Wetland Hydrology Literature Review

Contributing Authors Wetland Biology Steve Mortellaro Becky Robbins Dean Powell Joel VanArman Dave Black Hydrological Model Emily Hopkins Pattie Fulton Steve Krupa Technical Editors Sharon Fowler Kathleen Donoghue Garth Redfield Keith Smith Carol W oehlche Graphics Support Richard Miessau Project Manager Steve Krupa

Technical Support for Development of Wetland Drawdown Criteria for Florida's Lower West Coast Table of Contents INTRODUCTION

1

METHODS and RESULTS .................................................... Sub-Project 1 - Wetland Hydrology Literature Review .................... Literature Search. ............................................... Literature Summary Notes. ....................................... Synthesis. ...................................................... Graphic Presentation. .......................................... Analysis ....................................................... Water Level Studies ....................................... Hydroperiod Studies. ...................................... Sub-Project 2 - Evaluate Hydrologic Effects of Alternatives ............... Model Verification ............................................. Differences between simulated and observed water levels. . . .. Pattern match ............................................ Boundaryeffects .......................................... Selection of Hypothetical Sites. .................................. Define location and quantity of hypothetical withdrawal. ..... Locate hypothetical wetlands. .............................. Simulating an Extended Period with Varying Rainfall Patterns. . . . .. Producing Graphic Output to Compare Criteria and Assess Impacts .. Sub-Project 3 - Recommending Criteria ................................ Sub-Project 4 - Preparing Final Documentation .........................

4 4 4 5 5 14 14 14 20 21 21 21 24 24 27 27 28 32 32 34 38

DISCUSSION ............................................................. Wetland Hydrology ................................................. Water Budgets ................................................. Surface Water Influences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Groundwater Influences ........................................ Groundwater-Surface Water Interactions ......................... Soil Saturation ................................................. Hydroperiod ................................................... Wetland Hydrology Literature Review ................................. Hydrogeological Models ............................................. Use of Models .................................................. Model Uncertainty ............................................. Rainfall Data ................................................... Model Verification ............................................. Basis for Using the Modeling Approach ...........................

39 39 39 39 40 40 41 41 41 41 41 42 42 43 43

CONCLUSIONS and RECOMMENDED CRITERIA ..............................

44

REFERENCES .............................................................

45

Appendices Appendix I - Results of Dialog®Online Computer Bibliographic Search Appendix 11- Wetland Criteria Development Bibliography Appendix 111- Summary Notes - Wetland Hydrology Literature Review Appendix IV - Analysis of Rainfall Data Appendix V - Graphic Presentations: 1. Water Level Hydrographs; 2. Drawdown Frequency Charts Appendix VI- Final Report of the Expert Panel Appendix VII - Comments and Correspondence List of Fig u res Figure 1. Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7

Map of South Florida Water Management District showing the Lower West Coast Planning Area and Study Area ......................... Water Level Ranges for Various Plant Communities ................ Hydroperiods for Various Plant Communities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Summary of Hydroperiod Ranges for Various Plant Communities ... Minimum, average and maximum monthly water levels at the pond cypress - marsh edge in Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary, Florida. ....... Minimum, average and maximum monthly water levels at the bald cypress - Lettuce Lake edge in Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary, Florida. Average difference between observed and modeled water levels in the water table aquifer (layer 1) for the verification period (1/90to 12/91) .................................................

Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 Figure 11 Figure 12 Figure 13 Figure 14 Figure 15 Figure 16 Figure 17

Average difference between observed and modeled water levels in the lower Tamiami aq uifer (layer 2) for the verification period (1/90 to 12/91 .................................................. Difference between observed and modeled water levels in the water table aquifer for USGS Observation Well C-997 .............. Difference between observed and modeled water levels in the water table aquifer for USGS Observation Well C-384 .................... Public Water Supply (PWS) ratios for the twelve months, based on historical records of monthly variation from Bonita Springs Utility ... Sample drawdown conditions for the 90-day, no recharge scenario. . Sample drawdown conditions for the 1-in-1 0 year drought event. Annual and Season Variations in Rainfall at the Naples Station (April 1970toJune 1976)........................................ Water Table Drawdowns (July, 1970 to June, 1976) due to Citrus Irrigation Demands ............................................. Water Table Drawdowns (July, 1970 to June, 1976) due to Vegetable Irrigation Demands ............................................. Water Table Drawdowns (July, 1970 to June, 1976) due to Public Water Supply Demands .........................................

2 15 16 17 18 19 22 23 26 26 29 30 31 33 35 36 37

List of Tables Table 1. Table 2. Table 3. Table 4. Table 5. Table 6. Table 7.

"Comprehensive" Water Level Information for Plant Communities within the Lower West Coast Planning Area ...................... "Comprehensive" Hydroperiod Information for Various Plant Communities within the Lower West Coast Planning Area ........

6-8 9-11

Water Level Summary for Various Plant Communities within the LowerWestCoastPlanningArea .................................

12

Hydroperiod Summary for Various Plant Communities within the Lower West Coast Planning Area. ................................

13

Hydroperiod/Water Level Summary for Various Plant Communities within the Lower West Coast Planning Area. ......................

14

Summary of pattern match rankings for observation wells during the verification period 1/1990-12/1991 . .......................... Well Setbacks from Wetlands (in feet) with Modeled Criteria. .......

25 32

DRAFT - January 27,1995

INTRODUCTION This publication documents the results of recent short-term studies that were undertaken by staff of the South Florida Water Management District (District) and outside experts to review and develop criteria that could be used to support issuance of water use permits in the Lower West Coast Planning Area (LWCPA) of South Florida. The District is a regional agency of the state that has authority to issue permits to regulate the consumptive use of water for public water supply, agricultural and other uses and is mandated to prevent "adverse environmental impacts" (Ch 40E-2.301(1)(c), F.S.) to natural systems, including wetlands. Investigators at the District initiated a short term (two month) effort in November and December 1994, to review existing information from the literature, apply results and groundwater modeling tools to evaluate wetland impacts, and recommend appropriate criteria for application during the water use permitting process. Groundwater withdrawals for consumptive use have the potential to lower the water table beneath wetlands, alter regional hydrology, and negatively impact the functions and values of wetlands. In keeping with the mandates defined in Florida Statutes, the District has developed numerical criteria for aquifer drawdown under wetlands. Since the mid-1980's, the guideline for wetland drawdown, which has been used in the consumptive use permitting process, specifies the following:

no more than one foot of well-induced drawdown under a wetland at the end of ninety days with no recharge to the aquifer while irrigation uses withdraw water at their maximum monthly rate and public water supplies withdraw water at their maximum daily rate. This criterion (abbreviated as 90 days/no recharge) has been successfully applied in the regulatory process without legal challenge or documented evidence of impacts to wetland systems near major permitted water uses. This lack of evidence could either be interpreted as an indication that either a) the existing guideline provides adequate protection to wetlands, or perhaps that b) the impacts of the guideline have never been adequately monitored or investigated. In 1990, the District began developing four regional water supply plans. The Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan (LWC WSP), for the planning area located in the southwest portion of the District (Figure 1), was the first to be completed. The LWCPA is heavily dependent on groundwater to satisfy agricultural and urban demands and has extensive wetland systems. Therefore, drawdown under wetlands was a major regional water supply issue. The plan utilized county-wide MODFLOW computer models with grids composed of one-square-mile cells to simulate the regional impacts of projected future water demands. The initial draft of the LWC WSP evaluated the effects of the projected increase in water demand between 1990 and 2010. It applied a "resource constraint" of 0.2 ft. of drawdown under wetlands at the end of an 18 month MODFLOW simulation using average rainfall conditions. This original criterion was not intended for regulatory application, but nevertheless became a controversial issue during public review. In the process of revising the plan, District staff evaluated several proposed criteria. The new wetland drawdown criterion was designed to be incorporated into the consumptive use permitting rules and hence was expressed in terms of severity (amount of groundwater drawdown in feet), duration (length of time of drawdown in

1

Draft - January 27,1995

FIGURE 1. Groundwater Modeling and Detailed StudxAreas in the Lower West Coast Planning Area of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). ~

""

."

..

'-, ,-_ .... --f ..............

I

,

•

, --._,---

.

-------,

~~

..--

,• ' •

. _--------,,-.

ATLANTIC OCEAN ___________ ~ ______________ r-

• • ••

,, -,,, ... _-_ ....., , ,,~-------, , '_ ........... "'1 , ,,•

"

,"

.,,•

",,

,

'.......,

.

'-,

,---_ .. .:- .....

,

___ I

,,

---.- . ~,--------.

·••

Bonita Zoom Modeling Area

LOm EAST COAST

L • .. __________________ .. __

•

Area of Detailed Study

_... --, ....... ----_ .. --,_ ....

--,...,

~L

-oeN, ... GULF OF

0

10

V20

30

MIllo

MEXICO

-......- ..-

lOUIN

2

~

_ _ .........

DRAFT -January 27,1995 months) and frequency (return frequency of simulated rainfall conditions). The new criterion is also based on total cumulative water demands, not just the projected future increase in demand and can be stated as follows:

no more than one foot of draw down can occur under a wetland for no more than one month, under one-in-ten drought conditions. A one-in-ten drought condition is the amount of below average annual rainfall that is expected to occur with a 10% probability, assuming that amounts of annual rainfall are random and normally distributed. This criterion (abbreviated as 1/1/1:10) was recommended by the Regulation Department and was supported as being roughly equivalent to the existing 90 days/no recharge guideline, expressed in terms of severity, duration and frequency. The LWC WSP also recommended direction of future efforts to develop different criteria for different types of wetland communities. Subsequent to final acceptance of the LWC WSP by the District's Governing Board, proposed water use rules were drafted that contained specific drawdown criteria for the LWCPA. Wetlands were divided into three categories and different criteria were proposed for each category. Category I wetlands (permanently flooded) were not assigned a drawdown criterion. Category II wetlands (seasonally flooded) were assigned a criterion of 11111:10, which would be applied only during the wet season. Category III wetlands (temporarily flooded) were assigned a criterion of 0.33 ft (0.33/1/1:10 criterion), which was also applied only during the wet season. Scientists from the Water Resources Evaluation and Planning Departments reviewed the draft rules and provided comments to the Regulation Department. A major concern was that the post-processing techniques used for evaluating the various proposed criteria did not provide the types of information that biologists would like to see in order to draw conclusions about potential impacts to wetlands. Another concern was that there was no way to objectively determine whether the new 11111:10 criteria provided the same, less or more protection to wetlands than the existing 90 days/no recharge criteria. Scientists wanted assurances that the new criteria provided at least as much protection as the existing guideline. A Wetland Criteria Review Committee was formed to provide recommendations for interim groundwater drawdown criteria based on the best available information and expert opinion. The committee consisted of an internal working group of SFWMD staff and an external working group composed of representatives from the regulated community who were familiar with LWCPA issues. The two groups met periodically for project updates and feedback. Four sub-projects were undertaken, to: (1) evaluate wetland hydrology based on a synthesis of available literature; (2) apply groundwater modeling to estimate effects of different criteria on hydrology; (3) recommend criteria based on inferred effects of hydrology on wetlands; and 4) prepare a final report. The first two sub-projects were pursued simultaneously by District staff due to the short time frame for completion of the assignment (2 months). An external panel of experts was convened to provide recommendations on criteria (sub-project 3). The final report of the expert panel is included as Appendix VI to this document.

3


METHODS and RESULTS The mission of the Wetland Criteria Review Committee was to conduct a literature review and modeling studies, and use this information to evaluate existing criteria and propose new criteria. This section describes methods that were developed and applied to summarize information from the literature and determine potential impacts on wetlands based on mathematical groundwater models. Results of these investigations were, in turn, reviewed by a panel of experts who developed specific recommendations for input to the regulatory decision-making process. Sub-Project 1- Wetland Hydrology Literature Review The purpose of this review was to compile and summarize available literature to document naturally occurring ranges of hydroperiods and water levels for different wetland communities. The review was limited to studies that were conducted within the LWCPA and included an online computer bibliographic search using Dialog Information Service, review of two recent water level/hydroperiod studies conducted for the District, and review of bibliographies from all articles/reports obtained. The online computer search was conducted by the District's librarian on September 27, 1994. Key words used in the search included: Florida, hydroperiod, water level, wildlife, Collier, Monroe, Lee, Charlotte, Hendry, and Glades. Results of this search are presented in Appendix I. District staff reviewed this list of references and obtained copies of those articles/reports that appeared to include water level and/or hydroperiod data for natural systems within the LWCPA. The final product of this work was a bibliography of wetland literature related to naturally occurring ranges of hydroperiods and water levels for different plant communities. Each relevant article was summarized, using a standard format that included the following information: (1) reference citation; (2) study location; (3) study purpose; (4) study period; (5) vegetation communities; (6) water levels; (7) hydroperiod (days per year that water was above land surface); and (8) other. The focus of the review was to document natural water levellhydroperiod information for the LWCPA; however, the "other" category was included in case the reviewer encountered additional information which could potentially be useful during the wetland criteria evaluation. Data and Information from the reports were synthesized into tables and graphs to show ranges of water levels and hydroperiods for specific Lower West Coast wetland communities. Literature Search. Results of the two consultants' reports were examined first. The Environmental Sciences and Engineering (1991) report provided information on natural water levels and hydroperiods throughout the South Florida Water Management District and included water level and hydroperiod information specific to the LWCPA. The Gee and Jenson (1993) report focused on the Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed area and included summaries of additional hydroperiod and water level studies within the Lower West Coast region. An attempt was made to obtain all pertinent

4

DRAFT -January 27,1995 articles and reports that were cited in the bibliographies of these and other studies. All articles and reports received by District staff by October 17, 1994 were reviewed. Literature Summary Notes_ The articles and reports obtained for review are listed in the bibliography (Appendix II). Those articles or reports that included natural water level and hydroperiod information for the LWCPA were summarized and marked with an asterisk (*) in the bibliography. Compiled summary notes are attached as Appendix III. External working group members requested that the abstracts or conclusions of each document summarized in the summary notes be added to the final report. Accordingly, Attachment A to Appendix III was prepared to include this information. However, not all of the documents summarized in the summary notes included abstracts or conclusions and hence are not included in Appendix III Attachment A. Synthesis. The first step in synthesizing the information from the summary notes was to prepare "comprehensive" (as distinguished from the "summary" tables described below) water level (Table 1) and hydroperiod (Table 2) tables. These tables were prepared by extracting water level and hydroperiod data from the text or tables in the article. Graphs in the articles were not analyzed (data was not extracted from graphs). Summary notes were prepared for studies conducted outside of the LWCPA and for studies that encompassed "south Florida," because of their potential interest to committee members (for example: the CH2M Hill 1988 report). Information from these summary notes was not included in the tables. Additionally, information from the summary notes of the Environmental Sciences and Engineering (1991) and Gee and Jenson (1993) reports was used in the tables only if District staff were unable to acquire a copy of a relevant article or report. Since the objective of the literature review was to document "natural" water level and hydroperiod information, only water level and hydroperiod data from natural areas were used in the tables. The following information was placed into the "comprehensive" tables: (1) community type; (2) representative vegetation; (3) locations; (4) water levels or hydroperiods; (5) years of study; (6) method of measurement; and (7) the reference from which the information was obtained. The second step in the synthesis process was to condense the "comprehensive" water level and hydroperiod tables into "summary" tables (Tables 3 and 4). The process followed to prepare the summary tables is described below: 1) Vegetation community types were named differently by the various authors, therefore, District staff combined information under a given community type heading if the hydroperiods were similar. For example: • Gunderson's "marsh" that had an average hydroperiod of 317 days was placed into the "deep marsh" category because it fell within Duever's deep marsh range of310- 346 days.

5


TABLE 1.

"Comprehensive" Water Level Information for Plant Communities within the Lower West Coast Planning Area.

Community Representative Vegetation

Type

Type

Water levels Location

ag = above ground bg = below ground

Big Cypress

Max: 5cm (O.2ft) ag

Years of

Study

Method of Measure~

mentt

References:t:

HERBACEC US

< 1m mixed grasses Dry Prairie Short and sedges Marl Prairie Sawgrass (Cladium sp.)

Everglades National Park Avg. depth: 3cm (O.1ft)

Duever et al. 3* (1974· 1984b citing 1977) ELlWell Corr. * Duever et al. 197~ 32 (1954· Gauge Gunderson 1989 1985) Records

Maidencane (Panicum

hemitomon); Sand cordgrass (Spartina bakerii);Beak rush Wet Prairie (Rhynchospora spp.); Muhly

Duever et af.

Corkscrew

grass (Muhlenberg;a filipes); Love grasses (Eragrostis pp.); Sawgrass(Cladium sp.)

Avg. max. wet season:

20cm (O.7ft) ag

1986 citing 1.5* (4174· EL/Well (orr. * Duever et af. 9175) 1975; Duever et al. 1984b

Avg. deftths:Collier45cm (1.5 t) ag; Hendry. 15cm (O.5)ft ag; Lee· Notgiven lee Counties 31cm (lft)ag

Collier,

Wet Prairie Not given

Wet Prairie Not given Wet Prairie Not given

Wet Prairie Notgiven

Hendry, and

Corkscrew

Max. wet season: 46cm

(l.5ft)ag

Corkscrew


Corkscrew

Max. wet season:30cm

(O.5ft) ag (1 ft) ag

Not given Notgiven

Notgiven

BIIFSIEP

Statement Statement

Statement

Marsh

Sparse sawgrass (Cladium p.) Dense sawgrass (Cladium p.)

Marsh

Sawgrass (Cladium sp.)

Marsh

Ta1l1-3m emergent broadleaved sedges, grasses, and forbs

Big Cypress Max. depth: 40cm (13ft) 1.5* (4174· ELfWell Corr. *

Not given

Corkscrew

Marsh

Everglades 32 (1954National Park Avg. Depth: 10cm (O.3ft) 1985) Everglades Avg. Depth: 22cm (O.7ft) 32 (1954National Park ag 1985) Hendry County

Avg. depth: 61cm (2ft) ag ag

Not given

Gauge

Records Gauge Records

811FS/EP

9175)

Browder 1974

ESE 1991 citing Browder 1976


ESE 1991 citing Browder 1976 Gunderson 1989 Gunderson 1989 Browder 1974

Duever et a/.

1984b; Dueveret a/. 1986 citin? Dueveret a .

1975 Marsh

Wet season: 20-40cm

(O.7-1.3ft)ag; Dry

3 (1974· 1977)

EL/Well Corr.

Duever 1980

Notgiven

Statement

ESE 1991 citi ng

season: 70-130cm (2.3-

4.3ft) bg Deep Marsh Not given

Corkscrew


(2.0ft) ag

Browder 1976

FOREST Dwarf Cypress

Cypress (Taxodium sp.)

Collier and Lee Counties

Scrubl Dwarf Cypress

Cypress (Taxodium sp.) ; sparse Beak rush (Rhynchospora sp.) understory

Big Cypress Swamp

Notgiven

Corkscrew

S"ub

Avg. depth: Collier· 46cm (l.5ft) ag; Lee· 30cm (1ft) ag

Not given

Max: 15-20cm (O.5·.0.7ft) Notgiven ag

Max. wet season:

BIIFSIEP

Not given

Cypress Prairie


Cypress

Pond depress (Taxodiurn ascen ens)

Everglades National Park

Avg. Depth: 9cm (O.3ft)

Big Cypress, Corkscew

Max: 30cm (1ft) ag

Dueveretal.l~~E

citing Flohrschu 1978; Duever et al. 1984b

Not given

Statement

ESE 1991 citing 8rowder 1976

32 (1954· 1985)

Gauge Records

Gunderson 1989

108cm (3.5ft) ag

Cypress

8rowder 1974

3* (1974· ELlWel1 Corr.* 1977)

Duever et al.

1984b citing Duever et al. 1975 and 1978; Dueve et al.~ 1986 citi ng Dueveretal.1975

t, * See notes on last page of thIS table; :j: see bIblIography IIstmg m AppendIx II.

6


TABLE 1. "Comprehensive" Water Levels (Continued). Community

Type

Representative Vegetation Type

Water Levels

Location

ag ;;: above ground bg = below ground

Years of Study

Method 01 Measure~

mentt

References;

FOREST Cypress

Cypress (Taxodiurn sp.)

orkscrew

~4!t season: 40·6cm (1.3-

2ft) ag; Dry season: 70-

3 (1974· ELlWell Corr.* 1977)

Duever 1980

140cm (2.3-4.6ft) bg Duever et a/.

Cypress


orkscrew

Annual fluctuations: 50-1 SO cm (1.6-4.9 ft)

Cypress -

Largest and Cypress (Taxodiurn Fastest distichum)

Forkscrew

Avg. max: 70 cm (2.3 ft) ag

Growing}

Cypress Deep

Cypress (Taxodium sp.J

orkscrew

Max. wet season: 152 em

(5 ft) ag

3'(1974- ELlWell Corr.* 1984a citing 1977) Duever et al. 197 and 1978 Duever et al. 198E 3' (19741977) ELiWell Corr.* citing Duever et al.1978 Not given

Statement

ESE 1991 citing

Browder 1976

Avg. depths: Collier· 31· oilier,

Cypress Strands

Cypress

Mixed Swamp Forests

Red maple (Acer rubrum); Pop ash (Fraxinus caroliniana); Willow (Salix caroliniana); Swamp bay (Persea palustris)

(Tax odium sp.)

Hendry. and ee Counties

orkscrew

76 cm (1-2.5 ft) ap.; Hendry-53-69cm 1.7- Notgiven 2.3 ft) ag; Lee - 53-84 cm (1.7-2.8 ft) ag Wet season avg: 70 cm

(2.3 It) ag

BIIFSIEP

Browder 1974

3'(1974- eLlWell Corr.* Duever et al. 198 b citin~ Duever e 1977) al. 197 and 1978

Avg. depths:Collier· 30· Swamp Not given Hardwood

oilier,

H~ndry, and ,..ee Counties

76cm (1.0-2.5 ft) ag; Hendry· 53--69 cm (1.7· 2.3 ft) ag; Lee - 53-84 cm

Not given

BIIFSIEP

Browder 1974

3 (19741977)

ELiWell Corr.

Duever 1980

3 (19741977)

ELlWell Corr.

Duever 1980

Not given

(1.7-2.8ft)ag Hardwood Not given Hammock

rorkscrew

Dry season (1974): 130160 cm (4.3-5.2 ft) bg Wetseason:10cm (0.3ft)

Flatwoods Slash Pine (Pinus elliottj)

Corkscrew

bg to 20cm (0.7ft) ag; Dry season: 130-160cm (4.3-5.2ft)bg

AQUATICS Pond

Submerged and floating aquatics

Big Cypress Swamp

Wet season: at least

100cm (3.3ft) ag

Not given

Pond

Alligatorflag (Thalia geniculata)

Corkscrew

60em (2ft) ag

1 (1974)

Pond

Not given

Pond

Not given

Slough

Water lily

loughs and Not given Marshes

Avg. de~ths: CollierCollier, 15cm (0.5 t) ag; HendryHendry, and Notgiven 15cm (O.5ft) aw LeeLee Counties 15cm (O.5ft ag

Duever et al.

1984b

ELIWell Corr. Duever et al. 197 811FSIEP

Browder 1974

Statement


32 (1954Everglades ~vg. Depth: 28cm (0.9ft) National Park 1985)

Gauge Records

Gunderson 1989

Avg. deftths: Collier. Collier, 61cm (2.0 ) 09; HendryHendry, and 61cm (2.0ft) ag; Lee- Not given Lee Counties

BIIFSIEP

Browder 1974

Statement

Browder 1974

Corkscrew


(l.5ft) ag

Not given

61cm (2.0ft) ag

MISC. Dry season: no more Natural Systems

Not given

Southwest Florida

than 61-91cm (2-3ft) bg; 91-152cm (3-5ft) annual fluctuation; 183cm (6ft) Not given =extremes of flood and

drouQht

t, * See notes on last page of thiS table; :j: see bibliography listing In AppendiX II.

7


TABLE 1. "Comprehensive" Water Levels (Continued). Community Representative Vegetation Type Type

Water Levels

ag = above ground bg = below ground

Location

~Min

Jiln

10ft D.3ft

Fob

bg bg bg bg bg bg bg bg b, b, b, b,

.ar

.

.pr

Pond Cypress (Taxodium sp.) CypressMarsh Edge Marsh vegetation

rorkscrew

~

Jun Ju1

AUg

Sft

n.2ft

41ft

9ft

23ft 1I.8ft 29ft

22ft O.7ft

'pr ~

Jun

M

S'p OCt NDY

Oeo

Duever et al. 197

43ft lo4rt 43ft 1.4ft

28ft

O.9ft

!\>
M"

39ft 1.3ft 36ft

43ft 1.4ft 43ft

1.2ft lo4rt

43ft 33ft l.1ft 1.4ft 24ft 38ft Sft a.2ft D.Brt 1.ut b, ort 23ft bg Oft D.art b, 28ft bg D.srt b, bg 32ft 64cII 1Ft 2.1ft b, 4lift 66ft 211ft D.Sft l.Sft 2.2ft 43ft 52ft 66ft 1.4ft 1.7ft 2.2ft 66ft JDft 55ft 1.0ft 1.lIft 2.2ft 48ft 56ft 33ft LIft 1.6ft 1.lIft 33ft 44ft SlclI! 1.1ft 1.4ft 1.Ut

'" " AU,

5G/EX

43ft

1.4ft

10ft

.

16 (19591975)

o.3ft 1.3ft

Dec

Nar

Duever et al. 197

n.5ft

ort ort srt

."

20ft D.7ft 18ft D.6ft

SG/EX

15ft

32ft

Fob

16 (19591975)

D.7rt

D,7ft

Sft

D.3ft

References:l:

Study

:ZOft

D.3rt 1ft ort bg b, b, b,

D.3ft 1ft 10ft 25ft 33ft D.3ft D.8rt 1.1ft

Month Min 33ft Jan l.Ift

•

20ft D.Ut 20ft

1ft

OI:t

t

M"

17ft D.6ft 13ft O.Ut 10ft

O.2ft 20ft D.7ft

sap

Bald Bald cypress (Taxodium sp.J Cypress f'-0rkscrew Lettuce Water lettuce (Pistia) Lake Edge

!\>
Method of Measurementt

Years of

see bibliography listing in Appendix II. Method of measurement (method upon which water levels were apparently based): Statement - author made a statement based on personal observation but no supportive data was provided. EUWelI Corr. - author estimated water level records at the study site (known elevation) based on water table depths at a nearby recording well. ~~~~;- :a~u~t!hor based water level elevations on either (a) biological indicators of hydrology (e.g. average wet season E based on where saw palmetto, slash pines, or live oaks occurred), (b) field surveys, or (c) elevation

l

!iJ!I!I! i1! i l~i!t! l! ![!i!l! liY1eiari.iOif~Wjajre~rile!Vie;lire;Cior;d;'.;f;ro~m~t;W:Oi·;rn;f ~ga;u;g;e;s.

Source:

directly for study sites.

Extremevaluesfrom article referenced pa})!lrs did not proVIded this

III, Summary Notes - Wetland Hydrology Literature Review (only data from natural systems within the Lower West Coast Planning Area were included in this

8

Draft - January 27, 1995

TABLE 2_

"Comprehensive" Hydroperiod Information for Various Plant Communities within the Lower West Coast Planning Area.

Representative Vegetation

Community

Type

Location

Hydroperiod

Years of

(days)

Study

Method of Measure-

mentt

Referencest

HERBACEOU S Dry Prairie

Muhly Prairie

Short«1 m)mixed

grasses and sedges Muhly grass (Muhlenbergia sp.)

Marl Prairie Saw grass (Cladium sp.)

Corkscrew

~

SourcI: Du....... at al. 1978 (Author extrapolated values from 18 yasra of water ..... recorda from 2 staff ~ges. Extrane vaIueB 8I8OC1ated with unusual droll"'" or rainfall

19

were excluded).

DRAFT-January 27, 1995 (ponds and sloughs) plant communities. All 12 references contained some information about cypress forests, five references contained information about other forests, ten references contained information about herbaceous plant communities and six contained information about aquatic communities. The summary data in Table 3 and the graph in Figure 2 indicate that, in general, slough, prairie (wet, dry, marl and cypress prairies) and sawgrass communities live in areas where water levels are less than a foot above ground. Marsh communities and pond cypress live in areas where water depths range as deep as 1 to 1.5 feet. Cypress and mixed swamp forests live in areas where water depths reach 2.0 to 2.3 feet above ground. Both hardwood hammocks and pine flatwoods live in areas that can experience some flooding -- flatwoods can tolerate flooding of at least 0.7 foot above ground. There is not much data to indicate the tolerance for water levels below ground, but marshes, cypress forests, pine flatwoods and hardwood hammocks can apparently tolerate water levels as low as 4 feet below ground level. H dro eriod Studies. The comprehensive hydroperiod table (Table 2) represents a compilation of ata from 19 references, indicating the duration of the study, methods used and observed hydroperiods. Data were compiled for herbaceous (prairies and marshes), scrub and shrubs (myrtles, pond apple and popash), forests (cypress, mixed swamp, hardwoods, hammocks, flatwoods and willow), and aquatic (ponds and sloughs) plant communities. Sixteen of these references contained information about herbaceous communities, 7 contained information about shrubs, 18 contained information about forests, and three contained information about aquatic communities and five contained information about miscellaneous plant groups. The summary data in Table 4 and the graph in Figure 2 indicate that, in general, dry prairies (0-50 days of inundation per year) had hydroperiods that were similar to those of hardwoods (0-45 days), pine flatwoods (0-45 days), and hammocks (0-60 days). Wet prairies (50-150 days of inundation per year), wax myrtles (45-155 days) and oak/sabal palm hammocks (44-140 days) lived in areas that had longer hydroperiods. Deep marshes and sloughs preferred areas that were inundated most ofthe year (310-346 days). Examination of the hydroperiod ranges given in Figures 3 and 4 indicates that no herbaceous communities are inundated for more than 346 days. Shallow marsh communities experience as little as 32 days of inundation per year whereas deep marsh communities apparently prefer to have at least 310 days of inundation. Shrub/scrub communities preferred from 45 to 190 days of inundation. Forested communities had the largest hydroperiod range, from 0 days for flatwoods to 365 days for cypress domes. Aquatic plant communities had a narrow hydroperiod range, and were inundated from 310 to 346 days per year. Analysis of the data obtained from Duever et al. (1978) in Figure 5, for a pond cypress community at the marsh edge in Corkscrew Swamp, shows that the maximum monthly water level remains at or above the ground surface throughout the year, whereas the the average water level drops below ground in April and does not increase above ground until mid-June (2-112 months). The minimum water level declines below ground in mid-January and remains below ground until mid-July (6 months). Similar data provided by Duever et al. (1978) for a bald cypress community in Figure 6 indicates deeper water conditions and a longer hydroperiod. The maximum water level remains above the ground surface, the average water level declines below ground for one month and the the minimum water depth remains below ground level for about three months, from mid-April to mid-July.

20

DRAFT - January 27, 1995 Sub-Project 2 - Evaluate Hydrologic Effects of Alternatives The MODFLOW GWZOOM groundwater model was used to simulate water level drawdowns for a range of rainfall conditions and thus provide a basis for comparing any proposed wetland criteria to current policies and procedures. Existing models are limited in their ability to simulate effects of soil horizons, surface flow, and rainfall on wetland plants. The model selected for this activity provided estimated water levels. Biologists interpreted these data to determine possible hydroperiod conditions and effects on vegetation. The required modeling consisted offour primary phases or activities - model verification, selection of hypothetical wetland sites, simulating an extended period with varying rainfall patterns, and producing graphic output to compare criteria and assess impacts. Model Verification. The first activity was to assess the magnitude and distribution of uncertainty within the model. Water level data were obtained for observation wells within the model area for 1990-1991. This period was selected primarily due to the ready availability of irrigation water use data. A data set containing water use permit information through the year 1990 had been prepared in conjunction with the Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan. Without this data, rapid construction of necessary model input data sets would not have been possible. Irrigation demands for this period were estimated using the Modified Blaney-Criddle method (as currently used in the SFWMD Regulation Department) based on irrigated acreage and efficiency data from the District's water use permits and rainfall from the Naples station. Public water supply demands were estimated by multiplying 1990 average demands by the historic monthly ratios for a particular utility. This method was used to save time, but ideally, actual utility pumpage reports for the period should be used. Domestic self-supplied demands were estimated using the methods described in the Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan (SFWMD, 1994). Model recharge was estimated based on Naples rainfall and local land use. Average monthly values were used for all other model stresses (e.g., rivers and evapotranspiration). Simulated water levels were compared to those observed in United States Geological Survey and South Florida Water Management District SALT monitoring wells within the model area. There were 19 observation wells in layer 1, which represented the water table aquifer, and 25 wells in layer 2, which represented the lower Tamiami aquifer. In order to best assess model uncertainty and determine the most appropriate site for placement of 'hypothetical' wells within the Bonita zoom model, a number of factors were considered: 1) Differences between observed and simulated water levels. 2) Pattern match - How well the groundwater model simulates changes in observed water levels over time. 3) Boundary effects - At what distance from the model boundary does its effect become negligible. Differences between simulated and observed water levels. Figures 7 and 8 show the average difference between observed and simulated water levels over the verification period for layers 1 and 2 respectively. Generally, the water levels simulated by the model were higher than observed water levels in the eastern portion of the area, and lower than the values observed along the coast. A comparison of these results to

21

Draft -January 27,1995

Figure 7. Average difference between observed and modeled water levels in the water table aquifer (layer 1) for the verification period (1/90 to 12/91). Box indicates area of detailed modeling analysis.

LEGEND

ClJ < - 1.5' .'1 - 1.49' .." - 0.5' Iliiiiiil - 0.49' -> 0.5' •

0.49'.." 1.5'

•

> 1.5

SOUTH

??


Figure 8. Average difference between observed and modeled water levels in the lower Tamiami aquifer (layer 2)for the verification period (1/90 to 12/91).

LEGEND

c::TI

< - 1.5'

M@ll -

1.49' -> - 0.5'

!fIJi - 0.49'

-l>

0.5'

I!lII

0.49' -> 1.5'

II

> 1.5

DRAFT-January 27, 1995 those of the same region of the Collier County Regional model (Bennett, 1992) indicates the following: (1) A similar trend of higher simulated water levels in the east and lower simulated values along the coast is observed in both models. (2) Overall differences in layer 2 are similar between the two models, but differences between observed and simulated water levels in layer 1 are consistently greater in the zoomed model than in the original. This is believed be a function of the change in scale, particularly in the calculation of land surface elevation and other data sets necessary for estimation of evapotranspiration. Bennett (1992) specified model calibration guidelines for average difference between observed and simulated water levels of + 2 feet in the water table, and + 3 feet in the lower Tamiami aquifer. In the zoomed model, 11 ofthe 19 water table wells, and 22 of the 25 lower Tamiami wells met this criteria. Pattern match. Examination of the average difference maps provides some information concerning the spatial distribution of error within the model, but does not furnish a complete picture ofthe "goodness" ofthe model and, taken alone, could be misleading. It is also necessary to determine how well the model simulates changes in water levels over time. This can be done qualitatively, by plotting the observed hydro graph at a particular location along with the simulated hydrograph at that spot and visually judging the match. Statistical methods were also applied to quantitatively measure independence or association between two data sets. The Kendall's tau-b method (Helsel and Hirsch, 1992) was used to test for independence or association between the variables observed and simulated water levels. This measure is based on the number of concordant and discordant pairs of observations; for example, if an increase in water level was observed between January and February and the model simulated an increase in water level between those months then that pair of observations would be concordant, if the model simulated a water level drop between those months, then the pair would be discordant. The larger the value of tau, the better the correlation. This measure can also be used to test the hypothesis of independence. Each observation well was ranked based on the correspondence between the matched pairs, and the probability (p) of achieving such correspondence with two independent data sets (see Table 6). Figures 9 and 10 show the pattern match at the two water table wells, C-997 and C384, that are located closest to the selected study area. The discrepancy between the observed and simulated water levels in August 1990 in these two figures may be attributed to lack of appropriate input (rainfall data) rather than the predictive capability of the model. The water levels predicted by the model accurately reflect the rainfall patterns at the Naples rainfall station, which differed significantly from actual rainfall at the well locations during August, 1990. Boundary effects. The water levels generated by the model were contoured and loaded into ArcView (Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands CA, version 1) display software. Abrupt changes in contours near model boundaries are indicative of a boundary effect. Visual inspection of the water level contours indicated that the influence of the boundary extended four cells into the model. Model predictions within this area should not be considered. Model predictions for at least one monitoring well, L-5669, are believed to be strongly influenced by boundary conditions.

24

DRAFT - January 27, 1995 Table 6: Summary of pattern match rankings for observation wells d ' h even"Icatlon f ' peno . d 1/1990 - 12/1991 unngt WELLID L-5669 BBLM1678 L-5722 8BLM1650 L-2195 L-1997 L-5724 L-5726 PEL015 C-384 C-l059 C-l057 C-997 C-999 C-l060 C-321 C-l061 C-l026 C-l055 BSW5MWl BBLM1646 BBLM1649 BBLM1676 L-5723 BBLM1644 BBLM1645 L-1691 L-738 BSWSMW4 L-2194 L-1996 L-5725 L-5727 C-1083 PEL018 PEL016 PEL014 PEL022 PEL020 PEL013 C-l004 C-998 C-l058 C-424 C-l003 C-460 C-515 C-490 C490 C-1002 1 2

3

4

LAYER

ROW

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Rank Poor, Fair,

Good Very Good,

COLUMN

54 2 43 51 53 60 55 23 66 97 67 123 35 68 43 78 106 77 78 110 45 113 118 66 119 120 124 37 126 45 131 52 148 46 156 46 87 160 76 30 45 33 41 45 49 42 53 60 55 43 28 56 57 70 61 61 64 72 97 66 123 67 68 35 43 78 89 51 77 99 102 77 106 77 109 73 109 76 77 109 110 60 110 79 66 118 121 45 131 46 137 58 46 141 45 147 153 45 58 154 Pro ability p> 10% 2.5% < P < 10% 0.5 % < p < 2.5 % P < 0.5 %

25

NUMBER OBS.

TAU-B

RANK"

23 18 23 18 23 22 23 23 24 23 23 23 22 22 23 23 24 22 23 24 24 24 24 23 24 24 24 23 23 22 22 24 23 23 24 24 22 21 24 22 24 24 22 24 22 23 23 23 19 23

-0.225 0.098 0.526 -0.046 0.549 0.351 0.668 0.594 0.333 0.547 0.531 0.618 0.489 0.555 0.451 0.715 0.780 0.472 -0.285 0.186 -0.018 -0.091 -0.138 0.059 -0.080 -0.058 0.051 0.107 0.087 0.104 0.004 0.036 0.059 0.107 0.229 0.131 0.174 0.038 0.230 0.083 0.181 0.188 0.264 0.275 0.411 0.391 0.423 0.250 0.088 -0.028

1 1 4 1 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 2 1 1

Draft - January 27, 1995

Figure 9. Difference between observed and modeled water levels in the water table aquifer for USGS Observation Well C-997, which is located near the study area, during the verification period from 1/90 to 12/91.

-,... (NQVD)

USG8_ C-Wl LAYER-l ROW=1J/J COL-H9

14

1J

n 10

8

1

• 6~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~T N0V86

Figure 10.

--

AUQIIIJ

PEBH

DECBII

MAl/91

JUN91

OCT91

Difference between observed and modeled water levels in the water table aquifer for USGS Observation Well C-384, which is located near the study area, during the verification period from 1/90 to 12/91.

(NOW)

13

1J

n 10

• 8

1

6

4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ NOVB8

PEBIO

MAnti

AlIGlO

DECBII

211

MAIU!1

iUN91

OCT91

DRAFT-January 27, 1995 Selection of Hypothetical Sites. Existing regulatory guidelines for wetland protection define severity of allowable drawdowns at one point in time under very specific conditions. The water supply plan and proposed rule define both the severity and duration of allowable drawdowns under very different conditions. These different sets of criteria are not directly comparable. In order to make intelligent and informed decisions about which criteria to select, decision makers must understand how any proposed criteria differ from those used in the past. Is the proposed criterion more or less stringent than the old? Does it provide an equivalent level of protection? The answers to such questions are not readily apparent from the definition of the criteria. It is the goal of this phase of modeling to provide District staff with a tool for evaluating the differences between the current and proposed criteria. This was done by selecting sites for hypothetical wetlands that were located as near to the well as possible and still allow the well to be permittable under existing or proposed criteria. Define location and guantitfc of hypothetical withdrawal. Based on results from the model verification, an area or detailed study was selected in the southeast quadrant of the model (Figure 7). This location was selected because: 1) the pattern of modeled water levels corresponded well to that observed in the nearest monitor wells, 2) it was sufficiently far from the edge of the model to prevent simulated drawdowns from being influenced by boundary effects, and 3) the area contained a relatively thick sequence of water table aquifer, from which modeled withdrawals could be made, and 4) the site was surrounded by various-sized wetlands at a range of distances from the withdrawal point. Withdrawals were distributed over four adjacent model cells in order to provide adequate separation of the drawdown contours. The magnitudes of citrus and vegetable withdrawals were calculated using the modified Blaney-Criddle method (SFWMD, 1985) to estimate supplemental crop requirement as a function of crop type, soil type, air temperature, percent daylight hours, irrigation system efficiency and total rainfall. Air temperature and percent daylight hours were based on mean monthly values from Naples. A soil type of 0.8, reflecting soil conductivity, was used in all calculations. An irrigation system efficiency of 85% (micro irrigation) was used for citrus, and 50% (flood irrigation) for vegetables. Supplemental crop requirements were estimated in inches per month. Surface water flow was not considered in the model and no allowance was made for return of excess irrigation water to the surficial aquifer system. To obtain a volume rate of withdrawal for the model, the volume of water per acre per day required for supplemental crop irrigation was mUltiplied by an irrigated acreage of 900 acres and converted to units of cubic feet per day. The 900-acre value was determined by incrementally increasing the amount of irrigated land until drawdown contours to 1.2 feet were easily distinguished in the 1-in-10 drought simulation. For public water supply, the total annual withdrawals were the same order of magnitude as the irrigation withdrawals, but were varied from month to month in a pattern that reflected typical public water supply demands. The total annual volume of water used for irrigation of 900 acres of citrus was divided by 12 to determine a hypothetical average monthly rate of withdrawal and by 365 to determine a hypothetical average daily rate. The monthly withdrawal for public water supply was then adjusted by calculating ratios of actual monthly demand to average demand, based on historical records of water use from the nearest (Bonita Springs) utility, which was chosen to represent the pattern of seasonal water use in a typical

27

DRAFT - January 27,1995 southwest Florida community. Figure 11 shows the resulting relative distribution of monthly withdrawals. Slight variations in these methods were required to simulate the existing regulatory guideline for wetland protection. This guideline specifies that irrigation withdrawals should equal the maximum monthly allocations, and public water supply withdrawals should equal the maximum daily allocations. Maximum monthly allocations for 900 acres of citrus and vegetables were calculated by applying the modified Blaney-Criddle method to the l-in-5 drought year, as specified by SFWMD (1985), and selecting the month with the greatest demand. The maximum daily allocation for our hypothetical public water supply was estimated algebraically as follows, using the actual ratio of maximum daily demand to average demand for the Bonita Springs utility and the hypothetical average daily rate of withdrawal: hypothetical max. daily demand =

Bonita max. daily demand . X hypothetical average daily Bomta average

Locate hypothetical wetlands. To locate wetlands just beyond the well-induced drawdowns, drawdowns from two sets of model runs were contoured at 0.1 ft intervals using the Arc/Info latticecontour command. In the first set of model runs (90-day no recharge), contours were produced at the end of the third month for each water use type. In the second set of model runs (l-in-l0 drought), contours were produced for each month. For the 90-day no recharge contours, the 1 ft contour line for each water use type was displayed and overlain with the model grid and possible wetland locations (Figure 12). Observation cells (hypothetical wetland sites) for the three water use types were chosen where contour lines crossed directly through the center of a model grid cell. For the l-in-l0 drought contours, the 0.1 ft contour lines for all 12 months were displayed on the same graph. Figure 13 shows the outer two lines representing the worst two drawdown months for each water use type. The 1.0 foot contour is displayed and overlain with the model grid and possible wetland locations. Observation cells for a given contour were chosen where the inner of the two contour lines crossed directly through the center of a grid cell, and the outer contour line was beyond the center of that model grid cell. This process was repeated, at 0.1 ft intervals, generating a sequence of observation cells for each 0.1 ft interval of drawdown, for each water use type. Generally, the months of March, April and May had the greatest drawdowns. In order to consider seasonal factors, only the l-in-l0drought contours for the months from June to November (the wet season) were displayed together. The procedure for selection of observation cells was identical to that used for selection of the whole-year, l-in-l0 drought observation cells as described above. A hypothetical wetland site was located to represent each criterion ofinterest. Results of the analysis are shown in Table 7. Results indicated, for the 90-day/no recharge criterion, that a I-foot drawdown would occur at a distance of 2062 feet from a well that was used for citrus irrigation (or conversely that a wetland would have to be located more than 2062 feet away from such a well to experience less than a I-foot drawdown). The 1.0/1/1:10 criterion provides the same level of wetland protection for a citrus irrigation well 2062 foot setback) relative to the 90-day/no recharge criterion. However, for a vegetable irrigation well, the 90-day/no recharge criterion indicates a distance of 4610 feet. A similar level of protection requires a criterion of approximately 0.7/111: 1 0 (0.7 = 5000 feet and 0.8=4472 feet away from the wellfield). An equivalent level of protection for

28


Figure 11.

Public Water Supply (PWS) ratios for the twelve months, based on historical records of average monthly variation from Bonita Springs Utility, 1985 to 1990. 1.3 ••________________________________________________________________-,

1.2

1.1

1.01-1---'

0.9

0.8.L-____________________________________________________________________ jan

feb

mar

apr

may

jun

jul

Source: SFWMD Regulation Department

29

aug

sep

oct

nov

dec

~


Figure 12.

•

Sample drawdown conditions for the gO-day, no recharge scenario'. The 1-foot contour line for each water use type (public water supply, vegetables and citrus) is displayed in conjunction with the model grid and possible wetland locations (shaded boxes). Wetland cells chosen for detailed observations are indicated with heavy borders.

The amount of water withdrawn reJ)resents irrigation requirements for 900 acres of vegetable or citrus crops (roughly equivalent to 157 grid cells). Public water supply demands were simulated by using the same annual volume required by citrus! and distributing the pattern of water use to reflect typical utility requirements (see Figure 11/.

30

Draft -January 27,1995

Figure 13.

•

Sample drawdown conditions for a 1-in-10yeardrought event. The 1.0 foot contour lines are shown for the worst month and second worst month for each of the three water use types. Wetland celis chosen for detailed observations are indicated with heavy borders .

The amount of water withdrawn represents irrigation requirements for 900 acres of vegetable or citrus crops (roughly equivalent to 157 .9rid cells). Public water supply demands were simulated by using the same annual volume required by citrus and distributing the pattern of water use to reflect typical utility requirements (see Figure 11).

31

DRAFT - January 27, 1995

Table 7. Well Setbacks* from Wetlands (in feet) with Modeled Criteria. CITRUS ra~~_own

Criteria (Ft.)

0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50

1-in-10 _Hn~l.o. Drought Drought

No

Seasonal Recharge

9124 7159 6042 5148 4301 3640 3162 2693 2236 2062 1581 1500 1118 1118 1000

PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY

VEGETABLE 90pays

6500 4610 3041 2062 1500 1000 500

2062

IlJra~dC?wn

Cntena (Ft.)

0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.70

,uLJays Hn·'." 1-in-10 .'-In·W 'ULJays p~a~ClC?wn 1-in-10 Drought No Criteria Drought No Drought Drought Seasonal Recharge (Ft.) Seasonal Recharg'

10512 8515 7071 6500 6265 5657 5000 4472 4031 3606 3202 3000 2693 2500 2121 2000 1803

7566 5000 5000 3536 3162 2236 1803 1414 1118 1000 707 500

4610

0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30

9014 7382 5831 4528 3640 3000 2236 1803 1581 1118 707 500

6671 4717 3606 3041 2500 2236 1581 1414 1118 1000 707

3354

500

I IS taole s QUia Oe read In the aliOWIn g manner: to meet tne no more t an U.1 Tt Tor more tnan one montn aT the 1-in-10 drought yeardrawdown criterion for 900 acres of citrus, 9124 feet of separation is required between the wetland and the pumping well. To meet the criterion, no more than 0.1 feet of drawdown for more than one month during the wet season of the 1-in-10 drought year. 6500 feet of separation is required between the wetland

NOTE:

and the pumping well. Pumpage for 900 acres of citrus. 900 acres of vegetables. and equivalent volume public watersupply with Bonita Springs Utility monthly distributions.

a public water supply well 3354 foot away from the wellfield) is obtained when the criterion is changed to approximately 0.5/1/1 .. 1 o. Simulating an Extended Period with Varying Rainfall Patterns. Summary results of the rainfall analysis are presented in Appendix IV. District staff scientists and external support group members were provided with a table of monthly rainfall values for the period of record in the model area and were asked to identify six contiguous or representative years (e.g., two average years, followed by a 1-in-10 year drought year, followed by three average years) to be used to make subsequent model runs. Six years of rainfall data, from July 1970 to June 1976, were selected from the period of record at the Naples rainfall station. Figure 14 shows the characteristics of these years in terms of annual and seasonal rainfall patterns and return frequencies. Four 6-year simulations were run, one without any wells pumping, and one for each water use type. The estimated water level at each location identified in Table 7 was saved for every month of each simulation. Based on these data, model data sets were constructed for aquifer recharge and well pumpage data sets were constructed to reflect water use for 900 acres of citrus, 900 acres of vegetables and an equivalent magnitude of public water supply withdrawals. Producing Graphic Output to Compare Criteria and Assess Impacts. Programs were written to extract model output data and plot hydrographs fQr each observation cell, comparing water level conditions with and without pumping. Other

32

Draft - January 27, 1995 Figure 14. Annual and seasonal variations in rainfall at the Naples station (April 1970 to June 1976).

__--------'

17~i~----------~~--------~.----------~--------~---------;. .---l.....1-in-1O ., .~. 1· · Y 16 I ~ l-in-25 DroughtH Wet Yr· .. ,,,-- (Rule Drought' Year) ~A verage Y I -/n- 10 Droug h t~Average r----t 1-/n-25

14

l-in-l Od year~* 1--1 f- l-in-5d wet

.-J\

l-in-5w year-t-l-in-5d year l-in-5w wet avg wet l-in-5wdry l-in-l0ddry

lJV1-100ddry 12 I

.

I I

/I

II

I

l-in-5d year + - a vg Y e a r + l-in-5d year avg wet avg wet l-in-1Od wet-j l-in-l0d dry avg dry avg dry

.I~

/I

•

I

• I

11ft

1\

II

.t

II

I

1111

II

II

/1111

II

II

~

..c:: ....c::

-S010 I 1! u

:§. 81 .l!!

c:: ·iii 6 III:::

1t

\

~

'\

411

1

I

A 1 I \

1

2~

I

1

1/ l

I I

1\ .. 1I \ I U . . V'V\: I \ A I \I~ A I . \\ " 11 0.' , I, , ,VI ~ , i , , ,'Y., ,,, ,"' ,,, ,i , ,7"7, i , ,~,~1, II, ,y, ,~, ,I,, ,v. ,V, , 4/70 'If

u

7170

1/71

7/71

1/72

7172

7173

1173

1174

7/74

1/75

7175

1/76

6176

Vertical dotted lines;;;;July to June annual period used for rule making and vertical solid lines=June to May period used for determining seasonal variations. For example~ the period from July 1970through June 1971 was defined as a 1~in~2Syrdroughtfor rule making p'urposes. When this period was analy.zed in detail to determine seasonal variations, the year was dividep,-based on wet and dry seasons, into tlie p'erioas from June through November (wetseasonl and December through May (dry season). The period from June 1970 to May 1971 corresponded to a 1-in-1 a drought year (1-in-10d ,Year). The period from June 1970 to November 1970 was a "dry" wet season with a 1-in-5yr return frequency. but from November 1970 through May 1971 was a "dry' dry season with a 1-in-100yr return frequency (1-in-100d dry).

33

DRAFT - January 27,1995 desired output options were identified and tools were developed to extract and display the necessary data. Results of these simulations were illustrated with a series of hydrographs and drawdown frequency charts in Appendix V. Figures 15-17 show predicted drawdown values, based on observed rainfall at Naples, Florida from July 1970 to June 1976, at the locations representing the following selected criteria: 1) No more than 0.3 ft of drawdown for more than one month during the I-in10 drought year. 2) No more than 0.3 ft of drawdown for more than one month during the wet season of the I-in-IO drought year. 3) No more than 0.5 ft of drawdown for more than one month during the I-in10 drought year. 4) No more than 0.5 ft of drawdown for more than one month during the wet season of the I-in-IO drought year. 5) No more than 1.0 ft of drawdown for more than one month during the I-in10 drought year. 6) No more than 1.0 ft of drawdown at the end of90 days with no recharge, where irrigation withdrawals are specified as maximum monthly allocation and pws withdrawals are specified as maximum daily allocation. The drawdowns were graphed together by use type (citrus, vegetable, and public water supply). These three figures provide a visual summary of the relative changes in groundwater hydrology that occur for each type of criteria. All ofthis information was provided to the panel of wetland experts to aid them in formulating their recommendations. Sub-Project 3 - Recommending Criteria. A technical panel of external expert wetland scientists with experience relevant to resource protection in southwest Florida was created and a nationally distinguished wetlands scientist was selected to moderate the panel. Members of the panel consisted of Dr. James Gosselink (moderator); Dr. Mike Duever, Dr. Lance Gunderson, and Dr. Frank Mazzotti. Another local expert, Nigel Morris, was selected as an additional resource person. The panel was asked to recommend drawdown criteria based on the information provided by the Wetland Criteria Review Committee, personal knowledge and experience, and their expert opinion. The recommended criteria were intended to a) be implementable through the District's Regulation Department, b) give reasonable assurance of protecting wetlands, and c) be based on sound scientific principles. The final report of the panel is presented as Appendix VI. The panel decided that there was not enough direct information to conclude either that the existing level of wetland protection provided by the 90 days/no recharge regulatory guideline is allowing adverse impacts, or that the existing level is unnecessarily strict. The recommendation of the panel is to be conservative and not change the level of protection from current practice. One approach to obtain a similar level of wetland protection, which came out of the modeling studies, is to adopt different drawdown criteria based on the types of water use and anticipated water demands. In this case, the panel endorsed the three criteria the three different criteria that were recommended for citrus irrigation, vegetable irrigation and public water supply. Another approach, recommended by the SFWMD Regulation

34


Figure 15.

Water table drawdowns (July, 1970 to June, 1976) due to citrus irrigation demands, using various management criteria.

1.6

..

1.4

........

~

1.2

~

1

c:

•

"0

~ ~ 0

.8

...

wet season of 1-in-10 year

1Jo--C

O.3ft1-in-10year!,

bo···'·~

0.5

, wet season 0

I.

I

II

'.

~

I:

I

;;

I

I

"i.

~

I

.6

•

.4

t.

, "II:,:

.. ,.

0

0---0 0.3 ft,

.. .. ::

I:

p ti

I I

I: I:

....

.: Ji

ta. ,I:

6 'I::

I

,.'r!JtJ

.2

o 7/70 101701'71 4/71 7/71 10/71 1f72

4/72 7/72 10172 1173 4173 7173 10/73 1174 4/74 7/74 10f74 1/75 4175 717S 10175 1/764/766/76

~

,------------,..-_-..,,-=-

1.4

lII"" -,..

1.2

O.5ft1-in10year 1.0 It 1 . i n . l 0 y e a r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , 1.0 ft at the end of gO-days with no recharge

t\

, ,

,

,

i

I I

, ,,• ,

I I I I

I

.8

I I

.6

. :, I

.8

.6

"

~

,,

: ;1

Ii '6;60:J

I

,',

, 1-:

1

.4 .2 0 7110 101701'71 4/71 7/71 10171 1172 41n 7172 10172 1173 4173 7173 10/73 1/74 4/74 7/74 10174 1175 4'75 7/75 10175 1176 41766/76

36


Water table drawdowns (July, 1970 to June,1976) due to public water supply demands, using various management criteria.

Figure 17.

o-----c 0.3 ft, wet season of 1-in-10 year a---a 0.3 ft 1-in-10year ~ •••••o\. 0.5 ft,wet season of 1-in-10year

.8

......,.

~

g .6

:

'A-,

.~

~

c

~

o

~

.4

~

Cl .2

o 7170 10170 1171 4/71 7171 10171 1172 4172 7/72 10172 1173 4/73 7/73 10173 1174 4174 7174 10174 1175 4175 7175 10175 1/7641766176

D---o:> [J---[]

bo ••• ....

0.5ftl·;nl0year 1.0ft1-in-10year 1.0 ft at the end of gO-days with no recharge

1.2

, ......

, I

,....

iE.

"

P

I I I

.8 I

~

I ~ I I \ I

0

'0 .6

Ii\

~.

I I

~

C

\

,,

I I I

\ I

II

I

I

p

~ \

\

"'" P"

*' ~

I

~

... , P

\

\

\

~~ I

I I I I I I

I \

\0

I I

,,

I I

I I I I

I I I

~

p:I.I!!iI!I"

•

\

\

,

,/J

ill\ ~ I I I I I I

~ I I I I I I

I

I.

p

I I I

.II

lo~ \

b

I I

I I I I I

~

I I I I I

b

ru ... 0 .4

.2

o 7170 101701171

4/71 7171 10171 1172

4172 7172 10172 1/73 4173 7173 10173 1174 4/74 7/74 10174 1175

37

4/75 7175 10175 117641766176

DRAFT - January 27,1995 Department, is to make procedural changes in the analysis. In that case, a single numerical drawdown criterion, such as 11111:10, would be applied to all water uses, but applicants would be asked to adjust other operational constraints to ensure that the resulting operational drawdown conditions were equivalent to those obtained using the 90 days/no recharge criterion. The panel found insufficient evidence to establish different criteria for different kinds of wetlands. The experts further recommended that drawdown criteria be applied during the whole annual cycle, not just during the wet season. The need for sound, objective data to provide the basis for decisions on drawdown criteria was noted and several areas were suggested for additional research. Sub-Project 4 - Preparing Final Documentation. District staff in the Water resources Evaluation and Planning departments prepared this final report, incorporating all work products produced from the wetland literature review, modeling analyses and the expert panel workshop. The draft report was extensively reviewed by participating members of the working group and at least four other professional scientists within the two departments. As a SFWMD Technical Publication, the next level will involve formal review by other professionals within the agency and, if deemed appropriate, by other experts outside the agency. This report provides a permanent benchmark for technical information to assist in criteria development for the LWCPA and as an initial source of information for use in other planning areas.

38


DISCUSSION The South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) Regulation Department has applied a 90 days/no recharge numerical criterion, for aquifer drawdown under wetlands, as a guideline for issuing water use permits since the mid-1980's. The degree of protection afforded by this criterion has never been formally evaluated, and evidence of impacts to wetland systems near major permitted water uses has not been officially documented since this guideline has been used. Experts generally agree that there is presently no supportable evidence for either a more stringent or a less stringent criterion. SFWMD staff in the Regulation Department have proposed a 1/1/1:10 wetland drawdown criterion expressed in terms of severity, duration, and frequency of drought conditions. Scientists from the SFWMD Research and Planning Departments reviewed the draft rules and expressed concern that it was not clear whether the proposed criteria provided the same, less or more protection to wetlands than the existing criteria. Studies were therefore initiated to document how (based on results from the literature, modeling studies and expert opinion) the existing and proposed criteria affect hydrology and plant communities of wetlands in the Lower West Coast Planning Area of South Florida. This section includes discussions of the qualitative relationships between groundwater hydrology and wetlands and how these were treated during this analysis, studies done by other researchers (literature review) that support these relationships, and SFWMD modeling efforts that were used to develop a quantitative basis to support the regulatory decision-making process. Wetland Hydrology Hydrology is probably the single most important determinant for the establishment and maintenance of the specific types of wetlands and wetland processes (Mitsch & Gosselink, 1986). The major hydrologic factors include the total amount of available water (water budget), surface and groundwater influences and site specific characteristics such as soil conditions and hydroperiod. The analysis conducted in this investigation primarily addressed the effects of groundwater levels on wetlands. Soil characteristics were not considered directly during this study, although soil conditions can often be inferred, based on hydrology and vegetation characteristics. Water Budgets. Water budgets express the relationships between water entering and leaving a particular area. These budgets are the key component to understanding the dynamics of wetland ecology. Of the six components that represent the wetlands water budget -- rainfall, evapotranspiration, spillover, runoff, inward groundwater seepage and outward groundwater seepage -- rainfall is the dominant force in the Lower West Coast area. Where rainfall plus groundwater inflow exceeds evapotranspiration plus groundwater outflow, water will accumulate in the lowest areas. Evapotranspiration and seepage are generally the two major . losses that isolated wetlands experience naturally. Spillover of excess surface water provides a cascading effect for interconnected wetland systems. The hydrologic models provided a means to simulate relative water levels at different sites as a function of ambient groundwater conditions and characteristics and wellfield withdrawals. Rainfall data from nearby monitoring stations were incorporated directly as inputs to the model. Surface Water Influences. Surface water features such as drainage ditches, canals, lakes and ponds can affect both local and regional surface and groundwater

39

DRAFT-January 27, 1995 hydrology depending on their location, size and magnitude of water diversion. Drainage ditches lower local water tables and divert water that would otherwise pond, slowly run off to other areas or percolate to groundwater. Canals, which are deeper and wider than drainage ditches, collect water from confluent drainage ditches and transport it to other surface water bodies. Canals may also drain groundwater from the aquifers through which they are cut, and lower the regional water table. Generally, gravity fed drainage ditches and canals have a relatively constant effect on surface and groundwater hydrology, while pumped ditches and canals have a discontinuous and time-varying effect. The latter situation complicates the analysis of the effects of drainage systems on isolated wetlands hydrology. The presence of natural or manmade standing water bodies such as ponds and lakes can buffer the effects of drainage systems on local or regional hydrology via spillover or recharge, depending on the area, depth and spatial distribution of the water body. Surface water hydrology features, such as runoff and spillover were not considered as part of this analysis. These features may be a significant consideration in some areas and could provide considerable input to wetlands to mitigate the adverse effects of groundwater withdrawals. Such factors could be considered on a site-specific basis during the regulatory review process. Groundwater Influences. Groundwater impacts can occur naturally (during drought events) or can be induced by man (e.g., wellfield pumpage). Seasonal and annual variations in rainfall account for natural drought conditions in the LWCPA. Wellfields are a source of man-induced impacts on groundwater levels. Pumping of water from the ground for various uses, such as potable water supply or irrigation, creates a cone of depression centered about the wellfield. The depth and steepness of the cone are determined by the characteristics ofthe aquifer and the rate of pumping. Small wellfields with low pumping rates generally have localized impacts on surface and groundwater hydrology, while large wellfields with high pumping rates may have both local and regional impacts. Wellfield drawdowns can be relatively constant for long periods of time or fluctuate with seasonal demand. Withdrawals by large municipal wellfields have quantifiable and significant impacts on regional water tables and surface water hydroperiods. These impacts may be relatively constant throughout the year, because municipal water demands do not vary greatly. Hydrologic impacts that may result from agricultural uses occur primarily during the growing season and vary by crop type. The MODFLOW model used in this study provided the best known and available means to estimate effects of hypothetical water withdrawals on ground water levels beneath wetlands. Groundwater-Surface Water Interactions. Wetlands can be categorized by their surface and groundwater interactions. Wetlands that receive spillover from adjacent standing, tidal, or flowing water bodies are classified as riparian wetlands, while those receiving water only from direct rainfall, watershed runoff, or groundwater seepage are classified as isolated wetlands. Isolated wetlands may be further classified as perched or seepage wetlands. So-called "perched" wetlands occur in soils with low hydraulic conductivity or a confining layer between the ground surface and the water table and thus receive most of their water from direct rainfall or watershed runoff. Seepage wetlands occur in soils with relatively high hydraulic conductivity where the water table rises above the bottom of the wetland during at least some portion of the year. Ditches, lakes, ponds and canals may thus act as sources of water for adjacent wetlands under some conditions or as sinks that remove water from wetlands under other conditions. The interactions of groundwater and surface water hydrology were not considered as part of the modeling analysis and represent a limitation to this approach. The effects of groundwater levels on surface water

40

DRAFT - January 27, 1995 systems and wetlands was projected by the panel of experts, based on their personal knowledge, observations and experience. Soil Saturation. The percentage saturation of the soil is the approximate proportion of free space (between soil particles) that is occupied by water (as opposed to air). Saturation is influenced by several variables, including soil retention capacity, hydraulic conductivity, depth to groundwater, solar intensity, evapotranspiration, type of vegetation and season. Most wetland species require complete saturation of the soil with water during all or part ofthe year. Soil saturation was not considered in this analysis, although it can be inferred that soils were 100% saturated during periods when the model runs indicated that water levels were at or above land surface. Hydroperiod. The number of days per year of inundation (water standing between the high and low pool water levels) of a wetland is called the hydroperiod. Hydroperiod is determined by topography, the pattern of rainfall intensity and duration, the degree of saturation of soil, water retention capacity, soil transmissivity, and the depth to groundwater, as well as the solar intensity and the evapotranspiration rates of the various types of wetlands vegetation present. The annual hydroperiod is one factor that determines the type of wetland plant and animal species present and therefore can be used as a basis for characterization of wetlands. Wetlands that are inundated for the entire year, roughly half the year, or for only a few months are classified as permanently flooded, seasonal flooded and intermittently flooded, respectively. Hydroperiod was determined from the model runs, whenever water levels were at or above land surface. Wetland Hydrology Literature Review In spite of the above single-factor discussion of the effects of surface water and groundwater on wetlands, there is little rigorous scientific evidence from welldesigned field studies to quantify groundwater/surface water/wetlands interactions in southwest Florida. The literature search revealed that very few studies have been conducted that document natural water levels and hydroperiods within the LWCPA. The best available water level and hydroperiod information obtained for the LWCPA comes from work conducted in Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary by Dr. Michael Duever in the 1970s and work conducted in the Big Cypress Preserve and Everglades National Park by Dr. Lance Gunderson in the 1980s. While these studies provide information on hydrology of natural communities, definitive drawdown criteria could not be formulated based on this information alone. Data obtained from the literature search were synthesized by preparing tables and graphs. These tables and graphs were provided to each member of the expert panel for review before the technical workshop. The summarized information was used, in conjunction with the hydrologic model results, to evaluate potential drawdown criteria. The results of the expert panel's analysis of this information are provided in the panel final report in Appendix VI and summarized below in the section entitled, Conclusions and Recommended Criteria. Hydrogeological Models Use of Models. Many federal, state and local agencies (USGS, USEPA, USCOE, Water Management Districts and many local governments) use hydrogeological models as tools to assess groundwater withdrawal impacts. Some of those agencies also use these models to assess wetland impacts (USGS, USCOE, USEPA and WMD).

41

DRAFT-January27,1995 A model is a general term used in this context to represent a group of data that has been compiled for use in executing mathematical computer code to obtain results for interpretation. The compiled data can be used to develop both analytical and numerical solutions. The SFWMD uses numerical models (MODFLOW computer code written by the USGS) for their water supply plans and for the review of permit applications. The models are used in various ways. For example, the model can be operated under normal conditions to allow steady state and transient simulations. The model can also be run as an "impact model" by comparing the results of the simulation (e.g,. amount of drawdown) without one type of stress (i.e., wellfield pumpage) with the results obtained with the stress in place. Model Uncertainty. Use of a model in either a "steady state" or "impact model" mode does not address the uncertainty associated with the computer simulations. All models have discrepancies associated with their numerical output. Although the extent of calibration and verification varies from model to model and from agency to agency, results of all model runs can be expected to differ from actual conditions observed in the field to some extent. Very little is usually mentioned regarding the accuracy of the model output and the significance of output error for the intended application. The accuracy and precision of the modeled results depend on the information uncertainty combined with the intrinsic uncertainty of the model. The degree of error or uncertainty in a model has profound implications for its use. For example, if a particular design requires a tolerance of ± 6 inches for a specific site, but the model, as calibrated, has output error ± 2 feet, the model should not be used for that application unless a margin of safety is built into the design. On the other hand, the model design or the data collection effort could be modified to reduce the uncertainty to the tolerances needed for the application. Information uncertainty occurs due to such factors as misconceptions about the natural system, inadequate system (aquifer) data, lack of calibration points, misuse of computer code, and rounding errors. Such uncertainties can be reduced by making further measurements, improving analyses and completing a quality assurance/ quality control program. Intrinsic uncertainty is the inherent limitation of the model to accurately describe the variability that occurs within the natural system. Intrinsic uncertainty, by its nature, is independent ofthe information uncertainty, but not the reverse (Dettinger and Wilson, 1981). Experts such as Dettinger and Wilson (1981) indicate that to properly assess the intrinsic uncertainty, modelers need to apply statistical methods and generate confidence intervals, so that users and policy makers have some explicit degree of confidence in their decisions. The effects of cumulative errors are generally represented by discrepancies in the water budget of the model or by differences between maps constructed based on the modeled groundwater levels versus the actual ground water levels. The District has a quality assurance/quality control program in place to address such issues as assumptions in the model construction, lack of calibration points, misuse of computer code and rounding errors and can thus minimize information uncertainty. Calibration and verification of groundwater models reduces both information and intrinsic uncertainty to low enough levels that modeling results are considered adequate. The District does not have explicit uncertainty graphs or confidence intervals available for the existing groundwater models. The District is presently updating its Quality Assurance/Quality Control program. The new revision will inel ude statistical analysis of all groundwater models. Rainfall Data. An important finding of this investigation was that what appeared to be subtle changes in the process of completing a rainfall analysis could produce 42

DRAFT-January 27, 1995 significant changes in the statistical results. For example, 38.41 inches of rain fell at the Naples rainfall station during the period from July 1972 to June 1973. This amount was categorized statistically as a l-inl0 year drought. However, 45.78 inches of rain fell at this station during the period from June 1972 to May 1973. With only a one-month shift in time, these results indicated a l-in-5 year drought condition. Such sensitivity of the analysis to starting and ending dates, makes it highly questionable to identify a specific time window as being representative of a broad statistical category. Model Verification. Generally, the water levels simulated by the model were higher than observed water levels in the eastern (inland) portion of the study area, and lower than the values observed along the coast. These results were similar to observations made by Bennett (1992) for the Collier County model. In spite of some significant differences between observed water levels and the water levels predicted by the model, there was good agreement in the pattern of water level fluctuations, i.e., how well the changes in water levels predicted by the model simulated observed changes in water levels in the wells over time. The pattern of water level changes is the most important factor in this investigation, since the intent is to determine the relative effects of different withdrawal conditions. Basis for Using the Modeling Approach. In spite of the limitations noted above, District staff and the expert panel agreed that the use of models was the only feasible means to allow comparisons that involved a range and variety of alternative criteria. To achieve this purpose, it was necessary to consider the following questions: 1) What are the differences between the current and proposed criteria? 2) How will the proposed criteria affect wetland hydrology and ecology? 3) What tools can be provided to assist in the Regulation Department's permitting process? Modeling can help address these concerns in several ways. First, the model can be used to vary the criteria while leaving all other factors constant (e.g., rainfall, pumpage from the well, and land use type). It is rare to find a body of published scientific studies where all such factors were considered, recorded, and kept constant. Second, model output can be displayed in ways that wetland biologists and other scientists may find useful to evaluate impacts, such as in the form of hydro graphs and water level curves. Scientists can take a quick first look at the range of potential criteria, and then focus on specific criteria and their impacts on wetland plant and animal communities. The overall evaluation process is based on analysis of hydrographs, stage duration curves etc. and comparison of these data with natural hydroperiod and water level information obtained from the scientific literature. Last, any criteria that are chosen must be workable in the day-to-day regulatory process. The Regulation Department currently uses MODFLOW models to assess impacts of proposed wells on surrounding wetlands. Therefore, successfully using a MODFLOW model to compare the various criteria indicates that similar models can probably be used by permit applicants in the regulatory process.

43

DRAFT-January 27, 1995 CONCLUSIONS and RECOMMENDED CRITERIA The Wetland Criteria Review Committee panel of experts considered a range of issues and reviewed a great deal of data related to wetland hydrology and ecology relevant to the Lower West Coast of Florida. The panel's deliberations are recorded on video tape and summarized in the 25-page document, "Report of the Technical Panel on Interim Criteria to Limit the Drawdown of Aquifers for Wetland Protection," which is included as Appendix VI. The conclusions of the panel are relatively simple. The scientists decided that there is not enough direct information to conclude either that the existing level of wetland protection is allowing adverse impacts, or that the existing level is unnecessarily strict. Based on the current level of understanding of wetland processes and experiences with wetland degradation from small changes in water levels in other regions, there is a concern that the level of protection provided by existing mechanisms is insufficient. Subtle adverse impacts may be occurring and are not being detected because of inadequate monitoring programs. On the other hand, dramatic impacts would presumably have been observed and reported. The recommendation of the panel is to be conservative and not change the level of protection from current practice, unless evidence becomes available that supports a change. The criteria proposed in the draft rule involve a different approach to modeling drawdowns than is used for the current 90 days/no recharge analysis. Evaluation of the proposed criteria, based on modeling done by staff in the Planning Department, indicated to the scientists that one foot drawdowns are not equivalent between the two methods. In fact, the proposed changes would have quite different effects on different categories of users because of differences in patterns of pumpage. A similar level of wetland protection to that provided by the current 90 days/no recharge restriction can best be achieved by applying a one foot for one month during a 1-in10 year drought (1/1/1:10) criterion for citrus groves, a 0.7/1/1:10 criterion for vegetable farms and a 0.5/1/1:10 criterion for public water supplies The panel recommended that these three numbers be adopted as the new criteria. The recommended drawdown numbers were derived on the basis of the particular draft of the rule available at the time. The underlying concept of maintaining the present level of protection was clearly of more concern to the panel than exactly how this concept was implemented with particular criteria. It was noted that the required modeling procedures could be modified so that one foot drawdowns would be essentially equivalent between the old and new methods. This approach would avoid presenting the appearance that the criteria are being radically changed when they are not. The fundamental recommendation of the panel could be implemented as well by procedural changes in the analysis as by changing numerical drawdown criteria. The panel did not reject the concept that certain wetlands are more sensitive to drawdowns than others, but found insufficient evidence to establish different criteria for different kinds of wetlands. The idea that drawdowns in certain kinds of wetlands are more damaging during the wet season than during the dry season was also discussed, but received little support. The scientists recommended that drawdown criteria be applied during the whole annual cycle, not just during the wet season. A theme that ran through the entire meeting was the absence of sound, objective data needed to make decisions on drawdown criteria. Several areas were suggested for research, including differences in level of protection for different types of water use, surface water-groundwater interactions, soil characteristics and root penetration, scale effects for different size wetlands and assumptions used in hydrologic models.

44

DRAFT - January 27, 1995

REFERENCES Bennett, M.W. 1992. A three dimensional finite difference ground water flow model of western Collier County, Florida. Technical Publication 92-04. South Florida Water management District, West Palm Beach, FL. 358 pp. CH2M Hill, 1988. Hydroecology of wetlands on the Ringling-MacArthur Prepared for Sarasota County. Technical Report No.2. Dettinger, M.D. & J.L. Wilson. 1981. First order analysis of uncertainty in numerical models of groundwater flow. Water Resources Research 17:1: 149161. Environmental Science & Engineering, Inc. 1991. Hydroperiods and water level depths offreshwater wetlands in South Florida: A review ofthe scientific literature. Prepared for the South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, Florida. Gee & Jenson. 1993. Corkscrew H&H study. Environmental Element Report for the South Florida Water Management District. West Palm Beach, Florida. Helsel, D.R. and R.M. Hirsch. 1992. Statistical Methods in Water Resources. Amsterdam, Neth. Elsevier Sci. Publ. 522pp. Mitsch, W.J. & J.G. Gosselink. 1986. Wetlands. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company. Pettyjohn, W.A., J. Wagner, & T.A. Prickett. ? Uncertainty in Ground Water Transport Modeling. ? 388-410. South Florida Water Management District, 1985. Management of Water Use Permitting Information Manual, Volume III. Resource Control Department, South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL. February, 1994. South Florida Water Management District, 1994. Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan. Upper District Planning Division, South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL. June, 1995.

45

Appendix I

Results of DIALOG® Online Computer Bibliographic Search

Prepared by: Staff of the South Florida Water Management District

December 28, 1994

File

File

6S,Env.Bib. ~974-~994/Jun (c) 1994 Int. Academy at Santa Barbara S~

~715

S6 S7

~5~

FLORIDA HYDROPERIOD? OR (WATER () LEVEL?) S~ AND S6

2

44,Aquatic Sci ~ Fiaherie. Abs (c) ~994 Cambridge Sci. Abs. S~

U52

S6 S7 S9

32~8

FLORIDA HYDROPERIOD? OR (WATER () LEVEL?) S~ AND S6 WILDLIFE AND S7 COLLIER OR MONROE OR LEE OR CHARLOTTE OR S7 AND S~5

U8 7

792

S~5 S~6

~979-~994/Aug

o

HENDRY

9/ 3/6 DIALOG(R)File 44,Aquatic Sci. Fisheries Abs (c) ~994 Cambridge Sci. Abs. All res. re.erv. 00809~0

1~~-07~65

Proc. Annu. Cont. ScuChea8c. Assoc. Fish Wildl. Agencie. An evaluation ot tactora attecting nighc-light ccunca ot alligators. Presented ac,) 32. Annual Conterence Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlite Agencies Hot Springs, VA (USA) 5 Nov ~97e. Woodward.A.S.; Marion,W.R. Florida Game Fresh Water Pish COlI1IIl., 4005 S. Main St., Gainesville, FL 32601, USA , 32, 29l.-302, (1978) CONFERENCE LOCATION, Hot Springs, VA (USA) CONFERENCE YEAR, 1978 9/3/7 DIALQG(R)Pile 44,Aquatic Sci. Fisheri•• Aba (c) 1994 Cambridge Sci. Abs. All res. reaerv. 0080706 111-06960 Proc. Annu. Conf. Southeast. Assoc. Fish Wild!. Agencies Factors influencing wintering waterfowl abundance in Lake Wales, Florida. Presented at,} 31. Annual Conference Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies San Antonio, TX (USA) 9 Oct 1977. Gasaway,R.D.;

Hardin,S.;

Boward,J.

Florida Game and Fresh Water Pish Comm., Lake Wales, FL 33853, OSA , 31, 77-83,

(1977)

CONFERENCE LOCATION, San Antonio, TX (USA) 1977

CONFERENCE YEAR,

S18

4

S7 AND FLORA

18/3/3 DIALOG(R)File 44:Aquaeic Sci. Fisheries Abs (c) 1994 Cambridg. Sci. Abs. All res. r ••• rv. 0081506 111-07762 . w.e.r fluceuaeion and eb. aquaeic flora of Lak. Miccosukee. Tarver,D.P. Bur. Aquae. Plane and Conerol, Florida Dep. Nee. Resour., Tallaha •••• , PL 32303, USA J. Aquae. Plane Manage., 18, 19-23, (1980)

R...

7/3/2 DIALOG(R)File 44:Aquaeic Sci. Fi.heri•• Abs (c) 1994 Cambridge Sci. Abs. All res. r.serv. 0459647 124-12840 Populaeion seruceur., body mas., aceiviey, and orieneaeion of an aquaeic snake (Seminaerix pygaea) during a droughe Dodd, C.lI:.,Jr. Nael. Bcol . Re. . Cane., U. S . Pish and Wildl. Serv., 412 Norehea.e 16eh Ave., Room 250, Gainesville, PL 32601, USA CAN. J. ZOOL. REV. CAN. ZOOL., vol. 71, no. 7, pp. 1281-1288, 1993 7/3/3 DIALOG(R)File 44:Aquaeic Sci & Pish.ri •• Abs (c) 1994 Cambridge Sci. Abs. All res. r.serv. 0458059 124-10708 An individual-ori.need model of a wading bird n.seing colony Wolff, W.F. Inse. Bioeechnol. 3, Forschungszene. Juelich, posefach 1913, D-52425 Juelich, FRG ECOL. MODEL., vol. 72, no. 1-2, pp. 75-114, 1994 7/3/7 DIALOG(R)File 44:Aquatic Sci & Fisherie. Abs (c) 1994 Cambridg. Sci. Abs. All res. reserv. 0455525 2 - ; FR -9 N Water resources data for Florida, water year 1991. Volume 3A. Souehwese Florida surface waeer Coffin, J.E.; Fleecher, w.L. Geological Surv., Tallahas.ee, FL (USA). Waeer Resources Div . WATER-DATA REP. U.S. GEOL. SURV. 1992, 284 pp

7/3/9 DIALOG(R) File 44:Aquaeic Sci M Fisheries Abs (c) 1994 Cambrid;e Sci. Abs. All res. reaerv. 0449362 124-06702 Scueh Florida slash pine morealiey in seasonal ponds Abra1uunscn, M.G. Dep. Bicl., Bucknell Univ., Lswisbur;, PA 17837, USA FLA. SCI., vel. 54, no. 2, pp. 80-83, 1991 7/3/10 DIALOG(R)File 44:Aquaeic Sci M Fisherie. Abs (c) 1994 cambridge Sci. Ab •. All res. reserv. 0447764 124-04659; 324-02044 Regeneraeion in burned cypre.. swamp. Cccl, S.; !wel, ~.C. Dep. For., Univ. Flcrida, Gainesvill., FL 32611-0303, USA FLA. SCI., vel. 55, nc. 1, pp. 62-65, 1992

7/3/12 DIALOG(R)File 44:Aquaeic Sci M Fisherie. Abs (c) 1994 Cambridge Sci. Abs. All res. re.erv. 0444685 124-02689 Fluceuaeions in

sawgra..

and

Everglades Waeer Conservation Area hydrclogic and fire regimes Urban, N.H.;

Davis, S.M.;

caeeail

densieie.

in

2A under varying nutrient.,

Auman, N.G.

Dep. Res., Soueh Flcrida Maeer Manage. Dise., POB 24680, Mese Palm Beach, FL 33416-4680, USA AQOAT. BOT., vel. 46, nc. 3-4, pp. 203-223, 1993

7/3/14 DIALOG(R)File 44:Aquaeic Sci M Fisheries Abs (c) 1994 cambridge Sci. Abs. All res. reaerv. 0442431 123-21200; 324-00941 Delineacicn of spaeial boundaries in a weeland habitat. Bctts, P.S.; McCcy, E.D. Dep. Bicl. Univ. Scueh Flcrida, Tampa, FL 33620, OSA BIODIVERS. CONSERV., vcl. 2, nc. 4, pp. 351-358, (1993).

7/3/17 DrALOG(R)File 44:Aqua~ic Sci & Fisheries Ahs (c) 1994 Cambridge Sci. Ahs. All r~s. reserv. 0436590

123-14421; 323-06207 of mosqui~o conerol water maoagemen~ on soil chemistry, hydrology, and fi8h/crus~acean microhabitat associations on upper marsh flats on rim-managed impoundments and ~idal marshes. Rey, J .R.; Filmore, R.G. Florida Medical I!Dtomology La!:>., Vero Beach (OSA) 1990., 107 pp E~fece.

7/3/19 DIALOG(R)File 44:Aquatic Sci & Fisheries Aha (c) 1994 Cambridge Sci. Ahs. All res. reserv. 0430893 123-13396; 323-05805 Proceedings of ~he Annual Mee~ing, Aquatic Plan~ Control Research Program (25~h) held in Orlando, Florida on 26-30 November 1990.; 25. Annu. Meet., Aquatic Plane Control Research Program; Orlando, FL (USA); 26-30 Nov 1990 . Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Stn. , Vicksburg, MS (USA) . Environmencal Lab. MISC. PAP. U. S. ARMY ENG. WATERWAYS EXP. STH. CONFERENCE LOCATION: Orlando, FL (OSA) CONFERENCE YEAR: 1990 , 1991., 321 pp

7/ 3 / 25 DIALOG(R)File 44:Aquatic Sci & Fisheries Aha (c) 1994 Cambridge Sci. Ahs. All res. reserv. 0397345 122-15645 Evapotranspiration from Florida pondcypress swamps. Ewel, K.C . ;Smith, J.E. Dep. For., Oniv. Florida, ~18 Newins-Ziegler Hall, Gainesville, FL 32611-0303, USA WATER RESOOR. BOLL., vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 299-304, (1992). File 117:Waeer Resour.Abs. 1968-1994/Mar (c) formst only 1994 Dialog Info.Svcs. Sl S6 S7

16858 10942 1036

FLORIDA HYDROPERIOD? OR (WATER() LEVEL?) Sl AND S6

S8 S9 S15 S16

4162 52 1780 36

WILDLIFE WILDLIFE AND S7 COLLIER OR LEE OR MONROE OR S7 AND S15

OR GLADES

CHARLOTTE

16/3/2 W93-02798 651081 Assessment of Hydrogeologic Conditons with Emphasis on Water Quality and Wastewater Injection, Southwest Sarasoata and West Charloete Counties, Florida

Hutchinson, C. B., Geological Survey, Tampa, FL. ,Water resources Division. Available from U.S.G.S., Books and open-file ·reports section, Box 25425, Denver, CO 80225. USGS Water-supply Paper 2371, 1992. 80 p., 38 fig., 9 tab., 63 ret., append., Prepared. in cooperation wiCh the Southwest Florida Water Management District. 16/3/4 DIALOG(RlFile 117,Water Resour.Abs. (cl format only 1994 Dialog Into.Svca. All rta. reserv. 641594 W92-05330 Simulation of the Circulation,

Flushing,

Effects

of

Proposed

Tide

Gates

on

and Water-Quality in Residential Canals,

Cape Coral, Florida Goodwin, C. R. Geological Survey, Tallahassee, FL. Water Resources Div. Available from Books and Open File Report Section, USGS, Box 25425, Denver, CO 80225. USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 91-237, Dec 1990. 43p, 30 fig, 4 tab, 29 ref.,

16/3/7 DIALOG(RlFile 117,Water Resour.Abs. (cl format only 1994 Dialog Info.Svcs. All rts. reserv. 606654 W89-08741 Surficial Aquifer System in Eastern Lee County, Florida Boggess, D. H.; Watkins, F. A.

.

Geological Survey. Tallahassee, FL. Water Resources Div.

Available from Books and Open File Report Section, USGS, Box 25425, Denver, CO 80225. Water Resources Investigations Report 85-4161, 1986. 59p, 17 fig, 7 tab, 20 ref., 16 / 3/8 DIALOG(RlFile 117,Water Resour.Abs. (cl format only 1994 Dialog Into.Svcs. All rts. reserv. 589655 W88-03032 Hydrogeologic Conditions and Saline-Water Intrusion, Cape Coral,

flOrida, 1978 - Bl. Fiezpaerick, D. J. Geological Survey, Fore Meyers, FL. Water Resources Div. Denver, co Available trOlll USGS, OFSS, Box 25425, 80225. USGS waeer-Resources Investigations Report 85-4231, 1986. 31 p, 19 tig, 9 ret., 16/3/9 DIALOG(R)Pile 117:Water a..our.Aba. (c) tormat only 1994 Dialog Into.Svcs. All res. re.erv. 166363 W84-00945 Records ot Seleceed We1ls and Li thologic Logs ot Tese Holes, Hendry Couney and Adjacene Areas, Plorida Fish, J. B.; Causaras, C. R.; O'connell, T. H. Geological Survey, Tallahassee, FL. water Resources Div. USGS Open-File Repore .83-134, 1983. 116 p, 5 Pig, 2 Tab, 3 Ret., 16 / 3/10 DIALOG(R)File 117:Water Resour.Abs. (c) tormae only 1994 Dialog Into.Svca. All rea. reaerv. 166354 W84-00935 Hydrologic Data FrOlll Monieoring ot Saline-waeer Intrusion in ehe Cape Coral Area, Lee Couney, Plorida Fiezpatrick, D. J. Geological Survey, Tallahassee, FL. Waeer Resources Div. Available trom the OPSS, USGS, Lakewood CO 80225, Price: $6.75 in paper copy, $3.50 in microtiche. USGS Open-File Repore 82-772, 48 p, 19 Fig, 7 Tab, 2 Ret., 16/3/11 DIALOG(R)File 117:Waeer Re.our.Abs. (c) tormae only 1994 Dialog Into.Svca. All res. reserv. 166233 w84-00803 Semiannual Water-Level and Poeentiometric Contours ot Two Waeer-Yielding Zones in ehe Surticial AqUiter, 1975-79, Naples, Florida Buchmiller, R. C. Geological Survey, Tallahassee, FL. water Resources Div. USGS Open-File Repore 82-120, 1982. 2 Maps, 25 Fig, 2 Tab, 6 Ref. ,

16/3/12 DIALOGCR)F11e 117:Waeer Resour.Aba. (c) tormae only 1994 Dialog Into.Svca. All res. reserv. 161339 W83-00114 Deep Areesian AqUifers ot Sanibel County, Florida Boggess, D. H.; O'COnnell, T. H.

and Capeiva

Islands, Lee

Levels in· the Fakahatchee Strand. Swayze, L. J . MePherson, B. F. Geolog1cal Survey. Tallahassee. Available from the Nacional Springfield. VA 22161 as PB-273 copy. A01 in microfiche. Geologica1 Survey Wacer-Resources 1977. 19 p. 9 fig. 1 tab. 7 r.f .•

Collier County, Florida FL. Water Resources Div. Technical Informacion Service. 670. Price codes: A02 in paper Invescigations 77-61. SepCember

16/3/17 D!ALOG(R)File 117:Water Resour.Aba, (c) format only 1994 Dia10g Info.Svcs. All rCs. reserv. 120031 W78-02921 Monroe Contractors Bquipment, Incorporated (Liability in Diverting Water Courses) 395 N.Y.S 2d 829-31 (App. Div. 1977) .•

v.

State

16 / 3/18 D!ALOG(R)File 117:Water Resour.Aba. (c) format only 1994 Dia10g Info.SvC8, All rts. reserv. 119543 W78-02434 Sa1ine-Wat.r Intrusion Relat.d to Well Construction in Lee County, Florida Boggess, D. Ho; Missimer, T. M.; O'Donnell, T. H. Available from che Nacional Technica1 Information Service. Springfield. VA 22161 as PB-273 012. Price codes: A03 in paper copy, A01 in microfiche. Water-Resources Investigations 77-33, Sept.mber 1977. 29 P. 10 fig, 4 Cab. 7 ref., 16/3/19 DIALOG(R)File 117:Water Resour.Abs. (c) format only 1994 Dialog Info.Svcs. All rta. reserv. 117307 W78-00198 Municipal Wat.r Supplies in Lee County, Florida. 1974 O'Oonnell. T. H. . Geological Survey. Tallahas •••• FL. Water Resources Div. Open-file report 77-277. May 1977. 96 p, 30 fig, 23 cab, 17 ref.,

16/3/20 D!ALOG(RIFile 117:Water Resour.Abs. ec) format only 1994 Dialog Info.Svcs. All rts. reserv. 114116 W77-10014 Fluctuations of Ground-Water Levels in Lee Councy, Florida, In 1975 Wacer Year

Geological Survey. Tallahassee. PL. Water Resources Div. Available from the OFSS. USGS Box 25425. Fed. Ctr. Denver. CO 80225. Price: $4.50 in paper copy. $3.50 in microfiche. Open-File Report 82-253. 1982. 32 p, 11 Fig, 4 Tab. 7 Ref., 16/3/13 DlALOG(RIFile 117:Water Resour.Ab •. (cl , format only 1994 Dialog Info.Svcs. All rts. reserv. l57995 W82-03973 Topographic Map of Golden Gate Estates, Collier County. Florida Jurado, A. Geological Survey, Miami. PL. Water Resources Div. Available from OFSS. OSGS Box 25425, Fed. Ctr. Denver. CO 80225. Paper copy $7.00. Microfiche $1.00. Geological Survey Open-File Repore 81-1073. 1981. 2 Plates .• 16 / 3/14 DIALOG(RIFile 117:Water Resour.Abs. (cl format only ' 1994 Dialog Into.Svcs. All rts. reserv. 150525 W81-02699 Water-Resources Investigations. Collier County, Florida Klein. H. Geological Survey, Tallahassee. PL. Water Resources Div. Available from the OFSS, USGS Box 25425. Fed. Ctr. Denver CO 80225. Price: $4.25 in paper copy. $3.50 in microfiche. Geological Survey Open-File RepOrt 80-l207, 1980. 29 p, 15 Fig. 17 Ref . •

16/3/l5 DIALOG(RIFile 117:Water Resour.Abs. (cl format only 1994 Dialog Info.Svcs. All res. reserv . 135713 W79-05606 Record of Wells in the Floridan Aquifer in Dade and Monroe Counties, Florida Beaven, T. R.; Meyer, F. W. Geological Survey, Tallahassee, FL. Macer Resources Div. Geological Survey open-file report 78-88l, October 1978. 30 p, 5 fig. 9 tab, 9 ref .• 16 / 3/16

DIALOG(RIFile ll7:Water Resour.Abs. (c) 'format only 1994 Dialog Info.Svcs. All rts. reserv. 121358 W78-04249 The Effect of

the

Faka

Union

Canal

System

on

Water

O'Donnell, T. H. Geological Survey, Tallahassee, Fla. Macer Resources Div . Open-file report 76-B54, 1977. 77 p, 60 fig, 7 tab, 3 ref., 16/3/21 OIALOG(RIFile 117:Water Resour.Abs. (cl format only 199. Dialog Info.Svcs. All rts. reserv. 112486 W77-0B380 Report on Water Rescurces problema of Western Collier County. Florida a8 Affected by the GAC Corporation's Canal System in Its Golden Gate Development Project Maloney, F. E.

Florida Univ., Gainesville. ColI. of Law. Available from Eastern Water Law Center, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611. Price $1 .• 0. In: Phase 1 Golden Gat .. Estate. Redevelopment Study Collier Co., Florida, p M-l to M- 28 (June 1975 I . , 16/3/22 OIALOG(RIFile 117:Water Re.our.Abs. (c) format only 1994 Dialog Info.Svcs. All rts. reserv. 102992 W76-12801 FLUCTOATIONS OF GROUND-WATER LEVELS IN LEE COUNTY, FLORmA, IN 1974 MISSIMER, T. M.i O'DONNELL, T. H. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, TALLAHASSEE, FLA. OPEN-FILE REPORT FL-75008, 1976. 75 p, 40 FIG, 7 TAB, 4 REF., 16/3/23 DIALOG(RIFile 117:Water Resour.Ahs. (c) format only 1994 Dialog Info.Svcs. All res. reserv. 102155 W76-11676 APPRAISAL OF THE WATER RESOURCES OF CHARLOTTE COUNTY, FLORmA SUTCLIFFE, H. JR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, TALLAHASSEE, FLA. FLORIDA BUREAU OF GEOLOGY, TALLAHASSEE, REPORT OF INVESTIGATIONS NO 78, 1975. 53 p, 18 FIG, 13 TAB, 24 REF., 16/3/24 DIALOG(RIFile 117:Water Rescur.Ahs. (c) format only 1994 Dialog Info.Svcs. All res. reserv. 09661B W76-0392B CORKSREW SANCTOARY: USE OF THE MARKET FOR PRESERVATION INGLE, B. J. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, BOSTON, MASS. ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS, VOL 3, NO 4, P 647-686 (1974). 40 P, 53

REF . •

16/3/25 DIALOG(R)File 117:Water Resour.Abs. (e) format only 1994 Dialog Into.Svc •. All res. r ••• rv. 094791 W76-04403 SUMMARY OF HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS IN COLLIER COCNTY, FLORIDA, 1974 MCCOY, B. J. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, 'l'At.I-AllASSn, FLA. OPEN-FILE REPORT PL-75007, 1975. 103 P, 11 FIG, 12 REF., 16/3/26 DIALOG(R)F1l. 117:Waeer R•• our.Abs. (e) format only 1994 Dialog Into.Svc •. All re •. r ••• rv. 090661 W75-09260 COLLIn COCNTY WATER MIUIlIGBMENT ORDINlINCE ORDINlINCE NO. 74-50, COLLIn COCNTY, FLORIDA, SEC. 1 TERU 2, DECEMBER 1974. 28 P., 16/3/27 DIALOG(R)F1le 117:Waeer Rssour.Abs . (e) format only 1994 Dialog Into .Svcs. All re •. re.erv. 087954 W75-09716 SUMMARY OF HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS IN COLLIER COCNTY, FLORIDA, 1973 MCCOY, B. J. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, TALLAllASSBE, FLA. OPEN-FILE REPORT PL 47030, 1974. 99 P, 13 FIG, 12 REF, APPEND., 16/3/28 DIALOG(R)File 117:Waesr Resour.Abs. (e) format only 1994 Dialog Info.Sves. All rea. re.erv. 086905 W75-08517 SALINE GROUND-WATER RESOURCES OF LIllI COCNTY, FLORIDA BOGGESS, D. B. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, 'l'A1,!·l\BASSn, FLA. OPEN-FILE REPORT PL 74-247, 1974. 62 P, 10 FIG, 5 TAB, 7 REF, APPEND. ,

16/3/29 DIALOG(R)Fils 117:Water Resour.Abs. (e) formae only 1994 Dialog Info.Svcs. All res. reserv. 081177 W75-03164 FLUCTUATIONS OF THE WATER TABLE IN LEE COCNTY, FLORIDA, 1969-1973 MISSIMER, T. M.; BOGGESS, D. B. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, TALLAIIASSEE, FLA.

OPEN-FILE REPORT FL 74019, 1974 . 41 p, 16 FIG, 4 TAB, 3 REF., 16/3/30 DIALOG(R)File 117:Wacer Resour.Abs. (e) formac only 1994 Dialog Info.Sves. All res. reserv. 076681

W74-12071 SHALLOW FRESH-WATER SYSTEM OF SANIBEL ISLAND, LEE COUNTY, FLOR.IDA, WI'l'B EMPHASIS ON THE SOURCES AND EFFECTS OF SALINE WATER BOGGESS, D. H. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, TALLAIIASSEE, FLA. OF GEOLOGY, TALLAIIASSEE REPORT OF FLORIDA BUREAU INVESTIGATION NO 69, 1974. 52 p, 23 FIG, 2 TAB, 3 REF., THE

16/3/31 DIALOG(R)F11e 117:Wacer Resour.Abs. (e) formac only 1994 Oialog Info.Svc•. All rts. reserv. 067480 W74-02622 SUMMARY OF HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIOA, 1972 MCCOY, J. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, TALLAHASSEE, FLA. OPEN-FILE REPORT 73022, 1973. 118 P, 11 FIG, 8 REF, APPEND . , 16/3 / 32 OIALOG (R)F11e 117:Wacer R.esour.AbB. (e) formac only 1994 Oialog Info.Sves. All rts. reserv. 065291 W74-00329 SALINITY STtlOIES IN EAST SOOTllEASTERN OADA COUNTY, FLORIOA HULL, J. E.; HEYER,

GLADES

AGRICULTURAL AREA,

F. W.

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, TALLAHASSEE, FLA. OPEN-FILE REPORT 73005, 1973. 84 P, 20 FIG, 2 TAB, 18 REF., 16/3/33 OIALOG (R)File 117:Water Resour.Abs . .(e ) format only 1994 Oialog Info.Sves. All rts. res.rv. 064306 W73-14996 APPRAISAL OF THE WATER RESOURCES OF CllARLOTTE COUNTY, FLORIOA SUTCLIFFEE, B. JR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, TALLAHASSEE, FLA. OPEN-FILE .REPORT 73010, 1973. 61 P, 18 FIG, 13 T.AB, 23 REF., 16 / 3/ 34 OIALOG(R)File 117:Wacer Resour.Abs. (e ) formac only 1994 Oialog Info.Sves. All res. reserv.

048599 W72-14359 HYDROLOGY OF WESTERN COLLIER COON'l"l, FLORIDA MCCOY, J. GEOLOGICAL StlRVEY, TALLAIIASSEE, FLA. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OPEN-FILE REPORT (72018), 1972. 61 P, 11 FIG, 3 TAB, 9 REF., 16/3/35 DIALOG(R)File 117:Watar Resour.Abs. (e) format only 1994 Dialog Info.Svcs. All rts. resarv. 041607 W72-07735 HYDROLOGIC EFFECTS SOtlTllEASTERN FLORIDA

OF

WATER

CONTROL

AND

MANAGEMENT

IN

LEACH, S. D.; ltLEIN, H.; IIAMPTON, E. R.

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, TALLAIIASSEE, FLA. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF IIllTtlRAL RESOURCES, BUREAU OF GEOLOGY REPORT OF INVESTIGATIONS, NO 60, 1972. 115 P, 47 FIG, 12 TAB, 24 REF. ,

16/3/36 DIALOG(R)File 117:Water Rasour.Abs. (e) format only 1994 Dialog Info.Svc •. All rts. reserv. 000504 W68-00542 GROUND-WATER RESOtlRCES DATA OF CIIARLOTTE, DE SOTO, AND HARDEE COUNTIES, FLORIDA KAUFMAN, M. I.; DION, N. P. U S GEOLOGICAL StlRVEY. FLORIDA DIV OF GEOL INFORM CIRC, NO 53, 24 P, 1968. 4 FIG, 4 TAB, 8 REF., 9/ 3/2 DIALOG(R)File 117:Water Resour.Abs. (c) format only 1994 Dialog Info.Svcs. All rts. reserv. 626766 W91-03441 Salt Marsh Mitigation: An Example of the Process of Balancing Mosquieo Ccncrol, Natural Resource, and Development Interests O'Bryan, P. D.; Carlson, D. B.; Gilmore, R. G. Indian River Mosquito Control District, Vere Beach, FL~ Florida Scientist FLSCAQ, Vol. 53, No.3, P 189-203, Sunner 1990. 4 fig, 2 tab, 17 ref., 9/3/3 DIALOG(R)File 117:Water Resour.Abs. (e) format only 1994 Dialog Info.Svcs. All rts. reserv. 622248 W90-10929 Use of Isolated Wetlands in Florida for Stormwater Treatment McArthur, S. H.

Florida Land Resources Deparcmenc/Associace, Wat.er Suit.e 700, Tampa, and Engineering, One Norch Dale Mabry, Design FL. IN: Weclands : Concerns and successes. proceedings ot a Symposium held Sepcember 17-22, 1989, Tampa, Florida. American Wacer Resources A8sociacion, Bechesda, Maryland. 1989 . p 185-193, 6 ref.,

9/3/13

117:Wacer Resour.Ahs. (c) tormac only 1994 Dialog Info.Svcs. All ns. reserv.

D~(R)File

112486 W77-08380 Report on Wacer Resource. Problems of Western Collier County, Florida as Affected by che GAC Corporation'. Canal Syscem in Its Golden Gace Development projecc Maloney, F. E. Florida Oniv., Gainesville. Coll. of Law. Available tram Eaaeern Waeer Law Center, Oniversiey ot Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611. Price $1.40. In: Pha.e 1 Golden Gate Escat •• Redevelopment Study Collier Co., Florida, p M-1 Co M-28 (June 1975).,

9/3/1.4

D~(R)File

117:Water Re.our.Ah•. (c) tormat only 1994 Dialog Info.Svcs. All ns. r.serv.

100584 W76-10046 ECOSYSTEMS ANALYSIS OF THE BIG CYPRESS SWAMP AND ESTOATIES CARTER, H. R.; BORNS, L. A.; CAVINDER, T. R.; DUGGER, R. R . ; FORE, P . L. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, ATHENS, GA. SURVEILLANCE AND ANALYSIS DIV. AVAILABLE FROM THE NATIONAL TECBNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE, SPRINGFIELD, VA 22161, AS PB-233 070, $10.75 IN PAPER COPY, $2.25 IN MICROFIClIB. SOtlTH FLORIDA ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT: ECOLOGICAL REPORT NO . DI-S"P-74-51, JUNE 1973, 375 P, 40 TAB, 75 FIG, 95 REF. ,

9/3/15 D~(R)File

117:Water R.sour . Abs. (c) formac only 1994 Dialog Info.Svcs. All ns. reserv.

096618 W76-03928 CORKSREW SANCTUARY: OSE OF THE MARKET FOR PRESERVATION INGLE, B. J. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, BOSTON, MASS. ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS, VOL 3, NO 4, P 647-686 (1974) . 40 p, 53 REF. ,

9/3/23 DIALOG(R)File 117:Water Resour.Abs . (e) format only 1994 Dialog Info.Svca. All rts. reserv. 083755 W75-05742 WATER MANAGBMEN"l': THE KEY TO FISH AND WILDLIFE VALUES IN SOUTH FLORIDA CROWDER, J. P. BUREAU OF SPORT FISBERIES AND WILDLIFE, ATLANTA, GA. AVAILABLE PROM THE NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE SPRINGFIELD VA 22161, AS PB-231 653, $ 3.25 IN PAPER COPY, $2.25 IN MICROFICEE. ECOLOGICAL REPORT NO DI-SFEP-74-18, FEBRUARY 1974. 8 P. ,

9/3/24 DIALOG(R)File 117:Water Re.our.Abe. (e) format only 1994 Dialog Info.Svc •. All rta. re.erv. 083751 W75-05737 A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF WATER LEVELS ON VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES OF LOXAHATCHEE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, FLORIDA HAGENBUEL, W. W.; THOMPSON, R.; RODGERS, D. P. BOEARU OF SPORT FISBERIES AND WILDLIFE, ATLANTA, GA. AVAILABLE PROM THE NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERIVCE AS PB-231 611, $3.25 IN PAPER COPY, $2.25 IN MICROFICEE. ECOLOGICAL REPORT NO DI-SFEP-74-20, FEBRUARY 1974. 29 P. 17 FIG, 5 TAS , 17 REF . , 9 / 3 / 26 DIALOG(R)File 117 : Water Resour.Aba. (e) format only 1994 Dialog Info.5vca. All rts. reserv. 076273

W74.-1.1. 727 lJTl;hIZlI.TiON 011 REMOTELY-SENSED

DATA IN THE MANAGEMENT OF INLiINI:i'

WE'l"CINDS

CARTER, v.; SMITH, D. G. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, WASHINGTON, D. C. AVAILABLE PROM THE NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE, SPRINGFIELD, VA 22161, AS N73-33314, PRICE $3 . 00 PRINTED COPY; $2 . 25 MICROFICEE. CONTRACT REPORT FOR NASA, 1973. 14 p, 9 FIG, 10 REF. NASA CONTRACTS NAS 5-21752 AND NAS272.,

9/ 3/39 DIALOG(R)File 117:Water Resour.Aba.

(c) tormat only 1994 Dialog Into.Svcs . All res. reserv. 045723 Cl!IITRAL

W72-11173 AND SOO'1'!lKRtl FLORIDA FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT (DJtA!i'T

1!NVnOIIMI!N'rll! IMPAer 9'1'A'l'BMBm'> ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, JACltSONVILLE, FLA.

AVAILABLE FROM THE NATIONAL TECHNICAL INPORMATION SERVICE AS PB-200 3420, $3.00 IN PAPER COPT, $0.95 IN MICROFICHE. MAY 1971. 130 p, 1 MAP.,

9/3/47 DIALOG(R)Pile 117:Water Resour.Aba. (c) tormat only 1994 Dialog Into.Svcs. All rea. re.erv. 015434 W70-06287 SOME EFFECTS OF THE ItISSIMMEB R.IVER CIIANNIILIZATION ON THE FISHERY RESOURCE BUNTZ , JON REPORT TO FLORIDA GAME AND PISH COI9!ISSION MAY 1969. 11 P, 14 REF . , File

44:Aquatic Sci. Fisheries Aba (c) 1994 Cambridge Sci. Aba.

1979-1994/Aug

7 / 3/ 31 DIALOG(R)File 44:Aquatic Sci. Pisheries Abs (c) 1994 Cambridge Sci . Aba. All rea . reserv. 0376332 121-19715; 322-00833 Sawgrass (Cladium jamaicense ) survival. in a regl..,. of tire and flooding. Herndon, A.;Gunderaon, L .• Stenberg, j. Dep. Bot., Louisiana State Oniv . , Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA WETLANDS, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 17-28, (1991). 7/ 3 / 32 DIALOG(R)Pile 44 :Aquatic Sci. Pisheries Abs (c) 1994 cambridge Sci. Ab•. All rea. reserv. 0369457 221-04135; 321-04222 Water resources data tor Florida, water year 1989. Volume 3A. Southwest Florida surtace water. Geological Surv. , Tallahassee, FL (USA). Water Resources Div. WATER-DATA REP. U.S. GEOL. SURV . 1990 . , 319 pp

7/3/33 DIALOG(R)File 44:Aquacic Sci. Fisheries Abs (c) 1994 Cambridge Sci. Abs. All res. reserv. 0369451 221-04127; 321-04214 Wacer resources daca tor Florida. vacer year 1989. Volume 2B. SouCh Florida ground water. Haire, W.J.jLieez, C. Geological Surv.. Tallahassee. FL (USA). Water Resources Div . WATER-DATA REP. U. S. GEOL. StrRV . .. 1990.. 409 pp 7/3/34 DIALOG(R)File 44:Aquacic Sci. Fisheries Abs (c) 1994 Cambridg. Sci . .Abs. All rts. re •• rv. 0369450 221-04126; 321-04213 Wacer resources daca for Florida. vater year 1989. Volume 2A. South Florida surtace wacer. Haire, W.J.;Priee, C. Geological Surv .• Tallaha••••• FL (USA). Water Re.ources Div. WATER-DATA REP. U.S. GEOL. StrRV . , 1990 .,

214 pp

7/ 3/35 DIALOG(R)File 44:Aquaeic Sci' Fish.ries Abs (c) 1994 Cambridge Sci. Abs. All rts. r •• erv. 0369441 221-04115; 321-04203 Waeer resources daca tor Florida. wacer year 1989. Volume 3B . Southwest Florida ground water. Geological Surv .• Tallahassee. FL (USA). Water Resources Div. WATER-DATA REP. O.S. GEOL. StrRV. • 1990.. 336 pp

7/3/42 DIALOG (R)File 44:Aquatic Sci & Fisheries Abs (c) 1994 Cambridge Sci. Abs. All rts. reserv. 0347385 121-06795 Waeerbird use Of coastal impoundments and managemenc implicacions in ..Sasc-Central Florida. Breininger. D.R.;Smith. R.B. Bionecics Corp. • NASA Biomed. Oper. and Res. Off.. I:ennedy Space Cent .• FL 32899. OSA WETLANDS. vol. 10. no. 2. pp. 223-241. (1990). 7 / 3/43 DIALOG(R)File

44:Aquacic Sci & Fisheries Abs

(c) 1994 Cambridge Sci. Abs. All rts. reserv. 0346516 121-05744 Graminoid C~lnity composition and structure within tour BveLglades mana9~t areas. wooc1,- J .M. ,"ranaer, G ••• Dep. Wildl. and Range Sci., llniv. Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA

WETLANDS, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 127-149, (1990).

7/3/44 DIALOG(R)File 44:Aquatic Sci. Fieheri•• Abe (c) 1994 Cambridge Sci. Abs. All rt •. re.erv. 0344768

221-00876

'l::Unt!. analySi. ot Lak. Parker. etage .AZ14 relation to hydro:tcg>:c!. Cactorll" 1950-86, Lakeland, Florida. Henderson, S.E.;Lcpez, M.A. 0666467t

va=ou8

WATER RESOUR. INVEST. U. S. GI!OL. SURV. , 1989., 26 pp

7/3/53 DIALOG(R)File 44:Aquatic Sci. Fi.herie. Ab. (c) 1994 cambridge Sci. Abs. All rts. re.erv. 0328025 120-17178 Nesting success ot five ciconiiform species in relation to water conditions in the Plorida Everglades. Frederick, P.C.;Collopy, M.W. Dep. Wildl. and Range Sci., 118 Newins-Ziegler Hall, Oniv. Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-0304, USA AUK, vol. 106, no. 4, pp. 625-634, (1989).

7/3/58 DIALOG(R)File 44:Aquatic Sci. Fisheries Ab. (c) 1994 Cambridge Sci. Ab•• All. rts. reserv. 0318755 120-10183 Movements and home ranges to Plorida sandhill cranes. Bennett. A.J. Georgia Coop. Fish and Wildl. Res. llnit, Sch. Resour., Univ. Georgi·. , Athens, GA 30602, USA J. WILDL. MANAGE., vol . 53, no. 3, pp. 830-836, (1989).

P~r.

7/3/60 DIALOG(R)File 44,Aquacie Sei ~ Fisheries Abs (e) 1994 Cambridge Sei. Abs. All rCs. reserv. 0306713 120-01245 Sediment, waeer level and water temperature characteristics of Florida Bay's grass-eovered mud banks. Symposium on Florida Bay, a Subcropical Lagoon EVerglades Nacional Park and Miami, FL (USA) 1-5 Jun 1987 Holmquisc, J.G.; Powell, G.V.N.; Sogard, S.M. Dep. Biol. Sei., Florida Scace Univ., Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA BULL. MAR. SCI., vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 348-364, (1989). CONFERENCE LOCATION, EVerglades NaCional park and Miami, FL (USA) CONFERENCE YEAR, 1987 7/3/61 DIALOG(R)File 44,Aquacie Sei ~ Fisheries Ab. (e) 1994 Cambridge Sei. Abs. All r t •. r •••rv. 0306433 120-00940; 220-00580 Physieal and environmencal characteriscics of Florida Bay wich emphasis on mud banks. Symposium on Florida Bay, a Subcropieal Lagoon Everglades National Park and Miami, FL (USA) 1-5 Jun 1987 Powell, G.V.N.; Holmquisc, J.G.; Sogard, S.M. Nacl . Audubon Soe. Res. Dep. , 115 Indian Mound Trail, Tavernier, FL 33070, USA BULL. MAR. SCI., vol. 44, no. 1, p. 522, (1989). CONFERENCE LOCATION, Everglades Nacional Park and Miami, FL (USA) CONFERENCE YEAR, 1987 7 / 3/ 62 DIALOG(R)File 44,Aquacic Sei ~ Fisheries Abs (e) 1994 Cambridge Sei. Abs. All rcs. r •• erv. 0305505 219-08649 Groundwater managemenc on barrier islands. Symposium on Coascal Wacer Resourees Wilmington, NC (USA) (1988) Bryson, H.C. Roy F. Wescon, Ine., 5301 Cencral Ave., N.E., Suice 1000, Albuquerque, NM 87108, USA TECH. PUBL. sn. AM. WATER RESOUR. ASSOC. PROCEEDINGS OF THE SYMPOSIUM ON COASTAL WATER RESOURCES. CONFERENCE LOCATION, Wilmingcon, NC (USA) CONFERENCE YEAR, 1988 Hoban, T.J. ads. Lyke, W.L.; , 1988., pp. 561-574 7/3/63 DIALOG(R)File 44,Aquacie Sei & Fisheries Abs (e) 1994 Cambridge Sei . Abs. All rts. reserv.

0304133 119-25474 Response of pondcypress applicaeion. . Brown, S.;

groweh

races

eo

sewage

effluenc

van Peer, It.

Dep. For., Univ. Illinois, 110 Mumford Ball, 1301 W. Gregory, Urbana, IL 61801, USA WETLANDS ECOL. MANAGE., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 13-20, (1989)·

7/3/66 DIALOG(R)File 44:Aquaeic Sci. Fisheries Abs (c) 1994 Cambridge Sci. Abs. All res. reserv. 0293892 119-15700; 219-05639 A simulaeion model of hydrology and nueriene dynamics in weelands. Brown, M.T. Cene. Weelands, Oniv. Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA COMPtlT. ENVIRON. ORBAN SYST., vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 221-237, (1988) .

7/3/75 DIALOG(R)File 44:Aquatic Sci & Fisheries Abs (c) 1994 Cambridge Sci. Abs. All rcs. reserv. 0291933 119-15351 Effect of swamp size on growth rates of cypress (Taxodium distichum ) crees. Ewel, k.C.; Wickenheiser. L.P. 908 Oak Ave., Woodland, CA 95695, USA AM. MIOL. NAT., vol. 120, no. 2, pp. 362-370, (1988). 7/3/76 DIALOG(R)File 44:Aquatic Sci. Fisheries Abs (c) 1994 Cambridge Sci. Abs. All rcs. reserv. 0289698 119-13486 Habitat use by wading birds in a suberepical estuary: Implicaeions of hydrography. Powell, G.V.N. Omi thol. Res. Unit, Nael. Audubon Soc., 115 Indian Mound Trail, Tavernier, FL 33070, USA AOIC., vol. 104, no. 4, pp. 740-749, (1987). 7/3/77 DIALOG(R)File 44:Aquaeic Sci & Fisheries Abs (e) 1994 Cambridge Sci. Abs. All res. reserv.

0286393 119-10672 The distribution and abundance of herbaceous angiosperms in west-central Florida marshes. Botts, P.S.; Cowell, B.C. Dep. Biol., Univ. South Florida, Tampa, FL 33620, USA AQUAT. BOT., vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 225-238, (1988).

7/3/85 DlALOG(R)File 44:AqUatic Sci. Fisheries Abs (c) 1994 Cambridge Sci. Aba . All rts. reserv . 0264794 118-11652 Survey of 13 Polk County, Florida lakes for mosquito (Diptera: CUlicidae) and midge (Diptera: Chironomidae) production. Callahan, J . L.; Mo=is, C.D. Polk Cty. Environ. Serv., P.O. Box 39, Bartow, FL 33830, USA FLA . ENTOMOL., vol. 70, no. 4, pp. 471-478, (1987).

7/3/95 DlALOG(R)File 44:AqUatic Sci. Fisheries Ab. (c) 1994 Cambridge Sci. Aba. All rts. reserv. 0240807 117-10355; 217-04832 External threats and internal management: ' The hydrologic regulation of the Everglades, Florida, USA. Kushlan, J .A.

Dep. BioI. Sci., East Texas State Univ., Commerce, TX 75428, USA ENVIRON. MANAGE., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 109-119, (1987). 7/ 3/96 DlALOG(R)File 44:AqUatic Sci , . Fisheries Abs (c ) 1994 Cambridge Sci. Abs. All rts. reserv . 0238311 117-08356 Responses of wading birds to seasonally fluctuating water levels: Strategies and their limits . ltusblan. J.A. Dep. Biol. Sci., East Texas Staee Oniv., Commerce, T.X 75428, USA COLONIAL WATERBIRDS., vol. 9, no. 2, pp . 155-162, (1986).

7/ 3/ 98 DIALOG(R)File 44:AqUatic Sci. Fisheries Abs (c) 1994 Cambridge Sci. Abs. All rts. reserv.

0228821 115-21874; 215-08219 Prediceiol1 and a .....mane of eh. hydrologic condieions following the restoration of flow wiehin an aleered riverine system. Sikkema, D.A.; Ro.end ah1 , P.C. Nael. Park Serv., South Plorida R... Cene. , Everglades Natl. Park, Home.tead, PL 33030, USA IIBTLANDS., vol. 1, pp. 105-l.11, (1981.) '. 7/)/99 DIALOG(R)Pil. 44:Aquaeic Sci ~ Pish.ri•• Ab. (c) 1994 cambridg. Sci. Aba. All rts. r ••• rv. 0228350 l.l.5-21399 Ecosyseel1lS of the Big ,Cypress Swamp. Duever, M.J.; M.ed.r, J.P.; Duaver, L.C. Geogr. Dep., Un1v. North carolina, Chap.l Hill, He 2751.4, USA CYPRESS SWAMPS. Bvel.K.C.; OdwDB.T. eds . • 1984 .• pp. 294-303

7/3/10l. DIALOG(R)Pile 44:Aquatic Sci ~ Pisheries Abs (c) 1994 Cambridg. Sci. Abs. All rt •. r ••• rv. 0227502 l.l.5-20549, . 2l.5-09377 The role of _tlen48 in. the Gre_ '_ BrOwn. S.L. ' Dep. For .• Univ. Illinois. 1l.0 Mumford Bell. 130l. W. Gregory. Urbana. IL 61801. USA CYPRESS SWAMPS . .Ewel, K. C. ;

Od\lDl, H. T.

ec1•.

• 1984 .• pp. 405-4l.5

7/3/111 DIALOG(R)File 44:Aquatic Sci ~ Fi.heri•• Abs (c) 1994 Cambridg. Sci. Abs. All rts. r.serv. 0190934 1l.5-156l.1 Physiography and vegetation zonation of shal~ow emergent ~rshe • . in southw•• t.rn Florida. 8. Biennial Internaeional E:seuanne " Re ••arch Conference Durham. NB (USA) 28 Jul l.985 W.... llbeseer. B.H.; Higman. J.C.; Knighe, R.L. CH2M Hill. Gainesville. PL. USA ESTUARIES .. vol. 8. no. 2B. p. 95A. (l.985). CONFERENCE LOCATION: Durham. NB (USA) CONFERENCE YEAlI.: 1985

7/3/ll6 DIALOGIR)File 44:Aquacic Sci & Fisheries Abs Ic) 1~~4 Cambridge Sci. Abs. All rcs. reserv. 0174454 115-00814 The lichen line and high waCer levels in a freshwacer sCream in Florida. Hale, M.B., Jr.

Dep. BoC., Smithson. Inst., Washington, PC 20560, USA BRYOLOGIST., vol. 87, no. 3, pp. 261-265, 11~84).

7/3/ll8 DrALOGIR)File 44:Aquatic Sci & Fisheri•• Abs Ic) 1~~4 Cambridge Sci. Abs. All res. re.erv. 0151472 114-0~514 Recenc population trend of the snail kite in Florida and its relaeionship to water leval •. Sykes, P.W. ,Jr. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv., Mauna Loa Field Stn., P.O. Box 44, Hawaii Volcanoes Natl. Park, HI ~671B, USA J. FIELD ORNITHOL . , vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 237-246, 11~83) . 7/3/121 DIALOGIR)File 44:Aquatic Sci & Fisheries Abs Ic) 1~~4 Cambridge Sci. Abs. All res. re.erv. 111-15384 Foraging ecology of the scriped swamp snake, Regina alleni} , in souchern Florida. Godley,J.S. Dep. BioI., Univ. Souch Florida, Tampa, FL 33620 , USA Ecol. Monogr., 50(4), 4ll-436, 11~80) 00~3186

7 / 3/123 DIALOGIR)File 44:Aquatic Sci & Fisheries Abs Ie) 1~~4 Cambridge Sci. Abs. All res. reserv. 0081506 111-07762 Wacer fluccuation and the aquatic flora of Lake Miccosukee. Tarver,D.p.

Bur. AquaC. Planc Res. and Concrol, Resour., Tallahassee, FL 32303, USA J . Aquac . Planc Manage., 18, 1~-23, 11~80)

Plorida

Dep.

Nac.

7/ 3/126 DIALOG(R)File 44:Aquatic Sci & Fisheries Abs (c) 1994 Cambridge Sci. Abs. All rts. reserv. 0079325 111-04050 Selected vertebrate endangered apecie. of the seacoast of the enited States the American elligator. Woodard,D.W. Fish and Wildlife Serv., Slidell, LA (USA). Natl. Coastal Ecosyste1llll Team. Biol. Servo Program Fish. Wild!. Servo (U. S.) , } PWS/OBS Washington, DC (USA)., Mar 1980.

7/3/130 DIALOG(R)File 44:Aquatic Sci & Fisheries Abs (c) 1994 Cambridge Sci. Abs. All res. r •• erv. 0071408 110-17934 population fluctuations paludosus}, in the Everglades. Kushlan,J .A.;

of

the

prawn,

Palaemonetes

Kushlan,M.S.

South Florida Res . Cent., Everglades Natl. Park, Homestead, FL 33030, USA Am. Midl. Nat., 103(2), 401-403, (1980) 7/3 / 131 DIALOG(R)File 44:Aquatic Sci & Fisheries Abs (c) 1994 Cambridge Sci. Abs. All rts. resarv. 0070714 110-17240; 210-09430 Temperature and oxygen in an Everglades elligator pond. Kushlan,J.A. South Florida Res. Cent., Everglades National Park, Homestead, FL, USA Hydrobiologia, 67 (3), 267-271, (1979)

7/3/135 DIALOG(R)File 44:Aquatic Sci & Fisheries Abs (c) 1994 Cambridge Sci. Abs . All res. re.erv. 0036808 209-05508 Mass ~ranspore in a coastal cbannel: Marco River, Florida. van de Kreeke,J. Rosenstiel Sch. Mar. and Atmos. SCi., eniv. Miami, 4600 Rickenbacker Causeway, Miami, FL 33149, USA Estuar . Coast. Mar. Sci., 7(3), 203-214, (1978)

File 434:SciSearcn(R) ~974-~994/Sep (c) ~994 Inst for Sci Info S~

S6 S7 S9

7954 1234 32 1

W~

FLORIDA HYDROPERIOD? OR (WATER() LEVEL?) Sl AND S6 WILDLIPB AND S7

7/3/1 DlALOG(R)Pile 434:SciSearch(R) (c) 1994 Inst for Sci Info. All rta. reserv. 13228286 Genuine Article.: NY153 No. References: 49 Title : IMPORTANCE OP LANDSCAPB lIB'l'EROGBNEITY TO WOOD STORKS IN FLORIDA EVERGLADBS Author (.): FLEMING OM; WOLFP WP; DEANGBLIS DL Corporate Source: OAX RIDGB NATL LAB,DIV BNVIRONM SCI,POB 2008/0AX RIDGE//TN/37831; OAX RIDGB NATL LAB,DIV BNVIRONM SCI,POB 2008/0AX RIDGE/ /TN/37831; NATL BIOL SURVEY, EVERGLADES NA'I'L Pit FIELD STN/HOMESTEAD//FL/33034;FORSCHCNGSZENTRUMJUBLICH,INSTBIOTECBNOL 3/ JULICH/ /G'SRWtNY / Journal: ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, 1994, V18, N5 (SEP-Ocr), P743-757 ISSN: 0364-152X Language: ENGLISH Document Type: ARTICLE (Abstract Available) 7/ 3 / 3 DIALOG(R)File 434:SciSearch(R) (e ) 1994 Inst for Sci Info. All rts. reserv. 13079212 Genuine Articl •• : NM670 No. References: 37 Title: FAC'1'ORS CONTROLLING SEASONAL Ntl'l'RIEN'I' PROFILES IN A SUBTROPICAL PEA'I'LAND OP nm FLORIDA EVERGLADBS Autnor (.): XOCHROSE MS; REDDY KR; CHAN'I'ON JP Corporate Source: ROSBNSTIEL SCH MARINE & A'IMOSPIIBR SCI, 4600 RICKENBACKBR CAUSEWAY/MIAM//FL/33149; S FLORIDA WATER MANlIGEMENT DIST,RES DEP,POB 24680/W PALM BEACH//FL/33416; UNIV FLORIDA,DBPT SOIL SCI / GAlNESVILLB//FL/32611; FLORIDA STATE UNIV,DEPT OCEANOG/TALLABASSEE//FL/32306; FLORIDA STATE UNIV,DEPT .OCEANOG/ TALLAHASSEE//PL/32306 Journal : JOURNAL OP ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, 1994, V23, N3 (MAY-JON), P 526-533 ISSN: 0047-2425 Language: ENGLISH Dcicument Type: ARTICLE (Abstract Available) 7/ 3/ 4 DIALOG(R)File 434:SciSearch(R} (c) 1994 Inst for Sci Info. All rcs. reserv. 13069422

Genuine Artiele#: NM343

No. References: 36

Tiele, REDISTRIBUTION OF ORGANIC SEDlMEN'I'S IN A SHALLOW LAKE FOLLOWING A SHORT-TERM DRAWDOWN Auehor(s), GOTTGENS JF Corporaee Souree, ONIV TOLEDO,DEPT BIOL/TOLEDO//OH/43606 Journal, ARCHIV FOR HYDROBIOLOGIE, 1994, V130, N2 (APR), P179-194 ISSN, 0003 -9136 Language, ENGLISH Doeumene Type, ARTICLE (Abseraee Available)

7/3/8 DIALOG(R)Pi1e 434,SeiSeareh(R) (e) 1994 Inst for Sci Info. All res. reserv. 12774657 Genuine Areiele#, MM902 No. References, 30 Title, FLUCTUATIONS IN SAWGRASS AND CATTAIL DENSITIES IN EVERGLADES-WATER-CONSERVATION-ARBA-2A UNDER VARYING NUTRIENT, HYDROLOGIC AND FIRE RJiGlMES Author (s), ORBAN W; DAVIS SM; AtlMEN NG Corporaee Souree, S FLORmA WATER MANAGEMENT DIST, DEPT RES, POB 24680/w PALM BEACH//FL/33416; S FLORmA WATER MANAGEMENT DIST,DEPT PLANNING/WPALM BEACH//FL/33416 Journal, AQUATIC BOTANY, 1993, V46, NJ-4 (DEC), P203-223 ISSN, 0304-3770 Language, ENGLISH Doeumene Type, ARTICLE (Abseraee Available)

7/3/10

DIALOG(R)Pile 434,SciSeareh(R) (e) 1994 Inst for Sei Info. All res. reserv. 12537928 Genuine Artiele#, LU771 NO. Referenees, 39 Tie1e, POPULATION-STRuctURE, BODY-MASS, ACTIVITY, AND ORIENTATION OF AN AQUATIC SNAKE (SBMIlIATRIX-PYGABA) DORING A DROUGHT Author(s), DODD ex Corporaee Souree, US FISH" WILDLIFE SERV,NATL ECOL RES =,412 NE 16TH AVE,RooM 250/GAlNESVILLEI/FL/32601 Journal, CANADIAN JOURNAL OF ZooLOGY-REVOII CANADIENNE DE ZooLOGIE, 1993, V 71, 51 (JUL), P1281-128a ISSN, 0008-4301 Language, ENGLISH Doc:umene Type, ARTICLE (Abstraet Available) 7/3/11

DIALOG(R)Pile 434,SciSeareh(R) (e) 1994 Inst for Sei Info. All rts. reserv. 12517628 Genuine Artiele#, LT111 No. Referenees, 0 Tiele, DELINEATION OF SPATIAL BOUNDARIES IN A WETLAND HABITAT Auehor(s), BOTTS PS, MCCOY ED Corporaee Souree, ONIV S FLORIDA,DEPT BIOL/TAMPAI/PL/33620 Journal, BIODIVERSITY AND CONSERVATION, 1993, V2, 54 (AUG),

P351-358 ISSN: 0960-31l5 Language: ENGLISH (NO REFS KEYED)

Document Type: ARTICLE

(Abstract Available )

7/3/l2 DIALOG(R)File 434:SciSearch(R) (c) 1994 Inst for Sci Info. All rca. reserv. l2497l42 Genuine Article8: LR099 No. References: 33 Title: RESPONSES OF MARSH FISHES AND BRBBDING NADING BIRDS TO LOW-TEMPERATURES - A POSSIBLE BEHAVIORAL LINlt BETWEEN PREDATOR AND PREY

Author (.): FREDHRICIC PC; LOFTUS WP Corporate Source: UNIV FLORIDA, DSPT WILDLIFE" RANG!! SCI ,ll8 HEWINS ZIEGLER HALL/GAINESVILLE//PL/326l1; BVBRGLADES N1TL PK,N1TL PK SHRV/HOMESTEAD//PL/33030 Journal: ESTUARIES, 1993, Vl6, 52 (JON), P216-222 ISSN: 0160-8347 Language: ENGLISH Doc:umant Type: ARTICLE (Abstract Available) 7/3/13 DIALOG(R)File 434:SciSearch(R) (c) 1994 Inst for Sci InfO. All rcs. reserv. l2472247 Genuine Article.: LP084 No. References: 51 Title: PEAT ACCRETION AND N, p, AND ORGANIC C ACCUMULATION IN NtlTRIENT-ENRICIIED AND UNENRICIIED EVERGLADES PEATLANDS Author (s): CRAFT CB; RICHARDSON CJ Corporate Source: DUKS UNIV, SCH ENVIRONM, WETLAND CTR/DURHAM//NC/27706 Journal: ECOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS, 1993, V3, N3 (AUG), P446-458 ISSN: 1051-0761 Language: ENGLISH Document Type: ARTICLE (Abstract Available) 7/ 3/14 DIALOG(R)File 434:SciSearch(R) (c) 1994 Inst for sci Info. All rts. reserv. l1935919 Genuine Article#: JX76l No. · References: 69 Title: PALUSTRINE CARBONATES AND THE FLORIDA BVBRGLADES - TOWARDS AN EXPOSURE INDEX FOR THE FRESH-WATBR ENVIROIIMEN'I' Au thor (s): PLATT HE; WRIGHT VP Corporate Source: GECO PRAKLA,BOUNDARY RD/WOKING GU21 5BX/SURREY/ENGLAND/; UNIV BERN,INST GEOL/CH-3012 BERN/ / SWITZHRLAND/; UNIV READING, PRIS/READING RG6 2AB/BERKS/ENGLAND/ Journal: JOURNAL OF SEDIMENTARY PETROLOGY, 1992, V62, N6 (NOV), Pl058-10n ISSN: 0022-4472 Language: ENGLISH Document Type: ARTICLE (Abstract Available)

7/3/19 DIALOG(R)File 434:SciSearch(R) (C) 1994 Inst for Sci Info. All rts. reserv. 11S05350 Genuine Article.: JM794 No. References: 35 Title: SULFIDE VlIRIATION IN TBB PORE AND SURFACE WATERS OF ARTIFICIAL SALT-MARSH DITCIIBS AND A NATtlRAL TIDAL CREEl( Author(s): RBY JR; SHAFFER J; KAIN T; S~ R; CROSSMAN R Corporace Source: ONIV FLORIDA, INST POOD " AGR SCI, FLORIDA MI!I) ENTOMOL LAB,200 9TH ST SB/VERO BBACB//PL/32962 Journal: ESTUARIES, 1992, Vl5, N3 (SBP) , P257-269 ISSN: 0160-S347 Language: ENGLISH Document Type: ARTICLE (Abscract Available)

7/3/21 DIALOG(R)File 434:SciSearch(R) (c) 1994 Inst for Sci Info. All rcs. reserv. 11723426 Genuine Article': JF797 No. References: 17 Title: EVAPOTRANSPIRATION nOM FLORIDA PONDCYPRESS SWAMPS Author(s): EWEL ~C; SMITH JB Corporate Source: ONIV FLORIDA,DBPT FORESTRY,llS HEWINS ZIBGLER HALL/GAINESVILLE//PL/32611 Journal: WATER RESOURCES BULLETIN, 1992, V2S, N2 (MAR-APR), P299-304 Language: ENGLISH Doc:ument Type: ARTICLE (Abstract Available) 7/3/22 DIALOG(R)File 434:SciSearch(R) (e) 1994 Inst for Sci Info. All rcs. reserv. ll71.1050 Genuine Article.:. JB9S4 No. References: 63 Title:· Bl!FBCTS.OI1.FLOODING.ON ROOT AND ' SHOOT PRODUCTION 011 ·:BALD i CYPRESS'IN LARGB BXPBRIMBNTAI. SNCLOStIRlIS. Author(s): MEGOIIlGAL JP; DAY pop Corporate Source: Dun: ONIV, DBPT BOT/DtJRBAM/ /NC/27706; SAVANNAH RIVER ECOL LAB/AIXEN//SC/29S01; OLD DOMINION ONIV,DEPT BIOL/NORFOLK//VA/23529 Journal: ECOLOGY, 1992, V73, N4 (AUG), P11.S2-1193 Language: ENGLISH Document Type: ARTICLE (Abstract Available)

7/ 3/25

DIALOG(R)File 434,SeiSeareh(R) (c) 1994 Inst for Sci Info. All rts. reserv. 11369857 Genuine Artiele#, HD445 No. References, 17 Title, POTENTIAL RATtS OF METHANOGENESIS IN SAWGRASS MARSHES WITH PEAT AND Ml'.RL SOILS IN TIlE EVERGLADES Author(s), BACHOON D; JONES RD Corporate Source, FLORIDA INT ONIV,DEPT BIOL SCI/MIAMI//FL/ 33199; FLORIDA !NT ONIV,DEPT BIOL SCI/MIAMI//FL/33l99; .FLORIDA !NT ONIV,DRINKING WATER RES CTR/MIAMI//FL/33199 Journal, SOIL BIOLOGY. BIOCEBMISTRY, 1992, V24, N1 (JAN), P21-27 Language, ENGLISH Document Type: ARTICLE (Abstract Available) ·

7/3/27 DIALOG(R)File 434:SciSearch(R) (c) 1994 Inst for Sci Info. All rts. reserv. 10923339 Genuine Artiele#, FT723 No. References, 0 Title: SAWGRASS (CLADIllM-JAMAICl!NSE) StlRVIVAL IN A REGIME OF FIRE AND FLOODING Author(s), HERNDON A; GUNDERSON L; STENBERG J Corporate Source, LOUISIANA S~Tt ONIV,DEPT BOT/BATON ROtlGE/ /LA/70803 Journal, WETLANDS, 1991, Vll, Nl, P17-28 Language, ENGLISH Document Type, ARTICLE (Abstract Available) (NO REFS KEYED)

Appendix II

Wetland Criteria Development Bibliography


December 28, 1994

BIBLIOGRAPHY

*

1. Bancroft, G.T., J.C. Ogden, and B.W. Patty. 1988. Wading bird colony formation and turnover relative to rainfall in the Corkscrew Swamp area of Florida during 1982 thorough 1985. Wilson Bulletin 100: 1 50-1 59.

2. Benson, M.A., and R.A. Gardner. 1974. The 1971 drought in south Florida and its effect on the hydrologic system. U.S. Geological Survey, Tallahassee, Florida, Water Resources Investigations Report 12-74. 3. Birnhak, B.l., and J.P. Crowder. 1974. An evaluation of the extent of vegetative habitat alteration in South Florida, 1943-1970. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Atlanta, Georgia, Report DI-SFEP-74-22. 4. Botts, P.S., and E.D. McCoy. 1993. Delineation of spatial boundaries in a wetland habitat. Biodiversity and Conservation 2:351-358. 5. Browder, J .A. 1974. RegioIll!-I control of ecosystem areas by varying wa ter levels. Pages 655-656 m H.T. Odum, K.C. Ewel, J.W. Ordway, M.K. Johnston, and W.J. Mitsch, editors. Cypress wetlands for water management, recycling, and conservation. University of Florida, Center for Wetlands, Gainesville, Florida. 1st Annual Report to National Science Foundation and Rockefeller Foundation.

* 6. Browder, J .A. 1974. A quantitative study of area and water storage capacity

of wetlands of southwest Florida. Pages 733-799 in H.T. Odum, K.C. Ewel, J.W. Ordway, M.K. Johnston, and W.J. Mitsch, editors. Cypress wetlands for water management, recycling, and conservation. University of Florida, Center for Wetlands, Gainesville, Florida. First Annual Report to National Science Foundation and Rockefeller Foundation.

* 7. Browder, J .A. 1975. Evaluation of a model of expanding and contracting

ponds in wetlands. Pages 757-801 in H.T. Odum, K.C. Ewel, J.W. Ordway, and M.K. Johnston, editors. Cypress wetlands for water management, recycling, and conservation. University of Florida, Center for Wetlands, Gainesville, Florida. 2nd Annual Report to National Science Foundation and Rockefeller Foundation.

.t

8. Browder, J.A. 1976. Water, wetlands, and wood storks. University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Doctoral dissertation. 9. Browder, J. A. 1984. Wood stork feeding areas in southwest Florida. Florida Field Naturalist, 12:481-4 116. 10. Bryan, K. 1928. Change in plant associations by change in ground water level. Ecology 9:474-478.

*

t

Summary notes were prepared for these citations District staff did not review this article ....but the reference is included because it was cited in the article by Environmental Sciences and ~ngineering. 1991 and was used in the comprehensive water levelJhydroperiod tables.

II-I

* 11. Burns, L.A. 1984. Productivity and water relations in the Fakahatchee Strand

of South Florida. Pages 318-333 in K.C. Ewel and H.T. Odum, editors. Cypress swamps. University of Florida Press, Gainesville, Florida.

* 12. Carlson, J.E., and M.J. Duever. 1979. Seasonal fish population fluctuations in South Florida swamp. Proceedings of the Annual Conference Southeastern Association ofFish and Wildlife Agencies 31:603-611.

*

13. Carter, M.R, L.A. Burns, T.R. Cavinder, K.R. Dugger, P.L. Fore, D.B. Hicks, H.L. Revells, and T.W. Schmidt. 1973. Ecosystems analysis of the Big Cypress Swamp and estuaries. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4, Surveillance and Analysis Division, Atlanta, Georgia, EPA904/9-74-002.

* 14. CH2M Hill. 1988. Hydroecology of wetlands on the Ringling-MacArthur

Preserve, Volumes I (Technical Report) and II (Appendices). Prepared for Sarasota County. Technical Report No.2.

15. Cohen, A.D., and W. Spackman, Jr. 1974. The petrology of peats from the Everglades and coastal swamps of southern Florida. Pages 233-55 in P.J. Gleason, editor. Environments of South Florida: Present and past. Miami Geological Society, Coral Gables, Florida.

*

16. Coultas, C.L., and M.J. Duever. 1984. Soils of cypress swamps. Pages 51-59 in K.C. Ewel and H.T. Odum, editors. Cypress swamps. University of Florida Press, Gainesville, Florida. 17. Crowder, J.P. 1974. The effects of drainage and associated development in the Big Cypress Swamp. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Sport Fishing and Wildlife, Atlanta, Georgia, Report PB-231-612. 18. Crowder, J.P. 1974. Water management: the key to fish and wildlife values in South Florida. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Sport Fishing and Wildlife, Atlanta, Georgia, Report PB-231-653. 19. Dachnowski-Stokes, A.P. 1935. Peat land as a conserver of rainfall and water supplies. Ecology 16:173-177. 20. Davis, J.H., Jr. 1943. The natural features of southern Florida, especially the vegetation, and the Everglades. Florida Geological Survey, Tallahassee, Florida, Geological Bulletin No. 25. 21. Dodd, C.K. 1993. Population structure, body mass, activity, and orientation of an aquatic snake (Seminatrix pygaea) during a drought. Canadian Journal of Zoology 71:1281-1288.

*

*

22. Duever, M. J. 1980. Surface water hydrology of an important cypress strand, Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary. Pages 74-78 in P.J. Gleason, editor. Water, oil, and the geology of Collier, Lee and Hendry Counties. Miami Geological Society, Miami, Florida.

Summary notes were prepared for these citations

II-2

* 23. Duever, M.J. 1982. Tropical peatland hydrology. Presentation at Tropical

Peatlands Workshop on June 1-2, 1982, Indianapolis. Ecosystem Research Unit, Naples, Florida.

24. Duever, M. J. 1984. Environmental factors controlling plant communities of the Big Cypress Swamp. Pages 127-137 in P.J. Gleason, editor. Environments of South Florida: Present and past. Miami Geological Society, Coral Gables, Florida.

*

25. Duever, M.J. 1988a. Hydrologic processes for models of freshwater wetlands. Pages 9-39 in W.J. Mitsch, M. Straskraba, and S.E. Jorgensen, editors. Wetland modeling. Elsevier, Amsterdam.

* 26. Duever, M.J. 1988b. Surface water hydrology and plant communities of

Corkscrew Swamp. In D.A. Wilcox, editor. Interdisciplinary approaches to freshwater wetlands research. Michigan State University Press, East Lansing, Michigan.

*

27. Duever, M.J. 1990. Hydrology. Pages 61-89 in B.C. Patten, editor. Wetlands and shallow continental bodies, Volume 1. Academic Publishing, The Hague.

* 28. Duever, M.J., J.E. Carlson, J.F. Meeder, L.C. Duever, L.H. Gunderson, L.A.

Riopelle, T.R. Alexander, R.L. Myers, and D.P. Spangler. 1986. The Big Cypress National Preserve. National Audubon Society, New York, New York. Research Report No.8 of the National Audubon Society.

*

29. Duever, M.J., J.E. Carlson, and L.A. Riopelle. 1974. Water budgets and comparative study of virgin Corkscrew Swamp. Pages 595-634 in H.T. Odum, K.C. Ewel, J.W. Ordway, M.K. Johnston, and W.J. Mitsch, editors. Cypress wetlands for water management, recycling, and conservation. University of Florida, Center for Wetlands, Gainesville, Florida. First Annual Report to National Science Foundation and Rockefeller Foundation.

*

30. Duever, M.J., J.E. Carlson, and L.A. Riopelle. 1975. Ecosystem: analysis at Corkscrew Swamp. Pages 627-725 in H.T. Odum, K.C. Ewel, J.W. Ordway, and M.K. Johnston, editors. Cypress wetlands for water management, recycling, and conservation. University of Florida, Center for Wetlands, Gainesville, Florida. Second Annual Report to National Science Foundation and Rockefeller Foundation.

* 31. Duever, M.J., J.E. Carlson, and L.A. Riopelle. 1984a. Corkscrew Swamp: A

virgin cypress strand. Pages 334-348 in K.C. Ewel and H.T. Odum, editors. Cypress swamps. University of Florida Press, Gainesville, Florida.

*

*

32. Duever, M.J., J.E. Carlson, L.A. Riopelle, L.H. Gunderson, and L.C. Duever. 1976. Ecosystem analysis at Corkscrew Swamp. Pages 707-737 in H.T. Odum, K.C. Ewel, J.W. Ordway, and M.K. Johnston, editors. Cypress wetlands for water management, recycling, and conservation. University of


II-3

Florida, Center for Wetlands, Gainesville, Florida. Third Annual Report to National Science Foundation and Rockefeller Foundation.

* 33. Duever, M.J., J.E. Carlson, L.A. Riopelle, and L.C. Duever. 1978. Ecosystem analysis at Corkscrew Swamp. Pages 534-570 in H.T. Odum, and K.C. Ewel, editors. Cypress wetlands for water management, recycling, and conservation. University of Florida, Center for Wetlands, Gainesville, Florida. Fourth Annual Report to National Science Foundation and Rockefeller Foundation.

* 34. Duever, M.J., J. McCollom and L. Neuman. 1985. Plant community

boundaries and water levels, Lake Hatchineha, Florida. Report to the Florida Department ofN atural Resources, Tallahassee, Florida.

*

35. Duever, M.J., J.F. Meeder, and L.C. Duever. 1984b. Ecosystems of the Big Cypress Swamp. Pages 294-303 in K.C. Ewel and H.T. Odum, editors. Cypress swamps. University of Florida Press, Gainesville, Florida.

*

36. Environmental Science & Engineering, Inc. 1991. Hydroperiods and water level depths of freshwater wetlands in South Florida: A review of the scientific literature. Prepared for the South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, Florida.

*

37. Ewel. K.C. 1990. Swamps. Pages 281-323 in R.L. Myer and J.J. Ewel, editors. Ecosystems of Florida. University of Florida Press, Gainesville, Florida. 38. Ewel, K.C., and W.J. Mitsch. 1978. The effects of fire on species composition in cypress dome ecosystems. Florida Scientist 41:125-131. 39. Fleming, D.M., W.F. Wolff, and D.L. DeAngelis. 1994. Importance of landscape heterogeneity to wood storks in Florida Everglades. Environmental Management 18:5 743-5 757 .

•:1:

40. Flohrschutz, E.W. 1978. Dwarf cypress in the Big Cypress Swamp of Southwestern Florida. M.S. Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville. 111 pp. ' 41. Frederick, P.C., and M.W. Collopy. 1989. Nesting success of five ciconiiform species in relation to water conditions in the Florida Everglades. Auk 106:625-634. 42. Freiberger, H.J. 1972. Nutrient survey of surface waters in southern Florida during a wet and a dry season, September 1970 and March 1971. U.S. Geological Survey, Tallahassee, Florida, Open-File Report 72008.

*

* :j:

43. Freiberger, H.J. 1972. Streamflow variation and distribution in the Big Cypress Watershed during wet and dry period. Florida Bureau of Geology, Tallahassee, Florida, Map Series 45. Summary notes were prepared for these citations Not reviewed by District staffbut referenced in Duever et al1986 and used in the comprehensive water levellhydroperiod tables.

II-4

*

44. Gee & Jenson. 1993. Corkscrew H&H study. Environmental Element Report for the South Florida Water Management District. West Palm Beach, Florida. 45. Gottgens, J.F. 1994. Redistribution of organic sediments in a shallow lake following a short-term drawdown. Arch for Hydrobiology 103: 2 179-2 194.

*

46. Gunderson, L.H. 1989. Historical hydropatterns in wetland communities of Everglades National Park. Pages 1099-1111 in R.R. Sharitz and J.W Gibbons, editors. Freshwater wetlands and wildlife. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Scientific and Technical Information, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. DOE Symposium Series No. 61.

*

47. Gunderson, L.H., and L.L. Loope.1982a. A survey and inventory of the plant communities in the Pinecrest Area, Big Cypress National Preserve. U.S. Department ofInterior, National Park Service, South Florida Research Center, Everglades National Park, Homestead, Florida, Report T-655.

*

48. Gunderson, L.H., and L.L. Loope. 1982b. An inventory of the plant communities in the Levee 28 Tieback Area, Big Cypress National Preserve. U.S. Department ofInterior, National Park Service, South Florida Research Center, Everglades National Park, Homestead, Florida, Report T-664.

*

49. Gunderson, L.H., and L.L. Loope. 1982c. A survey and inventory of the plant communities in the Raccoon Point Area, Big Cypress National Preserve. U.S. Department ofInterior, National Park Service, South Florida Research Center, Everglades National Park, Homestead, Florida, Report T-665.

*

50. Gunderson, L.H., and L.L. Loope. 1982d. An inventory of the plant communities within the Deep Lake Strand Area, Big Cypress National Preserve. U.S. Department ofInterior, National Park Service, South Florida Research Center, Everglades National Park, Homestead, Florida, Report T-666 .

.t 51. Gunderson, L.H., L.L. Loope, and W.R. Maynard. 1982. An inventory of the plant communities of the Turner River Area, Big Cypress National Preserve, Florida. U.S. Department ofInterior, National Park Service, South Florida Research Center, Everglades National Park, Homestead, Florida, Report T-64S.

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

* 53. Klein, H. 1972. The shallow aquifer of southwest Florida. Florida Bureau of Geology, Tallahassee, Florida, Map Series 53.

*

Summary notes were prepared for these citations t. District staff did not review this articleJlUt the reference is included because it was cited in the article by Environmental Sciences and ~ngineering, 1991 and was used in the comprehensive water level/hydroperiod tables.

n-5

*.

54. Klein, H., W.J. Schneider, B.F.l. McPherson, and T.J. Buchanan. 1970. Some hydrologic and biologic aspects ofthe Big Cypress Swamp drainage area. U.S. Geological Survey, Tallahassee, Florida, Open-File Report 70003. 55. Kushlan, J .A. 1972. An ecological study of an alligator pond in the Big Cypress Swamp of Southern Florida. University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL. MS Thesis.

*. 56.

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

57. Kushlan, J.A. 1986. Responses of wading birds to seasonally fluctuating water levels: strategies and their limits. Colonial Waterbirds 9:2155-2162.

*

58. Kushlan, J.A. 1990. Freshwater marshes. Pages 324-363 in R.L. Myers and J.J. Ewel, editors. Ecosystems of Florida. University of Florida Press, Gainesville, FL. 59. Kushlan, J.A., and M.S. Kushlan. 1979. Population fluctuations of the prawn, Palaemonetes paludosus, in the Everglades. The American Midland Naturalist 103:2 401-2 403. 60. Kushlan, J.A., J.C. Ogden, and A.L. Higer. 1973. Relationship of temporal variation in water level and fish available to wood stork reproduction in southern Everglades, Florida. U.S. Geological Society, Tallahassee, Florida, USGS Open-File Report 75-434. 61. Little, J.A., R.F. Schneider, and B.J. Carroll. 1970. A synoptic survey of limnological characteristics ofthe Big Cypress Swamp, Florida. U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal Water Quality Administration, Atlanta, Georgia, Southeast Water Laboratory Technical Services Program, Open File Report. 62. Loftus, W.F, R.A. Johnson, and G.H. Anderson. 1992. Ecological impacts in short hydroperiod marshes of the Everglades. Pages 199-208 in J.A. Standford and T.J. Simmons, editors. Proceedings of the Fitst International Conference on Ground Water Ecology on April 26-29, Tampa, Florida. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, American Water Resources Association, and Ecological Society of America. 63. Masch, Frank D. and Associates. 1971. Influence of well fields and connecting roadways on hydrologic and hydraulic features of Big Cypress Swamp, Florida. Austin, Texas. 64. McCoy, H.J. 1972. Hydrology of western Collier County, Florida. Florida Bureau of Geology, Tallahassee, Florida, Report ofInvestigations 63.

*


t. District staff did not review this articleJ>ut the reference is included because it was cited in the article by Environmental Sciences and !!>ngineering,1991 and was used in the comprehensive water levellhydroperiod tables.

II-6

65. Megonigal, J.P., and F.P Day. 1992. Effects of flooding on root and shoot production of bald cypress in large experimental enclosures. Ecology 73:4 1182-41193.

* 66. Myers, R.L. 1983. Site susceptibility to invasion by the exotic tree Melaleuca

quinquenervia in southern Florida. Journal of Applied Ecology 20:645-58.

67. Penman, H. L. 1963. Vegetation and Hydrology. Commonwealth Bureau of Soils. Technical Communication 53: 1-24. 68. Pesnell, G.L., and R.T. Brown, III. 1977. The major plant communities of Lake Okeechobee, Florida and their associated inundation characteristics as determined by a gradient analysis. South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, Florida. Technical Publication 77-l. 69. Pride, R.W., and J.W. Crooks. 1962. The drought of1954-56, its effects on Florida's surface-water resources. Florida Geological Survey, Tallahassee, Florida, Report of Investigations 26 .

.* 70.

Schnelle, J.F., and C.L. Ferraro. 1991. Integrated, created and natural wetland systems using wastewater. Presented at the Florida Association of Environmental Professionals Annual Seminar on June 14, 1991.

71. Stephens, J .C. 1974. Subsidence of organic soils in the Florida Everglades - a review and update. Pages 352-361 in P.J. Gleason, editor. Environments of South Florida: Present and past. Miami Geological Society, Coral Gables, Florida. 72. Stone, P.A. and P.J. Gleason. 1976. The organic sediments of Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary. Pages 763-771 inH.T. Odum, K.C. Ewel,J.W. Ordway, and M.K. Johnston, editors. Cypress wetlands for water management, recycling and conservation. University of Florida, Center for Wetlands, Gainesville, Florida. Third Annual Report to National Science Foundation and Rockefeller Foundation. 73. Sykes, P. W., Jr. 1983. Recent population trend of the snail kite in Florida and its relationship to water levels. Journal ofField Ornithology 54:3 237-3 246. 74. Thomas, F .H. 1965. Subsidence of peat and muck soils in Florida and other parts ofthe United States: A review. Soil and Crop Science Society of Florida 25:153-160. . 75. United States Department ofthe Interior. 1969. Environmental impact of the Big Cypress Swamp Jetport. No location. 76. Wharton, C.H., H.T. Odum, K. Ewel, M. Duever, A. Lugo, R. Boyt, J. Bartholomew, E. DeBellevue, S. Brown, M. Brown, and L. Duever. 1977. Forested wetlands of Florida: Their management and use. University of Florida, Center for Wetlands, Gainesville, Florida.

*

Summary notes were prepared for these citstions

11-7

• 77. Winchester, B.H., J .S. Bays, J .e.Higman, and R.L. Knight. 1985. Physiography and vegetation zonation ofshallow emergent marshes in southwestern Florida. Wetlands 5:99-118. 78. Woodall, S.L. 1980. Site requirements for Melaleuca seedling establishment. Pages9-15 in R.K. Geiger, compiler. Proceedings of Melaleuca Symposium. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of

Forestry, Tallahassee, Florida . • 79. Woodall, S.L. 1983. Establishment of M.la/euca quinquenervia seedlings in the pine-cypress ecotone of southwest Florida. Florida Scientist 46:65-72.

,

Summary notea were prepared for theBe citatioDS

11-8

Appendix III

Summary NotesWetland Hydrology Literature Review

Prepared by: StaffoHhe South Florida Water Management District

December 28, 1994

SUMMARY NOTES · WETLAND HYDROLOGY LITERATURE REVIEW Table of Contents Bancroft, G.T., et al. 1988 .. . . .. . . . ... ... ..... . ... . .. ..... ........... . . . .... I Browder, J.A. 1974 ............ . ............ .... . ... ...... . .. .... .... . ..... 2 Browder.J.A. 1975 . . .... . . . .. . .. .. . ......• ...... .•. .. .... . • ....•. . ... ..... 5 Burns, L.A. 1984 ................. .. .. .... .. ............ ... . ... .... ........ 10 Carlson, J.E., and M.J. Duever 1979 .. ....... . ... .... ....... . .. . .. . . . ....... 14 carter, M.R, et. al. 1973 .... . ...... ....... ... . . . ... .. ........ . ...... .. ... .. 20 CH2MHiII19B8 . ..................... ....... . .. ... . . . . ...... .. ............ 27 Coultas, c.L. and M.J . Duever 1984 .. .... . ... .. . . ............ .. .. .. ........ 30 Duever, M.J. 1980 . . ... . . ... ... . .. ... .. . . ,.......... . ......... .. . .. . ...... 31 Duever, M.J. 1982 ................. .. ...... ... ...... ...................... 33 Duever M.l. 1988a ..... . ..... ......... ... . ... ..... . ... ........ . .......... 34 Duever M.l. 1988b . ........... ...... .. . ..... ... ......... ... ..... .... ..... 43 Duever, M.J. 1990 ... .. . . . ......... . ... .... . .......... .... ...... . ..... . ... 49 Duever, M.J ., etal. 1974 ............... . .... ...... ... .. . ........ ... .... . . . . 58 Duever, M.J., et al. 1975 ..... ........................... ... .. . ......... . ... 76 Duever, M.J., etal. 1976 ..... . ....... ....................... ........... .... 93 Duever, M.J., etal. 1978 .... ...... . ........... . ... .............. . ...... .. 100 Duever, M.J., etal. 1984a ..... .............. ..... ... ..... ... ........ .. . . . lOS Duever, M.J., etal. 1984b ..... .......... ...... ...... .... ........ .. ..... . . 107 Duever, M.J., et al. 1985 . . . . . .. ..... . . .... . ..... . . . ... . .......... . .... . .. 109 Duever, M.J., et al. 1986 ......... . . . . ... .. . .............................. I I I Environmental5cience and Engineering, Inc., 1991 . ... . ...•........ . ..•.... I I 5 EweI.K.C. 1990 .. ....... .... ............ ............................... . 125 Freiberger, H.J. 1972 .. ............... .. .. .... . ............. ... .......... 127 Gee and Jenson 1993 ... .... . .... ... ... . .... ......... . ... ........ • .. . .. .. 130 Gunderson,L.H. 1989 . . ............. .. ...... .. ...... ... .... ... , ... .... ... 166 Gunderson, L.H., and L.L. Loope 1982a . ... ... ... . .... .. ... ..... . . . . . . .. .. . 168 Gunderson, L.H., and L.L. Loope 1982b ................................... . 169 Gunderson, Lance H. and L. L. Loope 1982c ................................ 170 Gunderson, L.H., and L.L. Loop!! 1982d .. ... .. ............. ... . .. .. ........ 171 Klein, H. 1972 . :.... ... ........... .. " ...... .... . ................ . :.. ...... 172 Klein,H.,etal. 1970 .. ........ ...... ........... . .. .... ............ ..... .. 176 Kushlan, J.A. 1976 . . ........ ...... . . ...... ... .. .. . .. . .. .. .. . . .. . . . . .. . .. 186 Kushlan, J.A. 1990 ...................................................... 188 Myers, R.L. 1983 ......................................................... 190 Schnelle, J.F., and C.L. Ferraro 1991 ...... . ................ ,...... ......... 193 Winchester,B .H.,etal . 1985 .. ........ ................................... 196 Woodall, 5.L. 1983 ... ......................... . .... .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... 197 Abstracts and Conclusions .. . .. . ... ... .... ... ... . .... . .... . . . ...

Attachment A

SUMMARY NOTES - HYDROLOGY UTERATURE REVIEW Bancroft, G.T., et aI. 1988 REFERENCE: Bancroft, G.T., J .C. Ogden, and B.W. Patty. 1988. Wading bird colony formation and turnover relative to rainfall in the Corkscrew Swamp area of

Florida during 1982 tborough 1985. Wilson Bulletin 100: 1 50·1 59. STUDY LOCATION: A 32-km radius of the observation tower at Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary in northern Collier County, Florida. STUDY PURPOSE: To document the wading bird species abundance in an area around Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary, and to examine the relationship between rainfall, nesting and colony locations. The goal of the study was to show responses by nesting wading birds to annual rainfall patterns on a regional rather than individual colony basis. STUDY PERIOD: 1982-1985. VEGETATION COMMUNITIES: The four major natural habitats in the study area were coastal lagoons with mangrove swamps, freshwater marshes, cypress swamps, and pine-live oak uplands. Much of the other upland vegetation had been cleared for farming, ranching and housing. WATER LEVELS: The only discussion of water levels was whether it had been a wet year or dry year, not what the amounts of rainfall meant in terms of ground or surface water levels. HYDRO PERIOD: NA. OTHER: The study concluded that variation in the timing and intensity of nesting seems to be related to the annual pattern and variation in rainfall. A delay in the onset of nesting in 1982 was observed. This appeared to be related to the fact that 1981 and the winter-spring of 1982 were quite dry. Also in 1985 colonies formed but most were abandoned by the end of June when many sites were dry. Through mid July there was still no water under the willow heads used for nesting and the marshes were dry. AI though marshes finally became wet at the end of July and August, nesting did not resume that year.

1

SUMMARY NOTES •• HYDROLOGY LITERATURE REVIEW Browder, J.A. 1974 REFERENCE: Browder, J.A. 1974. A quantitative study of area and water storage capacity of wetlands of southwest Florida. Pages 733·799 in H.T. Odum, K.C. Ewel, J.W. Ordway, M.K. Johnston, and W.J. Mitech, editors. Cypress wetlands for water management, recycling, and conservation. University of Florida, Center for Wetlands, Gainesville, Florida. First Annual Report to National Science Foundation and Rockerfeller Foundation. STUDY LOCATION: Southwest Florida. (Collier, Hendry and Lee Counties) STUDY PURPOSE: Quantify areas of inland southwest Florida that are covered by water for several months of the year. STUDY PERIOD: (Specific study period not identified). VEGETATION COMMUNITIES: Sloughs and marshes (pickerel weed, maidencane, arrowhead, cordgrass), cypress strands (bald cypress), swamp hammocks (pond apple, pop ash, red maple), and shallow ponds (pond cypress, pop ash, pond apple, maple, pickerel weed, maidencane, arrowhead). WATER LEVELS: •

General statements: Under natural conditions, the water level in southwest Florida fluctuated approximately 3 to 5 feet annually, with a 6 foot change representing the extremes of flood and drought. The water level fell no more than 2 or 3 feet below land during the dry season and ponds and major slougha held water throughout the dry season.

•

Tables of average water levels for different community types are shown on Exhibit. 1 and 2. Methods: The line where saw palmetto, slash pines, or live oaks began was used for the average wet season high water line. Also, around some ponds, there is a ring of sparae vegetation, when this ring was present the outer edge of the ring was used to represent the average maximum high water line. Additionally, average and "-maximum water depths in"depressions were determined from field surveys or from elevation profiles on plana for highways and canals constructed in the area.

HYDROPERIOD: •

Wet prairies are covered with water for at least six months.

•

Sloughs, strand, and ponds hold water longer than the wet prairies.

2

SUMMARY NOTES -- HYDROLOGY LITERATURE REVIEW

-,

Area lD Ac~ ••• ....r ......,...

en..... tr.... 11........ lIar .....

-'''V,n r ... tWa

100 oem)

w ...u , .... ..., Stu . . La

• ...... ,. ecr. ft .

•••

lAU!

41.7:5

1.13'" 0,"

un,

'.GO

)Ut

....

14)1)6 ...

l~

12'010

l.n ... 0."

"., ... 111a

"'GO

0.'2·

....,"," '"

U1

a.ut.

,,,

U

'S.l)·

20'51'

lr~

.... u ...

A..r... Depth, ft .

'"

",,.. • "'" of ..-.. _

oot "'tf'KtH I .... .,.. of .......... elM..

_ ,.... ......... b t ..... 110......

d._~

....no... net!"

'.~d _

I t......

,.,..It,.

c c.. ....,.. with _ ' - "'tll .f 1.S ft ....... • AIockr WM, • dMJlole

.t .......

d..~.

e.. n.,. . .

",,",III .f 130 _

•

• .. A (130m

1, t . _ ..... odth '" of ....t . . . . . t~ ..... "1_1 ,. of -en _ _ ,Ite'r

...

~

"-til

an. t ...... wit" _

•

.!

•

1•

f

••

.--

•

a .. _

•

•

V

•

•

• Exhibit 1.

3

•

--


c"r.aeo IU'MIIII.

--

............ Mu....

v.~

'-.

o bJrGr_

a..tll. It

non

1.0

85,,4

•• 0

unr

1.0 + I.,·

.....

+ l.'~

216191 + " .

11"'41 MlU.l,,-

nUb

,.,

2"'"

..... d c,pn..

Acro

.1.'

UUIO

'nlr",

'.1,..It

Aftr ...

'1I1H

lion

I.,'

m,

'!ltD

O.,e

62"'

t,aU TYoUON

ll.,,·

1.'

..., liM . . .

" liNnl

tegl ".1_ V _ I t _...

-"

• , ftlZ (........U . . fin ~_q) ., 1.5) !til (_ ....tt._

'In'

r._)

• JZ.)] ttll '1M .... U_ flIT c_J

• U It + 1.' ft) lr 1.' It

T..b

U.

-. .......... --c,;r...

.....-

11ft

.tr.....

'mrll

. . .1 '",r• •

""'I' , .... an,

IIIIk

a.le , ....

_,u. ".... __ t cnrwu ...

-...

_~

,nlrla

"'" c..ty. "01_ ., Vet_ Itor... I.a VoclaM •

.....

..,-

.....

o..u.,

It

O.U'

....

...".""

L.n + 1.0'

"11_ • M;n It

..

'U..

.,.U ,....

+

no])

1.15 + 1.0'

lMOO + 11)1_

715U

,."

"sn

.)0]

1."

...,

0 ••,"

so,

11314

U1

,

SI ••r4

.

,

......

bed ••1 _

Ezhibit2.

4

SUMMARY NOTES -- HYDROLOGY UTERATURE REVIEW Browder, J.A. 1975 REFERENCE: Bwwder, J.A. 1975. Evaluation of a model of expanding and contracting ponds in wetlands. Pages 757-801 in H.T. Odum, K.C. Ewel, J.W. Ordway. and M.K. Johnston, editors. Cypress wetlands for water management. recycling. and conservation. University of Florida. Center for Wetlands. Gainesville. Florida. Second Annual Report to National Science Foundation and Rockerfeller Foundation.

STUDY LOCATION: Corkscrew Swamp (Mud Lake area). STUDY PURPOSE: To study the fish populations in expanding and contracting ponds in the Corkscrew Swamp area. This information was needed for a model which was developed to evaluate the hydroperiodlwildlife relationship. STUDY PERIOD: June 1974-Septemher 1975. VEGETATION COMMUNITIES: Pond eulittoral zone: pickerel weed. maidencane. and water hyssop. Downstream side: Sesbania exaltata. Adjacent marsh vegetation: same as eulittoral zone plus clumps of button bush and cordgrass. The deep hole of the pond was dredged by cattlemen to provide a constant supply of water for range cattle. Exhihit 1 shows vegetation communities at the study site. WATER LEVELS: •

The topography of the study site is shown on Exhibit. 2 and 3.

•

Water levels at the study area for the period from June 8. 1974 to September 14. 1975 are shown on Exhibit 4.

5

00

d

iii::

~

1=

>< Z 0

'"'l

l'j

00

.:·:?~:'~r~;+:~~~~'f@·~1Miit~~;1jlflll'II~liiJ~~fl~~,t.

l'j

en

i ....

= >< t;l

El S c;l >

'TO

~uo c

i!r

uo

~

....

~ ~

Lft

..t

.00

••

01

0101

.....

...

0

...

1972

Figure VII-ll.

Hydrograph of USGS Well C-296.

Exhibit 3.

24

4


Z.IO

....:'!..!!!!:.~.!:.:._~.!~ .. ____! ......___ _

....~_~!~~

2 •• '

....

1.00

..'" :I

>

I.TII

!:

0

= ...'"

{

a:

...:I...

.. ....

I\

I

•

\\

.,

...l

I.U

\

>

'"....a: ... ;'"

1.00

0.1'

0.10

- - - - EPA Wn.L. .... W-2

-.----- IE'"

wru. .....-5

O.ZI D.I'

..

AMJJASONOJ

1972

Hydrograph of EPA Wells W-2 and W-3 • .... I .... i I.l'.t-______ ............ ....JI:...-\-___!+__-f______ m

Figure VII-12.

T. . . . . . .

...

~I."

~ I

1.00

Figure VII-l3.

Hydrograph of USGS Well c-496.

Exhihit4.

25

SUMMARY NOTES·· HYDROLOGY LITERATURE REVIEW

A

LOG

I.'"

..J

~ ~ ~

;

I.DO

.... •

•

Figure VII-l4.

,

•

..

•

oJ

.to

•

0

It

1972

Hydrograph of EPA Well W-4.

1.10

S ~

c

lO'

~~TIOtII

ue.

'00

&! ~

W 0."

g ~

....

0:

~UI

Figure VII-lS.

Hydrograph of EPA Well W-S.

Exhibit 5.

26

D

~


REFERENCE: CHzM Hill. 1988. Hydroecology of wetlands on the RinglingMacArthur Preserve, Volumes I (Technical Report) and II (Appendices). Prepared for Sarasota County. Technical Report No. 2. STUDY LOCATION: Sarasota County, Florida. STUDY PURPOSE: Develop water withdrawal performance standards and a longterm monitoring program to protect wetlands on the Ringling-MacArthur Preserve. STUDY PERIOD: April 1985-September 1986. VEGETATION COMMUNITIES: The study examined wetland zonation based on nomenclature developed by Winchester et al. (1985). Zones studied were: Hypericum zone; Panicum - Rhynchospora zone; Mixed Emergent zone; Cladium zone; Cephalanthus zone; Fraxinus - Salix zone; Spartina zone; Polygonum zone (Exhibit 1 contains hydrologic information on the different zones). WATER LEVELS: •

Water level data were collected twice monthly at 26 individual wetlands. Each wetland had a shallow rim well located at the upland edge and a shallow interior well located at one of the deeper interior zones. Staff gauges were installed close to the interior wells in 15 wetlands.

•

Five of the studied wetlands exhibited atypical vegetation and water depths (impacted wetlands): three of these were determined to be the result of drainage ditching and two resulted from general lowering of the water table aquifer induced by an-off-site canal (Exhibit 2 contains water level and hydroperiod data on individual wetlands).

HYDROPERIOD: Hydroperiod data was collected for water year 1986 for all individual wetlands and was evaluated for different wetland zones and for impacted vs. unimpacted wetlands. Hydroperiod data for water year 1985 was estimated based on incomplete data. OTHER: •

The study contained no analysis of rainfall over the study period.

•

The study adopted a convention termed "standard elevation." Standard elevation is one foot below the mean upland edge of each wetland. This allowed comparison of hydrologic characteristics of different wetlands without the confounding factor of variation in wetland topography and basin depth.

27

'!' ...aI,le

j-~J

~

AVERAGE IIYDROWGIC CIlAIlAC1't:1l1 S1'ICS of UKR W~TJ.ANO VEGF:TATION ZONES

~ Number of

Vegetation Zone

Sam~led

Averdqe Maximum

.'looding

nepth~

Average Maximum

Dr}:':down 19A5

1996

lIydroperiod

15

-0.01

1.24

I. ]9

-4.24

-2.63

21J

IJ

0.70

1. 78

I.B7

-3. 59

-1.B3

327

14

0.95

I.BB

2.10

-2.9U

-1.43

330

Cladium

5

0.6]

1. 52

1.6B

-].64

-LBO

319

= o>


...J3

w

> W

...J

«

w

rJ)

LAND SIIRFACE

z « w

A

::::!:

w

>

olD

1970-71-

«

rJ)

ffil

t-

w

::::!: M

J

J

A

o

5

N

o

J

f

M

A

MONTHS Figure 2·2. Hydrographs showing water levels at a site in the Big Cypress Swamp, Florida, during a year with a "wet" dry season (1957·58) and one with a "dry" dry season (1970-71) (Freiberger, 1972).

...

..... .....,

iii

>

.,..

B

z

:f iii

. ., >

o

.. 1

a:

...

iii iii

:f

JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

OCT

NOV

DEC

Figure 2·3. Water levels at a site in the Big Cypress Swamp based on 28 years ofncard CU. S. Geological Survey, 1979). The upper and lower edges of the clear area represent highest and lowest average monthly water levels, respectively, and the line represenc. average monthly water levels.

Exhibit 2.

36

SUMMARY NOTES •• HYDROLOGY LITERATURE REVIEW

+2

_WETLAND SITE - - UPLAND SITE

-Z~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~J OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUH Jut. AUG SEP Figure 2-4. Daily hydrograph for two wells in the Big Cypress Swamp during water years 1972-73 (McCoy. 1974).

+Ir----------------------------------------,

-..., I II

II:

.......

:::!: AVERAGE LANO SURFACE zO~~~~-:~~~~~----~~----------~ Q ~

~ ..., ...J ...,

-I

END OF DRY SEASON

BEGINNING OF DRY SEASON

Figure 2-5. An idealized dry season hydrograph for a South Florida marsh.

Exhibit 3.

37


SEPTEMBER 11,1974 (.10 em)

SEPTEMBER 16,1974 (.8 0011 OCTOBER B, 1974 (.5 em)

OCTOBER 21,1974 (.25 em) OCTOBER 13,1974 (.10 .... )

I

2.5 em

JANUARY 15,1975 (·56 em)

OCTOBER 26.1974 C. 33 eml

MARCH 26,1975 (.109 om)

JANUARY 20,1975

MAY,I975 (.152 em)

MARCH 31,197' (.1I9 em)

...

C· 6ii ,,",

~--------~. ... , ......

MAY.197S (. ISS om)

MIONIGHT bAY I

MIDNIGH":" OAY2

MIDNIGrrT DAY 3

MIDNIGrrT DAY4

MIONIGrtT CAYS

Figure 2-6. Diurnal variation in water levels at an unforested upland site at CorklCl"ew Swamp, Florida (Duever et al.,1975). Numbers in perenthe_ indicate position ofth. wa· ter table in relation to the ground I11Me.

Exhibit 4.

38


I

6.5

6.0

8/6/7.

a

-:::::::: ",

9/3/7. 10/1/7. GROUNO SURFACE

:It

a: c 2 :: u

,,

,

,

B) /

1213/74

Z

~5

'" II>

11/5/7.

...c ...c ...>

1/7/75

~

= ...

2/./75

II:

en

~O

C

3/./75

-z

./1/75

z

1----

... /

, 1-----

"

2

5!

..,>~ •. 5 .., ..J

516/75

...c2

'"=

5/23/75 I-

.--"",

./

C

...... -

/'

-------

./

1ft

"',

~

,/

-

•.0

Figure 2-7. Water table profiles along the North Marsh transect at Corkscrew Swamp, Florida, during the 1974-75 dry season (Duever et al., 1986). The dashed line is the ground surface profile.

Exhibit 5.

39

SUMMARY NOTES .• HYDROLOGY LITERATURE REVIEW

6.5

8/6174

a

9/3174 :II:

a:: c 6.0

!

u

...

10/1/74 GROUND SURFACE

Z

CD

0

...

- -- ...

,

I

I

... ...

I

...

""

",'"

'" '"

,.,.

,

~

...0

...> ~

5.5

a::

::>

II) ~

0

z

-

25.0 3/5175

z 0

;: ~

... ... oJ

e ~

Oi In

4/1/75 4.5

""

5/6175 5/Z8175

4.0

Figure 2-8. Water table profiles along the Grapefruit Island transect at Corbcrew Swamp, Florida, during the 1974-75 chy season (Duever et al.,1986). The dashed line is the ground surfsee profile.

Exhibit 6.

40


6.0 81'/74 9/6174 10/5174 ~

a::

c 5.S ~ ::: u Z

w

m

11/2./74 12/1/74 1/5/7S 1/!1/7S.

GROUNO SURFACE 3/8/75

0

t-

o

Mol

.., 5.0 > a: = en )0-

4/5/75

t-

O Z

~

5/8/~

4-S

z

52

tC

>

W

...,-J CI

~ 4.0

= crt III

C

3.5

Figure 2-9. Water table profiles along the Central Marsh transect at Corkscrew SwamPt Florida. during the 1974-75 dry season (Dueveret aI., 1986). The dashed line is the ground surface -profile.

Exhibit 7.

41

r.n

o

a::

~

::tl

to< Z

75

o

t-3

~

r.n t;!j

= t='

e:" ........rr

o

~

~

rv

~ ~

~

~

to
~

~ ==

::tl t;!j

< t;!j

~

SUMMARY NOTES -- HYDROLOGY LITERATURE REVIEW Duever M.J. 1988b

REFERENCE: Duever M. J.1988b. Surface water hydrology and plant communities of Corkscrew Swamp. In D.A. Wilcox, editor. Interdisciplinary approaches to freshwater wetlands research. Michigan State University Press, East Lansing, Michigan. STUDY LOCATION: Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary, map not given. STUDY PURPOSE: This paper discusses data previously published for a variety of scientific disciplines on Corkscrew Swamp ecosystems. A -majority of the paper focuses on the direct and indirect interactions of systems components, with the emphasis on the importance of the interdisciplinary relationships. STUDY PERIOD: Not specifically given, spans a variety of previously published papers. VEGETATION COMMUNITIES: Hardwood Hammocks, Pine Forest, Marsh,and Cypress. Exhibit SA shows the relationship between cypress tree age, diameter at breast height (DBH) water levels and peat thickness. Dominant vegetation included swamp bay (Persea borbonia) and red maple (Acer rubrum) in hardwood hammocks on organic soils. tropical hammocks occurred in soils that were showly underlain by bedrock. Oaks (Quercus laurifolia, Q. nigra, Q. virginiana) occured on deep sandy soils; sawgrass (Cladiumjamaicense), arrowhead (Sagittaria sp.) and pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata) occurred on organic marsh soils; and mixed grasses, sedges and forbs occurred on sandy soils. Exhibit 3B relates peat depth and maximum cypress DBH to distance from edge of strand. WATER LEVELS: Exhibits IB, 2, 3A and 3B. HYDROPERIODS: Exhibits lA, 1B, 4, and 5 (All numbers obtained from text). Hardwood Hammocks and Pine Forest - less than 2 months, annually; transition lands between uplands and marshes - 2-7 ~onths; wax myrtle - none given; marshoptimum development (tallest and densest vegetation) - 7-9 months; cypress - often inundated 8-10 months, but the largest and old trees were inundated 9-10 months. SOIL: Exhibits 2 and 3A.

43


A

.

.... •

-.:;.

ezoc

I

i "I_

. •

I

!I IICI

rieure 2. Bydroper1ods tor 38 sites representing all of the major types of plant communities at Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary (Duever !i~.,1978). The data are averages tor 14 years of record •

... ,," .....T

~UH

~~

... UG ~~

IE"

0:1

NOV

DEC:

.U,H

'e ...... ,. ... ,,"

YAY

~~

"UN

.lUL

aUG

Figure 3. Yater table elevations "at eight well sit.es in marsh habitat.s at Corkscrew Swamp (Duever II a1.,1975). The divergence in water l~els between December~1974 and Hay 1975 reflects lDeasurealents trom sites wit.h more than' ID of peat. (upper band), O.3~' IDpeat (midd le band), and less than 0.3 ID peat (lower band).

Exhibit 1.

44


lccall~ed

declines in ground-water levels during the dry season

(Figure 11). Although layers of lIIarl frequently underlie wetlamb 1n South Florida, they are rarely sufficiently contlnuou~ tor associated water tab 1e3 to be considered percbed t u in comlllOnly reported tor wetlands •

•••

Figure 4. The pattern or 197~-1975 water-level decline along the Central Harsh Transect at Corkscrew Swamp showing its relationship to substrate character-laties (modified from Duever !l al., 1975). The ditferent sub.strat. types are indicated as follows: peatlight shadinG (lett); sand - clar)c shading (ris:ht)j snell unshaded (middle bottolll).

Exhihit2.

45

,~

.

=i> ....

CENTRAl. MARSH lAoUtSfCl.EAST STRANO

~

---

n"--., _

..'"

t"l

...e:

~

d'

'.,

' .:~

~

~

,--.

11' ."

..

,.

.-". :oJ! •

•• t:t

i

•

•

0< ==

~

••

t,

•

'"

.

-

~ . • • , ,. :"

-....-

.. 100 JOG ... DtSTIIHCI: INTO nJlIlND••

-soe

..,

F1sure 6. 1 profile throuah the sa •• portion of the cypress fore3t illustrated In F11ure _ shoutn! the aleyatton or the Bround surface and base of the peat _aSIlI, 197_ •• xl.uM vet .season water

Ifwel. 19111-1917 .1nl.u. drJ a.aaon vater levels, and the average aSe and dbh or up to rour oJ'preaa trees at. 30 • int..rYe1. alona the Cantnl Harah Tranaeat (.adlr1ed. tro. DU.Yer n al., 19811).

~

~en

I1

~ ~

c::

::l

r~

M

........ '..:

i !

•

•

.. "'"

....:

,

•

~.)~:::::"., :' A::' :'.~ '

...."

•.

.: . ." . . . :.:.:

~

Ho,1

I

• •

...... .....

~.

en

-

CYPRUS GAOWnt

:u: " ,

--- .... --- "_,", 1"':::"_ ...,""" ~

-

Figure 7. Peat. depth -nel a.xi_u. oypress dbh at ]0 m interva 13 alonl

t.he aa~e protile of the Central Harah Transec t shown in Figures .II and 5 (Duever !l.!.l., 1986).

~ ~

~

~

~ ~


•

r\

" ~

•

,

I.

ii '

•¥• i• •

,

I

,

C

crtIGr,,/t4.)

lU~

T'II[U LC$GCO

"10

1'0)

,on

DUI[ CDHSTltUCTtD

Figure 9 .

Mean (z.. 1 S. E.) annual "ring widths for cypress st.ump sprouts along the South Dike Transact at Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary (Duever and ~cCollota, 1987 ) . ;xcept where data were availatrle Jor a ll 20 trees. sa~ple size js shown above each S. E. bar.

Exhibit 4.

47

~ 3:

~

!

~

r=i·u g •

Z

...o

yt.,q; SIC[

..... ' ,l\UClTO . .-"' . :: l"l

~

~~I

'"

1~~'"1

~

r:n

"HE

'It&llllt

~

MWWOOO

a

...e: ~.

wn

l"l

8

;:o~

IWIOWCOO t\.UIIIOQt

......"

---'

WIXED

..

Successional patterns and rates of B1S Cypress Swamp

plant oommunities

8S •

S l"l

IUCecSSION-+

Figure 10.

S Cl 0

~

c

z

c

2

> 0

C

1

E

~

2

JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

OCT

NOV

DEC

F;J. J. Water levels al a site in the Bi, Cypress Swamp ba~ on 28 years of record (U .S. Geoloaical Survey 1979). The upper And lower ed,es of the clear area rcpr:escnl hilhest and lowest. respcc'livdy, avcrqe monthly watC[ incls. and the tine reprcserus .veraae monthly water leyeis. .

Exhibit 2.

51

SUMMARY NOTES·· HYDROLOGY UTERATURE REVIEW

+2'r-------------------------~-----------------, _ _ WETLAND SITE UPLAND SITE

-2:~~~~~:-~~~~~~~~7.7~~~~~~~~ OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP Fi,. 6. Daily hydroaraph for two welb in the Bia Cypress durinl water year 1972-1973 (McCoy, 1974).

Exhibit 3.

52

SUMMARY NOTES -- HYDROLOGY UTERATURE REVIEW

-

n,-rEMlElit 11,1974 ( •• eml

DefOlER

1~.1974

(.10 em)

12.5 c. oeT08EII 21.1'7" C.33 en!)

MARDI Ui, IIi'! 1·10' ml

-

---------~ .........

DAY '

MAT.1975

C-IS.

ella)

1-

! MIDNIGHT

JANUARY 20.I'YS (·11 CIIIi

MlCNIGH~

CAn

MIDNiGr4T DAY 3

"'rDNI(irlT

DAY'

PII. •. Diurnal ..nation ill water 5cvds at. an unforated upland site at Corkxrcw Swamp (Ducvcr ft • 197'). Numbers in parmthescs indicate positioa of the water table in relation to the ll'Ound surfaec.

Exhihit4.

53

•

SUMMARY NOTES·· HYDROWGY LITERATURE REVIEW

t .•

1.0

"'""

.."""..

....

--

III['''

IIJ/7ot-' 10/1/70

......ACE

'

••

•

:f/)

.

II/S/7

,,

,,

1--

-,

,

'.

/" ~

i

l/

"0/15

i 4/1IT

• /'

V

/'

Fli. 9. Water table prordcs alolll tbc North Minh uuscct at Corkscrew Swamp duriq the clry ICIUOD (Duevcr., •. 1979). Tbc dashed line is the Jl'oUDC1 surface prorllc.

Exhibit 5.

54

.".-1975


_-----7n.\~

••• ./t/74

•

.•

1I1IT4

c ..0

a

...i

1011/'74

..ou..

SUIlt'ACI

•

" " "

,

I

I

, ....

....

,

.-, /-

~,

0

~

... ...

... 0

fV11T4

~

> C

11/$/74 I/T/."

~

•

~

i ~ ' .0

~

J/5/'T5

~

4/1n,

i... ... ea a •

•••

c

5/1175 5/281'75

' .0

F". 10. Wakr ubi!!. profile aloaa the Graptrruit Island tranKct It Corkscrew Swamp duriDJ the 197"-197! dry ~ (Ouncr n til. 1979). The dahcd line is 1M .,OWMiaurfacc profile.

Exhibit 6.

55


wlU.s

-;/1J\~

,-

-

1.0

< IflP'4 ,
'

J

-'''''

r:f

--,,.

_w>

-'JI

. L .+

2J

""1t'L

.2.

:u.

",/l.y

'I

.u

:rUN!!

'T

e.

7u~y

., " , '5

''''10+

nCUIE 11 ClWtCES IN CIIOIJKD WAnll LEVELS A'1. 'nI! C'lHESS IWIlTA'1.S

Exhibit 11.

74

-J5

2'1 AU6usr s_en: 1lC.1D1IE1t.


.. o

....

•

\II 0

... ."-.. !:

~

~

~••

\

• • ••• •• • •,• ,••

C

t-t

~

.-

~

I:

:1 &

• • • " ..••........ " • •• •• •••,",• • ••,'. •

-:-

•

~£

f:!

..

,

••• • •• • • • ••

1

l

~

~ ~

•

••

~

;1

•

•• • ••

~ :!

...I§

~a

".

••

~

I.:

f

• •

'. •• •• • • •• ••" • • •• •• •

J • .... , • •

( "

•

•

• •

•

•

•

Exhibit 7.

83

it-

a

-., ,•

,

~

-. ~

[.1

..· ..•

•

1 I.

•

~i

-.

1

~

••

,• • • 9: ' ; .•

•

~

•••

•

•••

...

•

•• ••• • • •

••• •

f

•

~


'J

rt

Exhibit 8.

84


.

."..

~ ~

%

...

.J

,.

RI

Q-l

11

1/J/7J

I.

a

~>

LI

.., I, 175

.'''/11 15

1'1

--.

c.,n/1l

'''''11

13

I~

E"hibit 9.

85


.,

ep

,

Be w4C"

s·

~c

Ni"

••

!'!./1¥

.

'/~/"I\TICS

PI"'''/

P.........

.

"'"..,.

-'"'' e. ......

/'IIILUYwI!

1

I

• " ,, ,, , , C'fPOS/ , , ..."""""" " ,,

00

WILLOW'

PONl> APPLE AH~/'" pOp ASH

S1D\J""

,

e......us

~

~O

~"

....~.

~

-g

..

"'"a~~. ~~" .,......,.

e'tPIU.SSl ""~

""

...... OlD

.

~

,",

" , ,

...........x:o
lARSH

509

PEMIC

t(ARSH

HARSH

~"

NOT NOT NOT NOT

GIVZN GIVEN GIVEN GIVEN

aacopa carolin~ana, Nymphae. odorata aacopa carclin1ana, Utrlcularia Otricu1.r1., Nympha.a odorata,Eleocharia Nymph... odorata aacopa caroliniana, .anieu. h~tcacn aaecpa,Nymphaaa,lleochari.,Utricularia Dtricularia,Baccpa,zleocharia,Nymphaea Nymphae. odorata, Ileochar1. elcnqata NOT GIVElI NOT GIVEN NOT GIVElf NOT GIWN

Huhlenber1)la. Spartina ? DRY PRAIRIE Huh1anberqia. Spart1na ? WET PRAXRII Muh1en.berqia Haidenean•• Andrcpogon ttranait prairie)

UNREPORTED UNR£PORTED NOT GIWIf NOT GIVEN' NOT GIVIN NOT GIVEN NOT GIVEN NOT GIVEN NOT GIVIN NOT GIVEN NOT GIVEN NOT GIVEIf NOT GIVEH NOT GIVEl'f NOT GIVRH

day. ~

.Oh lOS loe 313

342 318 358 329 348

337 340 299 360 350

50

70 51 235

340 109 154

154 223 239

239 250 250 26-

.....; ...... .;.. ., : • : , .... ;....... :........ ; .. ···;····· .. 7... ·

I

2 w

.,'i.

: _.H.:·L; . . .

.

N

;H : :. [. . _. .

00000000000

o

~.

ID N (')

('")

W vOID N

N

N

N

_ .--

.-

W V

(SA va) OOIU3c1O\:IOAH Exhibit 5.

124

Z

~

:2 :2

IW

)

2

>-

I-

J .,\

« w

~

Z

-~ _'t:

06 Z

0

0 0

0 0

",0

(j)

W

\.

oat

~

'l!I.

~

0

Z

« .J ~

-

'"'"uJ UJ '"

• u

~

'"

SUMMARY NOTES -- HYDROLOGY LITERATURE REVIEW Ewel. K.C. 1990

REFERENCE: Ewe!. K.C. 1990. Swamps. Pages 281-323 in R.L .. Myer and J .J. Ewel, editors . Ecosystems of Florida. University of Florida Pr.• ss, .Gainesyille, Florida. STUDY LOCATION: Florida. STUDY PURPOSE: Provide an overview of swamps in Florida. STUDY PERIOD: Various studies discussed. VEGETATION COMMUNITIES: Swamps. HYDRO PERIOD: Exhibit 1 - provides average bydroperiod ranges for various Florida swamps.

125

Table 9.1. Proposed rlnan of important enviroamtntal charKleriSlics of INljor rypts of Florida s. .mps Approximate T fpC' of swamp.

A.,erllF hydroperiod"

frequency'

Or81nk maHer , accumulation

Low Low Low

Lo., Lo., Low

fire

M,in wuer

"M'"

R:iwer swamps While.ate'~

fLoGclplain f~t Blackwater floodplain forest ~prina run swamp

Shore Shore Shon

River Ri.,er

o..p aroundwlter

Stillwater .wamps Bay ,.am!,

l"l ~

N

'"

~ or ::;: ~.

...

Long

Low

High

Cypress pond.

Moderlte

Moderate

HiSh

Cypres& ..Yanna Cypl'eS$ strand

Moderate Moderate

High Noderace

HiSh

Gum pond

I.o nl

Low

High

Hydric hammock

Shon

Low

Low

Low

Shallow groundwater Sh.11ow groundwlter Rain Shallow groundwlter Shano.. aroundwaeer

o..p aroondwarer

Lab frinae swamp Melaleuca sWimp

ModtrlllC Moderate

Low

Hi,h

Lake

Hia h

Low

Shallow ,cound...ller

MiKCd hardwood swamp

Moderllie

Low

High

Long

Modtrlltehigh

High

Shallow ground.lrer Shallow around.lter

ShNbboa

a. Short .. < 6 mer, ~tt = '-9 mo; Ionf: .. > 9 1M. '(.Low - < I m; hip, -> t m.

b. l.ow - l/cenrurr; moderlle - )/cmtury; hiah:: J/drude.

00 ~

ro::

~

== -< Z

0

;l 00

ill >< 0

== 0 to'

0

Q

...l"lto' ...>== ~

== l"l == l"l

'" oJ

'""z "'" ;". ~lo.n..oo4s .:k. .,., o.r, h

410 • pond" c,! pr.ss

Cffi""bold" cypns~ _

(v;r~;")

loS'!.d Cypr~Sl MAJOR HABITATS AND STUDY AREAS CORKSCREW SWAMP SANCTUARY

E:drlbit 3.

135

"

SUMMARY NOTES"" HYDROLOGY LITERATURE REVIEW

I

-.'

•

0

0

•

~•

•

'.

'.

!

I

"I

•

~I

91

;

~

• I

• " I•

-;

I

0

•

I

'. t" •

'r,t'

)00

::

--
-

•

•

a:

.1 if

I•

« ::J

,..

0

U

.z

!

I• I~ !

-"-.J I

,

0

I

« ;:

"

•

a:

!

I

].,

'"-'

,

!

4

f

'or:

I

I .i

I

~ ~

Vl_

'"a: ..,.

0",

u-

@In; ,..0; U UJ ·t Vl >

I

t

z " « a: C"

S

"\

l\/

\

u

i

• ..J"\ ! . (- , I_

l1J

• .~

I

Vl

Ii•

-'\.. ., -,\ Ii -!-",~. ,-I

,•,

,

--

....

ii'

I

'"a:« =e ,.. a:

"

., II

··

.....

Ii

,.. -

I.

I

i

z

•

I~

•

-

0

•

ii' •

•

~ I ____ ....., ...... _,n

Exhibit 5.

137

•

!


...

, !• •

••

--

..- --- --, --•

,

, ...

\

~l

ILL'

(

t. _H .. _ ,

o'..:'~

,I

.....

i

-

-

: ;

.n

•f

•

Exhibit 6.

138

..... '

! ' ~!, _--LJ/1 _M

I

I

:-1 I'

,-

I ,I

II , ,II

... ...

SUMMARY NOTES - HYDROLOGY UTERATURE REVIEW

TABLE 4 MAJOR HABITATS AND WELL SITES ALONG THE CORKSCREW SWAMP SANCTUARY TRANSECTS

GRAPEfRUIT ISLAND

CENTRAL MARSH

Pine-Palm Flatwoods· Wet Prairie (mixed vegetation) Palm·Oak Hammock Wet Prairie (mixed vegetation) Pine-Palm Flatwoods

Pine Flatwoods' Wet Prairie (wax myrtle) WfII Prairie (mixed vegetation) Maple Hammock Pond Cypress Swamp Bald Cypress Swamp Willow Marsh Sawgrass Marsh Bald Cypress Swamp

NORTH MARSH WiUow Marsh Wet Prairie (maidencane) Wet Prairie (spartina) Wet Prairie (buttonbush) Freshwater Marsh (arrowhead) Pond Cypress Swamp Bumed Pond Cypress Swamp Pine Flatwoods·

SOUTH DIKE Logged Bald Cypress Swamp'· Sawgrass Marsh·· Logged Bald Cypress Swamp'· Pond Cypress Swamp·

• Water level recorder •• Wells were located on both sides of the dike

Ouever (81 aI) 1974

Exhibit 7.

139


+ N

-

,

.\ ,

SUI!FACIt

fLOW MON l'-OItING S1"ATlONS

/

•

;

WA"e~

• w ..wa-........ ".~. - - . u l ........ ~

--

...........11&. '-CROWS .wow -.wna

~

. . . . 0- ........ ,& ....,. ...." ~.. .rno- TO - . . -

u.

'!fOUl"'.

SORFACE WATER FLOW MONITORING STATIONS ( Duever. at al 1974 )

ExhibitS.

140


3 50 ~ . ~-.-.~r------r-----r------~-----~,-----,

••

••

• •

300 r

• •

• • •

250 •

•

~ 20 0

li o

•

z

:> ;!;

•

~ ISOr

o

• •

100

• • •

50

•

•

•

. . . .. . '

°0~----~2~0~----4~0~----6~O~----~8~O~--r-I~O~ O --~~ 120 LETTUCE LAKE STAFF GAGE

( inches ) Meao number of days per year that water levels were above given points on the Corkscr_ Swamp Sanctuary staff gauge. ( Cuever. at al 1977 )

Exhibit 9.

141


. o

~

•

....

c::...

III

~

. ... § '"- .. .. !:

(!I

-

~

I1J

.,.... -

-

U

GENERAL LAND SURFACE

00 i

A

==

t:i

-'

~

0:

I1J

!;i

~

3: _I

~

~

I

-21 OCT

NOV

DEC

JAN

FEB MAR

APR MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG SEP •

c:

::c l"l

l::l

~

:E WATER LEVELS FOR UPLAND I WETLAND SITES Duever, 'Hydrology ot Freshwater Wetlands & Shallow Bodies ot Water'

300

-+ . PINE

PALMETTO

;t . HAMMOCK

-----

P£AT,.s·:f

4' - MYRTLE PftAIRE ~ - MARSU

Z50~

"f - CYPRESS 1- .

.,

•

~

---

PEAT.. :!I'I

POND

~

~ ~

~ ~

a 200 5

~

~

'"

w

~

!"

== -< C

~

l':I

iii

e: ~

...!"::I'

g 150 0

0

"" ...... :~:'9'

~

~

0

~ 100

r.D

~

. PEAT.O~'

~ ..,t:

~ ,/;'

Ift.

•.

~

z.~..:k..

.:L

>

a 150

V

== t;i

,

~

PEA1"'O-.5

.. a

0

S

!$"~ ffiI~~'"

~

~

"'b~~':"~ CW!t 1iL~~ ",

2
t. -

""

ANt PALMETTO HAMMOCK "YRTLE PRAIRE

rn

~

~

_ - POND

o

w

g

ill

\11 ~

...••"" ~

~

•

:k~""

ye c .,..

7

>< Z

.at..

:;.I(.

JIC.

-*-..>J:.

~

JiI:..

.•.:*.:k.ok. ~::i: ... .:*..:1. ......... ....It..\l~C

~

~ g

·~~t'i"'~~ ~ .... ~

BJi:.

!

w

~ ••

~

•

§ 200

~

[j

~

c.".,: ~-

MARSH

f"- 'CYPRESS

rn

~

~

150

ii'

i

S

1

~~ "f~t'

~ .00

~

~

~

i(~

~

~

50

~

1;] b

• 10

5

I~

GROUND

SURFACE

~

,

5

i

i

10

15

1974 MAXiMUM WATER LEvEL (INCIIES)

Uydropcriods and maximul8 water levels -1974.

( Duevar. al al 1975 )

20

25

30

~

~


GROUIJt)-WATEli! LEVEL.S -

MARSH HAB ITATS

r

I

12.

- 40

-12.0

,...

'Zt

APItIC,.

q

2' :7\>'"'

?

"

:rUL"I

. I.

.... UG'U.)T

1'1701-

CHANGES IN GROUND !lATER LEVELS

:m THE MAltSli HABITATS

( Duever, et al 1974 )

Exhibit 20,

152


GROlJN'OoWPtTER LEVELS -

C.YPRESS HAS/TAT"S

'0

/'1.

0

30

G.I 50

Wal Prairie

Horbacoou. 0 Lowa, Rang.. IB,oad Ie" ava,u,oon .h,ub,)

PEMI. PSS3

8Ima.)

11\ - 155

Marsh

H.rbaceou. WOI Ib,oad loaf doeiduous .h,ubs)

PEMI

16 Ima.)

224 - 218

Hardwood Hammotk

B,oad leaved t,•••• eabbag. palm

PFDI. PF03

6•8

10 - 45

Cyp,...

aald Cyp,...

PF02

24 Ima.1

290 lavul

Cyp'."

Pond Cyp''''

PF02

12 Imaxl

250 lavul

Cypress

DWlrf Cyp,ass

PSS2

6-8

120 I.vgl

Willow

WiUow/P,im,.s. Wiiiow

PSSI

N/A

278 - 291

Slough

C~,a••

Strlnd

.-.

N/A

310 • 346

Pond

FIIU Pond ••Ie_

---

3& Imaxl

> 360

~

,

~

Hyd'.parl.4 R.I,I IDlp)

Z

~rn

•• ill

45-155 lwa. myrtle)

~ ~

S

~ ,

~

:.l

~

~

$J

-TABLE' • HYDROPERIOD AND WATER LEVEL COMPARISON FOR REFERENCED RESEARCH AND LITERATURE

eo......IIy Typi

~

~

at

V'I

'"'" I

~

.. I1 I., . 1 .

~

.-., , ..,

;:;

..J ..J ~

.... N

S3H:JNI 'll"~NI"~

i I!

1

lDlO.,.tt:lN

N

N

N

N

N

N

131131 ,,3S N,,3111 31108" J.33~ '131131 ~3J."M

Exhibit 2.

174

~ '" o

1 . i


. . .•• . . ~

-'

WI .. 1. ISI,CAST

'\I IJV \J

"-

"\ ,""'-

or

/

>

~

.,c

~"J

"'"

~

••

Z C

" > • ~ • .. '" • > • . •• i •

~,.,..

111011. [(

~

,

.......

--

...1'

.........

~ c

,

,,

I

w

1

C\.L leO 'fllC)R'fMpST Of' QC'.MQIfU 0IJ'1'M JO IttT

"'-

1/

~.

'"

-' w w -'

'"

~ "

r---

w

1

I

JAN FEB MAlt

A~

MAY JUN JUl AUG SEPT OCT NOY DEC JAN FEB MAR .APR MAY JUN

1970 1,000 0

~

I

.ARRON RiVER CANAL. NEAR U.S. tlGHWAY 41

'00

u .w

~; cw %,. li! ..

197.

'"

"

1

.0

I

V ~

b

/5'" ~

.,::>u

"'"

00

u

I..J

,..... I

r

• JAN FEI MAR APR MAY oIUN .lUI.. AuG SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN FEe MAR APR MAY 'UN 1'70 1971

.... 4...,' • C IIf_W . . . . . . . . . • 0 • ., . . . . . . . atwwc:..& St

1".. . _

.....

Exhibit 3.

175

SUMMARY NOTES·· HYDROLOGY LITERATURE REVIEW Klein, R., et aL 1970 REFERENCE: Klein, H., W.J. Schneider, B.F.1. McPherson, and .'l'.J. Buchanan. 1970. Some hydrologic and biologic aspects of the Big Cypress Swamp dminage area. U.S. Geological Survey, Tallahassee, Florida, Open-File Report 70003. STUDY LOCATION: Big Cypress. STUDY PURPOSE: To determine the importance of the Big Cypress in maintaining an adequate water supply for: (1) the Everglades National Park, (2) the expanding populations of southwest Florida; and (3) the adjacent estuaries. STUDY PERIOD: Specific study period not stated, however, hydrographs were provided for the period from January 1967 to December 1968 and field inspections to document water levels in natural communities were conducted in 1960, 1962, and 1969. VEGETATION COMMUNITIES: Pine.palm-palmetto forest, wet praine and marsh, freshwater swamp, hammock forest, cypress forest, tidal marsh and mangrove swamp. Exhibit 1 shows the major sloughs and strands of the Big Cypress area.

WATER LEVELS: General statements (no monitoring information provided). •

Wet prairies: several inches of water during the wet season and usually dry during the dry season.

•

Marshes: deeper water than wet prairies, but may also become dry at times.

•

As much as 90 percent of the undrained part of the Big Cypress is inundated to depths ranging from a few inches to more than 3 feet at the height of the rainy season. AB the dry season begins, water levels start to recede. The recession typically continues into May, at which time about 10 percent of the undrained area is covered by water in ponds and sloughs.

•

Water level fluctuations for hydrologic subareas (Exhibit 2) of the Big Cypress Basin are shown on Exhibit 3. Water levels at Bridge 105 are "unaffected by up gradient drainage and water-control works" and "changes by man Within this subarea (C) have not been significant, The well-54 levels are affected by watermanagement practices in the Levee 28 Interceptor Canal. Well-382 is within the Golden Gate area. The lowest water level in the vicinity of well-54 was approximately 5 feet below land at the end of the 1962 drought. II

•

Exhibit 4 shows a stage-duration curve for the Tamiami Canal at Bridge 105. This exhibit-sbows the percentage of time that a selected water level was equalled or exceeded at that site. The range of water levels at this site from 1952-1969 was 6.2 feet and represents the difference between extremes of flood and drought.

176

SUMMARY NOTES -- HYDROLOGY LITERATURE REVIEW Klein et al., 1970 (continued) •

Water levels within natural communities for particular inspection dates are shown graphically oil Exhibits 5-8.

HYDROPERIOD: General statements (no monitoring information provided). •

Pine-palm-palmetto forests: inundated briefly after heavy rain and for perhaps several months during the wet season.

•

Wet prairies and marshes: seasonally inundated.

•

Fresh-water swamps (hardwoods and palms, ferns, air plants, orchids): inundated most of the year.

•

Cypress forests: inundated most of the year.

177


..

'

'0'

tfbo'

IS'

!,

,. ,.\

I

..r&~ __ ~ . :. .1••• - ._--- - -. . - .-:-8i"'~ - '".":r~r, --!'-

•

~1

II'

~

&---:-f

...'.-

... •' . ~ :~: ~--.t-1l 'r:"'---~-tL~·:"_-t.l-,-lf-:::::;"-- ;-.~... .. •

-.

\

:

":

L .. _

.....

IS'

t

,.

."00 -.-. ,

.'"00'

••

•

..'

••

Figure 2.--K.p of the Big Cypress showing the mojor sloughs lind strands.

Exhibit 1.

178


-.

, B.

-••

•.

-•

•

~

-•.

•

Figure l.--Map or the Big Cypress shoving the delineations of the drainage area and the .ubareaa.

Exhibit 2.

179


• , "'" •

IA'DlI! 101

•r- ,J, ..1..J,\" •

•,

1\.v ·

I

~

"-

i'" ,~

\

, • • • ..r' • , , • •

•

0

'"'

,

~

lip •

- ......

,J

-I

..

$

1\

........ c oI,

, , • • • • • • •••• nu. ..

,:.... 'Y 6 o ~

~~~~~

Figure 12.--Vegetal transect in the Big Cypress shov1nS ""t pra1rie into a herdvood he1Tl!tC)ck.

Exhibit 6.

183


CYPRESS

,c"cu PLUM

SCATTERED SCRUB CYPRESS

WET PRAIRIE

.:o~~ >

...-' 2 ...a:

i

.-;,..-
om per decade. , . Low - • few centimeters to nonn:;'tcnt; modetaw - usually < 1 mfte1" deep; hiah - WI. .liy > I meter dftp.

Exhibit 1.

189

SUMMARY NOTES -- HYDROLOGY LITERATURE REVIEW Myers, R.L. 1983 REFERENCE: Myers, R.L. 1983. Site susceptibility to invasion by the exotic tree Melaleuca uinquenervia 10 southern Florida. Journal of Applied Ecology 20:645-58. STUDY LOCATION: Laboratory/green house and field studies in South Florida (did not give specific locations). STUDY PURPOSE: To determine the conditions that are conducive to Melaleuca germination, survival and growth, in order to gain some insight as to which sites and vegetation types are most susceptible to colonization and takeover.

~lso,

to pinpoint

critical points in the life cycle of Melaleuca that may be useful in its control by environmental manipulation. A combination of greenhouse and field experiments were used.

STUDY PERIOD: Approximately a three year period ending in the submission of this report in March 1982, and revision in September 1982. VEGETATION COMMUNITIES: Germination and growth . of Melaleuca was studied by planting in the following communities: •

Pine flatwoods - Pinus palUBtris, Pinus elliotii, Serona repens, Befaria racemo8a,

Hypericum brachyphyUum, Andropogon capillipes, and Aristida .piciformis. The soil is a well drained white sand and the water table fluctuates between 0 cm and -170cm. •

Pond cypress forest - Taxodium aBcentUns, Acer rubrum. Fr(J%inus caroliniana,

Ficus aurea, Salix sp. Baccharis halmifolia, Myrica cerifera, Blechnum serrulatum, Ludwigia repens, Mikania batatifolia, and Boehmeria cylindrica. •

Transition zone between pond cypress and pine (burned April 1974) - T=odium ascendens, Acer rubrum, Pinus elliotii, Sabal palmetto, Stslix caroliniana, Baccharis halmifolia, Persea barbania, Blechnum serrulatum, Sacciolepis striata, Nymphaea ordata, and Polygonum hydropiperoides.

•

Dwarf cypress forest (transition zone between pond cypress and wet prairie) Taxodium ascendens, Myrica cerifera, ChryBobalanus icaco, Cladium jamaicensis. Panicum virgatum, Paspalum rnonstachyum. and Proserpinaca palustris'.

•

Wet prarie - Cladium jamaicensis, Rhychospora tracyi, Utricularia biflcra, and Muhlenbergia capillaris.

•

Bald cypress/mixed hardwood forest - Taxodium distichum, Ficus aurea, Fraxinus caroliniana, Annona glabra, Chrysobalanus icaco, Ludwigia repens, and Nymphea odorata.

190

SUMMARY NOTES·· HYDROLOGY LITERATURE REVIEW Meyers 1983 (continued) •

Mangrove - l. .aJ[Uncuiaria racemosa, Salicornia bigelovii, and Spartina spartinae.

•

Drained pond · cypress • Ta:wdiun ac••ndens, Baccharis hatm'fotla, Myrica cerifera, Eupatorium mikaniodes, chloris neglecta, and Pluchea rosea.

WATER LEVELS: •

Pine flatwoods: White sand, well drained; water table fluctuates from 0 to ·170 cm.

•

Pond cypress: Acid sand; limestone bedrock at 1m, water table fluctuates between 15·35 cm and ·100 cm.

•

Transition zone: Same as above except slightly higher with 5-25 em of surface water in the wet season.

•

Dwarf cypress: Shallow sandy marl soil; limestone bedrock from 1m to protruding; 5·25 em of surface water in the wet season to ·95 em in the dry season.

•

Wet prairie: Shallow marl over limestone; flooded 9 months to 10·20 cm.

•

Bald cypress/hardwood forest: Organic sand; wet season 20·70 cm surface water to ·75 cm in the dry season.

•

Mangrove: Brown fibrous peat, saturated in dry season; 10·30 em surface water in the wet season.

•

Drained pond cypress: Acid sand; artificially drained throughout the year; water table fluctuates between 0 em ·100 cm.

HYDRO PERIOD: See above. OTHER: This study on the germination and growth of Melaleuca found that several factors interact together to influence which areas and conditions would be most favorable to the colonization of Melaleuca. The factors include specific timing of moisture availability, characteristics of the hydroperiod, Boil characteristics, light, competition from native vegetation, fire and seed source. A site must have both favorable conditions for germination and must be able to support the Melaleuca stand once it is past the critical germination stage. The ideal situation appeared to be on sites that allowed for germination and then adequate growth during the wet season (moist to saturated soils, but rarely submerged conditions would be required during a 6-month wet season) to ensure survival during the dry season. The two sites on which the Melaleuca was able to

191

SUMMARY NOTES -- HYDROLOGY LITERATURE REVIEW Meyers 1983 (continued)

survive were the drained pond cypress and the burned transition si~ . The drained pond cypress site represented the dry end of this spectrum. The soil was never flooded and rarely saturated, but remained moist for about five months. The burned transition zone approached the wet end of the spectrum, here the site was flooded for 4 to 5 months, but the depth seldom exceeded 20 cm. There was a period of 1 month when the soil was wet to saturated before the soil surface dried out. Between these two extremes lies a range of moisture conditions that is most conducive to Melaleuca establishment. Outaide this range the sites were either too wet or too dry . Even on favorable sites timing of seed distribution is critical, and the other factors discussed

above affect the outcome of the Melaleuca colonization.

192

.


Schnelle, J.F., and C.L. Ferraro 1991 REFERENCE: Schnelle.•J.F .. and C.L. Ferraro. 1991. Integrated, created and systems usmg wastewater. Presented at the Florida Association of Environmental Professionals Annual Seminar on June 14, 1991. : !a ~ ~ r':"i W !.' ''.,i8na

STUDY LOCATION: South Florida. STUDY PURPOSE: To create a dialogue for the optimization of wastewater reuse to enhance and restore natural wetlands systems that have been hydrologically disturbed and/or altered by human disturbance. STUDY PERIOD: 1991. VEGETATION COMMUNITIES: This study examines wastewater reuse systems that incorporate a variety of wetland community types. WATER LEVELS: The study addresses wastewater loading rates to wetlands. Loading rates range from 1·14 inches per day. There are attachments to the paper that more directly address wetland water levels and hydroperiod (see Exhihits 1 and 2). HYDROPERIOD: (See Exhibit. 1 and 2).

193


liXjD:ju,r'l P

or

IIl"JQ28Y bln8«

Q9M%lWI'r WI!l'l'LNfP PLAlftD, STIiR Nfl) RXpJtOnHOp I\IODI:It!jMllfTl

Wl\rza lIZ'l'lJUID

Tlpe

"UI""

HYDROfBRIOD

DEnII (ATgtp)

,nc;uJa

1'1oat:!.IlQ

RY&~Ath.,

Deep

rro~l.

P.D~yvOz:t,

(AYS'"

0.5-'.0

10-100

0.'-).0

~O-100

bit, Duokv •• 4,

Aquat.ie

w.t.er IAlttuo.

71oat:inq Rcct.4

wat.r Lily, Wae.% ~ok, •• tat 8hi.14

Aquatic gul:>-

aergGd Aqua"io

.yd~ill&, Egor1., ••1:.: K111foil, Saqittaria, Maid

PiGkerel-

C.tt~l.,

.. 0-100

..... el, •••qra.8, .1.11 Z"'.;lllk I .,4:49.,

Hai 4e:'O&Zl6 1'1004-

plaia

.

R.4 X.~1., ~l.Gk Gum, Oub_goo "ala, hod

0.2-0.'

10- 75

0.3-1

50-100

0.1"0.3

30-100

0.1-0.2

20- SO

cypre•• , Oak., P!D •• Bald. oypr••• , Aeb

8WallLP

rarest

Bald eypr~~s, Aah alack oum, ~p.l0 4wa, KeeS Maple

Cyp% ••• Do.. 01:

~.pl.,

J!li;E'1Ul4

D&l:ICJO;c. Kolly

".~

7on~

cypress, aed Bl.~~

at. =otm..

GUm~

WOft,

s&i1ttar1a

~r&i.rJ..

~r1.,

Oak, pllllll

oaks, catbaqa Palm

9 mO.c:'chs. b. Low - < once per dc:cade: mod~rftr~ ID 2bout ¢nce per dt'·

K.

clde; high = > once ~r decadtr. c. lo.,., = II. (ew c:e:nt i mete~ to r:o~xiscenr; moderate < 1 mete~ deep; nigh EO. u5ually > 1 meter detp.

= tl SUaU~

Source: "ltC:08ystlll!l.. oL Plor:'4a", UU1vera:l.ty ot Cant'ral, J'lorida JlZ' •••

Exhibit 2.

195

IN

SUMMARY NOTES -- HYDROWGY UTERATURE REVIEW Winchester, B.H., et at 1985 REFERENCE: Winchester, B.H., J.S. Bays, J.e. Higman, and R.L. Knight. 1985. Physiography and vegetation zonation of shallow emergent marshe.8..in "SQUthwe~tern

Florida. Wetlands 5:99-118. STUDY LOCATION: Ringling-MacArthur Preserve, Sarasota County, Florida. STUDY PURPOSE: To study the effects of wetland morphometry and substrate characteristics on vegetation zonation.

STUDY PERIOD: 1985. VEGETATION COMMUNITIES: Vegetation zones studied were: Hypericum zone; Panicum - Rhynchospora zone; Mixed Emergent zone; Cladium wne; Cephalanthus zone; and Fraxinus - Salix zone. WATER LEVELS: The study did not include any water level data. Zonation was evaluated in the context of morphometry, which is related to water level. HYDRO PERIODS: The study did not include any hydroperiod data. OTHER: This study represents the initial stage of a longer-term study that included water level and hydroperiod data. The longer-term study is entitled "Hydroecology of Wetlands on the Ringling-MacArthur Preserve" and was prepared by CHzM Hill for Sarasota County in 1988.

196

SUMMARY NOTES·· HYDROLOGY LITERATURE REVIEW Woodall, S.L. 1983 REFERENCE: Woodall. S.L. 1983. Establishment of Melaleuca --quinquenervia se, :,mg. J:, " , . pme-cypreas ecotone of southwest Florida. Florida Scientist 411:6572.

STUDY LOCATION: Lee County -18 km southeast of the Page Field Airport (S 20, T46, R26). One study site waas at the transition zone between an open pine stand and a slightly wetter grassland. The second site is at the transition zone between a cypress swamp and its slightly more elevated grassy perimeter. "Neither site was under the direct influence of artificial drainage."

STUDY PURPOSE: To evaluate the success of melaleuca development in the ecotone between cypress wetlands and pine flatwoods.

STUDY PERIOD: 1977·1979. VEGETATION COMMUNITIES: Site 1 (Pine site): Slash pine (Pinus elliottii var. den,a) and wire graas (AriBtida stricta) transition to an open wiregraas dominated area. Site 2 ("cypress site"): Cypress (Taxodium distichuml and wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera) formed the overstory and forbs comprised the understory. The grassy perimeter supported a diverse community of grasses including wiregrass and most of

the forbs found in the swamp. WATER LEVELS: Exhibit 1 shows water level fluctuations at the two study sites from December 1978 through July 1979.

197


No. I. 19831

.,u ·

n ·

WOOOAU-NlU.L&UCA IIIIIUHm

III M.' ",., • t a cr"ln •

0

• • •r

".

..

,

fK: . t . • .....11.l1li wda I."'" lr..dI du,l", the 1Iuct,·, J'-WIlIIIa lIw "'lrIrhted '\'ff.d ~ .. 3 pM , ................... II 1", 0qM1I k> ,,1* • t&w _n . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 ........... ~ tot .... "'" to) oka. n. _IUIIII '-d

'WI,'.

- ......... .-.4 .....aiit' ...... tit • -tao, ...., .....

Exhibit 1.

198

""Iff IN"',,"

Appendix ill - Summary Notes

Attachment A

Abstracts and Conclusions

Prepared by:

Staffofthe South Florida Water Management District

December 28, 1994

CONCLUSIONS AND ABSTRACTS WETLAND HYDROLOGY LITERATURE REVIEWl Table of Contents Bancroft, G. T., et al. 1988 ...................................... . ......... Burns. L. A. 1984 ........................................................ Carlson, J. E.. and M.J. Duever 1979 ....................................... Carter, M.R.. etal. 1973 ................................ ................ .. CH2M Hill 1988 ....................... ......... .. ..... ................... Coltas, C.L., and M.J. Duever 1984 ........................................ Duever, M.J., etal. 1984a ........ .... .................................... Duever, M.J., etal. 1984b ............................................... Duever, M.J. 198Ba ..................................................... Duever, M.J. 1988b ...... .. ............................................. Duever, M.J. 1985 ...................................................... Gunderson, L.H., and L.L. Loope 1982a ................................... Gunderson, L.H., and L.L. Loope 1982b ................................... Gunderson, L.H., and L.L. Loope 1982c ................................... Gunderson, L.H., and L.L. Loope 1982d ................................... Klein, H., et al. 1970 .................................................... Kushlan, J.A. 1990 ......................... :........................... Kushlan, J.A. 1976 ..................................................... MyersR.L. 1983 ................................. , ...................... Winchester, S.H., et al. 1985 ........................... :.. .............. Woodall, S.L. 1983 ...... . . ... . ........ ................... ..............

1 2 3 4 9 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 32 33 34 35

lA few committee members requeated that the .batractl or CODclUlioDl of each document aummari%ed in the Summary Notes aection be added. to the final report. Accordina'ly. thiA attachment "'u

prepared. However. not all of the documents summarized in the Summ.,.,. Nota aeetion included abstr'actl or conc1usiODll and conaequently are not repreHDted in t.hia attachment.

"Best copy avaHabie" Jlull.• I OO( I). 1988. pp. 50-59

WADING BIRD COLONY FORMATION AND TURNOVER RELATIVE TO RAINFALL IN THE CORKSCREW SWAMP AREA OF FLORIDA DURING 1982 THROUGH 1985 G.

THOMAS BAi'lCROFT. JOHN

C.

OGDEN, AND BARBARA

A8STltACT.- Thiny-seven

W.

PATTY

colony sitcs were used by nine species of nesting wading birds (Ciconiifonnes) in the Corkscrew Swamp area (2320 km') of southwestern Aorida during a four-year census. Y""rty turnover in colony site use lVer.tled 3()...1()% with a maximum of:5 active colonies in anyone yelr. The number of species nesting in a colony was correlated with the year to Ye:lr stability of the colony. Fewer colonies fonned during drought yenrs. Colony formation occurred later in a Selson lhal rollowed 18 months oi below nonnal rain rail. Receiwi /2 Fro. /987. accepted 10 Jul.v /987.

1

31

Productivity and Water Relations in the Fakahatchee Strand of South Florida Lawrence A. Burns

1910"1

Abstract Biomass. productjvit}~ and water relations of cypress strands were studied in the Fakahatchee Strand area of Collier County. Florida. Specific study sites were two forest.s ; one near (0.2 kIn ) and one more removed from (2 km) a newJy constructed drainage canal. The shallow ground ..... ater table was . on the average, about 50 em lower in the forest nearer the canal. Biomass and net productivity were both significantly greater in the forest more distant from the canal. Net productivity in the wetter forest was 23 tonnes (I) dry weight/ha·yr. and total biomass was 2i5 I/ ha. In the drier forest . net producth'i(,' was 10 I/ha . and biomass was H6 I/ ha. Analysis of net productivity in these two forests suggested that drainage of the cypress strand would divert energy from belowground production to a h ilher maintenance cost for the leaf canopy. Growth of the larser cypress ~s , however. was little aHeeted bv site differences during 1972. • Evapotranspiration was calculated for three swamp forest sites from diel changes in water table recession rates and rainfall infiltration at observation wells. A water budget for the strand during 1972 was constructed from regression equations predicting evapotranspiration as a function of pan evaporation and depth to the water table. Evapotranspiration was 1024 mm (710/0 of rainfaJl), the remaining export terms appearing as natura] surface and groundwater runoff (96 mm), groundwater flow in drainage canals

2

(235 mm). and (pOSSibly) surface water flow to canals {107 mm}. Potential evapotranspiratlon (penman method) was 1331 mm/yr (79% of pan evaporation): potential evaporation was equivalent to pan evaporation in this area. A lin.ar relationship found between net daytime fixation of atmospheric carbon and evapotranspiration was used to estimate carbon flow in cypress strands. The results sU&8ested that total carbon flo ..... was less and that autotrophic respiration was a latJer fraction of total flow in the drier cypress forest.

SEASONAL FISH POPUu.nON FLUCTUATIONS IN SOUTH FLORIDA SWAMP JOHN Co CARLSON, &ospt.. IIeMmb UaIt, IIIIIO!111 Audubon SociIt1, NajIIes, fl MlCIIA£L J. DUFIO, &osptlllll R-a. UaIt, IlllIoa11 Audubon SociIt1, NIpIes, fl We moaIlOftd filii populadGaa ill a ....lhwat Florida cypral (T.......u..... 4il&h .....) IU&Dd .,..- IhrouIb III _aal wet _ _ -dry _ _ Cjdc. PopaladO''I iIlaaoed from oem wbaa IIIc lite ... iIllll1dated to dallities of 5-8 filii .... u4 biom·. of ~.f 11m' ill late wet "mOD T_ IIIOIIW aI= dr,dowD ~aa, filii l>H .me _ _ • uated. 111 wet prairie aDd -poad- CJPraI ilabilW caa_uau. caatiDued UDIil IIIc II. WIlDt dry, but -bald" e,r- popul&liaDs reached hIP cleaslties arty, thm Ibhlllud UDIiI jlllt prior ID complete d4jdiiwn, wbm the)' deaeucd Wet ea_ populadGaa were probabr, COIltnllJed by bJdrolollc facIDn. but precladcm ... ImportlAt ill -determ.lDiIll dry _ cIeasIlJ, bIoiIwi, aDd aped.. compolltiGD. ~bltrUl:

cInIttka1J,.

PIoc. AnAaal Ccmf. S.E.

3

~

F"ub .. Wildlife AfeDd.. Sl:IOUU

-. ,-'E .-. :.. - CYPRESS

' ,. . - . J ....... !..:.: : E:::>SYSTEMS AN

• I,

.SWAMP ;-," .1_,

a

Cor't"u

_

. _

: ,7 AR !;~ __ . ;,j .""\ __

o.\., 1'173

•.

• i I

'.'. "1.

1

.,...

,

.

../

. .

- _

-~

• . ,.A .< ~

-.

..:.. ....". ';:.l

,

~

,.

~!-

f.-, ... '-

., .

- '. -..

"-

-', fire hl.st.ors, And hu&un inrluences. Fro. thl:l. dat.a w. ha". developed I detailed understand!n;, not only or the swar.:pt:; ecologlcil

but also about. how the30 chlracteristics !nteract and chanc' 1D ro;pcn=. to both natural and antbl~poBen1c proo ••••' and events. ch.r.ct.r1~tlcs,

18

PL~NT

COMMUNITY BOUNDARIES AND WATER LEVELS, LAKE HATCHINEHA, FLORIDA

Report to the Department of Natural Resources State of Florida

October 1985

Michael Ouever

(1), J •• n McCollom

(1) :

(1), and Lou Neuman

(2)

(2) :

Ecosystem Research Unit

Department of Natural Resources

National Audubon Society

State of Florida

Route 6, Box 1877

993 West Tennessee Street

Naples, Florida 33964

Tal18hasse~,

19

Florida 32304

ABSTRACT

We described the distribution of major structural plant community types in and around Lake Hatchineha in relation to

important environmental features ,and historical influences.

We

determined community boundary elevations along 8 transects, and

then converted , these boundary elevations to periods of inundation using an elevation - dUration curve for de·ily water levels prior to regulation of the lake in 1964.

Aerial photography for 5 dates

since 1941 permitted Blsessment of changes in the position of major plant community boundaries over the last 42 years. Distinct topographic and hydrologiC boundaries were found associated with open water, deepwater marsh, cypress, shallow marsh, pine, live oak, and palmetto communities. However, when associated with high barrier bars, some of these same boundaries were found at much hiqher elevations. Aerial photoqraphy showed a steady expansion of cypress into both deeepwater and shallow marsh habitats and of pine into shallow marshes since 1941. Live oak community boundaries have -been quite stable over this period. Hydroperiods observed at Lake Hatchineha corresponded quite well with those reported for comparable undisturbed habitats in other studies. This indicates that they reflect long-term hydrologic conditions to whiCh plant communities have been adapted for many years. The Ordinary High Water Line is best defined aa the elevation associated with the boundary between the shallow marsh and live oak communities at Lake Hatchineha because 1) water levels are normally at or above this elevation for approximately one month during most years and 2) it has been a stable boundary for more than 49 years.

20

Report T- 655 A Survey and Inventory of the Plant Communities in the Pinecrest Area, Big Cypress National Preserve

21 Everglades Nat ional Park. Soutn FlOrida ResearCh Cenler, PO. Box 279, Homestead. Florida 33030

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

1.

Permanent vegetation plots in cypress prairie areas and a tropical hardwood hammock were inventoried for the first time and baseline data are presented.

2.

A vegetation map was made to document current spatial vegetation patterns.

3.

Ordination analysis indicates segregation exists {in terms of species composition} among plant associations designated as tropical hardwood hammocks, cypress prairie and cypress dome. Further distinctions are made among cypress dome, willow and popash sloughs based upon individual dominance of Taxodium, Salix and Fraxinus, respectively.

t".

The range in soil surface elevations was 100 em. The lowest average elevation was found in the popash slough. Increasingly, higher elevations supported a Typha marsh, willow area, cypress dome and cypress prairie. Tropical hardwood hammocks were on the highest bedrock and soil surfaces, at elevations significantly different from the other associations.

5.

Soil depths were greatest (120 cm) beneath the popash slough, where a black muck and sand substrate was encountered. Shallow soils « 20 cm) were found in both the cypress prairie (a sandy marl) and the tropical t,ardwood hammock (a mixture of litter and sand).

6.

Hydroperiods averaged 2~0 days/year in the cypress prairie and 260 days/year in the Typha marsh. From our analysis, hydroper iods appear to be nonexistent in tropical hardwood hammocks.

7.

Positive correlations between species ordina tion indices and relative elevations indicates the importance of the topography in determining plant speCies compositions.

8.

Plant species lists are presented for various tropical hardwood hammocks in the Pinecrest area.

22

Report T-664 An Inventory of the Plant Communities in the Levee-28 Tieback Area, Big Cypress National Preserve ~

1~ -I¥.E

;-il, f1J1rY \:;i': ~

&~

A-

,

23

Everglades Nat ional Park. South FlOrida Research Center. P.O. Box 279. Homestead, FlOrida 33030


1.

A vegetat ion map which documents current spatial distribution of the plant associations in the L-28 tieback area is presented.

2.

Cypress heads are identified as an unusual cypress association in the Big Cypress Swamp region. They are found mainly along the border between the Big Cypress and Everglades regions, but occur Jess frequently in Everglades National Park.

3.

Quantitative inventories of relocatable plots in a cypress head and wet

prairie are reported. 4.

Taxodium ascendens was the dominant overstory species in the inventoried cypress head with cocoplum (Chrysobalanus icaco), forming a dense shrub layer •

.5.

The two dominant species in the herbaceous wet prairie were Eleocharis ceUulosa and Rhynchospora tracyi.

6.

Severe fires in cypress communities south of the l-28 tieback resulted in colonization by successional species. The successional associations were dominated by Cladium jamaicense, Salix caroliniana, or mixed aquatiC plants such as TIPha, domingensis and Pontedaria cordata. A successional diagram involving ire In these cypress types is presented.

7.

Mean relative elevations were lowest in areas dominated by wiUow, Salix . and increased through communities of wet prairie, mixed aquatic "n~~;~~~~v;m;;aj:r,;S~h, cypress prairie, cypress head and bayhead. The range n was 60 cm.

8.

Mean soil depths were greatest (160 cm) beneath the bayhead, and dense Cladium marsh (l00 cm). ShaUow soils (jess than 30 cm deep) were found befleath the wet prairie (marl type); cypress prairie (sand and mar!); mixed marsh (sand and some organiC matter) and wiUow stands (sand and some organiC maner).

9.

Preliminary hydrologic data show that water Jevels may not be significantly lowered south and west of the levee during wet years, but the high incidence of severe fire impacts in this area indicates that perhaps some hydrologic alteration has occurred.

24

Report T-665 A Survey and Inventory of the Plant Communities in the Raccoon Point Area, Big Cypress National Preserve

Sri. 7T!>'11~ &'M' i E-~

..

~

~-...

E\'e r~j ades

Nationa l Park. Soutn Florraa Research Center. PO. Box 279. Homes:e3d. Florida 33030


1.

A vegetation map is presented to document current patterns of plant communities in the study area. .

2.

Data from quantitative inventories of relocatable plots in pine-Sabal-Serenoa stand, cypress prairie and cypress dome are presented.

3.

Ordination analysis of stands showed distinctions in species composition among communities designated as pine-Sabal-Serenoa, pine-hardwood, oakSabat hammock, tropical hammock, cypress prairie and cypress dome.

4.

Range of relative soil surface elevations was less than one meter. Lowest

sites supported cypress domes, and successively higher sites had cypress prairie, pine forests, oak and tropical hammocks.

25

33

5.

Soil depths averaged I meter in cypress domes, other communities had soil depths less than 40 em.

6.

Hydroperiod analysis indicates rare periods of short (tess than 30 day) inundation in pine forests and frequent inundation, usually in the eight to twelve month hydroperiod range, in cypress dome.

7.

A model of successional relationships in pine forests involving varying fire regimes, is proposed. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many people assisted with the field work involved with generating this report. BiU Maynard and Joe Van Hom did much of this work especially in the vegetation mapping, transect analyses and vegetation inventories. Regina Rochefort and Gary Patterson also helped in the inventories. David Sikkema conducted the surveying of the transects. Exxon Corporation provided eJevationai data for the beginning of the surveying. Dr. William 8. Robertson, Jr. and Dr. Dale Taylor were involved with sett ing up the study areas and discussions about the ecology of pine lands and fire. Or. Peter Rosendahl also helped to set up the or iginal study areas. Dr. Robertson and Or. Ingrid Olmsted reviewed the manuscript. Dott ie Anderson, Fay Schattner and Dee Childs typed the drafts of this paper.

26

Report 1-666 An Inventory of the Plant Communit ies within the Deep Lake Strand Area, BICY

27 Everglades National Park. Sourh Flonda Research Center. P.O. Box 279, Homestead, Florida 33030

SUMMAR Y AND CONCl.USIONS

l.

Quantitative inventory was made in each of the following plant associations: Muhlenbergia prairie, oak-Sabal hammock, and cypress-mixed hardwood swamp. Locations and methods of inventory of these relocatable plots are given.

2.

A vegetation map was made of the study area in order to document current spatial distr ibution of the plant associations.

3.

Similar ities in plant species composition were compared among associations sampled along a line transect. Discrete groupings were identified as:

Muhlenbergia prairie, oak-Saba! hammock, cypress-mixed hardwood swamp, hardwood scrub and cypress dome. Species lists were compiled for each of these groups. 4.

Relative elevations were calcu lated for the plant associations measured along the transect. Cypress·mixed hardwood swamps and cypress domes had the lowest soil surface elevations. Muhlenbergia prair ies occupied sites that averaged 20 e m above the mean elevations in the cypress sites. Oak hammocks averaged 35 cm above the cypress areas, and the hardwood scrub was found 38 cm above the cypress.

5.

Soil depths did not differ dramatically among the associations, ~ut soil type did. Peats and sands were found beneath the cypress swamps. A. dark black organic muck and sand was found in the hammocks. A. mixture -of sand and marl was identified beneath the prairie sites, and sand was found over bedrock at the hardwood scrub areas.

6.

Mean hydroperiods were calculated for the cypress·mixed hardwood s\1(amp (2 16 days /year), oak-Saba 1 hammock (84 days/ year) and Vt.uhlenbergia prairie (73 days /year).

7.

The plant communities in the, Deep Lake Strand area appear to be determined primarily by the hydrologiC 'regime and substrate features. The hydrologiC pattern characteristic of each community is a result of the substrate topography and rainfall pattern of wet a nd dry seasons_ HydrologiC patterns do not seem to have been changed drastica ll y in the Deep Lake Strand area. Logging, severe fires, and (perhaps), Ind ian use have modified t he spec ies composit ions of some of the forested areas, especiall y the cypress·mixed swamp fore sts, the pine forests, and hardwood hammocks.

28

k

lE11-l eo\-

.1. / 1~'10

SOME HYDROLOGIC & ASPECTS

OF THE

BIG CYPRESS DRAINAGE

BIOLOGIC

SWAMP

AREA, SOUTHERN

FLDRIDA

'1970

UN

IT~Q

STAT • • CJSPARTM.NT elF THE INTERIOR

.J~J."'ff!'/;tI1rf I

.

f:.\

,

\

.. ~-.' :!

...

u ""Y 'f

WATI!R

G"OLOOICAL SURVEY RESOURCES

29

DIVISION

SUMtW1Y AND CONCWSIONS

The E1g c,ypress 1s a hydrologic unit of 2,450 square miles of flat, SlI&mpy area that merges into a coastal-marsh and estuarine

envirOnment.

The ecology is water dependent and 1s rich 1n biota.

Land is be1ng developed in the vestern part of the drainage area as

the city or Naples expands eastvard. Water, a principal resource of the Big Cypress, governs the ecology and influences the patterns af land developnent.

Abundant

but seasonal rainfall and slow natural drainage allow water to collect in ponds each year over as much as 90 percent of the

undeveloped area f or as long as 4 months.

During the dry season,

water in ponds and sloughs covers about 10 percent of the land.

A shallow aquifer presently supplies most vater for municipal use and irrigation.

It

~~tends

from the land surface to a depth of

about 130 fee~ in Naples 1 to about 60 feet near Sunniland, and wedges out near the east edge of the Big Cypress.

30

----______ 1U ___________ Freshwater Marshes

•

James A. Kushlan 1"\'10

Conclusion Given their disdnCtive plant and animal populations. Florida's marshes are dearl)' worrh conserving for their own sake and for their scientific value. In addition. they maintain the over311 quality of human life in the state. Envj· ronmental services performed by m:lrshes include recreation. flood control. water storage and supply. production of fish and wildlife. pro\'ision of habitat for nonharvestable species including endangered and rare animals. some agricultufC. water quality maintenance. and wastewater renovation. Concerning the laSt, state legislation-the Warren S. Henderson Wedand Protection Act of 1984 (FS 403 .918 )-mandares permit issuance. consideration of cumulative impaCts. and establishment of regulatory criteria for using wetbnds for wastewater disposa l. The principal cause of ecological degradation of Florida's marshes has been dewatering. a dominant force in the pol itica l and social histor" of the state. Loss of marsh has continued in recent decades. mostly due to agricultural conversion (Hefner, 1986). The initial objective of marshland conservation in the state is the putchase and reflooding of drained marshes. Considerable progress has been made in recbiming Florida wetlands. especiall)' after phosphate mining (Clewell. 1981; Shuey and S,,·anson. 1979: Erwin and BeSt, 1985). Although the loss of marsh area is the most ob\·ious co mponent of the degradation of Florida wetlands. a second facror is mo re subde but no JesS important: the loss of wetland function in those marshes that rem,in

31

WADING BIRD PREDATION IN A SEASONALLY FLUCTUATING POND JAMES A. KUSHLAN

\0,1(., SUAI>lARY

This paper discusses aspeclS of the ecolog)" of wading bird predacioD in :a small pond in the Big Cypress Swamp of southern Florida, a region characterized by seasonal rainfalJ and water level fluctuation. ,rhen water levels receded and shallow swamps dried, iisb migrated inlo deeper areas finally becoming concentrated in remnant pools. thereby serving as patches of highly concentrated and easily obtainable food for highly mobile wading bird preduors. Utilization oi the fish concentrated in the study pond occurred only in the spring if fish densit)' was hi~h and if the water Uec:lme shallow enough for efficient feeding. As the waler level dropped the number of wading birds feedin~ at the pond increased through local enbancement, probably aided by the while plumage or several species. Species comprising the wading bird aggregation apparently divided food resources by a combination or spatial and resource segre~aliuD. In 1973, "'ading birds decreased the biomass standing crop of iish by 765"". In a comparable year when predation did Dot occur, a fish kill decreased €ish biomass b}' 9JIji . Watling bird predation may therefore function to reduce fish stocks to levels compatible with their survival during the dry season.

An!snONC. E. A. 1971. Social Ji&:nalliD& aDd l\'bite plul'Da".:. IbiJ Ill: 5H. Auouao:;. J. ] . 1821. Observations on the natural billory of Lbe aUi,atot. £clinbur,b New PbilO$. ) . (n.s.) 2: 270-280, HAanAU, W. 1958. The travels of William Bantam (F. H:upet, Ed,) . l\ew Haven, Connecticut, Yale Univ. Press. Iua.u, F . 1926. Tales of the Okdinok« . Aro.cr. Speech 1: 40;-420, MINOt, n. R . 1961. Bcbl\·jour. Pp, l7J-tll in BioloC)' and comp:lrl,ti\'C~ Jlh:!"sioln~y 01 birds, vol. 2 CA. J. Marshall, Ed.). New York, ."e3.dcmic IlrdJ . HOA~. H . S. 196&. The acbpth't li"nifiance of coloai.11 ncstin~ in the Drew~r's Blackbird (£",}'II,IIJ (.Y'lnuu,ltllllt,). EcoloS>' 049 : 612-694 .

32

JO"rn al of Applied Ecology (1983) 20,645-658

SITE SUSCEPTIBILITY TO INVASION BY THE EXOTIC TREE MELALEUCA QUlNQUENERVIA IN SOUTHERN FLORIDA By RONALD L. MYERS Department of Botany. and Center for Wetlands. Unit'ersity of Florida. Gainesville. Florida 32611 U.S.A.

SUMMARY (1) The ability of the introduced tree ,\.ftlalftlca qll;"qll~"'":iQ (Cav.) Blake to

invade a variety of sites in southern Florid.

WIS

investigated in field upcrimenu

involvinl seeding and planting trials. Germination. survivaJ. and growth were monitored

on eight siles for) years. In conj unction with the field studies. ,recnhouse experiments were ,onducted to determine mOisture requirements fo r germination and gro\lo'th under artificial hydro period variation. (2) Greenhouse experiments demonSlrated that seeds germ inate in ) days. even under waler. Grc3ler height growth was Obtained under saturated soii cond itions (han under moist. well-drained conditions. but there was no significant differenet in the average dry

'*C'i,ht of the seedlings in the two treatments. Heilht Irowth of seedlings subjected to various schedules oi submergence ....5 retarded. but seedlings survived extended periods !,U1der water and resumed normal Iro.... h when ftcoded conditions "'ere removed. (Jl Seeding and planting trials in Ihe field demonstraled 'differentia' site suitability (or .w~/alnl(a germination. survivaJ . .and growth . Sites where soils were moist to saturated (or seyeral months bur rarely flooded provided optimum conditions ror establishment . • Extended periods or d:y soil or ftoodina reduced site suitability. Growth was ,reater on acid-sandy soils than on alkaline-marl soils. {4l Where optimal conditions occur regularly. '\{~/aJnlca eventually -becomes. prominent component o( the vegetation. The environment and vegetation types or south Florida are particullrly susceptible to exotic plant invasions. CriticaJ points in M~/Qlnca 's life history may be used to Idva"ta,e to control c{Tons.

33

WETLANDS. Vol. 5, 1985

or

rllYSIOGMPUY ANO VEGETATION ZONATION SHALLOW EMERGENT 11I\RSIIES IN SOUTHWESTERN FLORIDA

Brian II. Winchester. Ji"tne5 S. Bays, John C. Higman

and Robert L. knight CJl2M HILL

120) N.w. 11th Place

Gainesville. Florida 32605 TW'Pllty-(nur (rl!'~h mArsh-wet prc"lirie wl!'tlltnd sites ~n ~ C" utl\w~slcrTl n(')rida were studied "'ith respect to veqetation zonAtion. !'IUh~tl ... tf! ctllu ... cteristics .... nd morphometry. Six major wetla.nd zones """rp idpntifit'!d. Tht'! lIypericum zone occupit'd the shallowest position ( r-ln~e~t to thl!' urland edqe) and W;U confined to sandy substrate!'>. The ranicWft-Rhynchospora %one typically followed downslope and vas also d~~oeiall!'d with sandy $ubstrates. The Hixed £mergent. Cladium. Cephalanthus and fraxinus-Salix zones all oecurrl"o on organic soils in w-tland interiors. In .ddit.ion to depth and substrate t)"p@, other \mport".nt dtotermill .... nts of ::one eomrosltion included fire and disturbance ci u~ to [toral h("lq rootinq and cattle graz1n9. ,\l: stracl .

34

Florida Scientist aUARTERL Y JOURNAL OF THE FLORIDA ACADEMY OF SCIENCES W"LTER

K.

TAYLOR.

Editor

HENRY

Volume 46

Wological

O. WHITTIER. Editor

Spring, 1983

Number 2

Scktl("~

ESTABLISHMENT OF MELALEUCA QUINQUENER\'lA SEEDLINGS IN THE PINE-CYPRESS ECOTONE OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA STEVEN

U.S .

L.

\VOODALL

For~t

Scn'iC"e . FUf'l":'Ilry Sciences L:lhoratory. CiI,ilun Str~t. Athens. Gronzia 3060~

:'H:;I1\A (:T: Sitr-.frrlfOn ('nm!Jjllfl/;on.f wrrr .ttltI/!lzt It:llk" mi,z1J1 rrdll("(, tlr€: im:o.fioll lK)'~lIlja r oj II,r f~(1lic Ir('(' , mf'ialrllca IMclal~lIca Iluillfluencn·jal. btl .tIlhje('ling grrmillonlS "In trillal ."rr.t.1(":C. S("rw U:('T(' 12 timr.o; d"rillf!. a /.5' ''HI prrind 011.::2 ,t t"tI!/ .t itn ill an IIl1droinrd or~ of L('r County. Florida . The .fit(!t rrprrsl'IItt'fll!Jr In't ontl dql l'IIfL,. oj on ,'m/nnr hrtu'C'(,71 ryprcs.f ( Ta:wdium -'1'1'.) and .da.,h pill€' (Pi uu!; cllinltii \·:l.r dcnfa l rnll""IH1i1it~ . /\ ,o .t ('(ltOIl U:CLS Inlally lelital at ritllrr .f i/e. betfcd uri urdlirt~ prNrncc .5 1110 a}l~r ,fUtl'irl~:' E,t lobiLdllll('n' It'-a.! 'In'N' tirll.t('. Iml u:a.c rardy =rro, SmrlC .t('cci, RC'f'minalecl6 /110 a/lf'r till' mojori/!'''1 U('df ill IJt~ .t omc .mrd It/! . F r('c/I) ot'oi/obJc mnit/ur,. It' a.t ~"liaJ Jor ¥!Cml inaliml Dud Nlall/id,,"ml - prn/o"l(coJ

""'CII

.~"rJ(frr /lrhH/irlr. u tCLS iu/lihitnry. t\ll.trrcflilll!,.t ~r("IC .dnU'ly. :\ l1Iolla,.Ctrlt'111 .ttral~y if SUI!J1,CfftnJ In mill;m;:r till' illt>4tim, I',,'rll/iol frnm i.mlalrd mc/alrll('a .tl'j";/r('~ .

35

Appendix IV

Analysis of Rainfall Data


December 28, 1994

ANALYSIS OF RAINFALL DATA Table of Contents Rainfall Analysis Results ...................................................

1

List of Tables Table 1. Monthly Rainfall (inches) at Naples Rainfall Station (January - December) .......................................... Table 2. Monthly Rainfall (inches) at Naples Rainfall Station (June - May) ...... Table 3. Monthly Rainfall (inches) at Ft. Myers Rainfall Station ................ Table 4. Monthly Rainfall (inches) at Immokalee Rainfall Station .............. Table 5. Comparison of Rainfall at Ft. Myers, Immokalee, and Naples Rainfall Stations for 4/70 to 6/76 ................. _. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Table 6. Rainfall (inches) for Statistical Drought/Average/Wet Conditions at Naples, Florida ................................................

2 3 4 5 7 8

List of Fig ures Figure 1. Monthly Rainfall at Three Stations (Fort Myers, Imokalee and Naples) in Southwest Florida ........................................... 6 Figure 2. Naples Rainfall Station - Period of Record - Annual Rainfall (June - May) .................................................. 9 Figure 3. Naples Rainfall Station - Period of Record - Wet Season Rainfall (June - November) ................................ :........... 10 Figure 4. Naples Rainfall Station - Period of Record - Dry Season Rainfall (Decem ber - May) ............................................... 11

ANALYSIS OF RAINFALL DATA Rainfall Analysis Results Rainfall for the Period of Record. Data are provided for Naples (Table 1). Fort Myers (Table 3). and Immokalee (Table 4) rainfall stations. from January to December of each year. The period of record for Naples is also displayed in June to May format (Table 2). with the year on the left representing the starting year. For example. the first year in the table represents June 1942 to May 1943. Comparison of Rainfall at Three Rainfall Stations. Figure 1 graph shows the fluctuation of rainfall at three rainfall stations in the Lower West Coast Planni ng Area -- Naples. Fort Myers. and Immokalee--for the six-year time frame used in the modeling. The Naples rainfall station was chosen for the modeling. Statistical Analysis of Rainfall for Naples Rainfall Station. Table 5 shows how seven different statistical methods derived annual rainfall sums for 13 categories of rainyears. ranging from a 1-in-200 drought through an average year to a 1-in-200 wet year. These statistical methods were applied to the whole year of rainfall. as well as to just the wet season months (June to November) and the dry season months (December to May). The last column in each table shows whether the hypothesis of good fit was met. The normal distribution statistical method was used to produce the graphs in figures 2-4. Naples Rainfall Summary. Figure 2. the Naples NOAA Rainfall Station period of record annual rainfall sums. using the June to May time frame. shows how each 12month period is categorized. Across the top are the number of inches of rain for a 12-month period for a "1-in-200 year drought". a "1-in-100 year drought". etc .• with an average 12-month period receiving 52.55 inches of rain. On the left. you see the starting year for each 12-month period and the number of inches of rain in that 12month window. In the body of the table. you see a solid black box for the best fit of that year's rain with the statistical calculations across the top. The dotted box indicates the second-best fit. As an example. the 12-month period beginning with June 1942 and ending in May 1943 had 44.53 inches of rain. which most closely matches with 43.85. making it a 1-in-5 year drought. Because it has more rain than the statistical calculation. it is on the wet side of the category. shown by the dotted box in the Average column. Years which fall in the "1-in-10 year drought" category are June to May of 1961-62. 1970-71. 1984-85. and 1988-89. The window used in the current draft of the Rule is July 1972 to June 1973. The six-year period being used in the modeling starts in April 1970 and ends in June of 1976. and (using the June to May window statistics) includes a 1-in-1 0 drought year. followed by a 1-in-5 wet year. followed by two 1-in5 droughts. an average year. a 1-in-10 drought. and ending with a 1-in-5 drought. Figure 3 uses the same format to display wet season (June-November) statistics. and Figure 4 displays dry season (December-May) statistics.

1

ANALYSIS OF RAINFALL DATA

Table 1. ~'u, '~:':1 R!'Iinfall (inches) at Naples Rainfall Station (January"u"" YEAR

1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 11954

:ilii 1956

1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964

JAN

2.27 0.10 0.85 2.42 0.75 1.29 3.67 0.00 0.15 0.49 0.63 2.10 0.82 .52 2.00 ~]i

1.57 0.24 4.91 0.81 0.7 2.2B

1965~87.

1966 1967

3.42 4.17

FEB

2~

a} 0.07 0.34 2.18 2.20 0.00 0.00 1.12 1.1: 6.00 1.45 2.37 0.31 0.63 4.56 1.67 1.38 1.08 1.06 0.62 3.42 1:94 2.84 2.30 4.40

MAR

2.93 0.74 1.06 0.00 0.23 6.31 .1: 0.1' 0.58 0.51 1.94 4.79 2.87 1.23 0.05 6.23 5.54 3.36 2.53 0.90 2.76 0.13 2.25 0.76 0.53 1.66

APR

3.BO 2. 3.13 2.45 0.00 3.94 2.72 1.45 1.45 3.98 0.98 4.77 4.48 2.02 2.95 2.52 1.59 1.38 1.86 0.36 1.02 0.60 0.66 1.96 4.21 0.00

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

2.62 2.30 2.44 0.13 11.49 2.52 1.95 3.82 2.95 2.10 0.90 0.96 5.70 4.85 7.37 2.91 6.87 9.04 5.32 4.71 5.48 5.49 3.

14.16 12.4: 2.45 6.41 6.91 17.97 :.501 9.08 4.21 4.47 5.02 3.82 9.43 7.96 1.56 6.63 9.41 13.06 6.04 8.23 12.72 6.41 6.50 8.2! 11.69 3.66

5.76 6.74 1.30 8.88 5.55 9.57 12. 14.10 9.48 4.61 5.90 12.97 8.23 16.42 3.19 6.54 13.40 9.69 13.20 8.95 4.73 3.13

7.12 6.1: 7.42 12.29 4.56 9.07 3.35 9.31 7.2' 9.5' 1.41 10.89 10.37 7.98 3.60 10.2, 9.4! 12.5! 6.10 4.28 14.60 5.16 5.63 9.81 10.94 14.29

9.Bl 7.38 7.23 8. 1 9.23 9.68 12.27 13.73 9.48 10.30 837 9.72 8.51 11.02 5.69 15.30 7.60 7.26 14.41 3.71 19.5' 10.61 4.7 4.7: 4.31 11.1:

0.84

6.1

OCT

NOV

0.00 3.23 4.21 3.89 2.03 3.13

0.50 1.24 0.05 1.03 9.69 3.06 3.09 0.35 6.93 1.19 3.98 1.17 17.5: 0.01 8.22 0.80 6.00 0.88 1.84 1.27 1.49 1.14 3.86 0.95 3.35 0.55 3.410.28 10.70 1.79 5.59 2.85 1.53 0.45 1.63 2.43 1.26 2.25 2.0 0.6 4.4: 0.8 3.7. 0.1 4.41 0.6

DEC

SUM

1.21 153.11 0.15143.26 0.39 130.60 1.60 148.32 2.09154.71 3.03 71.1' 0.49 152.63 0.50 160.28 2.24144.05 0.24 154.89 0.31 140.53 1.67160.02 0.92 156.81 1.73 157~6i 1.17 33.02 2.23 161.61 3.84 70.38 0.68 72.50 1.38 160.60 0.533 .'Ii 0.21 16 i.62 2.8714 !.04 0.56 137.26 0.93 147.09 0.70 151.18 3.51 155.58

I-~ I 968;-..+_~ ~;:-g. _~ 2.64;t-~0'. !5;.:t-4-:0~.051-+::: 4.. :t-'1~ 5, . 2~8~ I 2 . 84::;+-.-:;8: . :26_.;; 81 . !9::=+-8-:5;;:, . 10::;+-4-=1:;:+ .87....;0::.:'. '6~316;;°'''3 . 48 3 7.111 1969 ,:,

I : I,

~

~

~I

~

,: ,,'Q. ,

, I

...1 I-!:":

5 \-If .

3

• """ , c II ..

9 7

~

iii

ip\

•

flJ·

10/74

"75

4175

1175

10175

lf76

4176 6176


Table 5.

Comparison of Rainfall at Ft. Myers, Immokalee, and Naples Rainfall Stations for 4170 to 6/76 month Ft. Myers Immokalee Naples

7

ANALYSIS OF RAINFALL DATA Table 6.

Rainfall (inches) for Statistical Drought/Average/Wet Conditions at Naples, Florida Yearly, June-May

Statistical Method* 1 in 200 1 in 100 N02 25.90 28.48 LN2 ----LN3 ----GM2 29.22 31.04 GM3 ----W82 23.05 25.94 LP3 26.00 28.35

Dry

1 in 50 31.30

1 in 25 34.43

1 in 10 39.29

1 in 5 43.85

-----

-----

-----

---

---

-----

33.12

35.54

39.51

43.50

51.84

---

29.20 31.02

32.91 34.04

38.65 38.98

43.90 43.70

53.22 52.81

21.81 23.85

24.35 25.56

28.28 28.44

---

Wet

Avg

---

---

---

52.55

1 in 5 61.26

1 in 10 65.82

1 in 25 70.67

1 in 50 73.81

---

---

-----

-----

-----

-----

---

61.19

66.51

76.55

80.33

---

---

83.88

---

---

72.50

61.40 61.56

65.25 65.83

69.06 70.10

71.39 72.62

73.39 74.76

75.16 76.60

53.66 56.72

56.20 60.77

58.48 64.66

60.57 68.44

---

1 in 100 1 in 200 76.63 79.21 ---

---

Good Fitt yes no no yes no yes no

Wet Season, June-November N02 LN2 LN3 GM2 GM3 WB2 LP3

17.45 21.18

19.53 22.42

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

20.47 17.51 15.84 17.83

21.88 19.59 18.03 19.67

23.51 21.85 20.53 21.77

25.40 24.38 23.40 24.16

28.54 28.29 27.92 28.10

31.70 31.96 32.11 31.90

38.39 39.00 39.66 39.24

45.95 46.05 46.40 46.24

50.27 49.74 49.60 49.62

55.17 53.69 52.79 52.96

58.50 56.24 54.74 54.90

61.61 58.53 56.43 56.53

64.54 60.64 57.93 57.91

yes yes no yes yes yes yes

N02 LN2 LN3 GM2 GM3 WB2 LP3

-1.14 3.92 1.83 3.20 3.35 1.90 3.21

0.28 4.38 2.70 3.77 3.89 2.50 3.76

1.84 4.95 3.69 4.48 4.56 3.29 4.44

3.56 5.66 4.85 5.36 5.41 4.34 5.28

6.24 6.98 6.78 6.94 6.94 6.30 6.86

23.53 26.98 24.41 24.99 25.14 24.12 25.01

25.26 30.89 26.80 27.69 27.92 26.04 27.50

26.81 34.88 29.06 30.28 30.58 27.76 29.84

28.23 38.99 31.23 32.78 33.17 29.34 32.05

yes yes yes yes yes yes yes

31.96 31.44

39.01 38.07

46.05 46.11

49.73 50.97

Dry Season, December-May 8.75 8.49 8.76 8.67 8.64 8.45 8.61

13.55 12.36 13.03 12.76 12.71 13.20 12.80

18.34 17.99 18.03 17.96 17.96 18.37 18.10

20.85 21.89 20.98 21.17 21.23 21.15 21.29

.. Statistical Method Codes: N02 Normal Distribution; lN2 Two-Parameter lognormal Distribution; LN3 ThreewParameter Lognormal Distribution; GM2Twowparameter Gamma Distribution; GM3 Thre~Parameter Gamma Distribution; WB2 Weibull Distribution;LP3logpearson Type .3 Distribution t Results of hypothesis test for good fit using a Chi· Square test at 95% confidence limits for each frequency distribution (Yes= acceptance and No=rejection). Rainfall values are not shown (---) for distributions t"at did not meet the good fit crrterion.

8


Figure 2. Naples Rainfall Station - Period of Record - Annual Rainfall (June - May).

,_

,11M3 '90S

1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1_ 1957

,_ ,_ 1959 1960 1981 1982

1_ 1965 1_ 1967 '966

57.63 56.32 84.97 461 61.09 400 57.14 44.15 62.19 SO.SO 60.74 38.80 67.78 84.16

:::::::::::::::j

68.80 6Ui6 38.46 66.21 42.32 35.78 SO.54 49.67 52.09 66.02

I:::::::::::::::

,_ I_I_,_

1977 1978 1979

1991 1982

1965 1967 1966 1999

_ Best Fit Statistical Category 1:::::::::1 Next Best Fit Statistical Category

9


Figure 3. Naples Rainfall Station - Period of Record - Wet Season Rainfall (June - November).

37.14 22.86 41.38 37!17

sua 42.86

:.:.:.:.:.:.:.;.

50134

35.56 48.45 2B.T1 44.28 39.65

••

48.01 ~m;=18.85 I=-' 42.80 43.58 55.00 48.19 27.20 55.65 28.82 28.07 37.03 37.90

38.58 32.89 33.57 38.80 35.75 42.90 43.51 30.45

sua

35.88 37.10 29.31 48.89

_

I:;m:::3

Best Fit Statistical Category Next Best Fit Statistical Category

10


Figure 4. Naples Rainfall Station - Period of Record - Dry Season Rainfall (December - May).

22.14 21.55

18.06 10.55 15.92 22.99 15.56 6.90 12.60 24.06 6.30 8.14

12.90

_ Best Fit Statistical Category 1:::::::::1 Next Best Fit Statistical Category

11

Appendix V

Graphic Presentations: Water Level Hydrographs and Drawdown Frequency Charts


December 28, 1994

j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j j

GRAPHICS PRESENTATIONS Table of Contents Location of Observation Cells for the Water Level Hydrographs and Drawdown Frequency Charts ...... . . . • . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

Water Level Hydrographs ..............................................•...

5

Water Table Fluctuation Citrus Demand Hydrographs (Non-Seasonal) .......... Water Table Fluctuation Citrus Demand Hydrographs (Seasonal) .............. Water Table Fluctuation Vegetable Demand Hydrographs (Non-Seasonal) ..... Water Table Fluctuation Vegetable Demand Hydrographs (Seasonal) .......... Water Table Fluctuation PWS Demand Hydrographs (Non-Seasonal) ........... Water Table Fluctuation PWS Demand Hydrographs (Seasonal) ...............

6 22 28 44 54 67

Drawdowns Frequency Charts .....................•.......•.....•......•..

79

Frequency of Drawdown Occurrence Citrus Demand Charts (Non-Seasonal with 50 Month Frequency Period) ....................................... Frequency of Drawdown Occurrence Citrus Demand Charts (Seasonal with 50 Month Frequency Period) ....................................... Frequency of Drawdown Occurrence Vegetable Demand Charts (Non-Seasonal with 50 Month Frequency Period) ......................... Frequency of Drawdown Occurrence Vegetable Demand Charts (Seasonal with 50 Month Frequency Period) .............................. Frequency of Drawdown Occurrence PWS Demand Charts (Non-Seasonal with 50 Month Frequency Period) ....................................... Frequency of Drawdown Occurrence PWS Demand Charts (Seasonal with 50 Month Frequency Period) ....................................... Frequency of Drawdown Occurrence Citrus Demand Charts (Non-Seasonal with 12 Month Frequency Period) ....................................... Frequency of Drawdown Occurrence Citrus Demand Charts (Seasonal with 12 Month Frequency Period) ...................................... Frequency of Drawdown Occurrence Vegetable Demand Charts (Non-Seasonal with 12 Month Frequency Period) ........................ Frequency of Drawdown Occurrence Vegetable Demand Charts (Seasonal with 12 Month Frequency Period) ............................. Frequency of Drawdown Occurrence PWS Demand Charts (Non-Seasonal with 12 Month Frequency Period) ...................................... Frequency of Drawdown Occurrence PWS Demand Charts (Seasonal with 12 Month Frequency Period) ......................................

80 84 86 90 93 96 99 103 105 109 111 115

GRAPHIC PRESENTATIONS

Location of Observation Cells for the Water Level Hydrographs and Drawdown Frequency Charts

Table V.1 and Figure V.1 show the location of model observation cells in tabular and geographic form. The numbers in Table V.1 correspond to the row and column of each cell. The symbols in Figure V.1 represent categories of observation cells. For example, the upward-pointing triangles are citrus in 1-in-10 observation cells. The triangle farthest from the withdrawing wells (row 85, column 112) is in the cell representing the 0.1 foot of drawdown criteria for citrus, 1-in-10 drought. Computed distances between the withdrawing wells and the observation cells can be found in Table 7.

1

Table V.l.

Location of observation cells (row,column). Withdrawals occur from cells 103,115; 103,116; 104,115; and 104,116. Citrus

N

Vegetable

Public Water Supply

linl0 90 Days No 1inl0 90 Days No Drawdown linl0 1inl0 90 Days No Drawdown linl0 Drawdown linl0 Drought Drought Drought Criteria Drought Seasonal Recharge Criteria Drought Seasonal Recharge Criteria Drought Seasonal Recharge 90,112 0.1 85,112 90,116 0.1 82,114 88,118 0.1 85,114 89,112 94,113 86,114 93,115 90,108 95,110 0.2 0.2 0.2 93,109 97,111 0.3 92,110 102,109 0.3 89,118 93,116 0.3 97,114 94,110 99,114 90,115 102,108 0.4 94,114 0.4 0.4 96,110 100,115 92,109 101,109 96,113 98,115 0.5 0.5 0.5 101,108 101,115 95,107 101,111 97,115 99,118 0.6 0.6 0.6 97,107 101,112 99,113 100,114 0.7 97,113 103,114 0.7 0.7 95,111 100,113 101,118 0.8 98,113 101,113 0.8 0.8 101,111 99,108 101,114 100,117 101,117 0.9 0.9 0.9 101,114 101,116 100,109 99,117 104,111 97,111 101,115 97,108 1.0 1.0 1.0 102,117 102,114 102,112 98,111 102,117 1.1 1.1 1.1 100,115 103,109 102,115 103,117 1.2 1.2 1.2 -102,113 98,113 102,116 1.3 1.3 -1.3 101,117 98,115 1.4 1.4 101,115 100,112 1.5 1.5 103,111 1.6 1.7 100 113

Figure V.1.

Locations of observation wells representing the criteria shown in Table V.1 --

100 101 102 103 101'1$5 lCl6 107 • ...,.,....,,-

10 11

1-+-+-+-++++-

12 ~ ~+-+-+-4-~~~14

15 16

100

101 109

110

«» WeIIJ

Vegelable linlO • CiInJs 9O-day 110 rcll 0 VegdlIb1e linlO IIeUIlII t::. CiInJs linlO PWS 9O-day 110 rcll 'V CiInJs linlO IIeUIlII + PWS linlO • VegdlIb1e 9O-day 110 rcll X PWS linlO seasn

*

3

4

GRAPHIC PRESENTATIONS Water Level Hydrographs

This appendix shows model simulated fluctuations in the water table at selected locations based on observed monthly rainfall in Naples, Florida for the six year period from July 1970 to June 1976. Simulations were run both with and without pumping stresses, and the two hydrographs were plotted together. The inset titled 'Drawdown' lists the mean, minimum, and maximum differences between the two lines (No Wells & With Wells) over the six year period of the simulation. Three types of water uses were simulated, citrus and vegetable irrigation, and public water supply (pws). Pumpage volumes for these use types were estimated as explained in the methods section of the report. The type of demand simulated in each graph is indicated in the first line of the title. The second line indicates the location at which these water table observations were made. The location is defined in terms of the criteria it represents. Example 1: Water Table Fluctuation (7/70 -6/76): Citrus Demand Criteria: Drawdown=O.1 Rainfall=1-in-10 Seasonal=NO This graph reflects the effect of simulated citrus irrigation demands on the water table at the location representing the criteria No more that 0.1 foot of drawdown for more than one month of the 1-in-10 drought year. Example 2:Water Table Fluctuation (7/70 -6/76): Citrus Demand Criteria: Drawdown=O.1 Rainfall=1-in-10 Seasonal=YES This graph reflects the effect of simulated citrus irrigation demands on the water table at the location representing the criteria No more that o. f foot of drawdown for more than one month during the wet season of the 1-in-10 drought year.

5

Water Table Fluctuation Criteria:

rrno - 6n6):

Drawdown=0.1

Citrus Demand

Ralnfall=1ln10 Seasonal=NO

Water Level (It)

Drawdown Mean =0.07 Min =0.01 Max =0.22

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

J

0

J

A

J

U L 7 0

C

A N 7 1

P R

U L 7 1

T 7 0

7 1

0 C T 7 1

J

A

J

A N 7 2

P R 7

U L 7

2

2

J

A

J

P R

7

A N 7

7

U L 7

2

3

3

3

0 C T

J

A

J

P R

7

A N 7

7

U L 7

3

4

4

4

0 C T

Date

••• No Wells·

o0

0

With Wells

0 C T 7

4

J

A

J

A N 7 5

P R 7

U L 7

5

5

0 C T 7

5

J

A

J

A N 7 6

P

U L 7

R 7 6

6

Water Table Fluctuation (7/70 - 6/76): Citrus Demand Criteria: Drawdown = 0.2 RaInfall = 11n10 Seasonal = NO

Water Level (ft)

Drawdown Mean =0.13 =0.02 MIn Max =0.37

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

J U L 7

0

J

C T 7

A

A P

N

R

0

0

7 1

0

J

C

A

T

N

'7

J U L 7

7

7

1

1

1

2

A P

0

J

C

A

A P

R 7

J U L 7

T 7

N 7

2

2

2

3

0

J

C

A

A P

R 7

J U L 7

T 7

N 7

R 7

J U L 7

4

4

4

5

5

5

0

J

C T 7

A

A P

R 7

J U L 7

N 7

3

3

3

4

Date


o0

0

With Wells

0

J

C T 7 5

A

A P

N 7

R 7

J U L 7

6

6

6

Water Table Fluctuation (7/70 - 6/76): Citrus Demand Criteria: Drawdown = 0.3 Rainfall = 11n10 Seasonal = NO

Water Level (ft)


18

15

14

13 00 12

11

10

9

J

0

U L 7

C

0

T 7 0

J A N 7

A P R 7

1

1

J

0

U L 7 1

C

T 7 1

J A N 7 2

A P R 7 2

J

0

J

U L 7 2

C

A N 7

T 7 2

3

A P R 7 3

J

0

U L 7

C

J A

T

N

A P R

7

3

3

7 4

7 4

J

0

U L 7 4

C

Date

000

With

II

T 7 4

J A N 7 5

A P R 7 5

J

0

U L 7 5

C

T 7 5

J A N 7 6

A P R 7 8

J U L 7 6

Water Table Fluctuation (7/70 - 6/76): Citrus Demand Criteria: Drawdown = 0.4 Rainfall = 11n10 Seasonal = NO

Water Level (ft)


16 15

14

13

12

11

10

9

J U L 7

0

0 C T 7

0

J A N 7

A

J

P 1'1

U L 7

0 C T

, , , , 7

7

J

A

J

A N 7

P R 7

U L 7

2

2

2

J

A

J

P

7

A N 7

U L 7

2

3

0 C T

R 7 3

3

0 C T 7

3

J

A

J

A N 7 4

P

U L 7 4

R 7 4

Date


00 0

With Wells

0 C T 7 4

J

A

J

A N 7

P

U L 7

5

R 7 5

5

J

J

7

A N 7

A P R 7

U L 7

5

6

6

6

0 C

T

Water Table Fluctuation (7/70 - 6/76): Citrus Demand CrHerla: Drawdown=0.5 Ralnfall=1ln10 Seasonal=NO

Water Level (ft)


16

15

000

•

Water Table Fluctuation (7/70 - 6/76):

Citrus Demand

Criteria: Drawdown=0.6 Ralnfall=1ln10 Seasonal=NO

Water Level (ft)

Drawdown Mean =0.34 Min =0.04 Max ~0.87

16

15

14

........

13

12

11

10

9

J

0

J

A

J

0

J

A

J

0

J

A

J

0

J

A

J

U L 7

C T 7

P R

A N 7

P R

C T 7

A N 7

P R 7

U L 7

C T 7

1

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

A N 7 4

P R

7

U L 7

0

U L 7 1

C T 7

0

A N 7 1

U L 7 4

7 1

7

4

Date

••• No Wells

o0

0

With Wells

0 C T 7 4

J

A

J

0

A N 7 5

P R

U L 7

C T 7

5

5

7 5

J A N 7 6

A

J

P R

U L 7 6

7 6

Water Thble Fluctuation fl/70 - 6/76): CrHerla:

Citrus Demand

Rainfall = 11n10 Seasonal = NO

Drawdown = 0.7

Water Level (ft)


16

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

J

0

J

A

J

0

J

A

J

0

J

A

J

0

J

A

J

0

J

A

J

0

J

A

J

U L 7 0

C

A N 7 1

P R

U L 7 1

C

A N 7 2

P R

U L 7 2

C

A N 7 3

P R

U L 7

C

P R

U L 7

C

4

A N 7 6

P R

3

A N 7 5

P R

3

U L 7 4

C

7

A N 7

U L 7 6

T 7 0

7 1

T 7 1

7 2

T 7 2

7 3

T

7 4

Date


o0

0

With Wells

T 7 4

7 5

5

T 7 5

7 6

Water Table Fluctuation (7/70 - 6/76): Citrus Demand Criteria: Drawdown=0.8 Ralnfall=1ln10 Seasonal=NO

Water Level (tt)


16

15

14

13

12

11

10 9

J

0

U L 7

C T 7

0

0

J A

A P

N 7 1

!I 7 1

J

0

U L 7 1

C T 7 1

J A N 7

2

A P R

J

0

7

U L 7

C T 7

2

2

2

J A N 7

3

A P R

J

0

7

U L 7

C T 7

3

3

3

J A N 7

4

A P R

J

0

7

U L 7

C T 7

4

4

4

Date


o0

0

With Wells

J A N 7

5

A P R

J

0

7

U L 7

C T 7

5

5

5

J A N 7

6

A P R

J

7

U L 7

6

6

Water Table Fluctuation (7nO - 6n6): Citrus Demand Criteria: Drawdown = 0.9 Rainfall = 11n10 Seasonal = NO

Water Level

(ttl


16

15

14

....l>

13

12

11

10

9 8

J

0

J

A

J

0

J

A

J

0

J

A

J

0

J

A

J

0

J

A

J

0

J

A

J

U L 7 0

C

A N 7 1

P

U L 7 1

C

A N 7 2

P

U L 7 2

C

A N 7 3

P

U L 7

C

A N 7 4

P

U L 7 4

C

A N 7 5

P

U L 7 5

C

A N 7 6

P

U L 7

T 7 0

R 7 1

T 7 1

R 7 2

T 7 2

R 7 3

3

T 7 3

R 7 4

Date

••• N W II

o0

0

With W lis

T 7 4

R 7 5

T 7 5

R 7 6

6

Water Table Fluctuation (7/70 - 6/76): Citrus Demand Criteria:

Drawdown =1.0 Rainfall =11n10 Seasonal = NO

Water Level (ft)


16

15

14

.... V1

13

12

11

10

9

J U L 7

0

A

J

0

P R 7

U L 7

C

7

J A N 7

0

0

1

1

1

1

C

T

T 7

J A N 7 2

A

J

0

P R

U L 7

C

7 2

2

T 7 2

J A N 7

A

J

0

P R

C

7

U L 7

3

3

3

A

00 0

J

0

P R

C

7

7

U L 7

4

5

5

5

7

4

4

7

3

4

Date


A

0

P R

T

J A N 7

J U L 7

J A N 7

With Wells

C

T

A

J

P R

7

J A N 7

7

U L 7

5

6

6

6

T

Water Table Fluctuation (7/70 - 6/76): Criteria:

Drawdown =1.1

Citrus Demand

Rainfall =11n10 Seasonal = NO

Water Level

(ttl


18

15

14

....0'1

13

12

11

10

9

J U L 7 0

0 C T 7 0

,R 7

J U L 7

0 C T 7

1

1

1

J

A

A N 7

P

1

J

A

J

A N 7 2

P R 7

U L 7

0 C T 7

2

2

2

J

A

A N 7 3

P

J U L 7 3

R 7 3

0 C T 7 3

J

A

A N 7

P R 7

J U L 7

0 C T 7

4

4

4

4

Date

••• No Wells'

o0

0

With Wells

J U L

J

A

J

A

P

U L 7

0 C T 7

J

A N 7 5

A N

P

7

7

7

5

5

6

6

6

R 7 5

R

Water Table Fluctuation (7/70 - 6/76): Citrus Demand Crlterta:

Drawdown=1.2 Ralnfall=11n10 Seasonal=NO

Water Level (ft)


16

15

14

.... -...I

13

12 11

10

9

J U L 7

0

J

A

J

T 7

A N 7

P fI 7

U L 7

0

1

1

1

0 C

J

A

J

P

T 7

A N 7

R 7

U L 7

1

2

2

2

0 C

J

A

J

P

T 7

A N 7

R 7

U L 7

2

3

3

3

0 C

J

A

J

P

T 7

A N 7

R 7

U L 7

3

4

4

4

0 C

Date


o0

0

With Wells

J

A

J

P

T 7

A N 7

R 7

U L 7

4

5

5

5

0 C

J

A

J

P

T 7

A N 7

R 7

U L 7

5

6

6

6

0 C

Water Table Fluctuation (7/70 - 6/76): Citrus Demand Criteria: Drawdown=1.3 Ralnfall=1ln10 Seasonal=NO

Water Level (tt)


16

15

14

....00

13

12

11

10 9

J U L 7 0

0 C

T 7 0

J A N 7 1

A

P 1'1 7 1

J U L 7

0

1

1

C

T 7

J A N 7 2

A

P R 7 2

J U L 7 2

0 C

T 7 2

J A N 7 3

A

P R 7 3

J U L 7 3

0 C

T 7

3

J A N 7 4

A

P R 7 4

J U L 7 4

Date

• •• No Wells·

0 0 0

With Wells

0 C

T 7 4

J A N 7

A

5

5

P R 7

J U L 7 5

0 C

T 7

5

J A N 7 6

A

P R 7 6

J U L 7 6


Drawdown = 1.4 Rainfall = 11n10 Seasonal = NO

Water Level (ft)


16 15 14

-

13

\0

12 11 10 9

8

J

0

J

A

J

0

J

A

J

0

J

A

J

0

J

A

J

0

J

A

J

0

J

A

J

U L 7

C

P

A N 7 2

P

U L 7

C

A N 7 S

P

U L 7

C

A N 7 6

P

U L 7

C

U L 7

5

5

A N 7 6

P

3

U L 7 4

C

3

A N 7 4

P

0

U L 7 1

C

0

A N 7 1

T 7

!'I 7 1

T 7 1

R 7 2

2

T 7 2

R 7 S

T 7

R 7 4

Date


o0

0

With Wells

T 7 4

R 7 6

T 7

R 7 6

6


Drawdown=1.S Ralnfall=1ln10 Seasonal=NO

Water Level

(ttl


16 15 14

r-.; 0

13 12 11 10 9

8

J U L

0 C T

7

0

J

A

P

7

A N 7

0

1

J

A

P R

J U L

0 C T

7

A N 7

7

7

1

2

2

2

fl

J U L

0 C T

7

7

1

1

J U L

J

A

P R

7

A N 7

7

7

2

3

3

3

J

A

P R

J U L

0 C T

7

A N 7

3

4

7 4

7 4

7 4

0 C T

Date

II

000

With W II

J

A

A N 7 5

P R

J U L

0 C T

7

7

7

5

5

5

J

A

A N 7 6

P R

J U L

7 6

7 6

Water Table Fluctuation (7/70 - 6/76): Citrus Demand Criteria: Drawdown = 1.0 Rainfall = 90day Seasonal = NO

Water Level

(ttl


16

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

J U L 7

0

0 C T 7

0

J

A

J

A N 7 1

P

U L 7 1

~ 7 1

0 C T 7 1

J

A

J

A N 7

P R 7

U L 7

2

2

2

J

A

J

P

7

A N 7

R 7

U L 7

2

3

3

3

0 C T

0 C T 7

3

J

A

J

A N 7 4

P R 7

U L 7

4

4

Date


o0

0

With Wells

J

A

J

P

7

A N 7

R 7

U L 7

4

5

5

5

0 C T

0 C T 7

5

J

A

J

A N 7 6

P R 7

U L 7

6

6

Water Table Fluctuation fino - 6n6): Citrus Demand Criteria: Orawdown = 0.1

Ralnfall=1ln10 Seasonal=YES

Water Level (ft)

Orawdown Mean =0.15 =0.02 Min Max =0.36

18 15 14 13 N IV

12 11 10 9 8

J U L 7

0

J

A

J

P

T 7

A N 7

R 7

U L 7

0

1

1

1

0 C

0 C

T 7 1

J

A

J

A N 7

P R 7

U L 7

2

2

2

0 C T 7 2

J

A

J

A N 7 3

P

U L 7 3

R 7 3

Date

0 C T 7 3

J

A

J

A N 7

P R 7

4

4

U L 7 4

0 C T 7

J

A

J

A N 7

P R 7

U L 7

4

5

5

5

0 C T 7 5

J

A

J

A N 7 6

P R 7 6

U L 7 6


Citrus Demand

Criteria: Drawdown = 0.2 Rainfall = 11n10 Seasonal = YES

Waler Level (tt)


16 15 14 13 I\J

w

12 11 10 9

8

J U L 7

0

0

0

C

T 7

J A

A P

N 7 1

7 1

R

J U L 7

0 C

T

, , 7

J A N 7

2

A P R

0

7

J U L 7

7

N 7

2

2

2

3

C

T

J A

A P R

J

0 C

7

U L 7

7

N 7

3

3

3

4

T

J A

A P R 7

4

J U L 7 4

Dale

••• No Wells

o0

0

With Wells

0 C

T 7 4

J A N 7

5

A P R

J A

0

7

J U L 7

7

N 7

5

5

5

6

C

T

A P R 7 6

J U L 7

6

Water Table Fluctuation \1/70 - 6/76): Citrus Demand Criteria: Drawdown = 0.3 Rainfall = 11n10 Seasonal = YES

Water Level (ft)


16

15

14

13

12

11

10

9 8

J U L 7 0

0 C T 7 0

J

A

J

A N 7

P

U L 7

1

fI 7 1

1

0 C T 7 1

J

A

J

0

J

A

J

0

J

A

J

0

J

A

J

0

J

A

J

A N 7

P R

U L 7

C T 7

P R

C T 7 3

P R

U L 7

C T 7

A N 7 6

P R

4

U L 7 5

C

4

A N 7 5

P R

2

U L 7 3

A N 7

2

A N 7 3

U L 7 6

2

7 2

7

3

4

7 4

Date


000

With Wells

7 5

T 7 5

7 6


Drawdown = 0.4 Rainfall = 11n10 Seasonal = YES

Water Level (tt)


16

15

14

13 N

U1

12

11

10

9

J

0

U L 7

C

0

0

T 7

J A N 7 1

A P R 7 1

J

0

U L 7

C

1

T 7 1

J A N 7

A P R 7

J

0

U L 7

C

A P R 7

J

0

U L 7

C

7

J A N 7

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

T

T 7 3

J A N 7 4

A

J

0

P

U L 7 4

C

R 7

4

Date


o0

0

With Wells

T 7 4

A P R

J

J A

A

J

0

P

C

J A

N 7

R 7

U L 7

T

N

7

7

7

U L 7

5

5

5

5

6

6

6

Water Table Fluctuation fl/70 - 6/76): Citrus Demand Criteria: Drawdown = 0.5 Rainfall = 11n10 Seasonal = YES

Water Level (ft)


16

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

8

J

0

J

A

J

0

J

A

J

0

J

A

J

A

J

0

J

A

J

0

J

A

J

C

P R

U L

C

A N

P R

U L

C

P R

A N

P R

A N

P R

A N

P R

7 1

7 1

7 1

7 1

7

7

7

7

7

7

7

7

7

7

7

2

3

3

3

3

7 4

7

2

7 4

U L 7

2

7 2

U L 7

C

7 0

U L 7 4

C

T

A N

C

T

A N

J U L

0

U L 7 0

5

5

5

5

6

6

6

T

T

Date


000

With Wells

T 7 4

T

Water Table Fluctuation (7/70 - 6/76): Citrus Demand Criteria: Drawdown = 0.7 Rainfall = 11n10 Seasonal = YES

Water Level

(ttl


16

15

14

J

0

J

A

J

0

J

A

J

0

J

A

J

0

J

A

J

0

J

A

J

0

J

A

J

U L 7

C T 7

P

U L 7

C T 7

A N 7

P

C T 7

U L 7

C T 7

A N 7

P

C T 7

U L 7

C T 7

A N 7

P R 7

U L 7

1

1

2

2

2

2

3

(I

4

4

4

4

A N 7 5

P

R 7

U L 7

0

A N 7 3

P

R 7

U L 7

0

A N 7 1

5

5

6

6

6

R 7 1

R 7 3

Date


o0

0

With Wells

R 7 5

Water Table Fluctuation (7/70 - 6/76): Vegetable Demand CrHerla:

Drawdown = 0.1



o0

0

With Wells

Water Table Fluctuation (7nO - SnS): Vegetable Demand Criteria:


Water Level

(ft)


16 15 14 13 N

'"

12 11 10 9

8

J U L 7

0

0 C T 7 0

J

A

J

A

P

N 7

R

1

1

U L 7 1

'7

0 C T 7 1

J

A

J

A

P

N 7

R 7

U L 7

0 C T 7

2

2

2

2

J

A

J

A

P

N 7

R 7

U L 7

0 C T 7

3

3

3

3

J

A

J

A

P

N 7

R 7 4

U L 7

4

4

Date

••• No Wells

o0

0

With Wells

0 C T 7 4

J

A

J

A N 7 5

P R 7

U L 7

0 C T 7

5

5

5

J

A

J

A

P

N 7

R 7

6

6

U L 7 6

Water Table Fluctuation (7/70 - 6/76): Vegetable Demand Criteria: Drawdown =0.3 Rainfall =11n10 Seasonal = NO

J U L 7 0

0

J

C

A

T

N 7 1

7 0

A P R

0

J

C

A

T

'r

J U L 7

7

N 7

1

1

1

2

A P R 7

2

J U L 7 2

0

J

C T

A

7

N 7

2

3

A P R

0

J

C

A

T

7

J U L 7

3

3

3

N 7 4

7

A P R

0

J

C

A

T

7

J U L 7

7

N 7

4

4

4

5

Date


o0

0

With Wells

A P R 7 5

J U L 7 5

0

J

C

A

T

N 7

7 5

6

A P R 7 6

J U L 7 6

Water Table Fluctuation

fino -

SnS): Vegetable Demand

Crlterta: Drawdown = 0.4 Rainfall = 11n10 Seasonal = NO

Water Level (tt)


16 15 14 13

....

W

12 11 10 9

6 J

0

J

A

J

0

J

A

J

0

J

A

J

0

J

A

J

0

J

A

J

0

J

A

J

U L 7

C T 7

A N 7

P

C T 7

A N 7

P

C T 7

A N 7

C T 7

A N 7

C T 7

A N 7

R 7

U L 7

C T 7

A N 7

P

R 7

U L 7

P

R 7

U L 7

P

R 7

U L 7

P

R 7

U L 7

R 7

U L 7

0

0

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

4

4

4

4

5

5

5

5

6

6

6

Date


o0

0

With Wells

Water Table Fluctuation (7/70 - 6/76): Vegetable Demand CrHerla:


Drawdown = 0.5

Water Level (ft)


16 15 14 13 IV

\

~

w

"\.~·oOt

12

\

\

11

-",

, ;.

.

!

.~\

\.

/

!

~.'*-. \.

'\

0..

,

\.\. •

~.--.4

i

•

...j,

"'i

!

f

\. I

11

10 9

8 J U L

0

J

C T

A

A P

N

R

7

7

7

0

0

1

7 1

J U L

0

J

C T

A

A P

0

J

C T

A

A P

R

J U L

N

7

7

7

1

1

2

0

J

C T

A

A P

R

J U L

N

7

7

7

7

N

7

7

7

7

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

4

o0

0

J

C T

A

A P

N

R

7 5

7 5

7 5

7

7

7

6

6

6

0

J

A

A P

R

C T

N

7 4

7 4

7 4

7 5

Date

••• No Wells

0

R

J U L

J U L

With Wells

J U L

Water Table Fluctuation (7/70 Criteria:

Drawdown = 0.6

6/76): Vegetable Demand


Water Level

(ft)


18 15 14 13 W W

i

,I

I

,i ,

12

!

f

j

\,,

11

'"-j

t

'~

i

\

!

"

i

-~j

'~ ,I

,,

'oi

\;

10 9

8

J U L 7

0

0 C T 7 0

J

A

J

A N 7 1

P R

.,

U L 7

1

1

0 C T 7 1

J

A

J

A

J

A

J

A

J

A

J

P R

A N

P R

7

7

7

U L 7

P R

7

A N 7

A N

7

U L 7

P R

7

U L 7

0 C T 7

J

A N 7

0 C T 7

J

U L 7

0 C T 7

J

P R

0 C T 7

J

A N

7

7

U L 7

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

4

4

4

4

5

5

5

5

6

6

6

Date


o0

0

With Wells




Water Level

(ttl


16

15

14

13

i

..,.

\

i

W

\

;.,...

i

12

\

!

I

>.. \.

11

i

j'

\,

'.\ !f

i

\ "\ !I

! i

~

'., .f

"-.,\

\l

". j \;

10

9

8

J

0

J

A

J

0

J

A

J

0

J

A

J

0

J

A

J

0

J

A

J

0

J

A

J

U L 7 0

C

A N 7 1

P

U L 7 1

C

A N 7 2

P

U L 7 2

C

A N 7 3

P

U L 7 3

C

A N 7 4

P

U L 7 4

C

A N 7 5

P

U L 7 5

C

A N 7 6

P

U L 7 6

T 7 0

R

'7

1

T 7 1

R 7 2

T 7 2

R 7 3

T 7 3

R 7 4

Date

••• No Wells'

o0

0

With Wells

T 7 4

R 7 5

T 7 5

R 7 6

Water Table Fluctuation (7/70 CrHeria:

Drawdown = 0.8

6/76):

Vegetable Demand


Water Level

(ttl

Drawdown Mean =0.43 Min =0.00 Max "':'1.17

16 15 14 13 '~I'l-

W

12

~,

11

I

, i ,! !,

U1

I

\,

,

f

''.I'

•

i i

i

i i

.'

'"

i \ \, I

"'I

10

i ,t

'.

,f

\.

!

i i '~.

i ,.1

•\ Ii '..~,

•

9

8

U L 7

J

0 C T 7

J A

0

0

1

N 7

A P R 7

U L 7

J

0 C T 7

J A N 7

1

1

1

2

A P R

J

7

U L 7

2

2

0 C T 7 2

J A N 7

3

A P R 7

U L 7

J

0 C T 7

J A N 7

3

3

3

4

A P R

J

7

U L 7

4

4

Date

••• No Wells'

o0

0

With Wells

0 C T 7 4

J A N 7

5

A P R

0 C T 7

J A

7

U L 7

J

5

5

5

6

N 7

A P R

J

7

U L 7

6

6

Water Table Fluctuation (7/70 -

6/76):

Vegetable Demand

Criteria: Drawdown = 0.9 Rainfall = 11n10 Seasonal = NO

Water Level (tt)


16

15

14

13

\

\

\

W

0'1

,

\ \ .1It, If ,

\\

12

1

\

,

,...

\...... ~

11

\

10

'\. \

I

• I

\1

\

I I

.....

\ f

~J

"

\

i

\

'\ f

~

\

!

I i i ,i

~

i

\

\ ., i , i

I

~

I'

1

\

i

\" I

.1

".J

•

I

\; ~

9 8 J U L 7 0

0 C T 7 0

J A N 7

A P

R 7 1

J U L 7 1

0 C

T 7 1

J A N 7 2

A P

R 7 2

J U L 7 2

0 C

T 7 2

J A N 7 3

A P

R 7 3

J U L 7 3

0 C T 7 3

J A N 7 4

A

P R 7 4

J U L 7 4

Date

••• No Wells'

00 0

With Wells

0 C T 7 4

J A N 7 5

A P

R 7 5

J U L 7 5

0 C T 7 5

J A N 7 6

A

P R 7 6

J U L 7 6

Water Table Fluctuation (7nO - Sns): Vegetable Demand Criteria:


Water Level (ft)


18 15 14 13

i

, \, ,,

w

-...J

12

,I / ,?

\

&--..~

11

\

10

I

\

I

\

' fiI\,

1 ~, I

."

i i

l

i i i

\

i "'i•

"

9 8

J U L 7 0

0 C T

J A

7

N 7

0

1

A P R

'1 1

J U L 7

1

0 C T 7 1

J A N 7 2

A P R 7 2

J U L 7 2

0 C T 7 2

J A N 7

3

A P R

J U L 7 3

7

3

0 C T 7

3

J A N 7 4

A P R 7

4

J U L 7 4

Date

••• No Wells

o0

0

With Wells

0 C T 7 4

J A N 7

5

A P R 7

5

J U L 7 5

J A

A P

7

N 7

R 7

J U L 7

5

6

6

6

0 C T

Water Table Fluctuation (7/70 - 6/76): Vegetable Demand Criteria: Orawdown=1.1


Water Level (ft)

Orawdown Mean =0.58 Min =0.00 Max =1.55

18

15

,

14

13

,

, J

w

00

\

12

\

\ 11

I I

\\ \I(}\.,

\ \ \

\....

" \

\, 10

i

~4...~

, J

h.

,

.

i "'. , \

J

~

!

\

;."\,

\ •

., II

\J

1

i

i

i i

i

••\/,

\

!

!

i

i .i \,1

..

•

\\

9

8

J

0

J

A

U L 7

C

A

T

N 7 1

P R

0

7 0

7

J U L 7

1

1

0

J

A

C

A

T

N 7 2

P R

7 1

7 2

J U L 7 2

0

J

A

J

0

J

A

J

0

J

A

J

0

J

A

J

C

A

A

T

4

4

4

N 7 5

N 7 6

P R

7

U L 7 5

A

T

P R

C

N 7 4

U L 7

A

T

P R

C

N 7 3

U L 7

C

T

P R

U L 7 6

7 2

7 3

3

7 3

Date

••• No Wells

o0

0

With Wells

7

7 5

7 5

7 6

Water Table Fluctuation (7/70 - 6/76): Vegetable Demand Criteria: Drawdown = 1.2 Rainfall = 11n10 Seasonal = NO

Water Level

(ft)


16

15

14

13

i i i i

12

!

! i

!

11

!

J

\ I

10

,

I

~. I

\1 ~

9

J

0

J

L

C T

A N

A P R

7

7

7 1

7 1

u

o

0

J

o

U

C T 7 1

L 7 1

J A N 7

2

A

P R 7 2

u

0 C

J

o

J

A

J

A

P

R

U L

C T

A N

7 3

7 3

7

7

3

4

L

T

7

7

N 7

2

2

3

J

A P R 7 4

J

o

J

o

J

C

J A

A

U

N

U

L 7

T

P

7

7

R 7

L 7

C T

7

A N 7

7

7

4

4

5

5

5

5

6

6

6

Date

••• No Wells

o0

0

With Wells

A

P R

J

U L

Water Table Fluctuation (7/70 - 6/76): Vegetable Demand CrHerla: Orawdown=1.3 Ralnfall=1ln10 Seasonal=NO

Orawdown Mean =0.68 Min =0.00 Max =1.77

,

i'

i V!\ i I ! \ I

i i

,

\

b.

i

loA

'\

.

\. !

If

"'-,

.

i I

i !

"

}, ! " I

~

J

0

U L 7

C T 7

0

0

J A N 7 1

A

J

0

P R

U L 7 1

C T 7

'7 1

1

J A N 7 2

A

J

0

P R 7

U L 7

C T 7

2

2

2

J A N 7 3

A

J

0

P R 7

U L 7

C T 7

3

3

3

J A N 7 4

A

J

0

P R

U L 7 4

C T 7 4

7 4

Date

••• No Wells

000

With Wells

J A N 7 5

"1! A

J

0

P R

U L 7 5

C T 7

7 5

5

J A N 7 6

A

J

P R

U L 7 6

7 6

Water Table Fluctuation

(7no -

6/76):

Vegetable Demand


Water Level (ft)


16

15

14

i \.,;,\ i •\ i; \ \ i

13

12

,i

11

i

!

~'\

~.

i

10

J U L

0

7

C T 7

0

0

J A N 7 1

A P R

J U L

'1

7 1

1

0 C T 7

1

J A N 7

2

A P R

J U L

7

7

C T 7

2

2

2

0

J A N 7

3

A P R

J U L

7

7

C T 7

3

3

3

0

J A N 7 4

A P R

J U L

7 4

7 4

Date

••• No Wells

o0

0

~\

i'

'j

I

\J

9

i i

\

j j

~

.

!

With Wells

0 C T 7 4

J A N 7

5

A P R

J U L

7

7

C T 7

5

6

5

0

J A N 7

6

A P R

J

7

U L 7

6

6


6/76):

Vegetable Demand

Criteria: Drawdown=1.S Ralnfall=1ln10 Seasonal=NO

Water Level

(ftl


16 15 14 i i i i i

13 ~

,

N

~ \\

12

, .... ,

I.

'. -' \

¥ i

i i

\i

i

,j

\,

11

'.

i

\

i I

'~

r

\

I !

10

~

h \ ~.

"\. :I 'o.j

, I • I

i\

\ j

9

'"

6

J

0

J

U L

C

A

T

7

7

N 7

0

0

1

A P R

t

1

J

0

J

U L

C

A

T

7

7

N 7

1

1

2

A P R

J

0

J

U L

C

A

T

7

7

7

N 7

2

2

2

3

A P R

J

0

J

U L

C

A

T

7

7

7

3

3

3

N 7 4

A P R

J

0

J

U L

C

A

T

7 4

7 4

7 4

N 7 5

Date

••• No Wells

00 0

With Wells

A P R

J

0

J

U L

C

A

T

7

7

7

N 7

5

5

5

6

A P R

J U L

7

7

6

6

Water Table Fluctuation (7/70 - 6/76): Vegetable Demand Criteria:

Drawdown = 1.0 Rainfall = 90day Seasonal = NO

Water Level

(ft)


16 15 14

i

13

i

~

w

\

~,

11

..",

!

.

.

'

\4

I

i

\

,~ 1 , , \ , 1 \1

\ \ f,

10

\

i

'\

12

i

j

\."-.

'\

i

i iI

\.,

. >d

•

ft

f

1

....,;

'.

•

9

8

J U L 7

0

0 C T 7

0

J A N 7 1

A P R

'7 1

J U L 7 1

0 C T 7 1

J

A

J

A N 7

P R 7

U L 7

2

2

2

0 C T 7

2

J

A

J

A N 7 3

P

U L 7 3

R 7 3

0 C T 7

3

J A N 7 4

A P R 7 4

J U L 7 4

Date

••• No Wells'

o0

0

With Wells

0 C T 7 4

J

A

J

A N 7

P

U L 7 5

6

R 7 5

0 C T

J A N

A P R

J U L

7

7

7

7

5

6

6

6

Water Table Fluctuation fl/70 CrHerla:

Drawdown=0.1

6/76):

Vegetable Demand


Water Level (ft)


16 15 14 13 12

,

11

I

I.

"v

10 9

8 J U L 7 0

0 C

T 7 0

J A N 7

1

A

P R

1 1

A

T

J A N

7

7

1

2

J U L 7

0

1

C

0

R

J U L

7

7

2

2

7 2

P

C

T

J A N

A

7

3

0

R

J U L

7

7

3

3

7 3

P

C

T

J A N

A

7

4

0

R

J U L

7

7

7

4

4

4

P

Date


00 0

With Wells

C

T

J A N 7 5

A

P R 7

5

J U L 7 5

0 C

T 7 5

J A N

A

P R

7

7

6

6

J U L 7 6



Water Level (II)


18 15 14 13

i i

.t> V1

j

12

\

i

/,-'\,.

j

,

11

t

'"•

I I '. I ~ , I

.

1,

10

.~\

i

'\i

j ~4

9

8

J U L 7

0

0 C T 7

0

J

A

J

A N 7

P

U L 7

!I

, , , 7

J

A

J

P

7

A N 7

R 7

U L 7

1

2

2

2

0 C T

J

A

J

P

7

A N 7

U L 7

2

3

0 C T

R 7 3

3

0 C T 7

3

J

A

J

A N 7 4

P

U L 7 4

R 7 4

Dale


o0

0

With Wells

0 C T 7 4

J

A

J

A N 7 5

P

U L 7

R 7 5

5

0 C T 7

5

J A N 7 6

A

J

P 7

U L 7

6

6

R

Water Table Fluctuation (7nO - 6n6): Vegetable Demand Criteria:



i i i

;

e...,

f

, . r

•

rI '. r ~

J

0

J

A

J

0

J

A

J

0

J

A

J

0

J

A

J

0

J

A

J

0

J

A

J

U L 7

C

P R

A N 7 3

P R

C

4

A N 7 6

P R

3

U L 7 5

C

3

A N 7 5

P R

3

U L 7 4

C

7

A N 7

P R

7

U L 7

1

U L 7 2

C

0

A N 7 2

P R

0

U L 7 1

C

7

A N 7

U L 7 6

T

7 1

T 7 1

7 2

T 7 2

T

7 4

Date

••• No Wells'

o0

0

With Wells

T 7 4

7 5

T 7 5

7 6

Water Table Fluctuation (7nO - 6n6): Criteria:

Vegetable Demand



I

i

\1 i

i ! !

rI

!

.~, \

L"

i \, \

!

i

~

! i

~

i

\{

!

" \....,J,!

, '

'!

~ !

i i i i

~

J

0 C T 7

J

A

J

U L 7

A N 7

P R

'1

U L 7

0

0

1

1

1

0 C T 7 1

J

A

J

A N 7

P R 7

U L 7

2

2

2

0 C T 7 2

J

A

J

A N 7 3

P R

U L 7

7 3

3

0 C T 7 3

J A N 7 4

A

J

P R

U L 7 4

7 4

Dale

••• No Wells

00 0

With Wells

0 C T 7 4

J A N 7

A

J

P R 7

U L 7

0 C T 7

5

5

5

5

J A N 7 6

A

J

P R

U L 7

7 6

6


Drawdown = 0.5

6/76):

Vegetable Demand

Rainfall = 11n10 Seasonal = YES

Water Level

(tt)


16

15

14

13

I

\

\

\ ~»l\,

12

i

...

11

"-\

•\

~

I

I

i

\j

\\

10

\

I

•

J

0

J

o

R

JOJAJOJAJ U CAP U CAP U L T N R L T N R L

?

7

A

U

CAP

L

T

N

7

7

7

o

0

7

7

7

7

7

7

7

7

112222333

J

A

C

A

T

N

P R

7 3

7 4

7 4

J U L 7 4

Date

••• No Wells

00 0

'~

~ i \ l ~4

•

\ ! •1

9

i

\" II

I

•

i i

i i i i

i i J

",

i

!

I

With Wells

o

J

C T

A N

puc

A

R

7

7

4

5

555

J

A

J

J

0

L

T

N

777

7

7

7

6

6

6

A

P R

U L

Water Table Fluctuation (7/70 - 6/76): Vegetable Demand Criteria: Drawdown = 0.6 Rainfall = 11n10 Seasonal = YES

Water Level

(ft)


16 15 14 \

\

\

13

\

i

\

\

.t:.

ID

~

12

\

~

i i

,

\\

11

I

i

! i i

i

i

--.~!

I

i

\ r

10

,

i

1

\1 \! ~

9

6 J U L

0 C T

J A

7

7

0

0

J U L

0 C T

J A

N

A P R

7

7

7

7

2

2

2

2

J U L

0 C T

J A

N

A P R

7

'7

7

7

1

1

1

1

J U L

0 C T

J A

N

A P R

J U L

0 C T

J A

N

A P R

7

7

7

7

7

7

7

7

3

3

3

3

4

4

4

4

Date


o0

0

With Wells

N

A P R

J U L

7

7

7

5

5

5

0 C T 7 5

J A N 7 6

A P R 7

6

J U L 7 6



Water Level (ft)


16

15

14 \

\

U1

0

,

\

13

~

12

I'

\

i \.

\

11

i i

,

f '\

\ ! ~ f

V\\

i

~

\

i

i f

J

'J

\~

"

10

I I

\

i

~\\

,

\

i

\

i

~.

I

i

't\

\1 \ .

•

9

6

J

0

J

A

J

0

J

A

J

0

J

A

J

0

J

A

J

0

J

A

J

0

J

A

J

U L 7 0

C

P

A N

P R

P R

A N

P R

A N

P R

7

7

7

2

2

2

3

3

7 4

7

2

7 4

U L 7

C

7

A N 7 5

P R

7

U L 7 4

C

7

U L 7 3

C

T

A N

7 1

U L 7

C

7 0

U L 7 1

C

T

A N

5

5

6

7 6

U L 7 6

!I 7 1

T 7 1

T 7

3

Date


00 0

With Wells

T 7 4

7 5

T


Drawdown = 0.8


Rainfall = 11n10 Seasonal = YES

Water Level (ft)


16 15 14

....

13

1

VI

i

! i i

'J

11

i '

.

i

i " \ i . , :I

1 ,

i

\

10,.

'

, !

\

'",.I

' I ~ I \\.i l

9

i I

\/\

i t i i

10

i

i i

i

12

•

8

J U

0

A P

J U

0

R

T

L 7

T

J A N

7

7

'1

L 7

0

0

1

1

1

C

C 7 1

J A N

A P

J U

R

7

7

L 7

2

2

2

0

A P

J U

C

T

J A N

R

7

7

7

L 7

3

4

4

4

A P

J U

0

T

J A N

R

7

7

7

L 7

2

3

3

3

C

C

Date

••• No Wells'

o0

0

With Wells

A P

J U

0

T

J A N

R

7

7

7

L 7

4

5

5

5

0

A P

J U

T

J A N

R

7

7

7

L 7

5

6

6

6

C


6/76):

Vegetable Demand

Criteria: Drawdown=0.9 Ralnfall=1ln10 Seasonal=YES

Water Level (ft) 16


15 14

\i

13 V1

IV

\

\ ::

\/ \

i

12

i

11

i I

\\

i i

\\

i

J

i

\

\ I

9

I .!

\1

I

i

\

i

\\ \. 1\

i i

I

i ,\!

i

10

\

\

i

!.

• I

\

\1, I \

~.. j

•

8

J

0

U L 7

C

0

0

T 7

J A N 7 1

A P R

'1 1

J

0

U L 7 1

C

T

J A

7

N 7

1

2

A P R

J

0 C

7

U L 7

7

N 7

2

2

2

3

T

J A

A P R

J

0 C

7

U L 7

7

N 7

3

S

3

4

T

J A

A P R

o0

0

0

J

C

A N

7

7

7

7

U L 7

5

5

5

6

6

6

0

J

C

T

A N

A P R

7

7

7

4

4

4

5

Date


J U L 7

J U L 7

With Wells

T

A P R

J

Water Table Fluctuation (7/70 - 6/76): Vegetable Demand Criteria: Drawdown=1.0 Ralnfall=1ln10 Seasonal=YES

Water Level

(ft)


16 15 14

;

1\

13

I

\

I

\

U1 I.U

•i

12

\ }\ VV\

!

,

\1

10

~

9

\/\

\ h

~Il

I i i i i

\

11

I

I,

\

ij':

I

\

\1

I

\I /".

!

i

)'

/ \, I

t \ /

I

!

"\ I \' ,I

V

~

i

I

I

".'

!

i

'

'~

8 J

o

U L 7

C

o

T

A N

A P R

U L

7

7

'1

7

1

1

1

o

J

J

o J A CAP

J

o C

J A

T

N

777

U L 7

7

7

1

2

2

3

T

N

2

R

2

A P R

U L

7 3

7 3

J

o

J A

A

C

P

T

N

7

7

R 7

3

4

4

J U L 7 4

Date


00 0

With Wells

o

o

R 7

J U L 7

7

J A N 7

5

5

5

6

J A

A

C

T

N

7

7

4

5

P

C

T

A

J

P R

U L 7

7 6

6

Water Table Fluctuation (7/70 - 6/76): PWS Demand Criteria: Drawdown =0.1 Rainfall =11n10 Seasonal =NO

J U L 7

0

0 C

J A

T 7

N 7 1

0

A P R

1 1

J U L 7 1

0 C T 7 1

J A N 7 2

A P R 7 2

J U L 7 2

0 C

J A

T 7 2

N 7 3

A P R 7 3

J U L 7 3

0 C

J A

T 7 3

N 7 4

A P R 7 4

J U L 7 4

Date


0 0 0

With Wells

0 C T 7

J A

4

5

N 7

A P R

J

7

U L 7

5

5

0 C T 7 5

J A N 7

6

A P R 7 6

J U L 7

6

Water Table Fluctuation (7nO - 6n6):

PWS Demand


Water Level (tt)


16 15 14 13

'"'"

12 11 10 9

6 J U L 7 0

0 C

T 7

0

J A N

A

7 1

"7

P R 1

J U L 7 1

0 C

T 7 1

A

J

0

J

A

P

P

T

A N

R

7

7

7

7

7

3

4

4

U L 7 4

C

T

J A N

4

5

J A N

A

J

0

J

A

J

0

P

C

P R

7

7

7

7

U L 7

C

T

A N

7

U L 7

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

R

R

Date

••• No Wells

o0

0

With Wells

0

7

J U L 7

5

5

A

T

J A N

7

7

7

J U L 7

5

6

6

6

C

P R

Water Table Fluctuation (7/70 - 6/76): PWS Demand Criteria: Drawdown =0.3 Rainfall =11n10 Seasonal = NO

J U L 7 0

0 C T 7

0

J A N 7 1

A

P

.,R

J U L 7 1

0 C T 7 1

J A N 7 2

A

P R 7 2

J U L 7 2

0 C T 7 2

J A N 7 3

A

P R 7 3

J U L 7 3

0 C T 7 3

A

J A N 7

R 7

4

4

P

J U L 7 4

Date


0 0 0

With Wells

0 C T 7 4

J A N 7 5

A

P R 7 5

J U L 7 5

0 C T 7 5

J A N 7 6

A

P R 7 6

J U L 7 6


PWS Demand


Water Level (ft)

Drawdown Mean =0.28 =0.10 Min Max =0.47

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

J

0

U L 7

C T 7

0

0

J A N 7

1

A P R

1 1

J

0

U L 7

C T 7

1

1

J

0

N

A P R

U L

7

7

7

C T 7

2

2

2

2

J A

J

0

N

A P R

U L

7

7

7

C T 7

3

3

3

3

J A

J

0

N

A P R

U L

7

7

7

4

4

4

C T 7 4

J A

Date

••• No Wells

o0

0

With Wells

J

0

N

A P R

U L

7

7

7

C T 7

5

5

5

5

J A

J A N

A P R

J U L

7

7

7

6

6

6

Water Table Fluctuation fI/70 - 6/76): PWS Demand Criteria: Drawdown = 0.5 Rainfall = 11n10 Seasonal = NO

Water Level (ft)


18

15

14

13 U1

00

12

11

10

9

J U L 7

0

0 C T 7

0

J

A

J

A N 7 1

P R

U L 7 1

7 1

0 C T 7 1

J

A

A N 7

P R 7

J U L 7

0 C T

2

2

2

2

7

J

A

A N 7 3

P R 7 3

J U L 7 3

J

A

P R

7

A N 7

3

4

0 C T

7 4

J U L 7 4

Date

••• No Wells

000

With Wells

0 C T 7 4

J

A

A N 7 5

P R 7 5

J U L 7 5

0 C T 7 5

J

A

J

A N 7 6

P R

U L 7 6

7 6

Water Table Fluctuation (7nO - SnS): PWS Demand Criteria: Drawdown = 0.6 Rainfall = 11n10 Seasonal = NO

Water Level

(ft)


18

15

14

13 V1

1.0

12 11

10

9

J

0

U L 7

C

0

0

T 7

J A N 7 1

A

J

0

P R

U L 7

C

7 1

1

T 7 1

J A N 7

A

J

0

P R

C

7

U L 7

A

J

0

P R 7

U L 7

C

7

J A N 7

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

T

T 7

J A N 7 4

A

J

0

P R

U L 7

C

7 4

4

Date


0 0 0

With Wells

T 7 4

A

J

P R

7

J A N 7

7

U L 7

5

6

6

6

J A N 7

A

J

0

P R

C

7

U L 7

5

5

5

T


PWS Demand


Water Level (ft)


18

15

14

13

en

o

12

11

10

9 8

J

0

J

A

J

0

J

0

J

A

J

0

J

A

J

0

J

A

J

0

J

C

A N 7 1

P

U L 7 1

C

A N 7

A P R 7

J

U L 7 0

U L 7

C

P

A N

P R

A N

A P R

7

7

5

5

U L 7 5

C

2

U L 7 4

C

2

U L 7 3

A N 7

2

P R 7 3

C

2

A N 7 3

7 6

7 6

T 7 0

R 1 1

T 7 1

T 7

T 7 3

4

R 7 4

Date

••• No Wells

o0

0

With Wells

T 7 4

T 7

5

J U L 7 6

Water Table Fluctuation (7/70 - 6/76): PWS Demand CrHeria: Drawdown = 0.8 Rainfall = 11n10 Seasonal = NO

Water Level (ft)


16

15

14

13

....

0'1

12

11

10

9

J U L 7 0

0 C T

7

J U L 7

1

1

J

A

P R

7

A N 7

0

1

0 C T

J

A

J

P R

7

A N 7

7

U L 7

2

3

3

3

0 C T

7

J U L 7

2

2

J

A

P R

7

A N 7

1

2

0 C T 7

3

J A N 7 4

A

P R 7 4

J U L 7 4

Date


0 0 0

With Wells

0 C T 7 4

J A N 7

A

5

0 C T

7

J U L 7

5

5

5

P R

7

J

A

A N 7 6

P R 7 6

J U L 7 6

Water Table Fluctuation fI/70 - 6/76): PWS Demand Criteria: Drawdown = 0.9 Rainfall = 11n10 Seasonal = NO

Water Level (ft)


16

15

14

13

en

IV

12

11

10

9

8 J U L 7

0

0

0

C

T 7

J A N 7 1

A

P R 7 1

J U L 7 1

0 C

T 7 1

J A N 7 2

A

P R 7 2

J U L 7 2

0 C

T 7 2

J A N 7 3

A

J U L 7 3

P R 7 3

0 C

T 7 3

A

J A N 7

7

4

4

P R

J U L 7 4

Date

••• No Wells

o0

0

With Wells

0 C

T 7 4

J A N 7 5

A

P R 7 5

J U L 7 5

0 C

T 7 5

J A N 7 6

A

P R 7 6

J U L 7 6

Water Table Fluctuation (7nO - 6n6): Criteria:

J

0

U L 7

C

0

0

T 7

J A N 7 1

Drawdown=1.0 Ralnfall=1ln10 Seasonal=NO

J

0 C

1

U L 7

1

1

A P R

PWS Demand

T 7 1

J A N 7

2

J

0 C

7

U L 7

7

N 7

2

2

2

3

A P R

T

J A

A P R

J

0 C

7

U L 7

3

3

3

T 7

J A N 7 4

A P R 7 4

J

0

U L 7 4

C

J A

T

N

A P R

7

7

4

5

Date


0 0 0

With Wells

J

0 C

J A

T

N

7

U L 7

7

7

7

U L 7

5

5

5

6

6

6

A P R

J

Water Table Fluctuation (7/70 - 6/76): Criteria: Drawdown=1.1

PWS Demand


Water Level (ft)


16 15 14 13

....en

12 11 10 9 8

J U L 7

0

0 C T 7 0

J A N 7

1

A P R

'! 1

J U L 7

0 C T

1

1

7

J A N 7 2

A P R 7 2

J U L 7 2

0 C T 7 2

J A N 7

3

A P R 7

3

J U L 7 3

0 C T 7 3

J A N 7 4

A P R 7 4

J U L 7

4

Date


0 0 0

With Wells

0 C T 7 4

J A N 7

5

A P R 7

5

J U L 7 5

0 C T 7 5

J A

A P

N 7 6

R 7 6

J U L 7

6


PWS Demand

Criteria: Drawdown =1.2 Rainfall =11n10 Seasonal = NO

Water Level (tt)


16 15 14 13

en

U1

12 11 10 9 8 J

0

U l 7

C

7

J A N 7

0

0

1

T

A

J

0

P R 1 1

U l 7

C

1

1

T 7

J A N 7 2

A

J

0

P R

C

7

U l 7

A

J

0

P R 7

U l 7

C

7

J A N 7

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

T

T 7

J A N 7 4

A

J

0

P R

U l 7 4

C

7 4

Date

••• No Wells

o0

0

With Wells

T 7 4

J A N 7 5

A

J

0

P R

C

7

U l 7

A

J

P R

7

J A N 7

7

U l 7

5

5

5

6

6

6

T

Water Table Fluctuation fI/70 - 6/76): PWS Demand Criteria: Drawdown =1.0 Rainfall = 90day Seasonal = NO

Water Level (ft)


16

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

8

J

0

U L 7

C

0

0

T 7

J A N 7 1

A P R 7 1

J

0

U L 7 1

C

T 7 1

J A N 7 2

A P R 7 2

J

0

U L 7 2

C

T 7 2

J A N 7

3

A P R 7 3

J

0

U L 7

C

3

T 7 3

J A N 7 4

A P R 7 4

J

0

U L 7 4

C

Date


0 0 0

With Wells

T 7 4

J A N 7 5

A P R 7 5

J

0

U L 7 5

C

T 7 5

J A N 7 6

A P R 7 6

J U L 7 6

no -

Water Table Fluctuation (7 Criteria: Drawdown=O.1

J

0

U L 7

C

0

0

T 7

J A N 7 1

A

J

0

P

U L 7 1

C

R 7 1

T 7 1

J A N 7

A

J

0

P

C

R 7

U L 7

2

2

2

6/76): PWS Demand


A

J

0

P R 7

U L 7

C

7

J A N 7

2

3

3

3

3

T

T 7

J A N 7 4

A

J

0

P

U L 7 4

C

R 7 4

Date

••• No Wells

o0

0

With Wells

T 7 4

J A N 7

A

J

0

P

C

R 7

U L 7

5

5

5

5

T 7

J A N 7 6

A

J

P

U L 7

R 7 6

6

Water Table Fluctuation fI/70 - 6/76): PWS Demand Criteria: Drawdown = 0.2 Rainfall = 11n10 Seasonal = YES

Water Level (ft)


16 15 14 13

a00

12 11 10 9

8 J

0

U L 7

C

0

0

T 7

J A N

A

J

0

P R

C

7 1

7

U L 7

J A

A

J

0

P

C

7

N 7

R 7

U L 7

1

1

1

2

2

2

T

T 7 2

J A N 7 3

A

J

0

P R

C

7

U L 7

3

3

T 7 3

J A N 7 4

A

J

0

P

U L 7 4

C

R 7 4

Dale


0 0 0

With Wells

T 7

4

J A N 7 5

A

J

0

P R 7

U L 7 5

C

5

T 7

5

J A N 7 6

A

J

P R 7

U L 7 6

6

Water Table Fluctuation (7/70 - 6/76): Criteria:

PWS Demand


Water Level (It)


16 15

14 13 0'1 97.5 % in the shallow surlicial aquifer). In addition, the model accounted for 50-60% of the variability of measured groundwater levels at two wells analyzed (wells #C-384 and C-997; data from SFWMD). Modeled groundwater fluctuations tended to be damped compared to measured fluctuations. Since the numerical criteria are stated in terms of changes in groundwater levels (i.e., drawdown), the absolute elevation is not a critical element of the prediction. The preponderance of evidence known to the technical panel indicates that surface and groundwaters operate as a single water mass over large areas of the Lower West Coast landscape, with appropriate lags associated with loc3J. horizontal and vertical flows. Since drawdowns occur horizontally over thousands of feet and the model uses a monthly time step, confounding influences of spatial variations in soil characteristics and rainfall patterns do not seriously compromise the results of model runs. However, the soil matrix makes up about 80% of the soil by volume, with water occupying the remaining 20% in a saturated soil, while surface water is 100% water by volume. Thus, exchanges of water across the ground surface produce much smaller changes in above-ground water table elevations than they do in below-ground water table elevations. We are satisfied, therefore, that the groundwater models developed by the SFWMD can be reasonably used both to simulate drawdowns from well pumping, and as a surrogate for surface water fluctuation.

SFWMD Technical Panel Repon. November 16.1994 Page 12

ASSESSMENT OF NUMERIC CRITERIA FOR GROUNDWATER PUMPING PERMITS THAT PROTECT WETLANDS FROM ADVERSE ENVIRONMETNAL IMPACTS. Proposed Criteria We recommend the adoption of the following numerical criteria, based on a presumption that withdrawals less than those recommended will not cause adverse impacts, as defined above. to wetlands. Criteria for all water uses are developed from simulations ofa maximum I month drawdown during any month ofa I-in-lD drought year. using monthly pumping rates. developed by the SFWMD mode1lers, as "normal" seasonal water demand. Water use

Maximum drawdown

Citrus

1.0 ft

Vegetables

0.7 ft

Public Water Supplies

0.5 ft

The specific drawdown criteria are approximate and are intended to be equivalent to the impact of the present 1 ft drawdown in a 9O-day, no recharge simulation. Because of differences in the timing of water withdrawals for the different water uses the present criteria translate to different drawdowns in a l-in-lD year scenario. The actual drawdown levels were approximated from tables of well setback distances from the closest wetland and may have to be adjusted from additional simulation runs.

Rationale The criteria listed above are.recommended for the following reasons: 1. Objective, carefully collected information on the impact of groundwater withdrawal on wetlands is inadequate to link drawdowns quantitatively to either surface water hydrology or to wetland biotic and substrate changes. In the absense of such information it

SFWMD Technical Panel Report. November 16.1994 Page 13 is prudent to continue the equivalent of the present de facto criteria for which there is a historic precedent of no known adverse impact. 2. Basing drawdowns on a l-in-IO year drought recognizes climatic variability and therefore provides more insight than the present 9O-day criterion, into expected variability of response, both seasonal and inter-annual. 3. Given the strong evidence of the importance of dry season as well as wet season hydrologic events, especially events associated with the extremes in the hydrologic record. the drawdown criteria are applied to the whole annual cycle, not just the wet season. 4. Until better technical evidence is available, we recommend that all wetland types be evaluated under the same criteria. Given the high levels of uncenainty associated with impact assessment, there is insufficient evidence presently to distinguish among them Uncertainties Limitations of available data. The technical panel recommends adoption of the equivalent of present criteria for groundwater drawdowns in large part because of our inability to make defensible recommendations based on sound, objective data for either more sningent or more relaxed criteria. It is likely that more stringent criteria are appropriate, based on two lines of evidence. First, abundant scientific evidence of the subtlety and pervasiveness of response of the wetland systems to hydrologic changes suggests that an impact as large as a foot drawdown for a month, with lesser drawdowns during other months of the year, and the associated changes in hydroperiod, are almost cenain to initiate a response in a wetland. This is especially true for drawdown schedules like that of Public Water Supplies, which may cause a measurable drawdown throughout most of the year. Second, SWFWMD monitoring of wellfield drawdowns over the past 2 decades (memo from T.F. Rochow to B.C. Wirth, dated May 25, 1993) documents serious environmental problems in some well-field wetlands, including rapid succession to more water-intolerant species, loss of overstary through tree falls and mortality, dessication of organic substrates, increased fire frequency, and associated wildlife changes. While the simulated drawdown in many of the affected well-fields was in excess of our recommended criteria, the magnitude of the wetland impacts is such as to raise the likelihood that more subtle impacts are occurring at lower drawdown levels. The SFWMD has approved well-pumping for a number of years

SFWMD Technical Panel Repon. November 16.1994 Page 14

under the present criteria. It is imperative. we believe. that a thorough evaluation be initiated of wetlands around these well sites. to document the presence (or absence) and magnitude of impacts at these sites and to relate these impacts to drawdown levels. This

will allow the district to revise criteria reaIistically. based on field-derived data, and to defend its criteria in an increasingly litigious environment. Leyel of protection for different water uses. We suspect, based on the District's simulations and calculations of well set-back distances from wetlands. that the present (90 day. no recharge) criterion does not provide the same level of wetland protection for different water uses (the simulated allowable distance from well to the nearest wetland is not the same for all water uses). Since we base our recommendations on an adaptation of this criterion they have the same deficiency. Evaluation of this question should be a priority issue. Surface-groundwater relationshjp. Although we are fairly confident of a reasonably tight linkage between surface and groundwater. the supporting data are not sufficient to evaluate either the confidence limits. or the circumstances that provide exceptions. A possible approach to evaluating relationships between model groundwater output and surface waters would be to first assume that whenever the simulated groundwater table is above the wetland surface. standing water occurs for the time period indicated (the hydroperiod). This time period may be extended both earlier and later to some extent based on the amount of upland "watershed" that may exist in the region modeled. Water depths associated with this hydroperiod could be simulated assuming 20% pore space in the soil matrix. thus reducing the height of the above-surface hydrograph by 80%. This son of approach could be the basis for a dialogue between biologists. hydrologists. and modelers to produce information that will greatly improve our ability to assess the effects on wetlands of hydrologic alterations in the landscape. including not just pumpage drawdowns. but other changes associated with water use and management activities in Southwest Florida.

SFWMD TeclvUcall'anel Repon. November 16. 1994 Page 15

Other uncc;aajnties. A numbec of other unccnainties. primarily having 10 do with the;. sire-specific appticatiOil of the pcrmilting criteria. should be add=scd in order "'inCICISC confidence in the these criteria. They include the following. although the tiot may DOl be inclllSive of all

issues: L Up:saDllJted zoP's! soil characteristics! rtQt pcnerration. The effect of organic COIIten~

depth and other soil clwactcristics. and the depth of root pcnetnrion. "'" known 10 modify a wetland's response 10 water levels. cspccially during the dry season. When the water table in a wetland is below ground.1haceous CXJmD1I!nities on ccnain types of

minetal soils. the unsaturated wne is unlikely 10 be sufficiently depleted in undisturbed Southwest Horida wetlands so as to adversely affecl the overlying plant communities.

in the sclenafic.litcnlture on chis subject. it is inadequate to respond to questions about how specific wc~ under moisture mess may

While a good deal of information is available

depart from the expected patterns of response developed for • "typical" wetland. b. Scale effeclS. We know litde about the role of _dane! size in its respollse 10

loeal c1rawdowns. Since the cri1l:ria"", based 011 the drawdown at the cio&est edge of. wetland. the \evd of possible impact would be eapcacd 10 be _ fwIc:IiOII rL wetland size.

At. very general1evcl. ccnain StaIl'!!!t4llS can be made as 10 bow wetland size could influence drawdown impacts. At OIIe extreme. _ smaIIlsolaled wcdand bas very Iiale surface water storage. and thus its Wale< \cvd fluctuations wouJd dosely follow poundwarer fluctuations as predicted by the model AI the odler extt...... exJenSive wetland sy-..s with _Iargc surface IIIngc. and poniaUdy ...... !oraled in fIowways wbc:R upSftaDI inflows could readily RCbIrJe the - . would show lillie Gr 110 dfect of a drawdown in the surrounding warerlable. Apia, IoformaIioa 011 the tqionallCBinl U MIl as JocaI site chanctcristi