Hydrology and Tree-Distribution Patterns of Karst Wetlands at Arnold Engineering Development ...

50 Pages·2001·3.47 MB·English

by  William J. Wolfe

Water-Resources investigations Report 96-4277
Hydrology and Tree-Distribution Patterns of

Karst Wetlands at Arnold Engineering

Development Center, Tennessee

Prepared by the

United States Geological Survey

in cooperation with the

United States Air Force,

Arnold Engineering Development Center
Cover photograph: Flooded interior of Sinking Pond. Photograph by W.J. Wolfe.
Hydrology and Tree-Distribution Patterns of
Karst Wetlands at Arnold Engineering
Development Center, Tennessee
BY WILLIAM J. WOLFE
United States Geological Survey
Water-Resources Investigations Report 96-4277
Prepared in cooperation with the

United States Air Force,

Arnold Engineering Development Center

Nashville, Tennessee
1996
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Gordon P. Eaton, Director
Any use of trade, product, or firm name in this report is for identification
purposes only and does not constitute endorsement by the U.S.
Geological Survey.
For additional information write to:
Copies of this report may be purchased from:

District Chief
U.S. Geological Survey

U.S. Geological Survey
Branch of Information Services

810 Broadway, Suite 500
Box 25286

Nashville, Tennessee 37203
Denver, Colorado 80225-0286
CONTENTS
Abstract.............................................................................................................................................................................1..
...
Introduction......................................................................................................................................................................1... .
.
Purposeandscope...................................................................................................................................................4.. .
.

Acknowledgments...................................................................................................................................................4.. .
.

Studyarea...............................................................................................................................................................4.. .
..

Karst features.................................................................................................................................................4..
..
Soils, vegetation,andclimate............................................................................................................................5

Hydrogeology................................................................................................................................................6..
..

Hydrology.........................................................................................................................................................................7..
...
Site selectionanddatacollection.................................................................................................................................7

Waterlevelsanddischarge.....................................................................................................................................1..1.. .

Geomorphiccontrolsof wet&mdwaterregimes.......................................................................................................2..0.

Tree-distributionpatterns.................................................................................................................................................2..3.. .
.

Transectlocationsandsamplingmethods...............................................................................................................2..4..

Flooding-durationandelevationdistributionsof selectedtreespecies......................................................................2..6

Geomorphicandhydrologiccontrolson wetland-treedistribution............................................................................2. 9

Summaryandconclusions...............................................................................................................................................3..1..
..
Referencescited..............................................................................................................................................................3..3.. ..
.
Appendix 1. Commonandscientific namesof plantsidentifiedalongvegetationtransects.................................................39

Appendix2. Relativeimportanceandelevationquartilesfor treespeciesalongvegetation

transectsin the Sinking Pondarea,Arnold EngineeringDevelopmentCenter.......................................................41

FIGURES
l-2. Maps showing:

Physiographic regions of Tennessee and location of The Barre.n...s...............................................................
2. Locationof Arnold EngineeringDevelopmentCenterandstudyarea............................................................

3-4. Photographsshowing:

3. A karstpanin the Sinking Pondarea.............................................................................................................5..

4. The internaldrainagesystemof a compoundsink northwestof Sinking Pond............................................... 6

5. Map showinglocationof monitoredwetlandsitesandwells at Arnold Engineering

DevelopmentCente.r............................................................................................................................................8...
.
6-8. Graphsshowing:
6. Waterlevelsin Sinking Pondandadjacentwells anddaily rainfall at WestallSwamp.................................. 11

7. Cumulativefrequencydistributionsof daily meanwaterlevel in Sinking Pondfor
wateryears1993and 1994...........................................................................................................................1..2..

8. Graphshowingcomparisonof daily rainfall at RowlandCreek,Arnold Engineering
DevelopmentCenter,with monthly rainfall at Tullahoma,Tennessee,for water

years1993and 1994andwith meanmonthly rainfall at Tullahomafor 1961-1990....................................... 13

9. Map showingtopographyof SinkingP ond...........................................................................................................1..5.

10-16. Graphsshowing:
10. Relationof daily meandischargeat Sinking Pondoutflow gageto stagein Sinking Pond

andrainfall at WestallSwamp......................................................................................................................1..6..

11. Waterlevelsin Willow Oak SwampandSinkingPond..................................................................................1.7

12. Waterlevelsin TupeloSwampandadjacentwells anddaily rainfall at WestallSwamp................................ 18

13. Relationof daily meandischargeat Sinking Pondinflow gageto stagein Tupelo
Swampandrainfall at WestallSwamp..........................................................................................................1..9.

14. Waterlevelsin WestallSwampandadjacentwells anddaily rainfall at WestallSwamp............................... 20

Contents iii
15. Waterlevels in GoosePondandnearbywells anddaily rainfall at RowlandCreek...................................... 21
16. Comparisonof waterlevelsin four wetlandsitesat Arnold EngineeringDevelopment
Centerduring theperiodOctober1993throughJanuary1995....................................................................... 22
17. Map showinglocationof vegetationtransectsin the Sinking Pondarea..............................................................2..5
18-20. Graphsshowing:
18. Relationof basalareato standdensityalong 10vegetationtransects
in the Sinking Pondarea.................................................................................................................................. 27
19. Flooding-durationdistributionsfor selectedtreespeciesalongfive transects
throughmonitored
20. Frequencydistributionsof elevationfor land surfaceandselectedtreespeciesalong
five transectsthroughuninstrumentedwetlandsitesin the Sinking Pondarea............................................... 30
TABLES
1. Gagedatafor surface-waterstationsat Arnold EngineeringDevelopmentCenterwetlands................................. 9
2. Well-constructiondatafor continuouslymonitoredwells nearwetlandsat Arnold
EngineeringDevelopmentCenter........................................................................................................................1..0.
3. Normal geographicrangesandpreferredsite characteristicsfor six wetlandtreespecies
at Arnold EngineeringDevelopmentCenter.......................................................~... .............................................. 24
4. Summaryof lengths,areas,andforestdensityfor vegetationtransectsin the Sinking Pondarea......................... 26
CONVERSION FACTORS, VERTICAL DATUM, AND WELL-NUMBERING SYSTEM
Mllltlply BY To obtain
millimeters(mm) 0.0397 inch
centimete(rcm) 0.3937 inch
meter(m) 3.28084 foot
kilometer(km) 0.621504 mile
squarekilometer(km*) 0.3861 squaremile
cubicmeterpersecond(m3/s) 0.0283 cubicfootpersecond
degreeCelsius(“C) (9 degreeFahrenhe(iOt F)
‘Temp ‘F=1.8 temp ‘C+32.
Sealeveland water level: In this report “sealevel” refersto the National GeodeticVertical Datum of 1929-a geodetic
referencedatumderivedfrom a generaladjustmentof the first-orderlevel netsof the United StatesandCanada,formerly
calledSeaLevel Datum of 1929.
Well-numberingsystem:The U.S. GeologicalSurveyassignedeachwell in this reporta local well numberanda station
identification number.The local well numberis usedasa conciselabel for a well. The stationidentification numberis used
asanidentifier for site datastoredin the nationalcomputersystemof theU.S. GeologicalSurvey.Thesenumbering
systemsareusedin addition to the well numbersassignedby Arnold EngineeringDevelopmentCenter.
The local well numberin Tennesseeconsistsof threeparts:(1) an abbreviationof the nameof the countyin which the well
is located;(2) a letter designatingthe 7.5-minutequadrangleon which the well is plotted; and(3) a numbergenerally
indicating the numericalorderin which the well wasinventoried.For example,the local well numberCf:G-067indicates
that the well is locatedin Coffee County on the “G” quadrangleandis identified aswell 67 in the numericalsequence.
Quadranglesareletteredfrom left to right, beginningat the southwestcomerof the county.
The stationidentification numberis a uniquenumberfor eachwell basedon latitudeandlongitude.The numberconsistsof
15digits. The first 6 digits denotedegreesm, inutes,andsecondsof latitude;the next 7 digits denotedegreesm, inutes,and
secondsof longitude;andthe last 2 digits sequentiallyidentify wells within a l-secondgrid.
iv Hydrology and Tree-Distribution Patterns of Karst Wetlands at
Arnold Engineering Development Center, Tennessee
Hydrology and Tree-Distribution Patterns of Karst
Wetlands at Arnold Engineering Development Center,
Tennessee
By William J. Wolfe
Abstract Swamp. The remaining five transects crossed
intermittent drainageways that carry flow into or
Flooding regimes, ground-water interac­ out of Sinking Pond. Transects through ponds had
tions, and tree distribution patterns were deter- fewer trees but more basal area per unit area of
mined in seasonally flooded sinkhole wetlands at land surface than did transects through channels.
Arnold Engineering Development Center near Water tupelo (Nyssa aquaticu L.) dominated the
Manchester, Tennessee.The wetlands are ecologi­ interior of Tupelo Swamp and had minimal over-
cally significant becausethey support coastal-plain lap in terms of elevation and flooding duration
plants and animals far from their typical ranges. with other wetland trees that were confined to the
Surface-water stage, ground-water levels, ponds periphery. Overcup oak (Quercus Zyrutu
rainfall, and streamflow were monitored at or near Walt.) dominated the interior of Sinking Pond.
five wetland sites. Sinking Pond, Willow Oak Overlap between overcup oak and other wetland
Swamp, and Westall Swamp are compound sinks trees in terms of elevation and flooding frequency
with depths greater than 2.5 meters, visible inter­ was minimal across the deeper Sinking Pond
nal drains, and complex bottom topography domi­ transect but was substantial across the shallow
nated by coalesced sinkholes and connecting transect. Willow oak (Quercus phellos L.) domi­
channels. Tupelo Swamp and Goose Pond are nated the interior of Willow Oak Swamp and had a
karst pans with depths less than 1.5 meters, flat relation to other wetland trees similar to that of
bottoms, and without visible internal drains. Stage overcup oak in the shallow Sinking Pond transect.
rose and fell abruptly in the compound sinks. Transects across broad swales had a relatively
Maximum water depths ranged from 2.6 meters in large degree of vertical zonation among wetland
Westall Swamp to 3.5 meters in Sinking Pond. and upland tree species. Along transects through
Water levels in wells adjacent to Sinking Pond and well defined channels, elevation distributions of
Westall Swamp rose and fell abruptly, correspond­ wetland and some upland tree species were
ing closely to surface-water stage throughout peri­ grouped near each other and near the distribution
ods of high water. The two karst pans filled and of land-surface elevations.
drained more gradually, but remained flooded
longer than the compound sinks. The maximum
INTRODUCTION
recorded water depths were 1.1 meters in Tupelo
Swamp and 0.7 meter in Goose Pond. Water levels
Wetlands within karst landforms are distributed
in nearby wells remained lower than the stage in
across the unglaciated uplands of the southeasternand
the pans throughout the study period. Tree species
south-central United States (Barclay, 1957; Greear,
were identified and the elevations and diameters of 1967; Ellis and Chester, 1989; Jones, 1989). Southern
individual trees were measured along 10 transects. karst wetlands constitute a small fraction of the
Two transects crossed Sinking Pond, two crossed regional wetland areacompared with the coastal plains
Tupelo Swamp, and one crossed Willow Oak and large alluvial valleys (Mitsch and Gosselink,
Introduction 1
1993),but they make up a much larger proportion of nessee,oral cormnun., 1995).Disjunct taxa arenot
wetlandswithin extensiveareasunderlain by carbon­ distributed evenly acrossThe Barrens,but arehighly
aterocks. Many karst wetlandssupportnorthern and localized in discretesites,notably in seasonally
coastal-plainplantsandanimalsthat areotherwiserare flooded karst depressions.
or absentin southernuplands.The ecological signifi­
One of the most notable concentrationsof well­
canceof karst wetlandsis thus disproportionateto
preservedBarrenswetlandsis locatedin and around
their limited area(Killebrew and Safford, 1874; Sven­
Arnold Engineering DevelopmentCenter (AEDC), an
son, 1941;Barclay, 1957;Greear, 1967;Ellis and
aerospacetesting facility operatedby the U.S. Air
Chester,1989;Jones,1989;Bowen and Pyne, 1995).
Force nearManchester,Tennessee(fig. 2). The reser­
One extensiveconcentrationof karst wetlands,
vation lies within The Barrensand includes about
known locally as “The Barrens,” occurson the Eastern
0.24 squarekilometer (km2) of wetlands.Thesewet­
Highland Rim (fig. 1). Within the context of southern
lands include three RegisteredNatural Landmarks
karst wetlands,The Barrenscontainsan exceptionally
(Sinking Pond,GoosePond,andthe AEDC Powerline
rich and diverseassortmentof disjunct plants and ani­
Barrens); a fourth (May Prairie) is separatedfrom the
mals. Disjunct plants have beenreportedfrom three
reservationboundaryby a road (BenhamGroup, 1989;
distinct ecological regions:the northern Appalachians,
Bowen and Pyne, 1995). All of thesesitesand many
the southernAtlantic and Gulf coastalplains, and the
northern prairies (Svenson,1941; Shanks,1958; Kral, other wetlandsin the areasupportrare or protected
1973;DeSelm, 1981,1986,1989,1990; Bowen and plants and animalsincluding a wide variety of coastal-
Pyne, 1995).Recently,severalcoastal-plainreptiles plain disjuncts (Svenson,1941;BenhamGroup, 1989;
and amphibianshave also beenidentified (Brian Patterson,1989;Bowen and Pyne, 1995). At least68
Miller, Middle TennesseeStateUniversity, written rare and endangeredplants and animalshavebeen
commun., 1995;Edward Clebsch,University of Ten- identified at AEDC, most of them in or nearkarst
ILO’ 117’
Eastem
Highland
0 25 50 KlLoM4xERs
t ‘1’ I
0 25 so MILES
Physiographicregionsmodifiedfrom Miller, 1974
TheBanenshasedmsoildalati0mS0ilConservationService,1991
figure 1. Physiographii regions of Tennessee and location of The Barrens.
2 HydrologysndTlw-oMbutlon~sofKlvstw-(It
Amom Enghbserhg Dsve~ centsr, Tsnnessw
bluIILh,,cu,u
Plateau .E-‘
Escarpment FI
f I
Study .; I
area
I’ Normandv
- I
I
Map modified hm Haugb andMahoney, 1994
0 1 2 3 4 KILOMETERS TENNESSEE
0’ 1 3 4 MILES
EXPLANATION
q
INCORPORATED TOWNS SMY
area
1\\\1 ARNOLD AIR FORCE BASE
I I I t 1 LOCATION OF ESCARPMENT
Figure 2. Location of Arnold Engineering Development Center and study area.
mroductlofl 3
wetlands (David Campbell, TennesseeNature Conser­ assisted with plant identification. Professor Laurence
vancy, written commun., 1995). Lewis of Clark University, Dr. Virginia Carter of the
Balancing the goals of protecting natural U.S. Geological Survey Wetlands Research Program,
resources with the mission of an active military facil­ and Dr. L. Katherine Kirkman of the J.W. JonesEco­
ity requires a detailed knowledge of environmental logical Research Center reviewed early drafts of this
factors that affect ecologically sensitive sites. In the report and provided numerous helpful comments.
case of karst wetlands, understanding the interactions Bradley Bryan and Timothy Diehl of the U.S. Geolog­
among geomorphic characteristics, flooding patterns, ical Survey were active in site reconnaissanceand
and plant distribution is critical for effective natural planning the investigation. Along with Donald League
resource management and protection. In order to and Ronald Kemp, they also provided invaluable
develop such an understanding, the U.S. Geological assistancein the field.
Survey, in cooperation with the U.S. Air Force, con­
ducted a study of the geomorphic features, hydrology,
Study Area
and tree-distribution patterns of several karst wetlands
at AEDC.
AEDC occupies an area of about 160 km2, of
which about 10 percent is developed for industrial
activities. The remainder is managedfor multiple uses,
Purpose and Scope
including wildlife, forestry, and agriculture (Benham
This report describes the results of the hydro- Group, 1989). The study area straddles the divide
logic study at AEDC. The technical scopeof the report between the Duck and Elk River drainage basins and
includes field observations of geomorphic features, typifies the low-relief upland topography of The Bar­
hydrologic processesand tree-species distribution and rens (Burchett, 1977; Smalley, 1983). Surface drain-
continuous or periodic monitoring of precipitation, age networks are weakly to moderately well
surface-and ground-water levels, and streamflow. developed, with a high proportion of seasonally flow­
Specific objectives are: ing streams. Many of these streams flow into or out of
1. Describe typical geomorphic features associated seasonally flooded sinkholes. Ridges are typically
with karst wetlands at AEDC. broad and relatively flat or gently undulating. The
2. Determine the relation between wetland water ridgetops are generally well drained but commonly
regimes and ground-water system among karst contain small, shallow depressionswith poor drainage.
wetland sites with contrasting vegetation and The elevation difference between headwater-valley
sinkhole morphology. bottoms and the tops of adjacent ridges rarely exceeds
3. Characterize the distribution of tree-species 20 meters (m). Valley side-slope gradients typically
within karst wetlands with different geomorphic range from 5 to 15 percent.
and hydrologic characteristics and along the
transitions between such wetlands and well- Karst Features
drained uplands.
Sinkholes-losed karst depressions with depth
less than diameter (White, 1988)-and other karst
Acknowledgments landforms are common features at AEDC and else-
where in The Barrens. In comparison with the Penny-
The staff at Arnold Engineering Development royal Plateau (White and others, 1970) in southern
Center played a central role in this study from its Kentucky or the base of the Cumberland Plateau in
inception through its conclusion. The support and Tennessee(White and White, 1983), karst features in
assistance of Clark Brandon, Dennis Flatt, and Mark The Barrens have low relief and subtle surface expres­
Moran are gratefully acknowledged. William Patter- sion. A few sinkholes are deeper than 3 m, but most
son of Louisiana State University generously shared are less than 2 m deep.
his intimate knowledge of the soils and vegetation of At AEDC, wetlands occur in two distinct types
the Sinking Pond area, including a strenuous week in of karst depressions-karst pans and compound sinks
the field. David Campbell and Robert Brown of the (Wolfe, 1996). Karst pans are shallow, flat bottomed
TennesseeNature Conservancy and Milo Pyne, Ten­ depressions with diameters ranging from 2 m to
nesseeDepartment of Environment and Conservation, greater than 100 m and depths less than 1.5 m (fig. 3).
4 Hydrology and Tree-Distribution Patterns of Karst Wetlands at
Arnold Engineering Development Center, Tennessee