundances may exhibit

weedy behavior following physical disturbance or fire suppression. These include

titi, sweet gallberry, and blaspheme vine (FNAI 1994a).

Type III. In addition to the characteristics of the Type II habitat, trees in these

areas may have been cut. However, the understory displays enough elements of the

original habitat to be readily recognized. Slash pine and/or gum may have largely

replaced the cypress. The hydrology may have been completely altered. The area

may have been highly disturbed by logging activity or grazing (FNAI 1994a).

Type IV. This habitat shows little more than its original topography. It may have

been drained and converted to row crops, pine plantations, or pasture with a few

cypress trees left for shade (FNAI 1994a).
44 USACERL TR-99/08

6 Impacts and Management

Forestry Activities

Impacts

Timber harvesting for pulp or lumber occurs on DoD’s forested peatlands in the

southeast. Activities related to forestry may affect the soils, hydrology, and

vegetation of these communities. Modified rubber-tired carriers with wide or dual

tires increase mobility, but can cause a large amount of visible damage to the site

(Jackson and Stokes 1991). Dual tire skidders are cost effective under wet

conditions and are able to work in harsh conditions, but also may leave the site with

high levels of disturbance. The capabilities of dual tire skidders might allow loggers

to work beyond acceptable ground condition limits (Jackson and Stokes 1991). The

resulting soil damage under wet conditions can permanently reduce tree growth on

the site (Terry and Campbell 1981). Logging in bay forests that occur on seepage

slopes is known to destroy the soil structure of the community (FNAI 1994a).

Disrupted soil can become stabilized if vegetation regrowth is successful within a

few years following tree harvest (Campbell and Hughes 1991).

The removal of vegetation and alteration of soils with high organic matter content

can result in substantial short-term changes in the timing, duration, and discharge

rates of flood waters (Ash et al. 1983). Immediately after harvesting there may be

temporary increases of fresh water delivery, sediment erosion, and nutrient and

chemical loading in runoff waters (Skaggs et al. 1980, Ash et al. 1983). High-flow

flushing in rivers due to storm events could transport sediment down channel,

where some may enter into small creeks with relatively sensitive spawning beds

and nursery areas. The light reduction that results from siltation can have serious

effects on aquatic organisms and habitat (Corbett, Lynch and Sopper 1978).

Clearing of vegetation near waterways may significantly increase the temperature

of surface runoff, adversely affecting aquatic organisms.

Roads running through peatlands may pose a threat to these communities. They

function as berms that restrict natural water movement (Miller and Maki 1957,

Gosselink et al. 1990) and they expose soil, allowing for increased erosion (Gosselink

et al. 1990, Walbridge and Lockaby 1994, FNAI 1994a). Extensive systems of roads
USACERL TR-99/08 45

and canals were constructed in the 1980’s specifically to increase logging access in

Dare County, NC (Laney and Noffsinger 1987).

Nutrients in runoff can increase through fertilization and/or from the release of soil

nutrients during soil disturbance. Organic soils contribute large amounts of

nutrients to runoff, whether or not they are fertilized, if they are ditched and

drained (Hortenstine and Forbes 1972). Erosion of peatlands also results in

considerable nutrient export (Crisp 1966). Nitrogen concentration in runoff is much

higher in developed areas (pine plantings, etc.), and is highest from mineral soils

(Ash et al. 1983). Conversely, phosphorus concentration in runoff is higher in

cleared peatlands, and is greatest in deep peat areas (Ash et al. 1983).

Timber harvest directly affects the composition of the peatland plant community.

Some species and communities, even though they are adapted to natural

disturbance, may not regenerate themselves following logging. Logging and its

consequential alteration of hydrology is listed as one of the two processes

responsible for the more than 90 percent decrease in white cedar acreage (Frost

1987). AWC often do not regenerate and are replaced by pocosin (Ash et al. 1983,

D. Stewart 1996, McKinley and Day 1979) or swamp hardwoods (Frost 1987,

Zampella 1987). Shrub-dominated vegetation has been documented as replacing

logged AWC stands in the Dismal Swamp (McKinley and Day 1979) and Dare

County Air Force Range (Fussel et al. 1995); red maple and black gum have

replaced white cedar following logging in the Dismal Swamp (Levy 1987). The

rapid growth of hardwood sprouts enables them to gain an initial advantage over

the white cedar reproduction that starts from seed. Rapid growth may be the

primary reason for the frequent replacement of AWC with hardwoods following

cutting (Little 1950). Seedlings may become established under cover of shrubs

following logging, but the shrubs rapidly become thick and exclude light, making

establishment of the cedar very difficult (Korstian and Brush 1931, Akerman 1923).

Conversion of AWC stands to hardwoods following cutting is increased by leaving

many of the larger hardwoods (Little 1950, Frost 1987). Over time, the conversion

of white cedar stands may proceed at an increasing rate as more hardwoods reach

the overstory and are again left after logging (Little 1950, Frost 1987). This process

seems to be influenced in part by the advanced reproduction of hardwoods present

before logging and the relative growth rate of the species present (Little 1950).

Slash and brush that remain following cedar harvest also affect the regeneration

of AWC. Piles of slash, and surviving shrubs, shade out young AWC seedlings and

provide fuel for wild fires, encouraging the establishment of more fire-tolerant

pocosin species to the exclusion of AWC (Ash et al. 1983). White cedar seedlings

have been observed to form dense stands in cleared areas between masses of slash,
46 USACERL TR-99/08

while few seeds germinated and still fewer survived under the dense slash (Korstian

1924). Areas that are relatively free of logging debris have been observed to have

30 to 40 times as many seedlings as areas with debris. In slash-free areas, the

largest seedlings were two to four times taller than those found in slash-covered

areas (Little 1950). Hardwood sprouts are able to emerge through dense slash,

however, and by the time slash has decayed sufficiently to form a seedbed suitable

for white cedar, the hardwoods have become so tall that they form the main part

of the stand. Logging slash, therefore, results in regeneration of mixed stands

(Korstian and Brush 1931).

AWC do not become established in the hollows of the naturally hummocky

microtopography of the forest floor (Figure 11), only on the elevated mounds formed

from roots and debris (Akerman 1923, Ehrenfeld 1995). Akerman (1923) observed

that only the moss-covered logs, stumps, or hummocks that are above the water

level form favorable seedbeds during periods of high water in the spring and early

summer. Logging operations may reduce the elevation of these mounds. Logs laid

down to create skid trails (Figure 12) sink over time (Figure 13) and cause

depressions in the soil that last for several years. These depressions fill with water

making them unsuitable for reestablishment by cedar (D. Stewart, 26 March 1996).

Logging may also reduce the natural cover of sphagnum moss characteristic of this

habitat; Ehrenfeld and Schneider (1991) stated that sphagnum moss is sensitive to

trampling (Studlar 1983), changes in the hydrological regime (Andrus, Wagner, and

Titus 1983), and elevated nitrogen concentrations caused by fertilization (Press,

Woodin, and Lee 1986). The decline in cedar establishment following logging may

be related to the decline of sphagnum moss following disturbance (Ehrenfeld and

Schneider 1991). Sphagnum moss is the substrate on which cedar reproduction is

generally found (Little 1950) and it holds a large reservoir of buried viable seed

(Korstian 1924, Little 1950). Changes in Sphagnum spp. cover may have important

implications regarding successional change and community dynamics (Ehrenfeld

and Schneider 1991).
USACERL TR-99/08 47

Figure 11. Hummocky microtopography of the Atlantic White Cedar forest floor.

Figure 12. Skid trail built with downed logs on wet peat soils in North Carolina.
48 USACERL TR-99/08

Figure 13. Older skid trail with sinking logs, North Carolina.

Despite the many cases in which AWC has not regenerated following logging, it has

been suggested that clearcutting helps maintain this community type by mimicking

the stand-killing fires of the past (S. Smith, 20 March 1996; Little 1950).

Apparently, the success of regeneration depends on site-specific conditions and

timing of disturbance following timber harvest (Figure 14; Little 1950). Whether

or not fire is beneficial for white cedar regeneration following clearcutting depends

on several variables. These include: hardwood composition and abundance in the

original stand, numbers of viable seed stored in the forest floor at varying depths,

the composition of nearby stands that survive the fire and will disperse seed over

the burn, the depth to which the fire burns into the forest floor, and the position of

the water table after the burn (Little 1950). Further study is needed to better

understand the factors involved in successful AWC regeneration.

Repeated cutting of AWC forests has created younger stands that are more

susceptible to damage; in addition, repeated removal of the competing overstory has

encouraged shrubby understories. Such understories would be absent under a

natural closed AWC canopy, particularly if affected by periodic, light fires; when

understories do exist, they tend to increase the intensity of any fire (Little 1950).
USACERL TR-99/08 49

Cypress dome communities are also affected by timber harvests. Changes in

harvesting equipment and marketing have made the clearcutting method of

regeneration a much more common management practice. Now small and large

trees are just as likely to be cut. Additionally, modern equipment allows deeper

penetration into wetlands (Ewel, Davis, and Smith 1989). Although cypress trees

can reproduce vegetatively from stumps and produce cones within 2 years, logging

in cypress wetlands has been reported to result in poor cypress regeneration and

changes in species composition (Bull 1949, Allen 1962, Gunderson 1977). Drainage

of cypress domes to improve access for timber harvest often favors hardwood

regeneration at the expense of cypress (Marois and Ewel 1983). In some cases,

though, cypress reproduction has responded favorably to clearcutting, presumably

due to the increased light conditions (Marois and Ewel 1983). Ewel, Davis, and

Smith (1989) concluded that clearcutting without immediate burning, and with no

alteration of the hydrology, has little long-term effect on ecological and hydrological

patterns on the community and surrounding areas. Because of the importance of

cypress domes to wildlife and endangered species, however, the practice of

clearcutting has undergone scrutiny (Ewel, Davis, and Smith 1989) and is not

presently practiced on military installations (Laurie Gaywin, The Nature

Conservancy, Savanna, GA, professional discussion, 15 May 1996).

Pond pine woodlands is another community sometimes used for logging. Pond pine

woodlands in North Carolina that were cut and not reseeded, and were protected

from fire, contain almost no pond pine. This suggests that logging is not an

adequate substitute for fire to promote the regeneration of this species (Fussel et

al. 1995). Pond pine is harvested mostly as pulpwood, since it lacks the straight

boles of other pines, like loblolly and slash pine (S. Smith, 20 March 1996).

Harvesting for pulpwood is disadvantageous compared to harvesting boles of trees

and leaving leaves and branches since it results in a considerably larger export of

nutrients from the ecosystem (E. DeLucia, Professor, Department of Plant Biology,

University of Illinois, professional discussion, 17 March 1996). Often, pulpwood

harvest of pond pine is conducted after draining the area and is followed by

reseeding with slash or loblolly pine (Ash et al. 1983).

Management Recommendations

Management of peatland forested communities in sites and watersheds where TES

conservation is a primary concern should seek to minimize soil disturbances and

erosion-related impacts to waterways, and should promote the native species,

structural characteristics, and disturbance processes that enhance TES survival

and reproduction. Although the relationship between peatland habitat

requirements of TES species and human activities largely has not been
50 USACERL TR-99/08

documented, recommendations here are based on review of known conservation

literature.

Intensive management for maximum wood production should not be practiced near

ditches, streams, or other bodies of water. Buffer strips between areas of erosion

and watercourses should be maintained permanently, and their effectiveness should

be monitored. Within buffer strips, only selective harvesting should be practiced,

and use of heavy equipment, prescribed burning, and application of fertilizers and

pesticides should be avoided. To protect waterways from aerial, ground vehicle,

hand spraying, and hand injection methods of pesticide application, untreated

buffer strips of 30, 15, 7.5, and 4.5 meters, respectively, are recommended (Ash et

al. 1983). Pesticide use in forests is best limited to precise applications in specific

areas, avoiding widespread aerial application (Ash et al. 1983). When it is judged

necessary to use pesticide and/or fertilizer on peatlands, it is best to avoid

application during times of high rainfall and runoff, to prevent pollution of

surrounding community types (Ash et al. 1983).

Clearcut sizes should be minimized, ideally including no more than 5 acres, with

buffer strips between cuts. Implementing smaller individual clearcuts helps to

prevent erosion and runoff immediately following clearcutting (Ash et al. 1983) and

reduces impacts to wildlife (D. Stewart, 26 March 1996).

Roads that are not used for logging, military, or recreational needs should be closed

and managed for erosion problems (FNAI 1994a). After harvest, roads should be

closed, seeded with vegetation, and barricaded if possible. In forested peatlands,

forest buffer strips of 30 m should be maintained between roads and streams or

ditches. In shrub-dominated pocosins, where the road must be built next to a canal,

an interception ditch filled with vegetation should be created between the road and

canal (Ash et al. 1983).

Several alternatives exist for low-impact harvesting systems on wet soils. The

following suggestions are taken from Jackson and Stokes (1991).

Felling: Mechanized felling can be accomplished using swing feller-bunchers on

tracks. Although costly, this equipment reduces disturbance by limiting the

amount of travel on the site and by using wide tracks. Under certain

circumstances, mats may be desired to increase feller-buncher mobility and reduce

site disturbance. Felling technology is now available that includes lightweight,

long-reaching machines that combine high production with little disturbance. Use

of grapple-saws would increase the flexibility of the feller-buncher since the weight

on the end of the boom would be reduced and bucking and topping problems should
USACERL TR-99/08 51

be minimized. Such a machine can cut the trees, remove the tops and some of the

larger limbs, buck logs, and pile stems. Integrating all of these functions into one

machine can reduce subsequent extraction impacts.

Extraction: Vehicles with wide tires or tracks are recommended since they reduce

rutting of the soil and the resulting hydrologic impacts. Fifty and 68-inch-wide tires

have been used in the southern United States. Such tires may exert pressure as

low as 3 psi, and are still relatively maneuverable. Mellgren and Heidersdorf

(1984) list the advantages of extra-wide tires, including: increased productivity, fuel

savings, reduction in ground disturbance, less soil compaction, smaller machine

requirements, smoother ride, improved stability, and increased access to timber. 

Disadvantages were listed as high price, reduced maneuverability, and necessity

for specialized repair and maintenance equipment.

Flexible tracked skidders have been reintroduced; design changes decreased

operating costs to the point that such machines may be cost effective. Advantages

of track skidding over tire skidding include lower ground pressure and higher

traction. These have been observed to have lower overall soil impacts in peat soils

(D. Stewart, 26 March 1996).

Large, six-wheel drive, wide-tire forwarders in combination with grapple skidder,

feller-bunchers, and in-woods loaders can significantly reduce the number of logging

roads needed; they may also make logging feasible where conventional systems

cannot operate. Such equipment allows access to roadless areas in such a way that

also improves stability, safety, and comfort, requires less maintenance, and

provides greater productivity, because the machine stays on top of even saturated

ground, which also reduces residual damage to the site (Griffin 1989). Large

payloads reduce the number of passes required on the same trail. The clambunk

skidder has been used successfully in the marsh lands of Canada. It has a loaded

psi of 4.8 with 68-inch tires and 7.4 with 44-inch-wide tires. Generally the

productivity of one large capacity forwarder or clambunk skidder is equivalent to

three regular skidders. It is easy to imagine how such equipment may reduce the

damaging effects that logging can have on peatland forests (Jackson and Stokes

1991). Quantitative research is needed at this time to determine whether the

benefits this equipment offers is adequate to allow intensive forestry operations to

coexist with TES habitat on peatland soils in the long run.

Transport: Since building roads is more disturbing to the site than harvesting, and

since roads are expensive to build and maintain, options that allow log removal on

lower quality roads or transport of wood further without roads are advantageous.

Central tire inflation (CTI) systems that allow the use of low-pressure tires on
52 USACERL TR-99/08

logging trucks can permit the trucks to operate on low quality roads and reduce

road maintenance. Special matting and matting-handling equipment may allow

the use of low-quality roads and reduce residual disturbance (Jackson and Stokes

1991).

In addition to these general management recommendations, the different peatland

communities discussed in this report may have specific requirements. Bay forests

that serve as TES habitat and occur on seepage slopes should not be harvested,

since the machinery involved would be likely to permanently alter the soil structure

and hydrology required to maintain this community (Wharton 1978).

Basin pocosins are affected indirectly by logging or road construction in adjacent

areas. Forestry practices throughout watersheds that supply water and nutrients

to pocosin wetlands should minimize changes in hydrologic input, nutrient and

chemical input, and siltation from uplands, if management objectives include

conservation of TES that rely on the basin pocosin community for habitat (Ash et

al. 1983).

Although harvest of cypress domes is not reported to occur currently on DoD lands,

nearby logging of adjacent areas may lead to impacts. When nearby logging occurs,

adequate buffer zones should be maintained between the cypress dome and logging

activities. Buffer zone recommendations range from 30 to 50 meters for other plant

communities with similar drainage characteristics (i.e., herbaceous seeps in the

Southeast; Platt et al. 1990; Palis and Jensen 1995). Because there is little

quantitative data to guide buffer zone design in peatland communities, managers

should closely monitor areas potentially affected to determine if a larger buffer zone

might be needed (Harper et al. 1997). Maintaining adequate buffer zones will avoid

direct disturbance of rare plants in the ecotone, decrease siltation, and prevent the

addition of chemicals into cypress domes during precipitation events.

AWC forests are a rare community that has adapted to an identifiable disturbance

regime that has largely changed; remnant examples of these forests should receive

high priority for conservation and old growth characteristics. Across an entire

landscape, many separate high quality sites should be maintained to increase

species diversity and improve survival probability in the face of catastrophic fire,

disease, or storm damage.

Conservation of different successional stages is also desirable across the landscape,

so if one patch of AWC is destroyed, sufficient similar patches persist. Although the

oldest stands are most attractive for harvesting, some climax communities should

be protected since these rare mature stands require many years (200 to 300) for
USACERL TR-99/08 53

their development (Ash et al. 1983). Old growth forests are particularly valuable

for both species richness and abundance of wildlife (Carter 1987).

If logging of an AWC is determined to be desirable, and the site does not serve as

TES habitat, the following practices may increase the probability that a high

quality stand of AWC may regenerate:

1. Cut all trees in an area, including all hardwoods. Cutting all hardwoods

in areas logged for AWC will promote pure AWC stands, since advanced

recruitment of hardwoods results in mixed stands at best. Furthermore,

removal of competitive species may be required during early years of the

stand development (Little 1950).

2. Cut 5 acres or fewer at one time, leaving a thick band or dense patches of

mature AWC on the western edge of the harvest site, to serve as seed

sources. Distance and direction from a seed source greatly affect the

establishment of white cedar seedlings. Because of the prevailing westerly

winds in most areas where this habitat occurs, white cedar reproduction

extends rather slowly westward where seed dispersal from tall trees is as

little as 20 m. The establishment of white cedar is favored on the eastern

side of seed sources. It is advisable to leave at least some large trees on

the western edge of a small clearcut to provide seed in case the seed source

in the soil is not sufficient for regeneration, or the first cohort of

regenerating cedar fail to survive (Little 1950). Cutting in strips,

checkerboard patterns, or small areas within larger AWC forest has been

reported to facilitate satisfactory reseeding from the remaining individuals

(Cottrell 1929, Noyes 1939, Little 1950), and is consistent with

management goals to preserve older stands for wildlife. Strips with widths

of 30 to 50 m have been recommended (Moore 1946), depending on the

heights of the surrounding trees (Little 1950). Older trees produce more

seed of higher genetic value (Little 1950). Leaving small stands is more

advisable than leaving isolated trees because of the risk of windthrow

(Little 1950, Moore and Carter 1987).

3. Create and use minimal roads into the stand, and the fewest number of

passes possible.

4. Clear all brush and slash piles. Following the harvest and during a period

with a high water table, conduct a light prescribed burn on the site to

totally eliminate slash.

5. Control hardwood competition during early stand formation. This is

important since the tree species that are present in the early stages of

succession tend to remain or increase in the stand over harvest cycles (S.

Smith, 20 March 1996).
54 USACERL TR-99/08

Fire Management

Impacts

Fire is the dominant natural disturbance in the southeastern United States; many

plant communities in the region are adapted to this disturbance and even depend

on fire for persistence. However, one community discussed here (bay forests) is

destroyed by fire, and the other communities are adapted to certain intensities and

frequencies of fire. A fire regime characterized by more frequent, less frequent, or

more intense fires will serve as a negative impact to most of these communities.

Some of the decline in these communities is due to almost complete fire suppression,

which may result in loss of habitat for endangered species (Sutter and Kral 1994).

The bay forest community is considered a late-successional community that is

destroyed by fire. Bay forests usually revert to a grass-sedge community, basin or

streamhead pocosin, or AWC forest after burning occurs (Penfound 1952). In areas

where bay forests serve as valued wildlife or TES habitat, fire should be considered

detrimental.

Unlike bay forest communities, AWC communities depend on periodic fire to create

conditions for successful regeneration (Motzkin, Patterson, and Drake 1993). It is

thought that fire return intervals of 25 to 250 are appropriate for maintenance of

AWC forests (Frost 1987).

It has been known since at least 1924 (Korstian 1924) that AWC regenerates

following a fire during a period of high water table. Under moist conditions, fire

does not burn the top layer of peat in which there may be stored enormous numbers

of viable seeds. With fire control and fragmentation of large peatlands, suitable

fires have become extremely rare. The loss of natural regeneration, coupled with

widespread logging and draining, have restricted these once-abundant communities

to rare sites throughout their range (Fussel et al. 1995).

Despite the requirement for occasional catastrophic fire for community persistence,

frequent fire is harmful to the AWC communities under certain conditions. Intense

fire kills the adult trees, with regeneration coming from a seed bank in the peat.

However, many hardwood competitors can sprout from roots if the fire is of

moderate intensity. For this reason, certain fire regimes are detrimental to high

quality AWC forests. Younger stands are more susceptible to fire damage than

older ones (Little 1950). Little (1950) stated that the effect of fires on the white

cedar community had not been as positive as concluded by Buell and Cain (1943),

and that fire and cutting have usually worked together to reduce the proportion of
USACERL TR-99/08 55

white cedar compared to other associated species. Severe fires, when the soil is dry,

destroy the upper layer of peat and the cedar seed bank (Buell and Cain 1943).

Fire was probably less harmful in pre-settlement times. There was a far greater

supply of seeds since relatively old and large stands stored more seeds in the peat

within the stands, as well as in adjoining areas. Frequent fires in the surrounding

habitats were not intense and were less likely to penetrate the stands (Little 1950).

Fires that could penetrate into these wet areas would have been hot enough to

prevent sprouting by associated hardwoods. Following such a burn, the large

amount of wind-distributed seed from old growth stands nearby had a good chance

of restocking the areas when moisture conditions became suitable (Little 1950).

Intense fire on peat soils may not only destroy seed reserves but also lower the soil

surface, causing the community to revert to a more hydric community such as

cypress swamp or pocosin if the water level stays relatively stable (Little 1950, Levy

1987). Such conditions favor the development of a hardwood swamp (Buell and

Cain 1943).

Fire suppression has been responsible for the vast reduction in the switch cane

understory once characteristic of pond pine woodlands (Hughes 1966). Estimates

of the original extent of cane dominated areas are 250,000 acres in Virginia (Frost

1989) and 2 million acres in Virginia and the Carolinas (Hughes 1966), whereas the

estimate was as low as 2000 acres in 1989 (Frost 1989). It is likely that large areas

that are now dominated by pond pine with dense broadleaf evergreen vegetation

were once dominated by pond pine/cane (Type I community) when the natural fire

regime was prevalent. An extensive area dominated by this community in North

Carolina has declined greatly just since being described in 1982 (Fussel et al. 1995).

Fire suppression is a primary threat to remaining streamhead pocosin communities.

Fire suppression is believed to eventually kill rough-leaved loosestrife due to

shading by shrub dominance, but the endangered plant may persist for years or

decades under a fairly dense shrub layer. Plow lines constructed to control fire in

upland communities can adversely affect streamhead pocosin hydrology by

channeling sheet flow surface water away from the site and by promoting severe

erosion (Frantz 1995, Harper et al. 1997).

Fire, which has historically occurred in cypress domes during the dry seasons, is an

important factor in preventing the dominance of cypress wetlands by other tree

species (Cypert 1961, Gunderson 1977, Ewel and Mitsch 1978, Marois and Ewel

1983). Periodic fires will not significantly affect the species composition of normally

wet domes, but does maintain cypress domination in drier domes by killing newly
56 USACERL TR-99/08

established slash pines and hardwoods (Ewel and Mitsch 1978, McCulley 1950).

Fire may kill younger cypress but they generally resprout from the stumps (Kurz

and Wagner 1953). Light burning has been observed to increase cypress

regeneration while severely burned cypress swamps tend to favor regeneration of

black gum (Ewel, Davis, and Smith 1989).

Firebreaks surrounding cypress domes are detrimental to the biota in this

community type. Besides physically disturbing the soil and hydrology of the

depression, they exclude fire that is necessary for the maintenance of habitat

required for native plants and animals. Fire suppresses the development of a thick

shrub layer, opens the canopy, and allows the light penetration that is necessary

for herbaceous growth. Rare plants including Curtiss’ sandgrass, Boykin’s lobelia,

and Chapman’s butterwort require the open, meadow-like environment of cypress

dome perimeters maintained by fire under natural conditions. Chapman’s

butterwort may appear upon creation of pine plantations, but disappears when

three layers of vegetation close over it, probably due to shading and reduction of soil

moisture (Kral 1983). In cypress ponds, the herbaceous layer that is sensitive to

fire regime is also important in providing habitat to endangered amphibians (TNC

1995).

Overgrowth of shrubs and loss of the herbaceous layer due to a combination of

changes in the natural hydrology and fire suppression are common factors in the

degradation of basin peatland communities on DoD lands (TNC 1995, FNAI 1994a).

Fire suppression in low, high, and small depression pocosins results in the reduction

and disappearance of the herbaceous layer and the characteristic herbaceous

openings that support most of the TES plants found in the community (Fussel et al.

1995; T. Cruise, 8 April 1996). Relatively frequent fire also is important for the

release of nutrients, especially phosphorous, that are limiting in this habitat

(Wilbur and Christensen 1983).

Management Recommendations

Any fire regime will favor some plant communities over others, and some species

over others. Managers must first and foremost identify the landscape that they

desire and apply fire appropriately through time and space to maintain the desired

mix of species and community types. General information for fire management in

support of different peatland communities follows.

Bay Forests. Protection from fire is required to maintain bay forests since they are

late successional communities. If managers believe that a bay forest has taken the
USACERL TR-99/08 57

place of another, more desirable, community type, due to unnatural changes in the

fire regime, then prescribed burning would be appropriate.

AWC Forests. It is clear that under natural conditions, the AWC forest is

dependent upon periodic, sometimes infrequent, burns. However, under human

influence, the community has largely been logged and converted to young stands,

often mixed with hardwood species. Throughout most, if not all, of the AWC range,

it is currently more important to retain stands and encourage old growth

characteristics, than to convert additional sites to earlier stages (NCNHP and TNC

1995). Although details about the requirements of TES in AWC habitat are not

readily available, there is no information suggesting that prescribed burning is

necessary or desirable for TES conservation in this community. It would be

unusual to identify a mature AWC stand for which protection from disturbance, at

least for many decades, is not recommended on the basis of TES conservation and

natural values considerations.

Pond Pine Woodlands. It is recommended that pond pine natural communities be

burned at 5- to 8-year intervals. The entire area should not be burned at one time

but should be divided into several burn units to prevent extirpation of insect

populations (Fussel et al. 1995) and to comply with smoke regulations (T. Cruise,

18 April 1996). Growing season burns are preferable since they mimic natural fire

regimes (Fussel et al. 1995). Areas with remaining stands of switch cane should be

given high priority for burning and implementation of a frequent fire regime to

preserve and encourage the spread of this habitat type through clonal regeneration

(Hughes 1966). Five- to 8-year burn intervals should allow for habitat diversity on

the landscape, since the recently-burned sites will have an almost-pure understory

of switch cane, while sites that were burned earlier will have an increased shrub

component to the understory (Frost 1989). Extensive areas are known where cane

persists in varying densities under pond pine forest and under closed canopies of

pond pine and hardwoods growing on peatland soils (Frost 1989). If cane doesn’t

appear (from a persistent rhizome mat) following fire, it may have to be reintroduced through cuttings or seed, since it does not have a persistent seed bank

(Hughes 1966).

Basin Pocosins. Prescribed burning is recommended for low pocosins. Though the

optimal fire frequency is not known, an average rotation of 20 years is suggested

as an initial approximation. In North Carolina, a reduction in abundance of

cranberry or northern white beaksedge is used to indicate the need for a prescribed

burn (Fussel et al. 1995). In general, the need for fire can be assessed by the extent

of the herbaceous openings within the low pocosin (Fussel et al. 1995; T. Cruise, 18

April 1996).
58 USACERL TR-99/08

Prescribed burning for high pocosins is recommended at 5- to 8-year intervals. The

entire area should not be burned at one time but should be divided into at least

three burn units to prevent extirpation of insect populations (Fussel et al. 1995) and

to stay within regulations for smoke production when necessary (T. Cruise, 18 April

1996). Growing season burns are preferable in that they mimic the natural fire

regime (Fussel et al. 1995). Intense fires may occur in areas where flammable

organic matter has built up due to fire suppression earlier in the century; in these

cases, the peat may burn. Managers are attempting to control the hydrology of

burn units in order to control burn intensities. The water level is managed through

pumping stations and flashboard risers to allow the vegetation to burn without

ignition of the peat. The water level may be raised to extinguish the fire (T. Cruise,

18 April 1996).

Streamhead Pocosins. Management of fire in streamhead pocosin habitats should

consider the rare plant species present. Fire return intervals of 3 to 5 years are

recommended for bog spicebush and/or rough-leaved loosestrife. Since these species

require shading, additional experiments should examine whether a fire return

interval greater than 5 years may be beneficial to these species. Three- to 5-year

fire return intervals are recommended for Carolina asphodel as well (LeBlond,

Fussell, and Braswell 1994a). Pondspice is fire tolerant but seems to respond

negatively to annual or biennial fire regimes (TNC 1995), so an initial fire return

interval of 3 to 5 years should be implemented and monitored. Where Carolina

goldenrod occurs alone, shorter than 3-year fire intervals should be conducted

experimentally. Carolina goldenrod occurs with pondspice on some installations,

and in these cases, a 3- to 5-year burn cycle should be used to maintain both species

(Schafale and Weakley 1990, TNC 1995). To help determine the appropriate fire

frequencies for different sites and different species, a monitoring program is

recommended. The program should assess natural burn frequencies when fires are

allowed to invade pocosin ecotones, and the resulting effects on TES plant survival

and reproduction. It is possible that the moist, shrubby end of the moisture

gradient, where pondspice typically occurs, is naturally limited in its frequency

despite frequent fires in the surrounding upland and further upslope, where

Carolina goldenrod occurs.

All of the above species require continuously moist substrates for survival, and so

maintenance of the natural hydrology of these sites is imperative. Digging ditches

and creating fire plowlines that alter site hydrology should not occur in these areas.

Existing fire plowlines should be filled in with native soil, if possible, without use

of machinery that would cause further damage to the site.
USACERL TR-99/08 59

Cypress Domes. Fire has occurred historically in cypress domes during dry

periods, and is a useful management tool for maintaining desired plant composition

of cypress domes. Burns of the upland-cypress dome ecotone are recommended at

2- to 5-year intervals, coupled with a monitoring program to determine the effect

on rare plants and animals. When combined with restoration of natural hydrology

and the removal of firebreaks, the fire regime of cypress domes should not differ

from that of the surrounding pine woodlands under natural conditions. Monitoring

should be designed to assess the natural burn frequencies when fires are allowed

to invade cypress-upland ecotones, and the resulting effects on TES plants (FNAI

1994a). Adjustments in burn interval and intensities should be made as needed.

Prescribed burning should be used to maintain a meadow-like habitat on the edges

of cypress domes where Boykin’s lobelia, Chapman’s butterwort (Kral 1983),

savanna aster (Godfrey and Wooten 1981, FNAI 1994a), and Curtiss’ sandgrass

(Johnson 1993) are found. Pondspice, although it is fire tolerant and can sprout

from roots after burning, may be harmed by a frequency of fire that other rare

plants of the habitat can endure, such as annual or biennial burns. Of course,

burns conducted when pondspice are surrounded by standing water will protect the

species, even if the edges of the dome successfully burn (TNC 1995).

Rehabilitation of fire-excluded cypress domes may require burning to reduce fuel

loads. Burning should be done in the dormant season to minimize smoke and

safety problems that would occur during the growing season (FNAI 1994a).

However, winter burns should not be carried out if there is concern about harming

amphibian populations, such as the endangered flatwood salamander, which

deposits its eggs on grasses during the winter (TNC 1995). Ideally, burning should

be conducted in the spring, specifically from March to June. This is when natural

ignitions from lightning strikes have been most likely to occur under historic

conditions. In Georgia and the Carolinas, spring burns are less likely to harm

amphibian populations. On the Gulf coast where these habitats are wettest in the

winter, spring burns would be more effective than winter burns (FNAI 1994a).

Spring burns should be conducted at such a time when the surrounding habitat and

dome margins would be dry enough to burn adequately, at which time salamanders

are least likely to be migrating through the grassy ecotones.

In the case of a conflict between fire management recommendations for cypress

domes and the surrounding upland (for example, if the cypress dome was located

near a stand managed for timber or an urban area), fire may be restricted to the

cypress dome site using a temporary fire line. The isolated wetland, the wetlandupland ecotone, and a buffer zone of upland forest should be included within the fire

break, which is placed in the upland community. Implementing isolated burns may

circumvent restrictions regarding smoke production that would otherwise
60 USACERL TR-99/08

discourage early growing season burns (FNAI 1994a). After the burn is conducted,

the fire plowline should be revegetated with native species and managed to prevent

erosion.

Hydrologic Management

Impacts

Massive disruption of wetlands hydrology has occurred over 300 years of drainage

efforts throughout the southeast (Frost 1987). Some natural communities have

been affected over very large areas by conversion to urban and agricultural lands,

while other communities are more at risk from localized activities within a small

watershed. Bay forests and other communities that occur on seepage slopes are an

example of the latter. These small areas can be severely affected by use of off road

vehicles (FNAI 1994a) and road construction. Off-road vehicles (ORVs) damage

vegetation directly and alter the natural hydrology by rutting and compacting the

soil. Once soil stability is compromised, the sandy soils form erosion gullies that

channel water off the hillside. Channelization and the subsequent drainage is

devastating to this community (Wharton 1978), since most wetland plants are very

sensitive to slight changes in soil moisture regimes (reviewed in Harper, Trame,

and Hohmann 1998). Streamhead pocosins experience similar degradation due to

channelization and drainage, since the hydrology is similar to seepage slope bay

forests.

Lowering the water table across landscapes that support AWC forests will result

in the replacement of white cedar by species tolerant of the drier conditions

(LeBarron and Neetzel 1942; Penfound 1952). Ditching near logged AWC stands

has promoted rapid drying and dominance by species usually occupying drier sites

(Levy 1987). In the Dismal Swamp, an extensive network of ditches and roads have

lowered the water table, adversely affected the establishment and growth of white

cedar seedlings, and increased the risk of fire (Akerman 1923). This drainage

network also has allowed soil moisture conditions that favor establishment of

hardwood species (Hickman and Neuhauser 1977). Lowering the water table may

result in subsidence of peat, oxidation, and the exposure of mineral soil (Frost

1987).

Low, high, and small depression pocosins are affected by ditching and drainage of

the soil. Ditching at and below the interface of the peat and mineral layer increases

discharge into estuaries because base flow contribution from the mineral layer

occurs (Daniel 1981). By the 1960’s, most pocosins were severely dissected by
USACERL TR-99/08 61

drainage canals dug for the purpose of draining adjacent areas for pine silviculture

(Ash et al. 1983.)

Alteration of the natural hydrologic cycle of cypress domes may reduce cypress

regeneration since cypress depend on fluctuating water levels for germination

(Demaree 1932, DuBarry 1963). Growth rates of cypress are highest in areas that

are neither very wet nor very dry, due to the respective limitations of oxygen and

water for growth (Marois and Ewel 1983). Water levels that are maintained at

unnaturally high levels and not allowed to draw down during the dry season

prevent establishment of cypress. Many amphibians require total draw-down at

some point for reproduction, since drying out eliminates predators (TNC 1995).

Limited drainage increases cypress growth rates, but the drier conditions of cypress

domes that have unnaturally lowered hydrology and shorter hydroperiods are

associated with changes in the plant community; hardwood species increase in

importance and absolute density, shrubs increase in density, and slash pines may

invade the cypress dome (Marois and Ewel 1983). These plants are not as tolerant

to flooding as cypress and are restricted under natural hydrological conditions

(Conner and Day 1976). Since most hardwoods may become established under

lower light levels than cypress (Fowells 1965), high shrub densities in the drier

cypress domes further reduce cypress regeneration by favoring competitive

hardwood seedlings and saplings (Marois and Ewel 1983).

Maintenance of the natural hydrology of cypress domes is important to the rare

plants found in this habitat on military installations. Boykin’s lobelia, pondspice,

and Chapman’s butterwort require shallow standing water or wet peaty soils to

persist (Godfrey and Wooten 1981, Kral 1983). Following ditching for drainage,

Chapman’s butterwort often lines ditches, where moisture conditions are still

adequate, but the plant disappears once drainage is complete enough to dry out the

site (Kral 1983). Curtiss’ sandgrass inhabits shallow, temporarily flooded parts of

cypress depressions and grows in a band surrounding deeper areas, suggesting it

requires a specific hydrology to persist (Johnson 1993).

Since drainage through ditch construction is standard timber management practice

for pinelands in poorly drained areas (Schlaudt 1955), cypress domes within these

areas are often drained as well. Following drainage the ditches may be used for

planting slash pine or used to facilitate drainage of surrounding pine sites. On the

other hand, ditches and plowlines that circle the cypress dome, often dug for fire

protection, can increase the natural water level by holding water (TNC 1995) and

preventing water from seeping out through transpiration of trees in the

surrounding uplands (Crownover et al. 1995). Berms of soil placed around cypress

domes may also decrease water levels by restricting water flow into the cypress
62 USACERL TR-99/08

dome (Brown 1981). Ditches dug across cypress domes and connected to lower

areas may drain the cypress dome and decrease its natural water level.

Connections with other wetlands may lead to introduction of foreign fauna,

including fish that are predators of native salamanders. Pine plantations around

cypress domes may also lower the water table of cypress domes because they

increase transpiration in the surrounding area (Marois and Ewel 1983).

Management Recommendations

Seepage slopes should be closed to all vehicular traffic (FNAI 1994a). Ditches and

firebreaks should not be dug, and existing ditches and fire breaks should be filled

and re-contoured using local soil.

The natural hydrologic regime of the basin pocosin habitats is desirable to prevent

the community from succeeding to a different vegetational type, such as low pocosin

to high pocosin or high pocosin to pond pine woodland (Ash et al. 1983).

In areas where TES conservation is a priority, fire rings and trenches around,

through, and between cypress domes should be closed and revegetated to maintain

the moisture regime required by TES plant species and the flatwoods salamander.

Maintaining a natural hydrological regime is also necessary to implement a fire

regime that supports the biota of this ecosystem. Maintenance of a natural forest

structure in upland communities surrounding cypress domes will provide natural

transpiration rates and therefore natural rates of water movement into and out of

the cypress domes (FNAI 1994a).

Chemical Pollution

Impacts

The pocosins of the Atlantic Coastal Plain are important nutrient filters for the

maintenance of water quality in rivers and estuaries, as long as water flows

through them at the slow rate characteristic of the undisturbed community. The

dissection of these habitats by canals dug for drainage to promote agriculture and

agro-forestry has reduced the ability of these wetlands to filter pollutants. Since

much of the productive marsh area of the Atlantic Coastal Plain is in close

proximity to pocosins, there is appropriate concern about potential pollution from

pocosin development (Ash et al. 1983). Juvenile stages of aquatic organisms are

dependent on stable patterns of substrate and salinity provided by the filtering

action of pocosin wetlands. Nutrient enrichment increases growth of pathogenic
USACERL TR-99/08 63

bacteria (Ash et al. 1983). Nutrient enrichment of this habitat allows numerous

competitive species to be supported, while native species are eliminated (Ehrenfeld

and Schneider 1991).

Although net water flow is in most cases outward from cypress domes into the

surrounding pineland community, water flow is slow enough that any solutes, such

as fertilizers and pesticides, may affect the soil and habitat if brought in from the

pinelands during precipitation events (Pionke and Chesters 1973).

Management Recommendations

Water flows into cypress domes during precipitation events, and outward during

drier conditions when the water table is low. Thus, fertilizers and pesticides, if used

at all, should be applied to surrounding uplands during dry periods (Crownover et

al. 1995).
64 USACERL TR-99/08

7 Summary

Peatland plant communities are important components of the southeastern

landscape, supporting at least 11 listed species and occurring on at least 19 DoD

installations. Some communities, such as streamhead pocosins, seepage slope bay

forests, and cypress domes, are spatially restricted to areas with the appropriate

hydrologic conditions. These communities are characterized by ecologically

significant ecotones with the surrounding uplands dominated by grasses and forbs

under frequent fire return intervals. The basin pocosins, basin bay forests, pond

line woodlands, and AWC forests often extend over very large areas (or potentially

could), creating a mosaic of diverse communities, based on differences in soils, fire

regime and available species for recruitment. Together, the peatland landscape

supports wide-ranging carnivores such as the red wolf and the black bear, as well

as numerous amphibians, indigenous insects, and wetlands or ecotonal plants.

Unfortunately, many of these communities have been drained and converted for

urban and agricultural purposes; the remaining areas on DoD lands have

significant value to regional biodiversity and hydrological processes, and warrant

careful management. Hydrological and fire management are important issues for

all of these peatland communities; logging is an important consideration for wooded

and forested communities.

Hydrological management for small-scale communities such as seepage slope bay

forests, streamhead pocosins, and cypress domes is conducted at the scale of the

local watershed. Erosion and soil loss from roads, off-road military training, or

logging operations can lead to siltation of these wetlands or rutting and diversion

of the natural recharge sources for these communities. Either process leads to a

long-term drying of the soils and loss of habitat for wetland species. Drying will

affect fire intensities and frequencies, which most likely will cause a change to a

different community type altogether. Sometimes, cypress domes are drained along

with the surrounding pine woodlands when the latter are managed for timber

production. Cypress are adapted to periodic flooding and drying cycles; such

disruption generally reduces cypress regeneration and converts the community to

mixed hardwoods. Several of the listed plant species found in cypress domes have

been sensitive to alteration of hydrologic conditions.
USACERL TR-99/08 65

Hydrological management for basin pocosins and bay forests, AWC forests, and

pond pine woodlands is usually a landscape-level exercise. The most common

alteration is a large-scale lowering of the water table due to intentional ditching

and draining. This dries the peaty soils and increases fire intensities and

frequencies. Changes in soil moisture have been shown to increase dominance by

other species in AWC swamps.

Changes in fire regime generally alter the identity of a plant community type or its

quality as TES habitat. Most communities in the southeast are adapted to fire to

some degree, so a shift in fire return interval or fire frequency means that one

community becomes replaced by another until previous conditions occur again.

Over an entire landscape, representation of the different communities may change

gradually with long-term climate change. Otherwise, a landscape is generally

characterized by a shifting mosaic of communities that support TES. Excellent land

management planning can allow for human activities and TES conservation by

understanding and using the natural disturbance and regeneration processes of

these communities. The appropriate fire regime can be generated to maintain

certain communities in certain places across the landscape. For example, fire

should be excluded from sites where bay forest habitat is desired. In areas where

moderate- or high-quality AWC forests remain, fire should be excluded as well,

since these areas are significant, rare remnants of a community that we are not

certain we can restore and maintain successfully. The other peatland communities

are adapted to relatively frequent fire; pond pine woodlands and the basin pocosins

should be burned at 5- to 8-year intervals. Streamhead pocosins require even more

frequent fire, 3- to 5-year intervals are recommended for several of the plants found

in streamhead pocosin communities or their ecotones. Cypress domes naturally

burn during dry periods, and the recommended interval is 2 to 5 years. If natural

hydrology is restored and/or maintained, cypress domes could be maintained by

allowing them to burn naturally with the surrounding pine woodlands community,

under a natural regime of every 1 to 3 years (Harper et al. 1997). Any fire plowlines required to conduct prescribed burns in peatland communities should be

recontoured and revegetated once the burn is complete, to prevent serious

hydrologic and erosion-related impacts to the environment.

Impacts and management considerations related to timber harvest are important

for three of the peatland communities. Pond pine woodlands, cypress domes, and

AWC forests may be used for logging. Heavy machinery used in cutting and

extraction may lead to disruption of soils, erosion, rutting, and channeling of water

through ruts. However, for each of these communities, the most significant impact

from logging is an apparent lack of natural regeneration. Research has indicated

several practices that may improve regeneration by AWC, including clearcutting of
66 USACERL TR-99/08

all trees, especially hardwoods, in areas less than 5 acres in extent, followed by

clearing of all brush piles and control of hardwoods during early stand regeneration.
USACERL TR-99/08 67

Appendices A through F: Detailed

Ecological Description of Peatland

Communities

Certain peat-forming non-alluvial palustrine wetlands that occur in the

southeastern Coastal Plain are collectively called peatlands. They include

communities that are fed by rainwater or highly oligotrophic (slowly moving,

nutrient-poor) groundwater. Their soils are strongly acidic and are composed of

peat, or otherwise are wet mineral soils with a high organic content. These habitats

have in common a shrub layer of ericaceous, mostly evergreen plants (Schafale and

Weakley 1990).

The following appendixes contain discussions of six categories of non-alluvial

wetlands, or “peatlands.” They are: bay forest, AWC forest, pond pine woodland,

combined low, high and small depression pocosins, streamhead pocosins, and

cypress domes.

Physical environmental factors as well as plant physiognomy are emphasized in

delineating the communities discussed herein. Important factors include

vegetation, peat depth, topographic setting, fire regime, and hydrology. Most of

these communities have the same dominant or characteristic species and are better

distinguished based upon the relative density of the shrub, herb, and tree layers as

well as their relative topography.
68 USACERL TR-99/08

Appendix A: Detailed Ecological Description

of Bay Forest Communities

Bay forest is used to describe communities dominated by a number of bay trees

(Christensen 1988). The Nature Conservancy’s Southeastern United States

Ecological Community Classification (Allard 1990) and state classification systems

for North Carolina and South Carolina use this name to describe the community

(Nelson 1986, Schafale and Weakley 1990) and mention the synonyms evergreen

bay and bay pocosin. State classification schemes refer to this community as

sweetbay forest (Pell 1984, Smith 1988), and red bay-sweet bay community

(Penfound 1952) in Louisiana; bayhead forest (Wieland 1994) in Mississippi; and

baygall (FNAI and Florida Department of Natural Resources [FDNR] 1990) in

Alabama and Florida; Coastal Plain bog/seep forest when dominated by bays

(Wharton 1978) in Georgia; and oligotrophic saturated forest (Rawinski 1990; crossclassified in Allard 1990) in Virginia.

Bay forests may generally be divided into those that occur on seepage slopes and

those that occupy basins or non-alluvial wetlands. Those on seepage slopes share

many physical characteristics with streamhead pocosins and those in basins with

the other pocosin types and peatland forests. The distinction is sometimes

important for management considerations.

Range/Current Distribution

This community occurs predominantly in the outer Coastal Plain (Landaal 1991a).

Other occurrences are in the middle Coastal Plain, sandhills, and lower piedmont

(Landaal 1991a, Schafale and Weakley 1990). The community type extends from

Virginia south to Florida, and west to eastern Texas (Christensen 1988). The

community also occurs in Arkansas (Landaal 1991a).
USACERL TR-99/08 69

Environmental Factors

Topographic Position 

Bay Forests typically occur at drainages and edges of sandhill streams, depressions

in sandhills, Carolina bays (Landaal 1991a), edges of floodplains where there is

groundwater seepage (Wharton 1978), and poorly drained interstream flats

(Schafale and Weakley 1990). They occur on margins of deep gum and cedar

swamps in the Great Dismal Swamp and in shallow cut-over cypress swamps in the

Okefenokee Swamp. They can occur in shallow organic deposits and deeper peats

(Schafale and Weakley 1990).

Hydrology

Bay forests are continually to seasonally saturated and infrequently flooded

(Landaal 1991a, Schafale and Weakley 1990). Hydrologic inputs are from perched

water tables, seepage from adjacent slopes, and rainfall, unless the community is

associated with a stream (Landaal 1991a).

Natural Disturbance Regime 

The community is late successional and is not maintained by disturbance (Landaal

1991a, Schafale and Weakley 1990). Saturated soils decrease the occurrence of fire.

Fires that do occur are more intense when abundant vegetative biomass is present

(Landaal 1991a).

Soil

Soils are strongly acidic and sandy, with a surface layer of peat. The peat can be

as deep as 2 m and is high in organic matter content. In occurrences in Carolina

bays and possibly elsewhere, a perched water table is maintained by an impervious

layer beneath the soil (Landaal 1991a).

Physiognomy/Structure

Bay Forests are broad-leaved evergreen forests that are low in stature (for example,

3 to 10 m in height in the Green Swamp, NC) relative to surrounding forest types.

The canopy is dense and there exists a subcanopy of vines and tall shrubs (Landaal

1991a). The shrub layer in North Carolina is dense to somewhat open (Schafale
70 USACERL TR-99/08

and Weakley 1990). The herb layer is sparse, but sphagnum moss may be

abundant. Tree roots are frequently exposed (Landaal 1991a).

Commonly Associated Plant Communities

Pond pine woodlands, non-riverine swamp forest, AWC forest and high and low

pocosins often occur in a mosaic with bay forests (Landaal 1991a, Schafale and

Weakley 1990, Wharton 1978).

Successional Relationships

This community is believed to be late successional, succeeding AWC swamp forest

(Buell and Cain 1943) and pond pine woodland after a long period without fire. If

the water table is high and there is a deep, peat-burning fire, a sedge bog can

develop if fire continues to be frequent. When the water table is low, a deciduous

bay forest may develop after a deep peat burn. A shallow peat burn can lead to the

development of AWC swamp forest or a pond pine woodland if the seed bank

contains these species (Christensen 1988, Landaal 1991a, Buell and Cain 1943).

However, the community dominants recover quickly following fire, and may recover

from less severe burns (Schafale and Weakley 1990).

Biological Composition

The community is characterized by the canopy dominance of one or more of the

following: loblolly bay (Gordonia lasianthus), sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana), and

swamp red bay (Persea palustris) (Landaal 1991a), but other species found in

association with bay trees vary across the region (Christensen 1988). In North

Carolina, pond pine (Pinus serotina), swamp tupelo (Nyssa biflora), red maple (Acer

rubrum), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), and AWC may be significant components of the

canopy and sub-canopy in addition to the dominant bay species (Schafale and

Weakley 1990). In Florida, pond pine, slash pine (Pinus elliottii), longleaf pine

(Pinus palustris), and bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) occur in bay forests.

Canopy dominants in Texas bay forests include swamp laurel oak (Quercus

laurifolia), black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), sweet bay, yaupon (Ilex i) and red maple

(Christensen 1988). In Louisiana, the canopy is similar to that in Texas, with the

addition of pond cypress (Taxodium ascendens), slash pine, and longleaf pine. The

shrub layer can be diverse, including titi (Cyrilla racemiflora), fetter-bush (Lyonia

lucida), sweet gallberry (Ilex coriacea), bitter gallberry (I. glabra), evergreen
USACERL TR-99/08 71

bayberry (Myrica heterophylla), black highbush blueberry (Vaccinium atrococcum),

highbush blueberry (V. corymbosum), zenobia (Zenobia pulverulenta) (Christensen

1988), wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), male-berry (Lyonia lugustrina), leucothoe

(Leucothoe axillaris, L. racemosa), Virginia willow (Itea virginica), red chokeberry

(Sorbus arbutifolia), possum-haw viburnum (Viburnum nudum), poison sumac

(Rhus vernix), sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia), hazel alder (Alnus serrulata),

American snowbell (Styrax americana), summer azalea (Rhododendronserrulatum),

wild azalea (Rhododendron oblongifolium) (Smith 1988), and sparkle berry

(Vaccinium corymbosum) (Ewel, Davis, and Smith 1989). Vines, including

greenbriar (Smilax spp.), Carolina jessamine (Gelsemium sempervirens) and

Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia) are important components of bay

forests (Christensen 1988). Herb species include netted chainfern (Woodwardia

areolata), cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), and royal fern (Osmunda regalis)

(Landaal 1991a, Christensen 1988).
72 USACERL TR-99/08

Appendix B: Detailed Ecological Description

of Atlantic White Cedar Forest

Communities

There are several different names for this plant community. Atlantic white cedar

(AWC) swamp is the name used in classifications for Alabama and South Carolina

(Nelson 1986). In the classification for Mississippi, this community is synonymous

with white cedar forest or cedar bog (Penfound 1952). In North Carolina, this

community type is further divided into two types: peatland AWC forest and

streamhead AWC forest (Schafale and Weakley 1990). In Florida’s classification

system, AWC forests are types of bottomland forests (FNAI and FDNR 1990). In

Virginia’s classification, they are a type of mesotrophic saturated forest (Rawinski

1990).

Range/Distribution

AWC forests occur throughout the Coastal Plain, primarily in the peatlands of the

outer Coastal Plain, but also on the middle Atlantic Coastal Plain (Landaal 1991b,

Schafale and Weakley 1990). According to Landaal (1991b), the range of this type

is the same for that of AWC, occurring in a narrow coastal range 50 to 130 miles

wide from southern Maine to northern Florida and west to southern Mississippi.

However, this species only forms extensive stands in a few areas, including the New

Jersey pine barrens, the lower terraces of North Carolina and Virginia Coastal

Plains, and northern Florida (Christensen 1988).

Environmental Factors

Topographic Position

AWC swamp forests are usually associated with deep peats; often peats occurring

over sandy substrates (Christensen 1988). They are found on shores of lakes,

rivers, streams, or estuaries in isolated basins, or on seepage slopes or streamheads

(Schafale and Weakley 1990, Moore and Carter 1987). They may also occur on
USACERL TR-99/08 73

islands in lakes and rivers (Landaal 1991b). In North Carolina, AWC swamp

forests occur on the outer parts of domed peatlands on poorly drained interstream

flats. They also occur on shallow peat-filled Carolina bays and swales (Schafale and

Weakley 1990). They are typically in drier locations than other pocosin types

(Schafale and Weakley 1990). In Florida, they occupy valleys of small streams

through deep sandhills where soils are perennially moist or wet from constant

seepage of groundwater, but are only briefly, if at all, flooded. They have also

occupied boggy pine flatwoods near the coast in panhandle Florida (Clewell and

Ward 1987).

Hydrology

AWC seedlings are intolerant of flooding, and adults cannot tolerate much flooding.

Authors have described these forests as occurring in nontidal, seasonally flooded,

saturated, semipermanently flooded, or permanently flooded areas (Landaal 1991b)

and areas with or without flowing or seepage water (Schafale and Weakley 1990).

The water table in AWC forests characteristically fluctuates between highs of 20

to 30 cm above the surface of the bottoms of the deepest hollows in the microtopography to 20 cm below the surface (Golet and Lowry 1987, Ehrenfeld and

Schneider 1991). Because of the hummocky microtopography of this habitat,

different surfaces experience different degrees of inundation and moisture. In one

study of a natural AWC forest, 25 percent of the area was likely to be regularly

flooded every year, 25 percent was within the likely range of variation in high water

levels, and 50 percent was unlikely to experience flooding except during unusually

wet years, when it would experience, at most, soil saturation during periods of high

water (Ehrenfeld 1995). Under undisturbed conditions, AWC forests may be flooded

and have shallow standing water in depressions from mid-winter to mid-summer

with seasonal high water occurring in early spring (Moore and Carter 1987,

Ehrenfeld and Schneider 1991). The duration and depth of the hydrologic regime

varies with precipitation, however, and there is considerable variability among sites

(Ehrenfeld and Schneider 1991, Golet and Lowry 1987).

Disturbance Regime

AWC does not establish under the shady conditions of mature stands. Thus, this

community is dependent on the open conditions created by intense crown-killing fire

(Christensen 1988, Landaal 1991b, Schafale and Weakley 1991), clearcutting,

extensive windthrow (Little 1950, Moore and Carter 1987) or flooding (Moore and

Carter 1987). Although hurricane or tornado blowdowns may fell substantial

tracts, only fire could be expected to kill standing timber and remove debris,

exposing the open seedbed for regeneration (Frost 1987). The community
74 USACERL TR-99/08

regenerates best after a light fire on bare mineral soil, as this removes competing

vegetation and allows the viable seeds in the seed bank to survive; a fire that burns

deep into the peat may destroy the seeds (Landaal 1991b, Schafale and Weakley

1991). Fire return intervals ranging from 25 to 250 years may be necessary for

regeneration (Frost 1987).

In the Gulf Coast populations of AWC, gap regeneration may be more important

than regeneration after fire (Clewell and Ward 1987). Fire is seldom observed in

this area because seepage saturated soils and broad-leaved understory vegetation

suppress fire initiated by lightning strikes and other sources (Ward and Clewell

1989). As a result, other disturbances that create open conditions, such as flooding,

windthrow, and logging, are necessary for regeneration on the Gulf Coast (Landaal

1991b). Most white cedar seedlings in a gap die following closure of the canopy.

Infrequently, a second gap in the canopy develops before all of the seedlings of a

cohort have died; this allows the survivors to grow as long as suitably spaced breaks

in the canopy continue to exist. As they grow, they are better able to survive

periods of reduced light and become permanently established upon reaching the

canopy. Once becoming emergent in the canopy, however, the trees become

susceptible to lightening, which is their most common cause of death (Clewell and

Ward 1987).

Soil

The community usually occurs on peat soils underlain by sand (Buell and Cain

1943). It has been observed that the proportion of swamp hardwoods in cedar

stands increases with the amount of silt and clay in the subsoil (Korstain 1924),

although Laney and Noffsinger (1987) did not find such a correlation in Dare

County, NC. Soils are more sandy in AWC swamp communities along the Gulf

Coast than the Atlantic Coast (Landaal 1991b).

Physiognomy/Structure

In the Carolinas and Virginia, this community typically exhibits a dense, even-aged

canopy dominated by AWC. In these areas, shrub and herb layers are relatively

open (Landaal 1991b). The even-aged type probably reflects regeneration after

large-scale disturbance such as fire, more common in the northern part of the range

(Landaal 1991b). In the Gulf states, AWC shares dominance with a variety of

species (Christensen 1988), and stands are not even-aged (Landaal 1991b). Shrub

cover may exceed 80 percent in the understory (Christensen 1988). The herbaceous

layer is composed of sphagnum moss and ferns (Christensen 1988). The uneven-
USACERL TR-99/08 75

aged mixed-species stands typical of the southern AWC forests are a consequence

of gap succession in the absence of fire (Clewell and Ward 1987).

Commonly Associated Plant Communities

This community may occur in a mosaic with pond pine woodland, bay forest, other

pocosin types (Landaal 1991b), and non-riverine swamp forests (Schafale and

Weakley 1990). Near shorelines it may grade into estuary-fringe, loblolly pine

forest, tidal cypress-gum swamp, or marsh communities. Streamhead types grade

abruptly into sandhill or wet pine flatwoods, or small stream swamps along stream

courses (Schafale and Weakley 1990).

Successional Relationships

This community is early successional but consists of long-lived trees. AWC lives to

be more than 250 years old (Frost 1987). The community usually succeeds itself

following fire, as long as the fire is not so hot that it kills the seed bank. In dry

periods when fire causes the upper peat layer to burn, the community may be

replaced by other pocosin types, gum-cypress swamp (Ash et al. 1983), or a pure

stand of slash pine (Garren 1943). In the absence of fire this community may

succeed into bay forest or a more species-rich swamp community (Landaal 1991b),

although this is not well documented and the time for this to occur in the absence

of logging is not well known (Fussel et al. 1995). Weakley and Schafale (1991) also

suggest that AWC swamp forest can succeed into pond pine woodland in North

Carolina.

Biological Composition

This community is dominated by AWC (Chamaecyparis thyoides) occurring in pine

or mixed stands. In mixed stands, characteristic subdominants include red maple

(Acer rubrum), sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana), and swamp tupelo (Nyssa biflora)

(Landaal 1991b). The shrub layer is often dominated by sweet pepperbush(Clethra

alnifolia) and highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum) (Landaal 1991b), but

can also include fetter-bush (Lyonia lucida ), sweet gallberry (Ilex coriacea), bitter

gallberry (Ilex glabra), and red bay (Persea borbonia) (Christensen 1988). Peat

moss (Sphagnum sp.) and Virginia chainfern (Woodwardia virginica) are important

species in the herb layer (Christensen 1988), as are partridge berry (Mitchella

repens) and poison ivy (Rhus toxicodendron) (Landaal 1991b).
76 USACERL TR-99/08

Appendix C: Detailed Ecological Description

of Pond Pine Woodland Communities

Pond pine woodland is the name used for this community in classification systems

for North Carolina (Schafale and Weakley 1990) and South Carolina, and it is

synonymous with pond pine forest in those states (Nelson 1986). In Virginia’s

classification, pond pine woodland is a type of oligotrophic saturated or seasonally

flooded woodland (Rawinski 1990). In Florida’s classification, this community is a

type of wet flatwoods (FNAI and FDNR 1990), and in Georgia’s classification, it is

a type of Coastal Plain bog/seep forest (Wharton 1978). Other names include pine

swamp, pine bog, and pine pocosin (Penfound 1952).

Range/Distribution

This community occurs on the Coastal Plain from Florida to Virginia (Landaal

1991c). In North Carolina, this community is most extensive on the outer parts of

the Coastal Plain (Schafale and Weakley 1990).

Environmental Factors

Topographic Position 

Pond pine woodlands occur on the outer parts of domed peatlands on poorly drained

interstream flats (Landaal 1991c). They also occur on shallow, peat-filled Carolina

bays and swales (Schafale and Weakley 1990).

Hydrology

This community has a long hydroperiod, but the water table drops below the peat

layer during the dry season, which allows plants to root below the peat (Landaal

1991c, Schafale and Weakley 1990). In North Carolina, plants in this community

may also receive water with nutrients from adjacent communities. The community
USACERL TR-99/08 77

occurs in areas that are drier than low and high pocosins (Schafale and Weakley

1990).

Disturbance Regime

Fire in pond pine woodlands has been reported to occur during dry periods every 10

to 20 years (Landaal 1991c). However, historical reports going back to the times

of the colonists describe the fire interval as 3 to 5 years (Hughes 1966), and even

poorly drained areas have seldom burned less frequently than every 5 years (Wells

1942). Frost (1989) describes a fire regime of 3 to 5 years as ideal for the

continuation of a pure canebrake understory that was once common. Fire regimes

of 5 to 18 years result in alternation of cane understory and pocosin shrub

understory on peat from 0.5 to 1 m deep (Frost 1989). Because of their drier

position on the landscape, pond pine woodlands burn more frequently than low and

high pocosins. Fires can be intense due to the buildup of large amounts of fuel

between fires (Schafale and Weakley 1990). Pond pine is a good example of a fire

adapted species. It is able to sprout from either the roots or epicormic buds along

the bole, producing the gnarled form of growth exhibited by the species. Its cones,

remaining closed from 2 to 10 years after seed maturation, open upon being burned,

although they do eventually open in the absence of fire (Ash et al. 1983). Switch

cane, which once dominated these understories, requires a fire regime of about 10

years or less to be maintained (Hughes 1966). Fires in this community are most

likely to occur during the growing season. However, in recent decades, most fires

have occurred during April and May. Because of the heavy fuel loads, fires in pond

pine woodland have the potential to be extremely intense. Like the recovery of the

pines themselves, shrub vegetation generally recovers to its former height in a few

years. Fire may burn through the peat as it kills much or all of the above-ground

vegetation. Fires may change the relative species composition, favoring those that

recover first, such as cane. Species diversity is highest after a fire event and

gradually declines thereafter (NCNHP and TNC 1995).

Soil

This community occurs on acidic, shallow, organic soils or on deeper peats. Most

Florida sites have an organic hardpan or clay layer beneath the surface (Landaal

1991c). They are presumably less nutrient deficient than low and high pocosins

because of the mineral influx brought in by sheetflow (NCNHP and TNC 1995).

Increases in the amount of silt and clay are correlated with an increased site index

for pond pine (Coile 1952). Site indices of pond pine increase with the decreasing

organic matter content of the A1 horizon (Hofman 1949, Zahner 1951).
78 USACERL TR-99/08

Physiognomy/Structure

Canopy density can vary from very dense to savanna-like with scattered pines and

palms over a grassy understory (Landaal 1991c). The shrub layer is dense and tall

(over 5 m) except immediately following fire. The shrub layer may be lost if the fire

interval is too short. If fire consistently occurs more often than every 5 years, cane

(Arundinaria gigantea or A. tecta) can dominate the understory. Cane dominated

the understory of pond pine woodlands over vast areas in the past, but rarely do

today (Hughes 1966, Fussel et al. 1995). The density of cane seems to be controlled

primarily by fire regime, with minor secondary effects of organic soil depth and

fertility. With fire regimes of 3 to 5 years, pure cane may be maintained; however,

fire regimes of 5 to 18 years result in alternation between pure cane, immediately

following fire, and pocosin shrub with occasional stems of cane concealed by the

shrub canopy. Besides occasional pond pines there may co-exist some blaspheme

vine (Smilax laurifolia), poison ivy (Rhus toxicodendron) or dewberry (Rubus

hispidus) (Frost 1989). The herb layer is generally sparse (Schafale and Weakley

1990).

Commonly Associated Plant Communities

Plant communities closely associated with pond pine woodlands are other pocosin

types, non-riverine swamp forests, pine flatwoods (Landaal 1991c), and pine

savannas (Schafale and Weakley 1990). Ponds may occur as inclusions into pond

pine woodlands where the peat has been burned down to the mineral soil (Landaal

1991c).

Successional Relationships

This community is early successional and usually replaces itself following fire. In

the absence of fire, this community will be encroached upon by bays in the

understory and succeed to a bay forest (Landaal 1991c). When fire frequency was

much higher, large areas of this habitat were dominated by cane in canebrakes. 

Increased fire frequency may lead to a cane-dominated understory.

Biological Composition

Pond pine (Pinus serotina) forms an open to nearly closed canopy. Within its range,

loblolly bay (Gordonia lasianthus) is a canopy co-dominant with pond pine. Sweet
USACERL TR-99/08 79

bay (Magnolia virginiana), red maple (Acer rubrum), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) and

AWC may also occur in the canopy or the understory (Landaal 1991c, Schafale and

Weakley 1990). The subcanopy or shrub layer is dominated by titi (Cyrilla

racemiflora), fetter-bush (Lyonia lucida), sweet gallberry (Ilex coriacea), and swamp

red bay (Persea palustris) (Landaal 1991c). Common vines are blaspheme vine and

coral greenbriar (Smilax walteri) (Landaal 1991c). Herbs are generally nearly

absent, but may include Virginia chainfern (Woodwardia virginica), netted

chainfern (Woodwardia areolata), and peat moss (Sphagnum sp.) clumps (Landaal

1991c, Schafale and Weakley 1990). Switch cane once dominated large areas of the

herb layer of this habitat, although it is uncommon today (probably because of

suppression of fire, Schafale and Weakley 1990).
80 USACERL TR-99/08

Appendix D: Detailed Ecological Description

of Basin Pocosin Communities

Low and high pocosins are discussed together because they grade into one another

in the landscape, and small depression pocosins have similar physical and floristic

characteristics. Low pocosins occur in areas of deeper peat (usually 1 to 5 m deep)

than high pocosins (peat depth of 1.5 m or less), otherwise both communities occur

on oligotrophic wet sands (Schafale and Weakley 1990).

Pocosin communities differ in species composition and name throughout their

range. These pocosins are included in the pine-ericalean pocosin type (Kologski

1977). They are also referred to as a type of evergreen shrub bog (Wharton 1978).

Low and high pocosins are referred to under the same names in North Carolina’s

classification (Schafale and Weakley 1990) and as short and tall shrub bogs in

Georgia’s classification (Wharton 1978). Nelson (1986) combines these types as

pocosin in South Carolina. Similarly, Ambrose (1990) calls these communities

Coastal Plain shrub bog/seeps in Georgia. Penfound (1952) calls them evergreen

shrub swamp or Ilex-Cyrilla-Zenobia community in Louisiana. In Virginia, low

pocosins are called palustrine dwarf scrubs (Rawinski 1990), while high pocosins are

called oligotrophic scrub (Rawinski 1990). Florida calls high pocosin a bog (FNAI

and FDNR 1990). Small depression pocosins are called so in North Carolina

(Schafale and Weakley 1990), while they are called swale pocosin in South Carolina

(Nelson 1986), and correspond to Grady pond forest in Mississippi (Wieland 1994).

Range/Distribution

These pocosins occur primarily in the outer Coastal Plain and less commonly in the

inner Coastal Plain. Low pocosins are mostly restricted to North Carolina (Schafale

and Weakley 1990). The range of these communities extends from Virginia to

Florida (Doyle 1990c). Small Depression Pocosins occur in isolated areas

throughout the Coastal Plain and sandhills in North Carolina and South Carolina

(Doyle 1990a, Schafale and Weakley 1990). Similar vegetation thought to

represent this community type also occurs in Mississippi, Georgia, Florida, and

Virginia (Doyle 1990a).
USACERL TR-99/08 81

Environmental Factors

Topographic Position

Low pocosin occurs in the centers of extensive outer Coastal Plain interstream

peatlands (“peat domes”), and grades into high pocosin, which occurs on the

margins of these domes. Additionally, high pocosin occurs in the middle Coastal

Plain in peat-filled Carolina bays and swales; low pocosin occasionally occurs in this

situation (Doyle 1990b, c; Schafale and Weakley 1990). In Georgia, pocosins are

described as occurring on downslopes protected from fire, usually at the base of clay

ridges or sandhills (Wharton 1978). Small depression pocosins occupy isolated

depressions in upland community types and may be surrounded by sand ridges

(Doyle 1990a). They are commonly seasonally flooded or saturated (Schafale and

Weakley 1990).

Hydrology

The hydrology is palustrine, seasonally flooded, or saturated (Schafale and Weakley

1990). The water table stays close to the soil surface throughout winter and early

spring due to low rates of evaporation and transpiration (Campbell and Hughes

1991). Flooding usually occurs in the early spring (Penfound 1952). Later in the

spring, high temperatures, wind, evaporation, transpiration, and low rainfall

produce a rapid drop of the water table. Although late summer thunderstorms or

hurricanes may maintain high water table levels, the lowest water table levels

usually occur in early fall (Campbell and Hughes 1991). No water drains into low

pocosins as they occupy the centers of domed peatlands and are higher than

surrounding land; little water may drain into high pocosins from low pocosin areas.

Thus, these communities are completely or largely ombitrophic (receive all nutrient

inputs from rain and dryfall).

Disturbance Regime

These communities are fire-dependent. Severe fires associated with droughts occur

periodically under natural conditions; from 3 to 8 years in “high diversity” pocosins

and less frequently in those dominated by titi (Cyrilla racemiflora; Wharton 1978).

Ground fires, or those burning the peat itself, can kill much or all of the aboveground vegetation (Doyle 1990b, c; Schafale and Weakley 1990). A single fire set

or lightning strike fire may alter vast areas of low and high pocosins (Cruise 1996).

Fires in low pocosins of Dare Bombing Range, NC, have usually occurred in April

and May. They typically kill all above-ground vegetation structure while most

underground parts survive. Plants resprout and the recovery of vegetation
82 USACERL TR-99/08

structure and biomass is rapid after fire. Severe fires during droughts may burn

into the peat, killing roots and creating small patches where hydrology has been

altered. Species diversity and productivity are highest after fire, and they gradually

decline thereafter (NCNHP and TNC 1995). Since small depression pocosins are

nested within other communities, their fire regime varies with that of the

surrounding habitat (Doyle 1990a).

Soil

These pocosins occur on soils ranging from wet, peaty sands to peat that is 5 meters

deep, with low pocosins occurring on the deepest peat. Low pocosins are the most

nutrient poor because of their ombitrophic position. Small depression pocosins are

likely to be more fertile than other pocosin types because they can receive nutrients

released by fires in surrounding communities (Schafale and Weakley 1990).

Physiognomy/Structure

Low pocosins are dominated by shrubs less than 1.5 meters in height, but may

contain distantly spaced, stunted, and gnarled pond pine. High pocosins have a

shrub layer that ranges from 1.5 to 3 m tall. High pocosins have scattered bay

shrubs and hardwood species that form a subcanopy, and they may exhibit an open

canopy of pond pine. Small depression pocosins may resemble either low or high

pocosins in their physiognomy (Doyle 1990a).

Commonly Associated Plant Communities

Low pocosins grade into high pocosins, which grade into pond pine woodlands. At

the edges of depressions, high pocosin may grade into a drier, non-pocosin

community (Schafale and Weakley 1990). Pocosins may occur along the drier edge

of bay swamps, or they may form a ring around cypress ponds (Wharton 1978).

They may also grade into sandhill terrain, increasing in species diversity with

higher fire frequency. In North Carolina, they may grade into gum-cypress

swamps, as well as long leaf pine savanna and its associated herb bog community

(Ash et al. 1983). Small depression pocosins are isolated inclusions within pine

flatwoods or longleaf/turkey oak sandhills (Schafale and Weakley 1990).
USACERL TR-99/08 83

Successional Relationship

High pocosin may succeed into bay forest in the absence of fire. Low pocosins do not

appear to succeed to other communities in the absence of fire (Christensen 1988).

Some high pocosins may once have been dominated by cane (Arundinaria sp.)

brakes in times of more frequent fire, as they still have these as inclusions (T.

Cruise, 18 April 1996). In Georgia, pocosins have been observed to succeed to grasssedge savanna following severe fire (Wharton 1978).

Biological Composition

Low Pocosins

A canopy of widely scattered and stunted pond pine (Pinus serotina), swamp red bay

(Persea palustris), loblolly bay (Gordonia lasianthus), and sweet bay (Magnolia

virginiana) often occurs. The dense shrub layer is usually dominated by fetter-bush

(Lyonia lucida), titi, zenobia (Zenobia pulverulenta), or gallberry (Ilex sp.).

Blaspheme vine (Smilax laurifolia) is common. Pools or openings dominated by

leatherleaf (Cassandra calyculata), Walter’s sedge (Carex walteriana), Virginia

chainfern (Woodwardia virginica), yellow pitcherplant (Sarracenia flava), bushy

beardgrass (Andropogon glomeratus), peat (Sphagnum sp.), and, rarely, cranberry

(Vaccinium macrocarpon) may occur within the low pocosin (Schafale and Weakley

1990).

High Pocosins

In North Carolina, the canopy/subcanopy usually consists of pond pine (<25%

cover), swamp red bay, loblolly bay, and sweet bay (Schafale and Weakley 1990).

Red maple (Acer rubrum), swamp tupelo (Nyssa biflora), and sweet gum

(Liquidambar styraciflua) may also occur across the range of this community (Doyle

1991b). In North Carolina, the shrub layer is dominated by fetter-bush, titi, and

zenobia. Regional shrub dominants may also include red bay (Persea borbonia).

Greenbriar (Smilax sp.), especially blaspheme vine, are also common in high

pocosins. Switch cane (Arundinaria tecta) may occur. Herbs are generally absent,

but in recently burned sites, Virginia chainfern and bushy beardgrass may occur

(Schafale and Weakley 1990).
84 USACERL TR-99/08

Small Depression Pocosins

These communities have a sparse to dense canopy that may include pond pine, red

maple, swamp red bay, sweet bay, pond cypress (Taxodium ascendens), loblolly pine

(Pinus taeda), and loblolly bay. The dense shrub layer consists of fetter-bush, titi,

bitter gallberry (Ilex glabra), sweet gallberry (I. coriacea), sweet pepperbush

(Clethra alnifolia), dangleberry (Gaylussacia frondosa), myrtle-leaved holly (Ilex

myrtifolia), highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum) and Carolina sheepkill

(Kalmia carolina); wetter areas may support zenobia and leatherleaf. Blaspheme

vine and wild sarsaparilla (Smilax glauca) may be common. The sparse herbaceous

layer may include cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), Virginia chainfern,

netted chainfern (Woodwardia areolata), and sedge (Carex spp.) (Doyle 1990a,

Schafale and Weakley 1990).
USACERL TR-99/08 85

Appendix E: Detailed Ecological Description

of Streamhead Pocosin Communities

Names for this community in the Carolinas include streamhead pocosin, sandhill

seep, and seepage pocosin (Nelson 1986, Schafale and Weakley 1990). Other

synonyms are seepage slope in Florida (FNAI and FDNR 1990), Coastal Plain shrub

bog/seep in Georgia (Wharton 1978), mesotrophic saturated scrub in Virginia

(Rawinski 1990), and semi-evergreen broadleaf acid seep forest in Louisiana and

Texas (Bridges and Orzell 1989).

Range/Distribution

Streamhead pocosins do not occur in the Mississippi alluvial plain, but otherwise

occur in scattered locations throughout the upper Coastal Plain and fall-line

sandhills. Their range extends from southeastern Virginia to northern Florida and

west to southeastern Alabama (Martin 1992).

Environmental Factors

Topographic Position

This community occurs in headwaters of small streams in sandhill areas, on flat

bottoms surrounding creek heads, and on adjacent seepage slopes (Martin 1992,

Schafale and Weakley 1990).

Hydrology

This community receives oligotrophic runoff and seepage from pocosins and

sandhills. Like other pocosins, the hydrology is palustrine and the community is

seasonally to semipermanently saturated (Schafale and Weakley 1990).
86 USACERL TR-99/08

Fire Regime

Streamhead pocosins are influenced by fire in uplands because of their long, narrow

shape. Fire is frequent along the edges, but streamhead pocosins are usually too

wet to carry fire (Martin 1992, Weakley and Schafale 1991).

Soils

Soils consist of an organic layer overlying or embedded with clay or sand, or wet,

seepy sands underlain with clay (Schafale and Weakley 1990). The peat layer,

when present, rarely exceeds 30 cm in depth (Martin 1992). These communities

receive nutrients from adjacent uplands through groundwater and thus are more

fertile than peatland pocosins (Schafale and Weakley 1990).

Physiognomy/Structure

Streamhead pocosin communities are characterized by having a scattered to very

dense canopy, a dense shrub layer, and a less sparse herb layer than other pocosin

types (Martin 1992, Schafale and Weakley 1990). Infrequently burned streamhead

pocosins tend to have greater concentrations of trees and shrubs and fewer herbs

than frequently burned examples (Martin 1992).

Commonly Associated Plant Communities

Streamhead pocosins grade upland into sandhill seeps, pine flatwoods, and longleaf

pine/turkey oak sandhills (Schafale and Weakley 1990). They grade downstream

into Coastal Plain small stream swamps (Schafale and Weakley 1990). They are

also associated with AWC swamp forests, bay forests, and beech-magnolia forests

(Martin 1992).

Successional Relationships

Under circumstances that are not clear, streamhead pocosins may develop into

AWC swamp forest (Schafale and Weakley 1990). In the absence of fire over

periods ranging from 20 to 50 years, succession to bay forest or Coastal Plain small

stream swamp may occur (Martin 1992). Frequent fire (more often than every 5

years) may lead to the development of an herbaceous bog community at streamhead

locations (Martin 1992).
USACERL TR-99/08 87

Biological Composition

The canopy consists primarily of pond pine (Pinus serotina) and sweet bay

(Magnolia virginiana); but may also include slash pine (P. elliottii), loblolly pine (P.

taeda), swamp red bay (Persea palustris), tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera), red

maple (Acer rubrum), swamp tupelo (Nyssa biflora), black gum (N. sylvatica), and

AWC (Martin 1992). The shrub layer is dominated by titi (Cyrilla racemiflora),

buckwheat tree (Cliftonia monophylla), and fetter-bush (Lyonia lucida) (Martin

1992). In North Carolina, netted chainfern (Woodwardia areolata), cinnamon fern

(Osmunda cinnamomea), and sedge (Carex spp.) are typical herbs (Schafale and

Weakley 1990).
88 USACERL TR-99/08

Appendix F: Detailed Ecological Description

of Cypress Dome Communities

Cypress dome communities are described using several different names, including

cypress domes (Brown 1981), cypress heads (Monk and Brown 1965), dome swamps

(FNAI and FDNR 1990), and cypress ponds (Ewel, Davis, and Smith 1989).

Range/Current Distribution

Cypress domes are distributed throughout Florida and along the Atlantic Coastal

Plain within pine flatwoods ecosystems (Crownover et al. 1995).

Physical Factors

Topographic Position

Cypress domes occur in shallow, probably karstic (Crownover et al. 1995)

depressions within pine flatwoods (Marois and Ewel 1983). Their size ranges from

100 m to more than 2 kilometers in diameter (Monk and Brown 1965). Their

elevation ranges from 3 to 30 meters above sea level (asl; Kurz and Wagner 1953).

Hydrology

In general, cypress domes contain stagnant water less than a meter deep, the level

of which may fluctuate widely in the course of a year. They are generally wet

during the summer months and may be dry for several months during the dry

winter and spring (Monk and Brown 1965, Brown 1981, Crownover et al. 1995).

They often have an underlying clay layer that impedes drainage (Monk and Brown

1965, Brown 1981). There are generally no surface outlets for water flow (Brown

1981), although water may also seep through cypress domes in one direction along

a broad topographic gradient (Crownover et al. 1995). Water loss from cypress

domes occurs mainly from evapotranspiration rather than lateral or deep vertical

seepage (Ewel and Smith 1992). When it occurs, movement of water into or out of

cypress domes is very slow (Crownover et al. 1995), and was approximated by
USACERL TR-99/08 89

Riekerk (1992) to be 12 cm per day. Although cypress domes may collect water

running in from surrounding uplands during precipitation events, net water flow

is usually outward (Crownover et al. 1995). This is due to differential transpiration

in the cypress dome compared to the surrounding pineland habitat (Crownover et

al. 1995), as well as the differential storage of water as surface or soil water

(Heimburg 1984). Outward flow increases as the water table decreases (Crownover

et al. 1995).

Fire Regime

Cypress domes are susceptible to fire, especially if embedded in fire-prone

pinelands. Fire susceptibility is greater if water levels are reduced and if there is

a high quantity of organic material on the forest floor (Brown 1981). Although the

natural fire regime of cypress domes is unknown, the edges of cypress domes burn

as often as the surrounding pinelands. Fire frequency decreases towards the center

of the dome with increasing moisture, and very rarely reaches the center (Kurz and

Wagner 1953).

Soil

The soils of cypress domes are generally developed in acid sands and clays (Monk

and Brown 1965). Cypress domes studied by Marois and Ewel (1983) have a thin,

peaty O horizon, an A1 horizon of black sandy loam high in organic matter, an A2

horizon of leached sand, and a B horizon of gray sandy clay loam. Mineral

concentration, organic matter, and clay content in the soils generally increase from

the edge to the center of the dome (Monk and Brown 1965). Cypress buttresses

often accumulate organic debris forming thick mats that provide a growth platform

for many small woody and herbaceous plants (Monk and Brown 1965). The pH of

the water generally ranges from 3.6 to 4.4 (Brown 1981).

Nutrients

Nutrients in cypress domes in general have a low availability due to the highly

acidic conditions. Calcium ranges from 20 to 30 parts per million (ppm),

magnesium from 10 to 20 ppm, potassium from 5 to 30 ppm, and phosphorus from

1 to 5 ppm (Monk and Brown 1965). Phosphorus is believed to be the most limiting

nutrient, entering the cypress dome only through rainfall under natural conditions

(Brown 1981).
90 USACERL TR-99/08

Physiognomy/Structure

These communities appear to have a dome shape, from which they are named,

because the tallest cypress trees grow in the center of the depression with tree

height decreasing towards the edge. The herbaceous and shrub layers may range

from very sparse to dense (Brown 1981). Typically shrubs are most dense on mats

of organic matter accumulating at the base of cypress trees and are infrequent on

the peaty mud in between. A herbaceous layer of ferns, forbs, and grasses is typical

(Monk and Brown 1965).

Commonly Associated Plant Communities

Cypress domes are usually embedded in pine flatwoods (Abrahamson and Harnett

1990). They may also be adjacent to mixed bottomland hardwood forests or

bayheads (Monk and Brown 1965).

Succession

The dominant forces influencing changes in cypress dome communities are

hydrology and fire regime. Shallow water provides conditions more favorable for

successful competition by evergreen hardwoods and pines. This may result from

either unnatural alteration of the hydrology or accumulation of peat. When cypress

domes are burned at moderate intensity, mature cypress trees survive and

hardwoods and pines are killed, leaving cypress as the dominant species (Ewel and

Mitsch 1978). Following a severe burn, especially following clearcutting, cypress

may not regenerate and the cypress dome will become dominated by willow or titi

(Gunderson 1984).

Biological Composition

Most cypress domes are floristically similar. Pond cypress (Taxodium ascendens)

is the dominant canopy tree. Swamp tupelo (Nyssa biflora) occurs occasionally

(Marois and Ewel 1983) and may be the dominant subcanopy tree (Brown 1981).

Other tree species sometimes present in the domes are slash pine (Pinus elliottii),

swamp red bay (Persea palustris), sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana) (Brown 1981),

and sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua) (Monk and Brown 1965). The major

species present in the understory are fetter-bush (Lyonia lucida), wax myrtle

(Myrica cerifera), bitter gallberry (Ilex glabra), Virginia willow (Itea virginica),
USACERL TR-99/08 91

blueberry (Vaccinium spp.) (Brown 1981), red maple (Acer rubrum), loblolly bay

(Gordonia lasianthus) (Marois and Ewel 1983), buttonbush (Cephalanthus

occidentalis), and dahoon (Ilex cassine) (Ewel, Davis, and Smith 1989). Virginia

chainfern (Woodwardia virginica) is usually the dominant herb, and others common

herbs include lizard’s tail (Saururus cernuus), red-root (Lachnanthes tinctoria), peat

moss (Sphagnum spp.), (Monk and Brown 1965) and Panicum spp. grasses (Brown

1981).
92 USACERL TR-99/08

Appendix G: Community Quality Evaluation

and Management

Baseline Data

To practice sound ecosystem management while satisfying the goals of the mission,

protecting rare species, and producing forest commodities, installations should

gather the following baseline information on which they can make management

decisions.

• Locations and sizes of rare species populations or significant features within

communities.

This will allow managers to avoid direct impacts to rare species or significant

features when possible, by planning potentially destructive activities away from

rare species populations, and educating personnel to avoid impacting rare

species when possible. This information can also be used to monitor effects of

management practices on elements of concern.

• Kinds of plant communities and the juxtaposition of different communities

within the landscape.

Managers also should be aware of the relationship between plants and animals

in each community and the watersheds on which they depend. Knowledge of

the types of communities present in an ecosystem is important for ecosystembased management. This knowledge, along with that of species and their

relationship to watersheds, can help managers plan activities so that they cause

the least disturbance to elements of concern. For example, managers should

avoid creating a barrier between terrestrial habitat for a rare animal species

and the watershed it depends upon for breeding.

• Quality and significance of plant communities on the installation.

This information should be used to determine which communities have the

highest priority for protection, from a biodiversity/natural heritage standpoint.

A community is generally deemed high quality if it resembles presettlement

conditions. Regardless of quality, the community may be highly significant

based on rarity or uniqueness of the type.
USACERL TR-99/08 93

Monitoring

Managers should monitor the effects of their management practices on the

communities or the features of interest. For the purpose of long-term monitoring,

standardized sampling methods should be developed and used. Being able to

quantify improvement or degradation of habitats over time can be important to

making management decisions, as well as evaluating management practices.

Methods as simple as establishing permanent plots or grids are useful for repeated

surveys. Aerial photographs can be used to monitor landscape and community

changes over time. Keeping accurate records of land use (e.g., detailed notes of fire

occurrence and species response, as well as clearcutting techniques, etc.) is also

important. For a thorough description of methods for monitoring of a rare plant

population and determination of its habitat requirements, including soil textural

traits, moisture, soil chemicals, soil type, and light levels, see Boyd and Hilton’s

(1994) study of a population of Clematis socialis.

Community quality

Managers at Eglin Air Force Base have developed a system to classify community

quality (the “Ecological Tier System” in FNAI 1994a). This system has also been

used recently at Camp Blanding, FL (FNAI and TNC 1995). Determination of

community quality has obvious benefits for conservation planning. Low quality

communities do not merit the same conservation status as higher quality

communities and therefore should be treated differently in terms of protection,

restoration efforts, and allowable land uses. Use of a quality ranking system for

management can assure that protection priority is given to highest quality

communities, because these are our best examples of natural species assemblages

and other community attributes. Furthermore, use of this system can assure that

restoration activities are used for communities that have the potential to become

high quality with minimum restoration efforts. Restoration of such communities

can enhance habitats that support TES. Similarly, use of a quality ranking system

can ensure that efforts are not wasted in the restoration of low quality

communities. Finally, plant communities on installations are subject to multiple

land uses, and use of a quality-based ranking system, in combination with an

assessment of impacts of various land uses, can allow managers to determine which

activities are appropriate in which communities. The ranking system developed for

Eglin AFB, FL, has been adapted for this report, with descriptive names given to

each community quality type:
94 USACERL TR-99/08

TYPE I - High quality community: “Portions of vegetative communities which are

in or closely approximate their natural state. These areas have experienced

relatively few disruptive events. Examples are areas of old growth or relatively

undisturbed vegetation. Management activities should be predominantly in the

maintenance category, utilizing methods that mimic natural formative forces such

as prescribed fire” (FNAI 1994a).

TYPE II - Intermediate quality community: “Portions of vegetative communities

that still retain a good representation and distribution of associated species and

which have been exposed to moderate amounts and intensities of disruptive

events.... These are areas where ecosystem function and viability can be restored

through careful, responsible management. Management direction will integrate

appropriate management activities to accomplish restoration and maintenance

objectives. Restoration activities may include practices that will accelerate change

in the desired direction (i.e. use of herbicides and/or mechanical methods of

hardwood control, supplemental planting of longleaf seedlings, etc.)” (FNAI 1994a).

TYPE III - Moderately low quality community: “Portions of vegetative communities

that do not retain a good representation and distribution of associated species and

which have been exposed to severe amounts and intensities of disruptive events....

These are areas where restoration of ecosystem function and viability might be

possible, but would require significant and intensive management commitment over

extended periods of time. Depending on land-use priorities, management direction

may encourage a return to a more natural vegetative association over the long term

and/or may include intensive use of traditional management techniques” (FNAI

1994a).

TYPE IV - Lowest quality community: “...sites that either will not be or are not

capable of being restored under any likely realistic scenario because of dedicated

land use. Type IV areas include cleared test ranges, sewage disposal spray fields,

urban areas, main roads, designated clay pits, power line rights-of-way, and

possibly some wildland interface areas” (FNAI 1994a).
USACERL TR-99/08 95

References

Abrahamson, W.G., and D.C. Harnett. 1990. “Pine Flatwoods and Dry Prairies,” pp.103-149 in: R.

R. Myers and J.J. Ewel (eds.). Ecosystems of Florida. University of Central Florida Press,

Orlando.

Akerman, A. 1923. The White Cedar of the Dismal Swamp. Virginia Forestry Publication No. 30.

Virginia Geological Commission, Charlottesville, VA.

Allard, D.J. 1990. Southeastern United States Ecological Community Classification, Interim Report,

Version 1.2. The Nature Conservancy, Southeast Regional Office, Chapel Hill, NC.

Allen, P.H. 1962. Black Willow Dominates Baldcypress-tupelo Swamp Eight Years after

Clearcutting. Southeast Forest Experiment Station Research Note 177, USDA Forest Service,

Asheville, NC.

Ambrose, 1990. Georgia’s Natural Communities–A Preliminary List. Unpublished report available

from the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Resources Division, Natural

Heritage Program, Social Circle, GA.

Andrus, R.E., D.J. Wagner, and J.E. Titus. 1983. “Vertical zonation of Sphagnum mosses along

hummock-hollow gradients.” Canadian Journal of Botany vol. 61, pp. 3128-3139.

Ash, A.N., C.B. McDonald, C.A. Pories, and E.S. Kane. 1983. Natural and Modified Pocosins:

Literature Synthesis and Management Options. Report FWS/OBS- 83/04. U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station and the U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and

Wildlife Service.

Boyd, R.S. and C.D. Hilton. 1994. “Ecological Studies of the Endangered Species Clematis socialis

Kral.” Castanea vol 51, pp.31-40.

Bramlett, D.L. 1990. “Pinus serotina Michx. Pond Pine,” pp. 470-475 in Burns, R. M. and B. H.

Honkala (tech. coords.), Silvics of North America: Vol. 1, Conifers, U. S. Department of

Agriculture Handbook 654.

Bridges, E.L. and S.L. Orzell. 1989. Longleaf Pine Communities of the West Gulf Coastal Plain.

Natural Areas Journal vol 9, pp. 246-262.

Brown, Sandra. 1981. “A Comparison of the Structure, Primary Productivity, and Transpiration of

Cypress Ecosystems in Florida.” Ecological Monographs vol 51, pp. 403-427.
96 USACERL TR-99/08

Buell, M.F., and R.L. Cain. 1943. “The Successional Role of Southern White Cedar, Chamaecyparis

thyoides, in Southeastern North Carolina.” Ecology vol 24, pp. 85-93.

Bull, H. 1949. “Cypress Planting in Southern Louisiana.” Southern Lumberman vol 179, pp. 227-230.

Campbell, R.G. and J.H. Hughes. 1991. “Impact of Forestry Operations on Pocosins and Associated

Wetlands.” Wetlands vol 11, pp. 467-479.

Carter, A.R. 1987. “Cedar Restoration in the Dismal Swamp of Virginia and North Carolina,” in:

Laderman, A.D. (ed.), Atlantic White Cedar Wetlands. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.

Christensen, N.L. 1988. “Vegetation of the Southeastern Coastal Plain.” In: M. G. Barbour and W.

D. Billings (eds.), North American Terrestrial Vegetation. Cambridge University Press, New

York.

Clewell, A.F. and D.B. Ward. 1987. “White Cedar in Florida and Along the Northern Gulf Coast.” In:

Laderman, A.D. (ed.). Atlantic White Cedar Wetlands Westview Press, Boulder, CO.

Coile, T.S. 1952. “Soil Productivity for Southern Pines,” The Southern Farmer vol 11.

Conner, W.H., and J.W. Day, Jr. 1976. “Productivity and Composition of a Baldcypress-Water Tupelo

Site and a Bottomland Hardwood Site in a Louisiana Swamp.” American Journal of Botany vol

63, pp.1354-1364.

Corbett, E.S., J.A. Lynch and W.E. Sopper. 1978. “Timber Harvesting Practices and Water Quality

in the Eastern United States.” Journal of Forestry, vol 76, pp. 484-488.

Cottrell, A.T. 1929. “Some Preliminary Observations on the Management and Utilization of Southern

White Cedar in the Coastal Plain of New Jersey.” M.S. thesis in the library of the School of

Forestry, Yale University.

Crisp, D.T. 1966. “Input & Output of Minerals for an Area of Pennine Moorland: the Importance of

Precipitation, Drainage, Peat Erosion, and Animals.” Journal of Applied Ecology vol 3, pp. 327-

348.

Crownover, S.H., N.B. Comerford, D.G. Neary, and J. Montgomery. 1995. “Horizontal Groundwater

Flow Patterns Through a Cypress Swamp- pine Flatwoods Landscape.” Soil Science Society of

America Journal vol 59, pp. 1199-1206.

Cypert, E. 1961. “The Effects of Fires in the Okefenokee Swamp in 1954 and 1955.” American

Midland Naturalist vol 66, pp. 485-503.

Daniel, C.C.III. 1981. “Hydrology, Geology and Soils of pocosins: a Comparison of Natural and

Altered Systems,” in: C.J. Richardson (ed.), Pocosin Wetlands: an Integrated Analysis of Coastal

Plain Freshwater Bogs in North Carolina. Hutchinson Ross Pub., Stroudsburg, PA.

Demaree, K. 1932. “Submergence Experiments with Taxodium.” Ecology vol 13, pp. 258-262.
USACERL TR-99/08 97

Doyle. 1990a. Community Characterization Abstract, Small Depression Pocosin. The Nature

Conservancy, Southeast Regional Office, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

Doyle. 1990b. Community Characterization Abstract, High Pocosin. The Nature Conservancy,

Southeast Regional Office, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

Doyle. 1990c. Community Characterization Abstract, Low Pocosin. The Nature Conservancy,

Southeast Regional Office, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

DuBarry, A.P. 1963. “Germination of Bottomland Tree Seed While Immersed in Water.” Journal of

Forestry vol 61, pp. 225-226.

Dyrness, C.T. 1972. Soil Surface Conditions Following Balloon Logging. Research Note PNW 182,

USDA Forest Service.

Ehrenfeld, Joan G. 1995. “Microtopography and Vegetation in Atlantic White Cedar Swamps: The

Effects of Natural Disturbances.” Canadian Journal of Botany vol 73, pp. 474-484.

Ehrenfeld, J.G. and J. Schneider. 1991. “Chamaecyparis thyoides Wetlands and Suburbanization:

Effects of Nonpoint Source Water Pollution on Hydrology and Plant Community Structure.”

Journal of Applied Ecology vol 28, pp. 467-490.

Ewel, D.C., H.T. Davis, and E. Smith. 1989. “Recovery of Florida Cypress Swamps from

Clearcutting.” Southern Journal of Applied Forestry vol 13, pp. 123-126.

Ewel, K.C. and J.R. Smith. 1992. “Evapotranspiration from Florida Pond Cypress Swamps.” Water

Resources Bulletin vol 28, pp. 299-304.

Ewel, K.C. and W.J. Mitsch. 1978. “The Effects of Fire on Species Composition in Cypress Dome

Ecosystems.” Florida Scientist vol 41, pp. 25-31.

Ewel, K.C. 1998. “Pondcypress Swamps.” In Messina, M. G. and W. Conner (eds.) Southern Forested

Wetlands. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.

Fleming, G.P. and N.E. van Alstine. 1994a. A Natural Heritage Inventory of Fort A.P. Hill, Virginia.

Natural Heritage Program Technical Report 94-1. Virginia Dept. of Conservation and

Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond, Virginia.

Fleming, G.P. and N.E. van Alstine. 1994b. A Natural Heritage Inventory of Fort Pickett, Virginia.

Natural Heritage Program Technical Report 94-3. Virginia Dept. of Conservation and

Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond, Virginia.

Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI). 1988. Survey of Pensacola Naval Air Station and Outlying

Field Bronson for Rare and Endangered Plants. Final Report to the Florida Game and Fresh

Water Fish Commission, Contract No. W311, FNAI, Tallahassee, Florida.

FNAI. 1994a. Eglin Natural Communities Survey: Year One Report. Tallahasse, Florida.
98 USACERL TR-99/08

FNAI. 1994b. Biological Survey of Tyndall Air Force Base, Final Report. Tallahassee, Florida.

FNAI and Florida Department of Natural Resources (FDNR). 1990. Guide to the Natural

Communities of Florida. FNAI and FDNR, Tallahassee, Florida.

FNAI and The Nature Conservancy (TNC), Camp Blanding Training Site Natural Community

Survey, Final Report (FNAI and TNC, 1995).

Fowells, H.A. 1965. Silvics of Forest Trees of the United States. Handbook 271, US Department of

Agriculture, Washington, DC.

Frantz, V. 1995. Recovery Plan for Rough-leaved Loosetrife (Lysimachia asperulifolia). North

Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Atlanta, Georgia.

Frost, C.C. 1987. “Historical Overview of Atlantic White Cedar in the Carolinas,” pp. 295- 312 in:

Laderman, A.D. (ed.), Atlantic White Cedar Wetlands. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.

Frost, C.C. 1989. History and Status of Remnant Pocosin, Canebrake and White Cedar Wetlands in

Virginia. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage,

Richmond, VA.

Fussel, J.O., W.D. Webster, S.P. Hall, H.E. LeGrand, Jr., M.P. Schafale, and M.J. Russo. 1995.

Ecosystem Survey of Dare County Air Force Range, North Carolina. North Carolina Natural

History Program, Division of State Parks and Recreation, Department of Environment, Health,

and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC, and The Nature Conservancy, North Carolina Chapter,

Carrboro, NC.

Garren, K.G. 1943. “Effects of Fire on Vegetation of the Southeastern United States.” Botanical

Review vol 9, pp. 617-655.

Godfrey, R.K and J.W. Wooten. 1981 Aquatic and Wetland Plants of the Southeastern United States.

University of Georgia Press, Athens, Georgia.

Golet, F.C. and D.J. Lowry. 1987. “Water Regimes and Tree Growth in Rhode Island Atlantic White

Cedar Swamps,” pp. 99-110 in: Laderman, A.D. (ed.) Atlantic White Cedar Wetlands. Westview

Press, Boulder, CO.

Gosselink, J.G., B.A. Touchet, J. Van Beek, and D.B. Hamilton. 1990. “Bottomland Hardwood

Forest Ecosystem Hydrology and the Influence of Human Activities: The Report of the Hydrology

Workgroup,” pp. 347-387 in: L.C. Lee and T. A. Muir (eds.), Ecological Processes and Cumulative

Impacts. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MI.

Griffin, G. 1989. “Flotation Tires Appeal to Forwarder Operations.” Forest Industries May 1989, pp.

18-22.
USACERL TR-99/08 99

Gunderson, L.H. 1977. “Regeneration of Cypress, Taxodium distichum and Taxodium ascendens in

Logged and Burned Cypress Stands at Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary, Florida.” M. S. thesis,

University of Florida, Gainesville.

Gunderson, L.H. 1984. “Regeneration of Cypress in Logged and Burned Stands at Corkscrew Swamp

Sanctuary, Florida,” pp. 349-357 in: Cypress Swamps, K. C. Ewel and H. T. Odum (eds.).

University Presses of Florida, Gainesville.

Harper, M., A-M. Trame, R.A. Fischer, and C.O. Martin. 1997. Management of Longleaf Pine

Woodlands for Threatened and Endangered Species, USACERL Technical Report 98/21/ADA

339343/paa (December 1997).

Harper, M., A-M. Trame, and M.G. Hohmann. 1998. Management of Herbaceous Seeps and Wet

Savannas for Threatened and Endangered Species, USACERL Technical Report 98/70 (April

1998).

Hart, B.L. and G.D. Lester. 1993. Natural Communities and Sensitive Species Assessment on Fort

Polk Military Reservation, LA. Final Report submitted to the Department of the Army Corps of

Engineers, Memphis, TN.

Heimburg, K. 1984. “Hydrology of North-Central Florida Cypress Domes,” pp. 72-82, in: K. C. Ewel

and H. T. Odum (eds.) Cypress Swamps. University of Florida Press, Gainesville.

Hellgren, E.C., M.R. Vaughan, and D.F. Stauffer. 1991. “Macrohabitat Use by Black Bears in a

Southeastern Wetland.” Journal of Wildlife Management vol 55 no. 3, pp. 442-448.

Hickman, J.C., and J.A. Neuhauser. 1977. “Growth Patterns and Relative Distribution of Chamaecyparis thyoides and Acer rubrum in Lebanon State Forest, New Jersey.” Bartonia vol 45, pp. 30-

36.

Hofman, J.G. 1949. “The Effect of Certain Soil Characteristics on the Height Growth and Site Index

of Pond Pine in the Coastal Plain of the Carolinas, Georgia and Florida.” Masters thesis. Duke

University.

Hortenstine, C.C., and R.B. Forbes. 1972. “Concentrations of Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Potassium, and

Total Soluble Salts in Soil Solution Samples from Fertilized and Unfertilized Histisols.” Journal

of Environmental Quality, vol 1, pp. 446-449.

Hughes, R.H. 1966. “Fire ecology of canebrakes.” Proceedings of the Tall Timbers Fire Ecology

Conference vol 5, pp.149-158.

Jackson, B.D., and B.J. Stokes. 1991. “Low-Impact Harvesting Systems for Wet Sites,” in

Proceedings of the 6th Biennial Southern Silvicultural Research Conference, Memphis, TN, Oct

30- Nov 1, 1990. Southeastern Forest Experiment Station General Technical Report SE 70, U.S.

Department of Agriculture Southeastern Research Station.
100 USACERL TR-99/08

Johnson, A.F. 1993. Population status survey of Calamovilfa curtissii (Vasey) Lamson-Scribner.

Florida Natural Areas Inventory. Tallahassee, FL.

Kologski, R.L. 1977. The Phytosociology of the Green Swamp, NC. Technical Bulletin No. 250. North

Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station, Raleigh, NC.

Korstian, C.F. 1924. “Natural Regeneration of Southern White Cedar.” Ecology vol 5, pp.188-191.

Korstian, C.F. and W.D. Brush. 1931. Southern White Cedar. Technical Bulletin 251, U.S.

Department of Agriculture.

Kral, R. 1983. A Report on Some Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Forest-Related Vascular Plants

of the South, Vols. I and II. Technical Publication R8-TP 2, USDA Forest Service.

Kurz, H., and K. Wagner. 1953. “Factors in Cypress Dome Development.” Ecology vol 34, pp.157-164.

LABAT-ANDERSON Incorporated. 1994. Threatened and Endangered Species Survey, Hurlburt

Field, Florida, Final Report. LABAT-ANDERSON Incorporated, Bellevue, Florida.

Landaal, S. 1991a. Community Characterization Abstract, Bay Forest. The Nature Conservancy,

Southeast Regional Office, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

Landaal, S. 1991b. Community Characterization Abstract, Atlantic White Cedar Swamp Forest.

The Nature Conservancy, Southeast Regional Office, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

Landaal, S. 1991c. Community Characterization Abstract, Pond Pine Woodland. The Nature

Conservancy, Southeast Regional Office, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

Laney, R.W. and R.R. Noffsinger. 1987. “Vegetative Composition of Atlantic White Cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides) Swamps in Dare County, North Carolina.” In: Laderman, A.D. (ed.) Atlantic

White Cedar Wetlands. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.

LeBarron, R.K., and J.R. Neetzel. 1942. “Drainage of Forested Swamps.” Ecology vol 23, pp. 457-

465.

Leblond, R.F., J.O. Fussell, and A.L. Braswell. 1994a. Inventory of the Rare Species, Natural

Communities, and Critical Areas of the Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base, North Carolina.

North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Department of Environment, Health, and Natural

Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina.

Leblond, R.F., J.O. Fussell, and A.L. Braswell. 1994b. Inventory of the Rare Species, Natural

Communities, and Critical Areas of the Cherry Point Marine Corps Air Station, North Carolina.

North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Department of Environment, Health and Natural

Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina.

Leblond, R.F., J.O. Fussell, and A.L. Braswell. 1994c. Inventory of the Rare Species, Natural

Communities, and Critical Areas of the Great Sandy Run Area, Camp Lejeune Marine Corps
USACERL TR-99/08 101

Base, North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Department of

Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina.

Levy, G.F. 1987. “Atlantic White Cedar in the Great Dismal Swamp,” in: Laderman, A. D. (ed.),

Atlantic White Cedar Wetlands. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.

Lilly, J.P. 1981. “A History of Swamp Land Development in North Carolina,” in: Richardson, C.J.,

(ed.), Pocosin Wetlands, Hutchinson Ross Pub. Stroudsburg, PA.

Little, S., Jr. 1950. Ecology and Silviculture of White Cedar and Associated Hardwoods in Southern

New Jersey. Yale University School of Forestry Bulletin No. 56, Yale University School of

Forestry, New Haven, Connecticut.

Marois, K.C. and K.C. Ewel. 1983. “Natural and Management Related Variation in Cypress Domes.”

Forest Science vol 29, pp. 627-640.

Martin, C.O., R.A. Fischer, M.G. Harper, D.J. Tazik, and A-M. Trame. 1996. Regional Strategies for

Managing Threatened and Endangered Species Habitat: A Concept Plan and Status Report,

Technical Report SERDP-96-1 (WES, 1996).

Martin, R.S. 1992. Community Characterization Abstracts, Streamhead Pocosin. The Nature

Conservancy, Southeast Regional Office, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

McCulley, R.D. 1950. Management of Natural Slash Pine Stands in the Flatwoods of South Georgia

and North Florida. USDA Circular 845, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.

McIver, H. 1981. Green Swamp Nature Preserve, Brunswick Co., NC. North Carolina Field Office of

The Nature Conservancy.

McKevlin, M.R. 1996. An Old-Growth Definition for Evergreen Bay Forests and Related Seral

Communities. Forest Service General Technical Report SRS-3, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

McKinley, C.E. and F.P. Day, Jr. 1979. “Herbaceous Production in Cut-burned, Uncut-burned, and

Control Areas of a Chamaecyparis thyoides (L.) BSP (Cupressaceae) Stand in the Great Dismal

Swamp.” Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club vol 106, pp. 20-28.

Mellgren, P.G., and E. Heidersdorf. 1984. The Use of High Flotation Tires for Skidding in Wet

and/or Steep Terrain. Technical Report No. TR-57, Forest Engineering Research Institute of

Canada.

Miller, W.D., and T.E. Maki. 1957. “Planting Pines in Pocosins.” Journal of Forestry vol 55, pp. 659-

663.

Monk, Carl D., and Timothy W. Brown. 1965. “Ecological Consideration of Cypress Heads in North

Central Florida.” American Midland Naturalist vol 74, pp. 126-140
102 USACERL TR-99/08

Moore, E.B. 1946. “Minimum Forest Practices Recommended for the Allegheny Section Territory.

Report of the Committee on Forest Practice Allegheny Section, Society of American Foresters.”

Journal of Forestry vol 44, pp. 597-599.

Moore, J.H. and J.H. Carter III. 1987. “Habitats of White Cedar in North Carolina.” In: Laderman,

A.D. (ed.) Atlantic White Cedar Wetlands. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.

Motzkin, G., W.A. Patterson III, and N.E.R. Drake. 1993. “Fire History and Vegetation Dynamics

of a Chamaecyparis thyoides Wetland on Cape Cod, Massachusetts.” Journal of Ecology vol 81,

pp. 391-402.

Mount, R.H. and A. Diamond. 1992. Survey of the Fauna and Flora of Fort Rucker, AL. Report to

Fort Rucker Natural Resources Office.

Nelson, J.B. 1986. The Natural Communities of South Carolina: Initial Classification and

Description. South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department, Division of Wildlife and

Freshwater Fisheries.

North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) and The Nature Conservancy (TNC).

1995.Ecosystem Survey of the Dare County Air Force Range, North Carolina. Department of

Environment, Health and Natural Resource, Division of Parks and Recreation, North Carolina.

Noss, R.F., E.T. LaRoe III, and J.M. Scott. 1992. Endangered Ecosystems of the United States: A

Preliminary Assessment of Loss and Degradation. Downloadable from the U.S. Geologic Survey,

Biological Resources Division website: http://biology.usgs.gov/pubs/ecosys.htm.

Noyes, J.H. 1939. “Silvicultural Management of Southern White Cedar in Connecticut.” M.S. thesis

in the library of the School of Forestry, Yale University.

Odum, H.T. and K.C. Ewel. 1978. Cypress Wetlands for Water Management, Recycling, and

Conservation. Fourth Annual Report to National Science Foundation and the Rockefeller

Foundation Center for Wetlands, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

Palis, J.G., and J.B. Jensen. 1995. Final report: Distribution and Breeding Biology of the Flatwoods

Salamander (Ambystoma cingulatum) and Gopher Frog (Rana capito) on Eglin Air Force Base,

Florida. Florida Natural Areas Inventory, Tallahassee, FL.

Pell, B. 1984. Natural Communities of Arkansas (Terrestrial and Palustrine). Community

Classification System available from the Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission, Little Rock,

AR.

Penfound, W.T. 1952. “Southern Swamps and Marshes.” Botanical Review vol 18, pp. 413-446.

Pionke, H.B., and G. Chesters. 1973. “Pesticide, Sediment, Water Interactions.” Journal of

Environmental Quality vol 2, pp. 29-45.
USACERL TR-99/08 103

Platt, W., L. Smith, N. Gilmore, R. Baker, and D. Pashley. 1990. Proposed Management for Hillside

Seepage Bogs of Kisatchie National Forest, Draft report.

Press, C.C., S.J. Woodin, and J.A. Lee. 1986. “The Potential Importance of an Increased Atmospheric

Nitrogen Supply to the Growth of Ombrotropic Sphagnum species.” New Phytologist vol 103, pp.

45-55.

Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C. Ritchie Bell. 1969. Manual of the Vascular Plants of the Carolinas.

The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.

Rawinski, T.J. 1990. A Classification of Virginia’s Indigenous Biotic Communities: Phase 1. Upper

Levels of the Hierarchy. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of

Natural Heritage.

Richardson, C.J. 1983. “Pocosins: Vanishing Wastelands or Valuable Wetlands?” Bioscience vol 33,

pp. 626-633.

Richardson, C. J. 1991. “Pocosins: an Ecological Perspective.” Wetlands 11, Special Issue, pp. 335-

354.

Riekerk, H. 1992. “Groundwater Movement Between Pine Uplands and Cypress Wetlands,” pp. 644-

654 in: M.C. Landin (ed.) Wetlands: Proceedings of the 13th Annual Conference, New Orleans. 31

May-6 June 1992. Society of Wetland Scientists.

Russo, M.J., B.A. Sorrie, B. VanErden, and P.E. Hippensteel. 1993. Rare and Endangered Plant

Survey and Natural Area Inventory for Fort Bragg and Camp Mackall Military Reservations,

North Carolina. The Nature Conservancy, Carrboro, North Carolina and North Carolina Natural

Heritage Program, North Carolina.

Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North

Carolina. Third Approximation. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and

Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Recreation, Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, NC.

Schlaudt, E.A. 1955. Drainage in Forestry Management in the South. U.S. Department of Agriculture

Yearbook 1955, Washington, DC.

Sharitz, and Gibbons. 1982. 

Sharitz, R.R., and C.A. Gresham, 1998. “Pocosins and Carolina Bays,” pp 343-377. in Messina,

Michael G. and William Conner (eds.) Southern Forested Wetlands. Lewis Publishers, Boca

Raton, FL.

Skaggs, R.W., J.W. Gilliam, T.J. Sheets, and J.S. Barnes. 1980. Effect of Agricultural Land

Development on Drainage Waters in the North Carolina Tidewater Region. Report No. 159.

Water Resources Research Institute of the University of North Carolina, Raleigh NC.
104 USACERL TR-99/08

Smith, Latimore. 1988. The Natural Communities of Louisiana. Louisiana Department of Wildlife

and Fisheries, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Studlar, S.M. 1983. “Recovery of Trampled Bryophyte Communities near Mountain Lake, Virginia.”

Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club vol 110, pp. 1-11.

Sutter, R.D. and R. Kral. 1994. “The Ecology, Status, and Conservation of Two Non-Alluvial Wetland

Communities in the South Atlantic and Eastern Gulf Coastal Plain, USA.” Biological

Conservation vol 68, pp. 235-243.

Terry, T.A., and R.G. Campbell. 1981. “Soil Management Considerations in Intensive Forest

Management,” pp 98-106 in: Forest Regeneration Proceedings Symposium of Engineering

Systems for Forest Regeneration. American Society of Agricultural Engineers. St. Joseph,

Michigan.

TESII 1994. Litsea aestivalis, Pondspice, database compilation (U.S. Army Construction

Engineering Research Laboratories [USACERL], 1994).

The Nature Conservancy (TNC). 1993. Preliminary Report - Camp Villerie Survey. Camp Villerie,

LA.

TNC. 1995. Fort Stewart Inventory, Draft Final Report. U.S. Department of Defense, Department

of the Army, Headquarters 24th Mechanized Division, Fort Stewart, GA.

Trame, A., and M.G. Harper. 1997. Potential Military Effects on Selected Plant Communities in the

Southeastern Unites States. USACERL Technical Report 97/115/ADA329276 (July 1997).

Trame, A. and D.J. Tazik. 1995. The Implications of Ecosystem Management for Threatened and

Endangered Species Conservation by the U.S. Army, Technical Report 95/27/ADA302406

(September 1995).

Walbridge, M.R., and B.G. Lockaby. 1994. “Effects of Forest Management on Biogeochemical

Functions in Southern Forested Wetlands.” Wetlands vol 14, pp.10-17.

Ward, D.B. 1989. “Commercial Utilization of Atlantic white cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides,

Cupressaceae).” Economic Botany vol 43, pp. 386-415.

Ward, D.B. and A.F. Clewell. 1989. “Atlantic White Cedar (Chamaecyparis thyroides) in the

southern states.” Florida Scientist vol 52, pp. 8-47.

Weakley, A.S., and M.P. Schafale. 1991. “Classification of Pocosins of the Carolina Coastal Plain. “

Wetlands, Vol. 11, Special Issue, pp. 355-375/

Wells, B. W. 1942. “Ecological Problems of the Southeastern United States Coastal Plain.”

Botanical Review vol 8, pp. 533-561.
USACERL TR-99/08 105

Wharton, C.H. 1978. The Natural Environments of Georgia. Geologic and Water Resources

Division and Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Atlanta, GA.

Whitworth, W.R., and A. Hill, Applicability of Land Condition Trend Analysis Data for Biological

Diversity Assessment in the Southeastern United States, Technical Report 97/67 (USACERL April

1997).

Wieland, Ron. 1994. Mississippi Natural Heritage Program Ecological Communities. Mississippi

Department of Wildlife, Fish and Parks.

Wilbur, Rebecca B., and Norman L. Christensen. 1983. “Effects of Fire on Nutrient Availability in

a North Carolina Coastal Plain Pocosin.” American Midland Naturalist vol 110, pp. 54-61.

Zahner, R. 1951. The Influence of Certain Properties of Organic Soils on the Height Growth of Pond

Pine in North Carolina. Master thesis. Duke University.

Zampella, R. 1987. “Atlantic White Cedar Management in the New Jersey Pinelands.” pp. 295-312

in: Laderman, A.D. (ed.), Atlantic White Cedar Wetlands. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
106 USACERL TR-99/08
USACERL TR-99/08 107

Distribution

Chief of Engineers

ATTN: CEHEC-IM-LH (2)

ATTN: CEHEC-IM-LP (2)

ATTN: CERD-L

ATTN: CERD-M

ATTN: CECC-R

ATTN: CEMP-M

SERDP

ATTN: Cleanup and Conservation

ATTN: Library

HQ ACSIM 20310-0600

ATTN: DAIM-ED-N (2)

HQDA 20310-0400

ATTN: DAMO-TRO

US Army Europe

ATTN: AEAEN-FE-E 09014

29th Area Support Group

ATTN: AERAS-FA 09054

CMTC Hohenfels 09173

ATTN: AETTH-DPW

FORSCOM

Fts Gillem & McPherson 30330

ATTN: CEE

ATTN: AFOP-TE

ATTN: AFOP-TSR

ATTN: AFPI-ENE

Installations:

Fort Indiantown Gap 17003

ATTN: AFZS-FIG-PW

Fort AP Hill 22427

ATTN: AFZM-FHE

Fort McPherson 30330

ATTN: AFPI-EN

Fort Riley 66441

ATTN: AFZN-DE-V-N

Fort Polk 71459

ATTN: AFZH-DE-EN

Fort Sam Houston 78234

ATTN: AFZG-DE-EM

Fort Lewis 98433

ATTN: AFZH-DE-Q

Fort Carson 80913

ATTN: AFZC-ECM-NR

Fort Bragg 28307

ATTN: AFZA-PW (5)

Fort Campbell 42223

ATTN: AFZB-DPW-E

Fort McCoy 54656

ATTN: AFZR-DE-E

Fort Pickett 23824

ATTN: AFZA-FP-E

Fort Stewart 31314

ATTN: AFZP-DEV

Fort Buchanan 00934

ATTN: AFZK-B-EHE

Fort Devens 01433

ATTN: AFZD-DEM

Fort Drum 13602

ATTN: AFZS-EH-E

Fort Irwin 92310

ATTN: AFZJ-EHE-EN

Fort Hood 76544

ATTN: AFZF-DE-ENV

Fort Meade 20755

ATTN: ANME-PWR

Fort Hunter Liggett 93928

ATTN: AFZW-HE-DE

Yakima Trng Ctr 98901-5000

ATTN: AFZH-Y-ENR

Charles E. Kelly Spt Activity 15071

ATTN: AFIS-CK-EH

TRADOC

Fort Monroe 23651

ATTN: ATBO-G

ATTN: ATBO-L

Installations:

Fort Dix 08640

ATTN: ATZD-EHN

Fort Lee 23801

ATTN: ATZM-EPE

Fort Jackson 29207

ATTN: ATZJ-PWN

Fort Gordon 30905

ATTN: ATZH-DIE

Fort Benning 31905

ATTN: ATZB-PWN

Fort Hamilton 11252

ATTN: ATZD-FHE

Fort McClellan 36205

ATTN: ATZN-EM

Fort Rucker 36362

ATTN: ATZQ-DPW-EN

Fort Leonard Wood 64573

ATTN: ATZT-DPW-EE

Fort Leavenworth 66027

ATTN: ATZL-GCE

Fort Bliss 79916

ATTN: ATZC-DOE

Fort Monroe 23651

ATTN: ATZG-ISE

Carlisle Barracks 17013

ATTN: ATZE-DPW-E

Fort Eustis 23604

ATTN: ATZF-PWE

Fort Chaffee 72905

ATTN: ATZR-ZF

Fort Sill 73503

ATTN: ATZR-B

Fort Huachuca 85613

ATTN: ATZS-EHB

Fort Knox 40121

ATTN: ATZK-PWE

Fort Story 23459

ATTN: ATZF-EMI-S

US Air Force Command

ATTN: Envr/Natural Res Ofc

Andrews AFB 20031

Wright-Patterson AFB 45433

Randolph AFB 78150

Maxwell AFB 36112

Elmendorf AFB 99506

Scott AFB 62225

Hickam AFB 96853

Peterson AFB 80914

Bolling AFB 20332

US Air Force Air Combat Command

Avon Park AF Range, FL 33825-5700

ATTN: 6 CSS/CEN

Beale AFB, CA 95903-1708

ATTN: 9 CES/CEV

Barksdale AFB, LA 71110-2078

ATTN: 2 CES/CEVC

Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ 85707-3920

ATTN: 355 CES/CEV

Dyess AFB, TX 79607-1670

ATTN: 7 CES/CEVA

Ellsworth AFB, SD 57706-5000

ATTN: 28 CES/CEV

Holloman AFB, NM 88330-8458

ATTN: 49 CES/CEV

Langley AFB, VA 23665-2377

ATTN: 1 CES/CEV

Little Rock AFB, AR 72099-5154

ATTN: 314 CES/CEV

MacDill AFB, FL 33621-5207

ATTN: 6 CES/CEV

Cannon AFB, NM 88103-5136

ATTN: 27 CES/CEV

Minot AFB, ND 58705-5006

ATTN: 5 CES/CEV

Moody AFB, GA 31699-1707

ATTN: 347 CES/CEV

Nellis AFB, NV 89191-6546

ATTN: WTC/EVR

Offutt AFB, NE 68113-4019

ATTN: 55 CES/CEV

Pope AFB, NC 28308-2890

ATTN: 23 CES/CEV

Mountain Home AFB, ID 83648-5442

ATTN: 366 CES/CEV

Seymour Johnson AFB, NC 27531-2355

ATTN: 4 CES/CEV

Shaw AFB, SC 29152-5123

ATTN: 20 CES/CEV

Whiteman AFB, MO 65305-5060

ATTN: 509 CES/CEV

HQ US Army - Pacific (USARPAC)

DCSENGR - ATTN: APEN-IV

ATTN: APOP-TR

Fort Shafter, HI 96858

Fort Richardson, AK 99505

Fort Wainright, AK 99703

Fort Greely, AK 98733

USAMC Instal & Srvc Activity

ATTN: AMXEN-U 61299

US Army Armament, Munitions and

Chemical Cmd

ATTN: AMSMC-ENR

ATTN: AMSMC-EQC

US Army Aviation and Troop Cmd

ATTN: SATAI-A

US Army Comm-Elec Cmd

ATTN: AMSEL-SF-REE

US Army Depot System Cmd

ATTN: AMSDS-IN-E

US Army Missile Cmd

ATTN: AMSMI-RA

US Army Tank-Automotive Cmd

ATTN: AMSTA-XEM/AMSTA-XA

US Army Test & Eval Cmd

ATTN: AMSTE-EQ

White Sands Missile Range

ATTN: STEWS-ES-E

Charles Melvin Price Spt Ctr

ATTN: SATAS-F

US Army Arm. Res Devel & Engr Ctr

ATTN: AMSTA-AR-ISE-UL

US Army Natick Res Devel & Engr Ctr

ATTN: SATNC-ZSN

Pine Bluff Arsenal

ATTN: SMCPB-EMB

Rock Island Arsenal

ATTN: SMCRI-PWB

ATTN: AMSCM-EHR

Watervliet Arsenal

ATTN: SMCWV-PW

US Army Dugway Proving Ground

ATTN: STEDP-EPO-CP

US Army Jefferson Proving Ground

ATTN: STEJP-EH-R

US Army Yuma Proving Ground

ATTN: STEYP-ES-E

Anniston Army Depot

ATTN: SDSAN-DPW-PED

Blue Grass Army Depot

ATTN: SDSBG-EN

Red River Army Depot

ATTN: SDSRR-OE

Sacramento Army Depot

ATTN: SDSSA-EL-MO

Sierra Army Depot

ATTN: SDSSI-ENV

Tobyhanna Army Depot

ATTN: SDSTO-EM

US Army Depot-Hawthorne

ATTN: SMCHW-ORE

Pueblo Army Depot Activity

ATTN: SDSTE-PU-SE

Savanna Army Depot Activity

ATTN: SDSLE-VA

Seneca Army Depot Activity

ATTN: SDSTO-SEI-PE

Umatilla Army Depot Acitivty

ATTN: SDSTE-UAS-EVE

McAlester Army Ammunition Plant

ATTN: SMCMC-DEL

Holston Army Ammunition Plant

ATTN: SMCHO-EN

Indiana Army Ammunition Plant
108 USACERL TR-99/08

ATTN: SMCIN-EN

Iowa Army Ammunition Plant

ATTN: SMCIO-PPE

Kansas Army Ammunition Plant

ATTN: SMCKA-OR

Lake City Army Ammunition Plant

ATTN: SMCLC-EN

Lone Star Army Ammunition Plant

ATTN: SMCLS-SEE

Longhorn/Louisiana Army Ammo Plant

ATTN: SMCLO-EN

Milan Army Ammunition Plant

ATTN: SMCMI-IO

Mississippi Army Ammunition Plant

ATTN: SMCMS-CA

Newport Army Ammunition Plant

ATTN: SMCNE-EN

Radford Army Ammunition Plant

ATTN: SMCRA-OR

Sunflower Army Ammuniton Plant

ATTN: SMCSU-EN

US Army Aberdeen Proving Ground Spt Acty

ATTN: STEAP-FE-G/STEAP-SH-ER

ATTN: AMSTE-EQ

Redstone Arsenal Spt Activity

ATTN: AMSMI-RA-DPW-MP-PR

US Army TACOM Spt Activity-Selfridge

ATTN: AMSTA-CYE

Lima Army Tank Plant

ATTN: DCMDM-PDM

US Army Garrison-Fort Monmouth

ATTN: SELFM-PW

Alabama Army Ammunition Plant

ATTN: SMCAL

Badger Army Ammunition Plant

ATTN: SMCBA-OR

Cornhusker Army Ammunition Plant

ATTN: SMCCO

Joliet Army Ammunition Plant

ATTN: SIOJO-OR

Ravenna Army Ammunition Plant

ATTN: SMCRV-CR

Riverbank Army Ammunition Plant

ATTN: SMCRB-CR

St. Louis Army Ammunition Plant

ATTN: SATAI-A

Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant

ATTN: SMCTC-EN

Volunteer Army Ammunition Plant

ATTN: SMCVO-CR

US Army Research Laboratory

ATTN: AMSRL-OP-SD-FE

USAMC, Alexandria, VA 22333-0001

ATTN: AMCEN-F

National Guard Bureau

ATTN: NGB-ARI

ATTN: NGB-ARE

ATTN: NGB-ARO-TS

Army National Guard

Fort Richardson, AK 99505-5800

Montgomery, AL 36109-0711

Phoenix, AZ 85008-3495

N.Little Rock, AR 72199-9600

Camp Roberts, CA 93451

Sacramento, CA 95826-9101

Los Alamitos, CA 90720

Englewood, CO 80112

Hartford, CT 06105-3795

Washington, DC 20003-1719

Wilmington, DE 19808-2191

St. Augustine, FL 32085-1008

Starke, FL 32091

Atlanta, GA 30316-0965

Tamuning, GU 96911-4421

Honolulu, HI 96816-4495

Boise, ID 83705-8095

Springfield, IL 62702-2399

Indianapolis, IN 46241-4839

Johnston, IA 50131-1902

Topeka, KS 66611-1159

Frankfort, KY 40601-6168

New Orleans, LA 70146-0330

Camp Edwards, MA 02542-5003

Milford, MA 01757

Baltimore, MD 21201-2288

Augusta, ME 04333-0033

Lansing, MI 48913-5101

Little Falls, MN 56345-0348

Jackson, MS 39209

Camp Shelby, MS 39407-5500

Jefferson City, MO 65101-9051

Helena, MT 59604-4789

Lincoln, NE 68508-1090 (2)

Concord, NH 03301-5353

Trenton, NJ 08625-0340

Santa Fe, NM 87505

Carson City, NV 89701-5596

Raleigh, NC 27607-6410

Bismark, ND 58502-5511

Latham, NY 12110-2224

Columbus, OH 43235-2789

Camp Gruber, OK 74423

Oklahoma City, OK 73111-4389

Salem, OR 97309-5047

Annville, PA 17003-5002

San Juan, PR 00904

Providence, RI 02904-5717

Eastover, SC 29244

Columbia, SC 29201

Rapid City, SD 57702-8186

Austin, TX 78763-5218

Draper, UT 84020-1776

Richmond, VA 23219

Kings Hill, VI 00850-9764

Colchester, VT 05446-3004

Spokane, WA 99219-9069

Tacoma, WA 98430-5054

Madison, WI 53714-0587

Charleston, WV 25311-1085

Cheyenne, WY 82003

Headquarters, Army Environmental Ctr

ATTN: SFIM-AEC-ECA

ATTN: SFIM-AEC-NR 21010

ATTN: SFIM-AEC-CR 64152

ATTN: SFIM-AEC-SR 30335-6801

ATTN: AFIM-AEC-WR 80022-2108

Tyndall AFB 32403

ATTN: HQAFCESA/CES

ATTN: Engrg & Service Lab

Fort Belvoir 22060

ATTN: CETEC-IM-T

ATTN: CETEC-ES 22315-3803

ATTN: Water Resources Support Ctr

National Inst. of Stds and Technology

ATTN: Library 20899

INSCOM 22186

ATTN: IALOG-I

ATTN: IAV-DPW

Information Systems Cmd

ATTN: ASH-CPW-B

USATACOM

ATTN: AMSTA-XE

CEWES 39180

ATTN: Library

CECRL 03755

ATTN: Library

Military District of Washington, Fort McNair

ATTN: ANEN 20319

US Military Academy 10996

ATTN: MAEN-A

ATTN: DOPS

ATTN: Facilities Engineer

ATTN: Geography & Envr Engrg

Naval Facilities Engr Command

ATTN: Facilities Engr Command

Code 03 (2)

Code 04

Code 20

Code 10

Code 03T

Code Fac-03

Code 21

ATTN: Division Offices, Northern Div

ATTN: Code 9A

ATTN: Code 1021/FLG

Chesapeake Division

ATTN: Code 04 20374

Atlantic Division 23511

ATTN: Code 09B

ATTN: Code 09A

Southern Division 29411

ATTN: RDT&E Liaison Office (2)

Western Division 94066

ATTN: Code 203

ATTN: RDT&E Liaison Officer

Pacific Division 96860

ATTN: Code 04B (2)

US Govt Printing Office 20401

ATTN: Rec Sec/Deposit Sec (2)

Defense Technical Info Ctr 22304

ATTN: DTIC-FAB (2)

274 

12/97