Buffer zones for water, wetlands and wildlife in East Central Florida
CITATION SEARCH PDF VIEWER
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00016633/00001
 Material Information
Title: Buffer zones for water, wetlands and wildlife in East Central Florida
Series Title: Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations journal series
Physical Description: 1 v. (various pagings) : ill., maps ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Brown, Mark T. ( Mark Theodore ), 1945-
Schaefer, Joseph M
Brandt, Karla H
Center for Wetlands
Publisher: University of Florida, The Center for Wetlands
Place of Publication: Gainesville Florida
Publication Date: 1990
 Subjects
Subjects / Keywords: Wetlands -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Wetland ecology -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Statement of Responsibility: prepared for the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council by Mark T. Brown, Joseph Schaefer and Karla Brandt.
General Note: "May 1990."
General Note: CFW Publication #89-07.
 Record Information
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: aleph - 001722003
oclc - 23476908
notis - AJD4472
System ID: UF00016633:00001

Downloads

This item is only available as the following downloads:

( PDF )


Full Text

Buffer


Zones


for
Water, Wetlands and Wildlife
in


East


Central Florida


M.T. Brown
J.M. Schaefer
and
K.H. Brandt










BUFFER ZONES
FOR WATER, WETLANDS, AND WILDLIFE
IN EAST CENTRAL FLORIDA



prepared for the
East Central Florida Regional Planning Council

by

Mark T. Brown
Center for Wetlands, University of Florida

Joseph Schaefer
Cooperative Urban Wildlife Program
Department of Wildlife and Range Sciences
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida

and

Karla Brandt
Center for Wetlands, University of Florida



May 1990

CFW Publication #89-07
Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations Journal Series No. T-00061







TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES ..............................................................

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................... v

PREFACE ................................................... .............. vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................... viii

SECTION I: Recommended Buffer Requirements ................... ..................... 1
Introduction .................. .................... ... ...... ............ 1
Buffer Widths and Landscape Associations ................................. ..... 2
Recommended Buffer Widths ........................................... 5
Saltwater and Freshwater Wetlands ....................................... 6

SECTION 11: Rationale for Buffer Determination ......................................... 7
Groundwater Drawdown ..................................................... 7
The Function of Groundwater Drawdown Buffers ............................. 8
Buffer Requirements to Minimize Impacts from Groundwater Drawdown ............ 12
Sediment and Turbidity Control ............................................... 18
The Function of Sediment and Turbidity Control Buffers .................... ... 18
Buffer Requirements to Minimize Impacts From Sediment and Turbidity ............. 19
W etland W wildlife Habitat Buffers .............................................. 22
The Intended Purpose of Wetland Wildlife Habitat Buffers ...................... 22
Wetland Habitat Quality ................................................ 23
W etland Habitat Quantity .................................... ......... 26
Adverse Impacts of Animal and Human Activities in Altered Habitats ............... 30
Impacts of Noise ............ ................................... ............... 38
Recommended Wetland Wildlife Habitat Buffers ............................. 41
Limitations of Wetland Wildlife Buffers ................................. 50

SECTION III: Calculating Site-Specific Buffers ......................... ................ 53
Groundwater Drawdown ..................................................... 53
Calculating Wetland Drawdown Buffer Method 1 ........................... 54
Calculating Wetland Drawdown Buffer: Method 2 ............................ 56
Sediment and Turbidity Control ............................................... 58
Calculating Sediment and Turbidity Control Buffers ........................... 58
Wetland Wildlife Habitat Buffers .............................................. 59
Calculating Wetland Wildlife Habitat Buffers .............................. 60
Calculating Noise Attenuation Requirements ................................. 62

LITERATURE CITED ...................................... .. ...... ........... 63

GLOSSARY ..... ...... .................................................... ... 69

APPENDIX A: Landscape Associations of East Central Florida
APPENDIX B: Determinations of Drawdown
APPENDIX C: Wetland Dependent Wildlife
APPENDIX D: Wildlife Feeding and Breeding Zones
APPENDIX E: Wildlife Guild Matrices
APPENDIX F: Wildlife Spatial Requirements
APPENDIX G: Wildlife Habitat Descriptions








LIST OF FIGURES


Figure 1-1. Map showing the counties of the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council. ......... 3
Figure 2-1. Diagram illustrating the effect of a water control structure on groundwater table. .......... 9
Figure 2-2. Diagram of computer simulation model of wetland hydrology. ...................... 10
Figure 2-3. Simulation results of the wetland hydrology model in Figure 2-2 showing the variation in
surface water levels within a wetland typical of central Florida. ..................... 11
Figure 2-4. Simulation results of the groundwater hydrology model showing the effect on surface
water levels within the wetland of increased groundwater drawdowns on the surrounding
landscape............................................................ 13
Figure 2-5. Graphs of drawdown versus distance from wetland edge for 1-foot drawdown (top) and 2-
foot drawdown (bottom). ................................................ 15
Figure 2-6. Graphs of drawndown versus distance from wetland edge for 3-foot drawdown (top) and
5-foot drawdown (bottom). .............................................. 16
Figure 2-7. Graphs of percent sediment deposition versus distance. .......................... 20
Figure 2-8. Percentages of semi-aquatic and wetland-dependent wildlife species that occur in salt
marshes and have individual space needs equal to or less than the respective 100-foot
intervals.................... ........................................ 31
Figure 2-9. Percentages of semi-aquatic and wetland-dependent wildlife species that occur in
freshwater marshes and have individual space needs equal to or less than the respective
100-foot intervals. ..................................................... 32
Figure 2-10. Percentages of semi-aquatic and wetland-dependent wildlife species that occur in cypress
swamps and have individual space needs equal to or less than the respective 100-foot
intervals................... .......................................... 33
Figure 2-11. Percentages of semi-aquatic and wetland-dependent wildlife species that occur in
hardwood swamps and have individual space needs equal to or less than the respective.
100-foot intervals. ..................................................... 34
Figure 2-12. Percentages of semi-aquatic and wetland-dependent wildlife species that occur in
hammocks and have individual space needs equal to or less than the respective 100-foot
intervals. ........................................................... 35
Figure 2-13. Percentages of semi-aquatic and wetland-dependent wildlife species that occur in
flatwoods and have individual space needs equal to or less than the respective 100-foot
intervals................................................ .......... 36
Figure 2-14. Percentages of semi-aquatic and wetland-dependent wildlife species that occur in sandhills
and have individual space needs equal to or less than the respective 100-foot intervals. ..... 37
Figure 3-1. Diagram illustrating the effects of groundwater drawdown on wetland water levels in
areas of sloped groundwater tables. ......................................... 55
Figure 3-2. Diagram illustrating the effects of groundwater drawdown on wetland water levels in
areas having nearly horizontal groundwater tables. .............................. .57
Figure A-I. Landscape Associations in Brevard County, Florida. ............................. A-2









Figure A-2. Landscape Associations in Lake County, Florida ............................... A-3
Figure A-3. Landscape Associations in Orange County, Florida ............................. A-4
Figure A-4. Landscape Associations in Osceola County, Florida. .............................. A-5
Figure A-5. Landscape Associations in Seminole County, Florida ............................. A-6
Figure A-6. Landscape Associations in Volusia County, Florida. .............................. .A-7
Figure B-1. The impact of a drainage canal on the surficial aquifer near a wetland ................. B-2
Figure B-2. Drawdown at wetlands boundary versus buffer distance ........................... B-6
Figure B-3. Percent flow loss versus buffer distance ...................................... B-6
Figure E-l. Guild matrix with feeding and breeding zones for semi-aquatic and wetland dependent wildlife
species that occur in salt marshes in East Central Florida .......................... E-l
Figure E-2. Guild matrix with feeding and breeding zones for semi-aquatic and wetland dependent wildlife
species that occur in freshwater marshes in East Central Florida ..................... E-2
Figure E-3. Guild matrix with feeding and breeding zones for semi-aquatic and wetland dependent wildlife
species that occur in cypress swamps in East Central Florida ....................... E-3
Figure E-4. Guild matrix with feeding and breeding zones for semi-aquatic and wetland dependent wildlife
species that occur in hardwood swamps in East Central Florida ...................... E-4
Figure E-5. Guild matrix with feeding and breeding zones for semi-aquatic and wetland dependent wildlife
species that occur in hammocks in East Central Florida ........................... E-5
Figure E-6. Guild matrix with feeding and breeding zones for semi-aquatic and wetland dependent wildlife
species that occur in flatwoods in East Central Florida ............................ E-6
Figure E-7. Guild matrix with feeding and breeding zones for semi-aquatic and wetland dependent wildlife
species that occur in sandhills in East Central Florida ............................ E-7







LIST OF TABLES


Table 1-1. Minimum and maximum recommended buffer widths in feet for landscape associations of
the east central Florida region for protection of water quality and quantity and wetland-
dependent wildlife habitat ................................................ 4
Table 2-1. Recommended wetland buffers to minimize water table drawdown for landscape
associations of the east central Florida planning region ............................. 17
Table 2-2. Recommended wetland buffers to minimize sedimentation in wetlands and to control
turbidity in adjacent open waters ........................................... 21
Table 2-3. Occurrence and ephemeral wetland dependence of amphibians in east central Florida
landscape associations .................................. ............... 24
Table 2-4. Mean spatial requirements for semi-aquatic and wetland-dependent wildlife species in
various habitats .................. .................................... 29
Table 2-5. Wetland wildlife habitat buffers for various habitats based on spatial requirements of
indicator species (see Appendix F.) .......................................... 43
Table 2-6. Examples of average outdoor day/night sound levels measured at various locations (EPA
1978). ..............................................................46
Table 2-7. Federal Highway Administration abatement criterion guidelines for traffic noise impact
assessment with respect to recommended average sound levels for various land uses
(FHW A 1982 in Greiner, Inc., 1988) .........................................47
Table 2-8. Examples of development-related noise levels produced by various sources .............. 48
Table 3-1. Recommended wetland wildlife buffer widths for various habitats of high, medium and
low quality .......................................................... 61
Table A-1. Soils typical of ecological associations of the Wekiva River Basin .................. A-11
Table C-1. Semi-aquatic and Wetland Dependent Wildlife Species of East Central Florida:
AM PHIBIANS ................................... ............... C-1
Table C-2. Semi-aquatic and Wetland Dependent Wildlife Species of East Central Florida: REPTILES C-3
Table C-3. Semi-aquatic and Wetland Dependent Wildlife Species of East Central Florida: BIRDS .... C-7
Table C-4. Semi-aquatic and Wetland Dependent Wildlife Species of East Central Florida: MAMMALS C-15
Table D-1. Wildlife Species Characteristics of SALT MARSHES ............................ D-1
Table D-2. Wildlife Species Characteristics of FRESHWATER MARSHES ..................... D-2
Table D-3. Wildlife Species Characteristics of CYPRESS SWAMPS .......................... D-3
Table D-4. Wildlife Species Characteristics of HARDWOOD SWAMPS ....................... D-4
Table D-5. Wildlife Species Characteristics of HAMMOCKS ............................... D-5
Table D-6. Wildlife Species Characteristics of FLATWOODS ............................... D-6
Table D-7. Wildlife Species Characteristics of SANDHILLS ................................ D-7
Table F-1. Semi-aquatic and Wetland Dependent Wildlife Species of East Central Florida:
SALT MARSHES .................................................... F-1
Table F-2. Semi-aquatic and Wetland Dependent Wildlife Species of East Central Florida:
FRESHW ATER MARSHES .............................................. F-3









Table F-3. Semi-aquatic and Wetland Dependent Wildlife Species of East Central Florida:
CYPRESS SWAMPS ................................................. F-6
Table F-4. Semi-aquatic and Wetland Dependent Wildlife Species of East Central Florida:
HARDWOOD SWAMPS .............................................. F-9
Table F-5. Semi-aquatic and Wetland Dependent Wildlife Species of East Central Florida:
HAMMOCKS ....................................................... F-12
Table F-6. Semi-aquatic and Wetland Dependent Wildlife Species of East Central Florida:
FLATW OODS ...................................................... F-15
Table F-7. Semi-aquatic and Wetland Dependent Wildlife Species of East Central Florida:
SANDHILLS ....................................................... F-18
Table F-8. Semi-aquatic and Wetland Dependent Wildlife Species of East Central Florida:
SPATIAL REQUIREMENTS OF ALL SPECIES ARRANGED BY TAXA ............ F-21
Table F-9. Semi-aquatic and Wetland Dependent Wildlife Species of East Central Florida:
SPATIAL REQUIREMENTS OF ALL SPECIES ARRANGED IN ASCENDING ORDER F-26










PREFACE


Developing a methodology for determining buffer requirements for water, wetlands, and wildlife is a
complex undertaking when one considers the complexities of the landscape and the various activities associated
with urbanization. Our tasks from the outset of this project and a previous project (Brown and Schaefer, 1987)
were to simplify the complexity of the world, while retaining some measure of reality, and to develop
meaningful and realistic recommendations for wetland buffers based on those simplifications. To those ends, we
have identified three goals for determining buffer widths: (1) minimization of impacts from groundwater
drawdown, (2) protection against sedimentation and turbidity, and (3) protection of habitat needs of wetland-
dependent wildlife. To further simplify the world, we have classified the landscape into six landscape
associations, a classification of land types that is based on ecosystems, hydrology, and landscape position. The
classification scheme minimizes some of the complexity of the real-world landscape and makes application of
buffer standards less arduous. In all, the goal was to develop a rational methodology that was not overly
complicated and yet was defensible on scientific grounds.
Early discussions regarding the purpose of this study were centered on developing a methodology for
determination of buffers for regionally significant wetlands' within the area of the East Central Florida Regional
Planning Council (ECFRPC). Later discussions refined the purpose to include not only a methodology, but also
generalized buffers for the region that could be applied at the regional level--in essence, some basic, minimum
buffer requirements as presumptive minimum standards. Still later discussions added the need to develop a step-
by-step procedure so that buffers might be calculated by all landowners within the region with a minimum of
training and data required.
As the focus of the program shifted, the intended use of this document shifted. In the beginning, it was
considered a report to the ECFRPC so that the Planning Council might develop buffer standards for regionally
significant wetlands. As the program changed, the report included recommendations for generalized buffers
based on the developed methodology, and finally, the report became a public document that gives step-by-step
procedures for the determination of buffer requirements for all wetlands within the ECFRPC. To the extent that
it was possible, we have tried to accommodate these shifting purposes. However, the changing focus has added
significantly to the length and complexity of the report; to the extent that it now requires some minor explanation
of its organization.
In Section I, Table 1-1 summarizes our recommendations for generalized, minimum buffer requirements
that may be used as presumptive minimum standards applied regionwide. These recommendations are organized
by landscape associations. Appendix A gives descriptions and maps of the associations within the ECFRPC.
Use these descriptions and maps to determine where the differing standards apply.
In Section II, a discussion of the rationale and the methodology used to calculate buffer widths and
detailed buffer recommendations are given. Use this section to develop regionwide minimum standards.
Section III contains step-by-step procedures and required data for the determination of buffer
requirements. This section is included for the purpose of determining more refined buffer requirements than
those provided in Table 1-1 or Section II should individual site conditions warrant. Background and derivations
of the formulae in Section III are given in Appendices A, B, C, D, and E.
In summary, we suggest that the ECFRPC adopt a regulatory framework that uses the minimum
presumptive standards for buffer requirements given in Section II but, that also allows for site-by-site
determination of buffer requirements should site conditions warrant a more detailed evaluation.







'Regionally significant wetlands are defined by the ECFRPC as generally, wetlands greater than 5 acres (see
Section 1).








ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


This project was supported by funds provided by the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council,
Winter Park, Florida. It was funded as an extension of earlier work that was supported by the St. Johns River
Water Management District. The present study builds upon methods developed in that earlier project.

Literature review was conducted by Ms. Theresa Snyder, drafting by Mr. Ken McMurry. The authors
are especially grateful to Ms. Linda Crowder for word processing and Ms. Kristina Gaidry for word processing
and editorial assistance. Cover art was done by Sandy Christopher.

Michael Gilbrook, contract officer for the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council, was
extremely patient and supportive.










BUFFER ZONES
FOR WATER, WETLANDS, AND WILDLIFE
IN EAST CENTRAL FLORIDA





SECTION I: Recommended Buffer Requirements




Introduction



This report builds upon previous work in the development of a methodology for the determination of
buffer zones for water, wetlands, and wildlife (Brown and Schaefer, 1987). This report also further develops and
refines the methods of earlier work, recommends standards and criteria, suggests minimum buffer requirements,
and proposes site-specific measurements that could be used to determine buffers on a site-by-site basis. The
criteria for the determination of buffer zones were designed to address the concerns identified in Policy 43.8 (as
amended on 5-18-88) of the East Central Florida Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan (ECFCRPP):

In order to protect the quality and quantity of surface waters and provide habitat for semi-
aquatic or water-dependent terrestrial species of wildlife, buffer zones should be established
landward of regionally significant wetlands...

Regionally significant wetlands include:

those wetlands which are Florida Department of Environmental Regulation jurisdictional as
defined by s. 17-4.002, F.A.C; isolated wetlands five acres or more in area; and wetlands which
provide significant habitat for species which are listed as endangered, threatened or species of
special concern by the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission or Florida Department
of Agriculture and Consumer Services, or which are assigned State Element Ranks of S1 or S2
by the Florida Natural Areas Inventory (ECFCRPP, page 150).

Policy 43.8 further states that:

the landward extent of buffer zones around wetlands shall be determined based on scientific
evaluation of site specific conditions, including the nature of the existing soils, vegetation,
topography, hydrology, water quality, wildlife diversity and the resource protection status of
receiving waters.

The purpose of setting aside buffer zones between a wetland and a developed upland area is to protect
the integrity of the wetland's water supply, its water quality, and associated wetland-dependent wildlife. A








buffer can be thought of as a zone of transition between two different land uses that separates and protects one
from the other. Based on consideration of our previous work in this area (Brown and Schaefer, 1987), three
goals have been identified that can be used to determine buffer sizes for wetland protection: minimization of
groundwater drawdown in wetlands, minimization of sediment transport into wetlands, and protection of wildlife
habitat. This report provides estimates of buffer sizes necessary to achieve these goals in the area comprised of
the six counties in the ECFRPC's area (Brevard, Lake, Orange, Osceola, Seminole, and Volusia; see Figure 1-1).
Also included are detailed descriptions of the methodologies and step-by-step procedures for calculating buffer
requirements are given so that buffer sizes may be calculated on a site-by-site basis if desired.




Buffer Widths and Landscape Associations



To achieve some measure of sensitivity to the varying conditions found throughout the east central
Florida landscape, the region was classified into several landscape associations that could be used to determine
minimum buffer requirements. A landscape association is an assemblage of ecological communities having
distinct topographic, geologic, and hydrologic conditions and landscape position. Six landscape associations were
identified in the region:
1) Pine flatwoods/isolated wetlands
2) Pine flatwoods/flowing water wetlands
3) Pine flatwoods/hammocks/hardwood swamps
4) Sandhill communities/isolated or flowing-water wetlands
5) Pine flatwoods/salt marshes
6) Coastal hammocks w/salt marshes

A description of each association, maps of associations by county of the ECFRPC, and soils information
that is important for evaluation of site-specific buffer determinations are given in Appendix A.
Soil properties, groundwater hydrology, topography, and wildlife characteristics of each landscape
association were evaluated to determine generalized buffer requirements. The physical conditions and wildlife
characteristics that are typical of each association overlap to a large degree, and therefore, when average
conditions are used to determine buffer requirements for each association, there are few differences. Table 1-1
gives the minimum and maximum buffer requirements to minimize groundwater drawdown and sedimentation
and to protect wetland-dependent wildlife for each of the landscape associations in the east central Florida
region. To determine the appropriate buffer to meet each of the three goals, turn to the appropriate part of
Section II.
Average conditions found for soils and hydrology are very similar for all associations except sandhills.
Topography differs from one association to the next and in fact, differences in topography are the main variable
controlling groundwater buffers. Therefore, differences in buffer widths for drawdown protection in Table 1-1
are mostly related to differences in topography. The landscape associations offer a convenient means of
summarizing the data because they simplify much of the complexity of the landscape. Instead of dealing with
10-20 types of ecological communities and innumerable combinations of each, the associations offer a
classification scheme with six components.










































0 .20 40

miles











East Central Florida

Regional Planning Council



Figure 1-1. Map showing die counties of the lEast Cntiral Florida Regional Planning Council.


__ __









Table 1-1.


Minimum and maximum recommended buffer widths in feet for landscape associations of the
east central Florida region for protection of water quality and quantity and wetland-dependent
wildlife habitat.


Minimize Protect
Landscape Groundwater Control Wildlife
Association Drawdown2 Sedimentation' Habitat4
Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max.
(feet) (feet) (feet)


1. Flatwoods/
isolated wetlands


2. Flatwoods/
flowing-water wetlands


3. Flatwoods/
hammocks/hardwood swamps


4. Sandhills/
wetlands


5. Flatwoods/
salt marshes


6. Coastal hammocks/
salt marshes


100 550



100 550



50 250



20 250


100 550


100 550


75 375


75 375


75 375



75 375


75 375


75 375


322 N/A


322 N/A


2Buffer width depends on the extent of groundwater drawdown and slope of the groundwater table. The
buffer widths were calculated using 1-foot and 5-foot drawdowns at the source of drawdown, a zero-inch
allowable drawdown at the wetland edge, and a circular wetland of 5 acres (radius of 263 ft). Recommended
buffers for 2-and 3-foot drawdowns are given in Table 2-1. The following slopes were assumed for the
groundwater table: landscape association (LA)#1 = 1%; LA#2 = 1-2%; LA#3 = 2%; LA#4 = 2-4%; LA#5 = 1%,
and LA#6 = 1%.

3Minimum widths are based on the settling velocity of sand; maximum widths are based on the settling
velocity of silt The buffer width for sand is measured from the upland/wetland boundary while the buffer for
silt is measured from edge of open water through wetland to the upland (i.e., buffers for silt include the
wetland).

4The minimum width is based on minimum habitat requirements of species associated with marsh
ecosystems; the maximum width is based on minimum habitat requirements for wetland-dependent wildlife
species associated with the various forested wetland ecosystems.








It is important to recognize the following qualifiers when using the suggested buffer widths in
Table 1-1:
1. The buffer widths given are estimates of buffer requirements using average conditions
for each landscape association. Detailed site-specific data could be gathered and more
refined buffer widths determined on a site-by-site basis.
2. The data used to calculate the buffer widths and the values of other parameters in this report
are derived from maps, literature, and other general sources. They are not derived from field
investigations.
3. Wildlife buffers begin at the waterward edge of the forested wetland or upland habitat that is
adjacent to the aquatic system. Marsh buffers are measured landward from the landward edge
of the marsh vegetation. A minimum 50-foot-upland strip should also be included in each
buffer for semi-aquatic reptile nesting and overwintering.
4. Buffer sizes set out in this report will not ensure the maintenance of minimum viable
populations of wildlife species.



Recommended Buffer Widths

The suggested minimum and maximum buffer widths given in Table 1-1 are for illustrative purposes.
Tables in Section II give recommended buffers that can be used to set presumptive regulatory standards for the
region. In addition, it is recommended that the Council consider including a provision in any buffer rule that
would give permit applicants the option of collecting site-specific data and determining buffer widths using the
methods described in Section III of this report.
Section II describes in some detail the rationale behind the recommended buffer widths; however, some
explanation here may help to minimize confusion. The original objective of this project was to develop a single
recommended buffer width for each landscape association, but soof it became apparent that a single number
contained too many hidden assumptions and minimized too much of the important variability in the landscape.
Thus, recommended buffer widths are based on physical attributes of the site. To determine which buffer width
applies to a site requires some knowledge of the site and its intended use and the following procedure:
1. Determine the landscape association the site occupies (use Appendix A maps).
2. Determine the extent of groundwater drawdown planned and slope of groundwater table
(average terrain slope may suffice).
*READ REQUIRED DRAWDOWN BUFFER WIDTH FROM TABLE 2-1; Section II.
3. Determine soil type and USDA soil class from soils map.
*READ REQUIRED SEDIMENTATION BUFFER WIDTH FROM TABLE 2-2; Section II.
4. Determine vegetative cover of each wetland on the site.
*READ REQUIRED WILDLIFE HABITAT BUFFER WIDTH FROM TABLE 2-5; Section II.
5. The widest of the three buffers should be used.

This method provides a relatively simple yet reasonable means of tailoring the buffer width to the most
important site conditions and anticipated site engineering. The recommended widths are conservative (that is,








buffer widths given in this report are the maximum widths necessary to achieve each goal). As a result, many
development applicants may opt to collect site-specific data and apply the methods given in Section III to
determine buffer requirements.
A much simpler approach, but one that is not recommended, is the adoption of a single presumptive
buffer width of, say, 200 or 500 feet However a single presumptive buffer would probably increase the use of
Section III methods, defeating the attractiveness of a single numeric buffer width.



Saltwater and Freshwater Wetlands

Saltwater wetlands differ significantly from freshwater wetlands in species composition because of
interactions of landscape position and the driving energies of tides and waves. Nevertheless, the relationship to
groundwater, potential sedimentation, and wildlife of freshwater and saltwater wetlands are similar. Therefore,
strategies for determining buffers for the interface of upland and saltwater wetlands are the same as those
employed for inland freshwater wetlands. The following rationale may help to explain the reason for treating
saltwater and freshwater wetlands similarly for the purposes of determining buffer requirements.
A lens of fresh groundwater that is particularly sensitive to changes in flow direction exists at the
interface between uplands and saltwater wetlands. As long as a positive freshwater head in the uplands is
maintained, salty groundwater movement toward the upland is minimized. However, increased drainage or
pumpage in upland areas adjacent to saltwater wetlands causes rapid movement of saltwaters toward the upland.
Thus, groundwater drawdown in uplands adjacent to saltwater wetlands is of primary concern.
Sedimentation and turbidity are of equal concern in saltwater and freshwater systems. No differences
between saltwater wetlands and their counterparts farther inland were discerned related to potential impacts from
for sedimentation or responses to turbidity. Sedimentation in saltwater wetlands as in freshwater wetlands acts to
fill the wetland, suffocating vegetation and raising ground surface elevation. Turbidity in the water column
reduces light penetration and can significantly reduce primary production in saltwater as well as in freshwater.
As a result the same relationships used in freshwater wetlands have been applied to the saltwater wetlands.
Finally, while there is some knowledge concerning differences in wildlife utilization of saltwater and
freshwater wetlands, data related to their precise habitat requirements of wildlife using saltwater wetlands are
insufficient to distinguish between them for the purpose of setting buffer widths. Thus, with the exception of
turtle nesting requirements, the wildlife habitat requirements developed for freshwater wetlands have been
applied to saltwater systems.







SECTION H: Rationale for Buffer Determination


This section provides a rationale for each of the buffer goals (minimize groundwater drawdown, control
sediment and turbidity, and protect wildlife habitat). Each subsection presents a brief rationale, explains the
methodology, and gives recommended buffer widths. Appendices to this volume contain further explanatory
information, formulae, and data that may be used to evaluate buffer requirements on a site-by-site basis using the
procedures in Section III.
Recommended buffer widths are based on a synthesis of all pertinent information that must be
considered when developing a regulatory framework, not the least of which are: (1) a rational limit to what can
be reasonably expected of a buffer, (2) detection limits of the equipment that might be used to measure
parameters and impacts, (3) the limits of knowledge and understanding concerning negative impacts of
anthropogenic activities on wetland structure and function, and (4) the variability of nature. Often, when
developing a framework for regulating natural resources, some suggested standards may seem arbitrary on the
surface, e.g., trapping 95% of sediments in a buffer instead of 100% or requiring 50 feet of sandy soil around
wetlands for nesting of certain wildlife species. They are arbitrary in the sense that 94% may be just as
acceptable a sediment deposition rate as 95%, or 51 feet an acceptable wildlife nesting zone. Some parameter
values have been rounded off so that they can be easily identified and remembered. The real issue is that
detection limits and marginal return factors suggest that measuring a parameter beyond the suggested limits is
probably not feasible given a reasonable amount of time and money. Furthermore, not enough is known about
some parameters (the nesting habits of most wildlife species, for example) to predict the exact requirements for
upland nesting zones. To expect greater precision is unwarranted and unreasonable.
Recommendations for various coefficients and constants used to determine buffer requirements are based
on analysis of the conditions and parameters found in the region and best judgment related to what is reasonable,
what is understood about wetland structure and function, what is known about the detection limits of current
measurement techniques, marginal returns on investments of time and energy, and what is known about the
variability of nature.




Groundwater Drawdown



The interplay of surface water in wetlands with groundwater in surrounding uplands is not at all simple.
To understand how lowered groundwater levels in surrounding lands will affect surface water levels in adjacent
wetlands, a significant amount of detailed data on the structure and composition of the soils immediately under
and in the immediate vicinity of the wetland is required. In addition, data on surface water levels within the
wetland, groundwater levels in adjacent uplands, and rainfall need to be collected for at least one year. As a
result of these data requirements, the use of less data-intensive methods and generalized parameters is attractive









and may lead to acceptable results given the limits of precision dictated by the methods and initial
generalizations.
The diagram in Figure 2-1 illustrates the effect of drainage structures (ditches, drainage tiles, etc.) on
groundwater levels in the vicinity of a wetland. The degree to which groundwater levels are lowered depends on
characteristics of intervening soils,the depth of the drainage structure, and the capacity for outfall from the
structure to some lower elevation. In some cases outfall is by a gravity connection to some structure or water
body of lower elevation. In others, pumps are used to remove water to maintain lowered water table elevations.
The suggested buffer widths for the minimization of groundwater drawdown effects on wetland
hydroperiod given in this report are based on a generalized model that requires a minimum of data collection.
Under some circumstances, individual projects and conditions at particular sites may warrant a more detailed
examination of drawdown effects. Under these circumstances, more complex hydrological models and detailed
data may result in the determination of different buffer requirements. The use of other models should be
encouraged when warranted by site conditions, but only if they are valid representations of site conditions and
are driven by sufficient, reliably obtained data.



The Function of Groundwater Drawdown Buffers

The purpose of minimizing groundwater drawdown is to maintain an acceptable wetland hydroperiod
after development. Lowered groundwater tables in areas surrounding wetland communities can decrease surface
water depth and shorten periods of standing water within wetlands. Since the greatest single driving force
determining wetland community organization is hydrology, actions that alter hydrology have direct effects on the
integrity of wetland communities. Lowered water levels and shortened hydroperiods cause a shift in community
structure toward species characteristic of drier conditions. The maintenance of hydroperiod is probably the single
most critical variable in maintaining viable wetland communities.
Characteristic hydroperiods of wetldhd communities depend on the community type. Some wetland
types have water depths of 3 feet or more and remain inundated for most of the year. Others have water depths
of 1 foot or less and are inundated for relatively short periods of time during the year. Depths and periods of
inundation within any given wetland determine its species composition. Species adapted to one hydrologic
regime are often not well-adapted to a different one. Complete loss of water has obvious impacts on wetland
community organization and may be caused by groundwater manipulations in adjacent uplands that lower water
tables enough to "drain" wetlands.
Because water levels in wetlands are not static, predicting the impact of lowered water levels and
shorter periods of inundation on the community organization of a wetland ecosystem is not an easy task. To
illustrate the complexity of the problem, a model of wetland hydrology was developed that, when simulated on
computer, generates curves that represent water levels within a typical wetland.
Figure 2-2 is a diagram of a simulation model of wetland hydrology that shows inflows of water from
rainfall and runoff; surface water storage in the wetland; losses of water from evaporation, transpiration, and
surface water outflows; and the interaction between surface water and groundwater. Figure 2-3 displays
simulation results for a series of years are given where the different curves represent different rainfall patterns.





















U--land Wetland


Water Control
Structure
tc--q


Water Table
Before Drawdown


Ground Surface


Water Table
After Drawdown


Maintained Wet Season
Water Level


Figure 2-1. Diagram illustrating the effect of a water control structure on groundwater table. With
increasing distance between the control structure and the wetland, negative impacts and wetland
hydrology may be minimized.


Upland


Wetland
































































Figure 2-2. Diagram of computer simulation model of wetland hydrology.

10
















THE EFFECT OF RAINFALL ON WATER DEPTHS
(*oeh Ann reprentr a dNffTret year)
600


500-


400-


300


200


100


0


-100-


-200-


-300
1 31 61 01 121 151 181 211 241 271 301 331

TIME (days)


















Figure 2-3. Simulation results of the wetland hydrology model in Figure 2-2 showing the variation in
surface water levels within a wetland typical of central Florida. The variation from year to
year is due to differences in yearly rainfall simulating wet and drought years.


S1a








The simulation shows how water levels vary depending on how much rain falls during the year. The variation in
rainfall is a key factor in determining characteristic hydroperiod, since it illustrates the transient nature of
wetland hydrology. What may be a characteristic hydroperiod during one year is not necessarily characteristic
the next Thus, the problem of predicting the impact on community structure of a drawdown of several inches or
even 1 foot is compounded by the fact that water levels are not static and vary from year to year and within each
year.
The simulation results in Figure 2-4 show the effects of lowered groundwater levels in the landscape
surrounding a wetland community. Rainfall is held constant for each simulation, and groundwater levels are
decreased in increments of 1 foot The top curve shows the normal condition. Each succeeding curve results
from an additional 1 foot of groundwater drawdown in the surrounding landscape. Each succeeding drawdown
lowers water levels within the wetland and shortens the length of time that the wetland is inundated. The largest
difference between succeeding curves is between the normal condition and 1-foot drawdown; the second biggest
difference is between the 1- and 2-foot drawdown. Thereafter, additional lowering of the groundwater table does
not have as great an effect as the initial 1 or 2 feet, since water levels within the wetland are now maintained for
very short periods immediately after rainfall events. Comparison of these curves with the normal fluctuations of
water levels that result in yearly variation in rainfall suggest that a 1-foot drawdown in the surrounding landscape
is sufficient to cause a marked lowering of water levels within the wetland and that drawdowns of less than 1
foot are probably not discernable from the normal variation.
The effects of drainage structures on groundwater elevations diminish with distance from the structure.
In other words, structures farther away from a wetland will have smaller impacts on water table elevations than
structures in closer proximity. Thus, it is possible to determine how far a drainage structure must be from a
wetland so that drawdown in the wetland is minimized.



Buffer Requirements to Minimize Impacts from Groundwater Drawdown

Appendix B is a report by Dr. Wendy D. Graham of the Department of Agricultural Engineering,
University of Florida, which describes a procedure for determining the distance required between a ditch or other
water control structure that lowers groundwater levels and the edge of a wetland so as to minimize the drop in
water levels in the wetland. The complexities of groundwater hydrology have made it necessary to make several
assumptions that limit the applicability of this method. In particular, a continuous horizontal impervious layer
must exist beneath the wetland/upland system, and the depth from the soil surface to the top of the impervious
layer must be known. As a result of these assumptions, the model has limited applicability in areas where there
is no impervious lower boundary to the surficial aquifer or where the layer is extremely deep. Impermeable
layers are frequently absent in sandhill landscapes. Under these conditions the model cannot be used; however,
when these conditions prevail, groundwater levels are usually not close to the surface and thus, groundwater
drawdown is not of concern. Where an impervious layer is known to exist, the model may be used to determine
buffer widths.
Determination of a buffer width that will protect wetland hydrology is based on the model described in
Appendix B. A model was sought that would simply and accurately represent the relationships between water
levels within wetlands and groundwater levels in the surrounding landscape. The simplifying assumptions in the
model have reduced requirements for detailed data to a minimum. The main data needed arc: the depth to the















GROUNDWATER EFFECTS ON WATER DEPTHS
(oMenatent ron gd.wtb r delne 1'-0")


400


300


200


100


0


-100


-200


1 31 61 91 121 181 161 211 241 271 301 331 361
TIME;(dey,)


Simulation results of the groundwater hydrology model showing the effect on surface water
levels within the wetland of increased groundwater drawdowns on the surrounding landscape.
Each curve represents a different groundwater level drawdown. The top curve is the normal
condition; the next curve down represents a drawdown of 1 foot; the curve below that
represents a 2-foot drawdown; and so on.


Figure 2-4.









impermeable, lower boundary of the surficial aquifer, the size of the wetland (radius), the wet season elevation of
water in the center of the wetland, the pre-construction wet-season slope of the surficial aquifer (assume the
ground surface slope), and the amount of drawdown at the water control structure. Figures 2-5 and 2-6 show a
series of curves for a circular wetland of 5 acres (263 feet in radius) that were generated using the model in
Appendix B for various surficial-aquifer slopes. In the most general sense, as demonstrated by the graphs,
required buffer widths are quite sensitive to slope. Sensitivity of the model to depth to the lower limit of the
aquifer depends on the size of the wetland in question. A sensitivity analysis of the model showed that for
wetlands smaller than 5 acres, depth to impermeable layer was somewhat significant, but it had little influence on
solutions for larger wetlands. Similarly, when all other model variables are held constant, varying the size of the
wetland had no effect on buffer width except for wetlands smaller than 5 acres (263-foot radius).
The curves given in Figure 2-5 show drawdown effects in all landscape associations, for varying degrees
of slope of the surficial aquifer for a 1-foot (top graph) and 2-foot (bottom graph) drawdown at the surface water
control structure. The horizontal axis shows required distance from wetland edge5, and the vertical axis
represents drawdown at the wetland edge. The buffer required to ensure no drawdown at the wetland edge
varies from 200 feet (for a 2-foot drawdown at the structure and 1% slope) to approximately 20 feet (for a I-foot
drawdown at the structure and 10% slope). Figure 2-6 illustrates the consequences of drawdowns of 3 and 5
feet. The shape of the curve is the same, but the magnitude of drawdown at the wetland edge is greater, and the
required buffer width to minimize drawdown at the wetland edge is greater. In this case, to ensure zero
drawdown at the wetland edge, a buffer width of approximately 550 feet is required for a drawdown of 5 feet in
areas with groundwater slopes of 1%. The minimum buffer required for a 3-foot drawdown is 30 feet in areas
with surficial aquifer slopes of 10%.
Changes in water levels will affect fringing areas of a wetland, altering hydrologic conditions in the
transition zone between upland, and wetland. While those impacts are always potentially present, they are of
greater importance in wetlands of smaller size, since with larger size, the effects of groundwater drawdown are
somewhat mitigated by the hydrologic storage within the wetland. Thus, smaller wetlands require buffers of
greater dimension. Small wetlands have lower capacity to ameliorate the effects of lowered groundwaters in the
surrounding landscape. Buffer widths for wetlands smaller than 5 acres will be greater than those given in Table
2-1. The 5-acre limit used in this report was chosen since wetlands of less than 5 acres generally are not
considered of regional significance by the ECFRPC.
The buffer recommendations given in Table 2-1 are based on typical slopes assumed for each landscape
association. However, where greater resolution is warranted because of site specific conditions, the methodology
explained in Section III of this document may be used to calculate required buffer widths.







'The wetland edge can be determined using any of several methods for demarcating the boundary between
uplands and wetlands. The best methods are those developed by the Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation, the Army U.S. Corps of Engineers, and the St. Johns River Water Management District. Under most
circumstances, all determinations are quite similar. We suggest, for consistency, that the methodology employed
by the St. Johns River Water Management District be used to establish the wetland edge when determining
buffer requirements in the cast central Florida region.








EFFECT OF GROUNDWATER SLOPE ON DRAWDOWN
I q


a.


Distance from Wetland Edge (feet)


EFFECT OF GROUNDWATER SLOPE ON DRAWDOWN


0 40 f 10 t10 dg 340 -2
Distance from Wetland Edge (feet)


Figuirc 2-5. Graphs of drawdown v'rsuLs distance from wcllaind cdgi for 1-41)1 drawdown (tlo) ni ad .-loho
(Idr wd ;I l I (1 ollin). l':a h li lii in lic t ii) graphs illusl al i d i ill Stll ` shlo) 1 llt"C ,rItni lh .. l.WI
labil'l "lh l ;|)|r) l| 'ialte b itdll- is l k-ro mt Ir I w, i'l.l nd vdp'oe Il l -in, r ;il + t ld oM -.I,1, ,
tk;tl :v l tw miici RIiIn ti l gir l Ili nes fi w_ ith dic Itlk 11/.,in l 1 ,.r.








EFFECT OF GROUNDWATER SLOPE ON DRAWDOWN

u Drawdown at Structure a 3 feet
SLA
SA1 o 10%
Lt, + 8%


0 40 s0 110 100 2oo 240 2M0
Distance from Wetland Edge (feet)



EFFECT OF GROUNDWATER SLOPE ON DRAWDOWN


o 40 o 10 100o 300
Distance from Wetland Edge (feet)


Figure 2-6. Graphs of drawndown versus distance from wetland edge for 3-foot drawdown (top) and 5-foot
drawdown (bottom). Each line in the graphs illustrates a different slope of the groundwater
table. The appropriate buffer distance from the wetland edge for differing water table slopes is
read as the intersection of graph lines with the horizontal axis.








Table 2-1.


Recommended wetland buffers to minimize water table drawdown for landscape associations of
the east central Florida planning region.


Landscape Association # Slope' Drawdown at structure2
(%) 1 ft. 2 ft. 3 ft. 5 ft.


1 Flatwoods w/isolated wetlands

2 Flatwoods w/flowing-water
wetlands

3 Flatwoods and/or hammocks
w/hardwood swamps

4 Sandhill communities w/isolated
or flowing-water wetlands


5 Flatwoods w/salt marshes

6 Coastal hammocks w/salt marshes


100 200

100 200
50 100


50 100


100 200

100 200


'The slopes given are estimates of the slope of the surficial aquifer characteristic of each
association based on averages of topographic relief of the various associations. Where more than
one slope is given, variation of topographic relief within associations was sufficient to require listing
several slopes.


2At the present time, the St. Johns River Water Management District allows a maximum 5-foot,
groundwater drawdown at any one point within project boundaries and an overall average drawdown
of 3 feet.









Sediment and Turbidity Control


A naturally vegetated buffer zone can catch and retain sediment carried by overland flow from
construction sites and developed landscapes. Vegetated buffers are far more effective than sediment screens or
hay bales, which are vulnerable to accidental breaching by heavy equipment and to blowouts from the brief but
intense rainstorms characteristic of the region. If adequate stormwater control systems are installed and if buffer
zones between wetlands and construction sites are incorporated into such systems, buffer zones for sediment and
turbidity control are needed only temporarily, (i.e., between the time the land is cleared and the time it is
revegetated and detention ponds or other runoff control systems are put in place). Buffers for sediment
protection are assumed to be unimportant after construction is complete if the developed lands immediately
adjacent to the wetland in question have an adequately designed and maintained stormwater control system and if
the lands used for sediment buffers are incorporated into the system.



The Function of Sediment and Turbidity Control Buffers

A sediment buffer is necessary to ensure that sediment eroded from surrounding uplands and deposited
in a wetland does not act to fill the area, thereby creating an upland from deposited material where there once
was a wetland. Additionally, a turbidity buffer is required where surface waters may be degraded by turbidity
associated with very fine-grained silt or clay particles. A distinction is drawn between sediment control and
turbidity control since the effects and required buffers are quite different. The term "sediment," is defined in this
report to mean relatively large-grained sand material (0.05 2.0 mm diameter) that because of its size will settle
in relatively short distances. Because of their small size, silt particles (0.002 0.05 mm in diameter) have
greater mobility, require long settling times and distances, and pose significant threats to water clarity. As a
result of these differences, silt turbidity control buffers are different from sediment control butYer requirements.
Buffers for sediment control are necessary whenever upland erosion and subsequent deposition of eroded
materials in a wetland is possible. Under most circumstances, eroded sediment is large-grained and will settle
out in a relatively short distance. As a result, the required buffers are small.
Buffers for turbidity control are necessary whenever downstream water clarity may be degraded by
suspended silt that may result from erosion of adjacent upland locations. Since silt is small-grained and does not
settle out in short distances, the required buffers are of relatively large widths under most circumstances.
The important differences that must be addressed in determining buffer requirements are in the pathways
of interaction and the threats that each pose. Sediment can fill a wetland, thereby compromising its function; but
sedimentation can be easily avoided by using upland buffers as sediment traps. On the other hand, silt creates
turbidity which reduces water transparency and, thus, interferes with photosynthesis of submerged vegetation and
phytoplankton in the water column. Turbidity is of great concern in lakes and streams and it is a very difficult
problem to remedy. In vegetated wetlands turbidity is of little concern since there is only minor photosynthesis
from submerged vegetation or phytoplankton in the water column.
Buffers to protect water bodies against turbidity are not required if the adjacent wetland is isolated (i.e.,
not connected to a body of open water) and is 100% vegetated with emergent or floating vegetation. For








wetlands connected to lakes, rivers, streams, or other water bodies, the buffer width for turbidity should be
measured from the water edge and should include the wetland. In other words, wetlands are good filters of fine-
grained silts and buffers necessary for water-quality purposes should include the wetland's filtering action.
Because Florida soils have low percentages of silts and clays, and because disturbances that cause erosion are
typically temporary (e.g., construction), it is highly unlikely that including a wetland in a turbidity buffer will
result in damage to the wetland from excessive siltation.



Buffer Requirements to Minimize Impacts From Sediment and Turbidity

The graph in Figure 2-7 shows the relationship between percentages of various kinds of sediment
trapped by a buffer and the length of the buffer. The curves were derived from a methodology that first
determines the expected volume of runoff (using TR-55 [SCS, 1986]) and then calculates the length of the
vegetated strip required to settle out sediments of varying sizes. The methodology is explained in Section Ill.
The efficiency of a buffer is directly proportional to the size and specific gravity of the particles eroded
from upland areas and carried by the flowing water (all other things being equal). In general the smaller the
material being carried, the farther it will travel before water velocity is sufficiently reduced to cause it to settle
out. Under most circumstances in central Florida, particles carried by surface runoff are sands and aggregates of
sand particles of varying sizes and, to a lesser extent, silt particles. Under rare conditions eroded material may
contain significant amounts of clay particles. Clay particles are the smallest in size (< 0.002 mm diameter);
primary silt particles are next smallest (0.002 0.05 mm diameter); then fine sand (0.05 0.25 mm diameter);
and finally medium to coarse sands (0.25 2.0 mm diameter). The smaller the particles, the farther they travel
and the greater their potential for causing sedimentation of wetlands and turbidity of downstream waters.
Determination of the buffer requirement is related to the type of wetland and/or receiving waters that are
downslope and the particle size that is characteristic of the soils subject to erosion. Appropriate distances
between the waterward edge of the wetland and the upland edge of the buffer can be read from Figure 2-7 and
are summarized in Table 2-2. Where well washed medium to coarse-grained sands are characteristic of the soil
material, the buffer width should be approximately 75 feet to allow for deposition of nearly 100% of the material
within the buffer. For soils having higher proportions of fine sands, the buffer width should be 200 feet to allow
for deposition of 100% of the material. In soils where larger quantities of silts are expected and where there are
downstream water bodies that would suffer from increases in turbidity, the buffer width should be 500 feet
(measured from water edge and including the wetland) to deposit approximately 95% of silt material. Where
there is the potential for suspension of clay particles in runoff waters that may adversely affect streams and
lakes, additional measures for protection against turbidity (such as settling or holding ponds, filler fabric barriers,
or sand filtration systems) should be employed during construction, since the required width of a vegetated buffer
under these circumstances makes them impractical.
The use of a 95% deposition rate for silts is based on the marginal rates of return from further increases
in buffer widths related to percent of sediment deposited. While it may be desirable to trap 100% of silt leaving
a construction site prior to its entry into a watercourse, the practicality of doing so is questionable. Because of
the exponential nature of the curves in Figure 2-7, the buffer required to trap 100% of the silt leaving a site
would be approximately 700 feet wide. Buffers greater than 500 feet wide, have significant declines in their








SEDIMENT DEPOSITION


0 200 400


Distance from ConstrucUon, ft
0 Fine Sand


A Course Sand


Figure 2-7. Graphs of percent sediment deposition versus distance. Each line illustrates the buffer widths
necessary to deposit sediments of differing sizes to minimize sedimentation in wetlands.


I Clay


+ Sit








Recommended wetland buffers to minimize sedimentation in wetlands and to control turbidity
in adjacent open waters.


Buffer requirements


Sedimentation and turbidity control cannot
be met with buffer requirements alone.

450 feet measured from open water/wetland
boundary through the wetland to the upland.

200 feet from wetland/upland boundary.

75 feet from the wetland/upland boundary.


Table 2-2.


USDA
Soil Type


Clay


Fine sand


Coarse sand









marginal effect, especially when compared to the amount of material that remains after 95% has been deposited.
Thus, widths greater than 500 feet were deemed impractical.
The curves in Figure 2-7 are based on soil conditions, rainfall, and antecedent conditions that are typical
of the region and to the conditions that would be expected during construction. That is, the soil hydrologic
group is D, the soils are newly graded, and the rainfall event is a 5-year storm of 6.5 inches in a 24-hour period.
Thus, the recommended buffer widths are based on more or less average expected conditions, except for soil
hydrologic group. The characteristics of soil hydrologic group D (since this is the dominant soil group in the
region) have been used to calculate the runoff which drives potential erosion and subsequent sedimentation.
Computed runoffs and the resulting buffer widths will be smaller for soils of hydrologic groups A, B, or C.




Wetland Wildlife Habitat Buffers



The major topics discussed in this section include: The intended purpose of wetland wildlife habitat
buffers; wetland habitat quality and quantity; adverse impacts of animal and human activities; impacts of noise;
recommended wetland wildlife habitat buffers; and limitations of wetland wildlife habitat buffers.



The Intended Purpose of Wetland Wildlife Habitat Buffers

The specific charge of the wildlife component of this study was to develop a methodology for
determining the upland boundaries of these proposed wetland buffers that would "provide habitat for semi-
aquatic or water-dependent terrestrial species of wildlife." One interpretation of the intent of such buffers, as
broadly defined in Policy 43.8 of the ECFCRPP, is to maintain the biological integrity of regionally significant
wetlands by protecting sufficient habitat to ensure that all wildlife species currently using these resources will be
perpetuated. At the opposite end of the spectrum of logical translations would be one that identified the role of
these buffers as that of providing satisfactory protection from human-related activities to the extent that only a
token remnant of the original wildlife community would continue to use these wetlands.
One application of these buffer determination procedures is to assist in DRI reviews by the ECFRPC
staff. Because the amount of habitat area needed to maintain a full complement of wildlife species currently
utilizing a wetland may exceed the size of an entire proposed development project, a conservative interpretation
of the habitat provision mentioned in Policy 43.8 is desired. The use of buffers is just one of several methods
proposed by the ECFRPC to be used in the achievement of the following Regional Goal.

"Provide for the protection, enhancement and management of the region's
environmentally sensitive and/or significant ecosystems in order to maintain their
ecological, economic, aesthetic and recreational values." (ECFCRPP, page 147)








Isolated ephemeral wetlands (wetlands that periodically do not hold any standing water) are included in
this analysis of wetland wildlife habitat buffers. Sufficient evidence now are available to suggest that ephemeral
wetlands support very distinct wildlife communities from permanent wetlands. For example, oak toads, chorus
frogs, little grass frogs, and several other frog and toad species are found almost exclusively in isolated,
ephemeral wetlands that do not contain fish and other predators (Table 2-3).



Wetland Habitat Quality

Food, cover, and water are life-sustaining elements for all wildlife species. If every requirement for an
animal is available in a particular area, the area is considered to be good quality habitat for that species; if one or
more of a species' requirements are not available, the area is not suitable.
Some habitats are more suitable (of greater quality) than others and produce greater densities of wildlife
than those of poorer quality. Much of the variability observed in numbers of species and numbers of individuals
between populations in similar or different habitat types results from differences in available food, cover, water,
and other requirements (Black and Thomas, 1978). Habitats with a high suitability (abundant food, cover, and
readily available water resources) have a greater potential to support more individuals per area. The number of
individuals within a population for which a particular area is able to supply all energetic and physiological
requirements over a long period of time, barring no major perturbations, is called carrying capacity (Smith,
1974). Numbers of species and numbers of individuals within species often fluctuate due to a variety of causes
including diseases, catastrophic events, predation, and competition. However the carrying capacity potential of
an area remains relatively unchanged. Therefore, the extent of a buffer required to perpetuate populations is
highly dependent on the long-term quality of the habitat in question.
By far, the most common cause of wildlife population reduction is natural landscape alteration through
agriculture, silviculture, or construction activities. Altering or changing natural conditions to which species are
adapted often harms native wildlife communities by destroying key conditions that make a given habitat suitable.
An obvious example is the removal of snags (dead trees) that provide essential nesting structures, food sources,
and perches for many birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. A common misconception is that no harm is
done because there are plenty of other undeveloped areas containing the same requirements. On the contrary,
other areas that have the necessary elements for a particular species are probably already occupied at a saturation
level, leaving no room for individuals that are ousted by development occurring elsewhere. Therefore, the most
effective method of protecting wetland wildlife resources would be to preserve areas in their most natural
conditions.
Brown and Schaefer (1987) suggested some minimum standards for an area to be considered suitable for
a full spectrum of wildlife along the Wekiva River. This ideal approach is the method used by the Habitat
Evaluation Procedure that currently is being developed and validated (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980).
However, due to the severe paucity of habitat requirement data for Florida species, selection of evaluation
(indicator) species and further application of this strategy would not be defensible at this time.









Occurrence and ephemeral wetland dependence of amphibians in east central Florida landscape
associations.


Flatwoods/isolated wetlands
Frogs and Toads
Oak Toad*
Ornate Chorus Frog*
Little Grass Frog*
Pinewoods Treefrog*
Squirrel Treefrog*
Eastern Narrowmouth Toad*


Amphibian Predators
Southern Dusky Salamander
Dwarf Salamander
Eastern Lesser Siren
Greater Siren


Green Treefrog
Southern Cricket Frog
Bullfrog
Pig Frog
River Frog
Southern Leopard Frog


Flatwoods/flowing water wetlands
Frogs and Toads
Green Treefrog
Southern Cricket Frog
Bullfrog
Pig Frog
River Frog
Southern Leopard Frog


Amphibian Predators
Southern Dusky Salamander
Dwarf Salamander
Eastern Lesser Siren
Greater Siren
Dwarf Siren


Flatwoods/mesic hammock/hydric hammock/hardwood swamp
Frogs and Toads Amphibian Predators
Little Grass Frog* Striped Newt*
Pinewoods Treefrog*
Squirrel Treefrog* Dwarf Salamander


Green Treefrog
Southern Cricket Frog
Bullfrog
Pig Frog
Southern Leopard Frog


Slimy Salamander
Eastern Lesser Siren
Greater Siren
Two-toed Amphiuma
Peninsula Newt
Southern Dusky Salamander


Table 2-3.










Table 2-3. Continued.


Flatwoods/mesic hammock/hydric hammock/hardwood swamp
Frogs and Toads Amphibian Predators
River Frog Dwarf Siren
Southern Toad
Southern Spring Peeper


Sandhill/isolated wetlands
Frogs and Toads
Oak Toad*
Gopher Frog*
Barking Treefrog*
Pinewoods Treefrog*
Squirrel Treefrog*
Eastern Narrowmouth Toad*
Eastern Spadefoot Toad*


Amphibian Predators
Striped Newt*


Bullfrog
Pig Frog
River Frog
Southern Toad


* Principal or exclusive breeding habitat is ephemeral, isolated wetlands (Heyer et al., 1975; Wilbur, 1980;
Woodward, 1983; Morin, 1983; Caldwell, 1987; Moler and Franz, 1987; Ashton and Ashton, 1988).









Until an accurate and easily applied method to specifically quantify habitat suitability is developed, the
following qualitative assessment of habitat quality can be easily determined on each proposed development site.
1. High Quality: If an area is still in a relatively natural state, and large enough to provide
requirements for at least one pair of most species associated with the habitat type occupying the
area, it is suitable for those species.
2. Medium Quality: If an area has been cleared for agricultural or silvicultural purposes but no
permanent structures such as roads and buildings have been constructed, it still has some
current wildlife value and a potential for increased future wildlife habitat values. Because these
areas can be converted easily back into native habitat, they should not be excluded from any
buffer areas.
3. Low Quality: If an area has been cleared and developed with roads, buildings, and other
permanent structures, its suitability for wildlife dependent on the original natural habitat type
would be minimal.



Wetland Habitat Quantity

Every animal requires a certain amount of space to carry out life functions such as feeding, courtship,
and nesting. The quantity of habitat needed is highly variable even within species. Differences are associated
with many factors including: sex and age, time of year, availability and distribution of food and cover, and social
structures. In general, larger species tend to require greater quantities of habitat. Also, species with more
unpredictable and unevenly distributed food resources require more space to satisfy their nutritional needs.
The spatial arrangement of an adequate supply of the proper food, cover, and water habitat components
for a given individual will determine how much area it needs to survive. For example, a semi-aquatic turtle that
depends on the availability of sandy upland soils for nesting and overwintering would have larger area needs if
the closest upland was 600 feet from the river than if it was only 50 feet away.
The importance of stream and river-associated habitats as wildlife corridors has received much attention.
However, to effectively function as an area through which animals will travel and gain access to larger connected
habitat areas, the corridor must be of sufficient size and quality to provide essential requirements for animals to
be attracted to it. Cursorial (non-flying) animals are especially unlikely to disperse across unsuitable terrain
(Frankel and Soule, 1981).
Brown and Schaefer (1987) presented spatial requirement information for many wetland-dependent
species found along the Wekiva River. Since then we have greatly expanded this data base and have adopted a
more exact strategy to determine habitat quantity requirements.

The Use of Wildlife Guilds in Determining Habitat Quantity. Habitat is the place occupied by a
specific population within a community of populations (Smith, 1974), and often can be characterized by a
dominant plant form or some physical characteristic (Ricklefs, 1973). Each species requires a particular habitat
or a combination of habitat types (ecological communities) to supply the space, food, cover, and other
requirements for survival. Thus wildlife species are products of their habitats.








The specific habitat types found within the six major landscape associations identified in this study were
reviewed earlier in this report. More detailed ecological descriptions of the non-coastal vegetation communities
can be found in Brown and Schaefer (1987).
To assess the value of wetland buffers or any other conservation/management scheme, it is important to
understand the wildlife communities that may be potentially benefitted or adversely impacted. A building
technique has been used to describe semi-aquatic and wetland-dependent wildlife communities that utilize various
habitat types in east central Florida.
The first step in this method involved developing wildlife species lists (Appendix C) based on checklists
published by the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission; the Florida Breeding Bird Atlas Guide to
Breeding Ranges, Seasons, and Habitats; the Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida series; several other
references; and personal knowledge. All vertebrate, semi-aquatic and wetland-dependent species known to breed
in east central Florida are listed by taxonomic class. The majority, but not all migrant species that are found in
this region during non-breeding seasons also are included. Of the 706 species identified by the Florida Game
and Fresh Water Fish Commission to occur in the state, 166 or 24% are listed. The largest taxonomic grouping
was birds (95) and the smallest was mammals (11).
The next step determined which habitat types were utilized by these species. These species were further
divided into appropriate feeding and breeding zones (guilds) within each habitat type. The building technique for
describing and evaluating impacts on wildlife communities was first proposed by Root (1967). He defined a
guild as a group of species that exploit the same class of environmental resources in a similar way. Guilding is
a functional as opposed to a taxonomic classification of species.
To identify appropriate guilds, a common approach used in other building studies was followed (Short
and Burnham, 1982; Verner, 1984). Feeding sources and breeding requirements were selected as the basis for
organizing wildlife information. Both axes of the matrix were partitioned by physical strata, because of the
importance of strata in describing the form and function of ecological communities (Appendix D). Seven strata
were selected to describe utilization of food resources in habitats. One additional guild, "breeds elsewhere," was
added to the breeding requirements.
Appropriate feeding and breeding strata used by each species were compiled and then species were
assigned to these guilds within each habitat type (Appendix D). Four wetland habitats (salt marshes, fresh water
marshes, cypress swamps, and hardwood swamps) and three upland habitats (hammocks, flatwoods, and
sandhills) were identified as those utilized by the species in Appendix C. Species that use more than one habitat
were placed in all relevant habitat matrices. However, each species was not represented more than once within
each habitat type.
From these data, a simple two-dimensional species-habitat matrix was developed with feeding resources
along the y-axis and physical features of the habitat required for breeding along the x-axis. This matrix resulted
in a possible 56 (7 x 8) feeding and breeding combinations for each habitat type. The number of species
utilizing each feeding/breeding guild block is shown in Appendix E. The number in the center of each block
signifies the number of different species in that guild as indicated in Appendix D. The number in the upper-right
comer of a block indicates the number of listed (endangered, threatened, special concern) species in the guild
(See Appendix C).
Many species/habitat relationships can be derived from these matrices. Only some of the major
interpretations are pointed out here. Flatwoods support the most species (110) and salt marshes the least (60).









The ground feeding and ground breeding zones in most habitats are utilized by more species than other zones.
Water column zones are most heavily utilized in both salt and fresh water marshes. Tree canopies are more
heavily utilized as breeding zones than feeding zones.
All habitats supported at least 6 listed species. Flatwoods lead this category with 12. A major feeding
strata for listed species in all habitats is the water column zone.
Several semi-aquatic and wetland-dependent species must have access to upland or transitional habitat
regardless of the landward extent of the wetlands. Many examples can be seen in the Appendix E matrices. Of
the 90 semi-aquatic and wetland-dependent species found in the sandhills (the most xeric of all habitats), 45
(50%) depend on non-aquatic areas for feeding and 77 (86%) for breeding. Not as obvious are those species that
make seasonal shifts in their feeding requirements. Amphibian species associated with ephemeral wetlands in
these habitats usually have larger home ranges during the adult stage to increase the probability of finding
suitable breeding areas. Some may travel several miles between breeding ponds (Franz et al., 1988). However,
frogs and toads living in permanent water bodies will not receive the same benefits from migrating far away
from their dependable water source. Elimination of these adjacent habitats could extirpate numerous species
from ephemeral wetland systems.
Trees are not as important in marshes as in other habitats, although, members of the heron family need
this strata for breeding. Much of the food energy produced in salt marshes is utilized by species that do not
breed in these systems.
If allowances are made for the large proportion of salt marsh species that breed elsewhere, the species
distribution pattern between the two marshes are similar. Some of the most important guilds in these systems are
the ground surface breeding zone combinations with the ground and water column feeding zones, and the tree
canopy breeding and water column feeding guild. The majority of the ground breeders in the fresh water marsh
are amphibians and reptiles, while ground breeding birds become more important in the salt marsh. Birds from
the heron family make up all of the tree nesting and water column feeding species. Both marshes support
relatively large numbers of listed species: 8 in the fresh water system and 11 in the salt marsh.
The next step in the analysis of habitat quantity involved assigning spatial requirement values to each
species and then compiling these values for each habitat (Appendix F). Spatial daia were obtained from
references listed in Appendix C. Several spatial requirement data types including the following were used:
distance from humans tolerated before taking flight, home range diameter, nest location landward from the
waterward extent of the forest, maximum distance found from closest water source, maximum distance from
closest water to nest, and distance between captures of the same individual. If spatial requirement data were not
found for a species, values were assigned from species that are closely related, similar-sized, found in
comparable habitats, and categorized in corresponding guilds.
Because analysis of the guild matrices in Appendix E suggested that trees were not used as much by
species in marsh systems as those in forested systems, the spatial requirements of these two groups were
compared. A nonparimetric Wilcoxon Scores 2-sample statistical test run with SAS PC showed that spatial
requirements of species in marsh habitats are less than that of species in forested habitats (Table 2-4; P = 0.001).
The mean and median values for salt marshes are about half that of any other habitat.
In all habitats, the median value is only about one-third of the mean (Table 2-4). In other words, the
majority of species in each habitat have relatively low spatial requirement values, but a few species also have
extremely large habitat area needs. By illustrating these habitat quantity or spatial values, we can show where








Table 2-4.


Mean spatial requirements for semi-aquatic and wetland-dependent wildlife species in various
habitats.


Mean
Number of Spatial Standard
Habitat Type Species Requirement (ft) Deviation Median



Salt Marshes 60 544.4 1,464.6 180
Fresh Water Marshes 87 1,005.3 1,715.4 300
Cypress Swamps 91 1,302.6 2,503.1 350
Hardwood Swamps 86 1,309.6 2,538.2 350
Hammocks 103 1,451.7 2,603.9 370
Flatwoods 110 1,479.3 2,597.3 387.5
Sandhills 90 1,774.1 2,848.4 614.5









the increase in the percent of species per spatial requirement unit slows down in each habitat. The salt marsh
curve begins to level off at approximately 300 feet whereas the curves for the other habitats don't level off until
about 500 feet (Figures 2-8, 2-9, 2-10, 2-11, 2-12, 2-13, 2-14).

Habitat Quantity Summary. We used a building technique to describe semi-aquatic and wetland-
dependent wildlife communities that occur in east Central Florida and to determine the quantity of habitat needed
to protect the ecological integrity of the significant wetlands in this area. Spatial requirements of species in
marshes are generally less than that of species in forested habitats. Although trees are used less in marsh
systems, they provide important breeding areas for several listed species. As a group, sandhill species have the
greatest spatial needs. Spatial requirements for all species considered in this study are presented in Appendix F.


Adverse Impacts of Animal and Human Activities in Altered Habitats

The negative impacts of induced edges in a forested system and of the noise and domestic animal
problems associated with development adjacent to natural habitat areas have been reported by Brown and
Schaefer (1987). Some of the major points will be highlighted here.
Induced edges created by human manipulation of natural vegetation (especially forested areas)
encourages non-forest-dwelling species to penetrate into the forest and prey on and compete with forest adapted
species. Whitcome et al. (1976) provided evidence that, in areas along forest edges avian brood parasites
(brown-headed cowbirds), nest predators (small mammals, grackles, jays, and crows), and non-native nest hole
competitors (e.g., starlings) are usually abundant. Gates and Gysel (1978) found that a field-forest edge attracts
a variety of open-nesting birds, but such an edge functions as an "ecological trap." Birds nesting near the edge
had smaller clutches and were more subject to higher rates of predation and cowbird parasitism than those
nesting in either adjoining habitats. This abnormally high predation rate is related to the artificially high
densities of many opportunistic animals near forest edges and in disturbed habitats including suburbs; (Wilcove
et al., 1986). Every forest tract has a "core area" that is relatively immune to deleterious edge effects and is
always far smaller than the total area of the forest (Temple, 1986). Relatively round forest tracts with small
edge-to-interior ratios would thus be more secure, whereas thin, elongated forests (such as those along
unbuffered riparian strips) may have very little or no core area and would be highly vulnerable to negative edge
effects.
Direct impacts of human activities on wildlife is a newly evolving science. Hiking and camping affect
wildlife through trampling of habitat (Liddle, 1975), disturbance of animals (Ward et al., 1973; Aune, 1981) and
less directly through discarded food or other items (Foin et al., 1977). Klein (1989) documented effects of
visitor use on avian species at Ding Darling Refuge, Florida. A majority of the species that she classified as
most sensitive to humans (reacted negatively to human presence) occur in east central Florida. These include:
pied-billed grebe, white ibis, willet, sanderling, dunlin, and blue-winged teal. The average minimum distance
from humans tolerated by these species was 260 feet (Appendix F).
There are several accounts of disturbances affecting waterbirds. Some duck species and the great
crested grebe did not winter in one reservoir since it was opened to sailboats, even though these species were
observed elsewhere in the vicinity (Batten, 1977). Rodgers and Burger (1981) reported that human activities in
waterbird colonies may delay nesting for some pairs, eliminate late-nesting pairs, or cause late-nesting pairs to
shift to other less suitable nesting sites. Wintering eagles were more disturbed by infrequent activities than by
regular activities (Stalmaster and Newman, 1978). Tremblay and Ellison (1979) reported that visits to black-
crowned night heron colonies just before or during laying provoked abandonment of newly constructed nests and
either predation of eggs or abandonment of eggs followed by predation. This study also concluded that herons
did not nest in areas where human interference occurred. Ellison and Cleary (1978) found similar results with
double-crested cormorants.
Human disturbance or even occupancy also may be preventing listed species from using otherwise
useful habitat areas. For example, bald eagles on the northern Chesapeake Bay tended to avoid developed
shoreline areas during daytime and selected areas that on average were over 1,500 feet from houses than were
randomly selected points (P < 0.001; D. Buchlcr, J. Fraser, and J. Chase, unpub. data).












% Species
100% --_------ -----


80%



60%-



40%
I


/


20%



0% L ..
0 100


/
/







Salt Marshes


200 300 400
Space Needs


500 600 700 800 900 1000
of Individuals (feet)


Figure 2-8. Percentages of semi-aquatic and wetland-dependent wildlife species that occur in salt marshes
and have individual space needs equal to or less than the respective 100-foot intervals.
Calculations were not made beyond 1,000 feet.












% Species
80% ----


c-a


Fresh Water Marshes


100


.1. ....- .. _- ... ...
200 300 400
Space Needs


- ._.. ... .... ...... i. ..... .....
500 600 700 800 900
of Individuals (feet)


Figure 2-9. Percentages of semi-aquatic and wetland-dependent wildlife species that occur in freshwater
marshes and have individual space needs equal to or less than the respective 100-foot intervals.
Calculations were not made beyond 1,000 feet.


60% F


40%




20%




0%
0


1000











% Species
80% r----- --


70%

60%

50% -

40%

30%


20%

10%I


Cypress Swamps


/





0 100 200 300 400
Space Needs


I ....... ...... __.
500 600 700
of Individuals (feet)


Percentages of semi-aquatic and wetland-dependent wildlife species that occur in cypress
swamps and have individual space needs equal to or less than the respective 100-foot intervals.
Calculations were not made beyond 1,000 feet.


0- 900_1 _
800 900


1000


Figure 2-10.












% Species
80% r- -- ---- -- -


60% F


#/"*
A''





Hardwood Swamps
Hardwood Swamps


0% -.... ..I I I .
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Space Needs of Individuals (feet)


1000


Percentages of semi-aquatic and wetland-dependent wildlife species that occur in hardwood
swamps and have individual space needs equal to or less than the respective 100-foot intervals.
Calculations were not made beyond 1,000 feet.


40%




20%


Figure 2-11.











% Species
80% .---.

70%

60%

50% '

40%
/30
,aL -


20%


10%

0% L ..
0 100 200 300
Space


400 500 600 700 800
Needs of Individuals (feet)


Percentages of semi-aquatic and wetland-dependent wildlife species that occur in hammocks
and have individual space needs equal to or less than the respective 100-foot intervals.
Calculations were not made beyond 1,000 feet.


a--m-m -









Hammocks


900 1000


Figure 2-12.












% Species
_.-- -


70%


A--


/
/


Flatwoods


60%


50%


40%


30%


20%


10%1


0%
0


400
Needs


500 600 700 800 900 1000
of Individuals (feet)


Percentages of semi-aquatic and wetland-dependent wildlife species that occur in flatwoods and
have individual space needs equal to or less than the respective 100-foot intervals. Calculations
were not made beyond 1,000 feet.


_ I--L._._.. .. L_ .. J ._1....
100 200 300
Space


Figure 2-13.











% Species
70% -- -- .. .....


60%
/-

50%

40%




20% Sandhills




0% -L -.-.. .--. --- _I _____. ..._.__.._L.... .. _.......
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Space Needs of Individuals (feet)


Percentages of semi-aquatic and wetland-dependent wildlife species that occur in sandhills and
have individual space needs equal to or less than the respective 100-foot intervals. Calculations
were not made beyond 1,000 feet.


Figure 2-14.









Predation and harassment of wildlife by free-ranging domestic cats and dogs are other detrimental
effects of development adjacent to significant wildlife habitat areas. Several authors have documented the
occurrence to wildlife prey in the diets of free-ranging cats and dogs and the effects of their predatory behavior
on individual wildlife animals and populations (Errington, 1936; Korschgen, 1957; Smith, 1966; Gilbert, 1971;
Jackson, 1971; Gill, 1975). Local extinctions of the Anastasia beach mouse along Florida's coast (Stephen R.
Humphery, pers. comm., 1989); a dove on a South Pacific island (Jehl and Parkes, 1983); and diving petrels,
broad-billed prions, yellow-crowned parakeet, robin, fern-bird, brown creeper, Stewart Island snipe and banded
rail in New Zealand (Fitzgerald and Veitch, 1985) have been attributed to cat predation. Churcher and Lawton
(1989) concluded from their study that domestic cats kill at least twenty million birds a year in Britain. Cats and
dogs can be especially devastating on ground feeding and ground breeding species. These guilds in Appendix E
represent the majority of semi-aquatic and wetland-dependent wildlife species in east central Florida.
Edge effects thoroughly described by Brown and Schaefer (1987) have been shown to negatively impact
wildlife species within at least 300 feet of forest boundaries. Studies of nature reserve boundaries have provided
data that support the need for zones of decreasing land use toward the boundary of reserves (Unesco, 1974;
Dasmann, 1988; Schonewald-Cox, 1988). The core of these areas must be protected from cats, dogs, human
activities, noise, predators, exotic competitors, parasitism and other detrimental effects of development.



Impacts of Noise

Brown and Schaefer (1987) presented some general arguments suggesting that certain sound levels were
detrimental to wildlife and offered a formula for determining vegetation buffers width necessary to adequately
reduce noise. In this report, a more complete synthesis of noise impacts on wildlife is provided as well as some
state-of-the-art information related to noise abatement.
Sound is a physical phenomenon and defined as an oscillation in pressure of a medium measured in
decibels (dB); (American National Standards Institute, 1971). Sometimes, sound is noise which is defined as
unwanted or undesirable sound (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1978). This annoyance
factor of sound negatively impacts all hearing animals. Along with air and water contaminants, noise has been
recognized as a serious pollutant
The physiological impacts of noise on people is well documented. Short-term exposure to very high
sound levels (120 to 130 dB) and long-term exposure to lower levels (80 dB) can cause temporary or permanent
changes in human ability to hear (Carelstam, 1972), and increased blood pressure, elevated rates of heartbeat and
respiration, muscle tension, hormone release, cardiovascular disorders and increased susceptibility to disease
(Alexandre and Barde, 1981). Long-term exposure above 55 dB interferes with activity and causes annoyance for
people in outdoor settings (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974). However, the physiological and
behavioral impacts on wildlife are little known.
Noise associated with construction, operation, and maintenance of developments can cause harmful
impacts on wildlife. Animals that rely on their hearing for courtship and mating behavior, prey location,
predator detection, homing, etc., will be more threatened by increased noise than will species that utilize other
sensory modalities. However, due to the complex interrelationships that exist among all the organisms in an
ecosystem, direct interference with one species will indirectly affect many others.









Unfortunately, few data are available that demonstrate the effects of noise on wildlife Much of what
is found in the literature lacks specific information concerning sound intensity, spectrum, and duration of
exposure. There have been no systematic studies with experimental designs that show definite relationships
between specific noise disturbances for various species and different sound levels. Brandt and Brown (1988)
conducted an extensive literature search on this topic and found that most of our current knowledge of sound
impacts on wildlife are based on observations of animal reactions to aircraft overflights and laboratory studies.
Because such little research emphasis has been given to this topic, it is not surprising that results are
inconclusive and sometimes contradictory.
The following studies have reported negative impacts of noise on wildlife.
Gulls near Kennedy Airport in New York flew into the air when SSTs passed overhead
(average sound level = 108.2 dB; Burger, 1981a).
Eagles responded to gunshots by flushing from their roosts (Edwards 1969 i Stalmaster and
Newman, 1978).
Gulls destroyed eggs when white pelicans flushed from their nests in response to sonic booms
(Graham, 1969 i Memphis State University, 1971).
Airboats evoked severe flushing and panic flights in a colony of wading birds and these
responses did not subside until the boats either left the colony vicinity or were turned off
(Black et al., 1984).
Speeding motorboats caused osprey to flush and kick eggs out of their nests (Ames and
Mesereau, 1964).
Titus and VanDruff (1981) reported that loon hatching and rearing successes were greater in
areas where motorboats did not occur.
Manci et al. (1988) reported that sound pressure levels above 90 dB are likely to cause adverse
effects in mammals.
Caged wild rats and mice exposed to sounds from 60 to 140 dB decreased nesting near the
sound source and even died at the highest intensities (Spock et al., 1967 in Memphis State
University, 1971).
Exposure to dune buggy noise (95 dB): 1) reduced hearing acuity in the desert kangaroo rat to
levels below that required for adequate detection of predatory snakes; 2) caused spadefoot toads
to emerge from their burrows during suboptimal conditions; 3) reduced hearing acuity in the
Mojave fringe-toed lizard (Bondello and Brattstrom, 1979).
Sound producing stimuli also have been reported to be successful animal damage control
techniques for nuisance rodents, bats, rabbits, deer and birds (Diehl, 1969; Crummet, 1970;
Hill, 1970; Messersmith, 1970).
Although there were individual differences, noise was more disruptive than any other visitor-
action besides approach on foot for brown pelicans, anhingas, double-crested cormorants,
tricolored herons, and white ibis at the Ding Darling Refuge (Klein, 1989).









Several accounts have described situations when wildlife apparently were not affected by various noise
sources.
Snail kites near an airport in Colombia showed no difference in distribution or breeding success
from kites that nested elsewhere (Snyder et al., 1978 i Manci et al., 1988).
Gulls nesting at Jamaica Bay Refuge near Kennedy Airport in New York did not usually
respond to subsonic aircraft (average sound of 91.8 dB; Burger, 1981b).
Grubb (1978) found no observable response to low-flying aircraft generating up to 88 dB at
ground level in a heron rookery in St. Paul.
Gyrfalcons did not respond to helicopters at 600 meters above the ground (Platt, 1977 in Ellis,
1981).
No impact was detected from a study of military overflights on a wading bird colony (55 dB to
100 dB; Black et al., 1984).
Great blue herons seemed to become habituated to repeated exposure to boats passing by their
rookery (Vos et al., 1985).
Sea otters were not "repelled" by loud sounds (120 dB) projected underwater (Davis et al.,
1987).
Deer were not disturbed while grazing near a Texas heliport (Fletcher, 1971 in Luz and Smith,
1976).
Few studies have attempted to separate the effects of sound from the effects of the activity causing the
sound. Eagles were more tolerant of sounds from concealed sources than they were of sounds from sources
within view (Stalmaster and Newman, 1978). Birds in California's Channel Islands were more sensitive to
visual stimuli and to combined visual and auditory stimuli than they were to sound stimuli alone (Cooper and
Jehl, 1980). Gyrfalcons temporarily left their nests in response to helicopters flying at 160 meters above ground,
but did not respond to helicopters that were not visible (Platt, 1977 in Ellis, 1981).
Some studies have shown disturbance impacts on other types of wildlife. No gyrfalcons nested in the
test area in the year following exposure to helicopters (Platt, 1977 in Ellis, 1981). Of 40 bird species studied,
43% were less numerous than normal within 2.5 km of an Alaska exploratory oil well (Connors and Risebrough,
1979 in Hanley et al., 1981). Van der Zande et al. (1980) found that breeding densities of three grassland bird
species were significantly reduced within 500 meters of quiet rural roads and 1,600 meters of busy highways in
the Netherlands.
While general understanding and consequences of noise impacts on wildlife are not very specific, a few
conclusions are obvious. Short-term exposure to loud sounds can cause physiological changes in animals just as
it does in humans. Chronic lower level sounds (55 dB) are annoying to humans and also probably make an area
relatively less desirable to wildlife. Some, but not all, species can adapt to some sounds. Human activity also
disturbs wildlife and can have similar effects such as nest abandonment. Noise and human activity will
negatively impact semi-aquatic and wetland-dependent wildlife from the landward side as well as the water side
if the water is used for recreational purposes.









Recommended Wetland Wildlife Habitat Buffers


To be effective at providing habitat so that significant wetlands can protect their ecological values,
buffers should be delineated and maintained in such a way so that they protect: the quality of the wetland
habitat; the quantity of habitat that will provide sufficient space for species; and the wildlife in these buffers
from adverse impacts of adjacent land-uses.



Protecting Wetland Habitat Quality. The best approach to maintaining and protecting wetland habitat
quality is to leave it in as natural a state as possible. Wetlands and any adjacent upland buffer areas should not
be used as recreational areas. The information we have presented regarding human disturbance impacts on
wildlife at Ding Darling Refuge and other recreational areas indicates that human use of an area is most often
incompatible with wildlife protection goals. Construction of nature trails and boardwalks only encourage further
human encroachment into wetlands that are the focus of protection.
All areas in and adjacent to significant wetlands that have been cleared for agricultural or silvicultural
purposes within a designated buffer area should be converted back into native habitat. These land-use practices
also should be banned from buffer areas. The wetland wildlife habitat buffers are relatively narrow strips meant
to serve the purpose of shielding wetlands from adjacent adverse land-use impacts. Silvicultural and agricultural
activities will alter the natural habitat and create obstacles to dispersing wildlife using these buffer corridors and
reduce the overall quality of the wetland habitat



Protecting Wetland Habitat Quantity. Based on a limited amount of data, Brown and Schaefer
(1987) recommended a wetland wildlife habitat buffer zone consisting of the diameter of a one-acre circle (236
feet) plus a 300-foot negative impact zone of suitable habitat situated landward from the waterward edge of the
forest canopy. A 50-foot buffer landward from the wetlands jurisdictional line also was recommended to allow
species such as semi-aquatic turtles access to uplands to nest and/or overwinter. Suggestions for protecting
wetland habitat quantity are presented next for each major habitat type within the six landscape associations in
east Central Florida.
Although hammocks, flatwoods, and sandhills are not "wetland" habitats, there are many situations in
the landscape where wetlands do not occur as transitional areas between aquatic and upland systems. In these
cases, semi-aquatic and water-dependent wildlife species associated with the aquatic system still use the adjacent
terrestrial areas which need to be protected if the aquatic system is to maintain its ecological function.
Indicator species were used to determine the extent of buffers that would be most effective in
accomplishing the goal of protecting wetland habitats and also that would be feasible to administer.

Indicator species were selected for each habitat type based on the following criteria.
the spatial requirement for the indicator species as listed in Appendix F must fall within the
following lower and upper limits:
lower limit: median spatial value for the habitat (at least 50% of the spatial
requirements of all species in the habitat must be satisfied).









upper limit: 1,000 feet (to reduce the probability that properties adjacent to significant
wetlands would be totally undevelopable).
the indicator species must represent one of the important guilds in the habitat.
the indicator species' needs must overlap with those of listed species in the same habitat.
the indicator species must be characteristic of the habitat (i.e., found at most locations where
the habitat type occurs).
Once the indicator species was selected for a given habitat, the spatial requirement of that species as
recorded in Appendix F was designated as the recommended buffer. The theory behind this process is that if the
needs of species that satisfy these criteria are addressed, then many other species also will receive similar
protection. Validation of this method does not require that the indicator species be present on each specific site
within an identified habitat. Indicator species only reflect the space needs of individuals within species that are
adapted to a particular habitat type.
The extent of the wildlife buffers recommended in this section include portions of wetlands if they occur
between the aquatic and upland systems. The waterward buffer line should start at the interface between the
aquatic and the wetland or upland habitat. If the wetland is narrower than the recommended buffer, then the
buffer will extend landward into the upland. If the wetland is wider, then an upland buffer of 50 feet should be
maintained in all situations to conserve nesting and over-wintering habitat for semi-aquatic reptiles. Buffers
along flowing water wetlands also provide travel corridors for wildlife and connectivity of habitat systems.
The snowy egret was chosen as the indicator species for both marsh systems (Table 2-5). It typically
nests in trees or tall shrubs from 5 to 30 feet above the ground or water on the periphery of marshes. Like other
egrets, the snowy feeds on fish and other aquatic organisms in the water column. The snowy egret is listed as a
Species of Special Concern. It uses both saltwater and freshwater marshes and also represents guilds within
these two systems that contain several listed species. The spatial requirements of this species were determined
by combining the results of two separate studies. Maxwell and Kale (1977) reported that the snowy egret tended
to nest about 82 feet landward from the waterward edge of the tree canopy adjacent to aquatic systems. Klein
(19890 found that the minimum distance from humans tolerated by snowy egrets was 240 feet. A 322-foot
buffer in salt marshes will provide enough habitat for individuals in about 81% of the total wetland species in
this habitat. The same buffer applied to fresh water marshes will be sufficient for only about 53% of the
species.
All herons are highly susceptible to disturbance and nest abandonment during the early stages of
incubation. Because these heronries are highly visible from the waterward perspective (looking back toward the
trees along the marsh edge), some protection should be given to these breeding areas by restricting access to
these wetlands from February through July.
The indicator species for the cypress and hardwood swamps is the Prothonotary Warbler. It is the only
cavity-nesting warbler in Florida. Prothonotary warblers usually nest in old woodpecker holes from 5 to 30 feet
above water or ground. Like other warblers, it feeds on insects. It belongs to the tree canopy breeding guild
which contains five listed species, the majority in these habitat types. The spatial requirements for this species
(Appendix F) were obtained from a study being supervised by Dr. Schaefer in Alachua County. Preliminary
results of a current study (Schaefer, personal communication) show that the warbler was not found in natural
riparian vegetation strips up to 450 feet wide in developed areas but was recorded in similar habitats within the
6000-acre, rural San Fclasco Hammock State Park. Because this study did not examine a large continuum of









Table 2-5.


Wetland wildlife habitat buffers for various habitats based on spatial requirements of indicator
species (see Appendix F.).


Habitats Median Spatial
(Landscape Indicator Requirement Habitat Wildlife
Associations) Species in Habitat Quality Buffer*




Salt Marshes Snowy Egret 180 feet High Med. 322 feet
(5,6) Low** < 322 feet


Freshwater Marshes Snowy Egret 300 feet High Med. 322 feet
(1,2,4) Low < 322 feet


Cypress Swamps Prothonotary 350 feet High Med. 550 feet
(1,2,3) Warbler Low < 550 feet


Hardwood Swamps Prothonotary 350 feet High Med. 550 feet
(2,3) Warbler Low < 550 feet


Hammocks Prothonotary 370 feet High Med. 550 feet
(3,6) Warbler Low < 550 feet


Flatwoods Prothonotary 387.5 feet High Med. 550 feet
(1,2,3,5) Warbler Low < 550 feet


Sandhills Eastern 614.5 feet High Med. 732 feet
(4) Hognose Snake Low < 732 feet





Measured from the waterward edge of the forested wetland or upland habitat that is adjacent to the
aquatic system. Marsh buffers are measured landward from the landward edge of marsh vegetation. A
50-foot upland strip for semi-aquatic reptile nesting and over-wintering should be included in each
buffer.


** In situations where the habitat area adjacent to the wetland is already developed, the buffer should be as
wide as possible up to the wildlife buffer width for high medium habitat quality areas.










riparian widths, a minimum forest habitat width was not determined. Nevertheless, a sensitivity to development
has been demonstrated. Based on this information, a conservative estimate of the amount of habitat needed to
protect one breeding pair would be a 550-foot wide forest strip. Buffers of 550 feet would address the spatial
needs for individuals in about 60% of all species in these habitats.
The eastern hognose snake is a good indicator species of the sandhills. It feeds almost exclusively on
toads that it finds buried in sandy soil. Like more than half of the wildlife found in this habitat, the hognose
obtains all of its resources from the ground surface. Unlike the other habitats, a greater percentage of listed
species also are highly dependent on this stratum. The spatial requirements for this species were determined
from a study that recorded an average distance between captures of the same individual as 732 feet A 732-foot
buffer in sandhill wetlands will provide adequate space for individuals in more than 50% of the species in this
habitat.

Protecting Wetland Habitats from Adverse Animal and Human Activities. One serious
consideration in the forested habitats is the large proportion of species that are utilizing the ground zone for
feeding and breeding. These species are the most susceptible to cat and dog predation and influences of
vegetation trampling and other human-related activities. If the buffer is to be effective at protecting habitat for
most of the species under consideration, much can be accomplished by addressing the needs of species in these
guilds. Restricting human use of these buffers and encouraging enforcement of domestic animal leash laws are
highly recommended.
Four listed species use the forest ground zone either for breeding or feeding and another six use the tree
canopy for breeding. Adequate protection of these forested areas adjacent to significant wetlands will help to
ensure their continued existence in an environment that already has caused them to be in jeopardy of extinction.

Protecting Wetland Wildlife from Noise Impacts. Wildlife in significant wetlands can be protected
from sound disturbances generated in adjacent areas through the use of sound ordinances, barriers, educational
programs, and buffers. This report focuses on'the latter.
Three factors will determine the amount of buffer necessary to abate noise to an acceptable level:
threshold level established for noise in habitat areas adjacent to development; sound level at the source; and
amount of sound attenuated from the source to the habitat occupied by species that need protection.
In response to a Congressional directive initiated by the Noise Control Act of 1972, the Environmental
Protection Agency identified a range of yearly sound levels sufficient to protect public health and welfare from
the effects of environmental noise in different areas (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1978). A maximum
sound level of 55 dB was determined for "outdoors in residential areas and farms and other outdoor areas where
people spend widely varying amounts of time and other places in which quiet is a basis for use."
The continuous traffic noise at distances of greater than a mile or two from any reasonably busy road is
about 45 dB (Harrison, 1974). This is commonly accepted as a reasonable noise level for sleeping areas in the
suburbs of cities (Myles et al., 1971).
Dailey and Redman (1975) reported the following background noise levels in a wilderness area:
35 dB under low wind conditions (3 to 5 miles/hour) in forested areas.
45 dB three feet from the bank of a steam with small rapids.
30 dB under low wind conditions (3 to 5 miles/hour) in an open meadow.









Harrison (1974) recommended that 15 dB below prevailing background noise was required to muffle
human-caused sounds in wilderness areas. For example, in a forested area with a background noise level of 35
dB, a level of 20 dB must be achieved before any other noise is effectively masked by the sound of the stream.
Tables 2-6 and 2-7 also can be used to establish a threshold noise level for properties adjacent to
significant wetlands. Based on this information, efforts should be made to minimize any noise that would exceed
the sound level recommended by the Federal Highway Administration for areas where serenity and quiet are of
extraordinary significance (57 dB; Table 2-7) and that a maximum threshold and not an average daily sound
level should be used..
There are many human-produced sounds in developed areas. Some of these are shown in Table 2-8.
Loud and sudden intrusive noises such as chain saws, motorcycles, and rifles from the landward side and
motorboats from the water will have the most severe impacts on semi-aquatic and wetland-dependent wildlife.
Several factors affect how far a sound will travel outdoors: distance, rain, frequency of the sound, fog,
snow, wind, temperature, atmospheric turbulence, molecular absorption, and ground surface features including
vegetation (Dailey and Redman, 1975). All of these factors except distance have extremely variable and, for the
most part, minimal impacts on sound. As noise spreads out from its source, its sound pressure level will
decrease as the distance from the source increases. This decreasing loudness or attenuation of a noise is at a rate
of 6 dB for each doubling of distance from the source. This phenomenon is known as "spherical spreading"
(Beranek, 1960). For example, a noise measured at 100 dB at 50 feet from the source will be 94 dB at 100 feet,
88 dB at 200 feet, 82 dB at 400 feet, etc. as a result of spherical spreading (assuming no other attenuation).
This relationship can be shown by the following equation:
Lx = L.- 20 logo (D/JD)
where: L, is the decibel level of the source to be calculated at a desired distance
L, is the decibel level of the source at a given distance
D. is the distance from the source for which L, is to be calculated
D. is the given distance at L. is measured


When D,, the distance from the source, is unknown, the following equation would apply:
(L.-L,/20)
D, = D., x 10

Vegetation in some situations may help to attenuate noise, but estimates of the magnitude of attenuation
by forests vary from -1.5 dB (actually increasing the level) per 100 feet (Harrison, 1974) to as much as 10 dB
per 100 feet of forest depth (Myles et al., 1971) and 15 dB per 100 feet (Robinette, 1972). The Federal
Highway Administration (1979) reported that the amount of sound attenuated by any forest does not exceed 10
dB regardless of the forest width. Robinette (1972) reported that a tree belt would attenuate highway traffic
noise from about 90 dB to almost 60 dB within 450 feet (15 dB per 100 feet). Noise attenuation over dense
brush such as a marsh is almost negligible and over water is negative (increases the level; Harrison, 1974).
Therefore, motorboat sound will not be attenuated at all until it reaches the shore. This probably eliminates
otherwise suitable nesting habitats for many of the listed herons. These birds prefer to nest along the waterward
edge of a forest canopy.
The buffers recommended in this report to satisfy space needs of wildlife will not be sufficient to
minimize loud and sudden noises that may be detrimental to wildlife in these significant wetlands.

45









Examples of average outdoor day/night sound levels measured at various locations (EPA 1978).


Outdoor location Decibels (dB)




Apartment next to freeway 87
3/4 mile from major airport 86
Downtown construction activity 79
Urban high density apartment 78
Urban row housing on major avenue 68
Old urban residential area 59
Wooded residential 51
Agricultural crop land 44
Rural residential 39
Wilderness ambient 35


Table 2-6.









Table 2-7. Federal Highway Administration abatement criterion guidelines for traffic noise impact
assessment with respect to recommended average sound levels for various land uses (FHWA
1982 in Greiner, Inc., 1988).



Description of Activity Category Decibels (dB)




Lands on which serenity and quiet are of 57
extraordinary significance and serve an
important public need and where the pres-
ervation of those qualities is essential if
the area is to continue to serve its inten-
ded purpose.

Picnic areas, recreation areas, playground, 67
active sports areas, parks, residences,
motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries,
and hospitals.

Developed lands, properties or activities 72
not included above.









Examples of development-related noise levels produced by various sources.


Noise Source Decibels (dB) Reference


Residual
Dog barking
Cars on nearby blvd.
Airplane overflight
Local cars
Buses
Trucks
Home shop tools
Lawn mowers
Motorcycles
Motor boat (45hp)
Chain saw
Two-man saw
Man shouting loudly
Pickup truck
Chopping wood
Rock drill
Pick and shovel
350-cc motorcycle
Chain saw
Small portable welder
.22 caliber pistol
30-06 rifle


40
50
55
65
65
82
85
85
87
95
95
100
55*
67*
73*
75*
75*
76*
80*
93*
95*
107*
130*


EPA, 1971
EPA, 1971
EPA, 1971
EPA, 1971
EPA, 1971
EPA, 1972
EPA, 1972
EPA, 1972
EPA, 1972
EPA, 1972
EPA, 1972
EPA, 1972
Harrison, 1974
Harrison, 1974
Harrison, 1974
Harrison, 1974
Harrison, 1974
Harrison, 1974
Harrison, 1974
Harrison, 1974
Harrison, 1974
Harrison, 1974
Harrison, 1974


Table 2-8.









Continued.


Noise Source Decibels (dB) Reference



Four-person conversation 48** Dailey and Redman, 1975
Guitar 52** Dailey and Redman, 1975
Four people singing 60** Dailey and Redman, 1975
Chopping wood 64** Dailey and Redman, 1975
Pounding tent stakes 66** Dailey and Redman, 1975
Clattering pans 66** Dailey and Redman, 1975
Harmonica 72** Dailey and Redman, 1975
125-cc trail bike 74** Dailey and Redman, 1975
Safety whistle 76** Dailey and Redman, 1975
Yelling 78** Dailey and Redman, 1975
30-06 rifle 136** Dailey and Redman, 1975


dB levels at 100 feet
dB levels at 50 feet


Table 2-8.









The effectiveness of vegetation noise buffers depends on many factors including plant shape, foliage thickness,
and height of vegetation. As a result of the unpredictability of determining noise attenuation, a specific noise
buffer is not recommended, but the following is suggested to properly address adverse impacts of noise on
wetland wildlife:
to educate the public about the impacts of noise on wildlife in regionally significant wetlands,
to adopt a noise threshold level for significant wetlands,
to require a noise attenuation assessment on a site by site basis between proposed development
sites and adjacent significant wetlands,
S to consider the use of physical noise barriers or dense plantings such as those used by highway
departments, and
to consider adopting sound ordinances wherever necessary.



Limitations of Wetland Wildlife Buffers

Just discussed are the confines of buffers in reducing loud disturbing noises. Buffers also have other
limitations. Buffers recommended in this report will address spatial needs of individuals in only half of the
semi-aquatic and wetland-dependent wildlife species in east central Florida. They will also help to reduce some
of the adverse impacts of animal and human activities in adjacent areas. These buffers are an important part but
not a complete conservation plan that will achieve Regional Goal 43, to protect the ecological values of
significant ecosystems.
The most serious problem confronting Florida's wildlife is fragmentation of natural habitat areas into
small, isolated parcels that are not large enough to sustain viable populations. Growth management decisions
must focus on maintaining the biological integrity of systems by designing areas that will perpetuate functional
communities and not merely token remnants.
Iih order to develop a conservation strategy that addresses the need to ensure continued perpetuation of
all currently existing wildlife populations within a large geographic area, minimum viable or minimum functional
population considerations must be made. A minimum viable population is the lowest number of individuals that
can ensure the capability of the population to persist through time dealing successfully with agents of extinction
(Shaffer, 1981). Put in more specific terms, a minimum viable population can be defined as the smallest
population that will give a 99% probability of surviving at least 1,000 years (Shaffer, 1981). Too small a
population is subject to extirpation due to the accumulation of detrimental genetic make-up through inbreeding
(Rails and Ballou, 1983).
It is important to note that the process of extirpation for longer-lived species may take several decades.
Therefore, the impacts of some ineffective land-use decisions will not be realized for several generations.
Reed et al. (1986) recommended an effective population size of more than 50 for short-term survival of
species and 500 for long-term population and species survival. Frankel (1983) warned that populations as large
as 300 individuals may be needed to provide for minimum levels of persistence for populations confronted with
consistently harsh conditions over 200 years. Land managers and planners should of course aim above the
minimum levels whenever possible because the consequences of falling below are extreme and these population
models have not been substantially validated.









Once the minimum viable population size is determined then the minimum area required to support that
population can be calculated by extrapolating the home range size of the average individual. In landscapes with
isolated wetland habitats, area requirements should be satisfied in large contiguous blocks. In flowing water
wetlands that are situated between two larger habitat islands, area requirements may be satisfied merely by
providing the appropriate link or wildlife corridor.
The buffers recommended in this report pertain to the protection of wetland habitats to the extent that
they will merely satisfy requirements of some individuals. However, this does not mean that the needs of far-
ranging individuals and of populations should be ignored. Local comprehensive planning efforts must effectively
design systems that will provide large minimum area requirements such as 300,000 acres for black bears and
60,000 acres for indigo snakes. These goals probably cannot be achieved within one county's jurisdiction.
Therefore, cooperative approaches are necessary to assure the perpetuation of populations of semi-aquatic and
water-dependent wildlife species in east central Florida.




































































52









SECTION III: Calculating Site-Specific Buffers


This section provides the methods for determining buffer requirements for a specific site. For each
case, it gives a brief rationale, explains the method, and lists data requirements and sources. It is important to
note that the methods for calculating buffer requirements for protection against groundwater drawdown and
control of sediment and turbidity are designed to be as simple as possible so that a minimum of data is required.
In most cases, the required buffer width is measured from the boundary between the wetland the upland.
For convenience, the methodology employed by the St Johns River Water Management District for determining
wetland/upland boundaries should be used to establish the wetland edge since many of the wetlands for which a
buffer is applicable will have been surveyed by SJRWMD personnel.




Groundwater Drawdown



The impact of lowered groundwater level in lands surrounding wetlands alters the length of time of
wetland inundation (hydroperiod) and the depths of inundation. Both hydroperiod and depth of inundation affect
the species composition of vegetation and wildlife and, ultimately the "health" of the entire ecosystem. The
following are consequences of drainage of wetlands: (1) drained wetlands are more prone to damaging fires, (2)
their organic substrates (peat or muck) oxidize away when exposed to air, (3) wetland trees easily topple when
exposed roots die, and (4) drained wetlands are more prone to invasion by exotic vegetation and upland species.
The protection of wetland function and structure is probably best accomplished by protecting hydroperiod and
depth of inundation.
There are numerous approaches to determining the drawdown of surficial aquifers from open ditches,
sub-surface drains, or other drainage structures. Some are more complex than others, and, while they may yield
very detailed information about hydraulic effects of drainage structures, their use requires significant amounts of
time and energy. The most appropriate method in this context is the simplest one that provides the necessary
information and has sufficient rigor that its results merit confidence.
Two methods are discussed here and are considered appropriate for the calculation of site- specific
wetland drawdown buffers. The first was developed by Dr. Wendy Graham of the University of Florida
Department of Agricultural Engineering (see Appendix B) and the second by the Southwest Florida Water
Management District, Resource Regulation Department (Miller and Weber, 1989). The two methods are
applicable for different conditions and require different input data. The SWFWMD method assumes a horizontal
groundwater flow having a small surficial aquifer slope [(dh/dx)2 <<1.0]. While this condition can be met in
many flatwoods situations, slopes can often exceed 5% in other landscapes. The "Graham method" assumes a
surficial aquifer sloped toward the wetland or a horizontal surficial aquifer. Under horizontal surficial aquifer
conditions, both methods yield similar results.









Calculating Wetland Drawdown Buffer: Method 1


Use this method when the surficial aquifer slopes toward the wetland or when the slope of the surficial
aquifer is nearly horizontal.
Figure 3-1 illustrates the impact of a drainage structure on the surficial aquifer near a wetland. The
magnitude of the impact is related to the drawdown in the drainage canal or structure and is the difference
between pre-development and post-development levels. The equation that may be used to determine the
magnitude of drawdown and thus the effective width of a buffer is as follows:

S(x)= h x+h h 2 1/2 L hjQ )-h2 X+ho2 X k (3.1)
Lo L,

where:
h, = height of the surficial aquifer at the center of the wetland in wet season (feet)

h, = height of the surficial aquifer at the proposed canal location before development in wet season
(feet)

L, = distance between the center of the wetland system and the center of the canal

s,, = surficial aquifer table drawdown at the drainage structure


The formula requires that an impervious layer exists below the surficial aquifer, and all heights are
measured relative to this layer. In larger wetlands (equal to or greater than 5 acres), the drawdown formula is
not sensitive to the depth of the impervious layer. Therefore, for the purposes of this calculation, a convenient
depth may be assumed, and field measurement is not required.
The required data are:
a) distance from center of wetland to wetland edge,
b) the slope of the surficial aquifer, and
c) drawdown at the drainage structure.


Distance from the center of the wetland to the wetland edge can be measured from aerial photographs or
measured in the field.
Slope can be determined through field measurement by measuring the difference in elevation of
groundwater in excavated soil pits at two or more locations along a line perpendicular to the wetland edge. In
most flatwood situations, the slope can be assumed to be equivalent to the slope of the ground surface.
Drawdown at the drainage structure is usually given by engineering requirements of the site.














Center of
Drainage Canal


Water Table


Impervious Layer


XI xL xi


Diagram illustrating the effects of groundwater drawdown on wetland water levels in areas of sloped groundwater tables. Letters rieer ti
variables in Equation 3.1.


Figure 3-1.









Because equation 3.1 depends on the redevelopment level of the surficial aquifer, it cannot be rewritten
to calculate buffer width directly. The only way to find the required buffer distance is to substitute various
buffer distances in the equation until the drawdown at the wetland edge approaches zero.



Calculating Wetland Drawdown Buffer: Method 2.

Referring to Figure 3-2, the required buffer distance can be calculated for flatwoods situations where the
surficial aquifer is nearly level and flow is horizontal using a two-dimensional analytical equation that is used to
estimate the spacing of soil drains. Called the Hooghoudt equation, this steady state equation is based on the
Dupuit-Forchheimer assumption and on Darcy's law. For the derivation and explanation of assumptions, see
Miller and Weber, 1989. The derived equation applicable to the determination of required wetland buffers is as
follows:

d = [K(M)2 + 2AM1 In (3.2)
q


where:

K = average hydraulic conductivity above the impermeable layer (in/hr.). For practical purposes,
hydraulic conductivity is equal to permeability.

M = vertical distance of surficial aquifer above maintained water level in drainage structure at
wetland edge (assume wet season water level at the ground surface). (feet)

A = depth to impermeable layer below bottom of drainage structure. (feet)

q = drainage coefficient, rate of water removal and uniform replenishment, or effective rainfall
(in/hr). Calculate as difference between yearly rainfall and evapotranspiration.

d = setback distance for drainage structures to prevent drawdown of existing seasonal high surficial
aquifer level in the wetland.


The required data include:

Hydraulic Conductivity The USDA-SCS county soil surveys give permeabilities by soil type, and these
are summarized in Appendix A for soils within the Region. For practical purposes hydraulic conductivity can be
assumed to equal permeability. Where multi-layer soils exist, use a weighted mean of the given permeabilities
and soil strata depths.

Normal Wet Season High Water Table (NWSHWT) assume that wet season high surficial aquifer level
intersects the ground surface at the wetland edge.
















Upan Wetan


Water Control
SStructure


und


Maint


ace )




1 -7 r


gained Wet Season
Vater Level

d


Wetland Edge


Normal Wet Season
High Water Table


Diagram illustrating the effects of groundwater drawdown on wetland water levels in areas
having nearly horizontal groundwater tables. Letters refer to variables in Equation 3.2.


Groi
Surf


Figure 3-2.


Upland


Wetland









Depth to water level (D) after drawdown Depth below the ground surface to the maintained wet season
water level in the drainage structure.

Vertical distance (M) The difference between NWSHWT and the maintained water level in the
drainage structure (D).

Depth to impermeable layer (A) In the absence of geotechnical information showing a layer having
hydraulic conductivity of less than one tenth of the overlaying material, depth (A) may be assumed to equal 0.5
depth (D). If no impermeable layer is encountered in test borings to a depth equal to depth (D) below the
drainage structure bottom, then depth (A) may cautiously be assumed to equal depth (D).

Drainage coefficient (q) Annual net effective rainfall is estimated by subtracting yearly
evapotranspiration (ET) from annual rainfall. In central Florida rainfall averages approximately 54 inches per
year and ET is estimated to be about 87% of rainfall or about 47 inches. Net effective rainfall, then, is equal to
7 inches/yr or 0.0007991 in/hr.




Sediment and Turbidity Control



Sediment deposition in wetland ecosystems results in significant impacts to wetland structure and
function. Accumulations of sediment tend to fill the wetland, displacing vegetation and altering water storage
capacity. Increased turbidity caused by silts and clays washing from disturbed lands are less a problem in
wetland ecosystems but represent a serious impact to aquatic systems. Thus, sedimentation in wetlands should
be avoided and release of turbid waters to aquatic environments controlled.
To minimize the potential for wetland sedimentation, upland buffers of undisturbed natural vegetation
can act to slow the velocity of sediment-laden runoff waters, causing deposition of sediments prior to release to
the wetland. Buffers of upland and wetland combined can act as filters and silt traps to minimize negative
impacts of silt on aquatic ecosystems. The following methods can be used to determine the buffer required to
minimize sediment impacts on wetlands and turbidity impacts on aquatic systems.



Calculating Sediment and Turbidity Control Buffers

Calculating sediment buffer widths involves ascertaining the soil type of the area immediately adjacent
to the wetland, the soil hydrologic group, and USDA soil classification. Runoff volume is estimated using
methods described in SCS TR-55 and buffer width is calculated using equations explained below. The procedure
is as follows:
1. Determine soil type of the site from USDA-SCS county soils survey.









2. From SCS soils survey or from Table A-i in Appendix A, obtain soil hydrologic group and
USDA soil type.
3. Using procedures described in SCS TR-55 "Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds," calculate
peak discharge from one acre of newly graded soil of the appropriate hydrologic group. The
size is set at 300 feet along the slope and 145.2 feet wide. This length is important since
channelized flow may occur on longer slopes (SCS, 1986).
4. Calculate the first-order reaction coefficient for deposition using the following formula (Foster,
1982):
a = 0.5 V. (3.3)


where:


5. Calculate


V, = fall velocity (feet/sec). Use the following fall velocities (adapted from
Flanagan et al., 1986), depending on USDA soil type (from Table A-l):
Clay soils = 0.000010 ft/sec
Loamy soils and mucks = 0.000263 ft/sec
Fine sands = 0.001093 ft/sec
Sands = 0.002500 ft/sec
q = peak discharge of surface runoff per unit width per unit time (ft/sec ft"')
(from TR-55)
e the length of the buffer strip required using the following equation adapted from


Foster (1982):
L = In(1 -SD)


(3.4)


6. If the soil type is fine or coarse sand, the required buffer is measured from the boundary
between the wetland and the upland. Wetland edge is determined using methods adopted by
the St. Johns River Water Management District"
7. If the soil type is silt or clay and there is a body of open water adjacent to the wetland, the
required buffer is determined using the larger of either of the following measures:
a) measured as that required for fine sand in step 6 above, or
b) measured from the edge of open water toward the upland including any adjacent
wetlands.


Wetland Wildlife Habitat Buffers


Landscape alterations associated with development and other human-related activities adversely affect
wildlife resources and their habitats. Some of specific problems include fragmenting habitats into small parcels
not adequate to retain the ecological balance and function of the original system and disturbing wildlife by
activities and noises that prevent them from using critical nesting and feeding areas.










The intended purpose of the recommended wetland wildlife habitat buffers is to provide habitat for
semi-aquatic and wetland-dependent wildlife and to protect the ecological values of significant wetlands. In
order to most effectively achieve this purpose buffers should adhere to certain quality and quantity standards,
and should address potential domestic animal and human-related disturbances (including noise).



Calculating Wetland Wildlife Habitat Buffers

The procedure for calculating wetland wildlife habitat buffers is as follows:
1. Determine the habitat type of the particular regionally significant wetland that is on or
waterward from the proposed development site (see Appendix G). For landscape situations
where there is no vegetated wetland transitional area (e.g., marsh or swamp), the habitat
determination should be made for the upland habitat (e.g., flatwoods, hammock, sandhill) that is
adjacent to the aquatic system.
2. Determine the quality of the habitat.
High The area is still in a relatively natural state.
Medium The area has been cleared for agricultural or silvicultural purposes but no
permanent structures such as roads and buildings have been constructed.
Low The area has been cleared and developed with roads, buildings, and other
permanent structures.
3. Select the buffer width found in Table 3-1 for the previously determined habitat type and
quality.
4. Note that the wildlife buffers can include wetland as well as upland habitats. The wetland
wildlife habitat buffer should begin at the waterward edge of the forested wetland or upland
habitat that is adjacent to the aquatic system. A minimum 50-foot upland strip for semi-aquatic
reptile nesting and overwintering also should be included in each buffer (i.e., if the marsh or
swamp wetland is wider than the recommended buffer, a 50-foot-wide upland buffer strip
should be added to the landward edge of the wetland).
5. If no trees are adjacent to the marsh (e.g., open flatwoods) a 322-foot buffer is needed to
prevent disturbance from human activities (minimum distance from humans tolerated, see
Appendix F).
6. Marsh areas frequently occur along flowing water systems (e.g., rivers). These marshes do not
function as separate habitats unless they are large enough to support most wildlife species
associated with marsh communities. For separate buffer considerations, these marshes must be
at least 5 acres in size and vegetation must extend waterward from the waterward edge of the
adjacent upland or forested wetland community for at least 50 feet.









Table 3-1. Recommended wetland wildlife buffer widths for various habitats of high, medium and low
quality.



Habitat Quality Buffer Width

Salt and High 322 feet
Freshwater Medium 322 feet and revegetate buffer into natural habitat
Marshes Low as wide as possible up to 322 feet

Cypress and High 550 feet
Hardwood Medium 550 feet and revegetate buffer into natural habitat
Swamps, Low as wide as possible up to 550 feet
Hammocks,
and Flatwoods

Sandhills High 732 feet
Medium 732 feet and revegetate buffer into natural habitat
Low as wide as possible up to 732 feet









Calculating Noise Attenuation Requirements


The procedure for calculating noise attenuation requirements is as follows:
1. Obtain information on the local noise threshold policies for significant wetlands (assuming that
such policies will be forthcoming).
2. Assess the maximum (not average) current or potential (if site is proposed for development)
noise level for the site.
3. Assess the amount of noise attenuated under proposed conditions following development from
the site to the waterward edge of the wetland (or upland if no wetland is present).
Measurements of sound attenuated through vegetated areas should be conducted during the
winter when most deciduous foliage is absent. There are several standardized methods for
assessing noise levels (U.S. Department of Transportation, 1981; U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development, 1984). The former reference includes information relating to the
instrumentation, equipment operation, personnel, measurement procedure, and computation
procedure for a noise measuring project.
4. Determine the width of a vegetated buffer or some other attenuation means (e.g., barriers) that
would be necessary to reduce the maximum expected sound level to the acceptable threshold.









LITERATURE CITED


Alexandre, A., and J.P. Barde. 1981. Noise Abatement Policies for the Eighties. Ambio 10: 166-170.

American National Standards Institute. 1971. Acoustical Terminology. S1.1-1960. New York.

Ames, P.L., and G.S. Mersereau. 1964. Some Factors in the Decline of the Osprey in ConnecticutAuk 81: 173-
185.

Ashton, R.E., and P.S. Aston. 1988. Handbook of Reptiles and Amphibians of Florida: Part Three The
Amphibians. Windward Publishing, Inc., Miami. 191 pp.

Aune, K.E. 1981. Impacts of Winter Recreationists on Wildlife in a Portion of Yellowstone National Park,
Wyoming. MS Thesis. Montana State Univ., 111 pp.

Batten, L.A. 1977. Sailing on Reservoirs and its Effects on Waterbirds. Biol. Conserv. 11:49-58.

Balda, R.P. 1975. Vegetation Structure and Breeding Bird Diversity. Pages 59-80 in D.R. Smith (tech. coord.),
Proceedings of the Symposium on Management of Forest and Range Habitats for Nongame Birds.
U.S.D.A. For. Serv. Tech. Rep. WO-1. Tuscon, Arizona.

Beranek, L.L. 1960. Noise Reduction. New York, McGraw-Hill Book Co. 752 pp.

Black, B.B., M.W. Collopy, H.F. Percival, A.A. Tiller, and P.G. Bohall. 1984. Effects of Low Level Military
Training Flights on Wading Bird Colonies in Florida. Florida Coop. Fish and Wildlife Research Unit,
School of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville. Technical Report No.
7.

Black, H., Jr, and J.W. Thomas. 1978. Forest and Range Wildlife Habitat Management: Ecological Principles
and Management Systems. Pages 47-55 in R. M. DeGraaf (tech. coord.), Proceedings of the Workshop
on Nongame Bird Habitat Management in the Coniferous Forests of the Western United States.
U.S.D.A. For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-64. Portland, Oregon.

Bondello, M.C., and B.H. Brattstrom. 1979. The Experimental Effects of Off-road Vehicle Sounds on Three
Species of Desert Vertebrates. Report to the Bureau of Land Management Final Report, Contract CA-
060-CT7-2737. Department of Biological Sciences, California State University, Fullerton.

Brandt, K.B., and M.T. Brown. 1988. Noise Impacts on Wildlife and Recreation: Literature Review and
Management Recommendations. Report to the Southwest Florida Water Management District.

Brandt, K.B., and K.C. Ewel. 1989. Ecology and Management of Southern Cypress Ecosystems. Institute for
Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville. Bulletin 252: 1-19.

Brown, M.T. 1980. Energy Basis for Hierarchies in Urban and Regional Landscapes. Ph.D. Dissertation,
University of Florida, Gainesville.

Brown, M.T., and J.M. Schaefer. 1987. Buffer Zones for Water, Wetlands and Wildlife. A Final Report on the
Evaluation of the Applicability of Upland Buffers for the Wetlands of the Wekiva Basin. Center for
Wetlands, University of Florida. 163 pp.









Brown, M.T., and E.M. Stares. 1983. A wetlands study of Seminole County: Identification, evaluation, and
preparation of development standards and guidelines. Center for Wetlands, University of Florida,
Gainesville.

Burger, J. 1981a. The Effect of Human Activity on Birds at a Coastal Bay. Biol. Conserv. 21:231-241.

Burger, J. 1981b. Effects of Human Disturbance on Colonial Species, Particularly Gulls. Colonial Waterbirds
4:28-36.

Caldwell, J.P. 1987. Demography and Life History of Two Species of Chorus Frogs (Anura; Hylidae) in South
Carolina. Copeia 1987:114-127.

Carlestam, G. 1972. Noise -- the Scourge of Modem Society. Ambio 1: 102-109.

Churcher, P.B., and J.H. Lawton. 1989. Beware of Well-fed Felines. Natural History 7/89:40-47.

Cooper, C.F., and J.R. Jehl, Jr. 1980. Potential Effects of Shuttle Sonic Booms on the Biota and Geology of the
California Channel Islands: Synthesis of Research and Recommendations. Technical Report 80-2.
Center for Marine Studies, San Diego state University, and Hobbs/Sea World Research Institute, San
Diego, California.

Crummett, J.G. 1970. Acoustic Information Denial as a Means for Vertebrate Pest Control. Paper presented at
the 80th meeting of the Acoustical Society of America, Houston, November, 1970.

Dailey, T., and D. Redman. 1975. Guidelines for Roadless Area Campsite Spacing to Minimize Impact of
Human-related Noises. U.S.D.A. Gen tech. Rep. PNW-35, 20 p.

Dasmann, RF. 1988. Biosphere Reserves, Buffers, and Boundaries. BioSci. 38: 387-389.

Davis, R.W., F.W. Awbrey, and T.M. Williams. 1987. Using Sounds to Control the Movements of Sea Otters.
(Abstract only) J. Acoust. Soc. Am. Suppl. 1., 82: S99.

Diehl, F.P. 1969. Sound as a Rodent Deterrent. Pest Control 37: 34-36.

Ellis, D.H. 1981. Responses of Raptorial Birds to Low Level Military Jets and Sonic Booms. Results of the
1980-81 Joint U.S. Air Force-U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Study. Institute for Raptor Studies, Oracle,
Arizona.

Ellison, L.N., and L. Cleary. 1978. Effects of Human Disturbance on Breeding of Double-crested Cormorants.
Auk 95: 510-517.

Errington, P.L. 1936. Notes of Food Habits of Southern Wisconsin House Cats. J. Mammal. 17: 64-65.

Federal Highway Administration. 1979. Fundamentals and Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise. FHWA-HHI-
HEV-73-7976-1. Washington, D.C.

Fitzgerald, B.M., and C.R. Veitch. 1985. The Cats of Herekopare Island, New Zealand; Their History, Ecology
and Affects on Birdlife. New Zealand J. of Zool. 12: 319-330.

Flanagan, D.C., W.H. Neibling, G. R. Foster, and J. P. Burt. 1986. Applicability of CREAMS in Filter Strip
Design. Paper No. 86-2043, 1986 Summer Meeting, American Society of Agricultural Engineers, San
Luis Obispo, California.









Foin, T.C., E.O. Garton, C.W. Bowen, J.M. Everingham, R.O. Schultz, B. Holton, Jr. 1977. Quantitative
Studies of Visitor Impacts on Environments of Yosemite National Park, California, and Their
Implications for Park Management Policy. J. Environ. Manage. 5: 1-22.

Frankel, O.H. 1983. The Place of Management in Conservation. Pages 1-14 in C.M. Schonewald-Cox, S.M.
Chambers, B. MacBryde, and L. Thomas, eds. Genetics and Conservation. Benjamin/Cummings Publ.
Co., Inc. Menlo Park, Calif.

Frankel, O.H. and M.R. Soule. 1981. Conservation and Evolution. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Univ. Press.
327 pp.

Franz, R., C.K. Dodd, Jr., C. Jones. 1988. Rana Areolata Aesopus Movement. Herp Review 19: 82.

Gates, J.., and L.W. Gysel. 1978. Avian Nest Dispersion and Fledgling Success in Field-Forest Ecotones.
Ecology 59: 871-83.

Gilbert, F.F. 1971. Analysis of Deer Mortality Other Than Legal Kill. Maine Fed. Aid Proj. No W-67-R2:
Job No. 1-3. Maine Dept. Inland Fisheries and Game. Memo. 12 pp.

Giles, R.H.Jr. 1978. Wildlife Management. San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman and Company, 416 pp.

Gill, D. 1975. The Feral House Cat as a Predator of Varying Hares. Can. Field-Nat. 89: 78-79.

Grubb, M.M. 1978. Effects of Increased Noise Levels on Nesting Herons and Egrets. Proc. Colonial Waterbird
Group 49-54.

Greiner, Inc. 1988. Noise Study Report Northwest Beltway Study, Part B. Report prepared for the FDOT
District Five. State Proj. No. 77000-1517.

Hanley, P.T., J.E. Hemming, J.W. Morsell, T.A. Morehouse, L.E. Leask, and G.S.Harrison. 1981. Natural
Resource Protection and Petroleum Development in Alaska. FWS/OBS-80/22. Office of Biological
Services, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.

Harrison, R.T. 1974. Sound Propagation and Annoyance Under Forest Conditions. Equipment and
Development Test Report 7120-6. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Equipment
Development Center, San Dimas, California.

Heyer, W.R., R.W. McDiarmid, and D.L. Wiegmann. 1975. Tadpoles, Predation and Pond Habitats in the
Tropics. Biotropics 7: 100-111.

Hill, E.P. 1970. Bat Control with High Frequency Sound. Pest Control 38: 18.

Humphrey, S.R. 1989. Personal Comm. Curator Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida,
Gainesville, Florida.

Hurlbert, S.H. 1971. The Non-concept of Species Diversity: A Critique and Alternative Parameters. Ecology
52: 577-587.

Jackson, J.A. 1978. Competition for Cavities and Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Management. Pages 103-12 in
S.A. Temple (ed.), Endangered Birds. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.










Jehl, J.R., Jr., and K.C. Parkes. 1983. "Replacements of Landbird Species on Socorro Island, Mexico". The
Auk 100: 551-559.

Johnson, P.L., (ed). 1977. An Ecosystem Paradigm for Ecology. Oak Ridge Associated Universities, Oak
Ridge, Tennessee. ORAU-129. 20 pp.

Klein, M.L. 1989. Effects of High Levels of Human Visitation on Foraging Waterbirds. Submitted to the J. of
Wildl. Manage.

Korshgen, LJ. 1957. Food Habits: Coyotes, Foxes, House Cats, Bobcats in Missouri. Mo. Conserv. Comm.
Bull. 15. 64 pp.

Liddle, MJ. 1975. A Selective Review of the Ecological Effects of Human Trampling on Natural Ecosystems.
Biol. Conserv. 17: 17-36.

Luz, G.A., and J.B. Smith. 1976. Reactions of Pronghorn Antelope to Helicopter Overflight. J. Acoust. Soc.
Amer. 59: 1514-1515.

Manci, K.M., D.N. Gladwin, R. Villella, and M.G. Cavendish. 1988. Effects of Aircraft Noise and Sonic
Booms on Domestic Animals and Wildlife: a Literature Synthesis. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
National Ecology Research Center, Fort Collins, Colorado. NERC-88/29.

Memphis State University. 1971. Effects of Noise on Wildlife and Other Animals. Prepared for the Office of
Noise Abatement and Control, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. NTID 300.5, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Maxwell, G.R., and H.W. Kale, Jr. 1977. Breeding Biology of Five Species of Herons in Coastal Florida. Auk,
94(4): 689-700.

Messersmith, D.H. 1970. Control of Bird Depredation. Agric. Dept. Coop. State Research. Serv., Maryland.

Miller, C.H., and K.A. Weber. 1989. Estimation of Construction Setback Distance and Water Table Dewatering
near Wetlands in a Flatwoods Farming Area. SWP-20. Southwest Florida Water Management District
Resource Regulation Department, Technical Procedure. Brooksville, FL. pp 8.

Moler, P.E., and R. Franz. 1987. Wildlife Values of Small, Isolated Wetlands in the Southeastern Coastal Plain.
Proc. 3rd SE Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Sym. GA Dept. Nat. Res., Atlanta.

Morin, T. 1983. Predation, Competition, and the Composition of Larval Anuran Guilds. Ecol. Monogr. 53:
119-138.

Morrison, CJ. Ralph, eds. Wildlife 2000: Modeling Habitat Relationships of Terrestrial Vertebrates. Madison,
WI: The Univ. of Wisconsin Press.

Moler, P.E., and R. Franz. 1987. Wildlife Values of Small, Isolated Wetlands in the Southeastern Coastal Plain.
Proc. 3rd SE Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Sym. GA Dept. Nat. Res., Atlanta.

Myles, D.V., R. Hirvonen, T.F.W. Embleton, and F.E. Toole. 1971. An Acoustical Study of Machinery on
Logging Operations in Eastern Canada. Report APS-485, NRC-11835, 41 p. National Res. Council of
Canada Div. of Physics.









Rails, K., and J. Ballou. 1983. Extinction: Lessons from Zoos. Pages 164-184 in C.M. Schonewald-Cox, S.M.
Chambers, B. MacBryde, and L. Thomas, eds. Genetics and Conservation. Benjamin/Cummings Publ.
Co., Inc. Menlo Park, Calif.

Reed, J.M., P.D. Doerr, and J.R. Walters. 1986. Determining Minimum Population Sizes for Birds and
Mammals. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 14: 255-261.

Ricklefs, R.E. 1973. Ecology. Newton, MA: Chiron Press, 861 pp.

Robinette, G.O. 1972. Plants/People/and Environmental Quality: a Study of Plants and Their Environmental
Functions. U.S. Dept Inter., Nat Park Serv. U.S. Gov. Printing Office, Washington, D.C., Stock No.
2405-0479.

Rodgers, J.A., Jr., and J. Burger. 1981. concluding Remarks: Symposium on Human Disturbance and Colonial
Waterbirds. Colonial Waterbirds 4: 69-70.

Root, R.B. 1967. The Niche Exploitation Pattern of the Blue-gray Gnatcatcher. Ecol. Monogr. 37:317-350.

Schaefer, J. 1989. Personal Communication. Assistant Professor, Department of Wildlife and Range Sciences,
University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

Schonewald-Cox, C.M. 1988. Boundaries in the Protection of Nature Reserves. BioSci. 38: 480-486.

Shaffer, M. 1981. Minimum Population Sizes for Species Conservation. Bioscience 31:131-134.

Short, HL., and K.P. Burnham. 1982. Technique for Structuring Wildlife Guilds to Evaluate Impacts on
Wildlife Communities. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Special Sci. Report Wildlife 244. 33 pp.

Smith, RJ. 1989. A Proposal to Study the Effects of Urban Development on Avian Communities Associated
with Riparian Habitats in Gainesville, Florida. Unpublished Preliminary Report.

Smith, R.L. 1966. Wildlife and Forest Problems in Appalachia. Trans. N. Amer. Wildl. and Nat. Res. Conf.
31: 212-26.

Smith, RL. 1974. Ecology and Field Biology. New York, NY: Harper and Row, Publishers, 850 pp.

Soil Conservation Service. 1987. Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Technical Release 55. Second edition.

Soil Conservation Service. 1989. 26 Ecological Communities of Florida (revised). Florida Chapter, Soil and
Water Conservation Society of America, Gainesville, Florida, Four Landscape Associations, which Share
Some of the Same Soil Series as Mapped by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service.

Stalmaster, M.V., and J.R. Newman. 1978. Behavioral Responses of Wintering Bald Eagles to Human Activity.
J. Wildl. Manage. 42: 506-513.

Temple, S.A. 1986. Predicting Impacts of Habitat Fragmentation on Forest Birds: A Comparison of Two
Models. Pages 301-04 i J. Verner, M.L. Morrison and C.J. Ralph, eds. Wildlife 2000: Modeling
Habitat Relationships of Terrestrial Vertebrates. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press.

Titus, J.R., and L.W. Van Druff. 1981. Response of the Common Loon to Recreational Pressure in the
Boundary Waters Canoe Area, Northeastern Minnesota. Wildlife Monograph 79.









Tremblay, J., and L.N. Ellison. 1979. Effects of Human Disturbance on Breeding of Black-crowned Night
Herons. Auk 96: 364-369.

Unesco. 1974, Criteria and Guidelines for the Choice and Establishment of Biosphere Reserves. Unesco-
MAB, Paris, France.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 1984. Noise Assessment Guidelines. HUD-PDR-735(1).
Office of Policy and Development and Research, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Transportation. 1981. Sound Procedures for Measuring Highway Noise: Final Report.
FHWA-DP-45-1R. Demonstration Projects Program, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington,
D.C.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1971. Community Noise. NTID 300.3, December 1971.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1972. Noise and You. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to
Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. 550/9-74-004. Office of Noise
Abatement and control, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1978. Protective Noise Levels: Condensed Version of EPA Levels
Document. EPA 550/9-79-100. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. Ecological Services Manual (101-104 ESM), Division of Ecological
Services, Washington, D.C.

van der Zande, A.N., WJ. der Keurs, and WJ. van der Weijden. 1980. The Impact of Roads on the Densities
of Four Bird Species in an Open Field Habitat Evidence of a Long-distance Effect. Biol. Conserv. 18:
299-321.

Vince, S.W., S.R. Humphrey, and R.W. Simons. 1989. Hydric Hammocks: A Community Profile. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Biological Re]port 85 (7.26): 1-81.

Vos, D.K., R.A. Ryder, and W.D. Graul. 1985. Response of Breeding Great Blue Herons to Human
Disturbance in North Central Colorado. Colonial Waterbirds 8: 13-22.

Vemer, J. 1984. The Guild Concept Applied to Management of Bird Populations. Environ. Manage. 8: 1-14.

Ward, A.J., J. Cupal, A.L. Lea, and C.A. Oakley, R.W. Weeks. 1973. Elk Behavior in Relation to Cattle
Grazing, Forest Recreation, and Traffic. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. and Nat. Resour. Conf. 38:327-337.

Whitcomb, R.F., J.F. Lynch, P.A. Opler, and C.S. Robbins. 1976. Island Biogeography and Conservation:
Strategy and Limitations. Science 193:1030-32.

Wilbur, H.M. 1980. Complex Life Cycles. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1980:67-93.

Wilcove, D.S., and R.M. May. 1986. National Park Boundaries and Ecological Realities. Nature 324:206-07.

Woodward, B.D. 1983. Predator Prey Interactions and Breeding Pond Use of Temporary-pond Species in a
Desert Anuran Community. Ecology 64:1549-1555.

68








GLOSSARY


BIOTA The animal and plant life of a particular region considered as a total ecological entity.

BUFFER A zone of transition between two different land uses that separates and protects one from another. In
this report, the word "buffer" refers to the zone between a wetland and a developed or developable area.

CARRYING CAPACITY The size of a population that an environment or habitat can support indefinitely.

COMMUNITY, ECOLOGICAL A natural assemblage of plants and animals that live in the same environment,
are mutually sustaining and interdependent, and are constantly fixing, utilizing, and dissipating energy.

COMMUNITY, WILDLIFE All of the populations of different species of animals that live in the same
environment.

CURSORIAL Adapted to or specialized for running as opposed to flying, crawling, etc.

DIVERSITY, BIOLOGICAL The composition of a particular environment or habitat as it relates to the plant
and animal species present and their relative abundance.

DRAWDOWN The lowering of the upper surface of a water table.

EQUILIBRIUM NUMBER The number of species supportable in a given area over the long term.

EXTIRPATION Extinction of a species from a particular area (not its entire range) where it formerly occurred.

GENETIC VIABILITY The probability of survival from egg to adult.

GROUNDWATER Water below ground level in completely saturated soil. Not confined (under pressure), the
source of which is rainfall, and the elevation of which rises and falls.

HABITAT, WILDLIFE The area or type of environment in which an organism or biological population
normally lives or occurs.

HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY (K) The coefficient which quantifies the resistance of a porous medium (i.e.,
saturated soil) to fluid flow. This coefficient depends on properties of the fluid and the medium and has
units of length per time. In the United States, K is often expressed as the flow in gallons per day
through an area of one square foot under a gradient of one foot per foot at 60* F.

HYDRIC Characterized by, relating to, or requiring an abundance of moisture. Compare mesic and xeric.

HYDROPERIOD The length of time during which there is standing water in a wetland.

INSULARITY Of or relating to the extent that a specific habitat area is surrounded by dissimilar landuses that
in an ecological sense isolates it from natural animal and plant dispersion mechanisms.

INTEGRITY, BIOLOGICAL All of the plants and animals that are characteristic of an area and all of the
processes that result from interactions between these species and their environment.

LANDSCAPE ASSOCIATION An assemblage of ecological communities with similar topography and geology
which are hydrologically connected.









LANDSCAPE DYNAMICS The areal and functional relationships between different parts of the landscape,
e.g., the distribution, sizes, and topographic and hydrologic connections among ecosystems in a
landscape association.

LIFE REQUISITES Those components of a habitat that an organism needs to survive.

MESIC Midway between very wet and very dry.

MODEL, COMPUTER SIMULATION A representation of any kind of system (such as an ecosystem, a set of
wildlife populations, or a landscape association) written in a computer language that shows changes over
time and responses to different sets of conditions.

OVERSTORY The layer of foliage (leaves and branches) formed by the largest trees in a forested area.

PHREATIC AQUIFER An unconfined saturated permeable geologic unit which is capable of transmitting a
significant amount of water under typical conditions.

POPULATION, MINIMUM VIABLE The smallest number of individuals that will give 99% probability of the
species surviving in a particular area for at least 1,000 years.

RIPARIAN Of or relating to living or located on the bank of a flowing watercourse (as a river or stream) and
also an isolated water source such as a pond or lake.

SAND, PRIMARY Unweathered soil particles between .05 and 2.0 mm in diameter.

SEED SCARIFICATION Processes required to prepare seeds for germination.

SEEPAGE, GROUNDWATER Slow, vertical or horizontal movement of groundwater in the soil.

SEMI-AQUATIC Adapted for living near water and needing water to survive but living in water all of the time
such as fish.

SILTS, PRIMARY Unweathered soil particles between .002 and .05 mm in diameter.

SILVICULTURE Activities of man involving regeneration, tending, and harvesting a forest.

SPECIES RICHNESS The number of different species in an area.

STEADY-STATE SYSTEM A system in which short-term effects have been damped out over time and which
therefore does not vary over time.

SUCCESSION, VEGETATIONAL The process of change in the types of plants occupying an area as plants
mature, are replaced, and otherwise respond to the environment.

SURFICIAL AQUIFER Water below ground level in completely saturated soil. Not confined (under pressure),
the source of which is rainfall, and the elevation of which rises and falls.

TAXA Plural of taxon.

TAXON A group of organisms constituting one of the categories in taxonomic classification of living
organisms such as class, order, family, genus, species.








TERRITORY, BREEDING An area usually including the nesting or denning site and possibly a variable
foraging range that is preempted by an individual male animal and defended against the intrusion of
rival individuals.

TURBIDITY The concentration in water of suspended solids (such as silts, clays, and small particles of organic
matter).

UNDERSTORY The foliage lying beneath the tallest trees consisting mainly of seedling trees, small trees,
shrubs, and herbaceous plants.

VEGETATION AREAS, TRANSITIONAL Areas that contain plants that are characteristic of identifiable
adjacent plant communities.

VERTEBRATE Of or relating to the taxonomic subphylum "vertebrata" that compromises bilaterally
symmetrical animals with a segmented spinal column or in primitive forms with a persistent notochord,
a tubular dorsal nervous system divisible into brain and spinal cord, an anterior head bearing a mouth
and the major sense organs, an internal articulated skeleton of bone and cartilage, respiration by gills or
lungs, and not more than two pairs of limbs which may be modified as grasping, walking, swimming or
flying organs in different members of the division, and that includes the mammals, birds, reptiles,
amphibians, fishes, elasmobranchs, and cyclostomes and sometimes the lancelets.

WATER-DEPENDENT Of or relating to the need for water as a necessary habitat component for survival.

WATER TABLE Water below ground level in completely saturated soil. Not confined (under pressure), the
source of which is rainfall, and the elevation of which rises and falls.

WETLAND Lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems where the water table is usually at or
near the surface.

WETLANDS, EPHEMERAL Areas temporarily or seasonally supporting wetland conditions.

WETLANDS, JURISDICTIONAL Wetlands that can be legally regulated by government.

XERIC Of or relating to an extremely low amount of moisture available for the support of plant life.


















APPENDIX A:


Landscape Associations of East Central Florida














Appendix A: Landscape Associations of East Central Florida


The number of associations used for delineating buffer zones must be small enough to minimize
methodological complexity and large enough to represent ecological and hydrological factors accurately. Based
on analysis of vegetation and land use maps of the St Johns River Water Management District,' six landscape
associations were identified in the East Central Florida region: (1) pine flatwoods/isolated wetlands, (2) pine
flatwoods/flowing water wetlands, (3) pine flatwoods/hammock/hardwood swamps, (4) sandhills/isolated and or
flowing-water wetlands, (5) pine flatwoods/salt marshes, and (6) coastal hammock/salt marshes. Landscape
associations selected for buffer-zone delineation were designed to reflect differences in the three goals of the
buffer determination procedure--minimization of groundwater drawdown, sediment and turbidity control, and
protection of wildlife habitat. The critical factors distinguishing these groups for purposes of calculating buffer
widths are the differences in drainage and in topography.
Following are descriptions of the components of the six landscape associations. Figures A-I through A-
6 are maps of landscape associations in each of the six counties of the region. Table A-1 lists typical soil series
of the components of the associations and some of the soil characteristics used in calculating buffer widths.

























Maps prepared by the Center for Wetlands under joint contractual agreement with the Jacksonville Area
Planning Board and the St. Johns River Water Management District, 1973.
















































LaFdscape aiticom

El I natwood.ascsiad Wehland.


F21 ltwoodafIMic Mnwmo/Hy
Hmwmaafuyr wood Swanx


Sandhansced WehLands

FletwoodsICcmstal Wetands
Hanmnocke/Costal Welands


0 4 a 12

LILES


Figure A-I. Landscape associations in Brevard County, Florida.


















































Landscape Classifications

] Flatwood/Isoloated Wetlands
S Flatwoods/Flowing Water Wetlands
) RFlatwooda/Mesic Hammocks/Hydrlc
Hammocks/Hardwood Swanps
41| Sandhlil/lsolated Wetlands
n5 Flat woods/Coastal Wetlands
I %) Hammock/Coastal Wetlands


0 4 8 12 16 20

MILES


Figure A-2. Landscalp associations in Lake County, Florida.


Lake County


















Landecave Classificatlons


W rist1OOdollocil.. Wetlands

2 FIst.ood SIFI*ln Water Welalnds

F 1 FlatwoodslMoulC MafifemeckaHydrIC
Honmoke/IHardwoed Swomo,


M S.ndhlls/160,1O41d Wetlands


E FlslI.odsComstll Wetlands


10 MgmmockelCoeaetl Wetlland


to


0
*


MILES


7.
r.




~
c:
i
z


Y


c.




v















































Landscape Classifications

Flatwoods/Isolated Wetlands 2

Flatwoods/Flowing Water Wetlands

Flatwoods/Mesic Hammocks/Hydric
Hammocks/Har'wood Swamps

Sandhills/Isolated Wetlands 2

Flatwoods/Coastal Wetlands

Hammocks/Coastal Wetlands




0 4 8 12 16 20
MILES


i'I .ix 4 I ri:111 l .111l a1. 1 I. i i~l- t 1 ).i ; 1.1I iii ~11\. I I~1 ;it












Landscape

Flatwoode/Isolated Wetlands

Flatwoods/Flowing Water Wetlands

Flatwoods/Mealc Hammocks/Hydrlc
Hammocks/Hardwood Swamps


Classifications

[4 Sandhlltla/lolated Wetlands

F51 Flatwoods/Coastal Wetlands

F6| Hammocks/Coastal Wetlands


4 8 12 16 21

MILE


Figure A-5. Landscape associations in Seminole County, Florida.


F3-









Landscape Classifications
Ri Flalwoodsllsolated Watlands
F[ Flalwoods/Flowing Water Wetlands
SFlatwoods/Mesic Hammocks/Hydric
Hammocks/Hardwood Swamps
R4 Sandhllllsolated Wellands
E Flstwoods/Coastal Wetlands
[] Hammocks/Coastal Wetlands


0....


0 4 6 12 16 20
MILES


I *I..-III, -% (I I ;t 11 d -., 't p .1 1" W 1.11:, '11 I[. \ .; ., .. I. I I I: III% 1 11111.1.1









Landscape Association 1. Pine flatwoods/isolated wetlands


Pine flatwoods are so named because of the flat topography on which this association is typically found.
The lack of gradient results in frequent flooding during the summer rainy season (Brown, 1980). Many of the
grassy scrub areas shown on the 1973 maps were probably once pine flatwoods that have been converted to
grassy scrub by tree harvest, increased drainage, and/or greater fire frequency (Brown, 1980).
Interspersed throughout the flatwoods are topographically low areas, which are occupied by patches of
wetlands of various types. These include cypress domes, bayheads, and wet prairie (Brown and Schaefer, 1987),
as well as shallow and deep freshwater marshes (Brown, 1980).
Cypress domes are dominated by pond cypress (Taxodium distichum var. nutans). Dominant tree
species in bayheads include redbay (Persea borbonia), sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana), loblolly bay (Gordonia
lasianthus), blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora), red maple (Acer rubrum), pond pine (Pinus serotina), and
slash pine (Pinus elliottii). Typical wet prairie plants include St. John's won (Hypericum fasciculatum), primrose
willow (Ludwigia spp.)., elderberry (Sambucus simpsonii), panicum grasses (Panicum spp.), soft rush (Juncus
effusus), spike rush (Eleocharis cellulosa), and pickerelweed (Pontederia cordala).
Deepwater marshes are usually dominated by free-floating plants such as water hyacinth (Eichhornia
crasspipes) and water lettuce (Pistia stratiodes) or rooted aquatic plants such as water lily (Nymphaea odorata)
and spatterdock (Nuphar luteum). Shallow marshes may be dominated by one of the following species:
pickerelweed, sawgrass (Cladium iamaicense), arrowhead (Sagittaria spp.), fire flag (Thalia geniculata), cattail
(Typha spp.), spike rush, bulrush (cirpa spp.), or maidencane (Panicum hemitomon); some marshes contain
patches or mixtures of some or all of these species (Brown and Starnes, 1983).



Landscape Association 2. Flatwoods/flowing water wetlands

The soils in this category are poorly drained and have higher percentages of clay and organic matter
than do those of the flatwoods/isolated wetland association, and the topography is more variable. Flowing water
wetlands include both bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) and hardwood forests growing along sloughs and
rivers. Common hardwood species include red maple (Acer rubrum), water tupelo (Nyssa aquatica), swamp
black gum (Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora), sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), pop ash (Fraximus caroliniana),
Florida elm (Ulmus floridana), and cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto) (Brown, 1980).
The seasonal flooding that is characteristic of flowing water wetlands provides the nutrients needed for
plant growth. Water levels fluctuate about 2.5 feet in an average year, but the range may be as large as 5 feet
(Brown and Starnes 1983). Flooding is also important for seed distribution, seed scarification, and elimination of
upland plant species (Brandt and Ewel, 1989).
For a description of flatwoods, see Landscape Association 1 above.









Landscape Association 3. Pine flatwoods/hammocks/hardwood swamps


Poorly drained to moderately well-drained, sandy soils and level to sloping topography characterize this
landscape association. Between flatwoods and mesic hammock in relatively higher zones and hardwood swamp
or marsh in lower zones are hydric hammocks, which also occur on the banks of spring runs such as the Wekiva
River.
Mesic hammocks are the most diverse of the upland communities in the East Central Florida region and
may contain between 8 and 35 tree species. Overstory species in mesic hammock include southern magnolia
(Magnolia grandiflora), laurel oak, red bay (Persea borbonia), pignut (Carva glabra), American holly ex
opaca), water oak (Q. nigra), black cherry (Prunus serotina), and live oak (Quercus virginiana). The canopy is
so dense that little sunlight reaches the forest floor. Soils are moderately well drained to somewhat poorly
drained. Rainfall is the major water source for mesic hammocks, although seepage and runoff may provide
water to some stands (Brown, 1980).
Soils in hydric hammocks are generally shallow and sandy, and limestone (either in bedrock or in
nodules in the soil) is always present (Vince et al., 1989). Hardpans (weakly cemented Bh horizons) do not
occur in hydric hammocks, but clay layers that support surficial water tables occur in some hammocks (Vince et
al., 1989).
High water tables are characteristic; hydric hammock soils are saturated most of the year (Brown and
Schaefer, 1987). Sources of water to hydric hammocks include groundwater seepage, rainfall, stream overflows,
and aquifer discharge (Vince et al., 1989); groundwater seepage from uplands is the major source of water for
the hydric hammocks bordering the Wekiva River. The relative contribution of rainfall, overland flow, and
aquifer discharge are probably greater in other hydric hammocks elsewhere in the East Central Florida region.
Hydric hammocks have the most diverse flora of any wetland in East Central Florida. Species include
popash (Fraxinus caroliniana), live oak (Quercus virginiana), laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), water oak, Southern
magnolia, red bay, sweetbay, tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), red maple, red cedar (Juniperus silicicola),
cabbage palm, slash pine, and blue beech (Carpinus caroliniana) (Brown and Starnes, 1983).
Hardwood swamps are characterized by seasonal flooding of the flowing waters along which they are
found. Species composition depends upon the flow rate, water quality, and turbidity of the adjacent waterway.
The most common species are red maple (Acer rubrum), water tupelo (Nyssa aquatica, swamp black gum
(Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora), sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), pop ash
(Fraxinus caroliniana), Florida elm (Ulmus floridana), and cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto) (Brown, 1980). Soils
associated with this community are nearly level, very poorly drained, and dark in color. They are either organic
or have coarse- to medium-textured surfaces underlain by finer textured material (Brown and Starnes, 1983).
For a description of flatwoods, see Landscape Association 1 above.



Landscape Association 4. Sandhills/isolated or flowing-water wetlands

Relative to the other three landscape classes in the East Central Florida region, the sandhills/wetlands
complex has the greatest topographic relief and the greatest degree of soil drainage. We use the term "sandhills"
to include both pine sandhill and sand pine scrub communities.









Sandhill soils are well-drained, deep sands. The top of the surficial water table is often 6 feet or more
below the soil surface.
Typical plants of pine sandhills are longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), turkey oak (Quercus laevis), and
wiregrass (Aristida stricta); sand pine scrub is characterized by sand pine (Pinus clausa), Chapman oak (Quercus
chapmanii), myrtle oak (Ouercus myrtifolia), dwarf live oak (Quercus minima), and rosemary (Ceratiola
ericoides). In sand pine scrubs, the understory is sparse and interspersed with patches of bare sand. The
dominant overstory species is sand pine (Pinus clausa) (Brown, 1980).
Wetlands associated with sandhills include both isolated wetlands (see landscape association 1) and,
particularly along parts of the Wekiva River, flowing-water wetlands (see landscape association 2).



Landscape Association 5. Pine flatwoods/salt marshes

Salt marshes, which are characterized by grasses, sedges, and rushes, is generally found on the east side
of the Atlantic coastal strand and along coastal waterways such as the Indian River.
Salt marsh soils are nearly level and are covered with salt water or brackish water during daily high
tides. They are very poorly drained, mucky or sandy clay loams. Salt marsh vegetation is often zoned in
accordance with the average salinity and depth of flooding to which the zones are exposed. Black needlerush
(Juncus roemerianus) and seashore saltgrass (Distichlis spicata) are tolerant of variable conditions and are found
throughout the marsh. Smooth cordgrass (Spartina altemiflora) is found in regularly flooded areas and is often
the dominant East Coast salt marsh plant; marshhay cordgrass (Spartina patens), marsh elder (Iva imbricata),
saltwort (Batis maritima), and sea oxeye (Borrichia spp.) are typical of higher areas that are less frequently
flooded (Soil Conservation Service, 1987).
See landscape association 1 for a description of flatwoods.



Landscape Association 6. Coastal hammocks/salt marshes

Coastal hammocks are found inland of Atlantic beaches and along bays, sounds, and coastal waterways.
They are topographically variable but for the most part along the wetland/upland interface they are level to very
slightly sloping. Soils are deep and sandy; drainage is generally very poor in lower areas to moderate in higher
areas.
Trees and shrubs, which are often stunted from wind, include cabbage palm, sand live oak (Quercus
virginiana var. maritima), live oak, marsh elder, saw palmetto, and Spanish bayonet (Yucca aloifolia); in the
southerly portion of the region is also found coconut palm (Cocos nucifera), the exotic Australian pine (Casurina
equisetifolia), sea grape (Coccoloba uvifera), and coco plum (Chysobalanus icaco). Grasses and herbs include
sea purslane (Sesuvium portulacastrum), blanket flower (Gaillardia pulchella), several grasses of the genus
Panicum, and wild grape (Vitis spp.) (Soil Conservation Service, 1987).
See landscape association 5 for a description of salt marshes.


A-10







Table A-I. Soils typical of ecological associations of the Wekiva River Basin


LANDSCAPE ASSOCIATION COMPONENT
Ecological Type Erosion
Factor
Soil Series (Hydrol. Group) USDA Soil Type Permeability (tons/acre/ High Water Table
Depth from surface (in) (in/hr) unit rainfall) depth (ft) months


FLATWOODS


South Florida flatwoods
Adamsville (C) Sand
0-4
4-80
EauGallie (D) Fine sand
0-18
18-30
30-45
45-54
54-80
Immokalee (D) Fine sand
0-4
4-42
42-52
52-80
Malabar (D) Fine sand
0-18
18-30
30-42
42-58
58-80
Myakka (D) Fine sand
0-28
28-45
45-80
Ona (D) Fine sand
0-6
6-15
15-80
Pineda (D) Fine sand
0-37
37-80
Pompano (D) Fine sand
St. Johns (D) Sand
0-12
12-24
24-44
44-80


6.0-20
6.0-20

6.0-20
0.6-6.0
6.0-20
0.06-2.0
0.6-6.0

6.0-20
6.0-20
0.6-2.0
6.0-20

6.0-20
6.0-20
6.0-20
<0.2
2.0-20

6.0-20
6.0-20
0.6-6.0

6.0-20
0.6-2.0
6.0-20

6.0-20
<0.2
6.0-20

6.0-20
6.0-20
0.2-2.0
6.0-20


2.0-3.5 Jun-Nov


0-1.0 Jun-Oct





0-1.0 Jun-Nov




0-1.0 Jun-Nov





0-1.0 Jun-Nov



0-1.0 Jun-Nov



0-1.0 Jun-Nov

0-1.0 Jun-Nov

0-1.0 Jun-Apr


A-ll







Table A-l. Continued.


LANDSCAPE ASSOCIATION COMPONENT
Ecological Type Erosion
Factor
Soil Series (Hydrol. Group) USDA Soil Type Permeability (tons/acre/ High Water Table
Depth from surface (in) (in/hr) unit rainfall) depth (ft) months


Smyrna (D) Fine sand continued.
0-17
17-27
27-80
Wabasso (D) Sand
0-18
18-21
21-70
70-80


ISOLATED WETLANDS

Cypress swamp
Basinger, depressional (D) Fine sand
0-6
6-25
25-35
35-80
Chobee (frequently flooded) (D) Sandy loam
0-7
7-50
50-80
Delray (D) Loamy fine sand
0-12
12-50
50-80
Felda, depressional (D) Sand
0-4
4-28
28-36
36-80
Floridana (frequently flooded) (D) Fine sand
0-17
17-28
28-80
Nitlaw (frequently flooded) (D) Muck
0-4
4-9
9-80


6.0-20
0.6-6.0
6.0-20

6.0-20
0.6-2.0
<0.2
6.0-20


2.0-6.0
<0.2
0.2-6.0

6.0-20
6.0-20
0.6-6.0

6.0-20
6.0-20
0.6-6.0
6.0-20

6.0-20
6.0-20
<0.2

6.0-20
6.0-20
0.06-0.2


0-1.0 Jul-Oct



0-1.0 Jun-Oct


+2-1.0 Jun-Feb




0-1.0 Jun-Feb



0-1.0 Jun-Mar



+2-1.0 Jun-Dec




0-1.0 Jun-Feb



0-1.0 Jun-Nov


A-12







Table A-1. Continued.


LANDSCAPE ASSOCIATION COMPONENT
Ecological Type Erosion
Factor
Soil Series (Hydrol. Group) USDA Soil Type Permeability (tons/acre/ High Water Table
Depth from surface (in) (inOhr) unit rainfall) depth (ft) months


Samsula (D) Muck
0-26
26-80


+2-1.0 Jan-Dec


6.0-20
6.0-20


Freshwater Marsh and Ponds


Basinger, depressional (D) Fine sand
0-6
6-25
25-35
35-80
Brighton (D) Muck
Canova (D) Peat
0-10
10-27
27-30
30-38
38-80
Chobee (D) Sandy loam
0-7
7-50
50-80
Delray (D) Loamy fine sand
0-12
12-50
50-80
EauGallie (D) Fine sand
0-18
18-30
30-45
45-54
54-80
Emeralda (D) Fine sand
0-7
7-12
12-41
41-80
Felda, depressional (D) Sand
0-4
4-28
28-36
36-80


>20
>20
>20
>20
6.0-20

6.0-20
6.0-20
0.6-6.0
0.6-2.0
0.6-6.0

2.0-6.0
<0.2
0.2-6.0

6.0-20
6.0-20
0.6-6.0

6.0-20
0.6-6.0
6.0-20
0.06-2.0
0.6-6.0

6.0-20
6.0-20
<02
<0.2

6.0-20
6.0-20
0.6-6.0
6.0-20


+2-1.0 Jun-Feb



+1-1.0 Jan-Dec

+2-0 Jan-Dec





0-1.0 Jun-Feb



0-1.0 Jun-Mar



0-1.0 Jun-Oct





0-1.0 Jun-Feb




+2-1.0 Jun-Dec


A-13







Table A-1. Continued.


LANDSCAPE ASSOCIATION COMPONENT
Ecological Type Erosion
Factor
Soil Series (Hydrol. Group) USDA Soil Type Permeability (tons/acre/ High Water Table
Depth from surface (in) (in/hr) unit rainfall) depth (ft) months


Floridana (D) Fine sand
0-17
17-28
28-80
Gator (D) Muck
0-28
28-80
Holopaw (D) Fine sand
0-50
50-80
Hontoon (D) Muck
Immokalee (D) Fine sand
0-4
4-42
42-52
52-80
Malabar (D) Fine sand
0-18
18-30
30-42
42-58
58-80
Manatee (D) Loamy fine sand
0-10
10-52
52-80
Myakka (D) Fine sand
0-28
28-45
45-80
Nittaw (D) Muck
0-4
4-9
9-80
Okeelanta (D) Muck
0-25
25-80
Pineda (D) Fine sand
0-37
37-80


0-1.0 Jun-Feb


6.0-20
6.0-20
<0.2

6.0-20
2.0-6.0

6.0-20
0.6-2.0
6.0-20

6.0-20
6.0-20
0.6-2.0
6.0-20

6.0-20
6.0-20
6.0-20
<02
2.0-20

2.0-6.0
0.6-2.0
0.6-2.0

6.0-20
6.0-20
0.6-6.0

6.0-20
6.0-20
0.06-0.2

6.0-20
6.0-20

6.0-20
<0.2


+2-1.0 Jun-Dec


0-1.0 Jun-Feb

+2-1.0 Jan-Dec

0-1.0 Jun-Nov




0-1.0 Jun-Nov





0-1.0 Jun-Feb



0-1.0 Jun-Nov


0-1.0 Jun-Nov


+1-0 Jun-Jan


0-1.0 Jun-Nov


A-14







Table A-I. Continued.


LANDSCAPE ASSOCIATION COMPONENT
Ecological Type Erosion
Factor
Soil Series (Hydrol. Group) USDA Soil Type Permeability (tons/acre/ High Water Table
Depth from surface (in) (in/hr) unit rainfall) depth (ft) months


Pompano (D) Fine sand
St. Johns (D) Sand
0-12
12-24
24-44
44-80
Samsula (D) Muck
0-26
26-80
Sanibel (D) Muck
0-14
14-80
Terra Ceia (D) Muck
Wabasso (D) Sand
0-18
18-21
21-70
70-80
Wauberg (D) Fine sand
0-8
8-28
28-60
60-80


0-1.0 Jun -Nov

0-1.0 Jun-Apr


6.0-20

6.0-20
6.0-20
0.2-2.0
6.0-20

6.0-20
6.0-20

6.0-20
6.0-20
6.0-20

6.0-20
0.6-2.0
<02
6.0-20

>6.0
>6.0
<0.2
<0.2


+2-1.0 Jan-Dec


+1-1.0 Jun-Feb

+1-1.0 Jan-Dec

0-1.0 Jun-Oct




0-1.0 Jun-Dec


FLOWING WATER WETLANDS (see also Cypress swamps, above)


Swamp hardwoods
Basinger, depressional (D) Fine sand
0-6
6-25
25-35
35-80
Chobee (D) Sandy loam
0-7
7-50
50-80
Emeralda (D) Fine sand
0-7
7-12
12-41
41-80


>20
>20
>20
>20

2.0-6.0
<0.2
0.2-6.0

6.0-20
6.0-20
<0.2
<0.2


+2-1.0 Jun-Feb




0-1.0 Jun-Feb



0-1.0 Jun-Feb


A-15







Table A-1. Continued.


LANDSCAPE ASSOCIATION COMPONENT
Ecological Type Erosion
Factor
Soil Series (Hydrol. Group) USDA Soil Type Permeability (tons/acre/ High Water Table
Depth from surface (in) (in/hr) unit rainfall) depth (ft) months


Floridana (D) Fine sand
0-17
17-28
28-80
Gator (D) Muck
0-28
28-80
Hontoon (D) Muck
Manatee (D) Loamy fine sand
0-10
10-52
52-80
Nittaw (D) Muck
0-4
4-9
9-80
Okeelanta (D) Muck
0-25
25-80
Pompano (D) Fine sand
Samsula (D) Muck
0-26
26-80
Terra Ceia (D) Muck


Slough
Basinger (D) Fine sand
0-6
6-25
25-35
35-80
Felda (D) Sand
0-4
4-28
28-36
36-80
Holopaw (D) Fine sand
0-50
50-80


0-1.0 Jun-Feb


6.0-20
6.0-20
<0.2

6.0-20
2.0-6.0
6.0-20

2.0-6.0
0.6-2.0
0.6-2.0

6.0-20
6.0-20
0.06-0.2

6.0-20
6.0-20
6.0-20

6.0-20
6.0-20
6.0-20


>20
>20
>20
>20

6.0-20
6.0-20
0.6-6.0
6.0-20

6.0-20
0.6-2.0


+2-1.0 Jun-Dec

+2-1.0 Jan-Dec

0-1.0 Jun-Feb


0-1.0 Jun-Nov


+ 1-0 Jun-Jan

0-1.0 Jun-Nov

+2-1.0 Jan-Dec

+ 1-1.0 Jan-Dec


+2-1.0 Jun-Feb




+2-1.0 Jun-Dec




0-1.0 Jun-Feb


A-16







Table A-I. Continued.


LANDSCAPE ASSOCIATION COMPONENT
Ecological Type Erosion
Factor
Soil Series (Hydrol. Group) USDA Soil Type Permeability (tons/acre/ High Water Table
Depth from surface (in) (in/hr) unit rainfall) depth (ft) months


Malabar (D) Fine sand
0-18
18-30
30-42
42-58
58-80
Pineda (D) Fine sand
0-37
37-80
Wabasso (D) Sand
0-18
18-21
21-70
70-80

Cabbage palm flatwoods
Pinellas (D) Fine sand
0-18
18-34
34-46
46-80


0-1.0 Jun-Nov


6.0-20
6.0-20
6.0-20
<0.2
2.0-20

6.0-20
<0.2

6.0-20
0.6-2.0
<0.2
6.0-20


0-1.0 Jun-Nov


0-1.0 Jun-Oct


0-1.0 Jun-Nov


6.0-20
6.0-20
0.6-2.0
6.0-20


MESIC HAMMOCK/HYDRIC HAMMOCK/HARDWOOD SWAMP (see also Swamp hardwoods, above)


Wetland Hardwood Hammocks
Felda (occasionally flooded) (D) Sand
0-22
22-42
42-80
Holopaw (D) Fine sand
0-50
50-80
Pompano (D) Fine sand
Wabasso (D) Sand
0-18
18-21
21-70
70-80


6.0-20
0.6-6.0
6.0-20

6.0-20
0.6-2.0
6.0-20

6.0-20
0.6-2.0
<0.2
6.0-20


0-1.0 Jul-Mar



0-1.0 Jun-Feb

0-1.0 Jun-Nov

0-1.0 Jun-Oct


A-17








Table A-I. Continued.


LANDSCAPE ASSOCIATION COMPONENT
Ecological Type Erosion
Factor
Soil Series (HydroL Group) USDA Soil Type Permeability (tons/acre/ High Water Table
Depth from surface (in) (in/hr) unit rainfall) depth (ft) months


Oak hammock
Adamsville (C) Sand
0-4
4-80
Tavares (A) Fine sand
0-6
6-80


6.0-20
6.0-20

>6.0
>6.0


>20

>20
>20

>20
2.0-6.0
6.0-20
>20


2.0-3.5 Jun-Nov


3.5-6.0 Jun-Dec


SANDHILL


Sand Pine Scrub
Archbold (A) Fine sand
Astatula (A) Fine sand
0-3
3-80
Pomello (C) Fine sand
0-40 in.
40-55 in.
55-80 in.
St. Lucie (A) Fine sand


3.5-6.0 Jun-Nov

>6.0


2.0-3.5 Jul-Nov


>6.0


Longleaf pine/turkey oak hills
Apopka (A) Fine sand
0-65
65-80
Astatula (A) Fine sand
0-3
3-80
Candler (A) Sand
3-5
5-74
74-80
Lake (A) Fine sand
Orlando (A) Fine sand
0-19
19-80
Tavares (A) Fine sand
0-6
6-80


6.0-20
0.6-2.0

>20
>20

6.0-20
6.0-20
6.0-20
>6.0

6.0-20
6.0-20


>6.0 .10
>6.0 .10


>6.0


>6.0


>6.0


>6.0

4.0-6.0 Jun-Dec


3.5-6.0 Jun-Dec


A-18







Table A-I. Continued.


LANDSCAPE ASSOCIATION COMPONENT
Ecological Type Erosion
Factor
Soil Series (Hydrol. Group) USDA Soil Type Permeability (tons/acre/ High Water Table
Depth from surface (in) (in/hr) unit rainfall) depth (ft) months


SALT MARSH
Tumbull (D) Muck
14-0
0-36
36-80
Turnbull variant (C) Sand
0-50
50-55
55-60

COASTAL HAMMOCK

Astatula (A) Fine sand
0-3
3-80
Canaveral (C) Sand
0-9
9-80
Daytona (B) Sand
0-36
36-47
47-80
Palm Beach (A) Sand
0-80
Paola (A) Fine sand
0-30
30-80


6.0-20
<0.06
6.0-20

6.0-20
0.6-2.0
0.06-0.2


>20
>20

>20
>20

>20
2.0-6.0
>20

>20

>20
>20


Soil Conservation Service. 1980. Soil survey of Volusia County, Florida.
Conservation Service.


+2-1.0
Tidally flooded
year-round

1.0-3.0
Tidally flooded
year-round


>6.0


1.0-3.0 Jun-Nov


3.5-5.0 Jul-Nov



>6.0

>6.0


U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil


Soil Conservation Service. 1987. Interim report: Seminole County Florida Soil Survey maps and interpretations. U.S.
Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service.

Soil Conservation Service. 1987. Interim report: Orange County Florida Soil Survey maps and interpretations. U.S.
Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service.

Soil Conservation Service. 1987. 26 Ecological Communities of Florida (revised). Florida Chpater, Soil and Water
Conservation Society of America, Gainesville, Florida. Four landscape associations, which share some of the same
soil series as mapped by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service.


A-19



















APPENDIX B:



Wetlands Buffer Determination for Water Quantity Conservation



Wendy D. Graham
Assistant Professor
Department of Agricultural Engineering
University of Florida









Appendix B: Wetlands Buffer Determination for Water Quantity Conservation


The depth to the groundwater table immediately upland of the wetland line is an important indicator of
groundwater interaction with nearby wetlands. When the water table is near the ground surface in the upland
region and slopes toward the wetland, the wetland area is fed by discharging groundwaters. Excavations such as
drainage canals in these uplands may intercept groundwater flows and have the potential to decrease the quantity
of groundwater reaching the downslope wetland (Wang and Overman, 1981). If the wetland is perched above
the main zone of saturation, it can serve to recharge the aquifer. Drainage canals in the uplands surrounding
these wetlands may cause the wetland to drain in the direction of the excavation. Where either of these
conditions is present, a buffer zone may be warranted to ensure that proposed drainage canals do not
significantly diminish the quantity of water entering the wetland.
Figure 1 illustrates the impact of a drainage canal on the surficial aquifer near a wetland. The
construction of drainage canals lowers the water table throughout the wetland/upland region, thereby diverting
recharge waters away from the wetland. The magnitude of the dewatering impact is related to the drawdown in
the drainage canal, the distance between the canal and the wetland, the average hydraulic conductivity of the
surficial aquifer, the average depth of the surficial aquifer, and the prior water table geometry. The steady-state
drawdown effects of a proposed drainage canal can be estimated analytically if the surficial aquifer is modeled as
a homogeneous one-dimensional system. The ordinary differential equation governing this simplified system can
be written (Bear, 1972):
a- Kh = (1.1)

h = h, at x = 0 (1.2)

h = h, at x = L, (1.3)

where

K = average saturated hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer,

h = hydraulic head (height of the water table above the impervious bottom layer),

h. = height of the water table at the center of the wetland (x = 0),

ht = height of the water table at the proposed canal location before development (x = L),

L = distance between the center of the wetland system and the center of the canal, and

x = horizontal distance measured from the center of the wetland system











Center of
Drainage Canal


Water Table


impervious Layer


XILC


Figure B-1. The impact of a drainage canal on the surficial aquifer near a wetland.


x:L
xd-










The solution to equation (1.1) gives the water table height at any distance (x) from the center of the
wetland system [hl(x)]. The solution also gives the subsurface recharge to (or discharge from) the wetland (Q).
Solution techniques for this type of equation may be found in any elementary ordinary differential equations
textbook (e.g., Ross, 1974). The solution to equation 1 may be written:

[h,(x)] = x + h,2 (2.1)

K h, 2- h02
Qb 2 (2.2)

where the subscript "b" indicates the condition before development
After canal development the boundary conditions on the governing system of equations change to the
following:

ax Kh = 0 (3.1)


h = h, at x = 0 (3.2)

h = hL s, at x = L, (3.3)

where

sU = water table drawdown at the drainage canal.

The water table height (ht and subsurface recharge after canal development (Q,) can be expressed:

(hL sL)2 h,
[h,(x)]2 = x + ,2 (4.1)
L,

K (U_ S.)2-2 h2
K =- (4.2)
2 L.


where the subscript "a" indicates the condition after development.
The drawdown between the canal and the wetland due to development can thus be written:
s(x) = hb(x) h,(x)
hL- ho 2 X h2 (h. s) h 2x + h,2 (5)
-xh L+









The percent flow lost from the wetland may also be calculated:

% Q = 1 Q'* 100 = 1 _(h 100 (6)
I. 100 (6)
Qb h h2
Use of equations 1 through 6 implies the following assumptions:
1. The system can be described as a homogeneous steady-state phreatic aquifer.
2. The Dupuit approximation applies. This assumes that the slope of the phreatic surface
is small and therefore the groundwater flow is approximately horizontal.
3. A continuous horizontal impervious layer exists beneath the wetland/upland system.
4. The wetland and drainage canal are parallel and of infinite extent.
5. There is no significant recharge to the aquifer between the drainage canal and the
wetland system.
6. The height of the water table at the center of the wetland remains constant after
development (i.e., drainage water is diverted back to the head of the wetland).

Given these assumptions, equations 5 and 6 may be used to estimate the drawdown at the wetland
boundary and the flow lost from the wetland due to a proposed canal located at a known distance (x = L).
However, since these equations depend on the prior head elevation at the proposed canal location [hL(L.)], a
simple expression cannot be written to calculate directly the required buffer distance (L) which achieves the
desired wetlands boundary drawdown s(L,). Therefore, to determine an appropriate buffer distance, the
drawdown at the wetland boundary must be calculated for a series of proposed buffer distances. Then a graph
can be constructed of drawdown versus buffer distance, and the buffer distance that achieves the desired
drawdown can be selected. Example 1 illustrates this procedure.

Example 1. Assume that the following hydrogeologic conditions exist:

Height of water table above impermeable layer at wetland center (h,) 10.0 ft
Distance from wetland center to wetland boundary (L,) 50.0 ft
Prior head elevation at the wetland boundary ((L.)) 10.4 ft
Proposed drawdown at drainage canal [s,,)(L)] 3.0 ft
Average saturated hydraulic conductivity (K) 1.0 ft/day

Further assume that the prior head elevation above the impermeable layer has been measured at the following
proposed canal locations:

x hk(x)
200 ft 11.5 ft
400 ft 12.8 ft
600 ft 13.9 ft
800 ft 15.0 ft
1000 ft 16.0 ft









For a design drawdown at the drainage canal (SU) of 3 ft, the resulting drawdown at the wetland boundary and
the percent flow loss from the wetland for this series of proposed canal locations are:

L, hb(L,) h,(L,) s(L,) Qb Q.. %Qo
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft'/dav) (ft2/day)

200 10.4 9.65 0.75 -0.08 0.07 187.5
400 10.4 9.98 0.42 -0.08 0.005 106.3
600 10.4 10.08 0.32 -0.08 0.016 80.0
800 10.4 10.14 0.25 -0.08 -0.028 65.0
1000 10.4 10.17 0.23 -0.08 -0.035 56.3

*Negative flows indicate flow toward the wetland from the upland. Positive flows indicate flow away from the
wetland toward the upland.

Figure 2 shows a graph of drawdown at the wetlands boundary versus buffer distance for the sample
problem. This curve indicates that a buffer distance of approximately 350 feet is required to limit the drawdown
at the wetlands boundary to .5 feet. Figure 3 shows the percent flow lost from the wetland versus buffer
distance for the sample problem. This graph indicates that canals located within approximately 400 feet of the
wetland center will induce flows from the wetland to the canal. Canals located farther than 400 feet from the
wetland will reduce recharge to the wetland but will not reverse the natural flow direction.
Tradeoff curves like those shown in Figures 2 and 3 could provide planners with information on the
relative benefits of alternative buffer distances and, therefore, should be a valuable aid in the process of
determining buffer widths. To determine buffer width guidelines for a particular wetlands landscape
classification, a series of such curves could be constructed using data that typify each system. When calculating
the buffer distance needed for a specific site, however, it is highly recommended that wetland boundaries,
hydraulic conductivity, water table elevation, and depth to impermeable layer be measured at the site.
Obviously, a real-world wetland system will not be perfectly described by the assumptions listed above.
The steady-state assumption implies that the transient (or seasonal) drawdown effects of ditching are not as great
a concern as the magnitude of the maximum drawdown. Therefore, average high water table conditions should
be used in the analysis to ensure minimal wet-season effects. An approximate continuous impervious layer
should exist between the wetland/upland system for this method to be applicable. The assumption that the
wetland and the upland are hydrologically connected in this relatively simple manner considerably reduces the
model's complexity and the data input requirements.
The assumption that the drainage canal and the wetland are parallel and of infinite extent is necessary to
maintain the one-dimensional nature of the model. In essence, this assumption presumes that the water table
equipotentials parallel the wetland boundary and that all drawdown effects are produced by activities directly up-
gradient of the wetland edge. Perhaps the most limiting assumption of the analysis is that the height of the water
table at the center of the wetland remains constant after development. For this to hold, the total quantity of
water entering the wetland must remain relatively constant If the wetland is fed primarily by upland
groundwater, the drainage water collected from upland canals must be diverted back to the head of the wetland
for this assumption to hold. If the water table at the center of the wetland is lowered after development, this
model will underpredict the drainage effect.













0.8-

0.7-

0.6-

05-

0.4-

03-

<-n


S0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
distance (ft)

Figure 2: Drawdown at Welands Boundary versus Buffer Distance







200-





O
S100






0- I

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

distance (ft)


Figure 3: Percent Flow Loss versus Buffer Distance











The extent to which these assumptions are satisfied indicates the reliability of predictions based on such
a simplified model. If field conditions indicate that many of the above assumptions are not applicable to a
particular wetland, a more detailed multi-dimensional numerical groundwater flow model may be required to
predict accurately the drawdown effects of ditching.

LITERATURE CITED


Bear, J. 1972. Dynamics of fluids in porous media. American Elsevier Publishing Co., New York.

Ross, S. L. 1974. Differential equations. Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.

Wang, F. C., and A. R. Overman. 1981. Impacts of surface drainage on groundwater hydraulics. Water
Resources Bulletin 17(6).


















APPENDIX C:


Semi-aquatic and wetland-dependent wildlife species that occur in East Central Florida
organized by taxonomic classes.

Reference lists of the main sources used to determine species' requirements
follow each table.









Table C-1. Semi-aquatic and wetland dependent wildlife species of East Central Florida:
AMPHIBIANS


Species Scientific Name References


Toad Family
A 1. Oak toad
A 2. Southern toad

Treefrog Family
A 3. Southern cricket frog

A 4. Green treefrog

A 5. Spring peeper
A 6. Pinewoods treefrog
A 7. Barking treefrog
A 8. Squirrel treefrog
A 9. Little grass frog
A10. Ornate chorus frog

Narrowmouth Toad Family
All. Eastern narrowmouth toad

Spadefoot Toad Family
A12. Eastern spadefoot toad


True Frogs
A13. Gopher frog+
A14. Bullfrog
A15. Pig frog

A16. River frog
A17. Southern leopard frog

Lungless Salamander Family
A18. Southern dusky salamander
A19. Dwarf salamander

Newt Family
A20. Striped newt


(Bufo quercicus)
(Bufo terrestris)


(Acris rvllus)

(Hyla cineria)

(Hyla crucifer)
(Hyla femoralis)
(Hyla gratiosa)
(Hyla squirella)
(Limnaoedus ocularis)
(Pseudacris ornata)


(Gastrophryne carolinensis)


(Saphiopus holbrookii holbrookii)



(Rana areolata)
(Rana catesbeiana)
(Rana grvlio)

(Rana heckscheri)
(Rana utricularia)


(Desmognathus auriculatus)
(Euryce quadridigitata)


(Notophthalmus perstriatus)


Wright, 1949
Wright, 1949


Burt, 1938; Wright, 1949;
Mecham, 1964
Burt, 1938; Garton and
Brandon, 1975
Delzell, 1958
Martof et al., 1980
Martof et al., 1980
Goin and Goin, 1957
Ashton and Ashton, 1988
Martof et al., 1980


Ashton and Ashton, 1988


Green and Pauley, 1987;
Moler, 1988


Wright, 1949
Bury and Wheland, 1984
Burt, 1938; Martof et al.,
1980; Lamb, 1986
Martof et al., 1980
McCoy, 1978


Mohr, 1935
Martof et al., 1980


Carr and Goin, 1955


+ Endangered, threatened, or special concern species









References for Table C-l: Amphibians


Ashton, R.E., and P.S. Ashton. 1988. The Amphibians. Miami: Windward Publ., Inc. 191 pp.

Burt, C.E. 1938. The Frogs and Toads of the Southeastern United States. Transactions of Kansas Academy of
Sciences. Vol. 41.

Bury, R.B., and J.A. Whelan. 1984. Ecology and Management of the Bullfrog. Resource Publication 155.
Washington, D.C.: Fish and Wildlife Service.

Carr, A., and C.J. Goin. 1955. Guide to Reptiles, Amphibians, and Freshwater Fishes of Florida. Gainesville:
University of Florida Press.

Delzell, D.E. 1958. Spatial Movement and Growth of Hyla Crucifer. Dist. Abst XIX(6):1478-1479.

Garton, J.S., and R.A. Brandon. 1975. Reproductive Ecology of the Green Treefrog, Hyla cinera, in Southern
Illinois. Herpetologica 31:150-161.

Goin, C., and 0. Goin. 1957. Remarks on the Behavior of the Squirrel Treefrog (Hyla squirrella).

Green, N. B., and T.K. Pauley. 1987. Amphibians and Reptiles in West Virginia. Pittsburgh: University of
Pittsburgh Press.

Hayes, M.P., and P.N. Lahanes. 1988. Supplement May 12-14, 1988. Florida Academy Sci. 51. C o r a
Gables: University of Miami.

Lamb, T. 1986. The Influence of Sex and Breeding Conditions on Microhabitat Selection and Diet in the Pig Frog
(Rana rlio). Aiken, S.C.: Savannah River Ecology Laboratory.

Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Carolinas and
Virginia. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

McCoy, CJ., ed. 1978. Amphibians and Reptiles. Pittsburgh: Carnegie Museum of Natural History.

Mecham, J.S. 1964. Ecological and Genetic Relationships of the Two Cricket Frogs, Genus Acris, in Alabama.
Herpetologica 20:84-91.

Mohr, C.E. 1935. Salamanders. Journal of the American Museum of Natural History 36(2). 2.

Moler, P. 1988. Personal communication. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Gainesville, FL.

Wright, A.H., and A.A. Wright. 1949. Handbook of Frogs and Toads of the U.S. and Canada. Ithica: Comstock
Publishing Associates, Cornell University Press.









Table C-2. Semi-aquatic and wetland dependent wildlife species of East Central Florida: REPTILES


Species Scientific Name References


Alligator Family
R 1. American alligator+


Snapping Turtle Family
R 2. Common snapping turtle




Box and Water Turtle Family
R 3. Chicken turtle
R 4. Diamondback terrapine
R 5. Florida cooter
R 6. Florida redbelly turtle
R 7. Florida box turtle
R 8. Slider turtle



Mud and Musk Turtle Family
R 9. Striped mud turtle

R10. Florida mud turtle
R11. Stinkpot turtle

Softshell Turtle Family
R12. Florida softshell turtle


(Alligator mississipiensis)



(Chelydra serpentina)





(Deirochelys reticularia)
(Malaclemys terrapine)
(Pseudemys floridana)
(Pseudemys nelsoni)
(Terrapene carolina bauri)
(Trachemys script




(Kinosternon baurii)

(Kinosternon subrubrum steindachneri)
(Sternotherus ordoratus)


(Apalone ferox)


Joanen and McNease,
1970, 1972; Metzen, 1977


Loncke and Obbard, 1977;
Obbard and Brooks, 1980,
1981; Graves and
Anderson, 1987


Ernst and Barbour, 1972
Ashton and Ashton, 1985
Martof et al., 1980
Martof et al., 1980
Ashton and Ashton, 1985
Cagle, 1950; Moll and
Legler, 1971; Morreale
and Gibbons, 1986


Ernst and Barbour, 1972;
Ernst et al., 1972
Ernst and Barbour, 1972
Ernst and Barbour, 1972


Ernst and Barbour, 1972


Iguanidae Family
R13. Green anole


(Anolis carolinensis)


Skink Family
R14. Broadhead skink

Colubrid Family
R15. Florida scarlet snake
R16. Southern black racer
R17. Southern ringneck snake
R18. Yellow rat snake
R19. Eastern Indigo snake+

R20. Eastern mud snake

R21. Rainbow snake


(Eumeces laticeps)


(Cemophora coccinea coccinea)
(Coluber constrictor priapus)
(Diadophis punctatus punctatus)
(Elaphe obsoleta quadrivittata)
(Drymarchon corais couperi)

(Farancia abacura abacura)

(Farancia crytrogramma)


Ashton and Ashton, 1985


Palmer, 1970
Ashton and Ashton, 1985
Ashton and Ashton, 1985
Ashton and Ashton, 1985
Allen and Neill, 1952;
Lawler, 1976; Moler, 1985
Mount, 1975; Trutnau,
1979
Mount, 1975; Martof et
al., 1980


Burt, 1939










Table C-2. Continued.


Species Scientific Name References



R22. Eastern hognose snake (Heterodon platyrhinos) Platt, 1969; Moler, 1988
R23. Eastern kingsnake (Lampropeltis Retulus getulus) Ashton and Ashton, 1985
R24. Scarlet kingsnake (Lampropeltis triangulum elapsoides) Macartney et al., 1988

R25. Atlantic salt marsh snake+ (Nerodia fasciata taeniata) Ashton and Ashton, 1985
R26. Green water snake (Nerodia cyclopion) Trutnau, 1979; Macartney
et al., 1988
R27. Florida banded water snake (Nerodia fasciata pictiventris) Trutnau, 1979
R28. Brown water snake (Nerodia taxispilota) Trutnau, 1979
R29. Rough green snake (Opheodrys aestivus) Macartney et al., 1988
R30. Striped crayfish snake (Regin alleni) Godley, 1980
R31. Glossy crayfish snake (Regina riida) Ashton and Ashton, 1985
R32. North Florida swamp snake (Seminatrix ygaea pygaea) Dowling, 1950
R33. Florida brown snake+ (Storeria dekayi victa) Macartney et al., 1988
R34. Redbelly snake (Storeria occipitomaculata) Ashton and Ashton, 1985
R35. Peninsula ribbon snake (Thamnophis sauritus sackenii) Macartney et al., 1988
R36. Eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis) Macartney et al., 1988

Viper Family
R37. Cottonmouth (Akistrodon piscivorus) Allen and Neill, 1950;
Mount, 1975; Macartney et
al., 1988
R38. Timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus) Ashton and Ashton, 1985
R39. Dusky pigmy rattlesnake (Sistrurus miliarius barbouri) Ashton and Ashton, 1985


+ Endangered, threatened, or special concern species











References for Table C-2: Reptiles


Allen, R., and W.T. Neill. 1950. Know Your Reptiles; The Cottonmouth Moccasin.

Allen, R., and W.T. Neill. 1952. The Indigo Snake.

Ashton, R.E., and P.S. Ashton. 1981. The Snakes. Miami: Windward Publishing, Inc. 176 pp.

Ashton, R.E., and P.S. Ashton. 1985. Lizards, Turtles & Crocodilians. Miami: Windward Publishing, Inc. 191
pp.

Burt, C. 1939. The Lizards of the Southeastern United States. Trans. Kans. Acad. Sci. 40:349-366.

Cagle, F.R. 1950. The Life History of the Slider Turtle (Pseudemys script troosti Holbrook). Ecological
Monographs 20:32-54.

Dowling, H.G. 1950. Studies of the Black Swamp Snake (Seminatrix pygaea Cope) with Descriptions of Two New
Subspecies. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Ernst, C., R.B. Barbour, and J. Butler. 1972. Habitat Preferences of Two Florida Turtles, Genus Kinosternon.
Transactions of Kansas Academy of Sciences. Vol. 33.

Ernst, C., and R. Barbour. 1972. Turtles of the United States. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.

Godley, J.S. 1980. Foraging Ecology of the Striped Swamp Snake (Reina aleni) in Southern Florida. Ecological
Monographs 50:411-436.

Graves, B.M., and S.H. Anderson. 1987. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Snapping Turtle. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service Biological Report 82(10.141).

Joanen, T., and L. McNease. 1970. A Telemetric Study of Nesting Female Alligators on Rockefeller Refuge, LA.
24th Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of Game and Fish Commissioners.

Joanen, T., and L. McNease. 1972. A Telemetric Study of Adult Male Alligators on Rockefeller Refuge, LA. 26th
Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of Game and Fish Commissioners.

Lawler, H.E. 1976. Why Protect the Indigo Snake?

Loncke, DJ., and M.E. Obbard. 1977. Tag Successes, Dimensions, Clutch Size, and Nesting Site Fidelity for the
Snapping Turtle (Chelydra serpentina) (Reptila, Testudines, Chelydridae) in Algonquin Park, Ontario,
Canada. Herpetologica. 11(2):243-244.

Macartney, J.M., P.T. Gregory, and K.W. Larsen. 1988. A Tabular Survey of Data on Movements and Home
Ranges of Snakes. J. Herpet. 22:61-73.

Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Carolinas and
Virginia. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.









References for Table C-2: Reptiles Continued.


Metzen, W.D. 1977. Nesting Ecology of Alligators on the Okefenokee Wildlife Refuge. 31st Annual Conference
of the Southwestern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.

Michot, T.C. 1981. Thermal and Spatial Ecology of Three Species of Water Snakes (Nerodia) in a Louisiana
Swamp. Dist Abst Int. B. 42:4292.

Moler, P. 1985. Indigo Snake Habitat Determination. Study No. E-1-06. Gainesville: Game and Fish Commission.

Moler, P. 1988. Personal communication. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Gainesville, FL.

Moll, E.O., and J.M. Legler. 1971. The Life History of a Neotropical Slider Turtle (Pseudemys script, Schoepff),
in Panama. Bulletin Los Angeles County Museum of Nat. Hist. Sci. 11:1-102.

Morreale, SJ., and J.W. Gibbons. 1986. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Slider Turtle. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service Biological Report 82(10.125).

Mount, R.H. 1975. The Reptiles and Amphibians of Alabama. Auburn: Auburn Printing Company.

Obbard, M.E., and RJ. Brooks. 1980. Nesting Migrations of the Snapping Turtle (Chelydra serpentina).
Herpetologica 36:158-162.

Obbard, M.E., and RJ. Brooks. 1981. A Radio-Telemetry and Mark-Capture study of Activity in the Common
Snapping Turtle, Chelydra serpentins. Copeia 1981:630-637.

Palmer, W.M. 1970. Notes on the Natural History of the Scarlet Snake, Cemophora coccinea copei Jan, in North
Carolina. Herpetologica 26:300-302.

Platt, D. 1969. Natural History of the Hognose Snakes Heterodon platyrhinos and Heterodon nasicus. Univ. Kansas
Publ. Mus. Nat. Hist. 18:235-420.

Trutnau, L. 1979. Nonvenomous Snakes. Woodbury: Barron's Educational Series, Inc.

Wharton, C.H. 1969. The Cottonmouth Moccasin on Sea Horse Key, FL. Bulletin of the Florida State Museum,
Biological Sciences 14(3).











Table C-3. Semi-aquatic and wetland dependent wildlife species of East Central Florida: BIRDS


Species Scientific Name References


Grebe Family
B 1. Pied-billed grebe*

Pelican Family
B 2. Brown pelican*+

Cormorant Family
B 3. Double-crested cormorant


Anhinga Family
B 4. Anhinga*


Waterfowl Family
B 5. Wood duck*
B 6. American widgeon


B 7. Northern shoveler
B 8. Green-winged teal
B 9. Blue-winged teal*
B10. Mottled duck*
B1l. Mallard*
B12. Ring-necked duck
B13. Hooded merganser*


Kite, Hawk and Eagle Family
B14. Short-tailed hawk*
B15. Red-shouldered hawk*

B16. Northern harrier*
B17. Swallow-tailed kite*
B18. Bald eagle*+



B19. Snail kite*+


(Podilymbus podiceps)


(Pelecanus occidentalis)


(Phalacrocorax auritus)



(Anhinga anhinga)



(Aix sponsa)
(Anas americana)


(Anas clypeata)
(Anas carolinensis)
(Anas discors)
(Anas fulvigula)
(Anas platyrhynchos)
(Anthya collaris)
(Lophodytes cucullatus)



(Buteo brachyurus)
(Buteo lineatus)

(Circus cyancus)
(Elanoides forficatus)
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus)



(Rostrhamus sociabilis)


Pough, 1951


Harrison, 1975


Siegel-Causey and Hunt,
Jr., 1986


Allen, 1961; Hamel et al.,
1982


Johnsgard, 1975
Girard, 1941; Keith, 1961;
Johnsgard, 1975; Potter et
al., 1980
Palmer, 1976
Palmer, 1976
Bennett, 1938
Johnsgard, 1975
Mulhern et al., 1985
Mendall, 1958
Hamel et al., 1982



Hamel et al., 1982
Portnoy and Dodge, 1979;
Hamel et al., 1982
Hamel et al., 1982
Hamel et al., 1982
U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 1984; Jaffee,
1980; Anthony and Isascs,
1981; Peterson, 1986
Hamel et al., 1982


Osprey Family
B20. Osprey*


(Pandion haliaetus)


Austin-Smith
Rhodenizc, 1983


and










Table C-3. Continued.


Species Scientific Name References


Falcon Family
B21. Peregrine falcon+

Turkey Family
B22. Wild turkey*

Heron and Bittern Family
B23. Great blue heron*

B24. American bittern*
B25. Cattle egret*
B26. Green-backed heron*

B27. Great egret*

B28. Little blue heron*+

B29. Snowy egret*+


B30. Tricolored heron*+


B31. Least bittern*


B32. Black-crowned night heron*
B33. Yellow-crowned night
heron*


Wood Ibis Family
B34. Wood stork*+


Ibis and Spoonbill Family
B35. White ibis*


Crane Family
B36. Sandhill crane*+

Limpkin Family
B37. Limpkin*+


(Falco pererinus)


(Meleagris gallopavo)


(Ardea herodias)

(Botaurus lentiginosus)
(Bubulcus ibis)
(Butorides striatus)

(Casmerodius albus)

(Eretta caerulea)

(Egretta thula)


(Egrtta tricolor


(Ixobrychus exilis)


(Nycticorax nycticorax)
(Nycticorax violacea)


(Mycteria americana)


(Eudocimus albus)



(Grus canadensis)


(Aramus guarauna)


Bent, 1961; Kale, 1978


Hamel et al., 1982


Hancock and Kushlan,
1984
Hamel et al., 1982
Maxwell and Kale, 1977
Hancock and Kushlan,
1984
Graber et al., 1978; AOU
Checklist, 1983
Hancock and Kushlan,
1984
Maxwell and Kale, 1977,
Hancock and Kushlan,
1984

Maxwell and Kale, 1977;
Hancock and Kushlan,
1984 "
Hamel et al., 1982


Beaver, 1980
Palmer, 1976


Kale, 1978


Kushlan, 1976; Hamel et
al., 1982


Ambruster, 1987


Hamel et al., 1982










Table C-3. Continued.


Species Scientific Name References


Rail, Gallinule, and Coot Family
B38. American coot*
B39. Common moorhen*
B40. Black rail*
B41. Purple gallinule*
B42. Clapper rail*
B43. King rail*

Oystercatcher Family
B44. American oystercatcher*+

Stilt Family
B45. Black-necked stilt*

Plover Family
B46. Killdeer*
B47. Wilson's plover*

Sandpiper Family
B48. Spotted sandpiper
B49. Sanderling
B50. Western sandpiper
B51. Least sandpiper
B52. Willet*
B53. Dunlin
B54. Short-billed dowitcher
B55. Long-billed dowitcher
B56. Lesser yellowlegs
B57. Greater yellowlegs

Woodcock and Snipe Family
B58. Common snipe
B59. American woodcock

Gull and Tern Family
B60. Laughing gull*
B61. Ring-billed gull
B62. Least tern*+
B63. Fosters tern
B64. Gull-billed tern

B65. Royal tern*


(Fulica americana)
(Gallinula chloropus)
(Laterallus jamaicensis)
(Porphrula martinica)
(Rallus longirostris)
(Rallus elegans)


(Haematopus palliatus)


(Himantopus mexicanus)


(Charadrius vociferus)
(Charadrius wilsonia)


(Actitis macularia)
(Calidris alba)
(Calidris mauri)
(Calidris minutilla)
(Catoptrophorus semipalmatus)
(Erolia alpina)
(Limnodromus griseus)
(Limnodromus scolopaceus)
(Tringa flavipes)
(Tringa melanoleuca)


(Gallinago gallinago)
(Scolopax minor)


(Larus atricilla)
(Larus delawarensis)
(Sterna antillarum)
(Sterna forsteri)
(Sterna nilotica)

(Thalasseus maximus)


Hamel et al., 1982
Hamel et al., 1982
Hamel et al., 1982
Meanley, 1963
Lewis and Garrison, 1983
Meanley and Wetherbee,
1962

Levings et al., 1986


Potter et al., 1980


Harrison, 1975
Harrison, 1975


Potter et al., 1980
Hall, 1960; Parmelee, 1970
Potter et al., 1980
Potter et al., 1980
Ryan and Renken, 1987
Potter et al., 1980
Hall, 1960
Potter et al., 1980
Hall, 1960; McElroy, 1974
Hall, 1960; McElroy, 1974


Potter et al., 1980
Sheldon, 1967


Burger and Shisler, 1980
Collins, 1959
McElroy, 1974
Collins, 1959
Collins, 1959; Potter et al.,
1980
Buckley and Buckley,
1977










Table C-3. Continued.


Species Scientific Name References


Skimmer Family
B66. Black skimmer*

Cuckoo Family
B67. Yellow-billed cuckoo*


Owl Family
B68. Barred owl*


Hummingbird Family
B69. Ruby-throated
hummingbird*

Kingfisher Family
B70. Belted kingfisher*


Woodpecker Family
B71. Ivory-billed woodpecker+

B72. Pileated woodpecker*
B73. Downy woodpecker*


Flycatcher Family
B74. Eastern wood pewee*
B75. Acadian flycatcher*

Swallow Family
B76. Tree swallow


(Rynchops niger


(Coccyzus americanus)


(Strix varia)


(Archilochus colubris)



(Ceryle alcyon)



(Campephilus principals)

(Drvocopus pileatus)
(Picoides pubescens)



(Contopus virens)
(Empidonax virescens)


(Tachycineta bicolor


McElroy, 1974


Smith unpub.


Smith unpub.


Harrison, 1975



Cornwell, 1963; Potter et
al., 1980


Tanner, 1942; Potter et al.,
1980
Hamel et al., 1982
Schroeder, 1982a



Harrison, 1975
Smith unpub.


McElroy, 1974


Crow Family
B77. Fish crow* (Corvus ossifragus)


Hamel et al., 1982


Wren Family
B78. Marsh wren*

B79. Sedge wren


Thrush Family
B80. Wood thrush


(Cistothorus palustris

(Cistothorus platensis)



(Hylocichla mustelina)


Bent, 1948; Gutzwiller and
Anderson, 1987
Hamel et al., 1982



Brackbill, 1943; Hamel et
al., 1982


C-10










Table C-3. Continued.


Species Scientific Name References



Pipit Family
B81. Water pipit (Anhus spinoleta) Hamel et al., 1982

Wood Warbler Family
B82. Yellow-throated warbler* (Dendroica dominica) Hamel et al., 1982
B83. Pine warbler* (Dendroica pinus) Robbins, 1979; Schroeder,
1982b
B84. Common yellow throat* (Geothlypis richas) Stewart, 1953
B85. Swainson's warbler (Limnothlypis swainsonii) Hamel et al., 1982
B86. Northern parula* (Parula americana) Tassone, 1981
B87. Prothonotary warbler* (Protonotaria citrea) Smith unpub
B88. Louisiana waterthrush (Sciurus motacilla) Tassone, 1981
B89. Northern waterthrush (Sciurus noveboracensis) Hamel et al., 1982
B90. Hooded warbler* (Wilsonia citrina) Smith unpub.

Blackbird Family
B91. Red-winged blackbird* (Agelaius phoeniceus) Case and Hewitt, 1963;
Orians, 1973, 1980
B92. Rusty blackbird (Euphagus carolinus) Orians 1980

Sparrow Family
B93. LeConte's sparrow (Ammodramus leconteii) Potter et al., 1980
B94. Seaside sparrow* (Ammospiza maritima) Post, 1974; Harrison, 1975
B95. Swamp sparrow (Melospiza georgiana) Hamel et al., 1982


* Breeds in East Central Florida
+ Endangered, threatened, or special concern species


C-11











Reference for Table C-3: Birds

Allen, T.T. 1961. Notes on the Breeding Behavior of the Anhinga. Wilson Bull. 73:115-125.

Ambruster, MJ. 1987. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Greater Sandhill Crane. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. Biol.
Rep. 82(10.140). 26 pp.

American Ornithologists Union. 1983. The AOU Checklist of North American Birds. 6th edition. Lawrence,
Kansas: Allen Press, Inc.

Anthony, R.G., and F.B. Isaacs. 1981. Characteristics of Bald Eagle Nest Sites in Oregon. Report to Crown
Zellerbach Corp. and U.S. Fish and Wildl. Service, Contract No. 14-16-001-77028. 28 pp.

Austin-Smith, PJ., and G. Rhodenze. 1983. Ospreys (Pandion haliatus) Relocate Nests from Power Poles to
Substitute Sites. Can. Field Nat. 97:315-319.

Beaver, D.L. 1980. Nest Site and Colony Characteristics of Wading Birds in Selected Atlantic Coast Colonies.
Wilson Bull. 92:200-220.

Bennett, LJ. 1938. The Blue-winged Teal, Its Ecology and Management. Ames: Collegiate Press.

Bent, A.C. 1942. Life Histories of North American Flycatchers, Larks, Swallows, and Their Allies. Bulletin No.
179. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.)

Bent, A.C. 1948. Life Histories of North American Nuthatches, Wrens, Thrashers, and Their Allies. Bulletin No.
195. U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C.

Bent, A.C. 1961. Life Histories of North American Birds of Prey. Bulletin No. 170. U.S. National Museum,
Washington, D.C.

Brackbill, H. 1943. A Nesting Study of the Wood Thrush. Wilson Bull. 55:73-87.

Buckley, PA., and F.G. Buckley. 1977. Hexagonal Packing of Royal Tern Nests. Auk 94:36-43.

Burger)., and J. Shisler. 1980. Colony and Nest Site Selection in Laughing Gulls in Response to Tidal Flooding.
Condor 82:251-258.

Case, N.A., and O.H. Hewitt. 1963. Nesting and productivity of the Red-Winged Blackbird in Relation to Habitat.
The Living Bird. 2nd annual conference of the Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, pp. 7-20.

Collins, H.H. 1959. Harper and Row's Complete Guide to North American Wildlife. New York: Harper and Row.

Cornwell, G.W. 1963. Observations of the Breeding Biology and Behavior of a Nesting Population of Belted
Kingfishers. Condor 65:426-431.

Girard, G.L. 1941. The Mallard, its Management in Western Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management.

Graber, J.W., R.R. Graber, and E.L. Kirk. 1978. Illinois Birds: Ciconiiformes. Illinois Nat. Hist. Survey Biol.
Notes No. 109.


C-12










Reference for Table C-3: Birds Continued.


Gutzwiller, KJ., and S.H. Anderson. 1987. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Marsh Wren. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service Biological Report 82(10.139).

Hall, H.M. 1960. A Gathering of Shore Birds. New York: Bramhall House.

Hamel, P.B., HE. LeGrand, Jr., M.R. Lennartz, and S.A. Gauthreaux. 1982. Bird Habitat Relationships on
Southeastern Forest Lands. USDA Southeastern Forest Experiment Station General Technical Report SE-22.
Asheville: Forest Service, USDA.

Hancock, J., and J. Kushlan. 1984. The Herons Handbook. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers.

Harrison, H.H. 1975. Bird Nests. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. 257 pp.

Jaffee, N.B. 1980. Nest Site Selection and Foraging Behavior of the Bald Eagle in Virginia. MS Thesis, William
and Mary College, Williamsburg, VA. 113 pp.

Johnsgard, P.A. 1975. Waterfowl of North America. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Kale, H.W. 1978. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida: Birds. Gainesville, University Presses of Florida. 121
pp.

Keith, L.B. 1961. A Study of Waterfowl Ecology on Small Impoundments in Southeastern Alberta. Wildlife
Monographs 6:1-188.

Kushlan, J.A. 1976. Site Selection for Nesting Colonies by the American White Ibis (Eudocimus alba) in Florida.
Ibis 118:590-593.

Levings, S.C., S.D. Garrity, and L.R. Ashkenas. 1986. Feeding Rates and Prey Selection of Oystercatchers in the
Pearl Islands of Panama. Biotropica 18:62-71.

Lewis, J.C., and R.L. Garrison. 1983. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Clapper Rail. U.S. Dept. Int. Fish and
Wildl. Serv. FWS/OBS-82/10.51. 15 pp.

Maxwell, G.R., and H.W. Kale, Jr. 1977. Breeding Biology of Five Species of Herons in Coastal Florida. Auk
94:689-700.

McElroy, T.P., Jr. 1974. The Habitat Guide to Birding. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.

Meanley, B. 1963. Pre-nesting Activity of the Purple Gallinule Near Savannah, Georgia. Auk 80:545-547.

Meanley, B., and D. K. Wetherbee. 1962. Ecological Notes on Mixed Populations of King Rails and Clapper Rails
in Delaware Bay Marshes. Auk 79:453-457.

Mendall, H.L. 1958. The Ring-Necked Duck in the Northeast. Orono, Maine: University Press.

Mulhcm, J.H., T.D. Nudds, and B.R. Neal. 1985. Wetland Selection by Mallards and Blue-winged Teal. Wilson
Bull. 97:473-485.


C-13











Reference for Table C-3: Birds Continued.

Orians, G.H. 1973. The Red-Winged Blackbird in Tropical Marshes. Condor 75:28-42.

Orians, G.H. 1980. Some Adaptations of Marsh-Nesting Blackbirds. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Palmer, R.S., ed. 1976. Handbook of North American Birds. Vol 2, New Haven: Yale Univ. Press.

Parmelee, D.P. 1970. Breeding Behavior of the Sanderling in the Canadian High Arctic. The Living Bird. 9th
annual New York: Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology.

Peterson, A. 1986. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Bald Eagle (Breeding Season). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Biological Report 82(10.126).

Potter, E.F., and J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill: University of NC Press.

Portnoy, J.W., and W.E. Dodge. 1979. Red-shouldered Hawk Nesting Ecology and Behavior. Wilson Bull. 91:104-
117.

Post, W. 1974. Functional Analysis of Space-related Behavior in the Seaside Sparrow. Ecology 55:564-575.

Pough, R.H. 1951. Audubon Water Bird Guide. Garden City: Doubleday & Co., Inc,.

Robbins, C.S. 1979. Effects of Forest Fragmentation on Bird Populations. Pages 75-83 i R.M. DeGraaf, tech.
coord. Proceedings of the Workshop: Management of northcentral and northeastern forests for nongame
birds. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forestry Service General Tech. Rep. NC-51.

Ryan, M.R., and R.B. Renken. 1987. Habitat Use by Breeding Willets in the Northern Great Plains. Wilson Bull.
99:175-189.

Schroeder, RL. 1982a. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Downy Woodpecker. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-82/10.38.

Schroeder, R.L. 1982b. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Pine Warbler. U.S. Dept of the Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-82/10.28.

Sheldon, W.G. 1967. The Book of the American Woodcock. University of Mass. Press.

Siegel-Causey, D, and G.L. Hunt, Jr. 1986. Breeding Site Selection and Colony Formation in Double-crested and
Pelagic Cormorants. Auk 103:230-234.

Stewart, R.E. 1953. A Life History Study of the Yellow-throat. Wilson Bull. 65:99-115.

Tanner, J.T. 1942. The Ivory Billed Woodpecker. Research Report No. 1. New York: National Audubon Society.

Tassone, J.F. 1981. Utility of Hardwood Leave Strips for Breeding Birds in Virginia's Central Piedmont. MS
Thesis. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State College. 83 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle in the Southeast Region.


C-14










Table C-4. Semi-aquatic and wetland dependent wildlife species of East Central Florida: MAMMALS



Species Scientific Name References


Shrew Family
M 1. Southeastern shrew

Twilight Bat Family
M 2. Eastern pipistrele

Rabbit Family
M 3. Marsh rabbit

Squirrel Family
M 4. Gray squirrel




New World Mice, Rats, and Voles
M 5. Round-tailed muskrat
M 6. Marsh rice rat


Bear Family
M 7. Black bear


(Sorex longirostris)


(Myotis subflavus)


(Sylviagus palustis)


(Sciurus carolinensis)





(Neofiber alleni)
(Orvzomys palustris)


(Ursus americanus)


Layne, 1978


Southall, 1988


Collins, 1959


Flyger, 1960; Doebel,
1967; Cordes and
Barkalow, 1972; Alien,
1987


Layne, 1978
Southall, 1988


Taylor, 1971; U.S. Forest
Service, 1975; Garshelis,
1978; Landers et al., 1978;
Smith, 1985; Rogers and
Allen, 1987


Raccoon Family
M 8. Raccoon


Johnson, 1970


Weasels and Skunks
M 9. River otter


M10. Mink


Cat Family
M11. Bobcat


(Procyon lotor)


(Lutra canadensis)

(Mustela vision)


(Felis rufus)


Melquist and Hornocker,
1983; Chandler, 1988
Mitchell, 1961; Gerell,
1974; Melquist et al.,
1981; Allen, 1986


Hall and Newsom, 1976;
Miller and Speake, 1979;
Miller, 1980; Buie, 1980;
Boyle and Fendley, 1987


+ Endangered, threatened or special concern species


C-15










References for Table C-4: Mammals


Allen, A.W. 1986. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Mink, revised. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological
Report 82(10.127).

Allen, A.W. 1987. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Gray Squirrel, revised. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Biological Report 82(10.135).

Boyle, K.A., and T.T. Fendley. 1987. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Bobcat. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Biological Report 82(10.147)

Buie, D.E. 1980. Seasonal Home Range and Movement Patterns of the Bobcat on the Savannah River Plant. MS
Thesis. Clemson University, Clemson, SC.

Chandler, WJ., ed. 1988. Audubon Wildlife Report 1988/1989. New York: Academic Press, Inc.

Collins, H.H. 1959. Harper and Row's Complete Guide to North American Wildlife. New York: Harper and Row.

Cordes, C.L., and F.S. Barkalow. 1972. Home Range and Dispersal in a North Carolina Gray Squirrel Population.
Proceedings from the Annual Conference of the Association of Game and Fish Commission. 26:124-135.

Doebel, J.H. 1967. Home Range and Activity of the Gray Squirrel in a Southwest Virginia Woodlot. MS Thesis.
Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg.

Flyger, V. 1960. Movements and Home Range of the Gray Squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), in Two Maryland
Woodlots. Ecology 4:365-369.

Garshelis, D.L. 1978. Movement Ecology and Activity Behavior of Black Bears in the Great Smoky Mountains
National Park. MS Thesis. University of Tennessee, Knoxville. 117 pp.

Gerell, R. 1970. Home Ranges and Movements of the Mink (Mustela vison Schreber) in Southern Sweden. Oikos
21(2):160-173.

Hall, H.T, and J.D. Newsom. 1976. Summer Home Ranges and Movements of Bobcats in Bottomland Hardwoods
of Southern Louisiana. Proceedings of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 30:427-
436.

Interview with Peter Southall, Biologist, Game and Fish Commission. Lake City, FL, December, 1988.

Johnson, A.S. 1970. Biology of the Raccoon in Alabama. Bulletin 402, Agricultural Experiment Station Auburn
University.

Landers, J.L., RJ. Hamilton, A.S. Johnson, and R.L. Marchington. 1979. Food and Habitat of Black Bears in
Southeastern North Carolina. Journal of Wildlife Management 43(1):143-153.

Melquist, W.E., J.S. Whitman, and M.G. Homocker. 1981. Resource Partitioning and Coexistence of Sympatric
Mink and River Otter Populations. Pages 187-220 in J.A. Chapman and D. Pursley, eds., Worldwide
Furbearer Conference Proceedings, Vol 1. Frostberg, MD.


C-16










References for Table C-4: Mammals Continued.


Melquist, W.E., and M.G. Hornocker. 1983. Ecology of River Otters in West Central Idaho. Wildlife Monographs
83:1-60.

Miller, S.D. 1980. The Ecology of the Bobcat in Southern Alabama. PhD Dissertation, Auburn University, Auburn.
156 pp.

Miller, S.D., and D.W. Speake. 1979. Progress report: Demography and Home Range of the Bobcat in South
Alabama. Proceedings of the Bobcat Research Conference, Nat. Wildl. Fed. Sci. Tech. Ser. 6:123-124.

Mitchell, JL. 1961. Mink Movements and Populations on a Montana River. Journal of Wildlife Management
25(1):48-54.

Rogers, LL., and A.W. Allen. 1987. Habitat Suitability Index Model: Black Bear, Upper Great Lakes Region. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. Biological Report 82(10.144).

Smith, T.R. 1985. Ecology of Black Bears in a Bottomland Hardwood Forest in Arkansas. PhD Dissertation,
University of Tennessee, Knoxville. 209 pp.

Taylor, D.F. 1971. A Radio-Telemetry Study of the Black Bear (Ursus americanus) with Notes on its History and
Present Status in Louisiana. MS Thesis, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge.

USDA Forest Service. 1975. Endangered, Threatened, and Unique Mammals of the Southern National Forests.


C-17






















APPENDIX D:


Feeding and breeding zones (guilds) used by semi-aquatic, and
wetland-dependent wildlife species in various wetlands and habitat types adjacent to
significant wetlands in East Central Florida.










Table D-1. Wildlife species characteristic of SALT MARSHES.


GUILDS
Feeding Zone Breeding Zone Species*


Shrubs or grasses
Shrubs or grasses
Ground surface
Ground surface
Ground surface
Water surface
Water surface
Water surface
Water column
Water column
Water column
Water column
Water bottom
Water bottom


Shrubs or grasses
Breeds elsewhere
Ground surface
Tree bole
Breeds elsewhere
Ground surface
Shrubs or grasses
Breeds elsewhere
Ground surface
Shrubs or grasses
Tree canopy
Breeds elsewhere
Ground surface
Breeds elsewhere


B78, B91, B94
B21, B76, B79, B92, B93, B95
B16, B60, M6
M8
B61, B77
R1, B66
B38, B40, B42, B43
B6, B8, B9, B10
R4, R6, R25, B45, B62, B65
B2
B20, B23, B26, B27, B28, B29, B30, B32, B33
B3, B18, B63, B64
R10, B44, B46, B47, B52
B48, B49, B50, B51, B53, B54, B55, B56, B57, B58


* See Appendix C for species names. A = Amphibian, R = Reptile, B = Bird, M = Mammal










Table D-2. Wildlife species characteristic of FRESHWATER MARSHES.


GUILDS
Feeding Zone Breeding Zone Species*


Tree canopy
Tree bole
Shrubs or grasses
Shrubs or grasses
Ground surface
Ground surface
Ground surface
Ground surface
Water surface
Water surface
Water surface
Water surface
Water column


Water column
Water column
Water column
Water column
Water bottom


Tree canopy
Water surface
Shrubs or grasses
Breeds elsewhere
Water column
Water surface
Ground surface
Breeds elsewhere
Ground surface
Shrubs or grasses
Tree bole
Breeds elsewhere
Ground surface


Shrubs or grasses
Tree bole
Tree canopy
Breeds elsewhere
Ground surface


M2
A7
B78, B79, B84, B91, B93, B94
B21, B76, B95
A3
A2, A4, A15, A16, A17, A19
R16, R18, R20, R36, R39, B16, B36, M3
B15, B58, B77, M8
R1, R37, B9, B10, B11, M5
B38, B39, B41, B43
B5
B6, B7, B8, B81
A18, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R8,. R9, R12, R26, R27, R28,
R32, B45, B70, M9, M10
Bl, B4, B19, B24, B31, B38, B39
B13
B23, B26, B27, B28, B29, B32, B33, B35, B37
B12, B18, B20, B34
R10, R11, R30, B46, B47


* See Appendix C for species names. A = Amphibian, R = Reptile, B = Bird, M = Mammal









Table D-3. Wildlife species characteristic of CYPRESS SWAMPS.


GUILDS
Feeding Zone Breeding Zone Species*


Tree canopy
Tree canopy
Tree canopy
Tree bole
Tree bole
Tree bole
Shrubs or grasses
Shrubs or grasses
Shrubs or grasses
Shrubs or grasses
Ground surface
Ground surface
Ground surface
Ground surface
Ground surface
Ground surface
Ground surface
Water surface
Water surface
Water surface
Water column


Water column
Water column


Water bottom


Tree bole
Tree canopy
Breeds elsewhere
Water surface
Ground surface
Tree bole
Ground surface
Shrubs or grasses
Tree canopy
Breeds elsewhere
Water bottom
Water column
Water surface
Ground surface
Tree bole
Tree canopy
Breeds elsewhere
Ground surface
Tree bole
Breeds elsewhere
Ground surface


Shrubs or grasses
Tree canopy


Ground surface


B87
B17, B67, B74, B75, B82, B86, M2
B85
A5
R13, R29
B72, B73
R35
B84, B90
B69
B92, B95
A8
A3, A9, A10, A20
Al, A4, All, A13, A14, A16, A17, A19
R15, R17, R18, R20, R23, R36, R38, R39, Ml, M6, M7
B68, M8
B14, B15, B25, B77
B80, B88, B89
RI, R37
B5
B6, B7, B8
A18, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R8, R9, R12, R26, R27, R28,
R31, R32, M9, M10
B4
B18, B20, B23, B26, B27, B28, B29, B32, B33, B34,
B35, B37
R10, Rll, R30


* See Appendix C for species names. A = Amphibian, R = Reptile, B = Bird, M = Mammal










Table D-4. Wildlife species characteristic of HARDWOOD SWAMPS.


GUILDS
Feeding Zone Breeding Zone Species*


Tree canopy
Tree canopy
Tree canopy
Tree bole
Tree bole
Tree bole
Shrubs or grasses
Shrubs or grasses
Shrubs or grasses
Shrubs or grasses
Ground surface
Ground surface
Ground surface
Ground surface
Ground surface
Ground surface
Ground surface
Water surface
Water surface
Water surface
Water column


Water column
Water column


Water bottom


Tree bole
Tree canopy
Breeds elsewhere
Water surface
Ground surface
Tree bole
Ground surface
Shrubs or grasses
Tree canopy
Breeds elsewhere
Water bottom
Water column
Water surface
Ground surface
Tree bole
Tree canopy
Breeds elsewhere
Ground surface
Tree bole
Breeds elsewhere
Ground surface


Shrubs or grasses
Tree canopy


Ground surface


B87
B17, B67, B74, B75, B82, B86, M2
B85
A5, A6, A7
R13
B72, B73
R35
B84, B90
B69
B92, B95
A8
A3, A10
A2, All, A14, A15, A16, A17, A19
R14, R15, R18, R20, R23, R33, Ml, M7
B68, M8
B14, B15, B25, B77
B80, B88, B89
R1, R37
B5
B6, B7, B8
A18, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R8, R9, R12, R26, R27, R28,
R31, R32, M9, M10
B4
B18, B20, B23, B26, B27, B28, B29, B32, B33, B34,
B35, B37
R10, R11, R30


C for species names. A = Amphibian, R = Reptile, B = Bird, M = Mammal


* See Appendix










Table D-5. Wildlife species characteristic of HAMMOCKS.


GUILDS
Feeding Zone Breeding Zone Species*


Tree canopy
Tree canopy
Tree canopy
Tree bole
Tree bole
Tree bole
Shrubs or grasses
Shrubs or grasses
Shrubs or grasses
Ground surface
Ground surface
Ground surface
Ground surface


Ground surface
Ground surface
Ground surface
Water surface
Water surface
Water column


Water column
Water column
Water bottom


Tree bole
Tree canopy
Breeds elsewhere
Water surface
Ground surface
Tree bole
Ground surface
Shrubs or grasses
Tree canopy
Water bottom
Water column
Water surface
Ground surface


Tree bole
Tree canopy
Breeds elsewhere
Ground surface
Tree bole
Ground surface


Shrubs or grasses
Tree canopy
Ground surface


B87
B17, B67, B74, B75, B82, B86, M2, M4
B85
A5, A6
R13, R29
B71, B72, B73
R35
B84, B90
B69
A8
A3, A9, A10, A20
A2, A4, All, A14, A15, A16, A17, A19
R7, R14, R16, R17, R18, R19, R20, R21, R22, R23, R24,
R33, R34, R36, R38, B22, M1, M7, M11
B68, M8
B14, B15, B25, B77
B59, B80, B88, B89
R1, R37, B9, B10, B11
B5, B13
A18, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R8, R9, R12, R26, R27, R28,
R31, R32, B12, B70, M9, M10
B1, B4
B23, B26, B27, B28, B29, B32, B33, B34, B35, B37
R10, R11, R30


* See Appendix C for species names. A = Amphibian, R = Reptile, B = Bird, M = Mammal










Table D-6. Wildlife species characteristics of FLATWOODS.


GUILDS
Feeding Zone Breeding Zone Species*


Tree canopy
Tree canopy
Tree canopy
Tree bole
Tree bole
Tree bole
Shrubs or grasses
Shrubs or grasses
Shrubs or grasses
Shrubs or grasses
Ground surface
Ground surface
Ground surface
Ground surface


Ground surface
Ground surface
Ground surface
Water surface
Water surface
Water column


Water column
Water column


Water bottom


Tree bole
Tree canopy
Breeds elsewhere
Water surface
Ground surface
Tree bole
Ground surface
Shrubs or grasses
Tree canopy
Breeds elsewhere
Water bottom
Water column
Water surface
Ground surface


Tree bole
Tree canopy
Breeds elsewhere
Ground surface
Tree bole
Ground surface


Shrubs or grasses
Tree canopy


Ground surface


B87
B17, B67, B74, B75, B82, B83, B86, M2
B85
A6
R13, R29
B71, B72, B73
R35
B84, B90
B69
B21
A8
A3, A9, A10, A20
Al, A2, A4, All, A13, A14, A15, A16, A17, A19
R7, R14, R15, R16, R17, R18, R19, R20, R21, R22, R23,
R24, R33, R34, R36, R39, B16, B22, B36, M1, M7, M11
B68, M8
B14, B15, B25, B77
B59, B80, B88, B89
R1, R37, B9, B10, B11
B5, B13
A18, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R8, R9, R12, R26, R27, R28,
R31, R32, B12, B70, M9, M10
B1, B4
B18, B20, B23, B26, B27, B28, B29, B32, B33, B34,
B35, B37
R10, Rll, R30


* See Appendix C for species names. A = Amphibian, R = Reptile, B = Bird, M = Mammal










Table D-7. Wildlife species characteristic of SANDHILLS.


GUILDS
Feeding Zone Breeding Zone Species*


Tree canopy
Tree bole
Tree bole
Tree bole
Shrubs or grasses
Shrubs or grasses
Ground surface
Ground surface
Ground surface
Ground surface


Ground surface
Ground surface
Water surface
Water surface
Water surface
Water column


Water column
Water column


Water column
Water bottom


Tree canopy
Water surface
Ground surface
Tree bole
Ground surface
Shrubs or grasses
Water bottom
Water column
Water surface
Ground surface


Tree bole
Tree canopy
Ground surface
Tree bole
Breeds elsewhere
Ground surface


Shrubs or grasses
Tree canopy


Breeds elsewhere
Ground surface


B82, B83, B86, M2, M4
A6, A7
R13, R29
B72, B73
R35
B84
A8
A12, A20
Al, A2, A4, All, A13, A14, A15, A16
R7, R15, R16, R17, R18, R19, R20, R21, R22, R24, R33,
R34, R36, R39, B22, M7, M11
M8
B14, B25, B77
R1, R37, B9, B10, B11
B5, B13
B6, B7, B8
R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R8, R9, R12, R26, R27, R28, R31,
R32, B70, M9, M10
B1, B4
B18, B20, B23, B26, B27, B28, B29, B32, B33, B34,
B35, B37
B3, B12
R10, R 1, R30, B46


* See Appendix C for species names. A = Amphibian, R = Reptile, B = Bird, M = Mammal















APPENDIX E:

Combined feeding and breeding guild matrices for semi-aquatic and wetland-dependent
wildlife species that occur in various habitat types in East Central Florida. The number in the
center of a block signifies the number of different species in that guild (see Appendix E).
The number in the upper-right corner of a block indicates the number of listed (endangered,
threatened, special concern) species in the guild (see Appendix D).










SALT MARSHES


Trem copy 0



Tre bole 0


Shrnbs 1 1
or 3 6 9



Grod surface 3 1 2 6


1 1
Water Msrface 2 4 4 10


2 1 4 1 8
Water coloa 6 1 9 4 20


1 1
Water bottom 5 10 15


3 1 4 3 11
otl 0 0 0 16 8 1 9 26 60


Water
bottom


Water
column


Water
surface


Ground
surface


Shrubs/
grusses


Tree
canopy


Brewds
elsewhere


Totals


Breeding Zone




Figure E-1. Guild matrix with feeding and breeding zones for semi-aquatic and wctland-dcpendcnt
wildlife species that occur in salt marshes in East Central Florida. The number of species using each

feeding/breeding guild (center of square) and the number of listed (endangered, threatened, special
concern) species in the guild (upper-right corner) is shown.











FRESH WATER MARSHES


Tm maoy 1 1



Tr boMl 1 1


Shrubs
or 6 3 9



Gromad nrfa 1 6 8 4 19

F 1
Water mirfa 6 3 1 4 14

2 I 2 6
WaVr iolsma 17 7 1 9 4 38



Warr bottom 5 5

2 1 3 2 8
0 1 7 36 16 2 10 15 87


Water
bottom


Water
column


Water
surface


Ground
surface


Shrubs/
raises


Breeding


bole

Zone


Tree
canopy


Breeds
ebewhere


Figure E-2. Guild matrix with feeding and breeding zones for semi-aquatic and wetland-dependent
wildlife species that occur in fresh water marshes in East Central Florida. The number of species

using each feeding/breeding guild (center of square) and the number of listed (endangered,
threatened, special concern) species in the guild (upper-right corner) is shown.


Totals








CYPRESS SWAMPS


Temp 1 7 1 9



Tra boe 1 2 2 5


Shrubs
or
or 1 2 1 2 6
1

Grod swrfac 1 4 8 11 2 4 3 33



WOWWtrf 2 1 3 6 1



Water o a 1 6 1 12 29



Water bono 3

1 1 5 7
Toalb 1 4 9 35 3 6 24 9 91


Water
bottom


Water
column


Water
surface


Ground


surf


Shrubs/


Tree


Ice gaes bole

Breeding Zone


Tree
canopy


bwbeds
elsewhere


Figure E-3. Guild matrix with feeding and breeding zones for semi-aquatic and wetland-dependent
wildlife species that occur in cypress swamps in East Central Florida. The number of species using

each feeding/breeding guild (center of square) and the number of listed (endangered, threatened,
special concern) species in the guild (upper-right corner) is shown.


Totals










HARDWOOD SWAMPS


To caopy 1 7 1 9



Trme b 3 1 2 6



1 2 1 2 6
or 1 2 1

1 1
Gad mrfce 1 2 7 8 2 4 3 27



Wear ulrfac 2 1 3 6

5 5

Waher column 16 1 12 29



Water boto. 3

1 5 6
TotbI 1 2 10 31 3 6 22 9 86


Water
bottom


Water
column


Water
surface


Shrubs/
arasses


Breeding


Tree
bole

Zone


Tree
anopy


Breeds
lse where


Totals


Figure E-4. Guild matrix with feeding and breeding zones for semi-aquatic and wetland-dcpcndent
wildlife species that occur in hardwood swamps in East Central Florida. The number of species using

each feeding/breeding guild (center of square) and the number of listed (endangered, threatened,
special concern) species in the guild (upper-right corner) is shown.


Orond
facee










HAMMOCKS


Tr rom 1 8 1 10

1




Shrubs
or 1 2 1 4

2 2
OnaI fe 1 4 8 19 2 4 4 42

1
Wat msarfa 5 2 7

4 4

Wa is~u 18 2 10 30



Watr bottom 3 3

3 1 4 8
Teah 1 4 10 48 4 8 23 5 103


Water
boom


Water
eoluma


Water
surface


Groead
Surface


Shrubs/
gruase


Breeding


Tree
bone

Zone


Tree
anopy


elsedsw
elbewhere


Figure E-5. Guild matrix with feeding and breeding zones for semi-aquatic and wetland-dependent
wildlife species that occur in hammocks in East Central Florida. The number of species using each
feeding/breeding guild (center of square) and the number of listed (endangered, threatened, special
concern) species in the guild (upper-right corner) is shown.


L-5


Totls











FLATWOODS


Tnr opy 1 8 1 10

1 1
Tree bole 1 2 3 6


Shrubs 1 1
or 1 2 1 1 5


1 3 4
Gr oed rface 1 4 10 22 2 4 4 47

1 1
War rface 5 2 7

5 5
WaBr leum 18 2 12 32



Watr bottom 3 3

1 4 1 5 1 12
To"b 1 4 11 51 4 8 25 6 110


Water
bottom


Water
column


Water
surface


Tree
Canopy


Broods
bhewhere


Totals


Ground Shrubs/ Tree
rrf',e trasses bok

Breeding Zone


Figure E-6. Guild matrix with feeding and breeding zones for semi-aquatic and wetland-dependent
wildlife species that occur in flatwoods in East Central Florida. The number of species using each
feeding/breeding guild (center of square) and the number of listed (endangered, threatened, special
concern) species in thc: gLild (uppcr-righl corner) is shown.


L -6










SANDHILLS


Tre eo py 5 5



Tr bob 2 2 2 6


Shrubae
or 1 1 2
r-f






Wvtwr irf 5 2 3 10

5 5
alerc mlmi 16 2 11 2 31



Water bottom 4 4

1 3 5 9
Tofth 1 2 10 45 3 5 19 5 90


Water
bottom


Water
column


Water
surface


Ground Shrubs/ I Tree
surface I rasse bole

Breeding Zone


Tree
canopy


Breeds
ebsewhert


Figure E-7. Guild matrix with feeding and breeding zones for semi-aquatic and wetland-dependent

wildlife species that occur in sandhills in East Central Florida. The number of species using each
feeding/breeding guild (center of square) and the number of listed (endangered, threatened, special
concern) species in the guild (upper-right corner) is shown.


Totals




















APPENDIX F:




Spatial requirements reported for semi-aquatic and wetland-dependent wildlife species
in various wetlands and habitat types adjacent to wetlands in East Central Florida.









Table F-1. Semi-aquatic and wetland dependent wildlife species of East Central Florida: SALT MARSHES


Species Code* Spatial Requirement (feet)


B 2 20 very tolerant of humans while feeding
B 3 20 very tolerant of humans while feeding
B20 20 very tolerant of humans near nest site
M 6** 30 same as M 5
B23** 60 same as B27 (fairly tolerant of humans)
B26** 60 same as B27 (fairly tolerant of humans)
B47** 60 same as B27 (fairly tolerant of humans)
B48** 60 same as B27 (fairly tolerant of humans)
B76** 60 same as B27 (fairly tolerant of humans)
B60** 60 same as B27 (fairly tolerant of humans)
B61** 60 same as B27 (fairly tolerant of humans)
B77** 60 same as B27 (fairly tolerant of humans)
B30 64 nest location landward from the waterward extent of forest
B27 84 nest location landward from the waterward extent of forest (24) +
minimum distance from humans tolerated (60)
B10 120 minimum distance from humans tolerated
B38 120 minimum distance from humans tolerated
B91 165 home range diameter
B92** 165 same as B91
B32** 180 same as B28 (minimum distance tolerated)
B33** 180 same as B28 (minimum distance tolerated)
B46 180 minimum distance from humans tolerated
B44** 180 same as B46
B45** 180 same as B46
B54** 180 same as B46
B55** 180 same as B46
B56** 180 same as B46
B57** 180 same as B46
B58** 180 same as B46
B62** 180 same as B46
B63** 180 same as B46
B64** 180 same as B46
B65** 180 same as B46
B66** 180 same as B46
B78 196 home range diameter
B79** 196 same as B78
B93** 196 same as B78
B94** 196 same as B78
B95** 196 same as B78
B52 240 minimum distance from humans tolerated
B49 240 minimum distance from humans tolerated









Table F-I. Continued.


Species Code* Spatial Requirement (feet)


B50 240 minimum distance from humans tolerated
B51 240 minimum distance from humans tolerated
B28 243 nest location landward from the waterward extent of forest
(64) + minimum distance from humans tolerated (180)
B 9 300 minimum distance from humans tolerated
B 6 300 minimum distance from humans tolerated
B 8** 300 same as B 6
B21** 300 same B 6 (winter migrant, not tolerant of humans)
B53 300 minimum distance from humans tolerated
B29 322 nest location landward from the waterward extent of forest (82) +
minimum distance from humans tolerated (240)
R 4** 497 same as R 2
B16** 795 same as B15
R25** 884 same as R26
R 6** 1,350 same as R 9
R10** 1,350 same as R 9
B18 1,500 secondary restrictive activity zone around eagle nests
B42 1,800 home range diameter
B40** 1,800 same as B42
B43** 1,800 same as B42
M 8 1,851 1/2 of home range diameter (entire home range includes the marsh as
well as the adjacent flatwood or hammock forest)
R 1 11,045 home range diameter


*See Appendix C for species names. A = Amphibian, R = Reptile, B = Bird, M = Mammal

**Because no spatial requirement data were found for these species, the numbers used here represent spatial
requirements for species that are closely related, similar-sized, found in comparable habitats, and categorized in
corresponding guilds.










Table F-2. Semi-aquatic and wetland dependent wildlife species of East Central Florida: FRESHWATER
MARSHES



Species Code* Spatial Requirement (feet)


B4 20 very tolerant of humans while feeding
B20 20 very tolerant of humans near nest site
M 5 30 home range diameter
B26** 60 same as B27 (fairly tolerant of humans)
B23** 60 same as B27 (fairly tolerant of humans)
M 2** 60 same as B27 (fairly tolerant of humans)
B70** 60 same as B27 (fairly tolerant of humans)
B76** 60 same as B27 (fairly tolerant of humans)
B77** 60 same as B27 (fairly tolerant of humans)
B47** 60 same as B27 (fairly tolerant of humans)
B27 84 nest location landward from the waterward extent of forest (24) +
minimum distance from humans tolerated (60)
B37** 84 same as B27
B 5** 120 same as B10
B1l** 120 same as B10 (minimum distance tolerated)
B38 120 minimum distance from humans tolerated
B84 135 home range diameter
B10 150 nest location landward from the waterward extent of forest (30) +
minimum distance from humans tolerated (120)
B91 165 home range diameter
A 4 180 maximum distance found from closest water
A 3** 180 same as A 4
A18** 180 same as A 4
A19** 180 same as A 4
B24** 180 same as B28 (minimum distance tolerated)
B31** 180 same as B28 (minimum distance tolerated)
B32** 180 same as B28 (minimum distance tolerated)
B33** 180 same as B28 (minimum distance tolerated)
B46 180 minimum distance from humans tolerated
B45** 180 same as B46
B58** 180 same as B46
B81** 180 same as B67
B78 196 home range diameter
B79** 196 same as B78
B93** 196 same as B78
B94** 196 same as B78
B95** 196 same as B78
R37 202 1/2 of home range diameter (entire home range includes the marsh as
well as the adjacent forest)
B 1 240 minimum distance from humans tolerated
B35 240 minimum distance from humans tolerated









Table F-2. Continued.


Species Code* Spatial Requirement (feet)


B28 243 nest location landward from the waterward extent of forest (63) +
minimum distance from humans tolerated (180)
B 6 300 minimum distance from humans tolerated
B 7 300 minimum distance from humans tolerated
B 8** 300 same as B 6
B12** 300 same as B 6
B13** 300 same as B 6
B21** 300 same B 6 (winter migrant, not tolerant of humans)
M10 300 maximum distance of den from closest water
B29 322 nest location landward from the waterward extent of forest (82) +
minimum distance from humans tolerated (240)
A15** 350 same as A14
A16** 350 same as A14
A17** 350 same as A14
R 2 497 home range diameter
R 4** 497 same as R 2
R12** 497 same as R 2
R36 698 1/2 of home range diameter (entire home range includes the marsh as
well as the adjacent forest)
M 3 700 maximum distance found from shore
B15 795 home range diameter
B16** 795 same as B15
B19** 795 same as B15
R26 884 home range diameter
R27** 884 same as R26
R28** 884 same as R26
R30** 884 same as R26
R32** 884 same as R26
B 9 960 nest location landward from the waterward extent of forest (660) +
minimum distance from humans tolerated (300)
R 9 1,350 maximum distance from closest water to winter hibernation site
R 3** 1,350 same as R 9
R 5** 1,350 same as R 9
R 6** 1,350 same as R 9
RIO** 1,350 same as R 9
Rll** 1,350 same as R 9
R20** 1,395 same as R36










Table F-2. Continued.


Species Code* Spatial Requirement (feet)


B18 1,500 secondary restrictive activity zone around eagle nests
B34** 1,500 same as B18
B36** 1,500 same as B18
R16** 1,664 same as R24
R18** 1,664 same as R24
R39** 1,664 same as R24
B39** 1,800 same as B42
B41** 1,800 same as B42
B43** 1,800 same as B42
M 8 3,702 home range diameter
A 7** 4,000 same as A 5
R 8 5,280 maximum distance from closest water to nest
R 7** 5,280 same as R 8
A 2** 6,336 same as A13
M 9 6,600 home range diameter
R 1 11,045 home range diameter


*See Appendix C for species names. A = Amphibian, R = Reptile, B = Bird, M = Mammal

**Because no spatial requirement data were found for these species, the numbers used here represent spatial
requirements for species that are closely related, similar-sized, found in comparable habitats, and categorized in
corresponding guilds.









Table F-3. Semi-aquatic and wetland dependent wildlife species of East Central Florida: CYPRESS SWAMPS



Species Code* Spatial Requirement (feet)


B25 14 nest location landward from the waterward extent of forest
B 4 20 very tolerant of humans while feeding
B20 20 very tolerant of humans near nest site
M 6** 30 same as M 5
R29 51 home range diameter
R13** 51 same as R29
M 2** 60 same as B27 (fairly tolerant of humans)
B23** 60 same as B27 (minimum distance tolerated)
B26** 60 same as B27 (fairly tolerant of humans)
B69** 60 same as B27 (fairly tolerant of humans)
B77** 60 same as B27 (fairly tolerant of humans)
B27 84 nest location landward from the waterward extent of forest (24) +
minimum distance from humans tolerated (60)
B37** 84 same as B27
B 5** 120 same as B10
B84 135 home range diameter
B92** 165 same as B91
A 4 180 maximum distance found from closest water
A 8** 180 same as A 4
A 3** 180 same as A 4
A 9** 180 same as A 4
A10** 180 same as A 4
A18** 180 same as A 4
A19** 180 same as A 4
A20** 180 same as A 4
B67 180 minimum forest habitat width
B80** 180 same as B67
B68 180 minimum forest habitat width
B75 180 minimum forest habitat width
B74** 180 same as B75
B88 180 minimum forest habitat width
B89** 180 same as B88
B32** 180 same as B28 (minimum distance tolerated)
B33** 180 same as B28 (minimum distance tolerated)
B95** 196 same as B78
B86 210 minimum forest habitat width
B82** 210 same as B86
B85** 210 same as B86
B35 240 minimum distance from humans tolerated
B28 243 nest location landward from the waterward extent of forest (63) +
minimum distance from humans tolerated (180)









TaMe F-3. Continued.


Species Code* Spatial Requirement (feet)


M10 300 maximum distance of den from closest water
B 6 300 minimum distance from humans tolerated
B 7 300 minimum distance from humans tolerated
B 8** 300 same as B 6
B29 322 nest location landward from the waterward extent of forest (82) +
minimum distance from humans tolerated (240)
R35 331 home range diameter
A14 350 maximum distance found from permanent water
A16** 350 same as A14
A17** 350 same as A14
M 1** 370 same as M 4
R37 405 home range diameter
B87 > 450 minimum forest habitat width
B90 > 450 minimum forest habitat width
R 2 497 home range diameter
R 4** 497 same as R 2
R12** 497 same as R 2
B73 740 home range diameter
B15 795 home range diameter
B17** 795 same as B15
B14** 795 same as B15
R26 884 home range diameter
R27** 884 same as R26
R28** 884 same as R26
R30** 884 same as R26
R31** 884 same as R26
R32** 884 same as R26
R 9 1,350 maximum distance from closest water to winter hibernation site
R 3** 1,350 same as R 9
R 5** 1,350 same as R 9
R 6** 1,350 same as R 9
R10** 1,350 same as R 9
R11** 1,350 same as R 9
R36 1,395 home range diameter
R20** 1,395 same as R36
B18 1,500 secondary restrictive activity zone around eagle nests
B34** 1,500 same as B18
R15** 1,664 same as R24
R17** 1,664 same as R24









Table F-3. Continued.


Species Code* Spatial Requirement (feet)


R18** 1,664 same as R24
R23** 1,664 same as R24
R39** 1,664 same as R24
R38 2,756 home range diameter
M 8 3,702 home range diameter
A 5 4,000 maximum distance found from breeding pond
B72 4,221 home range diameter
R 8 5,280 maximum distance from closest water to nest
A13 6,336 distance between captures of same individual
A 1** 6,336 same as A13
All** 6,336 same as A13
M 9 6,600 home range diameter
R 1 11,045 home range diameter
M 7 17,287 home range diameter


*See Appendix C for species names. A = Amphibian, R = Reptile, B = Bird, M = Mammal

**Because no spatial requirement data were found for these species, the numbers used here represent spatial
requirements for species that are closely related, similar-sized, found in comparable habitats, and categorized in
corresponding guilds.









Table F-4. Semi-aquatic and wetland dependent wildlife species of East Central Florida:
HARDWOOD SWAMPS


Species Code* Spatial Requirement (feet)


B25 14 nest location landward from the waterward extent of forest
B 4 20 very tolerant of humans while feeding
B20 20 very tolerant of humans near nest site
R13** 51 same as R29
R14** 51 same as R29
M 2** 60 same as B27 (fairly tolerant of humans)
B23** 60 same as B27 (fairly tolerant of humans)
B26** 60 same as B27 (fairly tolerant of humans)
B69** 60 same as B27 (fairly tolerant of humans)
B77** 60 same as B27 (fairly tolerant of humans)
B27 84 nest location landward from the waterward extent of forest (24) +
minimum distance from humans tolerated (60)
B37** 84 same as B27
B 5** 120 same as B10
R33 128 distance between captures of same individual
B84 135 home range diameter
B92** 165 same as B91
A 8** 180 same as A 4
A 3** 180 same as A 4
A10** 180 same as A 4
A18** 180 same as A 4
A19** 180 same as A 4
B67 180 minimum forest habitat width
B80** 180 same as B67
B68 180 minimum forest habitat width
B75 180 minimum forest habitat width
B74** 180 same as B75
B88 180 minimum forest habitat width
B89** 180 same as B88
B32** 180 same as B28 (minimum distance tolerated)
B33** 180 same as B28 (minimum distance tolerated)
B95** 196 same as B78
B86 210 minimum forest habitat width
B82** 210 same as B86
B85** 210 same as B86
B35 240 minimum distance from humans tolerated
B28 243 nest location landward from the waterward extent of forest (63) +
minimum distance from humans tolerated (180)
M10 300 maximum distance of den from closest water
B 6 300 minimum distance from humans tolerated
B 7 300 minimum distance from humans tolerated
B 8** 300 same as B 6









Table F-4. Continued.


Species Code* Spatial Requirement (feet)


B29 322 nest location landward from the waterward extent of forest (82) +
minimum distance from humans tolerated (240)
R35 331 home range diameter
A14 350 maximum distance found from permanent water
A15** 350 same as A14
A16** 350 same as A14
A17** 350 same as A14
M 1** 370 same as M 4
R37 405 home range diameter
B87 > 450 minimum forest habitat width
B90 > 450 minimum forest habitat width
R 2 497 home range diameter
R 4** 497 same as R 2
R12** 497 same as R 2
B73 740 home range diameter
B15 795 home range diameter
B17** 795 same as B15
B14** 795 same as B15
R26 884 home range diameter
R27** 884 same as R26
R28** 884 same as R26
R30** 884 same as R26
R31** 884 same as R26
R32** 884 same as R26
R 9 1,350 maximum distance from closest water to winter hibernation site
R 3**" 1,350 same as R 9
R 5** 1,350 same as R 9
R 6** 1,350 same as R 9
R1I** 1,350 same as R 9
Rll** 1,350 same as R 9
R20** 1,395 same as R36
B18 1,500 secondary restrictive activity zone around eagle nests
B34** 1,500 same as B18
R15** 1,664 same as R24
R18** 1,664 same as R24
R23** 1,664 same as R24
M 8 3,702 home range diameter
A 5 4,000 maximum distance found from breeding pond
A 6** 4,000 same as A 5
A 7** 4,000 same as A 5


F-10









Table F-4. Continued.


Species Code* Spatial Requirement (feet)


B72 4,221 home range diameter
R 8 5,280 maximum distance from closest water to nest
A 2** 6,336 same as A13
All** 6,336 same as A13
M 9 6,600 home range diameter
R 1 11,045 home range diameter
M 7 17,287 home range diameter


*See Appendix C for species names. A = Amphibian, R = Reptile, B = Bird, M = Mammal

**Because no spatial requirement data were found for these species, the numbers used here represent spatial
requirements for species that are closely related, similar-sized, found in comparable habitats, and categorized in
corresponding guilds.


F-11









Table F-5. Semi-aquatic and wetland dependent wildlife species of East Central Florida: HAMMOCKS



Species Code* Spatial Requirement (feet)


B25 14 nest location landward from the waterward extent of forest
B 4 20 very tolerant of humans while feeding
R29 51 home range diameter
R13** 51 same as R29
R14** 51 same as R29
M 2** 60 same as B27 (fairly tolerant of humans)
B23** 60 same as B27 (minimum distance tolerated)
B26** 60 same as B27 (fairly tolerant of humans)
B69** 60 same as B27 (fairly tolerant of humans)
B70** 60 same as B27 (fairly tolerant of humans)
B77** 60 same as B27 (fairly tolerant of humans)
B27 84 nest location landward from the waterward extent of forest (24) +
minimum distance from humans tolerated (60)
B37** 84 same as B27
B 5** 120 same as B10
B11** 120 same as B10
R33 128 distance between captures of same individual
R34** 128 same as R33
B84 135 home range diameter
B10 150 nest location landward from the waterward extent of the forest (30) +
minimum distance from humans tolerated (120)
A 4 180 maximum distance found from closest water
A 8** 180 same as A 4
A 3** 180 same as A 4
A 9** 180 same as A4
A10** 180 same as A 4
A18** 180 same as A 4
A19** 180 same as A 4
A20** 180 same as A 4
B67 180 minimum forest habitat width
B80** 180 same as B67
B68 180 minimum forest habitat width
B75 180 minimum forest habitat width
B74** 180 same as B75
B88 180 minimum forest habitat width
B89** 180 same as B88
B32** 180 same as B28 (minimum distance tolerated)
B33** 180 same as B28 (minimum distance tolerated)
B59** 180 same as B46
B86 210 minimum forest habitat width
B82** 210 same as B86


F-12










Table F-5. Continued.


Species Code* Spatial Requirement (feet)


B85** 210 same as B86
B 1 240 minimum distance from humans tolerated
B35 240 minimum distance from humans tolerated
B28 243 nest location landward from the waterward extent of forest
(63) + minimum distance from humans tolerated (180)
M10 300 maximum distance of den from closest water
B12** 300 same as B 6
B13** 300 same as B 6
B29 322 nest location landward from the waterward extent of forest (82) +
minimum distance from humans tolerated (240)
R35 331 home range diameter
A14 350 maximum distance found from permanent water
A15** 350 same as A14
A16** 350 same as A14
A17** 350 same as A14
M 4 370 home range diameter
M 1** 370 same as M 4
R37 405 home range diameter
B87 > 450 minimum forest habitat width
B90 > 450 minimum forest habitat width
R 2 497 home range diameter
R 4** 497 same as R 2
R12** 497 same as R 2
R22 732 distance between captures of same individual
B73 740 home range diameter
B15 795 home range diameter
B17** 795 same as B15
B14** 795 same as B15
R26 884 home range diameter
R27** 884 same as R26
R28** 884 same as R26
R30** 884 same as R26
R31** 884 same as R26
R32** 884 same as R26
B 9 960 nest location landward from the waterward extent of the forest (660)
+ minimum distance from humans tolerated (300)
R 9 1,350 maximum distance from closest water to winter hibernation site
R 3** 1,350 same as R 9
R 5** 1,350 same as R 9


F-13








Table F-5. Continued.


Species Code* Spatial Requirement (feet)


R 6** 1,350 same as R 9
R10** 1350 same as R 9
RI1** 1,350 same as R 9
R36 1,395 home range diameter
R20** 1,395 same as R36
R21** 1.395 same as R36
B34** 1,500 same as B18
R24 1,664 home range diameter
R17** 1,664 same as R24
R18** 1,664 same as R24
R23** 1,664 same as R24
R16** 1,664 same as R24
R38 2,756 home range diameter
M 8 3,702 home range diameter
A 5 4,000 maximum distance found from breeding pond
A 6** 4,000 same as A 5
B72 4,221 home range diameter
B71 4352 home range diameter
R19 4,654 home range diameter
R 8 5,280 maximum distance from closest water to nest
R 7** 5,280 same as R 8
M1l 5,912 home range diameter
A 2** 6,336 same as A13
All** 6,336 same as A13
M 9 6,600 home range diameter
B22 10,472 home range diameter
R 1 11,045 home range diameter
M 7 17,287 home range diameter


*See Appendix C for species names. A = Amphibian, R = Reptile, B = Bird, M = Mammal

**Because no spatial requirement data were found for these species, the numbers used here represent spatial
requirements for species that are closely related, similar-sized, found in comparable habitats, and categorized in
corresponding guilds.


F-14










Table F-6. Semi-aquatic and wetland dependent wildlife species of East Central Florida: FLATWOODS



Species Code* Spatial Requirement (feet)


B25 14 nest location landward from the waterward extent of forest
B 4 20 very tolerant of humans while feeding
B20 20 very tolerant of humans near nest site
R29 51 home range diameter
R13** 51 same as R29
R14** 51 same as R29
M 2** 60 same as B27 (fairly tolerant of humans)
B23** 60 same as B27 (minimum distance tolerated)
B26** 60 same as B27 (fairly tolerant of humans)
B69** 60 same as B27 (fairly tolerant of humans)
B70** 60 same as B27 (fairly tolerant of humans)
B77** 60 same as B27 (fairly tolerant of humans)
B27 84 nest location landward from the waterward extent of forest (24) +
minimum distance from humans tolerated (60)
B37** 84 same as B27
B 5** 120 same as B10
Bll** 120 same as B10
R33 128 distance between captures of same individual
R34** 128 same as R33
B84 135 home range diameter
BI0 150 nest location landward from the waterward extent of the forest (30) +
minimum distance from humans tolerated (120)
A 4 180 maximum distance found from closest water
A 8** 180 same as A 4
A 3** 180 same as A 4
A 9** 180 same as A 4
A10** 180 same as A 4
A18** 180 same as A 4
A19** 180 same as A 4
A20** 180 same as A 4
B67 180 minimum forest habitat width
B80** 180 same as B67
B68 180 minimum forest habitat width
B75 180 minimum forest habitat width
B74** 180 same as B75
B88 180 minimum forest habitat width
B89** 180 same as B88
B32** 180 same as B28 (minimum distance tolerated)
B33** 180 same as B28 (minimum distance tolerated)
B59** 180 same as B46
B86 210 minimum forest habitat width


F-15









Table F-6. Continued.


Species Code* Spatial Requirement (feet)


B82** 210 same as B86
B83** 210 same as B86
B85** 210 same as B86
B 1 240 minimum distance from humans tolerated
B35 240 minimum distance from humans tolerated
B28 243 nest location landward from the waterward extent of forest (63) +
minimum distance from humans tolerated (180)
M10 300 maximum distance of den from closest water
B12** 300 same as B 6
B13** 300 same as B 6
B21** 300 same B 6 (winter migrant, not tolerant of humans)
B29 322 nest location landward from the waterward extent of forest (82) +
minimum distance from humans tolerated (240)
R35 331 home range diameter
A14 350 maximum distance found from permanent water
A15** 350 same as A14
A16** 350 same as A14
A17** 350 same as A14
M 1** 370 same as M 4
R37 405 home range diameter
B87 > 450 minimum forest habitat width
B90 > 450 minimum forest habitat width
R 2 497 home range diameter
R 4** 497 same as R 2
R12** 497 same as R 2
R22 732 distance between captures of same individual
B73 740 home range diameter
B15 795 home range diameter
B16** 795 same as B15
B17** 795 same as B15
B14** 795 same as B15
R26 884 home range diameter
R27** 884 same as R26
R28** 884 same as R26
R30** 884 same as R26
R31** 884 same as R26
R32** 884 same as R26
B 9 960 nest location landward from the waterward extent of the forest (660)
+ minimum distance from humans tolerated (300)


F-16









Table F-6. Continued.


Species Code* Spatial Requirement (feet)


R 9 1,350 maximum distance from closest water to winter hibernation site
R 3** 1350 same as R 9
R 5** 1,350 same as R 9
R 6** 1,350 same as R 9
R10** 1,350 same as R 9
Rll** 1,350 same as R 9
R36 1,395 home range diameter
R20** 1,395 same as R36
R21** 1,395 same as R36
B18 1,500 secondary restrictive activity zone around eagle nests
B34** 1,500 same as B18
B36** 1,500 same as B18
R24 1,664 home range diameter
R15** 1,664 same as R24
R16** 1,664 same as R24
R17** 1,664 same as R24
R18** 1,664 same as R24
R23** 1,664 same as R24
R39** 1,664 same as R24
M 8 3,702 home range diameter
A 6** 4,000 same as A 5
B72 4,221 home range diameter
B71 4352 home range diameter
R19 4,654 home range diameter
R 8 5,280 maximum distance from closest water to nest
R 7** 5,280 same as R 8
M11 5,912 home range diameter
A13 6,336 distance between captures of same individual
A 1** 6,336 same as A13
A 2** 6,336 same as A13
All** 6,336 same as A13
M 9 6,600 home range diameter
B22 10,472 home range diameter
R 1 11,045 home range diameter
M 7 17,287 home range diameter


*See Appendix C for species names. A = Amphibian, R = Reptile, B = Bird, M = Mammal

**Because no spatial requirement data were found for these species, the numbers used here represent spatial
requirements for species that are closely related, similar-sized, found in comparable habitats, and categorized in
corresponding guilds.


F-17









Table F-7. Semi-aquatic and wetland dependent wildlife species of East Central Florida: SANDHILLS



Species Code* Spatial Requirement (feet)


B25 14 nest location landward from the waterward extent of forest
B 3 20 very tolerant of humans while feeding
B 4 20 very tolerant of humans while feeding
B20 20 very tolerant of humans near nest site
R29 51 home range diameter
R13** 51 same as R29
M 2** 60 same as B27 (fairly tolerant of humans)
B23** 60 same as B27 (minimum distance tolerated)
B26** 60 same as B27 (fairly tolerant of humans)
B70** 60 same as B27 (fairly tolerant of humans)
B77** 60 same as B27 (fairly tolerant of humans)
B27 84 nest location landward from the waterward extent of forest (24) +
minimum distance from humans tolerated (60)
B37** 84 same as B27
B 5** 120 same as B10
Bll** 120 same as B10
R33 128 distance between captures of same individual
R34** 128 same as R33
B84 135 home range diameter
B10 150 nest location landward from the waterward extent of the forest (30) +
minimum distance from humans tolerated (120)
A 4 180 maximum distance found from closest water
A 8** 180 same as A 4
A20** 180 same as A 4
B46 180 minimum distance from humans tolerated
B32** 180 same as B28 (minimum distance tolerated)
B33** 180 same as B28 (minimum distance tolerated)
B86 210 minimum forest habitat width
B82** 210 same as B86
B83** 210 same as B86
B 1 240 minimum distance from humans tolerated
B35 240 minimum distance from humans tolerated
B28 243 nest location landward from the waterward extent of forest (63) +
minimum distance from humans tolerated (180)
MI0 300 maximum distance of den from closest water
B 6 300 minimum distance from humans tolerated
B 7 300 minimum distance from humans tolerated
B 8** 300 same as B 6
B12** 300 same as B 6
B13** 300 same as B 6


F-18









Table F-7. Continued.


Species Code* Spatial Requirement (feet)


B29 322 nest location landward from the waterward extent of forest (82) +
minimum distance from humans tolerated (240)
R35 331 home range diameter
A14 350 maximum distance found from permanent water
A15** 350 same as A14
A16** 350 same as A14
R37 405 home range diameter
R 2 497 home range diameter
R 4** 497 same as R 2
R12** 497 same as R 2
R22 732 distance between captures of same individual
B73 740 home range diameter
B14** 795 same as B15
R26 884 home range diameter
R27** 884 same as R26
R28** 884 same as R26
R30** 884 same as R26
R31** 884 same as R26
R32** 884 same as R26
B 9 960 nest location landward from the waterward extent of the forest (660)
+ minimum distance from humans tolerated (300)
R 9 1,350 maximum distance from closest water to winter hibernation site
R 3** 1,350 same as R 9
R 5** 1,350 same as R 9
R 6** 1350 same as R 9
R10** 1350 same as R 9
Rll** 1,350 same as R 9
R36 1,395 home range diameter
R20** 1,395 same as R36
R21** 1,395 same as R36
B18 1,500 secondary restrictive activity zone around eagle nests
B34** 1,500 same as B18
R24 1,664 home range diameter
R17** 1,664 same as R24
R18** 1,664 same as R24
R15** 1,664 same as R24
R16** 1,664 same as R24
R39** 1,664 same as R24
M 8 3,702 home range diameter


F-19









Table F-7. Continued.


Species Code* Spatial Requirement (feet)


A 6** 4,000 same as A 5
A 7** 4,000 same as A 5
B72 4,221 home range diameter
R19 4,654 home range diameter
R 8 5,280 maximum distance from closest water to nest
R 7** 5,280 same as R 8
M1l 5,912 home range diameter
A13 6,336 distance between captures of same individual
A 1** 6,336 same as A13
A 2** 6,336 same as A13
All** 6,336 same as A13
A12** 6,336 same as A13
M 9 6,600 home range diameter
B22 10,472 home range diameter
R 1 11,045 home range diameter
M 7 17,287 home range diameter


*See Appendix C for species names. A = Amphibian, R = Reptile, B = Bird, M = Mammal

**Because no spatial requirement data were found for these species, the numbers used here represent spatial
requirements for species that are closely related, similar-sized, found in comparable habitats, and categorized in
corresponding guilds.


F-20









Table F-8. Semi-aquatic and wetland dependent wildlife species of East Central Florida: SPATIAL
REQUIREMENTS OF ALL SPECIES ARRANGED BY TAXA



Species Code* Spatial Requirement (feet)


A 1** 6,336 same as A13
A 2** 6,336 same as A13
A 3** 180 same as A 4
A 4 180 maximum distance found from closest water
A 5 4,000 maximum distance found from breeding pond
A 6** 4,000 same as A 5
A 7** 4,000 same as A 5
A 8** 180 same as A 4
A 9** 180 same as A 4
A10** 180 same as A 4
All** 6,336 same as A13
A12** 6,336 same as A13
A13 6,336 distance between captures of same individual
A14 350 maximum distance found from permanent water
A15** 350 same as A14
A16** 350 same as A14
A17** 350 same as A14
A18** 180 same as A 4
A19** 180 same as A 4
A20** 180 same as A 4
R 1 11,045 home range diameter
R 2 497 home range diameter
R 3** 1,350 same as R 9
R 4** 497 same as R 2
R 5** 1,350 same as R 9
R 6** 1,350 same as R 9
R 7** 5,280 same as R 8
R 8 5,280 maximum distance from closest water to nest
R 9 1,350 maximum distance from closest water to winter hibernation site
R10** 1,350 same as R 9
Rll** 1,350 same as R 9
R12** 497 same as R 2
R13** 51 same as R29
R14** 51 same as R29
R15** 1,664 same as R24
R16** 1,664 same as R24
R17** 1,664 same as R24
R18** 1,664 same as R24


F-21








Table F-8. Continued.


Species Code* Spatial Requirement (feet)


R19 4,654 home range diameter
R20** 1,395 same as R36
R21** 1,395 same as R36
R22 732 distance between captures of same individual
R23** 1,664 same as R24
R24 1,664 home range diameter
R25** 884 same as R26
R26 884 home range diameter
R27** 884 same as R26
R28** 884 same as R26
R29 51 home range diameter
R30** 884 same as R26
R31** 884 same as R26
R32** 884 same as R26
R33 128 distance between captures of same individual
R34** 128 same as R33
R35 331 home range diameter
R36 1,395 home range diameter
R36 698 1/2 of home range diameter (entire home range includes the marsh as
well as the adjacent forest)
R37 202 1/2 of home range diameter (entire home range includes the marsh as
well as the adjacent forest)
R37 405 home range diameter
R38 2,756 home range diameter
R39** 1,664 same as R24
B 1 240 minimum distance from humans tolerated
B 2 20 very tolerant of humans while feeding
B 3 20 very tolerant of humans while feeding
B 4 20 very tolerant of humans while feeding
B 5** 120 same as B10
B 6 300 minimum distance from humans tolerated
B 7 300 minimum distance from humans tolerated
B 8** 300 same as B 6
B 9 960 nest location landward from the waterward extent of the forest (660)
+ minimum distance from humans tolerated (300)
B 9 300 minimum distance from humans tolerated
B10 120 minimum distance from humans tolerated
B10 150 nest location landward from the waterward extent of the forest (30) +
minimum distance from humans tolerated (120)
B11** 120 same as B10


F-22









Table F-8. Continued.


Species Code* Spatial Requirement (feet)


B12** 300 same as B 6
B13** 300 same as B 6
B14** 795 same as B15
B15 795 home range diameter
B16** 795 same as B15
B17** 795 same as B15
B18 1,500 secondary restrictive activity zone around eagle nests
B19** 795 same as B15
B20 20 very tolerant of humans near nest site
B21** 300 same B 6 (winter migrant, not tolerant of humans)
B22 10,472 home range diameter
B23** 60 same as B27 (fairly tolerant of humans)
B24** 180 same as B28 (minimum distance tolerated)
B25 14 nest location landward from the waterward extent of the forest
B26** 60 same as B27 (fairly tolerant of humans)
B27 84 nest location landward from the waterward extent of the forest (24) +
minimum distance from humans tolerated (60)
B28 243 nest location landward from the waterward extent of the forest (63) +
minimum distance from humans tolerated (180)
B29 322 nest location landward from the waterward extent of the forest (82) +
minimum distance from humans tolerated (240)
B30 64 nest location landward from the waterward extent of the forest
B31** 180 same as B28 (minimum distance tolerated)
B32** 180 same as B28 (minimum distance tolerated)
B33**" 180 same as B28 (minimum distance tolerated)
B34** 1,500 same as B18
B35 240 minimum distance from humans tolerated
B36** 1,500 same as B18
B37** 84 same as B27
B38 120 minimum distance from humans tolerated
B39** 1,800 same as B42
B40** 1,800 same as B42
B41** 1,800 same as B42
B42 1,800 home range diameter
B43** 1,800 same as B42
B44** 180 same as B46
B45** 180 same as B46
B46 180 minimum distance from humans tolerated
B47** 60 same as B27 (fairly tolerant of humans)
B48** 60 same as B27 (fairly tolerant of humans)
B49 240 minimum distance from humans tolerated


F-23








Table F-8. Continued.


Species Code* Spatial Requirement (feet)


B50 240 minimum distance from humans tolerated
B51 240 minimum distance from humans tolerated
B52 240 minimum distance from humans tolerated
B53 300 minimum distance from humans tolerated
B54** 180 same as B46
B55** 180 same as B46
B56** 180 same as B46
B57** 180 same as B46
B58** 180 same as B46
B59** 180 same as B46
B60** 60 same as B27 (fairly tolerant of humans)
B61** 60 same as B27 (fairly tolerant of humans)
B62** 180 same as B46
B63** 180 same as B46
B64** 180 same as B46
B65** 180 same as B46
B66** 180 same as B46
B67 180 minimum forest habitat width
B68 180 minimum forest habitat width
B69** 60 same as B27 (fairly tolerant of humans)
B70** 60 same as B27 (fairly tolerant of humans)
B71 4,352 home range diameter
B72 4,221 home range diameter
B73 740 home range diameter
B74** 80 same as B75
B75 180 minimum forest habitat width
B76** 60 same as B27 (fairly tolerant of humans)
B77** 60 same as B27 (fairly tolerant of humans)
B78 196 home range diameter
B79** 196 same as B78
B80** 180 same as B67
B81** 180 same as B67
B82** 210 same as B86
B83** 210 same as B86
B84 135 home range diameter
B85** 210 same as B86
B86 210 minimum forest habitat width
B87 > 450 minimum forest habitat width
B88 180 minimum forest habitat width


F-24









Table F-8. Continued.


Species Code* Spatial Requirement (feet)


B89** 180 same as B88
B90 > 450 minimum forest habitat width
B91 165 home range diameter
B92** 165 same as B91
B93** 196 same as B78
B94** 196 same as B78
B95** 196 same as B78
M 1** 370 same as M 4
M 2** 60 same as B27 (fairly tolerant of humans)
M 3 700 maximum distance found from shore
M 4 370 home range diameter
M 5 30 home range diameter
M 6** 30 same as M 5
M 7 17,287 home range diameter
M 8 3,702 home range diameter
M 8 1,851 1/2 home range diameter (entire home range includes the marsh as
well as the adjacent flatwood or hammock forest)
M 9 6,600 home range diameter
M10 300 maximum distance of den from closest water
M11 5,912 home range diameter



*See Appendix C for species names. A = Amphibian, R = Reptile, B = Bird, M = Mammal

**Because no spatial requirement data were found for these species, the numbers used here represent spatial
requirements for species that are closely related, similar-sized, found in comparable habitats, and categorized in
corresponding guilds.


F-25









Table F-9. Semi-aquatic and Wetland dependent Wildlife species of East Central Florida: SPATIAL
REQUIREMENTS OF ALL SPECIES ARRANGED IN ASCENDING ORDER



Species Code* Spatial Requirement (feet)


B25 14 nest location landward from the waterward extent of the forest
B 2 20 very tolerant of humans while feeding
B 3 20 very tolerant of humans while feeding
B 4 20 very tolerant of humans while feeding
B20 20 very tolerant of humans while feeding
M 5 30 home range diameter
M 6** 30 same as M 5
R29 51 home range diameter
R13** 51 same as R29
R14** 51 same as R29
B23** 60 same as B27 (fairly tolerant of humans)
B26** 60 same as B27 (fairly tolerant of humans)
B47** 60 same as B27 (fairly tolerant of humans)
B48** 60 same as B27 (fairly tolerant of humans)
B60** 60 same as B27 (fairly tolerant of humans)
B61** 60 same as B27 (fairly tolerant of humans)
B69** 60 same as B27 (fairly tolerant of humans)
B70** 60 same as B27 (fairly tolerant of humans)
B76** 60 same as B27 (fairly tolerant of humans)
B77** 60 same as B27 (fairly tolerant of humans)
M 2** 60 same as B27 (fairly tolerant of humans)
B30 64 nest location landward from the waterward extent of the forest
B27 84 nest location landward from the waterward extent of forest (24) +
minimum distance from humans tolerated (60)
B37** 84 same as B27
R33 128 distance between captures of same individual
B10 120 minimum distance from humans tolerated
Bll** 120 same as B10
B38 120 minimum distance from humans tolerated
B5** 120 same as B10
R33 128 distance between captures of same individual
R34** 128 same as R33
B84 135 home range diameter
B10 150 nest location landward from the waterward extent of forest (30) +
minimum distance from humans tolerated (120)
B91 165 home range diameter
B92** 165 same as B91
B46 180 minimum distance from humans tolerated
B44** 180 same as B46
B45** 180 same as B46
B54** 180 same as B46


F-26









Table F-9. Continued.


Species Code* Spatial Requirement (feet)


B55** 180 same as B46
B56** 180 same as B46
B57** 180 same as B46
B58** 180 same as B46
B59** 180 same as B46
B62** 180 same as B46
B63** 180 same as B46
B64** 180 same as B46
B65** 180 same as B46
B66** 180 same as B46
A 4 180 maximum distance found from closest water
A 3** 180 same as A 4
A 8** 180 same as A 4
A 9** 180 same as A 4
A10** 180 same as A 4
A18** 180 same as A 4
A19** 180 same as A 4
A20** 180 same as A 4
B24** 180 same as B28 (minimum distance tolerated)
B31** 180 same as B28 (minimum distance tolerated)
B32** 180 same as B28 (minimum distance tolerated)
B33** 180 same as B28 (minimum distance tolerated)
B68 180 minimum forest habitat width
B67 180 minimum forest habitat width
B80** 180 same as B67
B81** 180 same as B67
B75 180 minimum forest habitat width
B74** 180 same as B75
B88 180 minimum forest habitat width
B89** 180 same as B88
B78 196 home range diameter
B79** 196 same as B78
B93** 196 same as B78
B94** 196 same as B78
B95** 196 same as B78
R37 202 1/2 of home range diameter (entire home range includes the marsh as
well as the adjacent forest)
B86 210 minimum forest habitat width
B82** 210 same as B86
B83** 210 same as B86


F-27









Table F-9. Continued.


Species Code* Spatial Requirement (feet)


B85** 210 same as B86
B49 240 minimum distance from humans tolerated
B50 240 minimum distance from humans tolerated
B51 240 minimum distance from humans tolerated
B52 240 minimum distance from humans tolerated
B35 240 minimum distance from humans tolerated
B 1 240 minimum distance from humans tolerated
B28 243 nest location landward from the waterward extent of forest (63) +
minimum distance from humans tolerated (180)
B 9 300 minimum distance from humans tolerated
B 6 300 minimum distance from humans tolerated
B 7 300 minimum distance from humans tolerated
B 8** 300 same as B 6
B12** 300 same as B 6
B13** 300 same as B 6
B21** 300 same as B 6 (winter migrant, not tolerant of humans)
B53 300 minimum distance from humans tolerated
M10 300 maximum distance of den from closest water
B29 322 nest location landward from the waterward extent of forest (82) +
minimum distance from humans tolerated (240)
R35 331 home range diameter
A14 350 maximum distance found from permanent water
A15** 350 same as A14
A16** 350 same as A14
A17** 350 same as A14
M 4 370 home range diameter
M 1** 370 same as M 4
R37 405 home range diameter
B87 > 450 minimum forest habitat width
B90 > 450 minimum forest habitat width
R 2 497 home range diameter
R 4** 497 same as R 2
R12** 497 same as R 2 *
R36 698 1/2 of home range diameter (entire home range includes the marsh as
well as the adjacent forest)
M 3 700 maximum distance found from shore
R22 732 distance between captures of same individual
B73 740 home range diameter
B15 795 home range diameter
B14** 795 same as B15
B16** 795 same as B15


F-28








Table F-9. Continued.


,Species Code* Spatial Requirement (feet)


B17** 795 same as B15
B19** 795 same as B15
R26 884 home range diameter
R25** 884 same as R26
R27** 884 same as R26
R28** 884 same as R26
R30** 884 same as R26
R31** 884 same as R26
R32** 884 same as R26
B 9 960 nest location landward from the waterward extent of forest (660) +
minimum distance from humans tolerated (300)
R 9 1,350 maximum distance from closest water to winter hibernation site
R3** 1,350 same as R 9
R 5** 1,350 same as R 9
R 6** 1,350 same as R 9
RIO** 1,350 same as R 9
R11** 1,350 same as R 9
R36 1,395 home range diameter
R20** 1,395 same as R36
R21** 1,395 same as R36
B18 1,500 secondary restrictive activity zone around eagle nests
B34** 1,500 same as B18
B36** 1,500 same as B18
R24 1,664 home range diameter
R15** 1,664 same as R24
R16** 1,664 same as R24
R17** 1,664 same as R24
R18** 1,664 same as R24
R23** 1,664 same as R24
R39** 1,664 same as R24
B42 1,800 home range diameter
B39** 1,800 same as B42
B40** 1,800 same as B42
B41** 1,800 same as B42
B43** 1,800 same as B42
M 8 1,851 1/2 home range diameter (entire home range includes the marsh as
well as the adjacent flatwood or hammock forest)


F-29








Table F-9. Continued.


Species Code* Spatial Requirement (feet)


R38 2,756 home range diameter
M 8 3,702 home range diameter
A 5 4,000 maximum distance found from breeding pond
A 6** 4,000 same as A 5
A 7** 4,000 same as A 5
B72 4,221 home range diameter
B71 4,352 home range diameter
R19 4,654 home range diameter
R 8 5,280 maximum distance from closest water to nest
R 7** 5,280 same as R 8
M1l 5,912 home range diameter
A13 6,336 distance between captures of same individual
A 1** 6,336 same as A13
A 2** 6,336 same as A13
All** 6,336 same as A13
A12** 6,336 same as A13
M 9 6,600 home range diameter
B22 10,472 home range diameter
R 1 11,045 home range diameter
M 7 17,287 home range diameter


*See Appendix C for species names. A = Amphibian, R = Reptile, B = Bird, M = Mammal

**Because no spatial requirement data were found for these species, the numbers used here represent spatial
requirements for species that are closely related, similar-sized, found in comparable habitats, and categorized in
corresponding guilds.


F-30
















APPENDIX G:

Habitat descriptions. (SCS, 1989)













SALT MARSHES


This habitat occurs along the Atlantic coast and inland along tidal rivers. It appears as an open expanse
of grasses, sedges, and rushes. Vegetation often occurs in distinct zones within the salt marsh complex as a
result of water levels from tidal action and salinity concentrations in water and soils. Some species have a wide
tolerance range and may be found throughout the grass marsh. Plants in this group are black needlerush and
seashore saltgrass. Smooth cordgrass is usually dominant in this system and more indicative of low, regularly
flooded marsh, while the high marsh supports salt myrtle, marshhay cordgrass, marshelder, saltwort and sea
oxeye. Plants that characterize this habitat are:

HERBACEOUS PLANTS AND VINES Sea blite (Suaeda linearis), Sea pursland (Sesuvium portulacastrum).

GRASSES AND GRASSLIKE PLANTS Big cordgrass (Spartina cynosuroides), Marshhay cordgrass (Sartna
patens), Olney bulrush (Scripus americanus), Seashore dropseed (Scorobolus virginicus), Seashore
paspalum (Pasalum vaginatum), Seashore saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), Shoregrass (Monanthochole
littoralis), Smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora).












FRESHWATER MARSHES


This habitat appears as an open expanse of grasses, sedges, and rushes, and other herbaceous plants in
areas where the soil is usually saturated or covered with surface water for two or more months during the year.
Plants that characterize this habitat are:

GRASSES AND GRASSLIKE PLANTS Beak rushes (Rhynchospora spp.), Blue maidencane (Amphicarpum
muhlenbergianum), Bottlebush threeawn (Aristida spiciformis), Bulrushes (Scirpus spp.)Caric sedges
(Carex spp.), Clubhead cutgrass (Leersia hexandra), Common reed (Phragmites spp.), Flat sedge
(Cyperus spp.), Maidencane (Panicum hemitomon), Rush (Juncus spp.), Sawgrass (Cladium jamaiccnse),
Spike rushes (Eleocharis spp.), Umbrella grass (Fuirena spp.), Wild millet (Echinocloa spp.).

HERBACEOUS PLANTS Arrowhead (Saggitaris spp.), Blue flag (Iris hexagona savannarum), Cattail (Typha
spp.), Fire flag (Thalia geniculata), Pickerelweed ( Pontederia cordata) and (Pontederia lanceolata),
Smartweed, (Polygonum spp.), Pennywort (Hydrocotle spp.).

SHRUBS St. Johns wort (Hypericum spp.), Primrose willow (Ludwigia lanceolata), Smartweed (Polygonum
spp.), Pennywort (Hydrocotle spp.).












CYPRESS SWAMPS


This habitat occurs along rivers, lake margins, and interspersed throughout other communities such as
flatwoods. Bald cypress, along lakes and stream margins, is dominant and often is the only plant found in large
numbers. Pond cypress occurs in cypress heads or domes which are usually found in flatwoods. Plants that
characterize this habitat are:

TREES Bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), Blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica), Coastal plain willow (Saix
caroliniana), Pond cypress (Taxodium distichum var. nutans), Red maple (Acer rubrum).

SHRUBS Common buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), Southern waxmyrtle (Myrica cerifera).

HERBACEOUS PLANTS AND VINES Cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), Fall-flowering ixia
(Nemastylis floridana), Laurel grenbriar (Smilax laurifolia) Pickerel weed (Pontederia cordata), Royal
fern (Osmunda regalis).

GRASSES AND GRASSLIKE PLANTS Maidencane (Panicum hemitomon), Narrowleaf sawgrass (Cladium
mariscoides).













HARDWOOD SWAMPS


This habitat occurs along rivers and in basins which are either submerged or saturated part of the year.
Bayhead swamps are included here. The vegetation is primarily deciduous hardwood trees. Many areas may
have originally been dominated by cypress, but when the large cypress were cut out, the hardwoods became
dominant. Plants that characterize this habitat are:

TREES Blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica), Red maple (Acer rubrum), Sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana), Water ash
(Fraxinus carolinensis).

SHRUBS Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), Dahoon holly (Ilex cassine).

HERBACEOUS PLANTS AND VINES Cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), Lizard's tail (Suarurus
cernuus), Royal fern (Osmunda regalis), Wild pine (Tillandsia fasiculata).












HAMMOCKS


This habitat complex includes xeric, mesic, and hydric hammocks. They occur in a variety of site
conditions from strongly sloping, dry, sandy sites to level, poorly drained sites with high water tables. This
habitat supports a luxurious growth of vegetation with a diversity of species. Plants that characterize this habitat
are:

TREES Black cherry (Prunus serotina), Flowering dogwood (Cronus florida), Pignut hickory (Carya palusris),
Cabbage palm (Saa palmetto), Hawthorns (Craetaegus spp.), Laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), Live oak
(Quercus virginiana), Red bay (Persea borbonia), Red maple (Acer rubrum), Sweetbay (Magnolia
virginiana), Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), Water oak (Ouercus nigra), Magnolia (Magnolia
grandiflora).

SHRUBS American beautyberry (Callicarpa americana), Arrowwood (Viburnum dentatum), Sparkleberry
(Vaccinium arboreum), Waxmyrtle (Myrica cerifera), Sawpalmetto (Serenoa renens).

HERBACEOUS PLANTS AND VINES Cat greenbriar (Smilax glauca), Common greenbriar (Smilax
rotundifolia), Crossvine (Bignonia capreolata), Partridge berry (Mitchella reopens Partirdge pea (Cassia
spp.), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), Wild grape (itis spp.), Blackberry (Rubus spp.).

GRASSES AND GRASSLIKE PLANTS Low panicum (Panicum spp.), Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum),
Eastern gamagrass (Tripsacum dactyloides), Maidencane (Panicum hemitomon).













FLATWOODS


This habitat occurs on nearly level land. Water movement is very gradual. During the rainy season,
this water may be on or near the soil surface. At other times, the soil can be fairly dry. The natural vegetation
of this habitat is typically scattered pine trees and occasionally cabbage palms with an understory of sawpalmetto
and grasses. The plants that characterize this habitat are:

TREES Live oak (Quercus virginiana), Slash pine (Pinus elliottii), Cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto).

SHRUBS Sawpalmetto (Serenoa repens), waxmyrtle (Myrica cerifcra), Ground blueberry (Vacinnium
myrsinites), Gallberry (lex glabra), Shining sumac (Rhus copallina).

HERBACEOUS PLANTS AND VINES Creeping beggarweed (Desmodium incanum), Deer tongue (Trilisa
ordoratissima), Gay feather (Liatris gracillis).

GRASSES AND GRASSLIKE PLANTS Chalky bluestem (Andropogon capillipes), creeping bluestem
(Schizachyrium stoloniferum), Lopsided indiangrass (Sorghastrum secundum), Low panicum (Panicum
spp.).












SANDHILLS


This habitat includes the sand scrub and longleaf pine-turkey oak ecological communities. Sandhills
occur on rolling land with strong slopes. Water movement is rapid through the sandy soil. Plants that
characterize this habitat are:

TREES Bluejack oak (Quercus incana), Chapman oak (Quercus chapmannii), sand live oak (Quercus virginiana
var.), Sand pine (Pinus clausa), Longleaf pine inus palustris), Turkey oak (Quercus laevis).

SHRUBS Dwarf huckleberry (Gaylussacia dumosa), Gopher apple (Chrysobalanus oblongifolius) Prickly pear
(Opuntia spp.).

HERBACEOUS PLANTS AND VINES Grassleaf goldenaster (Heterotheca graminifolia), Deermoss (Cladonia
spp.), Aster (As spp.), Blazing star (Liatris tenuifolia), Butterfly pea (Centrosema virginianum),
Elephant's foot (Elephantopus spp.), Partridge pea (Cassia spp.), Pineland beggarweed (Desmodium
strictum), Sandhill milkweed (Asclepias humistrata), Wild indigo (Baptista spp.).

GRASSES AND GRASSLIKE PLANTS Yellow indiangrass (Sorphastrum nutans), Low panicum (Panicum
spp.), Pinewoods dropseed (Sporobolus junceus).


























































Copies of this report may be purchased for $ :. from:

The Center for Wetlands
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida 32611
(352 392-2424
FAX (3s,) 392-3624






University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2011 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated May 24, 2011 - Version 3.0.0 - mvs