Summary of the Available Literature on Nutrient Concentrations and Hydrology for Florida Isolated Wetlands

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Summary of the Available Literature on Nutrient Concentrations and Hydrology for Florida Isolated Wetlands
Physical Description:
Report
Language:
English
Creator:
Reiss, Kelly C.
Evans, Jason
Brown, Mark T.
Publisher:
Center for Wetlands
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
nutrients
isolated wetlands
Spatial Coverage:
United States -- Florida

Notes

General Note:
69 Pages

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID:
AA00004015:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text






Final Report


Summary of the Available Literature on Nutrient Concentrations
and Hydrology for Florida Isolated Wetlands


Prepared under DEP Contract WM942 and submitted to the Bureau of Watershed Restoration,
Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, Florida





Submitted by:

Kelly Chinners Reiss, Jason Evans, Mark T. Brown
Howard T. Odum Center for Wetlands
Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences, University of Florida
100 Phelps Lab, Museum Rd. P.O. Box 116350
Gainesville, FL 32611-6350
352-392-2425


3 September 2009











Table of Contents

Section Page


EXECUTIVE SUM M ARY ....................................................................................................................................... iii

IN TR O D U C TIO N ....................................................................................................................................................... 1

EXTENT OF FLORIDA FRESHW ATER W ETLANDS .................................. ...........................................................1......
DESCRIPTION OF FLORIDA FRESHWATER W ETLANDS..................................................................................2
Wetland Vegetation................................................... ........................... 3
Wetlands Hydrogeomorphology........... ................................................................................. 3
PURPOSE OF STUDY .......................... .................... ....................................................... .. 3

M E TH O D S...................................................................................................................................................................4
D A TA SEA R C H ....................................................................................................................................................... 4
P published, P eer-R review ed Literature.................................................... ...................................................4........
G ray L iterature.............................................. ................................................................................ .......... 5
Unpublished D ata......... ............................................................................. ........ .................. .. 5
N UTRIENT AND H YDROLOGY D ATABASE ...................................... ....................................................................6...
NUTRIENT D ATA SUMMARY AND SYNTHESIS.................................... .............................................................7......
W ETLAND H YDROLOGY SUMMARY AND SYNTHESIS.............................................................................. .................. 7
METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATING NUTRIENT LOADING FROM WETLANDS .............................................................. 7

R E SU L T S .....................................................................................................................................................................8
N ON-IM PACTED W ETLANDS.................................... ......................................................... ........................ 8
D epressional F rested W etlands........................................................................................................................ 8
B asin F rested W etlands.................................................................................................................................. 14
D epressional E m ergent W wetlands .............................................................................. .................................... 14
Basin Em ergent W etlands.................. .................................................................................... 14
IMPACTED W ETLANDS.................... ............................................................................ ................. 15
Depressional Forested Wetlands........... ................................................................................ 15
B asin F rested W etlands.................................................................................................................................. 16
D epressional E m ergent W wetlands .............................................................................. .................................... 16
Basin Emergent Wetlands................................................................................................. 17
NON-IMPACTED WETLANDS QUARTILES AND NUTRIENT CONCENTRATIONS ....................................................... 17
H YDRO-G RAPHS ........................................................................ ............................................. .................. 20
METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATING NUTRIENT LOADINGS FROM WETLANDS..........................................................23
D ata Input ..................................................................................... .................. 23
C calculation of D discharge Volum es ...................................................................................................................... 26
SAMPLE CALCULATION FOR ESTIMATING WETLAND LOADING..............................................................................28

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................... 29
D ATA U N CERTAIN TY .................................. ........................ ..............................................30
FUTURE RESEARCH.............ARCH .................................................................................................................................................. 30

R E FERE N C E S .......................................................................................................................................................... 32

APPENDIX A REFERENCES WITH RELEVANT DATA INCLUDED IN ACCESS DATABASE,
NUTRIENT TABLES, OR HYDROGRAPH COLLECTION ........................................................................... 34

APPENDIX B COLLECTED HYDROGRAPHS FOR FLORIDA WETLANDS .........................................39

APPENDIX C WETLAND HYDROLOGY MODEL ...................................................................................... 63












































































ii









EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


This report summarizes a database of environmental parameters for isolated wetlands in Florida
with specific focus on nitrogen and phosphorus in the wetland water column and soils. This
database, the Florida Isolated Wetland Nutrient Database (FIWND) was assembled through a
comprehensive review of literature and available data sources, with a particular focus on
gathering all existing nitrogen and phosphorus water quality data for reference isolated wetlands
that have minimal impact from human disturbance, hereafter called non-impacted wetlands. Data
were also collected for impacted isolated wetlands, thereby providing a record of wetland water
and soil quality across the landscape (where recorded) and a basis for comparison with reference
wetlands.

The data indicate that water column nitrogen and phosphorus both show considerable natural
variation in non-impacted Florida wetlands. Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) values for non-
impacted isolated wetlands ranged from a low of 0.002 mg N/L to a high of 6.0 mg N/L while
total phosphorus (TP) values ranged from a low of 0.002 mg P/L to 0.64 mg P/L. Impacted
wetlands generally showed much more variation in water column nutrient parameters, with a
TKN range from 0.450 mg N/L to 31.0 mg N/L and a TP range from 0.0035 mg P/L to 17.0 mg
P/L. Note that TKN values are reported, as opposed to total nitrogen (TN), due to the low
sample size of non-impacted (n = 3) and impacted (n = 21) TN data.

Using the 75th percentile (or third quartile) of nutrient concentrations as an indicator of
background nutrient concentrations during the wet season, isolated non-impacted wetlands water
column TKN concentrations were below 2.000 mg N/L for forested depressional wetlands, 2.200
mg N/L for emergent depressional wetlands, and 1.608 mg N/L for emergent basin wetlands.
Water column nitrate-nitrogen (NO3-N) and ammonia-nitrogen (NH3-N) 75th percentile values
were much lower. Background TP concentrations were below 0.085 mg P/L for forested
depressional wetlands, 0.041 mg P/L for emergent depressional wetlands, and 0.047 mg P/L for
emergent basin wetlands.

While the data show small differences in the range of soil nitrogen values between non-impacted
and impacted wetlands, a strong difference is found for phosphorus levels in non-impacted and
impacted wetlands. Background soil TN concentrations, based on the 75th percentile of non-
impacted wetlands, were 13.50 mg N/g soil for forested depressional wetlands, 12.35 mg N/g
soil for emergent depressional wetlands, and 30.35 mg N/g soil for emergent basin wetlands.
The 75th percentile soil TP concentrations were 0.408 mg P/g soil for forested depressional
wetlands, 0.260 mg P/g soil for emergent depressional wetlands, and 0.205 mg P/g soil for
emergent basin wetlands.

We have proposed a methodology for calculating runoff for isolated depressional and basin
wetlands for individual rainfall events. The methodology uses the US Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service (now Natural Resources Conservation Service) runoff equation with
modified curve numbers (CNs) developed specifically for isolated wetlands. During the dry
season, we propose that runoff will only occur if the rainfall event is greater than the difference
between the wetland water level and the mean wet-season water level. Nutrient concentration
for runoff can then be calculated based on the FIWND values collected for this study. We









propose that 75th percentile nutrient concentrations are used for dry season calculations,
reflecting higher nutrient concentrations in lower water conditions. Further, the lower 25th
percentile nutrient concentrations should be used to calculate loading during the wet season, to
reflect the more dilute nutrient conditions in times of higher wetland water levels and therefore
dilution of nutrient concentrations.

Interpretive caution toward these results is warranted because much of the literature data were
collected during relatively short-term research studies focused on a small number of specific
sites. As well, reporting conventions across studies are quite idiosyncratic. A systematic
approach for sampling water quality of Florida's isolated wetlands is necessary for a robust,
regionally specific understanding of the natural condition of these systems and the role they play
in maintaining water quality across the natural and developed landscape matrix.









INTRODUCTION


Wetlands are defined by the presence of hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and characteristic
hydrology that provides saturation or inundation for a sufficient part of the growing season to
support hydric soils and hydrophytic vegetation. For the purposes of this review we refer to the
US Fish and Wildlife Service standard classification scheme for wetlands and deepwater habitats
(Cowardin et al. 1979). Our focus was on isolated palustrine forested and emergent wetlands.
Data were further divided into smaller depressional wetlands and larger basin wetlands. In this
review, the term isolated specifically refers to wetlands that generally lack a significant surface
water connection, though may connect to other wetlands or water bodies in times of above
average water levels, and are therefore considered to have surficial hydrologic isolation.
Further, the wetlands are considered geographically isolated owing to the surrounding land cover
being upland habitat (after Tiner 2003). Additional data for wetlands outside of Florida or for
other palustrine wetland types (e.g. strands, sloughs) were collected and entered in the database
when included in relevant data sets or otherwise available, but are not presented here.

A further focus of this review was on reference standard wetlands. That is, wetlands that
represent ecological integrity, the highest ecological condition, and that were generally free from
obvious and apparent anthropogenic influence. Hereafter, these reference standard wetlands are
described as non-impacted, to facilitate standard terminology throughout this document.
Additional data were collected for impacted wetlands, described as those influenced by
anthropogenic activities in the surrounding landscape (e.g. row crops, pasture, dairy farms,
residential development, highways). While the scope of work called for a specific review of
non-impacted, the inclusion of data from impacted wetlands provides a broader understanding of
the current state of wetland water and soil quality across the Florida landscape.

Extent of Florida Freshwater Wetlands

Wetlands once occurred on approximately 8.2 million ha throughout the state of Florida. Today
considerably less of the landscape is occupied by wetlands, with an estimate from 1996 of 4.6 million
ha of wetlands in Florida (Dahl 2005). Of these wetlands, approximately 90% are freshwater
wetlands (4.1 million ha) with 2.3 million ha of freshwater forested wetlands, 1.1 million ha of
freshwater emergent wetlands, 725,000 ha of freshwater shrub wetlands, and 98,000 ha of freshwater
ponds (Dahl 2005).

The US Fish and Wildlife Status and Trends report (Dahl 2005) does not specifically address
hydrologically isolated wetlands. The four broad types of freshwater wetlands include forested
wetlands (e.g. wet pine flatwoods, mixed hardwoods, river swamps, cypress domes, and hydric
hammocks), emergent wetlands (e.g. marsh, swale, slough, wet prairie, wet savanna, reed swamps,
glades), shrub wetlands (e.g. titi swamps, scrub cypress, dwarf cypress), and natural and manmade
freshwater ponds (Dahl 2005). The mean surface area of freshwater wetlands ranged from 7 ha for
forested wetlands, 4 ha for emergent wetlands, 3 ha for shrub wetlands, to 0.7 ha for freshwater
ponds (Dahl 2005).

Further, these wetland types are not equally abundant throughout Florida (Table 1). Lane (2000)
presented four Florida wetland regions derived from a spatial hydrological model: panhandle, north,
central, and south (Figure 1). In the panhandle region, Lane (2000) identified 90.1% of the









freshwater wetlands as forested with the remaining 10% divided between shrub (6.8%) and emergent
(3.2%) wetlands. In contrast, in the south region, 21.9% of the freshwater wetlands were forested,
with 17.3% shrub and 60.8% emergent shrub wetlands. In an earlier study, the Florida Department
of Community Affairs (1988) estimated that the ratio of forested to emergent wetlands in the Florida
panhandle was 10:1; whereas the ratio was 3:1 and 1:5 in central and south Florida, respectively (as
cited by Dahl 2005).

Table 1. Spatial distribution of palustrine wetland types in Florida (Lane 2000)
Wetland Region
Vegetation Panhandle North Central South
Forested 90.1% 78.2% 49.8% 21.9%
Emergent 3.2% 13.3% 41.4% 60.8%
Shrub 6.8% 8.6% 8.7% 17.3%


Panhandle

North


N
*


Central


South


)0 0 200 400 Kilometers


Figure 1. Florida wetland regions (Lane 2000)


Description of Florida Freshwater Wetlands

Distinct differences occur among Florida wetland types, though an overlap in flora and fauna
occurs. This review focused on geographically isolated depressional and basin, forested and
emergent wetlands. These geographically isolated wetlands belong to what Tiner (2003) calls
Coastal Plain ponds, cypress domes, gum ponds, or pocosin wetlands.









Wetland Vegetation


Forested wetlands include those wetlands characterized by woody species that are at least 6 m
tall or taller (Dahl 2005). Emergent wetlands, commonly called marshes, host rooted herbaceous
hydrophytes, with the exclusion of wetlands dominated by mosses and lichens (Dahl 2005). The
biomass turnover rate of emergent wetlands is typically an order of magnitude higher than
forested wetlands (Hopkinson 1992).

Wetlands Hydrogeomorphology

For the purposes of this review we have broadly grouped the data as depressional or basin
wetlands. Depressional wetlands often occur in relatively small watersheds and their water
budget is dependent on precipitation (Brinson 1993), making them hydrologically isolated from
surface water connectivity. While not strictly hydrologically isolated wetlands, basin wetlands
in this review were characterized as larger wetland systems often with a seasonal or semi-
permanent surface hydrologic connection to other wetlands or aquatic bodies, either as inflow or
outflow. Because basin wetlands can be nearly "completely surrounded by uplands," which
Tiner (2003) uses to define isolated wetlands, basin wetlands qualify as geographically isolated
wetlands for the purposes of this review. Brinson and Lee (1989) described basin wetlands as
having low hydrologic energy, long hydroperiods, low nutrient availability, low to moderate
temperature, low to high fire frequency, and low herbivory.

Purpose of Study

This review was conducted in response to a request for a literature review to summarize and
synthesize available scientific information regarding background nutrient concentrations and
hydrology for Florida isolated wetlands. This review synthesizes information in order to define
background conditions for non-impacted wetlands (i.e. natural, minimally impaired, reference
standard wetlands) and impacted wetlands (i.e. wetlands surrounded by human land use
activities) for the proposed Statewide Stormwater Treatment Rule. The available literature,
including published, peer reviewed documents and gray literature reports, has been used to
document nutrient concentrations, particularly nitrogen and phosphorus, and to summarize the
existing information on wetland hydrology (i.e. depth, duration, flood frequency).

Wetland hydrology is generally considered the single most influential determinant of wetland
condition (e.g. Duever et al. 1986; Mitsch and Gosselink 2007). Long term monitoring records
of wetland hydrology are generally absent from wetland studies and what data are available
generally span five growing seasons or less and are thus considerably dependent on short term
weather conditions as opposed to long term climactic averages. An acceptable integration of
wetland hydrology reflecting long term climatic averages is difficult to predict; however,
understanding wetland hydrology is critical to developing realistic estimates of stormwater
loading from wetlands.

As guidance for public policy, the wetland literature review presents what is known about
nutrient concentrations and hydrology, the information gaps that inject substantial uncertainty,
and suggested research to address these gaps.









METHODS


The primary objective of this scope was to develop a synthetic database on concentrations of
water column nitrogen and phosphorus in isolated wetlands in order to provide usable scientific
information as input to the development of the Statewide Stormwater Treatment Rule for
Florida. To accomplish this objective, the project team reviewed available scientific literature on
wetland nutrient concentrations, focusing on nitrogen and phosphorus, and hydrology. To reflect
differences between wetland types and the spatial differences in ecological drivers across
Florida, the review considered differences by wetland vegetation (e.g., forested, emergent),
wetland hydrogeomorphology (e.g., depressional, basin), and wetland region (e.g., panhandle,
north, central, south). A secondary objective of this scope was the development of a stormwater
loading model that can be used to predict the nutrient load in runoff from isolated wetlands.

Data Search

Several sources of literature were consulted including the published, peer-reviewed literature;
gray literature from academic and institutional literature, consulting reports, and city, county,
state, and federal agencies; and unpublished data sets.

Published, Peer-Reviewed Literature

A comprehensive search of the UF library system was conducted using relevant key word
searches: ammonia, basin, cypress, depressional, emergent, Florida, forested, hydrology,
hydroperiod, isolated, nitrate, nitrite, nitrogen, nutrients, phosphate, phosphorus, and/or wetland.
The search included nine ecological databases: Academic Search Premier, AGRICOLA (CSA),
Biological and Agricultural Index Plus, BIOSIS Previews, CAB Abstracts, Ecology Abstracts,
OmniFile Full Text Mega, Science Citation Index, and Wildlife & Ecology Studies Worldwide.

Academic Search Premier, as the largest academic multi-disciplinary database, includes nearly
4,700 publications, with more than 3,600 from peer-reviewed journals. AGRICOLA (CSA) is a
bibliographic database including listings for journal articles, monographs, proceedings, theses,
patents, translations, audiovisual materials, computer software, and technical reports pertaining
to all aspects of agriculture. Biological and Agricultural Index Plus includes resources in biology
and agriculture, with some content from peer-reviewed journals. BIOSIS Previews provides the
largest collection of biological sciences records world-wide from over 6000 book chapters, book
reviews, journals, meetings, review articles, software, and U.S. patents. CAB Abstracts presents
international research and development materials in the fields of agriculture, animal health,
forestry, human health, human nutrition, and management and conservation of natural resources.
Ecology Abstracts provides a search in current ecology research. Wilson OmniFile Full Text,
Mega Edition provides resources from six of Wilson's full-text databases as a single multi-
disciplinary database. Science Citation Index Expanded provides a search in 5,900 major
journals across 150 scientific disciplines and includes all cited references captured from indexed
articles. Wildlife & Ecology Studies Worldwide includes over 650,000 bibliographic records and
is the largest index for materials on wild mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians.









Gray Literature


A search for gray literature data sources included the University of Florida's Howard T. Odum
Center for Wetlands library, which includes student theses and dissertations, internal project
reports, and reports from agencies including the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection, National Park Service, Water Management Districts (i.e., South Florida Water
Management District, Southwest Florida Water Management District, and St. Johns River Water
Management District), and some additional agency or consulting firm reports for individual
projects. As a part of the search process, agency websites were searched for appropriate reports
and materials (e.g., Sarasota County Water Atlas
http://www.sarasota.wateratlas.usf.edu/Default.aspx, South Florida Water Management District
http://www.sfwmd.gov/), Southwest Florida Water Management District
http://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/, St. Johns River Water Management District
http://sjr.state.fl.us/publications.html, United States Geological Survey
http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod/).

Unpublished Data

Many different avenues were explored for gathering unpublished wetland data including face-to-
face meetings, phone calls, and email communication. The following individuals provided data,
either as unpublished data sets or as published reports or journal articles: Mark Clark, University
of Florida Department of Soil and Water Science, USEPA coastal plain database and Kissimmee
soil phosphorus data; Katherine Ewel, University of Florida, unpublished reports; Boyd
Gunsalus, South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), repeat water measures for
wetlands in south Florida; Joe Hand, Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP),
water quality data for eight wetlands; Steve Kintner, Director of Volusia County Environmental
Management Division, provided USGS study, Knowles (2005); Ray Miller, Don Medellen, and
Mike Lopushinsky, SFWMD, Jonathan Dickenson State Park hydrology data; Kim O'Dell,
Orlando Diaz, and Benita Whelan, SFWMD, Okeechobee (research report); Todd Osbourne,
University of Florida, Okeechobee basin, pasture study; Ted Rochow, SWFWMD (Green
Swamp hydrology); Brian Gentry, Palm Beach County.

The following individuals, agencies, or organizations were contacted but did not have applicable
data for this review: Patrick Bohlen, Buck Island Ranch; Tom DeBusk, consultant with DB
Environmental; Mike Duever, SFWMD; Bob Epting, Sonny Hall, and Marc Minno, SJRWMD;
Larry Kohrnack, University of Florida; Mike Owen, Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve; Pete
Wallace; Karen Bickford, TMDL Director, Lee County Natural Resources; Julie Bortles,
Environmental Program Supervisor, Orange County Environmental Protection Division; Aisa
Ceric, Palmer Kinser, Vicki Toge, SJRWMD; Charlie Hunsicker, Director, Manatee County
Natural Resources Department; Bob Knight, Wetland Solutions, Inc.; Robert Kollinger, Polk
County Natural Resources and Drainage; Gordon A. Leslie, Hillsborough County,
Environmental Protection Commission; Gary Maidhof, Citrus County; Randy Mathews,
Coordinator, Osceola County Environmental Lands Conservation Program; Brian McMahon,
EWR, Inc.; Caprecid Oliver, St. Lucie County Environmental Resources Department; John
Ryan, Environmental Supervisor, Sarasota County Water Resources; Kirk Stage, Water and Air
Resources, Inc.; St. Marks and St. Vincent National Wildlife Refuge; Walter Wood, Lake









County Environmental Utilities. Additional sources that led to duplicate data or data not
relevant to this review included HGM Depressional Guidebook reference sites by the US Army
Corps of Engineers; Disney Wilderness Preserve; Minimum Flows and Levels work; TMDL
work; Tampa Bay Water well fields; and Withlacoochee State Forest.

Nutrient and Hydrology Database

As this is a review of available data and not a project with systematic data collection, entry
points took variable formats. The Florida Isolated Wetland Nutrient Database (FIWND)
developed in Microsoft Access was designed so that each row represented a data entry point.
This may include data from an individual wetland from a single sampling event or the mean,
standard deviation, standard error, or range for a given wetland or group of wetlands. Each row
was assigned a unique, non-repeating, automatically assigned Contact ID number in the first
column. In total there were 138 columns in the data base, though no data entry point (row) had
data for every column. In addition to the unique Contact ID column there were 20 study
description columns, 4 data source or citation columns, 49 water quality columns, 24 water or
nutrient budget columns, and 40 soil quality columns.

Study description columns included: Wetland Name, One or More (e.g., ranges, mean, single
wetland), Reference Wetland, Wetland Vegetation, Wetland Type, Sample Size, Area, Nearby
City/Town, State, Region, County, Water Management District, Surrounding Land Use, Land
Use Detail, Study Time Frame, Sample Frequency, Characteristic Hydrology, Hydroperiod,
Hydrologic Alteration, and Characteristic Vegetation.

Columns specific to the data source and citation included: Data Source (e.g., author, year), Data
Certainty, Applicability, and Other Comments.

Water quality columns included: Color, Dissolved Oxygen, pH, Temperature, Conductivity,
Turbidity, Nitrate-Nitrogen (NO3), Nitrite-Nitrogen (NO2), Ammonia-Nitrogen (NH3), Organic
Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN), Total Nitrogen (TN), Ortho-P, Soluble Reactive
Phosphorus, Organic Phosphorus, Total Dissolved Phosphorus, Total Phosphorus (TP),
Oxidation Reduction Potential, Secchi Depth, BOD, Suspended Solids, Dissolved Solids,
Chloride, Flouride, Sulfate, Hydrogen Sulfide, Alkalinity, Hardness, Magnesium, Calcium,
Potassium, Sodium, Iron, Manganese, Chlorophyll a, Silicon, Inorganic Carbon, Organic
Carbon, Bicarbonate, Caffeine, Fecal Coliform, Total Coliform, Enterococci, Oil and Grease,
Copper, Zinc, Cadmium, Lead, and Mercury.

Columns specific to water and/or nutrient budgets included: Rainfall, Transpiration,
Evaporation, Total Water Loss, Inflow TN, Surface Runoff TN, Bulk Precipitation TN, Nitrogen
Fixation, Infiltration TN, Denitrification, Surface Outflow TN, Sediment Deposition TN,
Cypress Uptake TN, Above Ground Biomass TN, Below Ground Storage TN, Inflow TP,
Surface Runoff TP, Bulk Precipitation TP, Infiltration TP, Surface Overflow TP, Sediment
Deposition TP, Cypress Uptake TP, Above Ground Biomass TP, and Below Ground Storage TP.

Soil physical and chemical columns included: Core Depth, Temperature, pH, Redox Potential,
%Moisture, Bulk Density, Organic Matter, %Organic Matter, %Loss on Ignition, Soluble









Reactive Phosphorus, Total Phosphorus (TP), Nitrate-Nitrogen (NO3), Nitrite-Nitrogen (NO2),
Ammonia-Nitrogen (NH3), Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN), Total Nitrogen (TN), Total Carbon,
Carbon/Nitrogen Ratio, Nitrogen/Phosphorus Ratio, Carbon/Phosphorus Ratio, Microbial
Biomass Carbon, Microbial Biomass Nitrogen, Nitrogen Mineralization Rate, Annual Nitrogen
Mineralization, Denitrification Rate, Annual Denitrification, Calcium, Magnesium, Potassium,
Calcium/Potassium Ratio, Calcium/Magnesium Ratio, Milliequivalent of Cations, Iron,
Aluminum, Sodium, Hydrogen, Cation Exchange Capacity, Cadmium, Copper, Manganese,
Lead, and Zinc.

Nutrient Data Summary and Synthesis

Due to the inherently variable nature of review data, advanced statistical analyses were
inappropriate. Summary tables were constructed to specifically address ranges in nutrient
concentration in the water column and soils of reference and impact, forested and emergent,
depressional and basin wetlands. A graphical presentation of water column NO3, NH3, TKN,
and TP and soil TN and TP was developed using box plots in Minitab v.15 (2007 Minitab,
Inc.). Wetland categories having three or fewer data entries were omitted from graphical
representations.

Wetland Hydrology Summary and Synthesis

In an attempt to summarize available data on frequency and depth of flooding, figures showing
temporal water level variations for Florida wetlands were compiled. Hydrographs were
interpreted to provide a general overview of minimum and maximum flooding depth, an
estimation of flooding duration, and an overview of months with standing water.

Methodology for Estimating Nutrient Loading from Wetlands

To fulfill the second objective of this project, we developed a method to predict nutrient loading,
specifically nitrogen and phosphorus, to downstream systems in runoff from isolated wetlands.
The method assumes that nutrient loading is from wetland surface runoff and that no
contributions from groundwater seepage from the wetland to receiving water bodies are
considered. Further, the method differentiates between two seasons, a wet season (growing
season, June October) and dry season (dormant season; November May) and the
corresponding antecedent soil moisture conditions. The method is based on a Soil Conservation
Service (SCS) curve number (CN) (USDA 1985) and accounts for differences in background
concentrations of water column phosphorus and nitrogen in two broad hydrogeomorphic classes
(depressional and basin wetlands) and two vegetation types (forested and emergent). Wetland
types not included in this project are those with direct permanent hydrologic exchanges with
downstream water bodies (e.g. lake border swamps, riparian and floodplain wetlands). The
assumption is that these latter types of wetlands are intimately connected to the receiving water
bodies, and therefore their water quality is the same as the neighboring water body.









RESULTS


A complete list of the published peer-reviewed and gray literature references used to build the
Florida Isolated Wetland Nutrient Database (FIWND) and compilation of hydrographs is
presented in Appendix A. Dates of sample collection for entries in the database for nutrient
concentrations range from 1973-2008.

Non-Impacted Wetlands

The FIWND database contained 372 entries for non-impacted wetlands in Florida. These entries
break down into the following categories for isolated wetlands: 1) 142 depressional forested
wetlands (-38%); 2) 3 basin forested wetlands (<1%); 3) 75 depressional emergent wetlands
(-20%); 4) 20 basin emergent wetlands (-5%); and 5) 32 entries for non-impacted wetlands in
which there was no identifying vegetation and/or geomorphic description available (-9%). The
database also contains 3 entries for non-impacted strand wetlands (<1%) and 97 entries for non-
impacted floodplain wetlands (-26%). An additional 304 entries are for non-impacted wetlands
in southeastern states outside of Florida and 15 entries are for non-impacted wetlands in the state
of Indiana. Because historical data on non-impacted wetlands generally are in short supply, non-
isolated wetlands in Florida and isolated wetlands outside of Florida were included in the
database as a matter of course when located during the literature review process, though the
search for these additional wetland types was in no way exhaustive.

There was location information at the level of Florida regions (i.e. panhandle, north, central, and
south) for 186 isolated non-impacted wetlands in the database. Of these, 25 (-13%) were in the
panhandle, 64 were in north Florida (-34%), 41 were in central Florida (-22%), and 56 were in
south Florida (-30%). Some additional entries were originally categorized at the coarser scale of
USEPA regions and do not contain sufficient auxiliary information for categorization by Florida
region.

Depressional Forested Wetlands

A relatively large number of data points were found for the parameters of water column NO3,
NH3, TKN, and TP concentrations in non-impacted depressional forested wetlands (Tables 2 &
3). With the exception of TN, which only has two entries, all dissolved nitrogen parameters
showed a lower bound that approached the common analytical detection limit (-0.002 mg N/L)
(Figures 2 & 3). The range for TKN showed a relatively normal distribution up to an upper range
of 5.6 mg N/L, while the upper values for both NO3 (1.9 mg N/L) and NH3 (1.7 mg N/L) were
far outliers associated with one datum entry (Figure 2). Most values for TP were below 0.05
mg/L, although there were several outliers up to an upper value of 0.64 mg P/L (Figure 3). Direct
interaction with highly phosphatic clays of the Hawthorne layer likely explained the very high
phosphorus values found in some non-impacted forested depressional wetlands.

Soil nutrient ranges in reference forested depressional wetlands were shown in Tables 4 & 5 and
graphically presented in Figure 4. Soil nitrogen concentrations ranged from 1.68 mg N/g to
14.45 mg N/g as measured by TKN and 2.2 mg N/g to 17.7 mg N/g of TN. Soil phosphorus
concentrations showed greater variability, which also was almost certainly a function of some










wetland soils having direct interaction with phosphate rich Hawthorne clays. The range of SRP
(0.0022 mg P/g 4.296 mg P/g) spanned across three orders of magnitude and TP values
spanned approximately two orders of magnitude (0.02 mg P/g 1.51 mg P/g).


Table 2. Ranges of water column dissolved nitrogen parameters

NO3-N (mg N/L) NH3-N (mg N/L) TKN (mg N/L) TN (mg N/L)
Non-Impacted Wetlands
0.002 -1.9 0.002 -1.7 0.002 -5.6 1.6 -1.67
Depressional forested
(79 entries) (66 entries) (82 entries) (2 entries)
Basinforested 0.004 -0.09 0.01 -0.095 0.62 -0.98 0.94
Basin forested
(3 entries) (3 entries) (3 entries) (1 entry)
0.002 0.047 0.005 -2.6 0.41 -6.0 N.A.
Depressional emergent (49 entries) (29 entries) (49 entries) (0 entries)
0.007 0.117 0.06 -1.2 0.92 -1.77 N.A.
Basin emergent (9 entries) (9 entries) (4 entries) (0 entries)
Impact Wetlands
0.002 -0.63 0.002 -12.6 0.45 -31.0 1.2 -17.1
Depressional forested
(124 entries) (125 entries) (126 entries) (9 entries)
0.06-0.13 0.01 -0.03 0.62- 1.3 0.1- 1.33
Basin forested
(6 entries) (6 entries) (7 entries) (7 entries)
0.004 0.016 0.136 1.45 -14.36 N.A.
Depressional emergent (17 entries) (1 entry) (16 entries) (0 entries)
0.04 -0.1 0.02 -0.51 0.57 -3.9 0.57 -1.50
Basin emergent (6 entries) (6 entries) (6 entries) (5 entries)




Table 3. Ranges of water column phosphorus parameters

Ortho-P (mg P/L) SRP (mg P/L) Organic P (mg P/L) TP (mg P/L)
Non-Impacted Wetlands
0.0008 0.48 Non-detect 0.02 -0.12 0.002 -0.64
Depressional forested
(7 entries) (1 entry) (2 entries) (82 entries)
Basin forested 0.003 0.006 N.A. 0.01 0.009 -0.01
Basin forested
(2 entries) (0 entries) (1 entry) (3 entries)
N.A. N.A. N.A. 0.0069 0.12
Depressional emergent (0 entries) (0 entries) (0 entries) (49 entries)
0.002 0.035 N.A. N.A. 0.007 -0.08
Basin emergent (8 entries) (0 entries) (0 entries) (5 entries)
Impact Wetlands
0.05 -10.46 0.03 -0.05 0.18 -2.10 0.0049 17.0
Depressional forested
(19 entries) (2 entries) (7 entries) (150 entries)
N.A. N.A. 0.003 -0.01 0.01 -0.05
Basin forested
(0 entries) (0 entries) (6 entries) (7 entries)
N.A. 0.016 -1.96 N.A. 0.0035 -7.98
(0 entries) (3 entries) (0 entries) (117 entries)
0.25 0.09 N.A. 0.029 -0.57
Basin emergent (5 entries) (1 entry) (0 entries) (7 entries)




















z 0.3-
on
E



0.2-

E

U
, 0.1-
'-


R I R I
Forested Emergent
Depressional


R I R I
Forested Emergent
Depressional


R I
Forested


R I
Emergent


Basin


R I
Forested


R I
Emergent


Basin


Figure 2. Water column nutrient concentrations: a) nitrate-nitrogen (N03-N) and b)
ammonia-nitrogen (NH3-N) for R (non-impacted or reference, no fill) or I
(impacted, gray fill); forested and emergent; depressional and basin wetlands.
Boxes represent the first through third quartiles; horizontal interior line represents
the median; vertical whiskers represent data range; asterisks represent outliers.
Extreme outliers are not shown due to scaling constraints.


*

*

*
*
*
*
**
*
*
* I


*N-









** t


ttL











(a)

8





E

6- T

4-









E

I--

3.





E

u I-
E




0-



R I R I R I R I
Forested Emergent Forested Emergent
Depressional Basin



Figure 3. Water column nutrient concentrations: a) Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN), and
b) total phosphorus (TP) for R (non-impacted or reference, no fill) or I (impacted,
gray fill); forested and emergent; depressional and basin wetlands. Boxes represent
the first through third quartiles; horizontal interior line represents the median;
vertical whiskers represent data range; asterisks represent outliers. Extreme
outliers are not shown due to scaling constraints.










Table 4. Ranges for soil nitrogen parameters


NO3-N NH3-N TKN TN
(mg N/g soil) (mg N/g soil) (mg N/g soil) (mg N/g soil)
Non-Impacted Wetlands
Depressional forested N.A. N.A. 1.68- 14.45 2.2 -17.7
(0 entries) (0 entries) (37 entries) (25 entries)
Basin foster N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
Basin forested
(0 entries) (0 entries) (0 entries) (0 entries)
N.A. N.A. N.A. 0.002 -34.2
Depressional emergent (0 entries) (0 entries) (0 entries) (44 entries)
0.00026 -0.190 0.0253 -0.15 N.A. 20-35.1
Basin emergent ( 4 entries) (12 entries) (0 entries) (12 entries)

Impact Wetlands
Depressional forested N.A. N.A. 0.51 -16.63 1.2 -21.0
(0 entries) (0 entries) (83 entries) (50 entries)
Basin foster N.A. N.A. N.A. 0.36-3.54
Basin forested
(0 entries) (0 entries) (0 entries) (8 entries)
N.A. N.A. N.A. 1.1 -43.3
Depressional emergent (0 entries) (0 entries) (0 entries) (49 entries)
N.A. 0.0963 N.A. 0.619 -46
Basin emergent (0 entries) (1 entry) (0 entries) (12 entries)


Table 5. Ranges


for soil phosphorus parameters

SRP (m2 P/2 soil) Total P (m2 P/2 soil)


Non-Impacted Wetlands

Depressional forested

Basin forested

Depressional emergent

Basin emergent

Impact Wetlands

Depressional forested

Basin forested

Depressional emergent

Basin emergent


0.0022 4.296
(29 entries)
N.A.
(0 entries)
0.00072 0.033
(14 entries)
0.00045 0.023
(12 entries)


0.00137- 1.497
(18 entries)
N.A.
(0 entries)
0.1217 3.54
(18 entries)
0.0001 0.0235
(28 entries)


0.02- 1.51
(67 entries)
N.A.
(0 entries)
0.00468- 1.01
(50 entries)
0.048 0.270
(12 entries)


0.0439 7.53
(163 entries)
0.01463 0.225
(8 entries)
0.00187 4.32
(423 entries)
0.046 2.67
(43 entries)





















E
Z 2~
0
wn


3



S2
o.
E

= 1
0
t1


0-










II I I I I I I
R I R I R I R I
Forested Emergent Forested Emergent
Depressional Basin


(b)


R I
Forested


R 1
Emergent


R
Forested


Depressional


R I
Emergent


Basin


Figure 4. Soil nutrient concentrations: a) total nitrogen (TN) and b) total phosphorus (TP)
for R (non-impacted or reference, no fill) or I (impact, gray fill); forested and
emergent; depressional and basin wetlands. Boxes represent the first through third
quartiles; horizontal interior line represents the median; vertical whickers
represent data range; asterisks represent outliers. Extreme outliers are not shown
due to scaling constraints.









Basin Forested Wetlands


Limited water quality data were located for non-impacted basin forested wetlands. Nitrate values
ranged from 0.004 mg N/L to 0.09 mg N/L, ammonia ranged from 0.01 mg N/L to 0.095 mg
N/L, and TKN ranged from 0.62 mg N/L to 0.98 mg N/L in three entries (Table 2). Ortho-P
ranged from 0.003 0.006 mg P/L in two samples, and TP ranged from 0.009 0.01 mg P/L in
three entries (Table 3). No soil N or P data were located for non-impacted basin forested
wetlands (Tables 4 & 5; Figure 4).

Depressional Emergent Wetlands

A fair number of data points were found for the parameters of water column NO3-N, NH3-N,
TKN (Table 2), and TP (Table 3) concentrations in non-impacted depressional emergent
wetlands. NO3-N values ranged from a lower bound near the common detection limit (0.002 mg
N/L) to an upper bound of 0.047 mg N/L; NH3-N data values showed a considerably wider
range from a low of 0.005 mg N/L to an outlier value of 2.6 mg N/L (Table 2; Figure 2). TKN
varied across an order of magnitude, from a low of 0.41 mg N/L to a high of 6.0 mg N/L in non-
impacted depressional emergent wetlands (Table 2; Figure 3). Water column TP varied across
two orders of magnitude, from a low of 0.0069 mg P/L to a high of 0.12 mg P/L (Table 3; Figure
3).

Soil nitrogen values in non-impacted depressional emergent wetlands showed considerable
variation, with TN having an extreme lower end of 0.002 mg N/g and a high value of 34.2 mg
N/g (Table 4; Figure 4). Soil phosphorus also varied considerably, with a low TP value of
0.00468 mg P/g to a high of 1.01 mg P/g (Table 5; Figure 4). While variability in both water
column and soil phosphorus was likely a function of some wetlands having interaction with
phosphate-rich Hawthorne clays, the source of variability in nitrogen among non-impacted
depressional emergent wetlands was somewhat less clear.

Basin Emergent Wetlands

Few data points for water column nitrogen and phosphorus were found for non-impacted basin
emergent wetlands (Tables 2 & 3). Ranges for both NO3-N (0.007 0.117 mg N/L) and NH3-N
(0.06 -1.2 mg N/L) spanned across one and a half orders of magnitude in nine data entries, while
TKN showed a much narrower range (0.92 mg N/L 1.77 mg N/L) in four data entries (Table 2;
Figures 2 & 3). Ranges for Ortho-P (0.002 mg P/L 0.035 mg P/L) and TP (0.007 mg P/L 0.08
mg P/L) both spanned across approximately one order of magnitude among eight data entries
(Table 3; Figure 3).

Soil NO3-N values showed a high level of variation in four entries, from a low of 0.00026 mg
N/g to 0.190 mg N/g (Table 4). Soil NH3-N ranged across an order of magnitude from 0.0253 mg
N/g to 0.15 mg N/g in 12 entries, while soil TN showed a narrow range from 20 mg N/g to 35.1
g N/g for the same 12 entries (Table 4; Figure 4). Soil SRP ranged from 0.00045 mg P/g to 0.023
mg P/g, while soil TP ranged from 0.048 mg P/g to 0.270 mg P/g (Table 5; Figure 4).









Impacted Wetlands


The FIWND database contained 918 entries for wetlands in Florida that have some degree of
impact by human land use disturbance. These entries break down into the following categories
for isolated wetlands: 1) 291 depressional forested wetlands (-32%); 2) 7 forested basin
wetlands (<1%); 3) 455 depressional emergent wetlands (-49%); 4) 48 basin emergent wetlands
(-5%); and 5) 35 entries in which there was no identifying vegetation and/or geomorphic
description available (-4%). The database also contained 34 entries for impacted strand wetlands
(-4%) and 48 entries for impacted floodplain wetlands (-5%). An additional 229 entries are for
impacted isolated wetlands in southeastern states outside of Florida and 60 entries are for
impacted wetlands in the state of Indiana.

There was location information at the level of Florida regions for 701 isolated wetlands with
human impact in the database. Of these, 44 (-6%) were in the panhandle, 64 were in north
Florida (-14%), 562 were in central Florida (-76%), and 31 were in south Florida (-4%).
Remaining entries were originally categorized at the coarser scale of USEPA regions and do not
contain sufficient auxiliary information for categorization by Florida region.

Depressional Forested Wetlands

A relatively large number of data points were found for the parameters of water column NO3-N,
NH3-N, TKN, and TP concentrations in impacted depressional forested wetlands (Tables 2 & 3).
Similar to non-impacted systems, dissolved nitrogen and NH3-N parameters showed a lower
bound in impacted depressional forested wetlands at the common analytical detection limit of
0.002 mg N/L. In contrast to non-impacted systems, the lower TKN bound of 0.45 mg N/L was
much higher than the common analytical detection limit, and the box plot in Figure 3 shows the
somewhat higher 75th percentile range for TKN in impacted forested depressional wetlands.
Interestingly, the highest value for NO3-N (0.63 mg N/L) in impacted depressional forested
wetlands is considerably lower than the high outlier value of 1.9 mg N/L found in the non-
impacted depressional forested wetland data, and the 75th percentile (third quartile) ranges for
NO3-N in non-impacted and impacted systems were relatively similar (Figure 2). In contrast, the
upper bound of 12.6 mg N/L for NH3-N found in impacted depressional forested wetland
systems was considerably higher than the 1.7 mg N/L shown in non-impacted depressional
forested wetland systems (Figure 2), as is the upper bound of 31.0 mg N/L for TKN (5.6 mg N/L
in non-impacted) (Figure 3). These upper NH3-N and TKN nitrogen values represented severe
nitrogen contamination in these isolated wetlands, and the extent of such contamination
throughout the database was apparent in the 75th percentile ranges (Figure 2).

The lower TP bound of 0.0049 mg P/L in impacted systems was somewhat higher than the lower
TP bound of 0.002 mg P/L found in non-impacted systems. Extremely high ortho-P values of
10.46 mg P/L and TP values of 17.0 mg P/L (Table 5) likely represented severe phosphorus
contamination of wetlands associated with agricultural operations. The much higher 75th
percentile (third quartile) range of TP in impacted depressional forested wetlands was clear
(Figure 3).









Tables 4 & 5 shows soil nutrient ranges in impacted forested depressional wetlands. Soil
nitrogen concentrations ranged from 0.51 mg N/g to 16.63 mg N/g as measured by TKN and 1.2
mg N/g to 21.0 mg N/g of TN, neither of which differ dramatically from the ranges found in non-
impacted systems (Table 4; Figure 4). Like with non-impacted wetland systems, impacted
wetland systems soil phosphorus concentrations showed greater variability. The range of soil
SRP (0.00137 mg P/g 1.497 mg P/g) spanned across three orders of magnitude, although,
interestingly, the high soil SRP value was considerably lower than the high value of 4.296 mg
P/g found in non-impacted systems (Table 5). TP values spanned well over two orders of
magnitude (0.0439 mg P/g 7.53 mg P/g), with the high value several times larger than the
highest value (1.51 mg P/g) found in non-impacted systems. While soil phosphorus levels in
impacted forested depressional systems also may have considerable natural variation due to
interaction with phosphatic clays, the much higher 75th percentile (third quartile) range for soil
TP in impacted systems is suggestive of anthropogenic enrichment.

Basin Forested Wetlands

Limited amounts of water quality data were identified for impacted basin forested wetlands.
Nitrate values ranged from 0.06 mg N/L to 0.13 mg N/L and ammonia ranged from 0.01 mg N/L
to 0.03 mg N/L for six entries. TKN ranged from 0.62 mg N/L to 1.3 mg N/L across seven
entries (Table 2). Organic P ranged from 0.003 0.01 mg P/L in six entries, and TP ranged from
0.01 0.05 mg P/L in seven entries (Table 3).

Limited amounts of soil TN and TP data were collected for impacted basin forested wetlands
(Tables 4 & 5). TN values ranged from 0.36 mg N/g to 3.54 mg N/g, while TP ranged from
0.01463 mg P/g to 0.225 mg P/g. Due to the limited amount of water quality and soil nutrient
data for non-impacted and impacted basin forested wetlands it is premature to make detailed
comparisons of the findings at this time.

Depressional Emergent Wetlands

Database entries for impacted depressional emergent wetlands showed a clear phosphorus bias.
While there were large numbers of data points for water column TP (117 entries; Table 3) and
soil TP (423 entries; Table 5), there were a little less than 20 entries for both water nitrate and
water TKN (Table 2) and a little under 50 entries for soil TN (Table 4).

Nitrate values ranged from a lower bound of 0.004 mg N/L to an upper bound of 0.016 mg N/L.
Interestingly, the higher bound for nitrate at impacted sites was somewhat lower than the 0.047
mg N/L found at non-impacted sites, although the small number of data points makes this result
difficult to interpret. TKN varied across an order of magnitude in impacted depressional
emergent wetlands, from a low of 1.45 mg N/L to 14.36 mg N/L. This range was considerably
higher than the TKN range of 0.41 mg N/L to 6.0 mg N/L found in non-impacted systems, and
the higher values showed up clearly in the 75th percentile (third quartile) range (Figure 2). TP
varied across three and a half orders of magnitude in impacted depressional emergent wetlands,
from a low of 0.046 mg P/L to a high of 7.98 mg P/L. The much higher 75th percentile (third
quartile) range for impacted sites showed up clearly in the box plot in Figure 3. The high end of
this range almost certainly was a function of extreme anthropogenic enrichment.









Soil nitrogen values in non-impacted depressional emergent wetlands showed quite a bit of
variation, with TN having an extreme lower end of 1.1 mg N/g and a high value of 43.3 mg N/g.
However, the high end of the TN range was not markedly higher than the high value of 34.2 mg
N/g found in reference systems, and box plots were not dramatically different for soil TN in non-
impacted and impacted sites (Figure 4). Soil phosphorus also varied considerably, with SRP
ranging from 0.00137 mg P/g to 1.497 mg P/g and TP ranging from a low value of 0.00187 mg
P/g to a high of 4.32 mg P/g. While some natural variability through Hawthorne interaction was
certainly possible, the high ends of soil P values were most likely a function of anthropogenic
enrichment from land use in the watershed. The 75th percentile (third quartile) box plot range for
soil TP was marginally higher in impacted sites (Figure 4).

Basin Emergent Wetlands

Limited water column nitrogen and phosphorus data were located for impacted basin emergent
wetlands (Tables 2 & 3). Ranges were 0.04 mg N/L to 0.1 mg N/L for NO3-N, 0.02 mg N/L to
0.51 mg N/L for NH3-N, 0.57 mg N/L to 3.9 mg N/L for TKN, and 0.57 mg N/L to 1.5 mg N/L
for TN. The range for TP in impacted basin emergent wetlands was 0.029 mg P/L to 0.57 mg
P/L. Interpretation of box plot ranges was somewhat tenuous, however, due to the small number
of data points (Figures 2 & 3).

Soil TN in impacted basin emergent wetlands ranged greatly from an outlier low of 0.619 mg
N/g to 46 g N/g across 12 entries (Table 4). Twelve entries for soil SRP showed a range from
0.1217 mg P/g to 3.54 mg P/g. Soil TP showed a considerable range of values from 0.00187 mg
P/g to 2.67 mg P/g (Table 5). Much of soil P sampling in impacted basin emergent wetlands was
performed for the express purpose of better understanding P transport in enriched areas, and thus
it is fairly safe to conclude that the high end of the P soil ranges in these systems was a direct
function of anthropogenic activities (Figure 4).

Non-Impacted Wetlands Quartiles and Nutrient Concentrations

Partitioning the non-impacted wetlands data into quartiles allowed a better focus on the reference
standard condition in the Florida landscape (Figure 5). The Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP) has used such an approach when determining thresholds for
metric scoring for bioassessment work on lakes and streams (e.g. Barbour et al. 1996) as have
other states (e.g. Royer et al. 2001). In some instances, values below the 75th percentile (3rd
quartile) have been considered representative of the reference standard condition (for values that
increase with human disturbances or impacts). Actual quartile values were presented in Table 6.






























**


EE






Forested Depresional Emergent Deprional Emergent Basin


-


Forested Depressional


Emergent Depressional


Emergent Basin


04-


z

E 0.2-
E *
E




Forested Depressional Emergent Depressional Enmergent Basin







0.1








0,18





S0.4-



0. -
0.0


Forested Depressional


Emergent Depressional


Emergent Basin


Figure 5. Non-impacted wetland nutrient concentrations: a) water column nitrate-N, b) water column ammonia-N, c) water
column TKN, d) water column TP, e) soil TN, and f) soil TP for forested depressional, emergent depressional, and
emergent basin wetlands. Boxes represent the first through third quartiles; horizontal interior line represents
median; vertical whickers represent data range; asterisks represent outliers. Extreme outliers were not shown.









Table 6. Non-impacted wetland water column and soil nutrient data

Forested Emergent Emergent
Depressional Depressional Basin
Water Column
Nitrate-N (mg N/L)
25th Percentile 0.002 0.002 0.011
Median 0.005 0.006 0.024
75th Percentile 0.020 0.010 0.038
Ammonia-N (mg N/L)
25th Percentile 0.018 0.016 0.111
Median 0.024 0.020 0.160
75th Percentile 0.050 0.033 0.230
TKN (mg N/L)
25th Percentile 1.085 1.123 0.960
Median 1.450 1.694 1.100
75th Percentile 2.000 2.200 1.608
TP (mg P/L)
25th Percentile 0.027 0.016 0.009
Median 0.044 0.026 0.012
75th Percentile 0.085 0.041 0.047
Soil
TN (mg N/g)
25th Percentile 4.300 2.200 25.525
Median 7.400 4.950 27.350
75th Percentile 13.500 12.350 30.350
TP (mg P/g)
25th Percentile 0.205 0.048 0.100
Median 0.290 0.098 0.158
75th Percentile 0.408 0.260 0.205









Hydro-Graphs


Twenty-four figures taken from published reports or peer-reviewed documents were collected
showing temporal water level variations for Florida wetlands (Appendix B). Some figures
provided data for more than one wetland, and these were summarized for non-impacted and
impacted wetlands (Tables 7 & 8). These hydrographs were interpreted to provide a general
overview of minimum and maximum flooding depth, an estimation of flooding duration, and an
overview of months with standing water. Note that interpretation was solely based on visual
determinations from published figures, as raw data were typically unavailable.

Hydrographs were interpreted for 21 non-impacted wetlands and 20 impacted wetland systems,
though some individual wetlands may be included in more than one row in Tables 7 & 8. For
example, the non-impacted depressional forested wetland labeled Austin Cary was listed three
times in Table 7 for three separate studies representing the same physical wetland. Similarly, the
impacted wetland Sewage or Sewage Dome was listed in two separate rows in Table 8,
representing data collected at the same physical wetland for two overlapping time periods, from
January 1976 to January 1977 (Brown 1981) and from July 1974 to December 1977 (Dierberg
and Brezonik 1983).

In total, 21 hydrographs for non-impacted Florida wetlands were interpreted, including
hydrographs for 11 depressional forested wetlands, four depressional emergent wetlands, one
mixed vegetation wetland, and five wetlands described as seasonally connected, larger wetland
systems. Non-impacted depressional forested wetlands had a range in maximum flooding depth
from 0.45-2.2 m with a range of length of flooding duration spanning 155-365 days/year (Table
7). Non-impacted depressional emergent wetlands had a higher range of maximum flooding
depth from 0.5-3.3 m with flooding duration ranging from 305-365 days/year.

Twenty hydrographs for impacted Florida wetlands were interpreted, including 10 depressional
forested wetlands, three larger connected forested wetlands, six depressional emergent wetlands,
and a single basin emergent wetland. Impacted depressional forested wetlands had a lower range
in maximum flooding depth from 0.25-1.10 m and a longer range of flooding duration from 263-
365 days/year (Table 8). Three of the north region non-impacted wetlands and four of the north
region impacted wetlands had standing water each month during the period of record. The
impacted depressional emergent wetlands had a lower maximum flooding height of 0.13-0.45 m
and fewer days flooded from 56-228 days/year. A single hydrograph was available for one
impacted emergent basin wetland, which had standing water 365 day/year.









Table 7. Interpretation of hydrographs for non-impacted Florida wetlands. All values are approximations based on visual
interpretation of published figures.

Min Max Flooding Data Data Months with Standing Water
Wetland Depth Depth Duration Start End
Type Region Name (m) (m) (days) Date Date J F M A M J J A S O N D Data Source
Central Forested 0.00 0.80 316 Jan-1981 Dec-03 x x x x x x x x x Bardi et al. 2005
Central GI 0.00 0.80 345 May-89 Apr-99 x x x x x x x x x Carret al. 2006
S North Large Dome 0.20 0.63 365 Jan-76 Jan-77 x x x x x x x x x x x x Brown 1981
I North Control 0.00 0.59 350 Jan-94 May-96 x xx x x x x x x Casey and Ewel 1998
North Austin Cary 0.00 0.75 350 Jan-74 Jun-79 x x x x x x x x Dierberg 1980
S North Austin Cary 0.00 0.75 340 Jan-74 Jun-79 x x x x x x x x x Dierberg andBrezonik 1983
North Large 1.00 2.20 365 Mar-82 Mar-83 x x x x x x x x x x x x Ewel 1990
S North Medium 0.80 1.25 365 Mar-82 Mar-83 x x x x x x x x x x x x Ewel 1990
North Small 0.00 1.00 350 Mar-82 Mar-83 x x x x x x x x x x Ewel 1990
North Austin Cary 0.00 0.50 155 Mar-74 Dec-74 x x x x x x x x Mitsch 1984
North C Wetland 0.00 0.45 295 Jan-92 Dec-96 x x x x Sun et al. 2000
Central Herbaceous 0.00 0.50 320 Jan-94 Dec-03 x x x x x x x x x Bardi et al. 2005
Lyonia
Central Large Unk 3.30 365 Sep-01 Jun-03 - - - Knowles et al. 2005
Lyonia
g Central Small Unk 1.80 305 Sep-01 Jun-03 - - - Knowles et al. 2005
Study
North Wetland 0.00 0.50 Unk May-99 Nov-99 - x x x x x x Wise et al. 2000


Sarasota
Central Wetlands Unk Unk Unk Apr-85 Sep-86 - - - CH2MHILL 1987
Hydric Pine
South Flatwoods 0.00 0.20 47 Unk Unk x Duever et al. 1986
Cypress
a South Swamp 0.00 1.00 226 Unk Unk x x x x x x x Dueveretal. 1986

South Marsh 0.00 0.50 153 Unk Unk x x x x x x Dueveretal. 1986
Hopkins
North Prairie 0.00 0.70 Unk Jan-81 Dec-91 - - - Clough 1992
Hopkins
North Prairie 0.00 0.27 61 Mar-90 Feb-91 x x x Clough 1992
(x) signifies standing water was reported; () empty space signifies no standing water was reported (-) signifies no data were available.










Table 8. Interpretation of hydrographs for impacted Florida wetlands. All values are approximations based on visual interpretation of
published figures.

Min Max Flooding Data Data Months with Standing Water
Depth Depth Duration Start End
Type Region Wetland Name (m) (m) (days) Date Date J F M A M J J A S O N D Data Source
North Small Domel 0.00 0.60 263 Jan-76 Jan-77 x x x x x x x x Brown 1981
North Small Dome2 0.00 0.52 287 Jan-76 Jan-77 x x x x x x Brown 1981
North Sewage Dome 0.65 0.73 365 Jan-76 Jan-77 x x x x x x x x x x x x Brown 1981
North Bermed Dome 0.00 0.25 358 Jan-76 Jan-77 x x x x x x x x x x Brown 1981
North Pasture 0.00 0.25 359 Jan-76 Jan-77 x x x x x x x x Brown 1981

o North Sewage 0.35 1.10 365 Jul-74 Dec-77 x x x x x x x x x x x x Dierberg and Brezonik 1983
| North Swamp Harvest 0.00 0.85 358 Jan-94 May-96 x x x x x x x x x x Casey and Ewel 1998
North Swamp+ Upland 0.00 0.60 350 Jan-94 May-96 x x x x x x x x x Casey and Ewel 1998
SNorth W Wetland 0.00 0.65 301 Jan-92 Dec-96 x x x x x x x x x x x x Sun et al. 2000

North ALL Wetland 0.00 0.50 331 Jan-92 Dec-96 x x x x x x x x x x x x Sun etal. 2000

North K 0.00 2.30 319 Jan-93 Dec-96 x x x x x x x Riekerk and Korhnak 2000
North N 0.00 1.20 319 Jan-93 Dec-96 x x x x x x x RiekerkandKorhnak2000

North C 0.00 1.60 293 Jan-93 Dec-96 x x x x x x Riekerk and Korhnak 2000

Mar-
Central Improved 0.00 0.45 228 01 Mar-02 x x x x x x x Bohlen and Gathumbi 2007
Mar-
Central Semi-Native 0.00 0.30 154 01 Mar-02 x x x x Bohlen and Gathumbi 2007
Central Improved 0.00 0.45 225 Sep-00 Apr-03 x x x x x Gathumbi et al. 2005
W Central Seminative 0.00 0.35 180 Sep-00 Apr-03 x x x Gathumbi et al. 2005
Central Improved 0.00 0.33 76 Jul-00 Jul-01 x x x Steinman et al. 2003
Central Semi-Improved 0.00 0.13 56 Jul-00 Jul-01 x x Steinman et al. 2003





Central Boggy Marsh Unk Unk 365 Sep-01 Jun-03 - - - Knowles et al. 2005
(x) signifies standing water was reported; () empty space signifies no standing water was reported (-) signifies no data were available.









Methodology for Estimating Nutrient Loadings from Wetlands


Since it is unclear how nutrient loads are to be calculated for redevelopment and post-
development loading analysis within the new Statewide Stormwater Treatment Rule, this
methodology is designed to be used for individual rainfall events. With some relatively broad
assumptions and the use of a Microsoft Excel spread sheet model (Appendix C), daily rainfall
data can be used to determine annual discharge volumes. The methodology uses the USDA SCS
(1972) runoff equation:

Q = (P-0.2S)2 / (P + 0.8S) (Eq. 1)

and:

S =(1000/CN) 10 (Eq. 2)

where:
Q = amount of runoff (inches),
P = precipitation (inches),
S = maximum potential retention (inches), and
CN = Curve Number (integer between 0 and 100).

Data Input

Land Cover by Wetland Type

Florida land use and land cover have been classified through the Florida Land Use, Cover and
Forms Classification System (FLUCCS) developed by the Florida Department of Transportation
(FDOT 1999). For this project, wetlands were included with assigned FLUCCS codes 610
Wetland Hardwood Forests, 620 Wetland Coniferous Forests, 630 Wetland Forested Mixed, and
641 Freshwater Marshes (Table 9).

Table 9. Isolated wetland FLUCCS codes (FDOT 1999)
Wetlands Classification FLUCCS Codes
Depressional forested 610, 620, 630
Basin forested 610, 620, 630
Depressional emergent 641
Basin emergent 641

Suspected differences in background concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus in Florida
wetlands necessitated classifying wetlands based on a simplified hydrogeomorphic classification
system (i.e. depressional or basin), dominant vegetation type (i.e. forested or emergent) and
further separated as non-impacted and impacted wetlands. Wetlands that were equal to or less
than approximately 2.5 hectare in size, often occurring in relatively small watersheds, were
classified as depressional wetlands. The water budget of depressional wetland has been
described as being dependent primarily on precipitation (Brinson 1993), making them
hydrologically isolated from surface water connectivity. Basin wetlands were described as









larger in size, characterized with a larger contributing watershed, and having a seasonal or semi-
permanent surface hydrologic connection to other wetlands or aquatic bodies. Non-impacted
wetlands were those in primarily natural setting, surrounded by natural lands and having no
obvious hydrologic alterations. Impacted wetlands were those wetlands having at least 25% of
their adjacent land area in agricultural or urban uses. Impacted wetlands were further divided
into those that were in landscapes with lowered water tables (i.e. dryer than normal) and those
that were receiving higher than normal runoff inputs (i.e. wetter than normal). Determination of
these hydrologic conditions required a degree of best scientific judgment, but we believe that it
was necessary to take into consideration the hydrologic alterations that occur in impacted
wetlands. In some cases, wetlands are drained that will require more rainfall to induce runoff,
while in other cases, where wetlands are receiving higher than normal runoff from adjacent
lands, smaller rainfall events are required to induce runoff.

Determination of Hydrologic Soil Groups

The Natural Resources Conservations Service's Soil Survey Geographic Data Base (SSURGO)
classifies wetland soils based on hydrologic soil groups (HSG) (USDA SCS 1972; USDA NRCS
2009). With soil groups running a gradient from Group A soils, with more than 90% sand or
gravel, having low runoff potential when thoroughly wet to Group D soils, with less than 50%
sand, having high runoff potential when thoroughly wet (NRCS 2009).

The average Curve Numbers (CN) for wetlands hydrologic soil groups were taken from a recent
study on pollution load reduction goals for the Newnans Lake watershed in north central Florida
(Di et al. 2009) (Table 10). The CNs for wetlands and other land uses were developed based on
average antecedent moisture conditions (AMC) II (Di et al. 2009). AMC II CNs reflect average
conditions.

Table 10. Wetland Curve Numbers (CN) for soil hydrologic groups (Di et al. 2009)
Hydrologic Soil Group
A B C D
AMC II Wetland CNs 49 65 72 80

Antecedent Moisture Conditions (AMC)

Because of the variable hydrologic conditions in isolated wetlands driven by the large influence
of precipitation events and the natural inter-annual variability in wetland water levels, CNs must
be adjusted based on antecedent moisture conditions (AMC), a short-term adjustment factor for
the preceding 5-days rainfall, and seasonal adjustments, a longer-term adjustment factor
reflecting the dry or wet season water levels. AMC II CNs for wetlands are given above in
Table 10; however, NRCS (2009) recognizes three AMC classes: AMC I (drier than average
condition), AMC II (average condition), and AMC III (wetter than average condition) using
rainfall event and season.

Table 11 lists average dry and wet season water levels in non-impacted and impacted
depressional and basin wetlands in Florida. These water levels are derived from the Wetland
Hydrology Model simulation results (Appendix C). Using these data, reasonable water level









ranges for isolated wetlands in the dry and wet season under AMC adjustment factors I-III are
determined based on the rainfall quantity (over a 5-day period) required to cause outflow from
the wetland during dry and wet seasons (Table 12). The variability in dry and wet season water
levels, antecedent weather conditions, and hydrologic soil unit influence the wetland adjusted
CNs (Table 13). The average depths of water in each of the wetland types given in Table 11 were
derived based on the simulation model given in Appendix C. Dry and wet initial conditions
were set for each simulation and then average water levels were calculated for wet and dry
seasons using an average rainfall year for north central Florida. To determine the rainfall
necessary to cause runoff during wet and dry seasons and thus AMC adjustment factors in Table
12, again the model was used. In this case, rainfall events were increased during a period of 5
days until runoff occurred in the dry and wet season. The values were rounded to the nearest
half inch. Rainfall amounts less than this value were equivalent to the AMC I events. AMC III
events were determined in much the same way except the event sizes were increased until nearly
all rainfall became runoff within the first 24 ours following the event. Rainfall events larger than
this number were considered AMC III events and those between AMC I and AMC III were
considered AMC II events. The adjustment factors in Table 13 are estimates based on best
scientific judgment.


Table 11. Dry and wet season water levels (inches) in isolated wetlands
Wetland Type Water Level Dry Season Water Level Wet Season
Non-Impacted
Depressional 6 20
Basin 10 24
Impacted
Depressional 7 22
Basin 14 27









Table 12. Isolated wetland water level ranges by AMC adjustment factors for dry and wet
seasons
Dry Season (inches) Wet Season (inches)
Non-Impacted Depressional Wetlands
AMC I Less than 5 Less than 0.5
AMC II 5.0 to 10.0 0.5 to 1.0
AMC III Over 10.0 Over 1.0
Non-Impacted Basin Wetlands
AMC I Less than 1.5 Less than 0.1
AMC II 1.5 to 2.5 0.1 to 0.5
AMC III Over 2.5 Over 0.5
Impacted Depressional Wetlands (Dryer than normal)
AMC I Less than 7 Less than 1.0
AMC II 7.0 -12.0 1.0- 1.5
AMC III Over 12 Over 1.5
Impacted Basin Wetlands (Dryer than normal)
AMC I Less than 3.0 Less thanl.5
AMC II 3.0 to 5.0 1.5 -2.5
AMC III Over 5.0 Over 2.5
Impacted Depressional Wetlands (Wetter than normal)
AMC I Less than 3 None -
AMC II 3.0 to 5.0 Less than 0.5
AMC III Over 5.0 Over 0.5
Impacted Basin Wetlands (Wetter than normal)
AMC I Less than 1.0 None -
AMC II 1.0 -2.0 Less than 0.1
AMC III Over 2.0 Over 0.1





Table 13. Adjusted wetland Curve Numbers (CNs)
AMC I AMC II AMC III
Hydrologic Soil Group CN CN CN
A 32 49 60
B 45 65 75
C 52 72 81
D 63 80 88


Calculation of Discharge Volumes

Using equations 1 and 2 above, the runoff volume for a rainfall event can be calculated using the
adjusted wetland CNs (Table 13). During the dry season, we propose that runoff will only occur
if the rainfall event is greater than the difference between the wetland water level and the mean
wet-season water level for depressional and basin wetlands (Table 11). For example, for a non-









impacted depressional wetlands with a current dry season water level of 8 inches and a mean wet
season water level of 20 inches (Table 11), a dry-season rainfall event of greater than 12 inches
would be required to produce run-off from the given wetland.

Then, using data for event mean concentrations (Table 14), runoff volumes of TKN and TP can
be calculated when the wetland surface area is known. Values for event mean concentrations
reflect background nutrient concentrations for isolated wetlands as determined from the FIWND
database developed for this project. We propose that 75th percentile nutrient concentrations are
used for dry season calculations, reflecting higher nutrient concentrations in lower water
conditions. Further, the lower 25th percentile nutrient concentrations should be used to calculate
loading during the wet season, to reflect the more dilute nutrient conditions in times of higher
wetland water levels. Note that nitrogen nutrient concentrations are available for TKN, as
opposed to TN. TKN values should be lower than TN values for wetlands, as TKN measurement
does not account for nitrate (NO3-N) or nitrite (N02-N) in the water column. At this time, a
sufficient quantity of water column TN values was not available for estimating nutrient loading
from Florida isolated wetlands.

Table 14. Isolated wetland nutrient concentrations
Forested Forested Emergent Emergent
Wetland Type --
Depressional Basin Depressional Basin
Non-Impacted
TKN (mg N/L)
Sample Size (n) 82 3 49 4
25th Percentile 1.085 0.620 1.123 0.960
Median 1.450 0.920 1.694 1.100
75th Percentile 2.000 0.980 2.200 1.608
TP (mg P/L)
Sample Size (n) 82 3 49 5
25th Percentile 0.027 0.009 0.016 0.009
Median 0.044 0.010 0.026 0.012
75th Percentile 0.085 0.010 0.041 0.047
Impacted
TKN (mg N/L)
Sample Size (n) 126 7 16 6
25th Percentile 1.177 0.820 2.233 0.893
Median 1.600 0.980 2.956 1.100
75th Percentile 2.770 1.120 4.789 2.100
TP (mg P/L)
Sample Size (n) 150 7 117 7
25th Percentile 0.080 0.010 0.073 0.120
Median 0.186 0.010 0.250 0.130
75th Percentile 0.669 0.030 0.769 0.230









Sample Calculation for Estimating Wetland Loading


As a sample calculation, a non-impacted depressional emergent wetland has a surface area of 1
acre, soils classified within hydrologic soils Group D, and normal antecedent moisture
conditions (AMC II) during the wet season. If a rainfall event produced 3 inches of rain, what is
the estimated nutrient loading from the wetland runoff?

First, defining the variables, we see:
Q amount of runoff (inches) = (P 0.2S)2 / (P + 0.8S) = (3 (0.2*2.5))2 / (3 + (0.8*2.5)) =
1.25 inches
P = amount of precipitation (inches) = 3 inches
CN (AMC II, Hydrologic soil Group D) = 80
S = maximum potential retention (inches) = (1000/CN) 10 = (1000/80) 10 = 2.5 inches
Unit conversions: 1 acre = 43,560 ft2
1 cubic meter = 35.315 cubic foot = 1000 liter

Applying the calculated amount of runoff of 1.25 inches of water over a surface area of 1 ac, the
volume of the wetland runoff is 128,486 liters. Using the 25th percentile values for TKN (1.085
mg N/L) and TP (0.027 mg P/L) concentrations (Table 14), the estimated load to the downstream
environment from the wetland runoff is 139.41 g N and 3.47 g P. Note that if the same 3 inch
rainfall event occurred in the dry season, runoff would not occur from this wetland unless the
current water level (at the time of calculation) in the wetland was within 3 inches or higher of the
mean wet season water level of 20 inches for non-impacted depressional wetlands.









DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS


Because wetlands are not normally thought of as contributing nutrient loads in stormwater runoff
and as a consequence they are often left out of calculations or included as sinks for stormwaters
and nutrients, some explanation of this relatively complex approach to calculating runoff from
wetlands is in order. We consider several things in this discussion: types of wetlands that can
generate runoff, the assumptions necessary to generate runoff, and the effects of altered
hydroperiod and depths of inundation on runoff generation.

It is important to note that we have not included all types of wetlands in this review and
especially in the modeling methodology. Wetlands that are directly connected to water bodies
and that share surface waters, such as lake fringe and riverine floodplain swamps, are receiving
bodies, and therefore should not be considered contributors of stormwater or associated nutrients
to the adjacent open water. By eliminating lake fringe and riverine floodplain swamps from this
evaluation of stormwater contributions, we are left identifying the contributions from isolated
depressional and basin wetlands that are common throughout the low topographic relief areas of
the Florida landscape. We turn next to the assumptions necessary to include these wetlands as
generators of stormwater runoff and nutrients to receiving water bodies.

Isolated depressional and basin wetlands are typically considered nutrient sinks (e.g. Howard-
Williams 1985), since they are most frequently found in low areas of the landscape. When there
is surface runoff from upland areas, it usually finds its way to these wetlands, thus driving their
seasonally dynamic hydrology. Only after these wetlands reach their maximum storage capacity
does water runoff (from these wetlands) towards lower elevations. Thus, any methodology used
to predict stormwater runoff from isolated wetlands must take into account the storage function
of these wetlands. During the dry season much larger rainfall events are necessary before there
is wetland runoff, and in contrast, during the wet season much smaller events will generate
wetland runoff. Our methodology recognizes these facts and adjusts curve numbers (CNs) to
take into consideration these different hydrologic realities.

Not all wetlands are untouched by human activities. That is to say, the hydrologic characteristics
of landscapes can be altered by such things as groundwater pumping or ditching that results in
dryer than normal conditions in a particular wetland. By the same token, hydrologic alteration to
surrounding uplands that increases runoff or impounds water can cause wetter than normal
situations. In either case, the potential for runoff from a wetland is altered. In the first case,
dryer than normal conditions mean lower than normal water levels in the wetland and larger
rainfall events in both the dry and wet season to produce wetland runoff In the second case the
opposite is true. We have taken these potential conditions into consideration in this
methodology and have made allowances for their incorporation.

In all, we have addressed the main controlling factors that affect wetland stormwater runoff with
this methodology. It recognizes four different types of wetlands, in altered and unaltered
landscapes, and the different potential for runoff generation between Florida's wet and dry
seasons.









In comparison to a recent study addressing pollutant loads in the hypereutrophic Newnan's Lake
watershed in north central Florida, Di et al. (2009) estimated mean nutrient loading from
wetlands and aquatic bodies of 1.680 mg/L TN and 0.173 mg/L TP from 1995-1998. Nutrient
concentrations for isolated wetlands throughout Florida in this project were similar for the 75th
percentile of non-impacted wetlands at 0.980-2.200 mg/L TKN (though note the different
nitrogen form and range for multiple wetland types) and lower for the 75th percentile of non-
impacted wetlands at 0.010-0.085 mg/L TP, and similar for the 75th percentile of impacted
wetlands at 1.120-4.789 mg/L TKN and 0.030-0.769 mg/L TP.

Data Uncertainty

One of the key findings of this project is that there has been very little systematic collection of
water quality data for isolated wetlands in Florida. Much of the literature data were collected
during relatively short-term research studies focused on a small number of specific sites. This
site bias makes it quite uncertain as to whether the nutrient ranges reported accurately reflect the
distribution found in isolated wetlands throughout the state. Amplifying this uncertainty is the
fact that there is wide divergence in reporting conventions and sampling regimes among different
studies and wetland sites. For example, a number of studies only report the mean values and
standard deviations from a series of sampling events over time, while others have raw data
available. A similar problem is that several wetland sites have more than 50 data points sampled
over several years, while others only have data for one discrete sampling date. Such
idiosyncrasies make it inherently difficult to make robust and confident generalizations from the
given data. Differences in field collection and laboratory analytic methods among studies are a
final source of uncertainty that should also be noted. However, such data quality concerns likely
are minor, as most data come from highly reliable sources such as government reports, peer
reviewed literature, and doctoral dissertations.

Future Research

While the comprehensive cataloguing of archival nutrient data from isolated wetlands is a step
forward in understanding the natural condition of these systems and evaluating their nutrient
treatment capacity, it is also quite clear that a more systematic sampling effort would greatly
benefit ongoing efforts to develop a Statewide Stormwater Treatment Rule and otherwise protect
water quality.

One possible approach for reaching a broad range of isolated wetland systems across the state
would be to add a water chemistry sampling component to some percentage of wetlands that will
be evaluated through the US Environmental Protection Agency's National Wetland Condition
Assessment (NWCA) program scheduled to begin in 2011. The NWCA is developing a
probabilistic method for site selection, and it stands to reason that a random sub-selection of
these could be used for collection of water chemistry as a complement to the other site condition
assessments that will be performed. The NWCA is currently debating what parameters will be
included in sample design, and it is the understanding of the authors that to date it is likely soil
chemical and physical measures will be collected but water measures will not.









Another approach for acquiring more data for the isolated wetlands database would be to include
regular water chemistry sampling at wetlands in well-fields that are already being monitored for
hydrologic impacts from groundwater draw-downs. Because both the NWCA and well-field
monitoring programs are existing programs, start up costs to add water quality sampling as a
regular monitoring component should be minimal.

A final thought for future research priorities is that isolated wetlands in the panhandle region are
very under-studied in comparison to other regions of the state. Given the low population density
and large natural areas in much of the panhandle, the region seems ideal for targeted sampling of
reference isolated wetland types, particularly as development pressure increases. Additional
research of wetlands in the panhandle region would also have the benefit of making it clearer as
to how these systems are similar to, and in what ways they differ from, peninsular wetland types.
Such information will be invaluable for adaptive watershed management as development
pressure continues to increase in the panhandle region over the next decades.









REFERENCES


Barbour, MT, J Gerritsen, JS White (1996) Development of the Stream Condition Index (SCI)
for Florida. Report to the Stormwater and Nonpoint Source Management Section, Florida
Department of Environmental Protection, prepared by the Tetra Tech, Inc. Owing Mills,
Maryland, USA

Brinson, MM (1993) A hydrogeomorphic classification for wetlands. US Army Corps of
Engineers, Wetlands Research Program Technical Report WRP-DE-4, Washington, D.C., USA

Brinson, MM, LC Lee (1989) In-kind mitigation for wetland loss: Statement of ecological issues
and evaluation of examples. In Freshwater wetlands and wildlife. RR Sharitz, JW Gibbons,
ed., USDOE CONF-8603101, USDOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information, U.S.
Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, TN, 1069-1085

Cowardin, LM, V Carter, FC Goulet, ET LaRoe (1979) Classification of wetlands and deepwater
habitats of the United States. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., USA

Dahl, TE (2005) Florida's wetlands: an update on status and trends 1985 to 1996. US Fish and
Wildlife Service, Branch of Habitat Assessment, Washington, D.C., USA

Di, JJ, D Smith, C Lippincott, E Marzolf (2009) Pollution Load Reduction Goals for Newnans
Lake. Report to the St Johns River Water Management District, Palatka, Florida, USA

Doherty, SM, M Cohen, C Lane, L Line, J Surdick (2000) Biological criteria for inland
freshwater wetlands in Florida: a review of technical and scientific literature (1990-1999).
Report to the US Environmental Protection Agency, prepared by the Center for Wetlands,
University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA

Florida Department of Community Affairs (1988) Mapping and Monitoring of Agricultural Lands
Project (1984-1987) County data. Tallahassee, Florida, USA

Florida Department of Transportation [FDOT] (1999) Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms
Classification System. Geographic Mapping Section, Surveying and Mapping, Department of
Transportation, State of Florida, Tallahassee, Florida, USA

Hopkinson, CS (1992) A comparison of ecosystem dynamics in freshwater wetlands. Estuaries
15:549-562

Howard-Williams, C (1985) Cycling and retention of nitrogen and phosphorus in wetlands: a
theoretical and applied perspective. Freshwater Biology 15:391-431

Lane, CR (2000) Proposed wetland regions for Florida freshwater wetlands. Final report to the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Contract No. WM86, Tallahassee, Florida, USA









Mitsch, WJ, JG Gosselink (2007) Wetlands, 4th ed. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, New
York, USA

Royer, TV, CT Robinson, GW Minshall (2001) Development of macroinvertebrate-based index
for bioassessment of Idaho Rivers. Environmental Managament 27(4): 627-636

Tiner, RW (2003) Geographically isolated wetlands of the United States. Wetlands 23(3): 494-
516

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service [USDA
NRCS] (2009) National Engineering Handbook, Part 630 Hydrology, Chapter 7 Hydrologic Soil
Groups. Washington, DC, USA

United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service [USDA SCS] (1972)
National Engineering Handbook, Section 4 Hydrology. Washington DC, USA









Appendix A References with Relevant Data Included in Access Database, Nutrient
Tables, or Hydrograph Collection


1.Babbitt, KJ, MJ Baber, LA Brandt (2006) The effect of woodland proximity and wetland
characteristics on larval anuran assemblages in an agricultural landscape. Canadian Journal
of Zoology 84:510-519
2.Babbitt, KJ, GW Tanner (2000) Use of temporary wetlands by anurans in a hydrologically
modified landscape. Wetlands 20:313-322
3.Baber, MJ, DL Childers, KJ Babbitt, DH Anderson (2002) Controls on fish distribution and
abundance in temporary wetlands. Canadian Journal of Fisheries & Aquatic Sciences
59:1441-1450
4.Bliss, CM, NB Comerford (2002) Forest harvesting influence on water table dynamics in a
Florida flatwoods landscape. Soil Science Society of America Journal 66:1344-1349
5.Bohlen, PJ, SM Gathumbi (2007) Nitrogen cycling in seasonal wetlands in subtropical cattle
pastures. Soil Science Society of America Journal 71:1058-1065
6.Bourne, RG (1976) Water quality effects of sewage effluent on a cypress dome system. MS
Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA
7.Brenner, M, CL Schelske, LW Keenan (2001) Historical rates of sediment and nutrient
accumulation in marshes of the Upper St. Johns River Basin, Florida, USA. Journal of
Paleolimnology 26:241-257
8.Broadfoot, WM (1976) Hardwood suitability for and properties of important midsouth soils.
US Forest Setvice Research Paper SO-127. Southern Forest Experiment Station, Stoneville,
Mississippi, USA
9.Brown, S (1981) A comparison of the structure, primary productivity, and transpiration of
cypress ecosystems in Florida. Ecological Monographs 51:403-427
10. Brown, TW (1963) The ecology of cypress heads in northcentral Florida. MS Thesis,
University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA
11. Calhoun, FG, VW Carlisle, RE Caldwell, LW Zelazny, LC Hammond, HL Breland (1974)
Characterization data for selected Florida soils. Soil Science Research Report No. 74-1,
University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA
12. Carr, DW, DA Leeper, TF Rochow (2006) Comparison of six biological indicators of
hydrology and the landward extent of hydric soils in west-central Florida, USA cypress
domes. Wetlands 26(4): 1012-1019
13. Casey, WP, KC Ewel (1998) Soil redox potential in small pondcypress swamps after
harvesting. Forest Ecology & Management 112:281-287
14. CH2MHILL, Inc. (1987) Hydroecology of wetlands on the Ringling-MacArthur Reserve.
Technical Report No. 2, Vol. 1. Prepared for Sarasota County, Florida
15. Clough, KS (1992) Hydrology, plant community structure and nutrient dynamics of a wet
prairie in north central Florida. MS Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA









16. Clough, KS, GR Best, S Schmid (1992) Hydrology, plant community structure and nutrient
dynamics of Hopkins Prairie, Ocala National Forest, Florida May 1990-December 1991.
Center for Wetlands, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA
17. Cooperband, LR, PM Gale, NB Comerford (1999) Refinement of the anion exchange
membrane method for soluble phosphorus measurement. Soil Science Society of America
Journal 63:58-64
18. Corstanje, R, KM Reddy, KM Portier (2007) Soil microbial ecophysiology of a wetland
recovering from phosphorus eutrophication. Wetlands 27(4): 1046-1055
19. Coultas, CL, MJ Duever (1984) Soils of a cypress swamp. Pages 51-59 in KC Ewel, HT
Odum, eds. Cypress Swamps. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville.
20. Deghi, GS (1977) Effect of sewage effluent application on phosphorus cycling in cypress
domes. MS Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA
21. Dierberg, FE (1980) Cypress dome water chemistry. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of
Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA
22. Dierberg, FE, PL Brezonik (1983) Nitrogen and phosphorus mass balances in natural and
sewage enriched cypress domes. Journal of Applied Ecology 20:323-337
23. Dierberg, FE, PL Brezonik (1984) Water chemistry of a Florida cypress dome. Pages 34-50
in KC Ewel, HT Odum, eds. Cypress Swamps. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville.
24. Dolman, JD, SW Buol (1967) A study of organic soils (Histosols) in the tidewater region of
North Carolina. North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station Technical Bulletin No. 181.
Raleigh, North Carolina, USA
25. Duever, MJ, JE Carlson, JF Meeder, LC Duever, LH Gunderson, LA Riopelle, TR
Alexander, RL Meyers D Spangler (1986) The Big Cypress National Preserve. National
Audubon Society, New York, New York, USA
26. Dunne, EJ, J Smith, DB Perkins, MW Clark, JW JAwitz, KR Reddy (2007) Phosphorus
storage in historically isolated wetland ecosystems and surrounding pasture uplands.
Ecological Engineering 31(1): 16-28
27. Enviro-Audit & Compliance, Inc. )2004) Water quality monitoring, Lakewood Ranch
Corporate Park, Sarasota, Florida, 2003 wet season monitoring event. Prepared for SMR
Communities. Prepared by Enviro-Audit & Compliance, Inc., Palmetto, Florida, USA
28. Ewel, KC (1990) Multiple demands on wetlands: Florida cypress swamps can serve as a case
study. BoScience 40(9): 660-666
29. Ewel, KC, LP Wickenheiser (1988) Effect of swamp size on growth rates of cypress
(Taxodium distichum) trees. American Midland Naturalist 120: 362-370
30. Fall, C (1982) Water quality monitoring annual report 1979-1981. Water Resources
Department, St Johns River Water Management District, Technical Publication SJ 83-1,
Palatka, Florida, USA
31. Feng, J, YP Hsieh (1998) Sulfate reduction in freshwater wetland soils and the effects of
sulfate and substrate loading. Journal of environmental quality 27:968-972









32. Fowlkes, MD (2000) Effects of the herbicide imazapyr on benthic macroinvertebrates in a
logged pond cypress dome. MS Non-Thesis Project, University of Florida, Gainesville,
Florida, USA
33. Gain, WS (1996) The effects of flow-path modification on water-quality constituent retention
in an urban stormwater detention pond and wetland system, Orlando, Florida, prepared in
cooperation with the Florida Department of Transportation.
34. Gale, PM, KR Reddy, DA Graetz (1993) Nitrogen removal from reclaimed water applied to
constructed and natural wetland microcosms. Water Environment Research 65:162
35. Gathumbi, SM, PJ Bohien, DA Graetz (2005) Nutrient enrichment of wetland vegetation and
sediments in subtropical pastures. Soil Science Society of America Journal 69:539-548
36. Graco, S (2004) A biogeochemical survey of wetlands in the southeastern United States. MS
Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA
37. Graetz, DA (1991) Water-column sediment nutrient interactions as a function of hydrology
(Hopkins Prairie): final report, 1989-90. Special publication SJ91-SP12. Prepared for the St.
Johns River Water Management District, Palatka, Florida, USA
38. Grunwald, S, R Corstanje, BE Weinrich, KR Reddy (2006) Spatial patterns of labile forms of
phosphorus in a subtropical wetland. Journal of Environmental Quality 35:378-389
39. Grunwald, S, KR Reddy, JP Prenger, MM Fisher (2007) Modeling of the spatial variability
of biogeochemical soil properties in a freshwater ecosystem. Ecological Modelling 201:521-
535
40. Haack, SK (1984) Aquatic macroinvertebrate community structure in a forested wetland:
interrelationships with environmental parameters. MS Thesis, University of Florida,
Gainesville, Florida, USA
41. Hall, TF, WT Penfound (1943) Cypress-gum communities in the Blue Girth Swamp near
Selma, Alabama. Ecology 24(2):208-217
42. Harper, HH, BM Fries, DM Baker, MP Wanielista (1086) Stormwater treatment by natural
systems. Final report for STAR project #84-026 submitted to the Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation, Tallahassee, Florida, USA
43. Hill, LR (2003) Phosphorus in soil profiles of a subtropical rangeland and associated
wetland. MS Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA
44. Klein, Jr., RL (1976) The fate of heavy metals in sewage effluent applied to cypress
wetlands. MS Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA
45. Knowles, L, GG Phelps, SL Kinnaman, ER German (2005) Hydrologic response in karstic-
ridge wetlands to rainfall and evapotranspiration, central Florida, 2001-2003. Scientific
Investigations Report 2005-5178, United States Geological Survey.
46. Lane, CR (2003) Biological indicators of wetland condition for isolated depressional
herbaceous wetlands in Florida. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville,
Florida, USA









47. Lane, C (2007) Assessment of isolated wetland condition in Florida using epiphytic diatoms
at genus, species, and subspecies taxonomic resolution. EcoHealth 4:219-230
48. Lane, CR, MT Brown (2007) Diatoms as indicators of isolated herbaceous wetland condition
in Florida, USA. Ecological Indicators 7(3):521-540
49. Leslie, AJ, TL Crisman, JP Prenger, KC Ewel (1997) Benthic macroinvertebrates of small
Florida pondcypress swamps and the influence of dry periods. Wetlands 17(4):447-455
50. LWCWSP Appendices (date unknown) Appendix E: wetlands and environmentally sensitive
areas, South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, Florida, USA
51. Main, MB, DW Ceilley, P Stansly (2007) Freshwater fish assemblages in isolated south
Florida wetlands. Southeastern Naturalist 6:343-350
52. Marois, KC, KC Ewel (1983) Natural and management-related variation in cypress domes.
Forest Science 29(3):627-640
53. Martin, JR, CH Keller, RA Clarke, Jr., RL Knight (2001) Long-term performance summary
for the Boot Wetlands Treatment System. Water Science and Technology 44(11-12):413-420
54. Mitsch, WJ (1984) Seasonal patterns of a cypress dome in Florida. Pages 25-33 in KC Ewel,
HT Odum, eds. Cypress Swamps. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville.
55. Mitsch, WJ, KC Ewel (1979) Comparative biomass growth of cypress in Florida wetlands.
American Midland Naturalist 101:417-426
56. Monk, CD (1966) An ecological study of hardwood swamps in north-central Florida.
Ecology 47(4):649-654
57. Monk, CD, TW Brown (1965) Ecological consideration of cypress heads in northcentral
Florida. American Midland Naturalist 74(1): 126-140
58. Nair, VD, DA Graetz, KR Reddy, OG Olila (2001) Soil development in phosphate-mined
created wetlands of Florida, USA. Wetlands 21(2): 232-239
59. Paris, JM (2005) Southeastern wetland biogeochemical survey: determination and
establishment of numeric nutrient criteria. MS Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville,
Florida, USA
60. Peeler, KA, SP Opsahl, JP Chanton (2006) Tracking anthropogenic inputs using caffeine,
indicator bacteria, and nutrients in rural freshwater and urban marine systems. Environmental
Science & Technology 40:7616-7622
61. Penfound, WT, TF Hall (1939) A phytosociological analysis of a tupelo gum swamp near
Hunstville, Alabama. Ecology 20(3):358-364
62. Reddy, RR, MW Clark, TA DeBusk, J Jawitz, M Annable, S Grunwald, E Dunne, K McKee,
D Perkins, K Hamilton, A Olsen, J Bhada, C Bohall, C Catts, Y Wang (2007) Phosphorus
retention and storage by isolated and constructed wetlands in the Okeechobee drainage basin.
A report to the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Tallahassee,
Florida, USA
63. Reiss, KC (2004) Developing biological indicators for isolated forested wetlands in Florida.
Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA









64. Reiss, KC (2006) Florida Wetland Condition Index for depressional forested wetlands.
Ecological Indicators 6:337-352
65. Reiss KC, MT Brown (2007) Evaluation of Florida palustrine wetlands: application of
USEPA levels 1, 2, and 3 assessment methods. EcoHealth 4:206
66. Riekerk, H, LV Korhnak (2000) The hydrology of cypress wetlands in Florida pine
flatwoods. Wetlands 20(3): 448-460
67. Schooley, RL, LC Branch (2005) Survey techniques for determining occupancy of isolated
wetlands by round-tailed muskrats. Southeastern Naturalist 4:745-756
68. Schwartz, LN (1989) Nutrient, carbon, and water dynamics of a titi shrub ecosystem in
Apalachicola, Florida. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA
69. Soil Conservation Service (1967) Soil survey laboratory data and descriptions for some soils
of Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina. Soil Survey Investigation Report No. 16. United
States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
70. Steinman, AD, J Conklin, PJ Bohlen, DG Uzarski (2003) Influence of cattle grazing and
pasture land use on macroinvertebrate communities in freshwater wetlands. Wetlands 23(4):
877-889
71. Sun, G, H Riekerk, LV Korhnak (2000) Ground-water-table rise after forest harvesting on
cypress-pine flatwoods in Florida. Wetlands 20(1): 101-112
72. Surdick, JA, Jr. (2005) Amphibian and avian species composition of forested depressional
wetlands and circumjacent habitat: the influence of land use type and intensity. Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA
73. Wise, WR, MD Annable, JAE Walser, RS Switt, DT Shaw (2000) A wetland-aquifer
interaction test. Journal of Hydrology 227: 257-272











Appendix B Collected Hydrographs for Florida Wetlands


Centiral Reioi DepreS~innal Forested Welland


99 19 '116 1 s, 344


Centiral Reg~ioni DeprxsioiuiI Herbaceo us "'edand


O's
0-6
0-4

-~ 0-2-

-0-4

01,0
50 1S 24 -2P 1944M


Data from SWFWMD 1994-2003. Data from SWFWMD 1981-2003.
Figure B-1. Figure from Bardi et al. (2005), data compiled from the Southwest Florida Water
Management District (SWFWMD) from 1994-2003 for a reference standard central Florida
depressional herbaceous wetland (left) and 1981-2003 for a reference standard central Florida
depressional forested wetland (right).


Jnik31"


-M(1991-M)
- 5-dad D.-









50


1 40


0
* !0
S20
cc
? 10


7/1/00


-o improved
v v semi-native


11/1/00 3/1/01


7/1/01


V


11/1/01


3/1/02


Measurement date (m/d/yy)


Figure B-2. Figure 1 from Bohlen and Gathumbi (2007). Original caption reads: "Average
water depth and hydroperiod in wetlands in improved (solid line) and semi-native (dotted line)
pastures from July 2000 through March 2002."















0.50 DOME Z -







0.75

I.-

0.50 -
t,- /BERMED DOME
D / I
I--


< [ /-PASTURE DOME
O. 25 .... ..... / / ,-







JAN FE MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
0.50 ^(c)

,-FLOODPLAIN FOREST /

', e,/, SCRUB CYPRESS /


JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC


Figure B-3. Figure 2 from Brown (1981). The Large Dome in (a) is considered a reference
standard depressional forested wetland. Small Dome 1 and Small Dome 2 in (a) and Sewage
Dome, Bermed Dome, and Pasture Dome in (b) are impacted depressional forested wetlands.
Original caption reads: "The annual fluctuation of surface water levels. Records are from
December 1976 to December 1977 for the scrub cypress forest (Flohrscutz 1978) and from
January 1976 to January 1977 for the other sites. Data for Sewage Dome and Large Dome were
obtained from K. Heimburg (personal communication)."




















~--3




29 -, 0_










Figure B-4. Figure 2 from Carr et al. (2006). Original caption reads: "Water surface elevation
(points and solid line) for median water surface elevation (dashed line) for cypress dome GI in
Lake County, Florida from May 1989 through April 1999. Mean monthly rainfall totals (bars)
for 55 stations in Pasco County, Florida are also shown."













40 -0- Swamp + upland harvest

35-

0 ha Harvest










10-









1994 1995 1996
Figure B-5. Figure 3 from Casey and Ewel (1998). Original caption reads: "Monthly mean
standing water depth in three groups of cypress swamps. Before April 1994, none of the nine
swamps had been harvested. After May 1994, the nine swamps were divided into three
treatments: control, swamp harvest, and swamp+upland harvest with three swamps per
treatment."





























-2-


--











M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S 0

Time



Figure B-6. Figure 3-1 from CH2MHILL (1987). 'Standard Elevation' line represents the elevation 0.33 m (1 ft) below the upland
elevation; it does not represent the soil surface. Original caption reads: "Hydrograph of 23 unditched study wetlands."
































[] Average
1 1 + +1 SE

0 S~O -1 SE
I -2-




LEGEND
o Avra






imTim


Figure B-7. Figure 3-2 from CH2MHILL (1987). 'Standard Elevation' line represents the elevation 0.33 m (1 ft) below the upland
elevation; it does not represent the soil surface. Original caption reads: "Average hydrograph of ditched versus unditched study
wetlands."






















1-



-2






LEGEND

-5 + Study Weand 20
0 Study Wedand 22 '
A Study Wetano 27
X Study Weland 2
-8- I-I- I I II I I I I
F M A M J J A S 0 N D J F M A M J J A SO
1S 18s

Time

Figure B-8. Figure 3-3 from CH2MHILL (1987). 'Standard Elevation' line represents the elevation 0.33 m (1 ft) below the upland
elevation; it does not represent the soil surface. Original caption reads: "Hydrograph of hydrologically altered study wetlands."



















26



24



22


20 -



181 '82 '83 '84 '85 '86 '87 '88 '89 '90 '91

Year



Figure B-9. Figure 3-2 from Clough (1992). Data represent yearly fluctuations for a wet prairie. Original caption reads: "Mean,
maximum, and minimum annual stage at Hopkins Prairie from 1981 to 1991 (data from St. Johns River Water Management District)."


































M A M J J A S O N D J F M AM J
1990


J A S O N D
1991


Figure B-10. Figure 3-3 from Clough (1992). Data represent yearly fluctuations for a wet prairie. Original caption reads: "Mean,
monthly water level at Hopkins Prairie from March 1990 to December 1991."


0



-20


-40



-60











0.75 -
0.70O
0.65 A
S0.60
S0.55
S0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
S0.30
i 0.25
S0.20-
0.15



0.00
A J 0 J A J 0 J A J 0 J J-0 J A J 0 J
1974 1975 1976 1977 978
TIME


Figure B-l 1. Figure 4-2 from Dierberg (1980). Original caption reads: "Monthly variations in
the depth of standing water at the center of Austin Cary cypress dome."











SAUSTIN CARY DOME
0



< 149.6C-


|1974
?4 1485( 1F I ^ A M J j A S 0 N D F MAM A S N
J 151.10 ,-7 -- -7-7
5 AUSTIN CARY DOME
150.-
c \


149.6-
I 977
1976 977

148.60 F M A M J J A S 0 N 0 J F M A M A S 0 N
151.'!0 I-ITI i-II--- I1 I I I I I
AUSTIN CARY DOME
S150.60



149.60


I 197 97
j F M A M J A S 0 N D JJ

Figure B-12. Figure 7-6 from Dierberg (1980). Original caption reads: "Water level fluctuations
in the surface waters of the center of Austin Cary natural dome from 1974 to 1979."











0




S-707 .. .... "I-r-- .--- -
SSewage-e a r nturald dome



b0 197 174 1S 1976 977 1978 1979
JF JASONOJFMAMJJASONOJFMAMJJASONOJ FMAM J JASOND





Figure B-13. Figure 1 from Dierberg and Brezonik (1983). Austin Cary natural dome (top) is a reference standard wetland; Sewage-
enriched dome (bottom) is an impacted wetland. Original caption reads: "Water level fluctuations in the surface water at the centres
of Austin Cary natural (1974-1979) and sewage-enriched (1974-1977) domes. Data collected by K. Heimburg."













+2 Hydroperiod (time of inundation)
Cypress Swamp (8 months) .i.
Marsh (6 months) -
Hydric Pine Flatwoods (2 months) ****....***
+1


Water Ground Level .
Levels V"'
(Meters) -

I I %I I t I I I I I




-2 .



-3

O N D J F M A M J J A S
Month



Figure B-14. Figure 7-6 from LWCWSP, summarized from Duever et al. (1986). Original
caption reads: "Hydrographs and hydroperiod ranges for three different south Florida vegetation
types (Duever et al., 1986)."











225




"0 I T5 r"L A "U. A G


2 100 d, 4!4h

L 75'
50



A M J J A S O N D J F M
MONTH


Figure B-15. Figure 5 from Ewel (1990). Original Caption reads: "Typical hydrographs
recorded in the centers of nine swamps in central Florida (Ewel and Wickenheiser 1988). Water
levels and depths of water above ground in each basin. Small swamps are less than 1 ha,
medium swamps are 1-2 ha, and large swamps are more than 5 ha." Taken from Ewel and
Wickenheiser (1988), caption: "Biweekly changes in water level (March 1982-March 1983) in
the nine study sites."













- 40 v memiauve
Eo

C


S10 -
|20 -VV vv







ASONDJ FMAMJ JASONDJ FMAMJ JASONDJ FMAMJ
September 2000 April 2003


Figure B-16. Figure 1 from Gathumbi et al. (2005). Original caption reads: "Mean monthly
water depth measured in improved pasture and seminative pasture wetlands (September 2000 to
May 2003) illustrating the seasonal fluctuation of both water depth and hydroperiod in these
wetland systems (modified from Steinman et al. 2003)."















RAINFALL= 14.10 INCHES -
(SEPT. DEC. 2001)


- TROPICAL STORM
- GABRIELLE


RAINFALL = 89.78 INCHES
WETLAND EVAPORATION = 58.5
(2002)


ES W RAINFALL = 16.95 INCHES -
8 INCHES WETLAND EVAPORATION = 24.21 INCHES
(JAN, 1 JUNE 11, 2003)




F BOGGY MARSH
FLOOD-RELIEF DRAIN OPEN
r i----------------------i


I A~~ ~ &AAA..


S----'- "---~-- FREEZE-PROTECTION
PUMPING
I I I 11 1 I li I I I I I
SEPT. OCT. NOV. DEC. JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT, NOV. DEC. JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY JUNE
2001 2002 2003


Figure B-17. Figure 19 from Knowles et al. (2005). Original caption reads: "Daily water levels, cumulative rainfall, and cumulative
wetland evaporation for the Boggy Marsh site, Hilochee Wildlife Management Area (station numbers refer to figure 5 and table 1)."


WETLAND-PERIMETER WELL (STATION 12)
--- BOGGY MARSH (STATION 4)
- MID-RIDGE WELL (STATION14)
RIDGE WELL (STATION 16)
-- UPPER FLORIDAN AQUIFER WELL (STATION 17)
- DAILY CUMULATIVE RAINFALL (STATIONS 18 AND 19)
- DAILY CUMULATIVE WETLAND EVAPORATION
(REEDY LAKE)


140 2-
0
130-

1200



0.
100z





70 <

60 L<
Z
50 R

40



20

10 Z

0


-












32 1 l 1 1 1 1 l lll l l l l 140
S31 RAFALL=2INCHES RAINFALL = 90.56 INCHES -___
LL 30 (SEPT DEC. 2001 WETLAND EVAPORATION =58,97 INCHES 130
29 (2t002
120 0
a 28 WETLAND PERIMETER WELL (STATION 34) 2_ Q
0 27 -LARGE WETLAND (STATION 35) RAINFALL= 23.71 INCHES 110>
> 26 MID-RIDGE WELL (STATION 41) WETLAND EVAPORATION = 25.65 INCHES W
25 RIDGE WELL (STATION 48) (JAN.1 JUNE 11, 2003) 100
S24 --- LOWER SURFICIAL AQUIFER SYSTEM WELL (STATION 62) -
(ESTIMATE OF UPPER FLORIDAN AQUIFER WATER LEVEL) STORMWATER APPLICATIONS 90
23 UPPER FLORIDAN AQUIFER WELL STATION 63) ONTO ---ADJACENT --
< 22 DAILY CUMULATIVE RAINFALL (STATIONS 57 AND 58) TO PROPERTY 80
21 DAILY CUMULATIVE WETLAND EVAPORATION STATION 59) I 7 0
20- 70<0

18 GABRIELLE -, E- -- AA 60
WETLAND PERIMETER WELL A
17 STATION 34-
--5
S16- BECAME SUBMERGED --
3 15 -40O
..14 -
W 13- 30O


10 -- 10
S 9 -- ESTIMATED -
8 I I I I I I I I INj I I I I I I I 0 O
SEPT. OCT. NOV. DEC. JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT OCT. NOV DEC JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY JUNE
2001 2002 2003

Figure B-18. Figure 20 from Knowles et al. (2005). Original caption reads: "Daily water levels, cumulative rainfall, and cumulative
wetland evaporation for the large wetland, Lyonia Preserve (station numbers refer to figure 6 and table 1)."











I I I I I I I I I R I


LLJ
Q
W

cc

0C
S Z


Z u

C6
SLUJ


u~j Sf






z
LD LL


DECREASING
POTENTIAL FOR
LOSS TO
GROUND WATER


00\ Wo

U L

No


-60 -*- VERTICAL HEAD DIFFERENCE FOR BOGGY MARSH SOUTH TRANSECT (AVERAGE = 1.67 FEET)
-70 --*- VERTICAL HEAD DIFFERENCE FOR BOGGY MARSH EAST TRANSECT (AVERAGE = 1.49 FEET)
-.- VERTICAL HEAD DIFFERENCE FOR BOGGY MARSH WEST TRANSECT (AVERAGE = 1.51 FEET)
-8 VERTICAL HEAD DIFFERENCE FOR BOGGY MARSH (AVERAGE = 1.50 FEET)
-90 --- BOGGY MARSH WATER-SURFACE ELEVATION
100 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
DEC. JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. NOV. DEC. JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY JUNE
2001 2002 2003


Figure B-19. Figure 32 from Knowles et al. (2005). Original caption reads: "Potential for exchange (vertical) between ground water
and Boggy Marsh, Hilochee Wildlife Management Area."


INCREASING
POTENTIAL FOR
LOSS TO
GROUND WATER








l* *
a',
S' .,


', !- e l W/


C'J
118

Z
116 lu


114


112


110 JUJ
oz
108 -


106


104
z

102


I I I I I I I I












460


^
K K






9. \ 0-




j, 0.I




MAk APR. IAY JUNE JULY A 3. OC. NOV. DEC.

Figure B-20. Figure 3.1 from Mitsch (1984). Original caption reads: "Annual pattern of water
level, pH, phosphorus, and nitrogen in the Austin Cary cypress dome pond."








A. WATER LEVEL DEPTH


.-.- .. . .. .
0.2






I | I., I



J FA J AOD F J AODFA JAODFAJ AOD
1993 1994 1'995 1996
--m- K -- N --- C


Figure B-21. Figure 6A from Riekerk and Korhnak (2000). Original caption reads: "A)
Monthly wetland water-level depths." Three wetlands are depicted: K, N, and C.











40 --- II111P.ILUV\U
E v .... v semi-improved

S30

C:





7/1/00 11/1/00 3/1/01 7/1/01 11/1/01 3/1/02
Date M/d/yy

Figure B-22. Figure 1 from Steinman et al. (2003). Original caption reads: "Mean water depth
in wetlands from improved and semi-native pastures revealing the seasonal nature of these
systems. Data presented in this paper correspond only to the July through October 2001 period."







e wfuh


'J (t1
4i
I 3I I


M.


~41~4~


C



i
I

IA,


.LL W andl


~'~r *~*r~


Figure B-23. Figure 1 from Sun et al. (2000). Original caption reads: "Daily water-level
dynamics in three cypress wetlands during 1992-1996; the arrow indicates harvesting treatment
completed."


-" iBo-i


WWE.mW


(iwfurus


Ma











I Rainfall -- Groundwater Surface Water


4.4

o.oST- 4.3



-0.06 4A



0.04- 3.9



0.02 3.7



I I I I 3.6


Date


Figure B-24. Figure 3 from Wise et al. (2000). Original caption reads: "Long-term monitoring
data including study period."









Appendix C Wetland Hydrology Model


Mark T. Brown
Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences and
Center for Wetlands
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611

DESCRIPTION of the MODEL

Given in Figure C-1 is a systems diagram of the wetland hydrology model. For a complete
description of the symbols and resulting mathematics see Odum (1983). The systems diagram is
a method of writing differential equations since each symbol is rigorously defined with explicit
mathematical meaning. Differential equations are written directly from the diagram and
programmed as difference equations in EXCEL.

Storages of water include surface water, soil water (as the interstitial waters in organic soils of
the wetland), and groundwater. Inputs to surface water include rainfall (J2.1), runoff from
surrounding lands (called runin [J2.2]), and "exchange" with soil water (J4.1). Surface outflow
from the wetland (J4.2) occurs when surface water elevation exceeds the elevation of the
wetland's outer edge. Evapotranspiration (J3) includes evaporation from surface water (J3.2) and
transpiration (J3.1). Ground water exchange with soil water (J5.1) is driven by ground water
elevation, which results from exchange with ground waters outside the system boundary (J5.2).
Numbered pathways in the diagram refer to corresponding line items in Table 1.

The water balance equations for each water storage are as follows:
Surface water = J2.1+ J2.2 J3.2 J4.1 J4.2 (1)
Soil water = J4.1 J3.1 J5.1 (2)
Ground water = +/- J5.1 (3)

Rainfall is programmed as daily events from any climate data set. Runoff from surrounding
lands depends on slope and conditions of the watershed, and is programmed by adjusting rate
coefficients. Water level within the wetland is controlled by inflows of rain and surface run-in ,
and outflows of transpiration (exchange with soil water), evaporation, and surface outflow.
Since vegetation is rooted in soils, and transpired water is "extracted" from the soil (not the
water column) a storage of soil water is included in the model. The amount of soil water is
controlled by input from surface water and outflows via transpiration and seepage. Infiltration to
surficial aquifer (ground water) is calculated as follows:

Igw = K*A*dH/dL (4)

where
K 0.25
A =Area of wetland
dL = 50 meters










Evapotranspiration is calculated using a Hargreaves model as follows:


a
ET= 0.0135(Ts + 17.78)Rs (5)
(585.5 0.55 Ts)
where:
ET = Evapotranspiration (mm/day)
Ts = Mean Temperature (C 0)
Rs = incident solar radiation (MJ/m2/day or Langleys/m2/day)
A = coefficient (a = 10 when Rs is expressed as Lengleys/day, or a = 238.8 when Rs
is expressed as MJ/m2/day.

Surface outflow from the wetland occurs through a rectangular weir set at 0.5 meters above the
wetland bottom. The following equation is used to calculate the discharge when water level is
greater than 0.5 meters. (Q=1.21 LH15 )
where:
Q = discharge in m3/day D
L = the length of weir in meters
H = head on the weir in meters

Table C-1 lists each of the pathways and storage within the wetland and the initial or
programmed values for each. From these data rate coefficients for each pathway in the model
were calculated.

Output from the model is displayed on the computer screen during each simulation run. The
output shows a yearly hydrograph and also a maximum water level plotted against a section view
through the wetland and adjacent upland.

Sensitivity analysis, calibration, and validation of the model was done using data from
previously studied wetland systems (see Odum and Ewel, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1978, 1980, 1986;
Heimburg and Wang, 1976 and Heimburg, 1986) and data collected from field measurements at
the Lake County site.

Sensitivity analysis was conducted by evaluating the effect on model output of varying input
parameters and flow pathway coefficients. Results obtained when parameters were increased
and decreased by as much as 100% from programmed values were compared with expected
model behavior (ie if an increase in a parameter should cause an increase in a flow or storage,
the resulting behavior was compared with the expected result).

The model was calibrated against a data set for a cypress wetland in north central Florida
(Heimberg and Wang, 1976). Total flows into and out of the simulated wetland were compared
to measured parameters in the cypress wetland. Predicted water levels that were generated by the
model were compared to measured water levels. In the absence of long term water level data for
the Lake County site, the elevations of lichen lines and cypress knees were used as indicators of
depth of inundation (Brown and Doherty, 2000).









Rate coefficients and input parameters were adjusted based on results of the sensitivity analysis
during calibration until a good fit between measured values for the cypress wetland and the
simulation model was obtained. Of primary concern was the total flows into and out of the
surface wetland (rainfall, runin, ET, and seepage). The goal of calibration was to obtain
simulation results for total flows within 5% of the measured values.

Simulation Runs

Water levels in the wetland were simulated for the base condition using actual precipitation for
an average rainfall year. The base condition was 0% impervious surface, 1% watershed slope,
four to one watershed to wetland ratio (4 hectares of watershed to 1 hectare of wetland),
watershed soil hydrologic group "C", wetland water depth of 0.53 meters (1.75 feet), and an
average rainfall year.

The model was then simulated for varying conditions and rainfall events to evaluate the area of
upland immediately adjacent to the wetland that would be inundated. First different storm
events were simulated during the rainy season by introducing a five, 10, 25, 50, and 100 year
storm event on the 190th day of the year. Second, the percent impervious surface was increased
in 10% increments to 50% to simulate development of the watershed.


Table C-1. Flows for Wetlands Model

Flow Name Description Footnote
number


Sunlight


Rain


Surface runin


Evapotranspiration


Transpiration by
vegetation

Evaporation from
surface water

Surface/soil


Programmed daily from
averages

Programmed daily from
precipitation data

Function of surrounding
upland watershed

Sum of evaporation and
transpiration

Function of sunlight and
and net production of veg.

Function of sunlight and area
of wetland

Programmed based on ET,









water interchange


J4.2 Surface water Calculated output 8.
outflow

J5.1 Seepage Function of soil trasnmissivity 9.
and head of surface water

J5.2 Groundwater Programmed 10.
Exchange




Footnotes to Table 1.


1. J1 Sunlight. Average monthly solar radiation at Gainesville, Florida (Dohrenwend, 1978),
based on a 20-year record from 1955 to 1975. Daily solar radiation calculated by fitting a
sine function to average monthly radiation as follows:


Jan. 8480 langleys
Feb. 9945
Mar. 13703
Apr. 16307
May 17404
Jun. 15553
Jul. 14999
Aug. 15619
Sep. 13305
Oct. 12061
Nov. 10009
Dec. 8765

2. J2.1 Rainfall. Rainfall directly on wetland area. Programmed daily from NOAA data.

3. J2.2 Runin. Daily runin from surrounding watershed. Calculated from rainfall (NOAA
data), soil moisture conditions (programmed minimum event for runoff), percent
imperviousness, area of contributing watershed, and slope of watershed.

4. J3 Evapotranspiration. Sum of Transpiration and Evaporation. Used measured
evapotranspiration values (Heimberg and Wang, 1976) for calibration as follows:

Jan. 7mm
Feb. 12mm
Mar. 22mm


and seepage









Apr. 141mm
May 143mm
Jun. 119mm
Jul. 105mm
Aug. 119mm
Sep. 80mm
Oct. 94mm
Nov. 32mm
Dec. 13mm

Total 887mm

5. J3.1 Transpiration. Transpiration of wetland calculated as average water use per
increment of net production normalized to fit a growth curve for the growing season based on
solar insolation. Water use was taken as 1775 g H20/g carbohydrate, average GPP is
between 5.6 and 7.9 gC/m2 day 1 (depending on wetland type), and 30 g H20 per 12 g
Carbon fixed (Brown, 1978).

6. J3.2- Evaporation. Evaporation determined as difference between measured values of
evapotranspiration (Heimberg and Wang, 1976) and calculated transpiration during the
growing season. Evaporation during the dormant season is and equal to daily measured ET.

7. J4.1 Surface / soil water interchange. Calculated rate. When there is surface water in the
wetland, interchange equals sum of transpiration, and seepage. When there is no surface
water the rate is equal to transpiration

8. J4.2 Surface outflow. Surface water outflow from wetland is programmed to occur when
water levels are greater than elevation of wetland edge. If there is no positive outfall, water
levels increase in surrounding upland landscape.


9. Js.1 Seepage. Rate is a function of the height of water in wetland and height of
groundwater outside the wetland. Rate equation was simplified from an empirically derived
equation (Heimberg and Wang, 1976)

10. J5.2 Groundwater exchange. Programmed rate constant based on transmissivity.
Generally the flow is considered groundwater recharge (ie waterflow is away from the
wetland). Wetland can be programmed to be experience groundwater discharge if
surrounding groundwater elevation is higher than water levels in the wetland.



















Surface Outflow

J4.2


J5.1 Gd. Water Flow


Wetland Hydrology
M.T. Brown 06/09


Figure C-1. Wetland Hydrology Model.









Appendix C Literature Cited


Brown, MT, RE Tighe, eds (1990) Development of Techniques and Guidelines for Reclamation
of Phosphate Mined Lands as Diverse Landscapes and Complete Hydrologic Units. Final
Report to Florida Institute of Phosphate Research. Gainesville, FL: Center for Wetlands,
University of Florida
Brown, SL (1978) A Comparison of Cypress Ecosystems in the Landscape of Florida. Ph.D
Dissertation. Gainesville, Florida: Center for Wetlands, Univ. FL. p. 570.
Dohrenwend, RE (1978) The Climate of Alachua County, Florida. Gainesville, Florida: Bulletin
796, I.F.A.S., University of Florida
Heimburg, K (1986) Hydrology of North Central Florida Cypress Domes. In HT Odum and KC
Ewel (eds) Cypress Swamps. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville FL. 472 pp.
Heimburg, K, F Wang (1976) Hydrological Budget Model. In HT Odum and KC Ewel (eds):
Cypress Wetlands for Water Management Recycling and Conservation (3rd annual
report). Gainesville, FL: Center for Wetlands, Univ. of FL. p. 68.
Odum, HT (1983) Systems Ecology. New York: McGraw Hill, p. 644.
Odum, HT, KC Ewel (1974) Cypress Wetlands for Water Management, Recycling and
Conservation. First Annual Report. Gainesville, Florida: Center for Wetlands, Univ. of
FL. p. 947.
Odum, HT, KC Ewel (1975) Cypress Wetlands for Water Management, Recycling and
Conservation. Second Annual Report. Gainesville, Florida: Center for Wetlands, Univ.
ofFL. p. 817.
Odum, HT, KC Ewel (1976) Cypress Wetlands for Water Management, Recycling and
Conservation. Third Annual Report. Gainesville, Florida: Center for Wetlands, Univ. of
FL. p. 879.
Odum, HT, KC Ewel (1978) Cypress Wetlands for Water Management, Recycling and
Conservation. Fourth Annual Report. Gainesville, Florida: Center for Wetlands, Univ. of
FL. p. 945.
Odum, HT, KC Ewel (1980) Cypress Wetlands for Water Management, Recycling and
Conservation. Fifth and Final Report. Gainesville, Florida: Center for Wetlands, Univ. of
FL. p. 284.
HT Odum KC Ewel, eds (1986) Cypress Swamps. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville
FL. 472 pp.




Full Text

PAGE 1

Final Report Summary of the Available Literatu re on Nutrient Concentrations and Hydrology for Florida Isolated Wetlands Prepared under DEP Contract WM942 and submitted to the Bureau of Watershed Restoration, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, Florida Submitted by: Kelly Chinners Reiss, Jason Evans, Mark T. Brown Howard T. Odum Center for Wetlands Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences, University of Florida 100 Phelps Lab, Museum Rd. P.O. Box 116350 Gainesville, FL 32611-6350 352-392-2425 3 September 2009

PAGE 3

iTable of Contents Section Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................................. .........................iii INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... ....................................1 EXTENT OF FLORIDA FRESHWATER WETLANDS.........................................................................................................1 DESCRIPTION OF FLORIDA FRESHWATER WETLANDS.................................................................................................2 Wetland Vegetation............................................................................................................. ...................................3 Wetlands Hydrogeomorphology.................................................................................................... ........................3 PURPOSE OF STUDY............................................................................................................................... .....................3 METHODS........................................................................................................................ ...........................................4 DATA SEARCH............................................................................................................................... .............................4 Published, Peer-Revi ewed Literature............................................................................................ ........................4 Gray Literature................................................................................................................ ......................................5 Unpublished Data............................................................................................................... ...................................5 NUTRIENT AND HYDROLOGY DATABASE...................................................................................................................6 NUTRIENT DATA SUMMARY AND SYNTHESIS.............................................................................................................7 WETLAND HYDROLOGY SUMMARY AND SYNTHESIS..................................................................................................7 METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATING NUTRIENT LOADING FROM WETLANDS................................................................7 RESULTS........................................................................................................................ .............................................8 NON-IMPACTED WETLANDS............................................................................................................................... ........8 Depressional Fore sted Wetlands................................................................................................. ..........................8 Basin Forested Wetlands........................................................................................................ .............................14 Depressional Emer gent Wetlands................................................................................................. ......................14 Basin Emergent Wetlands........................................................................................................ ............................14 IMPACTED WETLANDS............................................................................................................................... ...............15 Depressional Fore sted Wetlands................................................................................................. ........................15 Basin Forested Wetlands........................................................................................................ .............................16 Depressional Emer gent Wetlands................................................................................................. ......................16 Basin Emergent Wetlands........................................................................................................ ............................17 NON-IMPACTED WETLANDS QUARTILES AND NUTRIENT CONCENTRATIONS...........................................................17 HYDRO-GRAPHS............................................................................................................................... ........................20 METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATING NUTRIENT LOADINGS FROM WETLANDS.............................................................23 Data Input..................................................................................................................... .......................................23 Calculation of Di scharge Volumes............................................................................................... .......................26 SAMPLE CALCULATION FOR ESTIMATING WETLAND LOADING................................................................................28 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................. ......29 DATA UNCERTAINTY............................................................................................................................... .................30 FUTURE RESEARCH............................................................................................................................... ...................30 REFERENCES..................................................................................................................... .....................................32 APPENDIX A REFERENCES WITH RELEVANT DATA INCLUDED IN ACCESS DATABASE, NUTRIENT TABLES, OR H YDROGRAPH COLLECTION.............................................................................34 APPENDIX B COLLECTED HYDROGRAPHS FOR FLORIDA WETLANDS...........................................39 APPENDIX C – WETLAND HYDROLOGY MODEL........................................................................................63

PAGE 4

ii

PAGE 5

iiiEXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report summarizes a database of environmental parameters for isolated wetlands in Florida with specific focus on nitrogen and phosphorus in the wetland water column and soils. This database, the Florida Isolated Wetland Nutrient Database (FIWND) was assembled through a comprehensive review of literature and available data sources, with a particular focus on gathering all existing nitrogen and phosphorus water quality data for reference isolated wetlands that have minimal impact from human disturbance, hereafter called non-impacted wetlands. Data were also collected for impacted isolated wetlands, thereby providing a record of wetland water and soil quality across the landscape (where recorded) and a basis for comparison with reference wetlands. The data indicate that water column nitrogen and phosphorus both show considerable natural variation in non-impacted Florida wetlands. Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) values for nonimpacted isolated wetlands ranged from a low of 0.002 mg N/L to a high of 6.0 mg N/L while total phosphorus (TP) values ranged from a low of 0.002 mg P/L to 0.64 mg P/L. Impacted wetlands generally showed much more variation in water column nutrient parameters, with a TKN range from 0.450 mg N/L to 31.0 mg N/L and a TP range from 0.0035 mg P/L to 17.0 mg P/L. Note that TKN values are reported, as opposed to total nitrogen (TN), due to the low sample size of non-impacted (n = 3) and impacted (n = 21) TN data. Using the 75th percentile (or third quartile) of nutrient concentrations as an indicator of background nutrient concentrations during the wet season, isolated non-impacted wetlands water column TKN concentrations were below 2.000 mg N/L for forested depressional wetlands, 2.200 mg N/L for emergent depressional wetlands, a nd 1.608 mg N/L for emergent basin wetlands. Water column nitrate-nitrogen (NO3-N) and ammonia-nitrogen (NH3-N) 75th percentile values were much lower. Background TP concentrations were below 0.085 mg P/L for forested depressional wetlands, 0.041 mg P/L for emergent depressional wetlands, and 0.047 mg P/L for emergent basin wetlands. While the data show small differences in the range of soil nitrogen values between non-impacted and impacted wetlands, a strong difference is found for phosphorus levels in non-impacted and impacted wetlands. Background soil TN concentrations, based on the 75th percentile of nonimpacted wetlands, were 13.50 mg N/g soil for forested depressional wetlands, 12.35 mg N/g soil for emergent depressional wetlands, and 30.35 mg N/g soil for emergent basin wetlands. The 75th percentile soil TP concentrations were 0.408 mg P/g soil for forested depressional wetlands, 0.260 mg P/g soil for emergent depressional wetlands, and 0.205 mg P/g soil for emergent basin wetlands. We have proposed a methodology for calculating runoff for isolated depressional and basin wetlands for individual rainfall events. The methodology uses the US Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service (now Natural Resources Conservation Service) runoff equation with modified curve numbers (CNs) developed specifically for isolated wetlands. During the dry season, we propose that runoff will only occur if the rainfall event is greater than the difference between the wetland water level and the mean wet-season water level. Nutrient concentration for runoff can then be calculated based on the FIWND values collected for this study. We

PAGE 6

ivpropose that 75th percentile nutrient concentrations are used for dry season calculations, reflecting higher nutrient concentrations in lower water conditions. Further, the lower 25th percentile nutrient concentrations should be used to calculate loading during the wet season, to reflect the more dilute nutrient conditions in times of higher wetland water levels and therefore dilution of nutrient concentrations. Interpretive caution toward these results is warranted because much of the literature data were collected during relatively short-term research studies focused on a small number of specific sites. As well, reporting conventions across studies are quite idiosyncratic. A systematic approach for sampling water quality of Florida’s isolated wetlands is necessary for a robust, regionally specific understanding of the natural condition of these systems and the role they play in maintaining water quality across the natural and developed landscape matrix.

PAGE 7

1INTRODUCTION Wetlands are defined by the presence of hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and characteristic hydrology that provides saturation or inundation for a sufficient part of the growing season to support hydric soils and hydrophytic vegetation. For the purposes of this review we refer to the US Fish and Wildlife Service standard classification scheme for wetlands and deepwater habitats (Cowardin et al. 1979). Our focus was on isolated palustrine forested and emergent wetlands. Data were further divided into smaller depressional wetlands and larger basin wetlands. In this review, the term isolated specifically refers to wetlands that generally lack a significant surface water connection, though may connect to other wetlands or water bodies in times of above average water levels, and are therefore considered to have surficial hydrologic isolation. Further, the wetlands are considered geographically isolated owing to the surrounding land cover being upland habitat (after Tiner 2003). Additiona l data for wetlands outside of Florida or for other palustrine wetland types (e.g. strands, sloughs) were collected and entered in the database when included in relevant data sets or otherwise available, but are not presented here. A further focus of this review was on reference standard wetlands. That is, wetlands that represent ecological integrity, the highest ecologi cal condition, and that were generally free from obvious and apparent anthropogenic influence. Hereafter, these reference standard wetlands are described as non-impacted to facilitate standard terminology throughout this document. Additional data were collected for impacted wetlands, described as those influenced by anthropogenic activities in the surrounding landscape (e.g. row crops, pasture, dairy farms, residential development, highways). While the scope of work called for a specific review of non-impacted the inclusion of data from impacted wetlands provides a broader understanding of the current state of wetland water and soil quality across the Florida landscape. Extent of Florida Freshwater Wetlands Wetlands once occurred on approximately 8.2 million ha throughout the state of Florida. Today considerably less of the landscape is occupied by wetlands, with an estimate from 1996 of 4.6 million ha of wetlands in Florida (Dahl 2005). Of these wetlands, approximately 90% are freshwater wetlands (4.1 million ha) with 2.3 million ha of freshwater forested wetlands, 1.1 million ha of freshwater emergent wetlands, 725,000 ha of freshwater shrub wetlands, and 98,000 ha of freshwater ponds (Dahl 2005). The US Fish and Wildlife Status and Trends report (Dahl 2005) does not specifically address hydrologically isolated wetlands. The four broad types of freshwater wetlands include forested wetlands (e.g. wet pine flatwoods, mixed hardwoods, river swamps, cypress domes, and hydric hammocks), emergent wetlands (e.g. marsh, swale, slough, wet prairie, wet savanna, reed swamps, glades), shrub wetlands (e.g. titi swamps, scrub cypress, dwarf cypress), and natural and manmade freshwater ponds (Dahl 2005). The mean surface area of freshwater wetlands ranged from 7 ha for forested wetlands, 4 ha for emergent wetlands, 3 ha for shrub wetlands, to 0.7 ha for freshwater ponds (Dahl 2005). Further, these wetland types are not equally abundant throughout Florida (Table 1). Lane (2000) presented four Florida wetland regions derived from a spatial hydrological model: panhandle, north, central, and south (Figure 1). In the panhandle region, Lane (2000) identified 90.1% of the

PAGE 8

2freshwater wetlands as forested with the remaining 10% divided between shrub (6.8%) and emergent (3.2%) wetlands. In contrast, in the south regi on, 21.9% of the freshwater wetlands were forested, with 17.3% shrub and 60.8% emergent shrub wetlands. In an earlier study, the Florida Department of Community Affairs (1988) estimated that the ratio of forested to emergent wetlands in the Florida panhandle was 10:1; whereas the ratio was 3:1 and 1: 5 in central and south Florida, respectively (as cited by Dahl 2005). Table 1. Spatial distribution of palustri ne wetland types in Florida (Lane 2000) Wetland Region Vegetation PanhandleNorth CentralSouth Forested 90.1% 78.2% 49.8% 21.9% Emergent 3.2% 13.3% 41.4% 60.8% Shrub 6.8% 8.6% 8.7% 17.3% Description of Florida Freshwater Wetlands Distinct differences occur among Florida wetland types, though an overlap in flora and fauna occurs. This review focused on geographically isolated depressional and basin, forested and emergent wetlands. These geographically isolated wetlands belong to what Tiner (2003) calls Coastal Plain ponds, cypress domes, gum ponds, or pocosin wetlands. Figure 1. Florida wetland regions (Lane 2000)

PAGE 9

3Wetland Vegetation Forested wetlands include those wetlands characterized by woody species that are at least 6 m tall or taller (Dahl 2005). Emergent wetlands, commonly called marshes, host rooted herbaceous hydrophytes, with the exclusion of wetlands dominated by mosses and lichens (Dahl 2005). The biomass turnover rate of emergent wetlands is typically an order of magnitude higher than forested wetlands (Hopkinson 1992). Wetlands Hydrogeomorphology For the purposes of this review we have broadly grouped the data as depressional or basin wetlands. Depressional wetlands often occur in relatively small watersheds and their water budget is dependent on precipitation (Brinson 1993) making them hydrologically isolated from surface water connectivity. While not strictly hydrologically isolated wetlands, basin wetlands in this review were characterized as larger wetland systems often with a seasonal or semipermanent surface hydrologic connection to other wetlands or aquatic bodies, either as inflow or outflow. Because basin wetlands can be nearly “completely surrounded by uplands,” which Tiner (2003) uses to define isolated wetlands, basin wetlands qualify as geographically isolated wetlands for the purposes of this review. Brinson and Lee (1989) described basin wetlands as having low hydrologic energy, long hydroperiods, low nutrient availability, low to moderate temperature, low to high fire frequency, and low herbivory. Purpose of Study This review was conducted in response to a request for a literature review to summarize and synthesize available scientific information regarding background nutrient concentrations and hydrology for Florida isolated wetlands. This review synthesizes information in order to define background conditions for non-impacted wetlands (i.e. natural, minimally impaired, reference standard wetlands) and impacted wetlands (i.e. wetlands surrounded by human land use activities) for the proposed Statewide Stormwater Treatment Rule. The available literature, including published, peer reviewed documents and gray literature reports, has been used to document nutrient concentrations, particularly nitrogen and phosphorus, and to summarize the existing information on wetland hydrology (i.e depth, duration, flood frequency). Wetland hydrology is generally considered the single most influential determinant of wetland condition (e.g. Duever et al. 1986; Mitsch and Gosselink 2007). Long term monitoring records of wetland hydrology are generally absent from wetland studies and what data are available generally span five growing seasons or less and are thus considerably dependent on short term weather conditions as opposed to long term climactic averages. An acceptable integration of wetland hydrology reflecting long term climatic averages is difficult to predict; however, understanding wetland hydrology is critical to developing realistic estimates of stormwater loading from wetlands. As guidance for public policy, the wetland literature review presents what is known about nutrient concentrations and hydrology, the information gaps that inject substantial uncertainty, and suggested research to address these gaps.

PAGE 10

4METHODS The primary objective of this scope was to develop a synthetic database on concentrations of water column nitrogen and phosphorus in isolated wetlands in order to provide usable scientific information as input to the development of the Statewide Stormwater Treatment Rule for Florida. To accomplish this objective, the project team reviewed available scientific literature on wetland nutrient concentrations, focusing on n itrogen and phosphorus, and hydrology. To reflect differences between wetland types and the spatial differences in ecological drivers across Florida, the review considered differences by wetland vegetation (e.g., forested, emergent), wetland hydrogeomorphology (e.g., depressional, ba sin), and wetland region (e.g., panhandle, north, central, south). A secondary objective of th is scope was the development of a stormwater loading model that can be used to predict the nutrient load in runoff from isolated wetlands. Data Search Several sources of literature were consulted including the published, peer-reviewed literature; gray literature from academic and institutional literature, consulting reports, and city, county, state, and federal agencies; and unpublished data sets. Published, Peer-Reviewed Literature A comprehensive search of the UF library system was conducted using relevant key word searches: ammonia, basin, cypress, depressi onal, emergent, Florida, forested, hydrology, hydroperiod, isolated, nitrate, nitrite, nitrogen, nutrients, phosphate, phosphorus, and/or wetland. The search included nine ecological databases: Academic Search Premier, AGRICOLA (CSA), Biological and Agricultural Index Plus, BIOSIS Previews, CAB Abstracts, Ecology Abstracts, OmniFile Full Text Mega, Science Citation Index, and Wildlife & Ecology Studies Worldwide. Academic Search Premier, as the largest academic multi-disciplinary database, includes nearly 4,700 publications, with more than 3,600 from peer-reviewed journals. AGRICOLA (CSA) is a bibliographic database including listings for journal articles, monographs, proceedings, theses, patents, translations, audiovisual materials, co mputer software, and technical reports pertaining to all aspects of agriculture. Biological and Agri cultural Index Plus includes resources in biology and agriculture, with some content from peer-reviewed journals. BIOSIS Previews provides the largest collection of biological sciences records world-wide from over 6000 book chapters, book reviews, journals, meetings, review articles, soft ware, and U.S. patents. CAB Abstracts presents international research and development materials in the fields of agriculture, animal health, forestry, human health, human nutrition, and manage ment and conservation of natural resources. Ecology Abstracts provides a search in current ecology research. Wilson OmniFile Full Text, Mega Edition provides resources from six of Wilson's full-text databases as a single multidisciplinary database. Science Citation Index Expanded provides a search in 5,900 major journals across 150 scientific disciplines and includes all cited references captured from indexed articles. Wildlife & Ecology Studies Worldwide includes over 650,000 bibliographic records and is the largest index for materials on wild mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians.

PAGE 11

5Gray Literature A search for gray literature data sources included the University of Florida’s Howard T. Odum Center for Wetlands library, which includes student theses and dissertations, internal project reports, and reports from agencies including the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, National Park Service, Water Mana gement Districts (i.e., South Florida Water Management District, Southwest Florida Water Ma nagement District, and St. Johns River Water Management District), and some additional agen cy or consulting firm reports for individual projects. As a part of the search process, agency websites were searched for appropriate reports and materials (e.g., Sarasota County Water Atlas http://www.sarasota.wateratlas.usf.edu/Default.aspx South Florida Water Management District http://www.sfwmd.gov/ ), Southwest Florida Water Management District http://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/ St. Johns River Water Management District http://sjr.state.fl.us/publications.html United States Geological Survey http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod/ ). Unpublished Data Many different avenues were explored for ga thering unpublished wetland data including face-toface meetings, phone calls, and email communication. The following individuals provided data, either as unpublished data sets or as published reports or journal articles: Mark Clark, University of Florida Department of Soil and Water Science, USEPA coastal plain database and Kissimmee soil phosphorus data; Katherine Ewel, University of Florida, unpublished reports; Boyd Gunsalus, South Florida Water Management Dist rict (SFWMD), repeat water measures for wetlands in south Florida; Joe Hand, Florida De partment of Environmental Protection (FDEP), water quality data for eight wetlands; Steve Kintne r, Director of Volusia County Environmental Management Division, provided USGS study, K nowles (2005); Ray Miller, Don Medellen, and Mike Lopushinsky, SFWMD, Jonathan Dickens on State Park hydrology data; Kim O’Dell, Orlando Diaz, and Benita Whelan, SFWMD, Okeechobee (research report); Todd Osbourne, University of Florida, Okeechobee basin, pasture study; Ted Rochow, SWFWMD (Green Swamp hydrology); Brian Gentry, Palm Beach County. The following individuals, agencies, or organizations were contacted but did not have applicable data for this review: Patrick Bohlen, Buck Island Ranch; Tom DeBusk, consultant with DB Environmental; Mike Duever, SFWMD; Bob Epting, Sonny Hall, and Marc Minno, SJRWMD; Larry Kohrnack, University of Florida; Mike Owen, Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve; Pete Wallace; Karen Bickford, TMDL Director, L ee County Natural Resources; Julie Bortles, Environmental Program Supervisor, Orange C ounty Environmental Protection Division; Aisa Ceric, Palmer Kinser, Vicki Toge, SJRWMD; Charlie Hunsicker, Director, Manatee County Natural Resources Department; Bob Knight, Wetland Solutions, Inc.; Robert Kollinger, Polk County Natural Resources and Drainage; Gordon A. Leslie, Hillsborough County, Environmental Protection Commission; Gary Maidhof, Citrus County; Randy Mathews, Coordinator, Osceola County Environmenta l Lands Conservation Program; Brian McMahon, EWR, Inc.; Caprecid Oliver, St. Lucie County Environmental Resources Department; John Ryan, Environmental Supervisor, Sarasota County Water Resources; Kirk Stage, Water and Air Resources, Inc.; St. Marks and St. Vincent National Wildlife Refuge; Walter Wood, Lake

PAGE 12

6County Environmental Utilities. Additional sources that led to duplicate data or data not relevant to this review included HGM Depressional Guidebook reference sites by the US Army Corps of Engineers; Disney Wilderness Preserve; Minimum Flows and Levels work; TMDL work; Tampa Bay Water well fields; and Withlacoochee State Forest. Nutrient and Hydrology Database As this is a review of available data and not a project with systematic data collection, entry points took variable formats. The Florida Isolated Wetland Nutrient Database (FIWND) developed in Microsoft Access was designed so that each row represented a data entry point. This may include data from an individual wetland from a single sampling event or the mean, standard deviation, standard error, or range fo r a given wetland or group of wetlands. Each row was assigned a unique, non-repeating, automatically assigned Contact ID number in the first column. In total there were 138 columns in the data base, though no data entry point (row) had data for every column. In addition to the unique Contact ID column there were 20 study description columns, 4 data source or citation columns, 49 water quality columns, 24 water or nutrient budget columns, and 40 soil quality columns. Study description columns included: Wetland Name, One or More (e.g., ranges, mean, single wetland), Reference Wetland, Wetland Vegetation, Wetland Type, Sample Size, Area, Nearby City/Town, State, Region, County, Water Mana gement District, Surrounding Land Use, Land Use Detail, Study Time Frame, Sample Fr equency, Characteristic Hydrology, Hydroperiod, Hydrologic Alteration, and Characteristic Vegetation. Columns specific to the data source and citation included: Data Source (e.g., author, year), Data Certainty, Applicability, and Other Comments. Water quality columns included: Color, Dissolved Oxygen, pH, Temperature, Conductivity, Turbidity, Nitrate-Nitrogen (NO3), Nitrite-Nitrogen (NO2), Ammonia-Nitrogen (NH3), Organic Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN), Tota l Nitrogen (TN), Ortho-P, Soluble Reactive Phosphorus, Organic Phosphorus, Total Dissolved Phosphorus, Total Phosphorus (TP), Oxidation Reduction Potential, Secchi Depth, BOD, Suspended Solids, Dissolved Solids, Chloride, Flouride, Sulfate, Hydrogen Sulfid e, Alkalinity, Hardness, Magnesium, Calcium, Potassium, Sodium, Iron, Manganese, Chlor ophyll a, Silicon, Inorganic Carbon, Organic Carbon, Bicarbonate, Caffeine, Fecal Coliform, Total Coliform, Enterococci Oil and Grease, Copper, Zinc, Cadmium, Lead, and Mercury. Columns specific to water and/or nutrient budgets included: Rainfall, Transpiration, Evaporation, Total Water Loss, Inflow TN, Su rface Runoff TN, Bulk Precipitation TN, Nitrogen Fixation, Infiltration TN, Denitrification, Surface Outflow TN, Sediment Deposition TN, Cypress Uptake TN, Above Ground Biomass TN, Below Ground Storage TN, Inflow TP, Surface Runoff TP, Bulk Precipitation TP, Inf iltration TP, Surface Overflow TP, Sediment Deposition TP, Cypress Uptake TP, Above Gr ound Biomass TP, and Below Ground Storage TP. Soil physical and chemical columns included: Core Depth, Temperature, pH, Redox Potential, %Moisture, Bulk Density, Organic Matter, %Organic Matter, %Loss on Ignition, Soluble

PAGE 13

7Reactive Phosphorus, Total Phosphorus (TP), Nitrate-Nitrogen (NO3), Nitrite-Nitrogen (NO2), Ammonia-Nitrogen (NH3), Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN), Total Nitrogen (TN), Total Carbon, Carbon/Nitrogen Ratio, Nitrogen/Phosphorus Ratio, Carbon/Phosphorus Ratio, Microbial Biomass Carbon, Microbial Biomass Nitrogen, N itrogen Mineralization Rate, Annual Nitrogen Mineralization, Denitrification Rate, Annual De nitrification, Calcium, Magnesium, Potassium, Calcium/Potassium Ratio, Calcium/Magnesium Ratio, Milliequivalent of Cations, Iron, Aluminum, Sodium, Hydrogen, Cation Exchange Capacity, Cadmium, Copper, Manganese, Lead, and Zinc. Nutrient Data Summary and Synthesis Due to the inherently variable nature of review data, advanced statistical analyses were inappropriate. Summary tables were constructed to specifically address ranges in nutrient concentration in the water column and soils of reference and impact, forested and emergent, depressional and basin wetlands. A graphical presentation of water column NO3, NH3, TKN, and TP and soil TN and TP was developed using box plots in Minitab v.15 (2007 Minitab, Inc.). Wetland categories having three or fewer data entries were omitted from graphical representations. Wetland Hydrology Summary and Synthesis In an attempt to summarize available data on frequency and depth of flooding, figures showing temporal water level variations for Florida wetlands were compiled. Hydrographs were interpreted to provide a general overview of minimum and maximum flooding depth, an estimation of flooding duration, and an overview of months with standing water. Methodology for Estimating Nutrient Loading from Wetlands To fulfill the second objective of this project, we developed a method to predict nutrient loading, specifically nitrogen and phosphorus, to downstream systems in runoff from isolated wetlands. The method assumes that nutrient loading is from wetland surface runoff and that no contributions from groundwater seepage from the wetland to receiving water bodies are considered. Further, the method differentiates between two seasons, a wet season (growing season, June October) and dry season (dormant season; November May) and the corresponding antecedent soil moisture conditions. The method is based on a Soil Conservation Service (SCS) curve number (CN) (USDA 1985) and accounts for differences in background concentrations of water column phosphorus and nitrogen in two broad hydrogeomorphic classes (depressional and basin wetlands) and two vegetation types (forested and emergent). Wetland types not included in this project are those with direct permanent hydrologic exchanges with downstream water bodies (e.g. lake border swamps, riparian and floodplain wetlands). The assumption is that these latter types of wetlands are intimately connected to the receiving water bodies, and therefore their water quality is the same as the neighboring water body.

PAGE 14

8RESULTS A complete list of the published peer-reviewed and gray literature references used to build the Florida Isolated Wetland Nutrient Database (FIWND) and compilation of hydrographs is presented in Appendix A. Dates of sample collection for entries in the database for nutrient concentrations range from 1973-2008. Non-Impacted Wetlands The FIWND database contained 372 entries for non-impacted wetlands in Florida. These entries break down into the following categories for isolated wetlands: 1) 142 depressional forested wetlands (~38%); 2) 3 basin forested wetlands (<1%); 3) 75 depressional emergent wetlands (~20%); 4) 20 basin emergent wetlands (~5%); and 5) 32 entries for non-impacted wetlands in which there was no identifying vegetation and/or geomorphic description available (~9%). The database also contains 3 entries for non-impacted strand wetlands (<1%) and 97 entries for nonimpacted floodplain wetlands (~26%). An additional 304 entries are for non-impacted wetlands in southeastern states outside of Florida and 15 entries are for non-impacted wetlands in the state of Indiana. Because historical data on non-imp acted wetlands generally are in short supply, nonisolated wetlands in Florida and isolated wetla nds outside of Florida were included in the database as a matter of course when located during the literature review process, though the search for these additional wetland types was in no way exhaustive. There was location information at the level of Fl orida regions (i.e. panhandle, north, central, and south) for 186 isolated non-impacted wetlands in the database. Of these, 25 (~13%) were in the panhandle, 64 were in north Florida (~34%), 41 were in central Florida (~22%), and 56 were in south Florida (~30%). Some additional entries were originally categorized at the coarser scale of USEPA regions and do not contain sufficient auxiliary information for categorization by Florida region. Depressional Forested Wetlands A relatively large number of data points were found for the parameters of water column NO3, NH3, TKN, and TP concentrations in non-impacted depressional forested wetlands (Tables 2 & 3). With the exception of TN, which only has two entries, all dissolved nitrogen parameters showed a lower bound that approached the common analytical detection limit (~0.002 mg N/L) (Figures 2 & 3). The range for TKN showed a relatively normal distribution up to an upper range of 5.6 mg N/L, while the upper values for both NO3 (1.9 mg N/L) and NH3 (1.7 mg N/L) were far outliers associated with one datum entry (Figure 2). Most values for TP were below 0.05 mg/L, although there were several outliers up to an upper value of 0.64 mg P/L (Figure 3). Direct interaction with highly phosphatic clays of the Hawthorne layer likely explained the very high phosphorus values found in some non-impacted forested depressional wetlands. Soil nutrient ranges in reference forested depressional wetlands were shown in Tables 4 & 5 and graphically presented in Figure 4. Soil nitrogen concentrations ranged from 1.68 mg N/g to 14.45 mg N/g as measured by TKN and 2.2 mg N/g to 17.7 mg N/g of TN. Soil phosphorus concentrations showed greater variability, which also was almost certainly a function of some

PAGE 15

9wetland soils having direct interaction with phospha te rich Hawthorne clays. The range of SRP (0.0022 mg P/g – 4.296 mg P/g) spanned across three orders of magnitude and TP values spanned approximately two orders of magnitude (0.02 mg P/g – 1.51 mg P/g). Table 2. Ranges of water column dissolved nitrogen parameters NO3-N (mg N/L) NH3-N (mg N/L) TKN (mg N/L) TN (mg N/L) Non-Impacted Wetlands Depressional forested 0.002 – 1.9 (79 entries) 0.002 – 1.7 (66 entries) 0.002 – 5.6 (82 entries) 1.6 – 1.67 (2 entries) Basin forested 0.004 – 0.09 (3 entries) 0.01 – 0.095 (3 entries) 0.62 – 0.98 (3 entries) 0.94 (1 entry) Depressional emergent 0.002 – 0.047 (49 entries) 0.005 – 2.6 (29 entries) 0.41 – 6.0 (49 entries) N.A. (0 entries) Basin emergent 0.007 – 0.117 (9 entries) 0.06 – 1.2 (9 entries) 0.92 – 1.77 (4 entries) N.A. (0 entries) Impact Wetlands Depressional forested 0.002 – 0.63 (124 entries) 0.002 – 12.6 (125 entries) 0.45 – 31.0 (126 entries) 1.2 – 17.1 (9 entries) Basin forested 0.06 – 0.13 (6 entries) 0.01 – 0.03 (6 entries) 0.62 – 1.3 (7 entries) 0.1 – 1.33 (7 entries) Depressional emergent 0.004 – 0.016 (17 entries) 0.136 (1 entry) 1.45 – 14.36 (16 entries) N.A. (0 entries) Basin emergent 0.04 – 0.1 (6 entries) 0.02 – 0.51 (6 entries) 0.57 – 3.9 (6 entries) 0.57 – 1.50 (5 entries) Table 3. Ranges of water column phosphorus parameters Ortho-P (mg P/L) SRP (mg P/L) Organic P (mg P/L) TP (mg P/L) Non-Impacted Wetlands Depressional forested 0.0008 – 0.48 (7 entries) Non-detect (1 entry) 0.02 – 0.12 (2 entries) 0.002 – 0.64 (82 entries) Basin forested 0.003 – 0.006 (2 entries) N.A. (0 entries) 0.01 (1 entry) 0.009 – 0.01 (3 entries) Depressional emergent N.A. (0 entries) N.A. (0 entries) N.A. (0 entries) 0.0069 – 0.12 (49 entries) Basin emergent 0.002 – 0.035 (8 entries) N.A. (0 entries) N.A. (0 entries) 0.007 – 0.08 (5 entries) Impact Wetlands Depressional forested 0.05 – 10.46 (19 entries) 0.03 – 0.05 (2 entries) 0.18 – 2.10 (7 entries) 0.0049 – 17.0 (150 entries) Basin forested N.A. (0 entries) N.A. (0 entries) 0.003 – 0.01 (6 entries) 0.01 – 0.05 (7 entries) Depressional emergent N.A. (0 entries) 0.016 – 1.96 (3 entries) N.A. (0 entries) 0.0035 – 7.98 (117 entries) Basin emergent 0.25 (5 entries) 0.09 (1 entry) N.A. (0 entries) 0.029 – 0.57 (7 entries)

PAGE 16

10(a) (b) Figure 2. Water column nutrient concentrations: a) nitrate-nitrogen (NO3-N) and b) ammonia-nitrogen (NH3-N) for R (non-impacted or reference, no fill) or I (impacted, gray fill); forested and emergent; depressional and basin wetlands. Boxes represent the first through third quart iles; horizontal interior line represents the median; vertical whiskers represent data range; asterisks represent outliers. Extreme outliers are not shown due to scaling constraints.

PAGE 17

11(a) (b) Figure 3. Water column nutrient concentrations: a) Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN), and b) total phosphorus (TP) for R (non-impacted or reference, no fill) or I (impacted, gray fill); forested and emergent; depressional and basin wetlands. Boxes represent the first through third quartiles; horizontal interior line represents the median; vertical whiskers represent data range; asterisks represent outliers. Extreme outliers are not shown due to scaling constraints.

PAGE 18

12Table 4. Ranges for soil nitrogen parameters NO3-N (mg N/g soil) NH3-N (mg N/g soil) TKN (mg N/g soil) TN (mg N/g soil) Non-Impacted Wetlands Depressional forested N.A. (0 entries) N.A. (0 entries) 1.68 – 14.45 (37 entries) 2.2 – 17.7 (25 entries) Basin forested N.A. (0 entries) N.A. (0 entries) N.A. (0 entries) N.A. (0 entries) Depressional emergent N.A. (0 entries) N.A. (0 entries) N.A. (0 entries) 0.002 – 34.2 (44 entries) Basin emergent 0.00026 – 0.190 ( 4 entries) 0.0253 – 0.15 (12 entries) N.A. (0 entries) 20 – 35.1 (12 entries) Impact Wetlands Depressional forested N.A. (0 entries) N.A. (0 entries) 0.51 – 16.63 (83 entries) 1.2 – 21.0 (50 entries) Basin forested N.A. (0 entries) N.A. (0 entries) N.A. (0 entries) 0.36 – 3.54 (8 entries) Depressional emergent N.A. (0 entries) N.A. (0 entries) N.A. (0 entries) 1.1 – 43.3 (49 entries) Basin emergent N.A. (0 entries) 0.0963 (1 entry) N.A. (0 entries) 0.619 – 46 (12 entries) Table 5. Ranges for soil phosphorus parameters SRP (mg P/g soil) Total P (mg P/g soil) Non-Impacted Wetlands Depressional forested 0.0022 – 4.296 (29 entries) 0.02 – 1.51 (67 entries) Basin forested N.A. (0 entries) N.A. (0 entries) Depressional emergent 0.00072 – 0.033 (14 entries) 0.00468 – 1.01 (50 entries) Basin emergent 0.00045 – 0.023 (12 entries) 0.048 – 0.270 (12 entries) Impact Wetlands Depressional forested 0.00137 – 1.497 (18 entries) 0.0439 – 7.53 (163 entries) Basin forested N.A. (0 entries) 0.01463 – 0.225 (8 entries) Depressional emergent 0.1217 – 3.54 (18 entries) 0.00187 – 4.32 (423 entries) Basin emergent 0.0001 – 0.0235 (28 entries) 0.046 – 2.67 (43 entries)

PAGE 19

13(a) (b) Figure 4. Soil nutrient concentrations: a) total nitrogen (TN) and b) total phosphorus (TP) for R (non-impacted or reference, no fill) or I (impact, gray fill); forested and emergent; depressional and basin wetlands. Boxes represent the first through third quartiles; horizontal interior line represents the median; vertical whickers represent data range; asterisks represent outliers. Extreme outliers are not shown due to scaling constraints.

PAGE 20

14Basin Forested Wetlands Limited water quality data were located for non-impacted basin forested wetlands. Nitrate values ranged from 0.004 mg N/L to 0.09 mg N/L, ammonia ranged from 0.01 mg N/L to 0.095 mg N/L, and TKN ranged from 0.62 mg N/L to 0.98 mg N/L in three entries (Table 2). Ortho-P ranged from 0.003 – 0.006 mg P/L in two samples, and TP ranged from 0.009 – 0.01 mg P/L in three entries (Table 3). No soil N or P data were located for non-impacted basin forested wetlands (Tables 4 & 5; Figure 4). Depressional Emergent Wetlands A fair number of data points were found for the parameters of water column NO3-N, NH3-N, TKN (Table 2), and TP (Table 3) concentrations in non-impacted depressional emergent wetlands. NO3-N values ranged from a lower bound near the common detection limit (0.002 mg N/L) to an upper bound of 0.047 mg N/L; NH3-N data values showed a considerably wider range from a low of 0.005 mg N/L to an outlier value of 2.6 mg N/L (Table 2; Figure 2). TKN varied across an order of magnitude, from a low of 0.41 mg N/L to a high of 6.0 mg N/L in nonimpacted depressional emergent wetlands (Table 2; Figure 3). Water column TP varied across two orders of magnitude, from a low of 0.0069 mg P/L to a high of 0.12 mg P/L (Table 3; Figure 3). Soil nitrogen values in non-impacted depressional emergent wetlands showed considerable variation, with TN having an extreme lower end of 0.002 mg N/g and a high value of 34.2 mg N/g (Table 4; Figure 4). Soil phosphorus also varied considerably, with a low TP value of 0.00468 mg P/g to a high of 1.01 mg P/g (Table 5; Figure 4). While variability in both water column and soil phosphorus was likely a function of some wetlands having interaction with phosphate-rich Hawthorne clays, the source of variability in nitrogen among non-impacted depressional emergent wetlands was somewhat less clear. Basin Emergent Wetlands Few data points for water column nitrogen and phosphorus were found for non-impacted basin emergent wetlands (Tables 2 & 3). Ranges for both NO3-N (0.007 – 0.117 mg N/L) and NH3-N (0.06 -1.2 mg N/L) spanned across one and a half orde rs of magnitude in nine data entries, while TKN showed a much narrower range (0.92 mg N/L – 1.77 mg N/L) in four data entries (Table 2; Figures 2 & 3). Ranges for Ortho-P (0.002 mg P/L – 0.035 mg P/L) and TP (0.007 mg P/L – 0.08 mg P/L) both spanned across approximately one order of magnitude among eight data entries (Table 3; Figure 3). Soil NO3-N values showed a high level of variation in four entries, from a low of 0.00026 mg N/g to 0.190 mg N/g (Table 4). Soil NH3-N ranged across an order of magnitude from 0.0253 mg N/g to 0.15 mg N/g in 12 entries, while soil TN showed a narrow range from 20 mg N/g to 35.1 g N/g for the same 12 entries (Table 4; Figure 4). Soil SRP ranged from 0.00045 mg P/g to 0.023 mg P/g, while soil TP ranged from 0.048 mg P/g to 0.270 mg P/g (Table 5; Figure 4).

PAGE 21

15Impacted Wetlands The FIWND database contained 918 entries for wetlands in Florida that have some degree of impact by human land use disturbance. These entries break down into the following categories for isolated wetlands: 1) 291 depressional forested wetlands (~32%); 2) 7 forested basin wetlands (<1%); 3) 455 depressional emergent wetlands (~49%); 4) 48 basin emergent wetlands (~5%); and 5) 35 entries in which there was no identifying vegetation and/or geomorphic description available (~4%). The database also contained 34 entries for impacted strand wetlands (~4%) and 48 entries for impacted floodplain wetlands (~5%). An additional 229 entries are for impacted isolated wetlands in southeastern states outside of Florida and 60 entries are for impacted wetlands in the state of Indiana. There was location information at the level of Florida regions for 701 isolated wetlands with human impact in the database. Of these, 44 (~6%) were in the panhandle, 64 were in north Florida (~14%), 562 were in central Florida (~76%), and 31 were in south Florida (~4%). Remaining entries were originally categorized at the coarser scale of USEPA regions and do not contain sufficient auxiliary information for categorization by Florida region. Depressional Forested Wetlands A relatively large number of data points were found for the parameters of water column NO3-N, NH3-N, TKN, and TP concentrations in impacted depressional forested wetlands (Tables 2 & 3). Similar to non-impacted systems, dissolved nitrogen and NH3-N parameters showed a lower bound in impacted depressional forested wetlands at the common analytical detection limit of 0.002 mg N/L. In contrast to non-impacted systems, the lower TKN bound of 0.45 mg N/L was much higher than the common analytical detection limit, and the box plot in Figure 3 shows the somewhat higher 75th percentile range for TKN in impacted forested depressional wetlands. Interestingly, the highest value for NO3-N (0.63 mg N/L) in impacted depressional forested wetlands is considerably lower than the high outlier value of 1.9 mg N/L found in the nonimpacted depressional forested wetland data, and the 75th percentile (third quartile) ranges for NO3-N in non-impacted and impacted systems were relatively similar (Figure 2). In contrast, the upper bound of 12.6 mg N/L for NH3-N found in impacted depressional forested wetland systems was considerably higher than the 1.7 mg N/L shown in non-impacted depressional forested wetland systems (Figure 2), as is the upper bound of 31.0 mg N/L for TKN (5.6 mg N/L in non-impacted) (Figure 3). These upper NH3-N and TKN nitrogen values represented severe nitrogen contamination in these isolated wetlands, and the extent of such contamination throughout the database was apparent in the 75th percentile ranges (Figure 2). The lower TP bound of 0.0049 mg P/L in impacted systems was somewhat higher than the lower TP bound of 0.002 mg P/L found in non-impacted systems. Extremely high ortho-P values of 10.46 mg P/L and TP values of 17.0 mg P/L (Table 5) likely represented severe phosphorus contamination of wetlands associated with agricultural operations. The much higher 75th percentile (third quartile) range of TP in impacted depressional forested wetlands was clear (Figure 3).

PAGE 22

16Tables 4 & 5 shows soil nutrient ranges in impacted forested depressional wetlands. Soil nitrogen concentrations ranged from 0.51 mg N/g to 16.63 mg N/g as measured by TKN and 1.2 mg N/g to 21.0 mg N/g of TN, neither of which differ dramatically from the ranges found in nonimpacted systems (Table 4; Figure 4). Like with non-impacted wetland systems, impacted wetland systems soil phosphorus concentrations showed greater variability. The range of soil SRP (0.00137 mg P/g – 1.497 mg P/g) spanned across three orders of magnitude, although, interestingly, the high soil SRP value was considerably lower than the high value of 4.296 mg P/g found in non-impacted systems (Table 5). TP values spanned well over two orders of magnitude (0.0439 mg P/g – 7.53 mg P/g), with the high value several times larger than the highest value (1.51 mg P/g) found in non-impacted systems. While soil phosphorus levels in impacted forested depressional systems also may have considerable natural variation due to interaction with phosphatic clays, the much higher 75th percentile (third quartile) range for soil TP in impacted systems is suggestive of anthropogenic enrichment. Basin Forested Wetlands Limited amounts of water quality data were identified for impacted basin forested wetlands. Nitrate values ranged from 0.06 mg N/L to 0.13 mg N/L and ammonia ranged from 0.01 mg N/L to 0.03 mg N/L for six entries. TKN ranged from 0.62 mg N/L to 1.3 mg N/L across seven entries (Table 2). Organic P ranged from 0.003 – 0.01 mg P/L in six entries, and TP ranged from 0.01 – 0.05 mg P/L in seven entries (Table 3). Limited amounts of soil TN and TP data were collected for impacted basin forested wetlands (Tables 4 & 5). TN values ranged from 0.36 mg N/g to 3.54 mg N/g, while TP ranged from 0.01463 mg P/g to 0.225 mg P/g. Due to the limited amount of water quality and soil nutrient data for non-impacted and impacted basin forested wetlands it is premature to make detailed comparisons of the findings at this time. Depressional Emergent Wetlands Database entries for impacted depressional emergent wetlands showed a clear phosphorus bias. While there were large numbers of data points for water column TP (117 entries; Table 3) and soil TP (423 entries; Table 5), there were a little less than 20 entries for both water nitrate and water TKN (Table 2) and a little under 50 entries for soil TN (Table 4). Nitrate values ranged from a lower bound of 0.004 mg N/L to an upper bound of 0.016 mg N/L. Interestingly, the higher bound for nitrate at impacted sites was somewhat lower than the 0.047 mg N/L found at non-impacted sites, although the small number of data points makes this result difficult to interpret. TKN varied across an order of magnitude in impacted depressional emergent wetlands, from a low of 1.45 mg N/L to 14.36 mg N/L. This range was considerably higher than the TKN range of 0.41 mg N/L to 6.0 mg N/L found in non-impacted systems, and the higher values showed up clearly in the 75th percentile (third quartile) range (Figure 2). TP varied across three and a half orders of magnitude in impacted depressional emergent wetlands, from a low of 0.046 mg P/L to a high of 7.98 mg P/L. The much higher 75th percentile (third quartile) range for impacted sites showed up clearly in the box plot in Figure 3. The high end of this range almost certainly was a function of extreme anthropogenic enrichment.

PAGE 23

17Soil nitrogen values in non-impacted depressional emergent wetlands showed quite a bit of variation, with TN having an extreme lower end of 1.1 mg N/g and a high value of 43.3 mg N/g. However, the high end of the TN range was not markedly higher than the high value of 34.2 mg N/g found in reference systems, and box plots were not dramatically different for soil TN in nonimpacted and impacted sites (Figure 4). Soil phosphorus also varied considerably, with SRP ranging from 0.00137 mg P/g to 1.497 mg P/g and TP ranging from a low value of 0.00187 mg P/g to a high of 4.32 mg P/g. While some natural variability through Hawthorne interaction was certainly possible, the high ends of soil P values were most likely a function of anthropogenic enrichment from land use in the watershed. The 75th percentile (third quartile) box plot range for soil TP was marginally higher in impacted sites (Figure 4). Basin Emergent Wetlands Limited water column nitrogen and phosphorus data were located for impacted basin emergent wetlands (Tables 2 & 3). Ranges were 0.04 mg N/L to 0.1 mg N/L for NO3-N, 0.02 mg N/L to 0.51 mg N/L for NH3-N, 0.57 mg N/L to 3.9 mg N/L for TKN, and 0.57 mg N/L to 1.5 mg N/L for TN. The range for TP in impacted basin emergent wetlands was 0.029 mg P/L to 0.57 mg P/L. Interpretation of box plot ranges was somewhat tenuous, however, due to the small number of data points (Figures 2 & 3). Soil TN in impacted basin emergent wetlands ranged greatly from an outlier low of 0.619 mg N/g to 46 g N/g across 12 entries (Table 4). Twelve entries for soil SRP showed a range from 0.1217 mg P/g to 3.54 mg P/g. Soil TP showed a considerable range of values from 0.00187 mg P/g to 2.67 mg P/g (Table 5). Much of soil P sampling in impacted basin emergent wetlands was performed for the express purpose of better understanding P transport in enriched areas, and thus it is fairly safe to conclude that the high end of the P soil ranges in these systems was a direct function of anthropogenic activities (Figure 4). Non-Impacted Wetlands Quartiles and Nutrient Concentrations Partitioning the non-impacted wetlands data into quartiles allowed a better focus on the reference standard condition in the Florida landscape (Figure 5). The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) has used such an approach when determining thresholds for metric scoring for bioassessment work on lakes and streams (e.g. Barbour et al. 1996) as have other states (e.g. Royer et al. 2001). In some instances, values below the 75th percentile (3rd quartile) have been considered representative of the reference standard condition (for values that increase with human disturbances or impacts). Actual quartile values were presented in Table 6.

PAGE 24

18 Figure 5. Non-impacted wetland nutrient concentrations: a) wat er column nitrate-N, b) water column ammonia-N, c) water column TKN, d) water column TP, e) soil TN, and f) soil TP for forested depressional, emergent depressional, and emergent basin wetlands. Boxes represent the first throug h third quartiles; horizontal interior line represents median; vertical whickers represent data range; asteri sks represent outliers. Extreme outliers were not shown.

PAGE 25

19Table 6. Non-impacted wetland water column and soil nutrient data Forested Emergent Emergent DepressionalDepressionalBasin Water Column Nitrate-N (mg N/L) 25th Percentile 0.002 0.002 0.011 Median 0.005 0.006 0.024 75th Percentile 0.020 0.010 0.038 Ammonia-N (mg N/L) 25th Percentile 0.018 0.016 0.111 Median 0.024 0.020 0.160 75th Percentile 0.050 0.033 0.230 TKN (mg N/L) 25th Percentile 1.085 1.123 0.960 Median 1.450 1.694 1.100 75th Percentile 2.000 2.200 1.608 TP (mg P/L) 25th Percentile 0.027 0.016 0.009 Median 0.044 0.026 0.012 75th Percentile 0.085 0.041 0.047 Soil TN (mg N/g) 25th Percentile 4.300 2.200 25.525 Median 7.400 4.950 27.350 75th Percentile 13.500 12.350 30.350 TP (mg P/g) 25th Percentile 0.205 0.048 0.100 Median 0.290 0.098 0.158 75th Percentile 0.408 0.260 0.205

PAGE 26

20Hydro-Graphs Twenty-four figures taken from published reports or peer-reviewed documents were collected showing temporal water level variations for Florida wetlands (Appendix B). Some figures provided data for more than one wetland, and these were summarized for non-impacted and impacted wetlands (Tables 7 & 8). These hydrographs were interpreted to provide a general overview of minimum and maximum flooding dept h, an estimation of flooding duration, and an overview of months with standing water. Note that interpretation was solely based on visual determinations from published figures, as raw data were typically unavailable. Hydrographs were interpreted for 21 non-impacted wetlands and 20 impacted wetland systems, though some individual wetlands may be included in more than one row in Tables 7 & 8. For example, the non-impacted depressional forested wetland labeled Austin Cary was listed three times in Table 7 for three separate studies representing the same physical wetland. Similarly, the impacted wetland Sewage or Sewage Dome was listed in two separate rows in Table 8, representing data collected at the same physical wetland for two overlapping time periods, from January 1976 to January 1977 (Brown 1981) and from July 1974 to December 1977 (Dierberg and Brezonik 1983). In total, 21 hydrographs for non-impacted Florida wetlands were interpreted, including hydrographs for 11 depressional forested wetlands four depressional emergent wetlands, one mixed vegetation wetland, and five wetlands described as seasonally connected, larger wetland systems. Non-impacted depressional forested wetlands had a range in maximum flooding depth from 0.45-2.2 m with a range of length of fl ooding duration spanning 155-365 days/year (Table 7). Non-impacted depressional emergent we tlands had a higher range of maximum flooding depth from 0.5-3.3 m with flooding dura tion ranging from 305-365 days/year. Twenty hydrographs for impacted Florida wetlands were interpreted, including 10 depressional forested wetlands, three larger connected forested wetlands, six depressional emergent wetlands, and a single basin emergent wetland. Impacted depressional forested wetlands had a lower range in maximum flooding depth from 0.25-1.10 m and a longer range of flooding duration from 263365 days/year (Table 8). Three of the north region non-impacted wetlands and four of the north region impacted wetlands had standing water each month during the period of record. The impacted depressional emergent wetlands ha d a lower maximum flooding height of 0.13-0.45 m and fewer days flooded from 56-228 days/year. A single hydrograph was available for one impacted emergent basin wetland, which had standing water 365 day/year.

PAGE 27

21Table 7. Interpretation of hydrographs for non-impacted Flor ida wetlands. All values are approximations based on visual interpretation of published figures. Months with Standing Water Type Region Wetland Name Min Depth (m) Max Depth (m) Flooding Duration (days) Data Start Date Data End Date JFM A MJJASONDData Source Central Forested 0.00 0.80 316 Jan-1981 Dec-03 xxx x xxxxxBardi et al. 2005 Central G1 0.00 0.80 345 May-89 Apr-99 xxx x x xxxx xCarr et al. 2006 North Large Dome 0.20 0.63 365 Jan-76 Jan-77 xxx x x xxxxxxxBrown 1981 North Control 0.00 0.59 350 Jan-94 May-96 xxx x x xxxxCasey and Ewel 1998 North Austin Cary 0.00 0.75 350 Jan-74 Jun-79 xxx x x xx xDierberg 1980 North Austin Cary 0.00 0.75 340 Jan-74 Jun-79 xxx x x xxxxDierberg and Brezonik 1983 North Large 1.00 2.20 365 Mar-82 Mar-83 xxx x x xxxxxxxEwel 1990 North Medium 0.80 1.25 365 Mar-82 Mar-83 xxx x x xxxxxxxEwel 1990 North Small 0.00 1.00 350 Mar-82 Mar-83 xx x xxxxxxxEwel 1990 North Austin Cary 0.00 0.50 155 Mar-74 Dec-74 xxx xxxx xMitsch 1984 Depressional Forested North C Wetland 0.00 0.45 295 Jan-92 Dec-96 x xxxSun et al. 2000 Central Herbaceous 0.00 0.50 320 Jan-94 Dec-03 xxx x xxxxxBardi et al. 2005 Central Lyonia Large Unk 3.30 365 Sep-01 Jun-03 ---------Knowles et al. 2005 Central Lyonia Small Unk 1.80 305 Sep-01 Jun-03 ---------Knowles et al. 2005 Depressional Emergent North Study Wetland 0.00 0.50 Unk May-99 Nov-99 --xxxxxx-Wise et al. 2000 Mixed Central Sarasota Wetlands Unk Unk Unk Apr-85 Sep-86 ---------CH2MHILL 1987 South Hydric Pine Flatwoods 0.00 0.20 47 Unk Unk x Duever et al. 1986 South Cypress Swamp 0.00 1.00 226 Unk Unk xx xxxxxDuever et al. 1986 South Marsh 0.00 0.50 153 Unk Unk x xxxxxDuever et al. 1986 North Hopkins Prairie 0.00 0.70 Unk Jan-81 Dec-91 ---------Cl ough 1992 Seasonally Connected North Hopkins Prairie 0.00 0.27 61 Mar-90 Feb-91 x x x Clough 1992 (x) signifies standi ng water was reported; ( ) empty sp ace signifies no standing water was reported (-) si gnifies no data were available.

PAGE 28

22 Table 8. Interpretation of hydrographs for impacted Florida we tlands. All values are approximations based on visual interpret ation of published figures. Months with Standing Water Type Region Wetland Name Min Depth (m) Max Depth (m) Flooding Duration (days) Data Start Date Data End Date J F M A M JJASOND Data Source North Small Dome1 0.00 0.60 263 Jan-76 Jan-77 x x xx xxxxBrown 1981 North Small Dome2 0.00 0.52 287 Jan-76 Jan-77 x x x x xx Brown 1981 North Sewage Dome 0.65 0.73 365 Jan-76 Jan-77 x x x xxxxxxxxxBrown 1981 North Bermed Dome 0.00 0.25 358 Jan-76 Jan-77 x x x x xxxxx xBrown 1981 North Pasture 0.00 0.25 359 Jan-76 Jan-77 x x x x xxxxBrown 1981 North Sewage 0.35 1.10 365 Jul-74 Dec-77 x x x xxxxxxxxxDierberg and Brezonik 1983 North Swamp Harvest 0.00 0.85 358 Jan-94 May-96 x x x xx xxxxxxCasey and Ewel 1998 North Swamp+ Upland 0.00 0.60 350 Jan-94 May-96 x x x x xxxxxxCasey and Ewel 1998 North W Wetland 0.00 0.65 301 Jan-92 Dec-96 x x x xxxxxxxxxSun et al. 2000 Depressional Forested North ALL Wetland 0.00 0.50 331 Jan-92 Dec-96 x x x xxxxxxxxxSun et al. 2000 North K 0.00 2.30 319 Jan-93 Dec-96 x x x x xxxRiekerk and Korhnak 2000 North N 0.00 1.20 319 Jan-93 Dec-96 x x x x xxxRiekerk and Korhnak 2000 Connected Forested North C 0.00 1.60 293 Jan-93 Dec-96 x x x x xxRiekerk and Korhnak 2000 Central Improved 0.00 0.45 228 Mar01 Mar-02 x x xxxxxBohlen and Gathumbi 2007 Central Semi-Native 0.00 0.30 154 Mar01 Mar-02 xxxx Bohlen and Gathumbi 2007 Central Improved 0.00 0.45 225 Sep-00 Apr-03 x xxxxGathumbi et al. 2005 Central Seminative 0.00 0.35 180 Sep-00 Apr-03 x xx Gathumbi et al. 2005 Central Improved 0.00 0.33 76 Jul-00 Jul-01 xxx Steinman et al. 2003 Depressional Emergent Central Semi-Improved 0.00 0.13 56 Jul-00 Jul-01 xx Steinman et al. 2003 Basin Emergent Central Boggy Marsh Unk Unk 365 Sep-01 Jun-03 ---------Knowles et al. 2005 (x) signifies standi ng water was reported; ( ) empty sp ace signifies no standing water was reported (-) si gnifies no data were available.

PAGE 29

23Methodology for Estimating Nutrient Loadings from Wetlands Since it is unclear how nutrient loads are to be calculated for predevelopment and postdevelopment loading analysis within the new Statewide Stormwater Treatment Rule, this methodology is designed to be used for individual rainfall events. With some relatively broad assumptions and the use of a Microsoft Excel spread sheet model (Appendix C), daily rainfall data can be used to determine annual discharge volumes. The methodology uses the USDA SCS (1972) runoff equation: Q = (P-0.2S)2 / (P + 0.8S) (Eq. 1) and: S = (1000/CN) – 10 (Eq. 2) where: Q = amount of runoff (inches), P = precipitation (inches), S = maximum potential retention (inches), and CN = Curve Number (integer between 0 and 100). Data Input Land Cover by Wetland Type Florida land use and land cover have been classified through the Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCCS) developed by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT 1999). For this project, wetlands were included with assigned FLUCCS codes 610 Wetland Hardwood Forests, 620 Wetland Coniferous Forests, 630 Wetland Forested Mixed, and 641 Freshwater Marshes (Table 9). Table 9. Isolated wetland FLUCCS codes (FDOT 1999) Wetlands Classification FLUCCS Codes Depressional forested 610, 620, 630 Basin forested 610, 620, 630 Depressional emergent 641 Basin emergent 641 Suspected differences in background concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus in Florida wetlands necessitated classifying wetlands base d on a simplified hydrogeomorphic classification system (i.e. depressional or basin), dominant ve getation type (i.e. forested or emergent) and further separated as non-impacted and impacted wetlands. Wetlands that were equal to or less than approximately 2.5 hectare in size, often occurring in relatively small watersheds, were classified as depressional wetlands The water budget of depressional wetland has been described as being dependent primarily on precipitation (Brinson 1993), making them hydrologically isolated from surface water connectivity. Basin wetlands were described as

PAGE 30

24larger in size, characterized with a larger contributing watershed, and having a seasonal or semipermanent surface hydrologic connection to other wetlands or aquatic bodies. Non-impacted wetlands were those in primarily natural setting, surrounded by natural lands and having no obvious hydrologic alterations. Impacted wetlands were those wetlands having at least 25% of their adjacent land area in agricultural or urban uses. Impacted wetlands were further divided into those that were in landscapes with lowered water tables (i.e. dryer than normal) and those that were receiving higher than normal runoff input s (i.e. wetter than normal). Determination of these hydrologic conditions required a degree of best scientific judgment, but we believe that it was necessary to take into consideration the hydrologic alterations that occur in impacted wetlands. In some cases, wetlands are drained that will require more rainfall to induce runoff, while in other cases, where wetlands are receiving higher than normal runoff from adjacent lands, smaller rainfall events are required to induce runoff. Determination of Hydrologic Soil Groups The Natural Resources Conservations Service’s Soil Survey Geographic Data Base (SSURGO) classifies wetland soils based on hydrologic soil groups (HSG) (USDA SCS 1972; USDA NRCS 2009). With soil groups running a gradient from Group A soils, with more than 90% sand or gravel, having low runoff potential when thoroughly wet to Group D soils, with less than 50% sand, having high runoff potential when thoroughly wet (NRCS 2009). The average Curve Numbers (CN) for wetlands hydrologic soil groups were taken from a recent study on pollution load reduction goals for the Newnans Lake watershed in north central Florida (Di et al. 2009) (Table 10). The CNs for wetlands and other land uses were developed based on average antecedent moisture conditions (AMC) II (Di et al. 2009). AMC II CNs reflect average conditions. Table 10. Wetland Curve Numbers (CN) for soil hydrologic groups (Di et al. 2009) Hydrologic Soil Group A B C D AMC II Wetland CNs 49 65 72 80 Antecedent Moisture Conditions (AMC) Because of the variable hydrologic conditions in isolated wetlands driven by the large influence of precipitation events and the natural inter-annual variability in wetland water levels, CNs must be adjusted based on antecedent moisture conditions (AMC), a short-term adjustment factor for the preceding 5-days rainfall, and seasonal adjustments, a longer-term adjustment factor reflecting the dry or wet season water levels. AMC II CNs for wetlands are given above in Table 10; however, NRCS (2009) recognizes thr ee AMC classes: AMC I (drier than average condition), AMC II (average condition), and AMC III (wetter than average condition) using rainfall event and season. Table 11 lists average dry and wet season water levels in non-impacted and impacted depressional and basin wetlands in Florida. These water levels are derived from the Wetland Hydrology Model simulation results (Appendix C). Using these data, reasonable water level

PAGE 31

25ranges for isolated wetlands in the dry and wet season under AMC adjustment factors I-III are determined based on the rainfall quantity (over a 5-day period) required to cause outflow from the wetland during dry and wet seasons (Table 12). The variability in dry and wet season water levels, antecedent weather conditions, and hydrologic soil unit influence the wetland adjusted CNs (Table 13). The average depths of water in each of the wetland types given in Table 11 were derived based on the simulation model given in Appendix C. Dry and wet initial conditions were set for each simulation and then average water levels were calculated for wet and dry seasons using an average rainfall year for north central Florida. To determine the rainfall necessary to cause runoff during wet and dry seas ons and thus AMC adjustment factors in Table 12, again the model was used. In this case, rainfall events were increased during a period of 5 days until runoff occurred in the dry and wet season. The values were rounded to the nearest half inch. Rainfall amounts less than this value were equivalent to the AMC I events. AMC III events were determined in much the same way except the event sizes were increased until nearly all rainfall became runoff within the first 24 ours following the event. Rainfall events larger than this number were considered AMC III events and those between AMC I and AMC III were considered AMC II events. The adjustment factors in Table 13 are estimates based on best scientific judgment. Table 11. Dry and wet season water levels (inches) in isolated wetlands Wetland Type Water Level Dry Season Water Level Wet Season Non-Impacted Depressional 6 20 Basin 10 24 Impacted Depressional 7 22 Basin 14 27

PAGE 32

26Table 12. Isolated wetland water level ranges by AMC adjustment factors for dry and wet seasons Dry Season (inches) Wet Season (inches) Non-Impacted Depressional Wetlands AMC I Less than 5 Less than 0.5 AMC II 5.0 to 10.0 0.5 to 1.0 AMC III Over 10.0 Over 1.0 Non-Impacted Basin Wetlands AMC I Less than 1.5 Less than 0.1 AMC II 1.5 to 2.5 0.1 to 0.5 AMC III Over 2.5 Over 0.5 Impacted Depressional Wetlands (Dryer than normal) AMC I Less than 7 Less than 1.0 AMC II 7.0 – 12.0 1.01.5 AMC III Over 12 Over 1.5 Impacted Basin Wetlands (Dryer than normal) AMC I Less than 3.0 Less than1.5 AMC II 3.0 to 5.0 1.5 – 2.5 AMC III Over 5.0 Over 2.5 Impacted Depressional Wetlands (Wetter than normal) AMC I Less than 3 None AMC II 3.0 to 5.0 Less than 0.5 AMC III Over 5.0 Over 0.5 Impacted Basin Wetlands (Wetter than normal) AMC I Less than 1.0 None AMC II 1.0 -2.0 Less than 0.1 AMC III Over 2.0 Over 0.1 Table 13. Adjusted wetland Curve Numbers (CNs) Hydrologic Soil Group AMC I CN AMC II CN AMC III CN A 32 49 60 B 45 65 75 C 52 72 81 D 63 80 88 Calculation of Discharge Volumes Using equations 1 and 2 above, the runoff volume for a rainfall event can be calculated using the adjusted wetland CNs (Table 13). During the dry season, we propose that runoff will only occur if the rainfall event is greater than the difference between the wetland water level and the mean wet-season water level for depressional and basin wetlands (Table 11). For example, for a non-

PAGE 33

27impacted depressional wetlands with a current dry season water level of 8 inches and a mean wet season water level of 20 inches (Table 11), a dry-season rainfall event of greater than 12 inches would be required to produce run-off from the given wetland. Then, using data for event mean concentrations (Table 14), runoff volumes of TKN and TP can be calculated when the wetland surface area is known. Values for event mean concentrations reflect background nutrient concentrations for isol ated wetlands as determined from the FIWND database developed for this project. We propose that 75th percentile nutrient concentrations are used for dry season calculations, reflecting higher nutrient concentrations in lower water conditions. Further, the lower 25th percentile nutrient concentrations should be used to calculate loading during the wet season, to reflect the more dilute nutrient conditions in times of higher wetland water levels. Note that nitrogen nutrient concentrations are available for TKN, as opposed to TN. TKN values should be lower than TN values for wetlands, as TKN measurement does not account for nitrate (NO3-N) or nitrite (NO2-N) in the water column. At this time, a sufficient quantity of water column TN values was not available for estimating nutrient loading from Florida isolated wetlands. Table 14. Isolated wetland nutrient concentrations Wetland Type Forested Depressional Forested Basin Emergent Depressional Emergent Basin Non-Impacted TKN (mg N/L) Sample Size (n) 82 3 49 4 25th Percentile 1.085 0.620 1.123 0.960 Median 1.450 0.920 1.694 1.100 75th Percentile 2.000 0.980 2.200 1.608 TP (mg P/L) Sample Size (n) 82 3 49 5 25th Percentile 0.027 0.009 0.016 0.009 Median 0.044 0.010 0.026 0.012 75th Percentile 0.085 0.010 0.041 0.047 Impacted TKN (mg N/L) Sample Size (n) 126 7 16 6 25th Percentile 1.177 0.820 2.233 0.893 Median 1.600 0.980 2.956 1.100 75th Percentile 2.770 1.120 4.789 2.100 TP (mg P/L) Sample Size (n) 150 7 117 7 25th Percentile 0.080 0.010 0.073 0.120 Median 0.186 0.010 0.250 0.130 75th Percentile 0.669 0.030 0.769 0.230

PAGE 34

28Sample Calculation for Estimating Wetland Loading As a sample calculation, a non-impacted depressional emergent wetland has a surface area of 1 acre, soils classified within hydrologic soils Group D, and normal antecedent moisture conditions (AMC II) during the wet season. If a rainfall event produced 3 inches of rain, what is the estimated nutrient loading from the wetland runoff? First, defining the variables, we see: Q = amount of runoff (inches) = (P – 0.2S)2 / (P + 0.8S) = (3 – (0.2*2.5))2 / (3 + (0.8*2.5)) = 1.25 inches P = amount of precipitation (inches) = 3 inches CN (AMC II, Hydrologic soil Group D ) = 80 S = maximum potential retention (inches) = (1000/CN) – 10 = (1000/80) – 10 = 2.5 inches Unit conversions: 1 acre = 43,560 ft2 1 cubic meter = 35.315 cubic foot = 1000 liter Applying the calculated amount of runoff of 1.25 in ches of water over a surface area of 1 ac, the volume of the wetland runoff is 128,486 liters. Using the 25th percentile values for TKN (1.085 mg N/L) and TP (0.027 mg P/L) concentrations (Table 14), the estimated load to the downstream environment from the wetland runoff is 139.41 g N and 3.47 g P. Note that if the same 3 inch rainfall event occurred in the dry season, runoff would not occur from this wetland unless the current water level (at the time of calculation) in the wetland was within 3 inches or higher of the mean wet season water level of 20 inches for non-impacted depressional wetlands.

PAGE 35

29DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Because wetlands are not normally thought of as c ontributing nutrient loads in stormwater runoff and as a consequence they are often left out of calculations or included as sinks for stormwaters and nutrients, some explanation of this relativ ely complex approach to calculating runoff from wetlands is in order. We consider several things in this discussion: types of wetlands that can generate runoff, the assumptions necessary to generate runoff, and the effects of altered hydroperiod and depths of inundation on runoff generation. It is important to note that we have not included all types of wetlands in this review and especially in the modeling methodology. Wetlands that are directly connected to water bodies and that share surface waters, such as lake fri nge and riverine floodplain swamps, are receiving bodies, and therefore should not be considered cont ributors of stormwater or associated nutrients to the adjacent open water. By eliminating lake fringe and riverine floodplain swamps from this evaluation of stormwater contributions, we are le ft identifying the contributions from isolated depressional and basin wetlands that are comm on throughout the low topographic relief areas of the Florida landscape. We turn next to the assumptions necessary to include these wetlands as generators of stormwater runoff and nutrients to receiving water bodies. Isolated depressional and basin wetlands are t ypically considered nutrient sinks (e.g. HowardWilliams 1985), since they are most frequently found in low areas of the landscape. When there is surface runoff from upland areas, it usually finds its way to these wetlands, thus driving their seasonally dynamic hydrology. Only after these wetlands reach their maximum storage capacity does water runoff (from these wetlands) towards lower elevations. Thus, any methodology used to predict stormwater runoff from isolated wetla nds must take into account the storage function of these wetlands. During the dry season much larger rainfall events are necessary before there is wetland runoff, and in contrast, during the wet season much smaller events will generate wetland runoff. Our methodology recognizes these facts and adjusts curve numbers (CNs) to take into consideration these different hydrologic realities. Not all wetlands are untouched by human activities. That is to say, the hydrologic characteristics of landscapes can be altered by such things as groundwater pumping or ditching that results in dryer than normal conditions in a particular wetland. By the same token, hydrologic alteration to surrounding uplands that increases runoff or impounds water can cause wetter than normal situations. In either case, the potential for runoff from a wetland is altered. In the first case, dryer than normal conditions mean lower than normal water levels in the wetland and larger rainfall events in both the dry and wet season to produce wetland runoff. In the second case the opposite is true. We have taken these potential conditions into consideration in this methodology and have made allowances for their incorporation. In all, we have addressed the main controlling f actors that affect wetland stormwater runoff with this methodology. It recognizes four different types of wetlands, in altered and unaltered landscapes, and the different potential for runo ff generation between Florida’s wet and dry seasons.

PAGE 36

30In comparison to a recent study addressing pollutant loads in the hypereutrophic Newnan’s Lake watershed in north central Florida, Di et al (2009) estimated mean nutrient loading from wetlands and aquatic bodies of 1.680 mg/L TN and 0.173 mg/L TP from 1995-1998. Nutrient concentrations for isolated wetlands throughout Florida in this project were similar for the 75th percentile of non-impacted wetlands at 0.980-2.200 mg/L TKN (though note the different nitrogen form and range for multiple wetland types) and lower for the 75th percentile of nonimpacted wetlands at 0.010-0.085 mg/L TP, and similar for the 75th percentile of impacted wetlands at 1.120-4.789 mg/L TKN and 0.030-0.769 mg/L TP. Data Uncertainty One of the key findings of this project is that there has been very little systematic collection of water quality data for isolated wetlands in Florida. Much of the literature data were collected during relatively short-term research studies focused on a small number of specific sites. This site bias makes it quite uncertain as to whether the nutrient ranges reported accurately reflect the distribution found in isolated wetlands throughout the state. Amplifying this uncertainty is the fact that there is wide divergence in reporti ng conventions and sampling regimes among different studies and wetland sites. For example, a number of studies only report the mean values and standard deviations from a series of sampling events over time, while others have raw data available. A similar problem is that several wetland sites have more than 50 data points sampled over several years, while others only have data for one discrete sampling date. Such idiosyncrasies make it inherently difficult to make robust and confident generalizations from the given data. Differences in field collection and laboratory analytic methods among studies are a final source of uncertainty that should also be noted. However, such data quality concerns likely are minor, as most data come from highly reliable sources such as government reports, peer reviewed literature, and doctoral dissertations. Future Research While the comprehensive cataloguing of archival nutrient data from isolated wetlands is a step forward in understanding the natural condition of these systems and evaluating their nutrient treatment capacity, it is also quite clear that a more systematic sampling effort would greatly benefit ongoing efforts to develop a Statewide Stor mwater Treatment Rule and otherwise protect water quality. One possible approach for reaching a broad range of isolated wetland systems across the state would be to add a water chemistry sampling component to some percentage of wetlands that will be evaluated through the US Environmental Protection Agency’s National Wetland Condition Assessment (NWCA) program scheduled to begin in 2011. The NWCA is developing a probabilistic method for site selection, and it stands to reason that a random sub-selection of these could be used for collection of water chemistry as a complement to the other site condition assessments that will be performed. The NWCA is currently debating what parameters will be included in sample design, and it is the understanding of the authors that to date it is likely soil chemical and physical measures will be collected but water measures will not.

PAGE 37

31Another approach for acquiring more data for the isolated wetlands database would be to include regular water chemistry sampling at wetlands in well-fields that are already being monitored for hydrologic impacts from groundwater draw-dow ns. Because both the NWCA and well-field monitoring programs are existing programs, start up costs to add water quality sampling as a regular monitoring component should be minimal. A final thought for future research priorities is that isolated wetlands in the panhandle region are very under-studied in comparison to other regions of the state. Given the low population density and large natural areas in much of the panhandle, the region seems ideal for targeted sampling of reference isolated wetland types, particularly as development pressure increases. Additional research of wetlands in the panhandle region would also have the benefit of making it clearer as to how these systems are similar to, and in what ways they differ from, peninsular wetland types. Such information will be invaluable for adaptive watershed management as development pressure continues to increase in the panhandle region over the next decades.

PAGE 38

32REFERENCES Barbour, MT, J Gerritsen, JS White (1996) Development of the Stream Condition Index (SCI) for Florida. Report to the Stormwater a nd Nonpoint Source Management Section, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, prepared by the Tetra Tech, Inc. Owing Mills, Maryland, USA Brinson, MM (1993) A hydrogeomorphic classifi cation for wetlands. US Army Corps of Engineers, Wetlands Research Program Tec hnical Report WRP-DE-4, Washington, D.C., USA Brinson, MM, LC Lee (1989) In-kind mitigation for wetland loss: Statement of ecological issues and evaluation of examples. In Freshwater wetlands and wildlife. RR Sharitz, JW Gibbons, ed., USDOE CONF-86O31O1, USDOE Office of Scie ntific and Technical Information, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, TN, 1069-1085 Cowardin, LM, V Carter, FC Goulet, ET LaRoe ( 1979) Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., USA Dahl, TE (2005) Florida’s wetlands: an update on status and trends 1985 to 1996. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Branch of Habitat Assessment, Washington, D.C., USA Di, JJ, D Smith, C Lippincott, E Marzolf (2009) Pollution Load Reduction Goals for Newnans Lake. Report to the St Johns River Water Management District, Palatka, Florida, USA Doherty, SM, M Cohen, C Lane, L Line, J Su rdick (2000) Biological criteria for inland freshwater wetlands in Florida: a review of technical and scientific literature (1990-1999). Report to the US Environmental Protection Agency, prepared by the Center for Wetlands, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA Florida Department of Community Affairs (1988) Mapping and Monitoring of Agricultural Lands Project (1984-1987) County data. Tallahassee, Florida, USA Florida Department of Transportation [FDOT ] (1999) Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System. Geographic Mapping S ection, Surveying and Mapping, Department of Transportation, State of Florida, Tallahassee, Florida, USA Hopkinson, CS (1992) A comparison of ecosystem dynamics in freshwater wetlands. Estuaries 15:549–562 Howard-Williams, C (1985) Cycling and retention of nitrogen and phosphorus in wetlands: a theoretical and applied perspective. Freshwater Biology 15:391-431 Lane, CR (2000) Proposed wetland regions for Florida freshwater wetlands. Final report to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Contract No. WM86, Tallahassee, Florida, USA

PAGE 39

33Mitsch, WJ, JG Gosselink (2007) Wetlands, 4th ed. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, New York, USA Royer, TV, CT Robinson, GW Minshall (2001) De velopment of macroinvertebrate-based index for bioassessment of Idaho Rivers. Environmental Managament 27(4): 627-636 Tiner, RW (2003) Geographically isolated we tlands of the United States. Wetlands 23(3): 494516 United States Department of Agriculture, Na tural Resources Conservation Service [USDA NRCS] (2009) National Engineering Handbook, Pa rt 630 Hydrology, Chapter 7 Hydrologic Soil Groups. Washington, DC, USA United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service [USDA SCS] (1972) National Engineering Handbook, Secti on 4 Hydrology. Washington DC, USA

PAGE 40

34Appendix A References with Relevant Data Included in Access Database, Nutrient Tables, or Hydrograph Collection 1.Babbitt, KJ, MJ Baber, LA Brandt (2006) Th e effect of woodland proximity and wetland characteristics on larval anuran assemblages in an agricultural landscape. Canadian Journal of Zoology 84:510-519 2.Babbitt, KJ, GW Tanner (2000) Use of temporary wetlands by anurans in a hydrologically modified landscape. Wetlands 20:313-322 3.Baber, MJ, DL Childers, KJ Babbitt, DH Ande rson (2002) Controls on fish distribution and abundance in temporary wetlands. Canadian Journal of Fisheries & Aquatic Sciences 59:1441-1450 4.Bliss, CM, NB Comerford (2002) Forest harvesting influence on water table dynamics in a Florida flatwoods landscape. Soil Science Society of America Journal 66:1344-1349 5.Bohlen, PJ, SM Gathumbi (2007) Nitrogen cycling in seasonal wetlands in subtropical cattle pastures. Soil Science Society of America Journal 71:1058-1065 6.Bourne, RG (1976) Water quality effects of se wage effluent on a cypress dome system. MS Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA 7.Brenner, M, CL Schelske, LW Keenan (2001) Historical rates of sediment and nutrient accumulation in marshes of the Upper St. Johns River Basin, Florida, USA. Journal of Paleolimnology 26:241-257 8.Broadfoot, WM (1976) Hardwood suitability for and properties of important midsouth soils. US Forest Setvice Research Paper SO-127. Sout hern Forest Experiment Station, Stoneville, Mississippi, USA 9.Brown, S (1981) A comparison of the structur e, primary productivity, and transpiration of cypress ecosystems in Florida. Ecological Monographs 51:403-427 10. Brown, TW (1963) The ecology of cypress heads in northcentral Florida. MS Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA 11. Calhoun, FG, VW Carlisle, RE Caldwell, LW Zelazny, LC Hammond, HL Breland (1974) Characterization data for selected Florida soils. Soil Science Research Report No. 74-1, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA 12. Carr, DW, DA Leeper, TF Rochow (2006) Co mparison of six biological indicators of hydrology and the landward extent of hydric soils in west-central Florida, USA cypress domes. Wetlands 26(4): 1012-1019 13. Casey, WP, KC Ewel (1998) Soil redox potential in small pondcypress swamps after harvesting. Forest Ecology & Management 112:281-287 14. CH2MHILL, Inc. (1987) Hydroecology of we tlands on the Ringling-MacArthur Reserve. Technical Report No. 2, Vol. 1. Prepared for Sarasota County, Florida 15. Clough, KS (1992) Hydrology, plant community structure and nutrient dynamics of a wet prairie in north central Florida. MS Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA

PAGE 41

3516. Clough, KS, GR Best, S Schmid (1992) Hydrol ogy, plant community structure and nutrient dynamics of Hopkins Prairie, Ocala National Forest, Florida May 1990-December 1991. Center for Wetlands, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA 17. Cooperband, LR, PM Gale, NB Comerford (1999) Refinement of the anion exchange membrane method for soluble phosphorus measurement. Soil Science Society of America Journal 63:58-64 18. Corstanje, R, KM Reddy, KM Portier (2007) Soil microbial ecophysiology of a wetland recovering from phosphorus eutrophication. Wetlands 27(4): 1046-1055 19. Coultas, CL, MJ Duever (1984) Soils of a cypress swamp. Pages 51-59 in KC Ewel, HT Odum, eds. Cypress Swamps. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville. 20. Deghi, GS (1977) Effect of sewage effluent application on phosphorus cycling in cypress domes. MS Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA 21. Dierberg, FE (1980) Cypress dome water chem istry. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA 22. Dierberg, FE, PL Brezonik (1983) Nitrogen a nd phosphorus mass balances in natural and sewage enriched cypress domes. Journal of Applied Ecology 20:323-337 23. Dierberg, FE, PL Brezonik (1984) Water chemis try of a Florida cypress dome. Pages 34-50 in KC Ewel, HT Odum, eds. Cypress Swamps. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville. 24. Dolman, JD, SW Buol (1967) A study of organic soils (Histosols) in the tidewater region of North Carolina. North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station Technical Bulletin No. 181. Raleigh, North Carolina, USA 25. Duever, MJ, JE Carlson, JF Meeder, LC Duever, LH Gunderson, LA Riopelle, TR Alexander, RL Meyers D Spangler (1986) The Big Cypress National Preserve. National Audubon Society, New York, New York, USA 26. Dunne, EJ, J Smith, DB Perkins, MW Clark, JW JAwitz, KR Reddy (2007) Phosphorus storages in historically isolated wetla nd ecosystems and surrounding pasture uplands. Ecological Engineering 31(1):16-28 27. Enviro-Audit & Compliance, Inc. )2004) Water quality monitoring, Lakewood Ranch Corporate Park, Sarasota, Florida, 2003 wet season monitoring event. Prepared for SMR Communities. Prepared by Enviro-Audit & Compliance, Inc., Palmetto, Florida, USA 28. Ewel, KC (1990) Multiple demands on wetlands: Florida cypress swamps can serve as a case study. BoScience 40(9): 660-666 29. Ewel, KC, LP Wickenheiser (1988) Effect of swamp size on growth rates of cypress ( Taxodium distichum ) trees. American Midland Naturalist 120: 362-370 30. Fall, C (1982) Water quality monitoring annual report 1979-1981. Water Resources Department, St Johns River Water Management District, Technical Publication SJ 83-1, Palatka, Florida, USA 31. Feng, J, YP Hsieh (1998) Sulfate reduction in freshwater wetland soils and the effects of sulfate and substrate loading. Journal of environmental quality 27:968-972

PAGE 42

3632. Fowlkes, MD (2000) Effects of the herbicide imazapyr on benthic macroinvertebrates in a logged pond cypress dome. MS Non-Thesis Project, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA 33. Gain, WS (1996) The effects of flow-path m odification on water-quality constituent retention in an urban stormwater detention pond and wetland system, Orlando, Florida, prepared in cooperation with the Florida Department of Transportation. 34. Gale, PM, KR Reddy, DA Graetz (1993) Nitrogen re moval from reclaimed water applied to constructed and natural wetland microcosms. Water Environment Research 65:162 35. Gathumbi, SM, PJ Bohien, DA Graetz (2005) Nutr ient enrichment of wetland vegetation and sediments in subtropical pastures. Soil Sc ience Society of America Journal 69:539-548 36. Graco, S (2004) A biogeochemical survey of wetla nds in the southeastern United States. MS Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA 37. Graetz, DA (1991) Water-column sediment nutri ent interactions as a function of hydrology (Hopkins Prairie): final report, 1989-90. Special publication SJ91-SP12. Prepared for the St. Johns River Water Management District, Palatka, Florida, USA 38. Grunwald, S, R Corstanje, BE Weinrich, KR Reddy (2006) Spatial patterns of labile forms of phosphorus in a subtropical wetland. Journal of Environmental Quality 35:378-389 39. Grunwald, S, KR Reddy, JP Prenger, MM Fisher (2007) Modeling of the spatial variability of biogeochemical soil properties in a fres hwater ecosystem. Ecological Modelling 201:521535 40. Haack, SK (1984) Aquatic macroinvertebrate community structure in a forested wetland: interrelationships with environmental parameters. MS Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA 41. Hall, TF, WT Penfound (1943) Cypress-gum communities in the Blue Girth Swamp near Selma, Alabama. Ecology 24(2):208-217 42. Harper, HH, BM Fries, DM Baker, MP Wanie lista (1086) Stormwater treatment by natural systems. Final report for STAR project #84-026 submitted to the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Tallahassee, Florida, USA 43. Hill, LR (2003) Phosphorus in soil profiles of a subtropical rangeland and associated wetland. MS Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA 44. Klein, Jr., RL (1976) The fate of heavy metals in sewage effluent applied to cypress wetlands. MS Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA 45. Knowles, L, GG Phelps, SL Kinnaman, ER German (2005) Hydrologic response in karsticridge wetlands to rainfall and evapotranspiration, central Florida, 2001-2003. Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5178, United States Geological Survey. 46. Lane, CR (2003) Biological i ndicators of wetland condition for isolated depressional herbaceous wetlands in Florida. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA

PAGE 43

3747. Lane, C (2007) Assessment of isolated wetland condition in Florida using epiphytic diatoms at genus, species, and subspecies taxonomic resolution. EcoHealth 4:219-230 48. Lane, CR, MT Brown (2007) Diatoms as indicat ors of isolated herbaceous wetland condition in Florida, USA. Ecologi cal Indicators 7(3):521-540 49. Leslie, AJ, TL Crisman, JP Prenger, KC Ewel (1997) Benthic macroinvertebrates of small Florida pondcypress swamps and the influence of dry periods. Wetlands 17(4):447-455 50. LWCWSP Appendices (date unknown) Appendix E: wetlands and environmentally sensitive areas, South Florida Water Management Di strict, West Palm Beach, Florida, USA 51. Main, MB, DW Ceilley, P Stansly (2007) Freshwat er fish assemblages in isolated south Florida wetlands. Southeastern Naturalist 6:343-350 52. Marois, KC, KC Ewel (1983) Natural and management-related variation in cypress domes. Forest Science 29(3):627-640 53. Martin, JR, CH Keller, RA Clarke, Jr., RL Knight (2001) Long-term performance summary for the Boot Wetlands Treatment System. Water Science and Technology 44(11-12):413-420 54. Mitsch, WJ (1984) Seasonal patterns of a cypress dome in Florida. Pages 25-33 in KC Ewel, HT Odum, eds. Cypress Swamps. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville. 55. Mitsch, WJ, KC Ewel (1979) Comparative biomass growth of cypress in Florida wetlands. American Midland Naturalist 101:417-426 56. Monk, CD (1966) An ecological study of hard wood swamps in north-central Florida. Ecology 47(4):649-654 57. Monk, CD, TW Brown (1965) Ecological consider ation of cypress heads in northcentral Florida. American Midland Naturalist 74(1):126-140 58. Nair, VD, DA Graetz, KR Reddy, OG Olila (2001) Soil development in phosphate-mined created wetlands of Florida, USA. Wetlands 21(2): 232-239 59. Paris, JM (2005) Southeastern wetland biogeochemical survey: determination and establishment of numeric nutrient criteria. MS Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA 60. Peeler, KA, SP Opsahl, JP Chanton (2006) Tr acking anthropogenic inputs using caffeine, indicator bacteria, and nutrients in rural freshw ater and urban marine systems. Environmental Science & Technology 40:7616-7622 61. Penfound, WT, TF Hall (1939) A phytosociological analysis of a tupelo gum swamp near Hunstville, Alabama. Ecology 20(3):358-364 62. Reddy, RR, MW Clark, TA DeBusk, J Jawitz, M Annable, S Grunwald, E Dunne, K McKee, D Perkins, K Hamilton, A Olsen, J Bhada, C Bohall, C Catts, Y Wang (2007) Phosphorus retention and storage by isolated and constructed wetlands in the Okeechobee drainage basin. A report to the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Tallahassee, Florida, USA 63. Reiss, KC (2004) Developing biol ogical indicators for isolated forested wetlands in Florida. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA

PAGE 44

3864. Reiss, KC (2006) Florida Wetland Condition Index for depressional forested wetlands. Ecological Indicators 6:337-352 65. Reiss KC, MT Brown (2007) Evaluation of Fl orida palustrine wetlands: application of USEPA levels 1, 2, and 3 assessment methods. EcoHealth 4:206 66. Riekerk, H, LV Korhnak (2000) The hydrology of cypress wetlands in Florida pine flatwoods. Wetlands 20(3): 448-460 67. Schooley, RL, LC Branch (2005) Survey techni ques for determining occupancy of isolated wetlands by round-tailed muskrats. Southeastern Naturalist 4:745-756 68. Schwartz, LN (1989) Nutrient, carbon, and water dynamics of a titi shrub ecosystem in Apalachicola, Florida. Ph.D. Dissertation, Univer sity of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA 69. Soil Conservation Service (1967) Soil survey laboratory data and descriptions for some soils of Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina. Soil Survey Investigation Report No. 16. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 70. Steinman, AD, J Conklin, PJ Bohlen, DG Uzar ski (2003) Influence of cattle grazing and pasture land use on macroinvertebrate communities in freshwater wetlands. Wetlands 23(4): 877-889 71. Sun, G, H Riekerk, LV Korhnak (2000) Ground-wa ter-table rise after forest harvesting on cypress-pine flatwoods in Florida. Wetlands 20(1): 101-112 72. Surdick, JA, Jr. (2005) Amphibian and avian sp ecies composition of forested depressional wetlands and circumjacent habitat: the influence of land use type and intensity. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA 73. Wise, WR, MD Annable, JAE Walser, RS Switt, DT Shaw (2000) A wetland-aquifer interaction test. Journal of Hydrology 227: 257-272

PAGE 45

39Appendix B Collected Hydrographs for Florida Wetlands Figure B-1. Figure from Bardi et al. (2005), da ta compiled from the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) from 1994-2003 for a reference standard central Florida depressional herbaceous wetland (left) and 1981-2003 for a reference standard central Florida depressional forested wetland (right).

PAGE 46

40 Figure B-2. Figure 1 from Bohlen and Gathumbi (2007). Original caption reads: “Average water depth and hydroperiod in wetlands in improved (solid line) and semi-native (dotted line) pastures from July 2000 through March 2002.”

PAGE 47

41 Figure B-3. Figure 2 from Brown (1981). The La rge Dome in (a) is considered a reference standard depressional forested wetland. Small Dome 1 and Small Dome 2 in (a) and Sewage Dome, Bermed Dome, and Pasture Dome in (b) are impacted depressional forested wetlands. Original caption reads: “The annual fluctuation of surface water levels. Records are from December 1976 to December 1977 for the scrub cypress forest (Flohrscutz 1978) and from January 1976 to January 1977 for the other sites. Data for Sewage Dome and Large Dome were obtained from K. Heimburg ( personal communication ).”

PAGE 48

42 Figure B-4. Figure 2 from Carr et al. (2006). Or iginal caption reads: “Water surface elevation (points and solid line) for median water surface elevation (dashed line) for cypress dome G1 in Lake County, Florida from May 1989 through April 1999. Mean monthly rainfall totals (bars) for 55 stations in Pasco County, Florida are also shown.”

PAGE 49

43 Figure B-5. Figure 3 from Casey and Ewel ( 1998). Original caption reads: “Monthly mean standing water depth in three groups of cypre ss swamps. Before April 1994, none of the nine swamps had been harvested. After May 1994, the nine swamps were divided into three treatments: control, swamp harvest, and swamp+upland harvest with three swamps per treatment.”

PAGE 50

44 Figure B-6. Figure 3-1 from CH2MHILL (1987). ‘Standard Elevation’ line represents the elevation 0.33 m (1 ft) below the uplan d elevation; it does not represent the soil surface. Origin al caption reads: “Hydrograph of 23 unditched study wetlands.”

PAGE 51

45 Figure B-7. Figure 3-2 from CH2MHILL (1987). ‘Standard Elevation’ line represents the elevation 0.33 m (1 ft) below the uplan d elevation; it does not represent the soil surface. Original cap tion reads: “Average hydrograph of ditched versus unditched stu dy wetlands.”

PAGE 52

46 Figure B-8. Figure 3-3 from CH2MHILL (1987). ‘Standard Elevation’ line represents the elevation 0.33 m (1 ft) below the uplan d elevation; it does not represent the soil surface. Original caption reads: “Hydrograph of hydrologically altered study wetland s.”

PAGE 53

47 Figure B-9. Figure 3-2 from Clough (1992). Data represent yearly fluctuations for a wet prairie. Original caption reads: “Me an, maximum, and minimum annual stage at Hopkins Prairie from 1981 to 1991 (data from St. Johns River Water Management District).”

PAGE 54

48 Figure B-10. Figure 3-3 from Clough (1992). Data represent yearly fluctuations for a wet prairie. Original caption reads: “M ean, monthly water level at Hopkins Prairie from March 1990 to December 1991.”

PAGE 55

49 Figure B-11. Figure 4-2 from Dierberg (1980). Or iginal caption reads: “Monthly variations in the depth of standing water at the center of Austin Cary cypress dome.”

PAGE 56

50 Figure B-12. Figure 7-6 from Dierberg (1980). Orig inal caption reads: “Water level fluctuations in the surface waters of the center of Austin Cary natural dome from 1974 to 1979.”

PAGE 57

51 Figure B-13. Figure 1 from Dierberg and Br ezonik (1983). Austin Cary natural dome (top) is a reference standard wetland; Sewa geenriched dome (bottom) is an impacted wetland. Original caption reads: “Water level fluctuations in the surface water at the c entres of Austin Cary natural (1974-1979) and sewage-enric hed (1974-1977) domes. Data collected by K. Heimburg.”

PAGE 58

52 Figure B-14. Figure 7-6 from LWCWSP, summarized from Duever et al. (1986). Original caption reads: “Hydrographs and hydroperiod ranges for three different south Florida vegetation types (Duever et al., 1986).”

PAGE 59

53 Figure B-15. Figure 5 from Ewel (1990). Or iginal Caption reads: “Typical hydrographs recorded in the centers of nine swamps in central Florida (Ewel and Wickenheiser 1988). Water levels and depths of water above ground in each basin. Small swamps are less than 1 ha, medium swamps are 1-2 ha, and large swamps are more than 5 ha.” Taken from Ewel and Wickenheiser (1988), caption: “Biweekly changes in water level (March 1982-March 1983) in the nine study sites.”

PAGE 60

54 Figure B-16. Figure 1 from Gathumbi et al. ( 2005). Original caption reads: “Mean monthly water depth measured in improved pasture and seminative pasture wetlands (September 2000 to May 2003) illustrating the seasonal fluctuation of both water depth and hydroperiod in these wetland systems (modified from Steinman et al. 2003).”

PAGE 61

55 Figure B-17. Figure 19 from Knowles et al. (2005). Original cap tion reads: “Daily water levels, cumulative rainfall, and cumu lative wetland evaporation for the Boggy Marsh site, Hilochee Wildlife Management Area (station numbers refer to figure 5 and table 1) .”

PAGE 62

56 Figure B-18. Figure 20 from Knowles et al. (2005). Original cap tion reads: “Daily water levels, cumulative rainfall, and cumu lative wetland evaporation for the large wetland, Lyonia Preserve (station numbers refer to figure 6 and table 1).”

PAGE 63

57 Figure B-19. Figure 32 from Knowles et al. (2005). Original caption reads: “Potential for exchange (vertical) between ground water and Boggy Marsh, Hilochee Wildlife Management Area.”

PAGE 64

58 Figure B-20. Figure 3.1 from Mitsch (1984). Orig inal caption reads: “Annual pattern of water level, pH, phosphorus, and nitrogen in the Austin Cary cypress dome pond.”

PAGE 65

59 Figure B-21. Figure 6A from Riekerk and Ko rhnak (2000). Original caption reads: “A) Monthly wetland water-level depths.” Three wetlands are depicted: K, N, and C.

PAGE 66

60 Figure B-22. Figure 1 from Steinman et al. (2003) Original caption reads: “Mean water depth in wetlands from improved and semi-native pastures revealing the seasonal nature of these systems. Data presented in this paper correspond only to the July through October 2001 period.”

PAGE 67

61 Figure B-23. Figure 1 from Sun et al. (2000). Original caption reads: “Daily water-level dynamics in three cypress wetlands during 1992-1996; the arrow indicates harvesting treatment completed.”

PAGE 68

62 Figure B-24. Figure 3 from Wise et al. (2000). Original caption reads: “Long-term monitoring data including study period.”

PAGE 69

63Appendix C – Wetland Hydrology Model Mark T. Brown Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences and Center for Wetlands University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611 DESCRIPTION of the MODEL Given in Figure C-1 is a systems diagram of the wetland hydrology model. For a complete description of the symbols and resulting mathematics see Odum (1983). The systems diagram is a method of writing differential equations since each symbol is rigorously defined with explicit mathematical meaning. Differential equations are written directly from the diagram and programmed as difference equations in EXCEL. Storages of water include surface water soil water (as the interstitial waters in organic soils of the wetland), and groundwater Inputs to surface water include rainfall (J2.1), runoff from surrounding lands (called runin [J2.2]), and “exchange” with soil water (J4.1). Surface outflow from the wetland (J4.2) occurs when surface water elevation exceeds the elevation of the wetland’s outer edge. Evapotranspiration (J3) includes evaporation from surface water (J3.2) and transpiration (J3.1). Ground water exchange with soil water (J5.1) is driven by ground water elevation, which results from exchange with ground waters outside the system boundary (J5.2). Numbered pathways in the diagram refer to corresponding line items in Table 1. The water balance equations for each water storage are as follows: Surface water = J2.1+ J2.2 J3.2 J4.1 J4.2 (1) Soil water = J4.1 – J3.1 – J5.1 (2) Ground water = +/J5.1 (3) Rainfall is programmed as daily events from any climate data set. Runoff from surrounding lands depends on slope and conditions of the watershed, and is programmed by adjusting rate coefficients. Water level within the wetland is controlled by inflows of rain and surface run-in and outflows of transpiration (exchange with soil water), evaporation, and surface outflow. Since vegetation is rooted in soils, and transpired water is “extracted” from the soil (not the water column) a storage of soil water is included in the model. The amount of soil water is controlled by input from surface water and outflows via transpiration and seepage. Infiltration to surficial aquifer (ground water) is calculated as follows: Igw = K*A*dH/dL (4) where K = 0.25 A = Area of wetland dL = 50 meters

PAGE 70

64 Evapotranspiration is calculated using a Hargreaves model as follows: ET 0.0135( TS 17.78) RSa (585.5 0.55 TS) (5) where: ET = Evapotranspiration (mm/day) TS = Mean Temperature (C) RS = incident solar radiation (MJ/m2/day or Langleys/m2/day) A = coefficient (a = 10 when Rs is expressed as Lengleys/day, or a = 238.8 when Rs is expressed as MJ/m2/day. Surface outflow from the wetland occurs through a rectangular weir set at 0.5 meters above the wetland bottom. The following equation is used to calculate the discharge when water level is greater than 0.5 meters. (Q=1.21 LH1.5 ) where: Q = discharge in m3/day L = the length of weir in meters H = head on the weir in meters Table C-1 lists each of the pathways and storages within the wetland and the initial or programmed values for each. From these data rate coefficients for each pathway in the model were calculated. Output from the model is displayed on the computer screen during each simulation run. The output shows a yearly hydrograph and also a maximum water level plotted against a section view through the wetland and adjacent upland. Sensitivity analysis, calibration, and validation of the model was done using data from previously studied wetland systems (see Odum and Ewel, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1978, 1980, 1986; Heimburg and Wang, 1976 and Heimburg, 1986) and data collected from field measurements at the Lake County site. Sensitivity analysis was conducted by evaluating the effect on model output of varying input parameters and flow pathway coefficients. Results obtained when parameters were increased and decreased by as much as 100% from programmed values were compared with expected model behavior (ie if an increase in a parameter should cause an increase in a flow or storage, the resulting behavior was compared with the expected result). The model was calibrated against a data set for a cypress wetland in north central Florida (Heimberg and Wang, 1976). Total flows into and out of the simulated wetland were compared to measured parameters in the cypress wetland. Predicted water levels that were generated by the model were compared to measured water levels. In the absence of long term water level data for the Lake County site, the elevations of lichen lines and cypress knees were used as indicators of depth of inundation (Brown and Doherty, 2000).

PAGE 71

65Rate coefficients and input parameters were adjusted based on results of the sensitivity analysis during calibration until a good fit between measured values for the cypress wetland and the simulation model was obtained. Of primary concern was the total flows into and out of the surface wetland (rainfall, runin, ET, and seepage). The goal of calibration was to obtain simulation results for total flows within 5% of the measured values. Simulation Runs Water levels in the wetland were simulated for the base condition using actual precipitation for an average rainfall year. The base condition was 0% impervious surface, 1% watershed slope, four to one watershed to wetland ratio (4 hectares of watershed to 1 hectare of wetland), watershed soil hydrologic group “C”, wetland water depth of 0.53 meters (1.75 feet), and an average rainfall year. The model was then simulated for varying conditions and rainfall events to evaluate the area of upland immediately adjacent to the wetland that would be inundated. First different storm events were simulated during the rainy season by introducing a five, 10, 25, 50, and 100 year storm event on the 190th day of the year. Second, the percent impervious surface was increased in 10% increments to 50% to simulate development of the watershed. Table C-1. Flows for Wetlands Model Flow Name Description Footnote number J1 Sunlight Programmed daily from 1. averages J2.1 Rain Programmed daily from 2. precipitation data J2.2 Surface runin Function of surrounding 3. upland watershed J3 Evapotranspiration Sum of evaporation and 4. transpiration J3.1 Transpiration by Function of sunlight and 5. vegetation and net production of veg. J3.2 Evaporation from Function of sunlight and area 6. surface water of wetland J4.1 Surface/soil Programmed based on ET, 7.

PAGE 72

66 water interchange and seepage J4.2 Surface water Calculated output 8. outflow J5.1 Seepage Function of soil trasnmissivity 9. and head of surface water J5.2 Groundwater Programmed 10. Exchange _____________________________________________________________ Footnotes to Table 1. 1. J 1 – Sunlight Average monthly solar radiation at Gainesville, Florida (Dohrenwend, 1978), based on a 20-year record from 1955 to 1975. Daily solar radiation calculated by fitting a sine function to average monthly radiation as follows: Jan. 8480 langleys Feb. 9945 “ Mar. 13703 “ Apr. 16307 “ May 17404 “ Jun. 15553 “ Jul. 14999 “ Aug. 15619 “ Sep. 13305 “ Oct. 12061 “ Nov. 10009 “ Dec. 8765 “ 2. J2.1 – Rainfall Rainfall directly on wetland area. Programmed daily from NOAA data. 3. J2.2 – Runin Daily runin from surrounding watershe d. Calculated from rainfall (NOAA data), soil moisture conditions (programmed minimum event for runoff), percent imperviousness, area of contributing watershed, and slope of watershed. 4. J3 – Evapotranspiration Sum of Transpiration and Evaporation. Used measured evapotranspiration values (Heimberg and Wang, 1976) for calibration as follows: Jan. 7mm Feb. 12mm Mar. 22mm

PAGE 73

67 Apr. 141mm May 143mm Jun. 119mm Jul. 105mm Aug. 119mm Sep. 80mm Oct. 94mm Nov. 32mm Dec. 13mm Total 887mm 5. J3.1 – Transpiration Transpiration of wetland calculated as average water use per increment of net production normalized to fit a growth curve for the growing season based on solar insolation. Water use was taken as 1775 g H2O/g carbohydrate, average GPP is between 5.6 and 7.9 gC/m2 day –1 (depending on wetland type), and 30 g H2O per 12 g Carbon fixed (Brown, 1978). 6. J3.2 – Evaporation Evaporation determined as difference between measured values of evapotranspiration (Heimberg and Wang, 1976) and calculated transpiration during the growing season. Evaporation during the dormant season is and equal to daily measured ET. 7. J4.1 Surface / soil water interchange. Calculated rate. When there is surface water in the wetland, interchange equals sum of transpiration, and seepage. When there is no surface water the rate is equal to transpiration 8. J4.2 – Surface outflow. Surface water outflow from wetland is programmed to occur when water levels are greater than elevation of wetland edge. If there is no positive outfall, water levels increase in surrounding upland landscape. 9. J5.1 – Seepage. Rate is a function of the height of water in wetland and height of groundwater outside the wetland. Rate equation was simplified from an empirically derived equation (Heimberg and Wang, 1976) 10. J5.2 – Groundwater exchange. Programmed rate constant based on transmissivity. Generally the flow is considered groundwater recharge (ie waterflow is away from the wetland). Wetland can be programmed to be experience groundwater discharge if surrounding groundwater elevation is higher than water levels in the wetland.

PAGE 74

68 Figure C-1. Wetland Hydrology Model.

PAGE 75

69Appendix C Literature Cited Brown, MT, RE Tighe, eds (1990) Development of Techniques and Guidelines for Reclamation of Phosphate Mined Lands as Diverse Landscapes and Complete Hydrologic Units. Final Report to Florida Institute of Phosphate Research. Gainesville, FL: Center for Wetlands, University of Florida Brown, SL (1978) A Comparison of Cypress Ecosystems in the Landscape of Florida. Ph.D Dissertation. Gainesville, Florida: Center for Wetlands, Univ. FL. p. 570. Dohrenwend, RE (1978) The Climate of Alachua C ounty, Florida. Gainesville, Florida: Bulletin 796, I.F.A.S., University of Florida Heimburg, K (1986) Hydrology of North Central Florida Cypress Domes. In HT Odum and KC Ewel (eds) Cypress Swamps. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville FL. 472 pp. Heimburg, K, F Wang (1976) Hydrological Budget M odel. In HT Odum and KC Ewel (eds): Cypress Wetlands for Water Management Recycling and Conservation (3rd annual report). Gainesville, FL: Center for Wetlands, Univ. of FL. p. 68. Odum, HT (1983) Systems Ecology. New York: McGraw Hill, p. 644. Odum, HT, KC Ewel (1974) Cypress Wetlands for Water Management, Recycling and Conservation. First Annual Report. Gainesv ille, Florida: Center for Wetlands, Univ. of FL. p. 947. Odum, HT, KC Ewel (1975) Cypress Wetlands for Water Management, Recycling and Conservation. Second Annual Report. Gainesville, Florida: Center for Wetlands, Univ. of FL. p. 817. Odum, HT, KC Ewel (1976) Cypress Wetlands for Water Management, Recycling and Conservation. Third Annual Report. Gainesville Florida: Center for Wetlands, Univ. of FL. p. 879. Odum, HT, KC Ewel (1978) Cypress Wetlands for Water Management, Recycling and Conservation. Fourth Annual Report. Gainesv ille, Florida: Center for Wetlands, Univ. of FL. p. 945. Odum, HT, KC Ewel (1980) Cypress Wetlands for Water Management, Recycling and Conservation. Fifth and Final Report. Gainesv ille, Florida: Center for Wetlands, Univ. of FL. p. 284. HT Odum KC Ewel, eds (1986) Cypress Swamps. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville FL. 472 pp.