• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 Acknowledgement
 Introduction
 Part I. The role and importance...
 Part II. Spatial analysis of the...
 Bibliography
 Spruce Creek recommended buffer...
 Tables 1-9
 Figures 1-34
 Appendix A. Wetland hydrology model...
 Appendix B. Annotated bibliogr...






Title: Role and importance of depth and duration of flooding in the maintenance and conservation of wetland functions and values: management implications and
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00016646/00001
 Material Information
Title: Role and importance of depth and duration of flooding in the maintenance and conservation of wetland functions and values: management implications and
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Brown, Mark T.
Gettleson, Claudia
Habercorn, Juan
Roguski, Steve
Publisher: Wetland and Water Resources Research Center, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 1991
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00016646
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: notis - AAA9244
oclc - 30021933

Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Table of Contents
        Page i
        Page ii
    Acknowledgement
        Page iii
    Introduction
        Page iv
    Part I. The role and importance of hydrology to wetland functions: A review of the literature
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
    Part II. Spatial analysis of the impacts of urbanization and groundwater withdrawals on the hydrology of wetlands
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
    Bibliography
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
    Spruce Creek recommended buffer zone
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
    Tables 1-9
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
    Figures 1-34
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
        Page 90
        Page 91
        Page 92
        Page 93
        Page 94
        Page 95
        Page 96
        Page 97
        Page 98
        Page 99
        Page 100
        Page 101
        Page 102
        Page 103
        Page 104
        Page 105
        Page 106
        Page 107
        Page 108
        Page 109
        Page 110
    Appendix A. Wetland hydrology model given in basic
        Page A
        Page A-1
        Page A-2
    Appendix B. Annotated bibliography
        Page B
        Page B-1
        Page B-2
        Page B-3
        Page B-4
        Page B-5
        Page B-6
        Page B-7
        Page B-8
        Page B-9
        Page B-10
        Page B-11
        Page B-12
        Page B-13
        Page B-14
        Page B-15
        Page B-16
        Page B-17
        Page B-18
        Page B-19
        Page B-20
        Page B-21
        Page B-22
        Page B-23
        Page B-24
        Page B-25
        Page B-26
        Page B-27
        Page B-28
        Page B-29
        Page B-30
        Page B-31
        Page B-32
        Page B-33
        Page B-34
        Page B-35
        Page B-36
        Page B-37
        Page B-38
        Page B-39
        Page B-40
        Page B-41
        Page B-42
        Page B-43
        Page B-44
        Page B-45
        Page B-46
        Page B-47
        Page B-48
        Page B-49
        Page B-50
        Page B-51
        Page B-52
        Page B-53
        Page B-54
        Page B-55
        Page B-56
        Page B-57
        Page B-58
        Page B-59
        Page B-60
        Page B-61
        Page B-62
        Page B-63
        Page B-64
        Page B-65
        Page B-66
        Page B-67
        Page B-68
        Page B-69
        Page B-70
        Page B-71
        Page B-72
        Page B-73
        Page B-74
        Page B-75
        Page B-76
        Page B-77
        Page B-78
        Page B-79
        Page B-80
        Page B-81
Full Text






THE ROLE AND IMPORTANCE OF DEPTH AND DURATION OF
FLOODING IN THE MAINTENANCE AND CONSERVATION OF
WETLAND FUNCTIONS AND VALUES:
Management Implications and Strategies




By

Mark T. Brown, Associate Scientist

with


Claudia Gettleson
Juan Habercorn
Steve Roguski


October 1991

CFW-91-09














Prepared for the Southwest Florida Water Management District


Wetland and Water Resources Research Center
Phelps Lab, University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida 32611-2061
Tel. (904) 392-2424 Fax (904) 392-3624


_ _










TABLE OF CONTENTS


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...................................... ............. iii

INTRODUCTION ............ ............................................ iv

PART I.

THE ROLE AND IMPORTANCE OF HYDROLOGY TO WETLAND FUNCTIONS:
A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .................................... ......... 1
Wetland Hydrology: The Balance of Rain, Run-in, Recharge, Discharge and
Evapotranspiration ........................................ 1
Hydrology and Landscape Position ............................. 4
Hydrology and the Structural Properties of Wetlands ................. 5
Hydrologic Influences on Wetland Community Structure ............... 5
Impacts of Altered Hydrology ........................................ 7
The Influence of Exogenous Activities on Wetland Hydrology ................. 12
Urbanization in the Surrounding Landscape ......................... 12
Groundwater Withdrawals ................................... 13
Summary ................................................. 15

PART II.

SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACTS OF URBANIZATION
AND GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWALS ON THE
HYDROLOGY OF WETLANDS ................................................ 16
INTRODUCTION ...................................... ............ 16
METHODS ...................................... ................ 16
Field Methods ...................................... ......... 17
Qualitative Assessment Method ................................ 17
Map Coverages .................................... ........... 19
Land Use/Land Cover ..................................... 19
Soil Coverages .................................... ...... 19
Drainage Ditches .......................................... 19
Spatial Data Bases ............................................. 20
Impervious Surface ..................... ..................... 21
ower Density .................................... ....... 21
Land Development Intensity (LDI) Index ................. ......... 21
Ditch Intensity (DI) Index ..................................... 22
Water Table Depth and Differential ............................ 22
Water Table Drawdown ...................................... 22
RESULTS ........................................................... 23
Field Surveys of Isolated Wetlands .................................. 23
Map Coverages ...................................... ..... 23
Land Use/Land Cover ................................ 23
Soils ........................................... 23
Drainage Ditches ..................................... 24
Spatial Data Base ........................................ ...... 24
Statistical Analysis of Spatial Databases ................ ............... 25
Description of the Data Sets ................................ 25










Landscape-Scale Spatial Analysis .. ...... ......... .............. 26
Local-Scale (400 meter) Spatial Analysis ......................... 27
DISCUSSION ..................................................... 27
Statistical Analysis of Data Bases ......................... ............ 27
Independence of Indices ........... ............................ 28
Sensitivity of Indices ........................................ 29
Spatial Influences of Urbanization .............................. 30
Temporal Influences of Urbanization ............................... 31
Subsurface Geology and Wetland Surface Hydrology ................. 32
Impacts of Urbanization on Wetland Quality .................... 32
Multiple Regressions ........................ ............... 32
Review and Summary of the Importance of Hydrologic Function and the Effects of
Urbanization and Wellfield Pumping ........... ............... 33
Management and Regulatory Suggestions or Protection of Wetland Functions and
Values ............................. .................... 34
Management Suggestions ......................................... 35
Manage and Regulate Development to Minimize Runoff ................. 35
Design Stormwater Systems as Networks of Streams and Wetlands .......... 36
Dechannelize Streams, Rivers, and Storm Ditches ................... 37
Protect Surficial Aquifer Levels and Wetland Hydrology .............. 37
Re-hydrate the Landscape through Recycling of Wastewaters on the Land ..... 38
Design New Developments and Retro-fit Existing Developments to Maximize
Water Reuse and Minimize Sewage Production .............. .39
Summary .............................. ..................... 39
BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................... ............ .................. 41

TABLES
FIGURES
APPENDIX A WETLAND HYDROLOGY MODEL GIVEN IN BASIC
APPENDIX B ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY










ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


This project was initiated and managed by Mr. Manual Lopez, Environmental Scientist, with the
Southwest Florida Water Management District. Funding was provided as part of the Northwest Hillsborough
Water Resource Assessment Project.
We would like to extend our sincere gratitude and appreciation to Dr. Theodore F. Rochow,
Environmental Scientist, and to several other anonymous reviewers for their critical review of our work and
earlier drafts of this report.
Numerous staff members of the Water Management District provided valuable input and needed data.
We would especially like to thank Dr. Terry Bengtsson and Dr. Steve Dix.
Word processing and editing were done by Ms. Kristina Woods, editorial assistant at the Wetland and
Water Resources Research Center.










INTRODUCTION


This study is a documentation of the importance of hydrology to wetlands, and an analysis of the spatial
manifestations and resulting impacts of urbanization and groundwater withdrawals on wetlands hydrology. An
area in northwest Hillsborough County and smaller adjacent portions of southwest Pasco and northeast Pinellas
counties (see Figure 1) have been the subject of an intense study by the Southwest Florida Water Management
District to evaluate the consequences of groundwater withdrawals. Known as the Northwest Hillsborough Water
Resources Assessment Project (WRAP) the larger study is designed to help in policy decisions related to
continued and expanded pumping for public water supplies. This study is a component of that larger study. It
has been organized into two tasks: (1) a review of the literature relating to wetland hydrology, and (2) a spatial
evaluation of the impacts and consequences of urbanization and groundwater withdrawals on the hydrology of
wetlands within the northwest Hillsborough study area.
The first section of this report reviews the pertinent literature regarding wetland hydrology and the
impacts of altered hydrology on wetland structure and function. Of critical importance is the literature relating
to wetlands of central Florida; however, equally important is the literature that illustrates its importance in all
wetland types, regardless of location, to demonstrate the pervasiveness and absolute prominence of water levels
and duration of flooding on wetland structure and function. While we have tried to concentrate on the literature
that pertains to wetlands of central Florida, the general mechanisms and overall consequences of altered
hydrology in all wetland types, regardless of location, are germane to the task.
The review of the literature is organized into three topics. Each begins with a general overview,
reviews the literature and continues with more specificity pertaining to wetlands of central Florida where
possible. First, wetland hydrology is explored as the balance of rain, run-in, recharge, discharge and
evapotranspiration. Related to these flows and affecting hydrology are landscape position and the structural
properties of wetlands, especially basin morphology and interactions of underlying geologic formations and
surface topography. Second, the importance of hydrology and the impacts of altered hydrology on structural
properties and processes in wetlands is examined. And third, the influence of exogenous activities on wetland
hydrology is examined relating to two generalized activities: urbanization in the surrounding landscape and
groundwater withdrawals. An appendix to this report contains an annotated bibliography of most of the
literature used in this review.
In the second task of this study, spatial data on intensity of development, soils, impervious surface,
drainage density, and groundwater elevations have been combined with quantitative and qualitative evaluations
of "ecological well-being" for 91 wetlands scattered throughout the study area to evaluate the effects of
increased urbanization on the hydrology of wetlands and to separate those effects from the effects of
groundwater withdrawal. Spatial data were manipulated using a Geographic Information System (GIS) software
running on a micro-computer.












PART I.


THE ROLE AND IMPORTANCE OF HYDROLOGY TO WETLAND FUNCTIONS:
A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE


by


Mark T. Brown and Claudia Gettleson




Wetland Hydrology: The Balance of Rain, Run-in, Recharge, Discharge and Evapotranspiration.


Wetlands are intermediate between terrestrial and aquatic environments both in their spatial location and
in the amount of water to which they are accustomed. It is the hydrology of wetlands that creates the unique
physical and chemical environment to which a relatively few of the earth's plant species are adapted. In fact,
"Hydrology is probably the single most important determinant for the establishment and maintenance of specific
types of wetlands and wetland processes" (Mitsch and Gosselink 1986).
Carter (1986) suggested that hydrology is the primary driving force influencing wetland ecology,
development, and persistence, but is as yet poorly understood. Depth of inundation and duration of flooding
(sometimes called hydroperiod) are, when taken together, what is commonly meant by the term wetland
hydrology. Both factors, the depth of flooding, and duration of flooding, can act independently in their effect
on wetland organization and processes. Both are variable from wetland to wetland, but are tied together as
dependent variables within a single wetland. Both are critical to an understanding of wetland hydrology.
Figure 2 is a schematic diagram of a wetland showing the relationship between depth and duration of
flooding. Since many wetlands are either depressions with relatively minor edge slopes, or extremely flat
expanses of minor elevational change, small changes in water levels can cause large changes in the areal extent
of inundation. Within the same wetland, hydroperiod is directly related to land-surface elevation. Thus, higher
ground (hummocks and wetland edges) have shallowest inundation and shortest hydroperiods, and the deeper
portions of wetlands are often those areas that remain flooded the longest and, therefore, have the longest
hydroperiods. Both depth and duration effect the physio-chemistry of wetland soils and, ultimately, the spatial
distributions of vegetation.
Wetland hydrology is a dynamic interplay of water inflows and outflows. Figure 3 is a diagram
showing the inflows of water and sunlight energy that drive part of the water cycle for a typical ecological










community. Shown as important driving energies are sunlight, wind (which in turn helps to modulate air
temperature and water vapor content), rainfall, run-in, recharge, and runoff (discharge). Evapotranspiration
(the sum of community-wide evaporation and plant transpiration) is relatively complex since it is driven by
sunlight, temperature, relative humidity, and vegetation biomass. Each line in the diagram represents a pathway
of water or energy flow that often interacts with some other energy or water flow. In Figure 3, the storage of
heat interacting with transpired water from vegetation is an example. With higher amounts of heat in the local
environment, air can hold greater amounts of water vapor before becoming saturated. Some of the pathways,
like rainfall for instance, are driven by outside variability. Some are dependent upon the structural
characteristics of the wetland, like groundwater recharge. Outflows through the organic layers in most wetlands
are dependent on water levels within the wetland and the water levels in the surrounding landscape. Overland
flows into wetlands from the surrounding landscape are dependent not only on the intensity of a given rainfall
event, but also on the length of time since the last rainfall event, as well as the antecedent soil moisture
conditions. Evapotranspiration is a function of water levels within the wetland, humidity, and vegetation.
Vegetation removes large amounts of water through transpiration-often, during peak activity, removing
quantities comparable to or greater than out-flow or deep seepage (Heikurainen 1963). In all, the depth and
duration of flooding in wetlands is extremely variable from year to year and, as a consequence, it is difficult to
determine what constitutes an average hydroperiod for a given wetland type.
The balance of inflows and outflows in a landscape setting determine whether or not a wetland can
exist. In the most general sense, wetlands can only occur in landscapes where rainfall is greater than potential
evapotranspiration (PET). In other words if the climatic regime is such that PET is greater than annual rainfall,
it is most difficult to maintain surface water storage for sufficient periods of time to establish "wetland"
conditions. As another example, where runoff is high, such as in areas of steep rugged terrain, wetlands are
extremely rare, or nonexistent, even when rainfall far exceeds PET. Soils where permeability is high and thus
recharge is high, often are not conducive to wetlands, since waters percolate through surface horizons too
rapidly for wetland conditions to prevail for long enough periods of time.
Heimberg (1984) in one of the few studies of water budgets in Florida wetlands studied two stillwater
cypress swamps in north Florida: a swamp receiving treated wastewater and a control swamp. In the control
wetland 71 % of rainfall entered as through fall, 47% as surface inflow (run-in) and 2% as stem flow (calculated
as a percent of rainfall, thus they do not add to 100%). Outflows were: infiltration (45%) and
evapotranspiration (75%). There was no surface outflow from the control wetland. Most significant in the
study was the relationship discovered between infiltration rate and the differences in elevations of water tables
outside the cypress swamp and water level within the swamp. Heimburg (1984) suggested that as the water
table in surrounding lands receded, the hydraulic gradient between high water levels within a wetland and lower
water table elevations outside caused infiltration rates to increase. Infiltration was suggested to be more radial
rather than downward from the dome. Also of considerable interest was Heimburg's calculation of infiltration










rates based on geometry and size of wetlands. He found that infiltration rates (per unit area) could be expected
to decrease with increasing size of wetland.
Heimburg's analysis of the water budget of a north central Florida cypress wetland provided two very
important insights into the adverse impacts of lowered water tables. First infiltration is a function of the
difference in head between the surface water in the wetland and the elevation of the groundwater table outside
the wetland. Thus if water tables are lowered in lands surrounding wetlands, infiltration rates are increased and
a larger portion of the total water budget is lost to recharge. The second implication is that small wetlands are
affected more (i.e., increased infiltration) than large wetlands. Landscapes composed of isolated wetlands have
size class distributions that have far greater numbers of small wetlands than large ones, thus the impacts of
lowered water tables may be far greater in extent when the numbers of wetlands and their spatial distribution are
taken into account.
To illustrate the effects of lowered groundwater tables on surface water in wetlands, a computer model
of wetland hydrology was simulated with successively lower groundwater tables as inputs, and by using the
relationships suggested by Heimburg. The diagram of wetland hydrology is given at the top of Figure 4. The
symbols used in this diagram have associated mathematical equations. A diagram, then, is a visual set of
equations that describe the relationships within a system and that can be programmed and simulated on
computer. This diagram was programmed in BASIC and simulated on micro computer to illustrate the effects
of changes in forcing function and the surrounding landscape on surface water within a typical wetland
ecosystem (Brown 1989). The computer program, which contains the equations describing the flows and
storage of water within the wetland, is given as an appendix. The diagram shows the flows of water into and
out of the wetland (flow lines that cross the system boundary), and storage of water as surface and soil water
(tank symbols within system boundary). Groundwater is the surficial aquifer in the surrounding landscape,
shown both within and outside the wetland. Also shown in the upper right portion of the diagram is the
interaction of biomass and sunlight that draws and transpires soil water to the atmosphere.
The model was simulated to illustrate the effects of lowered groundwater elevations on wetland
hydroperiod. Graphed in the lower portion of Figure 4 are a series of simulation results of surface water within
the wetland when groundwater elevations are decreased by one-foot increments. Each successively lower line in
the graph is the simulated surface water hydrograph that results from an increased drawdown of the
groundwater elevation in the surrounding landscape. The effect of lowered groundwater elevations in the
surrounding landscape is to increase outflow from the wetland, shifting the water balance more negatively. The
net effect is lower surface water storage and a decreased period of inundation.










Hydrology and Landscape Position
Landscape position is extremely important to wetland hydrology (Odum 1978; Brown and Sullivan
1987; Brown 1989). Wetlands found in headwaters areas of watersheds are most often isolated depressional
wetlands whose water inflows are primarily from rainfall and runoff from a relatively small surrounding
watershed often not more than twice the size of the wetland (Sullivan 1986). Wetlands associated with seepage
areas rarely are inundated, but always saturated. Floodplain wetlands have a periodicity and depth of inundation
that is related to the order of the stream along which they are found. Low order streams (smaller) may have
several relatively shallow episodes of flooding each year, while floodplain wetlands on higher order streams
have deeper inundation and may have a marked wet and dry season.
Wetlands can be divided into three types by hydrologic regime (the dominance of the various potential
inputs of water) which is most affected by landscape position. The three types grouped according to dominate
water sources are: (1) flowing water wetlands, (2) sluggish flowing water wetlands, and (3) stillwater wetlands
(Mitsch and Gosselink 1986). In flowing water wetlands, the dominant input is run-in from the surrounding
watershed. Rainfall may be equally important, but in large floodplain forests for instance, it may be much less
than half of the inflowing water budget. Flowing water wetlands are found in the lower reaches of watersheds.
Wetlands with sluggish flowing water have more even balance between rain and run-in. Some sluggish flowing
wetlands are groundwater discharge points. Most sluggish flowing water wetlands are found in the upper
portions of midreaches of watersheds, although seepage wetlands are often found in the headwaters. Stillwater
wetlands are dominated by rainfall with a relatively even balance between rainfall and outflows like recharge
and evapotranspiration. Most stillwater wetlands are found in the flat, table lands of the headwaters of
watersheds.
Odum (1984) proposed a classification scheme for wetlands based on source of water and nutrients
which is mostly controlled by landscape position. Odum postulates the following:
1) Water drains from low nutrient swamps on elevated table lands down through strands into
floodplains.
2) Source of water dictates nutrient availability.
3) Swamps that depend on rainwater for inflows only are quite low in nutrients and hardness, are
acidic, and are more like bogs, with evergreen trees, sometimes called bays.
4) Wetlands with surface inflows from a small area of surrounding uplands have higher nutrient
levels than bays, are somewhat more productive, and dominated by pond cypress.
5) As the area of runoff into a swamp increases, nutrient levels increase, productivity increases
and species switch from pond cypress to bald cypress.










Hydrology and the Structural Properties of Wetlands
The structural features of wetlands influence hydroperiod. Gently sloped wetland edges create
conditions where minor changes in water elevation can cause drastic changes in the percent of the area that is
inundated. Likewise, steeply sloped edges require large changes in elevation before there is a corresponding
change in the area inundated. In recent studies of central Florida wetlands (Brown and Tighe 1990) and
reference wetlands for mitigation sites (Brown in press), structural features of wetland types were quantified.
Edge slopes (the slope of the ground surface between the basin bottom and upland edge of a wetland) roughness
(microtopographic relief) and density of hummocks were analyzed for different wetland community types. Edge
slopes for isolated wetlands averaged 2.6% (or about 0.26 meters of drop for each 10 meters of horizontal
distance). With such gentle slopes, it is easily visualized that with a small increase in water depth, a large
surface area would be inundated. The roughness (variance about the mean elevation of the bottom basin) of
marshes averaged 0.258, while in forested wetlands it was much greater as the result of hummocks that
averaged about 30 cm in height, 2.0 meters in diameter, and occurred at a density of nearly 1 per 2 m2. The
result of these differences in wetland communities is that marshes most often exhibit zonation of vegetation
based on the rise and fall of surface water over a relatively smooth ground surface, while forested wetland
exhibit much greater herbaceous and shrub diversity because of the multitude of elevations that exhibit differing
depths and durations of inundation.
Odum (1984) postulates a steady state solution-deposition cycle for the basin of cypress domes. Runoff
waters from surrounding lands carrying nutrients and organic acids, percolate downward through cypress soils
causing solution of underlying limestone-in essence lowering the immediate topography to maintain the
depressional status of the wetland in a somewhat balance with accumulated organic matter. The depressional
character "reinforces" continued inflow of runoff waters from the surrounding landscape which, in turn,
increases nutrient inflows and overall system production. Increased organic matter decay adds further to acid-
percolating waters. Several geologic cross sections of cypress wetlands have shown depressions in underlying
limestone (Odum and Ewel 1974; Watson et al. 1990).
It is generally held that wetlands, especially forested wetlands, (Odum 1984; and Wharton et al. 1977)
conserve water through low transpiration rates, dormant seasons, shading of the water surface, and protection of
the water surface from winds. Recently Odum (CITE) has postulated that the high infra-red reflectance of most
forested wetlands is indicative of low transpiration rates as wetlands regulate their heat balance through
reflectance rather than transpiration. Further measurements and analysis of data are needed to bolster this
interesting position.


Hydrologic Influences on Wetland Community Structure
Water is the single most critical factor influencing wetland structure and function with frequency,
timing, depth, and duration of inundation the critical factors (Day et al. 1988). For a wetland to be a wetland,










by definition (see Goodwin and Nearing 1975; President Carter Executive Order, May 1977; Horwitz 1978;
Cowardin et al. 1979; Florida Administrative Code Ch. 17-3, 4, and 6 ), it must have inundated or saturated
soils for sufficient time to develop conditions that favor hydrophytic vegetation. While the chemical constituents
of water may be important to vegetative community structure, depth and duration of flooding are, by far, the
more important aspect of water (Jeglum 1975; Krusi and Wein 1988; Lieffers 1988; Lindholm and Markkula
1984; Mannerkoski 1985). The effects of water depth and hydroperiod on community structure act through
several mechanisms. First, water depth and duration of flooding affect soil oxygen levels creating anoxic
conditions almost immediately upon soil saturation as a result of the lower diffusion rates of air through water
(Campbell 1980) and effect nutrient availability, oxygen content, redox potential and pH (Wharton et al. 1982;
Damman 1986). Second, decomposition rates are altered. For the most part, decomposition tends to be faster in
flooded sites versus nonflooded sites (Brinson 1977; Bell et al. 1978; Ewel and Odum 1978; Merritt and
Lawson 1979; Shure et al. 1980; Day 1982) although several researchers have suggested the opposite (Lieffers
1988). Third, moisture regime directly impacts the potential and intensity of wildfire in wetland communities
(see Monk 1968; Ewel 1984). The presence (or lack) of fire has profound implications on vegetative
community structure since many wetland vegetation species are particularly sensitive to fire. Often when
drought conditions prevail for long periods of time, dry surface layers of accumulated peat (or muck) may
readily burn, lowering ground surface elevations and killing much of the wetland vegetation.
Wetland function is also influenced by water levels and the length of time of inundation. Since
vegetative community structure can be altered by changes in depth and duration of flooding, productivity and
habitat values can be directly influenced. Both too much and too little water in wetlands can have negative
effects on primary productivity (Mitsch and Ewel 1979; Brinson et al. 1981). Primary production can also be
inhibited by continuous stagnant flooding or high velocity flooding, yet is promoted by slowly flowing water,
with seasonal variation, especially if flooding is in the winter with drawdown in the summer (Wharton et al.
1982).
Alternating periods of wet and dry change availability of forage species for herbivorous animals and
can concentrate aquatic organisms for higher carnivorous animals (see Browder 1976 and 1984; Fredrick and
Collopy 1988; and Kushlan 1986). Other species, for instance the endangered snail kite (Rostrhamus sociabilis
plumbeus), require continued inundation of their feeding habitat to ensure abundance of their food the apple
snail (Pomacea paludosa) (Sykes 1983, 1979). Many wildlife species rely on wetland conditions for protection
during roosting and nesting activities, and will abandon areas where dry conditions make predation easier (Kahl
1963; Ogden and Nesbitt 1979). Observations made by Heard (1976) suggested that water levels (at least the
presence of water) was necessary under the nest site for wood storks and other wading birds to nest successfully
or even to use the area as a roosting site. Still other species, especially amphibians, favor wetlands that have a










dry cycle to eliminate predator fish (see Heyer et al. 1975; Woodward 1983; Morin 1983; Caldwell 1987; and
Moler and Franz 1987)
The importance of hydrology to the spatial distribution of vegetation, both within communities and at
the landscape scale, is demonstrated by several studies of hydrologic influences on wetland vegetation. In a
series of studies of wetlands at Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary in Southwest Florida, Duever (1982, 1988) and
Duever et al. (1975) showed that hydroperiod was the fundamental factor determining distribution of major plant
communities. Duever suggested that "The amplitude of annual water-level fluctuations above and below ground
and the duration of water above ground interact with the adaptations for reproduction, germination, and growth
of the various species to produce the swamp's communities." Hydroperiod appeared to eliminate those species
intolerant of extended inundation, while sites with short hydroperiods burned more frequently and severely,
which periodically eliminated the more fire-sensitive species. Thus, indirectly, hydroperiod exerted control over
community distribution through control of frequency and severity of fires. Studying the spatial heterogeneity of
vegetation of the floodplain marsh of Blue Cypress Lake, in east-central Florida, Lowe (1986) determined that
the spatial heterogeneity of vegetation in the marsh was largely determined by spatial variation in hydrologic
conditions due to topographic relief. Numbers and kinds of species varied continuously with both elevation and
frequency of inundation as did the above-ground biomass of individual species. This resulted in a zoned pattern
in the vegetation correlated with hydrologic features.
In all, depth and duration of flooding effect floral and faunal species composition through two
generalized mechanisms: (1) direct alteration of physical conditions favoring one suite of species over another,
(2) alteration of soil and water chemistry, affecting rates and pathways of nutrient cycling, pH, and habitat
suitability.


Impacts of Altered Hydrology


There have been numerous studies of the impacts of altered hydrology on vegetative community
structure and distribution of species throughout the United States. Paratley and Fahey (1986) found mean depth
to water table and duration of water table drawdown varied among vegetation communities in both the overstory
and ground vegetation classifications and correlated significantly with the first axis of both ordinations. Local
drainage and source of water was a significant factor controlling vegetation distribution in Minnesota peatlands
(Heinselman 1963, 1970). The extent and frequency of flooding also have been correlated with vegetation
pattern in peatlands in the Great Lakes region (Maycock and Curtis 1960; Clausen 1957), Nova Scotia
(Damman 1981), and New York (Bernard, Seischab, and Gauch 1983), and changes in water table depth over a
35-year span affected successional patterns and tree growth in a bog in Michigan (Schwinzer and Williams
1974). Suggesting a relatively passive mechanism, Krusi and Wein (1988) reported that marshes contain both










terrestrial and aquatic species and their communities change in composition quickly with a change in water
level. Evaluating micro topographic impacts of drainage, Lindholm and Markkula (1984) showed that the
change in hydrological conditions after drainage was greater in hummocks than in hollows. However, change in
species composition of vegetation was greater in the hollows than in the hummocks. They suggested that the
response of the plant community to changes in hydrological conditions depends on the ecological amplitudes of
the plants.
Studying Iowa marshes, van der Valk and Davis (1980) hypothesized that polydominant emergent
communities are restricted to marshes or sections of marshes in which the vegetation cycles because changes in
environmental conditions at different times during these cycles favor the growth of one species over the otherss.
Previous studies (Currier 1979) of monodominant emergent communities showed that they were not subject to
cyclic drought and flooding regimes. Their hypothesis suggests that two or more dominant species co-exist in
cyclic emergent communities, because one species never has an opportunity to out-compete all the others. This
hypothesis implies that growth of different emergent species will be affected in dissimilar ways by a change in
environmental conditions in the marsh.
In examinations of seed banks of extant and drained prairie wetlands in the prairie pothole region to
determine the impact of duration of drainage and cultivation on the composition of seed banks of drained
wetlands, Wienhold and van der Valk (1989) found that the number of wetland species present in the seed bank
of a drained wetland declined with time, and the density of seed in the seed bank also declined after 10 or more
years. The results indicated during the first 20 years after drainage, nearly 60% of wetland species were lost
from the seed bank.
Greening and Gerritsen (1987) and Gerritsen and Greening (1989), studying the influence of fluctuating
water level and drought on plant communities of wetlands within the Okefenokee Swamp, Georgia, showed that,
after three years of observations, both frequent (and predictable) drawdown and continual inundation produce
lower species diversity than occasional and less predictable drawdown in marsh plant communities.
Thibodeau and Nickerson (1985) reported the impacts on the plant association of a shrub swamp caused
by the construction of a gravel road across the natural surface water flow of a large wetland in Tewksbury,
Massachusetts. One area of the wetland was impounded while another became drier. Changes in plant
community which occurred in both areas over a period of six years are described in relation to changes in the
flooding pattern and in comparison to undisturbed areas. In the drier portion of the marsh, perennial shrubs
quickly established themselves in the first two years after the water level was reduced. In contrast, noticeable
changes in the flooded portion of the marsh occurred only after three years, and the greatest change did not
occur until after the fifth. Taken together, the results from both treatments suggested that draining has a more
immediate and longer-lasting effect than short-term flooding. One year of draining allowed the establishment of
plants that appear to be able to persist once a more normal flooding pattern has been reestablished.










Several studies of the impacts of altered hydrology in Florida wetlands have shown significant adverse
effects. Marois and Ewel (1983) referencing Demaree (1932) and DuBarry (1963) suggested that alterations of
the natural hydrologic cycle of cypress domes might affect regeneration of cypress because of the dependence of
seed upon seasonally fluctuating water levels for germination and establishment. Fire, which has occurred
historically in cypress ecosystems during the dry season, is an important factor in preventing the dominance of
cypress wetlands by other tree species (Cypert 1961; Gunderson 1977; Ewel and Mitsch 1978); yet it can
become a serious threat to wetland communities that have been drained (Odum and Ewel 1974).
Harris and Vickers (1978), citing Marois and Ewel (1983) proposed that as water levels in cypress
swamps are lowered, broad-leaved, predominantly evergreen, midstory plants such as wax myrtle, buttonbush,
fetterbush, bays, and dahoon holly become more common. These changes in water depth and stand structure
decrease habitat for aquatic and wading animals, but seem to favor arboreal species.
Among other things, Marois and Ewel (1983), reported that the drier conditions of disturbed (drained)
cypress domes were associated with changes in vegetation composition: an increase in the importance and
absolute density of hardwood species, and in shrub densities as well as the invasion of slash pine.
Studying the impacts of drainage in the Melbourne-Tillman watershed in east central Florida, Barile
(1986) provided an example of the impact of wetlands alteration on the hydrologic cycle. She calculated that
drainage within the watershed caused: evaporation rates to decreased by 5%, evapotranspiration rates to
increased by 5% (yet the net result was a 10% deficit in the amount of water vapor being returned to the
atmosphere), surface water flow to the estuary increased 34%. In addition, with the loss of wetland function
due to levee construction and drainage, groundwater flow decreased if not stopped altogether. Total
groundwater storage in the study area was decreased by 13%. In an earlier study, Barile (1976) documented
loss of wetland soils from oxidation in an area of more than 39 km2 where the soil classification changed from
muck to sand.
Marked seasonal changes, which appeared to be related to water-level fluctuations, were evaluated
related to species composition, distribution, and abundance of the vegetative community of west-central Florida
marshes by Botts and Cowell (1988). The importance of water depth was greater in marshes with standing
water and in seasons when water was present. They suggested that any alteration of drainage patterns that
resulted in diversion of water away from the marshes could possibly lead to succession toward a pine flatwood
community.
Summarizing important ecological monitoring of wetlands in and around wellfields, Dooris, Dooris,
Rochow, and Lopez (1990) suggested the short and long term impacts from wellfields are now being recognized
and described the impacts on vegetation, physical conditions, and wildlife. Approximately 65 wetlands located
in and near several wellfields in Pasco, Hillsborough, and Pinellas counties have been studied since 1972.
Wetlands that were subjected to shortened hydroperiods resulting from pumpage-induced water table declines
exhibited several physical and biological changes. Affected cypress ponds underwent changes in understory










species composition both in the interior and on the periphery of the pond. Slash pine invaded many wetland
edges and interiors. As the drying became more prolonged, individual cypress trees began to lean over and fall
from dryness, shrinkage, and fissuring of the peaty soil in most wetlands. If surface waters were not present
for long periods of time, major subsidence of the wetland's entire basin occurred, producing additional tree
falls. The unnaturally dry conditions increased susceptibility of most wetlands to fire.
Environmental evaluations of the wellfields of the northwest Hillsborough County area provide some
detailed information of the effects of groundwater withdrawals on surface waters and ecological conditions in
wetlands. They provide a chronology of impacts to wetlands and groundwaters at each of the wellfields. The
following paragraphs briefly summarize the effects at selected wellfield locations.
In the fourth annual report of the St. Petersburg-South Pasco Wellfield Study, Bradbury and Courser
(1977) concluded that the shallow water table has been affected by wellfield pumping. Production from the
Floridan Aquifer lowered the potentiometric head in this area, resulting in increasing downward leakage from
the surficial to the artesian aquifer. The long-term trend of fluctuations of the water table in the wellfield was a
lowering of yearly minimum levels yet maximum yearly water levels were attained. A nearby lake, slightly
east of the wellfield, had declined approximately 1 m since the wellfield went into operation, and the decline
was apparently a direct result of wellfield operations. "Minor" changes occurred in the wetland vegetation of the
South Pasco Wellfield since the initiation of production. The changes generally reflected the drawdown of the
surface water table which occurred with the onset of pumping. Weedy, annual plants invaded wetland areas as
a result of the shortened period of inundation. However, they had not "established" themselves and with heavy
rain, were "knocked back" when some wetland plants made a recovery to previous levels of abundance. The
authors suggest that "overall, there has been little damage of major significance, caused by the wellfield to
date." However, in earlier reports, late flowering and leafout of cypress, blowdowns of trees, and significant
fires were noted, and they state "even the slightly higher-than-average rainy season did not help mitigate this
impact [fire when water table was low] as some trees began to visibly lean in the fall."
Lopez (1983) reviewed six years of monitoring (1977-1982) at City of Tampa's Morris Bridge
Wellfield and Water Treatment Plant. The program gathered data on surface water levels, groundwater levels,
and understory vegetation composition within several wetland habitat types. At the time of the report there was
no evidence of widespread adverse vegetational changes within most wetlands in the wellfield. However,
conditions at several monitoring sites were diagnostic of prolonged dry conditions, beyond the range of those
exhibited by control sites and other sites within the wellfield. Reductions in hydroperiod at several sites had
resulted in adverse changes in wetland vegetation. Vegetation data (quadrats and transects) indicated changes in
species composition and abundance, ranging from the invasion of wetland areas by weedy, terrestrial plant
species to the complete disappearance of obligate aquatic and semi-aquatic plants. Additionally, transect data
illustrated shifts in the areal extent of plant communities as a result of altered hydroperiods.










Biological Research Associates, Inc. (1987 and 1988) assessed the overall condition of the environment
at the end of the second year of ecological monitoring on Morris Bridge Wellfield. Based on the vegetation
transect analysis, conditions were drier on-site than off-site. The vegetation transects showed that on-site
transects had more species and a greater cover of species classified as facultative, facultative upland, or upland
by the USFWS Wetland Species Classification. Obligate and facultative wetland species were more abundant
off-site than on-site. The results of tree growth, mortality, and recruitment monitoring were inconclusive.
Mortality and recruitment appeared to be dominated more strongly by fire than by water table. They suggested
that wetlands on the wellfield may have been in a state of flux in response to changing hydric conditions, yet
that it was not possible to assess if wetland plant communities have reached an equilibrium in species
composition.
The Environmental Section of the SWFWMD had monitored environmental conditions at the Starkey
Wellfield and Wilderness Park for more than 10 years (Rochow 1985a). The monitoring indicated that in the
portions of the wellfield where pumping was greatest wetlands experienced cycles of moderate inundation
interspersed with relatively lengthy periods of dryness and some have shown a noticeable successional trend
toward a more upland terrestrial environment.
Rochow (1985b and 1985c) reported on the hydrobiological monitoring at the Cypress Creek Wellfield
in Pasco County, Florida. The Environmental Section of the SWFWMD had monitored environmental
conditions at the wellfield for more than 10 years. Several cypress and marsh monitoring sites within the
Cypress Creek Wellfield experienced lower-than-expected water levels in the years after water production began
in 1976. Wellfield monitoring sites with at least two years without surface water experienced a complete loss of
typical deep-water, aquatic plant species such as pickerelweed and rush (Juncus repens). In three dry marshes,
maidencane or willow expanded through the central marsh area; in one marsh, blue maidencane invaded the
outer, formerly shallow-water marsh fringe. Only one cypress dome was dry for at least two consecutive years.
Despite subsequent water augmentation from a nearby production well, dog fennel and buttonweed replaced
pickerelweed in the central area of the dome. Control wetland sites, unlike several wellfield sites, experienced
surface water throughout the monitoring period, including the years with below-normal precipitation.
Wetland conditions at the Eldridge-Wilde Wellfield were reevaluated by Rochow (1988) six years after
the last evaluation. It appeared that wellfield wetlands were in about the same condition, that is "poor" in the
majority of areas where good wetlands once existed. Rochow attributed the poor quality to three characteristics:
abnormally low wetland water levels, wetland subsidence, and excessively destructive fires. In earlier work,
Young (1974) recorded extensive damage to cypress heads within the northern portions of the Eldridge-Wilde
Wellfield. Several of the cypress heads had been totally destroyed. Young suggested the damaging effects of
the loss of water to the cypress heads included shrinkage of the organic soils from desiccation and apparent land
subsidence. However the most serious damage came from fire. The investigation suggested the effects of the










cone of depression from well pumpage extended laterally a maximum of approximately 1.3 km beyond the
boundaries of the wellfield.


The Influence of Exogenous Activities on Wetland Hydrology


The hydrology of wetlands can be altered as the result of two different time and space scaled
phenomena. The first is regional- or landscape-scale changes in hydrology like regionwide lowering of surficial
groundwater tables through drainage practices, groundwater withdrawal, or increased impervious surface. The
time scale over which these changes occur and their impacts manifested in loss of wetland function may be
decades. The second is changes in the near wetland landscape. Artificial lowering of the groundwater table
through drainage or groundwater withdrawals, increased run-in from impervious surface, or loss of run-in from
ditching are smaller scale activities whose time scale is more on the order of several years.
As a result of the differences in time scale, functional and physical changes in wetlands are quite
different. The slow changes in hydrology associated with landscape-scale changes that are experienced over
decades cause slow oxidation of organic matter and gradual changes in vegetation patterns through succession.
In some cases where accumulations of organic matter may be deep, oxidation may keep up with declining water
tables and, in effect, cancel out the loss of groundwaters. Plant community succession, which normally takes
place over decades, often can keep pace with changing hydrology so that wetlands maintain fairly productive
status as new species requiring drier conditions invade.
On the other hand, fast changes in hydrology associated with small-scale activities cause relatively rapid
changes in vegetative species composition. Forested wetlands often show signs of stress such as opening of the
canopy, toppling of trees and severe oxidation of accumulated organic matter. Often succession cannot keep
pace with the changing conditions, so the ecosystem shows obvious signs of stress and transition like an
understory of primarily upland herbaceous and shrub species topped by wetland tree species. Fire often plays a
major role in landscapes undergoing rapid desiccation, especially in drier than normal wetlands. Often
residential development decreases the occurrence of fire because wetlands are isolated from the drier landscape.
However, in general, as the presence of humans increases in landscapes--especially during the early phases of
urbanization- the occurrence of fire increases (Brown 1976; Odum and Brown 1977).
The following paragraphs summarize the literature related to the effects of development and
groundwater withdrawal activities on the surficial aquifer in general and wetland hydrology in particular.


Urbanization in the Surrounding Landscape
Brown (1989) summarized the impacts on surficial hydrology from urbanization, related them to
forested wetlands in central Florida, and suggested management alternatives to reverse trends of continued










decline in water table levels and resulting loss of wetland function. Of significant interest was the effect of
urbanization in lowering water tables and increasing the incidence of fire. When combined, these effects are
particularly disastrous to wetland communities since lowered water tables cause organic soils to desiccate, easily
ignite, and burn. A flow diagram depicting wetland succession that incorporated fire, suggested that with fire,
wetland communities can be easily "set back" to "earlier successional stages" if burns during a naturally
occurring drought, or drought induced by urbanization.
In a recent study of the Econlockhatchee River Basin, Brown et al. (1990) reported significant declines
in surficial groundwater levels that resulted from drainage canals and stormwater management systems. The
decline in groundwater levels ultimately manifested itself in the loss of wetlands to wildfires and succession to
more upland community types.
Studying the flat lowlands of North Carolina, first Sharitz and Gibbons (1982) and then Phillips (1985)
described the effects of development and impacts of artificial land drainage on wetlands. In general, like much
of the flat tablelands of Florida, converting Carolina lowlands to economic production required ditch, canal, or
underground pipe drainage systems to lower groundwater tables, reduced surface ponding, and quick removal of
'excess' moisture following precipitation. Environmental impacts of this activity were diverse, extensive, and
often deleterious, especially to isolated wetlands that were connected with the surficial groundwater system.
Water table declines have been recorded in numerous locals following channelization and ditching as
related by Wharton and Odum (1977). A 1.2-m drop in the water table was observed following channelization
near Hartford, N.C., and a water table decline of 89% representing a drop of 3.0 to 6.1 m below former levels
occurred in eastern Arkansas after ditching. Insufficient recharge was listed as one of the major causes. In
North Carolina disastrous floods in the spring of 1965 were related to a massive farm drainage program which
caused run-off to reach main streams too quickly.
Studying the effects of ditching on wetland hydrology, CH2M Hill (1988) conducted hydroecological
monitoring on 26 wetlands from April 1985 to September 1986 at the Ringling-MacArthur Reserve in Sarasota
County, Florida. Dry season water levels in ditched study wetlands averaged 0.3 to 0.6 m lower than the
average dry season water levels in unditched wetlands. With the onset of the rainy season, mean water levels
rose rapidly in both ditched and unditched wetlands to reach similar wet season peaks. The altered study
wetlands had a significantly greater average maximum drydown depth (P < 0.05) than the unaltered study
wetlands during both 1985 (i.e., 0.32 m greater) and 1986 (i.e., 0.60 m greater).


Groundwater Withdrawals
Groundwater withdrawals, whether from deep or shallow aquifers, can have a marked effect on the
shallow water table levels (Parker 1973, 1975). Lowered shallow water table levels can have marked impact on
wetland hydrology since many wetland ecosystems are intimately connected with the surficial aquifer. The
literature on groundwater withdrawal effects on wetland hydrology is, for the most part, confined to scientific










reports on the hydrobiological monitoring of wellfields. However, Bays and Winchester (1986) reviewed
factors thought to be contributing directly and indirectly to the changes being observed in Florida wetlands, and
concluded that groundwater withdrawals were one of the more significant changes, although somewhat limited in
their spatial extent. Their summary of the process of change is relatively straight forward:
Groundwater withdrawal affects the water table either directly through withdrawals from the
surficial aquifer, or indirectly through withdrawals from the deep aquifer, the latter which
lowers the potentiometric surface and induces recharge from the surficial aquifer. Around
each point of withdrawal, a cone of depression is formed in the potentiometric surface and to a
more variable extent, the water table. The areal extent and depth of the cone of depression
depend on a number of factors; the most important are the amount of leakage through the
confining layer, transmissivity in the deep aquifer, and the distribution and amount of
withdrawals. As wells operate together in proximity, their respective cones of depression can
overlap to cause a broader or deeper zone of depressed potentiometric and water table levels.
This process is dynamic, with water levels fluctuating in response to recharge by rainfall,
fluctuations in the potentiometric surface, and local and regional variation in pumpage.

Groundwater withdrawals have impacts on surface water runoff as well as surficial groundwater
elevations. Cherry, Stewart, and Mann (1970) analyzed duration of low flow of Brooker Creek near Tarpon
Springs for two time periods, 1951-58 and 1959-66; periods prior to and following large groundwater
withdrawals from the Floridan Aquifer in portions of the creek's basin, which began in 1958. They concluded
that during a period of increased groundwater withdrawals and higher than average rainfall, more low flow days
occurred indicating that groundwater pumping did reduce the flow of the stream. A similar analysis of low-flow
duration of the Anclote River near Elfers was made for 1951-58 and 1959-66. Like Brooker Creek, the Anclote
River had more low flow days during the period of high rainfall and increased groundwater withdrawals.
However, Brooker Creek showed the greatest effect because the drainage area of the creek was almost entirely
within the cones of depression of wellfields.
Concern over lake levels prompted the Hillsborough River Basin Board to request that the USGS
provide model simulation data that would portray the effects of wellfield pumping on Lakes Thomas, King, and
Bell (Knutilla 1985). Six pumping scenarios were simulated by the model based on current consumptive-use
permits (CUPs) for three adjacent wellfields. Model results indicated that the greatest hydrologic impact on the
lakes would occur when the three wellfields were pumped simultaneously. As indicated by the simulated water
table drawdown, the levels of Lakes Thomas, King, and Bell would decline equally, about 18 cm each, when
the wellfields were pumped at the average permitted rate of 76.9 MGD.
Bengtsson (1989) discussed the impacts related to short-term water level declines associated with
seasonal agricultural withdrawals in east-central Hillsborough County, Florida. The impacts included: failure
of domestic wells and pumps, sinkhole formation and flooding from the irrigation runoff. A simulation model
was used to quantify the impacts of the withdrawals to the potentiometric surface of the Floridian Aquifer. The
model indicated minimal effects to the water table; however, pumpage and recharge to the surficial aquifer was










not included in the simulation. Induced recharge through the semiconfining unit above the pumped aquifer
created a small amount of drawdown in the surficial aquifer.


Summary


Wetland hydrology is a dynamic balance between rain, run-in, recharge, discharge and
evapotranspiration. Hydrology affects the structural properties of wetlands and rates of internal processes. In
turn the structural properties like basin morphology, accumulations of organic matter, and hummocks that result
from tree falls affect both gross hydrologic patterns and smaller scale topographic differences that affect
hydroperiod. There is a suggestion that some wetlands may influence deep geologic formations through
percolation of acidic waters and thus maintain their depressional status in a balance between accumulation of
organic matter and solution of underlying limestone as organic matter accumulates.
There is no doubt that wetland hydrology, specifically depth, duration of flooding, and periodicity,
influence vegetative structure and in turn influence the faunal community structure. Depth alone does not
explain differences in wetland vegetative community structure; but duration of flood and dry periods are cited as
the primary variable influencing community structure and susceptibility to fire. Altered hydrology is the most
cited reason for loss of wetland functions.
Since wetland hydroperiod is the single most important factor influencing wetland functions and values,
and since it in turn is strongly influenced by changes in its forcing functions, there is strong impetus to control
exogenous activities that affect groundwater elevations. Direct drainage and thus lowering of groundwater
elevations, increases in runoff, and groundwater withdrawals are the three most important factors affecting
groundwater elevations. The protection of wetlands and their functions is not only a matter of protecting them
from dredging and filling, but preserving their single most important driving function their hydrology.










PART II.


SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACTS OF URBANIZATION
AND GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWALS ON THE
HYDROLOGY OF WETLANDS


Mark T. Brown, Juan Habercorn, and Steve Roguski



INTRODUCTION


In this section, the spatial manifestations of groundwater withdrawals and of urban development in the
Northwest Hillsborough Water Resources Assessment are considered. Data on land uses, soils, impervious
surface, drainage canals, pumping, and surficial aquifer levels were summarized first on a square-mile (2.59
km) area and then on a 123-acre (50 ha) area surrounding each wetland. Indices of development status and
hydrologic functions were derived from these spatial data and evaluated using a Geographic Information System
(GIS) and linear and multiple regression. Statistical analysis of both the square-mile and 123-acre data bases
were performed to evaluate the importance of each variable in relation to measurements of ecological well-being
of 91 wetlands scattered throughout the study area.


METHODS


In general, the objective of the analysis was to develop spatial data bases of the most important
variables thought to effect surficial groundwater levels and compare their spatial manifestations with measures of
ecological well-being of wetlands within the study area. Thus, the overall methodology can be organized into
three broad categories: field methods, map coverages, and spatial data analysis. In the field portions of the
project, personnel of the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) surveyed 91 wetlands
scattered throughout the study area and recorded indices of environmental quality on standardized forms. Map
coverages were generated from interpreted aerial photographs and SCS soil surveys. Several spatial data bases
were derived from the map coverages of the most important variables that may influence surficial groundwater
levels. They included: land use/land cover, drainage canals, high and low groundwater levels, and simulated
groundwater levels. Using the land use/land cover data, power density, impervious surface, and Landscape
Development Intensity (LDI) were calculated. Drainage density was derived from the drainage canals
coverages. Finally, a spatial data base of groundwater withdrawal effects was derived from a simulation model
(Bengtsson 1987) developed by the SWFWMD.










Field Methods


Qualitative Assessment Method
Qualitative assessments were performed at each of the wetlands during summer and fall of 1990. A
detailed description of the field methodology is given by Rochow (1991). This abbreviated description serves to
provide an overview of the methods employed by the staff of SWFWMD who were responsible for the field
portions of this study. While it was necessary to use only a qualitative assessment of ecological well-being
because of the time required to accomplish quantitative assessments, thirty-eight wetlands were both qualitatively
and quantitatively sampled and the results compared. The quantitative assessment used the same indicators as
the qualitative assessment. Quantitative field measurements of indicators were made periodically from spring,
1989 until early 1990.
A comparative analysis, which regressed the qualitative and quantitative scores against one another
resulted in an R2 of 0.71 and suggested that the qualitative assessment, while not exactly predicting the more
rigorous quantitative scores, provided an acceptable level of information. The fact that each qualitative
assessment required only about 15 minutes instead of several hours helped to make a stronger case for
qualitative assessments. With the shorter time requirements, a larger sample population of wetlands could be
included in the study.
The assessments were conducted during a 15-minute visit to each site. Wetland features that were used
as indices of well-being were chosen because they were either end points (i.e., presence or absence of wetland
and/or upland plant and animal species) or indirectly characterized an end point (i.e., soil subsidence as an
indicator of extreme loss of depth and duration of flooding). Qualitative assessments were based on visual
comparisons with reference wetlands that had "normal" environmental driving functions and exhibited "normal"
ecological well-being. Some of the more qualitative assessment indicators were as follows:
1. Water Levels At the time of site visitation, water levels were compared to levels expected under
natural conditions. Quantitative evaluations of wetlands in the study area showed that
hydroperiods for isolated wetlands were about 8 months per year, and begun with the
onslaught of the rainy season. Qualitative scores were then based on whether or not there was
water in each wetland during the period of the year when, under normal conditions, flooding
was expected to occur.
2. Soil Condition Soil conditions in the study wetlands were visually compared to those characteristic
of reference wetlands under natural conditions. Especially noted were signs of soil subsidence,
usually an indication of abnormally low water levels. Subsidence was determined by
examining soil levels near the base of trees for signs of exposed roots.










3. Canopy Condition Canopy density and appearance was assessed relative to that observed in
reference wetlands Thin canopies often result from deficient water levels, severe bums, or
other exogenous factors that stress overstory vegetation. Canopy indicators included canopy
closure and loss of tree branch structure with subsequent basal sprouting.
4. Fire Effects -- Observation were made of the condition of tree boles and understory vegetation for
indications of severe bums. Slight to moderate burning is normal in isolated wetlands.
Intensive burning is abnormal and most the result of increase subcanopy biomass, and dry
conditions brought on by deficient water levels.
5. Plant and Animal Life -- At the time of site visitation, plant and animal life were observed and
compared to biota expected under normal conditions. In the case of plant life, indicators
included the presence of weedy species and upland plants that do not normally occur in
wetlands. In the case of animals, indicators included the presence of animal species that do
not normally occur within wetlands, and the absence of species whose presence would be
expected. This indicator is probably one of the most difficult to accurately assess because of
the mobility and seasonality of animal occurrence.
6. Human Effects -- A large array of effects associated with urbanization and the conversion of
surrounding land to agricultural uses can alter and degrade natural wetland conditions.
Indicators included such things as signs of refuse dumping, cattle grazing, or signs of extreme
human presence (i.e., dirt bike trails, cutting, digging, etc.).


Sites were ranked on a scale from 1 (poor) to 5 (good) taking into consideration the scores for each of
the qualitative assessment indicators. Although the qualitative assessment is not as precise as an assessment
based upon quantitative criteria, certain characteristics generally applied to sites ranked at different points on the
qualitative assessment scale. These are described below:
Sites ranked 5: Water levels, soil conditions, and canopy appearance generally are all normal. No
excessive fire effects are observed. Plants and animals are all, or nearly all, associated with a
wetland environment
Sites ranked 4 4.5: Water levels are usually lower-than-expected. Weeds and upland plants are
found in greater abundance than under natural conditions. Wetland wildlife usage is likely not
as high as under natural conditions
Sites ranked 3 3.5: Water levels are much lower than expected and the sites may be dry in below-
normal rainfall years. Fire effects may be greater than expected. Weeds and upland plants
begin to dominate the understory. Wetland wildlife usage is poor.










Sites ranked 2 2.5: Surface water is absent except when rainfall is considerably above normal. Fire
effects may include some peat burning. The tree canopy is thinner than previously. Weeds
and upland plants dominate the understory. Wetland wildlife usage is virtually non-existent.
Sites ranked 1 1.5: Surface water is almost never observed. Fire effects, when present, often
include severe peat bums. Tree canopy is much thinner than previously and leaning and fallen
trees are usually apparent.


Map Coverages


Land Use/Land Cover
Given in Table 1 is a list of the land use classification used in interpreting aerial photography. For the
most part, the land cover classification system used Level II as defined in the FDOT Land Use, Cover and
Forms Classification System (Florida Department of Transportation, 1985). Residential and commercial areas
were delineated and classified differently than the FDOT's Level II scheme. Residential areas were grouped
into six subclasses that were based on density of impervious surface. Representative samples of single and
multi-family and mobile home developments were selected and all impervious surfaces measured. Analysis of
the percent impervious surface within each area generated 4 classes of single family residential, 2 classes of
multi-family, and two classes of mobile homes. Figure 5 illustrates the impervious surface of each of the
residential classes.
Land use/land cover coverages were generated from fall 1987 black and white aerial photography at a
scale of 1:24000. In winter 1989, black and white photography at a scale of 1:4800 and limited ground truthing
were used as references in the interpretation of land cover classes.


Soil Coverages
Soils coverages were digitized directly from Soil Conservation Service (SCS) soils surveys of
Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco counties. Several soils had differing classifications and names in the three
counties and were given single names and codes based upon the information given in Table 2. Also given in
Table 2 are the minimum and maximum depths to the water table that was characteristic of the soil type as
given in the soil surveys. Negative values are depth below ground surface, while a zero indicates groundwater
at the soil surface. Positive numbers indicate standing water on the ground surface. All depths are in feet-the
units of measure reported by the SCS.


Drainage Ditches










Three classes of drainage ditches were delineated on acetate overlays on 1981 black and white aerial
photography at a scale of 1:4800. Ground truthing and checking with more recent photography were necessary
to update the 1981 photography to depict the 1989 coverage of drainage ditches. The three classes of ditches
included: (1) agricultural ditches, (2) roadside ditches and major drainage ditches, and (3) canals and
channelized streams. Also delineated were surface water features like stormwater ponds, rock pits, lakes and
reservoirs.
Drainage features were classified based on their width on aerial photographs. Features having a width
of less than 1/2 but greater than 1/4 inch (100-200 feet in width were classified as canals and channelized
streams. Features less than 1/4 inch but greater than approximately 1/16 inch were classified as roadside
ditches and major drainage ditches. Features less than 1/16 inch (having a width on the photograph that could
only be delineated with a single line) were classed as agricultural ditches.
Once drainage features were delineated on acetate overlays, they were transferred to controlled base
maps of the study area, digitized, and coded.


Spatial Data Bases


The land use/land cover, soils, and drainage features coverages were intersected with two different
scale cells to summarize data in usable spatial data bases for each wetland. The first was a grid of cells
measuring 1 mile on a side (2.54 km). The second spatial data base was generated by intersecting the
coverages with individual circular cells measuring 400 m in radius surrounding each wetland. Figure 6 shows
the two types of intersection cells superimposed upon each other and overlayed on each of the study wetlands.
Two spatial data bases resulted from the two intersections. The first data base was based on a square
mile (2.59 km2) and was generated by dividing the study area into a 15 x 15 mile grid. Spatial data for each
grid cell that contained a wetland were summarized and assigned to the wetlands) within that grid cell. The
second data base was based on a circle of 1312 feet (400 m) radius surrounding each wetland. A buffer of
400-meter radius was generated around each wetland and data within each circle were summarized and assigned
to each wetland.
The second data base, based on the much smaller area surrounding each wetland, was necessary to test
for localized effects of development impacts versus landscape effects. There has been a general trend of
lowered water table elevations over the past decade that may have had generalized adverse effects on ecological
well-being of isolated wetland ecosystems. The trend probably results from the combination of lower overall
rainfall and regional drainage effects. These impacts are larger in scale and should be differentiated from the
more localized effects of urbanization and groundwater withdrawals. Statistical analysis was performed on each










of the data bases to determine if there was any correlation between measures of developmental impacts and
ecological well-being for each of the 91 wetlands in the study area.
The intersected data were further manipulated to yield several new measures or indices of development
status and hydrologic function. Indices of development status are measures of the degree of urban and
agricultural development. Indices of hydrologic function are measures of surficial hydrology. They are
summarized next.


Impervious Surface
Impervious surfaces for urban land uses were derived by selecting representative samples of each land
use type and measuring area of impervious surface. All impermeable surfaces, including buildings and
pavement were inked on acetate overlays, raster scanned, and areas measured using GIS software. Table 1 lists
the percent impervious surface for each land use type.
Cell summarized land use/land cover data were multiplied by percent impervious surface and summed
to obtain a total area of impervious surface for each cell.


Power Density
From previous studies of energy budgets of land uses and land covers (summarized in Brown 1980)
multipliers for calculating the total power in energy units of the same type (solar emergy)' for urban,
agricultural and natural ecological communities have been developed. Power density is a measure of the
complexity of a given land use/land cover because it is an expression of the total energy per unit time (power)
that is required to operate and maintain a landscape unit. The units of power density are solar emergy joules
per unit area per unit time (sej/m2*yr). Power density of land uses and land covers is given in Table 1.
Cell summarized land use/land cover data were multiplied by appropriate power density multipliers and
summed to obtain a total power density for each cell.


Land Development Intensity (LDD Index
The LDI Index is a relative measure of landscape-scale development intensity (Brown et al. in press)
developed to account for landscape setting of wetlands used as reference sites for evaluating constructed
wetlands. The LDI index is generated by first measuring the percent of each cell in urban, agricultural, and



ISolar emergy (spelled with an "m") is similar to embodied
energy, where energies of various types (electricity, fuels,
sunlight,etc.) are expressed in units of solar energy required
tomake them. The word emergy is used to differentiate between
enregy and what is sometimes referred to as Energy Memory,
Emergy.










natural land covers. Each percent land cover type is multiplied by a weighting factor and then sunimed as
follows:
LDI = 9 % urban + 2* % agriculture + % natural (1)
90

Cell summarized land use/land cover data were further summarized into percent urban, agriculture, and
natural, then multiplied by the weighting factors given in equation (1) and summed to obtain the LDI index for
each cell.


Ditch Intensity (DI) Index
The DI Index is a relative measure of drainage density that accounts for drainage ditches of differing
size. Since the same length of agricultural ditch (which are usually less than a meter wide and often less than
30 cm deep) has less impact than a large-scale drainage ditch designed to lower water tables a meter or more, it
was felt that the three different classes of ditches should be weighted. The DI index is a weighted index of
ditch length per unit area as follows:
DI = 0.5*D, + 1.0*D, + 2.0*D, (2)
where: D, = Agricultural Ditches
D, = Major and Roadside Ditches
D, = Canals and Channelized Streams
The ditch coverage was intersected with the 15 x 15 grid and total length of each class of ditch summed
by cell. Summarized ditch data were multiplied by appropriate weighting factor and DI index derived for each
cell. The units of Ditch Intensity are meters/hectare.


Water Table Depth and Differential
Average surficial aquifer depth for the seasonal high and seasonal low were derived from soils data.
Each soil type was assigned wet season and dry season water table depths using data from SCS soil surveys.
Weighted average wet and dry season depths were computed for each wetland based on area of each soil type
within the intersected cells. The difference between the two depths (called Delta water table) was also
calculated for each cell.


Water Table Drawdown
Bengtsson (1987) developed a transient, quasi-three-dimensional, finite-difference simulation model of
aquifer drawdown that simulates impacts on the water table. Data on water table drawdown for each cell in the
15 x 15 array from a simulation run that represents present pumping conditions were obtained from district
personnel. Square mile summarized data were assigned to each wetland by cell location.









RESULTS


Results of this study of the spatial influences of development and well-field withdrawals on wetland
structure and function are organized into two overall sections. First, results of mapping exercises where land
use/land cover, soils, and drainage ditches were delineated and digitized as ARC/Info data bases are given.
Then results of the analysis of spatial data using statistical measures are given. Ninety-one wetlands, scattered
throughout the study area, were field surveyed and ranked qualitatively by personnel of the Southwest Florida
Water Management District (Figure 7). These qualitative rankings were used as the basis by which analysis of
spatial trends in landscape-scale data were statistically evaluated.


Field Surveys of Isolated Wetlands


Map Coverages
Land Use/Land Cover. Figure 8 is a much reduced version composite land use map generated from the Land
Use/Land Cover coverage of the NW Hillsborough study area. A full-sized map of Land Use/Land Cover is
also included in a map folio appended to this volume. Table 3 lists area of land use/land cover of each cover
type in square meters and as percent of total area. The cover type with greatest area was cropland &
pastureland (14% of total area), followed by wetland coniferous forest (12%) and very high single family
residential (9.4%). The composite map depicts urban, agricultural and natural land covers as a means of
visualizing the general patterns of land use in the study area. The heaviest concentrations of urban land cover
were in the southern portions of the study area and along the corridor that more or less parallels SR 41. There
were some urbanized lands in the northwest corer of the study area.
Agricultural cover was concentrated in the central and northern portion of the study area mostly north
and parallel to a diagonal corridor of wetlands and stream systems running from the northeast comer of the
study area to Tampa Bay in the southwest corner. The dominant agricultural uses were unimproved and
improved pasture.


Soils. A reduced version of the soils coverage is given in Figure 9 that has been color coded to indicate soils
that are: well drained (-6.0 to -10 feet) moderately well drained (-1.5 to -5.5 feet) and poorly drained (+2.0 to
-1.5 feet). By far the dominant drainage class is poorly drained (over 90% of the study area) followed by
moderately well-drained (8% of the study area) and well-drained (less than 2% of the study area). A fourth
classification (undefined drainage) comprises less than 10% of the study area. This classification was necessary
because several of the soil types did not have seasonal high and low water table elevations classed by SCS. A
full-scale version of the soils coverage is included in the map folio.










Drainage Ditches. Drainage features were classified into four classes that included: (1) lakes, ponds and
reservoirs, (2) canals and channelized streams, (3) roadside and large drainage ditches, and (4) agricultural
ditches. These features are shown in Figure 10, a much reduced version of the plotted coverage. The largest
concentration of class 2 and 3 ditches were in the southern portions of the study area, while agricultural ditches
were most prevalent in the northern portions. A full-scale map of drainage features is included in the map
folio.


Spatial Data Base


Spatial data bases were generated from the land cover, soils and drainage features coverages that were
summaries of data on a square mile by square mile basis. These data were regressed against a quality rank for
91 wetlands that were field investigated to determine relationships between the various parameters and wetland
quality.
Figures 11 through 16 are plots of the various spatial data sets for the Northwest Hillsborough Study
Assessment. In the top half of each figure is a topo map of the data with contour lines labeled in units
appropriate to each index. The bottom half of each figure is a plot as a three-dimensional surface of the data.
The maps are oriented in each figure so that north is to the left, a result of choosing an advantageous viewing
angle for the 3-D surface. The intense development in the southeast corer of the study area would obscure
much of the surface in most plots if viewed from the south.
Impervious surface (Figure 11) shows the very large concentration in the southeast portion of the study
area that corresponds to the northern areas of the City of Tampa. There are other smaller "peaks" of
impervious surface in the northeast and northwest covers.
The ditch intensity index (DI index) resulted by assigning each of the different classes of ditches a
different weight. Figure 12 shows the DI index on a square mile by square mile basis as a topographic map
(top) and as a 3-D projection. The DI index has greater spatial variation than other development indices since it
depicts the intensity of drainage systems which are not only associated with urban lands, but agricultural and
natural lands as well. There are obvious peaks associated with the urbanized areas north of Tampa, and some
moderately intense areas in the north central portions of the study area.
Landscape Development Intensity (LDI) is a relative measure of the intensity of land conversion that
may affect wetlands. It is calculated by differentially weighting the percentage of urban, agricultural, and
natural land in each square mile and summing. The spatial data depicted in Figure 13 resulted from calculating
LDI in the study area. LDI varies between 1 and 10, with 10 being completely urban, and one being
completely natural. The highest LDI scores are associated with the urban development north of Tampa, the
western shore of Tampa Bay, and various areas scattered throughout the northern portions of the study area.










Power density (Figure 14) is dominated by the intense urban land uses associated with Tampa and the
western shore of Tampa Bay. Of lesser intensity is the urban areas in the northwest corer of the study area.
Data from hydrologic classification of soils were used to evaluate the difference in the height of the
surficial aquifer between the seasonal low and the seasonal high under the assumption that greater differences
were indicative of hydrologic conditions that were not conducive to maintenance of hydrologic function in
wetlands. Figure 15 shows a topographic map and 3-D projection of the difference in water table elevation
between seasonal low and seasonal high, plotted as positive numbers. In other words, the higher the peak, the
greater the difference between the two time periods. Highest differences were associated with the urbanized
lands in northern Tampa, the western shore of Tampa Bay, and the north west corner of the study area.
Figure 16 is a topographic map and 3-D projection of simulated drawdown given present conditions.
Data were obtained from Southwest Florida personnel (Bengtsson 1991; personal communication). Drawdown
is plotted as positive numbers so that the higher the peak, the greater the simulated drawdown. Presumably, the
large drawdowns associated in the northwestern and southern portions of the study area are the result of
pumping at Eldridge Wilde and Northwest Hillsborough Dispersed Wellfield, respectively.



Statistical Analysis of Spatial Databases


The spatial data bases generated for each of the two scales of analysis are given in Tables 4, 5,
and 6 (the landscape scale) and Tables 7, 8, and 9 (the local scale). In each set of tables the first table (Tables
4 and 7) lists the data for the entire population of wetlands, the second table (Tables 5 and 8) gives the data for
wellfield wetlands, and the third table (Tables 6 and 9) gives data for the non-wellfield wetlands. Each data set
was first analyzed for the entire population of study wetlands, then analyzed for the sub-populations of wellfield
and non-wellfield wetlands. Generally, results of statistical analysis are given beginning with the total
population, then the wellfield wetlands and finally the non-wellfield wetlands.


Description of the Data Sets
Histograms of each of the landscape-scale indices, including rank, (Table 4) are given in Figures 17,
18, and 19. The indices exhibited either skewed normal distributions or exponential distributions that represent
hierarchical landscape organization that is observed in most spatial systems. Rank has a skewed normal
distribution where the mode was a quality ranking of 4.0. Indices of development status derived from the land
use data base (impervious surface, LDI, and power density) exhibited exponential distributions where there were
numerous wetlands having low associated parameter values and fewer and fewer wetlands with high parameter
values. Simulated drawdown exhibited the same exponential properties, suggesting it too was a product of










urbanization that is hierarchically organized. Ditch index exhibited a skewed normal distribution, having a
mode of about ditch index = 0.25. The indices associated with water table elevations that were derived from
soils data exhibited skewed normal distributions.
Histograms of the indices of development status generated using the local-scale (400 meter) data set
(Table 7) are given in Figures 20 and 21. Impervious surface, LDI and power density all exhibited exponential
distributions, while ditch index and the parameters associated with water table elevations had normal and skewed
normal distributions.


Landscape-Scale Spatial Analysis
Each of the wetlands depicted in Figure 7 were used as the basis by which spatial data were regressed
at two spatial scales to determine if there were trends in the influence of the landscape-scale and local-scale
measures of urbanization on wetland structure and function.
The square-mile cell location of each ranked wetland was used to summarize each of the spatial data
bases. These data are given in Table 4. In the first column the wetland identification number is given,
wetlands 34 and 35 were outside the study area and were therefore not included in the analysis. Quality rank is
given in the second column. High quality is 5.0 while low quality is 1.0. The cell ID number in which the
wetland is located is given in column 3. In the fourth through the twelfth columns, the data for the cell in
which the wetland is located for each of the parameters is given.
Scattergrams were plotted and simple linear regressions were performed on the data in Table 4.
Scattergrams with plotted regression line and regression equation are given in Figures 22 and 23. The analysis
resulted in no statistically significant correlations between rank and any of the parameters. The best fit of a
regression line was with rank versus simulated drawdown (Figure 23d), however the fit was extremely poor,
having an R2 of only 0.05. Stepwise multiple regressions were conducted on the data set using all parameters to
determine if some combination of parameters would help to explain some of the variability in the data. In each
case and in every combination, the landscape-scale indicators of developmental impacts did not predict rank. Or
to put it the other way, rank could not be predicted with any combination of the parameters.
To test whether there were effects that were being hidden because of location within or outside
wellfield, the population of wetlands were separated into two subpopulations: those within wellfields and those
outside wellfields. These data are given in Tables 5 and 6 and the analysis summarized in Figures 24 through
27. The results of this analysis showed again, that there were no statistically significant correlations between
the landscape-scale indices of development impacts and wetlands quality ranking.










Local-Scale (400 meter) Spatial Analysis
The results of analysis of the spatial data bases using a 400-meter radius around each of the study
wetlands are given in Tables 7, 8, and 9 and Figures 28 through 33. Table 7 summarizes data for the entire
population of wetlands, while Tables 8 and 9 give data for wellfield and non-wellfield wetlands, respectively.
Simulated drawdown was not included in these data since the resolution of data provided by the SWFWMD was
based on a one-square-mile grid.
Simple linear regressions of rank versus each of the local-scale parameters are given in Figures 28 and
29. The scattergrams in these figures are based on the entire population of study wetlands. The highest R2 was
found with impervious surface, but was not considered to be statistically significant (R2 = 0.055). As in the
previous analysis, data were separated into two subpopulations: those within wellfields and those outside
wellfields. The scattergrams in Figures 30 through 33 show regression lines and equations for both
subpopulations. In general, the size of the population of wellfield wetlands and the variability of data make
correlations difficult, and as a result there were no correlations within the data set.
Correlations with the data separated into non-wellfield wetlands as shown in Figures 32 and 33. The
regression for rank versus impervious surface yielded an R2 of 0.122, and the regression for rank versus delta
water table, R of 0.071. Multiple regression of rank versus impervious surface and delta water table yielded an
overall R2 of 0.22, an improvement, but still not a statistically powerful correlation.



DISCUSSION


Discussion of the results of this study are composed in three sections. The first section discusses the
results of statistical analysis of the spatial data bases. The second section consists of a final review and
summary of the importance of hydrologic function to wetland ecological well-being, and the likely effects of
urbanization and wellfield pumping. And, the third section discusses management and regulatory suggestions
that may help to protect wetlands in developing regions from both developmental impacts and erosion of
ecological function resulting from lowered water tables and subsequent alteration of depth and duration of
flooding.


Statistical Analysis of Data Bases


Statistical analysis of the spatial data sets at the landscape (square mile) and local (400 meter) scale did
r t show any statistical correlations between wetland quality and the various indices. While there was
improvement in correlations with the reduction in scale from square mile to the 400-meter resolution, the fact










still remained that the correlations were not statistically powerful. The lack of correlation suggests that there
was no apparent relationship between the indices of development status in lands surrounding wetlands and their
degree of ecological well-being. Several possible reasons for this lack of correlation are: (1) The indices
lacked independence and thus measured the same level of development status, (2) the indices were not sensitive
enough to track changes in the environmental variables (runoff and drainage) that affect wetland hydrology and
ultimately ecological well-being, (3) the spatial scale over which urbanization affects wetland hydrologic
function was smaller than either of the two scales used in this analysis, (4) urbanization in the study area was
relatively new and as a result the impacts associated with development may not have manifested themselves in
decreased ecological well-being in many of the study wetlands, (5) the degree to which a wetland is affected by
surrounding development may be more related to subsurface geology or within wetland soil properties than to
development status in the surrounding landscape, and finally, (6) degree of urbanization in the surrounding
landscape does not effect wetland quality.


Independence of Indices
Several of the indices of development status were derived from the land use/land cover data base (LDI,
power density, impervious surface). While each of these was derived using some different function, (e.g., LDI
was based on percent urban, agricultural, and natural lands in the surrounding area, while impervious surface
was based on the use of multipliers and urban land uses, and power density was based on the use of multipliers
and all land cover) they were not entirely independent measures of potential developmental impacts. Drainage
ditch density was determined independently of LDI, power density, and impervious surface because it was
measured from maps of drainage ditches that were interpreted from aerial photographs. The three water table
indices were derived from soils maps of the study area.
Figure 34 gives three correlation matrices for the indices of development status and hydrologic function
using the 400-meter spatial data base. In the top matrix correlations are given for the entire wetland data set
(Table 7); in the middle matrix and bottom matrix correlations are given for non-wellfield (Table 8) and
wellfield wetlands (Table 9), respectively. The correlation matrices help to explain which variables may have
acted independently to explain the variability in quality ranking and which may not have acted independently.
Where correlations are low, the variables were more independent of each other; and where there are high
scores, the variables were acting less independently. LDI and impervious surface (impserf) had relatively high
scores for the entire data set (top) and non-wellfield data set (middle) but relatively weak correlations in the
wellfield wetlands. Relatively strong correlations were exhibited between power density (pd) and LDI and
impervious surface in both the entire data set (top) and the non-wellfield wetland data set and with only LDI in
the well field wetland data set (bottom). As might be expected, dry season water table (drywt) and wet season
water table (wetwt) had relatively high scores in all three data sets, since water tables vary between wet and dry
season by about the same amount regardless of soil type. The change in water table between wet and dry










season (delta) had weak correlations with all other variables in the data set regardless of grouping. The ditch
index (ditch) was only moderately correlated with the other indices of development status reflecting the
variability in the intensity of ditching with the various land uses and land covers.
The analysis of each of the data sets using correlation matrices suggested that LDI, power density, and
impervious surface, derived from the same spatial data base, were less likely to explain variation in quality
ranking independently than combinations of variables that included one index of development status, the ditch
intensity index and one of the water table variables.


Sensitivity of Indices
Sensitivity of indices is related to whether they were accurate predictors of alterations in hydrologic
parameters like runoff, and groundwater table and resulting impacts on wetland function. Since measurement of
urban impacts on wetlands requires extensive monitoring over a period of years as areas develop, a more cost
effective method of establishing the relationship between urbanization and wetland quality was sought. Indices
of development status were derived that were measures of several parameters thought to have direct impacts on
surficial aquifer levels. They were: (1) impervious surface-which affects runoff, (2) power density-which is a
surrogate measure for urban structure and development intensity, (3) LDI index-which is a weighted average of
urban agricultural and natural land uses surrounding a wetland, and (4) DI index--an index of drainage ditch
intensity.
Power density and impervious surface were derived using the land use coverage and multipliers for
each land use type. Power density multipliers were developed in earlier studies of land uses (Brown 1980)
using a classification system with fewer land use types. To adapt them to the present study, estimates of power
density were interpolated using the ranges developed in the earlier work. However without extensive
evaluations of the actual land uses and their energy consumption per unit area per time, they remain interpolated
estimates.
Impervious surface was derived using the land use coverage and multipliers developed by measuring the
area of impervious surfaces for typical land use types. Their applicability was subject to limitations simply
because they were subject to interpretative error in both the decisions regarding "typical" and in the
interpretation of aerial photographs as the land use coverage was generated. The fact that there was a strong
correlation between impervious surface and power density lends some credence to the fact that the multipliers
were somewhat in line with the level of structure in the various land use types and their associated power flows.
Percent of impervious surface on developed lands may not affect surface hydrology in off-site areas in direct
proportion to its aerial extent. Secondarily, the effects on wetland quality may not be in direct proportion to
changes in surface hydrology in lands surrounding developed areas.
LDI index is a measure of the level of development. It is a weighted average of the percent of a land
area that is urban, agricultural and natural. Its sensitivity to predict impacts on isolated wetlands is related to










how well the weighting factors reflect potential impacts to wetlands resulting from urban versus agricultural
development. In this study, we used weighting factors of 9 and 2 for urban and agricultural uses, respectively,
because they gave the greatest range of variation in the LDI index. In essence, these weighting factors suggest
that urban development has a 4.5 times greater impact on isolated wetlands than does agricultural development.
The actual impacts associated with urban and agricultural development are not well researched and much work
remains to be done to develop weighting factors that more accurately reflect the impacts associated with urban
versus agricultural development.
The density of drainage canals in the landscape was assumed to be related to changes in the elevation
relative to ground surface of groundwater tables. Little research has been done at the landscape scale to verify
that increased density of drainage canals is related to lowered groundwater levels. However, there are
numerous examples of individual cases where canals have caused significant lowering of levels in adjacent
lands. The drainage density index developed as part of this study measured three different types of ditches and
canals and weighted them according to their relative sizes in an intuitive manner. The smallest agricultural
ditches were given a weighting factor of 0.5, average ditches a factor of 1.0 and large canals a factor of 2.0.
The sensitivity of this index to predict alterations in levels of groundwater tables is subject to several
constraints: first, the weighting factors may have been incorrect, second the density of canals was subject to
interpretative error, and third, the relationship of drainage canal size to alteration of groundwater levels is
complex and may be subject to other factors.


Spatial Influences of Urbanization
There is little question that drawdown of the groundwater table has the potential of lowering water
levels and decreasing length of inundation in wetlands (Brown, Schaefer, and Brandt 1989; Brown 1989).
However, there are many mitigating variables that make it difficult at best to evaluate how a given lowering of
groundwaters will impact the hydrology of wetlands. Most of these variables alter the relationships of distances
between wetlands and development impacts that might cause declines in water levels. For instance, well
"sealed" wetlands (i.e., wetlands with underlying clay lenses, or low transmissivity soils) are less likely to be
affected by lowered water tables than wetlands that have greater hydrologic connection with the water table. Or,
large wetlands are probably more resilient to hydrologic stress than small wetlands because large wetlands have
more "control" over local water table levels while small wetlands are more "controlled" by changes in
groundwater levels. In all, such things as soil properties, slope of the groundwater table, size of wetland,
catchment area of wetland, and so forth affect the spatial influence of development on wetland hydrology.
In this study we analyzed the influences of development on two spatial scales. The larger (landscape
scale) was designed to evaluate landscape-scaled activities that might affect wetland quality. That is, we
developed indices of development status using an area of one square mile around each wetland to test if there
was a perceivable relationship between what happens in the larger landscape and wetland ecological quality.










The spatial scale for the landscape-scale investigation was based on previous work (Brown, in press) and the
analysis of groundwater drawdown by Wang and Overman (1978) that suggested lowered water tables can
extend a distance of up to 1 mile from a canal or drainage ditch. The smaller spatial scale (called the local
scale) was an area with radius of 400 meters surrounding each wetland. It was derived from analytical analysis
of drawdown impacts (Brown and Schaefer 1987; Brown, Schaefer, and Brandt 1989) which suggested that
typically, surface hydrologic impacts from groundwater drawdown at distances of 380 meters from a wetland
were possible.
At the landscape scale, there was no noticeable correlation between indices of development status and
wetland quality suggesting that there was little evidence for the existence of a relationship between landscape-
scale development impacts and loss of hydrologic function and wetland ecological quality. There was some
improvement in the correlations between indices of development status (primarily impervious surface) and
wetland quality at the smaller spatial scale. Yet, the improvement was not statistically impressive, suggesting
that even at the smaller spatial scale there was no evidence for the existence of a relationship between
development and wetland quality. The distance over which development impacts wetland hydrology may be on
the order of 10 to 100 meters. Finer scaled analysis of the spatial data bases may yet yield relationships
between development activities in lands surrounding wetlands and wetland ecological well-being.


Temporal Influences of Urbanization
The aerial photographs used to interpret land use/land cover were taken in 1987 and those used for
drainage ditch coverage were taken in 1981 and 1989. Field measurements of wetland quality ranking were
conducted in 1989 through 1990. As a result there is a temporal discrepancy between the spatial data bases
used to develop indices of development status and the quality ranking. The degree to which this discrepancy
may have affected the results of the analysis is difficult to interpret. Differences in the amount of development
surrounding study wetlands between the date of photography and date of field evaluations may not appreciably
affect wetland quality ranking since several of the parameters upon which the ranking are based are not
temporally sensitive, but rather ignore short-term impacts in favor of longer term changes in wetland hydrology.
Yet, if development had appreciably increased between the time of photography and the time of field
evaluations, several of the quality ranking parameters (most notably weedy species and standing water) could
show declines not accounted for by the level of urbanization in the photography. Ground truthing of the land
use/land cover mapping did not show much significant development in the 1 1/2 years between date of
photography and field evaluations of wetlands.










Subsurface Geology and Wetland Surface Hydrology
The role that subsurface geology plays in mitigating impacts of lowered groundwater elevations in lands
surrounding wetlands is probably more related to well withdrawal impacts than general landscape development.
The analysis of subsurface geology under several wetlands typical of those in this study by Watson et al. (1990)
suggested that geologic variations were deep enough and, thus, more relevant to declines in deep aquifer levels
than to alterations in surficial aquifer levels.
Preliminary finding in surveys of wellfield wetlands suggested that often surface water in wetlands
within the same radius from active wells had varying response, probably due to differences in subsurface
geologic formations. The extent to which subsurface geology may have influenced results of the analysis of
landscape-scale and local-scale development on wetland hydrology and thus quality ranking may be problematic
in wetlands that occupy areas of perched water tables versus areas where the geology does not create such
conditions. In regions of perched water tables, the discontinuity between surficial waters and the deeper aquifer
may result in amplification of impacts on surficial water levels due to development, since surficial waters in
perched areas are more easily drained.


Impacts of Urbanization on Wetland Quality
Statistical analysis of both the landscape-scale and local-scale data bases showed no strong correlations
between the apparent quality of wetland structure and function with indices of development status. Earlier
analysis of wetland quality (Brown et al. 1990) suggested there was evidence for a trend of decreasing wetland
quality with increasing development intensity in the surrounding landscape. When one evaluates the overall
development status of lands surrounding the study wetlands, it is quite apparent that there were relatively few
wetlands in highly urbanized areas, or even moderately urbanized regions, for the vast majority had an LDI
index between 1.0 and 5.0. This lack of study wetlands in highly urbanized areas may have helped to mask
relationships that may otherwise have been apparent. Of importance, however, is not whether the earlier
observed trends hold for this data set, but whether, in a moderately urbanized landscape showing every
indication of development pressure, there was no statistical correlation with indices of development status and
wetland quality. This would suggest that within the northwest Hillsborough study area changes in the quality of
a wetland's structural properties and functional capacity cannot be predicted from development status of the
surrounding landscape.


Multiple Regressions
To test whether normal groundwater levels and yearly fluctuations could explain some of the variability
in wetland quality rank along with indices of development status, multiple regressions were tested using various
combinations of the development indices and groundwater levels. Several groundwater indices that may be
important to overall wetland quality were generated from the soils coverage, including: dry season water levels,










wet season water levels and the difference between dry season and wet season levels (delta water level). Tested
alone in simple linear regressions these variables did not prove to be statistically significant. Used in multiple
regressions in combination with indices of development status, they helped to improve statistical significance,
although still not overly significant. The highest correlation between wetland quality and indices of surrounding
development status was derived from a multiple regression where percent impervious surface and variation
between wet and dry season water table elevations (Delta water table) yielded an R2 of 0.22.




Review and Summary of the Importance of Hydrologic Function and the Effects of Urbanization and
Wellfield Pumping


The importance of depth and duration of flooding to wetland structure and function and ultimately to
ecological well-being cannot be overstated. While nutrient availability has obvious implications regarding
wetland community composition, hydrologic function remains the chief criteria upon which wetland
determination is based. Without water in sufficient quantity and for a sufficient period of time, a wetland is not
a wetland.
Depth and duration of flooding in wetlands is a dynamic balance of inflows and outflows that are both
externally controlled (variability in rainfall) and internally modified (transpiration and recharge). Detailed
studies of isolated cypress dome (Heimberg 1984) showed two very significant results related to the dynamic
behavior of wetland hydrology: first, groundwater flows out of wetlands increase as the difference in elevation
between surface waters within the wetland and the elevation of groundwaters in surrounding lands increases, and
second, small wetlands are affected more by this phenomena than larger wetlands. In other words, with
lowered water table elevations in surrounding lands, recharge is increased and the impacts of increased recharge
more strongly influence surface water hydrology in small versus large wetlands.
Both floral and faunal species composition in wetlands is strongly influenced by the depth and duration
of flooding. At the extremes, water depth determines the difference between herbaceous and woody wetlands,
yet subtle differences in water depth and duration can shift vegetative composition from obligate hydrophytes to
transitional species. When vegetative species composition shifts, faunal food sources are influenced and when
surface water levels are altered habitat values change. Drier wetlands favor more terrestrial species at the
expense of obligate wetland species, because food sources shift and drier habitats favor different species with
different life history requirements.
The yearly cycle of wet and dry seasons and the re-occurring natural drought cycle act together to add
to the dynamic nature of wetland hydrology and consequently to the dynamics of community structure. Under
normal conditions the shifting rainfall patterns alter community structure (principally the shorter lived
herbaceous species) favoring more terrestrial species during dry periods and more obligate wetland species


I










during wetter times. In extremely dry periods, many wetlands may burn naturally, the result of dry organic
soils and accumulations of litter that may have occurred during several years of dryer than normal conditions
favoring weedy understory species. Extremely hot fires may reverse successional trends and "setback" forested
wetlands to early stages of herbaceous or shrub dominated communities and may burn organic soils lowering
ground surface elevations.
The natural cycles of wet and dry seasons can be exacerbated when groundwater elevations are lowered
through drainage or lowered potentiometric surface in deep aquifers with leaky confining layers. Dry periods
last longer and depths of inundation are shallower. The evidence for a strong relationship between drainage that
lowers groundwater levels and serious erosion of wetland ecological function is prevalent in literature. Burns
(1978) found significant decreases in productivity and biomass as well as increased incidence of hot killing fires
in wetlands of southwest Florida. In documenting the natural resources of the Econlockhatchee River Basin,
Brown et al. (1990) found that the most prevalent cause of decreased environmental quality and loss of wetland
habitat was drainage that lowered groundwater tables. Bays and Winchester (1986) after reviewing factors that
contribute to changes in ecological functions of wetlands concluded that groundwater withdrawals were one of
the more significant causes of change, although somewhat limited in spatial extent.
Analysis of the spatial data bases in this study has not yielded strong relationships between changes in
the developmental status of lands and ecological function of wetlands imbedded in those lands. Yet, it is quite
apparent from the literature that changes in water table elevations, whether caused by development or
groundwater withdrawals, has the potential to affect water levels within wetlands (especially isolated wetlands)
and ultimately ecological function.


Management and Regulatory Suggestions or Protection of Wetland Functions and Values


While our analysis of landscape scale data did not show a statistically significant relationship between
development activities in areas surrounding wetlands and their hydrology (probably the result of several
interplaying factors), the importance of hydrology to wetland function and values, shown through our review of
the literature, cannot be denied. The compounding factors that made statistical proof difficult were related to
parameters like underlying surficial geology, soils, and temporal variability. Each of these things made
statistical correlation with development parameters improbable without a much larger number of wetland study
sites in a larger number of urbanized landscapes. Simply put, not all wetlands are affected to the same degree
by activities that alter surficial groundwater levels. Yet, since our review of the literature strongly suggests that
hydrology is the single most important parameter affecting wetland structure and function, and since there is
some evidence (through observation, empirical analysis, and simulation of wetland hydrology models) that
activities outside of wetlands can and do affect hydrology within wetlands, we believe that steps should be taken










to manage surficial aquifer levels and protect wetlands from desiccation of the landscape. Thus the goal of
these management suggestions is to protect, maintain, and enhance water levels in the surficial aquifer.
The permitting and regulation of stormwater management systems as part of the development review
process has led to improvement of surface water conditions throughout the northwest Hillsborough study area
and elsewhere. Systems are now designed to address both water quality and quantity issues. Yet earlier
housing and commercial developments (constructed without the benefits of today's enlightened regulatory
initiatives), public stormwater ditches, roadway drainage systems, agricultural practices that ditch and drain
lands, and groundwater withdrawals have caused declines in groundwater levels. The net result of which is a
drier landscape. Even permitted stormwater management systems often allow some lowered groundwater table
elevations in order to maintain sufficient on-site storage.
Stormwater management that seeks to protect from flooding by removing "excess" surface waters
without attention given to local storage and recharge of groundwaters, in effect, fosters continued decline in
water table elevations. Lowered groundwater tables in the long run decrease base flows of streams and rivers,
cause loss of hydroperiod in wetlands, and cause drought stress in terrestrial vegetation. The long-term
implications affect not only the immediate landscape, but downstream wetlands and estuaries as well. Changes
in the timing and magnitude of stream discharges alter hydroperiods in downstream wetlands and can alter
salinity regimes in coastal receiving waters.
As we see it, the main goal of a surface and groundwater management plan is to maintain an
ecologically healthy and productive landscape of both developed and undeveloped lands. This can be achieved
best through management of the surface and groundwaters of the northwest Hillsborough study area at or as
near to their historic levels as possible. To achieve this goal we offer the following management suggestions.


Management Suggestions


Our management suggestions are organized into two broad areas: (1) options that seek to manage
urban development and its impacts on surface and groundwaters, and (2) options that seek to manage other
activities, including groundwater withdrawals, to minimize impacts on groundwater levels. We present urban
development management suggestions first, followed by management suggestions for other activities.


Manage and Regulate Development to Minimize Runoff
An overriding goal of development regulation should be to minimize runoff before it becomes runoff.
Often stormwater management is seen as the means of controlling increased runoff from developed lands once it
has become runoff. Waters are collected, conveyed, stored, and released with the goal of minimizing changes
in the runoff hydrograph between pre- and post-development. While this is desirable and necessary, the










approach also treats "the problem' once it has become a problem. If the goal was to minimize runoff instead of
control its impacts, other options that reduce impervious surface and reduce the need for off-site disposal of
stormwaters might be explored. The benefits of minimizing runoff are threefold:
1) Increased groundwater elevations,
2) Decreased maintenance costs associated with stormwater management systems, and
3) Decreased water quality problems and operation and maintenance costs in receiving water
bodies.
Current stormwater management regulations, more or less, are designed to ensure that the quantity of
water leaving a site following a rainfall event does not significantly impact receiving water bodies in volume or
rate. However, there is little in current regulations that suggests runoff should be minimized at its source and
and there is little emphasis on storage, recharge, and maintenance of desirable water table elevations. Rules
should emphasize the goal of matching post-development runoff with pre-development conditions and
maintenance of pre-development groundwater elevations.


Design Stormwater Systems as Networks of Streams and Wetlands
Current stormwater networks only superficially resemble natural drainage networks. In appearance
they are composed of straight ditches, grassy swales, and lakes. They are engineered to quickly and efficiently
remove "excess" stormwater and thus are designed to minimize friction. Once constructed they have to be
maintained to keep them as grassy swales, open water ditches, and lakes rather than vegetated wetlands. A
better pattern would be naturally maintaining wetland streams, sloughs, and retention basins.
The average watershed size for a first-order stream in lands like those of much of the northwest
Hillsborough study area is one square mile. Its slope is roughly 1.3 feet per mile and sinuosity is about 1.3
(i.e., for every mile of distance as the crow flies, the stream channel is 1.3 miles long). It starts as a wetland
slough with no definable stream channel. At its mouth, it has a storm channel measuring approximately 5 m, a
base flow channel of less than 1 m, and a 10-year floodplain measuring about 70 m wide on the average.
In most first-order Florida watersheds the majority of wetlands are associated with the headwaters, not
the outfall. Storage is accomplished where runoff occurs and not at the bottom of the system. Stormwater is
first stored in isolated wetlands, then released through slight depressions swaless) where it may coalesce into
sloughs (elongated wetlands with imperceptible flows) and finally into the headwaters of the stream.
Designed in this manner, stormwater management systems would have the following benefits:
1) Decreased runoff,
2) Maintenance of higher water table elevations,
3) Maintenance of higher quality runoff, and
4) Incorporation of wildlife habitat into development plans.










Most often, stormwater ditches and retention basins are seen as a liability and their "footprint" is
minimized on the development site; this results in deep, steep-sided ditches and basins. A new view sees
retention basins as open water lakes and ponds that are fast becoming pleasing design elements in development
planning. An alternate view, whose beauty is seen from the larger scale perspective of ecological function and
self maintenance, would suggest stormwater management systems that mimic natural landscapes of basin and
slough wetlands, and forested wetland stream channels.




Dechannelize Streams, Rivers, and Storm Ditches
Dechannelization is not easy to do, and is not recommended lightly. The net effect of dechannelization
of streams, rivers and tributaries is an increase in water table levels, an increase in residence time of
stormwaters within the system, and probably an increase in flooding. It will take serious and creative
"ecological engineering" to achieve a natural drainage network given the levels of urbanization that now exist in
much of the area. If existing development that does not meet current stormwater standards were brought up to
standard, much of the need for channelization and major stormwater ditches might be eliminated. This might be
accomplished at the sub-basin scale by adding additional storage in constructed wetland retention systems.
The benefits of dechannelization would be fourfold:
1) Improved water quality,
2) Decreased flooding in downstream areas,
3) Improved estuarine water quality, and
4) A rehydrated landscape having higher water tables.
In addition to dechannelization of natural streams and rivers, existing constructed drainage ditches are
good candidates for dechannelization. There are numerous public ditches throughout the study area that traverse
miles without so much as a one degree bend. Their effect is to lower water tables and increase storm peak
flows in downstream areas, not to mention degraded surface water quality. They should be re-engineered as
first- and second-order forested streams with the benefits of in-stream vegetation and meanders to slow runoff.
A regional approach to stormwater storage may be necessary if streams and ditches are dechannelized.
Constructed sub-regional wetland storage systems may offer both treatment and storage protection from
flooding. Constructed wetland mitigation banks could be placed and used as regional storage systems reducing
the need for public funding.


Protect Surficial Aquifer Levels and Wetland Hvdrology
In the process of stormwater management, the net result often is lowered groundwater tables.
Reversing these trends requires that roadway and building elevations may need to be raised to accommodate
some flooding during extreme events. Now that the lands with higher topographic relief have been mostly


I










developed, the trend is to use less and less suitable lands. The application of more engineering while possibly
solving the short-term problem of storm related flooding can only lead to gross losses of environmental quality
as the landscape undergoes desiccation.
Where water table elevations must be lowered, it should be required that wetland hydrology be
protected. To achieve protection it may be necessary to require that a buffer or construction set back between
wetlands and drainage facilities be maintained. The width of which is dependent on the transmissivity of soils
and pre- and post-development water table elevations.


Re-hydrate the Landscape through Recycling of Wastewaters on the Land
Groundwater withdrawals for public water supplies and their subsequent discharge to salt water or deep
well injection ultimately cause a drier landscape, especially in areas with leaky aquacludes. An integrated
approach to water supply and recycling on a local basis is needed.
It is becoming more acceptable to recycle wastewater as an integral part of development patterns
through wetland systems and as spray irrigation. These trends need to be encouraged. Recycling of treated
wastewaters on the landscape is just as important as recycling of elements of the solid waste stream that has
recently become popular to avoid costs associated with landfill operations. However regionalization of waste
treatment facilities makes wetland and landscape recycling more difficult. Regionalization requires that wastes
be concentrated from a large area, treated, and then disposed of. The large volumes of wastewater associated
with regional plants makes recycling difficult because wetlands and irrigation projects of sufficient size are
difficult and costly to construct. Centralization of waste treatment in the name of efficiency neglects the natural
possibilities of an integrated landscape in favor of costly technology.
Smaller treatment facilities scattered throughout the landscape make recycling easier to accomplish
because sewage is not concentrated, more wetlands are available, and wetland sizes can be smaller. However,
small treatment plants have acquired a bad reputation because of past experiences with plant discharges directly
to surface water bodies, and because they lack the many improvements in technology that present-day, regional
plants possess. As a result, regional treatment plants are encouraged and landscape recycling is made extremely
difficult and costly. These trends need to be reversed.
The advantages of an integrated approach to landscape recycling of wastewaters are fourfold:


1) Increased productivity of wetlands and upland ecological communities resulting from higher
water tables and increased nutrients.
2) Decreased treatment costs resulting from simpler technology and the free work of nature
3) A wetter landscape resulting in increased base flows of streams and rivers, and
4) Improved water quality in estuarine and fresh waters that formally received wastewater
discharges.










Design New Developments and Retro-fit Existing Developments to Maximize Water Reuse and Minimize
Sewage Production
Gray water systems, local wastewater recycle and spray irrigation, use of septic tanks where densities
are appropriate, and water conserving appliances and practices are examples of an integrated approach to water
use that attempts to reduce water demand and interface developed lands and natural communities and processes.
Whenever water use can be decreased, pumpage from groundwater sources can be reduced and, subsequently,
the trends toward a drier landscape reversed. Whenever local recycle can be increased, a wetter landscape is
encouraged. And whenever both of these goals are met, decreased costs associated with interfacing humanity
and nature are achieved.
Just as energy conservation can be encouraged through higher prices and industry incentives, so too can
water conservation. The price of water should reflect the true costs of loss of landscape production, impacts to
surface water, and its treatment. In this way the higher prices would encourage conservation. Further
incentives could be achieved through regulatory programs that required demonstrated reductions in per capital
demand before permits for new well-fields or increased withdrawals were granted. Many electric and natural
gas utilities now offer incentives to customers to convert old inefficient appliances and systems to newer energy
conserving technologies. A similar program could be instituted for public water supply utilities.



Summary


The maintenance and conservation of wetland functions is strongly tied to the maintenance of proper
hydrology. Wetland hydrology is tied to factors that occur outside of the wetland, in effect, at the scale of the
next larger system. The larger system, in turn, is driven by events and processes of the larger system within
which it is imbedded and so on. In systems jargon, this organization of systems within systems might be called
a nested hierarchy. Our experience has shown that management of any one component of the hierarchy requires
not only management of the component of interest, but also management of the driving forces from the next
larger system and the next smaller system. At the very least management should be addressed at all three
levels simultaneously. We have tried to give management suggestions that accomplish this.
At the scale of the next larger system, management of surface and groundwater should be integrated
with the management and regulation of all facets of water use, reuse, and disposal, as well as all facets of
human uses of lands, energy, and resources. The goal should be to achieve an appropriate, symbiotic interface
of humanity and nature. When taken as a whole, all the various regulatory and management programs at
federal, state, and local levels, are incrementally trying to achieve this goal. However, because of the
incremental approach where wetlands are regulated by one agency, stormwater by another, development
permitting by yet another, and public water supply and wastewater treatment by still others, it is extremely










difficult to achieve the integration that is necessary. Our management suggestions, unfortunately, cannot
overcome this lack of an integrated approach to landscape management. At best, our suggestions are toward an
integrated approach to the maintenance of wetland functions and values through water management and the
regulation of hydrological aspects of development.











BIBLIOGRAPHY


Arndt, J.L., and J.L. Richardson. 1988. Hydrology, salinity and hydric soil development in a North Dakota
prairie-pothole wetland system. Wetlands 8:93-108.

Barile, D. 1976. An environmental study of the Melbourne-Tillman Drainage District and an evaluation of
alternate land use plans for the City of Palm Bay, Florida. M.S. Thesis, Fla. Inst. Technol.,
Melbourne.

Barile, D. 1986. The Indian River Lagoon-seventy years of cumulative impacts. In E.D. Estevez (ed.),
Proc.: Managing Cumulative Effects in Florida Wetlands, pp. 193-218, Oct. 1985, Sarasota, Fla.

Barstow, C.J. 1971. Impact of channelization on wetland habitat in the Obion-Forked Deer Basin, Tennessee.
In: 36th North American Wildlife Conf., pp. 362-376,

Baumann, R.H., J.W. Day, Jr., and C.A. Miller. 1984. Mississippi deltaic wetland survival: Sedimentation
versus coastal submergence. Science 224:1093-1095.

Bayley, S.E., J. Zoltek, Jr., A.J. Hermann, T.J. Dolan, and L. Tortora. 1985. Experimental manipulation of
nutrients and water in a freshwater marsh: Effects on biomass, decomposition, and nutrient
accumulation. Limnol. Oceanogr. 30(3):500-512.

Bays, J.S., and B.H. Winchester. 1986. An overview of impacts associated with hydrologic modification of
Florida freshwater wetlands. In E.D. Estevez, J. Miller, J. Morris, and R. Hamman (eds.), Proc.
Conf. Managing Cumulative Effects in Florida Wetlands. October 1985, Sarasota, Fla. Environ. Stud.
Progr. Publ. No. 37., pp. 125-152,

Bell, D.T., F.L. Johnson, and A.R. Gilmore. 1978. Dynamics of litter fall, decomposition, and incorporation
in the streamside forest ecosystem. Oikos 30:76-82.

Bengtsson, T.O. 1987. Development and Documentation of a Transient, Quasi-Three-Dimensional, Finite-
Difference Model of the Tri-County Well-Field Area. Prepared for the Resource Regulation Department
of the Southwest Florida Water Management District, Brooksville, FL. September.

Bengtsson, T.O. 1989. The hydrologic effects on intense groundwater pumpage in East-Central Hillsborough
County, Florida, U.S.A. Environ. Geol. Water Sci. 14(1):43-51.

Bernard, J.M., F.K. Seischab, and H.G. Gauch. 1983. Gradient analysis of the vegetation of the Byron
Bergen Swamp, a rich fen in Western New York. Vegetatio 53:85-91.

Biological Research Associates, Inc. 1987. Annual Report: Ecological Monitoring of the Morris Bridge
Wellfield. A report for the City of Tampa Water Dept. 60 pp.

Biological Research Associates, Inc. 1988. Annual Report: Ecological Monitoring of the Morris Bridge
Wellfield. A report for the City of Tampa Water Dept. 30 pp.

Boesch, D.F., D. Levin, D. Nummedal, and K. Bowles. 1983. Subsidence in Coastal Louisiana: Causes,
Rates, and Effects on Wetlands. USFWS, Div. of Biol. Serv, Washington, D.C. FWS/OBS-83-26.
30 pp.










Botts, P.S., and B.C. Cowell. 1988. The distribution and abundance of herbaceous angiosperms in West-
Central Florida marshes. Aquat. Bot. 32:225-238.

Bradbury, K.R., and W.D. Courser. 1977. Fourth Annual Report of the St. Petersburg-South Pasco Well Field
Study. Spring 1976 through Winter 1977. A report by the SWFWMD. Tech. Rept. No. 1977-4. 33
pp.

Brinson, M.M. 1977. Decomposition and nutrient exchange of litter in an alluvial swamp forest. Ecology
58:601-609.

Brinson, M.M., A.E. Lugo, and S. Brown. 1981. Primary productivity, decomposition and consumer activity
in freshwater wetlands. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 12:123-161.

Browder, J.A. 1976. Water, wetlands, and wood storks in southwest Florida. PhD Dissertation. Gainesville,
FL: Center for Wetlands, Univ. of FL. 466 pp.

Browder, J.A. 1984. Wood stork feeding areas in southwest Florida. In J.A. Kushlan (ed.), Florida Field
Naturalist. Homestead, FL: Florida Ornithological Society. pp. 81-90.

Brown, M.T. 1976. The South Florida Study: Lee County, An Area of Rapid Growth. Gainesville, FL:
Division of State Planning, Tallahassee, FL and the Center for Wetlands, Univ. of Florida. 57 pp.

Brown, M.T. 1980. Energy basis for hierarchies in urban and regional landscapes. Ph.D. diss. University of
Florida.

Brown, M.T. 1989. Forested wetlands in urbanizing landscapes. In D.D. Hook and Russ Lea (eds.),
Proceedings of Symposium: The Forested Wetlands of the Southern United States: 1988 July 12-14;
Orlando, FL., pp. 19-26. General Technical Publications GTR-SE-50. Asheville, NC: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Southeastern Forest Experiment Station.

Brown, M.T. (ed.) 1990. Econlockhatchee River Basin Natural Resources Development and Protection Plan.
Vols. 1-3. Final Report to St. Johns River Water Management District. Gainesville, FL: Center for
Wetlands, Univ. of FL.

Brown, M.T. (in press) Evaluating constructed wetlands through comparison with reference sites. Wetlands
Ecology and Management.

Brown, M.T., M.E. Kentula, and J.C. Sifneos. (in press) Reference site selection for evaluating created
wetlands. Wetlands Ecology and Management.

Brown, M. T. and C. S. Luthin. 1990. Econlockhatchee River Basin Natural Resources Development and
Protection Plan, Volumes I-III. Gainesville, FL: Center for Wetlands, Univ. of FL. pp. 493.

Brown, M. T., and J. M. Schaefer (PIs). 1987. An Evaluation of the Applicability of Upland Buffers for the
Wetlands of the Wekiva Basin. Final Report to the St. Johns River Water Management District,
Palatka, FL. Gainesville, FL: Center for Wetlands, Univ. of FL.

Brown, M.T., J. Schaefer, and K. Brandt. 1989. Buffer Zones for Water, Wetlands, and Wildlife in the East
Central Florida Region. Prepared for the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council, Winter
Park, FL. Gainesville, FL: Center for Wetlands, Univ. of FL.










Brown, M.T. and M.F. Sullivan. 1987. The value of wetlands in low relief landscapes. In D.D. Hook (ed.),
The Ecology & Management of Wetlands. Beckenham, England: Croom Helm. pp. 133-45.

Brown, M.T. and R.E. Tighe. (eds.) 1990. Techniques and Guidelines for Reclamation of Phosphate Mined
Lands. Final Report to the Florida Institute of Phosphate Research. Gainesville, FL: Center for
Wetlands, Univ. of FL. 704 pp.

Brown, R.G. 1988. Effects of wetland channelization on storm runoff in Lamberts Creek, Ramsey County,
Minnesota. In J.A. Kusler and G. Brooks (eds.), Proc. of the Nat'l Wetland Symp.: Wetland
Hydrology, pp. 130-136, Sept. 16-18, 1987, Chicago, Ill.

Bryan, K. 1928. Change in plant associations by change in groundwater level. Ecology 9(4):474-478.

Burns, L. 1978. Productivity, biomass, and water relations in a Florida cypress forest. Phd. diss., Chapel
Hill: University of North Carolina, Department of Zoology.

Burton, T.M. 1985. The effects of water level fluctuations on Great Lakes coastal marshes. In: pp. 3-13,
H.H. Prince and F.M. D'Itri (eds.), Coastal Wetlands. Lewis Publ., Inc., East Lansing, Mich.

Caldwell, J.P. 1987. Demography and life history of two species of chorus frogs (Anura; Hylidae) in South
Carolina. Copeia 1987:114-127.

Campbell, T.A. 1980. Oxygen flux measurements in organic soils. Can. J. Soil Sci. 60:641-650.

Carter, L.J. 1974. The Florida Experience: Land and Water Policy in a Growth State. John Hopkins U.
Press, Baltimore, Md. 355 pp.

Carter, V. 1986. An overview of the hydrologic concerns related to wetlands in the United States. Can. J.
Bot. 64:364-374.

CH2M Hill. 1988. Hydroecology of Wetlands on the Ringling-Macarthur Reserve. Volume I: Technical
Report. Tech. Rept. No. 2.

Cherry, R.N, J.W. Stewart, and J.A. Mann. 1970. General Hydrology of the Middle Guf Area, Florida. A
report by the USGS, FDNR, and SWFWMD. Investigation No. 56.

Conner, W.H., J.G. Gosselink, and R.T. Parrondo. 1981. Comparison of the vegetation of three Louisiana
swamp sites with different flooding regimes. Amer. J. Bot. 68(3):320-331.

Corral, M.A., Jr., and T.H. Thompson. 1988. Hydrology of the Citrus Park Quadrangle, Hillsborough
County, Florida. USGS Water-Resources Investigations Rept. No. 874166.

Courser, W.D. 1972. Investigations of the effect of Pinellas County Eldridge Wilde Well Field's aquifer cone
of depression on cypress head water levels and associated vegetation. Memorandum.

Courser, W.D. 1973. Investigations of the effect of Pinellas County Eldridge-Wilde Well Field's aquifer cone
of depression of cypress pond water levels and associated vegetation-1973. Memorandum. 3 pp.

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater
habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-79/3dl. U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C.


I










Cullen, P. 1971. The draining of the Everglades. Fla. Naturalist 44(2A):2-4.


Currier, P.J. 1979. Floristic composition and primary production of the postdrawdown vegetation of Eagle
Lake Marsh, Hancock County, Iowa. M.S. Thesis, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa. 139 pp.

Cypert, E. 1961. The effects of fires in the Okefenokee Swamp in 1954 and 1955. Am Midi Nat 66:485-503.

Damman, A.W.H. 1981. Vegetation and habitat conditions in Western Head Bog, a southern Nova Scotian
plateau bog. Can. J. Bot. 59:1343-1359.

Damman, A.W.H. 1986. Hydrology, development, and biogeochemistry of ombrogenous peat bogs with
special reference to nutrient relocation in a western Newfoundland bog. Can. J. of Bot. 64:384-394.

Davis, F.W. 1985. Historical changes in submerged macrophyte communities of upper Chesapeake Bay.
Ecology 66(3):981-993.

Day, F.P., Jr. 1982. Litter decomposition rates in the seasonally flooded Great Dismal Swamp. Ecology
63(3):670-678.

Day, F.P., Jr., S.K. West, and E.G. Tupacz. 1988. The influence of ground-water dynamics in a periodically
flooded ecosystem, the Great Dismal Swamp. Wetlands 8:1-13.

Deegan, L.A., H.M. Kennedy, and C. Neill. 1984. Natural factors and human modifications contributing to
marsh loss in Louisiana's Mississippi River Deltaic Plain. Environ. Mgmt. 8(6):519-528.

DeLaune, R.D., and W.H. Patrick, Jr. 1987. Foreseeable flooding and death of coastal wetland forests.
Environ. Conserv. 14(2):129-133.

Demaree, D. 1932. Submerging experiments with Taxodium. Ecology 8(3):258-262.

Dickson, R.E., and T.C. Broyer. 1972. Effects of aeration, water supply, and nitrogen source on growth and
development of tupelo gum and bald cypress. Ecology 53(4):626-633.

Dooris, P.M., G. Dooris, T.F. Rochow, and M. Lopez. 1986. The effects on wetland vegetation and habitat
value caused by altered hydroperiods resulting from groundwater withdrawals in central Florida. In
Abstracts: Freshwater Wetlands and Wildlife: Perspectives on Natural, Managed and Degraded
Ecosystems, Ninth Symp., Mar. 24-27, 1986, Charleston, S.C.

Dooris, P.M., G. Dooris, T.F. Rochow, and M. Lopez. 1990. The Effects on Wetland Vegetation and Habitat
value Caused by Altered Hydroperiods Resulting from Groundwater Withdrawals in Central Florida. A
report by SWFWMD. Tech. Rept. 1990-1. 18 pp.

DuBarry, A.P., Jr. 1963. Germination of bottomland tree seed while immersed in water. J. For.
61:225-226.

Duever, M.J. 1982. Hydrology-plant community relationships in the Okefenokee Swamp. Fla. Sci.
45(3):171-176.

Duever, M.J. 1988. Surface hydrology and plant communities of Corkscrew Swamp. In D.A. Wilcox (ed.),
Interdisciplinary Approaches to Freshwater Wetlands Research. pp. 97-118. Mich. St. U. Press, East
Lansing.










Duever, M.J., J.E. Carlson, and L.A. Riopelle. 1975. Ecosystem analyses at Corkscrew Swamp. In Odum,
H.T., K.C. Ewel, J.W. Ordway, and M.K. Johnston (eds.) Cypress Wetlandsfor Water Management,
Recycling, and Conservation. Second Annual Report to National Science Foundation and Rockefeller
Foundation. Gainesville, FL: Center for Wetlands, University of Florida. pp. 627-725.

Evans, R.M. 1972. Some effects of water level on the reproductive success of the white pelican at East Shoal
Lake, Manitoba. Can. Field-Nat. 86:151-153.

Ewel, K.C. 1984. "Effects of Fire and Wastewater on Understory Vegetation in Cypress Domes." In K.C.
Ewel and H.T. Odum Cypress Swamps. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Press. pp. 119-126.

Ewel, K.C. and W.J. Mitsch. 1978. The effects of fire on species composition in cypress dome ecosystems.
Fla Sci 41:25-30.

Ewel, K.C. and H.T. Odum. 1978. Cypress domes: nature's tertiary treatment filter. Pages 35-60 in H.T.
Odum and K.C. Ewel (eds.) Cypress wetlands for water management, recycling and conservation.
Fourth Annual Report ot NSF-RANN and the Rockefeller Foundation. Gainesville, FL.

Ewel, K.C. and H.T. Odum. 1984. Cypress Swamps. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Press.

Farney, R.A., and T.A. Bookhout. 1982. Vegetation changes in a Lake Erie marsh (Winous Point, Ottawa
County, Ohio) during high water years. Ohio Acad. Sci. 82(3):103-110.

Flannery, M.S., D. Richters, R. Gant, and M. Buickerood. 1989. Part II Rule Revision for Lakes.
Memorandum.

Florida Administrative Code. Ch. 17-3, 4, and 6.


Ford, J., and B.L. Bedford. 1987. The hydrology of Alaskan wetlands, U.S.A.: A review. Arctic Alpine Res.
19(3):209-229.

Fredrick, P.C. and M.W. Collopy. 1988. Reproductive Ecology of Wading Birds in Relation to Water
Conditions in the Florida Everglades. Florida Coop. Fish and Wildl. Res. Unit, Sch. for Res. and
Conserv., Univ. of Florida. Tech. Rept. No. 30.

Fretwell, J.D. 1988. Water Resources and Effects of Ground-water Development in Pasco County, Florida.
USGS Water-Resources Investigations Rept. No. 87-4188.

Galinato, M.I., and A.G. van der Valk. 1986. Seed germination traits of annuals and emergents recruited
during drawdowns in the Delta Marsh, Manitoba, Canada. Aquat. Bot. 26:89-102.

Geis, J.W. 1985. Environmental influences on the distribution and composition of wetlands in the Great Lakes
Basin. In H.H. Prince and F.M. D'Itri (eds.), Coastal Wetlands. pp. 15-31. East Lansing, MI:
Lewis Publ., Inc.

Gerritsen, J., and H.S. Greening. 1989. Marsh seed banks of the Okefenokee Swamp: Effects of hydrologic
regime and nutrients. Ecology 70(3):750-763.










Gilbert, K.M., A. Gerami, and R.S. Lockenbach. 1988. Final Report for Jurisdictional Declaratory Statement
(BA-51-134610-3). A report for Trinity Communities, Pasco County Jurisdictional Declaratory
Statement. 19 pp.

Good, B.J., and W.H. Patrick, Jr. 1987. Gas composition and respiration of water oak (Quercus nigra L.)
and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvania Marsh.) roots after prolonged flooding. Plant Soil 97:419-427.

Goodwin, R.H. and W.A. Niering. 1975. Inland Wetlands of the United States. National Park Service,
Washington, D.C.

Green, W.E. 1947. Effect of water on tree mortality and growth. J. For. 45(2):118-120.

Greening, H.S., and J. Gerritsen. 1987. Changes in macrophyte community structure following drought in the
Okefenokee Swamp, Georgia, U.S.A. Aquat. Bot. 28:113-128.

Gunderson, L.H. 1977. Regeneration of cypress, Taxodium distichum and Taxodium ascendens, in logged and
burned cypress stands at Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary, Florida. M.S. thesis. University of Florida,
Gainesville. 88 p.

Hall, T.F., and G.E. Smith. 1955. Effects of flooding on woody plants, West Sandy dewatering project,
Kentucky Reservoir. J. For. 53:281-285.

Han, J.S. 1985. Net primary production in a marsh. Mich. Bot. 24:55-62.

Harms, W.R., H.T. Schreuder, D.D. Hook, C.L. Brown, and F.W. Shropshire. 1980. The effects of flooding
on the swamp forest in Lake Ocklawaha, Florida. Ecology 6(16):1412-1421.

Harper, R.M. 1921. Geography of Central Florida, 13th annual report. The State Geological Society,
Tallahassee, Fla.

Harris, L.D., and C.R. Vickers. 1978. Some faunal community characteristics of cypress ponds and the
changes induced by perturbations. In K.C. Ewel and H.T. Odum (eds.), Cypress Swamps, pp. 171-
185,

Harris, S.W., and W.H. Marshall. 1963. Ecology of water-level manipulations on a northern marsh. Ecology
44(2):331-343.

Hatton, R.S., R.D. DeLaune, and W.H. Patrick, Jr. 1983. Sedimentation, accretion, and subsidence in
marshes of Barataria Basin, Louisiana. Limnol. Oceanogr. 28(3):494-502.

Heard, L.P. 1976. Managing cypress ponds for wildlife in Florida. Presented at the Wetlands Workshop,
Wetlands Center, U. of Fla. 12 pp.

Heikurainen, L. 1963. On using groundwater fluctuations for measuring evapotranspiration. Acta Forestalia
Fennica 76(5): 1-16.

Heikurainen, L., J. Piivinen, and J. Sarasto. 1964. Groundwater table and water content in peat soil. Acta
Forest Fennica 77(1):1-18.

Heimberg, K. 1984. Hydrology of north-central Florida cypress domes. Cypress Swamps. K.C. Ewel and
H.T. Odum, editors. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Presses. pp. 72-82.










Heinselman, M.L. 1963. Forest sites, bog processes, and peatland types in the glacial Lake Agassiz region,
Minnesota. Ecol. Monogr. 33:327-374.

Heinselman, M.L. 1970. Landscape evolution and peatland types, and the environment in the Lake Agassiz
Peatlands Natural Area, Minnesota. Ecol. Monogr. 40:235-261.

Heliotis, F.D., and C.B. DeWitt. 1987. Rapid water table responses to rainfall in a northern peatland
ecosystem. Water Res. Bull. 23(6):1011-1016.

Heyer, W.R., R.W. McDiarmid, and D.L. Wiegmann. 1975. Tadpoles, predation and pond habitats in the
tropics. Biotropics 7:100-111.

Higer, A.L., A.E. Coker, and E.H. Cordes. 1974. Water-management models in Florida from ERTS-1 Data.
In Proc.: 11th Space Congress-Technology for Tomorrow, Cocoa Beach, FL., pp. 3-1 to 3-12,

Hofstetter, R.H., and R.S. Sonenshein. 1990. Vegetative Changes in a Wetland in the Vicinity of a Well field,
Dade County, Florida. USGS Water-Resources Investigations Rept. No. 89-4155. 16 pp.

Hook, D.D., and C.L. Brown. 1973. Root adaptations and relative flood tolerance of five hardwood species.
For. Sci. 19(3):225-229.

Horwitz, E.L. 1978. Our Nation's Wetlands: An Interagency Task Force Report. U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C.

Hosner, J.F., and S.G. Boyce. 1962. Tolerance to water saturated soil of various bottomland hardwoods.
For. Sci. 8(2):180-186.

Hull, H.C., Jr., J.M. Post, Jr., M. Lopez, and R.G. Perry. 1989. Analysis of water level indicators in
wetlands: Implications for the design of surface water management systems. In D.W. Fisk (ed.)
Wetlands: Concerns and Success, pp. 195-204. Proceedings of the Symposium, Sept. 17-22, 1989.
Amer. Wter Resources Association. Tampa, FL.

Iremonger, S.F., and D.L. Kelly. 1988. The response of four Irish wetland tree species to raised soil water
level. New Phytol. 109(4):491-497.

Jeglum, J.K. 1975. Vegetation-habitat changes caused by damming a peatland drainageway in northern
Ontario. Can. Field-Nat. 89(4):400-412.

Johnsgard, P.A. 1956. Effects of water fluctuation and vegetation change on bird populations, particularly
waterfowl. Ecology 37(4):689-701.

Johnson, L. 1974. Beyond the Fourth Generation. Gainesville, FL: The University of Florida Press.

Jones, H.E., and J.R. Etherington. 1970. Comparative studies of plant growth and distribution in relation to
waterlogging. J. Ecol. 58:487-496.

Justin, S.H.F.W., and W. Armstrong. 1987. The anatomical characteristics of roots and plant response to soil
flooding. New Phytol. 106:465-495.

Kadlec, J.A. 1962. Effects of a drawdown on a waterfowl impoundment. Ecology 43(2):267-281.










Kadlec, J.A. 1986. Effects of flooding on dissolved and suspended nutrients in small diked marshes. Can. J.
Fish Aquat. Sci. 43:1999-2008.

Kahl, M.P. 1963. Food ecology of the Wood Stork in Florida: A study of behavioral and physiological
adaptations to seasonal drought. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. of Georgia, Athens.

Keddy, P.A. 1983. Freshwater wetlands human-induced changes: Indirect effects must also be considered.
Environ. Mgmt. 7(4):299-302.

Keddy, P.A., and P. Constabel. 1986. Germination of ten shoreline plants in relation to seed size, soil particle
size and water level: An experimental study. J. Ecol. 74:133-141.

Keddy, P.A., and T.H. Ellis. 1985. Seedling recruitment of 11 wetland plant species along a water level
gradient: Shared or distinct responses? Can. J. Bot. 63:1876-1879.

Keddy, P.A., and A.A. Reznicek. 1985. Vegetation dynamics, buried seeds, and water level fluctuations on
the shorelines of the Great Lakes. In H.H. Prince and F.M. D'Itri (eds.), Coastal Wetlands. East
Lansing, MI: Lewis Publ., pp. 35-58,

Keddy, P.A., and A.A. Reznicek. 1986. Great Lakes vegetation dynamics: The role of fluctuating water levels
and buried seeds. J. Great Lakes Res. 12(1):25-36.

Keeley, J.E. 1979. Population differentiation along a flood frequency gradient: Physiological adaptations to
flooding in Nyssa sylvatica. Ecol. Monogr. 49(1):89-108.

Kelley, J.C., T.M. Burton, and W.R. Enslin. 1985. The effects of natural water level fluctuations on N and P
cycling in a Great Lakes marsh. Wetlands 5:159-175.

Knutilla, R.L. 1985. Updated Draft Summarizing Model-Simulated Effects of Pumping on Lakes in Central
Pasco County. A report for the Hillsborough River Basin Board.

Krusi, B.O., and R.W. Wein. 1988. Experimental studies on the resiliency of floating Typha mats in a
freshwater marsh. J. Ecol. 76:60-72.

Kurimo, H. 1984. Simultaneous groundwater table fluctuation in different parts of virgin pine mires. Silva
Fennica 18(2):151-186.

Kushlan, J.A. 1976. Wading bird predation in seasonally fluctuating pond. Auk 93:464-476.

Kushlan, J.A. 1986. Responses of wading birds to seasonally fluctuating water levels: Strategies and their
limits. Colonial Waterbirds 9(2): 155-162.

Kushlan, J.A. 1987. External threats and internal management: The hydrologic regulation of the Everglades,
Florida, USA. Environ. Mgmt. 11(1):109-119.

Lieffers, V.J. 1988. Spagnum and cellulose decomposition in drained and natural areas of an Alberta peatland.
Can. J. Soil Sci. 68:755-761.

Lieffers, V.J., and R.L. Rothwell. 1987. Effects of drainage on substrate temperature and phenology of some
trees and shrubs in an Alberta peatland. Can. J. For. Res. 17:97-104.










Lindholm, T., and I. Markkula. 1984. Moisture conditions in hummocks and hollows in virgin and drained
sites on the raised bog Laaviosuo, southern Finland. Ann. Bot. Fennici 21:241-255.

Llamas, M.R. 1988. Conflicts between wetland conservation and groundwater exploitation: Two case histories
in Spain. Environ. Geol. Water Sci. 11(3):241-251.

Lopez, M. 1983. Hydrobiological Monitoring of Morris Bridge Well Field, Hillsborough County, Florida. A
review: 1977-1982. A report by the SWFWMD. Tech. Rept. No. 1983-5. 96 pp.

Lowe, E.F. 1986. The relationship between hydrology and vegetational pattern within the floodplain marsh of
a subtropical, Florida lake. FL. Sci. 49:213-233.

Macdonald, K.B., T. Bilhorn, and C.R. Feldmeth. 1988. Cumulative impacts of historical hydrologic changes,
Bolsa Chica Lowland, Orange County, California. In J.A. Kusler and G. Brooks (eds.), Proc. of the
Nat'l Wetland Symp.: Wetland Hydrology, pp. 91-98, Sept. 16-18, 1987, Chicago, ml.

Mannerkoski, H. 1985. Effect of Water Table Fluctuation on the Ecology of Peat Soil. Department of
Peatland Forestry, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland. Publ. no. 7. 190 pp.

Marois, K.C., and K.C. Ewel. 1983. Natural and management-related variation in cypress domes. For. Sci.
29(3):627-640.

Maycock, P.F. and J.T. Curtis. 1960. The phytosociology of boreal conifer-hardwood forests of the Great
Lakes region. Ecol. Monogr. 30:1-35.

McNicholl, M.K. 1985. Avian wetland habitat functions affected by water level fluctuations. In H.H. Prince
and F.M. D'Itri (eds.), Coastal Wetlands, pp. 87-98, East Lansing, MI: Lewis Publ., Inc.

Menges, E.S., and D.M. Waller. 1983. Plant strategies in relation to elevation and light in floodplain herbs.
Amer. Nat. 122(4):454-473.

Merritt, R.W. and D.L. Lawson. 1979. Leaf litter processing in floodplain and stream communities. In
Strategies for Protection and Management of Floodplain Wetlands and Other Riparian Ecosystems.
R.R. Johnson and J.F. McCormick, technical coordinators. General Technical Report WO-12, United
States Forest Service, Washington, D.C., USA.

Meyer, B.S., F.H. Bell, L.C. Thompson, and E.I. Clay. 1943. Effect of depth of immersion on apparent
photosynthesis in submersed vascular aquatics. Ecology 24(3):393-399.

Millar, J.B. 1973. Vegetation changes in shallow marsh wetlands under improving moisture regime. Can. J.
Bot. 51:1443-1457.

Mitsch, W.J., and K.C. Ewel. 1979. Comparative biomass and growth of cypress in Florida wetlands. Amer.
Midland Nat. 101:417-426.

Mitsch, W.J. and J.G. Gosselink. 1986. Wetlands. Van Nostrand Reinhold. New York.

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.










Monk, C.D. 1968. Successional and environmental relationships of the forest vegetation of northcentral
Florida. American Midland Naturalist 74:441-57.

Morin, T. 1983. Predation, competition, and the composition of larval anuran guilds. Ecol. Monogr. 53:119-
138.

Munro, D.S. 1984. Summer soil moisture content and the water table in a forested wetland peat. Can. J.
For. Res. 14:331-335.

Neuman, S.P., and S. Dasberg. 1977. Peat hydrology in the Hula Basin, Isreal: II. Subsurface flow regime.
J. Hydrol. 32:241-256.

Odum, H.T. 1978. Principles for Interfacing Wetlands with Development. In Drew, M.A. (ed)
Environmental Quality Through Wetlands Utilization. The Coordinating Council on the Restoration of
the Kissimmee River Valley and Taylor Creek Nubbin Slough. Tallahassee, FL. pp. 29-56.

Odum, H.T. 1983. Systems Ecology. Wiley Interscience. New York, N.Y.

Odum, H.T. 1984. Summary: Cypress swamps and their regional role. Cypress Swamps. K.C. Ewel and
H.T. Odum, editors. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Presses. pp. 416-433.

Odum, H.T. and M.T. Brown. 1977. Carrying Capacityfor Man and Nature in South Florida. Report to the
National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Gainesville, FL: Center for Wetlands, Univ.
of Florida. 886 pp.

Odum H.T. and K.C. Ewel. 1974. Cypress Wetlandsfor Water Management, Recycling, and Conservation.
First annual report to the National Science Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation. Center for
Wetlands, University of Florida, Gainesville.

Ogden, J.C. 1973. Proposed modification of S-12 water releases to improve nesting and feeding conditions for
colonial nesting, wading birds in Everglades National Park. 8 pp.

Ogden, J.C. and S.A. Nesbitt. 1979. Recent wood stork population trends in the United States. Wilson Bull.
91:512-523.

Pandit, A.K. 1988. Threats to Kashmir wetlands and their wildlife resources. Environ. Conserv. 15(3):266-
268.

Paratley, R.D., and T.J. Fahey. 1986. Vegetation-environmental relations in a conifer swamp in Central New
York. Bull. Torrey Botan. Club 113(4):357-371.

Parker, Sr., G.G. 1960. Groundwater in the central and southern Florida Flood Control District. In Proc.
Soil and Crop Science Soc. of Fla., Vol. 20, pp. 211-231,

Parker, Sr., G.G. 1973. On Water Resource Conditions in the Vicinity of Pinellas County's Eldridge-Wilde
Well Field. Hydroscope, 4(4):1-6.

Parker, Sr., G. G. 1975. Water and Water Problems in Southwest Florida Water Management District and
Some Possible Solutions. Water Resources Bulletin, 11:1-20.










Parker, Sr., G.G. 1982. The development and use of Florida's precious ground-water resources. In The Conf
on the Florida Water Crisis: Natural Controls and Human Plans. Jan. 22, 1982, Winter Park, Fla. 18
PP.

Penuelas, J. 1984. Pigment and morphological response to emersion and immersion of some aquatic and
terrestrial mosses in N.E. Spain. J. Bryol. 13:115-128.

Perrin, L.S. 1986. Wetland status and restoration agenda for the channelized Kissimmee River. In: pp. 83-91,
E.D. Estevez (ed.), Proc.: Managing Cumulative Effects in Florida Wetlands. Oct. 1985, Sarasota,
Fla.

Phillips, J.D. 1985. Stability of artificially-drained lowlands: A theoretical assessment. Ecol. Model. 27:69-79.

Phipps, R.L., D.L. Ireley, and C.P. Baker. 1979. Tree Rings as Indicators of Hydrologic Change in the Great
Dismal Swamp, Virginia and North Carolina. USGS Water-Resources Investigations Rept. No. 78-136.
25 pp.

President Carter Executive Order. May 1977.

Prince, H.H. 1985. Avian communities in controlled and uncontrolled Great Lakes wetlands. In H.H. Prince
and F.M. D'Itri (eds.), Coastal Wetlands, pp. 99-119, East Lansing, MI: Lewis Publ.

Rochow, T.F. 1985a. Biological Assessment of the Jay B. Starkey Wilderness Park. 1985 Update. A report
by the SWFWMD. Tech. Rept. No. 1985-4. 105 pp.

Rochow, T.F. 1985b. Hydrologic and vegetational changes resulting from underground pumping at the
Cypress Creek Well Field, Pasco County, Florida. Fla Sci. 48(2):65-80.

Rochow, T.F. 1985c. Vegetational Monitoring at the Cypress Creek Well Field, Pasco County, Florida: 1985
Update. A report by the SWFWMD. Tech. Rept. No. 1985-5. 139 pp.

Rochow, T.F. 1988. Eldridge-Wilde Well Field (CUP 202673) environmental evaluation. Memorandum. 4
PP.

Rochow, T.F. 1991. Biologic aspects of water resources management inthe Northwest Hillsborough Water
Resources Assessment Project Assessment. SWFWMD Draft.

Sasser, C.E., M.D. Dozier, J.G. Gosselink, and J.M. Hill. 1986. Spatial and temporal changes in Louisiana's
Barataria Basin marshes, 1945-1980. Environ. Mgmt. 10(5):671-680.

Schneider, R.L., and R.R. Sharitz. 1988. Hydrochory and regeneration in a bald cypress-water tupelo forest.
Ecology 69(4):1055-1063.

Schneider, W.J., and J.H. Hartwell. 1984. Troubled waters of the Everglades. Nat. Hist. 11:47-56.

Schoenberg, S.A., and J.D. Oliver. 1988. Temporal dynamics and spatial variation of algae in relation to
hydrology and sediment characteristics in the Okefenokee Swamp, Georgia. Hydrobiologia 162:123-
133.

Schwinzer, C.R. and G. Williams. 1974. Vegetation changes in a small Michigan bog from 1917 to 1972.
Am. Midl. Nat. 92:447-459.










Sharitz, R.R., and J.W. Gibbons. 1982. The Ecology of Southeastern Shrub Bogs (pocosins) and Carolina
Bays: A Community Profile. USFWS, Washington, D.C. FWS/OBS-82-04.

Shure, D.J., M.R. Gottschalk, and K.A. Parsons. 1980. Litter decomposition dynamics in a South Carolina
floodplain forest. Association of Southeastern Biologists Bulletin 27(2):63.

Siegel, D.I., and P.H. Glaser. 1987. Groundwater flow in a bog-fen complex, Lost River Peatland, northern
Minnesota. J. Ecol. 75:743-754.

Silvola, J. 1986. Carbon dioxide dynamics in mires reclaimed for forestry in eastern Finland. Ann. Bot.
Fennici 23:59-67.

Sjoberg, K., and K. Danell. 1983. Effects of permanent flooding on Carex-Equisetum wetlands in northern
Sweden. Aquat. Bot. 15:275-286.

Smith, L.M., and J.A. Kadlec. 1983. Seed banks and their role during drawdown of a North American
marsh. J. Appl. Ecol. 20:673-684.

Smith, L.M., and J.A. Kadlec. 1985. The effects of disturbance on marsh seed banks. Can. J. Bot. 63:2133-
2137.

Sullivan, M.F. 1986. Organization of low-relief landscapes in north and central Florida. MS Theis.
Gainesville, FL: Univ. of FL. 100 pp.

Sykes, Jr., P.W. 1979. Status of the Everglade Kite in Florida-1968-1978. Wilson Bull. 91:495-511.

Sykes, Jr., P.W. 1983. Recent population trend on the snail kite in Florida and its relationship to water levels.
J. Field Ornithol. 54(3):237-246.

Taber, R.G. 1982. Historic impact on wetlands within the Eldridge-Wilde Well Field. W.O. No. 238.
Memorandum.

Talbot, R.J., and J.R. Etherington. 1987. Comparative studies of plant growth and distribution in relation to
waterlogging. XIII. The effect of Fe on photosynthesis and respiration of Salix caprea and S. cinerea
spp. oleifolia. New Phytol. 105:575-583.

Talbot, R.J., J.R. Etherington, and J.A. Bryant. 1987. Comparative studies of plant growth and distribution in
relation to waterlogging. XII. Growth, photosynthetic capacity and metal ion uptake in Salix caprea
and S. cinerea spp. oleifolia. New Phytol. 105:563-574.

Taylor-Leibowitz, N.C., R. Boumans, and J.G. Gosselink. 1988. Hydrology as an index for cumulative
impact studies. In J.A. Kusler and G. Brooks (eds.), Proc. of the Nat'l Wetland Symp.: Wetland
Hydrology, pp. 83-90, Sept. 16-18, 1987, Chicago, Ill.

Thibodeau, F.R., and N.H. Nickerson. 1985. Changes in a wetland plant association induced by impoundment
and draining. Bio. Conserv. 33:269-279.

Thomas, F.H. 1965. Subsidence of peat and muck soils in Florida and other parts of the United States: A
review. Soil Crop Sci. Soc. Fla. 25:153-160.










Topa, M.A., and K.W. McLeod. 1986. Responses of Pinus clausa, Pinus serotina and Pinus taeda seedlings
to anaerobic solution culture. I. Changes in growth and root morphology. Physiol. Plant. 68:523-531.

van der Hoek, D., and S. van der Schaaf. 1988. The influence of water level management and groundwater
quality on vegetation development in a small nature reserve in the southern Gelderse Vallei (the
Netherlands). Agri. Water Mgmt. 14:423-437.

van der Valk, A.G., and C.B. Davis. 1976. Changes in the composition, structure, and production of plant
communities along a perturbed wetland coenocline. Vegetatio 32(2):87-96.

van der Valk, A.G., and C.B. Davis. 1980. The impact of a natural drawdown on the growth of four
emergent species in a prairie glacial marsh. Aquat. Bot. 9:301-322.

Wade, D., J. Ewel, and R. Hofstetter. 1980. Fire in South Florida Ecosystems. USDA For. Serv. Gen.
Tech. Rept. SE-17.

Wang, F. C., and A. R. Overman. 1978. Impact of Surface Drainage on Groundwater Hydraulics.
Proceedings of a 1978 Hydraulics Division Specialty Conference: 2. 7 pp.

Water and Air Research, Inc. 1988. Benchmark Lake Study to Comply with Section 10.C.4 of Consumptive
Use Permit 206676. A report for West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority. 5 pp.

Watson, J., D. Stedje, M. Barcelo, and M. Stewart. 1990. Hydrogeologic investigation of cypress dome
wetlands in wellfield areas north of Tampa, Florida. Proceedings Focus Eastern Conference,
Springfield, Massachussetts, October 17-19, 1990. National Water Well Association, Dublin, OH. pp.
163-176.

Weller, M.W., and D.K. Voigts. 1983. Changes in the vegetation and wildlife use of a small prairie wetland
following a drought. Proc. Iowa Acad. Sci. 90(2):50-54.

Welling, C.H., R.L. Pederson, and A.G. van der Valk. 1988. Recruitment from the seed bank and the
development of zonation of emergent vegetation during a drawdown in a prairie wetland. J. Ecol
76:483-496.

Welling, C.H., R.L. Pederson, and A.G. van der Valk. 1988. Temporal patterns in recruitment from the seed
bank during drawdowns in a prairie wetland. J. Appl. Ecol. 25:999-1007.

West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority. 1989. Northwest Hillsborough Regional Wellfield, Water Year
1988: Environmental Monitoring and Wetlands Vegetation Report. Comsumptive Use Permit No.
206676. 22 pp.

Wharton, C.H., W.M. Kitchens, E.C. Pendleton, and T.W. Sipe. 1982. The Ecology of Bottomland
Hardwood Swamps of the Southeast: A Community Profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological
Services Program, Washington, D.C. FWS/OBS-81/37.

Wharton, C.H. and H.T. Odum. 1977. Forested wetlands of Florida-their management and use. Gainesville,
FL: Center for Wetlands.

Wienhold, C.E., and A.G. van der Valk. 1989. The impact of duration of drainage on the seed banks of
northern prairie wetlands. Can. J. Bot. 67:1878-1884.











Winchester, B.H., and J.S. Bays. 1986. Long-term ecological responses of Florida freshwater wetlands to
hydroperiod alteration. In Abstracts: Freshwater Wetlands and Wildlife: Perspectives on Natural,
Managed and Degraded Ecosystems, Ninth Symp. Mar. 24-27, 1986, Charleston, S.C.

Winter, T.C. 1988. A conceptual framework for assessing cumulative impacts on the hydrology of nontidal
wetlands. Environ. Mgmt. 12(5):605-620.

Woodward, B.D. 1983. Predator prey interactions and breeding pond use of temporary-pond species in a
desert anuran community. Ecology 64:1549-1555.

Wooten, J.W. 1986. Variations in leaf characteristics of six species of Sagittaria (Alsmataceae) caused by
various water levels. Aquat. Bot. 23:321-327.

Yates, S. 1982. Florida's broken rain machine. Amicus J. Fall: 48-55.

Young, S.N. 1974. Pinellas County water system lake level study. A report for Black, Crow & Eidsness,
Inc. Proj. No. 272-73-54. 3 pp.








.i..B. I Spruce Creek
;!i:.: :; *? ; : ;: ; ;"; ":;; : ; '';; :;;:: :; r:'*i;* :="- :: ^ B : : I-- ^ ,M I


m


Recommended


Buffer Zone


Prepared for the St. Johns River
Water Management District
JBy:
Center for Wetlands and Water
Resources, Univ. of Florida
I I I I I I I !


Land Use Key
\I/ Recommended Buffer Zone
Residential
Commercial
-: ; Transportation
SRecreational
Agricultural
Range Land
SUpland Forests
Forested Wetland
Salt Marsh
Fres water Marsh
Non-Forested Wetland
Water


0.5


0 0.5


1 Miles


Source: Land Use I Land Cover Data Based on 1988 89 Aerial Photography.
GIS Coverages Provided by the St. Johns River Water Management District.
i i iI i i i i ii


G.I.S. Analysis & Presentation
John Craig and Josh Orrell
6/21/95


MAP


# 13


Illr I








.N Sprube Creek
Recommended Buffer Zone
WW E Prepared for the St. Johns River
Water Management District
By:
s Center for Wetlands and Water
.- Resources, Univ. of Florida

Land Use Key
.../ Recommended Buffer Zone
.- I Residential
i .Commercial
Transportation
Recreational
Agricultural
Range Land
.....*... :.. *.. .. Upland Forests
Forested Wetland
V .Salt Marsh
Freshwater Marsh
Non-Porested Wetland
SWater
0.5 0 0.5 1 Miles
..: .. .. ...-
Source: Land Use I Land Cover Data Based on 1988 89 Aerial Photography.
GIS Coverages Provided by the St. Johns River Water Management District.
G.I.S. Analysis & Presentation
.... ... .. ..John Craig and JosPl Orrell MAP # 14
6/21195







ONI,-; Spruce Creek
Recommended Buffer Zone
........ ..~W E Prepared for the St. Johns River
Water Management District
..i...iii i.ii...'i iiiiii: l ii: ,ii]:I.-,. .By:
S Center for Wetlands and Water
;...-. IResource,, Univ. of Florida

..iil ; ii Land Use Key
S / Rec mmended Buffer Zone
Residential
S.. ...co m ercial
Tran Sportation
IIRec national
Agricultural
Rane Land
~ ) Upland Forests
. I,. ...., II Forested Wetland
....... Salt Marsh
Fr..eshwaid ter Marsh
.. Non Forested Wetland
Water
0.5 0 0.5 1 Miles


GIS Coverages Provided by tie St. Johns River Water Management District
........ ...

SG.I.S. Analysis & Presentation
SJohn Craig and Josh Orrell MAP # 15
0.,6/21/95 ,










Table 2. Soils and their characteristic high and low water table elevations that are found in the
Northwest lillsborough Study Area


New Soil Type


Me Mines. pits. and dumps
Wc Wauchula fine sand. 0-5%
Pz Pomona fine sand
Px Pineda fine sand
Fa Felda fine sand
My Myakka fine sand
Td Tavares sand. 0-5%
SI Span fine sand, 0-5%
Sh Sellers mucky loamy fine sand
Oa Ona fine sand
Va Vero fine sand
An Adamsville fine sand
Ak Astatula fine sand. 0-5%
Cb Candler fine sand. 0-5%
Cc Candler fne sand. 5-8%
Te Tavases-Urban land complex. 0-5%
Za Zephyr muck
la Immokalce fine sand
Ef Electra Variant fine sand. 0-5%
Pt Paola ine sand. 0-5%, (0-8%)
Ah Aripeca fine sand
Sk Smyrna ine sand
Bm Basinger fine sand
Bn Basinger fine sand. depressional
Qa Quartzipsamments. shaped. 0-5%
Ja Jonesville fine sand, 0-5%
Na Narcoossee fine sand. 0-5%
Af Anclote fine sand
Lo Lochloosa complex
Oe Okeelante-Tena Ceia association
Ua Udalphic Arents-Urban land complex
Lm Lake fine sand. 0-5%
Pg Pompano fine sand
Ec EauGallie fine sand
Ce Candler-Urban land complex. 0-8%
Pv Paola-Urban land complex
Ub Urban
Cg Chobee soils, frequently flooded
Pm Paisley fine sand
Pf Plomello fine sand. 0-5%
Ad Arrendondo fine sand. 0-5%
Ae Arrendondo fine sand. 5-8%
Kc Kendrick ine sand. 0-5%
Cf Cassia fine sand. 0-5%
Wd Weekiwachee muck
Lp Lochlooa fine sand
Ba Blanron fine sand. 0-2%
Bb Blanton fine sand. 2-5%
Bc Blanton fine sand. 5-8%
Sg Samsula muck
Sm Sparr fine sand, 5-8%


Pin. Pasco


High water table depth


4128
We 1
2
3
Fd 4
My 5
6
7
8
9
10
Ad II
AIB 12
13
14
15
16
fm 17
18
PdB 19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
29
30
31
32
Pp 34
35
36
37
Ub 38
39
40
Po 42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53






Table 2. Continued.


High water table depth


New Soil Type


Hills.


Pasco


Fg Remington Variant line sand, 2-5%
Ha Homosassa mucky fine sandy loam
Ee EauGallie-Urban land Complex
Vb Vero Variant fine sand
Tf Tomoka muck
Nb Newnan fine sand. 0-5%
Pp Palmetto-Zephrys-Sellers complex
Ps Pompano fine sand, ponded (freq. flooded)
Kd Kendrick fine sand. 5-8%
Dc Delray mucky fine sand
Nc Nobleton fine sand. 0-5%
Ga Gainesville loamy fine sand. 0-5%
Mh Micanopy fine sand. 0-2%
Ka Kanapaha fine sand, 0-5%
Ln Lake fine sand, 5-8%
Mk Millhopper fine sand, 0-5%
Pn Placid fine sand
Ag Anclote-Tavares-Pomello association, flooded
Oc Orlando fine sand. (wet variant. 0-5%)
Zb Zolfo fine sand
Cd Candler Variant fine sand, 0-5%
Bo Beaches
Bp Bessie muck


-1.5
54 0.0
55 0.0
56 0.0
57 0.0
58 1.0
59 -1.5
60 2.0
61 0.0
62 -6.0
63 2.0
64 -1.5
65 -6.0
66 -1.5
67 0.0
68 -6.0
69 -3.5
70 0.0
71 0.0
72 -6.0
73 -2.0
74 -6.0
75 NA
76 0.0


-3.5
-2.5
-0.5
-1.0
-1.0
0.0
-2.5
-1.0
-1.0
-10.0
-1.0
-3.5
-10.0
-2.5
-1.0
-10.0
-6.0
-1.0
-6.0
-10.0
-3.5
-10.0
NA
-1.0












Table 3. Area of land use/land cover in the North West Hillsborough Study Area


I Ile C dnrP


Name


Area (sa.meters)


Commercial
CC Central Business District
CM Commercial Mail
CS Commercial Strip
Multi-Family Residential
F1 Low Density
F2 High Density
Mobile Home Residential
M1 Low Density
M2 High Density
Single Family Residential
S1 Low Density
S2 Medium Density
S3 High Density
S4 Very High Density
Other Urban Uses
15 Industrial
16 Extractive
17 Institutional
18 Recreational
19 Open land (urban)


Agricul
21
22
23
24
25
26
Rangela
31
32
33
Upland
41
42
43
44


Water
51
52
53
54
Wetlands
61


tural
C
T
F
N
S
C
Lnd


rop & Pastureland
ree Crops
eeding Operations
nurseries and Vineyards
specialty Farms
theirr Open lands (ag.)


Herbaceous
Shrub and Bushland
Mixed Rangeland
Forests
Upland Coniferous
Upland Hardwood
Mixed hardwood/Conif.
Tree Plantation


Streams and Waterways
Lakes
Reservoirs
Bays and Estuaries


Hardwood Forests 11091588


173445
1466203
5996748

2302059
10720637

6466971
3691239

9589131
26988315
15199494
55353478

5772793
2187237
2619206
14939250
2067911

83769754
20909099
41598
1158603
3362731
4847563

18454262
38075858
16221454

36714993
19043361
10399155
2175396

2174197
22751269
9655752
11144273


% of Total


0.03
0.25
1.02

0.39
1.83

1.10
0.63

1.64
4.60
2.59
9.44

0.98
0.37
0.45
2.55
0.35

14.29
3.57
0.01
0.20
0.57
0.83

3.15
6.49
2.77

6.26
3.25
1.77
0.37

0.37
3.88
1.65
1.90

1.89


I .aCd aeAe s ees











62
63
64
65
Barren Lane


Coniferous Forest
Mixed Forest
Vegetated Non-forested
Non-vegetated
d


71 Beaches
72 Sand
73 Exposed Rock
74 Distrubed Land
Transportation & Communication
81 Transportation
82 Communication
83 Utilities


70620452
13856551
10824626
693004

0
182272
0
10450894

512428
0
1630243


12.05
2.36
1.85
0.12

0.00
0.03
0.00
1.78

0.09
0.00
0.28










Table 4. Quality ranking, associated parameters of development, and groundwater
drawdown for wetlands of the N.W. Hillsborough study area.
Based on square mile grid
Wetland Rank Cell Impervious % Imperv. Ditch LDI Power Delta Wet Dry Simulated
Id. # ID # Surface Surface index Density w. Table w. Table w. Table Drawdown
(hectares) (m/hectare) (sei/yr) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet)


3
3.5
3.5
2.5
2
3.5
1.5
4
4.5
4
4.5
4
4.5
4
1
2
2
5
4
4
3.5
4
3.5
3
5
3.5
4.5
4.5
4


30
29
29
28
27
27
23
40
40
55
54
70
55
73
119
118
118
102
102
101
100
81
81
65
92
92
107
107
107


13.68
2.22
2.22
0.00
6.26
6.26
8.56
10.36
10.36
15.07
12.45
0.47
15.07
0.40
69.37
76.04
76.04
17.85
17.85
22.23
2.34
11.06
11.06
12.80
23.68
23.68
6.23
6.23
6.23


5.25
0.85
0.85
0.00
2.40
2.40
3.29
3.98
3.98
5.78
4.78
0.18
5.78
0.15
26.63
29.19
29.19
6.85
6.85
8.53
0.90
4.25
4.25
4.91
9.09
9.09
2.39
2.39
2.39


20.00
28.81
28.81
14.28
63.34
63.34
27.48
39.34
39.34
22.44
21.20
16.38
22.44
18.43
14.63
45.02
45.02
26.02
26.02
35.33
33.61
27.52
27.52
9.19
14.52
14.52
16.08
16.08
16.08


3.41
2.09
2.09
1.54
3.39
3.39
2.53
3.40
3.40
4.13
3.74
1.50
4.13
1.28
5.86
5.54
5.54
4.26
4.26
4.51
1.77
3.96
3.96
4.93
3.27
3.27
2.63
2.63
2.63


1.83E+09
1.36E+09
1.36E+09
1.06E+09
1.32E+09
1.32E+09
1.68E+09
1.68E+09
1.68E+09
1.33E+09
8.52E+08
1.19E+09
1.33E+09
8.17E+08
1.43E+10
1.46E+10
1.46E+10
1.47E+09
1.47E+09
2.38E+09
1.32E+09
1.55E+09
1.55E+09
2.21 E+09
1.81E+10
1.81E+10
1.45E+09
1.45E+09
1.45E+09


1.4733
1.4111
1.4111
1.523
1.3327
1.3327
1.7083
1.2931
1.2931
1.0385
1.0785
1.0479
1.0385
1.1076
1.1702
1.1351
1.1351
1.0636
1.0636
1.0673
1.0734
0.9923
0.9923
1.0393
1.2637
1.2637
1.0154
1.0154
1.0154


-0.6731
-0.7426
-0.7426
-0.1855
-0.3108
-0.3108
-1.1813
-0.0982
-0.0982
-0.8599
-0.8158
-0.7652
-0.8599
-0.5922
-0.4938
-0.471
-0.471
-0.7152
-0.7152
-0.7349
-0.6377
-0.7354
-0.7354
-0.2425
-0.463
-0.463
-0.2177
-0.2177
-0.2177


-2.1464
-2.1537
-2.1537
-1.7085
-1.6435
-1.6435
-2.8896
-1.3913
-1.3913
-1.8984
-1.8943
-1.8131
-1.8984
-1.6998
-1.664
-1.6061
-1.6061
-1.7788
-1.7788
-1.8022
-1.7111
-1.7277
-1.7277
-1.2818
-1.7267
-1.7267
-1.2331
-1.2331
-1.2331


2.11
0.41
0.41
0.14
0.14
0.14
2.72
0.77
0.77
1.04
1.51
0.89
1.04
0.03
1.17
1.16
1.16
1.05
1.05
1.17
1.20
1.89
1.89
2.11
2.91
2.91
1.48
1.48
1.48










Table 4. Continued
Wetland Rank Cell Impervious % Imperv. Ditch LDI Power Delta Wet Dry Simulated
Id. # ID # Surface Surface index Density w. Table w. Table w. Table Drawdown
(hectares) (m/hectare) (sei/yr) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet)


4
4
4
4
5
5
3
4
2
4
2
1
4.5
4.5
1
2
4.5
3.5
2.5
4.5
1
2
3.5
2
1
2.5
1.5
1.5
4
4
4


189
189
176
142
10
9
23
23
79
63
64
64
51
64
50
50
43
43
28
42
118
103
103
103
118
64
49
148
20
161
148


69.59
69.59
62.14
1.71
0.00
0.00
8.56
8.56
3.20
5.50
0.59
0 59
. 00
0.59
0.00
0.00
0.57
0.57
0.00
35.59
76.04
4.33
4.33
4.33
76.04
0.59
0.00
95.23
7.10
55.09
95.23


26.71
26.71
23.85
0.66
0.00
0.00
3.29
3.29
1.23
2.11
0.23
0.23
0.00
0.23
0.00
0.00
0.22
0.22
0.00
13.66
29.19
1.66
1.66
1.66
29.19
0.23
0.00
36.56
2.73
21.15
36.56


63.89
63.89
20.41
33.10
29.61
19.22
27.48
27.48
30.08
46.84
27.77
27.77
13.43
27.77
13.43
13.43
16.65
16.65
14.28
47.59
45.02
20.37
20.37
20.37
45.02
27.77
0.30
29.46
44.65
28.63
29.46


5.28
5.28
5.62
1.81
1.54
1.15
2.53
2.53
1.51
3.21
1.68
1.68
1.52
1.68
1.27
1.27
1.27
1.27
1.54
6.90
5.54
1.98
1.98
1.98
5.54
1.68
1.16
7.86
2.29
5.16
7.86


4.79E+09
4.79E+09
3.87E+09
1.43E+09
1.06E+09
1..04E+09
1.68E+09
1.68E+09
1.41E+09
9.99E+08
1.44E+09
1.44E+09
1.10E+09
1.44E+09
1.88E+09
1.88E+09
1.12E+09
1.12E+09
1.06E+09
3.74E+09
1.46E+10
9.52E+08
9.52E+08
9.52E+08
1.46E+10
1.44E+09
1.59E+09
1.55E+10
1.45E+09
1.18E+10
1.55E+10


0.8932
0.8932
1.0514
1.3546
1.2805
1.4605
1.7083
1.7083
0.9811
0.9727
1.0766
1.0766
1.055
1.0766
1.0352
1.0352
1.3868
1.3868
1.523
1.4333
1.1351
1.1331
1.1331
1.1331
1.1351
1.0766
0.9787
1.0656
1.3028
0.9306
1.0656


-0.705
-0.705
-0.5727
-1.2131
0.3625
0.5443
-1.1813
-1.1813
-0.8863
-0.7345
-0.7937
-0.7937
-0.7445
-0.7937
-0.6017
-0.6017
-0.5585
-0.5585
-0.1855
-0.5504
-0.471
-0.7487
-0.7487
-0.7487
-0.471
-0.7937
-0.5533
-0.3885
0.2015
-0.5369
-0.3885


-1.5982
-1.5982
-1.6241
-2.5677
-0.918
-0.9162
-2.8896
-2.8896
-1.8674
-1.7072
-1.8703
-1.8703
-1.7995
-1.8703
-1.6369
-1.6369
-1.9453
-1.9453
-1.7085
-1.9837
-1.6061
-1.8818
-1.8818
-1.8818
-1.6061
-1.8703
-1.532
-1.4541
-1.1013
-1.4675
-1.4541


3.34
3.34
4.51
0.75
0.69
0.69
2.72
2.72
0.45
13.22
10.29
10.29
16.25
10.29
16.25
16.25
0.12
0.12
0.14
0.14
1.16
1.01
1.01
1.01
1.16
10.29
16.21
4.81
5.90
5.47
4.81










Table 4. Continued
Wetland Rank Cell Impervious % Imperv. Ditch LDI Power Delta Wet Dry Simulated
Id. # ID # Surface Surface index Density w. Table w. Table w. Table Drawdown
(hectares) (m/hectare) (sei/yr) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet)


63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93


4
3
4
4.5
3.5
4.5
4.5
4
4
3.5
3.5
3.5
4
4
3
4.5
4.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
4
2
4
1.5
4
3
1
2.5
4
4.5
4


102
48
48
88
103
88
88
88
88
103
133
146
133
193
190
173
189
158
159
163
190
222
222
222
207
119
208
208
177
10
9


17.85
0.11
0.11
0.00
4.33
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.33
120.34
121.38
120.34
82.30
57.79
13.31
69.59
0.00
16.92
102.67
57.79
58.60
58.60
58.60
16.63
69.37
115.61
115.61
80.55
0.00
0.00


6.85
0.04
0.04
0.00
1.66
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.66
46.19
46.59
46.19
31.59
22.18
5.11
26.71
0.00
6.50
39.41
22.18
22.49
22.49
22.49
6.38
26.63
44.38
44.38
30.92
0.00
0.00


26.02
10.00
10.00
26.14
20.37
26.14
26.14
26.14
26.14
20.37
46.93
31.66
46.93
39.91
30.84
67.53
63.89
41.60
22.05
22.44
30.84
20.77
20.77
20.77
53.38
14.63
74.23
74.23
35.16
29.61
19.22


4.26
1.15
1.15
1.13
1.98
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.98
7.43
7.41
7.43
5.86
5.46
3.19
5.28
1.19
3.13
8.21
5.46
5.18
5.18
5.18
4.24
5.86
8.25
8.25
8.04
1.54
1.15


1.47E+09
7.73E+08
7.73E+08
8.19E+08
9.52E+08
8.19E+08
8.19E+08
8.19E+08
8.19E+08
9.52E+08
2.41E+10
1.75E+10
2.41 E+10
2.94E+10
5.75E+09
4.83E+09
4.79E+09
5.99E+08
2.34E+09
1.35E+10
5.75E+09
3.69E+09
3.69E+09
3.69E+09
1.08E+10
1.43E+10
2.08E+10
2.08E+10
1.80E+10
1.06E+09
1.04E+09


1.0636
0.9715
0.9715
1.1618
1.1331
1.1618
1.1618
1.1618
1.1618
1.1331
1.0397
1.0104
1.0397
1.1522
1.1118
1.2903
0.8932
1.1699
1.2468
1.0688
1.1118
1.0956
1.0956
1.0956
1.228
1.1702
1.2104
1.2104
1.0515
1.2805
1.4605


-0.7152
-0.7394
-0.7394
-0.4474
-0.7487
-0.4474
-0.4474
-0.4474
-0.4474
-0.7487
-0.8457
-0.6772
-0.8457
-0.4669
-0.5763
-1.3208
-0.705
-1.0478
-0.7867
-0.3867
-0.5763
-0.579
-0.579
-0.579
-0.3242
-0.4938
-0.3583
-0.3583
-0.7096
0.3625
0.5443


-1.7788
-1.7109
-1.7109
-1.6092
-1.8818
-1.6092
-1.6092
-1.6092
-1.6092
-1.8818
-1.8854
-1.6876
-1.8854
-1.6191
-1.6881
-2.6111
-1.5982
-2.2177
-2.0335
-1.4555
-1.6881
-1.6746
-1.6746
-1.6746
-1.5522
-1.664
-1.5687
-1.5687
-1.7611
-0.918
-0.9162


1.05
10.35
10.35
0.29
1.01
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
1.01
1.08
2.46
1.08
2.87
2.47
1.66
3.34
1.85
2.04
6.01
2.47
2.78
2.78
2.78
3.66
1.17
2.09
2.09
6.83
0.69
0.69


-- -~--














.Table 5. Quality ranking, associated parameters of development, and groundwater
drawdown for WELLFEILD wetlands of the N.W. Hillsborough study area.
Based on square mile grid
Wetland Rank Impervious Ditch LDI Power Delta Wet Dry Simulated
Id. # Surface index Density w. Table w. Table w. Table Drawdown
(hectares) (m/hectare) (sei/yr) (feet) (feet) (feet) (fleet)


6.23
6.23
5.50
0.59
0.59
0.00
0.59
0.00
0.00
0.57
0.57
0.00
35.59
76.04
4.33
4.33
4.33


16.08
16.08
46.84
27.77
27.77
13.43
27.77
13.43
13.43
16.65
16.65
14.28
47.59
45.02
20.37
20.37
20.37


2.63
2.63
3.21
1.68
1.68
1.52
1.68
1.27
1.27
1.27
1.27
1.54
6.90
5.54
1.98
1.98
1.98


1.45E+09
1.45E+09
9.99E+08
1.44E+09
1.44E+09
1.10E+09
1.44E+09
1.88E+09
1.88E+09
1.12E+09
1.12E+09
1.06E+09
3.74E+09
1.46E+10
9.52E+08
9.52E+08
9.52E+08


1.0154
1.0154
0.9727
1.0766
1.0766
1.055
1.0766
1.0352
1.0352
1.3868
1.3868
1.523
1.4333
1.1351
1.1331
1.1331
1.1331


-0.2177
-0.2177
-0.7345
-0.7937
-0.7937
-0.7445
-0.7937
-0.6017
-0.6017
-0.5585
-0.5585
-0.1855
-0.5504
-0.471
-0.7487
-0.7487
-0 7487


-1.2331
-1.2331
-1.7072
-1.8703
-1.8703
-1.7995
-1.8703
-1.6369
-1.6369
-1.9453
-1.9453
-1.7085
-1.9837
-1.6061
-1.8818
-1.8818
-1.8818


1.48
1.48
13.22
10.29
10.29
16.25
10.29
16.25
16.25
0.12
0.12
0.14
0.14
1.16
1.01
1.01
1.01












Table 6. Quality ranking, associated parameters of development, and groundwater
drawdown for NON-WELLFIELD wetlands of the N.W. Hillsborough study area.
Based on square mile grid
Wetland Rank Impervious Ditch LDI Power Delta Wet Dry Simulated
Id. # Surface index Density w. Table w. Table w, Table Drawdown
(hectares) (m/hectare) (sei/vr) (feel) (feet) (feet) (feet)


3
3.5
3.5
2.5
2
3.5
1.5
4
4.5
4
4.5
4
4.5
4
1
2
2
5
4
4
3.5
4
3.5
3
5
3.5
4


13.68
2.22
2.22
0.00
6.26
6.26
8.56
10.36
10.36
15.07
12.45
0.47
15.07
0.40
69.37
76.04
76.04
17.85
17.85
22.23
2.34
11.06
11.06
12.80
23.68
23.68
6.23


20.00
28.81
28.81
14.28
63.34
63.34
27.48
39.34
39.34
22.44
21.20
16.38
22.44
18.43
14.63
45.02
45.02
26.02
26.02
35.33
33.61
27.52
27.52
9.19
14.52
14.52
16.08


3.41
2.09
2.09
1.54
3.39
3.39
2.53
3.40
3.40
4.13
3.74
1.50
4.13
1.28
5.86
5.54
5.54
4.26
4.26
4.51
1.77
3.96
3.96
4.93
3.27
3.27
2.63


1.83E+09
1.36E+09
1.36E+09
1.06E+09
1.32E+09
1.32E+09
1.68E+09
1.68E+09
1.68E+09
1.33E+09
8.52E+08
1.19E+09
1.33E+09
8.17E+08
1.43E+10
1.46E+10
1.46E+10
1.47E+09
1.47E+09
2.38E+09
1.32E+09
1.55E+09
1.55E+09
2.21 E+09
1.81E+10
1.81E+10
1.45E+09


1.4733
1.4111
1.4111
1.523
1.3327
1.3327
1.7083
1.2931
1.2931
1.0385
1.0785
1.0479
1.0385
1.1076
1.1702
1.1351
1.1351
1.0636
1.0636
1.0673
1.0734
0.9923
0.9923
1.0393
1.2637
1.2637
1.0154


-0.6731
-0.7426
-0.7426
-0.1855
-0.3108
-0.3108
-1.1813
-0.0982
-0.0982
-0.8599
-0.8158
-0.7652
-0.8599
-0.5922
-0.4938
-0.471
-0.471
-0.7152
-0.7152
-0.7349
-0.6377
-0.7354
-0.7354
-0.2425
-0.463
-0.463
-0.2177


-2.1464
-2.1537
-2.1537
-1.7085
-1.6435
-1.6435
-2.8896
-1.3913
-1.3913
-1.8984
-1.8943
-1.8131
-1.8984
-1.6998
-1.664
-1.6061
-1.6061
-1.7788
-1.7788
-1.8022
-1.7111
-1.7277
-1.7277
-1.2818
-1.7267
-1.7267
-1.2331


2.11
0.41
0.41
0.14
0.14
0.14
2.72
0.77
0.77
1.04
1.51
0.89
1.04
0.03
1.17
1.16
1.16
1.05
1.05
1.17
1.20
1.89
1.89
2.11
2.91
2.91
1.48












Table 6. Continued


Wetland Rank Impervious Ditch LDI Power Delta Wet Dry Simulated
Id. # Surface index Density w. Table w. Table w. Table Drawdown
(hectares) (m/hectare) (sei/vr) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet)


69.59
69.59
62.14
1.71
0.00
0.00
8.56
8.56
3.20
76.04
0.59
0.00
95.23
7.10
55.09
95.23
17.85
0.11
0.11
0.00
4.33
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.33
120.34
121.38


63.89
63.89
20.41
33.10
29.61
19.22
27.48
27.48
30.08
45.02
27.77
0.30
29.46
44.65
28.63
29.46
26.02
10.00
10.00
26.14
20.37
26.14
26.14
26.14
26.14
20.37
46.93
31.66


5.28
5.28
5.62
1.81
1.54
1.15
2.53
2.53
1.51
5.54
1.68
1.16
7.86
2.29
5.16
7.86
4.26
1.15
1.15
1.13
1.98
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.98
7.43
7.41


4.79E+09
4.79E+09
3.87E+09
1.43E+09
1.06E+09
1.04E+09
1.68E+09
1.68E+09
1.41E+09
1.46E+10
1.44E+09
1.59E+09
1.55E+10
1.45E+09
1.18E+10
1.55E+10
1.47E+09
7.73E+08
7.73E+08
8.19E+08
9.52E+08
8.19E+08
8.19E+08
8.19E+08
8.19E+08
9.52E+08
2.41 E+10
1.75E+10


0.8932
0.8932
1.0514
1.3546
1.2805
1.4605
1.7083
1.7083
0.9811
1.1351
1.0766
0.9787
1.0656
1.3028
0.9306
1.0656
1.0636
0.9715
0.9715
1.1618
1.1331
1.1618
1.1618
1.1618
1.1618
1.1331
1.0397
1.0104


-0.705
-0.705
-0.5727
-1.2131
0.3625
0.5443
-1.1813
-1.1813
-0.8863
-0.471
-0.7937
-0.5533
-0.3885
0.2015
-0.5369
-0.3885
-0.7152
-0.7394
-0.7394
-0.4474
-0.7487
-0.4474
-0.4474
-0.4474
-0.4474
-0.7487
-0.8457
-0.6772


-1.5982
-1.5982
-1.6241
-2.5677
-0.918
-0.9162
-2.8896
-2.8896
-1.8674
-1.6061
-1.8703
-1.532
-1.4541
-1.1013
-1.4675
-1.4541
-1.7788
-1.7109
-1.7109
-1.6092
-1.8818
-1.6092
-1.6092
-1.6092
-1.6092
-1.8818
-1.8854
-1.6876


3.34
3.34
4.51
0.75
0.69
0.69
2.72
2.72
0.45
1.16
10.29
16.21
4.81
5.90
5.47
4.81
1.05
10.35
10.35
0.29
1.01
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
1.01
1.08
2.46













Table 6. Continued


Wetland Rank Impervious Ditch LDI Power Delta Wet Dry Simulated
Id. # Surface index Density w. Table w. Table w. Table Drawdown
(hectares) (m/hectare) (sei/yr) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet)


4
4
3
4.5
4.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
4
2
4
1.5
4
3
1
2.5
4
4.5
4


120.34
82.30
57.79
13.31
69.59
0.00
16.92
102.67
57.79
58.60
58.60
58.60
16.63
69.37
115.61
115.61
80.55
0.00
0.00


46.93
39.91
30.84
67.53
63.89
41.60
22.05
22.44
30.84
20.77
20.77
20.77
53.38
14.63
74.23
74.23
35.16
29.61
19.22


7.43
5.86
5.46
3.19
5.28
1.19
3.13
8.21
5.46
5.18
5.18
5.18
4.24
5.86
8.25
8.25
8.04
1.54
1.15


2.41 E+10
2.94E+10
5.75E+09
4.83E+09
4.79E+09
5.99E+08
2.34E+09
1.35E+10
5.75E+09
3.69E+09
3.69E+09
3.69E+09
1.08E+10
1.43E+10
2.08E+10
2.08E+10
1.80E+10
1.06E+09
1.04E+09


1.0397
1.1522
1.1118
1.2903
0.8932
1.1699
1.2468
1.0688
1.1118
1.0956
1.0956
1.0956
1.228
1.1702
1.2104
1.2104
1.0515
1.2805
1.4605


-0.8457
-0.4669
-0.5763
-1.3208
-0.705
-1.0478
-0.7867
-0.3867
-0.5763
-0.579
-0.579
-0.579
-0.3242
-0.4938
-0.3583
-0.3583
-0.7096
0.3625
0.5443


-1.8854
-1.6191
-1.6881
-2.6111
-1.5982
-2.2177
-2.0335
-1.4555
-1.6881
-1.6746
-1.6746
-1.6746
-1.5522
-1.664
-1.5687
-1.5687
-1.7611
-0.918
-0.9162


1.08
2.87
2.47
1.66
3.34
1.85
2.04
6.01
2.47
2.78
2.78
2.78
3.66
1.17
2.09
2.09
6.83
0.69
0.69


0.69


~-~--












Table. Quality ranking, associated parameters, and groundwater
drawdown for wetlands of the N.W. Hillsborough study area.
Based on 400 meter radius
Wetland Quality % Imperv. LDI Pow. Den Ditch Index Wet Dry Delta
Number Rank Surface (E8 sej/yr) (m/ha) w. Table w. Table w. Table


3
3.5
3.5
2.5
2
3.5
1.5
4
4.5
4
4.5
4
4.5
4
1
2
2
5
4
4
3.5
4
3.5
3
5
3.5


1.71
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.91
5.17
5.72
7.31
5.34
2.55
1.52
0.77
40.66
39.62
52.67
0.50
2.98
0.00
2.07
3.61
0.45
6.08
14.04
11.23


2.38
1.43
1.72
1.71
4.15
3.73
1.60
3.76
3.91
4.74
4.08
2.79
2.29
1.66
6.82
7.23
9.22
1.68
2.80
1.65
2.00
3.68
2.03
5.65
3.91
3.21


2.51
2.48
2.56
1.88
4.28
3.81
3.63
1.78
3.81
2.03
1.99
2.19
2.49
2.29
10.85
77.75
76.46
2.40
2.42
2.26
2.64
2.92
3.13
3.55
44.74
47.24


66.71
62.17
79.63
43.49
74.99
75.58
61.75
69.63
58.30
61.63
82.69
39.47
57.66
60.34
67.57
184.02
219.67
41.37
88.28
67.63
49.18
62.24
38.44
25.95
13.84
30.46


-0.3984
-0.8241
-0.8369
-0.0613
-0.6951
-0.0082
-0.1651
-0.367
-0.27
-0.9011
-0.7754
-0.6234
-0.8296
-0.5069
-0.374
-0.4887
0.0924
-0.7289
-0.3293
-0.5647
-0.7762
-0.6008
-0.9131
-0.7217
-0.608
-0.3239


-1.9203
-1.9466
-1.8731
-1.59
-1.7816
-1.1615
-1.7605
-1.5722
-1.4323
-1.9231
-1.8332
-1.6512
-1.8945
-1.639
-1.4439
-1.6268
-1.1461
-1.6747
-1.8718
-1.6411
-1.8266
-1.6895
-1.9304
-1.7734
-1.608
-1.4222


1.5219
1.1225
1.0362
1.5287
1.0865
1.1533
1.5954
1.2052
1.1623
1.022
1.0578
1.0278
1.0649
1.1321
1.0699
1.1381
1.2385
0.9458
1.5425
1.0764
1.0504
1.0887
1.0173
1.0517
1
1.0983












Table 7. Continued

Wetland Quality % Imperv. LDI Pow. Den Ditch Index Wet Dry Delta
Number Rank Surface (E8 sej/yr) (m/ha) w. Table w. Table w. Table


27
28
29
30
31
32
33
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55


4.5
4.5
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
3
4
2
4
2
1
4.5
4.5
1
2
4.5
3.5
2.5
4.5
1
2
3.5
2


0.00
2.23
2.83
27.82
9.19
23.86
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.66
0.61
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.37
0.00
0.00
2.49
2.72
2.56
0.00
0.00


4.13
1.41
9.07
7.23
3.69
4.34
1.54
1.18
1.11
1.94
1.63
1.51
2.56
1.11
1.94
1.34
1.11
1.31
1.13
2.06
1.20
1.13
2.22
1.70
3.67
1.11
2.20


0.65
2.47
15.09
20.36
5.70
8.97
1.17
1.83
1.75
2.38
2.75
1.80
1.95
2.17
2.70
2.28
1.67
3.21
4.16
3.98
2.01
1.74
3.39
2.49
1.39
1.55
2.30


86.68
4.74
97.28
106.35
126.41
62.92
123.48
30.40
43.18
30.75
30.13
103.72
130.81
0.00
62.60
13.36
0.00
16.04
26.54
71.43
22.17
4.05
40.55
31.24
13.81
54.54
11.39


-0.8543
-0.4939
-0.5027
-0.1037
-0.578
-0.8813
-0.6439
-0.7052
-0.1037
0.8991
-0.5367
0.948
-0.5796
-0.8248
-0.8467
-0.7562
-0.528
-0.5009
0.2846
-0.9691
-0.6755
-0.6024
-0.3609
-0.4972
-0.2976
-0.7121
-0.2734


-1.8802
-1.5942
-1.6234
-1.1058
-1.5781
-1.9141
-1.7218
-1.7259
-1.3648
-0.5505
-1.7352
-0.5512
-2.0484
-1.8004
-1.8405
-1.7518
-1.9628
-1.463
-1.0618
-2.029
-1.7477
-1.555
-1.4385
-1.6533
-1.4641
-1.7678
-1.4349


1.0259
1.1003
1.1207
1.0021
1.0001
1.0328
1.0779
1.0207
1.2611
1.4496
1.1985
1.4992
1.4688
0.9756
0.9938
0.9956
1.4348
0.9621
1.3464
1.0599
1.0722
0.9526
1.0776
1.1561
1.1665
1.0557
1.1615












Table 7. Continued


Wetland Quality % Imperv. LDI Pow. Den Ditch Index Wet Dry Delta
Number Rank Surface (E8 sej/yr) (m/ha) w. Table w. Table w. Table


1
2.5
1.5
1.5
4
4
4
4
3
4
4.5
3.5
4.5
4.5
4
4
3.5
3.5
3.5
4
4
3
4.5
4.5
3.5
3.5
3.5


15.72
0.00
0.00
59.01
11.79
11.76
35.08
11.14
0.00
0.22
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.53
49.66
41.59
28.90
21.00
41.69
3.11
2.60
10.59
6.08
41.06


3.80
1.77
1.24
8.41
3.31
2.98
6.54
4.87
1.13
1.19
1.11
1.11
1.11
1.11
1.11
1.16
1.48
7.95
6.43
5.06
3.64
8.91
3.40
2.60
3.16
2.30
8.12


5.42
2.98
4.06
20.02
4.82
9.89
11.84
5.88
1.71
1.34
1.24
1.11
0.84
2.08
1.84
0.96
1.96
43.61
43.72
57.25
26.95
35.34
3.68
3.57
34.40
4.15
12.29


51.93
146.99
10.40
48.81
94.37
78.33
93.16
78.19
5.81
30.22
0.00
57.30
49.06
53.48
57.42
78.66
53.77
97.62
102.56
140.62
82.67
63.79
89.10
92.05
183.41
62.37
79.76


-0.7969
-0.7815
-0.0553
-0.3037
0.1322
-0.6946
-0.0587
0.4179
-1.6611
-0.3554
-0.7265
-0.6068
-0.025
-0.4209
-0.7411
-0.9305
-0.5979
-1
-0.9043
-0.9454
-0.6543
-0.5596
-0.4936
-0.56
-0.9848
-1.4876
-0.2381


-1.9768
-1.8301
-1.4463
-1.3241
-1.3709
-1.7095
-1.3725
-0.7911
-3.1422
-1.3523
-1.9042
-1.6942
-1.1761
-1.4879
-1.9396
-1.946
-1.5323
-2
-1.9176
-1.9576
-1.6546
-1.8097
-1.8312
-1.6871
-2.2008
-3.2088
-1.2929


1.1799
1.0486
1.391
1.0204
1.5031
1.0149
1.3138
1.209
1.4811
0.9969
1.1777
1.0874
1.1511
1.067
1.1985
1.0155
0.9344
1
1.0133
1.0122
1.0003
1.2501
1.3376
1.1271
1.216
1.7212
1.0548












Table 7. Continued


Wetland Quality % Imperv. LDI Pow. Den Ditch Index Wet Dry Delta
Number Rank Surface (E8 sej/yr) (m/ha) w. Table w. Table w. Table

83 4 5.90 3.47 2.81 92.45 -0.611 -1.6981 1.0871
84 2 0.00 0.72 0.47 77.92 -0.5833 -1.7222 1.1389
85 4 0.00 2.41 2.43 56.81 -0.4924 -1.6942 1.2018
86 1.5 0.55 3.71 3.46 82.43 -0.7177 -1.7525 1.0348
87 4 8.31 7.85 27.44 72.04 -0.5608 -1.6743 1.1135
88 3 45.59 7.35 50.98 81.29 -0.0786 -1.4921 1.4135
89 1 57.73 8.92 17.68 55.52 0.0433 -1.3045 1.3478
90 2.5 50.23 8.51 40.09 75.29 -0.646 -1.7427 1.0967
91 4 55.46 8.30 24.65 79.03 -0.6265 -1.7403 1.1138
92 4.5 0.00 1.61 2.46 27.08 -0.6821 -1.6505 0.9684
93 4 0.00 1.13 1.54 48.83 0.638 -0.8718 1.5098















Table 8. Quality ranking, associated parameters, and groundwater
drawdown for WELLFIELD wetlands of the N.W. Hillsborough study area.
Based on 400 meter radius
Wetland Quality % Imperv. LDI Pow. Den Ditch Index Wet Dry Delta
Number Rank Surface (E8 sej/yr) (m/ha) w. Table w. Table w. Table

27 4.5 0.00 4.13 0.65 86.68 -0.8543 -1.8802 1.0259
28 4.5 2.23 1.41 2.47 4.74 -0.4939 -1.5942 1.1003
41 4 0.61 2.56 1.95 130.81 -0.5796 -2.0484 1.4688
42 2 0.00 1.11 2.17 0.00 -0.8248 -1.8004 0.9756
43 1 0.00 1.94 2.70 62.60 -0.8467 -1.8405 0.9938
44 4.5 0.00 1.34 2.28 13.36 -0.7562 -1.7518 0.9956
45 4.5 0.00 1.11 1.67 0.00 -0.528 -1.9628 1.4348
46 1 0.00 1.31 3.21 16.04 -0.5009 -1.463 0.9621
47 2 0.00 1.13 4.16 26.54 0.2846 -1.0618 1.3464
48 4.5 2.37 2.06 3.98 71.43 -0.9691 -2.029 1.0599
49 3.5 0.00 1.20 2.01 22.17 -0.6755 -1.7477 1.0722
50 2.5 0.00 1.13 1.74 4.05 -0.6024 -1.555 0.9526
51 4.5 2.49 2.22 3.39 40.55 -0.3609 -1.4385 1.0776
52 1 2.72 1.70 2.49 31.24 -0.4972 -1.6533 1.1561
53 2 2.56 3.67 1.39 13.81 -0.2976 -1.4641 1.1665
54 3.5 0.00 1.11 1.55 54.54 -0.7121 -1.7678 1.0557
55 2 0.00 2.20 2.30 11.39 -0.2734 -1.4349 1.1615













Table 9. Quality ranking, associated parameters, and groundwater
drawdown for NONWELLFIELD wetlands of the N.W. Hillsborough


study area.


Based on 400 meter radius
Wetland Quality % Imperv. LDI Pow. Den Ditch Index Wet Dry Delta
Number Rank Surface (E8 sej/yr) (m/ha) w. Table w. Table w. Table


3
3.5
3.5
2.5
2
3.5
1.5
4
4.5
4
4.5
4
4.5
4
1
2
2
5
4
4
3.5
4
3.5
3
5
3.5


1.71
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.91
5.17
5.72
7.31
5.34
2.55
1.52
0.77
40.66
39.62
52.67
0.50
2.98
0.00
2.07
3.61
0.45
6.08
14.04
11.23


2.38
1.43
1.72
1.71
4.15
3.73
1.60
3.76
3.91
4.74
4.08
2.79
2.29
1.66
6.82
7.23
9.22
1.68
2.80
1.65
2.00
3.68
2.03
5.65
3.91
3.21


2.51
2.48
2.56
1.88
4.28
3.81
3.63
1.78
3.81
2.03
1.99
2.19
2.49
2.29
10.85
77.75
76.46
2.40
2.42
2.26
2.64
2.92
3.13
3.55
44.74
47.24


66.71
62.17
79.63
43.49
74.99
75.58
61.75
69.63
58.30
61.63
82.69
39.47
57.66
60.34
67.57
184.02
219.67
41.37
88.28
67.63
49.18
62.24
38.44
25.95
13.84
30.46


-0.3984
-0.8241
-0.8369
-0.0613
-0.6951
-0.0082
-0.1651
-0.367
-0.27
-0.9011
-0.7754
-0.6234
-0.8296
-0.5069
-0.374
-0.4887
0.0924
-0.7289
-0.3293
-0.5647
-0.7762
-0.6008
-0.9131
-0.7217
-0.608
-0.3239


-1.9203
-1.9466
-1.8731
-1.59
-1.7816
-1.1615
-1.7605
-1.5722
-1.4323
-1.9231
-1.8332
-1.6512
-1.8945
-1.639
-1'.4439
-1.6268
-1.1461
-1.6747
-1.8718
-1.6411
-1.8266
-1.6895
-1.9304
-1.7734
-1.608
-1.4222


1.5219
1.1225
1.0362
1.5287
1.0865
1.1533
1.5954
1.2052
1.1623
1.022
1.0578
1.0278
1.0649
1.1321
1.0699
1.1381
1.2385
0.9458
1.5425
1.0764
1.0504
1.0887
1.0173
1.0517
1
1.0983













Table 9. Continued


Wetland Quality % Imperv. LDI Pow. Den Ditch Index Wet Dry Delta
Number Rank Surface (E8 sej/yr) (m/ha) w. Table w. Table w. Table


29
30
31
32
33
36
37
38
39
40
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72


2.83
27.82
9.19
23.86
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.66
15.72
0.00
0.00
59.01
11.79
11.76
35.08
11.14
0.00
0.22
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.53


9.07
7.23
3.69
4.34
1.54
1.18
1.11
1.94
1.63
1.51
3.80
1.77
1.24
8.41
3.31
2.98
6.54
4.87
1.13
1.19
1.11
1.11
1.11
1.11
1.11
1.16
1.48


15.09
20.36
5.70
8.97
1.17
1.83
1.75
2.38
2.75
1.80
5.42
2.98
4.06
20.02
4.82
9.89
11.84
5.88
1.71
1.34
1.24
1.11
0.84
2.08
1.84
0.96
1.96


97.28
106.35
126.41
62.92
123.48
30.40
43.18
30.75
30.13
103.72
51.93
146.99
10.40
48.81
94.37
78.33
93.16
78.19
5.81
30.22
0.00
57.30
49.06
53.48
57.42
78.66
53.77


-0.5027
-0.1037
-0.578
-0.8813
-0.6439
-0.7052
-0.1037
0.8991
-0.5367
0.948
-0.7969
-0.7815
-0.0553
-0.3037
0.1322
-0.6946
-0.0587
0.4179
-1.6611
-0.3554
-0.7265
-0.6068
-0.025
-0.4209
-0.7411
-0.9305
-0.5979


-1.6234
-1.1058
-1.5781
-1.9141
-1.7218
-1.7259
-1.3648
-0.5505
-1.7352
-0.5512
-1.9768
-1.8301
-1.4463
-1.3241
-1.3709
-1.7095
-1.3725
-0.7911
-3.1422
-1.3523
-1.9042
-1.6942
-1.1761
-1.4879
-1.9396
-1.946
-1.5323


1.1207
1.0021
1.0001
1.0328
1.0779
1.0207
1.2611
1.4496
1.1985
1.4992
1.1799
1.0486
1.391
1.0204
1.5031
1.0149
1.3138
1.209
1.4811
0.9969
1.1777
1.0874
1.1511
1.067
1.1985
1.0155
0.9344












Table 9. Continued


Wetland Quality % Imperv. LDI Pow. Den Ditch Index Wet Dry Delta
Number Rank Surface (E8 sej/yr) (m/ha) w. Table w. Table w. Table

73 3.5 49.66 7.95 43.61 97.62 1 -2 1
74 3.5 41.59 6.43 43.72 102.56 -0.9043 -1.9176 1.0133
75 4 28.90 5.06 57.25 140.62 -0.9454 -1.9576 1.0122
76 4 21.00 3.64 26.95 82.67 -0.6543 -1.6546 1.0003
77 3 41.69 8.91 35.34 63.79 -0.5596 -1.8097 1.2501
78 4.5 3.11 3.40 3.68 89.10 -0.4936 -1.8312 1.3376
79 4.5 2.60 2.60 3.57 92.05 -0.56 -1.6871 1.1271
80 3.5 10.59 3.16 34.40 183.41 -0.9848 -2.2008 1.216
81 3.5 6.08 2.30 4.15 62.37 -1.4876 -3.2088 1.7212
82 3.5 41.06 8.12 12.29 79.76 -0.2381 -1.2929 1.0548
83 4 5.90 3.47 2.81 92.45 -0.611 -1.6981 1.0871
84 2 0.00 0.72 0.47 77.92 -0.5833 -1.7222 1.1389
85 4 0.00 2.41 2.43 56.81 -0.4924 -1.6942 1.2018
86 1.5 0.55 3.71 3.46 82.43 -0.7177 -1.7525 1.0348
87 4 8.31 7.85 27.44 72.04 -0.5608 -1.6743 1.1135
88 3 45.59 7.35 50.98 81.29 -0.0786 -1.4921 1.4135
89 1 57.73 8.92 17.68 55.52 0.0433 -1.3045 1.3478
90 2.5 50.23 8.51 40.09 75.29 -0.646 -1.7427 1.0967
91 4 55.46 8.30 24.65 79.03 -0.6265 -1.7403 1.1138
92 4.5 0.00 1.61 2.46 27.08 -0.6821 -1.6505 0.9684
93 4 0.00 1.13 1.54 48.83 0.638 -0.8718 1.5098

































































Figure 1. Map of the study area of the N.W. Hillsborough Water Resources Area Project





















I Wetland


Change in area
, inundated ,


Small changes In water depth effect large areas
around the edge of most wetlands.


Schematic diagram showing the relationship between depth and duration of flooding. Small
changes in water depth affect large areas in most wetlands.


Figure 2.












































Interception


20
8 "








,-





CD
as









.<
.o





















CD
<.

































5-I
o
g"







0





a
3











us













e,

a.



Q.


































WETLAND HYDROLOGY
M.T.Brown 1986


00-


200 -


S 100--

















progm is given as Appendix A.
w
0
w




U-

-200




1 J31 5 1 1 121 131 1ei 211 241 271 301 331 361
lINE (d"y9)












Figure 4. Diagram of main flows and storage of water in wetlands (top) and simulation results of surface
water when groundwater elevations in the surrounding landscape are lowered (bottom). Computer
program is given as Appendix A.


400





















MH1













MF1


SF1


MH2













MF2


?n a-'.
*
I


SF2


SF3


SF4


TYPICAL RESIDENTIAL
CLASSIFICATION REPRESENTATIONS
(scale is approx. 1:24000)


Representative examples of residential systems showing impervious surface.


Figure 5.














STARKEY


4-/__


tr2C~if D,
7~O.


NORTHWEST HILLSBOROUGH WATER
RESOURCE ASSESSMENT PROJECT
WETLANDS COMPONENT
PREPARED UNDER CONTRACT
TO
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
BY
CENTER FOR WETLANDS
REMOTE SENSING & GIS LAB
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
AUGUST 1991


MAP LEGEND:
WETLAND BUFFERS
'77 STUDY AREA CELLS WITH WETLANDS
WETLAND BUFFER AREAS
/ WELL FIELDS


NORTH

U a fa v




U-"


A-


S-
00





47


,//


T E PAeP~

ELDRI







ICID








C>


z
0

Luu
wo
Cc

zo0
(A
drwo


II_ _]I- I ---- -------


- .. -'- m


m


_ 0@


"' " Y """ ' ''LI "'Y LU" "" "


~ii~irr



P'liL7ro,(9y.

~n27


i









1i


*.


19


I A

ED

N s e; ^ tc

1~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~A LEGEND: ^^" -_* ^ V V'_


NORTHWEST HILLSBOROUGH WATER
RESOURCE ASSESSMENT PROJECT
WETLANDS COMPONENT
PREPARED UNDER CONTRACT
TO
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
BY
CENTER FOR WETLANDS
REMOTE SENSING & GIS LAB
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
AUGUST 1991


IMAP LEGEND:
WETLAND LOCATION MAP

SWETLAND LOCATION
// WELL FIELDS


F i MX U w HM ll iF m mn u m iT mIanT


NORTH
F * i is 4. 1i
~* Mh~II
-n


4/ j g'/g/


S /r QSTARKEY
'/ ^ /T- *^ *


A-.


0,
z
4-
UJZ
0a
0n


I -, I .


---


41







Q?

( Cj L)
j


( iT. ,RETE PA iCOr /





"
D R I C_..r-Ofr D E


\ I F 1., .. -

E~~al
^^^gs ^^T^T''"^E
VIP7 q T IL'AK P"R D

,_LJ ^SI-^-!


III @


\I















STARKEY


I L


'-Co.
beu PI~LsC Z K


NORTHWEST HILLSBOROUGH WATER
RESOURCE ASSESSMENT PROJECT
WETLANDS COMPONENT
PREPARED UNDER CONTRACT
ro
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
BY
CENTER FOR WETLANDS
REMOTE SENSING & GIS LAB
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
AUGUST 1990


I, ----Ii


MAP LEGEND:
LANDUSE AREAS:
URBAN AREAS
AGRICULTURAL AREAS
-IT NATURAL AREAS
WELL FILED


II -r i D inpn ii pi hut mum! I!II


NORTH

e l *.





*sasrss .u* .
^"san-Bsa


::Jj::, u-t' fJrlIUcL3 [il Jlililr 'Lt'I _

Nil T~ -_I
-1!11In:tI UI U





















~ 11 - - ---












LI
-v PA


L


I --


-,-v


z
2


11 -- --- -- -- ftm IBM Ill 1


II


m ii


00



-_t-
)^


/^ '9















STARKEY


NORTHWEST HILLSIOROUGH WATER
RESOURCE ASSESSMENT PROJECT
WETLANDS COMPONENT
PREPARED UNDER CONTRACT
TO
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA AFTERR
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
BY
CENTER FOR WETLANDS
REMOTE SENSING & GIS LAB
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
AUGUST 1991


MAP LEGEND:
SOIL CLASSIFICATION
WELL DRAINED SOIL

S MODERATELY DRAINED SOIL
POORLY DRAINED SOIL

UNDEFINED DRAINAGE

rl A IM U P~A ll IT m If e lua tl a Im f IMw


S/


Q


NORTH
1 : -..
U k IR re I
- A. rmri


lrp


L


' "
~T~------


i


----------5Xs;* s~=~= =-3~-


'it~
il/e







-~A


tQLi o

PlhrL 'yp zc


4j(/


\


















(i
~~~47y

\~ C)


ZE -2








L


I






K


-A
-W.I.Ll






-L-4f E


.03
I-A



rL


'ED

-, ,,


NORTHWEST HILLSBOROUGH WATER
RESOURCE ASSESSMENT PROJECT
WETLANDS COMPONENT
PREPARED UNDER CONTRACT
TO
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
BY
CENTER FOR WETLANDS
REMOTE SENSING & GIS LAB
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
A I l lct If^ I At


MAP LEGEND:


DITCH CLASSIFICATION

LAKES, PONDS & RESERVOIRS

DITCHES

WELL FIELDS


NORTH
OL U l is if


I ,
0 Am= 'I ft.t Or
Jo. bU


I .'


---(


cFl


-Zi STARKEY",


" "


~U`""


c




00




47




























































Figure 11. Impervious surface in the study area depicted as a topographic map (top) and as a 3-D projection
(bottom). Contour interval is 5000 sq meters. Note that north is to the left in both maps.




























































Figure 12. Ditch intensity in the study area depicted as a topographic map (top) and as a 3-D projection
(bottom). Contour interval is 5 units of intensity, the highest contour is 80 units, while the lowest
contour is 5 units. Note that north is to the left in both maps.



































NORTH
t. to 4A


Figure 13. Landscape Development Intensity (LDI) in the study area depicted as a topographic map (top) and
as a 3-D projection (bottom). Contour interval is 0.2 units, the highest contour is 8.5 units, while the
lowest contour is 1.2 units Note that north is to the left in both maps.







































NO H
*~ AU U L


Figure 14. Power density in the study area depicted as a topographic map (top) and as a 3-D projection
(bottom). Contour interval is 12.0 E9 solar emjoules per year. Note that north is to the left in both maps.































































Figure 15. Difference between wet and dry season water table (delta watertable) in the study area depicted as a
topographic map (top) and as a 3-D projection (bottom). Contour interval is 0.1 feet. Note that north is to
the left in both maps.

















































































Figure 16. Simulated drawdown of the surficial aquifer in the study area depicted as a topographic map (top)
and as a 3-D projection (bottom). Contour interval is 0.5 feet. Note that north is to the left in both maps.


---~LI -r~LP
i (
~LL-




























-'staramn or x 3 I iXPERVIOLS SALFAC-


QUALITY iN.K




Histogram or X 2. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
60

5--

40

S30 0 IMPERVIOUS


20





0 20 40 60 80 C10 120 140
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE


Figure 17.


0 4C 01 V;CU

2C

IC


0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 C0
X IMPERVIOUS SiFFACE




Histogram of x 4. OITCH INOEX
30

25

20

5 I 0 CICH INOEX

10





0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
OITCH INOEX


Histograms of (a) quality rank, (b) % impervious surface, (c) area of impervious surface, and (d)
ditch index for total population of wedands. Data are from landscape scale spatial analysis (Table


OQ UALIY ;ANK


n'Isograr of < LAL V AANK




























"'stograr- of x 5 .-1
3Ci ---




2C


5







2 3 4 5 5 7 8 9
LDI




Histogram of X 5. CWER DENSITY
70 . .

60

50

40


20


20


0 "** IEIO 5EIO 2EIO 2.5E10 3E0I 3.5EIO
OCWER DENSITY


Figure 18.


-istogram of X 7 CEL-A WATER AaLE-
30


25

20

15. C ~E EL A ..-
U

10




-
3 1 I 12 3 1.3 4 I 5 6 1 7 I
OELTA WATER TABLE




Histogram of X a. WET WATER TABLE
30


25

20

S15 C wE '.VA7EA -..

10


5


-1.4-1 -1 -8-.6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 a
WET WATER TABLE


Histograms of (a) LDI, (b) delta water table, (c) power density, and (d) and wet season water table
for total population of wetlands. Data are from landscape scale spatial analysis (Table 4.).

















































































Histograms of (a) dry season water table and (b) simulated drawdown for total population of
wetlands. Data are from landscape scale spatial analysis (Table 4.).


Histo ram of x 3RY WATER "ABLE




IC

I I C1RY wA--v -






-3 -2.8 -2.5 -2.2 -2 -1 -5 -1 2 -
OiY wATER "A8LE


Figure 19.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs